A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT WITH Reflections upon the Cause and Cure of England's late distempers and present dangers.  
THE ARGUMENT Whether Protestancy be less dangerous to the soul, or more advantageous to the State, than the Roman Catholic Religion?  
THE CONCLUSION That Piety and Policy are mistaken in promoting Protestancy, and persecuting Popery by penal and Sanguinary statutes.  
Permissu Superiorum. An: Dom: M.DC.LXX.   

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE THE DUKE OF BUQVINGHAM etc.  
May it please your Grace.  
THE inconsiderate censures of half witted Critiks have canonised the custom of dedicating books to great persons; at least they have so extenuated the crime, that I despair not to obtain your Graces Pardon for my presumption of prefixing your name to this Treatise, without your consent or knowledge. But if the general custom be not a lawful excuse for my ambitious solicitation of your Grace's patronage, I must transfer the fault from myself the Author, and lay it on the Argument of my book, which is so proper for a person of your Graces high birth, profound judgement, and public trust, thus without violence to the work; it could hardly be offered to any other: The Argument, My Lord, of this Book, is Liberty of Conscience, which is the most reasonable o● all liberties; it is the spiritual birthright of our souls, and the only human prerogative that cannot be forced or forfeited. Though ourselves be slaves, our thoughts are free, and so much our own, that none but the searcher of hearts can know them. God himself doth not use violence: against our opinions; when he commands us ●o change them, he doth not compel us by rigour and penalties, but convinceth us by reason and miracles.  
My Lord, Princes are called Gods in the Scripture, and therefore ought to imitat divin per●●●tions. How much your Grace doth excel in this perfection of being avers from compelling men's Consciences, is so notorious, that any man may without flattery (the common vice of Epistles Dedicatory) publish and print your virtues. In this one of patronising Liberty of Conscience, are so many comprehended, that did I undertake to enumerat▪ and explain them, this short Epistle must have been a vast volume: It's an eminent part of Religion to propagat and persuade it by reason: Its Charity, to consider and commi●erat other men's capacities, how capricious soever 〈◊〉 prudence to proportion the laws to tender Consciences. On the contrary, the zeal of persecution, is but a Cloak of ambition for men of one persuasion to exclude all other● from places of profit, trust, and honour, whereof the Zealots would never be thought worthy, if such (as the penal laws exclude) did conform to the Church of England. And when any one doth become a conformist, none is more sorry for his Conversion than they that pretended to design and effect it by persecution; because the number of Proselits doth diminish the profit, and destroy the projects they had of begging Recusants fines and forfeitures. Your Genius and generosity, My Lord, are so much above these base, and destructive ways, that you are become the refuge of all persons afflicted for their Conscience. To be popular upon this score, and to be the patron of so numerous and conscientious a party, as it is the effect of your Wisdom and virtue, so it is a just cause for your Prudent Prince to confide in your Ministry, and to countenance your popularity.  
I do acknowledge, My Lord, that in some districts of the Church of Rome, men are punished for their Conscience or contumacy, by a Court of justice, called the Inquisition. How worthy the Inquisition is of imitation, I leave to the Judgement of others: But this I do maintain in my book, that our penal and Sanguinary statutes are much more severe and unreasonable than the Canon law, whereupon the Inquisitors Sentences are grounded. 1. Because the Canons against Innovators of Religion, are almost as ancient as Constantin the first Christian Emperor. 2. They seemed so conscientious and convenient to all his Catholic Successors, and other Sovereigns, that they have incorporated into the laws of their Dominions, the Canons, whereby the Inquisitors are directed to punish heresies, or pretended reformations of Religion; and therefore the first Protestant Reformers in England durst not publish their doctrine until these statutes against heretics had been repealed by Act of Parliament 1. Edu. 6.3. the Inquisitors pretend not to act by human commission against men's opinions; they proceed as spiritual Pastors, and the Apostles Successors, and therefore endeavour to reduce the obstinate Nonconformists by producing thousands of learned and lawful witnesses to prove, that the Roman faith is built upon the very same Apostolical revelations reasons and miracles, whereby the primitive Church and the Catholic world had been converted from Paganism to Christianity. But our English penal and Sanguinary statutes punish men for adhering to the ancient and authentic Religion of Christendom, and for not embracing a new interpretation of Scripture, for which there is no credible testimony, or proof, that it is the Apostolical; neither is there as much as a pretence of any miracles to confirm Protestancy, or that monstrous Shee-supremacy, which was imposed upon men, only to make An Bullens daughter Queen of England, and to exclude the right heirs and now reigning family from the Crown.  
Notwithstanding this great disparity, My Lord, between the severity of the Inquisition, and of our penal statutes, I wish both equally excluded from this Monarchy; and that no compulsion be used against Conscience, but that every one be left to choos his own Religion, according to his capacity; it being likely that none will have a greater care of saving any man's soul, than himself, who is more concerned therein, than any other, whether Prince, Parliament, or Pastor. That God may inspire into every soul that one faith without which none is saved, aught to be the only common prayer imposed upon us; for that by this uniformity of prayer every man is left to his own Inquisition, which is much more agreeable to our genius then that of Spain; and more likely to make us agree amongst ourselves, than any penal or Sanguinary statutes; all which I humbly submit to your Grace's judgement, begging your Pardon for this trouble, and your protection for this Treatise.  
Your Grace's most obedient and most humble servant JOHN WILSON.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE end which most Authors propose to themselves in writing Prefaces, is, to incline m●n to read their books: but the books are now so many, and of such groat busks, that even the Prefaces are not perused. Notwithstanding this superfluity and surfeit of books, I have ventured to add this one to the number, not without hopes that the Title will invite men to read the Preface, and perhaps the Preface may persuade them to read the Book. For, Religion and Government, being the two things wherein mankind is most concerned (the one being the ground of everlasting happiness, the other of temporal prosperity) and I having undertaken to direct men to the best Religion, (whereof depends the best Government) the Conscience of some, and the curiosity of others will furnish me with Readers. Some Railers I must expect▪ to have, because I endeavour to demonstrat that the Crown may lawfully seize on the Church Revenues; but I am content to b●●●ld at, so the commonwealth be not rallied out of so necessary a support.  
And lest I should be thought too partial ●o my own Religion, I desire but a toleration for it, as I do for all other Christian profession● albeit to obtain this toleration for the Catholic I am forced to compare it with the protestant, and to prove th●● no Religion is so conscientious, or so convenient as the Roman. The truth of this may ●●●ily be discerned by a Comit●e of the laity, if public conferences of Religion be permitted in English; And truly 〈…〉 Scriptures are permitted to be read and interpreted by every English lay man, I se● not why the laity may not judge of Controversies, and confer●●ces of Religion; and according 〈◊〉 they find the interpretations of every Congregation consistent with the word of God, grant or not grant liberty of Conscience.  
There are few who 〈…〉 often heard how pressingly a●●●ertinently some of the wisest members of Parliament have spoke for Liberty of Conscience in the late sessions; how they made it appear, that our decay of trade, and our fall of rents (whereof Merchants and Landlords do so much complain) is wholly occasioned by the severity of our laws against Recusants, and nonconformists; for, what credit or security can Merchants or Tradesmen have in England, when their stock and substance, may be legaly confiscated, whensoever they refuse to take an oath, or frequent a Church, contrary to their conscience? what commerce or correspondence can we expect from beyond the Seas, when he that this day is an able Banker amongst us, to morrow must turn Bankrupt, if he will not contrefait himself a Conformist. The Tenants Cattle and Corn may be seized upon (and by consequence the Landlord deprived of his Revenue) whensoever a ceremonious Parson, or an officious Churchwarden, or a malicious neighbour will inform, that they come not to the common Prayer, or Communion; so that the Nonconformists being two parts of England, in a few years two parts of the Kingdom will be destroyed.  
If our penal statutes against Non-conformists, did make this Monarchy as peaceable as they make it poor, perhaps some Politicians might think it advisable to continue them. But seeing it is impossible to govern an empoverish't multitude without a standing Army (which England will hardly brook) and that Religion persecuted makes Rebellion plausible, all disinteressed persons may with reason admire, that the Bishops themselves do not Press and pray for liberty of conscience. For, though they should be so unbiased as not to foresee future inconveniencies, yet they cannot be so insensible as to forget the former effects of persecution. And they will find great difficulty in persuading even the most devoted to their own calling, that the same cause will not produce in 70. the same effects we have felt since 40. If they imagine that their spiritual censures will prevail against the temporal power of a discontented multitude, they must maintain (contrary to late experience) that God will work Miracles to support the Church of England against Presbyterian sectaries. § As for the King's restauration I confess it looks like a Miracle, but why our English Bishops should attribute so great a blessing rather to Gods will of countenancing their strange character, then to his will of continuing lawful Monarchy, or of manifesting the late King's innocency, or of rewarding the constancy, and of relieving the indignity of the Cavalier party, can never be understood by any that knows the grounds of our Protestant Episcopacy, and how it was raised by Q. Elizabeth rather to exclude the succession of the Stevards from the Crown, then to establish a succession of true Bishops in the Church. There is much more reason to think that his Majesty's restauration was decreed by God in order to the performance of his Declaration at Bredà for liberty of conscience, then in order to the non-performance of so public and solemn a promise.  
And albeit I cannot say that our desired peace will be so absolutely secured by liberty of conscience in England, as it is in other Countries by the Tenets and uniformity of the Roman Religion: yet is it manifest, that persecution for promoting Prelatic Protestancy will rather increase our confusions, then work our conversion; not only because the non-conformists, are the more numerous party, and by consequence can hardly be forced to obey laws against their Consceince; but also because it is confessed by the very Prelaticks, that Christians may be saved though they do not conform to the Church of England; nay they must grant, that such as do conform to its doctrine and discipline, may be damned for so doing, because it is a fallible (and by consequence for aught they or any one knows a falls) Church. That a Church believed by the members thereof to be infallible, and the only way of salvation, doth persecute such as revolt from its faith and obedience is thought by some a rational (though by me a rigorous) practise: but that the Church of England, whereof it is a fundamental Article, that the whole visible Church, or all Christian Congregations (and by consequence itself) hath erred, or may err in doctrine, should persecute such as revolt from it, or men of a contrary persuasion, for having a stronger faith, grounded upon Christ's promise of never forsaking us, and a better opinion of God's providence, and of their own Church's doctrine, seems not agreeable to the rules of the Gospel, nor of human prudence. For, whether the Protestants sectaries persuasion of their own private spirits infallibility, or the Roman Catholics belief of their general Counsels infallibility, be true or falls, the Church of England will never be able to persuade or prove, that any Christians ought to be persecuted by penal and sanguinary statutes, for not exchanging that assurance of Divine faith which themselves are persuaded they have, for a bare Prelatic probability of the same faith; or for a confessed possibility of being mistaken in the doctrine of salvation. Seeing therefore of two evils the least ought to be chosen, and that if liberty of conscience be an evil, it is a less one then persecution, because it will cause less dangers and disturbances in the Nations, than laws which force the Prelatic probability, and uniformity: It seems to be against the rules as well of piety as of policy, to continue the penal and sanguinary statutes in favour of the confessedly fallible Church of England.  
And when I plead for liberty of conscience in England for Presbyterians and fanatics, I hope it will not be ill taken that I beg the same freedom and favour for Roman Catholics, especially if I prove (as I have undertaken) that our principles are not only more ●ound in point of Christiatity, but more safe in order to the government, than any others. And though it be a common and true saying, that the greatest Clerks are not the wisest men, and by consequence, not so fit to prescribe rules for governing as worldlings that are not Divines, or as wranglers that are Lawyers; yet I humbly conceive that when the misfortunes of a government proceed not from want of judgement or resolution in the Council, but from want of faith, or (which is the same) from an acknowledged uncertainty of faith in the Church, Catholic Divines (seeing we are unanimous in matters of Christian belief and do persuade the best part of Christendom that our Church is infallible in the same; and if heard, we doubt not to prevail with these British Nations also to credit us in that important point, however improbable, it may seem to them at first sight) I hope this supposed, we Catholic Divines may without offence pretend to be better able to show and salve the spiritual sore of this state, than any Protestant Statists or schoolmen, who want sufficient unity, and assurance of faith in themselves, to make their cure and care credible to others.  
Seeing therefore the foundation not only of Christian Religion, but of a peaceable government, doth consist in a firm persuasion of the people governed, that the doctrine professed and established by Law is infallible▪ and of Divine inspiration, not of human invention; and by consequence that the decrees and determinations of the State (which in all Governments ought to be proportioned to the doctrine of its Church) are lawful, and intended for the common good; not designs, or devices to fool the multitude, feed the ministry, or favour the sovereign; and that not only evidence of falsehood, but uncertainty of truth, in matters of Christianity, must needs render the Church and State that profess such an uncertainty, so weak and contemptible, that the subjection to either cannot be otherwise secured then by the force and fear of a standing Army; and that such a subjection doth savour more of a Turkish slavery then f●●a Christian Society, or of a civil subordination to public authority, and (therefore) is the cause of continual discontents, and frequent rebellions; and that no Church but the Roman Catholic, doth as much as pretend, or can persuade, it's own infallibility in matters of Religion; seeing I say, all this is manifest by reason, and our woeful late experiences, I question not but that the Parliament will be pleased to take in good part this humble proposal of saving our souls; and of settling this state, by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and by the Revenues of the Protestant Prelatic Clergy; especially if the corruptions of Scripture, and falsifications of Counsels and Fathers, wherewith I do charge that Clergy (and whereby alone they maintain their Protestancy) be clearly demonstrated in this Treatise, and patiently heard in a public Trial.  
It's now above a Century of years since the great Statesmen of England have employed their wit and industry, in devising how to settle Monarchy upon Protestancy; but (under favour) we Catholic Divines do show (and all Protestants may suspect by the success) that in so great an affair they have proceeded like unskilful Architects, that busy themselves altogether in proportioning and adorning the superstructures, without enquiring into the strength and solidity of the foundation: They mistook sand for stone, falls translations for true Scripture, a lay ministry for a lawful Clergy, a temporal sovereignty for a spiritual supremacy: They laid for the first stone of their New fabrik, a sworn spiritual rebellion (the oath of supremacy) against the chief Prelate and common Father of all Christendom S. Peter's Successor. No marvel then if this foundation yielded, and the whole fabrik fell to the ground in our late distempers; for, by an evident parity of reason it must be concluded, that it is as lawful for Protestants to depose Kings, as Popes, by virtue of their private and arbitrary interpretations of scripture. If notwithstanding the legal and long possession or prescription, of a suprem spiritual superiority, the Bishop of Rome may (by the principles and prerogative of Protestancy) be reform, and reduced to be only Patriarch of the West, or a private Bishop; what temporal sovereignty can be absolute or secure among Protestants? The same arguments, the same texts of Scripture, the same spirit, the same interpretations of God's Word, that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and all other Protestants objected against the Pope's supreme spiritual authority, did the Presbyterians, and other Protestants press (by an unanswerable parallel) against the late King's temporal Sovereignty. Wherefore it is much to be feared that notwithstanding the extraordinary prudence of our government, we shall be frequently involved in as great troubles and dangers, as formerly; and that the private spirit, and English Scripture (interpreted by Protestants) will prevail against lawful Monarchy, whensoever the like circumstances do concur; viz. a Zealous Parliament, a mild King, a covetous Clergy, a stubborn people, and resolute Rogues to lead them, and declare to the Multitude their own strength, as well as the fundamental principles and privileges of all Protestant Reformations.  
In Catholic Commonwealths all these circumstances do meet (the principles of Protestancy only excepted) and yet the Catholic subjects remain immovable in their obedience in regard of the credit and authority of their Church and Clergy, which in private confessions, and public exhortations continualy inculcat, how inconsistent any private or arbitrary interpretation of Scripture (and by consequence any pretext of superiority over the Sovereign) is, with the Christianity and obsequiousness of Catholic faith; and how principal a part it is of that ●aith to believe not only that the Church is infallible in its doctrine, but also that temporal Sovereigns are God's Vice-regents, and absolute in their government, and therefore as such, aught to be revered, and obeyed. And when (by reason of heavy taxes, or other such accidents) the fire of sedition sometimes breaks forth among Catholics, it is (generally speaking) suddenly quenched by the authority and severity of the Clergies Censures against the Authors, or by the devotion and reverence which even the most Irreverent of our profession exhibit to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, that is shown (upon such emergencies) to the mutinous people, which (notwithstanding their fury and madness) immediately fall down to adore their God and Redeemer; and for respect of him (whom they believe to be realy present) are appeased or at least give ear to their Pastor's reasons and exhortations, with more patience and better success than any Protestant people in the like occasions. Wherefore though we Catholics should grant (as we neither do, nor can) that the Protestant or Prelatic reformation is as safe a way to Heaven, as the Roman Religion, yet methinks such Protestants as desire to live peaceably, or govern prosperously, aught to prefer Popery before Protestancy.  
That K. Henry 8. in the heat and height of an amorous passion was so blinded, that (to satisfy his carnal lust) he assumed and annexed a spiritual supremacy to a temporal Crown may be attributed to the fondness and fancies of love. That a Babe (K. Edward 6.) was taken with such a babble as that same supremacy, may be imputed to the tenderness of his age, and to the imprudence of his Uncle and Protector Somerset, who by promoting that Oath, and the Protestant reformation, put the Kingdom into a Babylonical confusion. That Dudley Duke of Northumberland (seeing the Church and state so confounded) did ground a title for the Lady Jane Grey, and for his own son to the Crown, upon the principles and Zeal of Protestancy, is but the ordinary practice of Politians; that the Lady Elizabeth did re●●ive her Father's supremacy and the Protestant reformation, whereby alone she could pretend to be legitimat (against two acts of Parliament never yet repealed) is not so unblamable in her, as in them that but four years before, had by an unanimous vote in both Houses declared An Bullens marriage void, and that same supremacy, and Protestancy to be heresy. That K. james did pardon and promote his mother's murderers, and conform himself to that Religion whereby she and himself had been so long excluded from their right, was great clemency, or a cunning compliance, without which he could hardly have compassed his ends, and restored the line of the Stenarts to the British Empire. That K. Charles 1. did endeavour by Ordinances and Laws to restrain and reduce the variety of Protestant opinions (grounded upon the liberty of interpreting Scripture) to some kind of uniformity, and subordination to Princes and Prelates, had been an act of great prudence if it had not shaken and shocked the very foundation of all Protestant Reformations, that consists in an arbitrary interpretation of the obscure Texts of Scripture, from which foundation and fountain necessarily floweth the privilege of denying obedience to all civil and Ecclesiastical authority that commands any thing contrary to those interpretations of Scripture, whereby every private person, or any leading men of the Protestant Congregations will be pleased to direct themselves, or guide others. That the Zealous and precise sort of Protestants did convene, and covenant against the King and Bishops, for endeavouring to deprive them of this their Evangelical liberty of the Reformation, was but a natural result of the same fundamental principle of Protestancy. That Oliver Cromwell by counterfeiting Zeal and piety, and by humouring the private spirits and interpretations of Protestant Sectaries, did ruin his King, and raise himself from a mean subject, to be absolute Sovereign, needs not to be enumerated among the casualties, or favours of fortune, there being not any thing more feasible then to dethrone a Protestant Monarch by his own Religion; because it is nothing but an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, and by consequence gives such a latitud for justifying rebellion upon the score of refining the reformation by a new sense of Scripture, that every Protestant (without violating the principles, but rather sticking to the prerogative of Protestancy) may embrace any more pleasing and popular sense of the Text, however so prejudicial it prove to his lawful Sovereign, or however contrary it be to the sense of Scripture established by law, or by acts of uniformity.  
But, that notwithstanding so many warnings and wars as we have had, so great and grave a Council as the Parliament of England, should think fit to continue the same unsuccessfull course of settling Monarchy, the same statutes whereby Q. Elizabeth excluded the right heirs and now reigning family, the same fundamental Tenet of the Reformation whereby every subject is made interpreter of Scripture, and by consequence judge of his Sovereign, and of the Government (which must be subordinat to Scripture) is not only to me, but to the Christian world, the cause of greatest admiration. And because every Religion hath some incomprehensible mysteries, I will number this among those of Protestancy; but withal must beg pardon for thinking that it is rather against, then above reason; for, to grant the principle, whereupon the independency or Sovereignty of every Protestant subject is grounded; and yet to make Acts of Parliament (in favour of the Church of England) against the same subjects independency, or Sovereignty, is a kind of contradiction. So discerning a people as the English, can hardly be hindered from seeing the manifest connexion that is between the Protestant subjects liberty of interpreting Scripture, and the not submitting their judgements, or actions to any human laws or Government, if contrary to their own interpretations. And so Religious and scrupulous a people as they are, will not be easily persuaded, that an Act of Parliament is sufficient to dispense with their obligation and inclination of sticking to that fundamental Tenet of Protestancy.  
I confess that in some Countries (as in France) the Protestant people are now kept in so great subjection, that they dare not go so far as the principles of Protestancy lead; and in other more Northern Climates, they are of so dull and peaceable a constitution, that they want either curiosity to examine, or courage to assert the privileges of the reformation; and therefore are apt to submit their judgements (by an implicit faith) to the opinions of Luther, or Calvin, or of their own Clergy. But with us, where every one thinks his own spirit as divin, and his judgement as good, as that of Luther, or Calvin, or of the Bishops; where the stoutness and stubborness of our nature makes us venture upon any thing whether sacred or profane, where every Peasant is warranted by the law, to question the prerogative of his Prince, in such a Country I say, and in such a constitution of the Government, it is not to be expected, that men will be less contentious in the Church, than they are in the Courts; nor content with less than with that supremacy of judicature allowed by the principles of Protestancy to be the spiritual-birth-right of every Protestant subject.  
These are some of the inconveniencies whereunto the government is liable by the principles and profession of Protestancy; and though I humbly conceive that nothing but liberty of conscience can content so many dissenting parties, yet I am of opinion that before such a liberty be granted, some previous conferences concerning Religion, (like that of Hampton Court in K. James his reign) be allowed, but without excluding from those Conferences Papists, or any party that will offer to give reason for their Religion. For, as to accept of a Bill of comprehension before men examine the consequences and qualifications of the Religions comprehended may breed greater confusion; so to except any Christian Religion from being examined, doth argue that in our Conferences we consult not conscience. But it is to be feared, that education and interest (the two greatest prejudices not only against truth, but against the examination thereof) will make the Bishops and their Bigots avers from any conferences of Religion, whereby their title to the churchs-living may be questioned. They will pretend and preach, ●hat it is against the rules as well of piety as of policy to inquire into the truth of doctrine, or into the right of possession, after 100 years' prescription; But they do not consider, or at least would not have others consider, that the Roman Catholics prescription of 1000 years in England, and our Prelates legal possession of lands for the same space of years, was not judged by Q. Elizabeth's Bishops, or Parliaments, a sufficient Plea against the pretensions of the Crown to the Church revenues, notwithstanding the Church (then) was thought to be infallible in doctrine; and the revenues thereof were first intended for, and annexed to the Prelates and preachers of the same Roman Catholic doctrine and Church. Now, if the Protestant Bishops think that the Catholic Bishops were legally and lawfully dispossessed of their revenues, and their Doctrine legaly and lawfully condemned, and changed by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or the Prelaticks interpretation of Scripture, confirmed by Act of Parliament; how can they imagine to make the world believe that it is now either a sin or sacrilege, to be dispossessed themselves of the Church revenues, by an Act of Parliament, confirming as probable an interpretation of Scripture as theirs, or as that of Luther, or Calvin is; especially seeing they confess their doctrine fallible, and that the revenues were never intended (by those that gave them) for preaching or promoting any kind of Protestancy? Doubtless this incoherency, and their backwardness in reasoning of Religion, will render their Zeal for the Church revenues, as much suspected, as their forwardness in persecuting tender Consciences, hath rendered their persons odious.  
And that there may be no ground for them to work upon, nor to doubt of the Roman Catholic Clergies loyalty and sincerity in petitioning, and pressing for public conferences of Religion, it will be found (I doubt not) in case any such security be desired, or valued, that we shall as readily now, as in Queen Mary's reign, resign all the right we can pretend to the revenues of the Church, and (as then) bestow them upon the Crown, for the use and ease of our Country. By this it may appear, that we have no design, but the duty of subjects, or the devotion of Christians, in desiring that the Protestant Clergys' title be examined: But they deter the illiterate laity from this necessary scrutiny, by often repeating the word Sacrilege, without declaring its signification. We know (and so do they) that it hath been the ancient practice of God's Church, to contribut with all that is Sacred (without the least fear or scruple of Sacrilege) to the maintenance of the State, when the laity is so much empoveris'ht with wars and taxes, as we are both in England and Ireland. We see that in all Catholic Countries the Clergy doth imitat the example of the ancient Church in the same practice. Why our English Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, aught to be exempted from so reasonable and general a custom, unless it be that they are burdened with wives and Children, I do not understand. But sure their having wives and Children can neither ●make their revenues more Sacred, nor ●heir Contributions more Sacrilege, on cases of public necessity. As a competency of maintenance for themselves, and for their children's education and application to some honest Trades, is an act of Charity; so to apply the rest of the Church revenues to public uses, for soldiers, and seamen, and to the payment of the Crown debts, is not against Christianity.  
In the conclusion of this Preface I must endeavour to excuse the bulk of my book, and the positivenes of my Assertions. For the first, I could hardly draw into a narrower compass so transcendent a subject; and yet I have placed in the end of this Treatise an Index, wherein the substance of the whole book is contained; to the end every one may find out with ease any point he hath a mind to read. As to the positivenes of my assertions, most of them being articles of my faith, or deductions from my Creed, I could not but utter them in the Tone of our infallible Church. But because I speak to Protestants that condemn our infallibility, I attempt to demonstrat, their censure against the same is as rash, as they fancy our belief is ridiculous. I must also ingenuously confess, that it is part of my design, to diminish the authority of the Protestant and Prelatic writers; but seeing my arguments are taken out of their own writings, and are no other than their wilful and undeniable falsifications of Scripture and Fathers, I hope none that detests so horrid a crime, will condemn my Censure, or defend their credit. Whether I have been faithful in setting down their falsifications, I must submit to the judgement of my Readers, as also beg pardon for intermeddling with so much of government as necessarily depends of Religion, and aught to be proportioned thereunto; our Protestant Statesmen, will not only pardon, but protect me, when they reflect upon the impossibility there is of regulating the motions, or appeasing the mutinies of a body politic, by a faith so uncertain as that of the fallible Church of England; or by a rule of Religion so applicable to rebellion, as the letter of Scripture is, when left to every private man's arbitrary interpretation.   

THE TABLE.  

Part I. Of the Beginning, Progress and Principles in general: And of the Prelatic Church of England in Particular. 

HOw necessary a rational Religion is for a Peaceable Government. Pag. 1.  
Wherein the Reasonableness of Religion Consists, Pag. 8.  
How dangerous it is for a Temporal Sovereign to pretend to a Spiritual Jurisdiction over his Subjects. Pag. 10.  
The Grounds of Peace, Piety, and Policy. Pag. 10.  
The Catholic World ever acknowledged the Bishop of Rome's Spiritual Jurisdiction over all Christians. Pag. 11.  
The same Religion which St. Gregory the great held, was by St. Augustine taught to our Ancestors. Pag. 19  
Of the Author and beginning of Protestancy, and of Luther's Disputation and Familiarity with the Devil. Pag. 22.  
How weakly Protestant's Excuse Luther's Conference with the Devil. Pag. 29.  
The Mass, a Visible and True Sacrifice, proved by the Councils and Doctors of the Church. Pag. 36.  
The Sacrifice of the Mass offered for the Dead. Pag. 37.  
Of the Principles and Propagation of Protestancy. Pag. 39  
The Fundamental Principles of Protestancy. Pag. 43.  
Protestants affirm, that if a man have an Act of Faith, sin does not hurt him. Pag. 46.  
Protestants affirm that all Christians, Men and Women, are Priests by Baptism. Pag. 50.  
Of the Protestant Church of England in K. H. viii Reign Pag. 53.  
Henry the VIII. weary of Queen Catharine. Pag. 53.  
Anne Boulogne's Incest and Lewdness. Pag. 54.  
Henry the viii Tyranny. Pag. 56.  
Tyndal's Translation of the Bible abolished. Pag. 59  
Of the English Religion and Reformers in K. Edw. VI's days. Pag. 60.  
The first Reformers of the Prelatic Protestant Church of England. Pag. 62.  
Cranmer a mere Cotemporiser, and of no Religion at all. Pag. 63.  
Who framed the 39 Articles. Pag. 64.  
Of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Pag. 67.  
Protestant Bishops well pleased to see themselves Religiously Worshipped. Pag. 70.  
Protestants though they have changed their Form of Ordination yet cannot have a true Clergy, till they change also the Character of the Ordainers. Pag. 80.  
Of the Effects immediately produced by the 39 Articles. Pag. 82.  
Dudely Earl of Warwick's Endeavours to have his Son to Reign after K. Edw. His Marrying him to the Lady Jane Grace. Pag. 83.  
Queen Mary's Troubles. Pag. 84.  
The Roman Catholics willing Resignation of the Church Livings to the Crown. Pag. 86.  
An Act of Parliament in the first year of Q. Mary concerning the fraud and force of K. Henry the viii unlawful Divorce from Q. Catharine. Pag. 88  
Other Effects of Protestancy, after it was revived in England by Q. Elizabeth to exclude the Royal Family of the Stewards from the Crown. And of the Nullity of her Clergies Character and Jurisdiction. Pag. 95.  
Decreed in Parliament that any Natural Issue of Q. Elizabeth's Body should enjoy the Crown after her Death, and so the Line of Stewards to be Excluded. Pag. 100  
Reason's why Q. Elizabeth in her 44 years' Reign could not make her Prelatic Clergy and Religion acceptable. Pag. 103  
How Injurious Protestancy hath been to the Royal Family of the Stewards, and how Zealous they have been in promoting the same. Pag. 109.  
K. James the I. declared that Catholics, and their Religion had no Hand in Gunpowder Treason. Pag. 112.  
Of K. Charles the First. Pag. 112.    
Part. 2. Of the Inconsistency of Protestant Principles with Christian Piety and Peaceable Government. 

THe foundation whereon all Reformations are built. Pag. 117.  
The Protestant evasion of the clearness of Scripture against Roman Catholic Doctrine, and also of the Invisibility of their own Church, Confuted: And the Incredibility of the supposed Change and Apostasy, proved by the difference of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Principles. Pag. 121  
Protestants mistaken in the Canon of the Scripture maintained by the Church of England, and by Dr. Cousin's Bishop of Duresin. Pag. 131.  
Dr. Couzins' Exceptions and Falsifications against the Council of Trent's Authority answered. Pag. 137.  
New Definitions, are not New Articles of Faith. Pag. 141.  
Protestants so grossly mistaken in their Letter and Translation of Scriptures, that they cannot have any Certainty of Faith. And are forced at length (by their Principles) to question the Truth of Scriptures, and of them who writ the Canonical Books thereof. Pag. 149.  
Particular Instances of Protestant Corruptions in the English Bible. Pag. 157.  
Protestant Interpretation is not the true Sense of Script. Pag. 163.  
Protestants Mistaken in the Ministry and Mission of their Clergy, in the Miracles of their Church, in the Sanctity and Honesty of their Reformers. Pag. 168.  
Calvin's Miracle. Pag. 180.  
Beza's Lasciviousness: He prefers his Boy Andibertus before his Girl Candida. Pag. 181.  
Protestants mistaken in the application of the Prophecies of Scripture concerning the Conversion of the Kings and Nations of the Gentiles from Paganism to Christianity, foretold as an Infallible Mark of the True Church, and whereof the Protestant is deprived. Pag. 183.  
Calvin sends Ministers to Convert Gallia Antartica from Heathenism: And what success they had. Pag. 190.  
Protestants mistaken in the consistency of their Justifying Faith, with Justice, or Civil Government. Pag. 193.  
The Protestant Doctrine of Justifying Faith most dangerous and Damnable. Pag. 198.  
Protestants mistaken in the consistency of Christian Faith, Humility, Charity, Peace either in Church or State, with their making Scriptures, as interpreted by private Persons, or Fallible Synods, or fancied General Councils (composed of all Dissenting Christian Churches) the Rule of Faith, and Judge of Controversies in Religion. How every Protestant is a Pope, and how much also they are overseen in making the 39 Articles, or the Oath of Supremacy, a distinctive Sign of Loyalty to our Protestant Kings. Pag. 207.  
How the Fundamental Principles of Protestancy maturely examined and strictly followed, have led the most Learned Protestants of the World to Judaisme, Atheism, Arianisme, and Mahometanisme, etc. Pag. 222.  
The Protestant Churches of Poland, Hungary and Transilvania, deny the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity. Pag. 230.  
How the Indifferency, or rather Inclination of Protestancy to all kind of Infidelity is further demonstrated by the Prelatic Doctrine, and distinction of Fundamental and Not Fundamental Articles of Faith. The design of their fundamental distinction laid open. The Roman Catholic, the sole Catholic Church, And how it has the Authority of Judging all Controversy of Religion. Pag. 233.  
The Roman Catholic Church is a Competent and Impartial Judge of Controversies of Religion. Pag. 241.  
Of the Justice and Legality of our Roman Censures against Protestancy. Pag. 242.  
All Christians were never Judges of Religion, one Party always submitted to the Judgement of the Other that was in Obedience to, and in Communion with St. Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome. Pag. 247.  
God's Veracity is denied by Protestancy, and by the Prelatic Distinction and Doctrine of Fundamental, and not Fundamental Articles of Faith. Pag. 251.  
Protestancy is Heresy. Pag. 254.  
Protestancy contradicts God's Veracity. Pag. 255.  
The Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church in Matters of Faith, proved against Protestants. Pag. 256.  
The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals Confuted. Pag. 257.  
The same further demonstrated and proved, that neither the Protestant Faith, nor the Faith lately Asserted in a Book called, Sure footing in Christianity, is Christian Belief. Pag. 260.  
The Resolution of Protestant Faith. Pag. 262.  
The Infallibility of the Church proved by God's Veracity Pag. 268.  
Heresy Explained by Rebellion. Pag. 269.  
The Unreasonableness of them who pretend a private Spirit, and refuse to submit to the Authority of the Church, for want of Clearer Evidence than the Roman Catholics hath of God's Authority. Pag. 269.  
Reasons for Liberty of Conscience: And how much both Piety and Policy is mistaken in making Prelatic Protestancy the Religion of the State, by continuing and pressing the Sanguinary and Penal Statutes against the Roman Catholic Faith; and the Act of Uniformity against Sectaries. Pag. 271.  
Queen mary and the Inquisitions Severity against Protestancy, can be no Precedent, or excuse for the Statutes against Popery. Pag. 283.    
Part 3. Containing a plain Discovery of the Protestant Clergys' Frauds, and Falsifications, whereby alone their Doctrine is supported and made Credible. The Conscience and Conveniency of Restoring or Tolerating the Roman Catholic Religion, Demonstrated. 

THat either the Learned Protestants, or Roman Catholic Clergy are Cheats, and how every Illiterate Protestant may easily discern by which of the two Clergies he is Cheated: And therefore is obliged under pain of Damnation to examine so near a concern: And to renounce the Doctrine and Communion of that Church wherein he is Cheated. Pag. 287.  
With what Impudence and Hypocrisy Bishop Jewel and other Prelatic Writers began to maintain the Protestancy of the Church of England. And how they were blamed for appealing to Antiquity by some of their own Brethren. Pag. 293.  
A Strange Expression of Mr. Hooker in favour of Bishop Jewel. Pag. 294.  
The Centurists and other Learned Protestants Confess that the Councils and Fathers Defended Worship of Images Transubstantion, Purgatory, etc. Pag. 295.  
How particularly the Protestant Clergy is Charged with Frauds and Falsifications in maintaining their Religion. Pag. 298.  
There can be no Reason to suspect the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Matters of Religion: And that Protestancy cannot be maintained otherwise then by Impostures: Whereof there are such Evidences, that to give the Protestant Clergy any Credit in matters of Religion, is a sufficient Cause of Damnation. Pag. 300.  
Of Edward VI's Protestant and Prelatic Clergys' Frauds, Falsifications, and Forms of Ordination; their Hypocrisy, Incontinency, Atheism, etc. And whether it be fit to term them, and others like them Cheats, when they are Convicted of wilful false dealing in matters of Religion. Pag. 303.  
Of Thomas Cranmer, his Birth, Marriages, Treasons Cheats, Heresies, etc. And of Latimer and Ridley. Pag. 304.  
Of Hooper's, Rogers, Poynet, Bale and Coverdale's Hypocrisy and Impiety. Pag. 312.  
A Prophecy of Rogers's. Pag. 314.  
John Bale's account of his Education, and how he scarped out, the Cursed Character of the Horrible Beast by Marrying a Nun, etc. Pag. 315.  
Of Coverdale and his Bible. Pag. 317.  
A Discourse between Dr, Martin and the Archbishop [Cranmer] related by Fox. Pag. 320  
Of the Protestant Clergy in Q. Mary's Reign, the same that afterwards founded Q. Elizabeth's Church. Their Frauds, Factions, Cheats, and Changes of the English Protestant Religion, during their Exile in Germany. Pag. 326  
Abominable frauds, and wilful falsifications of the Protestant Clergy in Q. Elizabeth's Reign, to maintain their Doctrine, set forth under the name of an Apology, and Defence of the Church of England. Pag. 332  
The Protestant Clergy Convicted of falsehood in their Apology concerning Communion under one kind. Pag. 334  
How Jewel and the Church of England make the very same Holy Fathers they appealed to in other matters, wicked Heretics, because they condemned Priests Marriage. Pag. 337  
Bishop Jewel and his Associates wickedness in charging Cardinal Hosins, and all Catholics, with a contempt of Holy Scripture, against their own knowledge after they had been admonished of the Imposture. Pag. 338  
Falsifications and Frauds against the Bishop of Rom's Supremacy. Pag. 341  
Frauds and fond Devises of the Protestant Clergy of England to deny and discredit the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pag. 343  
Prelatic Falsifications and Corruptions of Scripture, to make the Pope Antichrist, And Succession of Bishops a Mark of the Beast. Pag. 346  
Prelatic Falsifications, to prove that Popes may and have Decreed Heresy. Pag. 348  
Prelatic Falsifications, to prove that Popes have insulted over Kings. Pag. 350  
Prelatic Falsifications, to prove that St. Augustin the Apostle of our English Saxons, was an Hypocrite, and no Saint, as also to dicredit Catholic Writers. Pag. 351  
Of the Protestant Clergies Frauds, and Falsifications of Scriptures, and alterations of their XXXIX Articles of Religion, to make the People believe that they have true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England. Pag. 352  
An Advertisement to the Reader concerning Bishop Jewel. Pag. 357  
Examples of Learned Protestants converted to the Roman Catholic Religion, by observing the Frauds, and Falsehoods of the Apology of Jewel, and of the Protestant Clergy, for the Prelatic Church of England. Pag. 359  
Frauds, Follies, and Falsifications of John Fox his Acts and Monuments, and of his Magdeburian Masters in their Centuries, the little Sincerity of the English Church and Clergy in countenancing such false Dealing. Pag. 362  
John Fox his Revelation. Pag. 368  
The Foxian Calendar. Pag. 371  
Wilful Falsifications committed by John Fox, in his Acts and Monuments. Pag. 374  
Dr. Chark's Falsification of St. Augustin, and how he excuses Luther's Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Adultery and Incest. Pag. 379  
Falsifications of Cranmer, and Peter Martyr, against Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Pag. 381  
How some Protestant Writers in Q. Elizabeth's time, seeing their Fellows were proved Falsifiers, waved the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, and yet the other continued their former course of falsifying both Fathers and Councils. Pag. 384  


Falsifications and Frauds of the Prelatic English Clergy to maintain Protestancy, since the beginning of King James' Reign.  
THeir Corruptions of Scripture (for maintaining their Character) continued in the Bible, tho' commanded by King James, it should be reviewed and corrected. Pag. 391  
Dr. Abbot and Dr. Smith, Bishops of Canterbury and Gloucester, corrupted the Translation of Scripture, which had been sincerely performed by Sir Henry Savill. Pag. 397  
Of Dean Walsingham's Search into Matters of Religion before his Change to the Catholic: How he repaired to King James as to the Head of the Church, for a Resolution of his Doubts; who remitted him to the Lord of Canterbury, and he to other Men; and how after finding no Satisfaction, he betook himself to the Reading of Catholic and Protestant Authors, for discerning on what side was the true and false Dealing. Pag. 403  
Dean Walsingham's Doubts and Difficulties in Reading the Catholic Book. Pag. 406  
The Substance of Dean Walsingham's Memorial to the K. Pag. 409  
Dean Walsingham's Appearance before the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Councel-Table. Pag. 410  
His Appearance before him at Lambeth. Pag. 414.  
His third and fourth Appearance before him. Pag. 416  
How loath the Protestant Clergy is, that the King or Great Persons should examine their Doctrine, or way of defending it. Pag. 417  
What Cheating and Unconscionable ways were taken to frighten Dean Walsingham from examining of the Truth. Pag. 417  
What pretty Books the Archbishop of Canterbury commended to Dean Walsingham to inform him of the Truth; They proved after Examination, Ridiculous Libels. Pag. 420  
Dean Walsingham's Address Mr. Rolfe, Commissary of St. Alban: and of his Conference with Dr. Downham, etc. Pag. 421  
What foolish Answers the most Learned Protestants are forced to give to Catholic Arguments. Pag. 422  
Mr. Walsingham found no satisfaction in the Answer to the Defence of the Censure. Pag. 425  
Mr. Walsingham's last Appearance before my Lord of Canterbury and his Doctors. Pag. 427  
How the Archbishop and his Assembly of Divines, refused to confer Dean Walsingham's Notes of Mr. Bell's Corruptions with the Fathers Quoted, notwithstanding the Books were in their presence. Pag. 428  
Reflections upon Mr. Walsingham's Relation. Pag. 431  
A brief Relation of a Trial held in France about Religion, whereof the Lord Chancellor of France was Moderator. Pag. 437  
A Copy of a Letter Written by a Person of Quality about this Conference. Pag. 441  
K. Hen. IV's Letter to the Duke of Espernon, upon the same Subject. Pag. 441  
The Authors falcifyed, and therefore the Sentence given against Plesses. Pag. 442  
Protestant Falsifications to persuade that the Roman Catholic Doctrine is inconsistent with the Sovereignty and safety of Kings, and with civil Society between Catholics and Protestants. Pag. 443  
Bishop Mortons' Falsifications about the Lawfulness of killing a Tyrant. Pag. 444  
Bishop Mortons' Falsification of Catholics against the Sovereignty of Princes; and how he excuses himself by saying he received it from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Pag. 445  
Mortons' Answer, in which see an Imposture continued against Catholics, by the whole Convocation of the Protestant Clergy, in their Synod held Anno 1603. Pag. 546  
The Protestant Falsification to persuade that the Canon-Law, doth warrant deposition of Kings by the Pope. Pag. 447  
A Protestant Falsification to persuade that Catholics may cheat any Excommunicated Persons of their Lawful Debts. Pag. 449  
Bishop Mortons' Falsification to persuade that Catholics hold it Lawful to Murder and Massacre Protestants. Pag. 451  
Bishop Morton's Falsification to Assert the King's Supremacy Pag. 453  
Ten Falsifications set down together by Bishop Morton to prove that we hold that Popes cannot be deposed, nor be Heretics. Pag. 457  
Primate Bramhalls Falsification, to prove that Popes may and have Decreed Heretical Doctrines. Pag. 458  
It is proved by Reasons and Examples, that no Religion is so little dangerous to the Sovereignty and safety of Kings, or so Advantageous to the Peace and Prosperity of Subjects, as the Roman Catholics; notwithstanding the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy. Pag. 459  
Protestants cannot clear their Religion from their Doctrine and danger of Deposing Sovereigns, and Disposing of their Kingdoms. Pag. 470  
That Protestants could never prove any of the wilful falsifications wherewith they charge Roman Catholic Writers, but themselves are convicted of that Crime wheresoever they Attempted to make good their charge against us. Pag. 473  
Bellarmin accused by Sutcliff of Falsifying the General Council of Chalcedon in favour of the Pope's Supremacy. Pag. 474  
How Protestants are Convicted by Bellarmin of holding twenty ancient condemned Heresies, and how Sutcliff and Bishop Morton to clear them of six only (fourteen seems they confess) do falsify the Fathers and Catholic Authors about worshipping of Images. Pag. 476  
Two Pelagian Heresies imputed to Protestants, and how they falsify to clear themselves of the One, and say nothing of the other Pag. 477  
Two Novatian Heresies Imputed to Protestants, the one answered with Silence, the other with Falsifying. Pag. 478  
The Manichean Heresy against Freewill, Imputed to Protestants, and how pitifully Answered by Bishop Morton. Pag. 479.  
How Bishop Morton Answers to Bellarmin's Imputation of Arianism unto Protestants. Pag. 479.  
How Morton Falsifies and Abuses Bellarmine, who Imputes the denial of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to Protestants. Pag. 480.  
Falsifications Objected against Cardinal Baronius by Mr. Sutcliff, Pag. 483.  
Calumnies and Falsifications of Luther, Calvin, Archbishop Laud, and Primate Usher to Discredit Catholic Religion against their own Knowledge and Conscience. Pag. 487.  
Of Calvin's Calumnies against Catholics and their Doctrine. Pag. 488  
Frauds, Falsifications and Calumnies of Primate Usher against the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Pag. 491.  
Usher's Falsifications against Confession. Pag. 492.  
His Falsifications against Absolution of Sins. Pag. 493.  
Against Purgatory. Pag. 494  
Against Worshipping Saints and their Relics. Pag. 496  
Against Prayer to Saints. Pag. 499    


Of Archbishop Laud's Frauds and Falsifications.  
HOw unsincerely Bishop Laud would fain Excuse the Modern Greek Heresy concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Pag. 502  
How Bishop Laud Abuses St. Augustine, to make Protestants believe that General Councils may Err, against Scripture and evident Reason. Pag. 504  
Vicentius Lirinensis abused by Laud to prove the Fallibility of the Church, etc. Pag. 507  
How Bishop Laud falsifies Occam to infringe St. Augustin's Authority, concerning the Infallibility of the Church in succeeding Ages, as well as in that of the Apostles: And is forced by his Error to resolve the Prelatic Faith into the Light of Scripture, and the private Spirit of fanatics; which he Paliats under the Name of Grace, and thereby Warrants all Rebellions against Church and State, Pag. 509  
Divers Frauds and Falsifications of Bishop Laud, to defend that Protestants are not Schismatics. Pag. 512  
Whether it be Piety or Policy to permit the Protestant Clergy of these three Kingdoms to enjoy the Church Revenues, for maintaining (by such Frauds and Falsifications as hitherto have been alleged) the Doctrine of the Church of England, which also they acknowledge to be fallible, and by consequence (for all they know) false: And h●re the said Revenues may be Conscientiously applied to the Use and Ease of the People, without any danger of Sacrilege, or any Disturbance to the Government, if a public Trial of both Clergies, Sincerity be allowed, and Liberty of Conscience granted. Pag. 521  
The same further demonstrated, and how by Liberty of Conscience; or by Tolerating the Roman Catholic Religion by Act of Parliament, the British Monarchy will become the most considerable of all Christendom, Peaceable at Home, and recover its Right Abroad. How evidently it is the mutual Interest of Spain and England to be in a perpetual League against France; and how Advantageous it is for Spain to put Flanders into English Hands. Pag. 534  
The King's Right to France. Pag. 544  
My Lord of Clarendin's Policy Censured by all Wise Men. Pag. 548.      
Part 4. The Roman Catholic Religion in every particular wherein it differs from the Protestant, confirmed by undeniable Miracles. 

THat such Miracles as are approved by the Roman Catholic Church in the Canonization of Saints, are true Miracles; and the Doctrine which they Confirm cannot be rejected, without denying or doubting of God's Veracity; and how every Protestant doth see true Miracles, though he does not reflect upon them, in Confirmation of the Roman Catholic Faith. Pag. 553  
The Miracle of St. Januarius of Naples. Pag. 555  
The Famous and undeniable Miracle of St. Francis Xaverius wrought on the Person of Marcello Mastrillo. Pag. 556  
Antichrist's Miracles are not Credible, if compared with Ours. Pag. 561  
Of Visible Miracles seen, though not observed by every Protestant, in Confirmation of the Roman Catholic Faith: The difference between true and false Miracles. Pag. 562  
Of True Miracles related in the Ecclesiastical History by men of greatest Authority in every Age, to confirm the particular Mysteries of our Catholic Faith; and that sense of Scripture wherein Roman Catholics differ from Protestants. Pag. 566  
Of Miracles related by St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, etc. in Confirmation of Transubstantiation, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Communion under one Kind and Purgatory. Pag. 567  
Primate Usher's Falsification to discredit two Miracles, Pag. 569  
How Protestants falsify and corrupt the very Statutes and Law-Books. Pag. 572  
Miracles for the Mass. Pag. 573.  
Miracles for Purgatory. Pag. 573  
Miracles to Confirm the Worship and Virtue of the Sign of the Cross. Pag. 576  
Miracles in confirmation of the Catholic Worship of Images Pag. 581▪  
The Protestant Distinction of Civil and Religious Worship misapplyed by Ministers to delude their Flocks. Pag. 585  
Miracles related by St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, etc. in confirmation of Praying to Saints, and Worshipping of their Relics, etc. Pag. 587  
A Miracle to confirm the Worship and Devotion of the Mother of God. Pag. 589  
Miracles of Holy Water. Pag. 592  
Miracles for the Sacrament of Confirmation. Pag. 595  
A Miracle of the Sacrament of Extream-Unction Pag. 597  
Miracles of the Sacrament of Confession. Pag. 598  
The Obstinacy of Protestants in Rejecting and Corrupting the Ancient Fathers, and a notable Corruption and Impudence of Calvin. Pag. 602  
Fox his Miracles how Ridiculous. Pag. 604  
The Conclusion; in which is a Parallel between Mahometanism and Protestancy. Pag. 605      

The Absence of the Author; and the Compositors not understanding English, have occasioned many Faults: The Author is not Conscious of others, than what are here Rectified: However, if either through Mistake of the Pen, or Press, in such a multitude of Quotations, any thing happen to be found amiss; the Candid Reader is desired to Correct with his Pen.  
PAge 2 preface l. 26 for Indignity, r. Indigency p. 7 preface l. 27 for Receiver. Revive, p. 4 l. 9 for revered r. reverenced, p. 5 l. 24 for Show r. Serem, p. 6 l. 24 for wrought r. touched, p. 8 l. 16 for defyning r. defying, p. 11 l. 24 omitted (after de Regno Christi) cap. 7 p. 66 p▪ 12 l ●. omitted (after Sardis, Can. 7 p. 16 l. 2 & 4 for Henaias r. Xenaias, p. 18 l. 29 for Holladiam r. Helladiam, p. 24 l. 32 omitted the Letter of Direction (m) p. 25 l. 32 for 443 r. 223, p. 26 l. 3 for de missa angu, r. de Missa privata fol. 228. p. 27 l. 4 for wart r. wait, p 27 l. 9 for ofter r. offer, p. 28 l 22 for 338, 334 r. 338, 340. p. 34 l. 27 for in loc. crm. r. in loc. come. p. 36 l. 28 cap. 20 r. cap. 21. p 37 l. 27 Aug. cit 16 r. Aug. cit. lib. 16 c. 2●. p. 39 l. 10 for now Doctrine r. new Doctrine, p. 43 l. 8 for art r. Act, p. 45 l 26 for but the strait r. but both the strait, P. 46 l. 10 for 52 r. 50 in the same line for 54 r. 53, p. 47 the last line, for dicant r. dicunt; p. 48 l. 5 for cap 42 r. fol. 90, p. 48 l 7 for pr●inde modulatur r proinde suo Abitrio modulatur, p. 48 l 8 for suo arbitrio composuit, & ●. deniquae inspecte, r. suo arbitrio ea composuit etc. denique penitus inspecte, p 48 l 16 for the privit r. de Tainit. fol. 89, Edit. Paris 1605, p 52 l 18 for cap. 10 art 13. r cap. 10. art. 13. To. 2. fol. 103, p, 56 l. 2 r. for all r. a p. 63 l. 22 for when r. then, p 65 l. 28 for 1366 r. 1367, p. 67 l. 1 for Considered r. Consider's, p 67 l. 1● omitted the word by, p. 68 l. 18 for four r. three p. 69 l 8 for three r. four p. 69 l. 25 for the 22 r. the 21 p. 73 l. 32 and a little r. but a little, p. 75 l. 29 Serm. 34 r. Serm. 32 p. 77 Marg 22 Aneir r. Anyr, p. 89 l. 26 for had r. hath p. 96 mar. l. 1● r. pag. 101 r. 100 p. 96 l. 23 for 79 r. 7 and 9 p. 97 l. 20 for and r. of the, p. 104 l. 20 for buy r. borrow, p 105 l. 10 for wit r. with, p. 105 l. 30 for inconsequent r. inconstant, p. 106 l. 10 for Heretics r. Heresies, p. 119 l. 32 for contr. Duc. r. contr. Duraeum, p. 123 l. 6 in marg. for colloq. mons. r. colloq. mens. p. 123 l. 25 in marg. for Musenlus r. Musculus, p. 126 l. 13 for Instition r. Institution, p. 126 l. 33 for Eutythians r. Eutychians p 127 l. 11 for with gu●ft r. Whitgift, p. 136 l. 13 for Church r. Graekes, p. 139 l 31 for dispurare r. disputare, p. 141 l. 28 for that is made r. that is, made p. 14●. l. ult for in altogether r. are altogether p 147 l. 9 for lib. 8. de Civit Dei r. lib. 18 de Civit Dei, p. 147 l. 23 for R●zias r. Razias, p. 150 l. 14 for Zainglius r. Z●inglius, p 151 l. 20 for 1534 r. 1584., p. 155 l 18 for pag. 511 r. pag. 6●2 p. 159 l. 17 for Whitakers work r. Whitakers work p. 369. p. 159. l. 30 for your Priest, r your Priest and Bishop, p. 160 l. 5 for your Elder r your Elder, or Surveyer and Superintendent, p. 160 l. 26 for by r. be, p 160 l. 29 f●r an-Connivers r. and Co●nivers, p. 163 in marg. for 2 r. 1 p. 168 l. l. 24 for [Act. 28] r. [Act. c. 20 v. 28] p 171 l. 4 for he r. the p. 176 number of the page 167 r. 176 p. 176 l. 31 for Staff r. Stuff; p. 176 l ulr. verb. for manifest r. Bishop p. 184 l. 23 for Earth r. Gentiles, p. 185 l. 31 for Esay 60.16. r. Esay 60, 16. p. 186 l. 22 for 209 r. 294 p. 186 l, 23 for so r. to p. 187 l. 12 for Hemnitius r. Kemnitius, p. 187 l. 13 for Paregrni Nationes r. Peregrinationes, p. 188 l. 3 for Romamam r. Romanam p. 188 l. 13 for great r. great, p. 190 l. 11 for 315. r. 15. p. 190. l. 24. for 438. r. 264. p. 196 l. 13 for os r. of p. 202 l. 10 for is r. if p. 203 l 30 for buth r. but, p. 204 l 3 for humour r. hum. p. 219 l 34 omitted these words seq. An Arbitrary Religion has as many Supreams as Subjects, p. 220 l. 14 for think r. thing p. 223 l. 24 for and r. ad p. 225 l. 26 activitate r unitate, p. 232 l. 5 for Polon r. Polit. 232 l. 12 for Jowor r. Tower p. 134 l. 12 ommitted the word They, p. 243 l. 6 for new r. now p. 246 l. 15 for by r. be p. 253 l. 2● for Zeal r. Seal, p. 262 l. 10 for retained r. certain p. 269 l. 4 for by r. but p. 269 l. 10 for them r. then p. 272 l. 28 for professing r. Prophesying p. 274 l. 19 for after Birthright, is omitted these words, ina Prerogative p. 277 l. 20 for f●ain r. fain p. 277 l. 28 for agree r. argue, p. 279 l. 17 for Scruting r. Scrutiny, p. 30 P. 280 for omitted the word not before Prelatic, p 292 l. 7 omitted the word Ensuing, p. 292 l. 8 for but r. and, p. 292 l. 24. It is not the part of Reason, etc. These and the ensuing words, until the Subsect. 1. are misplaced, and aught to have been Printed immediately after the end of the foregoing Sect. lin. 12. as also the words, Maro his Censure, and what follows aught to have been immediately after Mr. Chillingworth's Character of the Protestant Cause and Clergy lin. 8. p. 94 marg. l. 6 for with argues, r. which argues, p. 294 marg. l. 12 for know r. known p. 296 l. 29 for Sect. 8. r. Sect. 3, 4, 8. p. 30● l. 8 omitted not p 302 l. 18 for reverences r. revenues, p. 309 l. 31 for reverences r. revenues p. 315 l. 8 for became r. begun p. 326 l. 17 for foundeth r. founded, p. 327 l. 31 omitted Lutheran Book p. 328 l. 12 for taught r. sought p. 341 l. 23 for Pabam r. Papam p. 355 marg. l. 3 for fol. 30 r. fol. 301 p. 156 l. 26 for greer r. gear p. 367 l. marg. l. ult. for 993 r 789 p. 371 l. 21 for 57 r. 53 p. 377 l. 2 Institiam r. Justitiam p. 378 marg. l. 20 for three r. two p. 393 l. 4 for eidoolan r. eidolon p. 393 l. 32 for with r. which p. 396 marg. l. 9 for Mat. c. 17. r. Mat. c. 27. p. 396 marg. l. 11, 12, 13. these words, Et in Harm in Mat. 26. ver. 39 are to Be expunged. p. 407 l. 18 for 1 Thess. r. 2 Thess. p. 417 marg. l. 5 for orgilat r. or great p. 424 l. 27 for he r. I p. 425 l. 4 for notice r. Notes p. 430 l. 24 the word and must be expunged p. 444 l. 8 for restored r. retorted p. 453 l. 5 for report r. detort p. 457 l. 31 for rot r. not p. 458 l. 10 for Pramhalls r. bramhall's p. 473 l. 9 for ad r. and p. 475 l. 7 for praeras r. praeeras p. 481 marg. l. 19 for Figurinis r. Tigurinis p. 482 l. 13 for ad r. and p. 482 marg. l. 13 for le r. de p. 495 marg. l. 17 thy r. they p. 503 l. 30 for at r. as, p. 528 l. 11 r. mentibay nefas, in the same line r. hoc for tue, p. 508 for 22 r. 32 p. 515 l 10 for our r. your p. 525 l. 21 after return is omitted to p. 540 l. 31 for them r. then p. 549 l. 23 for Anion r. Anjou p. 560 marg. l. 6 for Matth, 11.12. r. Matth. 11.21. Ibid marg. l. 7 for Joan. 10.26 r. Joan 10.25 Ibid marg. l. 9 for Joan 2.23. r. Joan 3.2. p. 562 l. 20 for receive r. revive p. 566 l. 5 for this r. thus p. 571 l. 16 at Waldensis omitted cap. 63. n. 6. p, 573 marg. l. 24 for Moral r. Dialog. p. 584 l. 15 for 1664. r. 1604. p. 613 l. 27 for Regal r. Legal, pag. ult. of the Conclusion l. 8 for Actions 1. Nations.   

A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.  

FIRST PART. Of the beginning, progress, and principles of Protestancy in general, and of the Prelatic Church of England in particular.  

SECT: I. How necessary a rational Religion is for a peaceable Government: What Religion ought to be judged rational? That the truth of mysteries of Faith is more credible than clear; A digression concerning the Notions and Natures of things, and in particular of a Body. How unreasonable it is to judge of impossibilities, in order to God's omnipotency, because they seem so to our human understandings. How dangerous it is for a temporal Sovereign to pretend a spiritual jurisdiction over his subjects: and how the Catolick world ever acknowledged the Bishop of Rome his spiritual jurisdiction over all Christians▪  
AMongst our Adversaries discourses against the Roman Catholic Religion, the inconsistency thereof with the sovereignty and safety of Princes seemeth to be most applauded. The Protestant Ministers cease not to proclaim from pulpit and press, that Kings are but Tenants at will to the Pope, and that his spiritual jurisdiction deprives them of all temporal power. 
see herfter ●ar: 3. sect▪ 9  We shall rid (I hope) protestant Princes of that jealousy (when we treat of this point) by manifesting the calumny. In this part of our Treatise we confine ourselves to matters of fact, reserving to dispute of the right hereafter. And indeed none can frame a true judgement of this, or of any other Controversy, before he be informed of the historical part thereof. Therefore our method is to set down in the beginning of this work the state and belief of the visible Christian and Catholic Church until the yea●● 1517. wherein the world heard first of protestancy: afterwards we shall proceed to examine whether the soul and state may be better governed by the principles of protestancy, then of Popery. We doubt not (with God's assistance) to retort against our adversaries their own arguments, and to prove, that as no Religion is a safe way to salvation, but ours, so likewise not any is so favourable to the sovereignty of lawful Magistracy, and to the peacebleness of human government, as the same Roman Catholik. We need not inculcat to Statesmen (how ever so Irreligious) that the support of government is Religion, and that th●ir own Masterpiece is, to keep the multitude in awe of the laws, not so much by force of arms (an expedient more dangerous than durable) as by a religious fear of God, and a firm persuasion that Sovereigns are his Vice-gerents; and divine providence so concerned in the maintenance of their authority and prerogatives, that neither can be opposed without infallibility of eternal damnation to the opposers.  
This persuasion must not be the sole work or word of the Sovereign's themselves, or of their state Ministers; their testimony would be suspected by the subjects, as partial; it must be grounded upon authority, credibly reported to be divin, as (among Christians) the holy Scriptures explained by the ancient tradition and sense of Counsels and Fathers, which by another name we call the Church, or Clergy; that is men to whom God hath committed the charge of souls, and commanded us to follow their directions in spiritual matters, as being Jnterpreters of the divin Law, which Sovereigns must observe.  
There could not be an expedient more satisfactory, than the institution of such a Church, Clergy, and spiritual Court of judicature, For, if interpretation of Scripture had been left to the Sovereign, the subjects would mistrust his sincerity in explaining the same; if to the lay subjects, the Sovereign would be as diffident of their explications: Wherefore to avoid differences and disputes, God appointed the Clergy for spiritual judges, (as being by their institution less concerned in temporal affairs, and therefore presumed to be more conscientious, and less partial in their sentences then lay persons) and Tradition for the rule, whereby they must direct their judgements: to the end their doctrine be Apostolical, not arbitrary, or altered from the primitive; but rather all novelties and differences (concerning matters of Faith) be still suppressed; and thereby all unlawful pretensions (which both Sovereigns and subjects frequently claim under the pretext of Religion) be remedied or prevented; for that, souveraignty is as apt to degenerate into tyranny, as subjection into rebellion, if not regulated by a religion that makes it as unlawful for lay men to intermeddle with the doctrine of the Church, as it is improper for Church men to intrude themselves into matters of state.  
But because neither Sovereigns nor subjects are bound to submit their judgements in matters of Faith to a doubtful authority, therefore unless they who pretend to be the Clergy, can evidence by undeniable miracles (either wrought by themselves, or by their known spiritual predecessors that professed the same Faith) their jurisdiction and doctrine, they can not rationaly pretend to have the charge of souls, or any divine authority for determining controversies of Religion. Because, seeing the principal part of Religion doth consist in a perfect submission of the understanding to divi●e authority, (even against the appearance of sense, and the probability of reason) unless the Church or Clergy whereupon we rely doth make it evidently credible by supernatural signs, that their authority and doctrine is divine, their religion is not rational; and therefore no rational person is bound (without that supernatural evidence) to acknowledge in them a spiritual jurisdiction, or to follow their dictamen, and forsake his own private dictamen, and principles of probability, or the seeming evidence of his senses.  
Some men do require more than this, and are of opinion that a Religion can not be rational, unless the truth thereof be clearly discerned, or demonstrated by the light of natural reason; and judge it a great folly in men to believe what they do not comprehend. But this maxim is destructive to Religion and reason; it doth overthrow the very foundation of both, which consists in acknowlegding an incomprehensible Deity, whose perfections are infinite, his thoughts and revelations (and by consequence the mysteries of Religion) inscrutable, and therefore to be revered, not examined by so limited and imperfect creatures as we are; that can hardly dive into the bottom of ordinary difficulties, and discern the immortality of our own souls, or the nature and composition of any visible body.  

Thomas Bonart in Concordia scientiae cum fide.  And albeit an excellent wit of our age, in a late Treatise, hath endeavoured to clear by natural reason the mysteries of Christian Faith; and in order to facilitat the belief of Transubstantiation, doth teach that one body can not be in many places at one time, nor be penetrated with another body; and therefore is for'ct to say, that Christ hath as many bodies as there are consecrated pieces of bread: yet I think it more agreeable not only to Catholic Religion, but to natural reason, to believe, that the very same body of Christ that was born of the blessed Virgin, and is in heaven, is also under every consecrated species: otherwise it must be said that Christ our Saviour is a monster, that hath not only as many heads, but as many bodies, as there are Consecrations  

How fallacious are our philosophical definitions and demonstrations concerning the nature and essence of any thing.  But if this argument be thought more popular than philosophical, I hope scholars themselves will judge it unreasonable that Divines or Philosophers be too positive in defining the immutable essences of things, or (which is the same) in determining what is possible, or impossible for God to do, and in deducing conclusions from such notions as they call natures. If we consider that we owe all our human knowledge to the evidence of sense (which is often fallacious) and to reflections, of the mind (which are always fallible) we must grant that we may be frequently mistaken in the ground of our demonstrations, and do sometimes take our own fancies and false conceits for true objects, which have no real existence in themselves, nor any other immutability in order to God's power, besides that tenacity, or obstinacy wherewith men stick to their own opinions. This is sufficiently proved by the great discord and diversity of opinion that is in the schools, even concerning the essence or nature almost of every thing, and particularly of a body or quantity. Wherefore it is more probable that M. r Bonart is as much mistaken in placing the nature or essence of a Body in actual extension, 
Jnstanced in the nature or essence of a Body.  as he takes others to be in their contrary opinions concerning the same subject; otherwise Christ hath non only as many bodies as there are consecrated species, but also it followeth (if his Body can not be penetrated, or in the same place with another) that he united to his Divine person a nature which he cannot command to be whersoever himself (as God) is pleased to be: I am no Vbiquist, and therefore I grant that the hypostatical union doth not make Christ's body to be every where, or whersoever the Divinity is; but I think all Christians ought to believe that it is possible for Christ (as man) to be in any particular place, and penetrated with any Body whatsoever, where his person and Divinity is.  
And as for Mr. Bonart his way of defending how Christ's Body did, and may penetrate other bodies, 
Pag: 259▪  I see no difference between it and that of the heretics which himself derides, and condemns [Pag: 257.] but that the Heretics say he did show his body to the assembled Disciples through some chink of the wall, or through the Keyhole of the door; and M. r Bonart says Christ shot or thrust his Body in, through the indiscernible pores which are in every body; and how the whole or the parts of a human body (such as that of Christ than was, and now is) can be conveyed entire through one or many such little and distant pores, without losing all human shape, (if a perfect penetration be not allowed) I do not understand. And I believe M. r Bonart will hardly be able to declare how the substance of Christ's Body is not lost, as well as the shape, by Christ's passing through the pores; for that according to his principles [pag. 243.] the substance of every Body consists in such a greatness and figure of the parts, as compose that body; and upon this ground he proceeds when he says [ibid.] that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Flesh and ●loud of Christ, because the greatness and figure of the parts of bread and wine are changed, though all the rest doth remain. If therefore the greatness, figure, (and by consequence the shape) of Christ's Body, and its parts, be changed, or proportioned to the pores of the penetrated body (as they must of necessity be before they can pass or be shot through them) Christ's Body, and the parts thereof, do loose the substance, as well as the shape of a human body, according to M. r Bonartes doctrine. Hence we conclude that actual extension doth not so clearly (nor so catholickly) declare the essence of a Body, but that it must leave or breed some doubts of Christ's humanity, of God's omnipotency, and of his Mother's virginity.  
Besides; if the least particles or Atoms of a Body are of the same nature with the whole, and have real extension, by the addition whereof they make a body greater, as this Author holds; it can not be well comprehended, 
Bonart in concordia pag 301. & 304. & passim.  how the Atoms can be so little as not to be capable of being lessened by God's power; especially seeing M. r Bonart doth grant one side of an Atom may be touched, and the other side not touched. For, if so: How can any that believes God's omnipotency, imagine, that God can not separat or divide sides which may be severally wrought and wrought upon by a corporeal instrument? If an Atom be so thick that a corporeal instrument may touch one side thereof, and not touch or reach the other side, there is ground and room enough for God's power to separat one side from the other; for if one side of a Body or Atom can be wrought upon independently of the other, it may exist also, or be moved, independently of the same, and by consequence is distinct and separable from it. And indeed, if to be touched, and not to be touched be not contradictions sufficient to prove real distinction between the sides, or extremes so denominated, no kind of contradictions can infer real distinction.  
To say, [as Mr. Bonart doth pag: 301.303. & passim] that to be touched and not touched argues only a verbal (not a real) distinction in the Atom whereof one side is realy touched, the other not realy touched; and to pretend that this is clearly deduced from the first notion or nature of a Body, or extense; because forsooth, the notion of Parts must suppose not only one extense but many, 
pag. 297.  with a certain manner and measure of extension; and that therefore an Atom may be extended, and yet not partible: To maintain this discourse I say, seemeth to me a begging of the question, and as difficult as any other opinion in this matter. For 1. It is not easy to conceive how any extension whatsoever, can include in its first notion or nature, an exclusion of division. 2. In M. r Bonart his own principles it seemeth in-intelligible how any Body or Atom that hath so much extension [that is so much length, breadth, and profundity] as to be capable of being touched on the one side, with out being touched on the other, is not composed of parts distinct one from the other. For, [pag: 303.] he grants that if in the expansion or extension of an Atom did appear any little line or point, that line or point would conclude a real distinction of parts in the Atom. Now why the touch of any corporeal instrument [suppose of a Painter's pencil framed and managed by God's hand] may not leave an impression of itself [which impression you may call a line or point] in that place or side of the Atom that is touched, no reason can be given; and by consequence there can not be any for denying real distinction, and division of the parts in the Atom.  
Last: It must be concluded that the Atoms are either partible, or penetrated: Because if they be not partible, they do touch each other wholly, and every where, according to their dimension, and extensions; and if they touch in such a manner, they are penetrated, or in one and the same place: And if they be penetrated, or penetrable, impenetrability can not be the essence or property of the Body which they compose, and whereof it only consists. This is only said [by the way] to show that the best wits may mistake the notion and nature not only of a spirit, but also of a Body; and that they are not the best Guides when they steer themselves and others more by their own private discourses, then by the common sense of the faithful, in mysteries of faith, whereof it is a property to be more credible than clear.  
But if the evidence of sense be fallacious, and the reflections of our mind fallible, what certain knowledge can we have of any thing? Must we all turn Stoics or sceptics? Shall we doubt of all Geometrical Demonstrations? No, we have certain Knowledge of our own existence, and of some other evident truths. And as for the Demonstrations of Geometry, Euclid himself never pretended that his notions of a point, line, superficies, perfect circle, etc. did point at the real existence of any such objects, as indivisible points, lines, perfect circles etc. he knew, and Mathematicians confess, there are no such things in rerum natura. And seeing Mathematicians are so ingenuous as to acknowledge that their clearest notions are not real natures, or immutable essences, I see no reason why Philosophers [whose demonstrations are not so clear] should be so positive in defining things, 
Bonart lib 5. passim.  as if they were defy●ing God's omnipotency to make them otherwise then they have dictated in the Schools, or published in their Books. And he that thinks to declare the reasonableness of Christian Religion by making the mysteries thereof agree rather with his own Philosophical notions, then with the common sense of the Church, will involve himself into a labyrinth of errors.  

Wherein consisteth the reasonableness of Religion.  The reasonableness therefore of Christian Religion must not be measured by any clear evidence of truth that human reason discovers, either in the works of nature, or in the divine mysteries [for we shall prove hereafter such evidence to be inconsistent with faith] but rather by the clear evidence of an indispensable obligation [that every man finds and feels in himself] of submitting his judgement to the Church, when he reflects upon the signs and sufficiency of its authority in order to propose divine doctrine. To submit our reason to a Church or Clergy that hath no clear and authentic signs of divine authority, is simple and sinful credulity: not to submit to its sufficient authority, that is, to authority signed with supernatural signs, is heretical obstinacy.  
As for the means whereby every one concerned in this spiritual subjection to the Church and Clergy, aught to be informed of their miracles, authority and jurisdiction, they are the same which all men practise and judge to be sufficient for knowing and acknowledging the true and lawful Heir of a Kingdom or estate. The right to temporal dominion is discerned by succession, and that succession by Tradition; so also the right to govern souls, and decide Controversies of faith, must be acknowledged to reside in them that by a continual succession of Episcopal hands derive their spiritual character or mission from the Apostles, and never varied from the Apostolical doctrine; of which succession of Character, and continuance of doctrine, the best proof is a never interrupted Tradition, or Testimony of honest and knowing persons in every age, against whose verdict there can be no Lawful exceptions. That Church or Clergy whose doctrine, character, miracles, and jurisdiction is witnessed by this Tradition, aught to be obeyed, as having the spiritual superiority whereunto Christ our Saviour commanded both Sovereigns and subjects to submit their judgements in the mysteries and Controversies of Religion.  
Though this expedient of a Church and Clergy so qualified, aught to be acceptable and satisfactory to lay Princes and people, yet modern Politicians stand upon such nyceties, that the greatest danger and difficulty which they apprehend in the government of a Christian Commonwealth is, to order so affairs, that the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction may not clash; they fear that by mistake, or ambition of the Clergy, the temporal may be too far entrenched upon, and made not only subordinat, but subject to the spiritual; and the spiritual at length become so absolute, and arbitrary, that the Clergy may [at least indirectly] spiritualise any thing for their temporal conveniency; at least that they may persuade such as [by an implicit faith] submit to their authority and direction, to question [if not contemn] any civil Government, whereof they mislike the Laws or Ministers, and by their Ecclesiastical Censures fright the illiterate multitude into rebellion upon the score of religion.  
To prevent this ●anger our English statesmen think fit to continue that supremacy of spiritual jurisdiction in our Kings, which K. Henry 8. assumed (how piously and politikly, shall be seen hereafter.) At present we will only observe, that it is thought to be the concern as well as the custom of Sovereigns, to employ Clergy men in state affairs, for two reasons. 1. That they may be as much engaged in defending the temporal jurisdiction which they receive from, and exercise by favour of their Prince, as in vphoulding the spiritual, so much recommended to them by the Pope. 2. That the Sovereigns may be cleared from all suspicions and aspersions of intermeddling with the souls of their subjects, farther than the Church and the Pastors thereof do allow.  
This Christian policy is imitated by the Turck, he thinks it so necessary for the safety of a Prince, not to be suspected by his people of affecting a spiritual supremacy, that he consults with, and even remits to his Mufty, matters of state depending of Religion. The Pagans give the same respect to their Priests; and the wisest Heathen Princes who took upon themselves the High Priesthood, pretended and persuaded their subjects (by some counterfeit miracle) that they had been inspired, or commanded by the Gods to assume the dignity; or that the same was due to them by descent from some Deity. And indeed nothing less than a miracle can make it prudently credible, that God doth trust temporal Sovereigns with a spiritual supremacy.  

The grounds of peace, piety and policy.  The ground therefore of policy as well as of piety and peace, consists in the choice of a Clergy or Church for governing souls, whose doctrine, jurisdiction and character hath been confirmed by supernatural miracles; The legal settlement of such a Religion and Clergy is so agreeable to reason, and so acceptable to all sorts of people, that the nonconformity thereunto will be prudently (and popularly) judged to proceed rather from the contumacy then from the conscience of the non-conformists: and the severity of laws against such Recusants, will savour more of piety than cruelty, and move more the generality of subjects to praise the Sovereign, then pity the sufferers. In a word; such a Church and Religion will make the Prince powerful and popular; the multitude peaceable and obedient; the Clergy respected; their riches and privileges not envied; it will take away conscientious pretences of rebellion, and remove or reconcile all differences between the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. That the Roman Catholic Clergy and Religion hath all these properties; and the Protestant reformations not one of them, shall appear after we have finished the historical part of this Treatise. Now to the matter of fact.  
For the space of almost 1500. years it was the general belief of Christendom, that the true Catholic Doctrine was professed only by such as held to the Roman faith, and that the 
† 
¶ Doctor Philip Nicolai in Comment. de regno Christi, chargeth the Apostles, and the first next succeeding Bishops of Rome, with affectation of the Roman Supremacy. And S. Victor Pope and Martyr (who lived in the next age to the Apostles) is reprehended by Nutton, Polanus, Spark, and other Protestants, for having exceeded his bounds when he took upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East: S. Ireneus found fault with his severity, but never doubted of his authority.  
The Centurists (Centur. 3. Col. 168.) do condemn S. Stephen Pope and Martyr for undertaking to threaten excommunication to Helenus, Firmilianus, and all others throughout Cicilia, Capadocia, and Galacia, for rebaptysing Heretics. And col: 84. They reprehend S. Cyprian for teaching that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others for the mother and root of the Catholic Church. And Centur. 4. col: 764. they confess that the Council of Sardis (consisting of 300. Bishops and above; assembled from all parts of the world, and where at, sundry Fathers of the Nicen Council were present) decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome.   Supremacy of spiritual jurisdiction was annexed to the Bishop of Rome, as St. Peter's Successor, and Christ's Vicar upon earth; and that the Sea Apostolic changed not any one point of faith the first 600. years, is acknowledged by our learned 
[a] 
M. r Whitaker Lib. de Antichristo contra Sanderum pag: 35. answering D. r Sanders (who affirmed and proved that the Roman Church was not changed during the first 600. years after Christ) Whitaker saith: During all that time the Church was pure and flourished, and inviolably taught, and defended the faith delivered from the Apostles. See the same acknowledged by M. r Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag▪ 373. And by Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag: 443. And Mr. jewel in his reply to Mr. Harding pag: 246.  
That the Roman faith and the Catholic faith are Synonimons, or the same, appeared by   Adversaries; as also affirmed by the 
[b] S. Hieroms words in Apo: 2. adversus Rufinum, who pretending to be a Catholic, S. Hierom demands: What doth he call his faith? That which the Church of Rome holdeth? If he answered, it is the Roman, ergo Catholici sumus; then without doubt we are Catholics. And ep. 57 ad Damasum Papam: Quicumque extra banc domum Agnum comederit, profanus est, & quicumque tecum non colligit spargit. S. Cyprian (lib: 4. epist: 2.) speaks thus to Antonianus. You writ that I should send a Copy of the letters to Cornelius (Pope) to the end that you communicate with him, that is to say, with the Catholic Church▪ And the same S. Cyprian (ibid. Epist: 45. ad Cornelium) it seemeth good to us that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome that they should firmly embrace your communion; that is to say, the Catholic Church. Et Ibid: Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione consocior. Super illam Petram aedificatā Ecclesiam scio. And S. Ambrose, de obitu Fratris, reporteth how his Brother Satyrus being desirous to know whether the Bishop to whom he came were Catholic or no, asked him, whether he did communicate with the Catholic Bishop, hoc est, cum Romana Ecclesia convenerit.  Fathers, that the Roman faith or Church, and the Catholic faith or Church, are Synonimons; and that he who is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome is profane, and not in the way of salvation.  
And though some of the more modern Greecks attempted to make their Patriarch of Constantinople at least equal with the Bishop of Rome, yet their frequent submissions and recantations of that presumption, together with the clear testimonies of their holy and ancient 
[d] ¶ Theodoret [d] a Greek Father, in his Epistle to Pope Leo, placed before his Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistle, saith, behold after all travail and sweat, I am condemned, being not so much as accused. But I look for sentence of your Apostolic sea, and I humbly beseech and require your Holiness in this case to aid me (justum vestrum & rectum appellanti judicium) appealing to your right and just judgement, and command me to come before you. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Presbit. he further saith, I beseech thee persuade the most holy Arch Bishop Leo, to exercise his Apostolical authority, and command me to go to your Council, because that holy Sea hath the government of all the Churches of the World. S. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Innocentium Papam saith, I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully done in my absence, and I not refusing judgement, may not be of force, and that those who have done wrong may be subject to the penalties of the Ecclesiastical laws, etc. And command us to be restored to our Church etc. Pope Innocentius in his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife, who were adverse to S. Chrysostom, and took part with Theophilus, (quoted Centur 5. col. 663.) saith. I the last of all, and a sinner, yet having the throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separate and remove, thee and her from receiving the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God: and every Bishop, or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to minister or give to you those holy Mysteries after the time that you have read these present letters of my Order, I prononce them void of their dignity, etc. Arsacius, whom you placed in the Bishop's throne in Chrysostoms' room though he be dead, we depose, and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops. In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed advice, have communicated with him etc. To the deposing of Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria, we add excommunication etc. The Centurists Cent. 5. col. 778. say of the Fathers of that 5. Century, They did affirm erroneously that antiquity had attributed the principality of priesthood to the Roman Bishop above all. And Col. 782. they set down the general Council of Calcedons petition to Pope Leo, desiring his Holiness to confirm their Decrees, and [Col: 823.] the words of the Council of Carthage to Pope Innocentius, supplicating that to the statutes of their mediocrity might be added the authority of the Sea Apostolic. They further acknowledged that the Pope summoned S. Athanasius and his adversaries to appear at Rome: And that Athanasius obeyed, whereof see also Nicephor. l. 9 c. 6. and hist. Tripartit. l. 4. cap. 6. D. Philip. Nicolai de Regno Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. confesseth, that Julius Pope exercised the supreme spiritual Jurisdiction, as given ex praescripto & jure divino, and as St. Peter's Successor; as also Pope Damasus, and Pope Jnnocentius afterwards. See julius epistle to the Churches of the East. Centre 4. col. 735. and col. 746. how Pope Julius saith to them, are ye ignorant of the custom to write to us first, to the end from hence may be determined what is just etc. For, what things we have received from St. Peter the Apostle, those I signify to you.  Bishops and Counsels in behalf of the Pope's supremacy over the Churches of the East as well as of the West, sufficiently demonstrat the error of the Greek Schismatiks. I say therefore that for the space of almost 1500. years, the Roman Doctrine was held to be the true Catholic and Apostolic, and the Roman Bishop to be S. Peter's successor, and Christ's Vicar upon earth.  
For, abbeit our learned Adversaries do not all agree in acknowledging that the Roman doctrine was pure for the first 600. Years (some of them saying that it began to be corruped after the Year 400. others before that time) yet they do not prove their assertions, but ground them upon this only reason, that the Church in those ages did censure as Heresies some points of Protestancy, and condemned the 
[e] ¶ Functius (a Protestant writer) in lib. 7. Chronolog. anno Christi 494. saith, Henaias was the first who raised war in the Church against Images. Nicep●▪ in Hist▪ Eccl. lib. 16. c. 27. saith. Henaias' iste primus (O audacem animam & os impudens) vocem illam evomuit, Christi & eorum qui illi placuere, Imagines venerandas non esse. August. haer. 53. Epiphan. haer. 75. mentions Aerius his novelties against fasting appointed by the Church, prayer for the dead, etc. Whereof M. r Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag 44. c. 41. saith: I will not dissemble etc. Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphan. and Austin. which they count for an error. S. Aug. de Eccl. dog. c. 73. saith: We believe that the bodies of Saints, and chiefly the Relics of holy Martyrs, aught to be most sincerely honoured, as if they had been members of Christ; if any contradicts this sentence he is believed not to be a Christian, but an Eunomian or a Vigilantian. S. Aug: lib: 3. c. 4. contra lit. Petil chargeth and reproveth Petilian, with his foul mouth, he proceedeth to the dispraising of Monks of Monasteries. He also chargeth the Donatists' Circumcellions with the same crime saying they use to say what meaneth the name of Monks, show where it is to be found in Scripture? Aug. in Psalm. 132. S. Hierom contra Vigillan. c. 1. saith: What do the Churches of the East? What those of Egypt▪ and of the Apostolic Sea? Which receive Priests either Virgins or Continent; or if they have wives, they cease to be husbands. S. Epiphanius haer. 59 But you will tell me, that in some places Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons', have children. But that is not according to the Canon but according to men's minds, etc. S. Aust. de unit Eccl. c. 12. reporteth the Donatists as heretics, for saith he, they used to collect certain places of Scripture, & ea detorquere in Ecclesiam Dei, that it might seem to have perished in the whole world. And in Psalm. 101. conc. 2. relateth their words, the Church hath apostatised and perished in all nations; this they say who are not in the Church. [O impudentem vocem.]  Authors as heretics; In particular Henaias for opposing the worship of Images; Aerius for denying prayer and offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the Dead; Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints, and their worship; as also the Monastical Profession; the single and unmarried life of Priests denied not only by Vigilantius, but by Jovinian and others; as the Church's visibility, and continuance by the Donatists:  
But the censuring these protestant doctrines as errors, cannot be an argument of corruption or change of faith in the Church that did censure them, unless it be made appear that the opinions censured had been formerly the ancient and generally received belief of the Catholic and visible Church, so that these and the like exceptions are grounded only upon some unlearned Protestants suppositions without proof, and rather confirm then disprove what we say. Therefore we shall not argue against them, but in this particular of the Roman doctrines purity for the first 600. years, we will prefer the testimony of their more learned brethren, viz. their greatest Doctor Bishop. 
[g] Bishop jevell in his sermon at Paul's Cross, and iterated challenge, appeals (for the truth and purity of the Protestant Religion) to S. Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome. And so also doth Whitaker in respons. ad Campian. rat. 5. pag. 50. in behalf of all the English Clergy; his words are, O Campian, the speech of Jevell was most true and constant when provoking you to the 600. years he offered you, etc. It is the offer of us all, the same we do all promise, and will be as good as our words; which was to be Catholics if any Father of the first 600. years (whereof S. Gregory the Pope was named) had any sentence in favour of Popery. Bishop Godwin  jevell, Bishop 
[h] 
in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England, pag. 3. saith, that blessed and holy Father S. Gregory was the occasion of replanting the Christian Faith in our Country, The same in substance saith Whitaker etc. contra Duraeum lib. 5. pag. 394. D. r Humphrey in jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 624 Gregorius nomine quidem magnus, & re vera magnus Vir magnis & multis divinae gratiae dotibus, etc. M. r Thomas Bell in his survey of Popery pag. 187. termeth him, S. Gregory surnamed the Great, the holy and learned Bishop of Rome. S. Damascen a Father of the Greck Church in Orat. de Defunctis saith, Gregory Bishop of the more ancient Rome (as all have known) as well for Holiness of life, as learning, excellent and famous.  
Isidore de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 27. saith, Gregory Bishop of the Apostolic Sea of Rome etc. was by the grace of the holy Ghost so greatly endued with light of knowledge, as no Doctor of this present age or in times past was equal to him. S. Gregory's communion with the Bishops of Greece may be seen l. 4. epist. 56. universis Episcopis per Hollodiam etc. l. 1. epist. 43. & l. 4. epist. 7. Vniversis Episcopis per Illyricum. d. l. 4. epist. 53. Episcopo Corinthiorum. For the Patriarches of Constantinople, see l. 7. ep. 64. joanni Episcopo Syracusano, ep. 65. For afric, see in l. 7. ep. 30. & l. 5. ep. 60. His Epistles to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, and see l. 4. ep. 3. & l. 6. ep. 32. Dominico Episcopo Cartaginensi. item l. 6. ep. 2. Columbo Episcopo Numidiae.  
For Asia, see his Epis. to Isicius Bishop of Jerusalem l. 9 ep. 40. see further l. 9 ep. 27. Maximiano Episcopo Arabiae. In his epistle to the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch. l. 6. ep. 24.32. & ep. 24.   Godwin, D. r Humphrey, D. r Bell, Bishop Bale, and many others of their best Divines versed in Ecclesiastical history; all of them positively affirming, that the Roman faith was pure for the first 600. years; and that S. Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome (with whom ended that term of years) lived and died in the purity of the primitive faith; and that all the Orthodox Christians of the whole world professed his belief, and communicated with him, as appear also by his correspondence, and communion of faith with the Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, and with all the Orthodox Churches of the world through out Asia, afric, and Europe.  
We do also agree with most protestant Writers in this, that the same Religion which S. Gregory the great held, was that which S. Austin the Monk and his Companions (sent by Gregory into England to convert the Saxons) taught our Ancestors, and that God was pleased to confirm the faith which they preached, with Miracles; as appeareth by the Confession of our 
[i] See Holinsheads Chronicle vol. 1. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. acknowledging how St. Austin Monck restored sight to one that was blind, as Bede recounts it hist. l. 2: c. 2. whereupon the Britan's present there at, acknowledged that his doctrine was true. See Holinshead also pag. 100 and Mr. Fox Act. and mon. printed 1576. pag. 117. and Bishop Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops, pag. 4. see Holinshead also in his great Chronicle volum. 2. pag. 108. & 109. and Fox cit. pag. 120. & 121.  Adversaries, and by S. Gregory's letters to Austin 
[k] This letter of St. Gregor. is extant in Bede hist. l. 1. c. 31. and mentioned by Holinshead pag. 102.  himself an. 602. advising him not to glory therein but rather to consider that God gave him that gift for the weal of those to whom he was sent. As also by his letters to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria (lib. 7. epist. 30. indict. 1.) saying therein: Know then that where as the English Nation etc. remaining hitherto in Infidelity; I did by the help of your prayers etc. send unto that Nation (Austin) a Monk of my Monastery, to preach to them etc. and now letters are come to us, both of his health and of his work, that he hath in hand; and surly either he or they that were sent over with him, work so many Miracles in that Nation, as they may seem to imitate the power and Miracles of the Apostles them-selves.  
That the particulars of the Religion professed by S. Gregory, and the visible Church of his time, and preached by St. Austin the Monk and his Companions, sent by Gregory to convert the English Nation, were the same which we Roman catholics profess at this present, is evident by all Histories, Both sacred and profane; and even by the Confession of all Protestant writers, who treat of this subject. Austin the great Monk (saith Doct. Humphrey) 
[l]" Dr. Humphrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. & 627.  sent by Gregory the great Pope, taught the Englismen a burden of Ceremonies etc. Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the Dead, Transubstantiation, Relics, etc. And the 
[m] The Century writers of Magdeburg in their 6. Century cap. 10. col. 748. and collecting (elswher in the same Book) out of St. Gregory's own writings by them cited his Popish Tenets, They do in the Index of that 6. Century, after the first edition thereof, at the word Gregory, specially set down his supposed Popish errors, as Mass, Purgatory etc. and particularly, with his claim and exercise of jurisdiction, and Supremacy over all Churches, col. 425. usque ad 432. Concerning his other Popish doctrine, see them c. 10. col. 748.369.376.381.384.364. & seqs. 693. & seq. & col. 425. usque ad 432.  Centurywriters, 
[n] Carion" in Chron. l. 4. pag. 567. & seq.  Carion, 
[o] Luke Osiander in his Epitome Hist. Eccl. Centur. 6. pag. 288. & seq. & 289. John Bale in Act. Rom. Pontif. edit. Basil. 1558. pag. 44.45.46.47. & Centur. 1. fol. 3.  Osiander, and other learned Protestants say, that the Religion preached by St. Austin to the Saxons was, Altars, Vestments, Images, Chalices, Crosses, Censors, Holy Vessels Holy water, the sprinkling thereof, Relics, Translation of Relics, dedicating of Churches to the bones and ashes of Saints, Consecration of Altars, Chalices, and Corporals, Consecration of the font of Baptism, Chrism, and Oil, Celebration of Mass, the Archi-Episcopal Pall at Solemn Mass time, Romish Mass Books, also free will, merit, justification of works, Penance, Satisfaction, Purgatory, the unmarried life of Priests, the public invocation of Saints, and their worship, the worship of Images, Exorcism, Pardons, Vows, Monachism, Transubstantiation, prayer for the Dead, offering of the healthful Host of Christ's body and blood for the Dead; the Roman Bishops claim and exercise of jurisdiction and supremacy over all Churches (Reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis Chaos) even the whole Chaos of Popish superstition.  
Now that D. r Fulck should term this conversion our perversion; 
Fulck in his Confutation of Purgatory pag: 333. Mr Willet in his Te●rasticon papismi pag: 122. Osiander in Epitome. Centur: 6. pag: 290.  and that Mr. Willet should place St. Gregory and St. Austin, among the Fathers of Superstition; and Osiander should say, they subjected England to the Yoke of Antichrist; and Mr. Harison that they converted the Saxons from Paganism to no less hurtful superstition than they did know before, making an exchange from open to secret Idolatry etc. we attribute to an excess of their private spirit, and zeal in their own Presbiterian, or Fanatik way, which doth not agree with the more sober and more Christianlike Protestants; nor indeed impugn our assertion, which is, that this Popery, now so much railed at, though professed by St. Gregory and whereunto our Ancestors were converted by St. Austin▪ the Monk, and ourselves yet profess, was the Religion held by the visible Church as the only Catholic and Apostolic in the 6. age; and that until than no known change of Christ's Doctrine had been made in the Roman Church. Whether the whole Church of the 6. age was deceived or no, in this their persuasion, and adhesion to the Roman Doctrine, is another question, and shall be discussed hereafter.   

SECT: II. Of the Author and beginning of Protestancy, and of Luther's Disputation and familiarity with the Devil, serjously related by himself in his authentik Books.  
THE first that preached the Protestant Religion, or Reformation, was Martin Luther, a Germane, who (as himself 
[a[ Luther in his epist. to his father extant. to. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 269. saith, It seemeth that Satan did foresee something in me of what he now suffers, and therefore endeavoured to destroy me by incredible stratagems.  confesseth in a letter to his Father) had been fearfully haunted from his youth with Satan's apparitions, and (as others testify) often in the form 
[b] Mallius Luther's own Scholar in loc. common. pag. 42. & 43. saith that always after the apparitions of firebrands, in the night to Luther, his head did ache grievously. And at Coburg one of these apparitions of three flying firebrands was so terrible, that he was almost cast into a sound, in prevention whereof, oil was distilled into his ear, and his feet rubbed with hit clothes etc.  of firebrands; These frights together with the sudden death of his dearest Comrade slain by a thunderbolt, forced him (as he says, in the said Epistle) to enter into the Religious order of St. Augustin, wherein he lived some years (not without signs and suspicion of being possessed) until that an 1517. one John Tecell a learned Dominican friar, was preferred before him in publishing and preaching of Indulgences, which Sermon in like occasions had been formerly given to the Augustins.  
This fancied injury done to his Order and Person, put Luther into such a passion, that notwithstanding he understood not well (as he ingeniously 
[d] See Luther's words" in Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177.  confesseth) what the name of Indulgences meant, yet he preached Sermons, and printed conclusions against them: his propositions being condemned in Germany, he appealed to Rome, and submitted his doctrine and himself to Pope Leo 10. Vt 
[e] Luther. in appellatione" prima ad Leonem X. tom. 1. Wittenberg. fol. 219.  reprobet, approbet, sicut placuerit, acknowledging his voice to be the voice of Christ. But lo (saith he) 
[f]" Luther apud Sleydan. l. 13. fol. 177.178.  whilst I look for a joyful sentence from Rome, I am stricken with the thunderbolt of excommunication, and condemned for the most wicked man alive; then I began to defend my doings, setting forth many books & ●. And seeing it is so, let them impute the fault to them-selves, that have so excessively handled the matter. 
[c] Cochleus▪ a virtuous and learned man, who lived with Luther many years, and writ his life very exactly from year to year, sets down therein as a known truth, how that one day when the Gospel (Matthew 9) of Christ's casting out a dumb and deaf Devil, was read in the choir, Luther fell down to the ground, and cried, non sum, non sum, I am not; and without doubt if Luther was possessed, it was not by a dumb Devil.   
Afther that Luther had lost his hopes of being favoured in his opinions by the Pope, he 
[g] Sleidan. l. 1. fol. 10. saith; Martin Luther's Appellation from the Pope being contemned, his offers despised; looking for no more help nor health at the Pope's hands, was through extreme necessity brought to appeal from the Bishop of Rome. See also Osiander in Epitome. cent. 16. c. 25. p. 63.  appealed from his Holiness sentence to a general Council, assuring himself that none would be called, or assembled in his own days. That this was his design, and not any desire of being directed by a Council, is manifest by his proceedings; for, as soon as he heard there was a Council summoned, and perceived some likelihood that the Bishops would meet, he writ a 
[h] Belarm." praefat. de Consiliis.  book against the necessity and authority of general Counsels, and begins with the first at Jerusalem, condemning its Decrees; then, with the first Nicen, and concludes there is no obligation of submitting our Judgements to their Definitions; or of conforming our actions to their Canons; and declars to his Germans, in what a sad condition they would all be, if they were bound to obey Counsels, for than they must have abstained from strangled meat, foul, add (which is worse) from puddings, and sausages, according to the Apostles Decree at jerusalem; as if that Decree (intended but for a little time) were still in force. Therefore he maintained that Christ 
[i] 
Luther tom. 2. Wittenberg." fol. 374. & 375.  
The Governors and Pastors of Christ's sheep have power to teach, but the sheep must give judgement whether they propose the voice of Christ, or of strangers etc. Let the Pope, Bishops, Counsels, &c, ordain what they please we will not hinder it, but the judgement shall remain with us, who are Christ's sheep, and hear his voice, whether they propose the truth and things agreeable to our Pastor, and they must yield, subscribe, and obey our censure and sentence.   hath taken away from Bishops, Doctors, and Counsels the right and power of judging of doctrine, and given it to all Christians in general; and admits of no other rule but Scripture, as every one will think fit to interpret the same.  
Thus far was Luther driven by his pride, and passion against the Dominican friars, with resolution not to recant what he had once writ, though he wished 
[k] Luther in Colloq. Mensal. fol. 158.  he had never begun that business and that his writings 
[l]" Luther in praefat. in tom. Germ.  were burned and buried in eternal oblivion: he had not as yet precipitated himself into the particulars of Protestancy, but for some few years went no further than the dispute of Indulgences, and wore still his religious habit (though he had left the Monastery) said Mass, and was much tormented in his Conscience for running so desperate a course as to appeal from the authority of Popes, Fathers, Counsels, and Church, upon a punctilio of his mistaken honour. How often (saith he) did my trembling hart beat with in me, and reprehending me▪ object against me that must strong argument; Art thou only wise; do so many worlds err? were so many ages ignorant? what if thou errest and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? etc. 
[m] Luther tom. Germ. fol. 9 And t. 2. Wittenberg. of an. 1562. lib. de abroganda Missa privata, fol. 244.   
And again. 
[n] Luther tom. 5. Wittenb. in Galat. c. 1. fol. 290. & in colloq. Mensal. fol. 273.  Dost thou O sole man, and of no accounpt, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? If God permit such so many, and all, to err, why may he not permit thee to err? 
[o] Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. anno 1558. in l. de Missa privata fol. 443. & 228. & tom. 6. Ger. fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari.  Hitherto apartaine those arguments, the Church, the Church the Fathers the Fathers, the Counsels, the Customs, the Multituds, and greatness of wise men: whom do not these clouds and doubts, yea these seas of examples overwhelm?  
Being thus tormented and tossed between his passion of pride, and a perplexity of mind, himself relates at large (tom. 7. Wittemb. edit. an. 1558. lib. 1. de Missa. angu.) how upon a certain time he was suddenly awaked about midnight, and how sathan began his disputation with him, saying; Hearken right learned Doctor Luther; Thou knowest thou hast celebrated private Mass, by the space of 15. years, almost every day; what if such Masses were horrible Idolaty? etc. The devil speaking thus to me, I burst forth all into a sweat, and my heart began to tremble, and leap (voce forti & gravi utitur) the devil had a grave and strong voice etc. And then I learned how it came to pass that somtyms early in the morning men were found dead in their beds. To the Devil I answered, I am an anointed Priest, received consecration from a Bishop, and did all things by order of my Superiors. In these straits and agony I would fain vanquish the Devil with the arms of Popery, and did object the intention and faith of the Church etc. But Satan with greater force and vehemency did pursue; Go to, show where it is written (teaching Luther to appeal to Scripture alone) that a wicked and incredulous man can assist at the Altar of Christ, and consecrate in the Church's faith? etc. If men have taught it without the express word of God, it is altogether untrue: But in this sort are you accustomed to do all things in the dark, under the name of the Church and so set to sale your own abominations for Ecclesiastical doctrine. etc. After this disputation Luther was so well acquainted with the Devil, that himself saith (tom. 2. Germ. Jen. fol. 77. Believe me I know the Devil very we'll, for now and then he walketh with me in my Chamber. When I am among company he doth not trouble me, but when he catcheth me alone, than he teacheth me my manners. And (in Conc. Dom. Reminiscere fol. 19 apud Cochlaeum) I am troughly acquainted with the Devil, for I have eaten a bushel of salt in his company. Yea confesseth (in Colloq. Germ. fol. 275.281.) that the Devil was his Bed-fellow, and lay with him more frequently and ●loser to him then his beloved Kate the Nun. And (in litteris ad Electorem Saxoniae) he saith, The Devil doth so run to and fro trough my brain that I can neither write, nor read. And (in Colloq. Germ. fol. 283.) brags thus, I have a couple of rare Devils, who attend and wait upon me most diligently: they are no petty Fiends, but great Devils; yea great Doctors of Divinity among the rest of the Devils. One of these two great Doctors of Divinity continued his disputation thus against Luther.  
Now I urge this, that thou didst not consecreate in thy Mass, but didst offer and adore only bread and wine, and proposedst the same to be adored by others &c. The institution of Christ is, that other Christians may communicate in the Sacrament, but thou art anointed, not to distribute the Sacrament but to sacrifice; and against Christ's institution thou hast used the Mass for a Sacrifice etc. And that which Christ did ordain for eating and drinking for the whole Church, and to be given by the Priest to other Communicants etc. of this thou dost make a propitiatory Sacrifice O! abomination above all abomination,  
And after that Zealous and learned Devil had thus exclaimed, and argued against the Sacrifice of the Mass, the authority of the Church, Transubstantiation, and adoring of the B. Sacrament, he reasons also against the intercession and prayer to Saints; his words are set down by Luther in the same place thus. We Spirits being rejected, do not confide in Christ's mercy; neither do we look upon him as a Mediator or Saviour, but fear him as a cruel Judge; such was thine and all other Papists faith etc. Therefore ye did shun from Christ, as a cruel Judge to Mary, and the Saints; and they were Mediators between you and Christ; so is Christ deprived of that glory.  
In this disputation the Devil had so good success, that Luther was convinced, and resolved to become a Protestant, and to preach and print, not only against the Mass, and the other particulars mentioned in his Disputation, but (upon these words of the Devil, (So is Christ deprived of glory) did Luther ground his opinions against the necessity of good works (in favour of justification by only faith) against merit, satisfaction, Purgatory etc. and maintained these his Diabolical opinions with so great obstinacy, and so little respect to 
[p] Luther in lib. de servo arbitrio contra Erasm. in the first edition faith: Lay aside all the arms of Orthodox antiquity, schools of Divinity, authority of Counsels and Popes, the consent of so many ages, and of all the Christian people, we receive nothing but Scriptures, yet so, that we alone have the authority of interpreting them. That which we interpret is the sense of the holy Ghost, that which others bring, though they be great, though many, proceeds from the spirit of Satan and madness.  Scripture, Church, Counsels, Fathers, Princes, and Prelates, that such parts of Scripture as did not favour the Devil's argument, he either rejected them as apocrijphal, or altered the words and sense in his Translations and Comments, against all exemplars and copies either in Greek▪ Hebrew, or Latin. And all Princes and Prelates that contradicted his errors, he vilified in so virulent and villainous terms, that none but a soul directed by the Devil could resolve to print them. His Bull against all Bishops is full of most vile stuff: as also against the Duke of Brunzuick, the Elector of Mentz, etc. In so much that his own Scholar Sleidan acknowledgeth his manner of writing to be unworthy, Base, Scurilous etc. In his Book, and answer against K. Henry 8. he calls him an envious mad fool, babbling with much spittle in his mouth, more furious than madness itself, more doltish than folly itself, endued with an impudent and whorish face, without any one vein of princely blood in his body, a lying sophist, a damnable rotten worm, a Basilisk and progeny of an Adder, a lying scurill, covered with the title of a King, a clounish wit, a doltish head, most wicked foolish and impudent Henry. All this he says tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 333.334.335. & fol. 338.334. he saith: The King doth not only lie like a most vain scurre, but passeth a most wicked knave: thou liest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King; And other so immodestly base expressions against his Majesty and all other Papists, that we are ashamed to English them. By Luther's Language, and way of defending his Protestant doctrine, we might guests at his Master, though himself had not told us his name was Satan.  

SUBSECT I. How weakly Protestant's excuse Luther's Conference with the Devil, and the embracing of Satan's doctrine.  
THERE is not any one thing troubleth so much the learned Protestants, as their Apostle Luther's acknowledged instruction in Protestancy received from the Devil, and therefore 
[q] Mr. Chark in his answer to Censure etc. as also Mr. Fulk in his Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 234.  some of them endeavour to maintain that this Disputation was only a spiritual fight in mind, and no bodily conference; but with the same probability of truth they may affirm that all other real apparitions and the effects thereof, were only spiritual conflicts. Luther tells so many corporeal circumstances, that it could not be a mere spiritual fight: first, he says that the Devil spoke to him voce forti & gravi, in a strong and grave voice. 2. That then he learned how men were found dead in their beds in the morning; True it is that these words and circumstances are fraudulently omitted by the Divines of Wittenberg, in their later editions of Luther's works, and perhaps Mr. Chark, and Mr. Fulk did never peruse the more ancient and sincere edition (tom. 6. Germ. jen. fol. 28.) where all these things are set down. Yet grant this were no bodily conference, and but only a spiritual conflict, what matters it whether Luther was instructed and persuaded this or that way, by sensible conference, or inward suggestion into Protestancy, if therein the Devil was his Master?  
Other 
[r] Sutcliff in his book de vera Cathol. Christi Ecclesia pag. 299. when he saith, Lutherus autem nihil aliud peccavit, quam quod ut homo Germanus & non ita pridem Monachus etc.  learned Protestants excuse Luther's conference, saying it was only a dream; to mistake which for a reality, he was subject, as being a Germane Monk, giving to understand, that good drink doth frequently turn German dreams into real persuasions. But unless they prove that Luther was in a dream, or in drink, when he writ this conference, they will never persuade any man that reads it, that this Disputation was not real. Himself says he was awake, tells the time of the night that it happened, describs the Devil's voice, his own fear, learned how people were slain by the Devil in their beds; these reflections and impressions are far from dreams, especially when the party delivers them as real truths many years after, and 
[s] Hospinian in Hist. Sacramentar. part. altera, after that in his prolegomen. had said, that Luther was a man adorned with excellent gifts, with the light of heavenly knowledge, zeal of God's glory, and raised up to restore the gospels light etc. affirmeth fol. 131. That Luther being instructed by the Devil that the Mass was wicked, and being overcome with Satan's arguments, did (thereupon) abandon the Mass.  makes them the ground of his change in so important a matter as Religion.  
But suppose Germane Monks were as much given to drink, and after drink as apt to mistake their dreams for real truths, as Mr. Sutcliff insinuats; and to maintain, even when they are sober, that their dreams are not dreams, as Luther doth his Conference; of what credit can such an evasion or excuse be to Protestants? for what difference is there between a dreaming, drunken, and Diabolical Religion?  
These answers not being any way probable, other learned Protestants grant the Devil did realy confer with Luther; so Hospinian, B. p Morton, Joannes Regius, Baldwin etc. This last in a Book of this subject printed at Jsleb 1605. pag. 76.75.83. saith, let none wonder that I confess the disputation to be real, and not written in jest, or hyperbolicaly, but seriously and historicaly; for, Luther writ that history so considerately and prolixly, that I still acknowledge be writ it seriously, and according to the truth of the histor. But then he adds that Luther had been a protestant before that Conference, and that the Devil's drift was to make Luther despair for having said Mass, prayed to saints. etc. But this is impertinent and falls; impertinent, because our dispute is not of the Devil's intention, but of his instruction, and whether Luther did well in embracing (either before or after his revolt from us) the Devil's doctrine; falls, because until that Disputation Luther said Mass almost every day; as sathan objects to him speaking 
[t] Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. an. 1558. fol. 229. setteth down the Devil's words saying to Luther (as being then one with the Papists) Behold your bouldness; you do these things in darkness, and abuse the name of the Church etc. And fol. 230. why therefore in the private Mass dost thou blasphemously go against the clear words and institution of Christ etc. And fol: 229. going about to prove that Luther may not in the Mass communicate alone, he aleadgeth the example of the other Sacraments, which a man can not use for himself, saying, If a man absolves himself it is no Absolution; If he anoints himself it is no Unction: If one marries to himself, it is no marriage etc. Foyes, these are your seven Sacraments (so plainly yet was Luther a Roman Catholic) If therefore a man can not Minister to himself any of your Sacraments, how com● that thou canst Minister to thyself alone this greatest Sacrament? etc. Dost thou think that Christ did institute the Sacrament for thee alone, and that in thy private Mass thou dost consecreate the body and blood of the Lord?  somtyms in the present, and was then no protestant; for, the only point wherein he differed then from catholics, was, about Indulgences; and even that he maintained more out of a pick and pride, than Judgement, as appears by what hath been said in the beginning of this section.  
Wherefore Joannes Regius 
[v] Joannes Regius in his book entitled Liber Apologeticus etc. under the Title Consideratio Censurae pa. 123. saith of Luther's instruction from the Devil. What doth this avail to confute Luther's doctrine of the word of God? And how do you know that it was an evell spirit who told this to Luther? (We know it by Luther's own Confession) or if he were an evell spirit it doth not follow that he told lies, because the Devils speak truth some times, when they speak that which the Scripture wittnesseth.  in his Apology against Belarmin saith, that the Devil's instruction is no argument to confute Luther's doctrine, because though it was the Devil that instructed him, he instructed him according to the word of God; and the Devils speak truth somtyms, especially when they speak that which the Scripture witnesseth.  
This, in my opinion, is the worst of all other evasions; 1. Because the Devil seldom or never applies the words of Scripture, to the right sense; when he tempted our Saviour, though he quoted Scripture, yet he was no true Interpreter thereof. Now what ground Protestants can have to believe that the Devil hath altered his old custom, or why they should prefer the Devil's Scriptural interpretation, before that of the visible Church, Counsels, and Fathers, is not intelligible. 2. It is not credible that if all the visible Church of Christians did err in professing Popery and committed Idolatry by hearing Mass, and adoring the Sacrament, that the Devils would dissuade them from that Idolatrous Religion; his design and desire is to seduce men, not to reduce them to the way of salvation. 3. It is not likely that God would compel the Devil to be chief instrument of reforming the Catholic Religion, and Church; in the old law he never committed so great a charge unto him, he employed holy men and Prophets to convert the jews and Pagans; 'tis strange that in the law of grace the Devil should become an Apostle. When Dives (who was but the Devil's Comrade) desired leave to come into the world, and preach to his Brethren, God did not judge him a fit Messenger, or Missioner; it was answered that his brethren ought to believe Moses and the Prophets, that is the Church, and the Ministers thereof. And though this be a parable, it contains real doctrine, whereby we are instructed that God's Church would never be so low brought, as to stand in need of Preachers from Hell. Seing therefore we have so many reasons to conclude that God would not make the Devil an Apostle, or a Reviver, and Reformer of the Gospel, Protestants can have none to believe that the doctrine and Reformation which Luther received from him, is true, or agreeable to Scripture.  
Doctor Morton 
[w] D. r Morton in Apolog. Catholica part. 1. l. 2. c. 21. pag. 351. saith: Apud Surium liquet Diabolum in specie Angelica apparuisse statimque Abbatem ut Missam celebraret hortabatur, alleging there in his margin, Delrium I●s. lib. 4. de Magia cap. 1. quaest. ●. §. 5.  late Bishop of Duresme (to prove ad hominem against us, that the Devil doth persuade men somtyms to piety, and by consequence that Luther's reformation might be pious, though the Devil instructed him therein) objected Delrius (a jesuit) affirming, that the Devil appeared to an Abbot in the form of an Angel, and persuaded him to say Mass. Therefore if the Mass be good (as catholics say) the Devil may and doth exhort men to virtuous actions. To this I answer, 1. That our question is not whether the Devil may somtyms persuade men to do things of themselves good; we know he may, but when he doth, it is always with an evil design, and to the end good things may not be well done, but that the manner of doing them may vitiat their goodness. This Delrius in the place cited by M. r Morton, says, and proves by many exemples, whereof the Mass is one. But M. r Morton wilfully conceals and mistakes the truth of the story; for, Simon the Monk, whom the Devil endeavoured to persuade to say Mass, was neither Abbot nor Priest; but only Diacon, as Delrius showeth, and therefore he answered the Devil, that none ought to say Mass without the order of Priesthood; and by his advice to the contrary, he was discovered to be the Devil, though he appeared like an Angel. Without doubt this was a Lutheran Devil, and perhaps the same that dissuaded Luther from the Mass, because Luther 
[x] Luther in lib. de captiv. Babylon. saith: Whosoever is a Christian let him be most certain that we are all equally Priests, that is, we have the same power in ministering the word and Sacrament. See more of this alleged out of the edition of Jeneva by Cnoglerus in his Symbula tria, pag. 157. And in loc. con. clas. 2. pag. 136. & 138. See also Luther in assert. damnatis per Leonem X. art. 3. where he maintains that women can absolve from sins.  learnt of him amongst other points of the reformation, that lay men, and even women, are Priests, and may consecrat the Sacrament, preach and absolve from sins.  
Having sincerely related this matter of fact in Luther's own words, and not concealed any thing that any of the most learned Protestants could say, to interpret or excuse the same; and nothing appearing whereby his instruction in protestancy by the Devil may be denied, or justified, I leave it to the consideration of all wise, and Religious persons, whether it be policy or piety to promote a Religion whose confessed Author or Apostle is Satan. So long as the generality of a people can be made believe that Luther did seriously, and of set purpose, belie himself, and discredit his own reformation; or that the Devil is a sincere Interpreter of Scripture; and Scripture interpreted by him, is the word of God; so long, I say, as these Nations can be made believe so impossible things, without doubt both the protestant Church and state may thrive by protestancy, but how long so unlikly a persuasion will continue amongst inquisitive, though ignorant people is uncertain, as also the greatness grounded thereupon. It hath gained more ground in England then could be expected, considering the ingenuity of the Natives; but Q. Elizabeth's interest went a great way in the beginning of her Reign; every Courtier and country gentleman expected (by giving his vote in Parliament for reviving the Protestant Religion, whereby alone she could pretend to be legitimat) her favour, and rewards out of the Church livings; and in her long continued government, their Children were made believe that her Reformation was not the work of Cecil, but of Christ; And ever since, their posterity have been confirmed in that opinion by false Translations of Scripture, and falsifications of Counsels and Fathers, as shall hereafter appear.  
It's strange so improbable a persuasion can bear such sway, and beat down the Catholic truth. But as the Devil insisted most upon discrediting the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass in his Disputation with Luther, so the Protestant Clergy strive to make that holy Mystery to be looked upon by their flock, as a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit. We hope notwithstanding that the English Laiety will reflect upon the occasion of their mistake, and consider whether it be not a grievous sin and great folly, to prefer Q. Elizabeth's temporal interests, (which now is turned into dust) before that of their souls: and Whether any thing can be so unreasonable as to give more credit to the Devil, and to Martin Luther, and his followers (debauched and dissolute Friars and Priests) then to the holy Doctors, 
[y] S. Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum, lib. 20. cap. 21. saith of the Mass celebrated on Saints days, Although in memory of Martyrs, yet not to Martyrs do we erect Altars. Et lib. 22. de Civitate Dei cap: 10. Upon which Altars we offer Sacrifice not to Martyrs, but to the God of Martyrs, (& lib. & cap. 27. de Civitate Dei, & contra Faustum Manichaeum libro 20. cap. 2●. For which of the faithful hath at any time heard the Priests standing at the Altar (which in the honour of God is erected upon the body of a Martyr.) to say in service time: O Peter, Paul or Cyprian, I offer to thee Sacrifice. The protestant writers Eusebius & Altkircher us do confess that the Arians seeing the whole Catholic Church by unanimous consent offer Sacrifice in the Mass to God the Father (mistaking as Fulgentius says lib. 2. ad Monimum cap. 3. that the same was not also offered to the son) argued against Catholics, that the Father was greater than the Son, lib. de mystico & incruento Sacrificio adversus abominandam Missae superstitionem, pag. 241. And pag. 236. the same Protestant Author doth acknowledge and set down S. Irenaeus his Argument against Martion the heretic, deduced from the Churches received doctrine concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, and this was in the next age to the Apostles. S. Augustin lib. 9 Confes. cap. 12. saith, that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica being dead. And de verb. Apost. serm. 34. That the universal Church doth observe as delivered from their Forefathers, to pray for the faithful deceased in the Sacrifice, and also to offer the Sacrifice for them. Conc. 1. Nicen. Can. 14. saith, the holy Council hath been informed that in some places and Cities the Deacons distribute the Sacrament to Priests, neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they who have not power to offer Sacrifice, should distribute the body of Christ to them who offer. Concil. Bracarense 3. Can. 3. Concil. 12. Tolet can. 5.  and Martyrs of Christ's Church (ever since the Apostles) in their acknowledged writings, and in general Counsels, who call the Mass the visible 
[1.] S. Augustinus de Civitate Dei lib." 10. cap. 19  Sacrifice, 
[2.] S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. & Aug." cit. cap. 20.  the true Sacrifice, 
[3] Aug. cit. 16. & Concil. Tolet. 1. Can. 5. Cyprian de Coena Dom. post med. Origen in num. hom. 23.  the daily Sacrifice, the Sacrifice 
[4] Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. & Augustin." de Civit. Dei, lib. 16. cap. 22. & passim. Aug.  according to the Order of Melchisedech, the Sacrifice 
[5] de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. & lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. & Hieron. lib. 3. contra Pelag. August. tom. 8. in Psalm. 33. con. 2. saith: Ipse de Corpore et Sanguine suo instituit Sacrificium secundum Ordinem Melchisedech. S. Chrisost. in lib. 1. cor. hom. 24. saith of Christ: Ipsum mutavit Sacrificium, et pro caede brutorum, seipsum jussit offerri.  of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrifice 
[6] Aug. in Enchirid." cap. 110. & de cura pro mortuis, cap. 18.  of the Altar, the Sacrifice 
[7] Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 20. & Cyprian de coena Dom.  of the Church, and the Sacrifice 
[8] S. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. & August. de" gratia novi Testam. cap. 18.  of the new Testament, which succeeded 
[9] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. S. Clement the Apostles scholar in Apost. Constit. edit. Antverp. 1564. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 123.  all the Sacrifices of the old Testament: and that it was offered for the health of the 
[10] Tertulian ad Scapul. cap. ●. saith, Sacrificamus" pro salute Imperatoris.  Emperor, for the 
[11] Chrysost." hom. 27. in Acta. Apost. Pro infirmis etiam sacrificamus.  sick upon the Sea, and the fruits of the earth, for the 
[12] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. saith, one went and offered (in the house infected) the Sacrifice of Christ's Body, praying that the vexation might cease, and by God's mercy it ceased immediately.  purging of houses infected with wicked Spirits, for the sins 
[13] Basil in Liturgia fol. 40. Chrisost. in Mart. Rom. 83. Cyprian de Coena Dom. prope initium. Origen. Athan. etc. quoted by Crastonius cit.  of the living and dead; And this is so undeniable that our learned adversary Crastoius in his book of the Mass against Belarmin (pag. 167.) reprehended Origen, S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin, S. Gregory the great, and venerable Bede, for maintaining the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and of the dead.  
And if there can be no policy of state (as things now stand in the English Monarchy) to make Q. Elizabeth's legitimacy and supremacy a matter or ground of Faith, I am sure it cannot be Christian piety to press and prefer the reformation (which she and her faction introduced for that reason of state against the Stewards), before the Religion of all the ancient and learned Fathers of the Catholic Church though we had no other exception against it, but that all the wit and learning of Protestants, cannot make it probable in any degree, that the Devil is not the Author of Protestancy.    

SECT: III. Of the principles and propagation of Protestancy.  
LVther after his Conference with the Devil, having resolved upon that Foundation of his Reformation, which he had learned from so godly a Master, endeavoured to gain as many Poets, Players, Painters, and Printers as he could, to discredit with Scoffing, Ballads, Pamphlets, Poems, and Pictures, the Roman Religion (which until then had been called and esteemed the only Catholic and Apostolic) and to divulge his n●w Doctrine amongst ignorant and vicious People. For encouragement of the dissolute Clergy to join with him, he taught (against the doctrine and practice of the whole Church ever since the Apostles as shall be demonstrated), that Priests and professed Nuns might marry; and to give them good example he took a professed Nun 
[a] Osiander a Protestant writer, epist. cent. 16. pag. 90. saith Leonard Keppen on the 7. day of April 1523. brought to Wittenberg nine Nuns from the Monastery Nimptsen, among which number one was Catharin Boren●, whom afterwards Luther married. Peter Martyr, and Bucer married Nuns. Luther's example of marriag was followed by all the Disciples, though professed Monks, not only in Germany, but in every other country: Here with us, these Protestant Bishops ensuing, Hoop●r of Worcester, Barlow of Chicester, Dounham of Chester, Scory of Herefort, Barkley of Bath and Wells, Coverdale of Excester, all Monks; Cranmer of Canterbury, and Sands of York, Priest's.  for his own wife: And prevailed with this doctrine more than jovinian 
[b] S. Austin haeres. 82. saith of Jovinian teaching the Lawfulness of Priests and Votaries marriage. This heresy was (quickly) extinct, neither could it ever prevail to the deceiving (so much) as of any (one) Priest. And (lib. 2, retrac. cap. 22.) that Jovinian with his heresy deceived but only nonnullas Sanctimoniales, some few Nuns. But Luther deceived Priests, Monks, and Nuns: or rather they concurred with him to deceive others.  the heretic.  
For this liberty together with his principle of justification by only faith, drew from sundry parts of Europe, incontinent Clergymen, whereof the chief were Caro●stadius, Archdeacon of Wittenberg, justus jonas head of a College of Canon Regulars, Oecolampadius a Monk of S. Brigits Order; Zuinglius a parish Priest; Martin Bucer a Dominican friar; Peter Martyr a Canon Regular. Bernardin Ochinus a Capuchin; and some Augustin Friars of Luther's own Order. Each of these having taken a wench, were engaged in Luther's quarrel against the whole Church.  
But their course of life and the novelty of their doctrine, being disliked by all men that were not Libertins; and not countenanced as yet by any Princes or Prelates; it was thought necessary for their own preservation and propagation of their Gospel, to make it plausible to the giddy multititude, whose ignorance they knew to be as capable of incredible impressions, as their nature is impatient of reasonable subjection. 
[c] 
Luther de seculari potestate in tom. 6. Germ. saith: Among Christians no man can or aught to be Magistrate, but each one is to other equally subject etc. Among Christian men none is superior save only Christ▪ And in his Sermons englishd by William Gage, pag. 97. and tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 327. he saith, Therefore is Christ our Lord that he may make us such, as himself is, and as he cannot suffer himself to be tied and bound by laws etc. So also ought not the conscience of a Christian to suffer them.  
Afterwards he taught to moderate this liberty by explaining, that subjects ought to have an obedience rather of policy than conscience, which is as much to say as to dissemble, and obey when they cannot help it, but if ever they can rebel with probability of success, they may do it with a safe conscience. And therefore in the same Sermons pag. 261. he doth admonish we obey the civil Magistrate, provided it be not pretended that it is necessary for salvation to obey.  
Most Protestant's follow this obedience of policy not of conscience, see Whitaker in resp. at Rat. Camp. rat. 8. pag. 154. And Danaeus against Belarmin pag. 1127.   Therefore besides many other works, in the year 1520. Luther writ a book called Praeludium captivitatis Babilonicae, wherein he maintained, that Christians are not subject to human Laws (at least in foro Conscintiae) Christ having made them all equal by the Gospel; but that the Pope, Prelates, and Princes had tyranically usurped a jurisdiction over them; and kept them for many years in gross ignorance and worse than in a Babylonian captivity; therefore that God had sent him to reform these abuses, and restore unto all oppressed people the Christian liberty which they had received in Baptism, and by his reformation they might enjoy so fully as to judge and govern all, omnia judicemus & regamus.  
Then he published his doctrine of justification by only faith so resolutly, that he doubted not to preach, though men's words be the greatest blasphemies, and their works the most damnable villainies: If they have as much confidence to believe without doubt, as impudence to act without scruple, they may be sure that God hath received them into his favour, and cannot be damned, unless they doubt of their salvation.  
This abominable presumption Luther 
[d] 
Luther in Comment. ad cap. 2. ad Galat. saith. When it is taught, Faith in Christ doth indeed justify, but with all its necessary to keep God's commandments, there Christ is denied, and faith is abolished; because that which is proper of God alone, is attributed to the commandments of God, or to the Law, See also Luther in Colloq. Mensal. Ger. fol. 152. & 153.  
M. r Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 564. saith. The Law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us through the weakness of our flesh; neither doth God give us ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfilled it for us.  
D. r Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 301. We say that if a man have an a●t of faith, sins do not hurt him, this truly Luther affirming, this we all say. Hoffman de Poenitentiâ edit. 1540 lib. 2. fol. 113. saith, according to the Protestant principles. Whosoever truly believeth, suffereth God to work for him, and dispose eternal life for him; himself taking no labour nor working any thing for himself.   grounded, upon the infinitness of Christ's merits, (as if forsooth, our Saviour had suffered, to the end we might not only be happy in heaven, but by his passion hah waranted our wickedness upon earth) grossly mistaking, and confounding the sufficiency of Christ's merits with the sufficiency of their application; none can deny but that the least drop of our Saviour's Blood is sufficient to redeem millions of worlds, because it is of infinite value; but all Catholics ever held that though his Blood and merits be infinitely sufficient, in themselves, yet are they not sufficiently applied to sinners, unless they concur to their own reconciliation and justification, not only by faith, but by good works, Sacraments, and other means, which God hath appointed for that purpose. Yet Luther pretended that faith alone is a sufficient application of Christ's merits, and that men needed not mortify their bodies nor endeavour to secure their salvation by good works, thinking it a diminution of our Redeemers glory, and a disrespect to his person, that with our free will we should cooperat with his passion, and help ourselves; and upon this ground do Protestants raise all their batteries against Indulgences, Purgatory, Pilgrimages, praying to Saints, Confession of sins, Penance, Satisfaction, Merit, austerity of Monastical life, Works of supererogation, etc.  
A reformation so indulgent to liberty, and sensuality, could not want Proselits; and in a short time appeared the effects thereof; the Peasants of Germany rebelled against their Princes and Lords in defence of that Euangelical liberty which Luther had preached, and in the space of one summer, were on both sides a hundred thousand men slain. Some Princes, to make themselves considerable (by heading the multituds which ran to Luther) professed his Religion, and protected his person, and he laid for the foundation of his reformation the ensuing principles.  

SUBSECT I. The fundamental principles of Protestancy.  
THe first principle, and foundation of Luther's and of all Protestant reformations, is, a supposition, that the whole visible Church fell from that primitive pure doctrine, and true meaning of Scripture, which Christ our Saviour and the Apostles had planted, and the first Christians had professed. All reform Churches do and must agree in this supposition (the very name of a Doctrinal reformation implies a change and decay of doctrine) though they disagree in the time, and other circumstances of the change. Until Luther had conferred with the Devil, he durst not vent this principle; he appealed indeed from the Pope to a general Council, and from a general Council (when he perceived one was summoned) to the Church diffusive; but after his conference with Satan, he ventured to say: 
[a] 
Lutherus lib. de servo arbitrio contra Eras. edit. 1.  
Cnoglerus symbola tria pag. 152. & nullus & nemo G. 6 pag. 153.   Lay aside all the arms of orthodox antiquity, Schools of Divinity, authority of Counsels, and Popes; consent of so many ages, and all Christian People, we receive nothing but Scripture, yet so that we must have the certain authority to interpret the same. Our interpretation is the sense of the holy Ghost, that which others bring, though they be great, though many, proceedeth from the spirit of Satan, and from a distracted mind. The reasons why Luther and all Protestants run this desperate course, is, because having examined and found that orthodox antiquity was Roman Catholic, and not one Church, parish, or person ever Protestant, before 1517. they are enforced to maintain (by misinterpreting Scripture) that the whole visible Church erred, and that God sent them to reform it.  
The second principle of Protestancy is, to admit of no rule of faith but only Scripture, of no other infallible Judge of the letter or sense of Scripture, or of any controversies in Religion, but every particular 
[b] The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 103. in the explanation of the 20. article of Religion, saith; Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgement in the same, to judge in controversies of faith, and so in their places to embrace the truth, and to avoid and improve Antichristianity and errors; and this is not the private opinion of our Church, but the strait commandment of God himself particularly to all teachers and hearers of God's word, and generally unto the whole Church, and also the judgement of our Godly Brethren in foreign Country's.  Church and person, interpreting Scripture according to their best endeavours, and discretion. This is expressly declared in the last mentioned words of Luther, and inculcated by the Devil to him in his Conference; and though few are willing to speak the same words, yet is there not one Protestant in the world, that doth not practise the very same doctrine, and defend it, when the matter is argued: It necessarily followeth from the first principle; Because if the whole visible Church fell from the pure faith, and from God's meaning of Scripture, the belief, tradition, and testimony of that visible Church, Council, and Fathers, can be no true rule of faith, nor themselves fit judges of Religion, or of the sense of Scripture. Therefore every private Protestant must be his own Guide, and judge, in matters of salvation and Scripture. For, though Luther, Calvin, or any Protestant Congregation should pretend that their sense and interpretation of Scripture, is that of the holy Ghost; and the interpretation of others, Diabolical; yet no private Protestant doth look even upon their own reformers, or Churches, as infallible in this, or in any other particular, but in as much as he judges it agreeth with Scripture; and therefore every one that supposeth the fall of the Roman Catholik and visible Church, and the fallibility of the Reformers and reformations (as all Protestants 
[c] 
Mr. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester in his true difference etc. part. 2. pag. 353. saith, The people must be Discerners and Judg. of that which is taught.  
The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England art. 19 Proposition 6. pag. 94. saith, The visible Church may, and from time to time hath erred both in Doctrine and conversation. pag. 95 concludeth, This with us, the Churches in their Confessions do acknowledge.   do) will deny that himself hath any obligation to submit his judgement in controversies of Religion to any interpretation of Scripture, or decision of doctrine, besides his own; and so becomes his own Guide, and his own judge of controversies, and makes his own interpretation of Scripture, his only rule of faith.  

Dr. Whitaker de Eccles. pa. 301. We say that if a man have an art of faith, sins do not hurt him; this truly Luther affirmeth, this we also say.  The third principle of Protestancy is, that men are justified by only faith; and that he who hath once justifying faith, can neither lose it, nor be damned. This tenet is clearly professed as the doctrine of all Protestant Churches: in the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England art. 11. pag. 5●. & seqq. And pag. 54. The Papists are declared heretics for holding that men are to remain doubtful whether they shall be saved or not. From these principles flow that infinite variety of Protestant Religions, and reformations. They began in Luther's own days, and still continue to increase and multiply, having no rule of faith but an obscure text of Scripture, nor no Church, or Court of judging the controversies thereof (with an obligation to submit there-unto) but every on's private opinion; which must needs breed division add confusion. And so it happened in the very beginning to Luther. For, his Disciples observing that every one of them-selves might pretend to be sent by God (by an extraordinary vocation) as well as Luther's (seeing he proved not his Mission by Miracles, or by any supernatural sign) to reform the Church; divers of them separated from him, and set up for them-selves; as Zuinglius, who invented the Sacramentarian Religion against Christ's real presence in the Sacrament; and Bernard Rotman, Father of Anabaptists etc. It were tedious to relate all their divisions, and almost impossible. We will only assure the Reader, that in the space of 30. years after Luther began his Reformation, it was divided and subdivided in Germany alone, into 130. Sects.  
For first, his Disciples divided them-selves into four principal Reformations, of plain Lutherans, half Lutherans, Antilutherans or Sacramentarians, and Anabaptists. These plain Lutherans, into eleven Sects; and these again into soft, rigid, and extravagant Lutherans; the semilutherans or half Lutherans, also into eleven Sects. The Sacramentarians or Antilutherans into 56. and one of these into 9 The Anabaptists into 13. Sebastianus Traneus, a Protestant, numbereth 70. How all these have been subdivided since, we may guests at, by the variety we see in England of Protestant Religions, not with standing the severity of the Laws in favour of the Prelatik.  
Not one of these Sects have subordination to another, and agree only in some general Notions of Christianity, and in impugning the Roman Catholic Religion (one of the marks whereby the Holy Fathers discerned 
[d] 
Jrenaeus l. 1. c. 5. saith, Videmus nunc & eorum inconstantem Sententiam, cum sint duo vel tres, quemadmodum de iisdem eadem non dicunt. And c. 18. Cum autem discrepant ad invicem, & doctrina, & traditione, & qui recentiores eorum adnoscuntur, affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid invenire etc. Durum est enim omnium describere sententias.  
Tertullian: de Praescrip. adv. haer. cap. 42. saith, Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis variant inter se, dum unusquisque proinde modulatur quae accepit, quemadmodum de suo arbitrio composuit etc. Denique inspect haereses omnes in multis cum authoribus suis dissentientes deprehunduntur. And see cap. 37. Chrystom. oper. imperfect. in Matth. hom. 20. saith, Omnes infideles qui sub Diabolo sunt, non sunt unum nec unum sapiunt, sed sunt per diversas opiniones dispersi: alius quidem sic dicit, alius sic, etc. Eo modo perfidia Haereticorum qui nunquam sapiunt unum, sed quot sunt, tot sententias habent. Hilar. lib. 7. de Trinit. saith, Haeretici igitur omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt, sed dum Haeretici omnes se invicem vincunt, nihil tamen sibi vincunt: victoria enim eorum, Ecclesiae triumphus ex omnibus est, dum in eo Haeresis contra alteram pugnat etc. S. Athanas. Orat. 1. contra Arianos, saith, Jllud quoque prorsus admirabile, omnes quot sunt Haereses in fingendo, diversa pugnantiaque inter se adferre, nec alibi nisi in falsitate sibi invicem consentire. See the Centurists   Heresies.) Each of them pretend to be a true Church, and condemn the rest as Schismatical, and Heretical Congregations; perpetualy quoting Scripture one against the other, but understood according to every on's conveniency, fancying or feigning that the Spirit of God inspires him to reform not only the Roman Doctrine, but the Protestant reformations.  
But when we call to them for their commission (which must be signed by Miracles) and desire to know by what authority they presume to take upon them so high an employment? they tell us that Miracles are ceased in the Church, and all ours either 
[e] almost in every age attributing the Roman Catholic Miracles to the Devil, V. g. Centur. 9 cap. 13. And Osiander in Epitome. Cent. 9 pag. 63. saith the same, and in particular of St. Bernard's, St. Francis' Miracles etc. Whitaker  counterfeit, or Diabolical, wrought by the Devil to confirm us in the Idolatry of the Mass, Invocation of Saints, etc. But because our Miracles exceed the Devil's power, and can be wrought only by God, rather than Protestants will embrace the truth by Miracles testified, they 
[f] de Ecclesia pag. 348. And" Daneus in his answer to Belarm. part. 1. pag. 784.  teach a blasphemy, saying that God doth give power of working true Miracles unto false teachers, not to confirm their false and Popish opinions, but to tempt those (the Indians, japonese, and Chinese) unto whom they be sent.  
By which Paradox they call in question Christianity itself; for why might not God tempt the jews and primitive Christians by Christ's Miracles, as well as the Indians, and japonians by others of the same nature, and as prodigious? If the Indians be not bound to believe the doctrine preached to them, though confirmed by our true miracles, why should the Jews or any others be obliged in conscience to believe Christ? For, if God may work true Miracles to make a falsehood so plausibly credible as to oblige prudent men to believe it; no prudent man is bound to believe the truth when it is evidently confirmed with true Miracles, and by consequence none was or is bound to believe in Christ: which doctrine is impious, and contrary to our Saviour's own words joan. 5.36. and against 2. Cor. 12. Hebr. 2.4. and Marc. 16.20. and Joan 15.24. Where our Saviour declares that the reason why the incredulous Jews did sin in not believing his Divinity was, because he confirmed his doctrine with Miracles: If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned.  
As for their authority of reforming the Roman Catholic faith, they answered that they needed no other warrant but Scripture, which did clearly condemn the Popish Tenets. Being desired to show what parts or words of Scripture were Contrary to the Popish Tenets, (for that after comparing all places and Texts, very godly and learned men could find no such opposition between God's word and the Roman doctrine) they 
[g] Luther in proefat. assertionis articulorum a Leone Pontif. damnatorum, saith: Scripture must be the judge of all controversies; and that it is clearer than the comments of the Fathers upon it. But that to the proud and unfaithful (Papists he means) it is obscure. See him also in lib. de servo arbitrio.  replied, that the reason why the Popish Divins and Prelates did not see their own errors, afterall their search and study was, because they had not the spirit of God, which had revealed to Protestants the true meaning of holy writ; though they could not deny but that their own interpretation was new and contrary to that which the visible Church of the 15. ●n age had received from the 14. th' and the 14. th' from the 13. th' and so forth.  
Therefore they all conspired in maintaining that the visible Church had erred in doctrine, and that the mystery of iniquity began even with the Apostles, or immediately after. But because some parts of Scripture are so clear against their new doctrine, that they could not be wrested against the Roman Catholics nor reach the Protestant, thy framed a new Canon of Scripture, and excluded as Apocryphal many Books and Chapters which spook clearly against them, and in their translations of the old and new Testament into vulgar languages, they added to, 
[h] 
Luther in his Translation, to assert his justification by only faith, added to the text of Scripture the word alone, against all Originals and Copies.  
Swinglius to maintain that the Body and Blood of Christ were not realy present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in steed of Christ's words, This is my Body, translateth, This signifieth my Body.  
See hereafter more of this, and of the English Bible's corruptions.   and substracted from God's word, what they thought fit, to make the illiterate people believe that their new inventions were agreeable to Scripture; and that Popery was quite contrary to the same.  
And because none of the first Reformers was a Bishop, and they knew Bishops only could consecrat other Bishops and Priests, and that no Congregation could be esteemed a Church with out that character and calling, according to the received maxim of S. Hieron. Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem. Luther 
[i] 
Luther tom. 2. lib. de Ministris Ecclesiae instituendis, fol. 368. & 369. & lib. de abrog. Miss. private. tom. 2. fol. 249. & in lib. de captiv. Babylon. cap. de Ordine.  
Luther in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem cap. 10. art. 13. saith. In the Sacrament of Confession and remission of sin, the Pope doth no more than the meanest Priest, nay, where a Priest is not, every Christian can do as much, though a child or a woman etc. That in the absence of a Priest a child or a woman, and every Christian may absolve is clear out of Math. 18. Where Christ saith to all Christians, Quodcumque solveritis super terram, etc.   And the rest who pretended a Reformation, judged it necessary to alter this doctrine, and declare that all Christians, both men and women, are Priests by baptism; yet that only such as are chosen by the Congregation, or Magistrate, aught to exercise the function, for the avoiding of confusion. Luther endeavours to prove it at large thus. The first office of a Priest is to preach the word etc. But this is common to all: next is to baptize; and this also may do even women etc. The third is to consecrat bread and win; but this also is common to all, no less than Priests; and this I avouch by the authority of Christ himself, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; this Christ spook to all there present, and to come afterwards; whosoever should eat of that bread, and drink of that wine etc. This also is wittnessed by S. Paul, who 1. Cor. 11. repeating this, applieth it to all the Corinthians, making them all as himself was, that is to say, Consecrators; etc. If then that which is greather than all, be given indifferently to all men and women, I mean the word and baptism, then that which is less, I mean to consecrat the supper, is also given to them. So much Luther.  
With Luther in this doctrine concurred all the reformed Churches, even the Prelatic of England seems to approve thereof in the 23. and 25. articles of Religion; and M. r Horn Bishop of Winchester in the Harbour An. 1559. n. 2. saith concerning the Ministry, Preaching, or Priesthood of women: In this point we must use a certain moderation, and not absolutely in every-wise debarr women herein, etc. I pray you what more vehemency useth S. Paul in forbidding women to preach, then in forbidding them to uncover their heads; and yet you know in the best reformed Churches of all Germany, all the maids be bareheaded. They who know this to have been the Doctrine of Luther, and of the reformed Churches, are not so much startled at Q. Elizabeth's spiritual headship of the Church, nor at the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. wherein it is declared that she and her successors may authorize any person whatsoever (whether lay man or woman) to exercise any spiritual jurisdiction or power in any matter whatsoever, even of consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests etc. And albeit afterwards (art. 27.) there hath been an explanation made concerning the supremacy, excluding from the Church a she; or Lay Ministry and Priesthood; yet the words of the Oaths both of supremacy and Episcopal homage, and the laws of the land (especially this Act 8. Eliz. 1.) makes it most manifest, that even Prelatik protestancy makes the temporal Lay Sovereign to have the source of all spiritual power and jurisdiction; and that the letters Patents of the Kings of England, directed to any person whatsoever, renders him capable of consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. as may be seen in the aforesaid Act of Parliament. And if any person whatsoever may by virtue of the King's letters patents consecrat Bishops, Priests, etc. without doubt the King that gives that spiritual authority, and the Lay men, or women so authorised, must of necessity have the character of Episcopacy and Priesthood which they communicate to others: unless it be maintained that men can give what they have not themselves.  
Thus was Protestancy begun, principled, and propagated, by Martin Luther and his Disciples; and because their Sects agree in nothing so unanimously as in protesting against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Imperial Decrees enacted in behalf thereof, though some Lutherans only (exhibiting the Confession of their faith at Auspurg) were the Protesters, yet all others who pretend a Reformation, like the name, and call themselves Protestant's: thinking it to be more for the credit of their dissenting Congregations, to pretend unity of doctrine by assuming one name, then declare the novelty and diversity of their Tenets by calling themselves by the names of their first Authors, and Reformers. Now it is time we treat in particular of the Protestant Church of England.    

SECT. IV. Of the Protestant Church of England.  
IT was the misfortune of England to have had in that time when Reformation began to spread, a vicious King, and lewd Court, an ambitious Minister of state, a timorous Clergy, and contemporising Parliament. Cardinal Wolsey who had been raised from the meanest parentage to domineer over the English Peerage; not content with his good fortune, and the King's favour, would needs be Pope, and obtained from Charles V. the Emperor, a promise of his best endeavours to promote him to that dignity; but perceiving himself deluded when the occasion was offered of performance, and that Charles had preferred to the Papacy one of his own subjects that had been Instructor to him in his tender age, he resolved to be revenged upon the Emperor's relations, seeing he could not reach his person. And observing that K. Henry 8. was weary of Q. Catharin the Emperor's Aunt, and desired her death or divorce, to the end he might marry and have issue male to succeed him in the Crown, The Cardinal discoursed with his Majesty of the doubts which himself had raised, and many seemed to entertain concerning the validity of a marriage with one that had been his brother's wife; and proposed the public conveniency and private satisfaction the King might receive by taking to wife some relation of the French King, with whom he persuaded Henry 8. to make a league in defence of the Sea Apostolic against Charles V▪ whose army at that time had sacked, Rome, and kept the Pope prisoner; not doubting that his Holiness so obliged by Henry, and injured by Charles, would declare Q. Catherine's marriage void.  

An Bullē's incest and leaudness was afterwards punished with her death, and that of her brothers of Brue●ton, Weston, Norris, and Sineton, all of the King's privy Chamber. Another escaped death because he advertised his Majesty of her immodesty before the marriage.  K. Henry applauded the motion, but liked not so well the French Lady, as a Bullen one of his Queen's Maids of honour, of whom he was so desperately enamoured, that though he was advertised of her amorous disposition, and lewd conversation by one of the Courtiers that said he had enjoyed her savours; yet she rejecting his Majesty's courtship, he thought, she was not so cunning as chaste, and persuading himself that a woman so sparing of favours to a King, would not be prodigal of them to others, he gave little credit to the public reports, and private informations of her immodest behaviour, and now courted her not as his present Mistress, but as his future wife; not questioning but that the Pope whom he had obliged, would declare null his marriage with Q. Catharin: but his Holiness, though much inclined to gratify the King, and incensed against the Emperor for many indignities, resolved neither to reward, or revenge by abusing his spiritual authority, which he knew could not be extended to dissolve a knot that God had tied, and blessed with posterity: his Predecessors dispensation, after mature deliberation, was found to be valid, and no way contrary to Scripture, which is so far from prohibiting a marriage with a deceased brother's wife (Levit. 18.) that it commands (Deuter. 25.) the brother to marry his issueless brother's widow. And when S. John Baptist told Herod, it was not lawful for him to keep his brother's wife, his brother was then living: so that these words could not be applied to K. Henry 8. his case, nor occasion any scruple in his conscience.  
He therefore finding by experience that the Sea of Rome was not directed in deciding controversies of Religion by human respects, or interest, and that the College of Cardinals could not be corrupted with bribes, to favour his suit, as some Doctors of foreign universities had been; nor terified by his threats, as was most of the English Clergy; he resolved to renounce that spiritual jurisdiction and supremacy, (the only let against his lust) which all his Christian Ancestors had acknowledged, and himself defended in an excellent Treatise against Luther, demonstrating as well by Scripture as by reason, 
S. Ambrose useth this very argument to the same purpose.  that the Bishop of Rom's supremacy and jurisdiction was the jure Divino; otherwise how could S. Peter be called by the Evangelist, Chief of the Apostles, or Primus in dignity, seeing his brother S. Andrew was the first Disciple, or primus in antiquity; and if there was a Chief among the Apostles, how can it be imagined that their successors should be all equal, or that the successor of the Chief Apostle could be deprived of a prerogative so necessary for the peace, and government of the succeeding Church? Or if the Bishop of Rome had not this supremacy as S. Peter's Successor, and by Christ's appointment, how is it possible, that all the Christian Princes and Prelates of the world should conspire, or consent to submit themselves to one whose temporal power could not force that submission, and they had no cause to fear his spiritual more than that of other Patriarches, or Bishops confined to their own Dioceses?  
These were the King's reasons in behalf of the Pope's supremacy against Luther; but now his passion made him contradict his pen; and love (though blind) gave him eyes to see more of Christ's mind since he had seen Anne Bullen, than all the world had discerned in 1500. years before. He declared therefore by Act of Parliament that the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction was a mere usurpation, and that every temporal Sovereign was Pope, in his own Dominions and by virtue of this prerogative he declared his own marriage with Q. Catharin, void; married Anne Bullen, and seized upon all the lands, and treasurs of the Monasteries, and Abbeys; dispensed with all the young Friars, and Monks vows of obedience and chastity (after that he had taken an order they should not break the vow of Poverty) and to that purpose framed an instrument (and forced the Religious to sign it) wherein they declared, that now at length (through God's great mercy) they had been inspired, and illuminated to see the inconsistency of a●● Monastical life with true Christianity, and the salvation of their souls, and therefore they humbly petitioned his Majesty, by means of his Vicar General in spiritualibus Cromwell, (who was Earl of Essex, and a black-smiths son of Putney) to restore them to Christian liberty, and a secular life. And because the Abbots of Glastenbury, Reading, Gloucester, and many others would not subscribe to this instrument, nor by their approbation thereof declare that S. Austin the Monk and Apostle of England (who converted the Saxons to Christian Religion) professed a life inconsistent with Christianity, they were cruelly tormented and put to death.  
The same tyranny was executed upon all sorts of people without distinction of age, sex or quality, and amongst them suffered also Sir Thomas Moor Lord Chancellor of England, and Cardinal Fisher Bishop of Rochester, two of the greatest ornaments of that age, for refusing the oath of the King's supremacy. And for that S. Thomas of Canterbury, alias Becket, had opposed K. Henry 2. Laws, made rather against the exercise, than the right of the Pope's spiritual authority in England; and therefore was Killed by some officious Courtiers, and honoured as a Martyr by the Catholic Church; and his Sanctity, and Martyrdom had been confirmed by most authentic Miracles (which also confirmed the Pope's spiritual supremacy and jurisdiction and condemned King Henry 8. vanity) he without fear of God, or regard of the world, cited a Saint reigning in heaven, to appear and hear upon earth his sentence; which was, to have his relics burnt, the treasure of his Church, and shrine confiscated, and all those declared Traitors that would call him Saint, or celebrat his feast, or permit his name to remain in the Kalendars of their Books of Devotion. He also prohitited his subjects to call the Bishop of Rome Pope, and every one who had S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Leo or any of the Father's works, was commanded to write in the first leaf thereof, that they renounced those Saint's doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. Not content with these extravagancies at home, he sent Ambassadors to solicit Princes abroad (and in the first place to Francis 1. of France) that they might follow his example in assuming the supremacy; and albeit the Pope was either agreed or engaged in a Treaty with Charles 5. to the prejudice of France, 
Sand. lib. 1.  yet that Christian King would not as much as hear Henry 8. Ambassadors speak of his imitating their Master in assuming to himself the supremacy. 
Cochlaeus lib. contra Morison.  And even the Protestant Princes of Germany, to whom the Ambassadors repaired after that their negotiation had been rejected by the French King, told them they were sorry K. Henry 8. did not ground his reformation upon a more religious foundation, than his scandalous passion for Anne Bullen.  
And the first protestant Reformers abroad (part of whose design was to get all spiritual jurisdiction rather into their own hands then into the hands of their temporal Sovereigns) were much troubled at K. Henry's supremacy, and Calvin writ a smart though short treatise against it, and no Protestants make a lay Prince spiritual head of a Church, but our English Prelaticks.  
Notwithstanding that the lateness of the discovery together with K. Henry 8 motives of his supremacy made it so incredible that no Catholic Sovereign would assume to himself that prerogative, nor any foreign Protestants approve thereof, yet his cruelty made most of his English subjects swear that, which neither themselves nor the world could believe; for had it been any way probable by Scripture, History, or Tradition, that temporal Sovereigns (as such) are spiritual Superiors, how is it possible that all Christian Princes before Henry 8. should be so unbiased, and stupid in their own interest, and in a matter of so great consequence, as not to see a thing so obvious, and advantageous? How careless in their own concerns, were Charles 5. Francis 1. and many other Princes their Predecessors, who after having been provoked, and exasperated by some Roman Bishops, so far as to think it necessary to invade their Territories, sack Rome, and imprison their persons, yet at the same time did acknowledge that spiritual supremacy which gave so much advantage, power, and credit to their enemy? Without doubt the same forces which had been employed against the Pope's person, and temporal power, would not have spared or favoured his spiritual jurisdiction; he would have been forced to renounce his primacy had not the world, and they who subdued him, been fully satisfied that it was no human donation, but divin institution.  
Though these reasons were convincing, and the example of Charles 5. spiritual subjection and submission to his subdued prisoner Pope Clement 7. was fresh in King Henry 8. memory, and that he knew never any Catholic Princes pretended it was a prerogative of sovereignty, to share with the Pope in the Ecclesiastical government of the souls of their subjects (though many claimed as a privilege granted by the Roman Sea, the liberty to examine and approve the authentikness of Papal censures and injunctions) and that his passion for Anne Bullen was turned into hatred, 
The Kings of France pretended to the Gallical liberties: and the Kings of Spain to their Sicilian Monarchy and other privileges. The kings of England also when they were Roman catholics pretended to the like privileges, presentations etc.  for her proved incest, and adultery; yet his pride and wilfulness was so excessive, that rather than acknowledge his former error by a formal recantation, he continued to exercise his scandalous supremacy so violently, that he devised Articles of Religion, made Cromwell his Vicar-general in spiritual affairs took upon him to define what was heresy, what Catholic faith; permitted the Scriptures to be translated by heretics, and read in English, and (to vex the Pope) countenanced, and connived at any novelties; though afterwards he burnt the novelists for heretics, and prohibited (when it was too late) their Translations of Scripture, and other Books which he had formerly permitted. But seeing that notwithstanding his severity, the Sacramentarian heresy, which he most of all hated, did increase in his Kingdom, and that the spiritual sword in his lay hand did not work those effects which it, had done when it was managed by the Bishops of Rome (by whose sole authority all the heresies of the first 300. years were condemned and suppressed without the help of a general Council) and that the Keys which he had usurped served rather to open the doors of the English Church to all errors, 
Stat Henry 8 34. & 35. Be it enacted tha● all manner of books of the old and new Testament in English▪ being of the crafty, ●●alce, and ●ntrue Translation of William Tyndall, and all other books and writings in the english tongue, teaching or compassing any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that doctrine which since the year of our Lord 1540 is, hath or shall be set forth by his Majesty is clearly and utterly abolished.  than shut them out; and perceiving his end draw near, he began to think of a reconciliation with Rome, but such a one as might suit with his humour, which he termed Honour. Therefore he sent his favourite Bishop Gardener to the Jmperial Diet, with private instructions, to endeavour in such a manner his return to the unity and obedience of the Church (through the mediation of the Catholic Princes of Germany, and of the Pop's Legate) that on King Henrys side it might look more like a princely condescendency then a penitent conversion; whereunto he seemed to incline at the solicitation rather of others, then moved by a detestation of his own errors? But God with whom none must dally, nor Princes capitulat, summoned him to an account sooner then was imagined. Whether he repented, or despaired at his death, is uncertain. Some say his last words were omnia perdidimus, all is lost. In his last will and Testament he named 16. Tutors for his Son, to govern, during his minority, with equal authority; charging them not to bring in the Sacramentarian Religion. But God permitted his will to be broken before his body was buried (who had changed the last wills of so many thousands deceased) and that, but three days after his death; for upon the 1. of February Seamor Earl of Hartford brother to Ed. 6. Mother, was made Protector of the King and Kingdom, by his own ambition, and private authority of his faction (which prevailed amongst the 16. Executors) without expecting any Parliament, or consent to the Realm for so great a charge, or for the change of religion which immediately followed. And because Wriothesly Earl of Southampton Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Arundel, and Bishop Tonstall, and some others, would not betray their trust, and opposed the new reformation, they were disgraced and displaced.  

SUBSECT I. Of the English Religion, and Reformers in King Edward VI reign.  
THe Earl of Hartford, newly created Duke of Somerset and Lord Protector of England, was a man fitter to be governed, then to govern: his judgement was weak, but himself very wilful, and so blindly resolute in commanding and executing the designs of others, by whom he was guided, that without perceiving it, he was made the instrument of his own ruin, as well as of his brothers; and of the young King also by the change of the ancient Religion. Dudley Earl of Warwick was his director both in Church and state affairs, and yet was his greatest enemy; which Somerset had not the wit to see, though all the world knew him to be his Competitor. And albeit Dudley had been always a Roman Catholic in his judgement, yet (as most Politicians do) he dissembled his belief, and yet ●oothed the Protector in his inclination to the protestant reformation, not doubting but that having once intoxicated the people with the liberty and inconstancy thereof, he might lead them from the contempt of spiritual authority to rebel against the temporal, and humour so well their mad zeal that for their new Ghospel's preservation and propagation, they would fix upon him for their Director, and stick to whom he would appoint for their Sovereign. He was not deceived in his expectation, the Protector Seamour was destroyed; Dudley himself made chief Minister of England; the King poisoned; the Princess Mary excluded, the Lady Jane Grace declared Queen (because she was a Protestant) and married to Dudlys' Son. All which things he compassed in a short time, though by degrees, as you shall hear.  
No sooner was K. Henry 8. dead, but Dudley Earl of Warwick advised Somerset to take upon him the Protectorship, and (to make him odious) by his private authority to alter the public profession of faith; and because he knew so notorious a fraud could not be effected without force, he devised with the Protector, the journey of Musselborough field, and the war of Scotland, under pretence of gaining by force the young Queen of Scots to marry K. Edward 6. but in reality to get the power of the Militia into his own hands, and thereby to settle in England a Religion whereby he might (in due time) upon the score of a refined reformation, unsettle the government, and alter K. Henry 8. Testament, and persuade England that his Daughter mary reign would eclipse the light of the gospel, which then began to shine. After that he had made the Protector so odious, that none could endure to hear his name, or to live under his government, he thought it a proper time to establish by Parliament that new profession of faith, which he knew could not be effected without the consent and concurrence of that great Assembly. And though he was not ignorant of the absurdities contained in the best of the new reformations, yet because since the setlement of the spiritual headship of our Kings, he perceived the common people might be led any way, and that an Act of Parliament was held sufficient to make them believe the ancient Christian Religion was profane; and that any protestant reformation was the primitive and Apostolic faith; he wrought so much by the fear of the army and the King's authority, that albeit in the first Parliament and year of Edward 6. reign, nothing more could be obtained in favour of Protestancy, but an indemnity for the preachers thereof from penalties enacted by the ancient laws against married Priests, and Heriticks; and a repeal of the English Statutes confirming the Imperial Edicts against heresies; yet in the second year, and Parliament of Edward the VI It was carried (though by few votes, and after a long debate of above four months) that the Zuinglian, or Sacramentarian reformation should be the Religion of England.  

The first Reformers of the Prelatic protestant Church of England.  The charge of framing Articles of this Religion, as also of composing the Liturgy, and a book of rits, ceremonies, and administration of Sacraments, had been committed to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, and to some other Protestant Divins, who were all married friars, and Priests, lately come out of Germany, with their sweetheart's, viz. Hooper, and Rogers, Monks; Coverdale, an Augustin friar; Bale a Carmelite; Martin Bucer a Dominican; Bernardin Ochinus a Franciscan; and Peter Martyr a Cannon Regular; these three last were invited by the Protector, and appointed to preach and teach in both the Universities; and at London; and were to agree with the rest in the new model and form of Religion; which was a matter of great difficulty; because the Tenets which until then they had professed, were irreconciliable. H●●per, and Rogers were fierce Zwinglians, that is, Puritans or Presbiterians; and with them was joined in faction against Cranmer, Ridly, and other Prelaticks (for that they opposed his pretention to the Bishopric of Worcester) Hugh Latimer, of great regard with the common people. Coverdale, and Bale, were both Lutherans; and yet differed, because the one was a rigid, the other a mild, or half Lutheran. Bucer also had professed a kind of Lutheranism in Germany, but in England was what the Protector would have him to be, and therefore would not for the space of a whole year, declare his opinion in Cambridg (though pressed to it by his Scholars) concerning the real presence, until he had heard how the Parliament had decided that controversy at London; and then he changed his opinion and became a Zuinglian.  
The same tergiversation was used by Peter Martyr at Oxford, and so ridiculously, that coming sooner, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (which he undertaken to expound) to the words Hoc est Corpus meum, than it had been determined in Parliament what they should signify, the poor friar, with admiration and laughter of the University, was forced to divert his Auditors with impertinent Comments upon the precedent words, Accipite, manducate, fregit & dixit &c. which needed no explanation. And when the news was come, that both houses had ordered they should be understood figuratiuly, and not literaly, Peter Martyr said he admired how any man could be of an other opinion, though he knew not the day before what would be his own. But as for Bucer, he was a concealed Jew, or Atheist, for being asked confidently his opinion of the Sacrament by Dudley Duke of Northumberland, in the presence of the Lord Paget then a Protestant (who testified the same publicly afterwards) he answered, that the real presence could not be denied if men believed that Christ was God, and spoke the words: This is my Body; but whether all was to be belived which the Evangelists writ of Christ, was a matter of more disputation.  
Bernardin Ochinus died a Jew in his opinion, he writ a book to assert the lawfulness of having many wives at once; this together with his profession of the Mosaic law at his death, proved that he was but a counterfeit Protestant.  
Cranmer was a mere Contemporiser, and of no Religion at all. Henry VIII. raised him from Chaplain to Sr. Thomas Bullen, to be Archbishop of Canterbury, to the end he might divorce him from Q. Catharin, and marry him to An Bullen; afterwards by the King's order he declared to the Parliament, 
Statut 28. Henry 8 cap 17. an 1536  that to his knowledge Anne Bullen was never lawful wife to his Majesty when he married the King to An of Cleves; and when the King was weary of her, Cranmer declared this marriage also nul; and married, and unmarried him so often, that he seemed rather to exercise the Office of a Pimp then the function of a Priest, which (to requite one courtesy for an other) made the King connive at his keeping a wench, and at some of his opinions, though contrary to the Statut of the 6. Articles.  
In King Henry VIII. days he writ a Book for the Real presence, in King Edward's 6. days, 
See his letters in Fox. 1279 and in Stow pag. 1036.  he writ an other Book against the real presence. He conspired with the Protector Somerset to overthrow K. Henry 8. will and Testament; and afterwards conjured with Dudley to ruin the Protector. He joined with Dudley and the Duke of Suffolk against Q. Mary for the lady Jane Grey, and immediately after with Arundel, Shreusbury, Pembrouk, Page●, and others against the same Duke. Finaly when he was condemned in Q. Mary's reign for treason and heresy; and his treason being pardoned, hoping the same favour might be extended to his heresy, he recanted and abjured the same; but seeing the temporal laws reserved no mercy for relapsed heretics (who are presumed not to be truly converted or penitent) he was so exasperated thereby, that at his death (moved more by passion then conscience) he renounced the Roman Catholic Religion, to which he had so lately conformed.  
These were the men who framed the 39 Articles of Religion the Liturgy and the Book of Sacraments, rits, and ceremonies of the Protestant Church of England: and though it may seem incredible that a jew, an Atheist, a Contemporiser or mere Politician, a Presbiterian, a rigid Lutheran, half-Lutheran and an Anti-Lutheran, or Sacramentarian, should all agree to make one Religion, yet when men do but dissemble, and deliver opinions to please others, and profit themselves▪ and have no Religion at all, they may without difficulty concur in some general points of Christianity, and frame negative articles impugning the particular truths thereof. This was the case of the Church of England. For though Hooper, and Rogers were pretty obstinate in the Presbiterian, or Zuinglian doctrine of the Sacrament, and prevailed therein so far by the Protectors countenance, as to reform the common praier-Book, and to confound the character of Episcopacy with single Presbytery, as if there had been no real distinction between both, nor no imposition of Episcopal hands required for either, but only a bare election of the Congregation, or Magistrate; yet rather than lose the revenues of benefices, and Bishoprics, they were content (contrary to their solemn confederacy) to connive at the Episcopal discipline, and ceremonious decency of surplises, square Caps, and Rochets; The names of Priests and Bishops they were content to admit of in the common praier-Book, so the character were not mentioned in their new form of ordaining them, but rather declared not to be of divin institution, nor a Sacrament: In like manner Hooper at length condescended to take the Oath of supremacy, and conformed thereunto his conscience, when the Bishopric of Worcester was added to his former of Gloucester, though until then he agreed with Calvin in impugning the King's ' spiritual headship.  
As Hooper condescended to the Kings ' Supremacy, to the Prelatic discipline, and ceremonies, so Cranmer and his prelatic party condescended to the Presbiterian doctrine because they were indifferent for any that would allow them wenches, and not deprive them of their revenues. And as for Ochinus the Jew, Bucer the Atheist, and the rest of the protestant Divines, their vots as well as their livelyhoods depended of Cranmer his will and pleasure. Besides Cranmer perceived the Protector inclined to Zuinglianism, and the Presbiterian doctrine, and therefore resolved to accomodat the doctrine of the Church of England to his humour.  
Hooper and Rogers agreed upon an ecclesiastical Government inconsistent with Monarchy; which was, that over every 10. Churches or Parishes in England there should be a learned Superintendent appointed, who should have faithful readers under him, and that all Popish Priests should clean be put out: And to draw all public matters of state and Religion to them-selves, they composed a Treatise to prove: That it is lawful for any private man to reason and writ against a wicked Act of Parliament, and ungodly Council, etc. see Fox pag. 1357. col. 1. num. 72. And Hoopers' prophecy against the Prelatic protestants for not conforming them-selves to his Puritan and Presbiterian discipline. pag 1356. And of his contention with Cranmer and other Prelatic protestants about the oath of Supremacy etc. Fox, pag. 1366.  
Both Cranmer and Ridly, made appear to the Protector and Council, that Hoopers' Presbiterian discipline was not consistent with the Constitution of Parliaments; and the refusal of the oath of Supremacy to be of dangerous consequence, in a time that Devenshir Northfolk, and many other Shires had taken arms in defence of the Roman Catholic faith. It was further considered that so sudden a change from on extreme to an other in matters of religion (as it would have been, from ceremonious Popery to plain Presbytery) was against the rules of policy▪ therefore seeing the people had been so long accustomed to the Mass, and to Ecclesiastical ceremonies, it was judged expedient to make the vulgar sort believe, the change was not of Religion, but of language; that the common prayer was the Mass in English; that the substance of the Catholic faith was retained in the Prelatic caps, copes, and surplises; and what alteration there seemed to be, was but of things indifferent, or petty circumstances; and had been resolved upon by the King and Parliament more to preserve uniformity, then to promote novelty; as may be seen by any that will observe the words of the statutes confirming the common prayer book, administration, rits, ad ceremonies of the Sacrament. 2. Ed. 6.1. and the Counsels letter to the Bishops recited by Fox, pag. 1184. col. 1. Whereof long time there had been in this Realm of England divers forms of common prayer. And where the King's Majesty hath hereto fore divers times assayed to stay innovations, or new rits. To the intent that an uniform, quiet, and godly order should be had concerning the premises, hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury should draw and make one convenient and meet order of common Prayer and administration of Sacraments to be used in England, Wales, etc. The which at this time by the aid of the holy Ghost, with uniform agreement is of them concluded, etc. in the Statut.  
But in very deed the whole substance of Catholic Religion was changed, and nothing retained but so much thereof as seemed necessary to keep the name of Christians, and had not been rejected by most of the ancient condemned heretics, as shall appear by our observations upon the 39 ensuing articles of Religion of the Church of England.    

SECT. V. Of the 39 Articles of the Church of England.  
WHosoever consider●● these 39 Articles of Religion composed by Cranmer, and his Divines, may easily perceive their drift was rather to humour factions at home, and dissenting Protestants abroad▪ to countenance sensuality, and grant a liberty of not believing the particulars of Christianity, then to instruct men in the doctrine of Christ or to prescribe any certain rule of Faith. For, their method is, to word so the matter of the Articles, that where Protestants disagree among themselves, every one of the dissenting parties may apply the Text to his own sense. In so much that the Presbiterians except not against the doctrines themsel-ves rightly explained (that is according to their explanation) but against the wording and expressions thereof, 
Doctor Bruges in his post script to D. r Pearson edit. 1660.  which (say they) are ambiguous, and capable of more senses than one, and so may be, and are wrested to patronise errors. In the mystery of the real presence they speak clearly against it, because it was resolved in Parliament, That England should be Zuinglian in that point, against the Catholic faith of Transubstantiation.  
Wherefore after Cranmer and the other his Contemporisers had set down in five of their six first Articles, the belief of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, whereof no Protestants then doubted; they dare not declare themselves (in the third, wheein they speak of Christ descent into Hell) whether it was to that of the damned, or to a third place; for that if they denied the first, they would have offended Calvin; If they denied the last, they were sure to disoblige some Lutherans that admitted of Lymbus, or a third place.  
In the sixth Article they free all men from an obligation of believing any thing that is not read in Scripture, or proved thereby, and make it their ownly rule of faith, and themselves the Judges thereof: wherein they agree 
(a) 
See the ancient Fathers affirming it was the constant practice and principle of Heretics to appeal to Scripture alone.  
S. Aust●n l de unit Eccl & lib. cont▪ a Maximinum S. Hilarius l. contra Constantium. S. Basi●ius l. de Spiritu S. c. 27. & 29. S Epiphani●s haer 69▪ 73.   with the ancient Heretics, Arians, Donatists, Eunomians, Nestorians etc. But for that some Protestant doctrines are expressly reproved by many Parts of Scripture, they make those parts Apocrypha, because, forsooth, they were doubted of▪ by some Churches in the primitive times. And truly if a man will reflect upon these words of th●ir sixth Article, We do understand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, he may clearly see that they believe many parts of the new Testament not to be Canonical Scripture, because many parts thereof have been doubted of in the Church before the Canon was determined. See after, part. 2.  
In the 7. they only declare that Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial, but only the moral law of Moses.  
In the 8. they tell us of four Creeds (whereof S. Athanasius his symbol is one) are to be believed; because they may be proved by Scripture; and yet S. Athanasius himself declared in ●he Council of Nice that the doctrine of his Symbol, that is, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, could not be proved by Scripture alone, 
(b) S. Athanasius in l. 1▪ the decret Nicen. Synodi contra. Euseb.  or without Tradition.  
In the 9 and 10. Article they 
(c) S. Epiphanius haer. 64. Theodor●● lib. de haeres.  follow the heretic Proclus, the Messalians, Zuinglius, Luther, and calvin's doctrine concerning Original sin.  
In the 11. Article they teach with some of the 
(d) August de fide & oper c. 14 & de haer. c. 54.  Pseudo-Apostles, with Eunomius, and with the same Zuinglius, Luther and Calvin, that men are justified by faith alone. See hereafter of the justification by only faith, how inconsistent with any solicitude or care for good works.  
And in the 12. would feign (but in vain) free themselves and their Doctrine from the aspersion of neglecting good works though they maintain them not to be necessary for justification.  
In the 13. Article they say all virtuous moral actions of men ●hat are not in grace, have the nature of sin; And in the 14. they follow Eunomius, Vigilantius, Helvidius, Jovinian, Faustus, 
Mat▪ 19.27 1. Cor 7. v. 25.28.38.  and Ebion heretics, saying: that works of supererogation (that is, not commanded but counseled by God) cannot be taught without arogancy and impiety; and yet Christ taught them, and S. Paul commends them.  
In the three subsequent Articles they seem to agree with all Christians: But in the 19 they differ from all Catholics, And as the Arians did maintain the fallibility of the Nicen Council, and the Donatists the fall or invisibility of the whole Church, ●o do Protestants; and thereby open a wide gap for all heresies.  
In the 20. they contradict themselves, and the former articles by saying that the Church hath power and authority to decree controversies of faith; for there can be no authority in a Church to decree or define matters of faith, without there be in the faithful an obligation of conscience to submit and conform their judgements to the said Decrees and definitions; and s●ure there can be no obligation of conscience in any man to submit or conform his judgement in points of faith to a Church that doth acknowledge itself may err therein, and lead men to heresy, idotry and damnation. True it is that the Protestant Church of England can never remedy its want of authority, unless it pretends to infallibility; and that, now can hardly be done; seeing in the 2●. Article next ensuing, it denys that same prerogative to general Counsels, which are of greater authority than our English Convocations.  
In the 22. Article Cranmer and his Associates (because all other Sects of Protestants do the same) speak clearly against the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping of Images, Relics, and invocation of Saints; and are pleased to censure it a fond thing, invented and grounded upon no waranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God: as if, forsooth, the Jews, Atheists, and Apostata Friars who composed these 39 Articles, knew better the right sense of the word of God, than the whole Catholic Church, and the general Counsels which practised, and thought the Roman doctrine, and the lawfulness of these things, and condemned the contrary as heresy.  
These errors were raised by Aërius n. 342· Xenaias and other heretics: Aërius because he was refused a Bishopric, taught that Episcopacy was not distinct from single Priesthood; He denied Prayers and masses for the Dead aught to be offerred, and by consequence the doctrine of Purgatory; as also that the Church could command men to fast, but that every man might fast when he thought fit Xenaias was the first who made war against Images·s Vigilantius against Relics, praying to Saints etc. S. Hierom. ad Ripar. & Desider. Presbiteros: Vigilantius orsus est subito, qui contra Christi spiritum, Martyrum n●gat sepulchra veneranda, damnatqae Sanctorum Vigilias; ex quo fit ut Dormitantius potius quam Vigilantius vocari debeat. Haeretici assumunt sibi linguas suas, ut cordis venena ore pronuncient. O proescindendam itaque linguam, & in parts & frusta lacerandam? meam injuriam patienter tuli, impietatem contra Deum ferre non valui.  
S. Hierom laughs at the folly of Vigilantius the heretic, and calls him Dormitantius, for being in these points a Protestant; and says that his tongue ought to be cut and carved into a thousand pieces for blaspheming against God in his Saints. And truly it is a hard case that Scripture should warrant our worshipping of Prophets, or recommending ourselves to the Prayers of Saints, when they convers with us upon earth; and yet that it should not be lawful for us to do the same when they are in heaven; as if their enjoying the presence and sight of God, did diminish their dignity, or charity. Or as if a Saint in God's glory were not as fit an object and as capable of our Religious worship as a Prophet, Apostle or Bishop is in this world, to whom we kneel out of the religious respect we own to their spiritual character, or Ecclesiastical dignity, though their natural qualities deserve not such respect. Mylord of Canterbury (they say) commends very 
(e) The Protestant Bishops▪ are well pleased to see themselves religiously worshipped or respected, and yet exclaim against Catholics for showing the like respect to Saints.  much the religious piety of some Ladies for craving his benediction upon their knees; which reverence is not exhibited by them, nor expected by him, as he is M·r Sheldon; but as he pretends to be Archbishop of Canterbury. And if it be not only lawful but commendable to kneel to his Grace, or at least to others who are true Bishops, and to show a religious respect of the like nature to his picture or presence; and that all this may be done without danger of Idolatry, or of derogating from the Deity; I see no reason why men should condemn in us, the like worship of Saints in their Images, or Relics. It is not the outward action, but the inward intention that makes the worship unlawful. So long as we do not adore Images as Gods, or Idols, we may bow and kneel to them with as much ceremony, as Protestants do to their Prelates, or Episcopal pictures. The simplest Papist can hardly be so stupid by nature, or at least so destitut of instruction, as to believe a stock or stone, can be God; or that there is no difference between the worship due to Saints, (whom they know to be but God's servants) and the worship due to their Master and Creator.  
The 23. Article is set down in such general and ambiguous terms that neither Presbiterian nor Prelatic Clergy is thereby established; nor any character of Priesthood, or Episcopacy asserted, but according to the doctrine of all the first Reformers, a private ministry of preaching, and baptising insinuated to be common to all Christians. Be you most certain, saith Luther lib. de Captiv. Babylon. and let every-man (who is a Christian) know that we are all equally Priests, that is, we have the same power to preach, and administer the Sacraments. The same doctrine teacheth Zuinglius and Calvin. Though (to avoid confusion) it be not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And because in the 25. Article they declare it is not necessary that this calling or ministry be ordination by imposition of Bishop's hands, or by Apostolical succession, and by consequence, may be extraordinary vocation, or election, they leave the authority of caling as doubeful as not determining whether the power be in the secular Magistrate, or in the ecclesiastical Congregation▪ albe●● they seem (by virtue of the English Supremacy) to place it in the King; their words are, And those we ought to judge lawfuly called and sent, which be called and chosen to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in (not by) the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard. So that they seem to place all spirtival authority and jurisdiction in the Kings, and reserve only the application thereof, and the choice of the persons authorised, to themselves. But they were loath to explain their meaning in this particular, for fear of scandalising their brethren abroad, that admit of no such Supremacy in temporal Princes.  
In the 24. Article they make it a point of the Protestant faith, that Scripture expressly commands the public prayers and ministering of the Sacraments not to be in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew (wherein the Scriptures were written) because the common people understand not these languages, but under pain of damnation must be in English, Dutch, Irish, Welsh, etc. as if, forsooth, it were not lawful for a Priest or public Minister, to offer Sacrifice, or negotiate for a multitude of iliterat people in languages they do not understand; or as if it were not sufficient for them to understand, that in public or private prayers, they thank God for his benefits, and crave new favours. So that according to this Article, a Greek Priest cannot offer public prayers for the Latins, or even his own Grecians, who understand not the learned Greeck, nor a latin Priest for the Grecians, or any other nation that understands not Latin; neither is it sufficient that God who alone is able to grant what is demanded, understand the petition, and hear the public Minister, but it is necessarily required that the demand be made in a barbarous language, because the common people understand no other.  
In the 25. Article they cut of five of the seven Sacraments, as not being Sacraments of the Gospel, or ordained by Christ; this extravagancy of doctrine was thought necessary for the discipline of the protestant Churches, which despairing of a succession of true Bishops, excluded the Episcopal Character, and all Sacraments that had dependency thereof.  
In the 26. Article they endeavour to excuse their own lewdness and liberty (though by inculcating truth) to wit, that the effects of the Sacraments are not taken away, by the defects of the Ministers.  
In the 27. they condemn (against their own principle in the 6. Article) their Brethren the Anabaptists, for not baptising their children: which error cannot be confuted by Scripture without Tradition.  
In the 28. they tell us it is plain in Scripture that when Christ said This is my Body, he meant This is not my Body, and therefore that Transubstantiation cannot be proved by holy Writ: if they can prove by Scripture that Christ means the contrary of what he speaks we shall confess that neither transubstantiation nor any other thing can be proved by holy Writ, but only this, that Scripture cannot be understood, nor be a rule of faith.  
They add that the mean, whereby the Body of Christ is spiritualy received and taken in the supper, is faith. To receive, and eat spiritualy the Body of Christ (if it signifies any thing) must signify that we ought to believe that the Body of Christ is received and eaten. And if this belief be true (as it must, if it be Divine) than Christ's Body is realy received and eaten, though in a spiritual manner, that is in a manner not perceptible by our senses. The 29. Article is but a quotation of some words of S. Augustin.  
The 30. Article seems to have been altered (as also the 37. of the supremacy) in Q. Elizabeth's reign; because as we find it now, it contradicts not only the doctrine of the chief Protestant 
[f] 
See Martin Luther the first founder of Protestancy ep. ad Bohem. in declarat. Euchar. & in servant de Euch. hath these words. Although truly it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Eucharist (and Christ in this thing hath commanded nothing as necessary) yet it were better to follow peace and unity which Christ hath commanded us to follow▪ then to contend about the kinds.  
And lib. de Captiv. Babyl. Cap. de Euch. They sin not against Christ who use one kind, seeing Christ hath not commanded to use it, but hath left it to the will of every one, etc.  
Philip Melancton in 2. edit. loc. come. impres. Argent. an. 1525. fol. 78. He erreth that thinketh it impious to eat swin's flesh. As also these things are indifferent and placed in our power, and so I judge of the Eucharist, that they sin not who knowing, and believing this liberty do use either part of the sign. Bucer alloweth the same indifferency, and jewel in his reply to Harding pag. 108.109. & 110. John Pezibram a Bohemian Protestant in his book de professione fidei Cathol. cap. 19 here fearing God and taking notice of the evil custums of others, I do confess that I do not intend to condemn or censure for heretics any such persons of the Church as do impugn the communion of the faithful under both kinds: which yet of necessity must have done, if he had thought that Christ had recommanded it.   Reformers (who acknowledge that the Communion under both Kind's was always a thing indifferent) but also the statut made in Edward's 6. reign, and a little before this article was framed. The statut 1. Edward 6. cap. 1. ordains indeed that the B. Sacrament be commonly delivered to the people under both kinds, but addeth, except necessity otherwise require. And certainly there can be no necessity, or possibility for any human power to dispense with Christ's ordinance and commandment, which this 30. Article says was, (contrary to what the statut supposed) that both kinds should be administered to all Christian men alike.  
Besides, the statut doth in the end declare that by what it commands, it doth not condemn the usage of any Church out of the King his Majesty's Dominions; which limitation doth demonstrat that the Parliament and English Protestants then believed the communion of the laity under both kinds, not to be a precept or determination of Christ, but an indifferent thing left to the discretion of the Church: neither have our modern Protestants (who grant no other substance in the Sacrament but that of bread and wine, whereunto they add nothing but a remembrance of Christ's passion) any reason to upraid us with robing them of half the communion, seeing we exhort the laity to that remembrance, and offer them wine after receiving the species of bread.  
In their 31. Article we are told that the Sacrifices of Masses (in the which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt) are blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits And yet S. Cyprian lib. 2. & 3. versus finem, Et de Coena Domini post med. Council 1. Toletan. can 8.5. Origen in number. hom. 23. August. de Civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 19 & 20. & passim. S. Clement the Apostles scholar in Apost constit. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 113. edit. Antverp. 1564. Council Nicen. 1. can. 14. Augustinus de cura pro mortuis cap. 14. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. etc. Tertul. ad Scapul. cap. 2. Chrisost. hom. 27. in act Apost. S. Clemens lib. 8. Const. Apost. cap. 18. fol. 173. & 174. edit. Antverp 1564. Augustin. de Civit. Dei lib 22. cap. 8. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. prope initium S. Ignatius the Apostles Scholar in Epist. ad Smirn. S. Augustin. lib. 9 Confes. cap. 12. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. & de verb. Apost. serm 34. Saith that the sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica, being dead; and that it is not to be doubted, but that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when for them is offered the sacrifice of the Mediator: and that the universal Church doth observe, as delivered from our Forefathers, that for those who are dead in the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood when in the time of sacrifice they be remembered in their place, prayer is made for them; and (besides this prayer) it is remembered the sacrifice be offered▪ for them also etc. S. Ambrose makes express mention of the Mass lib. 5. epist. 33. Ego mansi in munere, Missam facere coepi etc. S. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscor. Necesse autem est ut quaedam Populi pars sua devotione privetur, si unius tantum Missae more servato, etc. S. Augustin. serm. 91. de Temp. In lectione (quae nobis ad Missas legenda est) audituri sumas. etc.  
Let any Christian be judge whether it be not more safe, and more rationa●l● to rely in matters of faith upon the Tradition of the whole Catholic Church, and it's ancient Liturgies, and upon the Testimony of all the holy Fathers, and Counsels since the Apostles, then to take the bare word of Cranmer, a man who married and unmarried K. Henry 8. to as many women as his Majesty liked or disliked, dissolving the holy Sacrament of Matrimony as often as the King seemed to be weary of a wife; a man, whose religion was nothing but his conveniency and incontinency; and therefore did alter his faith as often as the times changed, and factions prevailed, and sided with every Rebel against his Prince; and was so carnaly given that even in Henry 8. days, when Priests were not permitted to have wives, he kept a wench so constantly, that he carried her about in his Visitations: Let any Christian I say be judge whether this man together with Ochinus a Jew, Bucer an Atheist, Peter Martyr so indifferent for any doctrine, that he framed his faith at Oxfor●, according to the news from London, and the Parliament Diurnals; Hooper, Rogers, and Latimer, ambitious and discontented Presbiterians, B●le, and Coverdale, two lewd and runigad friars; whether I say, these men ought to be believed in this important point of salvation, rather than the holy Fathers, and Counsels, who (as hath bin● said heretofore) call the Mass the visible Sacrifice, the true Sacrifice, the daily Sacrifice, the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech; the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of the Church, and the Sacrifice of the new Testament, which succeeded all the Sacrifices of the old Testament: Must the word of Cranmer and his fellows be a sufficient ground for prudent men to believe as an Article of Religion, 
The 2. Council of Carthage contradicts this article Can. 2. Omnibus placet, that Bishop's Priests, and Deacons, etc. abstain from wives, that what the Apostles have taught, and hath been observed by antiquity, we may keep.  that the doctrine delivered as Catholic by the holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, are but fables, and themselves but a company of Cheats.  
The 32. Article was made by Cranmer and his Comrades to excuse their lewdness, legitimat their bastards, and make their wenches wives. The second Parliament of King Edward 6. had been so importuned by Apostata Priests and Friars, who had coupled themselves with women, that (their petition having been rejected by the first Parliament Edward 6.) at length against the inclination and judgement of both houses, they obtained now by mere importunity an Act to take away all positive Laws of man, made against the marriage of Priests statut an. 2. Edward 6. cap. 21. But then they are told in the very Act, that it were not only better for Priests to live chaste sole and separate from the company of women etc. but that it were most to be wished that they would willingly and of themselves endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity, and abstinence from the use of women. And 1400. years before that, 
See Clement l. 6. Constit. Ap. c. 17. & Consil. A●●●rcan. 10. & Concil. Neocesariense c. 1 & Cons●l Nic. can. 34. And Euseb. de demonstrat. Evangelica lib. 1▪ c 9 Epiph. haer. 59 ante med. Bas●l ep▪ 1. ad Amphilocium ca 6 & epist. 17 ad Paragonū Presbiterum, and Cicil. Hierosolomy▪ Catech 12.  Origen Hom. 23. & lib. 8. contra Celsum declared the doctrine even of the Greeck Church in these words. It is certain the daily Sacrifice is hindered in them who serve the necessities of marriage; therefore it seemeth to me that it appertaineth only to him to offer the daily Sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to daily and perpetual chastity; with whom●agree the other Fathers; S. Jerom (in Apologia ad Pamachium, cap. 3.) desires them who like not of this doctrine, not to be angry with him, (for telling them of it) but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests etc. who know they cannot offer Sacrifice if they use the Act of marriage; and said to Vigilantius (c. 1.) who in this point also was a Protestant, and seemed to confess his own frailty. What do the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and of the Apostolic Sea, who receive none but unmarried or continent Priests, or if they have wives, they must cease to be Husbands? And against jovinian cap▪ 19 & 14. & ad Pamachium Apol. cap. 8. Truly thou dost acknowledge that he cannot be a Bishop who in that state gets children; if he be convicted thereof he will not be taken for a Husband, but condemned as an Adulterer. But it seems out Protestant Bishops know the Scripture, and the doctrine and discipline of the primitive Church better than S. Hierom, Origen, and all the ancient Fathers and Counsels both of the East and West. Since the King's most happy restauration they were not content to enjoy their wives, and see the legitimacy of their children approved of, but in the first Parliament wherein they were permitted to vote (as I have been credibly informed) they attempted the house of Lords should declare their spiritual peerage did communicate the same honours and privileges to their Ladies, that the law doth give to Baron's wives; but seeing the house smile at the motion, and one of the first Peers begin to rally (according to his witty way) upon a subject so proper for his genius, one of the Bishops not so much concerned in the suit, (because he was not married) in the name of all the rest, waved the pretention by saying, there had been a mistake in the motion.  
In the two following articles, they would fain prevent diversity of opinions and schisms among the Protestants of the Church of England, and gain authority for the Prelates thereof, and reverence for their ceremonies and censures. But this design is frustrated by maintaining the lawfulness of their own revolt, and separation from the Church of Rome, as also the Roman Catholic fallibility and fall from the true Apostolic Religion, without any farther proof or evidence of so great a fault or frailty, than the fancy and private interpretation of Scripture of some discontented and dissolute persons pretending divine inspirations, and illuminations for the same, and for their warrant to depose their spiritual Superiors, and to reform the doctrine of the whole visible Church; which reformation they also introduced in so tumultuous and seditious a manner, that none who considers the principles, practices, and circumstances of the change, can prudently commit his soul to the reformers charge, or condescend to any spiritual jurisdiction and authority in their Successors. For, besides that they have nothing to show for their presumption, and intrusion, but obscure texts of Scripture, interpreted by themselves in a sense contrary to that of the whole visible ancient Church, that hath been confirmed by continual and undeniable Miracles; they can give no assurance or probability of themselves being or continuing in the right way of salvation, because if all the Roman Catholic Churches did err in doctrine, how can their reformations pretend not to be subject to the same misfortune or mistake? And if the supposed frailty and fallibility of the Church of Rome be a sufficient cause to question and condemn its authority, how can the Church of England, or any other Protestant congregation exact from their Sectaries, greater respect, and obedience, than the first reformers gave to their Roman Superiors? Presbiterians, Independents, Quakers, Anabaptists etc. pretend to as pure doctrine, as Divine a Spirit, and as much Scripture against Prelaticks, as prelatics do against Papists, and think there is as much reason for them to be judges of the truth of their own Canon and sense of Scripture, and of the falsehood of the Canon and sense of Scripture of the Church of England, as there is for the English Church to make itself judge of the falsehood of the Canon and sense of the Church of Rome. As for the authority which the Prelatic religion receives from the laws of the land, that gives but little advantage, seeing the Roman Catholic doctrine hath been confirmed by the temporal laws of every Kingdom, Country and City, besor, and at the time that Protestancy succeeded, and prevailed; and yet that legality was not valued by the Reformers.  
The 35. Article is to authorize some Puritan homilies, as the 2. wherein the danger of idolatry in Popery is much insisted upon, as if Christians could easily mistake Images for Idols, or Saints for Gods▪ Jew's and Heretics have often endeavoured to confound the one with the other▪ Catholics never.  
The ancient Fathers, as also the second Council of Nice have long since declared the Protestant Doctrine against Images to be heresy, and the Council of Trent confirms the same decree of Nice, and demonstrats how far that the Catholic doctrine of worshipping Images is from any danger of Idolatry. The words of the Council sess. 25. are: The Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be had and retained, especially in Churches; and that due honour is to be imparted unto them, not for that any Divinity is to be believed to be in them, or virtue, for which they are to be worshipped or that any thing is to be begged of them, or that hope is to be put in them, as in times past the Pagans did, who put their trust in Idols; but because the honour which is exhibited to them, is referred to the first pattern which they resemble. So that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and kneel, we adore Christ and his Saints, whose likeness they bear; we reverence that which is ratified by the Decrees of Counsels, especially of the second of Nice, against the impugners of Images.  
In the 36. they make it an Article of Religion, that their new form of ordaining Priests and Bishops is valid, and containeth all things necessary; but since his Majesty's happy restauration they have judged the contrary, and therefore thought necessary to add thereunto the words Priest and Bishop. 
See the new Ritual of the Church of England published since his Majesty's happy restauration.  Yet this will not serve their turn, for before they can have a true Clergy, they must change the Character of the Ordainers, as well as the form of ordination: a valid form of ordination, pronounced by a Minister not validly ordained, gives no more character then if it had continued invalid, and never been altered: The present Protestant Bishops, who changed the form of their own Ordination upon their Adversaries objections of the invalidity thereof, might as well submit to be ordained by Catholic Bishops, as allow (by altering the from after so long a time, and dispute) that it was not sufficient to make themselves, and their Predecessors Priests or Bishops.  
In their 37. Article they give a spiritual supremacy to the temporal Sovereign. But because the world laughed at that vanity and at the statutes 1. & 8. Eliz. 1. Wherein is declared, that the English Sovereignty is so spiritual as that it may give to any person whatsoever (whether man or woman, lay or ecclesiastic) power and authority to exercise any spiritual function, and consecrat Priests and Bishops) they would fain make us now believe that they did not attribute to the Queen, and her Successors any power of ministering God's word, or the Sacraments; notwithstanding that the aforesaid Statutes, yet in force, certify the contrary; And indeed if none can give what himself hath not, seeing the Kings of England can give power and authority to any person watsoever to consecrat Priests and Bishops, and to exercise all kind of spiritual ministry, and jurisdiction concerning God's word, and Sacraments, this power and ministry cannot be denied to be inherant in themselves.  
In the 38. and 39 articles they endeavour to supress some errors of the Anabaptists, which necessarily follow from the foundation and principles of Protestancy: for if it be lawful to deprive men of a spiritual authority and jurisdiction, whereof they are in present possession, and which their Predecessors had peaceably enjoyed, time out of memory, the consequence of the lawfulness to deprive men of their temporal jurisdiction, Dominions, riches, and goods, is evident by a parity of reason: for if peaceable and present possession, confirmed by a prescription of many ages, be not sufficient to ground right for the Roman Bishop and Clergy to govern souls, and to enjoy the Church livings, there is no temporal Prince, or person can be secure, or have a right to govern subjects or possess his Dominions. So that by the same warrant whereby Prelatic Protestants have taken from the Pope, and Roman Clergy their spiritual jurisdiction, and temporalities, the Anabaptists and all others may evidently demonstrat, that all goods are common, and no one person can pretend right to Superiority, or any thing he doth possess.   

SECT. VI Of the effects which these 39 Articles of Prelatic Protestancy immediately produced in England, and may produce at any time in every state where such principles are made legal: and how the Roman Catholic Religion was restored by Act of Parliament of Queen Mary.  
AFter that Prelatic Protestancy had not only been permitted, but established by Parliament in England, ensued the destruction of many thousand innocent people, as also of the Protector Seamor, and K. Eduard 6. together with the exclusion of Q. Marry, and others the lawful Heirs of the Crown, and the in trusion of the Lady Jane Grey (and in her of Dudly's son and family) unto the Royal throne. These were effects of Protestancy, not events of fortunc; they were designs driven and directed by the principles of the Reformation, the like whereof any politic and popular subject may compass as well as Dudley: witness our late long Parliament, and Oliver Cromwel's proceedings. Though K. Edward 6. was but a Child, and his uncle the Protector no great Politician, yet they had a grave and wise Council; but against the liberty and latitude which men are allowed by the principles of Protestancy, no conduct can prevail, nor government be safe, as appeareth in many examples, and in our late Soueraign's Reign, and death. Jt's in vain to make particular articles of Religion, or temporal Statutes, if there be a general principle admitted as if it were the word of God, whereby both are rendered unsignificant. One of the general principles, and indeed the foundation of Prelatic Protestancy, is, that it is lawful for private men and subjects (such were all the first Protestant Reformers) to despise and depose their spiritual Superiors by their own arbitrary interpretations, and applications of Scripture, notwithstanding the peaceable possession, immemorial prescription, legality, and exercise of their said Superiour's authority and jurisdiction. From hence it evidently followeth, that if it be lawful to deal thus with spiritual Superiors, it must be as lawful (a fortiori) to deal after the same manner, and upon the same grounds of every private man's interpretation of Scripture with temporal Superiors. To imagine therefore that by a particular article of Religion, or by an Act of Parliament against Presbiterians, Quakers, Anabaptists, etc. (in favour of the subject's property to temporal goods, or of the King's prerogatives, and sovereignty) such men's minds, or mouths will be stopped from raising tumults, and running into a rebellion so clearly waranted by the fundamental principle of the Protestant Reformation, is but a fancy, not to be relied upon by any discreet person.  
Dudley Earl of Wa●wick, and afterwards Duke of Northumberland, observing that by this foundation of Protestancy the very ground of Allegiance, and Obedience not only to the spiritual, but also to the civil Magistrate, is undermined; resolved to make his son King of England, and in order thereunto married him to the Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant of the blood royal, not doubting but that they who had renounced all subordination unto their spiritual Superiors under the pretext of a reformation, would upon the same score prefer the lady Jane to the Crown before the Princess Mary, a Constant Catholic. Therefore after that he had beheaded the Protector, and poisoned the King, he crowned his son's wife, with the concurrence and applause of the Prelatic Clergy, Cranmer, Ridly etc. and with the consent of the Protestant Nobility, and City of London. But Protestancy not being at that time so deeply rooted, nor so largely spread in the nation, the Catholic Gentry and Commons together with Q. Mary's great courage, and resolution, quashed this Polititian's design, and brought him to due punishment. Upon the scaffold he declared that he never had been a Protestant in his judgement, and only made use of its profession and principles for temporal ends, as to raise his family, etc. he advertissed the people of the new Religion's inconsistency with peace and quiet; that its Clergy were but Trumpets of sedition: The substance of his speech is set down by D. r Heylin in these words. 
D. r Heylin Eccles. restau. Q. Marry pag. 19  He admonished the spectators, to stand to the Religion of their Ancestors, rejecting that of later date, which had occasioned all the misery of the foregoing thirty years; and that for prevention for the future, if they desired to present their souls unspotted in the sight of God, and were truly affected to their Country, they should expel those tempests of sedition, the Preachers of the reformed Religion; that for himself, what soever had otherwise been pretended, he professed no other Religion then that of his Fathers; for testimony whereof, he appealed to his good friend, and ghostly Father the Lord Bishop of Worcester; and finally, that being blinded with ambition, he had been contented to make rack of his conscience by temporizing, for which he professed himself sincerely repentant, and so acknowledged the justice of his death. A Declaration (saith D. r Heylin) very unseasonable, whether true or false; as that which rendered him less pitied by the one side, and more scorned by the other. This is a more Politic than pious observation of D. r Heylin; would he not have men confess their faults, and profess their ●aith when they are dying? and would he have them prefer the vanity of the pity or scorn of the world, when they are to bid the whole world adieu, before the satisfaction and salvation of the soul? I fear too many of D. r Heylins' principles not only defer until the last hour the profession of the truth, but even then dissemble; thinking a Declaration and recantation of their errors at that tym● either unseasonable, or unpardonable; and prefer, the vanity of the world's opinion, before the necessity of a conversion unto the true faith.  
Q. mary danger ended not with Dudlys' death, 
D. r Heylin cit pag. 33.34▪ & 35.  it lasted as long as there was any man to head the Protestant party, and to put the people in mind of its principles. First, the Duke of Suffolck, and others, plotted the setting up once more of the Lady Jane Grey, and began the execution thereof by their Proclamations against Q. mary intended marriage with Philip of Spain; this occasioned the Lady Jan's death. Other zealots of the Protestant Religion concluded a marriage between the Lord Courtny and the Lady Elizabeth; their plot was discovered, as also Wyat's Rebellion suppressed; all these things were done by the advice and assistance of the Protestant Clergy that remained in England, and were commended by such of them as lived abroad. D. r John Poinet the last Bishop of Winchester was not only of Wyat's Council, 
Heylin pag. 35▪  but continued in his camp until he perceived the design would not take; then he departed telling the Rebels he would pray for their good success. Goodman, and Knox railed in their Books against the Queen; and Calvin in his Comment upon Amos termeth her Proserpina. 
Cap. 14▪  Goodman hath this expression. Wyatt did but his duty, and it was but the duty of all others that profess the Gospel, to have risen with him for the maintenance of the same. His cause was just, and they were all Traitors that took not part with him. O Noble Wyatt▪ thou art now with God, and those worthy men that died in that happy enterprise. This was the primitive spirit, these the first effects of our English Protestancy.  
Not only the Queen out of a zeal to the Roman Catholic Religion, but the Privy Council and Parliament moved with a desire of peace (seeing it was moraly impossible to govern people protestantly principled) resolved to restore the ancient doctrine wherewith their Ancestors had so long prospered; and to suppress the Protestant novelties by the rigour of the laws formerly made against heresies, which had been repealed at the instance of the reformed Preachers, and Prelates, in K. Edward 6. reign. And therefore (as D. r Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury confesseth in his book of dangerous positions pag. 63.) though Q. Mary was a Princess of nature and disposition very mild and inclined to pity, yet she and her government is taxed with too much severity by them that consider not the nature and consequences of Protestancy. If Tinkers, Tailors, Tapsters, Tanners, and Spinsters, would needs run into the fire for defending the fond inventions of Cranmer, and of other known Temporisers, who could help it? neither patience nor pains was wanting in the Catholic Clergy to reduce them to the truth; but their obstinacy, and the vanity of dying Martyrs (forsooth) made them prefer their own private sense of Scripture before that of the whole visible Church. So charitable were the Catholics, that they delayed the penalties of such as they could not convert, and connived at them who endeavoured to escape by absenting or concealing themselves. And as for Cranmer, Ridly, Latimer, and the other Ringleaders of Protestancy, they had liberty given them to maintain their cause in public disputations, with the time, books, and notaries that themselves desired. How little they could say for their Religion and Reformation, and how they were convicted of frauds and falsifications, in the planting and propagating thereof, may be seen in the third part of this Treatise.  
But that which most pleased and settled the Kingdom, was the Roman Clergy's resignation of the Church livings to the Crown, and to others that possessed them. The whole Convocation petitioned to their Majesties, declaring the readiness they were in, to wave their claim, and interest; and thus conclude.  

D. Heylin Eccles. resta. in the Histor. Q. Marry pag. 43.  Wherefore preferring the public good, and quiet of the Kingdom before our own private commodities, and the salvation of so many souls redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ, before any earthly thing whatsoever, and not seeking our own, but the things of jesus Christ, we do most earnestly and most humbly beseech your Majesties, that you would graciously vouchsafe to interceded in our behalf with the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole Legat a latere, from his Holiness, that he would please to settle and confirm the said goods of the Church either in whole, or in part, as he thinks most fit, one the present occulants thereof, according to the power and faculties committed to him, by the said most Serene Lord the Pope, etc. And for our parts we do both now, and for all times coming give consent to all and everything, which by the said Lord Legat shall, in this case, be finaly ordained, and concluded etc.  
As the Clergy showed much zeal and charity in resigning their temporal interest, so did the laity give an eminent proof of Christian humility in acknowledging their schism and heresy by an instrument delivered by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, to Cardinal Pole, craving absolution for their sins and schism, mentioned in the Statut an. 1. & 2. Philip. & Mar. cap. 8. part of which Statut I thought fit to set down a part for an example worthy of imitation, it being credible that they who were Actors in the Changes of Religion, and had experience both of the new and old faith, knew better how things were then carried, and upon what motives, than any now living. Thus than they petition to the Queen, and King.  
Whereas since the 20. year of K. Henry 8. of famous memory, 
Stat. an. 1. &▪ 2. Pbil. & Mar▪ cap. 8.  Father unto your Majesty our most natural Sovereign etc. much falls and erroneous doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the natural born subjects of this realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other foreign Countries, hath been sown, and spread abroad within the same; by reason whereof as well the spirituality, as the temporality of your Highness' Realms and Dominions have swerved from the Obedience of the Sea Apostolic, and declined from the unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued until such time as your Majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the seat Royal over us etc. The Pop's Holiness and the Sea Apostolic scent hither unto your Majesties (as unto persons undefiled, and by God's goodness preserved, from the common infection aforesaid) and unto the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legat a latere, to call us home again into the right way from whence we have all, this long while wandered and strayed abroad; and we after sundry long and grievous plagues, and calamities, seeing by the goodness of God, our own errors, have acknowledged the same unto the said most Reverend Father, and by him have been received and embraced, into the unity and bosom of Christ's Church: and upon our humble submission and promise made, for a Declaration of our repentance, to repeal and abrogat such Acts and Statutes as had been made in Parliament since the said 20. year of the said King Henry 8. against the Supremacy of the Sea Apostolic &c.  
And because the first occasion and main Motive of our English Protestant Reformation was the pretended nullity of K. Henry 8. and Q. Catherine's marriage; for satisfaction of the world and a discovery of the truth, the Parliament (wherein sat many both Lords and Commons particularly acquainted with the whole matter, and employed in that intrigue) declare their knowledge and discharge their conscience in the ensuing Act 1. Mariae.  

An Act of Parliament an. 1. Mariae concerning the fraud and force of King Henry 8. unlawful divorce from Queen Catharin.  
FOr as much as truth (being of her own nature of a most excellent virtue, efficacy, force, and working) cannot but by process of time break out and show herself, however for a while she may by the iniquity, and frailty of man be suppressed and kept closely: And being revealed and manifested, aught to be embraced, acknowledged, confessed and professed in all cases and matters, whatsoever, and whomsoever they touch or concern without respect of persons; but in such cases and matters, especially as whereby the glory and honour of God in heaven (who is the Author of Truth, and truth itself) is to be specially set forth, and whereby also the honour, Dignity, surety, and preservation of the Prince, and the Ruler under God in earth, dependeth and the welfare, profit, and special benefit of the universal people and body of a Realm is to be continued, and maintained. We, your Highness most loving, faithful and obedient subjects, understanding the very truth of the state of Matrimony between the two most excellent Princes of most worthy memory, King Henry 8. and Qu●en Katharin his loving, godly, and lawful wife, your Highness lawful Father and Mother, cannot but think ourselves most bound, both by our duty of Allegiance to your Majesty, and of conscience towards God, to show unto your Highness, first, how that the same Matrimony, being contracted, solemnised, and consummated, by the agreement and assent of both their most noble Parents, by the council and advise of the most wise and gravest men of both their Realms, by the deliberate and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in learning, in those days, of Christendom, did even so continue by the space of 20. years and more between them, to the pleasure of Almighty God, and satisfaction of the world, the joy and comfort of all the subjects of this Realm, and to their own repose, and good contentment, God giving for a sure token, and Testimony of good acceptation of the same, not only godly fruit, your Highness most noble person (whom we beseech the Almighty and everliving God, long to prosper and preserve here amongst us) and other Issue also, whom it had pleased God to take out of this Transitory life unto his eternal glory, but also sending us a happier, flourihing and most prosperous Commonwealth in all things.  
And then afterward, how that the malicious and pervers actions, of some (a very few persons) envying the great felicity wherein, by the goodness of God, your said most noble Father and Mother, and all their good subjects lived and continued many years, did for their own singular glory, and vain reputation conceive sundry subtle, and disloyal practices, for the interruption and breach of the said most lawful, and Godly concord. And endeavering to put the same in ure devised first to insinuat a scruple into the King your Father's conscience, of an unlawful marriage, between him and his most lawful wife the Queen your Highnes' Mother, pretending for the ground thereof, that the same was against the word of God. And thereupon ceased not to persuade continually unto the said King your Father, that he could not without danger of the loss of his soul continue with his said most lawful wife, but must be separated and divorced from her. And to this intent caused the Seals a● well of certain Universities in Italy and France to be gotten (as it were for a testimony) by the corruption of money, with a few light persons, Scholars of the same Universities; as also the Seals of the Universities of this Realm to be obtained by great travail, sinister working, secret threatenings, and entreatings of some men in authority, especially sent at that time thither for the same purposes.  
And how that finally Thomas Cranmer, newly made Archbishop of Canterbury, most ungodly and against all laws, equity and conscience, prosecuted the same wicked device of divorce, and separation of the said King your Father, and Queen your Mother, called before him (ex officio) the hearing of the same matter of marriage, and taking his foundation partly upon his own unadvised judgement of the Scripture, joining there with the pretended Testimonies of the said Universities; and partly upon bare and most untrue conjecturs, gathered and admitted by him upon matters of no strength or effect, but only by supposal, and without admitting or hearing any thing that could be said by the Queen your Mother, or by any other on her behalf; in the absence of the said late your Mother, proceeded, pronounced, and discerned, declared, and gave sentence, the same most lawful and undoubted matrimony, to be naught, and to be contracted against God's law, and of no value, but lacking the strength of the law▪ and the said most noble King your Father, and the said noble Queen your Mother so married together, did separat and divorce, and the same your most noble Father King Henry the 8. and the said noble Queen your Mother, from the bands of the same most lawful matrimony, did pronounce, and declare, by the same his unlawful sentence, to be free, discharged, and set at liberty. Which sentence and judgement so given by unlawful and corrupt means and ways by the said Archbishop of Canterbury, was afterwards upon certain affections ratified, and confirmed by two several Acts, the one made in the 25. year of the reign to the said King your Highnes' Father, and entitled, an Act of declaring the establishment of the succession of the Kings most Royal Majesty, of the Imperial Crown of his Realm. The other Act of Parliament made in the 28. year of the reign of the said King your Highnes' Father, entitled an Act for the establishment of the succession of the Imperial Crown of the Realm.  
In the which said two Acts, was contained the illegitimation of your most noble Person, which your said most noble Person being born in so solemn a marriage, so openly approved in the world, and with so good faith, both first contracted, and also by so many years continued between your most noble Parents, and the same Marriage in very deed not being prohibited by the law of God; could not by any reason or equity in this case be so spotted. And now we your Highnes' said most loving, faithful, and obedient subjects of a godly heart and true meaning, freely and frankly, without fear, fancy, or any other corrupt motion, or sensual affection, considering that this foresaid marriage, had its beginning of God, and by him was continued, and therefore was received, and is to be taken, for a most true just, lawful, and to all respects, a sincere and perfect marriage, nor could nor ought by any man's power, authority or jurisdiction, be dissolved broken, or separated (for whom God joineth, no man can nor aught to put a sunder) and considering also, how during the same marriage in godly concord, the Realm in all degrees flourished to the glory of God, the honour of the Prince, and the great reputation of the subjects of the same; and on the other side, understanding manifestly that the ground of the said device and practice for the said divorce, proceeding first of malice, and vain glory, and afterward was prosecuted and followed of fond affection, and sensual fantasy, and finaly executed and put in effect by corruption, ignorance and flattery; and not only feeling to our great sorrow, damage, and regret, how shameful ignominies, rebuks, slanders and contempts yea with death pestilence and wars, disobedience, rebellions, insurrections▪ and divers other great and grievous plagues. God of his Justice hath sent upon us, ever since this ungodly purpose was first begun and practised; But also seeing evidently before our eyes that unless so great an injustice, as this hath been, and yet continued, be rebuked, and that the said falls and wrongful process, judgement, and sentence, with their dependences be repealed and revoked, nothing is less to be doubted, than that greater plagues, and strokes are like to increase and continue daily more and more with in this Realm; do beseech your most excellent Majesty, as well in respect of your own honours, dignity and just title, as for truth's sake wherewith (we doubt not) but your Highness also will be specially moved in conscience, and also for the entire love, favour, and affection which your Majesty beareth to the common wealth of this Realm, and for the good peace, unity, and rest of us your most faithful subjects, and our posterity; that it may be enacted by your Highness, with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled.  
And be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that all and every decree, sentence, and judgement of divorce, and separation between the said King your Father, and the said late Queen your Mother, and all the process commenced followed, given, made, or promulged by the said Thomas Cranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, or by any other person or persons whatsoever, whereby the same most just, pure and lawful marriage, between the said late King your Father, and the said late Queen your Mother, was, or is pronounced, or in any wise declared to be unlawful, or unjust, or against the law of God, be, and shall be from the beginning, and from hence forth, of no force, validity, or effect, but be utterly naught, void, frustrate, and annihilat, to all intents constructions and purposes, as if the same had never been given or pronounced.  
And be it also enacted by the authority v, that as well the said Act of Parliament entitled an Act declaring the establishment of the Succession of the King's most Royal Majesty, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, made in the 25. year of the reign of the King your Father be repealed, and be it void, and of no effect, as also all and every such clauses, Articles, branches, and matters contained and expressed in the afforsaid Act of Parliament, made in the said 28. year of the Reign of the said late King your Father, or in any other Act, or Acts of Parliament, as whereby your Highness is named or declared to be ilegitimat, or the said marriage between the said King your Father, and the said Queen your Mother, is declared to be against the word of God, or by any means unlawful, shall be, and be repealed, and be void, and of no force nor effect, to all intents, constructions, and purposes, as if the same sentence or Act of Parliament had never been had, nor made, and that the said marriage had and solemnised between your said most noble Father King Henry, and your said most noble Mother Queen Catharin, shall be definitiuly, clearly, and absolutely declared, deemed and adjudged, be, and stand with God's law, and his most holy word, and to be accepted, reputed, and taken of good effect and validity to all Intents, and purposes. etc.  
Notwithstanding that the force and fraud used by King Henry 8. Cranmer, and others engaged in this divorce, were so plainly manifested, the Catholics faith reestablished, the folly and falsehood of former schisms and heresies publicly acknowledged, yet no sooner was Queen Mary deceased, than Queen Elizabeth and her Protestant faction, resolved to return to the former errors, whereunto vicious persons (who always are the greatest number) were as vehemently inclined, as men are to enjoy their liberty, and to excuse the sensuality which they practised, by the principles of that Religion.  

Dr. Heylin Q Elizabeth pag. 107.  And though it seemed a business of great difficulty for Q. Elizabeth and her Council, to revive a Reformation, which had been so lately cried down as schism and heresy, by the unanimous concurrence of a full and lawful Parliament, yet her Regal authority, her sex, and words wrought so strongly upon the weakness of some, and upon the ambition of others, that she gained the greater part of the house of Lords (and yet but by on only voice) for establishing Protestancy; the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Arundel employing in her service, all their interest, with friends and relations, against the Religion of their Ancestors. And such Lords and Gentlemen (saith D. r Heylin) as had the managing of elections of their several Counties, retained such for members of the house of Commons, as they conceived most likely to comply with their intentions for a reformation. Besides (saith he) the Queen was young, unmarried and like enough to entertain some thoughts of a husband; so that it can be no great marvel, not only if many of the nobility, but some even of the Gentry also, flattered themselves with possibilities of being the man whom she might choose to be her partner in the Regal Diadem. Which hopes much smoothed the way to the accomplishment of her desires, which otherwise might have proved more rugged and unpassable, etc. Notwithstanding all these devices, and compliances they never passed an Act in Parliament for the validity of her Mother's marriage, on which (saith Heylin) her title most depended. It seems the late former Act declaring the validity of Queen Catherine's marriage deterred her from attempting an other incompatible therewith, and wherein men must have had contradicted themselves most imprudently, as also the truth asserted by the many witnesses, and confirmed with such individual circumstances, that without infamy to the late Parliament they could not take from Queen Elizabeth the brand of bastardy. Yet they resolved it should be no bar between her and the Crown, and so they thrust her into the Throne, which of right belonged to Mary Steward Queen of Scotland, as is manifest to all that are not persuaded, Catholic Religion doth make sovereigns incapable of Regal jurisdiction.    

SECT. VII. Other effects of Protestancy after it was revived in England by Q. Elizabeth, to exclude the Royal Family of the Stewards from the Crown; of the nulity of her Clergy's character and jurisdiction.  
By King Henry 8. his revolt from the Church of Rome, not only the Religion but the realm of England was so embroiled, that very many who had no right, entertained hopes of ascending into the Royal Throne; some by fishing in troubled waters, others by marrying Q. Elizabeth, others by their descent from the younger daughter of King Henry 7. (all mention of the heirs of the elder Sister having been omitted, or blotted out of the last will and Testament of K. Henry 8.; and Q. Elizabeth having been declared ilegitimat by three Acts of different Parliaments, which never yet were repealed) very few there were that did not hold their own title to be more legal than hers. This confusion also made the Queen of Scots known right to be neglected. But the French King who was concerned therein, commanded her to be proclaimed Q. of England, and quartered the Arms of great Brittany with his lilies. Q. Elizabeth apprehended some danger from a title so clear, seconded with the power of France, and Scotland; and therefore by the advice of Secretary Cecil and others, resolved upon the change of Religion and the destruction of the Catholic party and Clergy which favoured the Steward's claim. 
Act. 14. v. 23. & tom. 5.22.  The Protestant Reformation (as being suitable both to her birth and interests) was revived, and a new character of Priesthood and Episcopacy devised; not imprinted in the soul by imposition of Episcopal hands, according to the Gospel, but in wax, as if forsooth by the weight of the great seal, and the virtue of a she supremacy, a woman or lay men might make Bishops. This superficial formality was declared a sufficient character, and ground of Episcopacy, by a Junta of her Majesty's lawyers, and Divines as appeareth in their definitive sentence, and her Commission 
* 
See thee nulity of the Prelatic Clergy of England cap. 2. and D. Bramhal in his vindication thereof pa. 92. & pag. 100L.  
Dr. Stapleton in his return of untruths against Jewel fol. 130. and in his Counterblast against Horn fo. 79 & 301 Dr. Harding Confut. Apol. fol. 57 & 60 & part 2. fol. 59 edit. 1563 & fol. 57 & 59 edi. 1566   to the Consecraters of her first Bishops D. r Parker, and others, wherein she dispenseth with all the inhabilities, and incapasities even of their State and Condition; because the true Bishops refused to ordain her Clergy, and a Clergy she was resolved to have that would vote in Parliament, and instruct the People as should be thought fit for her Succession and security.  
And because the Roman Catholic Writers of those times laughed at the Protestant Bishop's Episcopacy, and bid them show the letters of their Orders, not the letters patens of the Queen; and told them a secular Prince might give them the revenues of Bishoprics, but not the Character of Bishops; and that the same Catholic writers insisted much upon their Adversaries not being able to name what Bishops did consecrat them; and besides pleaded in the public Court, they were not realy nor legaly ordained; and that afterwards it appeared so to the jury appointed for the examination thereof; both the Queen and her Bishops found it absolutely necessary for her credit and their character, to ratify all Acts, and things had made, or done by any person, or persons in or about any consecration, 
Stat. 8. Elizabeth. 1.  confirmation, or investing of any person, or Persons elected to the office, or dignity of Archbishops, or Bishops by virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or Commission, since the beginning of her Reign. So that to know whether D. r Parker, and his Comrades were true Bishops, none must have examined whether they had been consecrated by other Bishops, but only whether the person or persons that were the Consecrators (whether lay men or Ecclesiastic it mattered not) performed that ceremony by virtue of the Queen's letters patents, or commission? If they could show her great seal, they might use what matter and form they pleased; for, 
Stat. 8. Eliz. 8.  by the Act 1. & 8. Eliz. there was given to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs etc. full power and authority, by letters patents under the great seal of England, from time to time, to assign, name, and authorize such person or persons as she and they shall think meet and convenient (any lay man or woman would serve turn) to exercise, use enjoy and execute under her Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, Privileges, preeminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction within this Realm, or any other her Majesty's Dominions, or Countries. Now priesthood being nothing but a spiritual power to Consecrat Christ's Body and Blood, and forgive sins, and Episcopacy including besides the same, a spiritual power to consecrat, and ordain other Priests and Bishops; who can doubt but that by these words and Statut, the Queen might, and her Successors may, by their sole letters patents and great seal, make any lay man, (whether Carter or Catchpole), a Protestant Bishop, or Priest; seeing thereby he receiveth full power to exercise, use, execute, etc. all manner of jurisdictions, preeminencies, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiastical power etc.  
And because there might remain no ambiguity or scruple of Parker, and the first Protestant Bishop's valid and legal Consecration, the same Statut 8. Elizabeth 1. assures us, that the Queen in her letters patents for that purpose directed to any Archbishop, Bishops, Or Others (mark the word Others) for the confirming, investing, and consecrating of any person elected to the Office or dignity of any Archbishop, or Bishop, hath not only used such words and sentences as were accustomed to be used by the late King Henry, and King Edward her Majesty's Father and Brother, in their like letters patents, made for such causes; but also hath used divers other general words and sentences, whereby her Majesty by her supreme power, and authority hath dispensed with all causes or doubts, of any inperfection or disability, that can, or may in any wise be objected against the same, as by her Majesties said letters patents (remaining on record) more plainly will appear. Now Mr. Bramhal, the late Primate, would fain make the Parliament so senseless, and his Readers so simple, as to refer the words, mentioning and comparing the records of the Queen and her Father and Brother's time in this Act, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Register, and not to their Majesty's letters patents; where as by the whole context and discourse it is evident, that the Parliament's drift is to show no such ceremonious solemnity (as of late hath been pretended and printed by Mr. Mason) was necessary. Had there been any such legal or formal Consecration at Lambeth, as 50. years after was forged, and foisted into the Archbishop's Register, the Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. would have remitted us thereunto, named Lambeth, and not insisted altogether upon the Queen's dispensation for the validity, and legality of her first Bishop's Consecration and character.  

See the nullity of the Clergy and Church of England edit. 1659.  Many are the reasons lately printed, and not like to be answered, that persuade all prudent men, who have not too great a passion for the Prelatic Clergy, to believe that Mr. Mason's new found Register of Lambeth is forged. 1. It was never produced, nor mentioned by the first Bishops, so much pressed by their Adversaries to show some Register, or any evidence for their Consecration. 2. They were only desired to let the world know, where, when, and by whom they had been made Bishops? questions easily answered, had they been consecrated at Lambeth, or any Register then extant when Dr. Harding, Stapleton and others, charged them with nulity and illegality of Episcopal character. 3. It's no more credible that such knowing and conscientious men as Stapleton, Harding, Fitzherbert etc. then living in England, and probably at London, would question so public and solemn an action, than it is, that a sober man would now call in doubt King charles's 2. coronation at Westminster, or ask in print, who set the Crown upon his head pretending he never had been crowned. And though Bishop Godwin and other Prelatic Writers abuse Dr. Harding, Holiwood, Fitzsimons etc. for relating the meeting of the first Protestant Bishops with a design to be ordained at the Nagshead in Cheapside, yet all the world knows that albeit there could be no design to feign that story, yet our Controversy with the Prelaticks, is not whether their first Prelates were ordained there, but whether they were ordained any where? We know Bishops might be as validly consecrated in a Tavern, though not so decently, as in a Church. But 'tis fit they also consider, 
Bramhal in his vindication pag. 132.  that if Dr. Parker and their first Bishops, were so narrowly watched by Mr. Neal, and other Catholics (whom Primate Bramhal doth call Spies) that they could not be merry in a Tavern without their knowledge, they could hardly perform so serious, and solemn an Action in a Church, as the first Consecration of a Protestant Archbishop, without their observation; it being a matter then so much sought after, and controversed, of so great curiosity in itself, and of greatest concern to us, the total credit, and being of their new Reformation depending thereupon; And yet for above 50. years' none of the Writers of either side Catholic, or Protestant (who mentioned all other particulars relating to the reformation) writ, or spoke a word of this solemnity at Lambeth. The Puritans indeed upraided the Prelaticks with saying their Episcopal ordination in England, had its beginning and progress in a corner, not in a Congregation, 
Demonstrat. Discipl. cap. 8. ¶. 1 & 2. pag. 43.  but we can not imagine they could mistake the Archiepiscopal Chapel of Lambeth, for a corner, or deny that the great Assembly pretended to have had been at Dr. Parker's Consecration, deserved not to be called a Congregation.  
Queen Elizabeth's Clergy thus created by her patents, and Parliaments, they endeavoured to show themselves gratful to her Majesty, by making the people believe that Popery (by the principles whereof she was uncapable of the Crown) was Idolatry, the Pope Antichrist etc. And to that end corrupted Scriptures in their English Translations, as shall be proved hereafter. And because their frauds and follies were discovered by Catholic Priests, 
2. part.  the sanguinary and penal laws were enacted and executed with great cruelty. But that which most troubled the Queen and her Clergy, was the life and right of the Queen of Scots; they found an expedient to rid themselves of both, that innocent Queen was murdered, and seeing Queen Elizabeth was not inclined to marry, it was decreed in Parliament that in case there should be any natural issue of her body, it should enjoy the Crown after her death, 
See this Act of Parliament in the life of the Queen of Scots, Written by Mr. V. dal, and dedicated to King James pag. 200. & 201.  and so the line of the Stewards was excluded; and for that the doctrine of the Roman Catholics favoured their Title, all persons of that profession were discountenanced, and persecuted. And albeit this setlement both of the Crow'n and Clergy of England, seemed very absurd to all that reflected upon the principles of Christianity, and the practice of God's Church, yet they who were guided only by Maxims of human policy, excused the Queen's proceedings, and condemned not her Clergy for accepting of those revenues, and dignities which they could not acquire by honest and ordinary ways, their learning being but vulgar, and their birth obscure. Had not her Majesty exalted those mean persons from nothing, to be a legal, though not lawful Clergy, she could not have had any Clergy at all, for that no man of conscience, or honour, would have gained his living by damning souls, and corrupting Scripture, nor received a spiritual character from a secular seal, and she supremacy. And indeed even to this day very few or none of the Protestant Nobility, or prime gentry, undergo that course of life; and the better sort of Tradesmen take it for no great honour when any of their Relations become, Ministers.  
And because the foundation of the Queen's legitimacy, and of her Clergys' character and jurisdiction, was King Henry 8. and her own supremacy, an oath of the same was pressed upon the subjects, and proposed in the Parliament. The temporal Lords who were wiser than to believe that Christ committed the government of souls, and of the Church to women or lay Princes (all of them one excepted) having been for the three first Centuries, Idolaters; and many, for some succeeding ages, notorious heretics, (and for the future may prove no better,) refused to concur with their votes for passing of the Oath, unless the Peerage were exempted from taking it: this being condescended unto, they consented to make that Oath legal, which themselves had rejected as unlawful; and yet is this oath, even in our tims, made the distinctive sign not only of Prelatic Protestancy, but of Cavalier loyalty, and Christian honesty. But this policy of State neither then, nor now, could worck that unity of faith, and union of hearts for which it was devised. It divided Protestants into Puritan, and Prelaticks; and confirmed Papists in their own belief, as being scandalised to see others make a thing so incredible, the foundation of their faith. The Puritans agreed with the Papists in denying the Queen's spiritual supremacy, but differed from them in the ground of the denial, and in the person whereunto they granted that prerogative. The Papists continued it in the Pope; the Puritans usurped it to themselves. The Papists grounded their belief concerning the Pop's supremacy upon the common and continual consent of all Catholics, 
See 1▪ p. se● 1.  acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be de jure Divino S. Peter's, Successor; the Puritans rejected that consent and Tradition, relying upon their own private spirit, and fond interpretation of Scripture. And though it be more dangerous for Souveraigns to allow of this spiritual superiority in their own subjects, then in a stranger, whose parentage (generaly speaking) is not considerable, and whose power is not durable, as coming very late into his hands, and not surviving his person by descent to his posterity, or relations; yet Queen Elizabeth, was more jealous of the Pope, then of the Puritans; because the generality of the Irish, and a great part of the English, were Papists; and according to their principles, the Stewards ought to have been in possession of the British Empire, and the Pop's censures in behalf of the Queen of Scots, had wrought already upon some of their consciences. But the Puritans hated her Religion, person, and posterity, and were the chief instruments that Queen Elizabeth employed in embroiling Scotland, and shedding of her Royal blood: and therefore they were not only tolerated, but many of them exalted to places of trust, honour and profit. On the contrary, the Roman Catholics were persecuted, as a party that not only wished, but wrought what was possible for the Queen of Scots liberty, relief, and the restitution of the Crown to herself, and to her line, whereof it had been so unjustly deprived by the principles and practices of Protestants: whereof some were so ignorant or impudent, as to give out then, and even now Dr. Heylin pag. 131. doth rashly maintain, that the Pope offered to confirm her English Liturgy, upon condition she would acknowledge his supremacy. This was then, and is now reported, to the end illiterate Protestants may believe there is no great difference between their Reformation, and the Catholic Religion; and that the Bishops of Rome, and the Council of Trent proceeded rashly in their Censures, or at least may now, and would then, contradict former definitions, upon more mature deliberation, or for some temporal respects: But they who know it is not in the Pop's power to legitimat a spurious brood, on begot and born in adultery, as Queen Elizabeth; and that he would be deposed from his Papal dignity, if he offered to confirm, or allow any of the many defined heresies contained in the English Liturgy: They I say, will not believe the Bishop of Rome could be so fond of Queen Elizabeth, or forgetful of himself, as to become a Protestant, and change the revenues of his Popedom for the uncertainty of her pension, in case she would value his kindness so much as to bestow a pension upon him. By such follies and frauds is Protestancy supported in the opinion of credulous, and careless people, and their Clergy kept in possession of a vast revenue.   

SECT. VIII. Reason's why Queen Elizabeth in her 44. years' Reign could not make her Prelatic Clergy and Religion acceptable, neither is it possible for her Successors to gain credit and esteem for the same.  
THe setlement of a Christian Religion or Clergy doth not consist in making them legal by Acts of Parliament, but in persuading the people that both the Religion and the Clergy is Apostolic; and by consequence that the Acts of Parliaments whereby they are confirmed, are lawful. Notwithstanding the great severity of Queen Elizabeth's laws, and the little sincerity of her Clergy, in pulpit, press, and private conversations, against the Roman Catholic Religion, for the space of above 44. years of her Reign, though Popery was thereby rendered odious, and ridiculous to simple men, silly women, children, and others, whose want of capacity, and even of curiosity made them not reflect upon the drift of Protestant Preachers, nor upon the reasonableness of Catholic Tenets; yet their Prelatic Protestancy did and doth every day rather lose then gain ground, and the generality of these Nations can not be wrought upon either by fair or foul means to think well of that Religion, or to submit their Judgements, and consciences to the direction of the Bishops, and Prelatic ministry. The reasons are obvious to such as are not obstinate. 1. The incredibility of their pretended spiritual character and jurisdiction. 2. The incoherency of their doctrine with the fundamental principles of Protestancy. Their Episcopal character and jurisdiction, is as incredible as King Henry 8. spiritual supremacy, Queen Elizabeth's legitimacy, and the validity and solemnity of their first Bishop's consecrations. They have indeed of late endeavoured to excuse the latness of their Masonian Registers discovery, 
Primate Bramhal's succession and vindication of the Prelatic Clergy was answered by the Author of the nullity of the Church of England, and by an other book after he had both these answers by him; and durst not reply: but rather concurred with his Brethren in adding the words Priests and Bishop to their forms of ordination, as appeareth in their last edition of the Common prayer, rites etc. of the Church of England.  and to clear them from the suspicions of forgery, but so faintly and fraudulently, that their vindication (though penned and published by on of the ablest Prelates of their Church) hath furnished their adversaries with so many new demonstrations against their Character, that in steed of a reply, the Protestant Bishops have resolved upon a submission to the evidence of our arguments, and changed the controverted and essential part of their forms of Ordination.  
As they endeavoured of late to vindicat their Registers from forgery, so they, long since explained the Queen's supremacy, but so contrary to the known laws of the land, and clear words of their Oaths both of supremacy and Episcopal homage, that neither can bear their fond interpretations; and if they could, the Bishops would have nothing to show for their pretended spiritual function and jurisdiction, it being manifest they cannot deduce either of them by succession from any Apostolic Church, or orthodox Council; and therefore must content them-selves with what they can buy from a lay sovereign, and temporal Statutes, or acknowledge the truth, and confess ingeniously, they are but lay-men, and have no lawful authority to take upon them a spiritual function, and jurisdiction, seeing they have no Catholic Predecessors, and degenerate from the first Protestant Reformers, and are ashamed to claim (with Presbiterians and fanatics) the extravagancy of a private spirit, and extraordinary vocation.  
The incoherency also of the Prelatic doctrine makes these nations averse from the Prelatic Church and Clergy. ●n the 39 Articles of Religion they declare with Luther, and the first Reformers, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by consequence no such thing as imposition of Episcopal hands) was instituted by Christ, or is the necessary matter of a Priest's and Bishop's ordination; and yet now of late, that visible sign and ceremony is held by them-selves to be so essential, that without the same, no character of Priesthood or Episcopacy is thought to be given to the party ordained; and therefore they reordain such Presbiterian Ministers as did neglect, or contemn imposition of Episcopal hands. 2. They maintain in the same 39 Articles, that the Roman Catholic Church hath fallen into damnable errors, and acknowledge that only such a fall can justify the Protestants separation, or excuse them from sin and schism. And yet when they are pressed with a consequence that necessarily follows out of this supposition, to wit, that if the Roman and visible Church had so erred, Protestants can have no Christian faith, nor certainty of the Scriptur's being God's word, or of the Trinity and Incarnation etc. which they received and retain upon the sole Testimony of the Roman Catholic Church, having in their own 39 Articles declared the Greeck Church, Heretical (for the doctrine of the Holy Ghost's procession) and therefore it's testimony (even in other Articles) is invalid, and its concurrence, in those other Articles, with the Roman Church, is unsignificant. And yet they again contradict them-selves, and confess that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible in all articles necessary for salvation. 3. The same inconstancy and incoherency they show in denying, that doctrinal Traditions are the word of God, or that Tradition itself is a sufficient ground of Divine belief; and yet when they are demanded to show a proof by clear Scripture of the distinction between single Priesthood, and Episcopacy (u.g.) than they maintain that traditional doctrine is God's word, and the testimony of the Roman visisible Church, a sufficient evidence thereof. Their wavering and inconsequent way of proceeding, doth manifest to the world, that as well in this, as in other particulars of Christian Religion, nay even in declaring which are necessary or not necessary points of faith, the Prelatic Clergy hath a greater regard to their own conveniency, then to God's veracity; and to the revenues of ●he Church, then to the salvation of souls: Otherwise why should they take our Roman Catholic word for Episcopacy, and not for the Pop's supremacy; for the letter, but not for the sense of Scripture; for not rebaptising, or for receiving relapsed penitents, more than for Purgatory, or Transubstantiation; or for keeping Sunday, and not praying to Saints etc. Seeing all these doctrines are equally proposed to them as Catholic truths by the sole credible testimony and tradition of our one and the same Roman Catholic Church; the testimony of the Greeck and all other Churches (as hath been said) being rendered invalid by the heretics wherwhith Protestant's confess they are infected:  
Some are of opinion that if the more modern Prelaticks had not forsaken their old way of being ordained Bishops by the Queen's letters patents, or by some such public testimony and superficial ceremony of their Congregations, without troubling them-selves with the doctrine of the inward character given by imposition of Episcopal hands, so contrary to the principles of the reformation a broad, and to the 23. and 25. of their own 39 Articles at home; they had not been so hard put to it by their Presbiterian brethren's arguments, who stick to the Tenets and Rules of pure and primitive Protestancy, detesting those formalities and dregs of Popery, which Prelaticks of late have so much affected in ordaining of Ministers.  
Mr. Hooker, Dr. Covel and some other prelatics in their writings towards the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, began to inculcat the doctrine of making Ordination a spiritual character imprinted in the soul by imposition of Episcopal hands, and not a bare formality, of the secular Magistrat's election, by some outward ceremony, or letters patents, as all English Protestants had believed and practised until Hooker and Covel broached this among their other Popish novelties, and therefore were publicly blamed, and complained of by Prelatic Writers, and particularly by Dr. Willet in his work upon the 112. Psalm. printed 1603. and dedicated to the Queen's Majesty page 91. he saith: From this fountain have sprung forth these and such other whirlpoints, and bubbles of new doctrine; and amongst others he sets down as a novelty in the Church of England this, That there is in ordination given an indelible character; and then addeth, Thus have some been bold to teach and write, who, as some Schismatics (the Puritans) have disturbed the peace of the Church one way in external matters concerning discipline; they have troubled the Church another way in opposing themselves by new quirks and devices to the soundness of doctrine among Protestants.  
And truly, to pretend with all reformed Churches, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the man of sin, and at the same time profess (as the learned Prelatic writers do in their books) that without his character of Priesthood there can be no orthodox Clergy or Christian Church; are things that do not hang well together; neither is it credible that so zealous Protestants as were the first English reformers Cranmer, Coverdale, Bale, etc. who strained Scripture in their Translations (and made formal abjurations) against the characters of Episcopacy and Priesthood, which they had received in the Church of Rome; or that Parker, Jewel, Horn, etc. who received that same doctrine, and excluded those characters by an express Article of their 39 of Religion from the Church of England, and from their form of ordination, it is not I say credible, that these and the like men did maintain in their convocations, the late Prelatick contrary doctrine, or that they exercised or recorded any such Popish formalities of consecrating Priests and Bishops by imposition of Episcopal hands, as M. r Mason pretends he found in Parker's Register at Lambeth, as appeareth also to any that will consider, the homely choice, and caling of the primitive Pastors and Preachers of our Prelatic Protestancy, objected to themselves in print when they were living, and yet could not deny the fact, neither did they go about to excuse it, not taking it to be a fault.  
D. r Kelison in his survey pag. 373. & 374. saith of the Protestant Clergy in Q. Elizab. time. Lay men were taken, of which, some were base artificers, and without any other consecration or ordination then the Prince's, or the superintendent's letters, made them Ministers and Bishops, with as few ceremonies and less solemnity than they make their Aldermen yea Constables and criers of the market. D. r Stapleton in his Counterblast lib. 4. num. 481, saith. And wherein I pray you resteth a great part of your new Clergy, but in Butchers, Cooks, Catchpoles, and Cobblers, Dyer's, and Dawbers, fellows carrying their mark in their hand instead of a shaved Crown, etc.  
Seeing therefore our Catholic Arguments convince all disinterest'd persons (that weigh them) of the absurdity and novelty of Protestancy in general; and such as do not take them to be of any weight (because themselves are biased, and bend against us by education or interest) must needs take notice (if they think seriously of any Religion or of their own Protestant principles) that the Prelatic Reformation is but a politic appendix or addition of Q. Elizabeth in pursuance of her Father's passion, and by herself resolved upon, more for securing a Crown then saving the soul; 
See in the epistle Dedicatory, and our Preface, the Act of Parliament preferring any natural issue of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown before the royal family of the Stewards.  and therefore containing more mysteries of state then of faith, and more regarding conveniencies then conscience, as appeareth by the laity of her Clergy, by her She-supremacy, by the anticipated Royalty of her unlawful issue, in case she would be pleased to own any; these things I say being no calumnies of malignant pens or persons, but most manifest by her own Articles of Religion, and Acts of Parliament, can hardly be digested by honest subjects, (much less settled as Divine truths in Christian souls) or carry the face of a pious and plausible Religion, even amongst the most silly sort of people. Yet far be it from our thoughts to censure with folly or impiety such as sucked with their Nurse's milk the poison of this Prelatic Protestancy; no, we know they want neither piety nor policy according to their own principles; but I hope they will not be offended, if, according to ours, we do pity their condition, and pray for their conversion; we believe their zeal against our catholic Religion proceeds not from malice, but mistaks; and desire they may likewise believe our intention is only to expel by this antidote, the poison which others have infused into their brains. This humble apology and explanation doth not relate to them that made the change of Religion for preferring Q. Elizabeth, and any natural issue of her body to the Crown, before the lawful heirs, who (by God's providence) since her death, and at this present enjoy right, nor to any that will obstinately maintain such proceedings: It is intended for all well meaning Protestants that believe themselves to be Catholics, and if they be not, wish they were; and that the true Religion were settled in these Nations. But what marvel is it that private persons be mistaken in Protestancy, when the Royal family of the Stewards (against whose title and succession it was introduced and established, both in England, and Scotland; in England by Q. Elizabeth, in Scotland by the Bastard Murry) are so much in love with that Religion; devised for their own ruin? So bewitching a thing is education, engrafted in good dispositions, and so dangerous, if not cultivated, and corrected, by our own more mature reflections, when we arrive to years of discretion.   

SECT. IX. How injurious Protestancy hath been to the Royal family of the Stewards, and how zealous they have been, and are in promoting the same▪  
AFter that King Henry 8. had usurped the Pop's Supremacy, 
See Udal (a Protestant) in his history of the Queen of Scots, where he proves how the bastard M●rry, by the means of John Knox and others that he employed; changed the ancient Religion in Scotland to the end himself might be made King by the Protestants; and how afterwards by the same way he murdered King James his Father, and persecuted King James, and his mother, all under the pretext of a Protestant Reformation.  and divised certain Articles of Religion, he desired his Nephew K. James 5. of Scotland, to follow his example, which that Catholic Prince refused to do, King Henry in his last will and Testament (confirmed by his Protestant Parliament) excluded the Royal family of Scotland from their right and succession to the Crown of England, preferring before the Stewards not only his illegitimat daughter Elizabeth, but the Grays, and all others that descended of the younger sister Queen Dowager of France, and Duchess of Suffolk. King James 5. deceased, his wife the Queen Regent of Scotland, and his young daughter Queen Mary, were so persecuted by the Scotch and English Protestants, that the Queen Regent was deposed, and Queen Mary was forced to fly for refuge into France. After her return into Scotland, the King her Husband was murdered by the Protestants, his subjects, and the innocent Queen trepan'd by her protestant Bastard Brother to marry Borthvel one of the murderers; with a design to diffame and depose herself from the government, which the Bastard had usurped; and had murdered likewise King James 6. an infant, but that God prevented his wicked designs by permitting him to be killed by the hand of a Hamilton.  
Other Protestants succeeded the Bastard Murry in the government; and though King james escaped the dangers, and designs they had laid for his life, yet they perverted his soul, and when he was but 13. months old, Protestancy was set up in his name; his Mother (being driven out of her own Kingdom by those Protestants that deposed herself, and abused her Son's minority) was (contrary to the public faith and private promises of Queen Elizabeth) imprisoned in England, her Rebels countenanced, and herself at length most unworthily murdered by the joint consent of a Protestant Queen and Parliament: and her son and Family excluded from the British Empire, in case Queen Elizabeth should have, or at least own, any natural issue: which many suppose was the true cause, why she or the Parliament would never declare her Successor.  
King James having been brought up in this school of affliction, attained to more than ordinary wisdom, dissembled with his enemies in England, and strengthened himself with as many friends and Allies as he could in foreign Nations, to the end he might recover his right after Queen Elizabeth's death, which he and the best part of the world every day longed son▪ He kept fair with France, Spain, and even with the Pope. He succoured Tyrone Tirconel, and the Irish Scots in Irland against Queen Elizabeth but under hand. He corresponded with the Catholic party in England, and was civil even to that party that contrived and pressed his Mother's murder. By his marriage he obtained the confederacy of Denmarck and the Protestant Princes of Germany for recovering of England. Cecil and others of the English Council, observing how prudently this young King had ordered his affairs, and prepared himself for being their Master, courted him, and unknown to the Queen, gave him daily intelligence, and thought it their best course to fix upon him for her Successor; seeing they could hardly keep him out, they invited him to the Throne after his enemy's death; and he finding that very Protestancy by which his mother and himself had been so long excluded from their right (and would have been for ever, if Queen Elizabeth had been as capable as 'tis said she was desirous of Posterity) was deeply rooted in the hearts of most of his English subjects (who either did not see he change, or not observe the motives and Mysteries thereof) King James I say, reflecting upon this inclination of the people to Protestancy, conformed himself unto that Reformation which had been settled by law in England; discountenanced the Puritans, by whose doctrine he had been persecuted in Scotland; and would have tolerated the Catholic, if the gun powder Treason (whereunto some few discontented and desperate Papists were cunningly drawn by Cecil, to make their Religion odious) had not blasted our hopes, and blotted out of his majesty's memory what we had suffered for his Mother, and how not only our persons, but our principles had been persecuted for supporting the title of his Family to the British Empire.  
By King James his learned works, and discourses, it is manifest he had a design to reform the principles of Protestancy, and reduce them to some rules of reason, and confine that dangerous liberty which they give to every private Protestant, of being supreme Judge in all spiritual Controversies to one certain interpretation of Scripture that might be less prejudicial to Monarchy, Monarches, peace and all civil Government, than the Protestant arbitrary interpretations have proved hitherto. To that purpose he commanded the Bible to be truly translated, and those fraudulent and foolish corruptions to be corrected, which had been imposed upon the people for God's word by Queen Elizabeth's Clergy, for maintaining her title, and securing the revenues of the Church to themselves. But his command was not obeyed, some falcifications in the old and new Testament were corrected, but very few, in respect of what remain and pass now current for true Scripture. He declared that Catholics and their Religion had no hand in the gunpowder treason, those few persons excepted, which had been executed. He was not, afraid to acknowledge that the Pope was the first Bishop of Christendom, and Rome the mother Church; he suspended the rigour of the sanguinary and penal Statutes; commended not apostatised Priests, that became Protestants, as he said, to get wenches, and benefices. These things he did, not out of any inclination to Popery, but out of his zeal to Protestancy, which he perceived would in a short time become as infamous, as it is intolerable to Monarches, in case its principles were not corrected and brought nearer unto Catholic Tenets.  
After King james his death, his son King Charles 1. pursued the Father's design; but found by sad experience that the Protestant liberty of interpreting Scripture, cannot be restrained to reason by any human industry of the wisest Princes; especially so long as they are guided by a fallible Church that confesseth its own uncertainty of doctrine.  
King Charles' the 1. was persuaded by his Council and Clergy that the Laws which had been enacted in favour of the Prelatic fallible Church, and doubtful jurisdiction, were of sufficient force and authority to contain Protestant subjects in awe, and obedience, and to stop the course and consequences of those fundamental, and violent principles of their reformation against superiority, at the Church of Rom's door; and keep them from passing further, or entrenching upon the Church of England. But the mistake soon appeared; they who are allowed by the Prelatic principles to rebel against their Roman Superiors, under the pretence of a Religious interpretation of Scripture, and evangelical Reformation, could not then, nor cannot for the future, be contained, or deterred by any authority from rebelling against their Protestant Kings, and Bishops upon the same score, whose superiority could not be more authentic, than the Roman Catholic. And therefore because the King, had engaged in the Bishop's quarrel, he drew upon himself the odium of all Protestants that with the spirit and zeal of Reformation stuck to the fundamental principles of Protestancy, which is, to contemn all authority both spiritual and temporal, which any private person judges contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture; and seeing the Prelatic Church of England doth grant this doctrine was lawful in Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Parker, and other particular persons, Churches, and States against the Pope, and others their then acknowledged spiritual and temporal superiors, it will be very difficult to show why now a Presbiterian or Fanatic Congregation may not as rationally pretend, and as lawfully practise the same doctrine as their primitive Protestant Predecessors had done. And so in virtue of this fundamental principle of Protestancy, was the sacred person of a good King judged and murdered, by a rude and wicked multitude, without regard to innocency, or respect to Sovereignty: And by a remarkable revolution of times, and interests, the grandson came to lose his head for upholding that same Prelatic Religion and Clergy which by Q. Elizabeth had been raised for the destruction of his Grandmother, and the exclusion of his family from the crown.  
Since Christian Sovereigns have reigned, the like Tragedy hath not been acted; many Princes have been murdered by their Subjects, but never by any such formality of Law, and a public Court of Judicature, pretending superiority in themselves, and Scripture for their rule and warrant. Wherefore they that look into the principles and privileges for the future in so zealous and resolute a people as the English, who stand much upon enjoying their temporal liberties, and much more upon the spritual prerogative of Protestancy, which according to Luther (the first Author, 

Luther in epist. ad Argentinenses, anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatumau demus gloriari.  
See part 2 sect 5. n. 5. See M. r Belson Bishop of Winchester, in his true difference etc. part. 2. pag. 353.  
See M. r Rogers in the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England, pag. 103. perused and published by the Lawful authority of the Church of England, an. 1633.  
Calvin in Dan c. 6. v. 22. & 23. Abdicant se potestate terreni Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum &c potius ergo conspicere oportet in illorum capita, quam ●llis parere etc.   and Apostle thereof is) omnia judicemus & regamus. Let us judge and govern all things; and not only his Germane Scholar Brentius but our English Bishop Bilson, and all Prelaticks grant, that the people must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught. And the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England explaining the 39 Articles thereof saith, Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgement in the same, to judge controversies of faith, etc. And this is not the private opinion of our Church, but also the judgement of our godly brethren in foreign Nations. And it is not only the Tenet of Calvin, but of all Protestant Writers, that temporal laws oblige not in conscience any Christians to obey.  
It being therefore a principle and privilege, even of Prelatic Protestancy, and agreeable to the 39 Articles, that every member of sound judgement in the Church, hath authority, to judge controversies of faith (and by consequence) all other differences that may be reduced thereunto, how is it possible for any King to be a Sovereign among Protestants, who are all supreme judges both of faith and state? for that State-affairs are subordinat to Religion, and must be managed according to the Protestant sense of Scripture, that is, according to the judgement and interpretation of every particular Protestant or of him that can form or fool the multitude into his own opinion. Wherefore we ought not be astonished, that men constituted supreme judges and Interpreters of Scripture by the legal authority and articles of the Church of England, and by the Evangelical liberties of Protestancy, should presume to make them-selves the King's judges. For my part, I shall think it a great providence of God, and extraordinary prudence in the government, to see any King of England (during the profession and legality of such principles in his Kingdom) escape the like danger; and do continually pray, that their good Angel may deliver them from the effects of their own Religion.  
His Majesty that (by miracle) now Reigns (long may he live and prosper) hath been forced to lurk for his life in one of those secret places whereunto Priests retire, when they are searched for; God giving him to understand thereby, that the most powerful Princes (where Protestancy prevails) even in their own Kingdoms, are never secure; and may be often reduced to as hard shifts, and as great extremities as the Poorest Priests, and meanest Subjects.    

RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.  
THE SECOND PART. Of the inconsistency of Protestant principles with Christian piety and peaceable Government.  

SECT. I. Proved by the very Foundation of the Protestant Reformation, which is, a supposition of the fallibility and fall of the visible Catholic Church from the pure and primitive doctrine of Christ, into notorious superstition.  
IN the beginning of the first Part, it hath been said that the groundworck as well of Policy, as of Peace and Piety, consists in making that persuasion to be the Religion of the State, which is most credible, or most agreeable to reason; because no commands, duties, taxes, or charges will seem intolerable to subjects, for the preservation, and propagation of such a Religion, nor for the maintenance of the spirititual and temporal Ministers, to whose charge is committed the government of such a Church and Commonwealth. How far all kind of Protestancy (even the Prelatic) is from having this prerogative, we shall demonstrat in this Part of our Treatise; and in this Section prove the same by the absurdity of the fundamental Protestant principles, Common as well to the Prelatic as to all other Reformations.  
The foundation whereupon all Protestant Reformations are built, is this incredible or rather impossible supposition, Viz. That all the visible and known Christian Churches of the world ●ell from that purity and truth of doctrine, which they had once professed, into superstition, and damnable errors; until at length in the 15. age, God sent the Protestant Reformers to revive the true faith and Religion; whose separation from the Roman Catholic Church and all others then visible, is pretended to be free from sin and Schism, by reason of the falsehood of the Roman Catholic doctrine, not consistent with salvation. But this supposition is incredible. 1. Because Protestants confess the fall and change of Religion was not perceived until 1300. or until at least 1000 years 
(a) 
Perkins in his exposition upon the Creed p. 400. we say that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the world.  
Mr. Napper upon the revelations, dedicated to King Jams pag. 143. saith, from Constantin's time until these our days even 1260; years the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the out ward visible Church of christianity.   after it happened, and such an imperceptible change in Christian religion, involues as plain contradictions as a silent thunder.  
For, either it must be granted that all the Pastors, and Prelates who lived in the time that any alteration of doctrine began, were so stupid as not to take notice of so important and remarcable an object; or so wicked as to observe, and yet not oppose novelties so destructive to the souls committed to their charges. Both which are proved to be groundless calumnies by the acknowledged zeal learning, and integrity wherewith many Prelates and Pastors were endued in every age since the Apostles, as their works yet extant do testify.  
The truth of this Protestant supposition is not only incredible, but impossible; because the supposed change of Christian Religion into Popish superstition is not pretended to have been only a change of the inward persuasion, but of the outward profession, visible and observable in ceremonies and practices, answerable to the Mysteries believed; as the adoring of the B. Sacrament, worship of Jmages, Communion in one kind, public prayer in unknown languages etc. How then is it possible that any Christian man, or Congregation could begin so discernible and damnable novelties, as (according to the opinion of our Adversaries) The adoration of the Sacrament, Transubstantiation, worship of Jmages, Communion of the laity under one kind, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and public prayers in an unknown language, the Pop's supremacy, the doctrine of Purgatory, Jndulgences, Praying to Saints, the unmarried life of Priests etc. How is it possible I say, that any one should begin to teach, and practise any of these supposed damnable doctrines, and yet never be noted, or reprehended by any one Prelate, Pastor, or Preacher (who are (according to Esay) the wat●chmen 
[b] upon thy walls ö Jerusalem have I set watchmen all the day, and all the night for ever, they shall not be silent Esay 62.6. see Ephes. 4.11.  of te visible Church) until Luther's times, or at least until these supposed superstitions had been so universally spread, so deeply rooted and plausibly received as Catholic truths, and as ancient Traditions of Christ, and of the Apostles, that they who censured and opposed any of them, were (for so doing) immediately cried down and condemned by the then visible and Catholic Church and Counsels, as notorious heretics; How come the Preachers and Professors of these pretended Popish errors to escape for so many ages, as Protestants confess they had continued, uncontrolled from the censures of Christ's pure Protestant Congregation, if there was any upon earth during that time? was there not one Bishop, Priest, or Preacher in all the world for so many ages, so zealous as every Protestant is in ours! If any Protestants lived then, why did not they speack or write? were they all Temporisers, and Turncoats? or were they all so blind, dumb, deaf, and dull, that not one of them could see, hear, reprehend, or observe practices and ceremonies so erroneous, obvious, and offensive?  
The Protestant evasion or answer to this evident Demonstration, is both frivolous and fallacious. Their chief Doctors 
(c) Dr. Powel in his consideration of the Papist's supplication pag, 43. Buchanan. in loc. come. pa. 466. And Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 7. pag. 101. & 102. & contr. Duc. pag. 277. This Whitaker after vainly attempting to show the beginning of Popery, and seeing the insufficiency of his particular instances, doth at length acknowledge his weakness, and runs with the rest of his Protestant Champion's to divert the Reader from the evidence of truth so deceitful, and silly similitudes.  acknowledge they can not tell by whom, nor at what time the Popish errors were broached, and say that errors in Religion may creep as insensibly into the Church, as a building may decay, or white hairs grow in man's head: as if, forsooth, all and every Christian of the world, and particularly the Pastors and Prelates of the Church, were as much concerned in the observation of every grey hair and head, or in the preservation of every building from decay, as they are in observing and preserving the purity and integrity of every article of faith, and in opposing the least novelty contrary to the same. Besides, the outward profession and propagation of those points of Popery that Protestants suppose to have crept insensibly into the Church, could neither be concealed, nor confounded with the contradictory principles and practices of Protestancy, as a white hair may be easily confounded and concealed with others that cover, or come near it in colour. Moreover, the change from youth, and stately buildings, into grey hairs, and ruinous edifices, is wrought insensibly by the hand of time without any perceptible concurrence of any other cause; Time wears out and consumeth structure, strength, youth, and beauty, whether men gaze or not gaze upon such gay objects; but the planting, preaching, or inculcating of new doctrine, and new ceremonies of Religion, are of a quite contrary nature; they have not such dependency of time alone, they must be effects of attention and observation of discourses and disputs, of Sermons and Catechisms; they must be also professed and practised in the view of the world. Time without these and the like notorious practices and observations, can not alter Christian Religion, nor induce a contrary superstition.  
Lastly. Granted there were no fallacy in the similitude, nor disparity in the Comparison; the examples are better retorted against Protestancy, then applied to Popery; for, though hairs may begin to grow white, and buildings to decay, without any great notice taken of their change, yet when either comes to the height, or even to the mediocrity of their change, that change is observed by as many as have eyes to see; and is not only observed, but resented, and remedied (according to their power) by them who are most concerned in such decays and defects. If then a white head is so easily discerned from black, and a ruin'd edifice from a new Palace, and a decayed face from a beauty, by all kind of people that make use of their senses, and if so much industry is used by them who are most sensible of those imperfections, to hinder their further progress or appearance; how is it possible that all or any orthodox christian's (being so greatly and particularly concerned in the purity and truth of their Religion, and in the observation of its rites and Ceremonies) could be for many ages so stupid, as not to distinguish its doctrine and profession from the quite contrary? or so careless in applying remedies against the growth, and continuance of errors both damnable and discernible? Is it not more probable and possible that Martin Luther (a man so impious, proud, and passionate, that himself acknowledgeth he did retain Idolatry in the Church at Wittenbergh, to vex his Scholar Carolostadius; should (to disgrace the Pope and Papists his enemies) be seduced (by his confessed disputation and submission) in his diabolical doctrine, then that the whole visible Church, Fathers and Counsels before Luther for at least 1000 years, should not only forsake Christ's doctrine, but mistake the true sense of Scripture now pretended to be so clear and manifest to every Protestant? That all the world did conspire and concur to such an apostasy, is not credible: That they who did not concur, should sit quiet and connive, is as unlikely.  
If no Pastor nor Prelate had the courage to oppose Idolatry and superstition, sure some one or other would have had the curiosity to describe the occasion, beginning, and progress of so great and remarkable a change; and would mention, (if not condemn) the stupidity of the whole Church, in not opposing doctrine so inconscionable, and unreasonable. And yet there is no Tradition thereof, nor a syllable in any history sacred or profane, of this supposed change in any on point of Popery, nor so much as the least sign thereof in any monument of antiquity.   

SECT. II. The Protestants evasion of the cleverness of Scripture against our Roman doctrine, as also of the invisibility of their own Church, confuted: and the incredibility of the supposed change and Apostasy, proved by the difference of the Roman Catholic, and Protestant principles.  
THE second evasion of Protestant Writers is, that they are not bound to inquire when or where our Popish errors crept into the Church, or became so universal, but think it sufficient to prove by Scripture, that Popery is not Christ's doctrine. This shift is no less absurd than the former, because they suppose for granted what is denied, and the subject to our disputes.  
The controversy between Protestants and Catholics is, whether the Roman Tenets be contrary to Scripture? Protestants say they are, and prove it, because, forsooth, Scripture is contrary to the Roman Tenets; We deny it, and they prove it only by pretending that the letter and sense of Scripture is evident for the Protestant doctrine, and by consequence they must say that all Papists for the space of 1500. or at least 1000 years, have been either so witless as not to understand what is evident, or so wicked as to contradict evidence, and the cleverness of God's written-word and meaning. Let any Protestant (who hath so much sense as to understand that nothing but the obscurity of Scripture can make it the subject of disputs, and occasion diversity of opinions among so honest and learned Christians), be judge, whether the controversies between us, and Lutherans, Presbiterians, and Prelaticks., etc. be not a demonstration that the true sense of Scripture is not clear and evident in the controverted Texts. And if the dissent and dissensions amongst honest men and learned Scripturists be an undeniable proof, and evidence of Scriptur's obscurity, whether it be not great obstinacy in Protestants to maintain that Popery is evidently condemned in Scripture, and that so many thousands of honest and learned Papists could not or would not discover what is clear to every illiterate Protestant; or if they did, would not embrace that truth to which their judgements and God's clear word did direct them?  
Until the year 1517. no man ever pretended the cleverness of Scripture for Protestancy; at that time Martin Lather (seeing all the Fathers contradicted his protestant doctrine) boldly affirmed 
(d) Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. anno 1551. lib. de se. arbit. pag. 434  the ancient Doctors and Fathers of all former ages to have been blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures, and to have erred all their life time.  
And in Colloq. cap. de Patribus Ecclesioe Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular thus. In the writings of Jerome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. I have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostom I make no account. Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a monk, I way him not a hair. Cyprian is a weak Divine, etc. Adding further that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of his scholar Philip Melancton doth far exceed all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin himself. And in his Treatise de formulâ Missae, & in tom. 3. Germ. folio 274. If the Council should in any case decree this (the Communion under both kinds) lest of all then would we use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Council, and that decree, we would use either but one kind or neither (notwithstanding Christ's precept and the necessity of that spiritual refection) and in no case both.  
But this man's bare word ought not to weigh more than the Testimony of all the Fathers and Counsels that went before him, or be preferred before the constant Tradition of 15. ages, especially if we reflect upon the pride, and passion which he declares in all his writings, not only against the Doctors of the Roman Church, but against his own Disciples: and (as hath been said) how in the beginning of his reformation (when his spirit was in its primitive fervour) he doth plainly confess that he did favour Idolatry, to contradict Carolstadius for anticipating his commands in a point of the reformation, viz. for abolishing of the adoration and elevation of the B. Sacrament in his absence: 
[e] Luther in par●a Confess. & to. 3. Germ fol. 55. in Colloq. mons. Germ. fol. 210.  I did know (saith he) the elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall, yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittenberg to the end I might despite the Devil Carolstadius. And yet this wicked friar's authority is the first foundation of protestancy: Therefore notwithstanding his known impiety he is termed by their writers 
(f) Mr. Gabriel Powel in his consideration of the Papists supplication pag. 70.  Holy saint Luther, a man sent of God to lighten the world: 
[g] Fox act. and Mon. pa. 40 Jewel in his Apology p. 4. c. 4.5▪ 2. and in his defence of the Apology edi. 1571. p. 426  the Helias, Conductor, and Chariot of Israel: to be reverenced next after Christ and Paul: 
(h) Andrea's Muse●lus in praef. in libellum Germ. de Diaboli Tyranide. Nicolaus Androphius Conc. ● de Luthero.  greater then whom, lived not since the Apostles tims: 
[i] Conrade. Schlusletbur. Catal. haeret. l. 13. pa. 314 & seqq.  The Angel and last trumpet of God, whose caling was 
(k) M. Cartwright in M. whit gifts defence pag. 17.  immediate and extraordinary etc. Let the most peevish Protestant, I say once more be judge, whether it be not more probable and possible that one private proud and 
[l] Luther contra Regem Angliae, fol. 344. I pass not if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Henry's Churches stood against me. Et libro de se. arbit. contra Eras. edit. 1. Lay a side all the arms of orthodox antiquities etc. see also nullus and nemo G. 6. pag. 153. And Cnoglerus his symbola tria pag. 152.  passionate man did mistake the true sense of Scripture, and misapply the words thereof to humour his passion of pride and revenge, then that all the primitive Fathers and Christians of the world did conspire to forsake the known true letter and clear meaning of God's word; or if all did not conspire in the Apotasy, that there should be no monument left, or mention made in record, history, or tradition, of the fidelity of the party that resisted.  
Secondly, this supposed change is proved incredible not only by the impossibility of an insensible change in a thing so remarkable and important as the doctrine and Profession of Christian Religion, but also by the impossibility that a change and corruption of Christ's doctrine should be made to the detriment of the wary laities temporal interest, and to the disadvantage both of the laity and Clergie's liberty; For when men resolve to go out of the narrow way which leads to heaven, they are not so foolishly wicked as to retire from the wide world into deserts, or Monasteries, and to impose upon themselves or their followers an obligation or principles of a more 
[m] Danaeus pag. 939. in his answer to Belarm. of the confessed austerity of life of S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Dominick, the Monks etc. says they were all fools. And M. r Willet who maketh a special Treatise against the austerity of the ancient Fathers in pag. 358. of his Synopsis, reproved S. Bazil, S. Gregory Nazianzen for plucking down themselves by immoderate fasting, and concludeth: Where in all the Scriptures learned these men thus to punish their bodies? Oseander reprehended S. Anthony the Eremit for the same, and saith his Religion was superstition. And Calvin lib. 4 cap. 12. sect. 8. that the austerity of the ancient Fathers, was not excusable and differeth much from God's prescript, and is very dangerous. And junius in his animadversions pag. 610. & 611, attributs S. Simon Stilletes his austerity and Miracles to cunjuring melancholy, and his prophecies to suggestion from the Devil.  strict course of life then that which they had forsaken, as daily experience doth clearly demonstrat.  
If protestancy therefore was the primitive and pure Christian Religion, the fall from it to Popery, must have been rather condessending then contrary to sensuality and liberty: And yet if the doctrine of the reformation, and its exceptions against Popery be considered, we shall find that in every particular wherein they differ, Protestancy doth favour liberty and vice; Popery doth favour temperance, and virtue.  
We shall declare hereafter to what great crimes and carlesness of life men are encouraged by the Protestant doctrine of predestination, and justification by faith alone. Christ's sufferings and satisfaction for our sins they apply not to themselves by imitation of his virtues, and mortification of the flesh, but think it a diminution of his glory, and a disrespect to his person, that men endeavour by God's grace to help themselves, and to cooperat with Christ's passion; and upon thi● ground they raise their batteries against Indulgences, Purgatory▪ ●●lgrimages, Prayer to Saints, Confession of sins, Penance, the three Vows, and the austerity of a Religious life, Works of Supererogation etc. and censure Catholics as guilty of superstition and folly for believing, that though Christ's passion be infinitely sufficient to redeem us from the guilt and penalties of sin, yet is it not sufficiently and actualy applied to actual sinners without their own concurrence, good works, and the Sacraments of the Church. As for their pretence that Christ hath satisfied for all, they may as well say, that he hath prayed, fasted, and given alms for all, and so discharge men of all such Christian-duties and devotions.  
And as to other particulars, we desire to know, what can the Protestant Clergy's design be in allowing Priests marriages, and a liberty to dissolve marriages, change wives 
[n] Bucer one of the Composers of the Common prayer-book and of the Religion of the Church of England (whom Mr. Withguift Archbishop of Canterbury, in his defence pag. 522. termeth a Reverend learned, painful, sound Father) teacheth in his applauded work of the Kingdom of Christ, and translated into English, that it is lawful to procure liberty by a libel of divorce to marry again, not only in the case of adultery, but in case of the on's departure from the other, in case of homicide, theft or repairing to the company, or banquets of immodest persons; likewise in case of incurable infirmity of the woman by Child birth, or of the man by lunacy or otherwise. See his own words in the v work l. 2. c. 26. & 27. pag. 99 & 100 & cap. 28. pag. 101. says, that who ever will not induce his mind to love his wife with conjugal charity, that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry an other. And in Math. cap. 19 saith, that the wife repudiated either justly or unjustly, if she hath no hopes to return to her husband and desires to live piously, and wants a husband, may be married to an other without sin. The whole University of Cambridg commends this Bucer for a man most holy and truly divine, and this letter of commendations is printed with Bucer's Book, wherein he teacheth this doctrine, see it pag. 944. Luther's words in Serm. de Matrim. are notorious, If the wife will not or can not come, let the maid come. Et ibd. fol. 123. tom. 5. Wittensb●rg. he is so vehement against the wife's refusal of her husband's bed, that he saith if the Magistrate omit its duty in punishing her, the husband must imagine that his wife is stole away by thiefs, and dead, and consider how to marry an other, for (saith he yet further) we cannot stop St. Paul's mouth etc. his words are plain, that a brother or sister are free from the law of wed lock, if the one depart, or do not consent to dwell with the other, neither doth he say that this may be done once only, but leaveth it free that so often as the case shall require he may either proceed or stay. In which case (as he signifieth to Wittemb. f●l. 112 a man may have ten or more wives fled from him and yet living. Nay he doubteth not in case of adultery to give liberty even to the offending adulterer to fly into an other country and marry again. Luther loc. cit. fol. 123. & Melancton consil. Theol. part. 1· pag, 648.  and husbands in case of adultery, departure, infirmity by childbirth, or otherwise, but lust and sensual liberty contrary to the instition of matrimony, and to the purity and practice of Christianity, which Roman Catholics observe? From whence proceedeth their allowing of eating of flesh and fish promiscuously on all days of the year, but from gluttony? Their Clergy's denial of the Pop's superiority (which their betters in virtue, birth and learning acknowledge) but from want of humility? And their placing it in the temporal Sovereign, but from excess of flattery? Their dulness in confounding the substance with the appearance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, but from sensuality? Their denial of the Church's infallibility (and yet assert in themselves an uncontrolled authority) but from pride and obstinacy? Their fond expressions of their own prelatic reformation and doctrine, but from want of Christian modesty, and from their forefathers' the ancient heretics, whose presumption and obstinacy was never more manifestly absurd, nor more legaly condemned at Nice, Ephesius, Chalcedon, or Constantinople, than the Protestant Tenets have been at Trent, as will appear to any that will read the history of those Counsels, and compare the objections and exceptions made by Arians, Nestorians, and E●●tychians, & e. against the Authority and decrees whereby they were censured in these four first Counsels, with the Protestant exceptions and objections against the Council of Trent; especily if they will peruse but the very first leaves of Cardinal Palavicino his confutation of Fr. Paulo Suarez, or Servita, his history, wherein they will find above tree hundred lies and calumnies of that Apostata Friar in matter of fact, so notorious and undeniable, that our English Prelatic Clergy will (or aught to be) ashamed of the Preface they have set before it, and of abusing King james and his Subjects with such impostures, by their extolling so improbable and infamous a Libel.  
Seeing therefore the supposed change and fall from primitive Protestancy to popery, hath been from presumption and pride of a private and censorious 
[o] Mr. Whitgift the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury in his defence pag. 472. saith, The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is much more perfect and sound than it commonly was in any age since the Apostles tims. & pa. 473. asuredly you are not able so reckon in any age since the Apostles time any Company of Bishops that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrine in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this time. In the truth of doctrine our Bishops be not only comparable with the old Bishops, but in many degrees to be preferred before them. &c  judgement against the public testimony and sense of the visible Church, to submission and humility of an obsequious and prudent belief; from notorious rebellion against spiritual and temporal superiors, to religious and dutiful obedience; from gluttony to abstinence; from incontinency to chastity; from sincerity to flattery; from Cloisters and austerity to Sacrilege and liberty; from a pretence of faith alone to the Christianity of faith and good works etc. It must be concluded, that either Protestancy was not the pure and primitive Religion, or if it was, that the change thereof into popery, hath been for the better, and by consequence that the first Papist, introduced into the world a more sacred and sincere profession, than had been taught by Christ and his Apostles. But this being impious and as impossible, as it is that men abandoned by God, should exceed God's servants in piety, or that they should establish and practise more Godly principles and more zealously promote virtue when they fell from God, and the way of salvation, then when they were in the same; it must be granted, that Popery is the pure and primitive Religion taught by Christ; and his Apostles; and that only weak brains, or such tender plants as in their infancy received strong impressions of the possibility, and existence of an invisible Christian Church upon earth, can fancy an insensible change of its doctrine, profession, and ceremonies, into so remarkable and different a worship of God as Popery is, compared with Protestancy.  
Congregations of Protestants living in the same Provinces, Cities, and Parishes with Papists, and dissenting from them in the outward and oral profession of faith (if they did not profess protestancy, (which they suppose was Christ's faith) with the mouth, they were dissemblers, and could be no part of the true Church) in the Canon and sense of Scripture, in the administration and number of Sacraments, in Rites and Ceremonies, in the substance and language of the Liturgy, in adoring the B. Sacrament, in worshipping of Images, in receiving of the Communion etc. such Protestant Congregations, I say, to be invisible and never heard of in 1500. or 1000 years, nor observed, nor persecuted by the prevailing Papists among whom they lived, is not a thing possible, or intelligible, much less prudently credible. We see by experience in these Kingdoms, how impossible it is for a Recusant not to be discerned, and discovered; Papists are known though not convicted. Many of them through the mildn'ss and prudence of the government, escape the penalties and rigour of the Law; but none the observation of their neighbours, and very few the menaces of both ecclesiastical and civil Courts. The invisibility therefore of the Protestant Church and the insensibility of its change to Popery, is a fitter subject to ground thereupon a ridiculous Romance, than a religious reformation. Perhaps it will be said that Protestants were until the last age among the ten tribes as the Jews, of whose appearance there hath been of late so much talk; but we hear not of Protestants among them; neither did Luther, Zuinglius, Cranmer, or Calvin pretend that they came from those Israelits, or from Terra australis incognita; they were born and bred nearer, and they bragged that them-selves were the first Reformers. Now to their Scripture.   

SECT. III. Protestants mistaken in the Canon of Scripture maintained by the Church of England, and by Doctor Cousins Bishop of Duresme.  
OUr second Argument against the probability, or possibility of Protestancy being the word or work of God, is taken from the Protestants mistake of Scripture, and their altering of the Canon. And whereas 
[a] Hooker lib. 1. Polit. Eccles, pag. 86. & lib. 2. sect. 5. pag. 192. It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his word; for if any book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which gives credit to the rest, would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it. Neither could we come to any pause where on to rest, unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us. etc. Which he lib. 3. sect. 8. pag. 146. & lib. 2. sect. 7. pag. 116. Acknowledged to be the authority of God's Church. Whitaker against Stapleton lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270. saith: The testimony of the spirit being private and sacred, is unfit to teach and refel others, and therefore we must recur to Ecclesiastical Tradition, an argument saith he ibid. cap. 4. pag. 300. Whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonical, and what be not. M. r Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 5. saith, the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this judgement she hath of the holy Ghost. M, r Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. And afther the edition of 1571. pa. 242. saith, the Church of God hath the spirit of wisdom whereby to discern true Scripture from false.  our learned Adversaries do agree with us in saying that neither the Scripture it-self, nor the private spirit can determine which parts of Scripture are Canonical, or holy, but confess that this controversy must be decided by the Testimony and authority of the Church; and that above 300. years after the Apostles, some of their writings were not held by all orthodox Catholics to be Canonical, which now are comprehended in the Canon, and admitted as the word of God by many Protestants; it followeth.  
1. That the Canon of Scripture was not so sufficiently proposed to the whole Church for the three first ages, as to make the denial or doubt thereof, Heresy 2. That the 6. Article of the Prelatick-Religion of England, which admitted only such books of Scripture for Canonical, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, is false, and the ground thereof fallible.  
For as all men versed in the Ecclesiastical History well know, and learned Bilson the Protestant Bishop of Winchester doth acknowledge (in his survey of Christ's sufferings &c. printed 1604. pag. 664.) The Scriptures were not fully received in all places; no not in Eusebius his time (which was above 300. years after the Apostles) he saith the Epistles of james, jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles; the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted, etc. The Churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the second and third of john, nor the Epistle of jude, nor the Apocalypses, etc. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia. Will you hence infer that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolic or that we need not receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of?  
This Argument of Bishop Bilson we apply to the Maccabees, and to the other books declared by the Church of England to be Apocryphal.  
Doctor Cousins writ a book called a Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture (for which himself and his friends think he well deserved the Bishopric of Duresme that he now enjoys) in defence of the Prelatic Protestant Canon, and of the 6. article of the Church of England. And because he tells us in his Preface, that men of knowledge pressed him to publish it as a piece that would give more ample satisfaction, and clear the passages in antiquity from the objections that some late Authors in the Roman side bring against Protestants, than those other writings of home, or foreign Divines have done that are extant in this kind. I thought fit to give Protestants a proof of the soundness of their doctrine, and of the sincerity of their Doctor. And though it seemeth to me impossible for any man to know what parts of the new Testament the 6. Article and Canon of the Church of England, declares Canonical, it being so intricately worded, that either it must be non sense, or else exclude from the Canon the Epistles of james, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypses, seeing the authority of all and every one of these hath been doubted of in the Church, and the 6. Article of the Protestant Religion of the Church of England is, that In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt of, in the Church, Though I say, it's impossible for me to comprehend how common sense and Christianity can meet in this Article, but that if the words thereof signify any thing, out of the English Protestant new Testament, must be excluded all the v Epistles and Apocalypse; yet leaving this difficulty to the decision of that Church, I will suppose at the present with D. r Cousins that all these Epistles and Apocalypse are included in the English Canon, and come to the examination of the Arguments whereby he pretends to defend it.  
He therefore foreseeing the impossibility of giving any reason why the parts of the New Testament heretofore doubted of should rather be received by Protestants into their Canon, than the Books of the Old Testament, no more questioned by the Church of Christ then the v epistles and the Apocalypse; thought to avoid the force of this pressing parity, by flatly denying (pag. 5. & alibi) That ever any entire Church, or any National or Provincial Counsel or any multitude of men in their confessions and Catechisms, or other such public writings, rejected or doubted of the said epistles etc. In case so many solemnities had been requisite for the questioning of Canonical authority, (which his Lp: knows, are not necessary) It seems his lordship did not peruse Eusebius his works, though he quotes them very often; or at least did not think that the ancient Churches of Syria and Arabia deserve to be called Churches, not that the Lutherans of Germany, Denmark, Suethland etc. who stick to Luther's principles and Canon, can make one, or many Churches, It's a gross mistake in the Doctor to say (pag. 4. & 5.) that Luther or his Lutherans recalled or recanted their error concerning the Epistle of St. James; he might see the contrary in the very book himself citys of Chemnitius the famous Lutheran, whose authority and words he placeth (in his addition of certain Testimonies) in the same rank with sentences of St. Augustin, and St. Thomas of Aquin etc. This Chemnitius in most of his works (as in his Enchirid. pag. 63, and in his examine of the Council of Trent. p. 1. pag. 55. & 56.) declareth his own sense, and that of his Church in these words, The second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Judas, and the Apocalypse of John, are Apocryphal, as not having sufficient testimony of their authority.  
His lordship might also have been better informed of Luther's sense and Church by the saying of Illiricus an other pillar and Writer thereof, (whom Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church (pag. 28.) termeth a very famous Writer, and most worthy defender of the Christian truth) his words are, Luther in his preface upon St. Iem's Epistle giveth great reasons why this epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of an Apostolic authority, unto which reasons I think every godly man ought to yield▪ Luther's reasons are to be seen in the ancient editions of Jene, and are comprehended in these few words of his, The Epistle of james is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolic spirit. And because these words and others were omitted in the later editions of Wittenberg by some Divins that would fain reform Luther's Canon, Religion, and Church, the chief Lutheran Doctors met in a Synod at Altembury, complained of their Adversaries corrupting Luther's books, and resolved to stick to the ancient editions, and to the literal sense of his words. So that in case it were true the Canon of Scripture could not be said to have been questioned by any Protestant Congregation, without declaring their doubt in a public confession of faith, we see the Lutheran doth so; as also in their confession of Wittenberg quoted by Belarmin (lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 7. init.) which is seconded by all heretics of these tims, (saith Belarmin.) the Calvinist only excepted.  
But the Doctor is so much mistaken in the necessity of such a formality, that the Arians were condemned as heretics, notwithstanding that in their public confessions of faith they endeavoured rather to disguise then declare their errors.  
It is well known that Lutheran Churches in Germany not only do reject from their Canon the Epistles of S. james, jude, the second of Peter, and third of S. john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, but are so obstinate in denying them to be in any wise Canonical Scripture, that they do not as much as print them in their Bibles. And if my Lord of Duresme thinks that the rigid and moderate Lutherans, half Lutherans, and other Protestant Congregations wherein are many as learned Ministers and 
[*] 
See Pomeran. in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 4. Vitus Theodorus in annot. Test. pag. vl,.  
The Century writers of Magdeburg cent 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. & cent. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4.  
Hafferoferus in loc. Theol. lib. 3. stat. 3. loc. 7. pag. 222. Adamus Fancisci in Margarita Theol. pag. 448. giveth this testimony of the Protestant Church whereof himself was a member. The Apocryphal books of the new Testament are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of jams, the second and third of john, the second of Peter, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypse. And all the Authors here mentioned give the like testimony in behalf of their Protestant Churches, wherefore we can not but admire Doctor Cousin's confidence in affirming a matter so notoriously contradicted; and much more the carelessness of them who ground their faith and Canon of Scripture upon it's not being ever questioned.   Writers as himself, deserve not the name of a Church, he may expect that they will censure his Church after the same manner, and perhaps with as much reason. But let them agree as well as they can, it concerns not us. Yet I hope he will not pronounce so severe a Censure against the Greeck and Latin Churches, and un-church both; Whereof S. Hierom (in epist. ad Dordunum) testifieth, that the Greeks doubted as much of the Apocalypse against the common consent of the Latins, as the Latins did of the Epistle to the Hebrews against the common consent of the Church.  
Seeing therefore it is evident by the confession both of ancient Fathers and modern Protestant's, that in the primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in so great variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and search was requisite to determine which Scriptures were Canonical, and which not; whereby it came to pass tha● sundry books and parts were for a long time misdoubted by some Churches and Fathers, and by some Counsels omitted, or not received, which yet afterward upon greater search and consideration, were generally acknowledged; it must be very great obstinacy in Doctor Cousins and other Protestants, to reject the Canon which the Council of Trent proposeth, and embraceth, because forsooth some books therein contained, were not as soon believed by all Catholics to be Canonical, as the others. Or to deny the authority, and authentikness of some books of the old Testament, because they were not in the Canon of the jews; as if the Jews might not doubt and omit to put some books divinely inspired into the Canon, as well as the primitive Christians; or as if the Apostles might not supply that defect, and declare some books of the old Testament (whereof the generality of the Jews doubted) to be Canonical.  

SUBSECT I. Doctor Cousins exceptions and falsifications against the Council of Trent's authority answered. The difference between new definitions and new articles of faith explained.  
THe Protestant obstinacy is not excusable by the exceptions made against the number of Bishops that voted in the Council of Trent, or against the pretended novelty of the Canon which they decreed. As to their number, the authority of defining matters of faith in a general Council is no more limited, or diminished by the absence of members legaly summoned, and long expected, than the authority of a lawful Parliament by the absence of many Lords, and commons; especially if there be a necessity of applying present remedies to the distempers of Church or Common-weal. Doctor Cousins doth confess that the Catholic Church stood in need of a reformation, and that the Council was too much diferred and delayed; After they had met at Trent, Seing the Bishops were not as many as the Pope and his Legates expected and wished, 
See Cousins in the 17▪ chap. per to●.  for the greater solemnity, of so important a decision as that of the Canon of Scripture, whereupon they were to ground their further definitions, they put of that session for 8. months, and at the end of them, hearing that besides those who were at Trent, many Bishops were setting forth, and others in their Journey, they differred the definition of Canonical Scripture for three months more, to the end as many as could possibly come might be present. If through neglect, contempt, age, infirmity, or other accidents, whereof the Pope was not in fault, many Bishops were absent, that could no more prejudice the authority of the Council at Trent, than the like circumstances disannul the authority, or make void the Acts of our Parliaments. But sure the learned Protestant Pastors cannot but smile at the simplicity of their illiterate flocks, when they consider the zeal and earnestness wherewith they except against the small number of Bishops (and their presumption forsooth) in the Council of Trent, For the declaring the Canon of Scripture, and other Divine truths; and yet them-selves accept the Canon of Scripture, and doctrine of their own Churches upon the bare word of one Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, or upon the sole authority of the 12. or seven men, appointed by Parliament in the reign of Edward 6. Besides, our Canon of Scripture was confirmed by the whole Council of Trent afterwards, together with the other points of faith therein defined.  
And though Doctor Cousins (pag. 208.) tells how the Princes and reformed Churches in Germany, England, Denmark, etc. immediately set forth their Protestations, and exceptions against the Council, aleadging that the caling of this Council by the Pop's authority alone was contrary to the Rights of Kings and the ancient Customs of the Church; That he had summoned no other persons thither, nor intended to admit any either to debate or give their voice there, but such only as had first sworn obedience to him; that he took upon him most injustly to be Judge in his own cause etc. Yet it is sufficiently manifested to the world by the very Acts of the Council, that the Pope did nothing but what his Predecessors had done, and the Catholic Princes, and Church had approved in the like occasions; and that, though Protestants were not admitted to vote at Trent, 
[a] Salvus Conductus datus Protestantibus sess. 13. & 14. Concil. Trident. Vt Protestants, de iis rebus quae in ipsa Synodo tractari debent, omni libertate confer, proponere, & tractare &c. ac articulos quot illis videbitur, tam scripto quam verbo afferre, proponere, & cum Patribus, etc. confer, & absque ullis convitiis, & concontumeliis disputare, nec non quando illis placuerit, recedere possint. Placuit praeterea Sanctae Synodo ut si pro majori libertate, ac securitate eorum, certos tam pro commissis, quam pro committendis per eos delictis, judices eis de putari cupiant, illos sibi benevolos nominent, etiamsi delicta ipsa quantumcunque enormia ac hoeresim sapientia fuerint.  yet they were not only permitted but invited in a most secure, and civil manner by the Council to reason, dispute, and debate their controversies, and answer for them-selves and their doctrine; and this way of proceeding is no more unreasonable in a general Council, than it is in a Parliament, not to permit any to vote therein before he takes an oath of allegiance, (not to say any thing of the oath of Supremacy) and much less to admit of Lords or Commons accused of treason, or rebellion, to sit in the House, until they prove their innocency, or acknowledge their fault, and obtain their pardon by a dutiful submission, and profession of repentance.  
And granted that nothing had been resolved in the Council of Trent by the Fathers thereof, but what first was canvassed at Rome by the Pope and Conclave (which is false (yet we conceive that, to be no more against the constitution or freedom of a Council, than it is against the constitution or freedom of a Parliament, that no Bill pass unto an Act, unless it be first signed by the King and approved by his Council, and yet we know, that to have been the constant custom in one of his Majesty's Kingdoms since the reign of King Henry 7. As for the Pope or Church of Rome being Judge in their own cause, it is a prerogative so absolutely necessary for the authority and government of Magistracy, and the quiet and peace of the people governed; that no Monarchy or Commonwealth can want it without falling into great inconveniences and confusion.  
A subject 'tis true may sue the King; but the sentence must be given in the King's Courts, and by his authority, notwithstanding any objected dependency or parciality of the Judge explaining the laws and customs in favour of his Sovereign. And he who would not acquiesce in such a sentence, but would needs have the cause decided by a foreign Prince, or People, is a rebel. If this be reasonable and just in temporal Courts, and fallible sentences, how much more, in spiritual controversies, and infallible definitions of the Church; which definitions of the Church if not acknowledged to be infallible, the Church can not have any jurisdiction or authority in matters of faith▪ as not being able to satisfy doubts, and settle the inward peace of Christian souls either perplexed in them-selves, or in danger of being perverted by others, whether heretics or pagans, neither of which can be indifferent Judges, or competent Arbitrators between the Catholic Church and her Children. And seeing doubts and differences are unavoidable in both Church, and Commonwealth, and that there can be no appeal to Infidels, or Foreigners, without doubt it is more agreeable to Scripture, to the law of nature, and light of reason, that Parents and Pastors be Judges in any cause of their Children and inferiors, than the contrary; or that there be no Judge at all, nor jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal.  
But that which Doctor Cousins, and all Protestants most press against the judicature of Popes, and the council of Trent is, that they do not judge according to Scripture, and to the right sense thereof, whereas Kings and their Judges are regulated by the laws of the land, even when the suit is against the King, or his pretended prerogative. To this we answer that Popes and Counsels are as much regulated by Scripture in their definitions as Kings and their Courts by the laws; But Protestants do not observe, that as the interpretation of the laws depends not of them who sue the King, but of the ancient practice of his Judges, and Courts, so the interpretation of Scripture must not be made by t●em who sue the Pope and Counsels, but by the Bishop and the Church; who are to explain it, not according to every on's private fancy, as Protestants do, but according to the tradition, customs and practices of the orthodox Christians in former Ages.  
And by this we free the Roman Catholic Church, 
New definitions are not new articles of faith  and the Council of Trent from the Protestant calumny of novelty of doctrine, not only in this particular of the Canon of Scripture, but in all it's other definitions: Protestant's confound our new Decrees with new doctrine, whereas nothing is more clear than that old doctrine may be defined by a new Decree, that is made more public, and authentic. The Council tells them (sess. 4.) that it only declares what Canon of Scripture the primitive Church held, and quotes for it divers ancient Father's, and Counsels; and therefore it's Decree makes no new Canon of Scripture, but is a promulgation of the old, which induceth an obligation of believing, what formerly had not been so generaly known, because it had not been so clearly and solemnly proclaimed.  
Methinks none ought to carp less at the novelty of our definitions than Protestants, if they would reflect upon their own reformations. They pretend that their doctrine is not only renewed, but revived, because forsooth, the whole visible Church had lost that purity of the Primitive faith for many ages which they now have restored. Roman Catholics are more moderate and modest, as having a better opinion of the Church and of God's providence; they confess that the doctrine defended by the Council of Trent was never extinguished in the Church, but that it lived in the hearts and profession of many faithful, though many others of the same communion did not hold them-selves obliged to believe it as a doctrine of faith, until it had been sufficiently and solemnly proponed by the Definition of the Church in a general Council, as Divine. That being done, no addition or alteration was made of divine faith; For new definitions are not new articles of faith, but promulgations of the old faith, or declarations of our obligation to believe as articles of faith those things which had been formerly revealed, but not so sufficiently proposed to the whole Catholic Church. Wherefore articles of Faith not believed before they be decreed by a general Council, may be aptly compared to laws, or ordinances, before they are published; as the publication or proclamation of a law makes not a law, but declares the obligation of complying therewith, so the definition of a general Council makes not the article of faith, but declareth the obligation of believing that doctrine, which before the publication or proclamation of the Church, had not been sufficiently proposed as Divine revelation.  
To what purpose then did Doctor Cousins trouble himself and his Readers with composing a book against the Catholic Canon of Scripture declared in the Council of Trent, when all his arguments are but sayings of men who doubted of books and parts of Scripture before they were declared (and only because they were not declared▪) Canonical by a general Council. He would fain impose upon the world that S. jerom was so much a Jew, and so little a Christian as (for the Canon of the old Testament) to rely altogether upon the Hebrew Rabins, and that he set a greater value upon their testimony, then upon the authority of the Church, or of the great Council of Nice, which received into the Canon of Scripture the book of Judith, though rejected by the Jews. His proof of S. Jerom's judgement being the same with that of Protestants in this controversy is, that in some places of his writings he says, the contested books of the old Testament are not in the Canon of the Jews, nor received as Canonical by the Christian Church; to which is answered that S. Jerom altered his opinion, as appeareth in his prefaces prefixed to the said books, which he translated into latin at the instance of the Churches and Bishops that held them to be Canonical, to whose belief S. Jerom at length conformed his own judgement. In his preface to the Book of Toby he says: Ye desire me to translate a book from the Caldean language, to Latin, the book of Toby, which the Hebrews admit not into the Catalogue of Sacred Scriptures, I have satisfied your desire, etc. The Hebrews reprehend us etc. Because we have translated into latin things against their Canon. But I judged it better to displease the judgement of Pharisees, then disobey the commands of Bishops, etc. In conformity to this he says in his preface of judith: With the Hebrews the book of judith is read amongst the Agiographa, the authority whereof is judged less fit to decide controversy, etc. But because the Nicen Synod is read to have computed this book in the number of holy Scriptures, I have acquiesced, or complied with your demand. Out of which words it is manifest 1. That St. Jerom was not of the same opinion with the jews concerning these books, because he says he displeased or offended their judgement by his translation, as a thing against their Canon, which would not have ●in, unless his intention in translating and judgement were known to favour the belief of the Bishops and Christians, that held them to be Canonical; for, the translating them only as pious books, could not be offensive to the jews, who acknowledged them for such, as Cousins with Chemnitius and all Protestants confess, though (pag. 82.) he contradicts himself (having no other shift left to prove St. jerom a jew in this particular) And his words of the book of judith demonstrat that he opposed the authority of the Nicen Council against the opinion of the jews, to prove that book Canonical, and fit to determine controversies of Religion; and in case we should grant he doubted whether the Council numbered it in the Canon yet non can doubt but that he believed the Council had authority to declare it Canonical, which is the point disputed of.  
But Doctor Cousins would willingly make us believe (by a notorious fraud and imposture) that Cardinal Belarmin doth not only acknowledge St. jerom to have persisted still in his former opinion of excluding these controverted books from the Canon, but also that the Council of Nice never received that of judith into it, and to that purpose (pag. 45.) quotes Belarmin's words (de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 10. ult.) thus, Admitto Hieronymum in ea fuisse opinion, quia nondum generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat; These words the honest Protestant Bishop of Duresme sets down in capital letters, and with them concludes Cardinal Belarmin's sentence and sense concerning Hierom's opinion of the book of judith, and of the Council of Nice; and most unconscionably cuts of the words immediately following, where Belarmin says the quite contrary of what Cousins imposed upon his Readers, to make good his English Canon of Scripture. The words immediately following are: Excepto libro judith, quem etiam Hieronimus postea recepit: Except the book of judith, which also Hierom afterwards received, as Canonical. So that where Cousins says Belarmin confesseth that S. Hierom said the Council of Nice declared not the book of judith Canonical, Belarmin in that very place says the quite contrary. And in the same page cap. 12. Belarmin proves by S. Hieroms testimony and words, that the book of judith was declared Canonical in the highest degree by the Nicen Council. It were to be wished that Ecclesiastical promotions had been better bestowed then upon 139 men whose labour and learning 〈◊〉 altogether employed in seducing souls, concealing the truth of Religion from their flocks, and corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of the Church, for no other reason but because they speak so clearly against the Protestant Doctrine of these times, whereby our Prelatic Ministers are maintained, usurping vast revenues from the Crown, and come to the greatest preferments both of Church and State. I have not seen any one Protestant Writer free from this fault; 'tis strange that after so manifest and manifold discoveries as have been made of morton's, Andrews, Fox, Sutclif, Jewel, Barlow, Whitaker, 
See this largely proved in 3. part of this Treatise.  Willet, Usher, laud's, and others, falsifications, frauds, and labyrinths, there should be men yet found to follow their examples; and much more to be wondered that they should thrive by a trade so base, unconscionable, and destructive, notwithstanding so manifest and frequent discoveries of their impostures.  
As to this work of Doctor Cousins, it may be properly called a Cozenage, independently of an allusion to his name; had not his book been sufficiently confuted by the absurdity of his fundamental principles, denying that the Apostles or Christian Church could declare any book of the old Testament, Canonical, which the jews omitted or rejected, and affirming that no parts of the New Testament were ever questioned by any Church ancient or modern, I should set down many more of his wilful falsifications, and weak evasions; but that labour being rendered superfluous by the incoherency of his own doctrine, and by the inconsistency of his principles with including in that Canon of Scripture (which he undertakes to defend) the epistles above mentioned of Peter, john, Paul, and jude, and the Apocalypse (for it is evident by the quoted testimonies both of ancient Fathers and learned Protestants, that these epistles of john jude, Peter and Paul, as also the Apocalypse, were doubted of by many Christian Churches, for three or four ages) I do not think fit to trouble the Reader nor myself with a more particular confutation of this rather fantastical then Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture: fantastical I say, because he fancies to himself that the authority and sayings of men who writ before this controversy had been decided by a general Council, and at the same time professed a faith which obliged them so submit their writings and judgements to the decrees of Counsels, can be of any force against that general Council by which the contrary was decided, and they would have been guided by, if they had been now living, as St. Austin saith of St. Cyprian in a point of doctrine which was determined by a general Council against the holy Martyr's opinion, long after his death.  
Whosoever can take delight in seeing the pitiful shifts, and sleights whereby interested writers endeavour to blind men's eyes, and understandings, let him peruse this book of Doctor Cousins and he will find more sport in observing how he tosses and turns the sayings of the Fathers against them-selves, than could be wished in so serious a subject. When the Fathers call the books of Macabees, Toby, Judith, etc. sacred and Divine Scripture, Canonical Scripture prophetical writings of Divine authority, etc. Holy inspirations, revelations etc. he tells you (pag. 93. & alibi passim) all this must be understood in a large and popular sense, though the contrary may appear to any vnbyassed judgement that will read the words by him cited (pag. 92. & alibi;) in the Authors themselves; as for example let any one observe how Doctor Cousins mingles and mangles S. Austin's words concerning the controverted books of the Maccabees, and afterwards see what the St. himself says, he will ●●rce believe the words are the same, and may swear the sense is not. For, S. Austin (lib. 2. the doctr. Christ. cap. 8.) sets down as his own sense the same Canon of Scripture which the Council of Trent accepts and confirmeth, 
pag. 101. & seq.  and he subscribed unto in the third Council of Carthage; And because he knew that this Canon had not been defined by a general Council, and therefore many Churches and Fathers doubted of some books, which he and the 3. Council of Carthage held for Canonical, he gives some instructions how they who do not follow his Canon, shall proceed until they be more fully informed, or the matter decided; and these instructions which he sets down for others, who doubted and differed in opinion from him, Doctor Cousins wilfully mistakes and misapplies to St. Austin himself, as if he could be ignorant of his own belief of the Canon.  
He is also troubled that St. Austin doth favour so much the doctrine of Purgatory, and the authority of the Catholic Church (in declaring books of the Old Testament to be Canonical, which were rejected by the jews) as to say (lib. 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36.) That the books of the Maccabees are accounted Canonical by the Church, although not by the Jews. To weaken this testimony he brings an other that strengthens it, and quotes St. Austin's words (Ep. 61. ad Dulcitium) wherein confuting the error of the Circomcellions who (to cloak their self-homicides with text and examples of Scripture) excused that doctrine with the examples of Eleazarus and Razias, related in the Maccabees; which pretext St. Austin largely confutes not only in his epistle ad Dulcit, but in his 2. book against the epistle of Gaudent. cap. 23. not by diminishing the Canonical authority of the books of the Maccabees as Doctor Cousins falsely imposeth upon his Readers [pag. 108. & seq.] but by declaring how the Scripture doth indeed relate, yet not commend the self-homicide of Eleazarus and R●zias, nor canonize them Martyrs, or propose their deaths to be imitated, though it cannot be denied but that they showed great worldly courage, and contempt of life. Did Doctor Cousins imagine that Dulcitius, Gaudentius, and other learned Circumcellions were such Coxcombs, as to prove their Religion by Scripture, and then to quote for Scripture a book which their Adversaries admitted not at least for so Canonical as that controversies of Religion could be thereby decided? or doth he think that St. Austin would not have put them in mind of that folly in very clear terms, and excuse farther disputes by telling them plainly, and without going about the bush, that the Maccabees was not Canonical Scripture nor fit to be quoted in matters of Religious controversies?  
But the Doctor argues (pag. 110.) that St. Austin tells Gaudentius, the Christian Church receiveth those books not unprofitably, if they be discreetly or soberly read or heard, what then? All discreet and sober men say the same, not only of the books of the Maccabees, but of all the other books, and parts of Scripture; and St. Peter saith the same in substance of St. Paul's epistles: Will the Doctor conclude from thence, that St. Paul's epistles are not Canonical Scripture? because men may read them indiscreetly, and deprave them to their own damnation? Or that there is no Scripture at all, because he himself or some of his Bishopric of Duresme do not read the Bible with sobriety and discretion? these words of St. Austin in the Doctor's judgement (pag. 108.) are so clearly against the Canonical authority of the Maccabees, that he says Cardinal Belarmin laid his thumb upon them, and durst not relate them. I am sure he pointed at them with his Pen, and directed all the world to see and examine them by his quoting the book and Chapter where they are, as my Lord of Duresme himself confesseth in the margin: neither could Belarmin, Peron, or any o●her Catholic Writer observe any disadvantage to their cause in those following words of S. Austin, Which Doctor Cousins pretends to be so notoriously prejudicial; Recepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter etc. The Maccabees is received by the Church for holy Scripture not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. That is, saith Doctor Cousins [pag. 110.] As St. Augustin else where expoundeth himself (but where, Doctor Cousins doth not, because he cannot tell) If those things that we read there, be conferred with the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, that whatsoever is thereunto agreeable may be approved, and what is otherwise, may be rejected. According to this acute explanation, which Doctor Cousins falsely fathers upon S. Austin, the most profane books, and Romances, Esop's Fables, and Don Quixote, may be received by the Church for holy Scripture, as well as the Maccabees, if those things that we read therein be conferred with the sacred and Canonical Scriptures and whatsoever is thereunto agreeable be approved, and what is otherwise be rejected. It were too tedious to note all Doctor Cousins his mistakes. Let these few serve to know by what a pillar the English Canon and Church is supported.    

SECT. IV. Protestants so grossly mistaken in their letter and Translations of the Scriptures that they can not have any certainty of faith; and are forced at length (by their principles) to question the truth of Scriptures, and of them who writ the Canonical books thereof.  
THe holy Scriptures were written by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, either in Hebrew, Greeck, or Latin; the old Testament (excepting some few parts written in Chaldaick, and Syriack) was written in Hebrew, the new Testament, for the greatest part, in Greeck, S. Mathew's Gospel in Hebrew, S. Marck's in Latin. We have not the original writings of these Prophets and Apostles, nor of the 70. Interpreters who translated the old Testament into Greek some 300. years before the coming of Christ; we have only Copies; for the truth and exactness whereof, we must rely upon the testimony, and tradition of the Church, which in so important a point, God would never permit to err; at least it must have been so infallible therein, as that the Copy be sufficiently authentic to be a rule of deciding controversies of faith, and of directing men to holiness of life; though perhaps no copy is so exact but therein may remain some erratas of the press and pen; yet easily discoverable by its coherency or incoherency with other parts of the Text.  
Notwithstanding the necessity of admitting some true and authentic copy of Scripture [for what can it avail a Christian to believe that Scripture is the word of God, if he be uncertain which copy or Translation is true and authentic Scripture] Protestant's pretend there is no authentic copy of Scripture in the world, as may be seen in the preface of the Tigurin edition of the Bible, and in all their books of Controversy, seeing therein they condemn the Council of Trent for declaring that the old Latin Translation is authentic; and yet themselves name no other for authentic: and therefore though the Lutherans fancy Luther's Translation; the Calvinists that of Geneva; the Zwinglians that of Zuinglius; the English some times one, sometimes an other; yet because they do not hold any one to be infallibly authentic, it followeth (from their exceptions against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring or decreeing a true and authentic copy of Scripture, and their confession of the uncertainty of their own translations) that they have no certainty of Scripture, nor even of faith, which they ground upon Scripture alone.  
Most of the old Testament as it is in the vulgar Latin Translation, which the Council of Trent declares to be authentic, was 
(a) S. Hierom. in lib. de 〈◊〉 illustr. extremo, & in Praefat librorum quos latin●s ●ecit.  translated out of Hebrew by St. Hierom; and the new Testament had been before his time translated out of Greek, but was by him 
(b) Hierom. epist. 89. ad Aug. quaest 11. inter ep. August. S. Hierom. in his Preface before the new Testament dedicated to Pope Damasus, Novum opus etc.  revewed, and such faults as had crept in through negligence of the Transcribers, were corrected. You constrain, me saith he, to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of the Scripture dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain judge, and determine which of them agree with the true Greek and in this Cathalogue he saith, Novum Testamentum graecae fidei reddidi; vetus juxta haebraicum transtuli.  
The antiquity and sincerity of the first Interpreter, and the great Commendations thereof to be seen in St. Austin de Civit. Dei lib. 18. c. 43. Non defuit temporibus nostris Presbyter Hieronymus homo doctissimus, & omnium trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non è Graeco sed ex: Haebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem Scripturas converterit. Cujus tamen litterarum laborem Judaei fatentur esse veracem. And (lib. 2. doct. Christi. cap. 15.) together with the eminent Sanctity and learning of S. Hierom, forceth our Adversary (B●eza, to confess, Annotationibus in caput 1. Luc.) That the old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy books with marvellous sincerity and Religion; and [in praefat. novi Testam.] The vulgar edition I do for the most part embrace and prefer before all others. Carolus Molinaeus [in nov. Testam. part. 30.] I can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which [in Luc. 17.] he professeth to prefer before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurin Translation, and even before john calvin's, and all others. Doctor Humphrey [de ratione interpret. l. 1. pag. 74.] The old Interpreter seemeth to be much addicted to the propriety of the words, and truly with too much anxiety, which I attribute more to Religion then ignorance. See also Pelicanus (a learned Protestant writer) his great praises of the Translation of the Psalms in the vulgar Latin edition in praef. in Psalterium an. 1584. See also Doctor Covell acknowledging in his answer to Burges pag. 94. The antiquity of the vulgar translation to be so great, that it was used in the Church a thousand three hundred years agone: and concluding pag. 91. That the most approved Translation authorised by the Church of England, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishop's Bible. And Doctor Whitaker (in his answer to Mr. Reynolds (pag. 141.) was pleased to moderate his former railing against our vulgar Translation revewed by St. Hierom at the request of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome, saying, St. Hierom I reverence, Damasus I commend, and the work I confess to be Godly and profitable to the Church.  
The reason that moved the Protestants not to accept, or acquiesce in our vulgar Latin Translation so much commended by them-selves, and the ancient Fathers, is, because they would have as much liberty to reject the true letter as the true sense of Scripture their new doctrines being condemned by both. For had they granted that any one ancient Translation is authentik, how could Luther have had the impudence to thrust into the Text the word 
[c] 
Luther being admonished of his corruption, would not correct his error, but saith tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. & 144. sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas etc. Lutherus ita vult. And concludeth, Therefore the word alone ought to continue in my New Testament, although all Papists run mad, yet they shall not take it from thence. It grieves me that I did not add those two other words, Omnibus, & omnium.  
The Church of England in Edward 6. time, Translated some times This signifieth my Body; other times, this is my Body, other times, neither is nor signifieth, but instead thereof a blank as not yet resolved upon which was true.  
See Knot in his Protestancy condemned, Edit. 1654. pag. 87.   alone, to assert his justification by only faith, [Rom. 3.28.] or how could he omit 2. Petr. 1. (where it is said) wherefore brethren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, this particle by good works? How could Zuinglius have translated for this is my body, this signifies my Body, to maintain his figurative signification of the words, and cry down Christ's real presence in the B. Sacrament? And so of all other Protestants Translations, whereof every one hath words added, and omitted in the Text, which cannot be justified or excused by any ancient copy of Scripture, extant in any language whatsoever.  
No marvel therefore if the Lutherans reject the Calvinists Translation and the Calvinists that of Lutherans; the TransTranslation Translation of the Divines of Basile is reproved by Beza, who says (respon. ad defence. Cast) that it is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost. And Molinaeus [in Testam. part. 20.30. etc.] saith of Beza, that in his Translation he actualy changed the Text: and of Calvin [in Translation. Testam. nov. fol. 110.] That he maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down, and that he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel, and besides this, addeth to the Text.  
As for the English Translation we have King James his true censure in the sum of the conference before his Majesty (pag. 46.) that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. His Royal judgement is confirmed by Mr. Carlisle of Christ's dessent into Hell [pag. 116.] where he says of the English Translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense etc. The Ministers of Lincoln Diocese in their abridgement of a book delivered to his Majesty the first of December, pag. 11. & seq. say, that the English Translation taketh away from the Text, addeth to the text, and that, somtyms to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Also Mr. Burg●s in his Apology (sect. 6.) saith how shall I approve under my hand a translation which hath many omissions, many additions, being somtyms senseless, somtyms contrary.  
Other precise and learned Protestants in a Treatise entitled A petition directed to his most excellent Majesty etc. [pag. 76.] say, Our Translation of the Psalms comprised in our book of common prayer▪ doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in 200. places at least, And make this the ground of their scruple to make use of the common prayer. And these corruptions are so undeniable, that Dr. Whitaker hath nothing to answer to Dr. Reynolds (pag. 255.) who objected them against the Church of England, but these words, What Mr. Carlisle with some others, hath written against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to the purpose, I have not said otherwise but that some things may be amended.  
These corruptions in the English Protestant Bibles are so many and so notorious, that Doctor Gregory Martin composed a whole book of them, and therein discovers the frauds whereby the Translators pretend to excuse them; somtyms they recurred to the Hebrew Text: and when that spoke against their new doctrine and translation, then to the Greeck; when that favoured them not, to some copy acknowledged by them-selves to be corrupted, and of no credit; and when that no copy at all could be found out, to cloak their corruptions, the book or Chapter of Scripture that contradicts them, is declared Apocryphal; and when that cannot be made probable, they fall down right upon the Prophets and Apostles that writ them, and say they might, and did err, even after the coming of the holy Ghost. This is not only Luther's shift, all Protestants follow their first reformer in this point, having the same necessity imposed upon them by their own reformations and translations, so contrary to the known letter of Scripture. Luther being told by Zuinglius [tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. pag. 412. & seq.] Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scriptures, how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? Luther knowing all this to be true, had no way left to defend his impiety but by impudence, preferring himself and his own Spirit, before that of them who writ the holy Scriptures, therefore (tom. 5. Wittenberg. an. 1554. fol. 290. & in ep. ad Galat. cap. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. & 34) he saith, Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Paul, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine such as setteth forth God's only glory etc. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God; and against St. James his mentioning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (de Capti. Babyl. cap. de extreme. unct. in tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 86.) But though this were the epistle of James I would answer that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority to institute a Sacrament; this apertaineth to Christ alone: As though thas blessed Apostle would publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ. See also what he says of Moses his writings (tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psalm. 45. fol. 432. & 422. & tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40.41. & in Colloq. mensal. Germ. fol. 152. & 153.) The Century Writers of Magdeburg follow this doctrine of Luther [Centur. 1. l. 2. cap. 10. col. 580.] and particularly accuse St. Paul of error by the persuasion of St. james. Brentius also, (whom Bishop jevel in his defence of the Church of England (pag. 473.) termeth a grave and learned Father, affirmeth [in Apol. Confess. cap. de Concil. pag. 900.] that St. Peter chief of the Apostles, and also Barnabas after the holy Ghost received, together with the Church of jerusalem, erred.  
Though Lutherans and Calvinists differ extremely in many points of doctrine, yet in this of fallibility of the Apostles in faith and manners even after the receiving of the holy Ghost, they fully agree. Calvin himself in his Commentary in omnes Pauli epistolas in Gallat. c. 2. vers. 14. pag. 612. reprehendeth Peter, Barnabas, and others; and pag. 150. says, that Peter added to the schism of the Church, the endangering of Christian liberty, and the overthrow of the grace of Christ▪ See him also in Act. c. 21. Clebitius a learned Calvinist (in his Victoria veritatis argum. 5.) impugneth St. Luke's report in the history of our Saviour's passion, saying, Matthew and Mark deliver the contrary, therefore Matheo & Marco duobus testibus plus adhiberi debet quam uni Lucae, qui Synaxi non interfuit, quemadmodum Mathaeus. To Matthew and Mark being two witnesses, more credit is to be given, then to one Luke. And Gualther (in Act. 21.) reproveth St. Paul's shaving of his head. And other Calvinists mentioned in Zanchius his epistle ad misc. said. If Paul should come to Geneva and preach the same hour that Calvin did, I would leave Paul and hear Calvin. And Lavaterus in his historia Sacramentaria (pag. 18.) affirmeth, that some of Luther's followers, not the meanest among their Doctors, said they had rather doubt of St. Paul's doctrine, the● of the doctrine of Luther, or of the confession of Augusta.  
This desperate shift being so necessary for waranting their corruptions of Scripture, and maintaining the fallibility of the Church in succeeding ages (for the same reasons which conclude it infallible in the Apostles time, are applicable to ours, and to every former century; otherwise it must be said that God's providence and promises were limited to few years, and himself so partial that he regardeth not the necessities of his Church, nor the salvation of any person that lived after his Disciples, this impiety could not be rejected by the Prelatic Church of England without contradicting their brethren abroad, and their own principles at home. Therefore B. jewel in his defence of the Apology for the Prelatic Church of England (pag. 361.) doth affirm, that St. Mark mistake Abracher for Abimelech, and St. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharias; And Mr. Fulck against the Remish Testament in Galat. 2. fol. 322. chargeth Peter with error of ignorance, and against the Gospel; and Doctor Goad in his Tower disputation with Campion (the second days conference arg. 6.) affirmeth that St. Peter did err in faith, and that, after the sending down of the holy Ghost upon them. And Whitaker [de Eccl. cont. Belarmin. Controu. 2. q. 4. pag. 223.] saith: It is evident that even after Christ's Ascension, and the Holy Ghost's descending upon the Apostles, the whole Church not only the common ●ort of Christians, but also even the Apostles them-selves erred in the vocation of the gentils etc. yea Peter also erred: he further more also erred in manners etc. And these were great errors, and yet we see these to have been in the Apostles even after the Holy Ghost descending upon them. And truly if the Apostles were not only fallible, but did teach errors in manners and matters of faith, after the holy Ghost descending upon them, their writings can be no infallible Rule to direct men to salvation; which conclusion is so immediately and clearly deduced from this Protestant doctrine, that the supposal and premises once granted, their can be no certainty in Scripture; and indeed this all the Reformers aimed at, though durst not say it, yet they did as well, and sufficiently declare what little esteem they have for Scripture, though they make their ignorant flocks believe they teach them nothing but true Scripture, and the infallible word of God.  

SUBSECT I. Particular instances of Protestant Corruptions in the English Bible.  
THough it may seem superfluous to specify any corruptions of the English Translators of Scripture after so clear testimonies, and confessions drawn from men of their own party, yet to excite a conscience, or at least curiosity in the Protestant Reader of examining further this matter, I will mention a few of many which he may find both in Doctor Gregory Martin's book of this subject, and in the Remish Testament. To maintain by Scripture that Popery is, or at least savoreth Idolatry, by worshipping of Images, whersoever the Scripture speaks of Jdols, they translate Images, as 1. John 4.21. My babes keep yourselves from Images. And, how agreeth the temple of God with Jmages. 
Bible 1562  And be not worshippers of Images as some of them, etc.  
And 2. Paralip. 36. vers. 8. they added to the Text, words, that are not in the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or any copy however so corrupted. The rest of the acts of joakim and the rest of the abominations which he did, and the carved Images that were laid to his charge, behold they are written etc. These words (carved Images laid to his charge) are added by the Protestant Translators, and not to be found in any copy or Text of Scripture in the whole world. And though for mere shame in some later editions this impiety hath been corrected, and Jdols not Jmages put into the Text, yet to make the illiterate sort of people believe that they are the same thing, Image is put in the margin; and in some places left uncorrected.  
The first Protestant Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's reign not being able to prevail with the deposed Catholic Bishops to consecrat them, as Scripture commands, by imposition of Episcopal hands, and therefore relying for their Character upon the letters patents, supremacy, and election of the Queen, translated the Greek word Kerotonia [which S. Hierom and all the Ecclesiastical writers before and after him translate, Ordination by imposition of hands they to make good I say their want of such an Ordination, by words of Scripture in the Bible which then they set forth] translated the said Greeck word Ordination by Election: but their Successors who of late pretend to a more lawful character then ever their Ordainers durst profess to have had received, or them-selves can make good, corrected this translation, and restored into the text Ordination by imposition of hands.  
To assert marriage of Priests, when St. Paul says Have we not power to lead about a woman? they translate, instead of woman; wife; but when he says in the same epistle, and useth the same word, 
Bible 1562. Cor. 7. v. 1.  It is good for a man not to touch a woman, than they translate not wife, but woman.  
To cry down the Sacrifice of the Mass, they translate Temple, or Table, for Altar, elder for Priest. To discredit the worship and honour of Saints, they corrupt the words of the Psalm. 138. Thy friends O God, are become exceeding honourable; their Princedom is exceedingly strengthened, thus How dear are thy Counsels (or thoughts) to me o God: How great is the su'me of them?  
To condemn vows of Chastity as impossible to be performed, they translate Matthew 19 v. 11. All men do not receive this saying, thus, All men cannot receive this saying. To assert the Supremacy, in King Henry 8. and Edward 6. days, they translated thus, submit your-selves etc. unto the King as chief head. 1. Peter. 2. But in Queen Elizabeth's reign (because she did not think the title of head of the Church so proper for one of her sex, they altered their Scripture, and translated, To the King as having preeminency, or as superior. But when King James obtained the Crown, and seemed to affect much the supremacy, 
Bible 1577. & 1579.  than Scripture spoke according to his humour, to the King as supreme.  
To excuse many of their corruptions and falls Translations, Doctor Whitaker writ a book, wherein he endeavoured to show that some Greek and Hebrew words might be taken in that sense which the English Translators gave them; but he never could prove that the profane and Poetical signification whereunto the Translators and he had applied them, could make sense in holy scripture, nor be accommodated to ecclesiastical discipline, and Divine doctrine. And therefore Doctor Reynolds in his reprehensions of Whitaker's works, proves the absurdity of his defence, and of the English Translations, by this example. Suppose (saith he) that a young spruce Minister should step into the pulpit, and exhort his Parish to prepare them-selves for the holy Communion, and the Anabaptists for baptism; according to the stile and phrase of the English Protestant scripture, wherein Priest is called elder, Church, Synagogue, holy ghost, holy wind, Lord Baal. Master, rain, Baptism washing, soul carcase. (Because they had rather bury Christ's soul with his body, or deny that he had a soul, then confess it went to Limbus Patrum, and therefore they also translate Hell grave;) Sacrament secret, Beelzebub lord of afly, Angels Messengers; The Minister therefore who according to the proper and ecclesiastical sense of these words might have spoken sense thus, I that am your Priest placed in this Church by the holy Ghost, for the feeding of your souls, do denounce unto you in the name of Christ our lord and Master, that unless your souls be regenerated by Baptism, and prepared for the Sacrament of the Altar, you shall be condemned body and soul into hell, and your portion shall be with the Devils, I say with Beelzebub and his Angels; the young Minister I say in steed of this godly exhortation which might move the Audience to devotion, must in his own scriptural language move the parish to laughter, thus; I that am your elder, placed in this synagogue by the holy wind, to the feeding of your Carcases, do pronounce unto you in the name of the anointed our Baal and rain, that unless your Carcases be regenerated by washing, and prepared for the secret of the Table, you shall be condemned body and carcase to the grave, and your portion shall be with the slanderers, I say with the lord of a fly and his Messengers.  
Let none therefore admire if Doctor Gregory Martin so celebrated for his knowledge in the Hebrew and Greek tongues (which he taught in Oxford,) should conclude his Treaty of the English corruptions of scripture with this zealous reprehension of the Protestant Clergy of his Nation Are not your scholars (think you) much bound unto you, for giving them in steed of God's blessed word and holy scripture such translations Heretical, Judaical, profane, false, negligent, fantastical, new, naughty, monstrous? God open their eyes to see, and mollify your hearts to repent of all your falsehood, and treachery, both that which is manifestly convinced against you, and can not be denied, as also that which may by some show of answer be shifted of in the sight of the ignorant, but in your consciences, is as manifest as the other.  
For my part, I will not say much to the Protestant Clergy with any great hopes of their conversion; there must by more of Divine inspiration then of human persuasion in bringing men to acknowledge corruptions so abominable in themselves; so advantageous to the Contrivers, Continuers, an Connivers, and so much applauded by the poor souls that are seduced. My rhetoric is not sufficient to persuade blood and flesh to recounce the Peerage and profit of their Bishoprics and Benefices, and reduce them-selves, their wives and Children, to their former despicable condition, and then either to beg their bread, or rely for a livelihood upon the charity of those, whom they had deceived by their doctrine or disobliged by their censures. To attempt so difficult an enterprise would argue as much vanity in me, as it doth folly in lay Protestants, that think, them-selves safe in conscience and sufficiently informed of the way of salvation, by ask a Protestant Bishop or Minister, whether he be a Cheat? or (which is the same thing) whether the doctrine whereby alone he can live, and hope to thrive in this world, be not sufficient to save the soul? Few men will confess their guilt, or pronounce an infamous sentence against them-selves, though they be guilty; neither will it be a tolerable excuse in the day of Judgement for any discreet Protestant to say, that he made Judges of his Religion (no indifferent but) indigent persons, that have no other interest, credit, or livelihood, but to preach and maintain Protestancy, whether it be sufficient or not sufficient for salvation, the Bishop or Minister lives by saying it is sufficient, and the true Religion. I can not deny but that some Protestant Bishops and Ministers have recanted and repented their errors; but few, before they were summoned out of this world by approaching death, or before they had lost their interest and hopes, by the violence of war and the vicissitude of times.  
Wherefore seeing the Protestant laity hath so much reason to doubt either of the sincerity o● sufficiency of their Clergy in matters of a Religion without which their Ministers can not subsist [few of them having either patrimony, or a trade]; let them be pleased at present only to consider whether it be more credible that St. Hierom, the greatest Doctor of God's Church, and the most skilful in the three languages wherein Scripture was written, who lived in the primitive times, whem perhaps some of the original writings of the Apostles were extant, or at least the true and authentic copies, in Hebrew and Greeck, better known then now they are, a man that renouncd' the pleasures and profits of this world, retiring himself to deserts, where he employed days and nights in his devotions, and study of the Scriptures; let them be pleased, I say, to consider, whether it be more credible that a Translation made or received by this most holy Doctor, (and then approved of by all the world and ever since accepted and applauded in God's Church) be defective, or deceitful, than a translation made since the pretended Reformation, by men not only engaged in that new doctrine, but maintained thereby, and so addicted to the pleasures and profits of this world, as the first Reformers, and their Successors the Protestant Clergy are known to be, not only in England, but in all other parts of Christendom: Let them be pleased also to consider, whether the judgement of the Roman Catholic Clergy in these Kingdoms, (who in being of that judgement, can have no motive, but conscience as is manifest by the incapacities and penalties laid upon them for not conforming to Protestancy) be not a more impartial, and less to be suspected rule for any prudent person to follow, than the judgement of the Protestant Clergy, rewarded, and promoted to the greatest employments both in Church and state, for being of that opinion they profess, and who would forfeit all their being if they declared them-selves contrary to Protestancy.  
This being as maturely and impartially considered as the importance of the matter doth require, none will believe that the vulgar Translations made by Protestants, is holy Scripture, they being so contrary to our vulgata in latin, translated out of the true Greeck and Hebrew copies, written first by a holy Martyr, and after revewed by a St. whose sincerity and learning were sufficient to canonize his Translation, had it not been the word of God, and most holy of itself, and so declared by the testimony and approbation of the Church for the space of 1200. years before the Council of Trent. In vain therefore do Protestant Writers tell us that thei● Translations are taken immediately from the fountains of the Greek and Hebrew, so is our vulgata; only with this difference, that ours was taken from the fountains when they were clear, and by holy and learned men that knew which were the crystal waters, and true copies, but theirs is taken from fountains of troubleed waters, by lewd and vicious persons, and after that the Arians and other Heretics had poisoned and corrupted them with their false and filthy doctrine.  
Thus much against the Protestant letter of Scripture; now to their sense of Scripture.    

SECT. V. The Protestant interpretation is not the true sense of Scripture.  
THE principal part, and as it were the soul of Scripture, is the sense, which was delivered to the Church together with the letter. For as St. Hierom [in ep. ad Galat.] saith, the Gospel is not in the word, but in the sense, not in the bark, but in the sap, not in the leaves of the words but in the root of the meaning; So that though we should grant the Protestant Translations to be true, yet if we prove their interpretation false, we demonstrat they have no Scripture, nor the least pretext or colour for their Reformations.  
And first, that the Church received together with the letter the true sense of Scripture, is as evident as it is, that God would not speak words without sense, or leave the interpretation of them to men whose capacities reach not the mysteries of Religion, contained in the words. Therefore our learned Adversaries are obliged to confess, that no man doubteth, 

Chemnit. in examine. part 2. fol. 74.  
Saravia in defence. troth. diversis mini. ●r. gradibus pag 3.  
Jewel in his defence of the Apology 157. pa. 35.   but that the primitive Church received from the Apostles and Apostolical men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof.  
The dispute therefore between Catholics and Protestants is not, whether the Church ever received the true sense of Scriptures, but whether that sense continued as well as the letter in the Church; and whether the interpretations of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Hamond, etc. or of the Prelaticks of England, aught to be preferred before that of the Roman Catholic Church; because the true sense of Scripture, is supposed by all Protestants, to have been lost for many ages, and that the whole visible Church of God was either so careless as to forget the ancient sense, or so wicked, as to forge a new sense of Scripture.  
And first it seems against reason, to believe that any Christian Congregation could be less careful of the sense of Scripture, then of the letter, because the sense is that which importeth most for preservation of the faith. Therefore if the Prelates and Pastors of the Church have been so watchful and diligent in all ages, as to find out and correct all heretical corruptions of the letter of Scripture, how is it possible they would neglect the same industry for preservation of the sense which is the principal part of God's word? And if Protestants think the letter was safe in the custody of the Roman Chatholick Church, from which they received it, how can they suspect the purity of that sense which was kept and delivered to them by the same Church and authority? And if God's providence (as they confess) was engaged in keeping the leaves, and letter of Scripture from corruption, surely it could not be so vnconcerned for the integrity of the sense, and substance, as to permit it to perish. Besides, it is much easier to keep the sense of Scripture incorrupt and pure, than the letter: The letter was writ only in paper or parchment, the sense in the heads and hearts of the Bishops, Doctors, and People of the Church: a dash of a pen may alter the letter, but cannot have access to the sense, which lodgeth in the hearts and heads of the faithful.  
The precept of receiving the sense of Scripture from the Church, is not only agreeable to reason, but prescribed in Scripture, as the only way of salvation. Go not from the doctrine of the elders, for they have learned it from their Fathers, and of them thou shalt learn understanding, and to answer in the time of need. Eccles. 8.8. The first Protestant Reformers observed not this, they went to no precedent Church, nor Fathers for their interpretation of Scripture; and therefore the words of jeremy 18.15. may be literally applied to them. They have stumbled from the ancient ways to walk in ways not trodden. The Protestant Clergy ought to say and confess ingeniously that of holy job 8.8. Jnquire therefore I pray thee of the ancient generation and prepare thyself to search of their Fathers, for we are but yesterday, and ought not intrude their own Imaginations as the true explanation of God's word. They do not imitat St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil who as Eusebius relates [Hist. l. 11. cap. 9] did seek the understanding of the Scriptures not from their own presumption, but from the writings and authority of their Ancestors. They do not follow the rule of Origen saying [tract. in Math. 29.] That in our understanding of the Scripture we must not departed from the first Ecclesiastical tradition, nor believe otherwise, but as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us. Nor that of Tertulian [l. 1. de prescrip. c. 6.] What the Apostles preached, what Christ revealed to them, ought not be otherwise proved then by the Churches which they planted. 
Tertullian in lib de praescr. Qui estis vos. unde & quando venistis? ubi tam diu latuistis S. Hilarius l. 6 de Trinit. ant med. Tarde mihi hos piissimos doct●res aetas nunc ●ujus ●●culi protulit etc. S. Hierom in epist ad Pama●● & ●ce an 〈◊〉 p●st quadring 〈◊〉 (now 1600) annos docere nos 〈◊〉 qu●d an●●a neseivimus? Vsque in hanc diem sine isra doctrina mundus christianus fuit Luther in ●p. ad Irgentineneses au● 1525. Christiana nola● primo vulga tun. audemu. gloriari.   
Protestants contemn all these rules, and because there was never any Church in the world which professed the same faith that any of their Reformers preached, or them-selves now profess, they are necessitated to except against all Testimonies of ancient Fathers and Counsels, and against the continual and common consent of all Christian Churches concerning the proper sense of Scripture, delivered to the primitive Christians: and will be judged therein by none but by them-selves, and by their own fancy of Scripture. They all follow this rule of Luther the first Reformer, which he laid as the foundation of all Protestant Reformations: The Governors of Churches, and Pastors of Christ's sheep have indeed power to teach, but the sheep must judge whether they propose the voice of Christ, or of strangers, etc. Wherefore let Popes, Bishops, Counsels etc. decree, order, enact, what they please, we shall not hinder, but we who are Christ's sheep, and hear his voice, will judge, whether they propose things true and agreeable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yield to us, and subscribe and obey to our sentence, and censure. Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. cap. de Sacra Script. fol. 375.  
And because B. p Jewel in his challenge (thinking that none durst answer or accept it) appealed to the holy Fathers of the first ages, and was thereupon immediately convicted of hypocrisy, and impostures, he was grievously reprehended by his own Prelatic brethren as injurious to himself, and as one who had given the Papists too large a scope, and after a manner spoiled himself and the Church, see Doctor Humphrey in jewel's life edit. Londin pag. 212. and the same also in Fulk's retentive against Bristol pag. 55. Ever since that foil, the Prelatiks have been more wary, and one of their greatest Champions Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his true difference between Christian subjection etc. part. 2. pag. 353. saith in plain terms The people must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught.  
How contrary to Luther's Reformation was the doctrine of the primitive Church and Fathers, we may judge by these words of Gregory Nazianzen in the oration, wherein he excuseth himself for having been long absent from his flock and not exercised his function. Vos Oves, nolite pascere pastors, neque super terminos eorum elevamini, satis enim est vobis, si recte pascimini, nolite judicare iudices, nec legem feratis legislatoribus etc.  
Now let any man who hath common sense be Judge, whether it be in the least degree probable that not only the illiterate Protestants, but even their greatest Doctors, and their first Apostles, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer etc. should know better the true sense of Scripture that was delivered to the first age, than they to whom those of that age told what they were taught by Christ and his Apostles, or then the second which told the third what they were taught by the first? and so from generation until Luther and calvin's tyme. That every age gave this favourable testimony to the subsequent, of the sense of Scripture which it delivered, can not be denied; otherwise none would have received their sense of Scripture, or their doctrine, as Divine; whether they were sincere in delivering their testimony is the question; And because none questions it but Luther, Calvin etc. and their followers, until we see better evidence and a more clear cause of their reformed principle and knowledge of the visible Church's apostasy, than their private spirit, or Luther and calvin's new and extravagant interpretations of Scripture, we dare not condemn the whole ancient visible and Catholic Church, nor concur with its declared enemies in so rash a judgement, as to affirm, that the Church betrayed its trust, and posterity▪ which rash judgement is the ground of the Protestant Reformations.  
S. Athanasius in lib. de Decretis Nicen. Synod. contra Euseb. Ecce nos quidem ex Patribus ad Patres, per manus traditam fuisse hanc sententiam demonstravimus; vos autem O novi Judaei, Caiphae filii, quos tandem nominum vestrorum potestis ostendere progenitores. S. Gregor. Nazian. ep. 2. ab Chelid. Absconditam post Christum sapientiam nobis annunciant, rem lacrymis dignam, si enim triginta his annis fides originem habuit, cum quadringenti (now 1600.) fere anni ab eo tempore fluxerint quo Christus palam conspectus est, inane tanto tempore fuit Evangelium, inanis etiam fides nostra; & Martyrs quidem frustra martyrium subierunt, frustra etiam tales tantique Antistites populo praefuerunt.  
St. August. de utilit. credendi cap. 14. saith, to the Manichees, what we may to the Protestant Reformers. Vos autem & tam pauci estis, & tam turbulenti, & tam novi, nemini dubium est, quoniam nihil dignum autoritate proferetis.  
Seeing therefore the Roman Catholic sense of Scripture hath for the space of 1600. years been delivered by the visible Christian Church from age to age, as the true meaning of God's word; and that the Protestant sense of Scripture was never accepted of by any but condemned Heretics, and even in this last age was delivered but by a few turbulent and disagreeing persons, and obnoxious ●o many exceptions much diminishing the credibility of their testimony; it is at least 16. to one, not only in the number, but also in the quality of the witnesses, that the Roman Catholic sense of Scripture is true, and the Protestant false; and by consequence the Protestants have no Scripture to maintain the doctrine wherein they differ from Roman Catholics.   

SECT VI Protestants mistaken in the Ministry and Mission of their Clergy, in the Miracles of their Church, in the holiness and honesty of their Reformers.  
ALbeit God was able to call, justify, and confirm the elect without any mediate means, yet (as Protestants confess) he was pleased, not to accomplish the same otherwise then in, and by the ministry of his Church. Therefore S. Paul tells us [Ephes. 4.11.12.13.] that Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to continue to the consummation of Saints till we all meet in the unity of faith. The chief of these Pastors and Doctors are the Bishops, unto whom (as the same Apostle testifieth) it belongeth to govern God's Church [Act. c. 2●.] These Bishops must succeed not only in Doctrine, but in character to the Apostles; which character is the ordinary ministry or vocation, discerned and received by imposition of Episcopal hands [1. Tim. 4.] But because Luther was only a single Priest, and Calvin (as most say) not so much as a Priest, and that both despaired of Episcopal and Priestly succession, they resolved to remedy that want, by saying that the character of Priests and Bishops was not distinct from that of Baptism; and whereas, Luther's ordination or ordinary vocation in the Roman Catholic Church, was, to preach the doctrine which he had received from that Church, and not his new doctrinal Reformation, 
[a] Georgius Milius in August. Confes. explic. art. 7. de ecclesia pag. 137.  he and all Reformers after him, pretended an extraordinary and immediate vocation and mission from God, to teach an other faith contrary to that which the then visible Church professed, and could not be proved that any precedent Congregation ever held. If there had been right believers saith Georgius Milius pag. 138. that went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therefore we say that Luther was raised up (divinitus & extra ordinem) by God's special appointment and extraordinarily. See Luther in loc. Com. class. 4. pag. 51. Bucer in epist. ad Episcop. Hereford. calls Luther the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine. Beza in epist. Theolog. ep. 5. Ergo de extraordinaria vocatione videamus Huic vero tum demum locum esse dicimus, cum vel nulla, vel penè nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu, cum expectari extraordinaria vocatio, quae nusquam erit, nec debuit, nec potuit. Bishop jewel in his Apology for the Church of England part. 4. cap. 4. divis. 2. And in his defence of the Apology pag. 426. The truth was unknown at that time when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel.  
Mr. Parkins in his exposition upon the Creed, pag· 400. and in his works printed 1605. fol. 365. And in his reformed Catholic, pag. 329. We say that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the world.  
Calvin in Institut. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 4. Quod Dominus nobis iniunxit, etc. Lascicius in proof of his extraordinary vocation, lib. de Russorum Relig. pag. 23. allegeth Calvin saying. Because the succession or Series of ordination hath been interrupted by the Pop's tyranny, there is need of a new subsidy, etc. And this gift was altogether extraordinary.  
Mr. Fulk against Stapleton, pag. 2. The Protestants that first preached in these last days had likewise extraordinary calling. Mr. Perkens saith the same in his works printed 1605. fol. 916. Mr. Symonds, pag. 123. upon the Revelations, affirmeth a calling to preach by the civil Magistrate, a holy and sufficient calling (saith he) in the time of these confusions.  
But this pretext and presumption of theirs is groundless 1. Because the ordinary Ministry of Christ's Church being to continue (as S. Paul says) to the consummation of Saints, and end of the world, there could be no necessity of an extraordinary contrary mission or ministry; but rather it must be concluded that there is an impossibility thereof, seeing it is impossible that God should send men to contradict himself or that doctrine, which he promised should continue until he day of judgement by the Ministry and means of the ordinary Pastors and Doctors of the Church. 2. Whensoever God sent any extraordinary Ministers or Reformers, he confirmed their mission and Ministry with undoubted miracles, as is manifest by the example of Moses, and the Prophets of the old Testament, and of the Apostles in the new. But no such thing appeared in Luther or any Protestant.  
Their ordinary excuse that Miracles are ceased in the Church, is confuted by their 
[b] Dr. Field in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3 cap. 46 Mr. Abr▪ Hartwell in his report of the Kingdom of Congo, printed 1597. in his epistle to the reader.  own acknowledging that in the Indies, God, by means of the Jesuits and other Catholic Preachers, worketh Miracles for the conversion of Pagans.  
And Philippus Nicolai confesseth that the Jesuits and other Spanish and Portugal Preachers, converted both Indies, japon, Cataia, etc. And wrought many true Miracles in those parts, and in our age, but Withal addeth lib. 1. of his Commentaries de Regno Christi, pag. 91. 312. & 313. 314. 318. & 219. That such Miracles wrought by the Jesuits and other professed Papists, proceed not from their faith as it was Roman Catholic, 
Simon Lythus in respons altera ad alteram Gretseri Apol. pag. 331 Danaeus contra Belarmin pag. 781.  but as it was Lutheran. See him pag. 91. & 53. & pag. 91. he sets down some mysteries of Christianity, wherein Lutherans agree with Roman Catholic, and attributs the Miracles to them only; concluding. Hucusque enim Lutheranisant. Whereas it is well known that the Jesuits inculcat to their Pr●selits in all parts of the world the Romnn Catechisms, and in the Indies, japon, China, etc. bid them beware of the English, Holanders, and other Protestants doctrine, as of heresy: And many of their Miracles are wrought at ●he intercession of our B. Lady S. Jgnatius, S. Francis Xaverius, etc. and by application of their Relics.  
Mr. Hartwell is more reasonable; he confesseth loc. cit. that the conversion of Congo was accomplished by massing Priests, and after the Romish manner, and this action (saith he) which tendeth to the Glory of God, shall it be concealed, and not committed to memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests, and Popish means? God forbid.  
Now if God works miracles for the Conversion of Pagans to our Catholic Religion, it must be confessed, that either ours is the true Religion, or that God deceives those poor souls which by our Ministry, and his miracles are thereunto converted. Besid's; if what Protestants say, and that whereupon they ground their Reforma●ions, be true viz, that for above 1000 years the true Church hath been invisible, or suppressed, and the world abused by Popish Impostors, and counterfeited miracles, etc. the innocent and illiterate Papists (who are supposed to have been seduced) seem as fit an object for Divine mercy, and miracles, as the Indian Idolaters: But seeing not one undoubted miracle hath ever been wrought to convert them from Popery to Protestancy, it must necessarily follow, that either God doth not approve of Protestancy, or hath altered the usual Style of his providence, which never failed to work miracles for the conversion of the Israelits, and Heretics when most guilty of heresy and idolatry. 'tis strange he should not observe the same custom with Popish Christians, and convert them by the means and miracles of holy Protestants, if these be his chosen people, and sent by him to preach the Gospel.  
Not on Protestant Preacher could hitherto be prudently taken for an ordinary Prophet, or for a person of extraordinary piety; even the first Protestant Reformers are convicted of dishonest dealing, and scandalous conversation, and are far from that degree, I do not say, of sanctity, but of morality, required in men pretending to reform others. We grant that a true Religion may be abused by the wickedness of its Professors, yet never was the truth of Religion planted, or revived by the ministry of wicked persons. Let us run over all Christendom, and we shall find every Province thereof converted to the Roman Catholic Religion by men not only Apostolical in their lives, and conversation, but also in Miracles. We shall find (not to leave our own Lands) an Austin in England, a Patrick in Ireland; a Columban in Scotland, and almost in every county of these Kingdoms a miraculous Saint that converted our Ancestors to Popery. How incredible therefore is it, that Protestancy can be the true Religion, seeing that in all the world they cannot name one Protestant eminent for Sanctity, Miracles, or morality. Cranmer carried his wench with him in his Episcopal visitations; Bale says himself was inspired to take a sweetheart called Dol; Bishop Poynet went to law with a Butcher for his wife; Peter Martyr, and Bucer came to preach into England, each of them having a Nun for a wife; Calvin kept a Gentleman of Lausanna his wife; Beza run away with the wife of a Tailor; And as for the Protopatriarch, and first Apostle of all the Protestant Reformations Luther, himself confesseth (loc. come. class. 4. pag 50.) that from his infancy he was haunted by the Devil, and to be rid of him entered the Religious Order of St. Austin; but afterwards the Devil prevailed in a real, not imaginary disputation's against him, concerning the abrogation of the Mass, adoration of the Sacrament, and invocation of our B. Lady and other Saints; and he resolved (having been convicted by the devil's argument to forsake his Order, and set up Protestancy, which never had been heard of before. And whereas during the time he lived amongst his friars, he acknowledgeth that he lived chastely, and virtuously, yet after his revolt from the Roman Catholic Religion, he professeth in sundry places of his writings, that he could not live without a woman, and none could serve his turn but a Nun, whom he debauched out of her Monastery. Luther tom. 1. epist. fol. 334. & Colloq. Germ. cap. de Matri. Eight days were now past wherein I neither did write, pray, nor study, being vexed with the temptation of the flesh, etc. As none can abstain from meat or drink, so he cannot from a woman etc. But it sufficeth that we have known the riches of the glory of God, the lamb which taketh away the sins of the world, can not draw us from him although we should commit fornication, or kill a thousand times in one day.  
His pride was so excessive that his Disciples are ashamed of him, and have endeavoured (by altering many things in the later editions of his works) to conceal the impiety of his Tenets, and the imperfections of his person; He was a better Drol than Doctor; sociable, but scandalous. Melanchton excusing Luther's scandalous marriage in epistol. ad joan. Camer pag. 39 saith, Est vir iste nequaquam ex iis qui homines oderunt, & congressus fugiunt, quotidianae autem vitae illius usum non ignoras, unde cogitare te caetera, quam me scribere, melius ut opinor fuerit.  
He wanted not wit to see the meakness of his Zealous Proselits, and was so facetiously wicked as to laugh at them for relying upon one Luther in a matter of so great importance as the change of Christian Religion, against the testimony of the whole visible Church, and the sense of all ancient Fathers and Counsels; and therefore was used to say when he was merry amongst his confidents, and Comrades in the Alehouses of Wittenberg, Bibentibus nobis cervisiam Wittembergensem crescit Evangelium: That the Gospel was zealously preached (by fools) while he made good cheer with friends. He spent his life in good fellowship; and Sleydan his dear Scholar (lib. 3. edit. 1521. fol. 29.) reporteth, how that Luther himself acknowledged his profession not to be of life or manners, but of doctrine, wishing (l. 2. ed. 1520. fol. 22.) that he were removed from the office of preaching, because his manners and life did not answer to his profession: wherefore it was usual with such Protestants as knew his life and conversation to say when they resolved to give them-selves to pleasure, and debauch: body Lutheranice vivemus, to day we will live Lutheranlike: see Benedict Morgensterne in tract. de Ecclesia. pag. 221. His death was answerable to his life, in the morning he was found dead, having been very merry and feasting himself the night before. He attempted in vain two miracles, at the importunity of his Scholars; the one was to revive a dead man; the other was, to dispossess one of his own Disciples, according to his new form of Exorcisms; But Staphylus, who was present, says, Luther was so foully frighted, that in steed of chase the Devil, himself run away, and was in danger of being killed; The want of success in these two attempts, made him say that miracles were ceased in the Church, and that all ours are but impostures, or done by compact with Satan.  
Zuinglius Author of the Sacramentarian Religion, having been tied by Luther to no other rule of faith besides the letter of Scripture (for he had been Luther's scholar) but differing from his Master in the point of the real presence, invented a new reformation, which he planted among the Suitzers; and before he would impart it to them, he made 
(c) The title of Zwingitu, his writing is Pietate & Prudentia in signi Helveti orum Reipublicae, Hulde ricus Zwinglius aliique Evangelicae doctrinae Ministri gratia & pacem a Deo etc. tun: 1. fol. 110 See all these words and much more related by himself 1. sq ad fol. 123.  his conditions by way of petition (yet extant in his works) that if the Cantons would permit him and his Ministers who joined with him, to take wives, he would reveal to them the Evangelical doctrine, so long hidden. An other Epistle to the same purpose he writ to the Bishop of Constance: and the reason he gives for his demand is, lest the souls committed ●o his own and his fellow's charge, should be any longer offended by the example of their sensuality. We have proved (saith he) that the weakness of our flesh hath been (O for grief) cause of our often falling, etc. we have burned (O for schame) so greatly that we have committed many things unseemingly, etc. To speak freely without boasting, we are not otherwise of such uncivil manners that we should be ill spoken of among the people to us committed for any wickedness (hoc uno exc●pto) this one point only excepted. And confesseth tom. 1. fol. 115. that he and his fellow Ministers by means of their lustful desires were made infamous before their Congregations.  
Himself and his Comrades having taken wives, or wenches, he began to reveal his Gospel, and impugn the Mass by instruction from a spirit that appeared to him, 
[d] Zwingl. tom. 3 in lib. de subid. Ecclesiae fo. 249  Whether black or white, he remembreth not. Having by this Diabolical dream or apparition, resolved to abolish the Mass, and change the doctrine of Transubstantiation by altering the Text of Scripture in his Translation (dedicated to Francis King of France edit. Tigur. an. 1525.) saying, This signifieth my Body, for This is my Body. Zuinglius tom. 2. de vera & falsa Religione. fol. 202. & fol. 210. He quotes his own Text of Scripture thus, Sic ergo habet Lucas, & accepto pane, gratias egit, etc. dicens, Hoc significat Corpus meum. He proceeded after a very strange manner in his design: for he confesseth that his doctrine was more accommodated to temporizing liberty, then to sincerity or truth; and that God commanded him to proceed in that manner, lest his design should be quashed in the very beginning by his Adversaries, whom he terms Dogs and Swine. Retractamus igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, ut quae hic damus anno aetatis nostrae quadragesimo secundo, propendeant eye quae quadragesimo dederamus: quando ut diximus, tempori potius scripsimus quam rei, sic jubente Domino, ut tali ratione aedificemus, ne inter initia Canes & Porci nos rumpant.  
He had no great opinion of the Apostles writings, as is proved by his altering the very Text of Scripture contrary to all copies both Greek and Latin, and by his saying, that S. Paul did not attribute so much to his own Epistles as to think that all therein contained was sacred; for, that were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle (tom. 2. Elench. contra Catabaptistas', fol. 10.) And because the other Cantons of the Suitzers would not accept of this Reformation; he sticking to the principles thereof, endeavoured by force of arms to bring them under subjection, and to his own Gospel, and in this attempt Zuinglius was killed, sealing with his blood what he had writ, (tom. 1. in explanat. art, 42. fol. 84.) that Kings and Magistrates may be deposed when they resist the Gospel, 
The Reformers of the English Church.  that is any private Protestant interpretation of Scripture.  
As for the Reformers of the Protestant Church of England, they were King Henry 8. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter Martyr, Hooper, Rogers, Ridley, Bucer, Okin; The Revivers were Jewel, Parker, Horn, etc. of whose lives and conversations we have said something, and enough to prove they were not fit men to reform christian Religion; their doctrine they borrowed from Luther and Zwinglius (the supremacy only excepted, which King Henry 8. invented) and therefore Bishop jewel the chief maintainer both of the Protestant doctrine and Prelatic character of the Church of England, in his defence of the Apology (edit. 1571. pag. 426. as also in the Apology part. 4. c. 4.) thought it necessary for the credit of the 39 Articles of the English Religion, which had been compiled out of Luther and Zwinglius writings, to commend those two Pillars of Protestancy as most excellent men, even sent by God to give light to the whole world in the midst of darkness, when the truth was unknown and unheard of. As for B. p jewel himself, we remit the reader to Doctor Hardings Confutation of the Apology, wherein he may clearly discern the false lustre of this counterfeit Jewel, and the value which men ought to set upon this precious stone, laid for a foundation of the Prelatic Church; and upon the rotten stuff which he and his Successors have sold for Divine truth to English Protestant's ever since he undertaken, 
In Queen Elizabeth.  to maintain their cause; for as Doctor Heylin ingeniously acknowledgeth in his Ecclesia restaurata, all the learned English Protestant Writers have borrowed from B. p Jewel what they have said in defence of the Protestant Religion, and that is one reason why their works are so full of manifest untruths, and them-selves so frequently convicted of gross mistakes; they rely too much upon this reviver of their faith; or at least would make the world believe that he may be relied upon in matters of faith.  
But because Doctor Heylin makes it his business to persuade the world, that jevel then did make good the character and ordinary vocation of the Church of England against Harding; and that Doctor Bramhall, late Protestant Primate of Ireland, triumphed over the supposed Jesuits who renewed Harding's quarrel, I judged it necessary to clear both these mistaks in few words; As for Bishop jewel, we have said in the 1. part sect. 7. of this Treatise how easily he might have stopped Harding's mouth by only naming the Bishop who consecrated Parker and his Comrades; for, Harding used no other Argument against the nullity of the English Protestant Clergy, but this, A Bishop must be ordained by an other Bishop; but Parker and his Comrades were not ordained Bishops by any other Bishop. Ergo. His proof that they were not ordained by any Bishop was this, name the Bishop that ordained them, name the place where they were consecrated. This was a demand soon satisfied if ever Parker or his fellows had been ordained Bishops; especially with so much ceremony and solemnity as the new records of Lambeth report that matter. Yet Jewel could never name Parker's and the first Protestant Bishop's Consecrators; he named indeed Parker for his own Consecrator, but being pressed by Harding to name Parkers, instead of answering Harding's question, whereupon depended the whole controversy, the credit of his Clergy, and the satisfaction of the Reader, he makes an impertinent digression and long discourse of the obligation which some pretended to have been in ancient times, of consulting the Bishop of Rome before they proceeded to the election and consecration of Bishops, but never returned to the point of naming the first Protestant Bishop's Consecrator, whom he would have named to Harding, if ever they had been consecrated. And this is one part of the great victory, which Doctor Heylin so much brags of.  
The other part concerns Bramhall and the supposed jesuits. The true relation whereof is as followeth.  
After that his Majesty and the Royal Family had been driven out of England and France by the late usurped powers: and all Christian Princes thought it their conveniency to court the Rebels, and not entertain in their Dominions the Person of our King, much less embrace his quarrel; it happened on day at Bruges, that Doctor Crouder Chaplain to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, in his Master's Chamber and presence, without any provocation, or occasion given by any of the Roman profession, uttered very intemperate words against Doctor Goff Almoner to the Queen Mother, for having taken orders in the Church of Rome, after that he had received them in the Church of England▪ To which a Catholic Gentleman answered, he had done no more than what all other Protestant Ministers who became Roman Priests, had continually practised, and (as he believed) upon good grounds. Whereupon the Doctor (notwithstanding the King was come to his Brother's chamber) reassumed his Argument, and continued to dispute with such vehemency, that being called to read morning prayers, he mistook the time of the day, and in the morning read evening prayers to the congregation. The cause of his mistake being known, and many believing that his excess of choler argued a weakness in his cause, Doctor Bramhall late Primate of Ireland, Writ a Treatise in vindication of the English Clergys' character, which is the book so much applauded by the Prelaticks, and by Doctor Heylin, as unanswerable; whereas it was suddenly and so substantially answered, that Primate Bramhall never durst reply, notwithstanding the general concern of his Clergy, and his own particular engagement; and the Church of England perceiving the evidence of our arguments against the validity of their forms of ordination, 
See the nullity of the English Church and Clergy.  thought their best answer was to confess the force of our reasons, and correct the errors of their Bishops, by changing the forms they had composed of Priesthood and Episcopacy: and by in serting into those forms, 
See this in the new Edition of the Common prayer book, rit●s &c. of the Church of England.  words that might bear the signification of the characters which their Predecessors had excluded from or omitted in the ordination of Protestant Ministers, as superfluous, and superstitious. This manner of answering is of great satisfaction to Catholics, but how safe it is for the Protestant laity to rely upon the validity of a Ministry that now after 100 years confess the insufficiency of their own forms of ordination, and by consequence of their Priesthood, Episcopacy, and Sacraments, we leave to their consideration, and pass to speak a word of Calvin the chief Author of the Presbiterian sect, and faction.  
John Calvin (whom the Magistrate of Noyon condemned for infamous Sodomy) was by his friend Beza canonised for extraordinary Sanctity; but Sclusselburg a man of so great esteem among Protestants that he was made Superintendent and general Inspector of many Churches in Germany, after relating Calvin's Sodomy and vices, saith; I know Beza writ otherwise of Calvin's life, manners, and death; but seeing himself noted with the same Heresy, and almost with the same sin as the history of Candida etc. witnesseth, none can credit him. Therefore I am induced to believe Bolseck the Physician of Geneva, who begins his book of the life and death of Calvin with this protestation. I am here, for the love of the truth to refute Theodor Beza his falls, and shamless lies in the praise of Calvin, protesting before God and all the holy Court of heaven, before all the world, and the Holy Ghost itself, that neither anger nor envy, nor evil will hath made me speak or write any one thing against the truth and my conscience. Then he relates how Calvin was branded for Sodomy with a burning iron on the shoulder, and therefore retired from his Country (Noyon in Picardy) and how this punishment was testified by that City under the hand of a public and sworn Notary to Mons. r Bertelier Secretary to the Council of Geneva, which testimony (saith Bolseck) is yet extant. Then he describeth Calvin's delicate diet, how his wine was choice, and carried with him in a silver pot, when he dined abroad; that also special bread was made for Calvin only, and the same made of fine flower, wet in rose-water, mingled with sugar, Synamond, Aniz-seeds, besides a singular kind of biscuit; and this he affirmeth as a matter known to all Geneva: This delicasy of diet was not prescribed to preserve his health, but prepared to foment his lust and lewd conversation with a Gentleman of Lausann's wife, and others; his ambition was so great, that he aimed at being Lord of Geneva, approving of their notorious rebellion and deposition of their lawful Prince from his temporal right and jurisdiction.  
His death is described by the v Schlusselburg (lib. 2. fol. 72.) in these words. God in the rod of his fury visiting Calvin did horriblely punish him before the fearful hour of his death; for he so struck this Heretic (so he termed him in regard of his doctrine concerning the Sacrament and of God being the Author of sin) with his mighty hand, that being in despair, and calling upon the Devil, he gave up his wicked soul swearing, cursing, and blaspheming; he died of the disease of lice and worms (a kind of death where with God often striketh the wiked as Antiochus, Herod &c.) increasing in a most loathsome ulcer about his privy parts, so as none present could endure the stench.  
His Miracle (for he never attempted to work more than one, or two) is recorded not only by Bolseck, but also by Ninguerda Lindanus, Copus, and others, and it was thus. Calvin pretending extraordinary vocation, thought necessary, for the confirmation thereof, and his own credit, to cheat the world with a feigned miracle; to that purpose he agreed with a poor man called Bruleus to feign himself dead, promising him great rewards if in this Tragicomedy he would be secret, and act his part handsomely; none knew of the plot but Bruleus, and his wife, who upon the day and hour appointed, sart in her house lamenting her husband's death; Calvin passing by with a great number of his friends [as it were by chance] and hearing the lamentations of the poor woman, seemed to pity her sad condition, and moved, forsooth, with charity and compassion, fell down upon his knees with the rest of the company; praying in a loud voice; and begged of God that for the manifestation of his glory, and confirmation of his servant Calzin's doctrine and mission, he would vouchsafe to revive the dead Carcase, which he took by the hand, and bid him rise in the name of the Lord. The wife seeing her husband did not move nor rise, as he had promised, drew near, and perceiving he who had been well but half an hour before, was now dead, lamented in good earnest the loss of her husband, reviled Calvin as a Murderer, Cheat, Hypocrite, Heretic etc. and related to the whole company what had passed between them; Calvin seeing Bruleus had acted his part more naturally than he wished, retired with haste and confusion to his lodging. I leave it to the judgement of any disinteressed person whether Bolseck and other grave Authors, would report such remarkable lies (as Calvinists will pretend, this and other passages of Calvin's life and death to be) and set down in print so many circumstances, in a time wherein they were so notably disprovable. This kind of miracles, as Tertulian saith, is proper to men who teach new doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles; as their doctrine is contrary, so ought their miracles to be; the Apostles raised men from death by miracles, their Antagonists by miracle make men dead. Jsti (Apostoli) de mortuis suscitabant, ipsi de vivis mortuos faciunt. Tertulian. in lib. de preter. Beza (an other Protestant Saint) was in love with a boy and a girl at the same time; in his amorous and lascivious Epigrams printed at Paris 1548. he called the boy Andebertus, the girl Candida, in these Epigrams is expressed his passion for both, and his perplexity in the choice of on before the other. At last he resolves, to prefer the boy before the girl, and if his Candida should complain, to content her with a kiss: his words are. Prefer tamen alterum necesse est, O duram nimium necessitatem! sed postquam tamen alterum necesse est, Priores tibi defers Andeberte, Quod si Candida forte conqueratur, Quid tum? basiolo ●acebit uno.  
I will not trouble the Reader with relating the known vices of other Protestant sectaries; these three are the chief, all other Sects being but branches of theirs. If any English Protestant will pretend that the Church of England is neither Lutheran Zuinglian nor Calvinist, let him fix upon his Reformers; If he rejects Henry 8. Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer Martyr, Ochin, Latimer, etc. And will needs have the whole Parliament which authorised them in Edward 6. reign to reform Religion, or the Parliament of Queen Elizabeth that received the English extinct Protestancy, to have the honour of being Authors, or Reformers, let him be pleased to read the Chronicles of this Nation, and compare the integrity of them that pretended to reform Popery, and revive Protestancy, with as many more Members of precedent English Parliaments, and he will find there was never found in this Kingdom, or in any other, such a number of men, or a Parliament that deserved less credit in matters of Religion, than they, who admitted and settled Protestancy. He may observe how in King Henry 8. days (to humour his lewdness and covetousness) they cried down the Pope, and flattered a temporal Sovereign with a spiritual Supremacy, and yet persecuted as heresies all other points of the Protestant Reformation. In Edward 6. days he may see how the same men (to comply with Seamors folly and Dudleys' ambition) declared the doctrine which them-selves had professed as Catholic in King Henry 8. reign, to be notorious heresy. In Queen Mary's time he may read in the statutes, and in this Treatise (1. part. sect. 6.) how they recanted and condemned them-selves, and censured the King's Supremacy (together with all points of Protestancy) as heresy; and with in six years after see them pass the same censure against the Roman Catholic doctrine, to which they had been so solemnly reconciled again; and revive the Supremacy together with other points of Protestancy. So that in the space of less than 16. years they changed their Religion, by public Acts of Parliament, five of six times, to humour the factions which then prevailed. Wherefore it cannot be denied but that these Parliaments and persons deserve as little credit in matters of Religion, as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, or any other private sectary.   

SECT VII. Protestants mistaken in the application of the Prophecies of Scripture, concerning the conversion of the Kings, and Nations of the Gentiles from Paganism to Christianity, foretold as an infallible mark of the true Church, and whereof the Protestant is deprived.  
SAint Augustin saith: 
[a] In psal. 30. con. 2.  Obscurius dixerunt Proph●tae de Christo, quam de Ecclesia; puto propterea quod videbant in Spiritu contra Ecclesiam homines facturos esse particulares, & de Christo non tantam litem habituros, de Ecclesia magnas contentiones excitaturos, ideo illud unde majores lites futurae erant, planiùs praedictum est. The Prophets did speak more clearly of the true Church then of Christ himself, and giveth this reason, because they did foresee in spirit that there would arise greater doubts, and heresies against the Church then against our Saviour; Therefore to stop the mouths of heretics it was fit that God should describe the Church in Scripture by so remarkable and obvious signs, that neither ignorance nor obstinacy might be excusable by pretending want of knowledge of the truth, or means of repairing to that Guide of faith whereby the illiterate aught to be instructed, and the learned directed in all doubts, and controversies of Christian Religion. Amongst all the marks of God's Church mentioned in Scripture, not any is more discernible and less subject to mistakes, than the conversion of Kings and Nations from Paganism to Christianity; Miracles may admit of disputes whether they be true or false? But the conversion of Nations from Paganism to Christian Religion, cannot be counterfeited, nor concealed. If therefore the Protestant Congregations never converted any Kings or Nations of the Gentiles to the Christian faith, not any nor all of them can be the true Church of God. For  
The Prophet Esay foretelleth of the true Church, tha● all 
[b] Esay 2.2.  Nations shall flow to it. And concerning the Gentills coming to the Church in abundance, Thou 
[c] Esay 60.16.  shalt see and shine, they heart shall be astonished and enlarged, because the multitude of the Sea shall be converted to thee, the Isles 
[d] Esay 60.9.  shall wait for thee, their 
[e] Esay 60.10.11. & Psalm. 102.15.22. & Esay 62.2.  Kings shall minister to thee, and thy gates shall be continually open, neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentills. And that their Kings may be brought, thou 
[f] Esay 60.6.  shalt suck the milk of the Gentills, and the breast of Kings. King's 
[g] Esay 49.23. And see the marginal notes of the English Bible of 1576. in Esay 49.23.  shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers. I will 
[h] Psalm. 2.8.  give thee the earth for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy possession. Thou must prophecy again unto Nations, Peoples, Tongues, and many Kings: Apocal. 20.11. All 
[i] The English Bible 1576. in the marginal notes, saith: The meaning is, that Kings shall be converted to the Gospel, and bestow their power and authority for preservation of the Church. Luther tom. 4. Wittemb. in Esay 6. folio 234. King's shall obey and believe the Gospel, etc. The Church is in perpetual use of converting others to the faith, etc. For this is signified by her gates being continually open.  Protestants as well as Catholics apply these prophecies to the conversion of the Gentills.  
In like manner do 
[k] Whitaker in his answer to Mr. William Reynolds in the Preface, pag. 37.  Protestants and Catholics agree, that these prophecies of God have been accomplished; but not in the first 300. years, because as Barlow saith (in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 34. (In the primitive Nonage of the Church, the promise of King's allegiance thereunto was not so fully accomplished, because in those day's that prophecy of our Saviour was rather verified, you shall be brought before Kings for my name's sake, by them to be persecuted even to death. From the time of Constantin the Great until the time of Gregory the great, or Boniface the third, Bishops of Rome (which was 200. and odd years) few Kings professed the Christian faith, the Emperors of the East and West only excepted; and even of those, some revolted, as Julian the Apostate, and sundry others were Arians, as Constans, Constantius, Valens etc. And in case any illiterate Protestant should pretend that the Religion professed by Constantin, and propagated in those 200. and do years was not the Roman Catholic, but the Protestant, we remit him to his own learned Writers, and to Eusebius de vita Constantine, and particularly to the Centurists in their fourth Century dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, in which they undertake to deliver to her Majesty the state of the Church which in Constantin's time illustrated the whole world, and yet do charge the Fathers and Doctors of that and th'ensuing ages with the Popish doctrines of 
[l] Centur. 4. col. 292. & 293. under the titles de justificatione & bonis operibus, where they conclude saying: I am cogitet pius Lector quam procul haec aetas in hoc Articulo de Apostolorum doctrin● desciverit.  justification, and merit by works; 
(m) Centur. 4. col. 254. Ad hoc Presbyter●m aliquem deputarunt, ad quem qui deliquerunt accedentes, quae gessissent confiterentu●, etc. Ea lege confitentes absolvebat, ut a seipsis poenas commissorum exigerent.  Confession of sins to a Priest, 
(n) Centur. 4. col. 255. & col. 256.257. are recited and rejected the particular sayings, of Bazil, Ambrose, Prudentius, Ephrem, Athanasius.  Invocation of Saints, 
(o) Centur. 4. col 304. Where are recited and rejected the sayings of Lactantius and S. jerom.  Purgatory, the real 
(p) See confessed testimonies for Transubstantiation alleged by the Centurists. cent. 4. col. 29● & col. 985. And cent. 5● col. 517. They say Chrysostom seemeth so confirm Transubstantiation. And cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985. that Eusebius and Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation.  presence and Transubstantiation, worshipping 
(q) Chemnitius in his examine part. 2. pag. 29. alleged the several sayings of S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory Nazianzen affirming the adoration of the Sacrament. And Orat. 11. de Gorgonia sorore, telleth how his deceased sister prostrated herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped on it. (● miracle) saith he, the departed presently received health. And the Centurists cent. 4. col. 430. do reprove some prayers of S. Ambrose, saying Continent adorationem panis in Sacramento.  of the Sacrament confirmed by miracles, offering 
(r) Centur. 3. col. 83. they reprove S. Cyprian, saying, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri Sacrificium offer. They also say that the writings of S. Ireneus and Ignatius the Apostles scholar, are here in, incommodious and dangerous. And Sebastia. Francus, in his Epist. de abrogandis Statutis omnibus Ecclesiast. affirmeth that presently after the Apostles time the supper of our Lord was turned into a Sacrifice.  it in Sacrifice to God, as being propitiatory for the living and dead, with 
(s) Centur. 4. col. 456. & 457. & 482. & 1446. Centur. 4. col. 602. & 1250. & 457. And S. jerom contra Vigilantium, cap. 3. affirmeth the estimation of Relics to be in his time the received doctrine non unius urbis sed totius orbis.  solemn translating of Saints Relics, and their [t] worship, with 
(v) Hemnitius examine part. 4. pag. 10 Suscipiebant etiam Peregri●● Nationes ad loca ubi Reliquias Miraculis celebres & claras audiebant.  pilgrimage to them, with 
(x) Centur. 4. col. 409.  Images in the Churches, with numbering prayers upon little stones or beads, worshipping 
(z) Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, etc. pag 657. affirmeth that by report of Paulinus, the Cross was by the Bishop of Jerusalem brought forth at Easter (yearly) to be worshipped of the people. See Evagrius hist. lib. 4. cap. 25. also Danaeus in respons. ad Belarmini controvers. pag. 1415. affirmeth that Cyril and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious, and blinded with enchantment of the Crosses adoration.  of the Cross, and by its virtue driving 
(1) See Mr. Covels answer to Burges pag. 130 & 136.  away Devils, single life 
(2) Cent. 4. col. 616. It is alleged out of the Council of Neocesa●ea, can. 1. Presbyter si uxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo, illum deponi debere. & col. 486. col. 303. col. 704. & 1293.  of Priests, the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy 
(3) Centur. 5. col. 1274. they charge Gelasius who lived an. 480. saying: Romanam Ecclesiam jure Divino contendit (Gelasius) esse omnium primam in epist. ad Brut. etc. cap. 11. And Gelasius in decretis cum. 70. Episcopis initis saith: Romana Ecclesia ●alli● S●●odicis constitut. caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelica voce Domini, Primatum obtinuit; Tu ●s Petrus inquires, & super hanc Petram, etc.  jure Divino, etc. So that in those 200. and odd years▪ Protestant's cannot pretend that any Kings or Nations were converted to their Religion. 
(y) Centur. 4. col. 1329. Et Osiander in epitome. cent 4. pag. 454. And Zozimen hist. lib. 6. c. 27. post med. reported of S. Paul the Monk. In dies singulos trecentas Orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam reddidit, ac ne per inprudentiam in numero erraret, trecentis lapillis in sinum conjectis, ad singulas preces, singulos inde ejecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabat sibi Orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse. And see other like examples of saying prayers by account, or numbering of them, in Palladius his historia Lausiaca, cap. 24. & cap. 25.   
Therefore they desire the decision of this controversy concerning the Conversion 〈◊〉 Pagan Kings and nations to Christianity, may be reduced 〈◊〉 these last thousand and odd years, from St. Gregory the great his time to ours which point being open matter of fact▪ and so clearly mentioned in all Histories, and confessed by Protestants, to have been done by Roman Catholics, and to the ●oman Catholic Religion, no demonstration can be more convincing than this is, against the Protestant Church and Reform●●●●●. In so much that Whitaker (lib. de Eccles. contra Belarm. pag. 336.) hath nothing to say to this our objection of all the converted Kings and Nations since Gregory the great to this present, to have been performed by Papists, and to Popery, but, I answer that those conversions of so many nations after the time 〈…〉, mentioned by Belarmin, were not pure, but corrupt. The like answer and no other▪ is given by Danaeus, Simon de V●yon, and others. But Mr. Barlow in his defence of the articles etc. pag. 35. saith, The promise by Esay prophesied (〈◊〉 the Church) was accomplished, and the number so increased, though still invisibly that as her love said in the Canticles, there 〈◊〉 therefore Queen etc. so that there were four invisible Queens, Princes, or Kingdoms converted to Protestancy; and that performed by Protestants as invisible as they. What greater evidence can there be of heretical obstinacy, then to maintain the real existence of an impossibility, by its invisibility? what is more impossible than that so remarkable things as the conversion of great princes and Nations from Idolatry to the outward profession of Christianity, could be invisible or concealed? I must confess though Mr. Barlow's answer be very absurd, yet is it very consequent to the principles of Protestancy; for why should not threescore Queens, Kings, and Kingdoms be invisible, as well as the whole Protestant Church whereof they were but a part? And if all the Christian world could be insensibly and invisibly changed from pure and primitive Protestancy to superstitious Popery, why might not the same world, Kings, and Queens be invisibly and insensibly changed from Paganism to Protestancy?  
We Catholics are not forced to admit of such absurdities; our greatest Adversaries name the Kings and Nations by us converted to Christianity. Any Protestant may see the particulars confessed and alleged by john Pappus (in his Epitome. histor. Eccl. cap. de conversionibus Gentium pag. 89.91.92.93.94.100.106.107. etc.) also the Century Writers of Magdeburg mention the conversion of sundry nations wrought by us since Gregory the first, as Germany (centur. 8. c. 2. col. 20.) of the Wandals (centur. 9 c. 2. col. 15.) of the Bulgarians, Sclavonians, Polonians, the Danes and Moravians (cent. 9 c. 2. col. 18.) And of sundry Kings and Kingdoms (cent. 10. c. 2. col. 18. & 19) And of a great part of Hungary (cent. 11. c. 2. col. 27.) And of the Norwegians (cent. 12.) See the Protestant Writer Osiander (in his Epitome. histor. Eccles. centur. 9.10.11.12.13.14. & 15.) mentioning the conversion of many Nations performed by Roman catholics, as of the Danes, the Moravians, the Polonians, the Sclavonians, the Bulgars, the Hunns, the Normans, the Bohemians, the Suecians, and Norwegians, Livonians, and the Saxons, The Ungarians, the Rugij, and Tuscans, of Candia, Majorca, of Tunes in Africa etc. whereunto may be added not only the like known conversion of our Ancestors the English Saxons, Scots, and Irish in more ancient times, but in this last age of many Kings and Kingdoms in the East and West-Jndies, Africa, japon, and China, confessed by our Adversary Simon Lythus (in respons. altera ad alteram Gretseri Apologiam pag. 931.) where he says: The Jesuists etc. in the space of few years not content with the limits of Europe, have filled Azia, Africa, and America, with their Idols: And Philippus Nicolai who writing of the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning the conversion of the Gentiles (as he professeth in his Preface to the Duke of Saxony pag. 12.) is enforced wholly to insist and rely upon our Popish Preachers, and jesuists in all parts of the world. See lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. & 3. & lib. 1. pag. 15. & pag. 52.  
There is not any history profane, or sacred, ancient, or modern, which mentioneth as much as one King or Kingdom converted from Paganism to Protestancy; unless they will pretend that their histories, and Records are as invisible as their Church had been before Luther and their Registers of Lambeth before Mason, I cannot say that all Protestants wanted ●●ale to attempt such conversions; but the●● zeal wanted success in all their attempts, and that proves the prophecies of Scripture pointed not at their Church or Doctrine.  
Calvin sent some Ministers, and amongst them Richerus (whom Beza termeth a man of tried godliness and learning) into Gallia Antartica to convert the heathens there; and he writ to Calvin a letter (extant in Calvin's epist. & respons. pag 438. his words are. Latet eos an▪ Deus 〈◊〉, tantum abest ut legem ejus observent, vel potentiam & bonitat●m ejus mirentur, ut prorsus sit nobis adempta spes lucrifaciend●● eos Christo, quod ut omnium est gravissimum ita inter caetera maximè aegre feremus.  
He saith more over that nothing could be done until the children which Mr. Villegaignon delivered to the Barbarians to learn their language, had been perfect therein; but while the children were learning the heathens tongue, Richerus, Villagaignon and the other Ministers disagreed so in their doctrine, that the whole design fell to the ground; and Villagaignon instead of conventing the heathens, forsook his own Religion, moved thereunto by the dissensions, and inordinate accomplished lusts (not to be named) of the Protestant Preachers, whereof see Launoy 〈◊〉 la Republicque Christi●ne etc. l. 2. c. 16. fol. 281. and Villegaignon adversus articulos Richeri l. 1. c. 90. Franciscus Gomarus a Protestant Writer ackowledgeth the like want of success in other places, and persons: see his Speculum verae Ecclesiae pag. 161. & 168. And Mr. Hacluits book of voyages and discoveries of the English Nation, and their frustrated labours in conversion of the remote northern Nations; whereof the Author saith (pag. 680.) The events do show that either God's cause hath not been chiefly preferred by them, or else God hath not permitted so abundant grace as the light of his word, and knowledge of him, to be yet revealed to those Infidels before the appointed time.  
No marvel therefore if 
[4] Beza cit. apud Sa●●i●●am in defen Tract. de div●●sis gradib●● Ministrorum etc. pag. 309.  Beza despairing of any success in the Protestant Church of converting Pagans, disclaimeth therein, and doth advise his brethren to leave that labour to the Jesuists, and so employ them-selves at home among Christians, thinking perhaps that to make Papists Protestant's is a sufficient accomplishing of Esay's prophecies. Nec enim nunc magnopere nobis de legatione ad remotissimas aliquas. Gentes laborandum, cum nobis domi, & in propinquo satis suporque sit quod nos & posteros nostros exerceat: Has igitur potius tam 〈◊〉 pe●grinationes locustis illis JESUS nomen ementientibus, relinquamus. But as the converting of Gentills to Christianity is an infallible mark of the true Church, so is the drawing of Catholics to Protestancy, an infallible mark of a false Church, and of Heretics, whose endeavour, saith Tertullian 
[5] Tertull. lib. de praescr. c. 42.  Is not to convert Pagans, but to pervert Christians. Negotium est illis (Haereticis) non Ethnicos convertendi sed nostros evertendi.  
Their success in that particular is no argument, that God approves of their Religion, but is only a sign of our human frailty, and perverse inclinations to vice and liberty. And they who say that the Protestant Reformation needs no other miracle to prove that it is Divine, but its propagations, mistake and misapply the argument; the miracle consists not in that many embra●● Protestancy, but rather in that any at all reject or forsake a Religion so favourable to sensuality of li●●, and singularity of judgement. Is it not an argument and a miracle of God's special and supernatural grace; that any one temporal Catholic Sovereign reject so absolute and advantageous a jurisdiction over these Subjects, as the spiritual supremacy? That Bishops prefer the Catholic subordination to the Pope before the Protestant equality? That Catholic Priests contemn the conveniences, and co●●●nt which Protestant Ministers find in a married life 〈◊〉 ●hat the Catholic laity, change not their wives or husbands according to the principles and practices 〈◊〉 Protestancy▪ and not only contradict their senses in the 〈…〉▪ Transubstantiation, but dis-own the Protestant pretended right of every private person to judge (according to his own sense of 〈…〉 all controversies of Christian Religion? A Reformation so indulgent and obliging to every man and woman of what ●●ate and condition soever, could as little want Proselies as the 〈◊〉 neither is the multitude of believers more a miracle 〈…〉 P●●●estant, then in the Mahometan, or any other popular 〈◊〉 pleasing Religion.   

SECT. VIII. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of their justifying faith with justice, or civil Government. Demonstrated in the new setlement of Irland, and in the persecution against Catholics in England: and yet the King and his government vindicated from the note of Tyranny, or the breach of public faith; because his Ministers are compelled, by a necessity of state, to run with the spirit and principles of Protestancy: Notwithstanding all which the Irish, and English Roman Catholics are bound in conscience not to attempt the recovery of their right or Religion by arms, but rather to submit them-selves to his Majesty, and suffer their crosses with Christian patience.  
All Protestants agree in the doctrine of justification by only faith, but seem to differ in that of good works. And though all necessity of good works be in very deed excluded by the pretended sufficiency and efficacy of the Protestant justifying faith; for in what need can a man stand of good works, if he be sure of his justification (and by consequence of his salvation) by only faith. But the scandal of the world at their dispensing with the observation of the ten Commandments as things not required by Christians, and clearly inferred from their justification by only faith, was so general, that they disguised (but never disowned) the doctrine; and do yet stick to their principle though they dare not openly allow the consequences. They speak so sparingly in favour of good and gracious works, that no one Protestant Church will attribute to them any merit, congruity, or influence upon either justification, or salvation. In so much that our prelatics (who are more moderate than any other Protestants in this particular) will not grant that good works are commanded by God as if they were depending of our liberty, or relating to our endeavours, but only are commanded as unavoidable effects flowing necessarily from a Protestant and justifying faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree. 

Luther in Comment●r. ad. cap. 2. ad Galat. Where it is taught, Faith in Christ doth in deed justify, but it's necessary with all to keep God's Commandments, because it is written, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, there Christ is denied, and saith is abolished, because that which is proper to God alone, is attributed to the Commandments of God, or to the law. When any one proposeth Moses with his Commandments to thee, and would oblige thee to keep them, than thy; with thy Moses to the Jews. I will have nothing to do with Moses' nor his law, for he is an enemy to Christ. Luther in Collo. mens. Germ. fol. 152. & 153. Si scortus es, si scortator, si Adulter, vel alioquin peccator, crede, & in via salutis ambulas. Cum in peccatum demersus es ad summum usque, si credis, in m●dia beatidudine versaris. This doctrine of the Antinomian Lutherans together with their rejecting the ten Commandments as impertinent to Christians, is censured by the Man●feldian Ministers, Confess. Mansfeld. fol. 39 & 90. And yet the principle from whence all necessarily follows is maintained.  
Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 564. saith, The law remaineth still impossible to be kept by us, through the weackness of our flesh, neither doth God give us ability to keep it, but Christ hath fulfilled it for us.    
The Prelatic Church of England in the 11. Article of its Religion, saith: We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.  
And in the 12. Article declares All be it that good works which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; in so much that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.  
This explanation concerning the necessity of good works, mak● men as careless of them, as if they had been impossible, or not at all requisite; Because we are not solicitous of what we are sure of; he who is well clad, and sits by a good fire, fears not to be starved with could, neither doth he think it necessary to use any other exercise, or diligence for keeping himself warm. If therefore good works do spring out as necessarily of a true and lively faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree, any Protestant that supposeth, himself hath that faith, needs not be solicitous of good works; they will spring as a necessary consequent from his faith.  
But because experience doth show that the Protestant who pretends to a justifying faith, hath not always good works, and many who are not Protestants, exercise moral virtues, it is further declared by the Church of England in the 13. Article (for the comfort of Protestants, and confusion of Papists) That even the best moral works and virtues when they spring not of faith in JESUS Christ, are no way pleasing to God, but rather have the nature of sin; Hence it is, our English as well as other Protestants hold expressly with Luther, That good 
[a] Luther in his Sermons translated into English an. 1578. pag. 147. & 176.  works take their goodness of the worker, and that no work is disallowed of God, unless the Author be dis-allowed before; that sin is not hurtful to him that actually believeth; and therefore when the faithful do sin, they 
[b] Acts and Mon." pag. 1338.  diminish not the glory of God, all the danger of sin being the evell example to our neighbour; That David when he 
[c] Mr. Wotten in his answer to the" Popish articles pag. 92. & pag. 41.  committed adultery, was and remained the Child of God; that sin is 
[d] Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in Epi. joan. Sec. 5. & fol. 447. Dr. Whitaker de Eccles. pag, 301 We say that if a man have an act of faith, sins do not hurt him, this truly Luther affirmeth, this we all say.  pardoned as soon as committed▪ the believing Protestant having received forgiuness of all his sins past and to come. And that 
[e] Acts and Mon. pag. 1335. Sinit quisquis vere credit Deum pro se operari, & disponere sibi vitam aeternam ipse plane ad eam rem nihil operis seu laboris sibi sumens. Hofmannus de paenitentia edit. 1540 l. 2. fol. 113. Whitaker contra Campian. rat. 8. pag. 151. Christus conditionem nobis aliam multo faciliorem proponit, Crede & salvus eris.  there is no work better than other: to make water, to wash dishes, to be a Sour, or an Apostle, all is one to please God. That he who 
[f] Dr. Fulk in the Tower disputation against Campian, the second days conference 1. 6.  doth once truly believe, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God, or lose his faith by any sins; and therefore faith is either 
[g] Whitaker against Campian" rat. 8. pag. 143. fides aut perpetua est aut nulla est.  perpetual, or no faith.  
What a wide gap is opened by this wicked doctrine to all kind of vice, libertinism, and rebellion, is more visible in itself, then considered by well meaning Protestants, who may tax the most dissolute of their brethren with being evil christians, but must withal confess them to be good Protestants, as not violating the principles of their Religion, by which they are encouraged to justify the most wicked actions, by their sole belief in Christ, without any regard to the morality of good works, or to the allegiance and obedience due to Majesty or Magistrasy. That which makes most men careful in God's service, is the uncertainty of their salvation, and fear of his displeasure by their daily sins; but Protestants are rid of all those perplexities and troubles by their assurance of being justified and saved by only faith, which makes adulteries, Murders, rebellions etc. either no sins at all in them, or so venial that they are no sooner committed then pardoned, by a more plenary Jndulgence and Jubilee, than ever the Pope pretended to have power to grant, and without obligation of any satisfaction, alms, fasting, or prayer for past offences, or any purpose of future amendment, that purpose being rendered not only superfluous by their faith, but ridiculous by their doctrine, either of the impossibility of keeping God's Commandments, or by their Tenet of the necessary springing of good works from faith. And because this their Evangelical liberty, and indemnity is not consistent with the words of St. Peter 2. Pet. 1. Brethren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, They either make that Epistle apocryphal, or leave out of the Text in their Translations those two words, good works.  
It is commonly said that though many statesmen be Atheists, yet they will never permit Atheism to be made the legal Religion of the state, because they know that men who do not believe there is a God, or providence, cannot be kept in awe of the government, or brought to observe any other laws but their own appetits, seeing they neither fear punishment nor expect rewad in an other life for vice or virtue, and without this fear and hopes, the multitude cannot be governed in this world. The same reason concludeth that Protestant Politians ought not to make Protestancy the Religion of the state, civil government being rendered as difficult and contemptible by an indulgent and over-confident belief, as by none at all; He who persuads himself that faith alone is sufficient assurance of his salvation, and that such a faith once possessed, can not be lost, will not avoid the occasion, or resist the temptation of finning for his pleasure or profit; nor omit the opportunity of rebelling whensoever it is offered with probability of success: so he be cautious in his vices and villainies, his justifying saith makes all his designs and devices conscientious; and if he can save himself from being hanged, his Protestant belief will secure him from being damned, or drowned in Hell. How impossible it is to govern a multitude where this is the Religion not only permitted but promoted, 
The Protestant doctrine of justifying faith most dangerous and damnable  is evident by our late distempers. Could Tanners, Tinkers, Tailors, Cobblers, and Brewer's, domineer, and possess peaceably these tree Kingdoms, and murder our lawful and innocent King by a formality of Religion, laws, and justice, had not their wicked practices been countenanced by the Protestant principles, and looked upon as a restauration of Protestancy unto its primitive purity? It is credibly reported of their Ringleader and Regicide Cromwell, that he died without remors of conscience, or signs of repentance for his monstruous villainies, because (said he to his Protestant Divine that assisted him in his last sickness) I am sure to be saved, seeing I had once justifying faith, and could never lose it. Every resolute Rogue may attempt the most horrid crimes with hopes of prevailing amongst men whose principles are so presuming upon mercy, and so appliable to mis-chief.  
I know it will be answered by them in whom education hath created zeal for the protestant religion, or interest hath rendered obstinate in maintaining the same, that the principles and articles of protestancy are mistaken, and misapplyed not only by us Catholics, but even by those protestant Authors last quoted in the margins. To which we reply. 1. That nothing is more prejudicial to the soul, and good government, than a religion subject to so many mistakes, and so generally, and plausibly mistaken by its own greatest Doctors. 2. We say that our being mistaken, is but their private opinion which opinion though it were backed by a public Act of their Church can pretend (at most,) but to probability; and so much they must also grant to our contrary censure, and Judgement of their justifying faith: and seeing that of two probable opinions the generality of men follow that which favours most their particular inclinations, and interests, very few protestants will vary from the most favourable explanation, of justifying faith, or will wave the comfort that the 11. Article of the Church of England affords to them in that particular, calling or canonising it a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.  
K. James was a wise, and foreseeing Prince, and in the conference at Hampton-Court did countenance the Dean of Paul's, and the Bishop of London disputing against Doctor Reynolds and others, that maintained the assurance of salvation (or predestination) by the protestant justifying faith; and yet not withstanding the King's dislike (noless politic then religious) of a principle so damnable to the soul, and dangerous to the state, it would not be condemned, nor censured, unless the 39 Articles of religion, and the whole frame of English protestancy were overthrown, as Doctor Reynolds made appear; And indeed Mr. Perkins doth demonstrat (in his reformed Catholic (pag. 39) the necessary connexion and continuance of the assurance of salvation with the protestant doctrine of justifying faith, in these words. If upon every abode in sin the party be again uncertain of his salvation, than was the former certainty no certainty at all. For (his sin notwithstanding) he yet remembreth his former supposed certainty, and therefore if he was once truly assured, he can not during every his abode in sin forget, how that he was so assured, which his only remembrance thereof sufficeth to continue, and preserve his former supposed certainty even during his abode in sin. So that if Cromwell by his justifying faith was once sure of his salvation, or predestination, Protestants must believe he could never lose that assurance, and must grant that he went to heaven without any punishment (even in Purgatory) for his murders, perjury, hypocrisy, adulteries etc. Such a belief must needs raise other Cromwell's; for who will not venture his life for a Crown, by the most unjust means, when he is sure to be croned in God's glory, though, he miss of his aim in this world, and perish in the attempt?  
As it cannot be denied but that these, and the like dangerous consequences do naturally flow from this principle of Protestancy, so we must acknowledge and admire the extraordinary skill and constancy of them▪ who sit at the helm, and steer the ship of this great Commonwealth so steadyly in so turbulent a sea, and stormy weather, against the most violent currents of perverse inclinations and principles: long may they continue their prosperous course; but surely them-selves do apprehend that at long running, no human industry will be able to escape the rocks and shelves where upon this great ship must be driven, If our Pilots, and Parliaments will be overruled by the loud and rude outcries of the Scum of the people, against Toleration, or liberty of conscience; and will think it sound policy to condescend to their zeal, and raise protestancy to the height of its principles, in particular to the purity of their justifying faith▪ which is of so great virtue, that it hath made Regicides and Rebels Saints in England, and Lords in Ireland; working in that miserable Kingdom stranger miracles, then are read of, in the Gospel. It hath changed the very essence or nature of things, and defined Innocency and nocency by such new notions, that Adam before his fall (had he been an Irish Catholic) would have been declared nocent; whereas every Protestant, however so guilty of rebellion and murder, is a Child of grace, and favour: no sin or crime must be imputed to him, his justifying faith saves and salves all▪ It hath turned a Convention of Cromwell's officers into a Cavalier House of Commons: And though it hath not removed mountains, yet it hath ●●mov'd the 〈◊〉 nobility and gentry that had been active in the King's service, unto mountains; and deprived most of them (since the King's restauration) of that small pittance which had been allowed to them by Cromwell, in Conaght. It hath made the rebellious and the Royal interest, on and the same thing, because forsooth, both are called an English and Protestant interests; and for as much as Oliver and Henry Cromwell were English Protestants, it's declared to be the King's interest that not only Cromwell's Officers, but that himself, his son, and their Trusty's and Assigns, aught to possess and enjoy Irish Cavaliers estates.  
In England also this justifying faith hath wrought wonders; for though it hath not restored no one the ●ares he lost, and loft on the Pillory for his sedition, yet hath it restored him to such credit, that his word against Protestant Bishops and Catholic Cavaliers, is like to be made the vote of the House of Commons: and an other Presbiterian that formerly headed the table of London against the King, hath kindled such a fire in parliament that can hardly be quenched without the blood of Innocents'. And truly I should admire that such a Cavalier Parliament as this is, doth not punish Presbiterian Persecutors as french Pensioners (for that by their persecution slow in a Treaty of Confederacy with England, seeing none can have greater security of performance of articles than was given to the than confederates of Irland, which signified nothing but a breach of the public faith.  
We shall not presume to discourse further of this subject than our Allegiance and affection lead us to vindicat the Government. How it agreeth with the Rules of Policy to make Ireland Protestant, many Protestants dispute, most resolve that Irish Popery would be a surer support to our King's sovereignty in Irland then English and Scotch Presbytery, or a forced and feigned conversion of Cromwell's Creatures to Prelacy and Monarchy. The great Earl of Strafford's opinion was, that it is the King of England's Interest, to make Irland a counterpoise against all rebellious attempts of his Protestant subjects; and to that 〈◊〉 that the Irish ought to be countenanced even in their Religion, its principles being so favourable to Monarchy, and irreconciliable to Presbytery; and by consequence thereby all combinations and Covenants between Scotch and English Sectaries may be prevented or suppressed, and the King without any charge or care (only by ●ot persecuting Papists for their conscience) may secure the Irish to himself; who if treated like other Subjects, would never think of domestic conspiracies, or seek foreign protections.  
And as for England, we hope it shall never feel again the effects of Presbiterian policy, and piety, nor be governed by another long Parliament; yet he who best understands the affairs and constitution of the Kingdoms, thinks it part of his trust and duty, to bid the Royalists be vigilant in their stations, and charges, not only for preventing and suppressing plots and insurrections, but much more to beware of Godly Parliaments composed of the purer sort of Protestants; 
My Lord Chancellor in his speech to the Parliament at Oxford.  such as her tofore by reforming and reducing Protestancy to its primitive purity, and coherency with its fundamental principles, have in these Kingdoms destroyed both Monarchy, and morality. It seems (by the caution of this great Minister) these men and Jacobus Andrea's ad cap. 21. Lucae. 
Luther in postilla super Evang. Dom. 1. Advemus. Dominica 26 post Trinit.  And Luther himself acknowledge the world groweth daily worse, men are now more revengeful, covetous, licentious than they were ever before in the Papacy: And before, when we were seduced by the Pope, every man did willingly follow good works and now every man neither saith, nor knoweth any thing but how to get all to himself by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury etc. And in his Colloq. Mensal. Germ. fol. 55. It is a wonderful thing and full of scandal, that from the time in which the true doctrine of the Gospel was first recalled to light, the world should daily grow worse. Mr. Stubbes in his motives to good works, printend an. 1596. in his epistle to the Lord Major of London, saith, that after his travail in compassing all England round about, I found the people in most parts dissolute, proud, envious malisious covetous, ambitious, careless of good works etc.  
Mr. Richard Jeffery in his Sermon at Paul's Cross 7. October printed 1604. pag. 31. saith. I may freely speak what I have plainly seen in the course of some travails, and observation of some courses, that in Flanders was never more drunkness, in Italy more wantonness, in jury more hypocrisy, in Turkey more impiety, in Tartary more iniquity, then is practised generally in England, particularly in London; all this is seen in on of the worst ages wherein these Roman Catholic Religion was professed, see our Adversaries the Centurists Cent. 7. c. 7. col. 181. who say: Although in this age the worship of God was darkened with man's traditions, and superstisions, yet the study to serve God and to live Godly and justly, was not wanting to the miserable common people etc. They were so attentive to their prayers as they bestowed almost the whole day there in etc. They did exhibit to the Magistrate due obedience, they were most studious of amity, concord, and Society, so as they would easily remit injuries, all of them were careful to spend their time in honest vacation, and labour, to the poor and strangers they were most courteous, and liberal, and in their judgements and contracts most true.  
And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 24. saith The greatest part of the Reformed Ghospelers seemed to look after nothing by the Gospel, but to be rid of that yoke of discipline which was remaining in the Papacy, and to do all things according, to the lust of their flesh: It was not then unpleasing to them to hear that we are justified by faith in Christ, not by good works, which they in no wise did affect. We Catholics do not pretend to have no evill-livers in our Church; but this we may say with truth, and (I hope) without offence, that the difference between Protestant and Catholic ●●●ll-livers is, that when Protestants sin, they do nothing but what they are encouraged unto by their justifying faith, and the other principles of their Religion; but when Catholics sin, they go against the known Tenets of their faith and profession. Even our Pardons, and Jndulgences, however so plenary, are so far from encouraging us to a continuance or relapse of sinning, that they involve as a precedent and necessary condition, a serious and sincere repentance of our former offences, and afirm purpose and resolution of never returning to the like crimes; and after all is done, we pretend to no such undoubted certainty of being pardoned either by confession or Indulgences (because we are not certain whether we do all as we ought) as Protestants presume to have of their justification and salvation by only faith.  
The nature of this justifying faith▪ and of other Protestant principles considered▪ We Catholics have reason to thank God▪ that the prudence ●f the Prince, and moderation of his Ministers is so extraordinary, that it keeps the indiscreed zeal of a multitude so strangely principled, if not as much with in the limits of Christianity, and civility towards their fellow subjects, as were to be wished, yet so that the execution of the sanguinary and penal statutes is not altogether so destructive, as the Presbiterians and others endeavour. Until the generality of these Nations reflect upon the impiety of the first Reformers, and upon their own mistakes in preferring the mad fancies of a few dissolute Friars (concerning the nature of Christian faith) before the constant Testimony and doctrine of the whole visible Church, we cannot expect that they who govern so mistaken a multitude, can make justice the rule of the public Decrees, which depend of the concurrence and acceptance of men, whose greatest care is to promote Protestancy and persecute Popery.   

SECT. IX. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of Christian faith, humility, Charity, peace either in Church or state, with their making Scripture as interpreted by private persons, or fallible Synods, or fancied general Counsels (composed of all discenting Christian Churches) the rule of faith, and judge of Controversies in Religion. How every Protestant is a Pope; and how much also they are overseen in making the 39 Articles or the oath of Supremacy a distinctive sign of Loyalty to our Protestant Kings.  
LVther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer and all others that pretended to reform the doctrine of the Church of Rome, seeing they could not prove their new Religions, or Reformations by testimonies from antiquity, or by probability of Reason, were enforced to imitat the example of all Heretics, who (as S. Austin says l. 1. de Trin. c. 3.) endeavour to defend their falls and deceitful opinions out of the Scriptures. If on shall ask any Heretic (saith that ancient Father Vincentius lyr: l. 1. cons. Haer. c. 35.) from whence, do you prove, from whence do you teach, that I ought to forsake the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? Presently he answereth, scriptum est, It is written; and forthwith he prepareth a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, from the law, from the Apostles, from the Prophets. This shift is so ordinary and notorious, that Luther himself (postil. Wittenberg. in 2. con. 8. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118.) affirmeth, the sacred Scripture is the book of Heretics, because Heretics are accustomed to appeal to that book, neither did there arise at any time any heresy so pestiferous, and so foolish, which did not endeavour to hide itself under the veil, of Scripture.  
And yet Luther, Calvin, Cranmer etc. finding nothing to say for them-selves, either in History, or Fathers: and seeing Tradition so clearly bend against them, that they could not name as much as on Parish or person which ever professed their protestant doctrines, they appealed from the word of God (proposed by the visible and Catholic Church and Coun●●ls) to their own Canon and Translations of Scripture; and from that sense of Scripture which the Church and Counsels had followed for 1500. years, to that which their own private spirit, temporal interest, or fallacious reason di●●●ted to them-selves; and so did others that followed their examples, making every private Protestant, or at least every reform Congregation Judge of Scripture, Church, Counsels, and Fathers; In so much that Luther (tom. 2. Wittenberg. cap. de Sacram. fol. 375. setteth down this rule for all Protestants to be directed 〈◊〉▪ The Governors of Churches and Pastors of Christ's sheep 〈◊〉 indeed power to teach, but the sheep must judge wh●●●er they propose the voice of Christ, 〈◊〉 of strangers etc. Wherefore let Popes, Bishops, Counsels, etc. decree, order, enact what they please, we shall not hinder, but we who are Christ's sheep and hear his voice, will judge whether they propose things true and agreeable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yield to us, and subscribe and obey our sentence, and censure. Calvin, though contrary to Luth●● in many other things, yet in this doth agree, as being the ground wherupon all protestant Reformations must rely; in his lib. 4. Institut. cap. 9 §. 8. he says, The definitions of Counsels must be examined by Scripture, and Scripture interpreted by his rules and Spirit. The same is maintained by the Church of England as appears in the defence of the 39 Articles printed by authority 1633. wherein it is said pag. 103. Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgement in the same, to judge controversies of faith etc. And this is not the private opinion of our Church, but also the judgement of our godly brethren in foreign Nations. And by Mr. Bilson Bishop of Winchester (in his true difference etc. part. 2. pag. 353.) The people must be Discerners, and Judges of that which is taught.  
How inconsistent this doctrine is with Christian faith, is evident by the pretended fallibility and fall of the visible Church which all Protestants do suppose, and must maintain, to make good the necessity and lawfulness of their own interpretations, and Reformations. For if the Roman Catholik, and ever Visible Church may, and from time to time hath erred (as the Church of England declares in the 39 Articles) no reform Congregations, whether Lutheran, Presbiterian, or Prelatic can have infallible certainty but that them-selves have fallen into as great errors, as those which they have pretended to reform in the Roman Church: And if they have not infallible certainty of the truth of their reformed doctrine, they can not pretend to Christianity of faith, that involves an assurance of truth▪ which assurance is impossible, if that the Church can be mistaken in its proposal. So that Christianity of faith, including as an essential requisite the undoubted assurance of the truth of what is proposed by the Church▪ as revealed by God, and Protestancy necessarily supposing fallibility, or possibility of error in that same Church and proposal; Christian faith is there by rendered impossible, and the Protestant Doctrine demonstrated 〈◊〉 be inconsistent with the nature of Catholic Religion, with the certainty of Divine faith, and with the Authority of Christ's Church.  
Neither is the Protestant doctrine in this particular less consistent with Christian charity, and humility, then with Catholic faith. For, what judgement can be more rash, injurious, and contrary to Christian charity, then to assert, that so many holy and learned Doctors as have been, and are confessed Papists (and even the whole visible Church for the space at least of 1000 years) could either ignorantly mistake, or would wilfully forsake the true sense of God's word, so clearly shining in Scripture as every petty Protestant doth pretend? or what is more repugnant 〈◊〉 Christian modesty and humility, than that homely Doctors, and half witted wits should prefer their own private opinions in matters of faith, before the common consent and belief of 〈◊〉 Fathers of the Church, the Definitions of general Counsels, the Tradition and testimony of so many ages? It is both a ridiculous and sad spectacle to see, how every student of the University that hath learn'● to construe 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, or to quibble or scribble somewhat in Greek, English or Latin, takes upon him to talk of Religion, and to censure St. 〈◊〉, St. Austin, St. Christen &c. and contemn both ancient and modern Catholic Authors, preferring before the whole Church, himself, and his Po●antick Tutors, or Fellows▪ of Oxford, and Cambrige Colleges. Nay the illiterate people, even the women are grown to that height of spiritual pride (an infallible 〈◊〉 of Heresy) that they pity our Popish ignorance, and fancy they can 〈◊〉▪ with the Text of their English Bibles (falsely translated, and fond interpreted) the greatest Roman Divines. So true is the saying of St. Hierom (in Epist. ad Paulinum) Scripture is the only art which all people teach before they have learned. The prattling woman, the old doting man etc. And therefore (advers. Lucifer.) bids mwn not flatter them-selves with quoting Scripture to confirm their opinions, seeing the Devil himself made use of God's word; which consists more in the sense then in the letter.  
How impossible is it to govern peaceably so prattling and presuming a Protestant multitude either in Church or state, is too manifest by the last experiences in England, where the endeavours of reducing this Protestant arrogancy to some kind of reason, was the occasion, and object of the Rebellion. King Charles I. and his Council for attempting to make the inferiors subordinat to their superiors, in doctrine and discipline, and the subjects obedient to the laws of the land, were aspersed as Papists, and destroyed as enemies to the Evangelical liberty of Protestancy, and as subverters of the fundamental principles of the Reformation. Popish rebellions happen because the Promotors thereof fall from that fervour of their faith, and devotion which they ought to practise; but the English Protestant Rebellion was raised and continued by the most devout, pure, fervent, and zealous sort of Protestants, in persuance and maintenance of their Religion. Other rebellions are commonly unexpected chances, springing from a sudden fury or fear of desperate people, but the late Rebellion was, and is to this day, pretended by many to have been a pious, and sober proceeding (the King's murder only excepted) of the prudent and Religious men of the Nation, assembled in Parliament; and is so justifiable by the principles of Protestancy, that he must be thought not only a wise but a fortunate King of England that can prevent or suppress the like revolution in his Reign, so long as Protestancy doth reign with him.  
The reason is as manifest as the experience, and the cause as the effect. For, if a Commonwealth were so instituted that every private person might pretend (by his birthright or Privilege) to admit of no other judge or Interpreter of the laws, but himself, or at least might lawfully and legaly appeal from all Courts of Judicature (even from the highest which is the Parliament) to his own private Judgement, what intolerable confusion would it breed? what justice, subordination, peace, propriety, or prosperity, could be expected in such a government? The same laws and authority which ought to decide all differences, would be the subject and occasion of perpetual quarrels. This is the condition and constitution of Protestant Churches and States. Every private person is a supreme judge of Religion, and sole Interpreter of Scripture; he may appeal both from Sovereigns; and Bishops; from their temporal and Ecclesiastical laws to his own private judgement, or spirit; and himself must determine the difference and conclude whether the Decrees of Church and State be agreeable to God's word that is, to his own Interpretation thereof, which commonly is biased by private interest, or some singular fancy of his own. And though the Governors and Clergy of his Church and Country tell him, he ought to suspend his judgement, and submit the same to 〈◊〉 Parliament, or to a general Council, not like that of Trent, but to one composed of all Nations and Christian Congregations, called by the joint authority of all temporal Princes (but in the mean time he must 〈◊〉 to the Decrees of the Church and state, whereof he is a member) when they inculcat this lesson unto a zealous Protestant's 〈…〉 not so simple as to believe that they who read this 〈◊〉, speak as they think or that they believe any such general Council is possible; for that every 〈◊〉 knows, temporal Princes will never agree about the Precedent, time, place, and other circumstances of such a Counceil and though they should, (and the Turck and other Infidels give way to such a suspicious Assembly of Christians) yet when they m●t●, nothing could be resolved ●or want of their agreement in a 〈◊〉 of judging of controversies; every sect ●●icking to it's own principles and proper sense of Scripture. So tha● every Protestant understands the design of this doctrine to be but a fetch of their own Clergy, to make it-self in the mean time sol● Judge of Religion, contrary to the principles and privileges of Protestancy, and therefore laugh at the folly of such a proposal, and pretext. We Roman Catholics need no such Devices, nor delays: we are content to submit to such general Counsels, as may be had; our Popes and Counsels define according to the tradition and sense of Scripture of the true Church; our Censures must suppose known causes, and crimes; and if with all these cautions the Pop's spiritual jurisdiction is thought to be so dangerous to the sovereignty of Kings, and peace of subjects (least forsooth, it might be indirectly applied to temporal matters) that all Protestants upon that score renounce the Papal authority; with how much more reason ought every one to renounce his own judicature of Religion and Scripture tied to no rules, but to his own discretion, and to an indiscernible and private spirit. There is greater danger that Protestants may abuse this spiritual Sovereignty, by an indirect application thereof to temporal affairs, than the Pope his; who being a stranger, and at such a distance, can not (if he would) have the conveniencies, opportunities, and occasions of plotting rebellion, which Natives and subjects may lay hold on, with less danger of a discovery, and greater hopes of success.  
It is said that in time of a Parliament wherein many of the lower House stood upon higher terms than was thought convenient for the state, though warranted by the purest Protestancy, a Gentleman presented a petition to King James, who seemed to admire that any would sue to him, in a time there were (as his Majesty said) three hundred Kings sitting in the House of Commons, and therefore bid the Gentleman repair thither for relief. We see in the late long Parliament how some few membres of the House of Commons prevailed against K. Charles I. in his own Court and City, by making them-selves popular, upon the score of the Protestant Religion, and Scripture. How afterwards these and their faction were supplanted by Cromwell's sense of Scripture, and how that he wanted only the name of King. How after his death every Commander had hopes to succeed him in this power and Protectorship, and without question some might, had not the Duke of Albermal● been so honest. We have grounds therefore to say that every Protestant that hath wit, and valour, and will take hold of the advantages of his Religion, may hope to be a King, or Protector; and we cannot but admire that any statesman doth except against the Roman Catholic Tenets, for admitting of one Pope, whereas according to the ground and principles of all Protestant Reformations, there are as many Popes as Protestant's, and every one of them much more absolute than the Bishops of Rome, and their supremacy less consistent which the security of Princes, and peace of the people, than his spiritual jurisdiction.  
Besides; the stay and security of a state consists in a discreet distribution of public charges and employments; and this, in the choice of persons qualified with such signs of conscience, and loyalty, as can hardly be counterfeited, or misapplied; whereof the principal is the profession of the Religion of the state; therefore we see none trusted in weighty affairs of the Commonwealth, but such as are of the Prince his Religion. But if that Religion have no certain rule, or only such a rule that makes men of no certain Religion, it can be no more a sign of conscience and loyalty, or fit to direct ●he King and Council in their choice of persons for their purpose and ●ust, than a plume of feathers, or a garniture of ribbons fancied for its colours. The reason is obvious and concluding▪ because the security of a King, and the prosperity of his Kingdoms, is grounded upon the loyalty of his subjects, and servants, who are entrusted with secret designs, and public employments, both in the civil and military list; their loyalty is directed by their conscience; their conscience by their Religion; their Religion by their rule of faith: If therefore their rule of faith be but their own fancy of Scripture, or Scripture as it is interpreted by every man's private judgement, without any obligation of conscience to submit to the contrary interpretation of their national Syn●● or Church (because neither of them pretend to be infallible) than loyalty, conscience, religion, government, and King, are as subject to the changes of fortune, and animosities of faction, as the fickle fancy of every private person is apt to vary according to his weackness of judgement, or strength of passion, and to declare for that party which will be most for his interest.  
This inconstancy of the reformed Religions is acknowledged by them-selves. Duditius a learned and zealous protestant, quoted and highly commended by Beza for his piety and elegant wit (ep. 1. ad Andraeam Duditium pag. 13.) lamenteth the condition of his reformed Brethren, in these words. They are carried about with every wind of doctrine, now to this part, now to that; whose Religion what it is to day you may perhaps know, but what it will be to morrow, neither you nor they can certainly tell. & pag. 5. ep. Bezae cit. In what head of Religion do they agree that impugn the Roman Bishop? If you examine all from the head to the foot you shall almost find nothing affirmed by on, which another will not aver to be wicked. And, their Divines do daily differ from them-selves, Menstruam fidem habentes, coining a monthly faith.  
" Now what small hopes there are of remedying, this misfortune, Sands ingeniously confesseth in his relation (fol. 82.)) The Papists have the Pope as a common Father, Adviser, and Conductor, to reconcile their jars, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Counsels unto unity etc. whereas on the contrary side Protestants are as severed or rather scattered troops, each drawing adiverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrels: no Patriarch; one or more, to have a common superintendance or care of their Churches for correspondency and unity; no ordinary way to assemble a general Council of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their contention. To this we may add the saying of Melancton, as remarkable as true, Quos fugiamus habemus, sed quos sequamur non intelligimus, we know who we should avoid (meaning the Papists) Religions is, to believe what you think fit according to your best understanding of a writing you can not understand by any human and private industry of your own, and will not learn from any public authority of the Church, because by following the interpretation of the Church you fancy that you may be mistaken) so that for fear of being mistaken in, or by public authority, the protestant either falls into obstinacy in his own private opinion, or into an indifferency for all opinions, and so becomes to be an Heretic, or of no Religion.  
Among the protestant Confessions of faith, the 39 Articles of the prelatic Church of England is esteemed an excellent piece; and yet the same Articles acknowledge that the visible Church of God hath erred, and may err from time to time; and by consequence the prelatic may have erred in this very assertion, as in most of the 39 Articles. How this acknowledged uncertainty of truth can agree with the certainty or Christianity of faith, or with any hopes of salvation, I can not comprehend. But albeit these articles seem as insufficient for salvation, as men are uncertain of their truth, yet are they thought useful to the government; for, though they want the substance, (that is, the certainty) of faith, yet they have the face of religion, and formality of law; because they talk of God, Christ, Trinity etc. And are confirmed by acts of Parliament. But that which makes them to be so much insisted upon, is, that they are so indifferent, and appliable to all Protestant Religions, that with much reason he is censured a very wilful Presbiterian, and fanatic, who will not submit, and subscribe to articles so indulgent, and indifferent. Therefore not only now but formerly in the beginning of all distempers grounded upon Diversity of Protestant opinions, it was thought good policy to commit the 39 Articles to the press, thereby to please all dissenting parties; and this hath been practised not only in Queen Elizabeth, and King james Reigns, but also in King Charles I. an 1640. when the rebellion began to break forth, and was cloaked with the authority of a legal Parliament, as well as with the zeal of the Protestant Religion against the Church of England. And an. 1633. when the Symptoms of that rebellion were first discerned, there was printed, by special Command, a Book setting forth, the agreement of the 39 Articles with the doctrine of other reformed, but rebellious Churches of France, Germany, Netherlands, Basil, Bohemia, Swethland, Suitzerland etc. The Title of the book is, the Faith, Doctrine, and Religion, professed and protected in the realm of England and Dominions of the same, expressed in the Articles etc. The said Articles analized into propositions; and the propositions proved to be agreeable both to the written word of God, and to the extant confessions of all the neighbour Churches Christianly reform. Perused, and by the lawful authority of the Church of England, allowed to be public, London. printed by John Legatt. 1633.  
So that no marvel if the 39 Articles have not proved to be a better antidote against Rebellion, than we have seen by experience, they being so agreeable to the doctrine of Churches raised and maintained by rebellious people and principles against their undoubted lawful Sovereigns.  
The French Huguenot Ministers in their assembly at Bema 1572. decree that in every city all should swear not to lay down arms as long as they should see them persecute the doctrine of salvation etc. In the mean time to govern them-selves by their own protestants rules. See Sutcliff in his answer to a libel supplicatory. pag. 194.  
See the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England art. 19 pag. 94. agreeing here in with Confes. Helvet. 2. Saxon. art. 11. Wittenberg. art. 32. Sueu. art. 15. all quoted ibid. pag. 95. Dresterus the Protestant writer in part. 2. Nullenarii sexti pag. 661. acknowledgeth that all the wars of Germany against the Emperor and lawful Sovereigns happened ex mutatione Religionis Pontificiae in Lutheranam. See Crispinus of the Church's estate pag. 509. how the reformed Church of Basil was founded by the rebellion of some Burgesses against the Catholic Senators whom they ejected etc. The Rebellion of Holland and the other Protestant Provinces, is well known, as also of Geneva, Zuitzers, or Helvetians. See Chitreus in Cron. an. 1593. & 1594. pag. 74. & seq. How the King of Swethland being a Catholic, was by his Subjects the Lutherans forced so content himself with Mass in his in his private Chapel, and to assent, that no Catholic should bear office in that Kingdom, and at length an other made King.  
We may say without either vanity or flattery, that were it possible to maintain the Sovereignty of a King, the peace and prosperity of a people together with the principles of Protestancy, the English Nation would have done it, wanting neither wit or judgement to find out the expedients after long experience (of 100 years) since the pulling down of Popery; and yet we see that notwithstanding the wisdom of them who govern, the learning of the Clergy, the worth of the gentry, the sincerity of the common sort, and the natural inclination to loyalty of the whole Nation, since Protestancy came among us we have violated the laws of nature and Nations, we have by public acts of State done many things, whereof but one perpetrated by a private person (without any countenance from the government) were sufficient to make not only himself, but his whole family, and Country infamous; Murders of Sovereigns by a formality of justice, breach of public faith for the Protestant interest, were never heard of in England, nor acted by English men until they were Protestants: Therefore the infamy, and reproach thereof must be left at the doors of the English Protestant Church, without blaming our English Nation, or nature. It is the nature of an arbitrary Religion to pervert good natures; It confounds the state more than any arbitrary government. The worst of arbitrary governments have some regard to the honour, and word of the Prince, and to the public faith. An arbitrary religion dispenseth with all▪ An arbitrary government is reduced to one supreme; an arbitrary government doth pretend reason for the Prince his ComCommands, an arbitrary Religion by pretending to be above reason, commands against reason.  
How arbitrary and applicable all Protestant Religions are to every particular interest, and fancy, notwithstanding their public professions and confessions of faith, is visible by the 39 Articles of the Church of England, that hitherto could neither settle the judgements of subjects in any on certain belief, nor tie them to their duty and allegiance to the lawful Prince, though the said articles wanted no countenance of law to gain for them authority; And yet the profession of the 39 Articles together with the oath of supremacy, is made the distinctive sign of truth and loyalty in our English Monarchy. But the Articles being applicable to contrary religions and interests, and an oath asserting a thin● so incredible as the spiritual supremacy of a lay Sovereign, must needs expose the government to continual dangers that flow from a plausible and popular tenderness of conscience, and from the contempt of so indifferent and improbable a Religion; and therefore though many do abhor, yet few do admire, our late King's misfortune, his Majesty having grounded his Sovereignty, and security upon Councillors, servants, and soldiers (of whose fidelity he had no other evidence but the profession of 39 Articles so uncertain, that they signified nothing, and dispensed with every thing) and an oath of a jurisdiction so incredible, that they who took it either understood not what they swore, or if they did (by swearing a known untruth) disposed them-selves to violate all oaths of allegiance, and learned in all other promises to prefer profit before performance, conveniency before conscience▪ Were not this true, and were the prelatik Religion (with all its laws, and oath's) capable of establishing Monarches, or of making subjects loyal, and servants faithful, how were it possible that so just and innocent a King as Charles 1. (The ancientest by succession and inheritance of all Christendom) should be so generally and unworthily betrayed by them that professed the 39 Articles, and took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance? By the laws of the land it is enacted, (and accordingly practised,) that none be permitted to vote in Parliament, or trusted with any employment in the state, who professeth not the prelatic Protestant Religion, and swears not the Supremacy and Allegiance: And yet we see how little this Religion and oaths wrought upon the generality of these Kingdoms, or availed the late King. None that understands the genius of the English Nation will believe, that by nature they are so base, and treacherous, as of late the world hath observed. Therefore what they have done amiss, so contrary to the generosity, and honesty of their dispositions, and to the rules of Christianity, must be attributed to their Religion. Wherefore it must be concluded, that any outward sign, though it be but a red scarf, or garniture of ribbons of the King's colours, doth engage and confirm more the subjects and soldiers in their duty, and loyalty, than the 39 Prelatic Articles, and the oath of supremacy. A Rebel, or Roundhead, may, 'tis true, wear the King's colours, but not with so great danger to his Majesty, or damage to the public, as when he professeth the King's Religion. Very few Englishmen will fly from the King's colours they once wear and profess to esteem, but many that profess the 39 Articles will fight against the Prelatic interpretation thereof, for their own private sense, and against that of the King and Church of England: So applicable are the 39 Articles to all dissenting Reformations, and so pliable to every Rebellion that is grounded upon any pretence of Scripture.   

SECT. X. How the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformations maturely examined, and strictly followed, have led the most learned Protestants of the world, to judaism, Atheism, Arianisme, Mahometanisme etc. and their best modern wits and writers to admit of no other Rule of Religion but Natural Reason; and the Protestants Churches of Poland, Hungary, and Transilvania, to deny the Mystery of the Trinity.  
SEbastian Castalio, termed by Osiander (in epitome. pag. 753.) Vir apprimè doctus, linguarum peritissimus. Ranked by Doctor Humphrey (In vita Ivelli pag. 265.) with Luther and Zuinglius; and placed by Pantaleon (in Chronographia pag. 123.) amongst the Fathers and lights of the Church; this great and learned Protestant, having considered the Prophecies mentioned in Scripture, of the conversion of Kings and Nations by the Christian Church, and of its happy state, splendour, and continuance, and compared all with the very foundation and first principle of protestancy, to wit, with the protestant supposition of a general apostasy, and fall of the visible Church from the true faith, and their remaining in superstition and idolatry for so many centuries of years, together with the invisibility of the Protestant Church until Luther, and (by consequence) it's not converting any visible Kings or nations from Paganism to Christianity; having I say, maturely considered these things, was so perplexed, and doubtful in point of God's providence and veracity, that he came at length to believe nothing, as may be seen in his Preface of the great latin Bible dedicated to K. Edward 6. where he saith: verily we must confess, either that these things shall be performed hereafter, or have been already, or that God is to be accused of lying: If any may answer that they have been performed; I will demand of him, when? If he said in the Apostles time; I will demand how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledge of God was altogether perfect, and after in so short space vanished away, which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant than the floods of the sea? And concludeth; the more I peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same performed, howsoever you understand the same prophecies.  
Martin Bucer one of the primitive and prime Protestants, And an Apostle of the English reformation, of whom Sir john Cheek K. Edward 6. Master, says, the world scarce had his fellow, and whom Archbishop Whitgift (in his defence etc. pag. 522.) termeth a Reverend, learned, painful, sound Father etc. this great Bucer after his first Apostasy from his Dominican order, and Catholic Religion, became a Lutheran; afterwards a Zvinglian; as appaereth in his epistle 〈◊〉 Norimb. & ad Ess●ingenses; Then he returned again to be a Lutheran, as may be seen in the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's house in Wittenberg. an. 1539. and in Bucer's own Commentaries upon the 6. John. and 26. Matthew, where he asketh pardon of God and the Church, for that he deceived so many with the error of Zuinglius, and the Sacramentarians; And notwithstanding this open repentance, he returned again to the same Zuinglianism in England, and therefore is reprehended by Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calv. lib. 2. fol. 70.) At length seeing the incertainty of Christianity whereunto by protestancy he had driven himself, and others that stuck to its principles, at the hour of his death he embraced Judaisme, as they who were present thereat, testify, saith Prateolus (pag. 107.) He declared long before to Dudley Earl of Warwick, that he doubted whether all was true that the Evangelists relate of Christ. whereof see heretofore. part. 1.  
David George who for many years had been a pious and public Professor of Protestancy at Basil, and 
[a] Osiander in epitome. Centur. 16. part 2. pag. 647 saith of David George, utebatur enim publico vir Dei ministerio Basiliensi, egentibus elëemosy nam subministrebat, aegrotos consolabatur etc.  called a man of God, for his notorious charity to the poor and sick, considering and comparing the aforesaid doctrine of protestancy with the prophecies of Scripture concerning the visible Church, became a blasphemous Apostata; and affirming our Saviour to have been a seducer, drew many Protestants to his opinion, convincing them by their own principles, and this argument. 
[b] Historia Georgij Davidis published by the Divines of Basil and printed of Antwerp. 1568 si Christi & Apostolorum doctrina vera & perfecta fuisset etc.  If the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted should have continued, etc. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted the doctrine of the Apostles and the Church by them begun; as is evident in the Papacy: therefore the doctrine of the Apostles was falls and imperfect.  
Bernardin Ochin one of them whose opinions were Oracles to the Composers of the 39 Articles of Religion, and the liturgy of the Church of England, so much celebrated for his learning and piety, that the Protector Seamor and Archbishop Cranmer called him out of Germany, to help them in their Protestant reformation; termed by Bishop Bale a light of the Church, and England happy whilst it had him, miserable when it lost him, highly commended for learning and virtue by Simlerus, and Sleydan l. 9 fol. 297. and by Calvin l. de scandalis, etc. This Ochin whom as Calvin writ, all Italy could not match, this light whose presence made England happy, and whose absence made it miserable; this very Ochin, considering well the principles of protestancy, became a Jew; concluding that Christ never had a Church upon earth. When I did (saith he in praefat. Dialogorum) consider how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness had founded and established his Church, washed it with his blood, and enriched it with his spirit; and again discerned how the same was (funditus eversa) utterly over thrown, I could not but wonder, and being desirous to know the cause, I found there had been Popes. And proceeding from this conceit of the Pope's prevailing against Christ in utter overthrow of the whole visible Church, he concludeth that he who founded and purchased the Church with such pains, and at so dear a rate, could not be Christ, because he wanted power or providence to preserve it, and therefore Ochin turned jew and taught circumsion and Polygamy.  
Upon the same motives 
[c] Osiander in epitome. Centur. 16. pag. 818. Schlusselb. in Theol. Calvin l. 1. art. 2. fol. 9  Adam Neuserus a most learned Protestant, and chief Pastor of Heydelbergh, turned Turk, and was circumcised at Constantinople, persuading many of his flock to become Mahometans. 
[d] 
Idem Schlussenburg cit. fol. 9 where he brings many other examples of Protestants to the same purpose, as also Osiander centur. 16. pag. 207.208.209. Concerning that known Text, I and my Father are unum, one thing, joan. 10.30. Calvin avoideth it (as the Arians did) saying. Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres ut probarent Christum esse Patri homoousion. Neque enim Christus de activitate substantiae disputat, sed de consensu etc. Calvin. in joan. 10.  
Calvin in admonit. ad Polonos explant. in Tract. Theol. pag. 794. Sententia Christi, Pater major me est, restricta fuit ad humanam ejus naturam; ego vero non dubito ad totum complexum extendere.  
Stancarus contra Minist. Genevenses Tigurinos' fol. 94. & 95. & 118. & 123. affirmeth that the Reformed Churches professing the faith of Geneva and Tigure, be Arian, and saith. Conclusum est o Calvine, doctrinam tuam de Filio Dei esse plane Arianam, a qua, resilias quam primum te oro atque obsecro.   Allemanus esteemed, and beloved by Beza for his learning, seeing that the predictions of the Prophets were not fulfilled in the Protestant Churches, and being resolved not to be a Papist, held that the Messias was not come, and so renouncing Christianity became a blasphemous jew.  
Calvin, the Oracle of Protestant learning, and the most plausible Reformer of Popery, is not only by Catholics but by sundry Protestants charged with Judaisme, in so much that the famous Protestant Writer Egidius Hunnius Doctor and public Professor in the University of Wittenberg, and chief Disputant in the conference of Ratisbone against the Catholics, writ a Book entitled Calvinus Judaizans: And another Protestant book was printed 1586▪ and reprinted 1592. the Author whereof is the learned joannes Modestinus, and its Title, A Demonstration out of God's word, that the Calvinists are not Christians, but only baptised Jews and Mahometans: and an other very learned Protestant John Scutz (in lib. 50. causarum cap. 48.) affirmeth, Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinism, to be brothers and Sisters, and three pair of hose made of one cloth.  
The Calvinists do, and may say the same of the Lutherans, and of every other Sect of Protestants; they are all made of one cloth, and differ only in the fashion, according to the diversity of their fancies. They all agree in clothing and covering their errors with Scripture, but some like one mode, some an other. Calvin and his faction seem to approve most of the Arian, to which also most Protestants incline, by reason of difficulty they find in the Mystery of the Trinity, explained after the Catholic manner; But none of them will tie himself to an others fashion, seeing their Rule of faith is their own fancy. Wherefore notwithstanding the Confessions of faith of their sundry Churches, they do not hold them-selves obliged to Profess that, or any faith longer than it agreeth with every on's private sense of Scripture, which he changes as often as further study, information, or seeming reason moves him to the contrary. So that not only Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinism, are three pair of hose made of one Cloth, according to Scutz expression, but his Lutheranism, and all other Protestant Reformations are remnants of the same piece, with different trim and patches; and though they be hose this day, to morrow they would perhaps be Turbans, or Jews garments, had not those forms and fashions been so generally cried down, as ridiculous in these parts of the world, that the learned Protestants, who think them more Religious than their own, despair of ever making them the mode. So true it is, that the bare letter of Scripture without Tradition (the rule of faith) makes men Heretics, Turcks, Jews, and the worst of Infidels.  
The learned Protestants who are not jews, Turks, or Arians, become Atheists, or mere Rationalists; Because there is not any thing moves learned men so much either to Atheism, or to have no Religion but natural reason, as the diversity of Religions, and the confessed uncertainty of such as are professed. The interpretation of Scripture and Fathers being left by their principles of the Reformation to every particular person's discretion, makes Protestants differ as much in Christian belief as in human opinions, concerning any ordinary, and obscure matter; and their supposition of the fall of the visible Church into errors of doctrine, together with the acknowledged fallibility, and uncertainty of their own Congregations, takes away (as we proved in the last Section) all certainty, and Christianity of belief. What doubt therefore can be made but that such learned Protestants as turn not Jews, Mahometans, or Arians, will either become Atheists, Socinians, or mere Rationalists? such as observe that the Prophecies sett-down in Scripture concerning the spendor, extent, and propagation of Christ's Church upon Earth, are not accomplished in their own petty Reformations, and withal are so peevish, and maliciously bend against the Roman Catholic faith, as not to examine its truth, turn Jews, Mahometans, or Atheists; But such as are ashamed or afraid to renounce the name of Christians, and yet are as obstinate against the Roman Catholic doctrine, as the v Protestants, fall from on reformed sect to an other; and at length perceiving there is no reason to prefer on before an other, renounce all, and rely only upon their own reason; most of them follow Chillingworth, Fauckland, Stilling-fleet, and become Socinians, denying or doubting of Christ's Divinity, and are driven to that impiety, partly by the incoherency of the Protestant Tenets, and partly by their contempt of Tradition; but most of all by the foolish presumption of their own wit and judgement, and by that secret pride so manifest in Protestants, and proper to Heretics.  
There is not any one Protestant Writer, in whose works you may not find this heretical Strain. Neither is it to be admired that men whose Religion is occasioned by pride, and grounded upon singularity of judgement, do betray and declare those passions in their discourses, they being the chief ingredients of their Symbols and the Conclusions most clearly deduced from their principles. I will omit all others at present, and only mention a passage of Socinus against Volanus (pa. 2.) wherein you may see to what a pass Protestants are brought by their own proud and private spirit, and by their contempt of Catholic Tradition. Thus therefore he saith. To what purpose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists etc. especially where thou opposest to us the perpetual consent of the Church? very excellently doubtless in this behalf hath Hosius (a Papist) discoursed against you, wounding you with your own sword. And therefore you are no less falls in urging against us, the Churches perpetual consent (for the Divinity of Christ) then are the Papists in their urging thereof against you and us. And ibid. pag. 222. We propose to us in this question (concerning the Divinity of Christ) none for Master or Interpreter, but only the holy Ghost etc. we do not think that we are to stand to the judgement of any men though never so learned, of any Counsels though in show never so holy, and lawfully assembled, of any visible Church, though never so perfect and universal. Even Uolanus himself disputing against the jesuits, is enforced to reject the examples, sayings, and deeds, of Athanasius, Hierom, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authority he now opposeth against us, as sacred. Thus much have I thought good to remember, that Volanus may receive answer from himself, when he so often enforceth against us the authority of learned men, and the consent of the Church, etc. And truly Socinus doth defend his error concerning Christ, with as many and as clear texts of Scripture (not understood in the sense of the Roman Catholic Church) as any point of Protestancy is maintained by other Protestants.  
The Puritans (now called Presbiterians) use the same way of arguing against the Prelatiks, and with no less success, then socinus against Volanus, as may be seen in Cartwright in his second reply against episcopacy (p. 1. pag. 484.) And that it may appear (saith he) how justly we call this Canon of the Council (the first general of Nice, in the Canon touching the Metropolitan which the Prelatiks urged in favour of Episcopacy) unto the tuch stone of the word of God, let it be considered etc. In the same Council appeareth that to those chosen of the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterwards etc. Paphnutius showeth, that not only this was before that Council, but was an ancient Tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the whole Council rested etc. If the ancient Tradition of the Church can not authorize this, neither can ancient custom authorize the other.  
The Prelatic Clergy would fain hold Episcopacy by virtue of Tradition, and of the authority of the Nicen Council, and yet would have Priests marry, contrary to the same tradition, and authority. In like manner, as the same Mr. Cartwright well observeth (ibid. pag. 582.) the Bishops of the Church of England would needs have the Nicen Council be of sufficient authority to maintain Arch-Bishops, but not the Pope, whereas the on is as clearly expressed as the other, and no less necessary for the government of the Church. If (saith he) an Archbishop be necessary for calling a Provincial Council, when the Bishops are divided; it is necessary there be also a Pope, which may call a general Council when division is among the Arch-Bishops; for when the Churches of one Province be divided from other (as you ask me, so I ask you) who shall assemble them together? who shall admonish them of their duties, when they are assembled? If you can find a way how this may be done without a Pope, the way is also found, whereby the Church is disburdened of the Archbishop.  
When prelatics dispute with Presbiterians about Episcopacy and ceremonies etc. they extol the four first general Counsels; but when they dispute with Roman Catholics, about the unmarried life of Priests, the Pop's supremacy, or any other point of Popery, than they extenuate the authority of the same Counsels, and will admit of no other rule of faith but Scripture. So that a Prelatick Protestant against Presbiterians is a Papist, and against Papists is a Presbiterian: what he is, or would be if both did argue against him at the same time, is not well known to me (nor as I suppose to himself;) but if he admits of the two main pillars whereby protestancy is supported, which are the pretended fall and fallibility of the visible Church, and the arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, he may be any thing he pleases; and (to speak more modestly of him then Modestinus of Calvinists) he is in a fair way to be a baptised jew, Mahometan, or Arian, and can not miss that way, if he will be guided by the Protestant principles, and follow the tract of the most learned of the reformation. Both Luther 
[a] The word Trinity is but a human invention and soundeth couldly Luther in Postil majore Basileae apud Hernagium in enar- Evangel. Dom. Trinit. Calvin. ep. 2. ad Polonos in tract. Theolog. & pag. 796 saith, Precatio vulgo trita est, sancta Trinitas unus Deus miserere nostri, mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit.  and Calvin disliked the word Trinity, on said it sounded couldly, the other barbarously; and Luther by omitting in his Translation of the new Testament this Text of Scripture. Therebe three which give witness in heaven, the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, and these three be one, showeth how little inclined he was to believe that sacred Mystery; and by saying that his soul hated Homusion and that the Arians did very well 
(b) Luther in lib. contr● Jacobun Latomum 〈◊〉. 2. W●tte●b. latin edito anno. 1551. The later editions are altered and corrupted herein, as in many other things.  to reject that new and profane word from the rules of faith, he declareth how his Protestant rule and reformation doth direct men to heresy and to all kind of infidelity; for, there is not a more refined heresy then Scripture misinterpreted, and mis-applyed; and Scripture may be as easily misinterpreted and miss applied against the Trinity, or the second Person's equality, and consubstantiality, as applied to any on point of Protestancy. The Anti-Trinitarians of Poland, Transilvania and Hungary think themselves as good Calvinists as any French Hugonots, and better Protestants then English Prelaticks, or Germane Lutherans; because they not only agree with all reformed Churches in the Fundamentals of Protestancy (that is, in supposing the Apostasy of the Catholic Church, and in reforming it by private authority, and their own interpretation of Scripture) but go a step further in the Reformation, by denying the Trinity. By the principles of Protestancy, and the practice of the first Protestant Reformers, it is left to the choice and discretion of every particular Church and person, what articles of Popery are fit to be rejected by their private interpretation of Scripture: and indeed it is impossible for men not tied to any rule but to their own fancies of Scripture, to agree in the points of Popery what to reject or retain. They who confine with the Turk's Dominions, venture to deny the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, and laugh at their brethren's arguments (against their impiety) as deduced only from Tradition, Counsels, and Fathers and call them old Roman rags long since torn in pieces (by the Protestants them-selves) in other points of Protestancy etc. Hi sunt vetusti panni quos vos laceratis in aliis fidei articulis etc. & lacerata jamdudum calceamenta. (Nullus & Nemo H. 9) They are (say they) patched shows worn out long agone, but here in England, France etc. where no neighbouring Nations deny the Trinity, or Incarnation, Protestants make those Mysteries fundamental articles of faith; but in Transilvania, and Hungary, The principles of Protestancy are not kept in such awe as here, they make bold there to apply Scripture against any mysteries of Christianity.  
Wherefore we must not admire that they (as Mr. Hooker tells us Eccles. Pol●●. l. 4. pag. 183.) Of the reformed Churches of Poland, 
Osiander in Epitome. cent. 16. pag. 169 Symbolum Athanasiivocant doctrinam & fidem Satanasii; vanissime insuper jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babilonicae turris detex isse, se vero ex imis fundamentis eam ex scindere.  think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption, and that the Pop's triple Crown is a sensible mark whereby the world might know him to be that mystical Beast spoken of in the Revelation, in no respect so much as in his doctrine of the Trinity: Nor when they say that St. Athanasius his Symbol is the Symbol of Satan; and brag that Luther did scarce untile the Babylonian Jower (of Rome) but that they do utterly demolish it, and dig up its very foundation. By which words they give clearly to understand, that the Protestants of Germany, England, Denmark etc. are but superficial Protestants and are as yet far short of that substantial, and fundamental Reformation whereunto the principles of Protestancy, and the Protestant rule of faith, or an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, doth direct, and incline all Churches of the Reformation. As for our English Presbiterians and fanatics, they agree with the Polonian, Hungarian, and Transylvanian protestant Arrians, and Anti-Trinitarians, in believing the Protestant Reformations can not be pious, and perfect, so long as they retain any on point of Popery; and indeed there is as much reason and ground in Scripture to reject all, as any on; and the Protestant principles warrant the denial of the Trinity, and Incarnation, as well as of the Mass and Transubstantiation. The prelatics perceive this to be true, and therefore in the 39 Articles (to avoid scandal and discredit) profess the belief of many mysteries, that according to the very foundation of their Reformation they ought to deny; and though they seem not to be guilty of impiety in their resolution of retaining some, yet are they convicted of incoherency in not rejecting all, as we shall now manifestly prove.   

SECT. XI. How the indifferency, or rather inclination, of Protestancy to all kind of infidelity, is further demonstrated by the Prelatic doctrine, and distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith. The design of their fundamental distinction laid open. The Roman Catholic, the sole Catholic Church; and how it hath the authority of judging all controversies of Religion.  
Unity of doctrine being a confessed mark of the true Church, which is called One in relation to one and the same faith; and Protestants perceiving they want this unity, and the means to bring them to it, (every particular Church and person challenging a right to interpret Scripture after his own manner, as well as Luther and Calvin etc. who could not assume to them-selves that liberty without granting it to others) and that not only their sundry Churches and confessions differ extremely in doctrine, but even the members of one and the same Congregation agree not among them-selves in the explanation of their Articles, nor in the Authority of their Church, to command and determine, what articles ought to be believed; this I say considered by Protestants, some of their chief writers (and particularly the English Prelaticks) have invented a distinction whereby they hope to fool their flocks, and make them believe, that there is not only an unity, but an universality of faith amongst all dissenting Protestants, and by consequence that they are true Catholics. They divide therefore the articles of Christian Religion into fundamental, and not fundamental. Fundamental they call those, wherein all Christians do agree: not fundamental they make every article whereof them-selves, or any other Christians doubt, how ever so fundamental it may be held by the rest. By which doctrine they make Arians, N●●torians, and all ancient Heretics, good Catholics, and their errors not fundamental, or destructive to salvation, because forsooth they are Christians, though deny the consubstantiality of Christ. This is no wrested consequence of ours, but their own confessed Tenet.  
The great prelatic writer Doctor Morton late Bishop of Duresme, in his approved and applauded book, of the Kingdom of Jsrael, and of the Church, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (pag. 94) saith, The Churches of Arians are to be accounted the Church of God, because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is faith in JESUS Christ the son of God and Saviour of the world. And pag. 91. He giveth this general rule. Whersoever a company of men do jointly and publicly by worshipping the true God in Christ, profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in JESUS Christ the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, there is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption what soever etc. Thus they plead for the Arrians declaring in their favour that consubstantiality of the son, or his being the natural son of God, is not the substance of Christian belief. A man would think that the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is a substantial point of faith, seeing there of dependeth the reality of our Sacrifice, the feeding or famishing of our souls, and the verifying or falsifying of Christ's plain and express words; and yet Bishop jewel the greatest pillar of the Church of England, in his Apology for the same (pag. 101. edit. 1600.) observing that Protestants were divided in the belief of that mystery, tells us it is but a matter of indifferency; The Lutherans and Zwinglians, saith he, are both sides Christians, good friends, and Brethren; they vary not between them-selves upon the principles and foundations of our Religions, etc. But upon one only question (the real presence) neither weighty, nor great. Doctor Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his conference (pag 722.) affirmeth the real presence to be but as it were the grudging of a little ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith. And all Protestants conspire in this heretical shift, because their change and choice of articles of faith can not be maintained by any other way, but by denying that thereby they touch the foundation of Christian Religion. So Luther defended his Consubstantiation, as may be seen in Amandus Polanus in his Synop. pag. 446. And jacobus Acontius (lib. 3. Stratagematum Sathanae pag. 135.) saith: It's evident concerning as well those who hold the real presence of Christ's Body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that although of necessity one part do err, yet both are in way of salvation, if in other things they be obedient to God.  
In this Protestant distinction we must distinguish two things. 1. The design. 2. The doctrine whereupon Protestants ground their design. In this Section I will discover the design, and declare the weakness thereof. In the next I will demonstrat the falsehood of the doctrine whereby they intended to carry on their design. Protestants proceed in this affair as weak Ministers of state; when they find by experience they have been mistaken in taking their measures, and in the management of public concerns, they would fain be reconciled, and make strict leagues with such Potentats as formerly they had disobliged, and them-selves now stand in need of their friendship, and fancy they can effect all by inculcating unto them general notions of a common danger, grounded upon the power and pride of some neighbouring and emulous Prince. So Prelaticks reflecting upon the weackness of their cause occasioned through the dissensions of the Reformed Religions, and upon the incoherency of their own 39 Articles with the foundation and liberty of Protestancy, would fain (by a general notion of Christianity) unite all heretical Churches to them-selves against the Roman Catholics pretended pride and power. In which proceedings they commit two great indiscretions. 1. They do not consider how they have disobliged the Greek, and most of the Eastern Churches, by declaring in their 39 Articles the doctrine of the Holy Ghost's procession from the Father, and not from the son to be heresy; though now (too late) they would fain moderate the censure, as also be reconciled to all Sects of Protestants in Europe. 2. At the same time they endeavour to make this league offensive and defensive against the Roman Catholic Church; 
[a] 
Whitaker contra rat. Camp. pag. 78. And in his answer to Mr. William Reynolds cap. 6. pag. 135. art. 136. saith: The Father's thought by their external discipline of life to pay the pains due for sin, wherein they derogated not a little from Christ's death etc. Which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers. From whence followeth that Indulgences, Purgatory, Satisfaction, Prayer for the dead, Merit, etc. may be held by learned and holy men.  
Mr. Bunny in his treatise tending to pacification, sect. 17. pag. 104. excusing some points of popery, and amongst others the worshipping of images, saith, in these therefore or such like, whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully persuaded therein as we are, etc. committed an uncharitable part towards his Brethren. See Doctor Some against Mr. Penry pag. 176. tindal act. Mon. pag. 1338. I doubt not but S, Bernard, Francis and many other holy men erred as concerning Mass.  
Mr. Francis johnson in Mr. Iacob's defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, etc. pag. 13. Did not john Hus that worthy Champion of Christ and others also of the Martyrs of fore times, say and hear Mass, even to their dying day? etc. Did not divers of them acknowledge, some the Pop's calling and supremacy, some the 7. Sacraments, some auricular confession? etc. Morgenstein in tract. de Ecclesia, etc. pag. 41. These things were pardonable in the Godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, the Papacy for the Church, Saints for mediators, and the Mass for the supper of the lord Luther de utraque specie, saith: If thou comsed to a place were the Communion is ministered under one only kind, take it with others. The like indifferency is affirmed by Melancthon in centur. epist. Theolog. pag. 252. and not denied by Bishop jewel in his reply pag. 110. & 106.   their chief writers profess there is no cause to quarrel with that Church, because it is also a Christian Congregation, and differs from Protestants only in things indifferent, among which they place even the Worship of Images, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the communion under one kind, the Pop's supremacy etc. Whence it must needs follow that their Protestant separation from the Roman Church can not be justified, as confessedly not having sufficient ground to break the communion of the Church upon the score of doctrine acknowledged by them-selves to be lawful, and therefore their Protestant Reformations must be concluded schismatical.  
This their Prelatic moderation towards our Roman Catholic doctrine is the effect of a necessary compliance with our Adversaries, condemned heretics; not of any Christian charity that they bear to our principles, or persons, as appeareth by their quite contrary expressions in other occasions, and by the severity of their statutes against Priests, and Papists. They can hardly excuse the errors of Arrians, Nestorians, etc. And yet accuse us of heresy; nor can they maintain the Greek worshipping of Images, to be lawful, and yet condemn the same in us as idolatry.  
But that which they most press against the Roman Catholic Church, and wherein all sectaries dissenting from it, are concerned to join with Protestants, is, that we say, ourselves are the sole Catholics, and the Pope and general Counsels supreme Judges of heretics. Rather than admit our Church to be the Catholic, they cantonize God's Church into dissenting congregations, and canonize for Orthodox all sects of heretics, though they have no subordination, connexion, or communication among themselves, much less that care of the common good, that is among the Suitzers, whose Commonwealth they would fain make a pattern of Christ's Church. To this end they sent their Agents to jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople, and in their printed books make honourable mention of Nestorius, Dioscorus, Eutiches, and other heretic's brood, and branches, that are dispersed in Egypt, Ethiopia, and East Indieses, as if they had been their Brethren (whereas they do not know their Tenets) and brag of their numbers in comparison whereof they say the Romanists are but few, and, at the best, but a part of the universal Church; and if a part, they ought not to judge of the whole, if they do, their sentence must be slighted as invalid and partial.  
And though the Schismatics, and Heretics of the Greek Church whom the Protestants so much courted, have by a particular definitive sentence of I●●●mias their Patriarch, disowned the doctrine, and refused the communion of all Protestants, yet are the so deserted and despised reformed Churches, compelled to maintain the indifferency of the eastern heresies, even of those which the Greeks them-selves twelve times recanted (having been so many times reconciled to the Church of Rome) though now again revolted, and returned to some of their former errors, but not without a visible mark of God's indignation and justice. Protestants therefore are content to excuse the errors of the Greeks, and of all other Christians, though Heretics, hoping thereby to obtain for them-selves the name of Catholics; and are so kind as not to exclude any that professeth Christ (even after the Arrian manner) from their Protestant communion; not doubting but that for a return of civility, them-selves will by virtue of that general appellation of Christians, be countenanced by the enemies of the Church of Rome, and protected from its severity. But the Greek Patriarch smelled their design; and though a Rebel against the sea of Rome, yet he condemned the Protestant doctrine, and contemned their flattery; giving them to understand, that the truth of Religion is never annexed to many dissenting Churches, and that their agreement in Protestant fundamentals can not be an argument of Catholic unity or universality. And to be rid of future importunities, condemned their opinions as heresies, declaring how different they are from those of the Greek Church, as appeareth by his Sententia definitiva.  Jeremiaes Patriarchae Constantinopolotani sententia definititiva de doctrina & Religione Wittembergensium Theologorum, &c. edit. an. 1586. in this Book, the Greeks detest the Protestant Religion, whereof see further Hospinian in Histor. Sacram. part. 2. and Responsio Basilii Magni Ducis Muscoviae etc. an. 1570. it appeareth by a Treatise set forth even by the Protestant Divines of Wittenberg entitled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium, & jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. de Augustana Confession etc. That the Greek Church yet to this day professeth and teacheth invocation of Saints and Angels (pag. 55. 102.128.) Relics, pag. 244. & 368. worshipping of Images (pag. 243.244.247. & 251.) Transubstantiation (pag. 86.96.100.240.318.) Sacrifice (pag. 102 104) The signifying ceremonies of the Mass (pag. 97.99.100.) Auricular Confession. in praefat. & in lib. pag. 87 130. Confirmation with Chrism (pag. 78.238.) extreme Unction (pag. 242.326.) All the seven Sacraments (pag. 77.242.) prayer for the dead (pag. 93.102.109.) Sacrifice for the dead (pag. 95.104.) Monachisme (pag. 132.257.) That Priests may not marry after orders taken, (pag. 129.) See Sir Edward Sands also in his relation etc. On the last leaf but five where he confirms all we have related here of the Greeks concurrence in Religion with the Roman Church. 
As for the Protestant Doctors and Prelates exceptions against the Roman Church and Counsels not being Catholic or Universal, they can be of no force; because their own Logicians may clear the mistake ●y putting them in mind of the definition of Catholic or Universal, which is, unum in multis, one in many; for ●n●●●rsality requireth two, and but two conditions unity, or ide●●ity of form, and multitude of Subjects. That a Church therefore be Universal or Catholic, it is necessary and sufficient there be an unity or identity of form (which is faith) and multitude of subjects, which are the Professors of that faith. Whether the subject of the form which is called universal, be more or less (so they be many) is not material as to the nature and denomination of Universal, or Catholic, though there were but 200. men living, homo (say Logicians) would be as much Universal as now it is, with so many millions of men: In like man●er we say, though there were but 200. men in the world professing the true faith, that faith would be still Universal or Catholic, because it would be still one and the same in many; and 200. are as properly many, though not so many, as 200. millions. We grant that it hath been prophesied the multitude of believers should be very numerous, and spread over the whole world, and accordingly it hath been fulfilled, and now Roman Catholics are every where multiplied; yet there hath been a time when the Catholics were but few, and in the later days they will not be many in respect of Heretics, but still it was and will be the Catholic Church. Therefore it can not be an argument that a Church in not Catholic or Universal, because there are more Pagans, and Professors of Heresies, then of the true Religion.. Their being more heretics in number, is consistent with the being of many faithful holding the Apostolic faith, and no more is requisite for a Catholic or Universal Church.  
But sure Protestants forget the invisibility of their own, when they except against the Universality of ours. If theirs was Catholic or Universal when they were so few, that for the space at least of 1000 years not one Protestant could be found in the whole world, they have no reason to deny the denomination of Catholic to the Roman, which always hath been so conspicuous and numerous. If they will proceed coherently, and say that for those 1000 years before Luther, there was no Catholic Church, than they must not only reform, but alter and cut short the Apostles Creed, and blot out (at least for those 1000 years) that article, I believe in the Catholic Church.  
And as Protestants have no reason to believe that the universality or Catholicism of the Church consists not so much in the number of persons, as in the antiquity and identity of faith of the Professors with that of the Apostles, so have they not any reason to object partiality, and illegality against the testimony and judicature of the Roman Church and Counsels when they censure Protestant opinions. Not partiality, because when a judge or wittness giveth sentence or evidence against his own natural inclination and interest, 
The Roman Catholic Church is a competent and unpartial Judge of Controversies of Religion.  there can be no suspicion of partiality, nor lawful exception against his sentence or testimony, as too much favouring himself, or his relations; And truly if Roman Catholics did judge of controversies of faith according to their own natural inclination and interest, and had not in their definitions and testimonies a greater regard to conscience then conveniency, they would never witness or define that Priests ought not to marry, or that Kings and Bishops ought to be subject to the Pope in spiritual affairs, or that men ought to abstain from flesh so many days in the week, or that there is no bread or wine in the Sacrament notwithstanding the appearance of both; neither would they part with their lands and money upon the score of Purgatory; or maintain that private men or Churches must not take the liberty to themselves of deciding controversies of Religion, but on the contrary believe that general Counsels are infallible even when they define matters contrary to our sense and inclinations. Roman Catholics are made of flesh and blood, they are naturally as averse from these thoughts, and submissions, and find as great difficulty in conforming their judgements and testimonies thereunto as Protestants. Therefore they cannot be partial in condemning Protestants, for not believing these things, unless they be also partial against themselves; and nothing but the evidence of their own obligation ●o believe these things, strengthened by the grace of God, could prevail with so many learned and sober men as have been and are known to be among Roman Catholics, to be partial against themselves, or to judge and wittness (contrary to their own natural inclinations and temporal interest) for Popery against Protestancy.  

SUBSECT II. Of the justice and legality of our Roman Censures against Protestancy. 
Quid praedi●averin● Apostoli, quid illis Christus revelaverit etc. non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt.   
NOw as to the legality of the proceedings and censures of the Roman Catholic Church against Protestancy, it is as manifest as lawful witnesses, and clear evidences can make any judgement either in law or equity. In all controversies both of law and Religion, the Courts and Church must ground their sentences upon matter of fact. All disputes of faith must be reduced unto, 
Tertul. l. 1. d● praescri. c. 6.  and decided by this matter of fact. Whether Christ our Saviour, and his Apostles taught such doctrine? Whether he revealed the reformed, not the Roman sense of Scripture? This being a thing done 1600. years since, neither party can produce new eyes or ear witnesses pretending to an immediate knowledge of what then Christ and his Apostles preached. That immediate evidence ended with the beginning of the second age, and we must begin our proof with this last, and proceed to examine our witnesses by a retrogradation from this present age to the first, because the only proof of things which are beyond the reach of our knowledge and memory, is the Tradition and testimonies of others, upon which we must rely, or resolve not to believe any thing, even of our-selves, as our names, families, Countries, or of this world, and much less of the next. Let us begin therefore with the Reformed Protestant Churches, and ask them what witnesses have they in this 16. Century to prove that Christ and his Apostles were Protestants, or taught their reformed sense of Scripture? They will answer, they have as many witnesses as there are Protestants. We demand their cause of knowledge? such of them as in matters of Religion make any use of reason, will not pretend that they know it by private revelation, or by their own proper interpretation of God's Law, (those are neither Court nor Church evidences) but will answer that their Parents and Pastors told them, Christ and his Apostles were Protestants and these were told so by others their Parents and Pastors, until passing some few descents, they come to Luther, or Calvin, or Cranmer etc. There they must stop; for, Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer did not pretend that their Parents or Pastors testified to them that Protestancy was the true Religion, them-selves having been the first Inventors or Revivers thereof, after that it had been (by their own confessions) at least 1000 years buried, and their Church had been invisible, or enchanted.  
It is a remarkable thing that never any ancient Heretic, or modern Reformer of the Catholic doctrine, could name an inmmedia● Predecessor, much less any Church, from which he received his Religion▪ and reformed interpretation of Scripture. Optics that ancient Father (●. 2. contra ●arme●.) says, That Donatus was a son without a Father a Successor without a Predecessor, filius sine Patre, sequens sine Anteceden●e: the same we may say of Luther, Calvin Cranmer etc. And seeing there must be a Succession of faith as well as of me●, and that as one who can not prove his Father or family to be noble by the testimonies and tradition of others, can not pretend to nobility of descent, or to right of inheritance, so can not Luther, Calvin or Cranmer and their followers, pretend to antiquity of faith, or to be of the Catholic family of Christ without a legal testimony and tradition of their spiritual descent, which tradition or testimony they confess to be wanting. Mr. Napper in his Treatise upon the Revelations pag. 43. The Pop's Kingdom hath had power over all Christians, from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperor Constantine for these 1260. years. And pag. ●4●. From the time of Constantine until these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. And their chief Doctors ingeniously acknowledge, that their Churches were either so obscure, or so oppressed, that notwithstanding their own serious examination, and diligent search into all histories both sacred and profane, they can not find in the space of at least 1300. years as much as a record or Tradition of any on person to bear witness that their faith, sense of Scripture, or Reformation, was preached by Christ and his Apostles. Sebastianus Francus in ep. de Abrog. Statutis ecclesiast. saith Statim post Apostolos etc. Presently after the Apostles times, all things were turne● upside down etc. And that for certain through the work of Anti-christ, the external Church together with the faith and the Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure, and that for these 1400. years the Church hath been no where external and visible.  
Peter Martyr so much commended by Calvin, and sent for by Cranmer to help to frame the Religion of the Church of England, pag. 462. of his work de caelibatu & votis, saith; as for the judgement of the Fathers, because our Adversaires (the Papists) both in this and other controversies are accustomed to appeal to them, I do not think it the part of a Christian to appeal from the Scriptures of God, to the judgements of men. And pag. 476. So long as we go no further than the Counsels and Fathers, we shall always remain in the same errors.  
This Sophister would fain make Protestants believe that the question is, whether the Father's sense of Scriptures ought to be preferred before the sense of the Protestants? them-selves confess that both Counsels and Fathers are contrary to their interpretation. Whitaker on of the learned'st Protestants that ever writ, answering Duraeus, and acknowledging the truth of the assertion, comes off with this poor evasion (l. 7. pag. 478 It is sufficient for us to know, by conferring the Popish doctrine with Scripture, that they do not agree, let Histories say what they list. So little do the Ecclesiastical Annals favour Protestancy, that never any point thereof is mentioned without mentioning also how it began, and was condemned as heresy.  
Now let Protestants examine our Roman Catholic witnesses; we do not stop (as they must) at the last age 1500. we produce in every Century of years the most eminent persons for Sanctity and learning that then lived, who not only professed our faith living, but also dying, as by the Traditions of all Christendom, their own writings, and the confession of our Adversaries is manifest, whereof the Divines of Magdeburg, heretofore quoted, writ copiously in their Centuries. These Fathers and Doctors of the Church in each respective Century, delivered the Roman Catholic faith to the next succeeding, not as a private opinion of their own, but as the public, pure, primitive, Apostolic saith, which they had received as such from the precedent age, confirmed by the unanimous testimony of their known Catholic immediate Predecessors. What exceptions or objections can Protestants pretend against the holy and learned Fathers, so impartial judges and witnesses? They could not be ignorant of what was the public and universal faith, or Church in their times; and they were men of so great integrity, that they would not for any temporal interest conceal the truth in a matter, whereof depended eternity. They were not angry (saith S. Augustin disputing against the Pelagians, advers. Julian. l. 2. prope finem & lib. 3. c. 17. & lib. 4. c. 12.) neither at you or us; what they have found in the Church, that they have holden, they have taught what they have learned, what they have received from their forefathers they have delivered to posterity. The most learned Protestants decline the Father's judgement and testimony for no other reason but because they find them to be Roman Catholics in their writings; so that the question is not whether they by for us, but whether their testimony for us, averring that the Roman Catholic sense of Scripture is the same which Christ and his Apostles delivered, aught to be preferred before the contrary testimony of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or of the other Convocations and Parliaments of England of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth, who prove not their reformed sense of Scripture by ancient tradition, but by a new arbitrary interpretation of Scripture. And in what Court of Judicature would such an uncertain guess, pass for a legal proof? Whereas tradition is the only evidence whereby the greatest civil controversies even of regal successions and titles are decided in the Protestants Courts: Therefore it ought not to be excluded as superfluous or superstitious from the Church.   

SUBSET III.  
AS to their exception that the Roman Catholic Church is but a part, 
All Christians were n●ver judges of Religion, one part always submitted to the judgement of the other that was in obedience to, and in communion with saint Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome.  and ought not to be judge of all other Christians, we answer, that not by all Christians, but by on part, were all controversies in the Church decided since the Apostles times and the other part which did not submit to the judgement of that one, in matters of faith and discipline, were censured heretics. That the Judgement and censures in all ages were issued but by on part, and this, the Roman Catholic party that lived in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the Counsels that acknowledged his jurisdiction, we prove by the confessed examples of every Century.  
In the first, the controversy of the legal ceremonies was determined by S. Peter and the Apostles in a Council wherein S. Peter presided Act. 15.  
In the second Century the Christians were divided about celebrating E'aster, the controversy was decided by S. Victor Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's successor; and because the Churches of Asia would not conform themselves to his sentence, he excommunicated them. (Euseb. l. 5. hist. c. 23. & 24.) And though S. Irenaeus approved not of S. Victor's severity, yet he never questioned his jurisdiction or supremacy, or the legality of his censures. And because some Christians persisted obstinately in not conforming to the Pop's Decree of celebrating Easter, they were for that obstinacy declared heretics, and as such numbered in Catalogues by S. Epiphanius, haeres. 50. S. Augustin, haeres. 26. and by Tertullian de prescript. in fine, and called Quartodecimans.  
In the third Century, by the Pope Cornelius and his Roman Council the Novatian heresy was condemned (Euseb. ex version Rufini, lib. 6. histor. cap. 33.) and though there were not as many Bishops in that Roman Council, as at Trent, yet the whole Church thought the authority sufficient and legal to declare the Novatians heretics. The same Pope and Stephen his Successor condemned such Christians as thought and taught that they who had been baptised by heretics, aught to be rebaptised.  
In the forth Century, the Arian heresy was condemned by the Council of Nice, wherein were but 318. Bishops, whose testimony was thought sufficient, and legal against a far greater number of Arius his faction, because the councel's testimony was confirmed by a Tradition, and by the authority of St. Silvester Bishop of Rome, whose legates presided in that Assembly· In the same Century was condemned the Heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Ghost, by a Council in Constantinople confirmed by the authority of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome. Photius in lib. de septem Synodis.  
In the fifth Century was condemned the heresy of Nestorius in the Ephesin Council, wherein presided Cyrillus in the name of Pope Celestin. (Evagrius lib. 1. cap. 4.) And a little after was condemned the heresy of Eutiches in the Council of Chalcedon, wherein also presided the Legates of Pope Leo. (Evagrius lib. 2. cap. 4.) And the whole Council petitioned to the Bishop of Rome for his confirmation of their Acts. (tom. 2. Concil. & Breviarium Liberati) In the same fifth age was condemned the heresy of the Pelagians, by authority of the Bishops of Rome. The Pelagian heresy (saith St. Austin lib. 2. Retract. c. 50.) with its authors was convicted and condemned by the Roman Bishops Jnnocent, and Zozimus, with concurrence (or at the instance) of the Counsels of afric. And Prosper in Chronico an. 420. A Council being holden at Carthage of 217. Bishops, the Synodal Decrees were sent to Pope Zozimus, which being approved, the Pelagian heresy was condemned in the whole world.  
In the sixth Century many heresies were condemned in the 5. Synod.  
In the 7. Century and sixth Synod were condemned the Monothelits, wherein presided the Pop's Legates, though the Emperor was present, and subscribed, but after all the Bishops; not as a Judge, but as on who consented and submitted to their judgement.  
In the 8. Century and 7. Synod of 350. Bishops, were declared and condemned as heretics, they, who opposed the worship of Jmages, wherein also presided the Pop's Legates, whereof Photius saith: This sacred and great Council condemned a barbarous heresy newly invented by wicked and execrable men. etc. For they did term the adorable Image of Christ, (whereby erroneous idolatry is excluded) an Idol, etc.  
In the 9 Century and 8. Synod many controversies were decided, and the Pop's Legates presided. The Emperor was present, and subscribed, but after the Legates and Patriarches; and plainly acknowledged that the judgement of Religious Controversies apertain'd not to him, and that by subscribing, he only testified his Consent.  
In the 10. Century we read of no heresy, but of the Greeks Schism.  
In the 11. Century, Pope Leo the 9 in a Council at Vercelli, and Pope Nicolas 2. in a Council at Rome of 113. Bishops, condemned the heresy of Berengarius, against the real presence, and Transubstantiation. (Lanfrancus lib. 1. contra Bereng.) This Berengarius was no great scholar, as Archbishop Guido says, but very ambitious, and thought to acquire fame by his new opinion. After twice recanting and returning to his heresy, in his last sickness perceiving his end to draw near, john Gerson relates these his last words. My God. Thou wilt this day appear to my salvation, as I hope, for my repentance; or to my damnation, as I fear, for deceiving with pervers doctrine others whom afterwards I could not reduce to the truth of thy Sacrament.  
In the 12. Century Jnnocent the second Bishop of Rome, condemned the heresy of Peter Abaylard. (see S. Bernard. epist 194.) And Pope Eugenius 3. condemned the error of Gilbert Porretanus in the Council of Rheims. (see S. Bern. serm. 80. in Cantica.)  
In the 13. Century, Pope Innocent 3. condemned the error of joachim the Abbot, in the Lateran Council. And afterwards Pope Gregory 10. in the General Council of Lions, condemned the Greeks error.  
In the 14. Century Pope Clement 5. condemned the errors of the Begards, in the Council of Vienna.  
In the 15. Century the errors of john Hus, and john Whicliff were condemned in the Council of Constance by Pope Martin 5. And the errors of the Greeks in the Council of Florence, by Pope Eugenius 4.  
Now what reason can Protestants give why Pius. 4. Bishop of Rome, and the Council of Trent (though of his calling and party) might not condemn the opinion of Protestants, as lawfully and legaly, as his Predecessors had done in every age the like opinions of other Reformers? Both condemners and condemned were Christians, for heretics must be baptised, otherwise they are rather Pagans than heretics: The condemned Christians were often Patriarches and Bishops, sometimes as many as the Condemners; and yet neither could their Plea of Christianity, or pretence of Scripture, or parity in dignity, or equality in number, exempt them from the validity and legality of the Roman Censures, unto which if they did not submit, all the Catholic world held them for obstinate heretics. Therefore we may not, without contradicting both reason and authority, the common sense of the Church, and the general custom of Christian antiquity, allow the exceptions which Protestants plead against the Pope, and the Council of his Bishops, that forsooth they are but a part of the Catholic Church, and therefore as party concerned, incompetent Judges and witnesses in controversies of Christian Religion.  
We have seen the weakness and ill success of the protestant design in this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith, and how they are rejected as heretics by the Greeck Schismatics, and other sectaries whom they courted to be admitted as a part of their Church, we have also proved the unreasonableness of their exceptions against the testimony and censures of the Roman Bishops and Counsels: Now we will view the distinction itself, and prove that by the protestant doctrine of fundamentals, the very foundation of Christian Religion is destroyed, and nothing believed with Divine faith.    

SECT. XII. God's veracity is denied by Protestancy, and by the Prelatic distinction and doctrine of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith.  
THe foundation of Christian Religion is, the belief of God's veracity. The belief of God's veracity consists not only in acknowledging that whatsoever God saith, is true; (that was never denied by any heretic, and yet all heretics deny his veracity) but consists in acknowledging also that whatsoever doctrine is sufficiently proposed as spoken or revealed by God, is infallibly true, and that God is the Author of the same. To avoid all disputes concerning the sufficiency of the proposal of God's revelations, we will condescend so far to our Protestants Adversaries, as to make themselves Judges thereof, provided they will be so Religious and rational, as to grant, that to Divine Majesty ought not be denied a prerogative which by the dictamen of reason, the laws of nature, and the practice of themselves, and of all Nations, is due and exhibited to Majesty, and Magistracy, and to all temporal Sovereigns; Viz. To speak and declare their mind by the mouth of others, their inferior Officers and Ministers; wherefore as subjects do judge it a sufficient proposal of the regal authority, and confess them-selves are obliged to believe that their Sovereign speaks and commands, when certain officers (known by the usual marks and badges of their Master's Sovereignty, and their own military, or civil charges) propose his orders, either by proclamation, letter's patents, or otherwise: so Protestants will acknowledge that all Christians are bound to believe it i● a sufficient proposal of the 〈◊〉 existence of Divine Revelation, and that God speaks or commands, whensoever his mind is declared to them by that Church, and Ministers, who bear (at least) as authentic marks and badges of God's authority, and of their own ministry, to evidence their trust and jurisdiction, as the Officers of state and Justice do in a Republic or 〈◊〉 Government: In a word, all that we desire of Protestants is, that they will give as much credit and respect to God, as to Princes, and no less to the Ministers of God's Church, then to Senators, or to the Officers of a King's Court.  
But their fundamental distinction dispenseth with all such duties, and leads them a quite contrary way; 〈…〉 not obliged to believe the mysteries of faith as they are proposed by the Roman Catholic Church (though the said Church be more authentically waranted thereunto by God then any Ministers or Magistral are waranted to 〈…〉 of state by their Prince) unless it be clearly evident 〈…〉 (evidently credible will not serve their turn) that God revealed what the Church proposeth as his word and command. Such Doctrines of the Roman Church as they fancy clear, or self evident, either by their own private spirit and discourse, or by the unanimous and general acknowledgement of all Christians, such and only such do Protestants believe as points of faith, and call them fundamental articles, or articles necessary for salvation; all others either they hold only as probable opinions, and things of indifferency, or reject as superfluous and superstitious. And because the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are generally professed in these parts of Europe by all Christians (though not by all in the Catholic sense, but with certain interpretations,) Therefore the learned Prelatic Protestant Writers, both ancient and modern, reduce all the articles, and the total sum of Catholic faith, and of the four first general Counsels, to a belief of the Trinity and Incarnation; that is to some Kind of faith (though it be but the Arian) in JESUS Christ the Son of God, 
See Bishop Morton cit. and Bishop Taylor in his Dissuasive pag. 8. edit. Dubls.  and Saviour of the world, as Doctor Morton Bishop of Duresme, and others teach, who upon this score maintain that the Arian Churches (and by consequence all ancient heretics) are to be accounpted members of the Church of God: We have quoted their words num. 3. of the precedent section.  
That no King's Ministers, or Magistrates, have so authentic marks and badges to evidence in them-selves their Master's authority for exercising their respective charges, and jurisdictions, as the Roman Catholic Church hath of being entrusted and appointed by God to deliver his Divine doctrine, declare his sense of Scripture, and decide Religious controversies, is manifest by the signs and marks of God's Church, compared with the marks, and badges of Prince's Officers. Omitting many other marks of the true Church, I will touch but three, which are Conversion of Kings and Nations from paganism to Christianity; Succession of Pastors, and doctrine, from the Apostles, to this present; and miracles. All these are visible only in the Roman Catholic Church, and are more authentic (because they cannot be easily counterfeited) then any human evidences, even the most esteemed, which is the King's hand and Seal. To say because some pretended miracles have been impostures, no miracles at all are true, or none ought to be credited, is no less unreasonable, then to cry down all current money, because there is some falls coin, and is as ridiculous and rebellious, as to disobey and reject all royal commissions and orders of Council, because some may, or have been counterfeited, and subreptitiously obtained. But suppose (as Protestants pretend) that miracles were ceased; I hope the Conversion of so many Nations and Kings of the Gentiles to Christianity, and a continual succession of the Roman doctrine and Pastors, are neither ceased, not counterfeited; no other Church but the Roman Catholic hath these signs of God's providence; and as none can deny but that they are more convincing arguments, and greater evidences of the supernatural Ministry and jurisdiction which the Roman Church doth claim, than any human signs, badges, or commissions can be of the Royal authority, exercised by King's officers either civil or military, so likewise it must be acknowledged that there is a clearer and greater obligation upon men to submit their judgements and wills to the definitions and Decrees of the Roman Catholic Church and Counsels, proposing or declaring God's revelations and commands, than there can be upon subjects to obey the orders of temporal Souveraigns, published, or proclaimed by their chief Ministers, and subordinat officers.  

Protestancy is Heresy.  Therefore as it is notorious Rebellion in subjects against their King's authority, to contemn his commands when they are proposed by Ministers that show his commissions, so is it manifest heresy, and a denial of God's veracity, to contemn or doubt of the doctrine proposed as Divine by the Roman Catholic Church, so authentically qualified with the aforesaid supernatural marks: And as it is want of duty and allegiance in subjects, and a ridiculous excuse for not obeying Orders, to pretend they have not clear evidence that the King signed them▪ or (for all they know) that his Minister, or Officer may be an Impostor, and his commission or warrant counterfeit, so must it be concluded want of christian belief, and excess of heretical obstinacy in Protestants, to excuse their contempt of the Roman Catholic doctrine, and authority, by pretending a possibility of mistake in the same Church, because forsooth, they are not convinced of its infallibility, and authority by a Demonstration, or revelation so evident, that though they would, they cannot deny it. Such evidences are not necessary nor even compatible with Christian belief, as shall be proved hereafter: less are sufficient to convince them-selves and all rational men of a strict obligation to believe and obey a temporal Prince, and Magistrate; and sure they are unreasonable if they imagine God deserves, less belief, duty, and subjection, than Princes. That Protestants believe not their own Churches, or Congregations, with out doubts and fears of being mistaken in the reformed doctrine, and authority of proposing the same, we do not admire, because not any on of their churches doth pretend to infallibility, nor could hitherto, or can yet show any sign or seal of God for their sense of Scripture, or reformations; but that they should think them-selves obliged to take a Herald or Trompeters Coat, and a Constable or Cathpol's staff, and other such badges (so easily counterfeited) for sufficient evidences of the King's authority, and yet except against the authenticness of the conversion of Kings and Nations, the Succession and sanctity of Pastors, and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Which are things that cannot be counterfeited, must needs be the effect of prejudice and passion, proceeding from want of christianity, especially when they see that others as learned, cautious, and conscientious, as them-selves, after weighing all objections and circumstances, submit their judgements to the sufficiency of these signs, for making the Roman Catholic authority authentically Divine, and that we believe what is proposed, with out the least suspicion or fear either of fraud or frailty in the Roman Catholic Counsels, which are the Proposers and Ministers of God's word.  
Besides; if Protestants did consider the nature of Veracity, and God's Providence, 
Protestancy contradicts God's veracity.  they would never doubt of the application of his power to preserve the Roman Catholic Church from error, seeing it hath so many signs of his truth and Ministry, as the conversion of Nations, succession and Sanctity of doctrine and Doctors, miracles, unity of faith, etc. For, Veracity (as Aristotle and all Philosophers define it) is a Virtue inclining to speak truth: And he is not inclined to speak truth that countenanceth falsehood in so particular a manner as God doth the doctrine and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. A King that might, if he would and yet doth not hinder his Ambassadors, and Ministers, or any other persons, from abusing other Princes, or his own Subjects by their speaking or commanding in his Majesty's name, or at least in speaking otherwise then he really intended they should, and had prescribed by his commission or instructions; such a King I say, is not inclined to speak truth, because he willingly permits his officers, or others that pretend to speak in his name (or really do speak by his Orders) to utter falsehood, and misinterpret his words and meaning, notwithstanding that he may easily prevent that fraud and frailty, and reapeth no benefit by either, an evident argument that he is not avers to such false practices. No Protestant doubts but that my Lord Chancellor speaks truly the King's mind and sense when he pursues his Majesty's speech in Parliament in his Royal presence, and hearing; and to think otherwise, would be not only to tax my Lord Chancellor with folly, but the King with an inclination to falsehood, and a fault unbeseeming the dignity of a Prince, the care and charge of the Country's Father, as also the sincerity and veracity of an honest man.  

The infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church in matters of faith, proved against Protestants.  Seeing therefore God is as much inclined to speak truth as any thing can be to love itself (for God is truth by essence) if it be against the dignity of a Prince, and against the nature of human veracity and honesty, (which is but a shadow of the Divine) to permit falsehood in Ministers of state or in servants sent but of ordinary errands, when their Masters can easily prevent it; how much more repugnant must it be to the nature of God, and to his Divine veracity, to permit the Roman Church, in his own presence, name, and hearing, tell lies, and disguise them and itself, with so probable and plausible signs of his Divine truth, and Commission, as to seal its doctrine with marks, and miracles so undeniably supernatural, that the most learned Protestants acknowledge they are, and can only bewrought by God's power? light can as little concur to produce darkness, as truth to favour falsehood. Even men that love truth, hate to hear others tell lies, and do contradict untruths, if them-selves be present, and quoted for Authors of the stories; They will not entertain servants given to that vice, nor permit them wear their livery, much less employ them in matters of concern, wherein they may abuse their Master's word and prejudice his friends, or Tenants.  
Can Protestants then imagine that God doth not only permit the Roman Catholic Church to wear his livery, and his authority, but that he doth promote the stories, and lies of that Church (in case its doctrine be falls,) for the space of so many ages with so great signs and testimonies of his Divine approbation, that the wisest and wairiest men of the world (after much study and examination) did, and do still prefer it before all other Religions? Do they think that God is not as much concerned in preventing frauds, faults, and frailties in his Ministers, and Messengers, as temporal Princes are concerned in the credit, and truth of theirs? Wherefore if Protestants judge it a breach of faith, or want of truth and worth in a temporal Prince not to endeavour (to the utmost of his power) that his Ministers and messengers deceive not his subjects, and Allies, by mistaking, or misapplying his Commands, or demands; they can not but see the absurdity of believing that God doth permit Ministers, and Messengers so supernaturaly qualified as those of the Roman Church are, to err in proposing his revelations unto all man kind; his Veracity being as highly concerned in the infallibility of the Proposers, as his power makes him capable of preventing their human mistakes, and of confounding the devil's malice.  
But Protestants have found out a new device, 
The Protestant doctrine of fundamentals confuted  and defence of their distinction. They grant it is against God's Veracity to permit the Roman Catholic Church to err in proposing the Fundamental articles of faith, that is, such articles as Protestants fancy absolutely necessary for salvation; which are (say they) that Scripture is the word of God, and JESUS Christ the son of God, and Redeemer of the world, some add the Mystery of the Trinity: (hitherto we could never obtain from them a more exact Cathalogue of their Protestant Fundamentals) As for the other doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church 〈◊〉 and proposed as Divine, Protestants think they may be denied and questioned, without any offence to God, denial or doubt of his veracity. I could never hear any other reason, or disparity for this their distinction, but that the measure of the infallibility of the Church ought to be our salvation, because it was the end proposed by God in the institution and constitution of his Church.  
In such articles therefore (say they) as are absolutely necessary for salvation, the Church cannot but be infallible in the proposal; otherwise we could not believe them (and consequently not be saved) because we can not be sure that God revealed them.  
But this their Fundamental distinction still destroys the foundation of Christian belief, which is God's veracity. They make their own conveniency, and not God's veracity, the motive of crediting the Mysteries of faith; as if truth itself, or God's inclination to speak truth, could be greater in on matter then other; or that the belief of any article could be more Fundamental, or of greater importance, and necessity for salvation, then to believe that God is as much concerned and as necessarily inclined to speak truth as well by the mouth of his Church, as if himself spoke immediately, as well also in the least matter, as in the greatest; and by consequence he is as much engaged to preserve the Church from error in on, as in the other. So that to believe the testimony or proposal of the Church in a matter absolutely necessary for salvation, and not to believe it in a matter not absolutely necessary (when equally proposed by the same testimony, and authority) is as much as to say, that God can speak by his Church, little untruths, but not great untruths, or that he may permit his veracity to be violated, or vitiated in little, but not in great matters; as if forsooth, the authority and infallibility of the Church were to be measured by the matter it proposeth, and not by the manner and supernatural marks of the proposal and by the dignity of the speaker.  
More over; their pretence of the Church's fallibility in not Fundamental articles, hath no solid ground; for the Protestant Church is either fallible or infallible in saying so, and in its doctrine of Fundamentals; if fallible, none can prudently rely thereupon, either in this, or in any other matters of faith; if infallible, than the Protestant distinction of Fundamentals must be a fundamental article of faith, because they admit not any Church to be infallible in articles that are not fundamental. And yet the same Protestants say the Roman Catholic Church is also infallible in fundamentals; but the Roman Catholic, and Protestant Church contradict on the other in this doctrine of fundamentals, Therefore one of both must err; and that on must be the Protestant, because it maintains that two Churches teaching contradictory doctrines, may both be infallible therein. Add herunto, that if the Roman Catholic Church be infallible in fundamentals, or in all articles necessary for salvation, how can Protestants excuse their reformation and separation, from the guilt of a grievous sin, and schism? so uncharitable a breach is not justifiable by less than damnable or dangerous doctrine in the Church that is forsaken; And what damnable doctrine or danger of damnation could, or can be in adhering to the Roman Church, it being confessedly infallible in Fundamentals; that is, in all things necessary for salvation?  
If therefore God's veracity is denied (even according to the Protestants doctrine and distinction) by saying that the Church is fallible in fundamentals, it can be for no other reason, but because the fundamental articles are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God; and seeing the not fundamental articles are proposed by the same Church and testimony, and (by consequence) as sufficiently as the fundamental, Protestants must grant that God's veracity is no less denied by maintaining the fallibility of the Church in not Fundamentals, then in Fundamentals. So that they must either acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all articles and matters of faith, whether absolutely necessary, or not necessary for salvation; or deny God's veracity, and the foundation of all Christian belief.   

SECT. XIII. The same further demonstrated, and proved, that neither the Protestant faith, nor the faith lately asserted in a book called sure footing in Christianity, is Christian belief: where also is treated of the resolution of faith.  
NOt the ma●●er believed, but the Motive and manner of believing, makes a belief Christian. There may be an historical, or imaginary faith of Christ, as well as Divine and real; that is, men may believe the mysteries of Christianity, 〈◊〉 they believe the roman history, and fancy that such a belief is not human, but Divine. This we maintain to be the Protestants case and faith, which is not grounded upon Divine revelation, but upon human persuasion and upon an imaginary evidence of God's revelation. They assent not to the mystery of the Trinity, or to any other, because God revealed it, but because they think it undeniably evident (either by the public confession of all Christians, or by the private suggestion of their own spirit, or by the principles of natural reason, or by their pretended cleverness of Scripture) that God revealed such mysteries as they are pleased to make choice of, for the Articles or fundamentals of their Reformations. And therefore according to the diversity of the evidences whereupon they build their faith, the Protestant sects are framed, and divided, into Prelaticks, whose Motive and evidence is the concurrence of all Christians in their fundamentals of Christianity; and into Fanatiks (amongst whom we include Presbiterians &c.) who rely upon the evidence of their spirit, and the cleverness of Scripture; and into Socinians, who make evident reason the rule of their Religion etc.  
That these Protestant persuasions are not grounded upon Divine revelation, or upon God's Authority, and veracity, we prove, because it is impossible to make an authority the motive of our belief, unless we believe all things that are equally proposed and delivered to us as depending of, and asserted by that authority. St. Austin says none can believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, unless he doth likewise believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the word of God; because they are both delivered as God's word by the same authority. The same testimony, and the same visible Church which delivered to the first Protestants the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation, as revealed by God, delivered also to them Transubstantiation, Purgatory etc. as revealed by God; and they or their followers can not pretend to have any other testimony for the engagement of God's veracity, in certifying them of the truth, and revelation of the articles they retain, but the same testimony which delivered to them the articles they reject. Therefore the reality and Divinity of the revelation being equally testified and applicable by on and the same testimony to both articles, aswell to the retained as to the rejected, it is impossible that Protestants can believe those they reta●●●, moved thereunto by God's veracity, or for being revealed by God; seeing the same veracity, and revelation is equally and as clearly applied by the testimony of the Catholic visible Church to the other articles which they reject as not revealed.  
If you ask a learned Protestant why doth he believe the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation? He will answer (as all Heretics ever did aswell as Catholics) because God revealed it? But if you inquire further, why doth he believe that God revealed it? He will tell you, because it is manifest in  

SUBSECT I.  
I Am right sorry to number among Protestants and Manichees (who hold also this error of believing nothing which they did not fancy to be self evident) the Author of a book called sure footing in Christianity who will needs have it self evident (by virtue forsooth of tradition) that God revealed all the points of our Roman Catholic doctrine. Jt's pity he stumbled so irrecoverably at his very first step, pretending to see so clearly, and tread so surely upon a plain ground: had he been as wary in the choice of his principles, as he is witty in deducing his conclusions, I should have followed him as an excellent Guide; but he striving to raise Christian faith unto a greater height of evidence than is consistent with its nature, and with our merit and liberty, or convenient for the Government of God's Church, he hath fallen into the Fundamental error, and foundation of Protestancy, but yet with this difference, that albeit he agreeth with Protestants in making clear evidence of the revelation, the ground or rule of faith, and by consequence in destroying all Christian belief, yet he takes a contrary way from them: Protestant's by reducing their evidence to very few points, reject most of the articles of the Roman Catholic Church, as incredible; but the Author of the sure footing, by amplifying, and applying his evidence to every article of our faith, makes them all more than credible, that is self evident. He and Protestants agree in the rule, but differr in the application. Neither of them will believe any thing but what they fancy evident; but on party fancies all is evident; the other fancies little or nothing is evident. If they understand on another, they may soon come to an accord, and the sequel of their principle will be, to take away all Christian belief: for Christian belief must of necessity involve some obscurity in that Act (or at least formality) whereby we assent unto the mystery believed. Otherwise if the essence, or nature of Christian faith were consistent with clear evidence, and with the want of all obscurity, why may it not be said that the blessed have faith in heaven? nay, why may it not be said that the second person of the Trinity hath ●aith ab 〈◊〉, if it be sufficient for faith that on assent to truth for 〈…〉, and speaking of an other, though 〈◊〉 evidently 〈…〉, and sees also that the other speaks.  
The sure footing therefore doth fail and 〈…〉 ●eason of the Author's confounding the evidence of our obligation to believe the articles proposed by the Church, with the evidence of God's, revealing them by the 〈◊〉 proposal of the Church. The testimony of the Church confirmed by so many supernatural signs, makes it clearly evident to us, that we are bound to believe, God revealed all the doctrine delivered as his▪ by the tradition and testimony of the Church; but the tradition or signs of the Church do not make 〈◊〉 or self 〈◊〉 that God hath de facto revealed 〈…〉, which the Church proposeth as Divine. It is moraly evident that God revealed it, but not Metaphysicaly evident, according to Schoolmens expression. This moral evidence of God's revealing what the Church proposeth, induceth a cl●●r and evident obligation upon the will and soul of man to adhere▪ as unalterably to the doctrine of the Church, as if we had metaphysical or clear evidence that God revealed the same; and the motive of our faith, and of this adhesion is God's veracity; because it is manifest by the very light of Nature that we ought to believe God would not permit such a miraculous and moral evidence of his own revealing, or speaking the mysteries of christianity by the mouth of our Church unless he did realy speak by the same Church. For want of this doctrine and distinction, many understand not how a man can possibly or at least prudently adhere or assent to an object with greater assurance than he sees clear reason for. If by clear reason for an assent of Divine faith, be meant that the truth of the mystery assented unto, must of necessity be clear to the Assenter either in itself, or in its necessaire connection with the Revelation, it is a gross mistake; for that the difference between an assent grounded upon clear evidence of the truth, or of reason, and an assent grounded upon Divine authority is, that the first is a clear intellectual sight of the truth itself, the second is not so, but a clear sight of our own obligation of assenting to the truth revealed or related, because we see clear and convincing signs of the sincerity and veracity of the Author or relator. Now our obligation of believing God to be the Author of the doctrine of the Church, being evident to ourselves, we are bound to assent to the same Doctrine according to the evidence of our obligation, that is with greather assurance than appearance of the truth. The evidence of our obligation to assent, is a sufficient ground for our assurance of the truth assented unto.  
Wherefore albeit some Catholic Divines have pretended to maintain in their school disputations, 
See Ariagae▪ disp. 4. de fide sec. 4. per totum▪  that God by the infinitness of his supernatural power, may concur to an Act of faith, though the existence of the revelation itself were evident to the believer; yet (besides that most of them speak irresolutly, and incoherently in that point) they all grant that our Christian faith must always involve obscurity in its assent, and that that faith which would have evidence both of the existence of the revelation, and of the revealers veracity, would be an other kind of faith much differing from our Christian and Catholic. Besides: we ought to consider that it is one thing to dispute in schools of what God may do, and an other thing to believe in the Church what he hath done. In the schools they dispute even of impossibilities, because they make it their business to exercise wit in speculations; but in the Catholic Church our chief business consists in believing and practising  
The reason why Faith doth require a mixture of obscurity, or want of clear evidence▪ is, because to believe, is to trust him whom you believe for the truth signified by his words; and if you did see the truth in itself, or know that it cannot be separated from the words spoken, you can no more trust the speaker for the truth so connected with his words, then trust him for the money, you know to be contained in a purse, which he delivers unto your hands: for though you do not see the money, you see the purse, wherein you have clear evidence the money is contained. To believe therefore, is to take on's word for the truth (as you do his bond or bill for money) for which you have no other security but his worth and veracity; and the greater on's worth, and veracity is, the more you ought to rely upon it, and doubt the less of his performance; and therefore if you require any greater assurance, or evidence of the truth, than his supposed inclination to the same, or his veracity, you do him a great injury, and resolve not to trust, or believe him. Wherefore God's worth veracity, or inclination to truth, being infinite, we ought not to exact a clear sight of the truth itself, nor of any things evidently connected therewith; if we do, we neither trust nor believe him: his inclination therefore to truth being infinite, we ought not to retain the least suspicion or fear of being deceived either by himself, or by the Church whereunto he gives the charge and signs of declaring and proposing his word to us: because he who is infinitely inclined to speak truth, is inclined to do it, not only when himself speaks, but every way that truth can be spoken, or by every person and Organ that may be prudently taken to speak by his commission. The Roman Church therefore being prudently taken for the Organ of God's voice, it is as impossible we should be misledd by its doctrine, as it is that God should go against his infinite inclination to truth, or should violate his own veracity. Had God's veracity been limited to his own personal, or immediate speech, and not extended to whatsoever he delivers by the mouth and ministry of others and of his Church, it had not been infinite, his credit would have ended with Christ's preaching to the Apostles; and though they were bound to believe their Master, none could be obliged to believe them. But seeing God's veracity is infinite, and his words must continue for ever, they can be as little confined to the persons or Pastors of any on certain age, as infinite veracity to on particular truth, or infinite excellency and goodness to any one degree of perfection. Now seeing that God's worth and veracity, or his infinite inclination to speak truth, cannot be greatet in on matter, nor in on age, then in an other; and that according to on's inclination to any thing, must be the application of his power to effect it, we must conclude that God is as much engaged by his worth and goodness, and as much inclined by his veracity, and as much applied by his omnipotency, to speak truth by the mouth of the Church, 
The infallibility of the Church proved by God's veracity.  as by his own, and in the least matter as much as in the greatest, and in every succeeding age as in that of the Apostles, and that unless his worth, wisdom, veracity, goodness, and omnipotency fail, that Church which beareth the miraculous marks of his authority, and exerciseth his ministry, must be infallible in proposing and declaring his will and word in all Controversies whatsoever. So that they who grant the Church 〈◊〉 infallible only in fundamental articles of faith, deny God●●oodness, worth, veracity, and omnipotency: and they who believe not the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, as the word of God, (because forsooth, they have not clear evidence, that it is the word of God) do no more believe, nor trust God in the other they assent unto, than he who says he believes and trusts a man, whose word or writing he will not take for 100 pounds, unless he delivers to him at the same time that sum of money not only sealed, but seen in a bag.  
The reason of this last assertion is clear; because one of the differences between the word of God and the word of men is, that you mistrust men for the truth, though you hear their own voice, and have evidence that they speak, the imperfection of their nature, making their speech subject to falsehood, and themselves to frailty, therefore we may mistrust their veracity, and doubt they be mistaken, or deceive us, though they pretend and profess to speak nothing but truth. It is not so with God, whose nature being infinitely perfect, and truth itself, it is manifest by natural reason that he can neither be mistaken, nor deceive us by his words, and by consequence if we knew evidently that himself speaks, or that the words or doctrine uttered by the Church, are his, we can no more mistrust or not believe him, then mistrust his Deity, or fear a flaw in his perfections, and fraud in his proceedings. So that Protestants resolving not to believe the doctrine of the Church of Rome (made sufficiently credible by supernatural signs to be Divine) until it be made clearly evident to them that it is the word of God, resolve their faith into heretical obstinacy, because they resolve, not to believe or trust God, that evidence which they exact, not being compatible with the merit, trust, obscurity, and obsequiousness of Christian belief, nor with the duty of rational Creatures. 
Heresy explained by Rebellion.  They may be compared to some Irish or Scotch Rebels, refusing to obey the King's Lieu-tenant, and Commissioners, because forsooth they have not clear evidence, that the commissions and commands are signed by the King, though they see his Majesty's hand and seal for the authority set over them, which also is obeyed and acknowledged by the better sort, and greater part of both Nations, yet the Rebels will not submit to any Orders, unless the King leave England, go in person to rule them, and satisfy every particular fellow, that he hath named such a Lieu-tenant or Commissioner, or unless his Majesty will immediately by himself exercise his royal Jurisdiction, sign and seal his commissions in their sight. etc.  
Some will think there is a great disparity in the comparison; 
The unreasonableness of them who pretend a private spirit, and refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, for want of clearer evidence than the Roman Catholic hath of God's authority.  for that God may without trouble or prejudice to himself reveal his will and pleasure to every particular person, which Kings can no more do, then be in many places at one time. Therefore what inconveniency can it be that God make evident to every particular person, either by a clear sign of his presence, or by an evident proof of his spirit, which doctrine is Divine, which not, without obliging men to believe that the Roman Catholic or any other Church is infallible and can not propose falsehood for God's word? To this we answer, that God might not only reveal his mysteries, to every person, but save us also without subordination to any Church or Pastors, or dependency of Sacraments; but all Christians agree that he hath been pleased not to do so, so that the question is not what he could have done, but what he hath done. But it appears by the light of reason, that there is a certain distance, and decorum due to Majesty and superiority, by virtue whereof God, (or even a Creature, that is supreme in any government) may command his inferiors and subjects by subordinat officers, and warrant these officer's authority by some outward signs and seals of his Sovereignty, which signs (though they may be possibly counterfeited, yet) oblige the People so governed to obey Ministers so qualified, as submissively as if himself had immediately delivered his own commands. Wherefore though it were possible that a King might without trouble write, and deliver all his order immediately, or without the assistance of Secretaries, Ministers, and Messengers, yet it were not fit; And why the Protestant Doctors that write of this subject, should think fit, that God ought to deprive himself of a decency, and decorum (due even to human Majesty) to humour their curiosity, or to comply with their obstinacy, I can not comprehended, nor attribute to any other thing but to want of humility, and excess of heresy, the malice whereof consists in contemning God's authority, and denying his veracity when sufficiently appearing in the Church; and though not self evidently, yet so convincingly as to make our obligation of submitting thereunto, evident. It is therefore agross absurdity to think, or say, that the reverence due to the Divine authority, obligeth us, not to submit, or not assent thereunto, unless it be more than moraly evident (and by consequence more them sufficiently evident) unto us, that we can not be mistaken in our submission, or assent. For, hence would follow, the greater the authority is, the more slow we ought to be in submitting thereunto, or (which is the same) the more inclined God is to truth and the more powerful he is to practise the same and to keep the Church steady to truth, the more slow we ought to be, in believing the Church or God's known Ministers and Messengers.    

SECT. XIV. Reasons for liberty of Conscience; and how much both Piety and Policy is mistaken in making Prelatic Protestancy the Religion of the state by continuing and pressing the sanguinary and penal statutes against the Roman Catholic faith, and the Act of uniformity against sectaries.  
THere is not any thing more damnable to souls, or more dangerous to states, then to make the laws of the land, the rule of faith, and temporal statutes the ground of spiritual jurisdiction. It is indeed Christian piety to fence and favour Religion with Imperial edicts, and Royal Decrees; and therefore it was prophesied of the Church, Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers; 
Esay. 49.28.  but to found the belief of eternal verities and of Christian Religion upon temporal statutes, and to frame the doctrine of the Church, and the Character of the Clergy according to Acts of Parliament, and to the interest of the Prince is neither piety nor policy in lawful, and undoubted Sovereigns. What Queen Elizabeth did to salve the sore of her illegitimacy was as great a prejudice (and aught as little be made a precedent) to the royal family of the Stewards, as Oliver Cromwel's Tyranny; the laws and Religion of both, equally tending to its total ruin, and exclusion from the Crown, with this only difference, that Queen Elizabeth destroyed the Stewards, by reforming the Old Religion, whereupon their right was grounded, but Cromwell destroyed them by reforming the New Religion, whereunto they had conformed, and whereby they endeavoured to settle their Throne.  
And indeed Souveraigns can expect no greater security, or better success than the Royal family of the Stewards hath had, whilst the Religion which their Subjects profess, hath no other certainty, or setlement, but what is received from an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, confirmed by temporal statutes. That the Protestant prelatic Religion hath no other rule but this, and the laws of the Lands, is manifest by so many changes of its articles, liturgy, character, and Translations of Scripture, by public and Parliamentory authority; That it hath no certainty from its own principle●▪ is manifest by the acknowledged fallibility of that Church, and by the liberty of interpreting God's word, and by the prerogative of judging controversies of faith which the Tenets of all the Reformations and example of the first Reformers allow to any particular person, that will claim the privilege of a reformed Christian, or the spirit of a godly or guifted Protestant.  
This liberty of professing, and the uncertainty of protestancy, having proved in all places and persons whereunto it had access, a seed of rebellion, destructive not only of the substance of Religion, but of the tye of allegiance; it was thought necessary for the preservation of Princes, and the peace of their subjects, to reduce the variety (and regulate the extravagancy) of the dissenting reform doctrines, into public professions of protestancy, as suitable to the interest of the souveraigns, and inclinations of the subjects, and customs of their Countries, as could be devised. And because the government of England continued Monarchical, and that Episcopacy doth favour Monarchy, and is essential to Parliaments, the protestancy of the Church of England was made prelatic, notwithstanding, the incoherency of Episcopacy with the very foundation of the first and pure pretended reformations. And seeing there is such antipathy between the character of Episcopacy, and the principles of protestancy, that the Church of England in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign durst not claim that character, or any spiritual jurisdiction, by succession from the Apostles, and their successors the ensuing Catholic Bishops, it was content to receive both, as also the confirmation of its prelatic doctrine, from an unheard-of spiritual supremacy of a lay Prince, and from Acts of Parliament; and so was it made the legal Religion of the state, contrary to the principles both of the ancient Catholic faith and of the new protestant reformations.  
How contrary this setlement of prelatic protestancy by a persecution of Popery, is to Christian piety, may easily appear to them who will remember what hath been said heretofore of the sanctity, antiquity, and continual succession of the Roman Catholic Religion from the Apostles to this present, and reflect upon the principles, beginning, and progress, of protestancy in general, and of the prelatic in particular. How inconsistent with policy it is, to press by the severity of laws a profession so generally disliked, as the prelatic (it being contrary to the ancient Religion, and not agreeing with the new Reformations) experience hath demonstrated, when not only all foreign Roman Catholic Princes and people stood neuters, (not much concerned whether Protestant Prelacy, or Presbytery should prevail in England; they pitied indeed the Royal family, and wished them good success against their rebellious subjects, but this they wished to them as Princes, not as Prelatiks) not only, Isay, foreign Catholics were neuters, but all the Protestant Churches abroad were more inclined to favour the Presbiterian and fanatic English and Scotch Congregations, than the King's Religion; for that they come nearer to them and to the primitive and fundamental principles of Protestancy.  
The reason why the Prelatic persuasion is so odious to the reformed Churches abroad, and so opposed by Presbiterians and other Protestant Congregations at home, is, because the formality of its ceremonies, and the legality of its discipline are incompatible with the primitive spirit, liberty, and principles of protestancy. The protestant Bishops would fain Lord it over their brethren, not content with the name and power of Protestant superintendents, they strive to imitat the authory and severity of the Catholic Episcopal jurisdiction, in their Courts, and do what they can to retain a ceremonious decency in there Churches, but neither is agreeable with the nature and spirit of the Protestant Reformations, which consist in an independency and exemption from all spiritual superiority and ceremony of a particular person being supreme Judge and Interpreter of Scripture. This spiritual judicature is the spiritual birthright of every Protestant, and the ground wherupon Luther and his followers raised their reformations, and their new sense of the Gospel. Wherefore the restrain of this Protestant evangelical liberty, and birthright, by the rigour of our laws in favour of the prelatic jurisdiction, and discipline, must needs make the lawmakers and their religion as odious to all zealous Protestants, as liberty of opinion and fancied Scripture are dear to a stubborn and humor●om people▪  
Let it then be maturely considered whether any thing can be more dangerous to the safety of the Sovereign, or to the tranquillity of the state, then to enact laws in a protestant Commonweal, or Kingdom, whereby the very foundation and birthright of Protestancy is made penal, and the most Religious observers of the protestant rule of faith are rendered incapable of all employments both in Church and state? And that all this violence is practised to support a Creed, the 39 articles of a doubtful sense, and a Clergy of a doubtful character, even according to their own prelatic principles, and according to the primitive principles of protestancy, and to vphould a Church that professeth its own fall and fallibility, and therefore (for all itself knows) is no true Church, but may be mistaken in its doctrine, and lead all that rely upon its ministry, and instruction, into eternal damnation, and can give no satisfaction, or security to such as are of their communion, nor produce any thing for justifying the severity of these proceedings, but a Parliaments Act of uniformity, and other temporal statutes. To which every Presbiterian and fanatic doth answer, that laws enacted in favour of Religion, do suppose, not make, the Religion reasonable; for, though reason be the ground of all human laws, yet no human laws can be the ground of Religion.  
When all this is maturely considered, it will doubtless appear to be a sad case, that a poor man who desires to be saved, and informed of the true Church, and of Christ's doctrine, and conform himself thereunto, shall be compelled by forfeitures imprisonment and banishment etc. to the prelatic doctrine and Church of England, and shall have no other reason 〈◊〉 redress given him for this violence, and punishments, but that he doth not conform to the Religion established by the laws of the Land. So much was alleged for the Idols, and Religion of the Pagan Emperors, and upon the same ground (of law) did they persecute the primitive Christians; Doubtless all Quakers, Presbiterians, and non Conformists think themselves as glorious sufferers, as the holy primitive Martyrs and Confessors; which persuasion in so great and zealous a multitude, can not be void of danger, and aught to be remedied more by reason then rigour; for though from Roman Catholics (whose principles are peaceable, and incline them to suffer persecution with patience) no great prejudice may be feared (if they will be directed by their profession) yet experience hath taught, that all Protestant sectaries have inherited from their first Patriarches Luther, Calvin, Crammer etc. the spirit of sedition and rebellion, which is involved in the very foundation of protestancy; Luther openly declared so much at the Diet of Worms in presence of the Emperor Charles 5. (Who had objected against him tumults and disorders as undeniable effects of his doctrine) misapplying the words of our saviour, Non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium, as if dissension, and rebellion had been a mark of the true Gospel. On the other side, the Presbiterians do imitate the bloody proceedings and principles of their 〈◊〉 Father's Zuinglius and Calvin, in deposing of Kings, 
Suinglius lib. 4. Epist.  and Magistrates, and make good the saying of Zuinglius, Evangelium vult sanguinem, the Reformation must be maintained by blood. So that the sanguinary statutes in favour of prelatic protestancy, and the bloody principles of Presbytery in in pursuance of their seditious spirit, clashing together, will make fine work among Christians and the prelatic Clergy, which ought by their admonitions and censures, to compose these disorders, and be Authors of peace, are despised as no Clergy, and their character is made the subject of discord, and dispute. And the Protestant Bishops, which ought to exercise the authority whereunto they pretend, retire, and recur to the 〈◊〉 Courts for the spirituality, as well as for the legality of their jurisdiction and function, and confess in plain terms their Church's frailty and fallibility in doctrine, and leave the state to shift for itself, deprived of th●●● helps which Catholic Princes receive from the Roman Church and Clergys censures, wherewith rebellious subjects are terrified, and 〈◊〉, or return to their duty.  

SUBSECT I.  
NEither is the danger of disturbing the tranquillity of the state for supporting the Prelatic doctrine and character by temporal laws, confined only to Presbiterians and Fanatiks; the Prelatiks them-selves (if interest prevail not more with them then conscience, and coherency) can not but change their Religion into a contrary persuasion, when they observe, that the mean between Popery and Presbytery (wherein they place Prelatic protestancy, and the truth of christianity) hath no solid foundation, or colour of reason. For what can be more absurd then to pretend, that as moral virtue is a mean or mixture of two extremes, so the truth of Christian Religion is a mean between two contrary opinions, or a mixture of Popery, and Presbytery, which are two extremes involving contradictory Tenets. Morality, I confess is a mediocrity and a kind of Mixture: For, liberality (for example) doth seem to participate some thing of covetousness, and some thing of prodigality, which are extreme different; but Christianity being truth and Divine truth, is no mean between the two, but one of the two extremes; it is no mixture, because truth admits no mixture of falsehood; nor division, it can be but on one side. Therefore when a Presbiterian or Fanatic saith, that Scripture is the only rule of faith, and Judge of Controversies, the Catholic says it is not; not both, but one of them speaks truth, Yet the Prelatic would f●ain stand like a Christian moderator or neuter between both parties, and reconcile their Contradictions, by reducing them to a third doctrine, or to a mean between truth and falsehood: and the mean is, to grant both the contradictory propositions, and collogue with both sides.  
And indeed that is the mean, wherein Prelatic Protestancy doth consist; when their writers defend it against Presbiterians, they grant the doctrine of Papists; when they answer and 〈◊〉 against Papists, they maintain the doctrine of Presbiterians, for there is no other mean to reconcile, or be reconciled to contradictions, but to maintain both. And this was the custom of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc. and is the ordinary practice of the ablest Prelaticks in their books of Controversy. I remit you to one of their greatest Champions, my Lord Bishop of Down, in his Dissuasive from Popery; you need not run through the whole book, read but his first Section, and you will hear him say first, that Scripture alone is the foundation or rule of faith, and after, that it is not; Then again, that it is nothing else but Scripture together with the Creeds, and the four first Counsels. It is as impossible therefore that a 〈◊〉 man should be in his judgement a Prelatic Protestant, as it is he should believe that God revealed contradictions. Wherefore if interest and conveniency hath not a greater 〈◊〉 upon his profession of faith, than conscience, or coherency (even to the principles of the Reformation) he will not continue a prelatic, nor make temporal statutes his rule of faith, but will either (according to the prudent dictamen of a good conscience) become a Roman Catholic, or (according to the rigour of the purest Protestant consequences) become a rank Presbiterian, or Fanatic.  
I report me therefore to the judgement of all moderate and sober persons, whether it be piety or policy, to engage the authority of a Protest●●● sovereign, and Parliament, in 〈◊〉 the severity of laws against subjects for not professing the prelatic Reformation, which the most learned men thereof can not maintain without granting manifest contradictions, 〈◊〉 practice without condemning the fundamental principles 〈◊〉 Protestancy? I must confess that the Presbyterian, Fanatic, or any other arbitrary Religion (that is Religion directed by the letter of Scripture, subject to every man's private interpretation) will at length destroy the state, if there be not a limit set to the indiscreet zeal, and extravagant f●ncies of every particular person, and Congregation that 〈◊〉 to the purity of a Reformation, but I can hardly believe that temporal laws are a proper and efficatious means to refrain that spiritual liberty, which (according to the Principles of protestancy) is due by the Gospel to every Protestant, and not subject to any human authority. 
Brentius in Confes. Wittemb. cap. de Sacra Script. & in Prologo. contra Petrun a S●to.   
As for that much celebrated, and generaly practised expedient and distinction of Brentius, and the Divines of Wittenberg, saying, that though it belongs to every private person to judge of Doctrine and Religion, and to distinguish the true from falls; yet between the Prince and private man is this difference, that as the private man hath private authority of judging, and deciding the doctrine of Religion, so the Prince hath public. And throughout the whole book doth defend that the secular Prince is obliged to force his subjects (even with punishment of death) to that Religion and sense of Scripture which he judgeth true, and also that the subjects are bound to stick to their own contrary sense of Scripture, and Religion; this expedient, I say, doth not prevent the danger, or remedy the disease of a politic body, sick of protestancy, but doth increase the distemper and renders it incurable. And though in some parts of our more northern Climate, several Protestant Princes have purchased some quiet by the severity of their laws, in favour of the sects which they profess, yet that quiet, proceeding from want of curiosity in the people of examining the truth, or from want of courage to profess it, we can not expect in the English Monarchy the like acquiescense, and success; the British Nations are naturally serious, and scrupulous in the scrutin● of Religion, and either zealous, or seditious in the maintenance thereof. Wherefore it imports no less than the peace of these nations, that the Act of uniformity be not the rule of their Religion.  
Seeing therefore it is the nature of Protestancy (as of all other Religions, grounded upon voluntary and private interpretations of an obscure writing) to breed disorders and confusion in all Commonwealths, wherein the liberty of interpreting that writing is not restrained by law; and if restrained by law, the legislative power is opposed, and its authority contemned as contrary to the law, and word of God; and this opposition is waranted by the principles of protestancy, which exempt all reformed Christians from any conscientious obligation of submitting to Church or state Governors in matters of Religion; supposing I say, this to be the nature of Protestancy, it is apparent how contrary it is to policy to enact or continue laws against the profession of the Roman Catholic faith, which alone amongst all Christian Religions needeth not the support of human laws, or of temporal statutes, to make it the Religion of the soul, or to settle the Commonwealth, as appeareth by the fear of Prelaticks to grant liberty of conscience to Papists. For the space of 1000 years did our English Ancestors profess the Roman faith, and in all that time they never had the least contention in the state about matters of Religion; and in the space of these last 100 years there had been more Rebellions, more deposing and murdering of Sovereigns in this one little Island of great Britanny upon the account of Protestancy, then hath been since Christ's birth, in the whole world upon the account of Popery.  
Wherefore seeing that one of the differences between Popery and Protestancy is, that although Popery be co 〈…〉 y to liberty of opinion, to sensuality, and depraved inclinations, yet is it so plausible and popular, that Protestants (notwithstanding the legal incapacities 〈◊〉 penalties which they lay upon Papists) are afraid it will spread over the whole Kingdom in a short time (and therefore call it a growing Religion) it is evident that it increaseth by the reasonableness and sanctity of its principles, and without the help of law, or countenance of 〈◊〉 government; nay against the greatest severity of law, and against the known inclination of the Sovereign, in such a measure, that the King and Parliament have thought of new remedies against the growth thereof: But Protestancy (especially the Prelatic) notwithstanding all its liberty of opinion, and pretended assurance of being saved by only faith without the trouble of penance, fasting, or other mortifications of the flesh, with all the favour of the laws, and countenance of the Government, can not be made the Religion of the state. Of three parts of England the one is Prelatic Protestant in their judgements: and the two parts which are not, will sooner become Papists then Prelaticks, Now whether it be sound policy to persecute the Roman Religion by law, which doth increase against law, and to endeavour to settle by law the Prelatic Religion, which so lately hath occasioned the abolishing of all laws, we humbly submit to the consideration of them who sit at the helm.  
Besides, one of the greatest prejudices, that a Prince or Commonwealth can suffer, is to be deprived of loyal, conscientious, and able men's services, either in civil or military employments. By the penal and sanguinary Statutes, the King and Country deprive them-selves of many servitors of approved loyalty, wisdom, and eminent abilities, and not only deprive themselves of such servitors, but by virtue of legal incapacities set upon Papists, enable every ambitious man, or discontended faction to asperse the King and his chief Ministers with favouring forsooth Popery, if they do not exercise cruelty, and the rigour of 〈◊〉 sanguinary and penal Statutes against deserving persons, or 〈◊〉 lest if they show them any countenance, however so meriting, and useful they have been in the worst of times, and may prove to be again if this Protestant zeal should prevail; for it is always the forerunner of rebellion, and is now become so rash, that it attempteth to asperse my Lord Late Chancellor with favouring Popery, who is a pillar and pattern o● Protestancy. Perhaps his Lordship's gentle nature, great wisdom, justice, and integrity, might incline him to think that laws made by Queen Elizabeth for excluding the Stewards from the Crown, and for destroying that Religion and party whereby their title was supported, are now superfluous, and disrespectful to the Royal Family, that Reigns; but such as have the honour to know him best, assure us his L●p is no great friend to P●pists. Lastly, whosoever will call unto mind the mis-chief which but a few members of the House of Commons of the long Parliament wrought against the late King, and will observe how popular others of the same stamp are now, and how apt the giddy multitude is, to be fooled again into Rebellion by the like mad zeal against Popery, will be of opinion, that not any on thing can be of so great prejudice to the peace and prosperity of England, as the continuance of laws, which (if executed) make the Nation and Government   

SUBSECT II. Queen Ave-maries, and the Inquisitions severity against Protestancy, can be no Precedent or excuse for the Statutes against Popery.  
I Will conclude this matter with answering the vulgar Objection made for vindication of the penal and sanguinary laws of Queen Elizabeth against Roman Catholics, grounded upon a parity of the like laws executed by Queen Mary and the Jnquisition against Protestants. The disparity will discover the fallacy, and dissolve the force of their argument. Neither Queen Mary, nor the Jnquisition made any laws against Protestants; they were made by the first Christian Emperor's, and accepted by all Catholic Kings into the statutes of their Kingdoms, and confirmed by their Parliaments. The ancient Christian Sovereigns not only believed that the Roman faith was the Apostolic, but found by experience the same Roman Catholic faith had peaceable principles, agreabl●●o just Government, and therefore they enacted laws of death, infamy, confiscation of goods &c. against all such as presumed to alter that doctrine, declaring such as contradicted the Tenets thereof, to be Innovators and Heretics.  
When protestancy began in England, they who preached the new doctrine, (being conscious of their own guilt, and of having incurred the penalties of these ancient Christian laws, then in force against Innovators and Heretics, and in particular against the marriage of Priests with Nuns proceeded otherwise. Zozomen hist. lib. 6. cap. 3. affirmeth how that the Christian Emperor Jovinian who was in course the third Emperor after Constantin the Great published an Edict that who alured a Nun to marriage should be therefore punished with the loss of his head. And this law is yet extant C●d. l. de Episcopis & C●●ricis) But they I say petitio- to the Parliament of Edward ●. to have those 〈◊〉 repealed (whereby you may see how they acknowledged their own doctrine was Heresy) whereupon they wer● dispensed with to marry, and all the 〈◊〉 laws against Her●tick●, and heresies▪ were repealed▪ Queen Mary succeeding, restored the ancient laws that had been repealed by King Ed●●●d 6. together with the ancient Religion, but she was not the Author of them, as Queen Elizabeth was of the penal and sanguinary statutes against Priests and Roman Catholics, which never had been heard of before her time in a Christian Kingdom, or Commonwealth.  
In like manner the Inquisition ma●● no new laws against Protestants, neither do they sentence them to death▪ they only declare, that they are Innovators of the ancient Catholic doctrine or Heretics; and then the secular Magistrates do execute the temporal laws in fo●●e against such persons. If protestants had not found themselves guilty of heresy, why were they so solicitious to have the lawe●▪ ●hat had been ●●acted against heretics, (not lately, but during those ven●●●ble 〈◊〉 of the pri●●tive Church) repealed? why did 〈…〉 if their doct●●● was the ●●me with that of ●he ancient Fathers that lived in times wherein the Imperial laws were made, and in force? what needed they to except against laws which had been enacted to favour the doctrine of those Fathers with whom they pretend to agree? Queen Marry therefore and the Inquisition, who proceeded ac● willing to those ancient ●●wes against protestants, did nothing but what all Christian and Catholic Emperors and Kings had done for the space of 1300. years against heretics.  
But Queen Elizabeth took the quite contrary way; she observed that according to the principles of Christianity, as also according to the ancient and modern laws of England, herself could not enjoy the Crown (having been declared illegitimat by sundry Acts of Parliament never repealed) nor the Stewards be excluded, they being the lawful and immediate Heirs; and because▪ the Queen of Scots, from whom they derived their title, was a Catholic, Queen Elizabeth made herself and England, Protestant; that is, by Acts of Parliament, she declared that all the Catholic Emperors, Kings, and Churches, of the world for almost 1300. years, had been superstitious and Idolatrous; that the Bishop of Rome, was Antichrist; the Catholic Clergy, Cheats; the sea of Rome, the whore of Babylon; spiritual Jurisdiction, a she and secular supremacy; the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, a blasphemy; five of the seven Sacraments, human invention and corrupt following of the Apostles; Priesthood, and Episcopacy, nothing but a lay Ministry authorised under the Sovereign's great se●le; all lawful Priests, and Bishops, Traitors; all Catholics, Heretics; etc. And all these absurdities were made legal in England, to make her Father's marriage with Anne Bullen seem lawful, whereas it had been declared null and invalid by so many Parliaments of England, that herself durst not attempt an immediate and clear repeal of Acts so notoriously inconsistent with the right that herself pretended ●o the Crown.  
T●at 〈…〉 and men who expected favours from her) should so metamorphose sacred things into profane, Scripture into fancy, and illegitimacy into legitimacy, we do no● admire, neither is it strange that illiterate people after a Century of years, continuance and education in such a Religion, should be zealous in the maintenance thereof, or that a Clergy, which hath no other livelihood, nor hopes of promotion but by justifying these proceedings, should endeavour to continue her laws against orthodox Christianity, and the known truth, for their own interest, are frailties incident to men; but that the nobility and Gentry of England (being so well versed in their own Chronikles, and in the Histories of other Nations) that persons of so much wit, knowledge, and judgement, should not when they meet in Parliament, move and resolve to restore Christianity, and rectify so gross and vulgar mistakes, especially since the family against whose succession the statutes had been introduced, is restored to the Crown; this 〈◊〉, or oblivion, I say, of the English 〈◊〉 and nobility, i● hardly excusable. And if the 〈◊〉 will not be moved out of charity to their fellow subjects and 〈◊〉, to abolish the sanguinary and penal Laws against Roman Catholics, let them do it out of civility to the Royal Family, against whose party and Title so injust Laws were ●●acted. There is not therefore any thing 〈◊〉 more Queen Elizabeth's penal statutes, then to compare 〈◊〉 wi●h Queen Mari●● and the Inquisitions proceedings against Protestants. It's now time that we pass from the examination of protestant principles, to the discovery of the frauds and fortifications, wherewith the prelatic Clergy doth disguise them, and divert their flocks from reflecting upon those sad effects which they have wrought, and must work, wheresoever they are 〈◊〉 the Religion of the sta●e.     

A TREATISE OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT  
THE THIRD PART. Containing a plain discovery of the Protestant Clergies frauds, and falsifications, whereby alone their doctrine is supported, and made credible. The conscience and conveniency of restoring or tolerating the Roman Catholic Religion▪ demonstrated.  

SECT. I. That either the learned Protestant, or Roman Catholic Clergy are Cheats, and how every illiterate protestant may easily discern by which of the two Clergies he is cheated: and therefore is obliged under pain of damnation to examine so near a concern, and to renounce the doctrine and communion of that Church wherein he is cheated.  
of the true Church being so conspicuous and manifest by such eminent and visible marks, Christ might well forbid the faithful to communicate with Heretics and Schismatics, for that their conventicles 〈◊〉 never be mistaken for the whole, or even a part of the Catholic Church, unless men ●ill be so simple as to take their ●are word when they say, Hic est Christus, aut illic: whereas if it were possible for learned men to be innocently mistaken, Christ's command had not been obligatory; for, in such ● case we were not bound to believe that Christ is rather in one Church then other, seeing each Church had reason sufficient to excuse learned parties from schism, and heresy? But it being impossible that God should command us to believe on Congregation of Christians, and not believe others, that pretend also to be the true Church of Christ, without confirming the testimony and doctrine of that one Congregation, which he bids us believe and prefer before the rest with such clear signs of the truth, and so evident marks of Divine authority, that the others, compared therewith, can have no probability; two things must be granted. 1. (that the Catholics Church of Christ cannot be composed of all, or any dissenting Congregations. 2. That the one only Congregation which is the true and Catholic Church, can never be so eclipsed, but that it must appear much more eminent in sanctity, miracles, conversion of Nations, and much more credible in its testimonies, than any other. Wherefore we conclude that either the learned protestant clergy or the catholic must be cheats; seeing that notwithstanding the evident and eminent signs and marks of God's Church can not be found in both, or in any two Congregations dissenting in their doctrine and rule of faith, yet each of them make their illiterate flocks believe, that their own is the true Church of God, whereupon the signs and seals of his authority, and veracity do clearly shine.  
No human art, or industry, if not born-out with more than ordinary and notorious impudency, can pretend to discredit, or darken the spendor of true Miracles, Sanctity, Successi●● become Masters of the Commerce, as shall be proved. I hope these considerations will invite and incite them to examine which of both the Clergies, (the Roman Catholic that petitions for, ●r the Prelatic Protestant that opposeth liberty of conscience) are the cheats? And▪ that they may find it out without much trouble, I have thought sit to let them know, there is not any one controversy between them and us, which hath not been handled in English, and argued to the full on both sides: now the sum of our disputes being this, whether the primitive Church was Roman Catholic, or rather Protestant, in the controverted points, as Praying to Saints, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, worship of Images, the Canonical letter, and sense of Scripture, etc. To decide the Controversy, each side quotes the words of Scripture, Counsels and Fathers, because the true doctrine hath been preserved, and recorded in these writings. Let him therefore that doubts of the sense of the Text, and of the sincerity of him that quotes it, compare the Author's words with the 〈…〉 he will infallibly find out who is the Cheat. For he that doth corrupt the words, or change the sense of Scripture, Counsels, and Fathers, doth not stick to the doctrine of the primitive Church▪  
And because I have spent some time (both before and after my conversion to the Catholic faith) in examining the falsifications, and frauds of Protestants, and their objections against Papists in the same kind, I may speak with more assurance than others who have not so much experience; and do protest that I never thought it possible (before I found it was so the facto) that men pretending not only to the name of reformed Christianity, but to the Reality and Sanctity of an Episcopal character, and charge of souls, could be so unconsiderable, unworthy and uncharitable in matters of eternity, as I have ●ound the Protestant writers, and in particular the prelaticks of the Church of England. Let any who desires to satisfy his conscience or curiosity, peruse and compare either the books of Jevel and Harding; or of Bishop Morton, and Father Pesons▪ the nature or essence of a body? Or whether quantity be a thing distinct from that which we call a corporeal substance.  

SUBSECT I. With what impudence and hypocrisy Bishop jevell and other prelatic writers began to maintain the Protestancy of the Church of England? And how they were blamed for appealing to antiquity by some of their own Brethren.  
TO manifest the impudence and hypocrisy, wherewith Prelatic Protestancy was broached and imposed upon the laity in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, I will begin with Bishop Jevell's famous challenge, and his Seconds, that offered to maintain the primitive antiquity of Protestancy, and the novelty of Popery. His words are. As I said before, I say again, I am content to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of any one Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old General Council etc. for the space of 600. years after Christ, &c Protesting also that he affirmeth thus much, not as carried away with the heat of zeal, but as moved with the simple truth, lest any of you should happily be deceived and think there is more weight on the other side then in conclusion will be found, etc. And then he broke into this vehement Apostrophe. O merciful God who could think that there could be so much wilfulness in the heart of man. Then exclaimes, O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierom! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O Dionise! O Anacl●tus! O Calixtus! O Paul! O Christ? If we be 〈◊〉 

l. 2. sect. 6. pag. 112.  
See heretofore ●. part. sec. 1. how the centurists and other learned Protestants confess the Counsels, and Fathers, defended worship of Imamages, Transubstantiation Purgatory, Indulgences, and all other points of Popery.  
Bale in his Act. Rom. Pontif. printed at Basil 1558. page 44 45.46. confesseth besides, that St. Gregory held the Sacrifice of the Mass, the doctrine of Purgatory, etc.  
See Bale in his Pagea of Popes pag. 27. of S. Leo Doct. Humphrey jesuitissimi pag. 1. rat 5. pag. 626.   acknowledged the impossibility of defending the Protestant Religion by Tradition, or by any monuments o● examples from antiquity, or by the sayings of Fathers and Counsels. Insomuch that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. & 473. doth not stick to say, that almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church▪ for the most part, were spotted with the doctrine of free will▪ oftener it, of invocation of Saints etc. And from thence infers that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops held so perfect and so sound doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England at this day. And Mr. Fulk in his reionder to Bristol pag. 7. I confess that Ambrose, Austin, Hierom (all three Fathers, to whom B. p jewel appealed) held invocation of Saints to be lawful. And B. p Bale acknowledgeth that St. Gregory (the first of jewel's chosen judges) by his indulgences established pilgrimages to Images; and that St. Leo (an other of Ievell's Fathers▪) allowed the worship of Images.  
And Doctor Humphrey, jesuitismi part 1. rat. 5. pag. 626. cannot deny but that S. Gregory taught Transubstantiation. And Mr. 〈◊〉 in his Papisto m●t, edit. 1606. pag. 143. saith, We are 〈◊〉 that the mystery of iniquity did work in S●▪ Pawles time, and fell not a sleep so soon as Paul was dead etc. And therefore no mermail though perusing Counsels and Fathers, we find the print of the Pope's feet. And Mr. Napper in his Treatise upon the Revelation dedicated to King james▪ pag. 68 & 145. affirmeth that Popery or the Anti-christian Kingdom did continue 1260. years universally without any debatable contradiction▪ The Pope and his Clergy, during that time possessing the outward visible Church. So that it was not one or two Fathers, or Counsels, but all Christendom which professed the Roman Catholic saith, for these 1000. years' past. And even Mr. Whitaker himself, lib. 6. contra Duraeum pag. 123. (notwithstanding his undertaking to maintain jevells challenge and bold assertion) was forced at length to submit, but by a profane expression, saying, that the Popish Religion is a patched coverlet of the Father's errors sowed together.  
have them read their English falsified Scripture (the subject of controversies, and support of errors) and will not permit them to peruse the true authentic translation, and all this to the end nothing but fraud and fancy may be the rule of the Protestant faith. These and all other the like observations which can not but occur to them who frequent their Churches, or company, must needs induce men to suspect the weakness of their cause, and the guilt of their conscience, though there had been no evidences, that they are Falsifiers. But seeing their are as many evidences against them, as there are Chapters in Catholic Books of controversies, and that the Books are easily had, and understood, I see not how any Protestant, how ever so illiterate, can be excused from eternal damnation, by pretending the integrity of his Clergy, or his own insufficiency to examine their sincerity.  
When many accuse a man of high Treason, and offer to prove it to his face, not only by sundry honest and legal witnesses but under his own hand writing, it would be censured treachery or great carlesness in the Ministers of state, to slight such an accusation and evidence, though the person accused, until then▪ had been trusted, and reputed a loyal subject: This is our case with the Protestant writers: we have no quarrel against them but Religion; we charge them in public writing with the highest Treason (the murdering of the souls of Sovereigns and subjects) with corrupting God's word; with rebelling against the Divine authority, so authentically appearing in the Roman Catholic Church. And these Treasons we offer to prove face to face, not only by legal witness, but by their Bible's and Books. We have no grudge to them but this only of damning souls, by treacherous dealing; and desire that so important an accusation may come to a public hearing, If their interest, and industry can divert the laity from so great a concern, that laity must be treacherous to themselves, and censured very careless of their own salvation.  
And to the end it may not be objected that these are are but 〈◊〉 words, 
How particularly the Protestant Clergy ●s charged with frauds, and falsifications in maintaining their Religion.  I have resolved to descend to particular crimes. I 〈◊〉 the persons, their Books, I quote their own words, I prove them to be no innocent mistakes, but wilful and wicked falsifications and fraud's; not committed by one, or few 〈…〉 of Religion against us▪ not in our time▪ but always 〈…〉 but the whole body in their 〈…〉 only by connivance and permission, but also by contrivance●▪ and positive approbation, not only petty 〈◊〉 differences, but of ancient condemned heresies, which the Protestant writers maintain as orthodox doctrine, notwithstanding that 〈…〉, S. Hierom, and other Doctors of God's Church censure the opinions as notorious heresies, and the Authors as heretics. This is the sum of the Accusations, contained in this third part of our Treatise: and if we be not mistaken, deserves a Trial, as well for the satisfaction of private 〈◊〉 conscience, as 〈◊〉 for the probability there is of public conveniency, it being very improbable, that I, or any man who pretends to the least degree of worth, or wit, would charge with so many particular grievous crimes, so numerous and powerful a party as the Protestant Clergy is, without 〈…〉 undeniable evidences. If the Protestant Clergy be found guilty, besides the salvation of souls (which will be obtained by renouncing their errors, and is that we all aught principally to aim at) these Nations will be happy in this world by their revenues. If they be not guilty, they and their Religion will gain great credit, and I nothing but the infamy of being a notorious Jmpostor. I know not what others may think of me, but I shall never think that any other can be so witless and wicked, as to take so much pains as I have done in composing, and be at so great charge of publishing this Treatise, without manifest profe● of the truth thereof; for if my allegations be not true I can have no further design, or hopes, but of infamy to myself, and of honour, and credit to my Adversaries, and an addition of strength to the cause I do impugn: all which must follow, and fall upon me, if the learned Protestant Clergy be not proved to be as great Cheats, as I pretend they are.  
But it's strange what deep impressions education doth make in men's minds, and how partial and passionate these Nations are tendered by Protestancy. They will not believe that their Protestant Writers are wilful Falsifiers, as for example that Doctor Jeremy Taylor (a man that hath writ so many spiritual Books foorsooth, and rules of Morality) is guilty of maintaining the Protestant Religion by above 150. shameful unexcusable corruptions and falsifications, in his little Dissuasive. And when he, the Author, his Irish Convocation, 
After Doctor Tailor's death his friends have published a second part of his Dissuasive, which is so weack a vindication of the first, that it needs not that Reply which is now in hand by E. W. his Adversary.  and the English Protestant Church, that Applauder of the work, are challenged in print by sundry Catholic Writers to make good any one of those falsifications, all the world (besides Protestant's) observe they have not a word to answer; and by consequence themselves must now confess, that their Religion is damnable, seeing it can not be otherwise maintained then by falsehood; notwithstanding I say there can be no hopes of salvation in such a Church, no tolerable excuse for such imposturs, yet the writers, and writings are cried up, and still in credit, because they maintain that mistaken Reformation wherein Protestant▪ have been brought up. And though this particular case of Doctor Tailors (one of the ablest Protestant Divines now living) is sufficient to demonstrat the falsehood of all Protestants, and Protestancy in general, yet for information and proof, that his errors fell not by chance from his pen, and that he hath not changed the arguments, but is constant to the ancient falsifying Method, the only way of all his Predecessors the Protestant Writers, I will give particular instances of the most renowned from Luther to Taylor himself, that is from the very first to the last.  
But before I set down the particulars of Protestant falsifications I will prove in general, that the Roman Catholics can not be prudently suspected of the like practices, and that Protestants are clearly convicted thereof.    

SECT. II. That there can be no reason to suspect the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Clergy in matters of Religion; and that Protestancy can not be maintained otherwise then by impostures; whereof there are such evidences, that to give the Protestant Clergy any credit in matters of their Religion, is a sufficient cause of damnation.  

SUBSECT I.  
THE first part of this assertion 〈◊〉 easily proved; because that which may prudently induce men to suspect the sincerity of any Clergy in proposing the Mysteries of Christian Religion, and the true sense of Scripture, is temporal interest viz, when by changing and corrupting the ancient 〈◊〉, the Clergy 〈◊〉 obtain honours, and conveniences, where of they might despair if they are raised above the meaness or mediocrity of their birth and fortune: such were the first Protestant-Bishops, and Reformers, not one of them that I can learn of, was born a Gentleman; neither could they expect to be raised to any great employment either in Church or state, unless they had embroiled both, and fished in troubled waters; and such also were they who preten●ed to reform the ancient doctrine in former ages. If we search into the Ecclesiastical history, we shall find that Heretics always devised novelties, to make them-selves considerable by dividing the Church into schisms and factions (according to the vulgar saying Divide & impera) after that they had been disappointed of some dignity whereunto they pretended; and therefore Saint Augustin (lib, de Pastoribus cap. 8.) doth attribute all heresies to pride. Theobutes one of the first heretics, having been refused a Bishopric (saith Aegisippus) began to corrupt and perturb the Church. After him Simon Magus broached his damnable doctrines, because the Apostles would not sell to him the spiritual character of Episcopacy. Act. 8. Then followed Valentinus, of whom Tertullian gives this testimony to those of his Sect, Valentinus expected to be a Bishop for his wit and Eloquence, but being postponed, he broke from the rule of the Church, as ambitious and revengeful minds use to do. The same saith St. Epiphanius (haeres. 42.) of Martion; Theodoret of Montanus, Novatian, Arius, and Aerius, Socrates of Salbatius; Waldensis of Wacleff; the same we say of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer etc. But the Roman Catholic Clergy are commonly persons of quality that are not put to the shifts of heretics, that is, of inventing new doctrine; their birth helps to raise them to the dignity of the Church, and none can be made a secular Priest, that hath not a patrimony wherewith to subsist. Besides, it is an acknowledged difference between the two controverted Religions, that the Roman Catholic is so ancient, that even they who charge it with novelty, can not tell when it began; and grant that it hath been at least these 1000 years generaly embraced by the visible Church, as the very same which Christ and his Apostles taught; the Protestant Reformation on the contrary, is so modern, that they who brag of its antiquity, can go no further than Luther, and Calvin, or Cranmer. Hence it must be concluded, that as in temporal Commonwealths, they can not be questioned as Usurpers, or suspected as Cheats, whose possession and succession is so ancient that no memory occurreth to the contrary; and moreover, show public records, and sentences of the Courts of Judicature, signed with the great seal of the Soveraing in confirmation of their Estates, and Titles, against divers pretender● in sundry ages 〈◊〉 in the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrine and dignity of our Bishops having been derived 〈…〉, and tradition, 〈…〉 the contrary, and having been confirm●● 〈…〉 of general Counsels, yet extant upon reco●d 〈…〉 heretic's, and signed with God's great seal●, Miracles; there can be no objection, but obstinacy, against the truth thereof; nor no prudent ground to suspect the integrity, and sincerity of our Clergy, in maintaining as well their doctrine, as the revenues which were bestowed upon them for supporting that doctrine and their Ministry.  
Men who have such undeniable and public evidences, to show for the truth of their doctrine, and for their right to the temporalities of the Church, can not be pres●●ed to forge or falsify scripture, records, Counsels, or Fathers, for maintaining their right or reverences: they need no such practices, which would rather prejudice, then profit their cause. To what end should Catholic Bishops forge records of their Consecration, when their very Adversaries confess the validity, and legality thereof to be so authentik, that their chief study is, how to derive their own Character from ours! To what purpose should we falsify the ancient Counsels and Fathers, when all the Protestant writers, who have any conscience or knowledge, grant they are for us? And 〈◊〉 such of them as are versed in antiquity, will not have their reformation tried by Fathers and Counsels, but by Scripture alone. Why should we corrupt the letter of Scripture, when our Adversaries grant our latin vulgata, to be the most true and authentik Translation thereof, as we have proved heretofore? Why should we alter the Roman Catholik sense of Scripture, that is as ancient as the letter, and delivered to us by the same testimony and tradition, as God's true meaning? But the protestant Clergy, who are but upstarts by birth and doctrine, can not be great in Church or state otherwise then by inventing and promoting new religions, and to that end do corrupt the letter, and change the sense of Scripture, which was delivered to the primitive Church: pretending that the true Church of Christ was invisible, and that the protestant evidences and miracles perished by reason of the iniquity of the times, and the persecution of Popes. But let us come to the trial, and to particular instances of their false dealing.   

SUBSECT II. Of Edward 6. Protestant and prelatic Clergies frauds falsifications and forms of ordination, their hypocrisy, incontinency, Atheism &c And whether it be fit to term them, and others like them, Cheats, when they are convicted of wilful false dealing in matters of Religion?  
CIvility is a branch of Charity, and therefore aught to be extended to all men: but if a man did observe either in Church or Court, that a disguised Cutpurse o● Cutthroat doth great mischief, I am of opinion the observer is bound in conscience to advertise both Church and Court of his villainies, and without any ceremony to tell every one down right, such a person that you take for a nobleman, or Gentleman, is a Cheat, and a Murderer, therefore trust him not, avoid his company. If the Protestant Clergy teach, and countenance false and damnable doctrine, they are Cutpurses and Cut-throaths; they exhaust the treasure of these Kingdoms, and cheat the King and his Subjects of a very great revenue, They and writ a book in defence of the real presence; 
Fox. pag. 200. vol. 1. num. 2. See hereafter some of his falsifications in particular objected to him by the Catholic Bishops and Doctors at his trial. Dr. Heylin ed. 6. pag 89 Three Convers. of England Part. 2 pag. 593.  in Edward the sixts time he professed protestancy, and writ against the real presence, both which books Bishop Bonner produced in judgement against him: In the beginning of this young King's reign he seemed to be a Lutheran, but in the latter end thereof, a Zuinglian; and altered accordingly the Common prayer book which himself had composed; and changed the 39 Articles of the Church, according to the humour of that faction which prevailed in the state. He made no more conscience of condemning to death An Ascue for denying the real presence an. 31. of K. Henry 8. then of professing himself to be of her belief in the reign of K. Edward 6. and pressed that young King very importunely to seal a warrant for burning of her Maid joan of Kent (alias joan Knell) for that she denied Christ took flesh of the B. Virgin. But Joan Knell (when Cranmer pronounced sentence against her) reproached him for his inconstancy in religion; telling that he condemned not long before An Ascue her mistress for a piece of bread, and now condemned herself for a pecce of flesh. And as he was now come to believe the first which he then had condemned, so would he come in time to believe the second etc. And 〈◊〉 it is to be observed that Cranmer persuaded the King to sign the warrant against joan Knell when there was no law in England to put any one to death for heresy, because it was after that all penal statutes against heretics had been repealed, and that favour was granted at Cranmers and the first reformers, own request, and solicitations, not daring to profess or preach their novelties before they might be secured by such a repeal from the severity of the laws.  
We have seen heretofore how he divorced K. Henry from Q. Catherine by his own authority, and married him to An Bullen, And afterwar●●●clared in Parliament that An Bullen was not true wife to 〈◊〉 King; how he married him to An of Cleve, 
See the stat. an. 28. Henr. cap. 7. 1536  and with in the compass of one year came again to the Parliament, and said she was never true wife to his Majesty in again. 
Mathews his Bible, and the Bible of the large volume was the work of Tyndal, and Coverdale, and Rogers, well licked of Cranmer. Stat. anno Dom. 1547· Ed. 6. an. 1.  And this was objected by Nicolas Heath Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England in his speech to the Parliament against the bringing in of Protestancy 1. Eliz. which speech (saith learned Knot in his comment upon Brerely p. 87.) was read by him who told this to Knot, and had seen divers of King Edward ●. service books, some with (is) some with (signifieth) and some with a blank in the place. Lastly, how could Cranmer, how could they tha●●oyn'd with him, be ignorant that th●●r reformed doctrine was plain heresy, seeing they kn●w it was notorious novelty, and that many points thereof had been condemned as heretical by the primitive Catholic Church, and by laws of the first Christian Emperors? How could they excuse the abolishing of the Sacrifice of the Mass by their Common prayer, and the character of Priesthood and Episcopacy, by devising a new form of Ordination, contaiing 〈◊〉 a syllable expressing the function either of Priest or Bishop▪ contrary to all forms and rituals both of the Greek, Latin▪ and all other Christian Churches.  
〈◊〉 though their Successors (since his Majesty's restauration) have acknowledged the invalidity of their Protestant forms of ordination by amending them in their new Book authorised by the late▪ Act of Uniformity; for the form of ordaining a Bishop is corrected thus, Receive the holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Bishop etc. The form of ordaining a Priest, thus, Receive the holy Ghost for the Office of a Priest etc. yet this correcting comes too late for the past Ordinations, and unseasonably for the future also, because none can give a priestly or Episcopal character which himself hath not, and though the form thus altered in their late edition be valid in itself, yet can it not be validly applied by laymen, or (which is the same) by Ministers ordained by an invalid form.  
What could move the present prelatik Church of England to change their form of ordaining Priests and Bishops after a hundred years and above, but the evidence, and acknowledgement of its nullity? especially if we consider with what in preaching is extolled by Fox; and yet if you observe his proofs thereof, you will find that he was rather, a Comedian then a Christian in the pulpit; where in steed of solid discourses deduced from Scriptures, and Fathers, he entertained his Audience with scurilous jests, and some times grounded his Sermons upon a play at cards, and kept great stir with the King of Clubs, the Ace of hearts, and the like foolish ●taff● good enough for the Heresies he displayed; other times 〈◊〉 raised at the ●ass, calling the real presence the Marrowbone 〈◊〉 ●nd this so ridiculously, that none but children applauded 〈◊〉 profane way of preaching; by what Fox himself con●ess●● 〈◊〉 his way, you may fancy him to be another Hugh P●●●●. But from his Sermons let us go to his virtues. Notwithstanding his great zeal in preaching and promoting the 〈…〉 recanted his doctrine thereof twice, once before Card●●●l 〈…〉 second time before Archbishop Warham, and others 〈◊〉 K. Henry 8. declared against the Pope's supremacy▪ 〈◊〉, at the procurement of his Vicar General 〈…〉 of his Phisi●●an D. r Butte● was named to the Bishopric of 〈◊〉 but soon deprived thereof by the same 〈◊〉▪ as an unguilty and profane fellow, his impiety was proved by many instances, whereof one was, eating of flesh on good friday, without any pretext of sickness. After King Henry 8. 〈◊〉 he sided with Hooper and Rogers for Puritanisme against Cranmer and Ridley, who were then great stiklers for the prelatic discipline, thereby to domineer over the Ministers who had been in Germany; and so would Latimer also, if they both had not opposed his restitution to the Bishopric of Worces●●●.  
Thus kept under by his two great Adversaries, he 〈◊〉 thought by the Duchess of Somersett a likely person (in hopes of recovering his ancient dignity and reverences) to inveigh against her Brother in law the Lord Admiral (whom she mortaly hated) and to reprehend publicly in the pulpit his ambition, charging him also with dangerous designs against his Majesty and the Protector; and though the Lord Admiral to be restored to Worcester; but after Ridley was in possession of the sea of London, he laughed at Latimer, and joined with 〈◊〉 to keep him humble without Bishopric or benefice, 〈◊〉 hath been said. After K. Edward 6. death▪ Ridley was very 〈◊〉 against Q. Mary, and preached against her title, adding ●ith all she was so earnest a Papist, that she refused to hear 〈…〉 to her; which injury notwithstanding she would have pardoned him, if he had given any signs of true repen●●●●● 〈◊〉 a fair trial, and confutation of his heresies, he 〈◊〉 of a bag of powder which his Brother in law delivered 〈…〉 at the stake, the sooner to be dispatched of his torment; 〈◊〉 Fox saith the design took no effect, his martyrdom was 〈◊〉, which happened by accident, and that he cried 〈…〉, and desired the people to let the fire 〈…〉.  
〈…〉 of this man●s spirit by a part of his farewell to the 〈…〉 London, set down by Fox thus. 
Fox pag. 1942.  Hearken 〈…〉 of Babylon, thou wicked limb of Anti-christ, 〈…〉 sta●est thou down, and makest havoc of 〈◊〉 Prophet's 〈◊〉 etc. Thy God which is thy work of thy words, and whom thou sayest thou hast power to make; that thy d●●f and dumb God, I say, will not in deed, 
Fox in a marginal not upon this last part, saith Bishop Ridleyes profecy upon the Episcopal see op London.  nor can not make 〈◊〉 to escape the revengeful hand of the high and almighty God etc. O thou whorish Drab, thou shalt never escape. In steed of my farewell to thee now, I say, Fie upon thee, fie upon thee filty Drab, 〈◊〉 all thy false Prophets.   

Of Hooper, Rogers, Poynet, Bale, and Co●erdales hypocrisy, and impiety.  
JOhn Hooper (by Fox his relation) was a Priest in Oxford, in the days of King Henry 8. (infected with Lutheranism by books that came from Germany) and lived in when he was arraigned for his heresies, he spoke to he Lord Chancellor and judges so grossy, carnaly, and absurdly of his marriage with the Burgundian wench, that his 〈…〉, though he se●s not down his words, yet acknowledgeth that the whole Court cried tha●● upon him, call him beast, etc. we shall hear more of this man in the following story of his Comrade Rogers.  
John Rogers was a priest also (saith john Fox) in the time of King Henry 8. when Luther's doctrine began first to be 〈◊〉 in England, which he having read, 
Rogers.  and finding himself by the spirit thereof inclined to some novelties in Religion, and to marry, he went into Flanders, and there became Chaplyn ●● the English Merchants in Antverp: there also he fell acquainted with William Tyndal, and Miles Coverdale, two other English Priests of the same humour, and retired thither for the 〈◊〉 ●nd; Rogers and Coverdale, assisted Tyndal in falsifying the Scripture, and setting forth his English Translation, afterwards condemned by Act of Parliament, for erroneous, false, and wick●●▪ After that Tyndal was burned in Flanders, in the year 1536. Roger's repaired to Wittenberg in Saxony, to live with Martin Luther, by whom he was confirmed in his Religion, and provided of a dutch wife, which, as Fox testifieth, brought him forth no less than eight children in very few years; with which load of wife and children after both King Henry 8. and Luther were dead (for they died both with in the compass of one year) Roger● returned into England toge●ther with Friar Martin Bucer, and his wench; resolved to accommodat them-selves in all points to the Protector's will, and to any Religion that should be established by the laws of the land; and accordingly they forsook the Doctrine of their old Master Luther, and embraced that of Zwinglius, as being the more favoured and countenanced by the Protector.  
Both Hooper and Rogers came with hopes of ruling the Church of England, because they thought them-selves more learned in the Reformation than Cranmer, and Ridley, who  
As Ridley had been intruded into Bonner's Bishopric of London, so Poynet was thrust into gardiner's of Winchester, 
Of Bishop Poynet.  ● better Scholar (saith Heylin pag. 161.) then a Bishop. He had taken a wi●e in Edward 6. time, and not content 〈◊〉 (du●ing her life) married another, 
Schism Angl. pag. 216.  whose Husband 〈◊〉 Butcher actualy living; whether she had left her husband for some discontent, or disease, I do not know; but between the Bishop and the Butcher became a great suit in law about the woman, that the Bishop kept and claimed as his wife; but at length he was forced to restore her to the Butcher; which Bishop Gardiner hearing from some of the Lords, he replied that their Lordships (he hoped) would command Poynet to restore him his Bishopric, as they had ordered him to restore his wife to the Butcher: It seems in those primitive times of Protestan●●, the purity of the reformed doctrine was practised in marriage's, as well as in other matters; for though Bishop Poynet, received not the benefit of that Protestant liberty which he sued for, and his Lordship knew was due by the principles of that Religion, yet it was granted to Sir Ralph Sadler, 
Schism Angl. Ed 6. pag. 194. & 19●.  by common consent of the English Church and Parliament: for one Matthew Barrow, having been through jealousy driven beyond seas for some time, his wife married her Lover Sir Ralph, the husband returns and claims his wife, but sentence was given in favour of Sir Ralph Sadler, 

John Bale writes thus of himself Cent. 5. fol. 245. when I was a boy of twelve year● old at Norwich, I was thrust into the He●● of the white Monks, ● Carmelites The word the lord a●●pearing I saw mine own deformity (to wit of being a Priest and a friar) I did presently then scrape out the cursed character of the horrible beast, for that I took unto me a most faithful wife Dorothy, and this not from any man, nor by any man's help, but by the special gift and  
Word of Christ. This friar makes christ it 〈◊〉 wooer for him to marry a Nun; and yet he calls our S. Austin and his chaste Monks, together wi●h the whole primitive Church of England, a Carnal Synagogue.  
Osiander in Epitome. cent. 9 10. ●1. pag 454. act. 15. Melan●●●on in disput. de cura Magistrate. etc. Stow's Annals pa. 550. Schism An. pag. 17.217 Of Coverdale and his Bible.   who was declared to be her lawful husband, and Matthew Barrow lest at liberty to marry whom ●e pleased: This decree is agreeable to the principles of Protestancy, as may be seen in this Treatise (part. 2. Sect. 2. snum. 3.) neither is it credible so learned a Protestant Bishop as Poynet, would contest in a legal way with the Butcher, for a thing not allowed by the reformed Church, whereof he was so eminent a Prelate, and one of the first English Reformers.  
John Bale Bishop of Ossory was a Carmelite friar, who hearing of the liberty which the Protestant Reformation gave to Priests and Religious persons to marry, forsook his Monastical and Catholic profession, and made a formal abjuration of the Bible, condemned by act of Parliament, and Fox (pag. 1427.) sets down the proclamation of K. Henry 8. and the public instrument of the Bishops, prohibiting again (an. 1●46) Tyndal and Coverdales' Translation of the new Testament; notwithstanding all this, Coverdale the corrupter of the Bible, was by Cranmers means made the Corrector of his own and Tyndal's Translation (which went by the name of the Bible of Matthew.) And he set out the same again, with little or no alteration of the Text, and it was called the Bible of the large Volume, 
See Fox pag. 1362. & 1363.  with which work the honest party of the Clergy, were as much offended aswith Mathew's Bible, as being the same or at lest no less fraudulent and falls, and yet it was not corrected in K. Henry 8. days, and was imposed upon England as authentic Scripture, in K. Edward 6. and Q. Elizabeth's reigns; and is that in substance which was reprinted by order of the Convocation an. 1562. by some called the Bishop's Bible. This Bible thus called, as also of the large Volume, 
pag. 1362.  was printed first at Paris (Fox relates the story) That some heresies having been discovered therein, Coverdale was sent for, who did oversee the printing of his own and Tyndal's work; but having some warning of what would follow, saith Fox, he with other English, posted away from Paris as fast as they could, to save them-selves, leaving behind them all their Bibles, of the great Volume, etc. but after they had recovered some of the same Bibles, which the Lieutenant Criminal of Paris had not burnt with the rest (moved thereunto by covetousness) they reprinted the same Bible in London, but yet not without great loss and trouble, for the hatred of the Bishops, namely Stephen Gardiner and his fellows, who mightily did stomach and malign the printing thereof. This is Fox his own story of the English Translation of Scripture, which Protestants hold to be the true word of God, though it was burnt as falls and heretical in France, and condemned as such by act of Parliament in England, and two Thousand falsifications discovered in the new Testament 〈◊〉 by learned▪ 〈◊〉 Bishop of D●resme.  

Schism. pag. 217.  Sanders ●●counts how Miles Coverdale hearing that the University of Oxford was much bend against 〈◊〉 reformation in Edward 6. 〈◊〉▪ and that 〈…〉 ●aught at Coverdale for keeping 〈…〉 have been his wife; he came to confute and to conv●●● 〈◊〉 famous University, and there in the pulpit told his audience, he would 〈◊〉 of the Controversy of the Real presence: having therefore first vehemently inveighed against such as murmured at his keeping a woman▪ which he termed va● 〈◊〉, he added, that he ought to be credited in the dispute of the Eucharist, for that having inquired into the diversity of opinions, and examined the Catholics Transubstantiation, the Lutherans Impanation, the Zwinglians ●●re figurative presence, the Calvinists addition to 〈…〉 certain efficacy, and energy of grace, he could deli●er 〈◊〉 them what he had found out at last after 14 years' stud● 〈…〉 matter: having spoken thus in very good earnest, most then thought he was distracted, for none in his 〈◊〉 could seriously endeavour to persuade Christians to build their 〈◊〉 upon a f●llows fancy 〈◊〉 confessed, himself knew not what to believe for the space of 14 years until that present▪ wherein at length he professed to take a new way of his own, different from all others that until then had been professed either by Roman catholics, or others. But if Protestants take his falls Translation for 〈◊〉 word of God, with 〈◊〉 doubt they will not scruple to take his fantastical opinion for the sense of Scripture, and rely ●pon his fond Interpretation of these words, This is my body.  
These were the prime Apostles and first Founders of the Protestant Church of England▪ this the Scripture which they delivered to the people for God's word; These the men whose sincerity the English Clergy doth now defend, imitat, and rely ●pon; men, who to enjoy Benefices and women, persuaded silly souls to become the devil's Martyrs in Q. Mary's days; making them believe that Tindal and Coverdales' fal● Translations were the very word of God, and every on's private Interpretation the right sense of the holy Ghost. This the poor people erroneously and obstinately maintained, after that such of these their Masters as could escape, fled begond the seas, and left their Proselits in the lurch, when them-selves could not any longer enjoy Bishoprics and wenches here in England, Ambition and sensuality led them into novelties, which most of them-selves knew to be heresies, though once engaged therein (according to the custom of heretics) many refused to recant, and would needs cast them-selves into the fire, to die, forsooth, with their honour which they vainly imagined lay at the stake, and could not be preserved, if them-selves were not tied to a stake. Fox tells us how Laurence Sanders a Priest was so fond of his wench and child, that seeing his little son, rejoiced more to have such a boy, then if 2000 pounds were given him &c. saying what man fearing God, would not lose his life present, rather than by prolonging it here, he should adjudge this boy to be a bastard, his wife a whore, and himself a whoremonger, yea (saith he) if there were no other cause for which a man of my estate should lose his life, yet who would not give it to avouch this Child to be legitimat, and his mother's marriage to be lawful and holy; upon such motives was the obstinacy of this Clergy grounded in dying. How little the poor Tinkers, Tanners, Cobblers, Spinsers, and simple women could say for the errors in maintenance whereof they would needs die, you may guests by their incontinent Priests, and their Patriarch, 
Fox pag. 136● first edit,  and Apostle Cranmers answers for his new saith; which I will copy out of Fox himself, who excuseth the weakness and absurdity thereof, by saying (pag. 2053.) that he believes the Notary (who was Bishop jevell chosen by Cranmer himself) did conceal the Archbishop's answers, to favour the sea of Rome. But than Fox ought to have supplied Ievell● ' defect, and have showed how Cranmer might, (and probably did) answer the popish arguments; and not con●●●t himself with telling us that the reporter leaveth the 〈◊〉 raw and weak on Doctor Cranmers side. Thus then saith Fox.   

SUBSECT IV. Talk between Doctor Martin and the Archbishop, related by Fox.  DOctor Martin. 
You have told here a long glorious tale etc. you say you have once sworn to K. Henry 8. against the Pope's jurisdiction, and ther●●●e you may never forswear the same etc. Here Mr. Cranmer I will ask you a question or two; what if you made a● Oath to a Harlot to live with her in continual adultery, ought you to keep it?  Cranmer. 
I think no.  Doctor Martin. 
Herod did swear what soever his har●●● asked of him, he would give her, and he gave her john Baptist's head etc. Then Mr. Cranmer, you can no less confess but that you ought not to have conscience of every oath, but if it be just, lawful, and advisedly taken.  Cranmer. 
So was my oath.  Martin. 
That is not so; for first it was unjust, for it tended to the taking away of an other man's right: It was not lawful, for the law● of God and the Church were against it. Besides, it was not voluntary, for every man and woman were compelled to take it.  Cranmer. 
It pleaseth you to say so.  Martin. 
Let all the world be Judge, But Sir, you that pretend to have such a conscience to break an Oath, I pray you did you never swear and break the same?  Cranmer. 
I remember not.  Martin. 
I will help your memory; did you never swear obedience to the Sea of Rome?  Cranmer. 
In deed I did once swear unto the same.  Martin. 
Yea that you did twice, as appeareth by records and writings here ready to be showed.  Cranmer. 
But I remember I saved all by a Protestation that I made, by the Council of the best learned men I could get at that time.  Martin. 
Harken good people what this man saith, he made a protestation on day, to keep never a whit of that which he would swear the next day: was this the part of a christian man? But will you have the truth of the matter? King Henry 8. even then meant the lamentable change, which after you see came to pass: and to further his pitiful proceedings from the divorcement of his most lawful wife, to the detestable departing from the unity of Christ's Church, this man made the foresaid protestation; and on the other side he letted not to make two solemn oaths quite contrary, and why? for otherwise by the laws and Canons of this Realm, he could not aspire to the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  Cranmer. 
I protest before you all, there was never man came more unwilling to a Bishopric than I did to that: In so much that when King Henry 8. did send for me in post, that I should come over, I prolonged my journey by seven weeks at the least, thinking that he would be forgetful of me in the mean time.  Martin. 
You declare well by the way, that the King took you to be a man of a good conscience, who could not find within all his Realm, any man that would set forth his strange attempts, but was enforced to send for you in post to come out of Germany; what may we conjecture thereby, but that there was a compact between you (being then Queen An's Chaplyn) and the King: give me the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and I will give you licence to live in adultery.  Cranmer. 
You say not true.  Martin. 
Let your protestation joined with the rest of your Talks, give Judgement. 〈…〉. Of that your execrable perjury, and his coloured, and too shamefully suffered adultery, 〈◊〉 heresy and all mis-chief to this Realm.  
And now to answer 〈…〉 of your Oration wherein you bring 〈◊〉 God's 〈…〉 you have it on your side, and no man else, and 〈◊〉 the Pope hath devised a new Scripture contrary to the Scriptures of God, you play here in as the Pharisees did, which cried always Verbum Domini, Verbum Domini, when they mean nothing so. This bettereth not your case, because you say, you have God's word for you: for so Basilides, and Photinus the Heretics said, that they had God's word to maintain there Heresy. So Nestorius, so Macedonius, so Pelagius, and briefly all the Heretics that ever were; yea and so the Devil being Father of Heresies, alleged God's word for him, saying, Scriptum est, it is written: so said he to Christ mitt● to deorsum, cast thyself downward, saith he; and so taught you to cast all things downward, down with the Sacrament, down with Muss, down with the Arms of Christ; and up with a Lion, and a Dog, down with Abbeys, down with Chauntrers, down with Hospitals and Colleges, down with fasting and prayer, yea down with all that is good and Godly etc. And therefore tell us not, you have God's word, for God had given us by his word a mark to know that your teaching proceeded not of God, but of the Devil etc. For Christ said there shall come against his Church ravening wolves, and false Apostles: And by their fruits ye shall know them. What be their fruits St. Paul declareth, After the flesh they walk in concupiscence, and uncleaness they contemn Potentates etc. Whether these be not the fruits of your Gospel, I refer me to this worshipful Audience; whether the said Gospel began not with perjury, proceeded with adultery, was maintained with heresy, and ended in Conspiracy.  
Now Sir, two points more I marked in your raging discourse that you made here: the one against the holy Sacrament, the other against the Pope's jurisdiction, and the Authority of the Sea Apostolic. Touching the first, you say you have God's word with you, yea and all Doctors. I would here ask but one Question of you: whether God's word be contrary to itself, and whether the Doctors teach doctrine contrary to them-selves, or no▪ For, you Mr. Cranmer, have taught in this High Sacrament of the Altar three contrary doctrines, and you pretend in every one Verbum Domini the word of God.  Cranmer. 
Nay I taught but two contrary doctrines in the same.  Martin. 
What doctrine taught you when you condemned Lambert the Sacramentary in the King's presence in Whitehall?  Cranmer. 
I maintained then the Popish doctrine.  Martin. 
That is to say the Catholic and Universal doctrine of Christ's Church; and how when King Henry died? did you not translate Justus Ionas Book?  Cranmer. 
I did so.  Martin. 
Then there you defended an other doctrine touching the Sacrament: by the same token, that you sent to Lynne your printer, that whereas in the first print there was an affirmative that is to say, Christ's body realy in the Sacrament, you sent then to your printer to put in a Not, whereby it came miraculously to pass, that Christ's body was clean conveyed out of the Sacrament.  Cranmer. 
I remember there were two prints of my said Book, but where the same (Not) was put in, I can not tell.  Martin. 
Then from a Lutheran you became a Zwinglian, which is the vilest heresy of all in the high mystery of the Sacrament, and for the same heresy you did help to burn Lambert the Sacramentary, which you now call the Catholic faith and God's word.  Cranmer. 
I grant that then I believed otherwise then I do now, and so I did until my Lord of London Doctor Ridley did confer with me, and by sundry persuasions and authorities of Doctors, ●●●ew me quite from my opinion.  Martin. 
Now Sir as ●ouching the last part of your Oration, you denied that the Pope's Holiness was supreme head of the Church of Christ.  Cranmer. 
I did so.  Martin. 
Who say you 〈…〉 head?  Cranmer. 
Christ.  Martin. 
But whom hath Christ 〈◊〉 here in earth his Vic●● and head of his Church?  Cranmer. 
No body.  Martin. 
Ah, why ●ould you not King Henry this when you made him supreme head? and now no body is. This is treason against his own person, as you then made him.  Cranmer. 
I mean not but every King in his own Realm and Dominion is supreme head, and so was he supreme head of the Church of Christ in England.  Martin. 
Is this always true? and was it ever so?  Cranmer. 
It was so.  Martin. 
Then what say you by Nero: he was the mightiest Prince upon the earth after Christ was ascended. Was he the head of Christ's Church?  Cranmer. 
Nero was Peter's head.  Martin. 
I ask whether Nero was head of the Church or no? If he were not, it is falls that you said before, that all Princes be and ever were heads of the Church within their Realms.  Cranmer. 
Nay, it is 〈◊〉 for Nero was head of the Church, that is, in worldly respect of the temporal bodies of men, of whom the Church consisteth: for so he beheaded Peter and the Apostles. And the Turck too is head of the Church of Turkey.  Martin. 
Then he that beheaded the heads of the Church, and crucified the Apostles, was head of Christ's Church; and h● that was never member of the Church, is head of the Church, by your new found understanding of God's word.  
After th●se and divers other questions to the same purpose, Doctor Brooks Bishop of Gloucester spoke thus to Cranmer, you have been conferred with all, not once, nor twice, but often times, you have been oft lovingly admonised, you have oft been secretly disputed with and the last year, in the open schools, in open disputations you have been openly convicted, you have been openly driven out of the schools with hisses; your Book which you brag you made seven years ago, and no man answered it, Marcus Antonius hath sufficiently detected, and confuted, and you persist still in your wont heresy; Wherefore (being so oft admonished, conferred withal, and convicted) if you deny you to be the man whom the Apostle noteth (haereticum hominem) hear then what Origen saith, who wrote above 1300. years ago, and interpreteth the saying of the Apostle in this wise (in Apologia Pamphili) Haereticus est omnis ille habendus qui Christo se credere profitetur, & aliter de Christi veritate sentit quam se habet Ecclesiastica traditio. He is to be deemed an heretic who professeth to believe in Christ, and yet judgeth otherwise of Christ's truth then the tradition of the Church doth hold etc. Wherefore I can no other but put you in the number of them whom Chrysostom spoke of saying, Hear o thou Christian man; wilt thou do more than Christ? Christ confuted the Pharisees, yet could he not put them to silence: & fortior es tu Christo? and art thou stronger than Christ? etc. Thus much have I said, not for you M. r Cranmer, for my hope I conceived of you, is now gone and past, but in some what to satisfy the rude and unlearned people, that they perceiving your arrogant lying, and lying arrogancy, may the better eschew your detestable and abominable schism.  
Two things I wish the Reader did observe in this conference, 1. What a fair Trial Cranmer and all other protetestants had before they were sentenced to death for heresy in Q. Mary's days: they were heard speak for them-selves, and reason for their opinions in public; such as desired it, had time and Books given them to answer; and further time to correct their answers; whereas Catholic Priests are not permitted to reason for their Religion in public by word of mouth, much less are they allowed time or books to defend the same by writing. 2. How little the most learned protestants could or can say for their pre●ended 〈…〉? and by consequence how obstinate they 〈…〉 upon that account; and how well origen's 〈◊〉 of heretics agreed, to Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest of their learned Martyrs, and to all the Protestant Clergy, seeing they reject Ecclesiastical Tradition, and that sense of Scripture which the Church delivered from age to age, following their own private fancies, and fond Interpretations. But from their Martyrised Clergy, let us go to the Confessors and Doctors of their Church in Q. Mary's days, who were the same that revived protestancy in Queen Elizabeth's reign.    

SECT: III. Of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Mary's Reign, the same that afterwards founde● queen Elizabeth's Church. The●● frauds, Factions, Cheats, and changes of the English Protestant Religion during their Exile in Germany.  
AS many of the English Protestant Clergy of King Eduard 6. as escaped the severity of the ancient laws made against Heretics, which were revived by Queen Mary, retired themselves to Germany and Zuitzerland, but found not that pity and welcome they expected from their Brethren of the Reformation; The English had made a Religion of their own, which was neither fully Lutheran Zwinglian, nor Calvinian; their Liturgy was dislicked by all; 
See Dr. heylin's Ecclesia resta 〈◊〉 Queen Mary pag. 80.  only their doctrine against the Real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament was approved by some Zwinglians, but so condemned by the Lutherans, that their Martyrs who suffered in England upon that score, were called the devil's martyrs by other Protestants; and they who harboured any of their banished Clergy in Germany, 
Melancton in epitome 8. ubi vociferantur quidam, Martyrs Anglicos, esse Martyres diaboli. Jbid. pa. 80  were hated by their reformed-neighbors. For stopping the course (saith Heylin) of these uncharitable Censures, it was thought fit to translate from English into Latin, Cranmers' Book of the Sacrament, and forthwith see it printed; but he doth not tell us which of Cranmers Books; that of Henry 8. or that of King Edward 6.? We may be sure if he means Cranmers Book of King Henry 8. time his book and words were altered, that they might agree with the Lutheran Consubstantiation in Germany, which Cranmer durst not defend in his Book of Henry▪ 8. date; and his Book of Edward 6. was wholly Zuinglian or Sacramentarian, which could not please Lutherans. So that the good English Church and Clergy in Germany, made them-selves and Cranmer Lutherans, to avoid persecution, and obtain favour in their sufferings, after having maintained the quite contrary doctrine in their own Country, and exhorted their flocks to die for that Religion which them-selves now disowned.  
This is not all, the like course was taken also at Geneva (saith Heylin) by the English exiles, 
Jbidem  by publishing in the Latin tongue a discourse writ by Bishop Ridley on the self same argument (the Sacrament of the Altar) to the end it might appear unto all the world how much their Brethren had been wronged in these odious calumnies. So that the English Protestant Clergy in Germany, among the Lutherans printed a Book, and in Geneva a Calvinian discourse concerning the real presence, and owned both as the doctrine of the Church of England; for Ridley (as you may observe in his disputation at Oxford set down at large by Fox in his Acts and Monuments) was a Calvinist in that ●oint. Was not this a Holy Church that taught contrary 〈…〉 at least doctrine so uncertain that it might be applied 〈◊〉 contrary Tenets? was it not a sincere and sacred Clergy, that could fra●● them-selves and the profession of their 〈◊〉 to all 〈◊〉 how ever so disagreeing? But let us proceed.  
The greatest number of the●e exiled Confessors were received in Frankford upon condition th●y should conform them-selves unto the French Huguenots in doctrine and ceremonies, 
Heylin. Ecclesia restaurata in Queen Mary pa 39 & seqq.  which the holy men did so readily, that Doctor Heylin (who relates all these passages) doubts whether the conditions were imposed upon them by the Magistrates, or ●ought by them-selves. The chief heads of this English Congregation at Francford were Wittingham, Williams, Goodman, Wood, and Sutton, to whom afterwards came Knox and White●ead. The first thing they did was, to alter and dis-figure (saith Heyl●●) the English Liturgy, which proceeding was not approved of by Grindall, Horn, Sandys, Chambers, and Pakhurst: Calvin therefore was consulted as their common Father, his answer was, that in the English Liturgy, he had observed many 〈◊〉 fooleries: that being, therwas not manifest impiety in it, it had been tolerated for a reason, because at first it could not otherwise be admitted: but however though it was lawful to begin with such beggarly rudiments, yet it behoved the learned, grave, and godly Ministers of Christ, to endeavour farther, and set forth something more refined from filth and uncleaness.  
How great a Cheat Calvin was, had been partly said heretofore, but whosoever desires to be fully informed of his particular villainies, and hypocrisy, let him read his life written by jerom Bolseck Anno 1577. There he will find how Calvin continued to practise his execrable Sodomy, adultery etc. How he compassed the Heretic Servetus his death under the pretence of Heresy, though Calvin himself wrote a book a little before to prove that no Heretic ought to be put to death for his Religion; but the true cause o● his quarrel to Servetus was the frauds and falsifications that Servetus had discovered in Calvin's Institutions, and published them. How he banished from Geneva divers Ministers, and Gentlemen that did not favour his way, and how he forged letters, and suborned an Italian, to make Peter Wald●●●●●, and the Bal●asars, Traitors; but they cleared them-selves, and the Lords of Bern gave public Testimony of their innocency, and of Calvin's knavery. How this Cheat (to make himself famous) devised divers letters and other works in praise of himself, and published them under the name of one Galatius, and others. But Peter Veretus Minister of Lausa●a found out the truth, and threatened to discredit Calvin, who (to pacify Veretus) writ to him that it was expedient by such means to get in credit for their cause, and that he meant shortly to do as much in the commendation of him, and Farellus also, and so stopped his mouth. How Calvin after that he had broken and defaced the Jmages of Christ, and Saints in Geneva, caused his own picture to be set up in divers places, and used also to give little pictures and Images of himself to Gentlewomen and Gentlemen to carry about their necks. And when on told him that some thought much of this, he answered, he that cannot abide it, let him burst for envy. And twenty more the like. But from their Apostle Calvin, let us return to his flock the English exiled Clergy.  
This Sentence of Calvin (saith Heylin) was of such prevalency with all the rest of that party, 
Heylin cit. pag. 61.  that such who formerly did approve, did afterwards as much dislike the English Liturgy; and those who at first had conceived only a dislike, grew afterwards into an open detestation of it. But in the end, to give content to such as remained affected to the former Liturgy, it was agreed upon that a mixed form, consisting partly of the order of Geneva, and partly of the Book of England, should be digested, and received till the first of April, consideration in the mean time to be had of some other course which should be permanent, and obliging for the time to come.  
Here the Reader may observe the hypocrisy, and impiety of this Protestant Cler●●▪ In England they imposed this Liturgy upon the whole Kingdom, as agreeable to the word of God, and the work was pretended to have been composed by the assistence of the Holy Ghost (words of the Statut whereby it was made legal) and thousands of Catholics were slain in many shires of England by the Protector's forces, because they would no● accept of it in steed of the Mass; and now they who preached, and pressed this violence against Recusants, contemn and reject their own doctrine and discipline. But as soon as Queen Elizabeth was in possession of the Crown these very men who in Germany had so often changed, and condemned their English Liturgy and Religion, now (to become Bishops) turned again in England with the times, and were the chief 〈◊〉 of that Church. 
Pag. 60. Queen Marry.  Horn was named to the Sea of Winchester, Grindal to that of London, Sandys to Worcester, Parkhurst to Norwich; and Whitehead was offered (if you believe Heylin) the Archbishopric of Canterbury etc. And being thus exalted, were never contented, until they had penal and sanguinary Statutes enacted against Priest's and Popish Recusants, for not conforming to that doctrine and Liturgy these godly Prelates had so much slighted and altered in Germany, and postponed to calvin's discipline: and were ready to do the same or worse again in England, if occasion had been offered.  
After that the English Liturgy had been thus forsaken and despised in Germany, D. r K●x, who had been Schoolmaster and Almon●er to King Edward 6. arrived at Frankford▪ and could with no patience (saith Heylin) endure the rejection of that Liturgy, in the drawing up whereof himself had a principal hand, and therefore disturbs the new discipline; Wittingham and Knox procured an Order from the Magistrate against Kox his des●ign; but Kox accuseth Knox for treason against the Emperor, and therefore Knox is commanded by the Senate to depart from Frankford▪ Kox procures Whitehead to be chosen for the principal Pastor, appoints two Ministers for Elders, and four Deacons for Assistants; then gives an account to Calvin, excusing himself that he had proceeded so far without his consent. By the way you may see that Kox was then a good Calvinist in discipline, though afterwards he became a Prelatic 1. Eliz. when he got the Bishopric of Ely. Whitehead not able to rule such a contentious Congregation, resigned his place to Horn, between whom and on Ashley were such factions and divisions, that Horn with his Elders were forced to forsake their Offices; and Ashleys' party got the better, 
Heylin cit. pag. 63.  and composed a Book of discipline, according to the rules whereof the Congregation was governed. The Magistrate not able to agree the difference, sends for Cox and Sandys to compose it, but to no purpose: They who stood for Ashley's new discipline, got the power into their hands, whereupon Horn and Chambers depart to Strazburg. Such were the troubles and disorders (saith Heylin) in the Church of Frankford, occasioned first by a dislike of their public Liturgy, before which they preferred the nakedness and simplicity of the French and Genevian Churches, and afterwards continued by the opposition made by the general Body of the Congregation against such as were appointed to be Pastors and Rulers over them.  
An other argument of the sincerity, and Religion of this Clergy is, that during the Reign of Queen Mary in England they taught and printed that the Government of women is against the Law of nature, and not to be endured by Christians; but as soon as she died, they writ and preached the quite contrary in favour of Queen Elizabeth, whom they were not content to make temporal head of the commonwealth, but supreme Governess of the Church in all Spiritual affairs; we have seen their proceedings in Queen Mary's days, now to Queen Elizabeth's.   

SECT: IU. Abominable Frauds, and wilful Falsifications of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Elizabeth's reign, to maintain their doctrine, set forth under the name of an Apology, and defence of the Church of England.  
AFter that Queen Elizabeth (by giving hopes to the Earl of Arundel that she would marry him, 
Schism Angl. pag. 107.  and by promising▪ other favours to the Duke of Norfolck) had by their solicitations gained most of the nobility, 
Dr Heylin 1. Eliz. pag. 107.  and the Lords and Gentlemen who had the managing of elections in their several Counties, had retained such men for 〈◊〉 of the House of Commons, as they conceived mo●● likely to comply with the Queen's new design in reviving that Religion, which but five years before, them-selves and the whole Kingdom had rejected as damnable heresy and groundless novelty, devised by some l●w'd revolted Friars▪ and Priests▪ and had observed how all sober and conscientious men we●● troubled to see so shameful a change, introduced only for maintaining the weakness of a title against the clear right of the Stewards; and fearing least this scruple might spread, and work upon the consciences of the illiterate multitude, 
D. r Heylin Eccl: restaur. Q. Elizabeth pag. 103.  it was thought fit to command Bishop jewel (the fittest man for so impudent an undertaking) to assert the antiquity of the particular Tenets of the New Church of England; and so in form of a Challenge against all Roman Catholics he published at Paul's Cross that the Religion which the Queen and Parliament had then established by Law, was no novelty, nor new invented sense of Scripture, but the same which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered to the Church, and all Orthodox Christians held for the first 600. years; which thing he undertaken to demonstrat by undeniable Testimonies of the Holy Fathers that lived in those six first Centuries.  
The words of this Challenge we have set down heretofore, 
part. 3. Sect. 1.  as also the confutation thereof. One Rastal having writ against this challenge, jewel together with the rest of the Bishops, and learned Protestant Clergy, composed that famous Apology for the Church of England both in Latin and English; it came out first in the name of their whole Church, though I believe jewel had the wording of it, because afterwards his name was set to it, and to the defence thereof; but without doubt all the able men of the English Clergy had their hands and heads in the work. Against it divers appeared in print, Stapleton, Sanders, and Harding: whereupon (saith Dean Walsingham in his search of Religion pag. 166.) Mr. jewel within few years after set forth the reply to D. r Harding, which was esteemed to have been made by joint labours of the most learned men in England, both in London, and the Universities.  
But in these their labours they were convicted of a thousand and odd falsifications, 
Harding in his rejoind erto Mr. jewel's reply 1556. in his epistle to the Reader.  and yet (saith Harding) of 26. articles, only five have passed our examination: Imagine then what number is like to rise of the whole work; I will mention but one or two of every controversy, I hope that is sufficient to prove, that no one point wherein Protestants differ from Roman Catholics, can be maintained, even by the most learned Protestants, without frauds, falsehoods, and impostures, And do choose to instance particulars out of this Apology, and defence of the Church of England, because it is not only the work of their first Bishops and Clergy, 
Dr. Heylin in his Eccles. restaurata hist. Q Eliz. p. 130. & 131  and the very bulwark of their Church, but (as D. r Heylin truly says) the Magazine from whence all the Protestant Controversies since that time have furnished them-selves with arguments and authorities. We will omit most of their corruptions of Scripture in the Apology because we have convicted them elsewhere of that crime; but that they may not imagine we what matter even in this work of theirs, let the curious read 〈…〉 Epistle to M. r Jewel, set before his return 〈◊〉 untruths, where he tells him, you have falsifyed and mangled the very Text of Holy Scripture, namely of Saint Paul, in one Chapter nine times; as the reader may see in the third article of his Book fol. 107.  

SUBSECT I. The Protestant Clergy convicted of falsehood in their Apology concerning Communion under one kind.  
BIshop jewel and his Associates maintain with most Protestants, that to receive the B. Sacrament 〈◊〉 one kind only, is against the institution of Christ● and therefore could not be allowed nor practised by the Church, nor ever was, during the first six hundred years. So that the Controversy between the Church of England, and Harding, is, whether in the first 600. years after Christ any Communion were ministered under one kind, 
Euseb. in Hist. Eccles. lib 6. c. 36. jewel reply pag. 134.  or no▪ which they (under the name of M. r Jewel) deny, against whom Harding giveth an instance out of the Ecclesiastical History of one Serapian, that was Communicated in his death under one kind only. Mr. jewel seeing himself convicted, replieth; That it is not our question, we understand not of private Communion, but of public in the Church; and yet in the first proposing of the Question there was no mention of the Church, or Public; and the whole controversy between Catholics and Protestants is, whether with out breach of Christ's Institution, any man might communicate under one kind only.  
Then Mr. jewel is demanded whether if it may be proved that sick persons have received the Communion under one kind in the Church, it will satisfy him? where to he answereth, no: saying, the only thing that I denied is, that ye are not able to bring any one sufficient example, or authority, 
jewel pag. 132.  that ever the whole people received the Communion in open Church in one kind within that time; then he is urged further, whether if it can be proved that in closely chapels, and Oratories, in wilderness and caves, in time of persecution the communion was practised under one kind, this would satisfy him, for so muc● as this proveth Christ's Institution not to forbid Communion under one kind? But M. r jewel leapeth also from this, saying, the question is whether the Holy Communion were ever ministered openly in the Church? It being manifest that for the first 300. years until Constantin's time, the Christians in most places, particularly at Rome, had no open Churches, but private Oratories, and caves. At length being demanded whether Infants receiving the Communion under one kind openly in the Church, was a sufficient example? Jewel answereth, Mr. Harding maketh his whole plea upon an Jnfant, and yet of Infants, as he knoweth, I spoke nothing.  
Mr. Harding presseth him with the example of the two disciples, 
Luc. 24. Chrysost. ho. 17. in Math. Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 3.6.25. de serm. 140. Theophil. alii  to whom Christ our Saviour did give the Communion under one kind only at Emaus, as by the Text of Scripture, and Jnterpretation of ancient Fathers is plain, he allegeth also the examples of S. t Ambrose, and S. t Basil, who received the Sacrament under one kind, though they were Priests. Whereunto M. r jewel answereth, this is not to the purpose, for the question is moved, of lay people, M. r Harding bringeth examples of Christ, and two disciples who were of the number of 72. and therefore it may well be thought they were ministers, and not of the lay sort, I demanded of the laity, M. r Harding answereth of St. Ambrose, and St. Basil which were Bishops. Which evasion is not only fraudulent, but foolish, as if, forsooth, Priests and Bishops might receive and communicate under one kind, lay men might not: But any weak answer is sufficient for credulous people to persist in obstinacy.  
At length being convicted by his Adversary of an example where the laity and whole people received openly under one kind, and in the Church, he answereth, this is not sufficient, for, saith he, the point demanded is, that the Sacrament was never ministered unto the people under one kind only in any Congregation, or in open order and usage of any Church, and that it will not follow that this was the common order of the Church. By which new addition of Common, Order, and Usage, the whole state of the Question is changed, and jewel convicted as you see▪ of many frauds, and falsehoods. And not only he, but all the Protestant Clergy, who notwithstanding the acknowledged evidence, and their conviction (by these examples and many others, whereof they are not ignorant) that Christ did not command the Communion to be given under both kinds to the Laity (nor even to Priests when they do not o●●er Sacrifice) yet are they so inconscionable as to impose upon illiterate people, that they ought not to be of the Roman Catholic Church, because we deprive them (contrary to Christ's Institution and precept) of one half of the Communion, without which they cannot be saved.   

SUBSECT II. How jewel and the Church of England make the very same Holy Fathers they appealed unto in other matters, wicked Heretics, because they condemned Priests marriage.  
JEwel's Adversaries having quoted against his bold assertions the unanswerable sayings of sundry Fathers of the first 600. years condemning the marriage of Priests and Votaries; the English Clergy, (by Jewel's pen) rather than acknowledge their error, and relinquish their wenches, 
Jewel def. of the Apology fol. 222.  and pretended wives, resolved to declare the holy Father's Heretics, saying, divers of the holy Fathers have written over basely, I will not say vildly and scandalously, of the state of matrimony in general, calling it in all kind of men, fornication, an evil thing, and like to adultery: Therefore I say they may much less be taken as indifferent judges in Priests marriages. So that the Church of England in their Apology, and Protestants now a days would fain make the ancient Fathers, and all who write against the marriage of Priests, to be those heretic's St Paul said would teach doctrine of Devils, 
1. Tim. 4. ● & 3.  and speak against marriage in general; witness jewel with the first Bishops and Clergy of Queen Elizabeth. But because Jewel, and his fellow Bishops would not seem to want examples of holy Bishops that were actualy husbands, they corrupt the Ecclesiastical History, and belly the Authors thereof (Niceph. lib. 10. Hist. c. 10. Zozon. lib. 5. c. 11. Cassiod. lib. 6. cap. 14.) and pretend that they recount how Eusychius Bishop (saith jewel) of Cesaraea, died in martyrdom, 
Apol. defence▪ pag. 176.  having married a wife a little before; whereas the said Authors have not on word of his being Bishop, or Priest; but rather do evidently show that he was a lay nobleman, Patricius Cesaraeae Cappadociae, a Sentaor's son of that City, highly commended, for that having newly married a wife, yet was so constant in his martyrdom. In like manner do they falsify (Apol. 2. c. 8.) St. Gregory Nazianzen, Pretending he saith, speaking of his own Father, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serve in the Ministry never the worse for that he is married, but rather the better; and this falsification being objected by Harding, jewel and his Comrades, prove it by pretending that St. Gregory acknowledged his mother was his father's Teacher, and leader in Ecclesiastical functions (as perhaps some Protestant Bishops wives are) whereas it is evident that the Saint spoke of his father when he was not a Christian, and because he was converted by his Mother, a● St. Monica converted St. Austin's Father, see Harding detect. fol. 63.   

SUBSECT III. Bishop jewel and his Associates wickedness in Charging Cardinal Hosius and all Catholics with a contempt of Holy Scripture against their own knowledge, and after that they had been admonished of the imposture.  
CArdinal Hosius in his Book de expresso verbo Dei, as also in an other de haeresibus, against Brentius; complained of the multitude of Sects and Heresies sprung up in our days, all of them pretending Scripture for their ground. So far forth that Luther himself seeing the event thereof, said the Bible was now become liber haereticorum, the Book of Heretics: and then further the same Cardinal showing that there was a new later brood sprung up of Zuinck feldian Heretics, who by pretence of Scripture did take away all authority of written Scriptures, persuading men only to attend to inspirations and inward revelations, alleging for that their doctrine the words of the Psalm, I will hear what the Lord speaketh in me, and many other such Texts misconstred; Mr. jewel and the English Protestant Clergy would needs publish this as Hosius his own words, sense, and meaning, with great outcries and invectives against both him, the Pope, and all Catholics, as though we had been of opinion that all written Scriptures were to be rejected: (as may be seen in his Apology both in Latin and English, and Doctor Harding's confutation of the same:) and notwithstanding that before this Apology was printed in Latin they were told of his mistake, yet they would needs have it pass.  
And when the said Apology was translated into English, they were put again in mind of his malicious and fraudulent dealing, and earnestly desired to correct this wilful mistake, but they rather did aggravate the calumny then confess their error; for they commanded it should be printed, and sought by some additions in the English Text more than was in the Latin, to justify this former villainy; Hearken saith the Apology how holily, and how Godly on Hosius writeth of this matter, a Bishop in Polonia, as he testifieth of himself, 
Jewel Apol cap. 19 divis. l. & in defen. fol. 517.  a man doubtless well spoken, and not unlearned, and a very sharp and stout Maintainer of that side. Thou wilt marvel I suppose how any good man could either conceive so wickedly, or write so despitefully of those words, which he knew proceeded from God's mouth, and especially in such sort as he would not have it seem his own private opinion alone, but the common opinion of all that Band. He dissembleth, I grant you indeed, and hideth what he is, and setteth forth the matter so, as though it were not he and his side, but the Zuink feldian Heretics that so did speak: We (saith he) will bid away with the Scriptures, whereof we see brought, not only divers, but all contrary Interpretations; we will hear God speak, rather than resort to the naked elements, or bare words of the Scripture etc.  
Having written this and other such speeches as proceeding from Hosius; jewel and his Comrades conclude thus. This is Hosius his saying, uttered together with the same spirit, and the same mind, wherewith in times past Montanus and Martion were moved etc. And then exclaims against all Papists in these words? what shall I say here, O ye principal posts of Religion? and ye Arch-Governors of Christ's Church? Is this your reverence which you give to God's word? to bid them avaunt away etc. no marvel if these men despise us and all our doings, which set so little by God himself, and his infallible saying. Thus they write and inveigh against Hosius, and all the Roman Church, even after they knew, and had been twice admonished that the whole ground was falls and forged by them-selves.  
Hosius his own words are, there is sprung up a certain new kind of Prophets, who have not been afraid by the authority of Scripture, to take away all authority from the Scripture. Behold whither Satan at length hath brought this matter etc. And after, Nihil Scripturâ sanctius, etc. Nothing is more holy than Scripture, nothing more noble or excellent, there is nothing next to God himself more worthy of all veneration and reverence: but what thing can there be so holy, which the enemy of mankind may not abuse to man's destruction etc. Thus Hosius: how hardly his words could be wrested, or mistaken by jewel and his Confederates, all the world may see, and aught to detest a Reformation, that can not be otherwise maintained, then by such palpable impostu●es.   

SUBSECT IV. Falsificatïons and Frauds against the Bishop of Rome his supremacy.  
JEwel and his Associates citing a Constitution of the Emperor justinian, against the Pope's supremacy, say: 
Reply pag. 239.  The Emperor's words stand thus, Sancimus etc. Senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum: Beatissimum autem Archiepiscopum Constantinopolios novae Romae secundum habere locum: which words Mr. jewel Englisheth thus, We ordain that the Pope of the elder Rome shall be the first of all Priests, and that the most holy Archbishop of Constantinople, which is named new Rome, have the second place. Of which Mr. jewel and the English Church infer, that the Pope's Authority, and preeminency in those days consisted only in sitting in the first place; and that this dignity also was given him by the secular power of the Emperor: First, jewel and his Comrades, by ●n etc. did hope to make the Emperor spiritual head of the Church, and by consequence derive the same prerogative to all secular Princes in their own Dominions; for they fraudulently omitted the words whereby the whole matter is cleared; the words as they stand in the Constitution of justinian, are these: Sancimus secundum Canonum definitiones, sanctissimum senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum etc. we do ordain, according to the determination of the Canons etc. But had they not concealed these words, they had discovered the weackness of their doctrine of the Queen's supremacy, because those few words according to the definition of the Canons, import, that this ordination or declaration of the Emperor was grounded upon the authority of the Canons of the Church, which he did but confirm, and command the execution of the Decrees and Declarations of Counsels by his Imperial power.  
The second fraud is, that they translate, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum, thus, that he shall be the first of all Priests:, whereas the Emperor useth the present tense, declaring that the Pope is the Chief of all Priests, not shall be. By jewel's falls Translation they intended to impose upon such as understand not Latin (or at least are so careless as not to compare this Text with the English) that Popes had not been the first or chief of all Priests before that Decree of justinian; and that spiritual supremacy came to them by virtue thereof.  
Not content with this fraud, they add an other in the very next words of this Constitution, which are these: We ordain also that the most Holy Archbishop of Justiniana the first, which is our Country, shall have for ever under his jurisdiction the Bishops of the Provinces, of Dacia, Dania, Dardania, Mysia, and Panonia, and that they shall be invested by him, and he only by his own Council, and that he in the Provinces subject unto him, shall have the place of the Apostolic sea of Rome etc. Out of which words Mr. jewel and his English Prelatic Clergy infer thus, here we see the Bishop of justiniana set in as high authority and power with in his own jurisdiction, as the Bishop of Rome with in his. But had they been as honest as the Protestant Laity take them to be, all the world might have seen the Roman truth, and their falsehood; for they deceitfully cut of the ensuing words that expound and declare the whole matter: the words cut of are, secundum ea quae sanctus Papa Vigilius constituit; we ordain that these things shall be done and observed▪ according to that which the Holy Pope Vigilius had constituted; so that as in the former decree the Emperor professeth himself to have ordained according to the definitions of the Canons, so here in particular he professeth to have confirmed the Constitutions of the holy Pope Vigilius, who had made the Archbishop of justiniana to be his legate, and to hold the place of the Apostolic Sea of Rome in those Provinces: not unlike to that of St. Gregory, 
Bede lib. 1. cap. 27.  who according to venerable Bede in his history, gave the like Authority to St. Augustin our first Archbishop of Canterbury, by which Concession they have always been called Legati nati sedis Apostolicae.  
Not content to conceal the words and the truth of Imperial Decrees, and Ecclesiastical Histories, jewel and the English Clergy were neither ashamed nor afraid to corrupt Scripture to the same purpose against the Pope's supremacy. For, pretending that the words of Christ to St. Peter, Thou art a Rock, 
Scripture corrupted.  and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and again, feed my Lambs, feed my sheep, were spoken as well to all the Apostles as to St. Peter; in the Apology of the Church of England, is quoted for proof hereof an other saying of our Saviour, Quod uni dico, omnibus dico, that which I say to one, I say to all, which sentence is not found in Scripture, but an otherlike it, though to an other purpose, to wit, about the watchfulness which our Saviour would have all men use for the day of judgement Quod vobis dico, omnibus dico, vigilate: 
Math. 13. 37·  That which I say to you (here present) I speak to all (both absent and to come) be watchful of this day, whereof Mr. jewel, and his Colleagues could not be ignorant; and yet thus he insulted, Mr. Harding affirmeth, That to the rest of the Apostles it was not said at all feed ye etc. to Peter and to non else was it said feed my Lambs, feed my sheep: yet Christ himself saith quod uni dico, omnibus dico, that I say to one I say to all: And quoted for it Marck the 13.   

SUBSECT V. Frauds and fond devices of the protestant Clergy of England to deny and discredit the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
DOctor Harding having proved out of the Testimony of Leontius Bishop of Cyprus that John the holy Patriarch of Alexandria said Mass, and received alone, jewel and his Comrades answer thus. A straight case for Mr. Harding to run to Alexandria a thousand miles beyond all Christendom so sack his Mass. As if at that time Alexandria were not almost in the midst of Christendom, or though it had been in the midst of Infidels, as if that could be an argument of any force against the truth of Christian doctrine, which was no less pure when it was preached and practised amongst Jdolaters, then at this present among Christians.  
Doctor Stapleton confuting some objections of the English Apology against Harding, quotes both his words and jewel's thus; St. Andrew the Apostle (saith Mr. Harding) touching the substance of the Mass, worshipping God every day with the same service as Priests now do in celebrating the external Sacrifice of the Church. Mr. jewel thus answereth; The 6. untruth, S. Andrew said the Communion, not the Mass. Mr. Harding▪ saith further, They shall find the same most plainly treated of and a form of Mass much agreeable to that which is used in these days, set forth by St. Dyonise scholar to St. Paul. Mr. jewel, The ninth untruth, It is the very form of the Communion, and nothing like the private Mass. Mr. Harding again: I refer them instead of many, to the two Fathers Basil and Chrysostom. whose Masses be lest to posterity in these times. Mr. jewel, the 11. untruth; they contain the very order of the Communion. Mr. Harding yet further. Among all other Fathers Cyrillus Hierosolimitanus is not to be passed over lightly, who at large expoundeth the whole Mass used in Jerusalem in his time, the same which now we find in old St. Clement long before him and others. Mr. jewel, the 12. untruth, It is the very express order of the Communion. And after this ●●●●ulous manner of contradicting without confuting Doctor Harding's particular instances, jewel exclaims, O Mr. Harding is it not possible your Religion, 
Staplet. return fol. 32 & 33.  may stand without lies? so many untruths in so little room, without the shame of the world, without fear of God etc.  
His fond fraud is detected, and his untruths returned upon himself by D. r Stapleton, who tells Bishop Jewel, that in the Catholic sense the Mass and Communion are the self same thing in substance, the Communion being a principal part of the Mass, without which there is no sacrificie: for which cause the Priest always communicateth either alone or with others, when company doth offer itself, or are prepared for it, and consequently it is a fraud saith he (M. r Jewel) to put a contradiction between Communion and private Mass, as though the one could not stand with the other; saying that the forenamed Fathers which are cited to have said Mass, said the Communion, and no Mass, where as we (saith M. r Sta●●●ton) hold that they did both, and said the one and the other, that is, they celebrated the daily sacrificie and therewithal did communicate.  
But if M. r jewel mean of the English Communion, where in no external Sacrifice, nor real presence of Christ's body is acknowledged or believed, then proveth D. r Stapleton, that the foresaid Fathers cannot possibly be understood to speak of that Communion, for that in their said Liturgies they do make express mention of the Real presence of Christ's flesh therein, and of the offering up (as the express words of S. Andrew are) of the Sacred body and blood of Christ our Saviour in Sacrifice unto God his Father. And moreover in St. Dionise his Mass there is express mention of Oblation and Consecration of the Mysteries, of prayer for the Dead, of Altars, Censing, 
In vita St. Andreae pet Presbytery Achaiae.  Communion and memory of Saints; all which things are not in the English Liturgy or Communion, and much more. He showeth the same in the Mass or Liturgies of St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom; where, after the Oblation made of the Sacrifice, commemoration is made also of the blessed Saints in heaven, and namely of our B. Lady, and St. John Baptist, and of the Saint of the day, and of prayer for the Dead: which last clause St. Cyrill doth explicat more particularly, saying: when we offer up this Sacrifice, after (the Oblation) we make mention of those which have departed this life before us; And first of the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that by their prayers and intercessions, Almighty God may receive our prayers, And then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops departed, and lastly we pray for all men which among us have deceased, believing it to be a great relief of souls for whom the intercession of that Holy and dreadful Sacrifice, which is laid upon the Altar, is offered.  
These are the words of St. Cyrill, whereupon Mr. Stapleton demandeth: Is this the express order of your Communion? Here you see (saith he) is Oblation, Sacrifice, Altar prayer to Saints, prayer for the Dead, and is all this don in your English Communion? And now I hope we may with more reason exclaim against jewel and the Church of England▪ then they did against 〈◊〉, is it not possible your Religion may stand without l●es?   

SUBSECT VI Prelatic Falsifications and Corruptions of Scripture to make the Pope Antichrist, and Succession of Bishops, a mark of the Beast.  
ONe of the things which most troubled Bishop jewel, and the first Protestant Prelates of Queen Elizabeth, was there notorious want of Episcopal Character, and succession derived from the Apostles; all the true Bishops of England refusing to ordain them, after that them-selves had been violently deprived of their Seas by the Queen's Command, 
See heretofore part. 1.  for not conforming to her she supremacy, and new doctrine. Mr. Jewel therefore and his Comrades, observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this want of Succession, published and preached many things to discredit the same; and to that purpose in the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, th●● write thus. By succession Christ saith that desolation shall 〈…〉 the Holy place, 
See the defence pag. 132.  and Antichrist shall press into the room 〈…〉: and for proof they note in the margin, Mat. 24. And in the same defence (pag. 127.) they say, of Succession St. Paul saith to the faithful at Ephesus, I know that after my departure hence ravening wolves shall enter, and succeed me, and 〈◊〉 of yourselves there shall (by succession) spring up men speaking perversely. Whereas St. Paul hath never a word of succession 〈◊〉 succeeding, neither is there any mention of succession in Matthew 24. But the quite contrary is evident by the nature of the thing itself, for that Antichrist entering by violence, shall 〈◊〉 dissolve all lawful succession of Priests, and Bishops continued from the Apostles time to his time, then enter himself by succession; which point seemeth to have been foretold by St. Paul 

S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 6. ad magn, Novatian is not in the Church, nor can he be computed a Bishop, who succeeding to none and contemning the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition, is ordained by himself. And a little after, He who succeeds no body, and begins from himself is a stranger, and profane.   to the Thessalonians 

Optatus lib. 2. cont. Parmen; There 〈…〉 of their own heads without Divin● disposition 〈◊〉 them-selves over rash people assembled together, who make them-selves Prelates, without 〈◊〉 of ordination, and take upon them the name of Bishops, and Bishoprics without having received them from any. S. Austin ex quaest. in nov. & 〈◊〉▪ Tostam. 100 saith of Heretics, They perturb the order begun from the Apostle Peter, and observed until this time by a continuation of succeeding Bishops; they set up an Order for them-selves without a beginning. And tom. 7. contra epist. Manich. cap. 4. Tenet a● ipsa Petri Sede etc. usque ad pr●sentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdotum. See Jren. l. 3. adversus haeres. c. 3.   when he saith, that except defection (or Apostasy) go before, (which is an open breach from orderly succession and subordination) the man of sin shall not be revealed. So that Succession which by all the ancient and Holy Doctors is believed and defended to be a mark of the true Church, is affirmed by jewel and the first Protestant Bishops to be a mark of Antichrist, and to prove this their non sense, they are pleased to falsify Scripture; and all this was done, because they knew them-selves wanted succession and imposition of Episcopal hands, and were made Bishops only by the Queen's letters patents, and dispensation with the inability of their very state and condition, and legitimated, or made legal by an Act of Parliament 8. Elizabeth 1.   

SUBSECT VII. Prelatic Falsifications to prove that Popes may, and have decreed Heresies.  
IN the Apology of the Church of England part. ●. cap. 5. jewel and the English Clergy affirm, that Pope john 22. held a wicked and detestable opinion of the life to come, and Jmmortality of the soul, which accusation they had out of Calvin, whose words are, that Pope john affirmed man's soul to be mortal; This being proved to be a lie, by Doctor Harding; jewel and his Clergy replied in the defence of the Apology thus, Gerson writeth in Sermons Paschali; Pope John 2●. to have decreed that the souls of the wicked should not be punished before the day of the last judgement, by which words, 
Defence Apolog. pag. 6●7.  as you shall see, instead of clearing one falls accusation against john 22 they bring in another; for Gerson hath no such words; but the true controversy was indeed, whether the souls of the just (not of the wicked) should see God face to face, before the day of judgement, or not; wherein Pope john being Reader of Divinity in France, before he was Pope, inclined to the negative part: the Controversy was decided after Pope John's death i● the extravagant of Pope Benedictus.  
Not content with this Jmposture they add an other greater in confirmation of their former Charge, fathering in the same and these ensuing words upon the Council of Constance Quinimo joannes Papa 22. yea Pope john the two and twentieth, 
In appendice Conc. Consta. § in primis. pag. 29.2.  held and believed obstinately that the soul of man did die with the body, and was extinguished as the souls of the bruit Beasts. And more over he said, that a man once dead, is not to rise again, no not at the last day.  
First this Testimony doth not touch Pope john 22. at all but an Antipope john usurping the Popedom, and calling himself john 23. and this a hundred years after Pope john 22.  
2. These words are not words of the Council, but words of an accusation used by a certain man that did accuse him in the Council of Constance, under the name Baltazar de Cossa calling himself john 23. where laying against him 35. articles, concerning his wicked life, before he took upon him the said name of Pope, which Articles were proved, but not this point of Heresy.   

SUBSECT VIII. Prelatic Falsifications to prove that Popes have insulted over Kings.  
THe Apology of the Church of England doth set forth how a Pope commanded the Emperor to go by him at his horse bridle, and the French King to hold his stirrup, and the like, which Mr. Harding proveth to be lies; than it says that the Pope hurled under his table Francis Dandalus the Duke of Venise, King of Creta and Cyprus, fast-bound with chains, to feed of bones among his dogs. But neither Francis Dandalus was Duke of Venice, when he was sent to the Pope in this Embassage, neither was he King of Creta nor Cyprus, that name (of King) not being tolerable in the free State of Venice; and as for the Duke at that time, his name was Johannes Superantius, and Dandalus was but a private man, sent Ambassador to Clement 5. then Pope to obtain the revocation of an Jnterdict, which was laid upon the said City; and finding the Pope some what hard to yield to his supplication, he devised of himself this Stratagem, to cause an Iron chain to be put about his own neck, and to creep in upon his hands and knees while the Pope was at dinner, and there lay down under the Table, 
justinian. l. 4. Histor. Venet. Bemb. Hist. Venet. Sabel. Decad 2. l 1. ●20. & Ennead. 9 lib. 8.260.  and would not rise until he had obtained pardon and remission for his Country: and this Doctor Harding proveth out of the principal Authors and writers of the Venetian Commonwealth.   

SUBSECT IX. Prelatic Falsifications to prove that S. Austin the Apostle of our English Saxons was an hypocrite, and no Saint; as also to discredit Catholic writers.  
BIshop jewel and his Prelatic Clergy in their reply to the Objections against their Apology for the Church of England (pag. 185.) speak thus of St. Austin the Monk and Apostle of England: He was a man, as is judged by them that 〈◊〉 and knew him, neither of an Apostolical spirit, nor any way 〈◊〉 to be called a Saint, but an hypocrite, and a supperstitious 〈◊〉, cruel, bloody, and proud out of measure. There is no writing extant of any man, that saw him and knew him alive, but only of St. Gregory the Great, 
Gregory l. 7. epist 30. Indict. ll. Bede l 2. c. 3. Hist.  who commended him exceedingly; and of St. Bede that lived not very long after him, who writeth also much of his Sanctity and miracles: who then 〈◊〉 those who lived with him and knowing him, did judge him to be so bad a man? jewel citeth only in the margin Greffey of Monmouth, who lived near six hundred years after St. Augustine's days.  
Bishop jewel and his Comrades say also that joannes de Magistris (he would have said Martinus) writ in his Book de Temperantia, that fornication is no sin; but this Author holds the quite contrary, and proveth it by six several conclusions, 
1. Cor. 16.  and by St. Paul saying that it excludeth from the Kingdom of heaven; but yet for that he saith in the beginning, 
Apol. of the Church of England part. 4.  Arguitur quod non, it may be objected to the contrary, the Apologists foolishly and fraudulently accuse (in this Author) Roman Catholics with damnable doctrine. Much more might be said of their falls dealing in this Apology, defence, and reply, of the Church of England; but we remit the curious to Doctor Harding, Stapleton etc.   

SUBSECT X. Of the protestant prelatic Clergies frauds, and falsifications of Scripture, and alterations of their 39 Articles of Religion, to make the people believe that they have true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England.  
THe point most insisted upon by Dr. H●rding, Stap●●t●n &c: and all 〈◊〉 Catholic 〈◊〉 their Boo●● 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 of the Church of England▪ was, that it could not 〈◊〉 Church, because it had not any one true Bishop, and according to St. Hierom (saith Harding) 〈◊〉 non est quae non habet 〈◊〉, which word 〈◊〉 signifieth Bishop as well as 〈◊〉▪ That the Church of England had 〈◊〉 (in the beginning of Queen Eliza●●●● Reign, whom Harding and Stapleton writ against it) as much as one Bishop validly consecrated, they proved; because not one of them was consecrated by a true Bishop, or by imposition of Episcopal hands: and if they durst say they were▪ Harding and Stapleton challenged them to name him. Who hath laid hands on you? how and by whom are you consecrated (saith Harding and Stapleton? How chanced then (Mr· jewel) that you and your fellows bearing yourselves for Bishops etc. have taken upon you that Office without any Imposition of hands? I ask not who gave you Bishoprics, but who made you Bishops? Me thinks jewel and his Comrades, the first Protestant Bishops, might easily have answered, by only naming the person who consecrated them, and the place of their consecration: But not a word of this point. jewel indeed once attempted to answer something, 
jewel defence of the Apology pag. 130.  but it had been better for himself and his Companions, he had said nothing, for, his silence to the question might have been interpreted a slighting of the demand, by the Bigots of his Church, that endeavour to make the most palpable absurdities probable answers in this and other Controversies.  
jewel therefore saith, himself was a Bishop by the free and accustomed Canonical election of the whole Chapter of ●●lesbury; but to the question how he, or Parker, together with the first Bishops, were consecrated; or by whom? not one 〈◊〉. After having first contented himself (and by conse●●nce Archbishop Parker and his other Comrades that were questioned) with a bare election of the Chapter, instead of an Episcopal consecration, yet he adds our Bishops are made in form 〈◊〉 Order, as they have been ever, by free election of the Chapter, 〈◊〉 consecration of the Archbishop, and three other Bishops.  
here we may observe both fraud and folly: because he doth not answer to the question: his adversary asks him how himself and the first protestant Bishops (whereof Archbishop 〈◊〉 was one, and the chief) were consecrated, and by whom? 〈◊〉 lieu of answering, Archbishop Parker, myself, and the other 〈◊〉 Bishop were consecrated by such a man, and in such a place, 〈◊〉 his Adversary, our Bishops are made by consecration of the Archbishop etc. Perhaps he meant that Archbishop Parker consecrated himself, by imposition of his own hands: therefore Harding tells him, and how I pray you was your Archbishop himself consecrated. (For that was the question and main point of the Controversy) what three Bishops were there in the realm to 〈◊〉 hands on him? etc. There were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you. (He alludes to the Bishop of Landaff, who refused to consecrate them at the nagshead, and to the Irish Archbishop Creagh, who refused also to lay hands on them, though they offered him his liberty, being then prisoner in the Tower, if he would do them that favour.  
What Parker, Horn, Jewel, and none of the first Bishop● could do, but some five or six years after their pretended conconsecration; their successors of the Church of England have done, above fifty years after. They showed in the year 1613. a Register not only with the names of Parker's Consecrators, but with a description of the tapestry on the east-side of the Chapel, read 〈…〉, Sermon, Communion, concourse of people, etc. at the solemnity of his consecration at Lambeth forsooth, and yet neither Parker himself, nor any Protestant, or Catholic ever herded of such a solemnity, Consecration, or Consecrators, when both parties were so highly engaged about the names, of the place and persons; and made it the subject of printed Books▪ and all this their contest was in a time that it might have been soon ended by 〈◊〉, or Horns only writing (in their answers to 〈…〉 of their Adversaries) the names of 〈…〉 place of their Consecration, without troubling themselves with copying 〈◊〉 of the Registers, the richness of the tapestry, or the colour of the cloth, etc. menmentioned by M. r Mason, to make the fable credible by so common and ordinary stuff, seeing he durst not venture upon more individual circumstances.  
But because no Protestant can believe so great 〈◊〉 was kept about ●●thing, M. r Mason, Primate Bramhall, D. r Heylin, and all other modern prelatic writers, endeavour to persuade the laity of the Church of England, that the dispute between Harding and Jewel, Stapleton and Horn, was not about the validity, but concerning the legality of the first Protestant Bishop's consecration; because, forsooth, Bishop Bon●er, in his plea, and Controvertists in their books, only pretended that there was no law 1. Eliz. to warrant Edward 6. form of consecrating Bishops; Q. Marry having repealed the same with the book of Ordination, which Stapleton and the rest fancied was not revived with that of the common prayer 2. Elizab. by act of Parliament. But though this evasion hath been sufficiently confuted by the Author of the nullity of the Prelatic Clergy and 〈◊〉 of England against Primate Bramhall, yet I admire he omitted these ensuing words of D. r Stapleton's, which demonstrate our Catholic exceptions were not grounded upon Stapleton's persuasion of the want of Laws or statutes then in force, for confirming the form, or Book of Ordination; but they were ●●ther grounded upon a clear evidence that though the said form and Book of ordination was legal then, yet there had been 〈◊〉 Consecration at all performed.  
For thus saith D. r Stapleton to Horn pretended Bishop of ●●●chester, It is not the Princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop, 
Stapleton Counterblast fol. 30●. 30●.  〈◊〉 there must be free election, without either forcing the Clergy to 〈◊〉, or forcing the Chosen (it seems Horn paid a good sum 〈◊〉 his Bishopric) to filthy bribery, and also there must follow a 〈◊〉 consecration, which you and all your Fellows do lack, and ther●●●● you are indeed no true Bishops, neither by the law of the Church, 〈◊〉 yet by the law of the realm, for want of due consecration, expressly required by an act of Parliament renewed in this Queen's d●yes, in suffragan Bishops, much more in you; 
An. 1. Eliz. c. 1.  By which words 〈◊〉 appears that the exception was not grounded upon D. r Sta●●●ton or any other Catholics persuasion that Q. Elizabeth had not sufficiently renewed the book and form of ordination, by 〈◊〉 act of Parliament 1. Eliz. but on the quite contrary; and that though there was an act, yet the Bishops could not be va●●●ly consecrated according to that Act of Parliament (that Stapleton says was renewed 1. Eliz.) for want of a true Bishop to ●●ercise that function, not for want of any Law to authorize episcopal consecration; all the Catholic Bishops who were named in her first commission having refused to act by her order and her Majesty's Dispensation (in her second commission) not only with her own statute, but with the very state and condition of the Protestant Consecrators, who were not Bishops, could not be of force to give them a spiritual character.  
Wherefore M. r Parker, Grindall, Horn, Jewel and the rest of the first Bishops, who understood better their own condition than their Successors would seem now to do, resolved in their 〈◊〉 1562. to publish the 39 Articles made by Cranmer and his Junra, but with some alteration and addition; especially to that article wherein they speak of the Sacraments▪ for whereas Cranmers 25. or 26. article says nothing of Holy orders by Imposition of Hands, or any visible sign, or ceremony required therein, Parker and his Bishops having taken upon themselves that calling without any such ceremony of Imposition of Episcopal hands, declared; that God ordained not any visible sign or ceremony for the five last commonly called Sacraments, whereof Holy Orders is one. This alteration and addition you may see in D. r Heylin's appendix to Ecclesia restaurate, pag. 189. And by order of the same Convocation was printed the Scripture, and in that their edition of 1562. Ordination by imposition of hands was translated ordination by election, as you may see part. 1. and part. 2. of this Treatise. And though Cranmer cared as little for any visible signs or ceremonies in ordina●●●● 〈◊〉 the other first Protestant Reformers, and according to their 〈◊〉 had abjured the Priestly and Episcopal character which he had received among Catholics▪ 〈◊〉 you may gather by his own words related by John Fox in his degradation, 
Acts and Mon. pag. 2016.  thus: Then a Barber dipped his hair round about, and the Bishop scraped the tops of his fingers were he had been anointed, wherein Bishop Bonner behaved himself as rougly, and unmannerly, as the other Bishop was to him soft and gentle. Whiles they were thus doing, All this (quoth the Archbishop) needed not, I had myself done with this 〈◊〉 long ago. Albeit I say Cranmer cared not for any Episcopal Ordination which he had received in the Catholic Church, yet he did not think to make the denial thereof an article of the Protestant faith; but Q. Elizabeth's English Church in their Convocation 1562. seeing they could not obtain the Episcopal character by Imposition of true Bishop's hands, thought 〈◊〉 to make it a part of the Protestant belief, that no such visible 〈◊〉 or ceremony was necessary, or instituted by Christ; and therefore concluded holy Orders was not a Sacrament. And though the prelatic Clergy now teach and practise the contrary, and 〈◊〉 K. Iame's reign Ordination by imposition of hands was restored to the Text of Scripture, and by consequence ordination by election, declared to be a Cheat, or corruption; yet this change of the matter doth no more make them now true Priests and Bishops, than their last change of their form of Ordination, since the most happy restauration of K. Charles the 2.   

SUBSECT XI. In Advertisement to the Reader concerning Bishop jewel.  
BEcause Jewel was the most famous and learned man of the Church of England, 
Eccles. Polity l. 2. sec. 6. pag. 112.  in so much that M. r Hooker terms him the worthiest Divine that Christendom bred for 〈◊〉 hundred years past, and that his Apology and defence of the Church of England was the work of that whole Clergy; and that Withaker after jewel's death, said to Campian, 
Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Campt. rat. 5. pag. 50.  Jewell's challenge and speech concerning the first 600. years was most true, and 〈◊〉 all the Church of England did stand to it; and that Heylin 〈◊〉 all the Protestant Controversors since jewel take from his Apology and defence, their arguments and authority; Because 〈◊〉, the man is such a pillar of English Protestancy, and most 〈◊〉 that Religion pin their Faith upon his sleeve, and work; and think the Holy Ghost directed his pen, in his Apology and defence of their Prelatic Church, I thought fit to let them Know, that they who were intimatly acquainted with him, give this testimony of him; he was first a Catholic, and continued so until Protestancy was made the religion of the state in Edward 6: Reign; then he turned Protestant, and remained so until Queen Mary's days, than he abjured protestancy as heresy, and seemed to be so forward and zealous in professing the Roman faith, that he was permitted to be one of the Notaries of Cranmer, and Ridleys' di●●putations in the University▪ 
Dr. Heylin Eccl. restaur. q. Eliz. pag. 130.  D. r Heylin says all this his forwardness in Popery proceeded from fear.  
When Queen Elizabeth succeeded in the Kingdom, Jewel embraced her Religion and writ what you have seen against our Religion, which himself had twice professed as the only Catholic: This much is confessed on all sides. Chark or Fulk (I know not which of them is Author) in the Answer to the Censure (Edit. 1583. fol. 78.) complains that as Papists say Luther was the son of an Incubus or the Devil, and died drunk▪ Oecolampadius was killed by the Devil, or by his own hands; Peter Martyr, had a familiar; Martin Bucer consulted with his Cow and his Calf; so they say that jewel had all his knowledge from his Cat, or from a Weasel, and died recanting his opinions, embracing a Popish Cross, with protestation that he sinned against his own conscience and knowledge.  
That Jewel sinned against his own conscience and knowledge, is 〈◊〉 by his falsifications which we have set down, having been himself a learned man, and besides having been advertised of them by others, and therefore his mistakes could not proceed from ignorance. And that he said to some of his friends who put him in mind of his falls dealing, the Protestant Religion could not be otherwise defended, we have heard credibly reported, as also how he replied to his Amanuensis, that excepted against some of his falsifications, that not one Reader amongst a thousand would examine his corruptions, and Translations, or compare them with the Text, all which makes it ●●●dible enough that he went against his knowledge; but for my own part I am not beholding to the relation of others for my ill opinion of Jewel, I am convinced that he was a wilful falsifier, and Impostar, and do judge his own writings to be the best evidence thereof; If he recanted at his death, I hope he was saved, though he hath been the damnation, I fear, of millions, that have been seduced by his Books. And as for his cat, and his Wesel, I dispute not whether the Devil used to confer with him in such shapes; But I am sure the substance of his Apology, and the manner of defending his doctin, could proceed from no better Author; and I believe every rational man will be of the same opinion, if he peruse and examine his works.   

SUBSECT XII. Examples of learned Protestants converted to the Roman Catholic Religion by observing the Frauds, and falsehoods of the Apology of jewel, and of the Protestant Clergy for the prelatic Church of England.  
THough it is to be feared that millions of souls have perished by the falsifications and frauds of jewel, and of the Protestant Clergy, in publishing and maintaining (even to this day) their Apology and defence of the Church of England, yet many have been saved by occasion of the notoriousness of the falsehoods therein contained. I will specify only three, mentioned by the learned Author of the three conversions of England, who had it from their own mouths; ●●mitting others (saith he) which for just respects may not be named. Hear his own words.  
The first is S. r Thomas Copely, 
Three Convers: in the relation of the trial made before the French King. 1600. pag. 55.  who oftentimes hath related unto me with much comfort of his soul, how that being a zealous Protestant, and very familiar to the Earl of Leicester, in the beginning of this Queen's days, when M. r jewel's Book was newly come forth, and being also learned himself in the latin tongue, took pains to examine several leaves thereof, and finding many falsehoods therein, which were inexcusable (as they seemed to him) he conferred the same with the Earl; who willed him that the next time M. r jewel dined at his table, he should take occasion after dinner to propose the same; which he did soon after; and receiving certain trifling answers from M. r jewel, 
Jewell's answer to excuse his wilful falsifications.  he waxed more hot, and urged the matter more earnestly▪ which jewel perceiving, told him in effect, that Papists were Papists, and so they were to be dealt with all, and other answer he could not get: which thing made the good Gentleman make a new resolution with himself, and to take that happy course which he did to leave his Country and many great Commodities which he enjoyed therein, to enjoy the liberty of conscience for salvation of his soul.  
The second example, which I remember of my own knowledge, is M. r Doctor Stevens, a learned man yet alive, who being Secretary, or Chaplyn to M. r jewel (for I remember, not well whether) and a forward man in Protestant Religion at that time, espied certain false allegations in his Master's Book, whilst it was yet under the print in London, whereof advertising him by letters. (for that he supposed it might be by oversight) the other commanded notwithstanding the print to go forward, and passed it over as it was, which this man seeing, that had a conscience and sought the truth indeed, resolved to take another way of finding it out: and having found it in the Catholic Church, where only it is to be found, he resolved also to follow it, and so he did, and went voluntarily into banishment for the same, where yet he liveth unto this day in Finance, with good reputation both of learning and godliness.  
The third example that I call to mind, is the worthy man before named M. r William Reynolds, who being first an earnest Professor and Preacher of Protestant Religion in England, he fell in the end to read over M. r jewel's book, and did translate some part thereof into latin, but before he had passed half over, he found such stuff as made him greatly mislike of the whole Religion; and so he leaving his hopes and commodities in England, went over the sea into these parts, and the last year of jubily, to wit 1575. he came to Rome and brought that book with him, and presented both himself and it to the Tribunal of Inquisition, of his own free motion and accord etc. And himself after absolution received from his former errors (which he with great humility and zeal required, and myself also at that time did speak with him in that place) he returned into France and Flanders, and there lived many years with singular edification for his rare virtue, and learning, and how heartily indeed he was converted, may well appear by his zealous writings, both in Latin and English in defence of Catholic Religion. Thus much the Author of the three Conversions.  
I am credibly informed by a person then present, that Primate Bramhall and some of his Majesty's Chaplains (who now are Bishops (persuaded or endeavoured to persuade our most gracious Sovereign Charles 2. (who was then at Bruges) that this Doctor Reynolds was made a Papist by disputing with an other Doctor Reynolds whom he intended to make a Protestant, And that the Roman Catholic Doctor Reynolds, at the same time turned Protestant. Some think this story was feigned to make the King believe that there is as much to say for the Protestant religion, as for the Catholic: And to the end his Majesty might not reflect upon the falsehood of a Religion forsaken out of mere conscience by its greatest Doctors, when they were most applauded, and when they had reason to expect the richest Benefits, and greatest honours.  
From the Apology of the Church of England, we will pass to John Fox his Acts and Monuments, a Book no less commended by the Protestant Clergy then the former, because by frauds and lies it serves their turn to fool the well meaning Layty, who take it to be a true Ecclesiastical History of the persecuted Church of Christ.    

SECT. V. Frauds, follies, and falsifications of john Fox his Acts and Monuments, and of his Magdeburgian Masters in their Centuries; the little sincerity of the English Church and Clergy in countenancing such falls dealing.  
AFter that Luther and Calvin's desperate shift (of the invisibility of Christ's Church for more than a thousand years before their pretended reformations) had been evidently confuted, 
The Magdeburgian writers Centur. 2. & 3. cap. 4. condemn. the Fathers for asserting the Sacrifice of the Mass etc.  as not only impossible, but as repugnant also to Scripture, which compares the Church to a City placed upon a mountain, and a shining Sun etc. Their scholars undertaken to show a succession of the Protestant Church; and to that purpose some drunken Germans (as any sober man must judge them to have been by their writings) whose names were Flaccus Illyricus, Joannes Vigandus, Matheus Judex, and Basilius Faber, met together in some warm stove of Magdeburg, and there tippling took upon them to judge of the writings, doctrine, and miracles of all the ancient Fathers from the first Century to the last: Of the very next Century to the Apostles these merry Companions were pleased to give this Censure in the very title of the Chapter, Inclinatio Doctrinae complectens peculiares & incommodas opiniones, stipulas, & errores Doctorum quae palam quidem, hoc est, scriptis tradita sunt. The declining of Christ and his Apostles doctrine, containing the peculiar and incommodious opinions of Doctors, 
Centur. 2. c. 4. Centur. 3. c. 4. p. 77. Centur. 4.  their errors, straw, and stubble, which were left publicly by them, that is to say, in their writings. And thus they Censure St. Iraeneus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Methodius, etc. saying they abuse and wrest the Scriptures intolerably, and grossly to favour popish opinions. These four merry saxons reprehend Ignatius St. John's scholar for using the phrase offer & sacrificium im●olare: St. Cyprian for saying, sacerdotem vice Christi fungi, & Deo patri sacrificium offer. St. Martial scholar of the Apostles saying, sacrificium Deo Creatori offertur in Ara. Martial in Ep. ad Burdegal: and so all other points, wherein Protestant's and Catholics do disagree, calling the ancient Father's stubble Doctors: the same they say of St. Basil, Lactantius, Gregory Nissen, Hilary, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Ephrem, and Hierom etc. and pretend their doctrine to be against Scripture, and the Miracles they relate to be either forged, or Diabolical, or at least wrought by God to punish the credulity of Christians: But the errors of ancient condemned Heretics, to be the true and sincere primitive faith, and produce no other proof for this their drunken foolery, but their own presumption, and private interpretation of Scripture.  
Wherefore Valentia, 
Valentia his comparison of Protestant writers, and the Magdeburgians.  (a learned Jesuit) compared these Magdeburgian Centurists, (and indeed ti's the case of all other Protestant writers) to fellows accused or suspected of theft, heresy, or any other crime, who willingly present themselves before the Magistrate, or Senate of the City; And there first of all for their clearing, should bring in for witnesses against themselves the best, learned, most grave, and most honest men of all that City, to testify that they indeed are Thiefs and heretics, or the like, but yet having so done, would endeavour to refute all these again, by only saying, that these men so highly esteemed and commended for their integrity, spoke rashly and incommodiously, and knew not what they testified against them, or at least were in a dream; and that the accused persons alone ought to be believed against them all. Might not these men be thought mad, or drunk, that would take such a course of defence? And yet this is the course and case of the Magdeburgians, who citing first the gravest and most ancient Fathers of Christendom against themselves, do reject the same again with this only jest, and contumely, that they speak incommodiously, ignorantly, and were stubble Doctors, 
Cent. 3. c. 4.  opiniones incommodae, naevi, stipulae, etc. Doctorum. Cyprian, say they; speaketh without Scripture, Cyprian doth feign superstitiously, Cyprian doth judge naughtily, Tertullian doth err. Few in ancient times did write perspicuously and with judgement. 
Magdeburg. in praef Ep. dedic. ad Eliz. Angl. Reg. in Cent. 4. Cent. 2. c. 4. pag. 55.  And of the whole multitude of Doctors of the second age, which was nearest to the Apostles, they are pleased to say, Albeit this age was nearest to the Apostles, yet the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles began to be not a little darkened therein, and many monstrous and incommodious opinions are every where found to be spread by the Doctors thereof. Then of the third age they say, the further that we go from the Apostles age, the more stubble we shall find to have been added to the purity of the Christian doctrine. So that you may see what these four drunken Germans judge of succeeding ages, of the greatest Doctors, and of the whole Catholic Church, and what credit their writings deserve.  
John Fox in his Acts and Monuments doth imitat the example of these Dutch drunken Centurists his Masters, not only in this impudent foolery, but also in their fraudulent dealing of concealing and cutting off many of the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, lest the multitude and cleverness of the authorities should give our Catholic cause too much credit: but he dissenteth from the Magdeburgians in saying, that the true Church of Christ is both visible, and invisible; visible to them that are in her, and invisible to them that are out of her. So that according to Fox, 
Fox in his protestation to the Church of England, pag. 2. & 3.  heathens and heretics, (that are out of the Church) can not see her, nor be converted, or convinced by those visible and supernatural signs, wherewith God hath made her remarkable and conspicuous, to the end that such as are not in her, may see her, and be converted; a thing so much inculcated by the ancient Fathers, that they say very few, or none of the meanest capacities, can be excused by invincible ignorance from damnation. But let us see what an Jmaginary Church of Protestants he fancies and builds in the Air.  
And first we may observe that for the first twelve hundred years after Christ (not finding as much as one Parish of Protestants in the whole world) Fox doth not name any Church or Congregation but the Roman Catholic. But from Pope Innocentius the 3. time downwards, Fox beginneth, and bringeth forth for the true Church a rabblement of condemned Sectaries, dissenting in opinions, and professions, not only from the Catholic, but also from the Protestant reformations; and divided among themselves, cohering in no other form, or succession, but that one sprung up by chance after the other, which (as his adversary tells him) he tieth together in a Catalogue, or list, as Sampson's foxes were, by the tails. 
Fox in Protest. ad Eccl▪ Angl.  This list or Catalogue he setteth down in his protestation to the Church of England; telling first that even during the time of the last 400. years from Pope Innocentius downwards, the true Church of Christ (he means the Protestant which until then had been wholly invisible) durst not openly appear in the face of the world, being oppressed by Tyranny. But yet that it remained from time to time visible in certain chosen members that not only bare secret good affection to sincere doctrine, but stood also in the defence of truth against the Church of Rome. But if his Protestant Church was invisible to them that were out of her, and by consequence to Papists, it needed not fear their Popish Tyranny, by which it could be no more prejudiced than Spirits, or men shut up in enchanted Castles. In which Catalogue (saith Fox) first to pretermit Bertramus, and Beringarius which were before Pope Innocentius. 3. a learned multitude of sufficient witnesses here might be produced, whose names are neither obscure, nor doctrine unknown; as joakim Abbot of Calabria; Almaricus a learned Bishop that was judged an heretic for holding against Images: besides the Martyrs of Alsatia, of whom we read 100 to be burned by Pope Jnnocentius in one day. Add likewise to these the Waldenses, and Albigenses; Besides divers others standing against the Pope an 1240. etc. Then he addeth to these some private persons (for the most part catholics) as Dantes the Italian Poet, Armacanus, Occam, etc. and finally embraceth in his Church the Lollards, Wickleffians, Hussits, and all other Sectaries until he comes to Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, etc. all of them disagreeing in opinion, and every one pretending his own opinion to be the true Catholic faith. And this is the visible succession of Fox's Church, and the subject of his Ecclesiastical History: whereby he pretends to no greater antiquity then of 400. years, nor can he prove any other unity of faith, than their impugning the Pope and the Roman Catholic Doctrine, not unanimously, 
Tretemius in verbo Bertramus,: Sand de visibili Monarchia haeres. 133. Gerson lib. contra Romant. Extravagant de Trin: Guido Carmel. Caesarius Gadnin. lib. 6. hist. Franc.  but some one point, some another, disagreeing in most among themselves. I will briefly refute these his lies, and reveal his fraud. Bertram was a Monk, lived and died a Roman Catholic above 800. years agone; after his death some of his followers forged a little pamphlet in his name, savouring or favouring the Berengarian heresy: but the fraud was presently discovered, and rejected. Berengarius recanted his heresy, and died a penitent Catholic. joachim an old man half out of his wits, was censured by the Pope for certain fond prophecies, and some errors also about the Blessed Trinity. Almaricus was never Bishop, but only of Fox his making; he was condemned for many other heresies besides holding against Images, as for teaching there is no resurrection of Bodies at all. 2. That there is no paradise, nor hell. 3. That the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament. 
Naucler. in hist.  4. That God spoke as much in Ovid, as in Austin etc. As for his Martyrs in Alsatia, they who relate that story say: certain Heretics to the number of 80. were burned in Argentina in Switzerland, 
Tritem. in Chron. Monast. Hirsang: Genebr. in Chron. an. 1215. Silvius lib. 4. de Orig. Bohem. cap▪ ●5. Vsparg. in Chron. an. 1212. Guid. Carm. in haeres. Waldens. Antonin p. 3. sum. tit. 11. c. 7. Caesar. 5. dist. dialog. hixemb. haeres. Albi Prascol & Saunder ibidem.  for that they denied fornication to be any sin at all, for that it is a natural act. etc.  
As for the Waldenses or poor men of Lions, they held doctrines which Protestants do not own. 1. That all carnal concupiscence and conjunction is lawful, when lust doth burn us. 2. That all oaths are unlawful. 3. That no judgement of life and death is permitted to Christians. 4. That the Creed of the Apostles is to be contemned etc.  
The Albigensis were another Sect of heretics, rising some 30. or 40. years after the Waldenses an. 1216. and their beginning was at a Town called Albigium, near Tolosa. They agreed with Protestants in the denial of the Pope's supremacy, purgatory, and some other points, but differed in many; as first, they held with the Manichees that there are two Gods, one good and another evil. 2. They denied all resurrection of the body: and that it was in vain for Christians to use any kind of prayer at all▪ & 3. That external baptism was an idle ceremony, and to be rejected as superfluous. 4. they held the transmigration of souls etc.  
As for Wickleffs opinions, by Fox his own relation (pag. 400.) they are different from the Protestant articles. And the Lollards held that Lucifer with the rest of his Angels were injuriously thrust out of heaven by Michael and his, 
Tritem in Chron. an. Dom. 1315.  and consequently to be restored again at the day of judgement; and that Michael and his Angels are to be damned. That our Lady could not bear Christ and remain a Virgin. That God doth not punish any wickedness done under ground. And therefore in caves and Cellars they were accustomed to exercise all abomination. And Tritemius relates how one Gisla a young woman of their sect, coming to be burned for heresy, being asked whether she were a Virgin or no? she answered that above ground she was, but under ground not.  
These and the like impurities and impieties John Fox would fain impose upon Protestants as the primitive Christianity, and doctrine of the true Church: the Wretches that suffered for maintaining these blasphemies, are Fox his Martyrs; and their obstinacy in dying for these fooleries, together with the propagation of Luther and Calvin's sensual Tenets, and some dreams and fancies of cracked brain fellows, are the Miracles of his Church. Three Miracles he notes in Luther,; To stand against the Pope (saith he) was a great Miracle; 
Fox pag. ●93▪  to prevail against the Pope a greater; to die untouched, may seem greatest of all etc. Which three Miracles he may find in Martion, Mahomet, Cromwell, and in every Rebel or Malefactor that hath escaped the fire, or Gallows, by fortune, favour, or faction. Then he addeth: another time as Luther was sitting in a certain place upon his stool, a great stone was in the vault, over his head where he did sit, which being stayed miraculously so long as he was sitting, as soon as he was up, immediately fell upon the place where he sat, able to have crushed him all in pieces if it had light upon him. Now if Fox did prove that this great stone was stayed miraculously from falling upon Luther, something it were; but how can he make that appear? he may as well maintain that every stone, or tile falling from a decayed building, was miraculously stayed from falling upon every man's head that passeth under, and escapes such casual and daily dangers.  
But to the end you may be rightly informed of John Fox his judgement and spirit in discerning and describing supernatural things; I will relate a miracle or revelation that happened to himself, in his own words. And first you must know that he was resolved to prove by Scripture that Pope Boniface 8. was Antichrist, and to that purpose quotes a Text out of the 20, chapter of the Apocalypses, and then maketh his account thus. The binding up of Satan after peace given to the Church (counting from the 30. year of Christ) was an. Dom. 294. which lasted for 1000 years, until an. 1294. about which year Pope Boniface 8. was made Pope etc. This he endeavoured to confirm out of the 13. Chapter of the Apocalypses, where it is said, that power was given by the dragon to the Beast (to wit to Antichrist) to speak blasphemy and to do what listeth him for 42. months; which make (as all men know) 3. years and a half: and is the time allotted by S. t john (according to all the ancient Father's ●nterpretations) to the reign of Antichrist, in the end of the world: But John Fox will needs have the number of the 42. months to import 294. years, that is, every month 7. years, or (as he fantastically calls it) a sabbaoth of years; 
Acts. and mon. pag. 9●.  for proof whereof he describes a revelation of his own thus. Because the matter (saith he) being of no small importance, greatly appertaineth unto the public utility of the Church, and lest any should misdoubt me herein to follow any private interpretation of my own, I thought Good to communicate to the Reader that which hath been imparted to me in the opening of these mystical numbers in the foresaid Book of Revelation contained, by occasion as followeth etc.  
As I was in hand with these Histories etc. Being vexed and turmoiled in Spirit about the reckoning of these numbers and years, it so happened upon a Sunday in the morning, lying in my bed, and musing about these numbers; suddenly it was answered to my mind, as with a Majesty, thus inwardly saying within me, Thou fool, count these months by Sabbaoths as the weeks of Daniel are counted by Sabbaths. The Lord I take to witness, thus it was; whereupon thus being admonished, I began to reckon the 42. months by Sabbaths, first of the months, and▪ that would not serve; and then by Sabbaths of years, and then I began to feel some probable understanding, yet not satisfied herewith, I repaired to certain Merchants of my acquaintance. (Of whom one is departed, a true and faithful servant of the Lord, the other two yet alive, and witnesses hereof) to whom the number of these foresaid months being propounded, and examined by Sabbaths of years, the whole sum was found to surmount to 294. years, containing the full and just time of the foresaid persecutions, neither more nor less &c.  
And thus you have the revelation made to John Fox, which he saith that he relateth unto us, for that we shall not misdoubt the truth thereof, nor think that he followeth any private Interpretation of his own, but that it came from God immediately: as if every fanatik did not fancy and pretend the same. And this is the dream of John Fox in his bed.  
The second ridiculous point is that he went to three merchants to confer this revelation and that they approved there of. The third point is open falsehood, and folly, where he saith that this number of 294. containeth the full and just time of the first persecutions of Christians under Pagan Emperors, neither more nor less; seeing that from Christ to the victory of Constantin against Maxentius, there are assigned by Eusebius 318. years, and yet did not this persecution cease then neither; but continued under Licinius, and other Tyrants, for divers years after, see then how just these numbers fall out, neither more nor less: all which being considered, I find no one thing so true or credible in all this revelation (saith the Author of the three Conversions, who confuted Fox his Acts and Monuments) as those words of the spirit unto him, saying, Thou fool: for▪ that this maketh him a fool indeed by revelation.  
What credit Protestants give to Fox his revelations I do not know, but sure jam, they give too much to his relations: notwithstanding the absurdity of the whole work in composing a Catholic Church of condemned heretics, without subordination or succession; and making wicked Malefactors, C●●●st's Martyrs; the Protestant Clergy (who could not be ignorant of so abominable a deceit) cried up the book as a most godly and sincere history, and by public authority endeavoured to make it authentic, placing one in every Parish Church like a fifth Gospel, recommending the reading thereof to all persons both in their houses and Congregations. All this was done with design to make the Roman Catholic religion odious, and to exasperate the generality of the people against the Priests and professors of the same. And though judicious Readers may easily discern in perusing the Book, the weakness of the Author, and of the cause he undertakes to maintain, yet the vulgar sort are much taken with both, and doubt not but that Protestants have as much reason to put catholics to death, as catholics had to punish those mad fellows whom john Fox calls Martyrs, and would needs die rather than recall those blasphemies against God, or submit their fond opinions to that sense of Scripture which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered to the Church; and had been derived by the public Testimony and undeniable Tradition both of holy Fathers and general Counsels from one age to an other until this present.  
To the end silly seduced souls may see their mistake, and how little credit john Fox his Protestant Church and Martyrs deserve, compared with the Roman-Catholick, I will set down his Calendar.  

SUBSECT I. The Foxian Calendar.  
THe number of all his saints are 456. whereof Bishops Martyrs 5. to wit, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, and another whom I remember not. What little credit they deserved, we have showed heretofore, every one of them changing his religion with the times; and their opinions having been confuted as heresy in universities by public disputations. Bishop's Confessors 1. Virgin Martyrs none. Maid Martyrs 3. Kings and Queens Martyrs and Confessors 1. (who was Edward. 6.) other men and women Martyrs 393. other men and women Confessors 5●. These were of divers sects and opinions, and contrary in many points one to the other, as for example, Waldesians and Albigensians 13. Lollards, and Wickleffians 36. Hussits and Lutherans 78. Zwinglians and Calvinists 268. Anabaptists, Puritans, and doubtful of what sect. 59  
Again of these were husbandmen, Weavers, sawyers, shoemakers, Curriers, smiths and other such like occupations 282. poor women and spinsters 64. Apostata Monks and Friars 25. Apostata Priests 38. Ministers 10. public Malefactors, and condemned by the laws for such 19  
of age, running away from his Master, and finding an old English Bible (sincerely translated you may be sure) lying in 〈◊〉 the Chapel of Burntwood, fell to reading thereof, and thereby presently became a Protestant in divers opinions, and would needs burn for the same.  
Rawling White is recounted by Fox to have been an old poor fisherman in Wales, 
Pag. 1395. & 1555. Fox pag. 1414.  and hearing of certain new fresh doctrine to be had out of the Scriptures in English, and grieved that himself was not able to read them, he put his little boy to school to learn to read, which being somewhat instructed in that art, he caused him to read Scriptures unto him, and profitted so much therein with in a little time, that the old fisherman began to be a preacher, and so leaving his occupation, went up and down Wales with his boy after him bearing the Bible, out of which he took upon him to preach at every town and Tavern thereof, seeking thereby to pervert such as were no wiser than himself, nor could he be restrained from this folly until the Bishop of Cardiff apprehended him, 
Fox pag. 1558.  whom afterwards they were forced to burn, for that he stood obstinate in his fantastical opinions, which were extravagant, and ●●●rce agreed with any sect of Protestancy. We have seen heretofore how Laurence Sanders the married Priest seeing a little bastard of his, was so tenderly affected thereunto, as in great vehemency of spirit he said to the standers by, what ma●● of my vocation, would not die to make this little boy legitimat, and prove his mother to be no whore? And indeed such of the Protestant Clergy as were executed, were brought to the stake for the love they had to their wenches and bastards, and because they thought it was against their honour to recant. It's remarkable that of some hundreds of Heresiarches who have since the preaching of the Apostles risen against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not above two or three (whereof Ber●●garius was one) would recall their opinions: no marvel therefore if Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley &c. should be so obstinate.  
These motives and persons I say, well considered, rational Protestants will find no parity between Foxian and Catholic Martyrs, nor any reason to persecute Priests and Papists by their new Statutes, because Protestants, and sectaries were persecuted by Q. Mary, 
Difference between the persecution of Catholics and Protestants.  and other temporal Sovereign's according to the ancient Laws of all Christendom. They will find a parity between Fox his Martyrs and fanatics; for the old Protestants were looked upon in those days when they first began, as themselves look now upon fanatiks and Quakers; only with this difference, that these may complain of harder measure now received from their prelatic Brethren, then prelatic Protestants from papists; because prelatiks have nothing against presbytery, 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 that their doctrine, and conventicles are prohibited by the tem●●●al l●●es of the Land, which can not be a competent rule of faith; they can not condemn them by, any P●●●●stant general Counsels, ancient Tradition, or by the primitive Protestant principles, or by any sense of Scripture ever yet held to be Catholic by the visible Church of Christendom; whereas Roman Catholics did, and may censure prelatic Protestants by every one of these rules, and do demonstra●● that their prelatic reformation is contrary to all the Testimonies and evidences of Christian and Catholic antiquity.   

SUBSECT II. Wilful falsifications committed by john Fox in his acts and Monuments.  
FOx having searched and inquired after Protestants, and their Church, and not finding any one person he durst call by that name for the first 1200. years after Christ, and that particularly here in England the Roman Catholic Religion (as his learned adversary proves) had continued the very same (notwithstanding many temporal changes) from our first conversion until K. Henry 8. and Q▪ Elizabeth's reigns, and was that very faith which we papists now profess; rather 〈◊〉 Fox would confess this truth, he resolved to falsify and corrupt venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History, 
Bede 〈◊〉 4▪ cap. 5.  and a provincial Synod of the English Clergy held at Hartford by Theodo●●● Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 673. the decrees whereof he doth so alter, that comparing them with themselves ●s they are in St. Bede (whom Fox pretends to follow) they do not seem to be the same: and this he doth also to discredit the Catholic Church of England, charging it with decreeing a condemned heresy about keeping of Easter. 
Bede lib. 4. hist. cap. 5.  The first decree of this synod was (saith Fox) that Easter day should be unformally kept and observed throughout the whole realm upon one certain day, videlicet Prima 14. Luna mensis prioris. That is to say, upon the first 14. moon, or day of the moon of the first month, to wit of March: which is just as the jews do observe it, contrary to the Council of Nice.  
Well then, let us see what the words of St. Bede himself are in this synodical Decree, Primum Capitulum, saith he, relating it out of the words of the Canons themselves, ut Sanctum diem Paschae in communi omnes servemus, Dominica post 14. Lunam primi mensis. The first article of our decrees (saith the Council) is, that we do all in common observe the holy day of Easter upon the sunday next after the fourteenth moon of the first month. This is quite contrary to that which Fox relateth, he putting out Dominica which maketh or marreth all the matter, and then for post decimam quartam lunam, written at large in Bede, he putteth in, prima 14. luna, short in numbers, only to make it more obscure, adding prima of his own, and putting out post, from the words of this Council, more over he addeth of his own, these words, upon one certain day, which the Decree hath not, meaning thereby that this 14. day must be observed with such certainty as it may not be altered or differred to any Sunday, in which consisteth the heresy of the Quarta decimans, and thereby to make the ancient Church of England in St. Theodores time, guilty of that heresy.  
To favour the doctrine and practice of Protestants in putting away their wives for fornication▪ and marrying an other, he quotes the tenth Decree of the same synod, and sets down such words only as seemed to authorize his error; and then, breaketh off, 
Fox 112.  as if the Decree ended there. Thus he citeth the Canon, Tenthly, that no man put away his wife for any cause, except for fornication, 〈◊〉 the rule of the Gospel: and there stops: 
Bede lib 4. hist. cap. 5.  whereas the Canon is, Nullus conjuge●● propriam nisi (ut sanctum Evangelium docet) fornicationis causa relinquat. Quod si quisquam propri●m expulerit ●●njugem legiti●o sibi matrimonio conjunctam, si Christianus esse recte voluerit, nulli▪ 〈…〉: sed ita permaneat●aut propriae reconcilietur Conjugi. Let no man leave his own wife, but only, as the holy Gospel teacheth us, for the cause of fornication▪ and if any man should put away his wife, that is joined to him by lawful marriage, if he will be a true Christian, let him not marry another, but either remain so in continency, or be reconciled to his own wife again.  
He wasteth much paper in discrediting Pope Gregory the 7. by Protestants called Pope Hildebrand) whom notwithstanding, 
Fox pag 164  the chief writers of his time exceedingly commend for a Saint, and a learned man; as you may see in Bellarmin. But Fox saith, 
Anton. part. 2. tit. 16. c. 1. §. 21.  Antoninus writeth that Hildebrand, as he lay a dying, desired one of his Cardinals to go to the Emperor, and desire him forgiveness, absolving both him and his partners from excommunication etc. Which he relateth to the end his Reader might think that the Pope went against his conscience in excommunicating the Emperor; and that St. Antoninus believed the same story to be true: whereas St. Antoninus his words are, that it was reported how Gregory 7. had sent a Cardinal to the Emperor, and to all the Church, to wish him Indulgence; which yet for many causes (saith Antoninus) I do not believe to be true. These words honest Fox omitteth. And it is recorded by an Impartial Germane Author that Pope Gregory 7. last words, lying on his deathbed in Salerno, were these, Dilexi justitiam 〈…〉 iniquitatem, propteria morior in exilio etc. 
Naucler. generat. 37.  I have loved 〈◊〉 and hated iniquity, and for this do I die in banishment. Being driven away from his Sea by the violence of the Emperor.  
I read and find (saith Fox) that in a Council holden ●t Rome by Pope Hildebrand, and other Bishops, they did 〈◊〉 three things. 1. That no Priests hereafter should marry wives. ●. Th●● all such as were married should be divorced. 3. That none hereafter should be admitted to the order of Priesthood, but should 〈◊〉 perpetual chastity. But he quoteth not one Author for 〈◊〉 three lies; and in the lines immediately following, where 〈◊〉 down in English the Copy of Pope Gregory 7. Bull 〈◊〉 this matter, he sufficiently proves his own sayings to be lies: for thus saith the Bull: If there be any Priests, Deacons or 〈◊〉 deacons', that will still remain in the sin of fornication (which 〈◊〉 is not applicable to marriage) we forbid them the 〈…〉, till they amend and repent. But if they persever in their sin, we charge that none presume to hear their service. And accordingly it 〈◊〉 the Canon. Officium Symoniacorum, 
Distinct. 23. c praeter §. verum apud Anton tit. 16. Tritem. in Chron. an. 1075. Origen. hom. 23. in lib. nu. Euseb. lib. 1. demonstrat Evang. c 9 Marianus Scotus in Chron. an. 1096. & 1. ●. 4. council. pag. 79.  & in 〈…〉, scienter nullo modo recipiatis. And Tritemius relateth the matter thus. Pope Gregory forbade men to hear the m●st of such Priests, as were known to have Concubines. But Fox 〈◊〉 other Protestants would needs face us down that Hildebr●●d was the first who prohibited Priests marriage: whereas Origen above 1400. years ago tells even of the Greek Church: 〈◊〉 solius est offerre Sacrificium qui perpetuae se devoverit castitati. To him only belongeth to offer sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to perpetual chastity. And Eusebius one of the first Council of Nice, 〈◊〉 of them who were made Priests, being married, that it becometh them to contain themselves for the time to come from all dealing with wives. And Marianus Scotus speaking of Gregory 7. and of that Roman Synod, being in his own time, saith: Pope Gregory 7. having made a Synod, did according to the decree of St. Peter, and St. Clem●●t his successor, and of other holy fathers, forbid unto Clergy men etc. to have wives, 
Distinct. 32. ut supra etc. nullus. john Fox in his Acts and monuments is endless in lies. In setting down the differences in doctrine between his and the Roman Catholic Church, he is convinced to have made above 120. lies, in 〈◊〉 leaves: to wit, from the 12. to the 14. see Persons in his relation of a trial held in France about religion pag. 60. which he offers to prove one by one, If any of john Fox's friends will join issue with him, upon that point he is of opinion that the lies of the Acts and Monuments will surpass those of john Sleydan's History, and of which eleven thousand were gathered by Germane writers Fox in his protest. pag. 10. Fox pag. 314. of the old edition. In that of 1632. It is pag. 728.  or dwell with women. And Pope Alexander 2. and Pope Nicholas. 2. Predecessors to Gregory 7. made the same decree that Hildebrand did, as appeareth in their Canons yet extant.  
It were both endless and needless to set down all John Fox his wilful lies, the fraudulent and ●●olish tricks and devices wherewith he and the Protestant Clergy abuse the laity and illiterate people, making 〈◊〉 believe that in all ages there hath been a Church teaching and professing the Protestant doctrine: and because some of the heretics (to 〈◊〉 ●●ckleffians, Hussits, 〈◊〉 Lollards) whom he names Martyrs, and witnesses of his Evangelical truth, were condemned not 〈◊〉 by the Church▪ but by Acts of Parliament, he tell●●h you that though the statu●s 〈…〉 persons, preaching divers sermons, 〈◊〉 herelies, 〈◊〉 doctrine, and 〈◊〉 errors, to the blemish of Christian faith &c▪ yet notwithstanding whosoever readeth histories, and the 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 see these to be no false teachers, 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 etc. and to have taught no other 〈…〉 then now 〈…〉 their own preachers in 〈…〉. And 〈…〉 Sir John 〈…〉 is produced by Fox as a witness for the Protestant 〈◊〉 and a chief member of that Church, and he in his professi●● 〈◊〉 faith, said▪ 〈…〉 Church I believe to be divided into three sorts, or compan●●● 〈…〉 now in heaven etc. the second sort are in 〈…〉 of God; and a full delivera●●e of pain. The 〈…〉 earth etc. john Fox to this speech of Purgatory addeth 〈◊〉 parenthesis of his own, as if it had been part of Oldcastles profession of faith (if any such 〈…〉 Scriptures) fearing his Reader might take notice how Sr. 〈…〉 was no Protestant. And such frauds he useth in most other occasions, as you may see in the three Conversions of England writ to confute his acts and Monuments; and from whence we have borrowed most of what hath been said concerning Fox and his Martyrs. Now we will treat of others no less falls and deceitful in maintaining the Protestant Religion.   

SUBSECT. III. Doctor Chark's falsification of St. Austin, and how he excuseth Luther's doctrine of the lawfulness of adultery, and incest.  
DOctor Chark was so great a pillar of protestancy in Q. Elizabeth's days, that he was thought the fittest man to dispute against learned Campian in the Tower; but 〈◊〉 behaved himself in that occasion very insolently, igno●●●●, and uncharitably, he writ a ●ook in answer to the 〈◊〉, which was published of himself, Luther, Calvin, Beza, 〈◊〉 ●any other falsifications of Mr. Chark, to defend 〈◊〉 Protes●●nt doctrine, his adversary objects (pag. 122. ● that 〈…〉 St. Augustin's Text about the doctrine of concrescence▪ where the Censure had alleged besides the Testimony of many other Fathers, one most plain out of that great 〈◊〉 saying; concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate, 
lib. 1. de nupt. & conc. c. 23. & 25.  if consent 〈◊〉 yielded unto her for accomplishment of unlawful works: Mr. 〈◊〉 allegeth another authority out of St. Austin in the same 〈◊〉▪ that doth, as he says, expound his meaning; for thus 〈◊〉 writeth: Augustin's place is expounded by himself afterward, saying, concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is not sin, 〈◊〉 that it is not imputed as sin; where the word sin in the first place is put in by Mr. Chark; for that St. Austin's words are, D●●itti Concupiscentiam carnis in Baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur; quamvis reatu suo jam soluto, manet 〈◊〉; Concupiscence is forgiven in Baptism, not so that it is not (or remain not in the regenerate) but that it be not imputed as   

SUBSECT. IV. Falsifications of Cranmer and Peter Martyr against Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass etc.  
AFter that Cranmer had been publicly convinced both by Scripture, and Fathers, 〈◊〉 his disputation at Oxford (●s will appear to any that will read even his friend 〈◊〉 concerning that subject) the Catholic disputants objected falsifications, and corruptions of his in the Books which 〈◊〉 had composed against the real presence; one was, that whereas 〈◊〉 Martyr, who flourished in the beginning of the second 〈◊〉, answering to them who said the Christians adored bread, 〈◊〉, we do not take this for common bread and drink, but like as ●●sus Christ our Saviour Incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and 〈…〉 Salvation; even so we be taught the food wherewith our 〈◊〉 and blood is nourished by alteration, 
Fox pag. 1617.  when it is consecrated by the 〈◊〉 of his prayer instituted by him, to be the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Incarnate. Cranmer thus translated the words of that ancient Father, Bread water and wine are not to be taken as other 〈◊〉 and drinks be, but they be ordained purposely to give thanks to 〈◊〉, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called the Body and blood of Christ, and that it is lawful for none to eat and drink of them but that profess Christ; and live according to the same; and yet that meat and drink is changed into our flesh and Blood, and nourisheth our bodies: 
Fox pag. 1605.  After Cranmers confessing that the former Catholics Translation was the right, he excuseth his villainy, saying, he did not translate Justin word by word, (whereas he set down all as Justin's words) but only gave the meaning; let any Protestant be judge whether he gave Iustin's meaning. You have corrupted Emissenus (saith Doctor Weston to Cranmer) for instead of cibis sati●ndus, that is, to be filled hath pro omni paena, for all pain, your Book omitteth many things there.  
Thus you see Brethren (saith Doctor Weston) the truth steadfast and invincible: you see also the craft and deceit of heretics. And thus concludeth Fox himself the disputation with Cranmer.  
Doctor Chedley did also object to Cranmer his corruption of St. hilaries words, putting in, vero sub Mysterio, for verè sub mysterio, by which the whole sense was altered; because verè sub mysterio showeth that we do truly receive in the mystery of the Sacrament. Christ's flesh and blood; and vero sub mysterio, 
Fox pag. 1602.  proves only the reality or verity of a Sacrament or a mystery, not of the body and blood of Christ. To this after many excuses Cranmer answered, that the change of one letter for an other was but ● small matter. But Weston told that Pastor was a Bishop, and ●●stor a Baker, and yet there was but one letters change.  
As for Peter Martyr's falsifications they appear sufficiently 〈◊〉 the places themselves which Fox allegeth for him out of 〈◊〉 or twelve Fathers, in his disputations at Oxford an. 1549. whereof the reader will scarce find one truly cited in all respects, but that either the words next going before, or immediately following (making wholly against Protestants) are purposely left out, and others put in, or mistranslated; as hath been evidently demonstrated part. 3. c. 19 & 20. & 21. of the treatise of the three conversions of England; and therefore we ●●●●eare what every one may see in a Book no less obvious than profitable.    

SECT VI. How some Protestant 〈◊〉 in Q. Elizabeth's time, seeing their fellows were proved Falsifiers, waved the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and 〈◊〉 the others continued their former course of falsifying both Fathers and Counsels.  
THE discovery of jewel's 〈◊〉 other men's falsificati●●●, made some Protestant writers more wary, and take an other course for defence of their Religion▪ which was to recur to the letter of Scripture, con●●●ning the true sense thereof delivered by 〈…〉▪ and practise of the Catholic Church, doctrine 〈…〉 primitive Fathers, and General Counsels; but these upstarts knowing their new fancies 〈…〉 agreeable thereunto Instead of the ancient faith of Christendom, they resolved to maintain 〈◊〉 condemned heresies, following in this manner of proceeding their first Apostles Luther, Calvin, etc. who would admit of nothing but the 〈◊〉 of Scripture interpreted by themselves, after an 〈…〉 manner. We will instance 〈◊〉 three, Doctor Wi●aker, Archbishop Whitgift, and Doctor Fulk, omitting many others.  
Doctor Whitaker in his answer to Doctor Sanders demonstrations (pag. 21.) saith, we repose no such confidence in the Father's writings, that we take any certain proof of Religion from them, because we place all our faith and Religion, not in human, but in divine authority: if therefore you bring us what some Father hath taught, or what the Father's universally all together have delivered, the same (except it be approved by Testimony of Scriptures) it availeth nothing, it convinceth nothing. For, the Fathers are such witnesses as they have also need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses, if deceived by error. etc.  
And Yet this same Whitaker undertaken to maintain Bishop Jewell's Challenge by Fathers, and Counsels.  
Archbishop Whitgift was no less but rather more injurious; for in his defence of the Prelatic Church against the Puritan Cartwright (pag. 402. & 473.) he is not ashamed to say, that all the learned Bishops and learned writers of the Greek and latin Church, for the most part, where spotted with the doctrine of free will, Invocation of Saints etc. And thence infers that in no age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops held so perfect and sound doctrine in all points, as himself, and his fellow Bishops of England. To what impiety and impudence are men driven by defending heretical novelties? 
Doctor Fulk against Doct. Bristows motives pag. 54.  Doctor Bristol allegeth the Testimonies of S. Epiphanius, S. Hierom, and S. Austin, condemning the heresies of Aerius, jovinian, and Vigilantius against fasting days commanded by the Church, prayer for the dead, prayer to Saints, against the honouring of their Relics, against preferring Virginity before Matrimony, etc. Doctor Fulk answereth that Epiphanius and Augustin were deceived in recording those for Heresies which are not; and that Hierom rather railed then reasoned; and that Vigilantius was a good man, and his opinions sound. 〈◊〉 Chrysostom is alleged for the Mass, saying the Apostles decreed, 
Fulk against Bristow's motives pag. 35.  that in the Sacrifice of the Altar there should be made prayers for the departed. Fulk answereth: where he saith it was decreed by the Apostles, he must pardon us for crediting him, because he cannot show it us out of the Acts and writings of the Apostles. And divers other Father's being quoted to confirm St. Chryso●●●m's testimony, Fulk says: 
Fulk against Allen pag. 303.  who is witness that this is the Tradition of the Apostles▪ you will say Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more: But I would learn why the Lord would not have this set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul? why they were not chosen scribes hereof, rather than Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierom Austin, and others such as you name.  
This desperate shift of slighting the ancient Father's Testimony was the ordinary way of answering Catholic Books for many years: but some of the Protestant Writers observing how the wise and well meaning persons of their own Religion were not satisfied therewith, and that there could no reason be given why any Christian should rather believe a Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Thomas Cranmer, Chark, Fulk, Whitaker, or Whitgift, than a Cyprian, a Tertullian, Basil, Hierom, Chrysostom, an Ambrose, or an Austin, especially in a matter of fact (such as our controversies are, to wit, whether the Apostles and the true Church taught this or that sense of Scripture, and doctrine) seeing these holy and lea●●ed Fathers lived in the primitive times, and more than 12. or 13. hundred years nearer to the Apostles, than the aforesaid Protestant Doctors, and by consequence might be more easily and exactly informed. Some of the Protestant Writers, I say, observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this conte●●●● of antiquity▪ and Fathers, resolved 〈◊〉 more to try jewel's Method, and see whether their impudence in falsifying, might have better success than his, either for want of courage and means in Catholics to manifest their corruptions, or for the hopes they had to discredit our Testimony, and suppress such 〈◊〉 as we should venture to print and publish against themselves, and the states Religion which they maintained. But no sooner came any Protestant Book to sight, but by God's assistance it was answered with all possible speed, and its falsifications discovered, and some of our Catholic writers made it their business to manifest the frauds and four berries of Protestant Controversor●; one of ours says, To declare that this spirit of falls dealing, 
Persons in his quest. and sober Rock. p. ●96. against ● p Morton▪  joined with necessity, and misery of their bad cause, is common not only unto him, (Morton) but unto many of his brethren, and must needs be unto all them, whensoever they take pen in hand to defend the same, for that one lie cannot be defended without an other; therefore I do produce ten several witnesses, two of them called Bishops, M. r jewel, and M. r Horn; five inferior Ministers, M. r john Fox, M. r Calfeild, M. r Hanmer, M. r Chark, and M. r Perkins; and might have named five times more, three lay men also and Knights, that have written against us, Sir Francis Hastings, S. r Philip Mornay, and S. r Edward Cook, alleging not one, but sundry examples out of each of their works; and might enlarge myself to a volume in that argument, if I would say what I have found in their and their brethren's works in this kind etc.  
Any man who desires to be rightly informed in this important matter of the Protestant Clergys' true, or falls dealing in religion, may peruse and confer the Books on both sides, I will not detain my Reader longer with Q. Elizabeth's Writers, being to treat of the same again, when we answer the like objections of Protestants against Catholic Writers: yet I can not omit to let him see in one person the hypocrisy of many, in one, I say, that professeth (as commonly they all do) so much sincerity in treating of Controversies, as might seem to excuse the necessity of any further inquiry, if his fourberies had not been manifested to the world, not only by his accusers, but by his own answers; so weak and impertinent they are, that they conclude nothing but his obstinacy in ●●thering to his former errors, though he be evidently convicted of being an Impostor. The writer I speak of is Willet, 
Willet pag. 263.  who (as you have seen heretofore) makes this protestation. I take God to witness, before whom I must render account etc. that the same faith and religion which I defend, is taught in the more substantial points by those Histories, Counsels, Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264.) it is most notoriously evident that for the grossest points of popery, as Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping of Images, justification by works, the supremacy of the Pope, prohibition of Priest's marriage, they (Papists) have no show of any evidence from Fathers within five hundred years after Christ. And yet this very man being pressed with St. Augustin, and the Church in his time holding of popish doctrine, doth grant it, and says, that can not prejudice protestancy, for that the pure time of the primitive Church extended not much beyond the age of the Apostles. 
Willet in his Tetracty●●ns defence.  So that he whom before you heard take God to witness that the Church was so pure for the first five or 6. hundred years, that Papists had no colour for their Tenets, in Fathers, or Counsels, now doth confess not only that St. Austin, but the whole Church was infected with popery not long after the age of the Apostles.  
The honest Willet divideth his book of answer and satisfaction into four several parts, 
See Walsingham's search falsities objected to Willet·  in the first he setteth down 13. untruths objected by his adversary as notoriously wilful; in the second as many objected contradictions; in the third, the like number of falsifications of Authors, and in the fourth thirteen corruptions of Scripture: I will mention but two or three, and leave my Reader to judge of the man's honesty by his answers▪ pag. 29. his adversary doth object against him these words of his, taken out of his Synopsis pag. 609. The Mass promiseth sufficient redemption to the wicked that have spent their life in drunkeness, adultery etc. if they come to the Church and hear Mass, and take holy Bread, and holy water, etc. though they never pray, nor repent, nor hear the word preached. Which words being confessed by Mr. Willet to be his, his adversary doth accuse him of wilful lying, or intolerable ignorance, for that in no Roman Catholic writer in the world, shall he find this proposition, or the parts thereof.  
Willet answers not to the particular charge, but taketh occasion for more than a dozen pages together, to prove that the Roman doctrine doth not favour virtue, or good manners, more than the Protestant, nor yet so much; alleging for his proof, that, to hold the Commandments to be impossible, and that the first motions of concupiscence be sin without consent, and that a man is sure of his predestination by faith; and the like Protestant doctrines, are causes of much virtue among them, as the contrary doctrines held by Papists, are causes of wicked life on their parts. So he answereth to his accusation with so manifest an absurdity as to say, that men are inclined to observe God's Commandments by holding it impossible to keep them, whereas (if they be not mad) that principle must dissuade them from attempting any such observation, seeing it is a madness to endeavour an impossibility, and to believe that God doth command things impossible. Of their assurance of predestination, and justification, we have proved heretofore, how inconsistent it is with good works, moral virtue, 
See heretofore part. 1. & 2.  the salvation of the soul, and tranquillity of the state.  
And as for their making the first motions of concupiscence a sin without consent, it is the sink and source from whence Protestants suck most of their errors. From hence they infer, that all the best actions of man are infected with mortal crime, because they pass through the stinking Channel of human corruption, hence they deny the merit of good works wrought by grace, hence the impossibility of fulfilling God's Commandments for that every action of the just is of it's own nature a transgression of his Laws. Hence no inherent but a vain imputative Justice, hence the justification by faith alone; hence no freedom of will to perform any moral good; no liberty in man to cooperat with God when he first moveth, awaketh and calleth him out of the state of sin etc. But let's return from Willet's absurdities to his falsifications.  
I let pass his falsifying S. Bernard to make him say, that the Pope is Antichrist, 
Willet Synopsis pag. 219. and in his defence pag. ● 142.  by applying the words of the Apocalypse. The beast to which a mouth was given speaketh blasphemies, doth sit in Peter's Chair; it being evident that Saint Bernard applied those words not to any true Pope but to an Antipope called Petrus Leonis, because he entered by violence into that Sea. I likewise pretermit his fraud and folly in saying, 
Bern. ep. 126 St. Bern. 66▪ in Cantis.  your doctrine in prohibiting and restraining marriage to your Clergy, how it helpeth to holiness▪ 〈◊〉 Bernard w●ll 〈◊〉 saying. Tolle de Ecclesia 〈…〉 etc. Whereas S. Bernard speaks in defence of the 〈…〉 against 〈◊〉 Heretics of his time 〈…〉 never dreamt 〈…〉 marry, himself having been a votary and unto 〈◊〉 Monk.  
Letting 〈◊〉 I say th●se, I will only mention how he accuseth all Catholics of heresy, for defending the lawfulness of the vow of voluntary 〈…〉 against us, that it was the heresy of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, 
Willet in his Synopsis pag. 297. Aug ●p. 106 & lib. 5. contra Haustum.  to persuade men to cast away their riches; S. Austin and all other Authors tell us, that the said Pelagians and Manichees were not condemned of 〈◊〉 for persuading men to give away their riches, but for maintaining that all rich men were bound to forsake all their riches, 〈◊〉 that otherwise they could not go to heaven: But now 〈…〉 show the sincerity of the English Protestant Clergy since the beginning of King james his reign until this present.   

SECT. VII. Falsifications and frauds of the prelatic English Clergy to maintain protestancy, since the beginning of King james.  

SUBSECT I. Their corruptions of Scripture (for maintaining their character) continued in the Bible, though commanded by King james it should be reviewed and corrected.  
THe English Protestant Translations of Scripture had been so cried down as falls and corrupt, by Catholics, and acknowledged such by many learned Protestants, that King james commanded a review and reformation of those Translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward 6. and Qveen Elizabeth's days; the work was undertaken by the Prelatic Clergy, not so much for zeal of truth, as for a show of compliance with his Majesty, who protested in the Conference at Hampton-Court, he never had seen an English Bible truly translated. And because the Catholics insisted much upon two main points in their former Controversies, wherein they observed the illiterate sort of people had been most abused by the English Translators of Scripture, to wit, by their translating Jmages for Idols, and Ordination by Election, for Ordination by imposition of hands, (by the first whereof the Roman Catholic Religion was generally held by the simple sort to be Idolatry; and by th● second▪ the Protestant Prelatic, Clergy were mistaken for Priests and Bishops, 〈…〉 never had received any Episcopal, Ordination▪ but what they challenged by the Queen's 〈…〉, election, and by an act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1.) because I say these two ●●●sifications were so palpably fraudulent, and so frequently objected, they were for mere shame corrected in the new Translation, se● forth by order of King James. And then appeared the forged Register of Mason to supply the 〈◊〉 of that falsification, and to make the world believe, that the first Protestant Bishops, Parker, Jewel, Horn, 〈◊〉 had been consecrated by imposition of Episcopal hands with great solemnity, and all due formalities at Lambeth: whereas for the space of above ●0. years before that time (as hath 〈◊〉 said heretofore) no man could tell, or hear where, or by whom these men had been made Bishops, (for at the Nagshead they were rejected by L●●daf; and S●ories consecrating form (in the same place) was ridiculous) notwithstanding that it had been, the greatest controversy between Catholics and Protestants, and the name of the place, and 〈◊〉 continually demanded in print. If an authentic Register▪ 〈◊〉 my credible witness had been produced when some such 〈◊〉, was called for by D. r Harding, and 〈…〉 50. ye●rs before Mason appeared in print, the dispute had been ended 〈…〉 great honour of the Prelaticks, and Confusion of the 〈◊〉: but they were answered only with an Act of Parliament (8. Eliz. 1.) declaring that whatsoever had been done in virtue of the great soul of England and the Queen's supremacy, was well done, and should stand legal, and valid.  
The falsification of Images for Idols was corrected 'tis true in the new Testament, but in the old (exod. 20.4.) and in the ten Commandments, and Catechisms for Children, they 〈…〉 corruptions, translating graven Images, for graven thing, against all Texts, Hebrew, Greek, and La●●n; for that the hebrew word pesel is the very same that sculp●●● in latin, that is, a graven or carved thing, and the Greek 〈◊〉 eid●●lon an Jdol. So that by this falls and wicked practice, 〈◊〉 Protestant Clergy doth still endeavour to discredit the Ro●●n Catholic Religion, and thereby continue their own authority, and Beneficies, making the laity believe (contrary to their own consciences, and corrections in the new Testa●●●●) that popery is Idolatry, for admitting worship of Images; 〈◊〉 if Image and Idol were the same thing, and equally forbidden by Scripture, and God's Commandments.  
To confirm their flocks in this persuasion they tell them the reason why Catholics leave out some repetitions of the first Commandment in their Catechisms, is, because they know that to worship Images, is against Scripture; whereas in our Latin and many vulgar Roman Catechisms, nothing is omitted; and in such short ones, wherein all the words are not expressly mentioned, it's done only, not to charge children's memories with more, then with the substance of every Commandment; and the substance of the first consists in the first ●ords thereof. In the last Commandment also we put in brief only these words. Thou shalt not covet an other man's goods, Omitting Ox's, and Asses etc. If our design had been to corrupt 〈◊〉 conceal the words, and sense of Scripture in the first commandment (in favour of Images) we would not have set down the Text so clearly in any of our larger Catechisms, and much less in our Latin and vulgar Translations of the Bible. 
Catholics do not take away the second Commandment. See the Remish Test. anot. upon 20. Exod. 4.   
Hence it followeth that we do not take away the second Commandment, as Protestants object, who begin the second precept from these words. Thou shalt not make to thee a graven thing etc. which we make part of the first, and with S. Austin (q. 71. in Exodum) we divide the first table into three precepts directing us to God; the second into seven, belonging to ourselves upon this reason among others, because to make or have any graven thing or similitude of any creature to the end to adore it as God, were indeed to have a strange God, which is forbid in the first words of the first Commandment; and so all that followeth to the commination and promise, forbiddeth false Gods, and appeareth to be but one precept in substance. But the desire and internal consent to adultery, and theft, differ altogether as much as the external acts of the same sins; and therefore seeing adultery and theft, are forbidden by two distinct precepts, the prohibition of the internal desire doth also require two precepts.  
To maintain their heresies against the single life of Priests, as also against the excellency of Virginity, vows of Chastity, free will, and the possibility of Keeping God's Commandments▪ they corrupt the Text of Math. 19.11. translating contrary to all Copies both Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. All men can not receive this saying, in steed of all men do not receive this saying▪ for we may have the gift of continency if we will: S. Austin (lib. de gratia & lib. arbit. c. 4.) faith, whosoever have not this gift given them, it is either for that they will not have it, or that they fulfil not that which they will; and they that have this gift or attain to this word, have it of God and their own freewill. And Origen explaining this very text (tract. 7. in Math.) saith, this gift is given to all that ask for it.  
To authorize the Protestant error of justification and Salvation by faith only, set down as an article of saith in the 39 of the Church of England, they translate Luc. 18. 4●. Receive thy sight, thy faith hath saved thee; instead of Receive thy sight, thy faith hath made thee whole; it being clear that the blind man who answered Christ's question, desired corporal sight, and that our Saviour accordingly granted what he asked in the same manner, and with the same words he did to others that he cured of the same disease; (Mark. 10.52. Luke 8.48. & 50.) which places are corrected and rightly translated, but as they did in the translation of Images for Idols, leave some places uncorrected, so they thought fit to do in this particular, to the end some places or other of their Scripture might remain still ●●●tore against Popery: as (Rom. 11.4,) they translate for B●al; the Image of Baal etc.  
Acts 19.24. they translate for Temples of Diana, Shrines▪ 〈◊〉 make shrines of saints Bodies, and of other Relics, odious; ●nd (vers. 35.) they add Image to the Text (which is not in any Copy Greek, or Latin) to condemn the worship of Images. And (Chap. 20. v. 28.) to attribute the rule and Government of the Church to the King principaly, and more properly then to Bishops, Instead of rule the Church of God, they translate take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock▪ over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God. And with the same fraud and flattery they translate (1. Pet. 2.13.) Be subject to every human Creature for God, thus, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, as though it were all one to be subject and obey every temporal Prince in things lawful, and to obey every ordinance, and by consequence in spiritual, as well as in temporal matters. In the same place also whereas in K. Edward 6. days the English Bible had; To the King as chief head; in Q. Elizabeth (who affected not the title of head of the Church) as having preeminent; because King james insisted much upon a spiritual supremacy, they translated to the King as supreme. To maintain this error that Priests may have wives, they translate. 1. Cor. 9 v. 5. for woman, wife, as if St. Paul had been married, whereas it is evident in the 7. chapter of this same Epistle v. 8. that he was not married, I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. And the same word which here they translate wife, in cap. 7. v. 1. they translate woman, because St. Paul saith there it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but here to translate wife was not for their purpose. In the same Epistle cap. 11. v. 2. contrary to both Greek, and Latin, they translate for Keep the Traditions as I have delivered them to you; Keep ordinances etc.  
1. Cor. 15. v. 10. they add to this text, I have laboured more abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me, they add, I say, the grace of God (which is) with me. 〈◊〉 that where the Apostle rather said, the grace of God laborred whi●h him, and consequently he with the grace of God which proveth 〈…〉, they by adding (which is) to the Text, 〈◊〉 have it seem that the Apostle did nothing at all, but was moved like a thing without li●e or will, and thus they prove by Scripture the Protestant errors. Ephesians 1. v. 6. For, he hath gratified us, 〈◊〉 ●●lde us gracious, or conduct us with gra●e; they translate, 〈◊〉 hath made us accepted in the beloved, against inherent grace▪ in favour of the Protestant error of imputative justice.  
Epist. Philip. cap. 4. v. 3. For, sincere Companion help those women etc. They translate true yoke-fellow help those woman, t● make men believe that St. Paul had recommended those persons to his wife who indeed had none 1. Cor. 7. v. 8.  
Notwithstanding the discipline of the Church of England is contrary to that of the Calvinists, because reason o● state, and the constitution of Parliaments requireth Bishops; yet the doctrine thereof is Zuinglian, and Calvinian in most points, and Doctor Abbot's Archbishop of Canterbury (who had the greatest hand in correcting the Bible by King james his order) was Calvin's great admirer, 

Calvin's Instit. lib. 2. c▪ 16. ser. 10. & in Catechism.  
That Christ despaired see Calvin in Math. c. ●7. ●. 46. & 47. 〈…〉. Calvin's words are, sed ab●●●dum videtur, Christo elap●●m desperotionis vocem? Responde● hanc desporationem 〈◊〉 sensu carnis profecta●● And again: sed videmus omni ex parte fuisse v●xatum, ut desperation● obrutus ab invocando Deo absisteret, quod era● saluti renunciare.  
Knot in his protestancy condemned pag. 89. S. Chrysostom upon that place of Esay, I will break the brazen gates and br●ise the Iron bars in pieces, and will open the treasures darkened &c. so he calleth Hell, saith he (Ho●●. Christus si● Deus 1.5.) for although is unto hell, 〈◊〉 is held the holy souls and precious vessels, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob St. Hierom. in c. 13. esau saith, hell is a place wher●● souls are included either in rest, or in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. Se● St. Austin in psal. 85. v. 13. Hebrew 9 v. 8. heb. 10.20.  
Doctor Gregory Martin in his discover● pag. 10.   as may be seen in his books. One of Calvin's blasphemies against Christ is, that he feared and suffered the pains of hell, nay and despaired upon the Cross▪ (and in that sense doth explain his descent into hell, admitting of no other) That this blasphemy might be authorised by Scripture, Cranmer, and the whole Clergy and Church of England after him, in their edition of Tyndal, and Coverdales' Bible an. 1562. in the epistle to the Hebrews chap. 5. vers. 7. corrupt St. Paul's words speaking of Christ praying upon the cross, He was heard for his reverence, thus, he was heard in that he feared, to maintain their blasphemous paradox that our Saviour should have feared and felt the pains of hell upon the Cross.  
To confirm also this wicked doctrine, and confute Lyn●● 〈◊〉 j●●trum, and Purgatory, Dr. Abbots, Archbishop of Cant. and the other Translators of the Bible, corrupt 1. Pet. 3. v. 〈…〉 for whereas the words of Scripture are quickened (or alive) 〈…〉, (or soul) in the which spirit coming he preached 〈…〉 also that were in prison: They translate, quickened by the spirit; by which also he went, and preached unto the spirits 〈…〉: This Translation was so gross that Doctor Montagu●, bishop of Chichester and No●wich, reprehended for it Sir Hen●● will, to whose care the translating of St. Peter's epistle committed; but Sir Henry Savill told him plainly that Doctor Abbots, and Dr. Smith Bishop of Gloucester, corrupted and altered the Translation of this place, which himself had sincerely performed. In pursuance of this their Calvinian he●●sy, and corruption, they pervert the Text of Gen. 37. v. 35. translating grave for hell; Protestants denying more places for souls after this life then heaven for the just, and hell for the wicked; and being ashamed to say that the holy Patriarch 〈◊〉 was damned, or that he despaired of his salvation, when he said, I will go down to my son into hell, mourning, Gen. 37. 〈◊〉 35. They translate, I will go down into the grave unto my 〈◊〉▪ mourning; and rather than confess a third place (and by consequence Purgatory) after this life, they father nonsense upon jacob, and the Holy Ghost, as though jacob thought that his son Ios●ph had been buried in a grave, whereas jacob th●ught and said immediately before (vers. 33.) an evil beast hath devoured him. And therefore he must necessarily have me●●● that he would die, and go where he thought the soul of his son Joseph to be; which was neither in heaven (for then he would rather have ascended thither joyful, then descended to any place mourning) neither did he mean the hell of the damned, for that had been desperation; but to a low place where the lust souls then remained, which was called Lyingly Patrum, or Abraham's Bosom; the way of the holies as Saint Paul speaketh, being not yet made open, because our Saviour Christ was to dedicat and begin the entrance in his own person, and by his passion to open heaven. Tertullian (lib. ●● advers. Marc●●●.) saith, I know the bosom of Abraham was 〈◊〉 heavenly place, but only the higher Hell, or the higher part of hell▪ from which speech of the Father's 〈…〉 afterward that other ●ame Lymbas Patr●●● that is, the very 〈◊〉, or uppermost and outmost part of hell, where the Fathers of the Old Testament rested.  
The words of St. Peter. 2. 〈◊〉. 1. v. ●5. And I will do my diligently to have you often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things▪ seemed to Protestants so plain in favour of his praying for the Christians after his decease, that King james his Translators change them into these, Moreover I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease, to have these things always to remembrance.  
We ask Protestants why do they wrest this place of the Psalm, and corrupt Scripture against the honour which ought to be given to Saints? Psalm 138. Thy friends O God are b●●ome exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strengthened which is Saint Hierom's translation from the Hebrew, confirmed by the great Rabbin R. Solomon, and the Greek Texts and never excepted against by any learned Father of the Church until the Protestant Translators were pleased to alter it thus; How precious are thy thoughts 〈◊〉 O God, how great is the sum of them; as if multiplicity of thoughts were an admirable excellency in God, whereas his 〈◊〉 admits not many▪ but rather one comprehensive knowledge without composition and therefore the Holy Ghost would not have said of them (in the next verse) that they are more in number then the Sands which expression may be properly applied to the Saints, but not to God's thoughts. To this demand Protestants answer first, that the Saints do not hear us, and yet they grant that Devils and evil Spirits hear witches, Conjurers, or Magicians when they are called upon; and shall we think, that the evil Spirits are enabled by nature, 
The Saints in heaven do hear our prayers.  and permitted by God to. hear, what they are invited to work mischief's, and that the Blessed Spirits are deaf, and have their power of doing good ●●strained, when we devoutly pray unto them? They tell us we injure Christ by praying to Saints. If it be no injury to Christ's merits and mediation, to pray unto holy men upon 〈◊〉, or to recommend ourselves unto their prayers, why should it be an injury to pray to the Saints who are in heaven? If the Apostles and Martyrs (saith St. Hierom against Vigil●ntius dwelling in corruptible flesh, could pray for others, 〈◊〉 they ought to be careful for themselves, how much more af●●● their Crowns, Victories, and Triumphs? They tell us that according to Esay (63.) Abraham knoweth us not, and Jsrael is ignorant of us; we answer with St. Hierom, that those holy Fathers knew not the jews with the knowledge of approbation or liking, because they had abandoned the law of God; 
Hieron. ibid.  so our Saviour saith the foolish Virgins were not known, nes●io vos.  
Doctor Reynolds giveth a reason why we pray to the living and not to the departed. Because saith he, 
Reynolds 〈◊〉. de Ido. Rom. Eccl. c. 3.  the living may understand our griefs either by word or message, the Saints can have no notice of them. Therefore they cannot make particular intercession for us, or we use any supplication to them. But these two ways of knowledge are not proper only to the living in this world; The Saints of heaven also understand our afflictions by word and sight, 
Ambr. l de viduis. Hierom. l. contra vigilan.  when being (as St. Ambrose and St. Hierom teacheth they may be) by incredible swiftness and celerity of motion every where present and conver●●●● amongst us: being as St. Ambrose addeth, beholders of our life and actions, they see our distress, and hear the complaints we make. They know our estate by message also and report of others; by the report (saith Saint Austin) of the souls that depart from hence, 
August. l. de cura pro mortuis▪  and by report of the Angels God's trusty messengers, and our faithful Guardians, who have daily intercourse between them and us. Besides, the Saints resident in heaven have certain knowledge of our actions and thoughts, as far forth as it may be needful for us, and expedient to them, according to that of St. Gregory, what can they be there ignorant of, where they know him that knoweth all things. Every Saint (nature not being abolished, but perfected by grace) has a natural desire to know the state of their friends, to understand the 〈◊〉 they make unto them, and therefore (to fulfil the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉) they must have notice of them. 〈…〉 in heaven rejoice at the conversion of a sinner, and by 〈◊〉 are not ignorant thereof. How can we Jmagin 〈…〉 Blessed parents, and other relations of sinners can be ignorant of their repentance. 
Naz. orat. fun. sor. Gorg. Aug. l. de cura pro mortuis. St. Gregory lib. 5. c. 30. ex●poundeth this of Job. 5.1. that Saints were to be invocated in a Good cause. And it is clear by the 72. Interpreters, saying, Jnvocate if any will answer thee, or if thou canst behold any of the holy Angels. Theodoret. q. 67. in exod. N●zia. orat. 〈◊〉 Basil. Hierom. in Epitaph. Paul●. Nyssen. Orat. in Theodor. Aug. de Bap. l. 7. c. 1. Athan. Serm. de Deipara. Aug. Serm. 18 de Sanctis Ephrem orat in ●●ud B. Virgins.  Therefore St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Austin say, that God openeth and revealeth to the Saints 〈◊〉 to his entire friends whatsoever is behooveful for them ●o know. And according to this not only the holy Doctors of the Christian Catholic Church but the jews did invoke Saints departed. Jacob said, the Angel which hath delivered me from all evils, bless these children. (Gen. 48.) Job was counselled to pray to the Saints, Call if there be any who will answer thee, and turn to some of the Saints. (job. 5.) Moses' entreated the patronage of the Patriarches in these words, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants. The like did Daniel (Dan. 3.) Take not away thy mercy from us, for Abraham, thy beloved, and Isaac thy Servant, and Is●●el thy holy one; and King Solomon, Remember O Lord David, and all his mildness; which God himself approved 4. Reg. 19 I will guard this city for my own sake, and for David my Servant's sake. St. Gregory Nazianzen implored the help of St. Basil; St. jerom of St. Paul●; St. Gregory Nyssen of St. Theodore; St. Austin of St. Cyprian; St. Athanasius prayed to our Blessed Lady thus, Jncline thy ear to our prayers and forget not thy people; O Lady, Mistress, Queen, and Mother of God, pray for us. And St. Austin, O Blessed Mary receive our prayers, obtain our suits, for thou art the special hope of sinners. St. Ephrem invocateth her by the name of hope, refuge, advocate, safety, and Mediatrix of the world. And must we prefer Doctor Abbots, and the English Clergyes corruptions before all these evidences of Scriptures and Fathers? To conclude this matter, I admire how Protestants can Imagine that Cranmer, Abbots, and their Comrades, who conspired to falsify Scripture, or the Ministers that continue to preach their falsifications, for true scripture, did or do scruple to maintain their pretended Episcopal character 〈◊〉 the forged Registers which Archbishop 〈◊〉 produced to the Priests in prison, of Parker and the 〈◊〉 Protestants Bishops ordination at Lambeth. I hope men 〈◊〉 contrive, continue, and countenance so horrid a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the corrupting of public Scripture, may be presumed 〈…〉, and foist into private Registers a fictitious consecration, thereby to enjoy their revenues; but as it was never heard of before Archbishop Abbot's time, 
Concil. Calcedonense. act. 11. Fl●viāus post mortem vivit, Martyr pro nobis Oret.  so was it no sooner produced then suspected and contradicted by ancient and conscientious persons, who lived in London when this Consecration at lambeth is pretended to have been celebrated, and yet they never heard a syllable of so rare a novelty, notwithstanding their continual inquiry into a matter, wherein both Catholics and Protestants were so much concerned.  
Let this suffice for a taste of those innumerable corruptions and falsifications which yet are continued in the English Bible, though reviewed and corrected by King james his command, and passeth now current in these Kingdoms among Protestants, for the word of God, whereas it is the word and work of men; not only by reason of their false Translations but much more of their ungodly and fond interpretations, contrary to the true sense of Scripture delivered by the holy Ghost in the primitive Church, and ever since continued by tradition among Catholics, and visible in the writings of the Fathers and General Counsels.  
The Prelatic Clergyes design in this new Translation was, to keep (as I said before) their authority, and the Church Livings which they had usurped, by gaining Credit for their new Episcopacy and ceremonies against puritans, or presbiterians; and for their Protestant doctrine against the Catholics; but fearing that their corruptions would be observed by both parties, in their epistle dedicatory to King James, they desire his Majesty's protection, for that on the one side we shall be traduced (say they) by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will 〈…〉 Jnstruments to 〈◊〉 God's holy 〈…〉 the people, when they desire still to keep 〈…〉; on the other side we shall be 〈…〉 who run their 〈◊〉 ways etc. But truly I 〈◊〉 no reason why they should Iud●● so rashly of Roman Catholics, 〈…〉 to persuade the King, and the whole world, that we are so impious and envious, as to conceal from the people the light of the Gospel, seeing we stick to the old letter and sense of Scripture; without altering the Text, or rejecting any parts thereof, or devising new Interpretations▪ and we are daily employed not only in preaching and explaining God's word in Europe, but forsake our own Countries and conveniences, and travel with great difficulties and dangers both by Sea and Land, to Asia, Africa, America, and the Antipodes, with no other possible design but to publish the doctrine of Christ, and enlighten the Nations of Gentill● who are in 〈…〉: ignorance: And as for their selfconceited presbit●●ian 〈…〉 Brethren, who run▪ their own ways in translating and interpreting Scripture, we do not excuse them, but only say, that we see no reason why prelaticks should 〈…〉 for a fault whereof themselves are no less guilty. Do not prelaticks run their own ways, as well as those other Sectaries, in translating the Bible? Do they stick to either the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew Text? Do they not leap from one language and Copy to an other; accept and reject what they please? Do they not fancy a sense of their own, every jot as contrary to that of the Catholic and ancient Church, as that of their Brethren, the Presbiterians, and others, is acknowledged to be? And yet they are neither more learned, nor more skilful in tongues, nor more godly than those they so much contemn, and blame.  
But to the end every Christian may more clearly discern 〈◊〉 Cheat, and divert himself with some variety in the method of this tedious, but convincing argument, I will give 〈◊〉 a brief relation of a remarkable passage, much to the 〈◊〉 purpose, which happened in the beginning of King James 〈◊〉 Reign; by which he may in one man's case, see the 〈◊〉 and sincerity of all the Protestant prelatic Church and 〈◊〉 in King james his time; and judge what satisfaction 〈◊〉 may have in this world, or whether they may expect 〈◊〉 in the next, by relying upon the authority and 〈◊〉 of the Prelatic Protestant Church of England.   

SUBSECT. II. Of Deane Walsingham's search into matters of Religion before his change to the Catholic: how he repaired for a Resolution of his doubes to King james, as to the head of the Church; who remitted him to the Lord of Canterbury: and he to other men; and how after finding no satisfaction, he betook himself to the reading of Catholic and Protestant Authors for discerning on what side was the true or false Dealing.  
I Will reduce into as narrow a compass as I can, Deane Walsingham's relation which he dedicated to K. james; concluding his epistle with these words most humbly on my Knees I beseech your Royal Majesty, to pardon me this 〈◊〉 resolution, whereunto I protest, upon my soul and Conscience, that no earthly motive drew me, but only my love and obedience▪ 〈◊〉 to him that is King of all Kings etc. That 〈…〉 (pag. 〈…〉, as you have seen▪ to change my judgement, and yield to the manifest evidence of truth, which I found to be on the Catholic side, and nothing 〈…〉 shift●, and deceits on the contrary. This 〈◊〉 speak here, Good 〈◊〉, as in the sight of Almighty God, and as in truth of conscience I have found▪ and no way out of passion, or evil affection, or worldly respects: in which every man will easily see how much I prejudice myself by this new course taken: But that both reason and Religion, prudence, and all true piety doth ●●●quire, that the everlasting salvation of our souls should be preferred before all other human respects whatsoever: which is the true and sincere cause of this my resolution. And this I desire thee (Good Christian Readers) to believe, and assure thyself to be most true, as a● the last day, when we shall all appear before the Tribunal of 〈◊〉 Saviour, and all hearts be made known, will evidently appear.  
In his preface to the Reader he gives an account of his Protestant education and Religion, wherein 〈◊〉 was so zealous, that he took all occasions to deal with others either for their confirmation, or gaining to 〈◊〉▪ and to this effect was wont to send Books of that profession to any that would read them. By which occasion it fell out, that one of his ac●quaintance that seemed backward in the acceptance of a Book, was content to receive it from him upon condition (saith he) that I should promise him to read an other Book he would lend me, whereof I accepted. This book was inittuled a Defence of the Censure given upon two books of William Chark, and Meredith Hanmer, Ministers; which book I little esteemed at that time, thinking it should serve me for some disport, especially for gathering out some absurdities against Papists, wherewith I did Imagine all their books to be abundantly stuffed. But finding whersoever I lighted, certain passages which I could 〈◊〉 well digest, and many proofs alleged whereunto I could 〈◊〉 answer▪ I cast ●t of●en aside; and then took it in hand again 〈◊〉 ●oon after I felt myself so strangely troubled and turmoiled in judgement and conscience upon the reading thereof, 〈◊〉 my soul had taken pills indeed, and could not bear 〈…〉. I conferred divers of my difficulties with 〈◊〉 ●●nisters, without specifying that I had them out of such 〈◊〉, but they could give me very little satisfaction, or 〈◊〉 at all. Whereupon I made divers journeys to London, 〈…〉 to see Books of sundry sorts, as also to confer with 〈◊〉 of my friends. And having wearied myself in this sort 〈◊〉 the space of divers mo●thes, at last I betook myself to a ●ore strange resolution, but yet such as then seemed to 〈◊〉 most necessary for appeasing of my mind; and this was, 〈◊〉 so much as I had taken two or three several times the oath 〈◊〉 supremacy, first to the Queen, and afterward to his Majesty that now reigneth, I 〈◊〉 persuade myself that my best comfort of conscience would come from the superior powers; but especially from his learned Majesty, who governed the Crown, as from God's Lieutenant and substitute in all causes and affairs whatsoever.  
Wherefore after much deliberation, not daring to confer ●ith any Papist, or almost to entertain any Good thought 〈◊〉 them, or of their Religion, I determined with myself to ●ake a short memorial unto his said Majesty, and to deliver him the sum of my afflictions and doubts, together with the ●●ok itself, which had been the cause thereof; and to entreat him by his supreme authority to give order for my sound satisfaction therein; and so binding up the old book in the comeliest manner I could, I got me to London, and thence to Greenwich and there after many difficulties of audience, I exhibited the same together with my Memorial, both tied and conjoined in one, as his Majesty was going to the Chapel upon Good friday in the morning in the year 1604.  

Deane 〈…〉 difficulties 〈…〉 Book.  
MY 〈…〉 the Author's complaint that Catholics ●●ving 〈…〉 offers of some j●st trial of their and 〈…〉 Religion in England, either by public disputation▪ free writing▪ or printing, they could never yet be admitted unto any; which made me much to marvel, upon what cause or ground this should be so long denied; for that supposing our Protestant Religion to be true, as I was persuaded, I could not see why this p●●blick trial might not be, and ought not to be granted. Moreover I saw, and considered, that whereas his Majesty soon after his coming into England, was resolved graciously to hear the differences that were between his own subjects, and to that effect yielded for three or four days most honourable audience in his own person, to hear and judge the contentions between the Protestants and puritans; yet notwithstanding in this conference the Papists had no place at all; which was marked by many, and divers also spoke thereof. Wherefore upon these considerations I was much troubled, doubting lest this straitness used in not admitting Papists to any kind of this equal offered trial, might have some mystery in it; and that all things went not so clear indeed on our side, as I had hitherto believed.  

See the defence pag. 28.  My second▪ difficulty was about the trial of spirits, whether they be of God, or no? the Author of the Defence joining roundly with M. r Chark▪ offered to stand to all lawful trial whatsoever; and thereupon taketh in hand to prove that Protestants have no sure ground or way to try an heretical, or Catholic spirit; and that Catholics have many, whereof he setteth down nine, showing first that the only way offered by Protestants, of only Scripture, is no way at all; and that, for divers reasons; one among the rest, that all heretick●▪ both old and new, have professed this way etc. which, 〈◊〉 it were admitted to be the best, and that Scripture 〈◊〉 neither corrupted in the letter, nor perverted in the 〈◊〉 by Protestants, yet could not that way of trial, advance 〈◊〉 advantage their cause; because the Catholics have express 〈◊〉 of Scripture for themselves, and Protestants no express 〈…〉 for their Tenets. As for example, Catholics have 〈◊〉 This is my Body, for Transubstantiation (Mat. 26.) 〈◊〉 man is justified by works and not by faith only (Jacob. 2.) for ●●●tification by Good works. Whose sins you forgive are forgi●●● etc. (Joan. 20.) for absolution. The doers of the Law 〈◊〉 be justified. (Rom. 2.) for the possibility of observing the Commandments. vow ye and render your vows (Psalm. 75.) for votaries. Keep the traditions which you have learned either by word or epistle (●. Thess. 2.) for unwritten Traditions etc. Protestants have not one express text in all Scripture for their Tenets.  
My third difficulty was about the first beginners of our Protestant doctrine, to wit Luther with his scholars Zuinglius, C●●oldstadius, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, etc. for that albeit Religion is not to be measured by the life of the Teacher, yet I considered, that whensoever God did send any men extraordinarily to reform his Church, they were always commonly of more eminent virtue in their lives, than others, as 〈◊〉 seen by all the Patriarches and Prophets, by St. John Bapti●●, and others in succeeding ages. But now for these men before named, Luther and the rest, this writer of the Defence doth show by very great testimonies, that they were men far inferior unto the common sort of honest men; that Luther had his reformation against the Mass, Intercession of Saints etc. from the Devil, from whom also Zuinglius received his opinion against the real presence, and Transubstantiation; that Calvin followed therein Zwinglius, and we in England embrace the same. That Hierom Bolse● Doctor of Physi● many yeare● in Geneva, and other places round ●bout, in 〈◊〉 time, when himself was a 〈…〉 things both of 〈…〉 his falsehood▪ might be so easily 〈…〉 As that john Calvin was 〈…〉 with a burning ●●●ron for 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 who preserved 〈…〉; 
Defence of of the Censure fol. 81.82. etc.  and that 〈◊〉 was testified by public record of the said City of Noy●●●▪ and that this was registered by Monsieur Bertilier Secretary of the Council of Geneva under a public and sworn 〈◊〉 hand; he relates many things of Calvin's excessive ambition▪ intolerable hypocrisy, delicate niceness, and lascivious carna●●●.  

Defence of the Censure fol. 86.87. etc.  As for Beza who lived when Bolsek's book was written, he reporteth many enormous things, as that he kept both a boy and a Quean, Andebertus, and Candida: that he ran away with a tailor's wife that dwelled in Calen●●r street in Paris, ●he robbing her husband to accompany him and that he continued the like life after, keeping an harlot called 〈◊〉, together with his own wife, and killing his own Child begotten upon her, to cover the sin, by letting her blood above measure, and many other soul things, which I avoid to name for loathsomeness.  
My fourth difficulty was tha● the Defence of the Cens●●● showeth how our Church of England doth receive and 〈◊〉 for Brethren such as could never agree, nor cannot at the day, 
Defence pag. 73.  in sundry substantial points of doctrine, as the book proves by their confessions, protestations, and writings one against the other▪ as also by sundry Synods, and Protestant Counsels, 
Luther epi●t. Harnagi●in. tom. 7. Witt. fol. 380.  wherein the one hath condemned the other. And namely he citeth this saying of Luther among many other. I do protest before God and the world, that I do not agree with them" (the Sacramentarians, which is our Religion of England.) 〈…〉 will, while the world standeth; but will have my hand● 〈…〉 the blood of those sheep which these heretics do drive 〈…〉, and kill.  
〈…〉 it was possible that Luther, 〈…〉 with God's holy spirit 〈…〉 so manifestly condemn us 〈…〉, for 〈◊〉 heretics, that hold him for 〈…〉, and 〈…〉 very same doctrine, as doctrine 〈…〉 for pernicious heresy▪ This 〈…〉 I might have some 〈…〉▪  
〈◊〉 fifth difficulty was M. r Fulk, and our Protestant 〈◊〉 contempt of the holy Fathers, and of Traditions: 〈…〉 I fell upon this account, 
Answer to M. r Charks preface p. 25.  whether it were more 〈…〉 me to adventure my soul with Fulk, and our 〈…〉, or with the ancient Fathers, and whether it 〈…〉 probable that they should know what passed in 〈…〉 Church better than St. Cyprian, St. Austin etc. 〈…〉 troubled me as I thought every day a year 〈…〉.  
〈…〉 was about M. r Chark: against whom 〈…〉 was written, who seemed to me 〈…〉 very 〈…〉 impugning the same, for that 〈…〉 not 〈◊〉 to any of the difficulties, as to 〈◊〉 seemed, and much less in his reply to the defence 〈◊〉 afterward I 〈◊〉 to see.   

The substance of Dean Walsingham's memorial to the King.  
〈◊〉 a certain memorial (as I may call it) wherein I 〈◊〉 comprehended as compendiously as then I could, some chief 〈◊〉 principal causes of my doubts, and difficulties before 〈◊〉, and contained in that book, desiring his Highness, 〈…〉 Mr. Doctor Covell told me it was your 〈…〉 should go home until your Grace sent for 〈…〉 said, I gave no such order, Doctor cavel is 〈…〉 said, I understood your Grace so. 〈…〉 Lord tu●ning 〈◊〉 to the Knight, 
How loath the Protestant Clergy is that the King or 〈◊〉 persons should examine their doctrine or way of defending it.  said with an angry 〈…〉 as soon as I came to the Court to day the first word 〈…〉 spoke unto me, he asked me what I had done with him, 〈…〉 book▪ you are a fellow indeed, we have dealt 〈…〉 thou art a bold Companion to deliver such a book 〈…〉. Then I began to speak, and to yield my reasons 〈…〉 but my Lord proceeded in his wrathful speeches, and 〈…〉 and angry words, he added, I will even send 〈…〉 thou art worthy to be set on the pillory, and to 〈…〉 for a libelling Knave as thou art. I answe●●● 〈…〉 your Grace, I hope I have not deserved 〈…〉. I have set my hand to that which I 〈…〉, I desire, my Lord, but to be taught the truth. 〈…〉 said thou be taught? thou art a foolish bold knave, 〈…〉 as thou art, before I have done with 〈◊〉.  
〈…〉 Lord had chafed and spoken largely his 〈…〉 he had put me in a bodily fear, 
What cheating and unconscionable ways were taken to fright Dean Walsingham from examining of the truth.  the Knight 〈◊〉 Corner began to speak and say, my Lord he will be 〈…〉; Mr. Walsingham I dare say, is sorry for his 〈◊〉 you shall see he will conform himself as he should. 〈…〉 yet still continued in his rough and angry 〈…〉, no man forsooth, will serve you but the King to 〈…〉 allpunc; I answered, may it please your Grace to 〈…〉 reasons why I came chiefly to the King: then said 〈◊〉 Lord; why what hast thou to do with the King? what 〈…〉 if thou wer● hanged like a foolish Knave as thou art? 〈…〉 other such like vehement and threatening speeches; 〈…〉 the end he said, come near (for that all this 〈…〉 stood a loof.)  
And then he called for his Secretary or Notary saying, 〈…〉 indignation to me, Come, come you hither, I will examine 〈◊〉 Lord, ● will write to the Commissary that he shall not 〈◊〉 or hinder you in any thing, and so calling for pen 〈…〉 his letter, the sum whereof was this.  
〈…〉 the Bearer hereof seemeth to be somewhat 〈…〉 towards popery▪ we will that you appoint some 〈…〉 and learned Divine who may confer with him, and 〈…〉 his doubts: but let all things be so done as 〈…〉 not be discouraged, nor his infirmity divulged▪ 〈…〉 said my Lord, you see what I have written, 〈…〉 〈…〉 any way prejudice you etc. I doubt not but 〈…〉 come again, you will be well resolved, and 〈…〉: I hope so my Lord, said I; you go to 〈…〉 my Lord? yes and it please your Lordship 〈…〉 that is well, said my Lord. And thus having 〈…〉 my Lord's letter, he bid me farewell: and then 〈…〉 leave of Doctor Covell, he spoke very kindly to me, 〈…〉▪ I hope when you come again Mr. Walsingham, you 〈…〉 of another mind, and all shall be well. And so from 〈…〉 I passed to London, and from thence the next day 〈◊〉 Country, somewhat to satisfy my friends, and to 〈…〉 what the rumours raised about me.   

〈◊〉 Walsinghams' address to Mr. Rolfe, 〈…〉 of St. Alban: And of his 〈◊〉 with Doctor Downham, and an other 〈◊〉 the Protestant Clergy; and his perusal of Mr. 〈◊〉 Books recommanded to him by my Lord of 〈…〉; and of the answer of the Defence 〈◊〉 the Censure.  
MR. Walsingham thus dispatched without any Satisfaction of his doubts, 
Search into Religion pag. 53.  he began to distrust and suspect the Protestant Clergy and Religion: but howe●●● 〈…〉 that I had read the 〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉 had driven me into many doubts, 〈…〉 I declared how that Book 〈…〉 whom 〈…〉 to be a man of God) to have 〈…〉 the Church of Rome, 
Pag. 65. of Walsingham's search.  by the instigation of the 〈…〉 had much Conference etc. which of true, surely 〈…〉 to be of some better faith and Religion 〈…〉 have the original and beginning from the Devil. 〈…〉 common practise of the Papists to 〈…〉 of God, and I think I ha●● the answer to that book. 〈…〉 (said Mr. W●lsingham) have a sight of that 〈◊〉 And now being dinner time Mr. Doctor said he 〈…〉 with Mr. Archdeacon, and so he left me, not 〈…〉 it seemed, to have any further conference with 〈…〉 made me conceive an hard opinion of Mr. Doctor's 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, who perceiving in what state I was, 〈◊〉 idolatry, Antichrist &c. would seem so willing as he 〈◊〉 withdraw himself: But meeting Mr. Rolfe, he wished 〈◊〉 any wise so expect Doctor Downham, which I 〈…〉 〈◊〉 with him to his house in Company of one or two 〈◊〉 more.  
〈◊〉 Mr. Walsingham came to Dr. Downham house at 〈…〉 showed him some of Luther's works, 
Search Walls▪ p. 71.  wherein he 〈…〉 worst things there he had noted out of the defence 〈◊〉 Censure, and the Doctor always dive●ted him from the 〈◊〉 of the truth and from comparing his notes with the 〈◊〉 The next day morning an other Minister came to 〈…〉, whom he made acquainted with Mr. 〈…〉, who thereupon desired 〈◊〉 have some conference 〈…〉 perplexed soul; and having related to that ancient 〈…〉 doubts, the remedy he applied was to inveigh 〈◊〉 the Papists obstinacy, untrue dealing, Jndulgences etc. 〈…〉 word to answer Mr. Walsinghams' difficulties: who 〈…〉 the answer to the defence of the Censure, took his 〈◊〉 of Doctor Downham.  
men by the Jnstigation of some who were far blinded with 〈◊〉 against them.  
Mr. Bell's second Book called a Survey of Popery, Mr. 〈◊〉 perused, because he had promised, and took no 〈◊〉 some corruptions he had found therein of St. Chrysostom, 〈…〉 of Nice, St. Austin, St. Gregory etc. with a 〈◊〉 to show them to my Lord of Canterbury, who did 〈◊〉 esteem the Author, and extol the Book. He read 〈◊〉 third book of Mr. Bell's, called the downfall of popery, 〈◊〉 he found also many falsifications to maintain 〈◊〉, and against pope's: whereof one was this. Antoninus' 〈◊〉 bishop of Florence affirmeth (saith Mr. Bell (pag. 40.) 〈◊〉 Pope Martin the fifth dispensed with one, who had contracted 〈◊〉 consummated matrimony with his own natural and full sister 〈…〉 Father and Mother, 
Antonin. 3. part. act. 1. c. 11.  citing these words of Antoninus 〈…〉, cum quadam ejus Germana, which he englished as 〈◊〉 have heard, his own natural and full sister etc. cutting of 〈◊〉 the sentence that ensued, and confuted his falsification, 〈◊〉 cognoverat fornicariè, whom he had known in fornication: 〈◊〉 the sentence in Antoninus is, that Pope Martin the 3. 〈◊〉 a great suit and long deliberation, did dispense with one 〈…〉 married with the sister of her, whom he had known in fornication, that is to say, with his concubines sister: which dispensation (saith Antoninus) was hardly granted: and one thei● reason of the grant was (saith he) for that the par●●●● could not be separated without great scandal, nor were fit to enter into Religion.  
Now as to Mr. Chark's answer or reply to the defence of the Censure, which Doctor Downham had lent unto me, 
Search pag. 77. Mr. Walsingham found no satisfaction in the answer of the defence of the Censure.  I found therein no satisfaction, for I saw in effect (saith Mr. Walsingham) nothing but a colerick Jnvective against the Author of the defence, telling him first and facing him down that the cause why there was no public disputation, was in him and his fellows, as being afraid to come to that trial. Which kind of answer contented me not, for that I expected he would have said, that disputation should be procured, and that he and all the rest of our Clergy would join in that suit to her Majesty that then was. Secondly, to all the ways set down by the defence for trying of a Catholic and heretical spirit, he said only, that he and his, would be tried by Scriptures; whereas the Controversies would be about the sense and Jnterpretation of Scripture.  
Thirdly, to that of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, their lives and doctrines, which principally I desired to see discussed, he seemed to me to answer scarce any thing to the purpose, but ran into a great exclamation of popish slanderers, and against the absurdities of Indulgences etc. which were not now in question: he ought to have examined the place out of Luther's own writings about himself and others, both for life and doctrine: but this was not done, only in general he would seem to excuse matters, or rather to divert the reader from attention unto them with this flourish of words. As for Berengari●s (saith Chark) Huss, Wicleff, Luther, etc. we measure them according to those times wherein the Lord stirred them up, 
Search. pag. 78.  and according to that measure of grace and light he bestowed upon them, and whatsoever were their Jmperfections, therein we do not justify them, but give God the praise of his work, and leave them to their place as men; yet we may and will thus far defend them against that doggish tooth of youree that in the principal points of faith, whereupon dependeth salvation, they were found with Athanasius, and all other holy men of God. These words I say, may be as well applied (as an Apology) to Turks, jews, and all heretics, as to Luther, Calvin, Beza, Cranmer; for Turks, jews and all heretics agree with Catholics and Athanasius in some points of faith; though in their imperfections (as blasphemies, judaism, Turkism, heresy etc.) They do not agree with Athanasius, and therein we do not justify them. Were not this a good excuse thought I with myself? And is it not a goodly Church that admits of such companions, and fraternity? saith Walsingham. What he meant ●●en he said in the principal points of faith whereupon dependeth salvation, I could not tell, seeing he giveth no certain rule to know them. And besides I considered that Luther and 〈◊〉 Lutherans do affirm in their Books, even to this day, that we ●scan●ants of England are damned heretics, for denying the real pre〈…〉. And on the contrary side we say that they are good protestants, 〈◊〉 holy men, and our Brethren, though they hold the real presence, which we deny, and condemn for Idolatry. To all the rest of my difficulties I found in effect no substantial answer at all.   

Mr. Walsinghams' last appearance before my Lord of Canterbury and his Doctors.  
THe prefixed time of my appearance drawing near, I repaired to London, and upon the last day of Easter term I went to Lambeth to present myself to my Lord, who was not yet come from Westminster, though in 〈◊〉 absence there sat, as I understood, divers Doctors, and Prelates about matters of Religion in his house at Lambeth. At length my Lord came home, and a great train with him, coming out of his garden he cast his eye upon me, and presently said unto me with a friendly countenanee, and somewhat a low voice, now Mr. Walsingham how do you, are you satisfied? To whom I answered, no truly my Lord, I am not yet satisfied, whereunto he replied nothing, but went and sat down at his table in the parlour, together with his Doctors and Prelates about him, whither after a little time, I was called, and then my Lord began to explain my case unto them, how I desired to be satisfied in matters of fact contained in the defence, what pains his Lordship had taken with me, and others at his appointment, and finally that he had delivered unto me two books of Mr. Bell's, written against the Papists, to satisfy me withal; and then he called me closely unto him at the table's end, and asked me very seriously whether I had read them, and what I thought of them?  
To this I answered that I had read them over with diligence, and that my judgement was that the Author was a golden Bell, but his sound like as of a brazen Candlestick, which I said in respect of the many golden advices, inferences, Corollaries, and the golden sentences, which he mentioned so often in his books; but that his sound was no better then of brass, according to the Apostle's similitude, for that he seemed not only to have no charity in his writings, but neither truth nor sincerity in his Allegations.  
The Archbishop hearing me call him a golden Bell in the first part of my answer, seemed much contented, saying, that is well, but hearing the second, demanded? why so? And Doctor Barlow Dean of Chester (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln) looking back upon me with more displeasure, as it seemed, than the rest, said, why, what say you to Mr. Bell? and all the other Doctors in like manner cast their eyes upon me. 
How the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Assembly of Divines would not confer Dean Walsingham's notes of Bell's corruptions with the Fathers quoted, notwithstanding the books were in their presence, or on the next room.  But I gave the reason 〈◊〉 mentioned. And then my Lord answering, and willing me to show wherein I had made that observation, I laid forth upon the table before them the two books that I had perused, turning to the places of St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, and other Fathers, which I pretended to have been untruly alleged by him, presupposing that my Lord would presently h●●e commanded the said Fathers works to have been brought forth out of his study, and the places quoted to be examined in all their presence: but no such matter ensued: for my Lord having slightly looked over the places in Bell, as he citeth them, he laid them down again, and the Doctors took them up to peruse, in which mean space his Lordship began to talk somewhat privately and mildly with me concerning things, objected by the defence of the Censure against Luther etc.  
My Lord began to talk unto Doctor Barlow, who this while with the rest was looking on Bell's Books, and began to speak somewhat concerning them, seeming to maintain somewhat a good opinion of Bell's fidelity, which yet appeared not to be great with my Lord himself, as by some conjectures I gathered. But none of them, as I said, so much as once offered to call for the Father's works themselves, to examine the places, which was my desire. But after some few words to and fro among themselves, my Lord commanded me to stand a side whilst they talked.  
Whereupon I retired myself by little and little down to the lower end of the parlour, that they might confer more freely; they talked together of this and other matters: and after some little time etc. my Lord began to speak with a high and angry voice, concerning me, and my affairs; and looking toward me complained of my importunity and obstinacy, and said to the Doctors, that he would send me to prison, and thereupon calling for his pursuivant, or apparitor, (which presently appeared) said, let a mittimus be made to send him to the Chink etc.  
But than came unto me from the other side of the parlour the Knight of the Corner mentioned before, 
Perkins.  who out of ●●ew of great compassion and extraordinary friendship, began with divers temporal reasons to persuade me not to meddle further in these matters, but accommodat myself to my Lord's will, and I should find his Grace a good Lord unto me, and ready to perform as occasion should be offered etc. After a little time they rose from the table, and standing on foot, my Lord showed himself much displeased, talked again of me and of my business, threatening to send me to prison; but after that again he retired himself into a window together with Doctor Barlow, who having conferred some little space together, my Lord called me unto him, and insinuating unto me that the said Doctor had entreated for some favour towards me, said, well, Mr. Walsingham, I am content you shall confer these places with Doctor Barlow, who will take some pains with you to resolve you; and then turning unto Mr. Doctor, he said unto him, you can show him (Mr. Deane) Chrysostom both in greek and Latin, (and so might his Grace also, but durst not) willing me to repair unto him for conference, and dismissed me, with saying only that I should return unto him in the end of the next term; and indeed his dismission was such, and with such countenance and speech, as it seemed to me he could not well determine what to do with me, being weary of me, and of my suit, and that he would have been content to be handsomely rid of me.  
Upon the next day I repaired to Westminster to Mr. Doctor Barlow, who after even song went up with me to his study, and there at my request opened first one of St. Austin's Tomes, wherein the Book de bono viduitatis is contained, and there sought for the place before named, cited by Mr. Bell, and falling upon the words alleged by him, read them, and would have seemed to defend them, as there they lie. But when I pressed him to have him go forward, and to read the words ensuing, which do explicat St. Austin's meaning, and wholly overthrow Mr. Bell's purpose, he was unwilling at that time to pass any further, especially his man coming to tell him that it was now supper time: and so with courteous words, he dismissed me, saying notwithstanding that if at any other time I should come unto him, he would be glad to spend an hour, and take 〈◊〉 some further pains with me. But I thought with myself, to what end should I come unto him, and trouble both him and myself, as I had done many others in the same cause before: for that I seemed to perceive now how little they were able or willing to give me that satisfaction in these points, which I demanded about my doubts, and scruples; and with this I departed from him, not meaning to return again for the present, but to take some other course as afterwards I did: which was, to examine books on both sides for finding out truth or falsity, beginning first with the writings of the protestants, and afterward of Catholics.  
This is the substance of the historical part of Mr. Walsingham's search into Religion. In the progress of his book he sets down those frauds, and wilful corruptions which he found in perusing the works of Luther, Calvin, Jewel, Fox, ●●●low, Willet, Chark, Fulk, Hastings and other protestant ●●iters: and acknowledgeth the truth and sincerity which he 〈◊〉 with, in the Catholics; wherupon he resolved to re●ounce protestancy, and the conveniencies that thereby he might ●●pect, preferring the good of his soul, which he believed could not be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church, before all temporal respects. To satisfy his friends, and the world, in this resolution, he published the foresaid Treatise, and became a Catholic Priest, and by his good example and pains taken in this Kingdom, converted many of his seduced Countrymen. He lived to be of very great age, dying but few years since, bidding always those with whom he conversed, not to credit, or trust any of the protestant Clergy in matters of Religion, how ever so sincere they may seem to be in other affairs.    

SUBSECT. III. Reflections upon Mr. Walsingham's relation.  
THe first Reflection is. How education, and a persuasion of the truth grounded thereupon, can not be safely or prudently relied upon in matters of that one only faith, without which it is impossible to please God, and be saved; especially when we acknowledge the fallibility of our Church, and have reasons to suspect our Clergys' sincerity. The protestant Church of England doth acknowledge its own fallibility, and that Clergys' interest and intrigues in upholding a Religion whereby alone they may live above the meanness of their parentage, and patrimony, together with our Catholic continual exceptions and proofs against its novelty, and libertinism, and the public offers of learned disinteressed, and conscientious persons to demonstrat how much lay-Protestants are abused by their Clergy, and mistaken in their fancied Scripture and reformed Doctrine (in case the state will give way to a fair trial) doth leave no room for the illiterate laities ordinary excuse, to wit, that they are not obliged to study Controversies, or read the Fathers; so much is not exacted of them, they are bound notwithstanding to examine (every one according to his capacity) which of the two Clergys, Protestant or Catholic, do corrupt and falsify Scripture, the Fathers and Counsels; or if that diligence be not compatible with the means, and condition of many of them, no more is required of such, then to observe which of both parties and Clergyes hinders, or is most backward in coming to a public trial thereof, this (being but matter of fact, discernible by the eye, without Metaphysical speculation, or historical erudition) can not in conscience be rejected or neglected by any Christian, learned or unlearned. Though Mr. Walsingham was a protestant Divine, yet he never had read any Catholic Books, and by consequence was (before he lighted upon the defence of the Censure) as ignorant in our Tenets as any lay-protestant, and as avers from reading our Controversies: yet being a conscientious, and judicious person, he thought himself bound under pain of damnation, to examine whether what that Book said of Protestants, was true: Particularly when he reflected upon their putting of, and declining all public disputations concerning Religion, and their persecuting such as offered to dispute.  
2. Reflection. How easily a company or Corporation of necessitous and mean persons do conspire and concur in a beneficial fraud; and how difficult it is to make them confess a fault, in the maintenance whereof their fortunes are concerned, and by consequence how accountable the protestant laity is to God, for not mistrusting and examining the truth and sincerity of their own Clergy, being so indigent and so interessed persons, and so confidently charged and so frequently caught with falsehoods? what fraud can be more visible then to make men believe that so infamous and dissolute persons as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer and Beza, etc. were Saints, sent by God to restore his Church unto its primitive doctrine, and spirit? or that they, and all protestants do agree in all matters of faith, against Papists. Their dissensions, vices, and wickedness are so manifest, that they can not be denied without impudence, and without giving the lie to the whole world, and contradicting their own writings. And yet the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Junta of Divines, would face down Mr. Walsingham, that there was no such matter; and because the poor man humbly petitioned to have the matter decided, by comparing their own books (which were in the next room) with his notes, he was censured and called a foolish bold Knave, impudent fellow, s●●cy Companion etc. and threatened with prison and pillary. And for that they durst not betray the weakness of their cause by so public and violent proceedings against a known protestant, who desired to continue one of themselves, if protestancy did not prove to be a mistake of Christianity, the Archbishop (to be shut of him) sent him to the Commissary of St. Alban to be resolved, forsooth, whether Luther acknowledged in his Books that he began the protestant Reformation, and impugned the Mass, adoration of the Sacrament, Invocation of Saints etc. moved thereunto by the devil's arguments, in a real conference between himself and sathan; as if this passage and others of Luther's and Calvin's works were not to be found in London, or in his Grace's Library at Lambeth, as well as at St. Alban? And after that by his own importunity Mr. Walsingham had obtained of Doctor Covell to show him Luther's book wherein he acknowledged this conference and conviction of the devil's arguments, 
Subsect. 2. num. 19  that the Doctor should interrupt him, and divert the whole discourse with a rush, you see I have this book and many such like.  
3. Reflection. By what particular indirect means, cavils, and Calumnies, the Archbishop himself endeavoured to maintain the protestant Religion, and discredit the Catholic, delivering to Mr. Walsingham Mr. Bell's libel against the jesuits, as an invincible fortress against the Roman faith; and his other book full of corruptions and falsifications, as a very sincere and solid piece; which falsifications being showed to them all sitting in their Junta, and judgement about that affair, the Archbishop durst not send into his study for the Father's works that were affirmed by Mr. Walsingham to have been corrupted by Bell and Calvin, 
Subsect. 2. nu. 40.  etc. His Lordship's confessed practice also of burning Catholic Books argues the weakness of the protestant cause, and proves how much they are afraid their own false dealing, and the impiety of their principles should be discovered.  
4. Reflection. That Mr. Walsingham's case hath been and is revived and practised now every day, when any conscientious protestant begins to doubt of the safety and sincerity of his Religion. The protestant Clergy tells him that he is in a sure way of salvation, and yet this assertion is against one of their articles of faith, to wit, that which acknowledgeth their Church is fallible in proposing Christ's doctrine and the true sense of Scripture, and by consequence, (for all they know) themselves may be in damnable errors. Then they tell him the Papists are Jdolaters, worship Antichrist, etc. that our Books of Controversyes are full of lies, and fables; and to make good these their impostures, they not only corrupt our Authors, but translate into English all infamous libels, though they treat not of controversies, as the Jansenists Letters, Palafox his relations: and for the renegat Fr. Paulo his history of the Council of Trent, 
See in the epistle dedicatory to the King edit. Angl.  they swear it is the most exact and sincere work of this age, whereas Cardinal Palavicino, in his answer to the same, and in the very beginning, hath set down 300. of Fr: Paulo's untruths in matter of fact, so palpable▪ that they seem inexcusable in him, and render others guilty of unpardonable rashness, and obstinacy, who credit so mistaken or malicious an Author, and prefer his bare word before the unanimous Testimony of all Christendom, that hath accepted the definitions of the Council as Catholic truths; which they would never have done, had they been such as Fr: Paul● describes. Is it likely that the Bishops, Ambassadors, and Prelates, of so different nations, and subjects to Princes of so contrary Interests, who were present at the Council, and recommended to their flocks, and friends the decrees of Trent as sacred, would conspire to cheat and damn their Souveraigns, relations, and neighbours? Or that they knew not better how matters went in the Council, or were not more impartial in relating them, than one Apost●ta Friar, or those persons from whom he pretends to have received his papers and intelligence? with such pitiful frauds and fashoods are many poor protestant souls deluded, and seduced into eternal damnation; which they deserve for believing their own Clergy without any further examination of the scruples and doubts which common sense and natural reason doth raise in every one of them that converseth with Roman Catholics, or observeth the incoherency and inconstancy of protestancy, together with its singularity and pride of Spirit, contemning the primitive true sense of Scripture declared by universal Tradition, and the unanimous consent of all orthodox Fathers and Councils. Perditio tua ex te Jsrael.  
5. Reflection. One of my Lord of Canterburyes reasons to Mr. Walsingham against crediting the Popish book was, do you not know when two men go to law together, one will speak the worst he can by the other? And though this ought not to be practised in law suits, much less in controversies of Religion, yet seeing my Lord would have protestants read our books with that prejudice, reason doth dictat that theirs ought not to be read without caution; especially Seeing every protestant ●eader makes himself supreme Judge of Controversies of Religion, and no Judge ought to give sentence before both sides be heard. Suppose therefore that the protestant and Catholic Clergy are engaged not only in a dispute of Religion, but in a suit of Law, to wit, whether the revenues of the Church of the three Kingdoms belong of right rather to the present possessors, then to the ancient proprietors? neither party (say you) ought to be judge in his own cause, who then must decide the business? The Laity; Content, let my Lord Chancellor of England (notwithstanding his known Jnclination to favour and promote protestancy) be named head of a Committee, for examining, and deciding the question. Let it be tried in public Court, which of the two parties are guilty of counterfeiting evidences? that is, of changing the ancient letter and sense of Scripture, and of corrupting and falsifying the Catholic Fathers and Counsels. It is but matter of fact, and may be soon resolved. We have given our charge against our Adversaries long since, in our printed Books, and in this do renew the same. Let the Court command them to put in their answer.  
And because the Protestant Clergy hath always endeavoured to make us odious and obnoxious to the state, as unnatural subjects and ill patriots, and will strive now to persuade the world that our zeal in manifesting their frauds and falsifications, proceeds not from a desire of manifesting the truth, but from covetousness of possessing their lands, we doubt not but that in case reason and equity appeareth to be on the Catholic side, the Catholic Clergy will resign unto his Majesty all their claim and right to the Church livings of the three Kingdoms, to be freely disposed of in pious and public uses, as he and his Parliament will think most fit for the honour of God, and defence of this Monarchy against foreign enemies, and seditious subjects. Wherein we do no more than duty, and our Brethren did in the like occasion in Q. Mary's reign. And as our offer can have no design but duty, so this Trial can not be against conscience, and may prove to be of great consequence, both for the salvation of souls, and satisfaction of his Majesty's subjects. It can not be against the tenderness of Protestant consciences, because Roman Catholics (who pretend to a greater certainty of doctrine, as believing the Roman Catholic Church to be infallible) have admitted of such a trial in France an. 1600. in presence of the King, (than a Catholic) the princes, and of all the Court; and hath been translated into English in the third part of the 3. Conversions. In hopes that Protestants may be moved by such an example, and follow the same Method, I will set down the sum of the Trial.   

SUBSECT. IV. A brief relation of a Trial held in France about Religion, whereof the Lord Chancellor of France was Moderator.  
IN the year 1600. there came forth a book in Paris under the name of Monsieur de Plessis, a Huguenot, and Governor of Samur, against the Mass; which book making great show (as the fashion is) of abundance and ostentation of Fathers, Counsels, Doctors, and stories for his purpose, great admiration seemed to be conceived thereof, and the Protestants every where began to triumph of so famous a work, (Just as our prelatiks have done of late, when Doctor jeremy tailor's Dissuasive from Popery was published in Ireland, printed and reprinted in England) whereupon divers Catholic learned men took occasion to examine the said book, of Plessis, (as others have done lately with Doctor Tailors Dissuasive) and finding many most egregious deceits, shifts, and falsifications therein, 
P. Fronto Duceus Burdeg.  divers books were written against it, and one in particular by a French jesuit, discovering at least a thousand falsehoods of his part. And the Bishop of Eureux (afterwards Cardinal Peron) Protested upon his honour in the pulpit, that he could show more than 500 Falsifications in the Book for his part.  
Hereupon the Duke of Bovillon, Monsieur Rosny, Mr. Digiers and other Protestant Lords, began to call for a trial of the truth, for that it seemed to touch all their honours, as well as that of their Protestant Religion. It were to be wished that some of our English Protestant Nobility and Gentry did imitat the French Hugonots, rather in this example of the sense they showed both of honour and conscience, then in the fashion of their clothes, cringies and congees. The English Protestants▪ have more reason to vindicat Doctor tailor's Dissuasive from the aspersions of frauds, and falsifications laid to that Bishop's charge, than the french Hugonots, had to vindicat de Plessis his Book, which was but the work of a Layman, or at least not set out by order of the Huguenot Clergy, as Bishop tailor's Dissuasive was resolved upon, and published by order of the Protestant prelatik Convocation of Ireland, and both the book, and Tailor the Author, or Amanuensis, so much applauded in England, that the Dissuasive hath often been printed at London, and the Dissuader's picture (in his Canonical habit) placed in the beginning of his book, with a stern and severe countenance, as if he were sharply reprehending St. Ignatius and his learned Jesuits, for cheating and selling of souls; of which crime they are accused with Mottos set under and over their pictures, after tailor's preface. If you add to this insulting dress the impudent drift of the book, which is to dissuade all the Irish, and English Catholics from popery, you will find that the credit and Religion of prelatik Protestants is more deeply engaged in maintaining the truth of Bishop tailor's cause, than the French Hugonots in vindicating Monsieur de Plessis, and defending his book against the Mass. But to our story.  
Though Plessis had challenged Peron to prove the falsifications that Peron had laid to his charge, yet when he saw that Peron accepted of the challenge, Plessis began to shrink and seek delays, but by the King's express command both parties appeared before his Majesty at Fontainbleau, where Plessis came with five or Six Ministers on his side, to which sort of people, it seems, he gave too much credit, and upon their word, took all his arguments, as appeareth by the words of Peron. After that Peron had offered to show 500 enormous and open falsifications in his only book of the Mass, he addeth; and moreover, I say, if that after this our conference ended, he will take upon him for his part to choose amongst all his citations of his Book or Books, any such authorities as he thinketh most sure against us, I do bind myself for conclusion of all, to refute the whole choice, and to show that neither in his said Book against the Mass, nor in his Treatise of the Church, nor in his Commonwealth of Traditions, is there to be found so much as any one place among them all, which is not either falsely cited, or impertinent to the matter, or unprofitably alleged etc. neither do I hereby pretend to blame him for any other thing, then that he hath been over credulous in believing the falls relations and Collections of others that have endeavoured to abuse the industry and authority of his pen.  
This disputation (saith Peron in his answer to Plessis Challenge) shall not be like to others in former times, wherein were examined matters of doctrine, and the truth thereof, etc. In examination whereof the shifts and sleights of the Disputers, and other disguising of the matters, might make the truth uncertain to the hearers. But all Questions in this disputation shall only be questions of fact, whether places be truly alleged or no? for trial whereof it shall only be needful to bring eyes for judges to behold whether the citations which we do accuse of falsehood, be so indeed in the Authors as Plessis hath alleged in his Book: And yet of the overthrow of these so many Falsifications gathered together, ensueth the overthrow and dishonour of the cause which is defended by such weapons. And consequently we are much bound to the holy providence of of Almighty God, 
Apply this to Bp. Tailors Dissuasive, whereof himself says in his preface he was but the Amanuensis, all the Protestant Church of Ireland in a solemn convocation having laid their heads together for composing so substantial and convincing a piece.  that he hath permitted in this last assault of Heretics, the Ministers of France, to have laid all the heads of their falls Impostures and deceitful dealings upon one Body, to the end they may be all cut off at one blow: and that the simple people by them abused, seeing discovered the false and unfaithful dealings of those upon whose fidelity they grounded their faith, may forsake them hereafter, and return to that faith which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth. This is an excellent Method, and Peron's words may be very well applied to B. tailor's Dissuasive from Popery. But to our relation.  
The judges of the conference were besides the Chancellor of France, who was Moderator, the precedent de Tou, a near Kinsman to Plessis, Monsieur Pitheu, his great friend, and Monsieur le Feure Master of the Prince of Conde, all Catholics. On the other side for the Protestants were named the precedent Calignon Chancellor of Navarre, and Monsieur de Fresne Conaye precedent, and Monsieur Causabon Reader to his Majesty in Paris, all earnest and learned Protestants.  
The day before the trial, Peron, to deal more plainly and like a friend, sent unto Plessis 60. places taken out of his book, upon which he meant to press him, and as his words are to begin the play, of which 60. Plessis choose out 19 that seemed to him most defensible. But the next day the trial being begun; after Peron had declared there were four thousand places falsified in Plessis his Book, only 9 of the 19 could be examined, though they sat 6. hours, and all judged against Plessis by common consent; whereupon Plessis fell sick that night, vomiting blood etc. and could be never got to proceed in the trial, and went from Paris to Samur without taking leave of the King, or seeing the Lord Chancellor. This proof of wilful Falsifications (whereby alone it seems protestancy can be maintained every where else as well as in England) occasioned the conversion of very many in France, as the King's Lieutenant in Limoge, and his wife, with divers of the nobility, and no few Ministers, whereof one was Tirius a Scotchman, master of a College in Nismes; and an other who was Nephew to John Calvin.  

The Copy of a letter written by a person of quality about this conference.  
SIR. here hath been some four days past a great Conference at Fontainbleau between Monsieur Peron Bishop of Eureux, and Monsieur Plessis Mornay Governor of Samur. The King with many Princes were present, and judges chosen and appointed for both parties. In the end Plessis Mornay was utterly disproved and confounded by a general consent of both sides, and shamed; in so much as the King rose up from his place, and swore Ventre Gry he had heard and seen enough of Plessis falsities, and that by Act of Parliament he would cause his books to be burned, saying that himself had all his youth time been abused and carried away with their corruptions etc.  
The Hugonots are struck more dead with this accident then if they had lost a battle of 40. thousand men, and Plessis Mornay himself is fallen sick upon it, vomits blood, and looks like himself etc. Paris 10. May. 1600.   

King Henry 4. letter to the Duke of Espernon upon the same subject.  
MY friend. The Diocese of Eureux hath overcome Samur; and the sweet manner of proceeding that hath been used, hath taken away all occasion to say that any force hath been used beside the only force of truth. The Bearer hereof was present at the combat, who will inform you what marvels I have done therein. Certainly it is one of the greatest blows that hath been given for the Church of God this long time for the manifestation of this error. By this means we shall reduce more in one year of them that are separated from the Church, then by any other way in fifty years. There were a large discourse to be made of each their actions, but the same were too long to write. The Beare● will tell you the manner which I would have all my servants to observe for reaping fruit of this holy work. Good night my friend. And for that I know what pleasure you will take hereof you are the only man to whom I have written it, This ●. of May 1600.  
HENRY.   

The Authors falsified and the sentence given against Plessis.  
THe 〈◊〉 places or Authors corrupted by Plessis and his Minist●●●, went 〈◊〉 about the real presence▪ Durandus against Transubstantiation; St. Chrysostom against prayer to 〈◊〉, twice. 〈…〉 against prayer to Saints. St. Cyril against worshipping the holy Cross. The Code or Imperial 〈◊〉 to the same 〈…〉 against honouring our B. Lady. 〈◊〉 against worshipping of Images. The particulars whereof, may be seen in the printed Acts of this Conference, and in the three Conversions part 3. translated into English. But to satisfy the curiosity of many▪ I will copy the abridgement of the Judge's sentence, which was delivered immediately after Conference by the Secretaries to divers persons of quality. Upon the first two places of Scotus and Durandu● the sentence was, that Monsieur Plessis had taken the objection for the resolution. Upon the places of St. Chrysostom, That he had left out that which he should have put in. Upon the fifth place of St. Hierom, That he ought to have alleged the passage entire 〈◊〉 it was in the Author; upon the six place of St. Cyril, that 〈◊〉 passage alleged out of St. Cyril was not to be found in him. The seaventh place out of the Emperors Theodorus and Valens, 〈◊〉 Plessi● had alleged truly Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abu●●●. Upon the eight place out of St. Bernard, That it had been 〈◊〉 Plessis had cited the place distinctly as it lay in the Author, with 〈…〉 of any thing in the midst. And finally upon the ninth 〈◊〉 out of Theodoret against Images, That the passage alleged 〈◊〉 not to be understood of Images, but of Idols; and that this 〈◊〉 by the words which Plessis had omitted in his allegation. 〈◊〉 this suffice for French falsifications, let us return to the English, whereof there is such abundance, and so great variety, ●hat I can hardly resolve which to 〈◊〉 upon.     

SECT. VIII. Protestant falsifications to persuade that the Roman Catholic doctrine is inconsistent with the Sovereignty and safety of Kings, and with civil Society between Catholics and Protestants.  
THe Protestant Clergy seeing their frauds and falsifications of Scripture, Fathers, and Counsels clearly discovered, and that after Queen Elizabeth's death they had no reason to make Catholic Religion odious to the line of the Stewards (our Tenets favouring their right against the deceased Queen, and other Protestants pretences) resolved upon an other way to secure their Church-livings against the title and claim of the Roman Clergy; which was, to maintain in their Books, that it is impossible for a Papist to be a good Subject, because (say Protestants) it is a principle among them, that in some cas●● the Pope may depose a King: So that now the Protestant preachers are become shrewd Politicians, and defend their doctrine and revenues by reasons of state. One of the chief of these Church-Polititians was Thomas Morton, late Bishop of Duresme, more famous for his wicked impostures, then for his many volumes. He began with a Treatise of Rebellion and Equivocation, which having been answered, and restored upon himself and his Protestants in the beginning of K. James his reign; and his wilful falsehoods laid open to the world, he set forth a pamphlet, which he called a preamble of his (promised, but never performed) Reply; and in that Preamble omits almost all the material accusations and objections of his adversary F. Persons: and to such few as himself had attempted to answer, he added new lies and impostures, or laid the fault of his own former falsifications, upon his Brethren, who joined with him in the work, as every one may see in F. Persons Quiet and sober Reckoning with Mr. Morton, out of which we will borrow some few examples.  

Bishop Morton's falsifications about the lawfulness of Killing a Tyrant.  
AN other like trick he playeth us (saith Persons) abusing a place of Doctor Boucher the French man, 
Persons sober reck. pag. 318.  de Justa abdicatione etc. thereby to make all Catholics Odious, as allowing his doctrine. He citys Bouchers words thus. Tyrannum occidere honestum est, quod cuivis impune facere permittitur, quod ex communi consensu dico. And then he Englisheth the same thus; any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant, which I defend by common consent. But he that shall read the place in the Author himself, shall find that he holdeth the very contrary, to wit, that a private man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first judged and declared to be a public enemy by the Commonwealth. And he proveth the same at large out of Scripture, and by the Decree of the Council of Constance. But the words which I say by common consent, are added by Morton, and not 〈◊〉 be found in the Author. Morton excuseth his fraud and folly by saying the like are in other Chapters as Mirum esse in affir●●●●do consensum, which words are of other matters, and spoken upon other occasions, and not annexed to the former sentence of Doctor Boucher.   

B●· Morton's Falsification of Catholics against the Sovereignty of Princes; and how he excuseth himself with saying he received it from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
BIshop Morton in his Book of Discovery pag. 8. set down this falls proposition; That all Catholic Priests did profess a prerogative of the people over Princes; for proof thereof he citeth this position of Mr. Reynolds in the place aforesaid, 
Reynold. de justa Reip. auctoritate c. l.  Rex humana creatura est, qaia ab hominibus constituta: and englisheth it in this manner, A King is but a creature of man's creation, where you see first, that in the Translation he addeth, but, and man's creation of himself, for that the latin hath no such adversative clause as but, nor creation, but rather the word constitution. Secondly, these words are not the words of Mr. Reynolds, but only cited by him out of S. Peter. And thirdly they are alleged here by Morton to a quite contrary sense from the whole drift, discourse, and meaning of the Author, which was to extol and magnify the authority of Princes, as descending from God, and not to debase the same. For proof hereof whosoever will look upon the book, and place itself before mentioned, shall find that Mr. Reynolds purpose therein is, to prove that albeit earthly principality be called by the Apostle humana Creaturae, yet that it is originally from God, and by his commandment to be obeyed.   

Morton's Answer.  

Pag. 100  THis allegation is of all which yet I have found most obnoxious, and liable unto taxation; which (God knoweth that I lie not) I received from suggestion, as the Author thereof R. C. can 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 that time I had not that Ros●●ns, alias Reynolds; neither by that present importunity of occasions could I seek after him, which I confess, is greatly exorbitant, for I received it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings: so 〈◊〉  
When I was advertised (saith Persons) that R. C. did signify Ric. Cant. I was driven into a far greater marvel, how Mr. Morton could be permitted to publish such a manner (the thing having to pass the view of R. C. his officers) and how he could presume to have more care of his own credit, 

An imposture continued against the Catholic doctrine by the national Synod of the Church of England. see inf.  
See constitutions Ecclesiast. printed at London by Barker an. 1604. Can. 30. The whole Convocation of the Protestant Clergy convicted of falls dealing against Catholics.   then of the others that is head and Cheiftain.  
But though the Archbishop of Canterbury did suggest this calumny to Morton, it's probable he did not English 〈◊〉 for him, but left that labour to himself. The truth is, the Archbishop, and Morton, and all the Protestant Clergy were resolved to make Catholics and their Religion odious by any means whatsoever; and finding they could not do it with truth, it was judged convenient for preserving above two Millions Sterl. per an. for themselves and their Children, to effect it by falsehood.  
And to the same intent and purpose did their whole prelatik Synod held at London 1603. (Can. 30.) contrive and conspire in a notable cozenage, trumpery, and calumny against the Roman Catholic doctrine; when giving the reason (to satisfy puritans) why they retain the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism? they said they do it, because the same hath bi● ever accompanied (among the prelatic Protestants) with sufficient cautions and exceptions against all popish error and superstition; and forsooth, that the world may understand from what Popish error they have freed the same, they signify, that the Church of England since the abolishing of popery, have ever held and taught, that the sign of the Cross used in baptism, is no part of the substance of that Sacrament, and that the Infant baptised is by virtue of baptism (before it 〈◊〉 signed with the sign of the Cross) received into the Congregation of Christ's Flock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the Cross etc. ●●erupon they conclude, that the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all popish superstition, and 〈◊〉, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary 〈◊〉 of it etc. is to be reverently retained and used. Thus teach 〈◊〉 in their foresaid Synod. And yet it can not be showed 〈◊〉 as in one particular Roman Catholic Doctor or 〈◊〉, that the sign of the Cross is an essential or substan●●●● 〈◊〉 of Baptism. Witness K. James, 
See the sum of the Conference pag. 37. Thirdly printed an. 1604.  (nay the Bishops themselves that make this their imposture the ground of a 〈◊〉 of their Church) who in the Conference of Hampton 〈◊〉 said, that he understood by the Bishops, yea and 〈◊〉 it himself to be true, that the papists themselves did never 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism▪ Is it possible that lay people can be so ignorantly de●●t, and dull, as to let a Clergy enjoy millions of reve●●●●pon such notoriously falls, and forged evidences?   

The protestant Falsification to persuade that the Canon law doth warrant deposition of Kings by the Pope.  
MAster Morton in his discovery pag. 34. hath these words. 
Extravag. communium de Major. & obedientiat. unam sanctam.  Except (saith the Romish pretence) there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes', God had not provided sufficiently for his Church. And for this he citeth the Constitution extravagant of Pope Bonifacius, and saith, this objection is in your extravagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth extra, that is without the bounds of God's ordinance. etc.  
here first this sentence is not in the Pope's extravagant at all, but only in a certain addition to the ordinary Gloss, or Commentary of john Picard; which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer. Secondly, this Commentary says nothing of deposing Apostata princes, but only affirming the foresaid opinion of Canonists to be true, that Christ was Lord absolutely in his life over all, not only in spiritual authority, but in temporal also, he inferreth thereby, Christ should not have sufficiently provided for the Government of his Church and Kingdom upon earth, nisi unicum post se tal●● Vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset, except he had left some such one Vicar after him as should be able to perform all these things, according as necessity shall require; which later clause Mr. Morton cut of, as he added the other abou●▪ Apostata Princes.  
Bishop Morton in his preamble pag. 110. doth answer thus. For citing the extravagant of the Pope, an ingenious reader would have understood a figure called Synecdoche, where the part is put for the whole, as when we say, this man shall not come under my roof, meaning by roof which is but a part of my house, the whole house itself: so here by extravagants might have been meant the whole body of their Constitutions, which contain both extravagants and Glosses. etc.  
This is the first part of his answer, that we must understand him by a figure, pars pro toto, as if a man should say in divinity, the Scripture hath this or that, because Tyndales Glosses, or some Commentaries, or annotations upon it have. But indeed here is no Synecdoche, but only the figure of plain lying; for, neither are the extravagant Constitutions of Popes, parts of the Glosses, nor are the Glosses parts of the Constitutions; and much less may additions, or annotations be accounted any part at all of the same.  
The second part of his answer is no less fraudulent. 
Preamb. p. 11.  Pope Gregory 13. (saith Morton) hath ratified the foresaid Glosses and annotations, with privilege, and authority equivalent and answerable to the authority of the Decretals and extravagants themselves; whereof he inferreth, that whether a man do cite ●●cretals, Extravagants, Glosses, and annotations, all is one, for that all have equivalent authority.  
Pope Gregory 13. being demanded licence to print the Canon law a new; prefixed an epistle before the decretals of 〈◊〉 with this title, ad futuram rei memoriam, wherein he 〈◊〉 licence to Paulus Constabilis to review the same, and to 〈◊〉 printer to print it exactly according to the Roman exem●●●, saying among other things, thereupon. Vt hoc juris Ca●●●ci corpus fideliter & incorrupté juxta exemplar Romae impres●●●●mprun● possit: That the Canon law may be faithfully 〈◊〉 without corruption printed, according to the Copy set 〈◊〉 at Rome. So that Mr. Morton will needs have this 〈◊〉 of printing, an equalling the credit and authority of all 〈◊〉 things printed. As for his adding the words Apostata princes, 〈◊〉 ●yes, though they be not in the text of the Glosses, yet 〈◊〉 matter handled in that Gloss may be extended to them.   

Protestant Falsification, to persuade that Catholics may cheat any excommunicated persons of their lawful debts.  
WIll you hear a case or two more (saith Parsons) out of the Canon law, how dexterous Sir Thoma● is in corrupting that which he loveth not. You 〈◊〉 read in the fourth page of his pamphlet or preamble an ancient decree (for so he calleth it) alleged by him out of Gratian in the Gloss, determining that though a man hath sworn to pay money to one that is excommunicated, yet is he not bound to pay the same, and he citeth the latin text thus: Si juravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam, qui excommunio●tur, non teneor ei solvere. If I have sworn to pay money to any man that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it: adding this reason, quia qualitercunque poss●mus, debemus ●exare malo●▪ ut cess●nt a m●●o, because we ought to vex evil men by what means soever we may, to the end they may cease from doing evil.  
The truth of this matter is, that these words be not found in any text of law, or decision of any pope, or Council; but words of the Gloss that contain only a certain objection upon a Clause of a Canon, concerning promise to be observed to one that is excommunicated, after the promise was made, and the objection 〈◊〉 doubt is made in these word● by the Author of the Gloss or Commentary 〈…〉 quid 〈◊〉 si juravi etc. But what will you say if I have 〈…〉 to any person, or have promised the same under 〈…〉, and in the mean space be to whom I made the 〈…〉 excommunicated, am I bound to pay the same or not 〈…〉 question, and then he argueth on both sides, and 〈◊〉 for the negative, videtur quod non, it seems I am not 〈◊〉 the Canon law saith (causa 25. q. 6.) that we aught 〈…〉 wicked men etc. But afterwards coming to give his 〈…〉 solution, he saith thus, veriu● credo quod licet ille non habeat 〈◊〉 petendi, tamen debet ei solui. I do believe the truer opinion to be, that albeit be, that is so excommunicated, have no right to demand his money, yet is the other bound to pay him; so that Morton▪ imposeth upon his 〈◊〉, the objection for the resolution, cutting of deceitfully the first words, sed quid dici●, si jura●● etc. and alleging the reason of the objection quia qualitercunque possumus etc. for the reason of the solution. Morton answereth, the truth is I took these allegations upon credit etc. of one Stock a learned preacher (saith he) of London. 
Preamb. pag. 104.  And Stock beginneth his recognizance thus, I Richard Stock brought this allegation with some others, to the Author of the discovery etc. So like honest fellows they divide the same between them, Stock for his fraudulent lending, and Morton for his beggarly borrowing, and without doubt improving of the fraud: it being incredible 〈◊〉 Stock would deliver it as Morton sets is down.   

Bp▪ Morton's Falsification, to persuade that Cathotholiks' hold it lawful to murder and massacre Protestants.  
IN the 6. page of Morton's discovery, he hath this grievous 〈…〉 out of the Canon law against catholics. 〈◊〉, felij vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed juxta legem, sit 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉, ut fundas sanguinem ipsorum. And then he 〈◊〉 thus, Apud Grat. Gloss. in decret. lib. 5. ex decret. Greg. 9 〈…〉. cap. legi. Which words he englisheth thus, 〈…〉 termed either Children, or kindred, but according 〈…〉, thy hand must be against them to spill their blood. 〈…〉 in the Margin he setteth down this special prin●●● note, The professed bloody Massacre against the Protestants with●●● distinction of sex or Kindred.  
First of all is to be considered that this Gloss or 〈◊〉 of the Canon law, which here is both untruly cited, 〈◊〉 maliciously applied, is upon a Canon beginning, si quis Episcopus; which Canon is taken out of the third Council of Carth●ge, wherein the famous Doctor St. Austin was present, and 〈◊〉 device of the Canon is, that if any Bishop should institute heretics or pagans for his heirs, whether they were Kinsmen or 〈◊〉; ei Anathema dicatur, let him be accursed etc. now the 〈◊〉 yielding a reason of this severity, saith, Quia isti haeret●●●am non dicuntur filij vel consanguinei, unde dicitur in lege, si 〈◊〉 tuus, & amicus tuus, & uxor tua depravare voluerit veritatem, sit manus tua super illos; For that these heretics are not n●w called Children or Kinsfolks, therefore as such they cannot be made Inheritors by ecclesiastical men. Whereupon it is said in the law (of Deuteronomy) if thy Brother, or friend, or wife will go about to deprave the truth, let thy hand be upon them. And presently he citeth to the same effect the authority of St. Hierom in an other Canon and volume of the law, where the holy Doctor excusing to his friend Riparius a Priest, his earnest desire and zeal to have Vigilantius▪ the heretic punished by his Bishops, allegeth divers examples of severity in like cases out of the Scriptures, as of Phinees, Elias▪ Simon Chananaeus; St. Peter, St. Paul, and lastly citeth also the aforesaid words of God's ordinance in Deuteronomy, If thy Brother, thy friend, thy wife, etc. shall go about to pervert thee from God's true worship etc. hear him not, nor conceal him, but bring him 〈◊〉 Judgement and let thy hand be upon him first, and then after the hand of all the people etc. which is to be understood accordi●● 〈◊〉 the form of Law appointed afterwards in the 17. Chap●●●, that he be orderly brought forth to judgement, and 〈…〉 sentence is passed against him, he which heard or 〈…〉 commit the sin, and is a witness against him, must 〈◊〉 the first stone at him, and the rest must follow. And this also doth the ordinary Gloss of Lyranus, and others upon those texts of Scripture declare.  
And now let the Judicious Reade● consi●●● how many corruptions this Protestant Bishop hath used to 〈◊〉 forth to his purpose this one little distracted Text for proof of professed bloody massacres, in ended by Catholics against Protestants. For first, he corrupteth the words of the Gloss, leaving out the beginning Quia isti Haeretici, which 〈◊〉 to the understanding of the Author's meaning; as also he lest out the reaso●●●ledged by the Gloss out of God's own words in Deuteronomy, to wit the wilful corruption of his truth. Then he corrupteth the meaning both of the Gloss and Canon, depraving that to a wicked sense of bloody massacring without distinction of sex or Kindred, which the Canon and Council of Carthage with St. Austin, meant only of civil punishment against heretics, to wit, that they should not be made heirs to Ecclesiastical men. He perverteth in like manner St. Hieriom's intent, which was that heretics and namely Vigilantius, for denying the lawfulness of praying to Saints, worshipping th●ir Relics &c.) should be punished but by order and form of Law and not that any one shall Kill an other, and much less by bloody massacres. Lastly he presumeth to re●ort the very words of God himself in the Law, by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum, 〈◊〉 their blood, in steed of shed their blood, for that to spill 〈◊〉 is always in Scripture taken in the worst sense, for murth●●●ng or killing unjustly.  
The good Bishop remits us for an answer to the allegation of this place of Gratian, to his friend Stock once more. 〈◊〉 Stock doth not take upon him to justify any thing therein 〈◊〉 then the citation to be true, which notwithstanding is 〈◊〉 as every one may see in the Text. Morton in his preamble denyeth the foresaid Canon to have been decreed in the 〈◊〉 Council of Carthage. therefore (saith he) must his 〈◊〉 own terms of falsehood, fraud, treachery, 〈◊〉 upon himself. But let any one peruse the said Council, 〈◊〉 he will find decreed in the 13. Canon. Vt Episcopi vel Cleric● etc. That neither Bishops nor Clergy men shall bestow any of their goods upon any that be not Catholikly Christians, though they be their Kinsfolks. And the Council of Hippo where St. Austin was Bishop, which Council professeth to m●ke Abbreviationes Concilij Carthaginensis tertii, an abridgement of the third Carthage Council, hath this Canon, That Bishops and Clergy men shall bestow nothing of their goods upon any but such as are catholics.   

Bp. Morton's Falsification to assert the King's supremacy.  
POpe Leo writing to a true Catholic Emperor (saith Morton) hath these words. You may not be ignorant that your princely power is given unto you, not only  
extinguished: The oblation of Sacrifice (the Mass) is intermitted, the hollowing of Chrysm is ceased, and all 〈◊〉 Mysteries of our Religion have withdrawn themselves from the parricidial hands of those heretics that have murdered their own Father's and Patriarch Proterius, burned his 〈◊〉 and cast the ashes into the air.  
This than was the cause and occasion wherein the holy 〈◊〉 Leo did implore the help and secular arm of Leo the 〈◊〉, for chastising these turbulent heretics, for the 〈◊〉 of the Church. And is this all that is exacted of 〈◊〉 by the Supremacy? Is this the substance of the 〈◊〉? we know the English Prelatik Clergy are now asha●●● to acknowledge that their own spiritual character and jurisdiction is derived from Queen Elizabeth's she supremacy; but 〈…〉 they did own (8. Eliz.) what now they 〈◊〉 every man may see how ungratfully and confidently 〈◊〉 contradict what is extant in the Act of Parliament 8. 〈◊〉 and in their Episcopal Oath of homage, wherein it is 〈◊〉 that all spiritual Jurisdiction, supreme power, order, 〈◊〉, and authority, over all the state Ecclesiastical of their 〈…〉, is in the Kings of England: and that in 〈◊〉 of the prerogative they may by their Letters patents 〈◊〉 only authorize Arch-Bishops, and Bishops to consecrat 〈…〉 Character, but that they may authorize any 〈…〉 not Bishops to consecrat and make any men 〈…〉 Arch-Bishops, as appeareth by the words of the 〈…〉 and hereupon all ambiguities of Archbishop Parker▪ 〈◊〉 Cammerades consecrations, were answered▪ and they 〈◊〉 declared to be Bishops, because the Queen had in her let●●●● patents dispensed with all causes of doubts, imperfection, 〈◊〉 disability that might in any wise be objected against the same, and with the very state and condition of the Consecratory▪ who indeed were no bishops as hath been proved. 
See heretofore.   
It being then manifest that none can give what himself hath not, if the Kings of England can give to a lay man or to   

〈◊〉 falsifications set down together by Bp. Morton to prove that we hold Popes can not be deposed nor be Heretics.  
THe Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kings in case of heresy (saith Morton) do profess concerning Popes, 
Full satisfa. pag. 38.  〈◊〉 that they cannot possibly be heretics, as Popes, and consequently can not be deposed: 
Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. Carer. l. 1. c. 24. Azor. l. 5. ●. 14. Gratian Can. si Papa didst. 40.  not saith Bellarmin by any 〈◊〉 ecclesiastical or temporal, no not by all Bishop's assem●●●● in a Council: not saith Carerius, though he should 〈◊〉 any thing prejudicial to the universal state of the Church; 〈◊〉, saith Azorius, though he should neglect the Canons ecclesiastical, or pervert the laws of Kings: not, saith 〈…〉, though he should carry infinite multitude of 〈◊〉 with him to hell. And these forenamed Authors do 〈…〉 for confirmation of this doctrine, the universal 〈◊〉 Romish ●●●ines and Canonists, for the space of 〈…〉 years'.  
〈◊〉 these 〈◊〉 are as many notorious and shamless lies, 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉, and Authors named by Morton. For first, 〈…〉 which he mentioneth there in the Text, to 〈◊〉 Bellarmi●●, 〈◊〉, Azor, and Gratian, 
Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. ●. 30.  do expressly 〈…〉 hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out 〈…〉 that they teach and prove by many arguments, 〈…〉 may fall into heresies, and for the same be 〈…〉 the Church, or rather are ipso facto deposed, and 〈…〉 to declared by the Church. But yet not content with 〈◊〉 Morton citeth other four or five Authors in the Margin, 〈◊〉, Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Stapleton, and Costerius; all 〈◊〉 in the very place by him cited▪ are expressly against 〈◊〉 And is not this strange dealing? Is it not a strange Religion that must be supported by falsehood? Are not they strange men, that give a Million Sterl. per an. to a Clergy for thus deceiving and deluding their Flocks, and damning their soul's 〈◊〉 opinions, or against the practice of the Church even 〈◊〉 general Counsels, accepted and connived at by the tempo●●● Sovereign's themselves the effects of such opinions may be 〈◊〉 securely suppressed by silencing the Doctors▪ then by 〈◊〉 the doctrine.  
〈◊〉 popular and plausible ●n opinion it is, that God 〈…〉 his Church and people, to defend themselves, 〈…〉 their little Children from being erroneously 〈…〉 the force and violence of an heathen or heretical 〈…〉 may be seen in the Author▪ that treat of this 〈…〉 that if it be not lawful to oppose the change 〈…〉 without 〈◊〉 the sin and scandal of 〈…〉 would have 〈…〉 greater regard to the 〈…〉 one▪ or few Princes▪ then to the eternal salva●●●● 〈…〉 souls; And though it were granted 〈…〉 were come 〈◊〉 of discretion, did run 〈…〉 the rigour of persecutions, 〈…〉 any other Religion 〈…〉 heresy 〈◊〉 the Prince doth introduce 〈…〉 their succee●●ng posterity) must perish 〈…〉 not appearing in their defence, 〈…〉 change of true Religion.  
〈…〉 innocent posterity from 〈…〉 answers (in his Treatise of 〈…〉 under colo●● of Religion ●dit. 〈…〉 nothing so likely to entail true 〈…〉 posterity, as their Ancestors 〈…〉 their sufferings, wh●● they shall hear, and be assured 〈◊〉 Testimony, th●● their forefathers thus hoped in God, 〈◊〉 choose to die, or suffer, rather than to rebel 〈◊〉 the King. Besides (saith 〈◊〉) the gratest preju●●●● which that posterity can suffer by their Ancestors non ●●●●●tance, is 〈…〉 be brought up in a contrary Religion, to hear that 〈…〉, but sure not to have their ears deaf●● against all 〈◊〉, when they shall be represented. He 〈…〉 they, whose predecessors were most zealous 〈◊〉, and suffered for their faith. The first Earl of South- 〈◊〉 suffered much for opposing Seamor, when he, and 〈◊〉 planted Protestancy in England. And yet we see 〈…〉 influence this hath upon his posterity; and this is 〈◊〉 of most of the Nobility, and even of the Royal 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 the Doctor saith, Posterity have not their ears 〈…〉 other Religions when they shall be represented. 〈…〉 and England they have. It's treason by the law 〈◊〉 with any of our King's Subjects concerning the truth 〈…〉 Roman catholics Religion: and we know what other 〈…〉 taken not only to deaf, but to blind them from 〈…〉 the evidences produced against the falsehood of 〈…〉 with Protestants may consider such as we present 〈…〉 book. Doctor Hammond could not be 〈…〉 much himself contributed to make his Country- 〈…〉 and blind in Religion, especially after that Mr. 〈…〉 exposed his mistakes, or wilful falsifications, to the 〈…〉. But 〈◊〉 return to the question.  
〈…〉 granted and maintained by Protestant Authors 〈…〉 Sovereign, or bloody Tyrant (whose 〈…〉 and practices reach no further than the body) 〈…〉 resisted, and deposed, they will find 〈…〉 to give a reason why the soul may not claim 〈…〉; unless they believe that the soul is 〈…〉 that there is no such thing as Eternity.  
Besides; such Catholics as maintain that the Pope in case 〈◊〉, and persecution, may depose Kings, or at least 〈◊〉 that ipso facto they are deposed by God (who gives 〈◊〉 their power and jurisdiction not to destroy▪ but to edify) 〈◊〉 them to flatter the Pope thereby, for that they make 〈…〉 himself more subject to deposition, than Kings; because the Pope must be deposed for any heretical opinion he 〈◊〉; Kings (say they) can not, unless they force their subjects 〈◊〉 considerable parts and Princes of Christendom; that our ●●●●rnment and people seem to apprehend their own 〈◊〉 against us catholics doth make us the object of a 〈…〉, and doth gain for themselves nothing but a 〈◊〉 enmity of such powerful Monarches as have any sense, 〈…〉 the Roman Religion.  
●●condly, Though a King should persecute catholics, and 〈◊〉 and sanguinary laws compel his Subjects to profess 〈◊〉, if this persecution be pleasing to the generality of his 〈◊〉 the Pope's Censures and sentences can not be of much 〈◊〉 prejudice, or deprive him of his dominions; and as 〈…〉 Apostolik's temporal power, it neither is so 〈…〉 itself, nor so applicable to these our remote 〈…〉 to deserve to be made the object of our Protestant 〈…〉, or fe●rs; we see how little Q. Elizabeth valued 〈…〉; because she had the affection of her 〈…〉 we search into history, we shall find that the 〈…〉 Rome his censures never prejudiced any Sovereign 〈…〉 not first lost the hearts of his own people. The Pope 〈…〉 awe (by his sentences and excommunica●●●● 〈…〉 of the Italian Princes, and Commonwealths; 〈…〉 have demonstrated how uneffectual his 〈…〉, even against those petty Princes, and 〈…〉; what need therefore powerful and 〈…〉 Prince's and nations fear a jurisdiction they 〈…〉, seeing▪ the so much talked of papal 〈…〉 so little prevail against Catholics that own it? 〈◊〉 other reason why the Pope's spiritual supremacy is not 〈◊〉 dangerous, is, because they who acknowldge the power, 〈◊〉 themselves the liberty of judging of the lawfulness of 〈◊〉 application, and to know whether it be justly exercised by 〈…〉; whose censures and sentences are limited to so 〈◊〉 causes, and conditions known to every Catholic Lawyer 〈◊〉 Divin, that they can hardly disturb a state, if any of the previous admonitions and requisite formalities be omitted; were acknowledged) would employ it now as willin●●● to the advantage of the english Monarchy, as his 〈◊〉 did in the reign of Q. Marry, by condescending that 〈◊〉 Church revenues may be spent in more pious and public 〈◊〉 than they are at present.  
Notwithstanding the visible advantages which 〈◊〉 unto all Catholic Sovereigns by admitting the 〈◊〉 of the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction in their Kingdoms and ●●minions, and the little or no danger which thereby can come 〈◊〉 protestant Princes; yet because Q. Elizabeth was proceeded 〈◊〉 by the Sea of Rome (whose case was very different from 〈◊〉 of the Stewards, undoubted heirs of the Crown) no 〈◊〉 of England (saith the Protestant Clergy) must trust 〈◊〉 Roman Catholics; so many and so malignant are 〈◊〉 suggestions and suspicions which these Ministers endeavour 〈◊〉 in privy Councillors, and the members of Parliaments 〈◊〉, (and all this to reap the benefit of the Church lands 〈◊〉 ●●●●selves) that a fancied possibility (without any 〈◊〉) of disturbing the peace and Government, is preached 〈◊〉 printed by these Sir Polls, to be a sufficient reason of state 〈…〉 Roman Catholics uncapable of serving the state; 〈◊〉 which is worse, they have lately endeavoured (by their 〈◊〉 in Court, Country, and Parliament▪) to question the 〈◊〉 prerogative, and his councel's prudence for publishing 〈…〉 (which he had promised at Breda) in favour of 〈◊〉 conferences: so conscious they are of their own guilt, 〈◊〉 they doubt not but the least countenance showed to 〈◊〉, will discover the frauds whereby themselves deprive 〈◊〉 estate of so vast a revenue. And because the chief Ministers 〈◊〉 state are (out of their piety, or policy) inclined to 〈◊〉 moderation towards tender consciences, and the Protestant 〈◊〉 dare not oppose it directly, they cease not (by means of some false Brethren, and debauched Friars) to render all good intentions for our relief uneffectual, by inculcating the necessity of a public instrument, not much differing from the Oath of allegiance which they framed in King James his reign, that instead of acknowledging the King's temporal Sovereignty▪ gives him an unheard of jurisdiction over souls; or at least, (by reason of the ambiguous and offensive wording thereof) doth engage even catholics as will take it▪ in an endless quarrel with their spiritual Superiors, without rendering thereby any service to their temporal Sovereign, but rather making themselves unfit to appear for his, or their own right in Ecclesiastical Catholic Courts.  
Therefore as well to satisfy the State concerning our allegiance and fidelity to our King, as to avoid the obloquys▪ and artifices of the Protestant Clergy, we humbly offer to his Majesty and his Minister's 〈◊〉, that we shall swear or sign any instrument or engagement 〈◊〉 fidelity to him, which Catholic Subjects swear or sign to their Catholic sovereigns. To exact more strict obedience from so inconsiderable a party as we are under a Protestant Prince, against the Bishop of Rome's pretention, than any Catholics of the world think fit either in conscience or pruden●●● to give to their own 〈◊〉, seems not necessary, and would savour more 〈◊〉 presumption in us against the Church of Rome, then of affection to the Crown of England.  
3. They who teach that Kings 〈…〉 deposed for heresy, maintain they may be also deposed 〈◊〉 Tyranny; and notwithstanding that 〈…〉 their Sovereign's taxes, Tyranny, than their opinions▪ 〈◊〉; yet because Popes seldom countenance Subjects' complaints and proceedings against their Prince's pretended Tyranny, none fears to be deposed as Tyrants. How little Popes have intermeddled with Protestant Princes (if not persecutors) is visible to the whole world; If therefore Catholic Kings apprehended no danger or prejudice from the Bishop of Rome his censures against Tyranny (because they are so sparing of them) notwithstanding the inclination of their Subjects to solicit and obey such Censures, I see no cause protestants Kings have to fear Cens●●●s for heresy, whereof the Sea Apostolic is no less sparing. 〈◊〉 he answered that Catholic princes (by the principles of 〈◊〉 Religion, or at least by reason of the probability and p●●sibility of the opinions against heresy and Tyranny) must 〈◊〉 the hazard of being thought deposable in those cases: we 〈◊〉 protestants to consider, whether it be reasonable in them 〈◊〉 of us poor English, or Irish Subjects, a Declaration 〈◊〉 those opinions which the most powerful Catholic 〈◊〉 of Christendom dare not contradict (for fear either of 〈◊〉 Christianity, or of undergoing the censures of the 〈◊〉 Consistory) notwithstanding their temporal concern 〈◊〉 countenance a persuasion that seems to check their regal 〈◊〉?  
Never any King had, or can have, more reason to 〈◊〉 Bellarmin's opinion, or other such like, than the French 〈◊〉 since the loss of Navarr, and the Troubles of the 〈…〉 yet whensoever the Parliament of Paris, and the 〈◊〉 of Sorbon censured the same opinions, the King and 〈◊〉 of France were so far from giving them thanks, that 〈◊〉 disowned and declared void their Censures, condemning 〈◊〉 for intermeddling in the matter, and under pain of his 〈◊〉 indignation, and of being held for seditious, and 〈◊〉 of the public repose, commanded them and all 〈◊〉, not to move or dispute any questions of that nature, 〈◊〉 the right either of Popes, or of temporal Sovereigns, 
Bouchet in Sum. Beneficial. tit. puissance & edit. Paris. 1628. a pag. 812. usque ad 853 & pag. 844. usque ad 847.  〈◊〉 be seen at large in Monsieur Bouchet, a French Author, 〈◊〉 Richerist, and therefore not to be suspected of favouring 〈◊〉 Sea of Rome. And as for the Church of France, it is so 〈◊〉 from such disputes as every one may Judge by Cardinal 〈◊〉 Oration in name of the whole Clergy to the states of th●● Kingdom. Two years ago Monsieur Talon (the King's Attorney) objected to some Doctors of Sorbon, that their Faculty held the doctrine of the deposition of Kings; but they declared that though some particular members of the University had long since taught the doctrine, yet the Faculty never resolved the question. True it is that the Kings of France permit not their Subjects now to preach or publish any such doctrine, and judge that prohibition to be a sufficient security against it; and I see no reason why protestant Kings should not think the same a sufficient security for themselves: and questionless they would, did not over-officious persons misinform the Ministers of state, by imposing upon them that the Church of France doth practise such Oaths, engagements, or Rem●●strances as the Parliament of Paris (a secular Court) would fain have pressed upon the French Clergy king since, and the Jansenists lately; but now dare not mention any such thing▪ the Pope having lately censured their presumption of intermeddling with matters above their jurisdiction; and the King not giving them thanks for their officiousness.   

Protestants can not clear their Religion from the doctrine, and danger of deposing Sovereigns, and disposing of their Kingdoms.  
NOw that we have cleared (〈…〉 Roman Catholic Religion from the aspersions of our 〈…〉, and showed how 〈◊〉 dangerous the Pope's spiritual supremacy can be to the temporal Sovereignty, even of protestant Princes I would willingly understand how the protestant and prelatik Clergy, can vindicat their own principles 〈…〉 from deposing of as many Monarch● and Magistrate 〈◊〉 did not conform to their Reformations whersoever they prevailed? Let them name but one protestant Kingdom, Principality, Commonwealth or City, wherein protestancy hath not been promoted by rebellion, and exclusion of the lawful Sovereign or Magistrate? let them read the Histories of Germany, Geneva, France, England, Holland, Suethland, Suitzerland, Valleys of Sa●●y, Scotland, etc. 〈◊〉 they will find that as we do not exaggegrat, so they can 〈◊〉 excuse the crime, or except any of this number from notorious guilt thereof. So universal a conspiracy against lawful S●●eraigns in nations so distant and different, agreeing almost 〈◊〉 nothing but in the fundamental grounds of protestancy, 〈◊〉 particularly in their maxim of the lawfulness to raise 〈◊〉 settle the reformation upon the ruins of all superiority, 〈◊〉 spiritual and temporal that will not submit to the arbi●●●●● interpretation of Scripture of every Protestant prevailing 〈◊〉▪ must needs be a convincing proof, that nothing can 〈◊〉 allied to rebellion then the Protestant Religion; which 〈◊〉 content to depose only Catholic Kings for Popery, doth 〈◊〉 the same authority against their own protestant King's 〈…〉 they conform not even their reformed Tenets to the 〈…〉 fancy's of an illiterate giddy multitude.  
And even the Cavaliers (the wisest and most faithful 〈◊〉) have given sufficient ground for men to suspect, 〈…〉 think it no discredit to their prelatic Religion, nor 〈◊〉 to themselves, to trouble and question their King's 〈◊〉 he and his privy Council should think fit to use a 〈◊〉 moderation towards Papists; their late speeches in the 〈◊〉 of Commons against his Majesty's Declaration is too clear 〈…〉 for this censure. Let themselves now be Judges, 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholic Religion, notwithstanding its 〈◊〉▪ of the Pope's spiritual supremacy, be not more 〈◊〉 ●o Kings, than the best Protestant Reformations, and 〈◊〉 the Papal spiritual jurisdiction over souls be not 〈◊〉 with a temporal Sovereignty in Kings over their 〈◊〉▪ They will find this difference between both Religions, that the Roman Catholik admits of and submits to Sovereignty however so addicted the Sovereigns are to Protestancy, even the most precise Papists allow not of resistance against the royal authority in any case, but only in that of forcing conscience by persecution: but both Presbyterian and Prelatik Protestants think it lawful to depose their Sovereigns if the Sovereign's    

SECT. X. That Protestants could never prove any of the wilful falsifications wherewith they charge Roman Catholik writers; but themselves are convicted of that Crime whersoever they attempted to make good their charge against us.  
SOME Protestants (either out of ignorance or malice) confound our Index expurgatorius with wilful falsifications of ancient Fathers, and modern Authors; whereas the said Index is a professed correcting (not of the Fathers, but) of modern Author's opinions, and Comments; no concealed corrupting of their writings. It doth not change any thing in ancient Father's works, though Protestants themselves confess 〈◊〉 of them have ambiguous and erroneous sentences, but such are either sufficiently explained, or corrected by themselves in other ●●●ces, or condemned by the ancient Church, and the gene●●● concurrence and consent of the other Fathers teaching and ●●●●ifying the contrary to be Catholic doctrine. So that we 〈◊〉 excuse our Adversaries either ignorance or impudence when they say we make the Fathers speak what is most pleasing to us, by our Index Expurgatorius. 
Of the index expurgatorius.  This you may see solidly proved against Bishop Tailor's Calumnies, and falsifications in his Dissuasive: and the thing is evident by the Index itself, and the rules thereof. Kemnitius and other Protestants object some few texts of Scripture in the vulgar latin which they pretend were changed by us, and corrupted: But Cardinal Bellarmin answers to all the objections so well, 
Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 12.13.14.  that nothing can be replied, and all the world must confess we Roman catholics translated not any thing in that version to favour our Religion against Protestants, seeing our Latin Vulgata hath his used in the Church 1●. hundred years before their pretended reformation was heard of jewel, Morton, and others object that Zozimus, 
Hardings detection l. 4. fol. 249. Aug. l. 2. de gratia Christi c. 2 & 6. & contra Dic. Epist. Pelagij c 4. Concil. Afric. ep. ad Bonifacium. See Baronius tom. 5. Stapletons' return of untruths art. 4. p. 29. Sanders de visib. Monarch. l. 7. p. 356. Bellarm. l. 2. de Rom. Pontif. c. 24. & 25. Aug. ep. 261.  Bonifacius, and Celestinus, (three Popes that lived in Saint 〈◊〉 ●ime) and are much commended by him for holy men) forged, a Canon of the first Council of Nice in favour of their own supremacy; but they are sufficiently cleared from that aspersion by all Catholic Writers; who agree in this; that the heretics did corrupt and Conceal some Canons of that Council which are now wanting. But as for that of appeals to the Pope (which was the 〈…〉) it is in the Canons of the Council 〈…〉 ways held (especially in the west Church) for 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 Council, because the same 〈…〉 both; And St. Austin himself did appeal to 〈…〉 those three Popes (whom Protestant's would 〈◊〉 make 〈◊〉) in the cause of 〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈…〉 in his own Epistle about that matter.  

Bellarmin accused by Sutcliff of 〈◊〉 the general Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 favour of the Pope's supremacy) one of the four first, and received in England by act of a Protestant Parliament.  
MR. Sutcliff in his Challenge and defence of the same, chargeth Cardinal Bellarmin with many falsifications, 
Walsingham's search pag. ●07.  which you may see re●orted upon himself in Walsingham's Search of Religion; I will relate but one which is the third in Sutcliffs order; In the same Book and Chapter (saith Sutcliff) Bellarmin falsifyeth the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 
Bellarm. l, 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 13. §. 7.  And for proof of this falsification he says, whereas Bellarmin 〈◊〉 that the Council acknowldedged and called Pope Leo 〈◊〉 Ecclesias, Head of the Church. Which name (saith Bellar●●●) the Council of Chalcedon (about 1200. years passed) doth 〈◊〉 an epistle to Pope Leo, saying, quibus tu velut membris 〈◊〉 praeras, over whom you as head over the members do bear 〈◊〉 And in the first action of the Council the Roman Church 〈◊〉, the Head of all Churches; Sutcliff letting pass this last, 〈◊〉 upon the words, quibus tu velut membris caput praeeras, saying, that, this is referred to certain Priests of Leo his order, in which Rank he showed himself principal etc. so as he saith that these words of the Council do acknowledge only that Leo 〈◊〉 of certain Priests, but not of the Bishops gathered 〈◊〉 in that Council. But this is a foolish fancy and 〈◊〉 fraud of Sutcliff, as appeareth by the very letter and 〈◊〉 of the Council to Pope Leo, who after praising God 〈◊〉 favour and providence in gathering together, and 〈◊〉 themselves at Chalcedon, preferring the notifying of their 〈◊〉 of faith, before their Country, and labour some Journey; add, 
Tom. 2. Concil. ed. venet. pag. 342. extat. Epistola concilij ad Beatum Papā Leonem de omnibus gestis etc.  over which Priests (or Bishops assembled in this Council) you did preside as head over the members by those which 〈◊〉 your place, to wit, by his legates, of whom Leo said in his Epistle to the Council, In these Brother's Paschasius and Lucen●●● Bishops, Boniface, and Basilius Priests, who are directed by 〈◊〉 Apostolic Sea, your fraternity may think that I preside in the 〈◊〉▪ And these legates, though two of them were but Priests, took place of all Bishops, and were acknowledged of so absolute authority, that they pronounced sentence against D●●scorus the heretic thus in the Pope's name: The most holy Pope Leo head of the universal Church, by us his Legates, the holy Synod consenting, being endued with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the Foundation of the Church, the Rock of faith, and Doorekeeper of the heavenly Kingdom, have deprived Dioscorus of Episcopal dignity, and all priestly function. Now this Council of Chalcedon having been received in England by act of Parliament (1. Eliz.) and never yet repealed, I see not how Priests can be legaly punished, or Catholics persecuted for acknowledging the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction in these Kingdoms, and maintaining that he is head of the Catholic Church, St. Peter's Successor, and Christ's Vicar upon earth; much less how could Doctor Sutcliff charge Bellarmin with falsifying the Council that confesses the same doctrine in so clear terms.   

SUBSECT. I. How Protestants are convicted by Bellarmin of holding twenty ancient condemned heresies, and how Sutcliff, and Bishop Morton to clear them of six only (fourteen it seems they confess) do falsify the Fathers, and Catholic Authors about the worshipping of Images.  
CArdinal Bellarmin (lib. 4. de notis Ecclesi● cap. 9) proves that Protestants are heretics, because they hold many old heresies condemned as such by the ancient Catholic Church, whereof he sets down twenty. One is that of Xenaias' a Persian, who (saith Bellarmin cit.) was the first that did openly affirm, the Images of Christ and his Saints ought not to be worshipped, as wittnesseth Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 27. Doctor Sutclif says that Nicephorus is falsifyed: 
Sutcliff challenge 2. part. 2. fol. 159. Niceph. lib. 17. c. 27.  which is most falls, for that Nicephorus writing many horrible things of this Xenaias; as that he feigned himself to be a Priest, yea and got a Bishoprik before he was baptised, amongst others saith. This Xenaias did first of all others (O audacious soul and impudent tongue) belch out that voice, that the Images of Christ, and those that have been acceptable unto him, are not to be worshipped. And this he said so, is a truth so undeniable and generally received, that even the Protestant Authors that write the Ecclesiastical history, confess it, as Functius in his seaventh book of Commentaries upon his Chronicle an. 494. saith. Porro is Xenaias primus in Ecclesia bellum contra Imagines indixit.   

Two Pelagian heresies imputed to Protestants, and how they falsify to clear themselves of the one, and say nothing of the other.  
Whereas the Pelagians (saith Bellarmin, 
Aug. l. 6. contra Julian. c. 2. & 3. & 4. add Bonifac. c. 2. & 4. Hierom. l. 2. contra Pelagian.  according to St. Austin and St. Hierom) taught two heresies among others, 1. That every sin though never so little, is mortal. 2. That there is no original sin in man, especially in Infants of Lawful parents; The first, all protestants teach; the last Zuinglius, Bucer, and Calvin; but with this difference, that Zuinglius doth absolutely deny original sin to be in any man; Bucer and Calvin do only deny the same in the Children of the Faithful, whom they say to be born Saints and saved without Baptism. Now Doctor Morton not being able to deny the first heresy to be common to Pelagians and protestants, would fain make Bella●●●● a falsifier in the second, setting down Bellarmin's words both in Latin and English corruptly, and contrary to his plain 〈◊〉 (as may be seen in Bellarmin's Text) thus, 
Preamb. pag. 63.  The Pelag●●●s did teach that there was no original sin in men, and especially in the Children of the faithful, the same doth Bucer and Calvin teach; as though he had said, that Calvin had denied with the Pelagians that there is any original sin at all in men, much less in the Children of the faithful: and had made no distinction between Zuinglius and calvin's, and Bucers' opinions. And Morton by this fraud would make his Reader believe he had cleared Protestants from both the pelagian-heresies, whereas he clears them not from either. Hear Bellarmin's own words, which are: Pelagiani duo inter alia docebant. 1. non esse in hominibus peccatum originale & praecipuè in filijs fidelium etc.  
Hoc docet Zuinglius, Bucerus, Calvinus, lib. 4. instit. c. 15. §. 20. Nisi quod Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine etc. Bucerus autem & Calvinus, solum in filijt fidelium negant peccatum originale, quos dicunt Sanctos nasci; salvari etiam sine Baptismo. Vide. Belar. de notis Ecclesia cap. 9 §. 14.   

Two Novatian heresies imputed to Protestants, the one they answer with silence, the other with falsifying.  
Whereas Cardinal Bellarmin to prove that Protestants do agree with the old Novatian 〈◊〉, allegeth two particular instances, the one in denying the power of the Church to remit sins by priestly absolution, or the Sacrament of Penance; the other in denying the use of holy Chrism in the Sacrament of Confirmation: 
Preamb. pag. 63 See Parsons sober Reckoning with Morton a pag. 159. usque 166. Belarm. lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 9 §. Novatianorum.  Bishop Morton having nothing to answer to the second, replieth only to the first by an equivocation and falsification; for he endeavoreth to confound the Sacrament of penance with private repentance, or sorrow, sighs, tears etc. for sins; and makes believe that Bellarmin contradicts himself when he grants that Protestants admit the later, though they rejects the Sacrament of penance▪ and to embroil the Reader, and excuse the Novations as if they held but one error, cuts short Belarmin's words, praecipuus error, and post Baptismum; Novatianorum praecipuus error erat etc.   

The Manichean heresy against Free will imputed to Protestants, and how pitifully answered by Bishop Morton.  
ST. Hierom, and St. Austin; 

Hierom in. praefat. Dialogorum contra Pelagianos.  
Aug. de haeres. c. 46.   (saith Belarmin) accuse the Manicheans for condemning the nature of man, and depriving it of free will, and ascribing the original and beginning of sin unto the nature of man, and not to free will. The same is taught openly by all Sectaries. Thus Belarmin. Morton sets down St. Hierom. and St. Austin's words as if they were Belarmin's, being loath to have such great Fathers tax himself and his prelatiks with heresy. 
Belarm cit. Preamb. pag. 64.  Then he says Belarmin accuseth Calvin of this heresy, whereas Belarmin accuseth all Protestants or sectaries, not only Calvin; and accuseth Calvin in particular of an other Manichean heresy, to wit, of reprehending and condemning Abraham and other Saints of the old Testament, to which Morton answereth nothing. Lastly he thinks to excuse Calvin and free him from the Manichees heresy, by saying that Belarmin himself confesseth he granted free will to man in his first Creation, though he lost it by sin: as if it were not also the Manichees heresy to deny free will to man after the fall of Adam.   

How Bp. Morton answers to Belarmin's imputation of Arianism unto Protestants.  
BElarmin quotes St. Epiphanius and St. Austin charging the Arians not only with the heresy of denying the son to be equal with the Father; 
Belar cit. § Ariani.  but also with denying unwritten Traditions to be the word of God; and says that all the sectaries or Protestants of our times teach the second error, though not the first, at least so clearly. The honest Bishop Morton acknowledgeth the second, because he says nothing to the charge; and cavils about the first; quoting an other Book and Chapter of Belarmin, wherein he chargeth Bullinger. But as for rejecting unwritten Traditions Morton seems to be well pleased with the charge and rest contented therein, not only with the sense of the Arians, but of Nestorius, 
Preamb. pag. 64.  Dioscorus, and Eutiches, whom Belarmin couples with Protestants both for contemning doctrine delivered by Tradition, and for their sacrileges against the Sacraments, Altars, Priests, Monks, Votaries &c. saying that Protestants do commit the very same villainies against these sacred things and persons, that Donatists and all those other heretics had exercised. To all which Morton answereth with silence.   

How Morton falsifyeth and abuseth Belarmin, who imputes the denial of Christ's real Presence in the Sacrament to Protestants.  

Belarm l. 1. de Eccles. c. 1.  Immediately after the Apostles, St. Ignatius the Martyr says that the Simonian and Menandrian heretics did not admit Eucharistias & oblaciones, for that they did not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which sentence (saith Belarmin) is quoted by Theodoret in 3. Dialog. out of St. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smirna, where notwithstanding it is not now found. Belarmin is of opinion that these ancient heretics denied the real presence rather as a consequence drawn from their denial of the Incarnation, then as doubting of the signification or efficacy of Christ's words; and that they differed in this from Protestants, that these deny Christ's flesh to be in the Sacrament though they acknowledge he had true flesh, but the ancient heretics deny Christ's flesh to be in the Sacrament because he had no flesh. And here Morton pretends that Belarmin contradicts himself, and withal abuseth Calvin; who, as Morton saith, doth grant the real presence, nay that Belarmin confesseth he grants the same.  
But Morton corrupteth and abuseth Belarmin both in the allegation and Translation. In steed of Belarmin's words by us here cited, he puts in only these as Belarmin's, which sentence is 〈◊〉 by Theodoret in 3. Dialog. but is not now to be found in Theodo●●●. Making the Reader believe by falsifying Belarmin, That the Testimony of Theodoret was not to be found in Theodoret; and ●herfore he left out the mention of St. Ignatius his Epistle 〈…〉; whereas the Testimony is in Theodoret now 〈◊〉 both in Greek and Latin, though it be not in St. Igna●●●● his Epistle.  
As for Belarmins contradicting himself in saying that Calvin doth admit, and deny the real presence, 
Valentia tom 4. disp. 6. q. 3. p. 1. §. Item. Belarm. de Euch l. 1. cap. 1. Belarm cit. cap. 1. Calvin's contradictions and non sense in the mystery of the Eucharist. Calvin in fine consens. cum Pastor. Figurinis. Calvin in 26 Math. & lib. 4. Instit. c. 17.5. Lib. Instit. cap. 17. §. 5.10. & 32. Lib. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 5.31. Ibid. § 33.34  it is no contradiction of Belarmins, but a true assertion of Calvin's Contradictions▪ For both Belarmin and Valentia convince him of most evident and palpable contradictions in this matter, he seeking to say something different not only from Luther, but also from 〈◊〉, and Zuinglius, thereby to make a sect of his own, but yet not finding wherein to subsist or be permanent, speaks non-se●●●▪ and Contradictions: for proof whereof Belarmin doth set down seven several propositions of his about this matter, each one of them different from the other, and some of them so contradictory, as by no possible means they may be reconciled, or stand together. As first, That the flesh of Christ is only 〈◊〉 heaven, and that in so certain and determinat a place, as it 〈◊〉 as distant from the bread, as the highest heaven is from the earth: and then, this notwithstanding, he saith, that in the supper the true body of Christ is exhibited unto the faithful, and not only a sign. Yea that the very substance of Christ's Body is given. 〈◊〉 to that again he saith that notwithstanding the distance betw●●● the Body of Christ, and the Sacramental signs, yet are they joy●●d together by so miraculous and inexplicable means, as neither tongue nor pen can explicat the same; and then further, That we must not believe that this conjunction is by any real coming down of Christ's Body unto us, but by a certain Substantial force derived from his flesh by his Spirit. Where he seemeth to say that the conjunction is made, not in the substance, but in some essential quality. And so in the fifth place more clearly he saith, that it is made by apprehension of faith only, whereby he contradicteth all that he said before of real and substantial conjunction. 
Ibid. §. 2.5 lib. de Caena cap. 3.  And in the sixth place he confirmeth more the same by saying; that wicked m●n receive not the Body at all, quia Corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur, for that the Body of Christ is only received by the mouth of faith. And in the seventh and last place he concludeth, that this Sacrament doth not give the Body of Christ, or faith unto any that hath it not already, but only 〈◊〉 testify and confirm that now it is there, and is but a sign or seal (to use his words) of that which is there already. 
See Belarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. per tot. & in fin.  And this being the variety and vanity of Calvin in this matter, it proveth not contradiction in Belarmin, but in Calvin himself▪ whose inconstancy and contradictions all they who ●●plain the belief of the Church of England imitat in this 〈◊〉, as every one may see in primate Usher, Bishop 〈◊〉 (in his Treatise of Transubstantiation) and others.  
And now to conclude this matter, we may ask Protestants, 
Zozomenus lib. 7. hist. cap. 12.  as the Emperor Theodosius did 〈◊〉 Reformers and Innovators of his time, whether they believed the ancient Fathers held the true doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and they answering affirmatively, he replied, Examinemus ergo doctrinam vestram ad illorum scripta, Let us examine your doctrine by their writings; Let us Judge that to be heresy, which they placed in the Catalogue of heresies; and if so, Protestants must not blame us when we call them heretics, for maintaining Justification by only faith, with the Simonians, and E●nomians; God to be the Author of sin, with the Florinians; that women may be, and are Priests, and Popes, with the P●putians; that concupiscence is a sin, with Proclus 1 that the true Church was invisible, 
Belarm. lib 4. de no●is Ecclesiae cap 9  with the Donatists; that men must not fast the Lent, pray nor offer sacrifice for the Dead, with the Aerians; That Saints ought not to be prayed unto, themselves nor their Relics honoured, nor their Images worshipped, with Vigilantius etc. These and other protestant doctrines are recorded as heresies by St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, St. Hierom, St. Austin, and other Fathers, as you may see in Belarmin; and the prelatic writers confess their Testimony, but contemn their authority.   

F●lsifications objected against Cardinal Baronius by Mr. Sutcliff.  
THat sincere Protestants may see how little their Clergy can say against Catholic Authors writings in this point of wilfully falsifying Fathers or others, I will set down 〈◊〉 some of the principal falsifications objected against 〈◊〉, whose work of the Ecclesiastical History depending altogether upon the true quotations of the holy Fathers, and 〈◊〉 Authors, might be the subject of Protestant cavils, had 〈◊〉 been very sincere; yet notwithstanding all his ingenuity 〈◊〉 terms him a Cardinal forger, and liar, and one of all 〈◊〉 that ever he read that most impudently abuseth and 〈◊〉 scriptures contrary to the intention of the holy Ghost etc. 〈◊〉 his preface, and then setteth down 52. falsifications and 〈◊〉 of his.  
The first wilful falsification wherewith Sutcliff chargeth 〈◊〉 is, that in the first page of his first Tome he placeth the Image of the Roman Church in form of a woman with a heavy wooden Cross on her shoulders & c·s This is a notable lie (saith Mr. Sutcliff) for that the Roman Church that now is possessed of the triple Crown, was never subject to the Cross of Christ Jesus, for that the Pope claimeth a power above all Emperors, liveth in delights etc.  
His second charge of wilful falsification is, that whereas the said picture had two great keys of the Pope's cellar (as Mr. Sutcliff saith) hanging down under it, he lieth impudently, saith Sutcliff, where he signifieth that Christ gave the Keys to the Pope and his adherents etc.  
His third charge is, that whereas the said picture had written under it on the one side vicit. haereses, and on the other side subegit Gentes, Mr. Sutcliff objecteth this for a wilful falsification, saying that this later Roman Church hath not subdued heresies, but is overgrown itself with heresies.  
The fourth charge of wilful falsification is, that Mr. Sutcliff supposing Baronius and the Pope do mean to worship that wooden Cross laid upon the pictures shoulders, he saith, that if Baronius mean the true Church, he lieth, for that the true Church did never worship any wooden Cross.  
The fifth charge is about these words subegit Gentes under the picture, this is a lie (saith Mr. Sutcliff) for that Saracens, Turks, and Gentiles, have prevailed against the Pope and his followers &c. regaining the Holy Land.  
The sixth charge is that the holy Ghost hovereth over the triple Crown, the B. Virgin sitteth with her Son in her lap; St. Peter and St. Paul support the worship of our B. Lady; which are all (saith Sutcliff) notorious lies, for that Christ is no longer an Infant etc. And are not these substantial charges of wilful falsifications to be placed in the first rank? Had he found matter to discredit Baronius he would never detain, nor divert his Reader with the picture, but would have entered presently into the History.  
But now in his seaventh charge, he will not trifle. Sixtus the Fifth (saith Sutcliff) in his decretal epistle prefixed before Baronius his books, saith, that he faithfully and diligently reported the story of the Church etc. Now you must know that this Epistle made decretal by Sutcliff, is only a licence and privilege for Baronius to print the Book. Whereas our beloved Son Antony Cardinal Garaffa (saith the Pope) Perfect of the Apostolic Library, hath related unto us, that the first volume of our Ecclesiastical History is now ready to be set forth, and that it is a work no less learnedly then faithfully written etc. we do give you leave to print the same etc.  
With his eight charge of wilful falsification, he is resolved to destroy the whole work of Baronius. The year (saith Sutcliff) and precise time of Christ's Nativity being the ground of all his work, it must needs follow that if he fail in that, than his whole Book is nothing but a pack of lies: but that he hath erred in that point, is very probable; for that Epiphanius saith our Saviour was born when Augustus and Sylvans were Consuls: but Severus writeth that he was born when Sabinius and Ruffinus were Consuls; but Baronius followeth neither of these two, but Cassiodorus. Is not this a wise charge of falsifying? And yet Sutcliff is mistaken in his charge though it be nothing material to the History of the Beginning and progress of Christian Religion, Conversion of Nations, Counsels; 
Apparatus ad Tom. 1. pag. 49.  condemnation of heresies etc. Epiphanius is of Baronius his opinion as well as Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Orosius, Beda, and most of the ancient writers. All his other Charges are very foolish, not considering whether Baronius relate things of himself, or from others, and when Sutcliff denies the authority, he doth not confute it with better authority, or reason, but by Scoffing and contempt, and yet he accuseth Baronius of lies and forgery, because he relates what other men of credit, and great authority say in matters of History or doctrine. 
Sutcliff pag. 199.  As for example he accuseth Baronius of wilful lying for that out of Euthymius he relateth that Dives (Luke 16.) was called Ninensis who also held it was a story, and not a parable. Then his 50. charge is, Baronius would make his Reader believe that our Saviour did celebrate his passover in S. John Evangelist's house, but Simon Metaphrastes denyeth it, which is alleged by Baronius as a grave witness. His last two charges are. 
Sutcliff pag. 279.  1. Baronius says Missa is derived from the Hebrew or Chaldee word: but Belarmin his fellow telleth him he is deceived. 2. Baronius doth report▪ out of Gregory of Tours this ●able, that divers making thongs did put them about the pillar whereto Christ was tied when he was scourged, and the same did heal divers diseases. And with this sound charge he ends his 52. of wilful falsifications against Baronius.  
What I desire the Protestant Reader should observe in the charges of wilful falsifications and lies which they print against our Catholic Authors is, the difference between our charges against them, and of theirs against us. We charge Protestants with heresies, and with corrupting Scripture, Fathers, and Counsels, to prove heresies, and we demonstrat the same so home, that either they omit to answer the corruptions and falsifications objected, or answer them with adding new falsifications to the old, as hath been manifest hitherto; but the Protestant writers objections against us are either frivolous, impertinent, or forged by themselves. And when they can find no matter to carp at in such works as those of Baronius and Belarmin, wherein there is such a multitude and variety of quotations, and relations, it may be well imagined how little they will find in modern Catholic writers, who for the most part borrow from those two Cardinals what they say in Controversies of Religion. Had Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kemnitius, Melancton, and Jewel, been as sincere in their writings against Catholics, as Canisius, Coccius, Bellarmin, Gualterus, Peron, and Baronius are against Protestants, we could not have discovered so many palpable falsifications in the later Protestant writers as our Books manifest to the world; whereof I have said more, I fear, than my Readers will have patience to peruse. Yet I shall entreat them for the Conclusion of this matter to permit me to mention somewhat of Luther's, and Calvin's sincerity, the two chief Apostles of the Protestant Reformation; and of two others, the most eminent Prelates and writers of the Church of England, Usher and Laud, one called the Irish Saint, the other the English Martyr. When such Primats are proved Falsifiers, we need not examine further the writings of the Inferior Clergy, and petty Ministers, but remit the ●ealous defenders of their sincerity to such Books as discover their frauds, and are easily found, whereof we have given heretofore a Catalogue.    

SECT. XI. Calumnies and Falsifications of Luther, Calvin, Archbishop Laud, and Primate Usher to discredit Catholic Religion, against their own knowledge and conscience.  
LUther (in postilla ad Evang. Dominicoe Annuntiationis) saith, 
Instit. lib. 2. cap. 20.  Among the Papists every one maketh recourse unto Mary, expecting from her more favour and grace then from Christ himself. Calvin saith, every Papist hath chosen peculiar Saints to whom he hath devoted himself as to so many helping Gods, 〈◊〉 are their Gods now according to the number of their Cities, as the Prophet upbraided the Jsraelits, but according to the number of their very persons.  
This our Popish Babylon (saith Luther) hath so far extinguished faith in this Sacrament (of Penance) as with a shamless forehead she denyeth faith to be necessary; 
Luther de Captivit. Babylon & in cap. 15▪ joan. & in 6. art. against the execrable Bull etc. Melancton disp. de paenitentia. prop. 7.  nay further she hath with an Anti-christian impiety defended that it is an heresy, if any man affirm faith to be necessary: His Scholar Philip Melancton saith the same, The School-Doctors have foolishly and wickedly taught that sins are forgiven without faith. Without doubt the illiterate Protestants (who all take Luther to be a Saint at least do not believe him to be an Jmpostor) question not but that Roman Catholics are such men as Luther, Calvin etc. describe them; and will not so much as turn to the Council of Trent, or to any other Book where our Tenets are to be found; 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 8.  there they might see that we hold faith to be the beginning and foundation of man's salvation, 

Catech. ad Paroch. de paen. Sacram pag. 290. Luther lib. 1. de natura hominis art. 4.  
Luther. lib. contra Ambr. Catarrh. Luther. in Concil. Germ. cap. de Antichristo.   and the root of all Justification, without which it is impossible to please God etc. And in him that doth repent, it is of necessity that faith go before penance.  
Concerning the necessity of Grace, Luther, saith, The Papists do teach that a man may keep the Commandments of God with the proper forces of nature, without God's grace.  
Concerning the immortality of the soul he saith, The Papists at this day do not believe at all the Immortality of the soul. And again in the Lateran Council that was celebrated in the year 1515. in time of Pope Julius, it was first of all known and decreed, that the resurrection of the Dead was to be believed. Of this wicked Friars corruptions of Scripture see Zuinglius tom. 2. ad Luth. de s●c. fol. 412. and many more Authors. As for Fathers and Counsels he did not value them so much as to trouble himself with falsifying, or corrupting their writings, though sometimes (to impose upon illiterate people that the holy Fathers were heretics, or ignorant) he endeavours in his writings, to discredit their persons, and condemn their doctrine. See what he says of them heretofore part. 1. & 2.  

SUBSECT. II. Of Calvin's calumnies against Catholics and their Doctrine.  
MR. Walsingham in his search (pag. 152.) acknowledgeth he had such an opinion of Calvin's Sanctity and sincerity, that having read in his Institutions cap. 11. lib. 1. That in the first 500 years after Christ there were never any Images in Christian Churches, both himself and other Ministers did often allege the same as a certain truth to such as knew less than themselves; but perceiving that the Papists laughed at them for it, he began to doubt, and after examination of twenty Authors or witnesses within the first 500 years which Coccius citeth against Calvin, he found them truly cited, and Calvin a Lyar.  
How little Calvin valued the practice or doctrine of the ancient Church, he declareth lib. 3. Instit. c. 5. §. 10. where he saith: when the adversaries object against me that prayer for the Dead hath been used above 1300. years, I ask them again by what word of God, revelation, or example it 〈◊〉 been so used? etc. But the very old Fathers themselves that prayed for the dead, did see that herein they wanted both Commandment of God, and lawful example. So as 〈◊〉 accuseth all the holy Fathers (because they were Papists) of superstition.  
In all the Hymns and Litanies of the Papists (saith Cal●●●) there is never any mention of Christ: 
Calvin lib. 3. Instit. c. 20. ●. 21.  but whereas always they pray to dead Saints, the name of Christ never occurreth. And yet this Impostor could not be ignorant that our Litanies begin Kyrie eleison, Christ eleison, Lord have mercy ●pon us, Christ have mercy upon us, Christ audi nos, Christ exaudi 〈◊〉 etc. And our hymns he knew were made by St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, Prudentius, Sedulius, and other ancient Fathers, and conclude, Gloria tibi Domine qui natus es de Virgin etc.  
In the very same Book and Chapter Calvin affirmeth that is the third Council of Carthage, wherein St. Austin was present, it was forbidden that we should say Sancte Petre ora pro nobis, which is falls: it was indeed decreed, Quod cum Altari assistitur, semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio, That when the Priest did assist at the Altar, he should offer his prayer and sacrifice to God the Father.  
The Papists do shamefully and impiously define (saith Calvin) that daily penance must only be done for venial sin. 
Calvin Instit. lib. 3. c▪ 4. §. 1.  As though we taught that for mortal sin penance was not necessary. In the same place he saith the Papists speak not at all (when they treat of penance) of the internal renovation of mind, which bringeth true amendment of life: and again ibid. 29. they hold that they are reconciled once only by the grace of God when they are Baptised, post Baptismum resurgendum esse per satisfactiones, but after baptism a man must rise again (from sin) by satisfactions. Whereas this impudent fellow knew well enough that we hold all rising from sin, or reconciliation unto God, whether before or after baptism, must be by Grace; and that satisfactions only are for temporal punishments, after the guilt of sin is remitted by Reconciliation.  
In his institutions (l. 4. c. 7.) he saith that Pope john 2●. affirmed men's souls to be mortal, 
See part. 2.  and to perish together with the Body until the day of resurrection, which calumny we have confuted heretofore.  
In the same Institutions (l. 4. c. 13. §. 12.) talking of Monastical life and Evangelical Counsels, he writeth in this resolute manner, Nulli unquam veterum hoc in mentem 〈◊〉 etc. It never came into the cogitations of any of the ancient Fathers to affirms, that Christ did council any thing, but rather they do all cry with one voice, that there was never any one lest word uttered by Christ▪ that is not of necessity to be obeyed etc. out of which words he inferreth that there is no state of perfection to be aspired unto more one than other, nor any thing left us by way of Council, but that all is commanded by way of precept. 
3. Cor. 7.  And yet St. Paul saith (and by consequence with him all the ancient Church and Fathers) talking of virginity, I have no precept of our Lord, but I give Council etc.  
In the said institutions lib. 4. cap. 19 §. 11. Calvin saith of the Papists, praeterita aqua, & nullo numero habita, unum oleum in Baptismo magni faciunt. They letting pass and esteeming nothing at all the water of Baptism, do only magnify their oil of Chrism. And yet he knew well that the Roman Catholics hold the use of water to be most absolutely necessary to the Substance of Baptism, and not the holy oil. I hope Protestants will reflect upon these things, and consider whether it be probable or possible that God would send such men as these two Impostors, to reform his Church; men without conscience, 〈◊〉, sincerity, or christianity.   

SUBSECT. III. Frauds, falsifications, and calumnies of Primate Usher against the real presence and Transubstantiation.  
THe Pope's name (saith M● Usher) in whose days this gross opinion of the oral eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament drew its first breath, was Gregory the 〈◊〉. In a man of less erudition and learning then Mr. Usher, 〈◊〉 assertion might be called a simple mistake, but in him, it 〈◊〉 be a notorious fraud, and wilful falsification of as many 〈◊〉 Fathers, as he had perused, and (to his knowledge) delivered the doctrine of the real presence, and Transubstantiation. In particular he doth corrupt Justin the Martyr his words to Antoninus the Emperor, as Cranmer had done formerly, 

Cyprian servant de caena Domini.  
See St. Cyril of Jerusalem Cateches. Missagog 4. S. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & de iis qui Mysterijs initiantur c. 6. St. August. vide Canonean do consec, dist. 2.   whereof 〈◊〉 have treated part. 3. and remit the Reader thereunto, as also to Malones reply against usher's answer pag. 236. St. Cyprian 〈◊〉 before Gregory 2. many hundred years, and yet Mr. Usher 〈◊〉 not be ignorant how he declared the belief of the Catholic Church in these words, This bread which our Lord gave 〈◊〉 his Disciples, being by the almighty power of the word changed, 〈◊〉 in outward shape, but in nature, is made flesh. St. Austin also was a long time before Gregory 2. and he clears all doubts both of the Mass and Transubstantiation, thus; This is that which we say etc. to wit, that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, that is to say, the visible form or species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord JESUS Christ, the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament. Knowing and believing (saith St. Cyril Hierosol.) most assuredly, that what appeareth bread is not bread, though it seem so to the taste, but it is the body of Christ; and what appeareth 〈…〉 the taste doth Judge it to be, but the blood of Christ.  

Mr. usher's Falsifications against Confession.  
ST. Basil (saith Mr. Usher) maketh the groans of the heart to be a sufficient Confession; so doth St. Ambrose the tears of the penitent. Tears, saith he, doth wash the sin which the voice is ashamed to confess. Weeping doth provide both for pard●● and for shamefactness. And St. Austin, 
Answer 85.  what have I to 〈◊〉 with men that they should hear my confessions, as though they should heal all my diseases. Mr. Usher not content to impose this sentence upon the mistaken Protestants as if it had declared the superfluity and novelty of Sacramental Confession, whereas St. Basil speaketh of David, and St. Ambrose of St. Peter, (who by tears obtained pardon for his denying Christ) before the 〈◊〉 of Confession; not content I say to misinterpret their meaning, he corrupts the words by a falls translation, to make good his own falls Interpretation, adding the word our twice to the 〈◊〉, for our shamefactness, and for 〈…〉, endeavouring thereby to draw the meaning of the Fathers from David and St. Peter unto all others, even after the Institution and precept of Sacramental Confession. And as for St. Austin he speaketh of that public Confession which in his Book he made of such sins as had been forgiven him in Baptism, and therefore needed not to be confessed to a Priest.  
It is a strange thing how learned Protestants well versed in the Father's date impose such wrested Texts upon men who are resolved to examine them, and to let the world see what the Fathers have clearly delivered, Mr. Usher could not be so ignorant as now his partners would have him seem to be, 〈…〉 positive doctrine of these three Fathers concerning Con●●ssion. St. Basil declares his own belief and of the whole Church, 

St. Basil. in Regulis brevioribus. Interrogatione 288.  
St. Ambrose l. de paenit. cap. 6.  
St. Austin hom. 49. c. 3. Aug. lib. de vera & falsa paenitentia cap. 10. & cap. 14.   〈…〉 words. Sins must necessarily be opened unto them, unto whom 〈…〉 of God's Mysteries is committed. St. Ambrose; If 〈…〉 to the justified, confess thy sin, For a shamefast confession 〈…〉, dissolveth the knot of iniquity St. Austin exhorting to confession saith, Is it therefore said without cause, whatsoever you shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven? are the Keys thereof without cause given to the Church of God? etc. who so doth repent, let him repent throughly: let him show his grief by tears; let him present his life to God by the Priest, let him prevent God's judgement by Confession. etc. And therefore he that will confess his sins for the obtaining of Grace let him seek out a Priest who hath skill to bind and lose etc. let him consider the quality of the crime, in place, in time, in continuance, in variety of persons, and with what temptation he fell into sin, and how often etc. All this variety must be confessed. And is it not very strange that Mr. Usher should quote these holy Doctors against themselves, and his own conscience? But the Protestant Religion cannot 〈◊〉 otherwise maintained, nor the prelatic Clergy enjoy two millions sterling of yearly revenue. All the other Fathers speak after the same manner: as for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, 
St. Gregory Nyssen orat. in eos qui durius alios judicant, Petro Francisco Zeno. Interpret.  〈◊〉 the Priest for a partner and Companion of thine affliction, as 〈◊〉 Father; show unto him boldly the things that are hidden; 〈◊〉 the secrets of thy soul, as showing thy secret wounds unto thy physician. He will have a care both of thy credit, and of thy 〈◊〉.   

Against Absolution of sins.  
MR. Usher pag. 138. of his answer to the Jesuits Challenge is not ashamed to accuse the Roman Catholic Church with this notorious calumny, holding (if you believe him) that the sinner is immediately acquitted before God (by the Priest's absolution) how soever that sound conversion of heart be wanting in him, 〈◊〉 otherwise would be requisite. And grounds upon this imposture his bringing many ancient Fathers to prove against Papists, that it is not in the power of the Priest to absolve a sinner who hath not true faith, and repentance in his soul; as if this were not the express doctrine of all Roman Catholics. And upon this same imposture he groundeth also his foolish expression, that our High Priest fitteth in the Temple of God, 
Pag. 128.  as God, and all his Creatures as so many Demigods under him. If what he layeth to our charge were true, he might have raised us a degree higher, for that God himself doth not absolve men from their sins, if they do not repent; or if sound conversion of heart be wanting.  
Pag. 125. & seq. he would fain persuade that losing of men by the judgement of the Priest, is by the Father's generally accounted nothing else but a restoring of men to the peace of the Church, and an admitting of them to the Lord's table again. And that in the days not only of St. Cyprian, but of Alcuinus, Deacons in the Priest's absence were allowed to reconcile penitents. 

St. Ambrose l. 1. de paenit. cap. 2. & ser. 10. in psal. 128.  
St. Hierom. in proverb. cap. 11. saith, it is to be observed that although there be no hope of pardon after death, yet be there so●e who may be absolved after death from such light sins as they carried with them out of this life. They may be absolved I say, either by suffering punishment, or else by the prayer, alms, and masses of their living friends. But to whom soever these things are done, thy are done to them before the last Judgement, and for lighter faults.  
De hac quaestione nihil Ecclesia definivit, sunt autem multae opiniones. Belarm. lib. 12. de purgat. cap. 6. initio.  
pag. 178. & passim. St. Bernard ser. 66. in Cant. St. Gregory Nyssen. orat. de mortuis. Purge me o Lord in this life etc. that I may not stand in need of that amending fire which is for those who shall be saved, but so as by fire. Aug. in psal. 37. It is manifest that they (aged persons dying in smaller sins) being purged, before the day of Judgement, by temporary pains which their souls do suffer; they shall not be delivered to the punishment of eternal fire. Aug. l. 20. the Ciuit. cap. 13. usher's Answer pag. 179.  
Answer pag. 182. See Sir Edward Sands in his relations cap. 53.54.   But this fraud is discovered, (I can not presume him ignorant) for that neither St. Cyprian, nor Alcuinus do speak of reconciling penitents in the Sacrament of penance, but only of releasing them from Censures, and temporal penitences, or punishments, wherewith they had been bound by the positive and public Decree of the Church, which might be performed not only by a Deacon, but by a letter to the penitent, though never so far of and absent; And therefore can not be an absolution from sins, which requireth the penitent's presence, and appertaineth to the office of Priesthood inseparably, Jus enim hoc solis sacerdotibus permissum est, saith St. Ambrose.   

Against Purgatory.  
MR. Usher having seen how plainly the doctrine of Purgatory, (that is a third place for purging of venial sins, 〈◊〉 satisfying for mortal sins whereof the guilt but not the whole 〈◊〉 punishment is pardoned) is delivered by the primitive Church and Fathers, and that the examples and histories 〈◊〉 so great and holy a Doctor as St. Gregory to that purpose, 〈…〉 be well denied, doth fraudulently change the state of 〈◊〉 question, to make his Readers believe, that the dispute 〈◊〉 the Popish Purgatory, is not whether sins and souls 〈◊〉 be temporaly punished in the other life, but whether 〈◊〉 are punished by material fire, or whether the place of 〈◊〉 punishment be a part of Hell? Whereas all the world 〈◊〉 we leave these things to be disputed in schools, and 〈◊〉 not determined by the Church.  
Whereas pag. 176. of his Answer, Mr. Usher saith, neither 〈◊〉 it to be passed over, that in those apparitions and revelations related by Gregory, there is no mention made of any 〈◊〉 Lodge in Hell appointed for Purgatory of the 〈◊〉 (which is that which the Church of Rome now striveth 〈◊〉) etc. And by this imposture of his, that in the time of Otto 〈◊〉 Frisingensis and other modern Authors (who dispute whether 〈◊〉 purgatory was a place or part of hell) would fain make Protestant's believe that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory 〈◊〉 not ancient: whereas he could not be ignorant that St. Berna●● (who lived before Otto Frisingensis) rehearsing and refu●●ng the heresies of the petrobusians, saith; They do not believe that there remaineth any Purgatory fire after death, but will have the soul as soon as it is out of the body, to pass either to rest, or else to damnation, but let them inquire of him who said, that there is a kind of sin which shall not be forgiven in this world nor the world to come, to what end did he say this if there be no remission nor cleansing of sin in the other world?  
But others much ancienter spoke clearly of Purgatory. St. Gregory of Nyssa; The Divine providence hath ordained that man after sin should return to his ancient felicity, either purified in this life by prayer etc. or after his death cleansed in the furnace of Purgatory fire. St. Basil. in cap. 9 Esay. St. Cyril Alexandr. in joan. 15. v. 2. St. Gregory Nazian. St. Ambrose, St. Austin, St. Hierom, Origines, Tertullian, St. Hilary, and most of the Fathers, whose sayings Mr. Usher did see in Belarmin, and yet without mentioning any particular, tells us, that the Testimonies which the Cardinal bringeth, belong to the point of praying for the dead only (as if praying for the ease and relief of the dead did not necessarily conclude Purgatory) or unto the fire of affliction in this world, or unto that of the last day, or to the fire of Hell, or (mark the 〈◊〉 absolute and rational answer) to some other fire, then that which 〈…〉.  
Mr. Usher concludes his controversy of 〈◊〉 with these words, and so unto this day the Romish Purgatory is rejected as well by the Gracious, as by the 〈◊〉, and Russians, the Cophites, and Abassins', the 〈◊〉 and Armenians, together with the Syrians and 〈…〉 subject to the Patriarches of Antioch, and 〈…〉 and Palestian● unto the East Indies. This is strange 〈◊〉 in maintaining a falsehood contradicted both by the Protestant relations of the Eastern Religions, and by the Declarations of the Patriarches and other learned Writers of the 〈◊〉 Provinces.   

Against Worshipping of Saints and their Relics.  
THe jesuits (saith Mr. Usher pag. 420.) were wont indeed 〈…〉 men commonly with an idle 〈…〉, and l●●ria, but now they confess it to be the 〈◊〉 of the most and wisest, that it is one and the self same virtue that containeth both latria, and Dulia. here Mr. Usher is convicted of two notorious frauds; 1. To make his illiterate Reader believe that no act appertaining to the virtue of Religion, can any way relate unto Creatures, though it have the Creator for its prime motive, he seems to suppose that the jesuits now recant, and grant that the honour which Catholics give to Saints, as they are God's 〈◊〉, can not be an act of Religion, 

Hieremias Constantinopol. Resp. 1. c. 12. & 13. Gabriel Alexand. ep. ad Clem. 8  
Hypathius Ruthenorum legatus in professione fidei. Graeci Venetiad Card. Guisianum. q 10 Zaga Zab● Ethiop. in Confession fidei Aethiop. Gennadius Scholarius etc. Purgatorio sec. 1. & 5. Answer pag. 420 Reply against Harding p. 379.   whereas there is no 〈◊〉 difficulty nor dispute in that a man should honour God 〈◊〉 his Saints, by two distinct acts of the same virtue of 〈◊〉, then in that the love of God, and of our neighbour, 〈…〉 two acts of one virtue, called Charity. The second 〈…〉 he would fain persuade, that latria, and Dulia is a 〈◊〉 distinction, and delusion of the Jesuits; and that no 〈◊〉 worship, however so inferior, can be communicated 〈…〉, without committing of Idolatry. But the Church 〈◊〉 England by the pen of its defender Bishop Jewel, tells 〈…〉, we only adore Christ as very God●, but we 〈…〉 the Sacrament, we worship the word of 〈…〉 all other like things in such religious wise to Christ 〈◊〉.  
〈…〉 Church and Fathers (not only the Jesuits) 〈…〉 distinction of Latria and Dalia, that is, suprem, and 〈◊〉 religious worship: the suprem▪ that is, Latria, is due 〈…〉, as the suprem civil worship to the King●: the 〈◊〉▪ which is Dulia, is due to Saints, Bishops, Priest's etc. 〈…〉 of that religious and supernatural excellency, or 〈◊〉, which God hath given them. And to Saints we pray 〈◊〉 God's servants, not as to Gods, as Mr. Usher would 〈◊〉 Protestant's. We are calumniated by him as St. Hierom, St. Austin, and all Catholics were by Vigilantius, and Faustus Manichean Heretic. St. Austin his words are. 
St. Austin contra Faust. Manichaeum lib. 20. c. 21.  The heretic Faustus doth calumniat us, because we honour the 〈◊〉 or relics of Martyrs, affirming that we have them for our Idols. The Christian people doth celebrat with religious 〈◊〉 the memories of Martyrs, thereby to stir up themselves to their imitation, and that they may be assisted with their prayers, and made partakers of their merits. But with the worship termed in Greek latria, and which the latin language can not express in one word, 
Answer pag. 377. Matthew 4. v. 10,  (it being a certain subjection and servitude due properly to the Deity only,) we do not honour any but God alone etc.  
Coilyridians', who holding our Lady for a Deity, 
St. Epiphan. Haeres. 79. parag 6. & 7▪  adored her 〈◊〉 latria, and offered sacrifice unto her. And yet he doth 〈◊〉 how St. Epiphanius in that very disputation inveighed 〈◊〉 against such as did not honour our Lady with due 〈…〉, but let our Lord be adored, saith he; 〈…〉 none adore her as God: for though she be 〈…〉, and most worthy of honour, yet not worthy to be 〈…〉 wit with latria, And the same Saint condemneth as 〈◊〉 those who do not give due honour to the mother of God, 〈◊〉 who give her that of latria. For as these (saith he) 〈…〉 Imaginations of Mary do sow pernicious 〈…〉 in men's minds, 
Ibid parag. 2.  so these others inclining too much to the 〈…〉 to be in the wrong. So that we see 〈…〉 of Latria and Dulia is no Idle invention of the 〈…〉 necessary doctrine of the ancient Fathers.   

Against prayer to Saints.  
MR. Vhser in his answer to the jesuits challenge, treating of this controversy, proceeded with the same fraud he used in that of Purgatory. Finding that the ancient 〈◊〉 prayed to Saints, and that God wrought many mira●●● at their shrines, and Relics, he endeavours to change the 〈◊〉 of the question, and place the whole controversy in points 〈◊〉; making his Reader believe, that we Roman 〈◊〉 now a days do not believe as the ancient Church, but 〈◊〉 that the souls of Martyrs are present at their shrines, 〈◊〉 when miracles are wrought; and other things 〈◊〉 the manner of their intercession, and knowledge of our 〈◊〉, and prayers; so that saith Mr. Ʋsher (pag. 405.) to 〈◊〉 good the Popish manner of praying unto Saints, that 〈◊〉 at the first was but probable and problematical (to wit 〈◊〉 sayings of the Master of the sentences, Scotus, Biel, and other school Divines) must now be held to be de fide.  
This calumny and fraud is clearly confuted by the words Concede nobis Domine quaesumus, veniam delictorum, & 〈…〉 sanctis quorum hodie solemnia celebramus, talem nobis 〈◊〉 denotionem, ut ad eorum pervenire mer●amur societatem. 〈…〉 ●orum merita, quos propria impediunt scelera; excuset 〈◊〉 accusat quos actio▪ & qui iis tribuisti coelestis palmam 〈…〉 nobis veniam non deneges peccati: Grant us O Lord we 〈…〉, remission of our sins, and by the intercession of the Saints 〈◊〉 solemnity we celebrat, bestow upon us such devotion that we 〈◊〉 serve to attain unto their fellowship. And immediately followeth; let their merits help us that are hindered by our own sins. 〈◊〉 their intercession excuse us, who are accused by our own 〈◊〉: and thou o Lord who hast bestowed upon them the palm 〈◊〉 heavenly triumph, deny not unto us the pardon of our sins. 〈…〉 (pag. 408.) quite omitting the first part of 〈…〉, translateth the later part as if it were rather an 〈◊〉 than a supplication, thus, can their merits help us, 〈◊〉 own sins hinder? can their intercession excuse us, 

Usher translates But thou o Lord, and adds interrogations to help his fraud.  
Adjuvent nos eorum merita quos propria impediunt scelera; excuset intercessio, accusat quos actio: & qui eis tribuisti caelestis palmam triumphi, nobis veniam non deneges peccati.   whose 〈◊〉 doth accuse themselves? But thou who hast bestowed upon 〈◊〉 palm of thy heavenly triumph, deny not unto us the 〈…〉 sins. You see how he adds interrogations, and makes 〈◊〉 on his own head, and not only translates the latin 〈…〉 fraudulently, but changeth the whole sense, and 〈◊〉 into the Text At instead of &, and tu, which is not 〈◊〉 latin; and makes the whole order,, of the 〈◊〉 as also that of the Benedictin Monks, heretics, as 〈◊〉 of that which no Roman Catholic ever called in 〈◊〉. What credit, think you doth such a man as this deserve 〈◊〉 collections of antiquities, when they agree not with his 〈◊〉 Protestant Religion? he who venter's to contradict a 〈◊〉 so generaly known, and to corrupt a writing so common 〈◊〉 in so many Libraries and Books, what will he not 〈◊〉 or hath not done, in Papers and Copies which he fancies 〈◊〉 must take upon his sole word and Testimony? Whosoever desires to have a full view of Primate usher's unsincere dealing in maintaining protestancy (which we attribute more to the of the Roman Church (whose words he quotes) were of 〈◊〉 that (as the Greeks expressed themselves) it was a 〈◊〉 not simply fundamental. 
Pag. 24. against Fisher.   
〈◊〉 for his Lordship's backwardness in denying the Greeks 〈…〉 Church (that is, of accusing them of heresy) 〈◊〉 forsooth, they seem to maintain the equality and 〈◊〉 of the persons; so great a prelate and writer ought 〈◊〉 known that a Church may be a falls and heretical 〈◊〉 for denying the generation and procession, as well as 〈◊〉 the equality and consubstantiality of the persons: 〈◊〉 indeed can the one be denied without denying the other. 〈◊〉 task is, to examine the Bishop's sincerity, not his 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 first fraud is, to pretend that Catholic Authors 〈◊〉 him in the Protestant distinction of fundamental and 〈…〉 articles; whereas we hold every article (by 〈…〉 motive, though not of the matter) to be 〈◊〉 that is, of necessity the matter (how ever so small) 〈◊〉 believed by us under pain of Damnation, whensoever 〈…〉 proposed to us as revealed by God; or (which 〈…〉) whensoever we know any matter to be either 〈…〉 Scripture, or declared by Catholic Tradition, or 〈◊〉 by the Church, we are bound to believe it, and can 〈◊〉 if we deny or doubt of it. So that doctrine which 〈…〉 grievous error in the greek Church, we must call it plain 〈◊〉 which makes them no Church: because their error hath 〈…〉 heresy by the Church.  
〈◊〉 second fraud in this matter, is, that he conceals from 〈…〉 the true state of the question, and abuseth the 〈◊〉 author's he citys, as if they had understood it as his 〈…〉 doth set it down, or had excused the modern Greeks 〈◊〉, and argues with their sayings and authority in favour of protestancy. The question is, whether the modern Greeks 〈◊〉 that the holy Ghost proceeds from the son as well as 〈◊〉 the Father. The Bishop pretends they do, and that they 〈◊〉 pain of Damnation, and proved this saying by these words 〈◊〉 Austin, this is a thing founded; 

Aug. serm. 14 the verb● Apostoli. in fine.  
Laud pag. 33   An erring Disputant is to be 〈◊〉 with in other questions not diligently digested, nor yet made firm 〈◊〉 authority of the Church; there, error is to be born with but 〈◊〉 not to go so far that it should labour to shake the very 〈◊〉 of the Church. The Bishop says this can not be 〈◊〉 of the definition of the Church (though St. Austin 〈◊〉 expressly of the authority thereof) but of Scripture. 
Ibid.  But 〈◊〉 afterwards the words might be understood of the 〈◊〉 of the Church, or general Counsels; to the end that 〈◊〉 might not imagine St. Austin thought such definitions were 〈◊〉, or unquestionable, he adds, 
Pag. 34. B. Laud.  But plain Scripture with 〈◊〉 sense, or a full demonstrative argument must have room 〈◊〉 a wrangling and erring disputer may not be allowed it. And 〈◊〉 neither of these but may convince the definition of the 〈◊〉 if it be ill founded. 
E. Quae quidê si tam manifesta mon●ratur ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholicateneor. Ita si aliquid apertissimum in Evangelis. St. Aug. contra Fund. c. 4.  And to show that this is no fancy of 〈◊〉, but the doctrine of St. Austin, he quotes his words 〈◊〉 see them in the margin with an F. referring the word 〈◊〉 to Scripture. So that if you believe the Bishop and rely 〈◊〉 his quotations, St. Austin doubted not but that the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general Counsels may be contrary to 〈◊〉, and confuted by full demonstrative arguments.  
I confess that when I read this page and part of Bp. Laud's 〈◊〉 with Fisher, I found myself much troubled, until 〈◊〉 the matter, and then I resolved never more to 〈◊〉 him, or any Protestant writer, however so Saintlike or 〈◊〉, by report, or in appearance. The truth is, St. Austin 〈◊〉 place cited by the Bishop, hath nothing at all either 〈◊〉 Scripture, or evident sense, or demonstrative arguments; but addressing his speech to the Manicheans, he writes 〈◊〉, Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac 〈◊〉, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio, and then follow the words 〈◊〉 by the Bishop, quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur etc. 〈◊〉 truth so bragged of and promised by the Manicheans to 〈◊〉 demonstrated, in that epistle called Fundamentum, saith St. Austin, if it be demonstrated to be so clear etc. is to be preferred; where you see St. Austin's quae, referred not to Scripture, but to that fictitious truth which the Manichees pretended to be in their doctrine. Nay St. Austin is so far from doubting of the infallibility of the Church, and general Counsels in that very place quoted by the Bishop, that he disputes ex professo against the possibility of its erring, or of its definitions being contrary to Scripture, and says, that if the doctrine of the Catholic Church could be contrary to Scripture, he should not be able to believe rationaly, and infallibly, either the one or the other: not the Scriptures, because he receives them only upon the authority of the Church; Not the Church, whose authority is infringed by Scripture, which is supposed to be brought against her. Si ad Evangelium me tenes, ego ad eos me teneam, quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi; & his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam. Quod si fort in Evangelio aliquid in apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris, infirmabis mihi Catholicorum authoritatem, qui jubent ut tibi non credam; qua infirmata, jam nec Evangelio credere poter●; quia per eos illi credideram: ita nihil apud me valebit, quicquid inde protul●ris. Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei Apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur, Catholicis potius credam quam tibi: si a●tem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris, nec illis nec tibi: illis quina de te mihi mentiti sunt: Tibi autem, qui eam scripturam mihi proffers, cui per illos credideram, qui mihi mentiti sunt. Aug. cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4. Wherefore St. Austin doth not suppose (as the Bishop pretends) that Scripture or reason can be contrary to the definitions of the Church; he professedly teaches the contrary in the very place cited, and uses the alleged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur etc. only ex suppositione impossibili, in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh (Gal. 1.) If an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, than we have taught you, let him be accursed. St. Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angel from heaven should teach contrary to the Gospel; and so did St. Austin that the definitions of a general Council should be contrary to Scripture, or reason, as appeareth by his own discourse against the Manichees.   

Vincentius Li●inensis abused by Mr. Laud, to prove the fallibility of the Church, pretending, that learned Father supposed and said she might change into Lupanar errorum; à strumpet or stews of errors.  
BUt A. C. tells us further (saith Mr. Laud) that if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any determination of the Church, then may he also against an other, 
Pag. 38.  and so against all; 
Vincent. Lirin. cap. 23.24. he says the Pelagians erred in Dogmate fidei, and yet they erred not in a prime maxim, but in a superstructure. Vin. Lirin. cont. haer. c. 31. Impiorum & turpiumerrorum lupanar: ubi erat ante castae & incorruptae Sacrarium veritatis.  since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church; which being weakened in any one, can not be firm in another. First, A. C. borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis, and as that learned Father uses it, I subscribe to it; but not as A. C. applies it. For Vincentius speaks there the Catholico Dogmate, of Catholic Maxims &c. which are properly fundamental: (but here the Bishop is mistaken, for Vincentius speaks also of not fundamentals, as of the celebrating of Easter according to St. Victor's decree; the not rebaptising of those who had been baptised by heretics &c.) now in this sense, saith the Bishop, give way to every cavilling disputer to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian Religion etc. And why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till he have shaken all? But this hinders not the Church herself; nor any appointed by the Church, to examine her own decrees, and to see that she keep the principles of her faith unblemished and uncorrupted; for if she do not so, but novitia veteribus, new doctrines be added to the old, the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis, may be changed in Lupanar errorum, I am loath to english it. 
Bp. Laud pag. 38.  Hitherto the modest Bishop, 
Pag. 39  who quotes Vincent. Lirin. in his Margin, for his lupanar errorum, etc. and for the whole discourse.  
Vincentius Lirinensis is so far from expressing any fear or suspicion of danger that the Church should be changed into lupanar errorum, a stews of errors, by addition of novelties, or falling from the primitive doctrine, that as if he had foreseen this corruption of his meaning, and cutting short his words practised by Mr. Laud, he declares in that very place by him quoted, that only heretics and ungodly men can entertain any such thoughts of Christ's spouse, sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus divina pietas, sitque hoc potius impiorum furor, these are his words, and concealed by the Bishop: who also strikes out of Vincentius Lirin: other words whereby it did appear what a kind of keeper the Church is of the truths deposited with her, and how little danger there is of corrupting the old, or admitting of new doctrine. The Bishop (pag. 38.) sets down the sentence thus, Ecclesia depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos etc. Denique quid unquam Conciliorum Decretis enisa est; nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur, hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur, etc. But in Vincentius Lirinensis, 
Christi vero Ecclesia sedula & cauta depositorum Custos, nihil in iis unquam permutat, nihil minuit, nihil addit: non amputat necessaria, non apponit superflua, non amittit sua, non usurpat allena. Vincent. Lirin. cap. 22.  It is thus, Christi vero Eoclesia sedula & cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos; here first he skips over these two words sedula & cauta, diligent and wary, because they spoilt his plot of persuading us that the Church might by negligence of its Pastors be insensibly changed, and corrupted. To the same intent he conceals with an etc. the rest that follows, which would have cleared all, and left no room for the Bishop's fraud: for Vincentius Lirin: his words are, But the Church of Christ is a diligent Depositary or Keeper of the truths committed to her, never changes any thing at all in them, lessens nothing, adds nothing; nether cuts away things necessary, nor adjoins things superfluous; neither looseth what is hers, nor usurps what belongs to others. Let any Christian or honest Pagan judge, whether these words be not Diametrically contrary to what the Bishop pretends unto in this passage, viz. suspicion and possibility of the Churches adding novitia veteribus, novelties to the old doctrine; of making a change of that faith she first received from Christ and his Apostles, and of becoming Lupanar errorum; which this good man and holy Martyr says he is loath to english; and yet leaves out, cuts, and corrupts the Latin text of set purpose, to fix upon Christ's Espouse the greatest infamy.   

How Bp. Laud falsifies Occam to infringe St. Augustine's authority concerning the infallibility of the Church in succeeding ages as well as in that of the Apostles: and is forced by his error to resolve his prelatic faith into the light of Scripture, and the private Spirit of fanatics, which he palliates under the name of grace, and thereby warrants all rebellions against Church and state.  
AN act of divine faith must be prudent, that is, men are not bound to believe any article thereof, (v. g. that Scripture is the word of God) unless there evidently appear prudent and sufficient motives to exclude all moral possibility that any but God is the Author of the doctrine proposed to be believed. These motives of credibility we call the signs of the Church, and are the miracles of Christ and his Disciples, sanctity and succession of his doctrine and Doctors, Conversion of Kings and nations to christianity etc. These signs or motives of credibility, 
See heretofore part. 2. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas.  though they do not evidence demonstratively that our faith is true, or that the Church or Congregation of men wherein they be found, is the Catholic, yet they demonstrat an obligation in us of believing it, as we have proved elsewhere: in so much that if no such signs or motives of credibility had been, none would be bound to believe any point of Christian Religion with certainty of faith; and therefore St. Austin said he would not believe the Scripture, 
Aug. lib. 1. contra Epist. Fund. c. 5.  had he not been moved thereunto by the authority of the Church; because Scripture of itself hath no sufficient arguments and signs to ground a prudent and undoubted belief of its being the word of God; but the signs and motives of credibility invest the Church with sufficient authority to declare both that, and all other mysteries of faith, and to make our Ecclesiastical Ministry and Mission more authentikly divin, than any Regal Commissions or human Badges can set forth the truth and dignity of Ministers of state, and officers of war. Therefore, as not to believe, or to contemn men so qualified, when they command in the King's name, is by the light of reason and consent of all nations, judged obstinacy and rebellion, (not to be excused by pretending ignorance, or want of greater evidence than those usual signs of their employments afford,) so must it be obstinate heresy not to believe that what is proposed by the Church (qualified with the aforesaid signs) is revealed by God.  
This supposed, the main Controversy between Protestants and Catholics is, about the resolution of Christian faith, for though both parties pretend that they believe because God revealed to the Prophets, and Apostles the Mysteries of faith, yet we say that Protestants can not show how it may be prudently believed that Christ preached or revealed any such doctrine as is pretended, unless it be acknowledged that the Church of every succeeding age was, and this present is, as truly and realy (though perhaps not so highly quoad modum) infallible in delivering the Apostles doctrine, as the Apostles were in delivering that of Christ. We do not say that Tradition or the Testimony of the Church, confirmed by the foresaid signs, is the prime motive, and last resolution of faith, but that the Tradition and Testimony of the present Church is infallible, to the end it may infallibly apply the prime motive, (which is God's veracity) to us; and we prudently assent thereunto.  
But the Bishop denying this, is driven with Presbyterians and fanatics to an inbred●light of Scripture, and to the private Fanatic spirit; with this only difference, that where they say they are infallibly resolved that Scripture is the word of God, by the Testimony of the Spirit within them, his Lordship (pag. 83.84.) averrs he hath the same assurance by grace. And because we object, and admire that no Catholic could ever perceive this inward and inbred light of Scripture, whereby all Protestants pretend they are assured it is the word of God, he concurs (pag. 86,) with Fanatitks in telling us, that blind eyes can not, and pervers eyes will not see it. It's strange his Lordship did not foresee the sad effects which this Protestant principle and presumption wrought against himself, and his Prelatic Church, within a very short time after he writ this doctrine, and applied the same against the Roman Catholics. He might be sure it would be retorted against the Church of England; for why may not every Protestant Sectary pretend, that the Prelatic Church of England is as blind and pervers in not seeing the light of Scripture, as Luther and Laud pretend the Roman Catholic is? It is but every particular man's fancy, and word; no other proof is required by Protestants; nor indeed can any better be produced to make good, that so many honest and learned searchers of Scripture as have been and are in the Roman Catholic Church, can not, or will not see the pretended light of Scripture, so largely diffused among Protestants, and distributed to every Fanatic, Presbyterian, and Prelatic, whose faith can not be maintained without this rash judgement, and most dangerous consequences, as prejudicial both to Church and state, as our late distempers have manifested.  
But now to Mr. laud's falsifications. To prove that the Tradition of the Church is not infallible, and that the words of St. Augustin, Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas, should be understood of the Church in the time of the Apostles only, the Bishop says, Some of our own Authors will not endure it should be otherwise meant by St. Austin, save of the Church in the time of the Apostles, only, 
Bishop Laud pag. 81. edit. 1639.  and in proof of this he citys Occam in the Margin thus. Occam Dial. part. 1. l. 1. c. 4. and sets down these as his words, Intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum. 
Vbi Ecclesia Catholica Episcopos & populos à tempore Apostolorum usque in hodi●rnum diem sibimet succedentium importat, & sic accipit nomen Ecclesiae Augustinus cum asserit, quod non crederet Evangelio, ni●● eum authoritas Ecclesiae etc. Ocham Dial. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4.  It is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles time. Whereas Occam in the very place quoted, holds the quite contrary, and says expressly, that the Church whereof St· Austin speaks in that sentence, contains not only the Apostles, but also the Church successively from the times of the Apostles to that very time wherein St. Austin wrote those words, as every one may see by his sentence truly related in our margin: And indeed St. Austin speaks of that Church which said to him noli credere Manichaeo, and had succession of Bishops of Rome, which the Church had not in the Apostles time.   

Divers Frauds and Falsifications of Bishop Laud to defend that Protestants are not Schismatics.  
MR. Fisher having pressed Bishop Laud with that ordinary and unanswerable argument, proving Protestants to be schismatics, because they separated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, obstinately holding divers opinions contrary to the ancient and generally received faith, many whereof had been condemned as heresies in former ages by General Counsels, and all orthodox Christians; his Lordship answers, 1. That the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. We reply that when Luther and Calvin began their pretended reformations, such only as were in communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome, were held to be Catholics; all others having been declared Schismatics, or heretics; and for that reason the first Reformers did not claim to be members of the Greeks, or of any other Christian-church then extant; but acknowledge they found no men of their reformed belief, and therefore separated themselves from the whole world; as Luther and Calvin expressly say, and we have proved, showing they did not agree in all points with the Waldenses, Wickl●ffians, Greeks, or any other visible Congregation of Christians. Therefore they separated themselves (by inventing and following contrary opinions) from all visible Churches, and by consequence from the true one, if they will grant there is a true one upon earth, as the Bishop would seem to acknowledge.  
Was it not lawful saith he (pag. 149.) for Juda to reform herself when Israel would not join? sure it was, or else the Prophet deceives me, 
Host 4.15.  that says expressly though Israel transgress, let not Juda sin. Here his Lordship supposeth two absurdities. 1. That Juda reform its doctrine (which is the only question) 2. That the Catholics are to represent the ten tribes, (because forsooth they are more numerous) and Protestants Juda: whereas no parallel can be more pat then the Protestants compared with the ten tribes, who left Jerusalem, and the High Priest, and rebelled with Jeroboam; which King out of ungodly policy, the better to secure his usurped Crown (just as Queen Elizabeth) caused the people to desert the old and true Religion, set up new Priests, Sacrifices etc.  
But his Lordship reflecting upon these and other things, thought necessary (because he saw that himself and his party would be driven to the ten tribes at length) to defend they were a Church, even after their schism or separation; for that there were some true prophets among them, as Elias Elizeus etc. and thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal: not observing that such Prophets and others who continued faithful, were of the true Church of Juda, though they could not go to Jerusalem; and were no more of the ten Tribes Religion, than the Greek Roman Catholics are of Mahomet's, or English Papists of the Protestant. And whereas the Bishop's adversary tells him that particular Churches may not pretend to reform themselves and condemn others of error in faith, (especially their acknowledged spiritual Superiors) when the need of reformation is only questionable; 
A.C. pag. 58.  and this was so evident ● confutation of protestancy, and so convincing a proof of all their Church's schisms, that his Lordship thought fit to conceal those words. (When the need is questionable) in his relation of his adversaries argument; and after omitting and concealing the force thereof, endeavours to answer as well as he can. That the first Protestant reformers were subject to the Roman Catholic Church and prelates in spiritual affairs, is confessed by themselves; and that without any sufficient cause, or probable pretext, they rebelled against that superiority and jurisdiction, is also evident; unless we should grant (as the Bishop with all sectaries, says pag. 86.) that all Christendom (Protestant's only excepted) are so blind or pervers, that they can not, or will not see the light of the Scripture, and by consequence, their own Idolatry and superstition. And this his, and other such men's senseless assertion, must pass for good evidence, and be a sufficient warrant for Jnferiors to renounce their obedience, and reform the doctrine of their Superiors, and of the whole visible Church, without incurring the Censure or guilt of Schism, and heresy.  
Mr. Laud denyeth that in ancient times the Bishop of Rome was Superior to other Bishops out of his own Patriarchat, which extended no further (saith he) then to Italy, and the adjacent Islands. And to make good this equality of Patriarches with the Pope, he quotes (num. 170.) the law, A patriarcha non datur appellatio. Then he says (pag. 171.) that in those ancient times of the Church government, Brittany was never subject to the Sea of Rome, 
Guilielm. Malmesbur. in prolog. lib. 1. de g●st●s Pontif. Angl. p. 195.  and that Pope Vrban the 2. accounted his worthy predecessor in the Sea of Canterbury (St. Anselm) as his own Compeer, and said he was as the Apostolic and Patriarch of the other world.  
The greatest fraud committed in treating matters of Religion is, to assert a notorious falsehood so confidently that the truth can not be questioned, or examined without doubting whether the relator have either soul or shame. Who can Imagine that a man pretending not only to be an Archbishop, but a Patriarch, would endeavour to maintain Religion by such impostures? Britain saith Mr. Laud, 
St Bed. lib. 5. Eccl. Hist. cap. 20.  was never subject to the Sea of Rome No! How then came Venerable Bede to tell us that an. 673. St. Wilford Archbishop of York, being unjustly deprived of his Bishopric, appealed to the Sea Apostolic, was heard by Pope Agatho, and by virtue of his sentence restored to his Bishopric? How comes St. Gregory the great to write thus to St. Austin our English Apostle. 
Bede lib. 1. Eccl. Histor. cap. 29.  Seeing by the goodness of God, and our industry, the new English Church is brought unto the faith of Christ, we grant to you the use of the Pall (the proper badge or sign of Archiepiscopal dignity) to wear it when you say Mass; and we condescend that you ordain twelve Bishops under your Jurisdiction; yet so that the Bishop of London be consecrated hereafter by a Synod of his own Bishops, and receive his Pall from this holy Apostolical Sea, wherein I, by the authority of God, do now serve. 
See this Treatise par. 1. sec· 1. Concil. Africa. Can. 101. Ut Romam liceat Episcopis provocare; & ut Clericorum causae apud suarum provinciarum Episcopos finiantur, etiam litteris nostris ad eundem venerabilis memoriae Zozimum Episcopum datis, insinuari cur●▪ vimus etc.  Our will likewise is, that you send a Bishop to York, to whom we intent also to give the Pall, (that is, to make him Archbishop) but to you shall be subject not only the Bishops you make, and he of York, but all the Bishops of Britain. If urban the 2. said St. Anselm of Canterbury was a Patriarch, none can deny but that he received that dignity and his jurisdiction from Saint Gregory, as the others of the East, did from the Sea of Rome.  
That the Patriarches of the East were subject and did appeal to the Bishop of Rome, is evident in the Ecclesiastical History; and as for the law of not appealing from a Patriarch, Mr. Laud could not be ignorant it was intended for the inferior Clergy, who (of ordinary course) were not to appeal further than to the primate of their province; for so the Council of Africa determins.  
His Lordship, without doubt did see also how in that very Council it is acknowledged that Bishops in their own causes might appeal to Rome.  

Concil. African. ep. ad Bonifac pap. to which St. Austin subscribed.  Mr. Fisher asked the Bishop, Quo Judice doth it appear that the Church of Rome hath erred in matters of faith? as not thinking it equity that protestants in their own cause should be Accusers, witnesses, and judges of the Roman Church. He answers, there is as little reason or equity that any man who is to be accused, should be the accused, and yet wittness and Judge in his own cause. Fisher replies that, the Church of Rome is the principal and Mother Church; and that therefore though it be against common equity that subjects and Children should be Accusers, Witnesses, judges, and Executioners against their Prince, and mother, in any case; yet is it not absurd that in some cases the Prince or mother may accuse, witness, judge, and if need be, execute justice against unjust and rebellious, or evil Children, especially if the prince, or mother be infallible. But the Controversy being at length reduced unto this, whether the Church might not err in doctrine, as Princes and parents do in governing their subjects and Children, Mr. Fisher says, it can not, and proves it by that of St. Matthew 16.18. That Hell gates shall never be able to prevail against the Church. The Bishop says this is to be understood that errors (which are meant by Hell gates) shall never be able to prevail against the Church in Fundamental Articles; and confirms this his saying by one of St. Austin, quoting his words thus, pugnare potest, expugnari non potest; whereas if his Lordship had been pleased to set down St. Augustine's words sincerely as he ought, the case had been clearly decided. St. Augustine's words are, Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta, Ecclesia una, Ecclesia vera, Ecclesia Catholica, contra omnes haereses pugnans. And then come in pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest. The Church fights against all heresies, contrary to every article, and by consequence whether Fundamental or not; and yet expugnari non potest; she can not be overcome. All heresies, saith the Saint depart from her as unprofitable branches cut of from the vine: but she remains still in her root, in her vines, in her charity; the gates of Hell shall not overcome her. All this (as not being for his Lordship's purpose, who challenged all our party to show one Father for 1200. years after Christ, that concluded the infallibility of the Church out of Matthew 16.18.) is concealed by the Bishop from his Reader.  
The like fraud is practised by this Lordship in answering to that Text of St. Irenaeus, 
St. Irenaeus l. 3. cap. 3.  ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam; hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles: in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio. These words he sets down in the Margin, and doth English them thus, To this Church (he speaks of Rome) for the more powerful principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful (undique) round about, should have recours. (Laud pag. 182.) First he translates undique (which signifies (ordinarily) from all places, parts, and every where) round about; to the end St. Irenaeus might be thought to make the Sea of Rome's principality a bare primacy of order, and precedency; and then confine its jurisdiction to Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica; but hereby he would make the Saint speak nonsense, for he used this argument against the Gnostics in France, and other heretics, and gives us this rule of Christianity, that the doctrine or Tradition of the Roman Church is the touchstone of all Apostolical doctrine. If therefore undique in this place doth signify no more than round about Rome, and thereby the more powerful principality Irenaeus speaks of, be restrained to precedency; and the Roman jurisdiction to sole Italy and its Islands; he must have argued thus, 'tis necessary that Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, should have recours to Rome for its Bishop's precedency of place, or in regard of his Patriarchal power within Italy and the adjacent Islands; Therefore the Gnostics in France, and all other heretics, of the world, are convinced of heresy for not having recours to the Sea of Rome. This would be a far fetched consequence, and as unworthy St. Irenaeus found judgement, as its necessary to defend Mr. laud's false comment, and Religion.  
Yet to make this appear not so improbable an interpretation, Mr. Laud (pag. 181. tells us that Irenaeus was a Bishop of the Gallican Church, and a very unlikely man to captivat the liberty of that Church under the more powerful principality of Rome; as if forsooth, the so much talked of liberties of the Gallican Church (which were not claimed or thought on until 1300. years after St. Irenaeus his time) could move him to limit the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction to Italy; or that the Gallican liberties did exclude it now from France. These are too gross mistakes, and can hardly be excused by ignorance in so knowing a person as Mr. Laud is thought to have been. 
Gregor. Nazian. in Car▪ de vita sua.   
After the same manner doth he abuse St. Gregory Nazianzen, who speaking of the Roman Church saith, Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habet rectam fidem. & semper eam retinet, sicut decet urbem quae toti orbi praesidet, semper de Deo integram fidem habere. These words the good Bishop translates thus into English (pag. 12.) Ancient Rome from of old hath the right faith, and always holds it, as becomes the City which is governess over the whole world to have an entire faith in, and concerning God. But (saith his Lordship) there is no promise nor prophecy in St. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so do, And to make this the more clear to his illiterate English Reader, he leaves out the word ever in the later part of his Translation, and in his gloss upon the sentence omitts the same word again, saying only, it became that City very well to keep the faith sound and entire. But How long? Semper (saith St. Gregory) for ever. Therefore Bishop Laud thought fit to conceal that semper. At length he acknowledgeth a double semper in S. Gregory, but misplaceth the later. His words are plain (saith he) semper decet etc. whereas St. Gregory saith not, semper decet etc. (it always becomes) but decet, it becomes that City which Governs the whole world, 
See D laud's labyrinth. p. 135. & 136  semper de Deo integram fidem habere▪ always to have the entire faith of God. Now who sees not a manifest difference betwixt these two propositions, It always becomes that City to hold the entire faith. And It becomes that City to hold the entire faith always The first only signifies, the keeping of the faith entire (whensoever it is done) is a thing well becoming the City of Rome. The second signifies, to keep the faith so that it must never fail, or cease to keep it entire, is a thing well becoming the City which Governs the whole world. Besides, the Government whereof St. Gregory speaks, must be understood of souls, or spiritual; because Roma vetus did not govern in his time, temporaly, seeing the Emperor resided in New Rome, that is Constantinople. Therefore St. Gregorys words are to be understood of the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction, who governed the souls of the whole world as supreme Pastor under Christ.  
But Patriarch Laud can not endure this, and will needs have all Bishops; (or at least all Patriarches) equal with the Bishop of Rome, by Christ's institution; and proves it (p. 200) by the authority of St. Hierom, whom Mr. Laud mistakes; for the St. speaks only of the character of Episcopacy, and says that all Bishops are ejusdem Sacerdotii, ejusdem meriti, 
Hierom. ep. ad Evagrium.  and by Gersons Book de Auferibilitate Papae: when Gerson, saith he, writ this Tract de Auferibilitate Papae, sure he thought the Church might continue in a very good being without a Monarchical head. Therefore, in his Judgement, the Church is not by any command or institution of Christ, Monarchical. Gerson par. 1.154.  
Answ. Gerson that famous Chancellor of Paris writ that Book in time of Schisms and Troubles, wherein for the peace of the Church, doubtful Popes may be deposed, as also Heretics. 
Auferibilis non est usque ad consummationem saeculi Vicarius sponsus Ecclesiae ● quin aliquis certus ei praeficiatur etc. Gerson Consid. 20.  But Gerson never meant that a Pope may be so deposed as none other should succeed, he defends the contrary earnestly and expressly consid. 8. His words are: Any civil monarchy or regal Government may be taken away, or changed into an Aristocracy, the law still continuing in force: but it is not so in the Church; which was founded by Christ in one supreme Monarch throughout the world: Because Christ Instituted no other Government unchangeably Monarchical, and as it were regal, besides the Church. Can any words be more express against Mr. laud's assertion; and yet his assertion is so positive, that I have known a Catholic Divine deceived by his authority in this particular; but after examination wondered at the Bishop's confidence.  
I conclude this matter of Protestant falsifications with this fair offer; let the learned men of that side show but any one saying of any ancient Orthodox Father, 
A fair offer to Protestants  or Council, quoted by the reformed writers of any Nation or quality whatsoever, to confirm protestancy; and if it be not found either impertinent, or corrupted by addition, omission, translation, or concealing the words going before, or coming after, whereupon depends the true meaning of the Text, let them I say but show one of these that speaks clearly in favour of Protestancy, and I will confess in print that I have been mistaken in the opinion I have of their Religion, and of its want of truth. But if not as much as one Orthodox Doctor, can be produced to support their Tenets, and the credit of Protestant writers, I hope they will not take it in ill part, that we advise our Contreymen, and all Christians to renounce their Conduct and Communion.     

SECT. XII. Whether it be piety or policy to permit the Protestant Clergy of these three Kingdoms to enjoy the Church Revenues, for maintaining (by such Frauds, and Falsifications as hitherto have been alleged) the doctrine of the Church of England; which also they acknowledge to be fallible, and by consequence (for all they know) falls; and how the said revenues may be conscientiously applied to the use and ease of the people, without any danger of sacrilege, or any disturbance to the Government, if a public Trial of both Clergies sincerity be allowed, and liberty of Conscience granted.  
THat it cannot be piety in a Prince or people, to cast away so vast a Treasure upon so uncertain a Religion and Clergy, as we have proved the Protestant to be, needs no proof. Neither is there any doubt but that it was policy, though not piety, in Q. Elizabeth (whose title could not stand with popery) to bestow the said revenues upon any men that would call themselves a Clergy, and engage to fool the vulgar sort with falls Scripture for framing a Religion or reformation agreeable to her title and interest, against the Royal line of the Stewards, lawful heirs of this Monarchy. As little question can be made, that the present possessors, and pretenders of Bishoprics, and Benefices, will endeavour to justify and continue Q. Elizabeth's course, though the case be altered; and that such of the laity as have unlawful designs in their hearts, will side with the Bishops, and strive to gain, or make a party, and win the hearts of ignorant and seditious people, by pretending great zeal for that prelatic Religion whereby Q. Elizabeth usurped the Crown, and her Creatures the revenues of the Church; not despairing but that as she by the advice of her Council and Clergy forced, or fooled this Nation out of their loyalty, and duty to the Stewards (by pretending that popery is Idolatry) so themselves may upon any occasion, (and perhaps upon the motion of liberty of conscience) have the like success against K. Charles the second, as Q. Elizabeth had against the Queen of Scots. This is the only objection can be made against liberty of Conscience, from which (say they) will spring Popery and will be the plea of policy against piety, in case the falsehood of prelatic protestancy, and the frauds of the faction interested therein, should be as zealously cried down, as we presume it to be clearly discovered in this Treatise.  
Our answer to this plea is. 1. That liberty of conscience, and legal changes of Religion in England, have been always made by Acts of Parliament, as we may see in the statutes of K. Henry 8. K. Edward 6. Q. Marry, and Q. Elizabeth; and against resolutions taken▪ in so legal and general a way, no rebellious designs have ever prevailed in this Monarchy; nor can; because in a Parliament is involved the free consent and concurrence of the Prince and people; and in case it should be judged conscionable and convenient that liberty of Conscience be granted to all Christians, (though thereby it could be feared the Roman Catholic Religion would be restored to these Kingdoms) it must be at the instance of the people, and by vote of Parliament; for that the Royal family, and the privy Council are at present nothing inclined to Popery: But we hope and pray that in time God may open his Majesties and his Counsels eyes to see the Divin truth, and the Temporal conveniences annexed to the ancient faith whereof this Monarchy hath been so long deprived. 2. The case between the Queen of Scots, and her Royal issue now reigning, is very different; for albeit her right was as clear (according not only to Catholic principles, but to Acts of our Protestant Parliaments) as it is, that a man can not have two Wives at once, or that Q. Elizabeth's mother could not be wife to K. Henry 8. during Q. Catherins' life, nor herself legitimat; yet the Protestant principles, and her Father's Testament, seemed to favour her succession; and the Queen of Scots marriage to the Dolphin of France made the English▪ (even Catholics) more slow than they would have been otherwise, in declaring for her right in the due time (which was a little before, and immediately after Q. Mary died) because they were not inclined to be subject to a French King, or governed by his Viceroy. None of these circumstances and considerations now concurring, it is not likely that designing or discontented persons can take any advantage against the royal family that now reigns, in case liberty of conscience, or even the restoring of the Roman Religion should be judged conscientious, and convenient by the Parliament.  
3. The Protestant Clergys' sincerity is now much more suspected, and the common people less incensed against popery, then in Queen Elizabeth's days; when the Protestant Bishops and Ministers Sermons, and Bibles made men believe, that Images were Idols, the Pope Antichrist; Priests, Traitors, Agents for the King of Spain etc. which things now are discovered to be calumnies and impostures; for the Bible making Images Idols, is corrected by public authority; the Pope known to be a civil person, like other men, not the beast of the Apocalypse: Nor Rome the whore of Babylon: Priests have served the King faithfully at home and abroad; and if any of them hath in our late troubles negotiated with the King of Spain, or his Ministers, it was then intended, and since hath proved, and been owned by our gracious Sovereign to have had been for his Majesties, and his Royal Highness benefit; and (when they were in exile) in order to their subsistence and restauration; not any way against their interest. Wherefore seeing the people of these nations are naturaly inclined to piety, though whilst they were abused by the Protestant Clergy, and countenanced by the interest of an illegitimat Prince, they did persecute Priests and popery as the greatest obstacles of peace and salvation; yet now, seeing they are better informed, and that in this particular of our desire to apply the Church revenues to the Crown for the defence of this Empire against all foreign and domestic Disturbers, we can have no design but duty to our King, and love to our Country, there can be no ground to fear, that the bare word or clamours of interested Adversaries, will disturb the Government, or incense a well meaning multitude against Papists, Priests, or any other persons that desire nothing but a peaceable and public Conference in order to liberty of Conscience, and to ease these Nations of those heavy burdens under which they groan. And indeed it concerns so much the soul and state, the public good, and all private persons to examine, whether English men (after so many changes) may not, and have not been mistaken in matters of Religion, and misled by education, that we have reason to hope some worthy and zealous Protestants will be pleased, (for their own, and the world's satisfaction) to move in Parliament, that our objections against the novelty of their doctrine, and the sincerity of their Clergy, may be taken into Consideration, and a public Trial allowed for the discovery either of their Cheat, or of our Calumny. If I be found a Calumniator (no other joined with me in this work) I do engage in the word of a Christian, to present myself to due punishment, in case I escape the pestilence, whereunto I have resolved to expose myself for the benefit and salvation of my brethren; but if the Protestant learned Clergy be found Cheats, I humbly and only beg, that the revenues which they possess may be better bestowed; not upon the Catholic Clergy, but upon the Crown, for the defence and ease of the Country. If the Protestant Religion be true, by a fair Trial it can receive no damage, nor the state incur any danger: if false, besides the conversion of souls to the Catholic truth, the Commonwealth may declare (to whom it appertains) the necessity there is of seizing upon the Church livings for the preservation of the people; and by their approbation conscientiously enjoy the same.  
And albeit never any Protestant contributed to the foundation of Bishoprics, or Benefices; but that all such pious works in these Kingdoms have been founded by our Roman Catholic predecessors, with an express obligation of prayer for the souls in Purgatory, and of preaching the Roman Religion; yet I question not but that they who (by virtue of the last wills and Testaments of the Founders, and long prescription of lawful Predecessors,) ought to be in possession of the Temporalities of the Church, are so good Patriots and dutiful subjects, as to declare they will resign their right unto his Majesty, whensoever these three Kingdoms will think fit to grant liberty of Conscience, or to return the ancient true Religion; and thereby the world may be satisfied, that our quarrel with the Protestant Clergy is not for lands, but for souls; and of this we have given heretofore sufficient evidence in the change of Religion made by Q. Mary; having then resigned our Abbeys, 
See the petition and instrument of the Catholic Clergyes resignation in Doctor heylin's Ecclesia restaurata pag. 43. and the Stat. 1. Mar. and in this Treatise part. 1.  and impropriations to the Crown; whereas the Protestant Clergy in these great wars never presented the King with any Donative out of their vast fines and revenues. This backwardness of the Bishops in so pressing a Conjuncture, together with the present poverty of the people, and the dangers whereunto these nations are cast for want of a public revenue, (which ought to be independent of taxes that can not be seasonably and securely raised, when they are most necessary) do not only justify, but exact a scrutiny into the right whereby the sacred patrimony of the Church is possessed by men that neither expose their persons, nor open their purses for the defence of their King and Country, notwithstanding▪ that his Majesty, the Nobility, and people are so deeply engaged for the safety, honour, and trade of this Empire in a defensive war against the united powers of most powerful Enemies; and that the Parliament was forcit (for want of other means) to feed the King, and be his faithful soldiers, with smoke of Chymnys, whilst a mean Ministry raised by Q. Elizabeth▪ in opposition to the Royal family of the Stewards, doth swallow up the substance of these Kingdoms. 
No sacrilege to apply the Church revenues to the Crown in some cases.   
How ridiculous it is to hear these Protestant Ministers cry out Sacrilege, at this our proposal, as if they had any spiritual character, or any right to what they possess; or though they had, as if the Church ought not to contribute in cases of extreme necessity, to the defence of the Commonwealth. The undoubted Catholic Clergy will rid the laity of any scruple of Sacrilege, for applying the goods of the Church, to the necessary defence of the Country▪ We know the ancient Pastors and Bishops of God's Church did not scruple (in such cases) to sell the very Chalices and vestments of the Altars; much less to spend their revenues for the safety of their Flock. But indeed they had no wives, nor Children, and therefore needed not be solicitous to buy estates for their sons; or to settle jointures on their wives, or to raise portions for their daughters out of the patrimony of the Church, which of right belongs to the poor▪ and who is more poor than our soldiers, and seamen? or than Husbandmen and Tradesmen that hitherto contributed; nay then our King, that sacrificeth his revenue to the maintenance of the land forces, and navy? 

See the Sentence of Pope Julius 3. sent to Queen Mary an. 1554. And the reasons thereof set down by Dr. Burges in his book No Sacrilege nor sin etc. 52. & 53. whereof the last reason is, seeing the goods and possessions of the Church, even by the authority of the Canon laws, may be aliened for the redemption of Captives, and that the same may be done by that Church only to whom such possessions do belong▪ it is fit and reasonable that such dispensations should be granted for continuing of possession already gotten, for so great a good of public concord and unity of the Church, and preservation of the State, as well in body as in soul pag. 54. edit. 1660.    
But if the Protestant Clergy be confident of the justice of their cause, why do they not come to a trial? why do they oppose liberty of Conscience? why do they with so many artifices decline reasoning and delude the people? 〈◊〉 their Religion be true, we Roman Catholics will not ●●pine at their riches, 
A public Trial and Conference desired by Catholics.  nor at the rigour of the laws made by Queen Elizabeth against our Religion, and against the interest of the Stewards; or at least we will not be such fools as not to be hastily and heartily converted to protestancy, seeing thereby we may not only be saved, but share with the Protestant Clergy, enjoy very many conveniences, and free ourselves from the penalties and incapacities whereunto we are subject for being Papists; Herein they may believe us, there being no likelihood we shall be obstinate against a truth (if protestancy appear in our desired Conference to be a truth) every way so advantageous to ourselves. But an ill cause dreads nothing so much as a free and public hearing; 
See Doctor Allen in his Apol. for the Seminaries. And Persons in his Defence of the Censure. Arch. laud's reason confuted.  since protestancy was intruded into England by Q. Elizabeth, the Catholics have continually petitioned and pressed for a public trial, but never could obtain that favour.  
Archbishop Laud (pag. 445.) against Fisher, gives this reason, that the King and the Church of England had no reason to admit of a public dispute with the English Romish Clergy, till they shall be able to show it under the seal or powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a third, who may be an indifferent Judge between them and us, or a General Council; which Council though general, he says (pag. 194.) is not infallible. And as for any other indifferent, and infallible Judge, the Bishop thinks there is none as yet in the world; and yet its certain that a judge or Council that is not believed infallible, is not for the purpose, because neither party can be obliged to submit their judgements to its sentence in matters of faith. So that though the controversy could be decided by a fallible Judge, or Council, we should remain still divided; and that, the Bishop well knew; but some thing he must have said to divert the well meaning Protestant laity from questioning the sufficiency or sincerity of their own Clergy, observing their backwardness in giving satisfaction to our so just demand. And yet we granted to them in Q. Mary's reign as free a disputation as they desired; we gave them their choice of books and notaries, and time, not only to put in their arguments and answers in writing, but to review and correct what they disliked upon more mature deliberation.  
To Archbishop laud's reason for not allowing a Conference, is answered, that we desire so much the salvation of souls and service of the state, that we will give under our own hands and seals (the powers of Rome we cannot Command) that if Protestants will admit of such a Trial as was granted to them in England, and to their party in France (which we have related in this Treatise) we are content to submit to my Lord keeper of England and other noble persons judgements therein: And let our Adversaries choos either to argue or answer; let them object falsifications of Scripture and Fathers against us; or answer to such as we shall charge them withal. And if they cannot maintain their Reformation without such fraudulent dealing as we object against them, let them lose the Church revenues; if we can not defend our Religion without the like fraud, let us not only be debarred from liberty of Conscience but loose our lives. Notwithstanding my Lord keepers known inclination to favour Protestancy, we will not except against his, and the Committees sentence; so confident are we of the justice of our cause. If they refuse so fair an offer, though they keep their revenues, without doubt they will forfeit their credit, and be as much lost in the opinion of their own Prelaticks, as of fanatics. And as the Protestant Clergys' diffidence must breed doubts, and diminish the esteem of the Pastors in the minds of their flocks, so may it give the Protestant laity full assurance there can be no danger in embracing our Religion, which so learned persons as are in the Protestant Clergy, dare not encounter.  
Besides, the late change of their prelatic forms of Ordination hath so discredited their character of priesthood, 
See the Nullity of the Protestant Church, and Clergy.  and Episcopacy, that no sober layman will fight for a priestly function confessed by the Priests themselves to be invalid: and what confession of invalidity can be more plain, then to add unto their old forms the words Priest and Bishop, forced thereunto by the arguments of their Adversaries, 
See also my Erasus junior▪ and an other book of mine called Erastus seni.  demonstrating that neither of those functions had been hitherto sufficiently expressed in their Rituals; and by consequence that the character could not be given by forms so unsignificant, and so imperfect? I have often considered what could move the Clergy of the Church of England to condemn (in this particular of their form of Ordination) their first Protestant Ancestors; and to condescend to their Catholic adversaries, in a matter so important as that of the validity of their priestly and Episcopal character, and to acknowledge by this change, (judged hitherto by themselves to be at least, superfluous,) that they who began and perfected the reformation, were grossly mistaken, and themselves misled in one of the most essential points of Christianity, and in one, without which there can be no Church. Had the dispute between them and us, been about conveniency of discipline, or decency of Ceremonies, a change in such things, (alterable according to the circumstances of time, place and persons) might be pious and prudent, because it might take away occasion of cavils; but to alter the essential forms of Priesthood and Episcopacy, and to add thereunto (now after a Century of years) words which (hitherto wanting) concludes the Nullity of their Church, and Clergy, must rather augment the doubt, then avoid the cavil. If they were satisfied of the validity of that form whereby themselves since Ed. 6. until this present, 
See the late or last Edition of the Common prayer book since his Maj. happy restauration and there you shall find the words Priest and Bishop put into this their new form; which are not in their old.  had been ordained, what needed any addition of Priesthood and Episcopacy, which we argued, and they denied to be wanting? did they imagine that such an addition would end the dispute? I believe it hath; for it is an acknowledgement that our exceptions were well grounded; but why should they give us this advantage? I fancy they have hopes that some other Spalleto will Apostatise, and then by this new undoubted form make them real Bishops. Yet that will not serve their turn; their want of spiritual Jurisdiction makes their character useless; and want of jurisdiction together with their errors in Doctrine doth un-church a Congregation, as well as want of Orders.  
As this want of ordination renders them incapable of the Benefices and Bishoprics which they enjoy; so their corruptions of Scripture, and Falsifications of Counsels and Fathers, make them unworthy: And he can not be a true Christian that will stick to their interest after that he is informed of the nullity of their calling, and of the falsehood of their doctrine. Wherefore it will not be in the power of any prelatic politician to make himself popular upon the score of patronising such a cause, or Clergy against Liberty of conscience or Conferences: and the Prelatic character and discipline is to all other Protestant parties as odious, as our late distempers have evidenced.  
The only objection now remaining is, that Presbyterians and other Sectaries will take the advantage of an Act for Liberty of Conscience, or even for a change in Religion (in case the Parliament should resolve upon it) for crying down of Monarchy. But (as we said) 'tis well known these Sectaries either desire Liberty of Conscience, or their animosity is as great against Prelatic Protestancy as against Popery; and if now they be kept in obedience and awe of the government, the King and Parliament will be better able hereafter (in case of any such liberty, or change to keep them to their duty (by the addition of the Church revenues) than they are at present. Besides, it is very certain that among those Sectaries many are moral and conscientious persons, and would conform to the truth of the Roman Catholic Religion, had they been rightly informed, and the Tenets thereof had not been rendered odious and ridiculous by the impostures of Protestant preachers, and the vulgar errors of a homely education; all which obstacles will be easily removed, if Catholics have liberty to speak and reason for themselves. So that considering the influence which Truth always hath upon honest dispositions (such as our English are) and the prejudice which all men retain against falsehood, when it is discovered (and it is not their interest to promote it) I see no danger of drawing the people into a Rebellion upon the account of Liberty of Conscience, or of opposing a change from Protestancy into the old Religion; especially seeing the generality may hope thereby to see the Church Revenues lawfully and legaly applied to their own ease, and against all disturbers of the peace, and Trade of these Nations. Let us therefore have a fair Trial and conference in order to Liberty of Conscience, and then judge of the truth and sincerity of both Clergys, and of both Religions.  
Notwithstanding the evident conveniency of this humble proposal, I fear we do in vain flatter ourselves with the hopes of a public Conference. We are inclined to believe what we wish for, notwithstanding that former experience, and our learned Adversaries knowledge of so clear evidences on our side, casts us again into despair. Did the business depend of the vote, of the whole multitude of the Protestant Clergy, we might assure ourselves of a conference, because many of the ordinary Persons are honest, and most so ignorant, that they believe themselves to be in the right way of salvation; for, they take all that Bishop Jewel, and john Fox say, for truth, never examining it further. But the Bishops and great Doctors are of another stamp; I fear their guilt of conscience, will busy them in opposing all Treaties and Trials of Truth; and yet methinks not any one thing should render them more suspected of fraud, and falsehood, than so unreasonable an opposition. 1. Because it argues diffidence of their cause. 2. Because their Church being confessedly fallible, and by consequence uncertain of the truth, they ought not to refuse any means whereby men may be further informed thereof. Though we Papists believe the Roman Catholic Church infallible in matters of doctrine, yet whensoever our Adversaries desire to confer about Religion, their Request is granted: nay the Council of Trent (how ever inconsiderable Protestants make it) invited all the learned Protestants of the world to propose therein all their doubts and difficulties, offering all safety and civility to their persons. And though the infallibility of our Church be not consistent with a submission of our faith to the judgement of a Third in point of doctrine, yet that prerogative doth not debarr us from submitting ourselves in matter of fact, and falsifications, to a fair trial of indifferent persons. As for the Pope and general Counsels not submitting to a Third in controversies with Protestants, it is no pride; but a prerogative of all supreme Magistrates, whether spiritual or temporal, as our Adversaries confess, and contest to be reasonable when their own Bishops deal with Non-conformists; and all Lay Sovereigns must maintain the same, when they treat with their revolted Subjects; which Subjects are judged very unreasonable if they refuse to treat with their King (of grievances) unless he submits the controversy to the decision of a Third: and much more intolerable, if no competent Third were to be found, as it is in our case; unless we think that Turks, jews, or Pagans, are fit men to judge of Christian Religion. Wherefore, if the Church of England thinks it unreasonable, that her Sectaries should not confer with prelatic Divines, unless they have it under the seal and powers of Canterbury, that the Arch-Bishops, or the Convocation will submit to the judgement of a Third; I understand not how Arch-Bishhop Laud could exact the like condition from the Pope or a general Council, before Protestants would confer with Roman Catholics.  
The other reasons alleged for refusing to Roman Catholics a public Trial of Falsifications, and an amicable Conference of Religion, makes the refusal yet more unreasonable. Popery (saith every Protestant) is a growing Religion; if disputes thereof be admitted, we shall turn all Papists: If they be not persecuted, their profession will prevail: If liberty of conscience be granted, very few will frequent Protestant Churches. The prelatic Clergys last reason is, Venient Romani & tollent locum nostrum. If we come once to reason the matter with Roman Catholics, infallibly we shall lose our Revenues. But, I may assiure them that the Roman Clergy covet not their revenues; if it be found that we have any right to the Church livings, we will lay our pretensions at his Majesty's feet, and Petition the Pope (as we did in Queen mary days) to leave all to the King and Parliaments disposal, for the ease and defence of our fellow Subjects, and the terror of our Enemies. And as for our Religion being a growing Religion, we cannot deny it, and rejoice that our Adversaries confess so much; how could it otherwise be the Catholic, or become universal? Protestancy is confined to this Northern Climate, notwithstanding its liberty, of open and sensual allurements; the Mahometan persuasion is propagated by force of Arms, and multiplicity of Wives; the Greek Schism is but a spite and spleen against the Primacy of Rome, and therefore is justly Become a Slavery to the Turk. No Religion but the Roman Catholic doth grow and flourish, maugre the Storms of outward Persecutions, and the strength of our inward perverse inclinations against it: we follow reason against the appearance of sense, we prefer virtue before vice, the judgement of the Church before our own, and Heaven before Earth; and therefore we are made Strangers in our own Country, Stragglers abroad, Tenants at will of our own Estates, and our lives stand at the mercy of every base Informer, that will press the law against our Conscience; and yet in this sad condition and circumstances, our Religion doth increase, and is acknowledged to be a growing Religion: Ergo it is the true Catholic, and not only the most safe for the Soul, but the most convenient for the State, especially of Great Britain, as now shall more particularly appear.   

SECT. XIII. The same further demonstrated, and how by Liberty of Conscience, or by Tolerating the Roman Catholic Religion by Act of Parliament, the British Monarchy will become the most considerable of all Christendom, Peaceable at Home, and recover its Right Abroad. How evidently it is the mutual Interest of Spain and England to be in a perpetual League against France, and how advantageous it is for Spain to put Flanders into English Hands.  
THree things must concur to make a Monarchy Powerful and Peaceable. 1. Uniformity in Religion, or at least Liberty of Conscience. 2. Great Revenues of the Monarch, without empoverishing (by unusual and unimerciful Taxes) the Subjects, unless they be slaves. 3 Men fit for Sea and Land Service. These Islands afford the last; the other two we want, but may have them (if we will) by an Act of Parliament for Liberty of Conscience, or for tolerating the old Faith of our Ancestors, wherewith this Kingdom flourished in Peace and Prosperity for the space of 1000 years: Such an Act, I mean as may make legal one Profession, but wherein there ought to be a Proviso, that none of another suffer for his Conscience or Religion, especially, for the Roman Catholic.  
That without Uniformity in Religion, or without Liberty of Conscience, it is impossible for a Monarchy to be long peaceable, or powerful, is manifest by Reason and Experience. Reason doth dictate, that when men's minds are Discontented and Oppressed by Persecution for their Conscience, they will hazard their all to be satisfied and saved; their Rebellion against the Sovereign will be thought the ground of their Salvation, or at least the only way to preserve their Posterity from being damned, and brought up in the state false Religion. Experience doth show that diversity of Opinions, if but one be permitted, doth not only occasion Domestic differences, as the parting of Man and Wife, of Parents and Children, Brothers and Sisters, etc. But is the cause of public Inconveniencies, as jealousies between Princes and Subjects, from whence proceed civil Wars, which are the greatest obstacle of Prosperity in an Empire, or Commonwealth. Whilst the Hugonots were persecuted in France, France was not so considerable; Here in England we are more afraid of persecuted Presbyterians, fanatics, and other Sectaries, than of the French, Danes and Dutch; seeing therefore Liberty, or Uniformity in Religion is so necessary for the Peace and Power of a Monarchy, all Statesmen must grant the Religion fittest for the State is that, which is most likely to be generally embraced, if Men may have their free choice. Now whether that be Protestancy, or Popery, is the question. It is not Protestancy, because 'tis now a hundred years and more, since it hath been endeavoured by all ways imaginable to bring the Subjects of the Crown of England unto an Uniformity in Protestancy, even by Sanguinary and Penal Statutes; and yet the design doth not take, and indeed cannot: Because it involves a contradiction; for, to be a Protestant, is to have the liberty of op●ning, and the gift of interpreting Scripture; which Liberty and Prerogative is not consistent with a subjection of Judgement to the Authority and Interpretation of any Church, or Council; and by consequence not with Unity of Faith. Besides, the Protestant Church (whether Prelatic, Presbyterian, or Fanatic) is not as much as pretended to be Infallible in Doctrine, or in its Interpretation of Scripture; and it's a great vanity for a Church that professeth Fallibility in explaining the Scriptures, and admitteth a liberty or Latitude of applying the Letter of the same, to every private man's Spirit and Interpretation, to oblige men to any unity, or certainty of Faith, and therefore our Acts of Parliament are so inefficacious. Again▪ Faith is not Christian, unless the Believers hold it certain; and no Believer can hold his own Faith certain, if he submits and comforms his Judgement to the Doctrine and Decrees of a Fallible Church: For that no man can think himself certain of what he knows may fail▪ evident therefore it is, that the Protestant Faith is neither Christian nor certain; because the Professors thereof (if they be guided by their confessed fallible Church) must know that their Faith may be False.  
The Roman Catholic Church (seeing it is believed Infallible by all Catholics) may teach a Faith which must be thought by us to be Certain, Conscientious, Christian, and by consequence convenient, fit for both Soul, and State. How conscientious and Necessary it is for the Salvation of the Soul, we have proved in this whole Treatise, as also how convenient for the State; now I will show the same in a word; and by the confession of our Adversaries. It is a growing Religion say they, therefore (I infer) convenient, and fit for that Uniformity of faith, and union of Hearts, which cements the People with their Sovereign, and among themselves: It is indeed, so growing a Religion, that it hath spread itself over the whole world, not by force of Arms, but of truth, 
See the Sect. of the second Part of this Treatise and the first Part, Sect. 1.  not by allowing lewd liberty or licentiousness; but by working miracles by professing, and observing abstinence, chastity, poverty and obedience to spiritual and temporal Superiors; by mortifying our Passions, and the perverse inclinations of a spiritual pride and proper judgement; this pride and property of judgement (the source of Heresy) we renounce by submitting our opinions to the Church, acknowledging in the same, God's Infallible assistance, and authority; and this our submission proceedeth not from simplicity, credulity, or rashness, but we are induced thereunto by evident marks of God's favour and providence clarly appearing in our Roman Catholic Church, and in no other; as Miracles, Conversion of Nations, Succession and Sanctity of Pastors, etc. whereby the most Learned Men of the World, in every Age since the Apostles, have been evidently convinced of an obligation to conform their Faith to a Church so supernaturally qualified; and therefore did prudently believe that none but God is Author of the Roman Catholic Doctrine; and we judge ourselves bound, under pain of damnation, to follow their example. For, these Signs of Divine Providence are so far above the force and course of Nature, and so visible to all the World, that not only the Learned, but all sorts of people who are not wilfully obstinate, must confess a sufficient evidence of God's Commission, and Authority in our Church; and by consequence they deny God's veracity, who contradict the Doctrine of a Congregation that hath so notorious, and significant badges of his Divine trust for proposing Articles of Faith, and composing all differences in Religion. So that having for our guide a Church of so Authentic Authority, & a Testimony to rely upon, so visibly confirmed by supernatural Miracles, & marks of God's Commission, the same Church must needs have his Infallible assistance in discharging her trust, of instructing Mankind; wherefore we Catholics may & do uniformly agree & acquiess in her Difinitions, with as little fear of being seduced, as of God being the Seducer.  
He must be very unreasonable, who (after being informed of these motives of credibility, or marks of God's Church) will refuse to submit his judgement to so convincing arguments of the Divine Authority; and this is the reason why not only the Natives of one Country, or the Subjects of one Monarch, but whole Kingdoms and Kings of most different tempers, and interests, do so easily, constantly, and unanimously submit and adhear to the Roman Catholic Religion, both now and in former Ages; whereas they who at any time opposed the same, could never agree among themselves, or with themselves; but were, and are divided into as many opinions, as there are fancies, or occasions offered of changing their inclinations, or of raising their fortunes.  
And now our Statesmen may easily conclude which of both Religions is not only most conscientious for the soul, but most convenient for the power and peace of the State, if they will reflect upon the different ways of planting and preserving both Religions, the Catholic, and Protestant. To omit other examples, let them consider how St. Austin our Apostle of England, arrived at Kent with forty Monks and Preachers, entered into Canterbury (as our Adversary Fox confesseth p. 150.) in procession with a Crucifix carried before him, and singing Litanies; and how they converted that Kingdom and all England from Paganism to the very same Roman Catholic Religion we now profess, in every particular; not by force of Arms, or by Frauds of falsifying the Letter and Sense of Scripture; 
See 1▪ p. Sect. 1.  but by working confessed Miracles in confirmation of our Roman Text and Sense of Scripture, which they Preached; and by the example of a Godly life. How this same Religion continued for almost a thousand years in this Island, and in all that time never was there any Rebellion upon the score of our Doctrine, or of Interpreting of Scripture; much less did the Subjects pretend Scripture or the Word of God, to warrant a Superiority over their Sovereign, or to try Him by a formal Court of Justice. On the other side our Statesmen will find in all Histories, and this Treatise, that in this one Age since Protestancy began, that Reformation hath not entered without Rebellion or Tyranny into any one Kingdom, Country or City; that he who first Preached this Reformation (Luther) did see it divided into more Sects than himself had years, tho' he lived to be an old Man. That never any of these Sects continued long without embroiling the State. That never Miracle was wrought to confirm any kind of Protestancy; nor the Author of any of these Sects or Reformations lived with the esteem I do not say of holy, but of honest conversation. No marvel therefore if People so naturally honest as the English, cannot be brought to uniformity in a Reformation so unlikely to be Divine, & that was begun by a dissolute and drunken Friar, who had no Rule of Faith but his own fancy; the marvel indeed is, that any sober man can be persuaded 'tis possible to bring pious & prudent men to reject the old Religion (confirmed with so many supernatural signs & renowned for so long & successful subjection to Lawful Kings) for a new fangled device introduced into England by an Illegitimate Queen, in opposition to the Title and known right of our lawful Sovereigns.  
Seeing therefore our Adversaries do confess that the Roman Catholic is a growing Religion, even in this groaning and sad condition wherein we are kept in these Kingdoms; who doubts but that if made the Religion of the State, and countenanced by Law, or even tolerated, it will soon grow to such a height, that all other persuasions will be rendered contemptible, and incapable of thwarting the Designs and Decrees that will be resolved upon by the King and Parliament? when Law, Religion, and Reason walk hand in hand, there is no room or pretext left for Rebellion upon the score of conscience. And what can be more legal than an Act of Parliament? what more agreeable to Religion and Reason, than that every man ought to submit his judgement to Authority so Authentikly Divine, and so prudently judged to be Infallible, as that of the Roman Catholic Ghurch? For, what more convincing arguments can there be of Divine and Infallible authority, than the undeniable Miracles, Sanctity, Succession, both of Doctrine and Doctors, Conversion of Kings and Nations, etc. of the Roman Catholic Church? He who denies any of these, must consequently resolve to believe nothing, and even to doubt of himself, of his Parents, Country, and Relations, because no Man hath, or can have, a more credible Testimony, or a more constant Tradition for any one of these particulars concerning his Parents, Country, etc. than he hath for the Miracles wrought in Confirmation of the Authority, Infallibility, and Doctrine of our Church; the Sanctity and Succession whereof is as evident also as our converting of Kings & Nations from Paganism to Christianity, and cannot be contradicted without questioning at least all humane Faith and History. A Church and Religion so supernaturally qualified, cannot be prudently suspected to be a Cheat, or humane Invention; And if once, I do not say, established, but permitted, in these Kingdoms, its Doctrine needeth not be fenced with Sanguinary Statues, nor favoured by any Penal Laws and Acts of Parliament for Uniformity; all which rigorous proceedings will be superfluous, as also the continual care and vast charges of suppressing unlawful Assemblies. The absurd gestures and foolish fancies of every humorsom fellow, or Hypocrite, will not then take with the common people, and pass for motions and revelations of the Holy Ghost; neither will silly Tradesmen be heard with patience in Pulpits prate nonsense, and comment upon Texts of Scripture. All these impieties and disorders I say, will be quashed when liberty is granted to declare unto the ignorant and misinformed people, the Roman Catholic truths, and the motives that induce to believe them: and no Nations in the World are more inclined to embrace the truth, and wholesome documents than these Islands; witness the multitude of our ancient Saints, the magnificence of our Churches, & even the zeal of the present Seekers, and Sectaries, in their mistaken way of Salvation.  
By all which it appeareth there would soon be an Uniformity in Religion in these Kingdoms, if the Roman Catholic were Tolerated. That the King would have a considerable and conscientious Revenue (to support the Honour of this Monarchy, and suppress all sinister designs) by the addition of the Church Livings, when resigned by the Roman Clergy, needeth no proof; I believe there will be found more difficulty in His Majesty to accept, than in the Catholic Clergy to offer such a Donative; seeing His Piety is now so great towards unlawful Ministers, doubtless it would be refined in case He did see the mistake. Let us suppose therefore that God hath heard our continual Prayers, and will open the eyes of him and of these Nations, and that they will acknowledge the Errors of their Education; in such a case I say, the Roman Clergy ought to press (and without doubt will) their Revenues upon His Majesty and the Commonwealth? 1. To let the World see they seek not so much Worldly Interest as the salvation of Souls. 2. Because the King's Catholic Ancestors and their Subjects of the same Profession, founded all the Bishoprics and Benefices of these Kingdoms; and it is a principle and practice of Roman Catholics, that in case of necessity, the Heirs of the Founders ought to be maintained and relieved by the Foundations.  
But the principal reason to move His Majesty not to reject, and the Roman Catholic Clergy to make so dutiful an offer, is the absolute necessity there is of a greater public revenue, then at present the Crown doth possess. For though the English Valour should force advantageous Articles of Peace from our Enemies, that Peace will not be lasting, unless they see we are in a condition to force the performance as well as the Peace; if at any time a breach of Articles should happen, or new injuries be offered. Nothing is more uncertain than the solemn agreement of Princes: Their Leagues last no longer than until they be at leisure, and recover strength to renew the War; and if one of them wants a constant & considerable Revenue, he and his Subjects will be contemned and his Dominions made a prey to his more powerful Neighbour, though lately reconciled Friend. The best pledge therefore of a Peace with Foreigners, is our own power: if we rely wholly upon the word of the French, or upon the worth of the Dutch, we shall be mistaken, and repent our credulity.  
But shall our power so depend of Parliaments, that before the Lords and Commons can meet, or Ta●es be raised, our Enemies may be landed, and ourselves so distracted that none knows what to do? Without doubt our power must depend of Acts of Parliament, espicially of one annexing the Church Revenues to the Crown, seeing no other found doth appear. Never Parliament did give greater proofs of love and liberality to a King, than this present; but the more people have given, the less able they are to give; their will is still the same, their ability is not: what then? must Churchmen (whose profession ought to be poverty, especially when the State is empoverish'd) think of enjoying Millions of Revenue, and see that the Laity is not able to bear the burden of the War? or must the Fnglish Monarchy be reduced to such a condition, that if the French or Dutch will but send a Messenger to have a Place of importance delivered to them, it must be done, because the King hath not Money to maintain a War, and defend His Subjects? I do not say this hath been, but I fear it may be the case of England, if the King's Revenues be not made much more considerable than they are. And how they may be considerably, conscientiously and conveniently raised otherwise than I have proposed (by the Lands of the Church) I do not understand, and wish that others find out a better expedient. As for relying upon extraordinary Taxes and Subsidies, raised from the empoverished, and discontented Laity by new Acts of Parliaments, according to occasions offered, it is not safe; for that such Taxes are looked upon by all wise men, to be more dangerous than durable, as depending upon a popular Vote and Vogue, whereupon neither the secret and solid designs of State, nor the Peace of the Monarchy, nor the power of the Monarch (all which require a constant and sure Revenue) can be well built.  
Seeing therefore that extraordinary Taxes cannot be made, that ordinary and constant Revenue, which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of Peace as well as of War, and that the Laity cannot contribute much more than they have done, and that the Revenues of the Clergy may be so conscientiously applied to the Crown, I see not any scruple of Sacrilege that may deter the King or Parliament from such a resolution. There is not one Catholic Divine thinks it Sacrilege to apply sacred things to pious uses; and what use can be more pious, than the public safety, the defence of King and Country, the ease of poor Subjects, the maintenance of Soldiers and Seamen that venture their lives for our repose? or than Pensions to their Widows and Children, when themselves perish in the Service? Seeing I say, this is lawful and laudable in all other Countries, I see not why our Bretish Clergy should be excepted from so general a rule, and excepted from so particular a Duty? The Portugal Nation hath been ever most Orthodox and pious; a●d since their late separation from Spain, they have applied the Revenues of the Bishoprics to the maintenance of their War against the Castilians; and this, without the Pope's positive approbation: How much more lawful would it be for our Catholic Clergy to resign (with the Poprs' consent) their Right and Revenues to the King upon so pious and public a consideration, as Liberty of Conscience, and a Toleration of our true Faith? and how rationally may it be presumed the Pope and all therein concerned, will consent thereunto?  
But in such a case, how shall the Roman Catholic Clergy be maintained? by God's Providence, and Christian Charity, as they have been, when our Ancestors were first Converted. How are they now maintained in England, Holland, Japan, and China? Let us not be Solicitous for things of this World; let us seek the Kingdom of Heaven, and we shall not want. There was never more Piety in the Church, than when the Ministers thereof had no Lands. Let the Finances, or found of the Exchequer be settled in such a manner, that the King need not trouble His Subjects, unless it be upon some very extraordinary occasion, and we may be confident that what can be spared, will not be denied. All must be left to the Piety and Prudence of His Majesty, and His Ministers. Let us who are but Passengers and private persons in this great Ship of the Commonwealth, pray for fair weather, that the Sun of Justice may shine, and discover the dangers both of Soul and State, whereunto these our floating Islands have been driven by the tempestous and cross winds of Protestancy, and leave the rest to God, and to such as he hath placed at the Helm: The mist of Protestant Frauds, and falsifications once dispersed, and falsehood vanished into its own nothing, through the force and evidence of truth, our Masters will not be necessitated (as now they are) to steer the State according to the deceits of a mercenary Clergy, or to the Decrees of a fallible Church; And as they will enjoy the benefit of our Catholic Doctrine, so we ought not to doubt but that we shall find the effects of their Christian Charity.  

The King's right to France.  Peace and Plenty thus established at home, than we may think of our Right and Interest abroad. It's undeniable that the two best Provinces of France (Normandy and Aquitain) are our Kings ancient Patrimony, and undoubted Inheritance; neither can his right to that whole Kingdom be much questioned, seeing that the Salic Law (if ever any such thing was) extended no further than Franconia, a Province of Germany; and had it been intended for France, the Line Male of the Kings thereof, had not been so frequently changed: but it seems the French would have one Law for us, and another, or none at all, for themselves. Our ancient Kings regarded not this Salic Pretext, they claimed by Law, and conquered by Arms that great Empire; But the difference between the white and red Rose, occasioned the loss of our French Lilies; when those differences were composed, and the Titles of York and Lancaster united in King Henry 8. instead of recovering France, he made a breach with Rome; and by the Protestant Reformation, which he began, and his Successors continued, they have been so diverted and distracted at home, that they wanted both means and opportunity to prosecute their claim to the best Kingdom of Europe.  
And indeed so long as Protestancy doth so much prevail in these Islands, we may despair of having any Dominion in the Catholic Continent. We have had late experience how the two emulous great Crowns of France and Spain conspired to recover (contrary to the ordinary maxims and practices of state) Dunkirk out of our hands; neither was it bestowed upon us with any other intention then of taking it from us when a peace should be concluded, tho' Cardinal Mazarin endeavoured to make Cromwell believe the contrary. But that which must make our hopes (even of Normandy and Aquitain) quite vanish, is the prejudice which the generality and nobility of France, and of those two mentioned Provinces, retain against the Reformation which our former Kings not only professed but pressed upon others. The Normans and Gascons do love our King as their undoubted and natural Prince; but they are so averse from being of his Religion, that they had rather endure the hardships of a Jealous (but Catholic) Government, then try and trust the Faith and Caresses of a Protestant. And truly our proceedings in Ireland, and the Principles whereupon we have grounded the Settlement of that Nation, seem to have so little regard to the performance of Promises, Solemnity of Treaties, and engagements of public Faith made to Roman Catholics, that few of that Profession will be induced to take a Protestants word, or trust his Religion in another occasion; seeing that, notwithstanding the King's inclination, and Declaration to make good his Articles of Peace, such is the privilege of Protestancy, and the Power or Prerogative it gives to the Protestant Multitude, that a King cannot be just to Papists, without running the hazard of being injurious to himself, and of losing his Crown by a Protestant Rebellion. Is it likely that Catholic strangers will become Subjects to this Monarchy, when the Catholic Natives are by our Laws made Strangers, and incapable of Trust or Employment, only because they are Catholics? Is it credible we shall maintain the Privileges and Rights of Foreign Catholic Corporations, when we make a Law that no Catholic shall enjoy his own Lands, or freedom in our Corporations, notwithstanding the express Articles of a proclaimed Peace to the contrary, in favour of the Catholic Natives. Therefore unless we resolve to be more moderate in our Religion at home, it is a vanity to claim our Right, or to think of diverting our Enemies abroad. As for designs built upon the Strength of the French Hugonots, they can have no other ground but our desires; that Party is brought so low in France, that the King made his aversion to their Religion, and Themselves, no state secret; and scrupled not to tell their Agents representing Grievances, that though his Grandfather loved them, and his Father feared them, yet he did neither love nor fear them: And truly all that England can expect from them, is but the Presbyterian Prayers of Charenton, and of their other Calvinian Congregations, for the good success of Puritans against Prelaticks and Royalists. But if the Catholic Religion were Restored, or at least Tolerated in these Kingdoms, by Act of Parliament, we should be more formidable to the French Kings, than ever our Ancestors have been, and no less successful. Normandy, and Aquitain, could have then no pretext to except against their Lawful Princes; the Scots (who always hindered) would now help to Conquer the rest of that Kingdom. The Princes of the French Blood could not be kept in such awe, as they are at present, if we had any footing in France, and the odious Name and Faith of Protestants, were (by granting liberty of Conscience) a little sweetened; otherwise if the Princes (who perhaps desire to favour any Foreigner, whether Protestant or Catholic to make their Cousin less Absolute) did join with Protestants, their Power would be rendered useless, and themselves odious, because they joined with Persecutors of the Catholic Faith.  
Besides; the Spaniard (whose Interest it is to have France divided, and embroiled) would countenance our Designs, and contribute to our Conquest, if we Tolerated Catholics; which now he dares not do either for scruple of Conscience, or at least for fear of losing the Reputation and Name of the Catholic King, that gets him so many grants of Church Revenues, Comiendas, and Cruzadas, and so great Contibutions from the Clergy. If he joined with us (as now we are) in recovering our Right, he would only gain the Name and Opinion of a Fautor of Heretics, and lose the Donatives and Devotion of his Church Friends, and perhaps the duty of his Lay Subjects. But if England did grant liberty of Conscience, it were much more for his Interest to dispose of his Daughters, and (with them) of Flanders to our Royal Family, than to the Germane House of Austria.  
Hitherto the Politicians of Europe have been employed in keeping the scales equal between France and Spain, to the end neither of those two great Crowns might gain too far upon their Neighbours, and so by degrees devour all petty States and Princes, and afterwards endanger other Monarches; hence every Crown concerned itself not only in protecting Allies, but in fomenting Rebellions, as Q. Elizabeth did that of Holland, and of the other United Provinces. But of late the case is altered; Holland now Copes with England; the Spaniard hath had so many losses of Armies, Navies, and Kingdoms, that now he is more pitied then feared, or envied; and France is arrived to such a height of Power, by uniting to itself the Provinces of Lorain, Alsatia, and Rossillon; the Cities of Perpignan, and Pignorole, (the Keys of Spain and Italy) the greatest part of Artois; And the most important Towns of Flanders, and other Provinces, and moreover the French King hath settled so vast a Revenue upon his Crown, independent of his Parliament, or of the vote of the People, that he and France is become a terror to all Christian Princes; 
My Lord of Clarendons policy censured by all Wise men.  which therefore censure our English Statesmen for not having closed in time with Spain, and for having supported Portugal immediately after our King's restauration; we should rather (say they) have permitted Spain (by recovering of Portugal) to counterpoise France, and put itself into a condition of revenging the manifold injuries done by the French to the Catholic and British Monarchies, and thereby secure ourselves, and frustrate the designs, and attempts which were foreseen would be made by so Powerful, Prudent, and warlike a Monarch as Lovis 14. against England, it being the likeliest Kingdom to check his greatness, and prevent his being universal Monarch.  
Besides, they say we could not but expect a visit from so unquiet, emulous, and neighbouring a Nation as France, in case they were peaceable at home, and Spain busied with Portugal; we having visited them so often heretofore in their own Country and Court, and indeed they never since have been at leisure, nor in a Posture to return us a visit until now. These reasons might have moved us to have had been more kind to Spain, especially seeing our Alliance with Portugal, (for which we forsook Spain) added not the Islands Azores, or Terceras to our Empire, as the World imagined it would, the Portugueses not being in a condition to refuse any demands, when they sought our Friendship, and were abandoned by the rest of the World. This is the Discourse, and Censure of strangers; which, being a mere matter of State, we wave as improper for our Profession. Yet common sense doth tell us, that the Azores, or Terceras could not be easily obtained, (at least not long enjoyed) by Protestants, seeing the Natives of those Islands are all Catholics, and rather than live in Persecution under a Protestant Government, would (in all likelihood) have submitted to the Spaniard; and we been Catholics, or tolerated Catholics, without doubt those Islands might have been ours. What little advantages our Sovereigns are like to have in the other World by being Protestants, hath been hitherto sufficiently declared; in this Section we only show how much they lose in this World by their Protestant Zeal of not Tolerating the Roman Catholic Religion.  
King James (as the World knows) was a very Wise Prince, and thought it was the Interest of England to be in a perpetual League with Spain against France. How far the Spaniards will engage with us at present, or trust Promises and Articles confirmed by the Protestant public Faith, I do not know; but if by Act of Parliament we did tolerate Roman Catholics, it would be evident to the Spaniards themselves that it were greater conveniency and security for the Spanish Monarchy, to Ma●ch continually with the Princes of England, 
One of the King of Spain his Ministers told me, that the late King Philip 4. had disbursed for the Defence of the Low Countries, four hundred Millions of Ducats, which amounts one hundred Millions sterl. All this Treasure was sent out of Spain.  then with the Germane Austrians; and that it would be more for their purpose to give the Netherlands (which are a vast charge to Spain, and of no concern but to busy France) as a portion with their Infantas to our Kings, then to the Archduke's, or to the Emperors. The reason is clear, Our Kings cannot be diverted from Invading France, and Relieving Flanders, (or Spain itself) by Turks, Swedes, Germane Princes, or Electors; as the Emperor and Austrians may; our King may secure their Spanish West-India Fleets, & frustrate all Attempts against them, which the Emperors cannot. Our Kings have an Hereditary Right, not only to Normandy, Aquitain, and Anio●, but to all France; and this Right, together with our former Successes in that Kingdom, makes us look upon it still more as our own, than some Titular Kings of Jerusalem do upon the Holy Land; we retain still hopes of Calais, the loss whereof occasioned Q. Mary's Death This Hereditary Right and Hopes of recovering France, makes us as irreconciliable to the French, as the Spaniards are. The Germane House of Austria hath no such grudge, or ground of a perpetual and immediate quarrel, against the French; and therefore is not so fit to join in a league offensive, and defensive with Spain against the French Kings, as England is: And the Peace of Munster shows that the Germane Austrians will forsake the Spanish Austrians sometimes, and that their Interests may be separated, as relating to France; but the English and Spanish Interest (in opposition to France) are not separable. Wherefore, if any shall live to see England Tolerate Catholic Religion, I doubt not but that he will see a more strict League and Alliance between England and Spain, then ever hath been seen between Spain and Austria; not only by Marriages of the Royal Families, but much more by a mutual Wedding of each others Interest; and then we may rationally expect at least Cautionary Towns in Flanders, as convenient Places for our Retreat, and for a free Passage into France, or rather as absolute a Donation of the whole Country, as the Archduke Albertus had; whereas, whilst we continue Protestants, or at least Persecutors, neither will the Spaniards hear of such a Proposition, nor the Catholic Natives accept of us, if their Masters would grant it.  
The Spaniards understand how interwoven the Interest of their Monarchy is with ours, in case we gave liberty to Catholics; but think it not policy to trust us much upon any other Terms, and desire our Conversion, or a Toleration not only out of Charity, to others, but out of Conveniency to themselves; and therefore they were so earnest with our late King in Spain to renounce his Protestancy; and some attribute to his aversion against the Catholic Profession, the breach of the Spanish Match. We see how they sent three Ambassadors one upon another to demand the late Royal Princess of Orange for the Prince of Spain, not doubting but that in her tender years, she would have been brought to be of her intended Spouse his Religion.  
We have indeed been most Happy in the Person and Royal Issue of our Virtuous Queen and Gracious Queen Mother; and yet the French confess they did not that Favour unto us for any Happiness they wished us, 
Monsieur de Silbon in his 3. Book of Policy▪ Discourse 4 of the Alliance of of Princes, etc. Pag. 295.  but to compass their own ends, and obtain some advantages of our late King, when the Passion of love to his beautiful Spouse, made him forget the reasons he had to be averse from matching in her Family. Our Alliances with Spain are Conjunctions of both Monarchys against an irreconciliable and common Enemy, France: They are not only private Contracts between the Married Princes, but public concerns of their Loyal People: The Puritans always opposed them, for that they knew Matches with Spain engaged that Monarchy in crossing their Presbyterian Plots, and designs against our Monarches. They would not have presumed to Rebel against Charles the I. had it not been the Interest of the French King to foment Rebellion against the Lawful Kings of England, and the English Kings of France? Whereas on the contrary, 'tis the interest of Spain to maintain the Right of our Kings, increase their Power, and offer them Conveniencies and help to recover their own in France. We may therefore say with Truth, that the French King and Ministers seek our Alliance, thereby to lessen our Power: But the Spaniards, to increase it: We must judge of the Intentions of Princes, by their Interests, it is the Interest of Spain that England be Powerful; it is the Interest of the French King to destroy both it, and that Line which claims a Right to France. We see how much addicted, he and his Ministers were to the late Usurpers, and Rebels. By their Kindness to Cromwell and to his Sons, it doth appear, they had rather any Line should reign then the Right. And because our King's Ancient Right to France (if they did favour Catholics) would, in all liklihood, give them footing in Normandy, and Aquitain, some Politians are of opinion that the French Statesmen like well enough of Protestancy in England. How far their Christianity doth incline them to wish our Kings, and these Kingdoms were Catholic, we cannot tell; but their Policy and Proceedings seem not show any great Zeal for our Conversion, fearing perhaps that Popery may make us Popular in France, and put us into a condition of recovering our own.  
To conclude this matter of State, wherein I am engaged against my Will, by the Impertinency and Importunity of our Adversaries, (pretending that our Cotholick Religion is disadvantageous to these Kingdoms)▪ and by reason of the too great influence such humane considerations as these have upon state Ministers in their choice and settlement of Divine Worship in Commonwealths; I desire the Judicious Reader will reflect upon the Situation and Fertility of these Islands; the honest disposition, and Warlike Genius of the Inhabitants; the irreconciliable quarrel of the French Kings to ours, the interest of Spain, in promoting these our Rights; and then, after mature consideration, let him be Judge, whether any Monarchy in Christendom hath such means, and may make such Friends, to raise itself, without injustice, into a great Empire? And what great pity 'tis, that all these means and Friends are rendered unprofitable by our persecuting the old Faith, and by professing a new Religion, that divides us at home, makes our Government odious to such as ought to be our Subjects abroad, and deprives us of the true Friendship and Succours of Spain, whose interest it is that we were, (or at least did Tolerate) Catholics, and were so considerable as to gain our own, or (by endeavouring to regain France) were able to divert the French from invading Spain, Italy, and Flanders.  
This is as much as I thought fit (and perhaps more than some will think I ought) to say, in a matter of this nature. But something must have been answered to stop the mouths of our politic Controversors, who continually harp upon this string of reason of state, in their Books against the Roman Catholic Faith; pretending to demonstrate, that it is inconsistent with the Interest and Greatness of our Kings, with the Peace and Prosperity of their Subjects. Therefore leaving this Argument, I will return to that which is more proper for my profession, and show how manifestly God hath confirmed our Catholic Faith, (and confuted the Protestant persuasion) by Miracles, which are the greatest Evidence that is consistent with the nature and merit of Christian belief. For every point wherein Protestants & we differ, I will relate Miracles wrought in favour of our Doctrine, and our sense of Scripture, against theirs, not recorded by uncertain or obscure Authors, but by the prime Saints and Doctors of the Catholic Church, in the Ages wherein they lived.    

THE FOURTH PART. The Roman Catholic Religion in every particular wherein it differs from the Protestant, confirmed by undeniable Miracles.  

SECT. I. That such Miracles as are approved by the Roman Catholic Church in the Canonization of Saints, are true miracles, and the doctrine which they confirm, can not be rejected without denying or doubting of God's Veracity; and how every Protestant doth see true Miracles though he doth not reflect upon them, in confirmation of the Roman Catholic Faith.  
BY Miracles approved by the Roman Catholic Church, I understand such Miracles as induced the said Church to canonize and worship for Saints, the persons by whose prayers, or relics they were wrought. As for other miracles, though I know many not mentioned in the Acts, and Processes of Saints Canonisations, are true, so doubt I not but some vulgarly reported, may be falls; but that is a thing wholly impertinent to my design, and the dispute against Protestants? 'Tis sufficient for my purpose, and their confusion, that some true miracles have been and are wrought in confirmation of that Roman Catholic Doctrine, which they deny, or doubt of, and we believe.  
And first we are to know, that no Confessors (Martyrs have a privilege, Martyrdom itself being a notorious miracle) are canonised, or worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church, before the Pastors thereof see authentic proofs, of supernatural miracles wrought by those Confessors, or their Relics. A holy life and conversation, if not confirmed by supernatural signs, is not sufficient to canonize a Roman Catholic Saint, because hypocrisy may deceive all human observation, and outward appearances of morality are no infallible evidence of the internal acts whereby men are justified, and whereof God alone is witness and judge; and therefore before his declaration and approbation of the persons true sanctity by working undoubted miracles, none can be honoured by the Church as his faithful and beloved servant. In the inquiry, and examination of witnesses concerning the truth of miracles, the care and caution of the Bishops, and other officers, is no less than the importance of a matter, wherein the credit not only of themselves, but of the whole Catholic Church is concerned; and therefore the quality and capacity of the Jnformers and Jnquisitors is considered, as well as the nature and circumstances of the miracle, and the judgement of able Physicians (when it is a cure) demanded, lest some natural accident or art, might pass for a supernatural miracle. And this not only of late, hath been the practice of the Church, but continually since the primitive times, as you may read in St. Austin (Breviar. Collat. di. 2. cap. 14.) who also (de oper. Monach. c. 28.) reprehendeth some vain and wicked Monks that for filthy lucre carried about falls, or doubtful relics of Martyrs. But the Church always provided Antidotes against such Jmpostures; witness the 14. Canon of the 5. Council of Carthage against revelations and Relics not approved of, and St. Gregory the Great in his letters to St. Augustin our Apostle of England (ep. 9) And Innocent. 3. in the Council of Lateran. c. 2.  
And if the same be not exactly observed in these British Kingdoms, it must be attributed to the want of the State's permission to the Roman Clergy for exercising that power which Catholic Canons give them, over such as pretend to be Miraculists, Prophets, or to have revelations etc. Where the Roman discipline and doctrine is obeyed, there are officers, or Jnquisitors appointed, whose duty it is to inquire after, and examine the life, doctrine, and conversation of such as pretend to have supernatural gifts, and extraordinary illuminations, or to work miracles, which none dares to allow for true, much less print or publish, until the fact, and circumstances be maturely examined by the Bishops and their Divines, or by the Jnquisition. Wherefore all these diligences being applied in so many different and distant places, by indifferent and eminent persons, it is as impossible the miracles returned by them as authentic, should be counterfeited, as it is that such men, no way related either among themselves, or to the person of whose life and conversation they inquire, and inform, should conspire to discredit and damn themselves for an imposture that can not be concealed, and whereby they are to expect no benefit, but the loss of their benefices, dignities, perpetual imprisonment, and infamy. No marvel therefore if it was never heard that any one miracle related in the process or Bull of any Saint's Canonization, was found to be falls, or as much as contradicted by any credible Testimony; so wary and circumspect the Church hath always been, as also the Congregation of Cardinals, and Prelates, to which that charge is committed.  
Besides, 
Perpetual miracles.  some miracles are not only credible by relation and Tradition, but so visible and permanent even to this day, that they need no proof but eyes and will to see them. Such are divers bodies of Saints preserved from corruption, not by Egyptian Mummies, or human art, but by divin power. Such is (to omit many others) that most stupendious miracle of St. januarius Martyr and Bishop of Beneventum, 
The miracle of St. januarius at Naples.  whose blood kept in a Vial of glass at Naples, is congealed, and looks dull and dry like earth; 
This miracle failed once when it was showed privately to a young english Lord, and this failing was printed in the Italian Gazettes as very strange news.  but when in the festival of the Saint (or at other times) it is carried in procession, or laid on the Altar at Mass together with the head, it is liquified and dissolved in such sort, that it seemeth to boil, and assume a lively and fresh colour. This happens every year, and never faileth but when some great and general calamity doth immediately ensue, and fall upon the City and Kingdom of Naples. By this permanent miracle, which every Protestant Traveller may see, is confirmed our Roman Catholic Religion in general, and in particular the Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, prayer to Saints, and the worship of their Relics.  
Other miracles there are so credible (in regard of the Testimony and Tradition whereby they are delivered to us, and of other remarkable circumstances) that no man in his wits can deny the fact, though Protestants dispute the power, whether it was a divin, 
The famous and undeniable miracle of St▪ Francis Xaverius wrought in the person of Marcello Mastrilli.  or diabolical. But when the miracle exceeds the Devil's power, than they are puzzled, and troubled. As for example, Father Marcello Mastrilli a noble man by birth, and a Jesuit by profession, was struck in the temples of the head by a weighty hammer that fell from a great height, and in that condition was carried from the work, whereof he was Overseer, to his bed; where he lay without sens or motion for some days, until the hour of his approaching death, to the great grief of all the nobility of Naples his friends, and relations, who came to the jesuits College of that City to see this sad spectacle, and the next day to the Church to assist at his funeral, the Altars having been the night before covered with black, for that his brethren were to say the mass of the dead for his soul, after that the Physicians, and Chirurgeons had given him over, and judged he would expire before the next morning. Some noble men who came early to the College (rather to pray for his soul, then to inquire of his health) were surprised to see him saying Mass at the Altar, and could not credit their eyes, until they were informed of the admirable means whereby he was rather revived then recovered. The manner was this.  
In the dead of the night the Fathers that watched with ●ying Mastrilli, observed, that he not only moved, and turned towards the wall, but heard him speak; whereat they were astonished; a little after he sat up in his bed, called for his clothes, pen and ink; Then he writ with his own hand, how, at that instant St. Francis Xaverius Apostle of India, China, I●pan etc. and one of the first Companions of St. Ignatius, Founder of the Jesuits, had appeared to him in a pilgrim's habit, but very glorious, and calling him by his name, asked whether he desired to live, and go preach the Roman Catholic Religion to Japan, as he had formerly promised, but could not persuade the Superiors to send him, he being of a weak constitution, unfit for that labour, and voyage. Marcello answered, that he resigned himself wholly into God's hands, to do what was most for his divin glory. Xaverius then told him, it was Gods will he should go to japan, and shed his blood for his divin faith in that Country, a greater favour (said the Saint) than I deserved, after all my travels and pains. Then he bid Marcello apply the Relics he had about his neck (which were of the Holy Cross, and of St. Xaverius himself) to his fore; he obeyed; but the Saint told him he mistook the place, and with his own hand applied them to the contrary side of his head, and suddenly was cured, having first repeated after the Saint a vow of going to japan; they who watched, heard Marcellus his words, but not any others. They ran to acquaint Father Vincentius Caraffa the late General of the jesuits, who was then but Superior or spiritual Perfect of their house in Naples, and found that holy man upon his knees at his prayers, but seemed not to be surprised with the news they brought him: whence many concluded that God had revealed the matter to him before their coming; and granted health to Marcello at Caraffas' request: He was indeed a person of extraordinary sanctity, as his life and death witness, 
I was at Lis●on when this holy Martyr embarcke there for the East India, in order to his further navigation to Japan, some 30. year since▪ and I heard Marcello relate his own miraculous cure; and do remember what striving there was between Passengers, and Merchants to ship their goods and persons in the same vessel wherein Marcello was to embark not doubting of its safe arrival at Go●; so satisfied were all sorts of people of the truth of the miracle, and of the accomplishment of his Martyrdom in japan, revealed to him by St. Xaverius.  and had always a great care of Marcellos progress in virtue. Immediately after this miraculous cure, he began his long Journey, and being respected as a living Martyr by all the Princes of Italy, by the King of Spain, Viceroys of Portugal and of the Indieses etc. he arrived at length at japan, and there suffered a most cruel death, and glorious Martyrdom, as St. Xaverius had told him, whereof and of his miracles and Prophecies there are divers Books written, and many witnesses living.  
What can Protestant's object against this miracle? will they deny the fact? Thy dare not question the Testimony of a whole Kingdom and City, or of so many persons of quality and integrity, eye witnesses thereof. Will they attribute the cure to the power of the Devil? his power doth not reach so far as to death's doors; at least he must have more time than was in this case, to recall men from thence, and restore them to perfect health. Will they attribute the prophecy of Mastrillos' Martyrdom in Japan to the jesuits craft, and presumption, grounded upon hopes and conjectures? They have more wit then to pretend and publish a prophetical assurance of a thing subject to so many uncertainties as the infallible performance of so great a Task, and so tedious and dangerous a navigation, by a person of so weak a constitution as Marcello, whose design (if it were human) might have been frustrated by as many casualites and changes of diet, Climate, etc. as every where occur in that space of time which is spent before men arrive from Europe to the Antipodes. What if Father Mastrilli had perished by the way? In what a condition would himself and the Jesuits have been, who gave out so confidently that he would be put to death in Japan, according to St. Francis Xaverius his revelation? Is it credible they would venture the credit of their order, and that reputation of integrity which they have gained in the Catholic world, upon a mere conjecture, and contingency, and without any necessity of thus playing the Prophet? This evidence doth vex peevish Presbyterians, but they must have patience, and confess that the Jesuits are not limbs of Antichrist, nor those horns of the Beast wherewith Ministers fool their flocks, and feed themselves: God would never raise from death's doors such Jmpostors (as Protestants pretend the Jesuits are) and command them to go preach their doctrine (if falls) to so many remote Nations, 
Whitak de Ecclesia pag. 349. Bp. Laud against Fisher pag. 108. Calvin Harm. in Marc. cap. 13. p. 302. miracula sigilla sunt verae doctrinae. Nam quis vel cogit & absque blasphemia, Deum commodaturum suam propriam vim virtutemque mendacio? Chamier tom. 2. Controu. lib. 16. cap. 14 p. 677. God's veracity questioned by Protestants, when they answer to the argument deduced from Roman Catholic miracles. A demonstration to prove that God can not permit true true miracles to confirm falls doctrine.  nor countenance their Missioners, and Missions with this and many other miracles wrought to confute protestancy, and to confirm our Catholic doctrine.  
Though the Magdeburgian Century writers (having reliued in every one of the first eleven ages cap. 13. many Popish miracles (as they call them) and not being able to deny the fact) say (as the Pharisees did of our Saviour's miracles) that they were either fables, or wrought by the power of Beelzebub, and lying signs whereby the superstition and Idolatry of Popery was confirmed: yet our English Protestant's (for the most part) condemn these Germans for this sottish answer, but themselves give another as little satisfactory. Both their ancient and modern writers (being ashamed to deny the reality of our miracles, or the supernaturality of the power whereby they are wrought) say, that true miracles are not of force to prove true doctrine, because they are neither infallible, nor inseparable marks of truth. In which rash assertion they contradict not only their learned Brethren Calvin, Chamier, and others, but call in question God's veracity, and maintain the lawfulness of heresy, and infidelity. For, the perfection of veracity (even in men, much more in God) is not a sole inclination of speaking always truth, but includes such an aversion to lying, (and by consequence to all unnecessary equivocation) that he who is perfectly verax, or a man of truth, can not without violating that virtue, as much as seem to countenance or colour error, and falsehood with the least sign of his approbation; much less can God make errors and falsehood credible by miracles, or by such an appearance of truth as may not only excuse the mistake of prudent and learned persons, but oblige them in conscience to mistake.  
That there is no necessity for God to work miracles in confirmation of errors and falls doctrine, is granted by our Adversaries; and by consequence they must also grant that he can not use that kind of Equivocation. To say that he may work true miracles in confirmation of a falsehood, thereby to exercise and show an absolute power over us his creatures, is as much as to say, he may exercise his power against his own inclination to truth, and thereby destroy himself by violating his veracity. Besides; though we should suppose this absurdity and contradiction, that God can work a miracle to confirm error, or falsehood, and yet himself by such a supernatural action (which involves his inclination) not be inclined to that error, or falsehood, though I say this absurdity and contradiction were supposed, yet can it not be denied but that by such a miracle, at least we rational Creatures would be inclined to error and falsehood; But he who loves truth, (especially if he loves it infinitely, as God doth) can no more incline others to error, and falsehood, than he can incline himself thereunto, because he loves truth for itself, and because it is truth, and by consequence (truth being always the same) he must love it in others as well as in himself; and therefore can as little incline others (by working miracles) to error and falsehood, as himself can be inclined to error and falsehood.  
That men are not only inclined, but obliged in conscience to believe whatsoever they see confirmed by a true miracle, is evident by these Texts of Scripture, 
joan. 15.24. Matth. 11. ●●.  Had not I done among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned. Woe be to thee Corozain, woe be to thee Bethsaida, for had the miracles done among you, been wrought in Tyrus, and Sidon, they had long since don penance in sackcloth and ashes. 
joan. 10. ●●. 38.  The works which I have done in my Father's name, bear witness of me. And, though you believe not me, 
joan. ●. ●●.  believe my works. And again, We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles thou dost, except God were with him. And the reason why miracles oblige us in conscience to believe the doctrine by them confirmed, is, because they are a sufficient and moral evidence of God's authority, and (as it were) the great Seal wherewith he warrants his Ministers and the Church, to preach, and propose his doctrine, and Commands. Now if he could put this seal to any falls doctrine, or thereby authorise an erroneous Church, men might prudently doubt whether he doth not do so now de facto, and in every particular; but with such a prudent doubt none is bound to obey any Church authority and by consequence there could be no obstinacy, heresy, or infidelity against God's revelations, and veracity, how ever so authentically and sufficiently proposed by miracles, which are the signs and badges of divin authority, and the most authentic marks of the true Church.  
To that ordinary objection of Anti-christs' miracles which (though falls and feigned) yet will seem so true to many, that most of the world will be seduced, we answer. 1. That there will be an apparent difference between Anti-christian and our Catholic miracles, though for want of due reflection, prudence and piety, men will not consider the difference, nor compare his miracles with ours. 2. Christ's words and warning of Anti-christs' feigned miracles, is a sufficient evidence of their falsehood, because we must not credit ourselves, or any outward appearances, against the express words of Christ. This is the reason why in the Sacrament of the Altar we are not deceived by the Species or appearance of bread and wine.  
Though there were no other argument that Anti-christs' miracles are falls, but this, 
Anti Christ's Miracles are not credible if compared with ours.  that the miracles of the Church both in the old and new Testament, are first, and that we have a Caveat to beware of such miracles and miraculists as shall come afterwards to confirm contrary doctrine, whosoever is moved by Antichrist or his forerunners, to forsake the ancient faith and signs of the Church, for novelties how ever so plausibly or prodigiously confirmed, deserve damnation. For, there are two qualities that oblige men in reason and conscience, to prefer one thing before another, how ever equal they both may seem to be in other respects; 1. priority of time. 2. present possession. We see what privileges and prerogatives are given by the law of nature and Nations, to such as are ancienter by birth, or nobility, than others▪ and how possession is said to be eleven points of the law. These qualities are most properly found in our Roman Catholic doctrine; it is most ancient, and always hath had the precedency of all pretended Reformations, both in time, and in the possession of the hearts of the faithful. The same we say of our Catholic miracles. Therefore we ought to prefer them before any others that shall appear afterwards in opposition to them.  


Of visible miracles seen thought not observed, by every Protestant, in confirmation of our Roman faith.  
The difference between true and falls miracles.   Besides, those miracle so credibly reported that no man can deny them without being guilty of obstinacy, and rashness; and besides those others continually visible, as that of St. Januarius; there is an other kind of true miracles seen (but not observed) by every Protestant, upon which if they did reflect, as many of them as mean well, would become Roman Catholics.  
The difference between true and falls miracles, is, that true miracles are works besides or against the order of nature, and of secundary causes, and therefore may be done only by the divin power; as to receive the dead, to cure diseases of the body, and distempers of the mind, without the application of any natural means, or remedies. And because the Devil hath less power over souls then over bodies, the cure of a distemper of the mind, whereof no natural cause appeareth, is a greater and more authentic miracle, than any cure of the body how ever so prodidious. Falls miracles are only such as may be done by the application of natural causes, and remedies; as that of Vespasianus, of whom Suetonius recounts that he restored sight to a blind man, and the use of his feet to a lame man: But Cornelius Tacitus doth acknowledge (lib. 4. Hist.) that the Physicians being consulted, did answer, those diseases were not incurable; and Tertullian (in Apologetico cap. 22.) saith that both the disease and the cure was a work of the Devil. Anti-christs' miracles also will be such as as▪ may be done by the course and concurrence of natural causes.  
That miracles done upon men's minds are greater than any ●●res, or changes wrought upon the body, 
St. Bernard in vita St. Malac. c. 57  is granted by our Adversaries; and St. Bernard recounts as one of the greatest miracles of St. Malac●ius, that he converted, an obstinate soul to recant his opinion against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. And for the most remarkable miracle of St. Bernard himself, it is recorded, how with the blessed Sacrament in his hand, he did so terrify William the proud Duke of Aquitain, that he fell prostrate at his feet; and he whom the most powerful Monarches of Christendom could not rule, submitted himself to the disposal of a poor Monk, because he threatened him with that which in appearance seemed to be, and Protestants hold to ●e no more in reality, or in substance, than a wafer cake. These things supposed as undeniable in Philosophy and Divinity, it may be easily proved, that every Protestant doth, or at least may see, true miracles in confirmation of our Roman Catholic ●aith. For, without question it is either a miracle of God, or of the Devil, that all the Roman Catholics (not only now, but) for so many ages past, should (contrary 〈◊〉 the evidence of sense, and to our natural inclination of judging according to that evidence) adore for our Saviour JESUS Christ, that which in appearance is but a wafer cake, or a Cup of wine▪ We are either abused, and seduced by Satan, or inspired and enabled by the Holy Ghost, to contradict our senses; which contradiction being in a matter so long and so much controverted in public schools, and general Counsels, and a thing whereupon depends our Salvation, we can not ●e presumed (if we err) that we err for want of examining, and comparing the reasons of both sides, Catholic, and Protestant: especially if we consider the number, learning, and integrity of the Roman Catholic Examiner's, and the great difficulty which they (as well as all other men) find, in believing or judging against the evidence of sense, and in denying that to be bread, or wine, which doth smell, look, taste, feel, and feed like bread and wine. Now if we prove that this marvellous and unanimous contradiction of our senses can not be a miracle of the Devil, protestants must grant it is a miracle of God; and from thence may conclude what censure themselves deserve for being obstinate against our doctrine, and for running with the appearance of sense against the express words of Scripture, confirmed by so supernatural and visible a miracle as our not condescending, or assenting to that evidence which we (as men) are naturaly inclined to follow.  
It is an undoubted Maxim wherein both Catholics and protestants agree, that God only can work upon the soul (while it is in the body) immediately, without the help of our senses, or without making impressions upon the Organs thereof. The Devil can not suggest or convey heretical opinions into our minds otherwise then by so tempering the objects, and tampering with our senses, that the soul doth wilfully, though unwarily, embrace deceitful appearances for real truths. His whole power and art consists in humouring the soul in its mistake of these sensual appearances, and allurements, making them to seem unquestionable evidences; for it would quite destroy his drift, and spoil his market, if the soul did suspect a fallacy, or at least reflect upon the vanity of sensual objects, and appearances. Wherefore he always inculcats that the best rule in matters of faith, is, not to contradict or contemn (upon any score whatsoever) the experiments and appearances of sense.  
Even in Paradise before man's soul was wounded and weakened, he attemped, and compassed the fall of our first Parents by a fallacy, grounded upon the evidence or appearance of their senses against God's word, and warning; God told them they should die if they did eat of the forbidden fruit; but by the sight and taste of the forbidden fruit, the Devil wrought so upon their souls, that they believed him and their senses, and preferred that fallacious evidence before Gods express word. And if Satan prevailed with them in the state of innocency to judge of divin revelations rather by their own senses, then by the literal sense of God's word, how unlikely is it that after such success he will tempt their posterity in a contrary manner? or that he will suggest to men, that they ought not to believe their eyes and senses in the Controversy of Transubstantiation; but rather rely upon the literal sense▪ of Christ's words, This is my Body? Seeing therefore it is a strange and singular miracle, that so many pious and learned men of different tempers, interests, times, and Nations, after so frequent and serious debates, in a matter whereupon depends their eternal happiness, should (without any present, or prudent advantage or allurement) resolve to contradict their own senses, and curb their nature, and inclinations of judging according to their sight, taste, etc. and that this great miracle can not be attributed to the Devil, whose suggestions and impressions reach not the soul, unless they be conveyed through our senses, and ourselves consent to the sensual solicitations, and appearances wherewith Satan doth assault, and allure us; it followeth, that our Roman Catholic resistance, and resolution of not condescending to those solicitations, and of not crediting such appearances, must be a miracle of God, and the effect of his supernatural grace, not of the Devil, or of any natural power of our own. So that our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and our belief of Transubstantiation (which are the things Protestants most except against in the Catholic Religion) if they reflect upon them, will be found to be supernatural miracles, and convincing motives for their Conversion to our Roman Catholic Faith.  
Let Protestant's number also the particular doctrines wherein they differ from Roman Catholics, and observe how our belief and practice in such particulars go against sensual appearances and pervers inclinations, and they will find we have as many visible miracles as there are doctrinal and practical differences in our Church from Protestancy.  
To these may be added the general signs or marks of the Church, as our unity in faith, the continuance, and universality of our doctrine, our Apostolical succession, our conversion of Nations to Christianity etc. No Protestant can rationaly deny that every one of these is a visible and supernatural miracle, which can be as little attributed to human industry, as to chance, or fate; For if they might, how comes it to pass that not one of these signs, can or could ever be found in any other Congregation of Christians but ours? This much I thought fit to say, not to satisfy the curiosity, but the conscience, of them who desire to see any one undeniable miracle that favours Popery. And albeit any one true miracle doth confirm the whole doctrine of our Roman Church, yet I will set down more than one for confirmation of most particulars wherein we differ from Protestants; and begin with what we have in hand, concerning Transubstantiation, and the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament; which our Adversaries pretend to be a kind of Idolatry; for that ourselves confess the Species or accidents of bread and wine do remain, 
See Belarmin de Ecclesia lib. 4. cap. 29.  and they are creatures by us adored together with Christ. Our common and constant answer (whereunto no reply can be given) is, that we adore the Species no more (when we adore Christ in the Sacrament) than the Apostles, and others who conversed with him upon earth, adored his cloak, or clothes, when they adored himself!   

SECT. II. Of true miracles related in the Ecclesiastical Histories by men of greatest authority in every age, to confirm the particular mysteries of our Catholic faith, and that sense of Scripture, wherein Roman Catholics differ from Protestants.  
THere is not any thing so evident which is not questioned by obstinate and interested persons. The Protestant laity (in regard of their education) are fixed in the maintenance of Protestancy, the clergy are interested, because it is their livelihood. Let Catholic miracles be never so visible, or credibly reported, Protestants look upon them as mistakes; and that can be for no other reason, but because themselves are settled in a prejudice against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. The Authors that relate Popish miracles are credited in all other matters, and esteemed ●udicious persons; but when they come to that point, they must needs loose their wits, or be judged Jmpostors. To avoid this Cavil, or confute the Calumny, I have fixed upon Authors whose wisdom and integrity hath never hitherto been called in question, even in points of doctrine, and the sole denial of whose Testimony, is held to be a sufficient evidence of heresy, or foolery in the person that contradicts it, and of weakness in the cause that can not be maintained without so unreasonable a contradiction. And seeing they are credited in matters of faith, I hope they deserve credit in matters of fact.  

Of miracles related by St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Austin, St Nilus, St. Cyprian the Martyr, St. Gregory the great, St. Optatus, and others, in confirmation of Transubstantiation, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Communion under one Kind, Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory.  
A Certain venerable old man (saith St. Chrysostom) to whom many Mysteries were revealed by God, told, 
St. Chrysostom. de Sacerdotio lib. 6. cap 4. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.  that in time of Sacrifice he once beheld a multitude of Angels with shining garments, compassing the Altar with bowed heads, as soldiers do in presence of their King. Which attendance of Angels (saith he in the next words before) was performed by Angels at that wonderful table, and compassed it about with reverence, in honour of him that lieth thereon.  

St. Nilus in ep. ad Anastasium. St. Gregory Naz. Orat. 11. the obit● Gorgonia.  St. Nilus relateth how St. Chrysostom almost every day had visions of Angels assisting and adoring the Blessed Sacrament until the Sacrifice was finished.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen recounts how his sister Gorgonia was cured of a disease after she was past all hopes of recovery, by prostrating herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who was honoured and worshipped thereupon. O admirable thing! (saith he) she presently felt herself delivered from her sickness, and so she returned eased both in body and mind etc.  

St. Cyprian. in serm. de lapsis. Post medium. Communion under one Kind. Evagrius Orthodoxus. lib. 4. c. 35. an. Dom. 552 A miracle for the Communion under one Kind.  St. Cyprian reporteth of a certain woman, who (saith he) when she would with unworthy hands have opened her coffer wherein was (retained according to the ancient custom the Blessed Sacrament under the Species of bread) the holy thing of our Lord, fire did spring up, whereby she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it.  
In the Ecclesiastical History is recorded this example which Evagrius writ as a thing notorious, and done in his own time. In the time of the Patriarch Menas (saith he●) there happened a miracle worthy to be remembered. It was an ancient custom in Constantinople when many parcels of the pure and unspotted body of Christ our God were remaining after Communion, little Children were called out of the Schools, and were permitted to eat them. It happened, that a little boy (whose father was a Jew by profession, and a maker of glass by his trade) being among the rest, did eat also his share of the aforesaid reversion of the Blessed Sacrament, but coming somewhat late home, and his parents demanding the cause, the child told innocently what he had done; which the Jew his Father understanding, he was so enraged, that unawares to his wife, he cast his little son into the burning oven wherein he used to melt and frame his glass. The mother missing the Child, sought for him for three days together, but hearing no news of him abroad, she returned home with an heavy heart, and sitting down at the workhouse door, she began to bewail the los of her son, calling him by his name; the boy hearing and knowing his mother's call, did answer within the oven; whereat the woman starting, burst the workhouse door, and rushing in, espied her Child standing amidst the Coals without receiving any harm. After coming out, being demanded how he escaped burning so long, a woman, said he, came oftentimes unto me, and brought me water to quench the force of the fire, wherewith I was environed, and withal gave me meat as often as I was hungry. This accident being told unto the Emperor Justinian, he caused the mother and boy to be baptised, which because the obstinate father refused to yield unto, by the Emperor's commandment he was hanged upon a Gibbet. This and the former example of St. Cyprian, show that God is not displeased with receiving the Communion under one Kind; and that it was a thing indifferent in the primitive Church.  
To Confirm the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation, 
Transubstantiation. Petrus Diac. & joan Diac. in vital. Gregorij: Gui●mūdus Anersanns Episc. lib 3. de Sacram. Euch. St Antonin. in Chron. p. 2. cap. 3. tit. 12. §. 8.  and the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Blessed Sacrament, there are very many miracles recounted in the Ecclesiastical History, as that of St. Gregory the great, who perceiving that a Roman Matron laughed at the time she was to receive the Communion, and demanding the cause of her laughter, at so unseasonable a time; she answered she could not but laugh to hear him call the bread which herself had made, the Body of Christ. (She used to present the Saint every week with Mass breads) St. Gregory upon this turned himself to the Altar, and laying the Blessed Sacrament thereupon wished all the people to pray with him, that God would be pleased for the confirmation of the Catholic faith, to show unto the corporal eyes of all that were there present, that what the woman took for bread, was no bread, but flesh. And accordingly the consecrated Host appeared visibly to be pure flesh. Then beseeching God to restore the Sacrament to the former show of bread, it forthwith appeared as it was at first, and the woman acknowledging her error, received it with humble and servant devotion.  
Primate Usher is the only writer I ever read, 
Primate Ushers falsification● to discredit this story, and the following.  who questioned the truth of this story, but quotes not any one Author, besides himself, that ever doubted thereof; and to make it seem the more improbable, falsifies the Text of joannes Diaconus, pretending he says that the Roman Matron found the Sacramental bread turned into the fashion of a fingar, all bloody; whereas Joannes Diaconus only saith it was turned into flesh. 
Answer pag. 69.  The same unsincere dealing he useth in discrediting the relation of Paschasius Radbertus, and divers others, concerning a miracle to confirm the same mystery, assuring the ignorant Readers, that Paschasius takes it out of Gesta Anglorum, 
Usher Answer pag. 69 Particulam carnis quam super Altar posuera●, ca●nem factam reperit. joan. Diac. in vita S. Gregor. lib. 2. cap. 41. Usher in his Catalogue of Author's Usher Answer paeg. 77. Doctor Humphrey in jesuitismi part. 2. ●at. 5. pag. 5.  whereas it is well known, and Mr. Usher confesseth else where, that Malmsbury who writ Gesta Anglorum, lived almost 300. years after Paschasius.  
To discredit the doctrine of Transubstantiation as well as the authority of that holy and most learned man Lanfrancus Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived in Berengarius his time, and confuted his heresy with convincing arguments from Scripture, Fathers, and undeniable Miracles; Primate Usher says Lanfranc was the first that leavened the Church of England with this corrupt doctrine of the carnal presence. But his own Protestant Brethren tell him he is mistaken, and that Transubstantiation is as ancient in the English Church as Cristianity; it being taught by St. Austin the Monk and Apostle of England. Let us hear Lanfranc speak for himself against Usher, as well as against Berengarius; None, saith he, though but meanly versed in Ecclesiastical History, or the holy Fathers, is ignorant, how God hath confirmed the Catholic doctrine against Berengarius with many miracles. Which writings of Ecclesiastical History and Fathers (saith Lanfranc) though they arrive not to that most excellent height of authority that we give to Scripture, yet are they sufficient to prove that this faith which we 〈◊〉 profess, hath been the same with that which all faithful who went before us held from ancient times.  
When this heresy of Berengarius was again revived by Wicleff, and the Lollards, in England, our learned Country man Thomas Waldensis, who lived in those times, tells us, how God confirmed the doctrine of the real presence, and Transubstantiation in that Kingdom with manifest miracles, and of some he was an eye witness. Let us relate, saith he, 
Thomas Waldensis Tom. 2. de Sacram. Eui char. c. 62.  to the glory of God, what happened in our own time and knowledge. In Norfolk there died lately a devout and godly maid, called of the vulgar sort joan Meateless, because she was known never to have tasted any meat or drink, for the space of fiveteen years together, except only the B. Sacrament of the Altar, which she received with great devotion, and with extraordinary joy and jubily of mind every Sunday. And which was most admirable, she was able to find out one only consecrated Host amongst a thousand that were not consecrated. Thus he: and without doubt this last was no less a miracle then the former; because the consecrating of one Host among many depends upon the intention, and inward determination of the Consecrator, which none but God can know. But from Norfolk let's pass to London.  
I will now relate a story (saith Waldensis) whereof I myself was an eye witness in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London, where the venerable Archbishop Thomas Arundel of happy memory (the son and Brother to an Earl) sat in judgement in his Bishop's chair, assisted by Alexander the Prelate of the Church of Norwich, and others. At which time he propounded certain Interrogatories concerning the faith of the Eucharist unto a Tailor of the parts of Worcestershire, taken in the crime of heresy; but when as the obstinate fellow could not be persuaded by any reason to embrace the right faith, nor would believe, nor call the consecrated Host any other thing but only holy bread, he was at last commanded to worship the said Host, but the Blasphemous heretic answering said, verily a Spider is more worthy to be worshipped than it is, when behold a Monstrous horrible Spider came suddenly sliding down by her thread from the top of the Church directly unto the blaspemers mouth, and endeavoured very busily to get entrance even as he was speaking the words; neither without much ado could the many hands of the standers by keep her from entering into the wretch whether he would or no. Thomas Duke of Oxford and Chancellor of the Realm was there present, and saw this wonder. Then the Archbishop stood up, and declared to all that were present, that the revenging hand of God had denounced the man to be a blasphemer.  

Harpsfeild in Hist. Wicleff. cap. 18. ex walden's. & Regist. Arundel.  Harpsfeild relates the same miracle out of the Register of Archbishop Arundel; but we may doubt whether that old Register was not reform as well as the old Religion, by the Protestant Prelates. Such clear evidences are seldom preserved entire by the enemies of truth. We see how frequently the very law books and ancient English statutes are corrupted by our English Protestants, to favour the King's spiritual supremacy, as is largely proved by Persons against Sir Edward Cook, and Bishop Morton, in a particular book against Cook, and in his Sober and quiet Reckoning with Thomas Morton: wherein he discovers the unworthy practices of Justice Cook, 

See Parsons sober Reckoning a pag. 508.  
How Protestants falsify and corrupt the very statutes, and law Books.   and others falsifying the Charters of our ancient Kings etc. As for example that of King K●nulphus, pleaded by Humphrey Stafford Duke of Buckingham. 1. Henry 7. for the sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon; which as it is printed by Pinson in Catholic times, says, that Leo then Pope did grant the said immunities and privileges etc. and is yet so read in the Lord Brooks Abridgement tit. Corone; pl. 129. But since King Henry 8. spiritual Headship, Pope Leo hath been left out in most printed Statutes, and judge Cook quotes them so corrupted, as good evidence against the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction, pretending that the Kings, and not the Popes, gave spiritual jurisdictions and immunities.  

Optatus Melevitanus l. 2 contra Donatistas'.  St. Optatus Bishop who lived before St. Austin the Doctor, relates how the Donatists (to vex the Catholics who did worship the Blessed Sacrament) cast the consecrated Hosts to their dogs. But they escaped not God's heavy judgement; for, the raging dogs with revenging teeth (saith Optatus) tore their own Masters in pieces, as if they had been strangers and enemies; yea as if they had known them to be thiefs, and men guilty of our Lord's Body.   

Miracles of the Mass. 
Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi Sacrificium Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, ●rans quantum potuit, ut cessare● illa ●exatio, Deoque protinus mis●rant● cessavit. Aug. de Civitate Dei l. 22 c. 28. Theodorus lector lib. 2. Coll●ctaneo●rum.   
ST. Austin reporteth of his own time and Country, how that one Hesperius having his house infested with wicked Spirits, to the affliction of his beasts and servants, desired (saith St. Austin) in my absence certain of our Priests, that some would go thither &c. one went and offered (saith he) there the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ, praying what he might that the vexation might cease, and God being thereupon merciful, it ceased.  
The like miracle doth Theodorus (who lived in the fifth Century) write happened to Coades King of Persia, who being desirous to enter into a Castle placed in the confines of his Kingdom towards India, was hindered by many wicked spirits which haunted the said Fortress; and notwithstanding that as well the Persian Sorcerers, as also those of the jews, had employed all their magic art, yet could not entrance be obtained. At last a christian Bishop was called upon, who with once saying Mass, and making the sign of the Cross, put forthwith to flight the infernal powers, and delivered up the Castle to the King free from all molestation.   

Miracles for Purgatory.  
ST. Gregory the Great telleth of a Monk called Justus, 
Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead. St. Gregory l. 4. Moral▪ c. 55.  who (saith he) was obsequious to me, and watched with me in my daily sickness: this man being dead, I appointed the healthful Host to be offered for his absolution thirty days together, which done, the said Justus appeared to his Brother by vision, and said, I have been hitherto evil, but now am well etc. And the Brethren in the Monastery counting the days, found that to be the day on which the thirtieth oblation was offered for him.  
The same St. Gregory writes how Paschasius Deacon of the Roman Church was tormented with the pains of Purgatory after 
St. Gregory 4. Dial. 40.  death for having adhered until near his death, 
Miracles wrought by St. Bernard to confirm every point of the Roman Catholic doctrine. Gofrid. in vi●. S. Bern. lib. 3. c▪ 5. & 6. Willelmus Abbas Saint Nicodorici Remensis l. 1. c. 10. Bernardus Abbas Banevallis.  unto Laurence the Schismatic, but at length was delivered from those pains by the prayers of St. German Bp. of Capua.  
We will not her detain the Reader with more particulars; but confirm the whole bulk of our Roman Catholic Doctrine with the undeniable miracles of St. Bernard, (a known Papist) against the Petrobrusians, Henricians, and Apostolici, whom Protestants claim as members of their own Church, for denying the real presence, sacrifice of the Mass, extreme unction, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, prayer to Saints, the Pope's authority, worship of Images, Indulgences etc. Against these heretics St. Bernard was commanded by the Pope to preach and accompany his legate Cardinal Albericus to the Country of Tolosa, where he wrought innumerable miracles to confute, and confound the aforesaid Heretics, as may be seen in the writers of those times in so much that the Saint in his return declined all Common roads, to avoid the multitudes of people that flocked to reverence him as an Apostle: 
See the Centurists Centur. 12. col. 1634.1635. & 1649. alleging St. Bernard giving Testimony of his own miracles.  Though afterwards in his 241. Epistle to the Tolosians he saith (to keep them constant to the truth, as St. Paul did to the Thessalonians) we thank God for that our coming to you was not in vain, our stay indeed was short with you, but not unfruitful, the truth being by us made manifest (non solum in sermone, sed etiam in virtute) not only by preaching but also by power (of working miracles▪) the wolves are deprehended etc.  
Of all St. Bernard's miracles I will mention but one which Godefridus relateth as an eye witness, and could not without known discovery and discredit have then reported a matter so public, and of such importance, with so great variety of particular circumstances, had the thing been untrue. There is (saith this Author) a place in the Country of Tolosa called Sarlatum, where, as the Sermon was done, they offered to the servant of God (as every where the use was) many loaves to bless, which by lifting up his hand, and making the sign of the Cross, in God's name blessing, he said thus: In this you shall know that these things are true, which we, and that those other are falls, 
Osiander in Epit. Cent. 12. l 4. c. 6. pag. 310. saith of St. Bernard, miracula ei prope infinita à Pontificiis scriptoribus affinguntur, quae ego partim ab otiosis Monachis excogitata puto, partim permissione Dei praestigijs Satani●is effecta existimo▪ non quod Sanctum Bernardum magum fuisse putem, sed quod vero simile sit Satanam talia miracula effecisse etc. Tales fuisse puto St. Bernardi visiones & post mortem suam apparitiones, praestigias videlicet diabolicas, quibus Satan & ipsi Sancto Bernardo (dum viveret) & aliis illusit. Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 369. ego quidem Bernardum vere fuisse sanctum existimo. Adomnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum & exitum, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensa●, ad lumina & cubilia, quaecumque nos conversatio exercet, frontem Crucis signaculo ●erimus, cujus disciplinae si legem expostules scripturam nullam invenies: traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, fides observatrix. Tertull. de Corona Militis c. 3. & 4. Cyril. Hiero. Catech. 13. S. Iren. l. 1. c. 20. & 25.  which the Heretics labour to persuade you etc. And whosoever they be (of your diseased persons) that taste the loaves, they shall be healed, that you may know us to be true Ministers of God. Ganfredus Carotensis, a Bishop, who stood by, added, if they take it with a good faith, they will be healed; St. Bernard suddenly replied, I do not say so, but whosoever will taste of them will be healed, to the end they may know we are true and sincere ministers of God. And so huge a multitude of diseased persons recovered by tasting the same bread, that over all the Country this was divulged etc.  
Here we see first: How St. Bernard took those people to be heretics, and calls them wolves according to the phrase of the Gospel, because they denied the very same doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants do deny; as the real presence, and Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the Pope's supremacy, prayer to Saints, worship of Images, Indulgences etc. We see how God declared by true miracles that the Saint was not mistaken in censuring them as heretics, and by consequence all who obstinately maintain the same opinions which they did, to be of the same stamp. Osiander a learned Protestant says, that though he takes not St. Bernard for a Conjurer, but rather for a holy man, and honours him as a Saint, yet he thinks his miracles were done by the Devil. And though this evasion be most absurd, and unworthy either a Scholar, or a Christian, yet is it the common and best plea of Protestants against such evidences. I say the answer is most absurd. 1. for that St. Bernard's miracles exceeded the Devil and nature's power. 2. If he was a Saint, God would not have permitted the Devil to abuse him so grossly in a matter of faith, without the purity and profession whereof there can be no true sanctity. 3. Much less would he have permitted the Devil to make St. Bernard an instrument for the establishing of Jdolatry, and other damnable errors of Popery, in case the contrary belief of Protestants, and Petrobusians be the Catholic: for albeit God hath permitted the Devil to make use of wicked men to broach and promote heresies, we never read that he condescended so far to his Luciferian pride, as to let him employ Saints in such a ministry, or to confirm falsehood by such miracles as St. Bernard's; neither indeed is such a permission consistent with God's veracity, or with our obligation to believe his doctrine, as hath been proved.    

SECT. III. Miracles to confirm the worship, and virtue of the sign of the Cross, recorded by St. Paulinus Bishop of Nola, St. Cyrillus of jerusalem, St. At●anasius, St. Hierom, St. Gregory Turonensis, Nicephorus and Theodoret in the Ecclesiastical History.  
THat the primitive Christians by Tradition from the Apostles used to sign themselves frequently with the sign of the Cross, at the beginning and finishing of every work, rising and going to bed, before and after meat, is testified by Tertullian: and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, says, let us not be ashamed to confess Christ crucified, but let the cross be printed confidently in our foreheads with our fingers, as also in all other things: in our bread, in our drink, in going abroad, in returning home, before sleep, when we rise, in travelling, in resting: it is a great guard, given to the poor gratis, to the infirm without trouble, it is a grace given by God, the mark of the faithful, and terror of the Devils. By this sign they have been triumphed over; show it boldly; when they see the Cross they remember him that was crucified; they fear him that bruised in pieces the Dragon's head. And even as the Apostles and they who stuck to their doctrine and discipline, honoured and used the sign of the Cross, so Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Basilides and all the progeny of heretics, did, and do abhor that instrument of our redemption, in so much that St. Paul, declares it to be a mark of heresy, to be an enemy of Christ's Cross. And St. Hippolytus, that most ancient and learned Martyr, 
Epist. ad Philip. 3.  in his book of the Consummation of the world, says, that Antichrist will prohibit men to make the sign of the Cross. 
Epiphan. haer. 21 & 28 Theoder. 2. haer. fab· 4. & alij.  And as Simon Magus maintained that the Cross ought not to be honoured, because Christ did not realy suffer upon it, but only his Image, and Cerinthus came near the same error, pretending that JESUS and Christ were different, and that only JESUS suffered, not Christ: Besides that neither JESUS, nor Christ, but Simon Cyreneus, who carried the Cross, suffered upon the same, and that Christ did shrink away: as these heretics, I say, thought the Cross ought not to be worshipped, because they maintained Christ did not suffer death upon it, so all Christians who believed his real passion and death, did honour the Cross in the primitive Church; and God to confirm this their faith and piety, hath wrought innumerable miracles whereof I shall relate but very few.  
The first shall be taken out of Paulinus Bishop of Nolae his writings, a man of such sanctity and credit, that St. Austin, St. Hierom, St. Gregory the great, St. Gregory of Tours, Prosper Aquitanicus, and others say of him he was faithful as Abraham, obedient as Isaac, benign as Jacob, liberal as Melchisedech, discreet and prudent as joseph, meek as Moses, innocent as Samuel, merciful as David, wise as Solomon, of great courage as Peter, fervent as Paul etc. And so charitable that he made himself a slave in afric to redeem from barbarous servitude some of his Flock. This holy Bishop Paulinus receiving from the hands of his Kinswoman Melania a little piece of the Cross which John Bishop of jerusalem sent unto him, it happened that a stable full of hay took fire, and the flames reached to St. Paulinus his house; he presently took the relic of the Cross, and opposed it to that furious element, 
S. Paulinus natal. 10. S. Felic. S. Paulinus Nol. ep. 11. ad Severum. Open rante virtute divina jugi miraculo in materia in sensata vim vi●am tenens, ita innum●ris paene quotidie hominum votis lignum suum commodavit, ut detrimenta non sentiret, & quasi intacta permanserit, quotidie divid●è sumentibus, & semper tota venerantibus. Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 29. S. Hierom in vita S. Hilarionis in fin.  whereupon the devouring flames instantly retired, and the fire was wholly extinguished. Of this miracle St. Paulinus himself composed an elegant poem yet to be seen in his works. A greater miracle the same Saint observes in the holy Cross, which he mentions in a letter to his friend Severus▪ for notwithstanding that (saith he) it was the custom of the Bishops of jerusalem to present the Pilgrims with little pieces of the holy Cross, yet by a continual miracle of the Divin power the holy Cross retaining living virtue in a dead matter, did so distribute its wood almost every day to the desires of innumerable people, that it remained as it were untouched, divided to the receivers, and always entire to those that worship it. The same miracle is observed by St. Cyril of jerusalem Catech. 4.10. & 13.  
In the same letter to Severus, St. Paulinus doth recount that Christ's Cross was known from the others of the thiefs crucified with him, by reviving a dead woman, to whose body it was applied. And Nicephorus saith that besides this miracle it cured instantly one that was dying.  
What a number of miracles St. Anthony the Monk wrought by making the sign of the Cross, every one may see in his life written by the great Champion of the Church St. Athanasius: and the like also of an other Monk St. Hilarin in his life written by St. Hierom▪ one I will relate in his own words.  
At that time (saith St. Hierom) the seas transgressed their bounds, upon the earthquake of the whole world, which happened after the death of julian. And as if God would threaten men with some new deluge, or else that all things were to return into their first Chaos, so hung the ships, being hoist up to the steepy tops of those mountains, which as soon as they of Epidaurus saw, namely those roaring and raging waves, and that Mass of waters, and that whole mountains were brought in upon the shores, by whose rapid floods (being in fear of that which already in effect they found to be come to pass, that the town would utterly be overwhelmed, they went unto the old man (Hilarion) and as if they had been going to a battle, they placed him for their Captain upon the shore; But assoon as he had made three signs of the Cross upon the sand, and held up his hand against the sea, it is incredible to be told into what a huge height it swollen, and stood up before him, and raging so a long time, and being as it were in a Kind of Indignation at the impediment which it ●ound, it did yet by little and little slide back again into itself. And this doth Epidaurus, and all that region proclaim even to this day, and mothers teach it to their Children; that so the memory thereof may be delivered over to posterity. That which was said to the Apostles, if you have faith, and shall say to this mountain, transport thyself into the sea, it shall be done, may truly and even literaly be fulfilled now etc. For wherein doth it differ whether a mountain descend into the sea, or else, whether huge mountains of water grow suddenly hard, being as if they were of stone, just before the feet of the old man; and that yet on the other side they should run fluid and soft? The whole City was in a wonder, and the greatness of the miracle was publicly known as far as Salon.  
St. Gregory Turonensis tells us how after that a man who conspired with Cyrola the Arian Bishop to feign himself blind, 
S. Gregory Turon. 2. hist. 3. Protestant miracles are but Cheats.  and to say he received sight by his prayers, by God's just judgement became realy blind; (as Bruleus of Geneva was found dead by calvin's prayers to revive him) and after this cheat was so punished, Eugenius the Catholic Bishop restored to him sight, by making the sign of the Cross.  
Sozomen l. 7. c. 25. of his Ecclesiastical History recounts how St. Donatus Bishop of Evorea in Epirus with making the sign of the Cross killed a monstrous serpent that devoured both man and beast. an. 394.  
How efficacious the sign of the Cross is against the temptations and charms of the Devil, 
S. Gregory Nazian. orat. in Julian. Theodoret. lib. 3. c. 3.  may be gathered from many examples of the ecclesiastical History. I will only mention that notorious fact of Julian the Apostata related by St. Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret. Julian notwithstanding his Monastical profession, entertained ambitious thoughts of succeeding his Brother Gallus in the Empire, he dealt with a Magician to know whether fortune would favour him. The Magician led him to the place where he used to conjure, and the Devils appearing upon his invoking of them, but like themselves, Julian was so frighted, 
Some Protestants agree with pagans and Magicians in contemning the sign of the Cross, and maintaining the Devil's power against it. Osiander Cent. 4. pag. 326. speaking of the Devils flying away at julian's making the sign of the Cross, saith, Diaboli simulata sua fuga voluerunt vulgi superstitionem confirmare, quasi Cruci● signo Daemons abigantur. The same say the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 1446.  that (according to his own former custom, and that of the primitive Christians) he made the sign of the Cross in his forehead, and the Devils vanished. Whereupon Julian reflecting and considering the virtue of that sign, and conferring thereof with the Conjurer, this wicked fellow told him, that the Devils fright proceeded not from any fear of the Cross, but from a discontent, and detestation of julian's practising so ridiculous an action; and the poor wretch (saith St. Gregory) out of hopes and covetousness of the Empire that the Magician prognosticated, gave credit to his words.  
How many millions of souls are abused by Protestant Ministers, as Julian was by pagan Magicians? Some Ministers will not admit of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, because they hold it to be superstitious; others, though they admit of it in Baptism, yet in all other actions think it ridiculous, and both parties agree in believing that it hath not any virtue against the Devil. Not only our English Protestants, but Osiander, and the Magdeburgian Centurists do justify the speech of the Magician, and would have us follow the example of julian the Apostata, as also the doctrine of the Gentiles, whom Arnobius l. 10. contra gentes doth reprove for saying, that though the name of Christ JESUS but heard driveth away wicked spirits etc. yet that was upon horror and hatred of the name, not upon grant of greater power.   

SECT. IV. Miracles in confirmation of the Catholic worship of Images, related by the most eminent Authors of the ecclesiastical History, and by the second General Council of Nice an Dom. 787. wherein assisted 350. Bishops.  
OF all Protestant errors, and exceptions against the Roman Catholic Religion, not any is more unreasonable, and inexcusable than their opinion of the unlawfullness of worshipping the Images of Christ our Saviour, and his Saints. 
Act. 5.15. Evagr. 4. hist. 29▪ St. Damasc. 4. de fide Orthod. 17. Niceph. ●. hist. 7. Metaphr. 15. non & in vit● S. Alexii. Tom. 3. Concil. Hadrianus Papa ad Carol. Magnum Methodius Episcopus apud Marian. scot. in Chron. an. Dm. 3. S. Bedae de loc. sāct. c. 8. & 5.  Because. 1. They see that the Scripture makes distinction between Images, and Idols, God prohibiting the one, and not only permitting, but commanding his people to place the other in his Temple, even closely to the ark of his Testament, and that the Brazen serpent wrought miracles, while the jews looked upon it as an Image. 2. They might observe that upon the very first preaching of the Apostles, St. Peter's shadow (which was the Image of his body) wrought many miracles, unto which God would never have concurred, had his shadow been an Jdol, or had there been in the worship of Images any danger of Jdolatry. And much less would Christ himself have sent his Image to Abagarus King of Edessa, or given his picture to Veronica as all antiquity did believe, and record. 3. They may be ashamed of the first broachers of their Protestant doctrine against the worship of Images, jews, Saracens, and condemned heretics, who (as Tarasius proved in the second Council of Nice) corrupted the holy Scriptures to assert their heresies. But leaving these things we will mention a few miracles.  

Euseb 7. hist. 14 Niceph. lib. 10. c. 30. Theophilactus in cap. 9 Math.  Eusebius and others in the Ecclesiastical History relate, how the woman that was cured by touching Christ's garment, (Math. 9.21.) returning home, set up for memory of this benefit the statue of Christ, as also her own, adoring him; and that he himself had seen them; and that an unknown herb did grow at the bottom of Christ's statue, which so soon as it came to touch the garment of the statue, did cure all diseases.  
In the year 362. julian the Apostata (vexed to see this statue worshipped, and the worship thereof confirmed with so many miracles) commanded the same to be thrown down, and broken in pieces; and set up his own in steed thereof▪ but his was immediately destroyed by fire from heaven, 
Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 20. ad Metaphrast. 20. Octob. Centur. 4. c. 13. col. 1447.  and the Christians gathering together the pieces of Christ's statue, placed it in the Church; where it was, as Sozomenus writeth, unto his time.  
The honest Centutists against all truth of History, not having the Authority of as much as one Writer thought (by lying impudently) to conceal the evidence of this miracle from the illiterate Protestants; and some English have imitated their example in so shameful an imposture, saying that Christ's statue (not julian's) was destroyed by fire from heaven.  
An other miracle you may read in the second General Council of Nice produced by 350. Bishops as an undeniable evidence against the heresy of the Image-breakers; for the confutation whereof they were assembled, and the miracle happened but some 20. years before. The wicked jews in the City of Beritus in Syria, crucified the Image of Christ, and pierced with a lance the side thereof, whence suddenly issued such abundance of blood and water, that the Churches both of the East and West received relics thereof, and with it all diseases were cured. By so great, and so many miracles those obstinate people were converted; and the Church of God appointed a day to celebrat the memory of so notorious a favour; And Athanasius, a learned Bishop of that age, writ a Book entitled De Passione Imaginis Domini.  
The conversion of jews to Christianity hath seldom been effected without great miracles: None can be mo●e stupendious, then that which St. Vincent Ferrer (an. 1412.) wrought upon their whole Synagogue in Salamanca, wherinto he entered with a Crucifix in his hand, on their Saboth, and preaching with great fervour of that mystery. On a sudden both men and women found white Crosses upon their clothes, which made such an impression in their hearts, that they all were baptised, and turned their Synagogue into a Christian Church, which they called of the holy Cross. This Saint Vincent was a Dominican Friar, whose preaching against heretics and jews God confirmed by miracles, 38. dead were revived by his intercession, he cured all diseases with the sign of the Cross, holy water etc. and was of so great esteem among Catholics, that when Martin King of Arragon died without issue, the naming of a Successor was left to St. Vincent, and all the Competitors acquiesced in his choice. See all this in St. Antoninus' tit. 23. cap. 8.  
The chief Champion of God's Church against the heresy of Image-breakers was St. john Damascen, and therefore was so much hated by the Emperor Leo Jauricus (by whose tyranny and Decree that heresy was professed, and the Catholics persecuted at the instance of a Jew his Favourite) that john Damascen being in high esteem with the Prince of the Saracens at Damascus, the Emperor, by the means of Skilful scribes, counterfeited his hand and sent a letter to the Saracen, pretended to have been writ by John Damascen to his Majesty inviting him to besiege Damascus, and giving him assurance of assistance and good success. Whereat the Saracen Prince was so enraged, that he commanded John's right hand to be cut off. The Saint retiring to his Oratory, and prostrated before an Image of our Blessed Lady, begged her intercession for the restitution of that hand which had been employed until then in defending her son's honour, and her own, against the Iconoclasts, and should continue for the future, if restored, in the same service. Whereupon he seemed to sleep, and had a vision of the Mother of God, and when he waked, found his hand joined as it had been formerly to his arm. The Saracen Prince seeing the miracle, earnestly entreated him to remain in his Court, But St. John Damascen retired to the desert, and there writ the praises of our Lady, and three excellent Treatises yet extant in defence of the worship of Images. All which you may see more at large in his life writ by John Patriarch of jerusalem, and other Authors of those times.  
In the Ecclesiastical History it is recounted by Zonaras, how in the time that Leo Armenus persecuted Catholics for worshipping Jmages, his son Sabatius Constantinus, who had been dumb, came to the statue of St. Gregory Nazianzen, praying inwardly in his heart to the Saint, that he might obtain of God the use of his tongue, which immediately God was pleased to grant.  
There is scarce a Country or County where the exercise of Catholic Religion is public, which aboundeth not with Miraculous Jmages. 
justus Lipsius Diva Sichimiensis edit. Antuerp. an. 1605. cap. 45.  I will only at this time mention that famous miracle done at Sichem, an. 16●4. Related by justus Lipsius, and found to be true by sundry Protestant Gentlemen, attending on the Earl of Hartford Ambassador in Flanders, who did see and confer, with the party cured, and were satisfied by the public and credible testimony given to them of the whole matter, as followeth.  
john Clement whose Mother being at her delivery of him, cut, thereupon died, leaving behind her this her son lame from his Nativity, and of a monstrous composition of body, his thighs and feet were contracted and turned towards the forepart of his breast, so as his knees did grow and stick thereto, his body was round or spherical, unfit to stand, lie or walk. Having from his birth continued in this estate for 20. years, and so known to the Jnhabitants of Brussels, and other places adjoining, he was moved in his mind to go to our Lady's Chapel in or near the town in Brabant called Sicham, where he had heard of many miraculous cures credibly published to have been done. Being come thither in a Wagon, and having confessed his sins, and received the B. Sacrament, he did in the end feel his contracted and bound feet to be loosed and stretched forth, so as presently he stood on his feet, himself and the beholders being amazed thereat. Many such or greatet miracles have been done at loreto, Zaragoca, Guadalupe etc. Neither can they be denied 〈◊〉 any who is not either very obstinate or ignorant.  
Let the most precise and peevish Protestant in England con●●der whether it be Probable or possible that God would work 〈◊〉 undeniable miracles against his own word▪ and the true sense ●f Scripture; and whether it be not more likely that the Ro●an Catholic sense thereof (so confirmed) is that which the ●oly Ghost inspired, and meant, rather than the sense of Lu●●er, Calvin, Cranmer, or of the Parliament an. 3. & 4. Ed. 6. ●hen all Jmages of Christ and his Saints were commanded by 〈◊〉 express statute to be pulled down; Provided always that the ●ct or any thing therein contained, should not extend to any ●mage or picture set or graven upon any Tomb in any Church, chapel, or Churchyard, only for a monument of any King ●rince, Nobleman, or other dead person, which hath not been commonly reputed and taken for a Saint. So that by the Religion and Laws of England, there must not be any sign or monument of sanctity left or permitted in Churches, as if God ●id intend profane persons should have greater respect showed to them in his own house, than his own Servants; 

The Protestant distinction of civil and Religious worship misapplied by Ministers to delude their flocks.  
St. Austin lib. 3. de Trin. c 10. Speaking of such holy signs as Images, saith, Honorem tamquam religiosa possunt habere.   and that their having been eminent in his Divin service, and his testifying the same by evident miracles, were a sufficient cause to break their monuments, and blot their memories out of the hearts of Christians.  
The Protestant Clergy delude their floches with telling them that civil worship may be given to statues and Jmages of Kings, Princes, and Noblemen; Religious worship may not be given to ●ny Creature however so holy, it being peculiar to God. But Christ teacheth contrary doctrine and says that whosoever receives a Prophet as a Prophet, shall have the reward of a Prophet; if by Religious worship they mean Latria, or that supreme which is due to God alone, we allow their doctrine; but if they take it ●or that reverence which is due to any thing that is holy by sanctification, spiritual grace, character, or application to the service of God, we deny it. What do they think not only of Prophets and Apostles, whom the faithful Religiously worshipped, and adored in the old and new Testament, but of inanimat things, as the Temple, the Tabernacle, the ark, the Propitiatory, the Cherubins, the Altar, the bread of proposition etc. Nay, what do they think of themselves? Doth not every Protestant Bishop teach and inculcat to the people that he is their spiritual Father, and upon that score expects they should kneel down to him and ask his blessing? 
S. Ambros. sec. 10. Qui imaginem coronat Jmperatoris, utique illum honorat, cujus imaginem coronavit; & qui statuam contempserit Imperatoris, Imperatori utique fecisse videtur injuriam.  Do they not commend as Religious and devout souls such as give them this respect? Is not this a Religious worship? There is not any of their Bishops can pretend that so much ceremony is a civility due to their birth, but they attribute it to their spiritual dignity, and to their supposed character of Episcopacy. We desire no other Kind of worship be given to our Catholic canonised Bishops, or to Images, then that which the Protestant Bishops claim as due to themselves, and to their pictures. And yet these men will needs have Popery to be Idolatry, because we worship real sanctity with the same ceremony and respect, that they exact for mistaken Episcopacy.   

SECT. V. Miracles related by Saint Austin, St. Ambrose, St Gregory Nazianzen St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Hierom, St. Optatus, St▪ Bede, St▪ Bernard, St. Anselm, and others in confirmation of praying to Saints, and worshipping of their Relics; and of the virtue of Holy water, of the Sacraments of Confirmation, Confession, and Extreme unction.  
ST. Hierom says the heretic Eunomius was the first that impugned the worshipping of Saints Relics, 
S. Hierom. contra Vigilant.  whose error Vigilantius followed, and added an other against praying to Saints. 
Euseb. hist. lib 4. c. 15. Centuriatores cent. 2. c. 3. col 31. St. Ambrose serm. 39 de sanctis Naza●▪ & Celso in fin.  How ancient the worship of Saints Relics is, we see by the Epistle of the Church of Smirna concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarpus, St. John Evangelists Disciple; whose reliks' the Christians gathered (even after his body was burnt) with most fervent devotion. St. Ambrose gives many reasons why relics ought to be honoured.  
If you ask me, (saith he) what do you honour in flesh consumed, and turned into dust? I honour in the Martyr's flesh the scars that he received for Christ; I honour the memory of one that liveth by the perpetuity of his virtue; I honour ashes sanctified by the confession of our Lord; 
Our doctrine of Indulgences is confirmed by the same miracles that confirm worship of Saints, Pilgrimages &c. because Indulgences are commonly annexed to these devotions.  I honour in ashes the seeds of eternity: I honour the body that taught me to love God, and to contemn death for his sake. And why should not Christians honour that body which the Devils fear? etc. Finaly I honour a body that honoured Christ in th● sword, and is to reign with him in heaven. Thus St. Ambrose; Now to our Miracles.  
St. Austin (de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8.) telleth how that in the presence of him and others, a devout woman called Palladia, who being sore diseased, and repairing for her health to the monument of St. Stephen, as soon as she prayed to the Saint, sana surrexit, she received health. And in the same Chapter a little before he relates the like miraculous example of one Florentius of Hippo, and of Eucharius a Priest of Spain, as also of Ten infirm persons in his presence miraculously cured; and sundry dead restored to life. In the ninth book of his Confessions cap. 7. he telleth how the dead bodies of St. Gervasius and Protasius were after many years found uncorrupted; and that at their dead bodies a blind man received his sight. A miracle (saith St. Austin) done at Milan (where the said bodies lay) when I was there, a great number of people being witnesses thereof. St. Hierom recounteth in the life of St. Hilarion, how his dead body was after ten months found uncorrupted, yielding forth a fragrant smell. And St. Bede testifieth the same of St. Cuthbert l. 4. hist. cap. 30.  
St. Ambrose having had a revelation where the bodies of the Martyrs St. Gervasius and Protasius lay, 

S. Ambros. ep. 85 ad Mar. soror. & ser. 93. the Inventione corporum S. Gervasij & Protasij: Ariani dicunt, non sunt Daemonum vera tormenta, sed ficta & composita ludi bria.  
S. Hierom. contra Vigilant cap. 4. In morem Gentilium, impiorumque Porphyrij▪ & Eunomij, has praestigias Daemonum esse confin●ga●, & non vere clamare Daemons, sed simulare tormenta &c.  
S▪ Chrysost. in lib. contra Gentiles, speaking of Babylas, sententiae nostrae abunde faciunt fidem, quae quotidiana à Martyribus eduntur miracula. Cent. 4. cap. 13. col 14●6 Nazianzen. Orat. in Cyprian. saith. Omnia potest pulvis Cypriani cum fide, ut sciunt hi qui ipsi experti sunt, & miracula usque ad nos transmiserunt.  
A miracle to confirm the worship and devotion of the Mother of God.   placed them with great solemnity in the Church, and they wrought many miracles, which he recounts; among others the Devils were tormented by the holy Relics, and were forced to confess that their torments proceeded from the intercession of the Saints; but the Arrians, vexed to see the Catholic faith confirmed by such miracles, endeavoured to discredit them by saying the Devils were not realy tormented, and that these were no true miracles, as Protestants say now of our Exorcisms; for which folly and obstinacy they were reprehended by St. Ambrose, as Vigilantius for the same reason is censured by St. Hierom. In like manner ought the Centurists and other Protestants be condemned for discrediting the miracles which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Rufinus relate of St. Babylas, which was, that after bringing of the body of the holy Martyr into the Temple of an Idol, the Jdol ceased to speak, and therefore julian the Apostata commanded the body should be removed from thence; The Centurists answer that the Devil was neither silenced nor frighted by the Saint, and presence of his Relics; but feigned to be overcome, to the end that superstition might encreas.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen saith that St. Cyprians Relics are omnipotent to work miracles, if applied with faith, as experience doth show: and (orat. 1. in julianum) he relateth how Gallus and julianus two Brethren, and Nephews to the Emperor Constantius, joining to build a famous Church over the Relics of St. Mamans' Martyr, the part which Gallus (a good Catholic) undertaken, went on most prosperously; but the part of julian (who was then perverted in his judgement, and became afterwards the Apostata) could never as much as have the foundation laid, for that the earth by continual and unusual earthquakes, did always cast from itself, and in a manner vomit forth all that was laid in it by julianus.  
And the reason was saith St. Gregory Nazianzen, because the Martyrs are so linked in charity, that St. Mamans would not be honoured by him, who in time was to decry the worship of his Brethren, and disgrace them. But the Centurists above cited say, that God hindered Julianus his fabric to show that he was not pleased with the superstitious worship of Martyrs; and yet they do not consider that he was pleased to let Gallus his fabric prosper. Such fopperies as these we must expect even from learned men that undertake to maintain new opinions against the ancient doctrine of God's Church, confirmed by evident miracles.  
St. Anselm whom Protestants commend, as one of the worthiest Prelates of the Church both for piety and learning, recounteth in his book of the Miracles of our B. Lady this story.  
The Devil (who out of his inveterat hatred, and envy to man, seeks all means possible to ruin him) took human shape, and put himself into the service of a Nobleman, with whose humour he did so comply, as in a short time he was steward of his family, and Master of his will: taking the advantage of this favour he persuaded him to commit many mischiefs, and murders; walking one day in the fields with some of his servants not much better than himself, he abused a devout Priest, and carried him prisoner to his Castle. At night the Priest signified to him that he had a business to impart to his Lordship, in which he was much concerned, but it must be opened to him in presence of all his servants. He longing to know the business commanded all his servants should be called; and all appeared, the steward only excepted, who retired to his chamber, pretending he was not well; and being pressed to come, answered, he could not stir: the Priest replied to the Lord, that the steward's presence was absolutely necessary; whereupon other servants were ordered▪ to bring him in their arms, he still counterfeiting the sick man. When the holy Priest did see him, he commanded, and conjured him in the name of Almighty God, to declare who he was, and to what end he had thrust himself into that Nobleman's service. The steward answered, and confessed he was the Devil, and that his end of serving that man was, to procure his destruction and damnation, which he had long before effected, had not the B. Virgin interposed herself, and interceded to God, for his Conversion. of the cure; they could not be mistaken, neither could they have any design in deceiving others by a falls information; neither durst they or the Monk who writ the story, venture to abuse the whole Kingdom with such an imposture that could not be long concealed, or unpunished. So that this being the miracle whereupon Fox did fix, to disgrace all the rest, as also St. Thomas his sanctity; I shall believe them all to be as authentic as any miracles need to be; and as that which both in the French and English, profane and Ecclesiastical Histories, is recorded, of the King of France his pilgrimage to St. Thomas his Shrine in Canterbury, for the recovery of his son Philip's health; in what despair the Father and all France were of his life by human remedies, is evident by his undertaking so unusual and dangerous a journey, as it was for a King, to put himself into the hands of his reconciled enemy, and of so powerful a Monarch as K. Henry 2. But God that would have all the world take notice of St. Thomas his glory, and of the justice of his cause, disposed so things, that the most Christian King and Kingdom should be beholding to him for the life of the Heir apparent of the crown, who immediately recovered, and the King (to show his gratitude for so great a benefit) did give many Lands and privileges in France to the Monks of Canterbury; all this was done in the year 1179. and but nine years after his Canonization.  

Miracles of Holy water.  

S. Basil. de Spirit. S. c. 27 Alexan. 1. ep. 1.  ST. Pasil testifieth that the use and blessing of holy water is an Apostolical traditon; neither can it be denied if we consider these words of St. Alexander Pope, who but 50. years after St. Peter governed the Church. We bless water sprinkled with salt for the people, that all being sprinkled with it, may be sanctified and purified: which thing also we ordain as to be done of all Priests. For if the ashes of an Heifer being sprinkled with blood, 
Hebr. 9.13.  did sanctify and cleans the people, much more water sprinkled with salt, and consecrated with divin prayers doth sanctify and cleans the people. 
S. Clem. lib. 8. Const. cap 35. Dion de Eccles hire cap de Baptismo. Cyril. Caie● ch. 3. Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 12. Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacr. c. 5. & l. de iis qui initiant. cap. 3. Epiph. haer. 30. August. hom 27. epist. 50 & Serm. 9 the Sanct & lib. 6. in Jul. c. 8. Conc. Nannit cap. 4.  And if by salt sprinkled by 〈◊〉 the profet, the barrenness of the water was healed, how much ●ore the same salt being consecrated with divin prayers, taketh 〈◊〉 the barrenness of human things, and sanctifieth those which 〈◊〉 defiled, and cleanseth and purgeth, and multiplieth other 〈◊〉 things, and turneth away the deceits of the devil, and descendeth men from the craftiness of the evil Ghost. For if by ●●●ching of the hemm of the garment of our saviour we do not 〈◊〉 but that the diseased were cured; how much more by the doubt of his holy words or his elements consecrated, by which 〈◊〉 frailty doth receive health both of body and soul. Thus 〈◊〉 Alexander Pope and martyr in the first age of Christianity. ●hat is said of holy water, the same is applied by the ancient ●●hers to holy Oil, holy bread, holy Candles, holy Ashes, 〈◊〉 Palms, etc. Theodoret (hist: l. 5. c. 21.) telleth that 〈◊〉 dissolved enchantments by sprinkling of holy water, which 〈◊〉 (saith Theodoret) the Devil not enduring the virtue of the ●●inkled water fled away. See also the like report made of ●●●charius by Palladius 〈◊〉 historia Lausiaca cap. 19 of miraculous 〈◊〉 wrough by holy water: see St. Gregory lib. 1. Dial. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 St. Bede lib. 4. hist. cap. 4. and Palladius cap. 9 & 20. and ●●●doret in his Theoph. cap. 13. of a memorable miracle done con●●●ding Church lights. Read Eusebius hist. lib. 6. cap. 8. S. 〈◊〉 2. lib. 1. contra haereses. haeres. 30. pag. 61. edit. Basil. 〈◊〉 how Josephus (seeing fire made unactive by enchantments, and 〈◊〉 from burning by witchcraft) called for water, (a world of 〈◊〉 being present) made the sign of the Cross upon it, put his 〈◊〉 into the vessel of the blessed water, saying, In the name of ●●sus of Nazareth, whom my Fathers crucified, let there be virtue 〈◊〉 this water for the dissolving the charms done by these men. Then 〈◊〉 Epiphanius, he took some of the water in his hand, sprin●●●● the several enchanted Furnaces with it, & dissoluta sunt in●●●amenta, the witchcraft ceased, the fire burned, the people who 〈◊〉 the wonder, cried aloud, One God there is, who helps the Christians and so departed.  
Epiphanius cited in the precedent page relates an other miracle done by joseph, upon a possessed man. joseph, saith he, having shut the doors took water in his hands, blessed it with the sign of the Cross, besprinkled the raging man with it, commanded the Devil in the name of JESUS to be go●, and the possessed party was cured. This miracle (saith Epiphanius) the jews knew, and great talk there was of it: some said josephus had opened the Gazophylacium, and finding there the name of God writ, did the wonder by force of this name; It was true he did the miracle, but not as the jews imagined. Thus St. Epiphanius.  
Of our Catholic Churches severe inquiry, discovery, and punishment of Counterfeit in this kind and all other sorts of miracles, our Adversaries give testimony: see Osianders' epitome. Centur. 16. pag. 32. And the book entitled, Two Treatises, the first of the lives of Popes, etc. The second of Mass etc. also of falls miracles wherewith Mary de la Visitation Prioress de la Anunciada of Lisbon, deceived very many, and was discovered and condemned, Englished and printed 1600. And see in the Addition in the end of that book, an other like discovery and punishment in Sevill of one Father. Lion. See also such an other Discovery of falls miracles in St. Thomas Moor's dialogue of veneration of Images, Relics, etc. l. 1. c. 14. so that our Catholic Bishops and Inquisitors are so far from contriving and concealing such practices, that they publish and punish them with extreme rigour. And this our sincerity in publishing falls miracles, is the only evidence Protestants have to say, that the true miracles are falls: for thus they argue against us: such a Nun, or Friars miracles and revelations were falls, as appeareth by our own discovery and punishment of the cheat; therefore we have reason to suspect that none are true; whereas if obstinacy did not prevail with them more than reason, they should have inferred, and believed the quite contrary conclusion. Madre Luisa de Charion notwithstanding her prediction to our late King Charles, that if he did not become a Roman Catholic, he should be the most unfortunait Prince in the world, after some years of prosperity; Notwithstanding I say, this, and many other predictions, her continual fasting, and seeming miracles, she was by the Jnquisition, kept in prison all her life, and never declared innocent, or free from illusions, until after her death, when God seemed to approve of her sanctity by undeniable signs and testimonies.   

Miracles of the Sacrament of Confirmation.  
COnfirmation is a Sacrament of the new law, as sacred and holy (saith St. Austin lib. 2. contra lit. Peril. c. 104.) as Baptism itself: it is ministered unto the baptised with the imposition of the hands of a Bishop, and the amoynting with holy Chrism. And therefore St. Vrban Pope and Martyr (an. 227.) in his letter to all Christians saith, All the faithful aught to receive the holy Ghost after Baptism by the imposition of hands from a Bishop, that they may be found perfect Christians: because when the holy Ghost is infused, the faithful heart is dilated to prudence and constancy. And an other Pope and Martyr (Euseb. cp. ad Episcop. Tust. & Campan.) The Sacrament of imposition of hands is to be had in great reverence, which cannot be done by any other but by the high Priests: neither is it read or known to have been done by any other in the Apostles time, but by the Apostles themselves. 
Act. 8.14. & 19.6.  And Tertullian (de carni● resurrect. cap. 8. & in lib. de Bapt.) alluding to the nature of oil, wherewith we are anointed in the Sacrament, saith, the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may me be fenced; the flesh by imposition of hands is overshadowed, that the soul by the spirit may be illuminated.  
Hitherto Prelatic Protestants according to the 25. article of their 39 of Religion, contemned the holy Sacrament of Confirmation as superstitious, and corrupt following of the Apostles; but since Episcopacy was cried down in England by the Puritans they writ whole Treatises of the necessity and praises of Confirmation, not so much (I fear) out of any devotion themselves have to that Sacrament, as to be end the people may be devoted to their Episcopal character, it being granted that only Bishops can confirm christian's. Doctor Tailor's Discourse of Confirmation is an excellent Interlude all circumstances considered; He proves the necessity and holiness of Confirmation, contrary to the 25. article of his faith; then he proves that only true Bishops can confirm; whence some, say it follows that his Protestant Episcopacy is not for that purpose. 3. he pretends that the Jesuits (though he know the contrary) are enemies to this holy Sacrament. The question between Doctor Smith Bishop of Chalcedon, and them was, not whether Confirmation were not necessary when it might be had conveniently; but whether it were so absolutely necessary for salvation, that the Catholics of England ought to bring upon themselves new persecutions for maintaining and harbouring a Bishop in that Kingdom to confirm them. And Taylor approves (pag. 66.) the same by saying that Confirmation is not absolutely necessary for salvation.  
4. It is ridiculous to see how Doctor Taylor quotes Authors and books for Confirmation, that in all other points of doctrine, he rejects as unworthy of credit: amongst others a book of miracles whereof he believeth not one; the old Ordo Roman●●● (pag. 24.) St. john Damasc●n. (pag. 76.) Melchiades Pope (pag. 44.) the Apostolical Constitutions (pag. 16.) which in other matters he rejects as apocryphal; Rupertus, (pag. 4. who in any thing not favouring Episcopacy Taylor contemns as a Novice▪ and too modern; St. Bernard the Monk, and St. Malachias▪ the Bishop, two acknowledged Papists 5. He is much troubled to see that these Authors call Confirmation a Sacrament; and knows not how to English Sacramentum; at last he resolves to translate it Rite; and therefore these latin words of the Ordo Romanus which he sets down pag. (24.) Omnino praecavendum esse ut hoc Sacramentum Confirmationis non negligatur, the Bishop doth English thus; we must by all means take heed that the Rite of Confirmation be not neglected. And (pag. 5.) he saith St. Bernard in the life of St. Malachias, my Prodecessor in the See of Down and Cannot, reports that it was the care of that Good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese.  
Seing Protestants with Doctor Taylor, value so much the testimony and faith of St. Bernard, let them see how he condemned all their opinions against the Roman Catholic faith as heresies in the Petrobusians, Henricians, and Apostolici, 
Heretofore part. 4.  and then I hope they will acknowledge their error, in not tolerating Popery. St. Bernard, doth relate in the life of St. Malachias (whose Successor Doctor Taylor is not, either in character or Doctrine) that he cured a lunatic child in confirming him with the sacred unction. A miracle (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, and thereupon blown through the world. St. Optatus (l. 2. contra Donatistas') reporteth how the heretic threw out of the window (ampullam Chrismatis) a vial of Chrism, holy oil, to the intent to break it, the which being stayed by an Angel's hand, God preserved, and did light safe among the stones.   

A Miracle of the Sacrament of Extreme unction.  
OF the Sacrament of Exteeme unction St. Austin giveth this testimony. So often as any infirmity chanceth, 
Serm. 215. the temp.  let him that is sick receive the body and blood of Christ; and after that let him anoint his body, that, that which is written (jac. 5.14.) may be accomplished in him. Is any sick? let him bring in the Priests, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of our Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick▪ And our Lord shall lift him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him.  
I doubt Doctor Taylor and his prelatic Convocation will not allow in this controversy of Extreme Unction, the testimony of St. Malacly to be as pious as they did in the former of Confirmation. And if you ask the cause, they can give no other, but that their Episcopacy is not so much concerned in maintaining extreme Unction, as Confirmation; We shall notwithstanding, relate St. Bernard's words, and St. Malachias work, and desire Doctor Taylor to let us know why he thinks the testimony of one, and the example of the other to be more credibles, and imitable in the point of Episcopacy, then in other articles of Christian doctrine. A noble man (saith St. Bernard in vita Malachiae) dwelled near the Monastery of Benchor, whose wife being sick, Malachias was requested to anoyl her, which was deferred till morning; afterwards a sudden outcry being made that she was dead, Malachias came, and when he certainly found that she was dead, he was greatly troubled in mind, imputing the fault to himself, that she died defrauded of the grace of the Sacrament, and lifting up his hands to heaven said, I beseech thee o Lord (etc.) what more! she that was dead opened her eyes (etc.) and Malachias giving thanks praised God, and anointed her, Knowing sins to be remitted in this Sacrament.   

Miracles of the Sacrament of Confession.  

Hom. 49. ep. 50. cap. 3. & ho● 41. & 50. cap. 4. & 5.  IT is written (Act. 19.18.) that many of those (primitive Christian) that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds. Therefore St. Austin saith to some who thought it not necessary to confess their sins to Priests, Do ye penance such as is done in the Church, that the Church may pray for you. Let no man say within himself I do it in secret, I do it before God alone: God who pardoneth me, knoweth that I do in my heart. 
Mat. 18.18.  Was it therefore said in vain, whatsoever you shall loose in earth, shall be loosed in Heaven? Were the keys given to the Church of God in vain? 
joan. 20.23.  Do we frustrate the Gospel of God? Do we frustrate the words of Christ? Do we promise you that which he denyeth? Do we deceive you? And in an other place, there are (saith he) that do think it sufficient for their salvation, if they confess their sins to God alone, unto whom nothing is hidden, and every man's conscience lieth open: For they will not, or they are ashamed, or they disdain to show themselves unto Priests: Whom yet our Lord hath by Moses ordained to discern between leper and leper. But I will not have thee deceived with this opinion, and be ashamed thereby to confess them unto the Vicegerent of our Lord, either languishing with shamefastness, or stiffnecked with indignation. For, of reason in like manner must we admit him for our Judge, which our Lord doth not disdain to be his Vicar.  
St. Cyprian saith, I beseech you my brethren, 
De laps. vide ep. 10 & 55. Quaest ●88. in reg. 〈◊〉. vide quaest. 229. & in ep. 3. can. ad Amphil. can. 78. St. Bedes holiness and great learing acknowledged by john Fox: as also his excellency in the knowledge of Scripture, and yet he never had the least scruple that worship of Jmages was Idolatry, or that any point of Popery was contrary to Scripture, himself having been a professed Popish Monk, and confessed by Protestants to be a great Saint.  every one to confess his sin whilst yet he that sinneth remaineth in this world, whilst his confession may be admitted, whilst every man's satisfaction and remission given by the Priests, is acceptable unto our Lord.  
St. Basil the great saith, It is judged necessary that sins be confessed unto those to whom is committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God: for so the very penitents of ancient times are found to have confessed their sins unto holy men. Sundry miracles wrought by God to confirm our Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of Confession every one may read in Joannes Climacus grad. 4. in S. Petrus Damian. in ep. ad Desiderium. In Petrus Cluniac. lib. 1. de Mirac. cap. 3.4.5. & 6. I will relate one or two out of S. Bede, of whom Fox (pag. 165.) says; As touching the holiness and integrity of his life it is not to be doubted: And saith of his learning (ibid.) so notable and famous was the learning of Bede, that the Church of Rome both stood in need of his help, and also required the same, about the discussing of certain controversies apperaining to learning. Moreover the whole Latin Church at that time, gave him the mastery in judgement and knoweldge of the holy Scriptures. And yet this holy Man who was such a Master in all learning, and Scripture, in his history of the Church of England, recounts Miracles either seen by himself, or so credibly reported that he (being of so sound a Judgement as Fox confesseth) believed and writ them for authentik, to confirm every point of our doctrine wherein we differ from Protestants. Let us hear one of Confession.  
In the time of Conrede (saith St. Bede. l. 5. c. 14. hist.) who reigned after King Edilrede, there was a certain Captain in great favour with the King, for his valour, but careless of his soul. Wherefore the King often admonished him to make humble confession of his sins, and amend his life, lest by deaths sudden prevention he might loose time of repentance; but he, notwithstanding this gentle admonition of his Souveraign, deferred his confession. In the mean time being visited with sickness, the King came to his Chamber (for he loved him tenderly) and exhorted him that at the least now he would confess before he died, No, quoth he, I will not be confessed now, but when I am well recovered I will, lest if I should now do it, my fellows would say that I did that for fear of death, which I did not in health. When the King came the next day to visit him, and give him good council, he cried out incontinent, with a pitiful and lamentable voice, saying: Alas, what mean you Sir, why come you hither? you are not able to do me any good. The King answered, say not so, see ye play the wise man's part. Nay, saith he I do not rave, but I have here before mine eyes a wicked conscience all wounded and mangled. And what is the matter, said the King; A little before you came, quoth he, two beautiful young men came in and sat down by me, one at my head, the other at my feet; and one of them took a fine book out of his bosom, but little in quantity, and gave it me to read: In the which when I looked a little while, I found all the good deeds that ever I had done fair written; and God knoweth they were few in number, and little in effect▪ when I had done, they took the book of me again, and said nothing. Then suddenly came there about me a whole legion of wicked spirits, and besieged the house round about, and sitting down, replenished every corner within. Then he that for his foul face and highest seat appeared to be greatest among them, taking, out a book terrible to all men's sight, unmeasurable for greatness and for weight importable, commanded one of his black guard to bring it to me to read. When I read a little I found all the enormous detestable sins that ever I had committed, not only in word and deed, but also in thought, written there in great black letters: and he said to the two fair young men that sat by me, why sit you here, knowing most certainly that this fellow is ours? They answered, True it is, take him and lead him away to the bottomless pit of damnation; and with that they vanished away. Immediately two wicked spirits having fier-pronges in their hands, rose up, and struck me one in the head and the other in the sole of my feet, the which now with great torment and anguish creep up into the bowels, and other internal parts of my body, and when they meet together I shall die, and be drawn hence by the Devils into Hell without redemption. Thus spoke that miserable man lying in extreme desperation, and so died out of hand. It is evident (saith St. Bede) he had not these visions for his own sake, whom they availed nothing at all, but for other men, who knowing his lamentable end might be afraid to differr, and prolong the time of Repentance, while they have opportunity and leisure.  
In the next Chapter (cap. 15. l. 5.) St. Bede tells of an other damned for differing his confession, thus. I myself (saith Bede) Knew a Religious man (whom would to God I had never known) placed in a good and famous Monastery; notwithstanding he himself, was infamous for his lewd behaviour, and loose life. I could tell his name also, if it were worth the telling. This man was earnestly rebuked of his brethren and Superiors of the Monastery, for his enormities, and exhorted to a better trade of life, but all in vain, etc. But as men are wont to say, He that will not come of his own accord within the Church-door, shall run against his will to hell gates, this man being now struck with a very faint disease, and brought to extremity, called all the Convent about him, and with much lamentation and deep sighs, like a man already damned, began to declare unto them, that he saw hell gates open, and the devil drowned in a deep dungeon thereof and Caiphas and the whole rabblement that put Christ to death, cast in flaming fire, hard by him: and next to them (O miserable and wretched man that I am, said he) I see a place of eternal perdition prepared for me, The brethren hearing these woeful words, exhorted him earnestly to repent and be sorry for his sins while he was yet alive.  
Then he (brought to extreme despair) answered, no, no: There is no, time for me to amend my former life, especially seeing I perceive my judgement is past, and fully completed already. With these words he died without receiving the Sacrament. His body was interred in the farmost part of all the Abbey; not one of all the whole Convent durst Say Mass for his soul, nor sing Psalms, nor once say, one Pater noster for him. This chanced of late in the Country of the Bernician●▪ (Northumberland) and was blazed all the Country over: So, that it stirred up many to make quick Confession of their sinful acts, and not to take days with God. Which God grant it may work also in such as shall read this present story. Hitherto St. Bede, who lived above nine hundred years ago.  
Thus much of ancient miracles in confirmation of Popery, some whereof were seen, others so undoubtedly believed by the greatest Saints and Doctors of God's Church, that they judged them worthy of being recorded in their writings, to the end posterity might, by giving them credit, take for divin the doctrine which they confirmed. We do not recur to the primitiye Fathers and times for miracles, out of any want of the like in our days, every where now some are so visible, that only foolish Atheism, or obstinacy can deny their supernaturality; we mention the ancient miracles and Fathers for two reasons. 1. To prove that our doctrine is the same, with theirs, and confirmed by the like miracles. 
The obstinacy of Protestants in rejecting and corrupting the ancient Fathers. A notable corruption and impudence of Calvin Calvin l. 2. Jnst. c. 3.  2. To convict our Adversaries of obstinacy by their denial, or contempt of the testimony of the holy Doctors and Catholic Church in such things as their spirit doth not fancy; and yet they do admit the same testimony as sufficient and Obligatory in such points of Christianity, as themselves think necessary or convenient for their own reformations, and interpretations of Scripture. It is ridiculous to see how Calvin (ex. gr.) presseth and wresteth the authority of St. Austin for some parts of his doctrine, and how he sleighteth the same when that holy Doctor speaks against it. To draw St. Austin to countenance the error against freewill: I will relate St. Austin (saith Calvin) in his own words, and then quoteth his words thus: Primam fuisse libertatem posse non peccare, nostram multo majorem non posse peccare. Whereas the St. Speaks in that pl●ce of our happiness in heaven where we shall not be able to sin, and prefers it before the liberty Adam had in Paradise of being able not to sin: his words are, Prima libertus voluntatis erat posse peccare, novissima erit multo major, 
S. Aug. l. de corr. & gratia ad valent. cap. 12. & l. 22. de Civit. Dei c. 30. S Aug. lib. de cura pro mortuis c. 2. & 4.  non posse peccare. Prima immortalitas etc. Here Calvin corrupts the words; instead of St. Augustine's Novissima, he puts in, nostra; then leaves out erit, with many other words which made clear St. Augustine's speech and meaning of the liberty we shall have in heaven; but Calvin makes him speak of our liberty here upon earth; and is so inconsiderate as to reprehend grievously the Master of the Sentences for following St. Augustine's sense according to the text. But when St. Augustine's authority is urged against him in favour of the Mass, prayer for the dead, and Purgatory, and particularly how careful he was to have Mass said for the soul of his Mother St. Monica, that desired him at her death, to remember her in his Sacrifice of the Altar, Calvin saith, it was but an old wives request which her son never examined according to the Scriptures, and after his own private affection would have the same approved by others.  
As Calvin Luther and all, the first Protestant Reformers contemn the Catholic Churches authority in matters of doctrine, when it is contrary to their new interpretations, and extravagant fancies of Scripture, so do they and their Successors in that of miracles; If any Miracles be recounted that confirm the mysteries which Protestants reject, though delivered by the same Author, and in the same book, they must needs be old wives tales, not duly examined etc. And yet the foolish and falls stories of such a frantic and crackt-braind fellow as john Fox was known to be, and his Acts and Monuments show him to have been, are credited by persons that have no other ground to believe his fables and follies but their education in Protestancy, and aversion to Popery: His lies and simple stories must pass for a true Ecclesiastical History, notwithstanding that they are contradicted by all the Histories of the world, and that many of his Martyrs were found, following their trades, after that he had described their torments, and deaths very particularly, and patheticaly: his miracles in confirmation of protestancy (and indeed his whole book) are so ridiculous, that I admire some Protestant zealots, if they would have the reformation be thought a Religion, do not suppress or reform the work. 
Fox his miracles how ridiculous.  He tells for a stupendious miracle, that a stone fell from a ruinous building upon Luther's stool, after he had been eased, or weary of sitting upon it. An other, that a multitude of Germane Clowns, debauched Clergy men, and libertins, embraced Luther's reformation, it being so indulgent to liberty, sensuality and vice; and that the Bishop of Rome, and other Catholic Prelates Censures did not stop the violent course and Torrent of their pervers inclinations. 
See Fox his Act. and Monum pag. 1843. 1844.  He makes dreams revelations, Merchants Expounders of the Apocalypse; and not to seem partial, how himself was made a fool by revelation.  
But in steed of suppressing or correcting Fox his foolish Acts and Monuments, the Protestant Clergy have reprinted that book divers times, 
He that believeth in me the works that I do, he shall do, and greater: joan. 14.12. In the marginal notes of the English Bible printed 1576. it is thereupon said, This is referred to the whole body of the Church, in whom this virtue doth shine for ever.  since his death, with new comments, chronologies, and great commendations of the work; every Parish Church is to have one, and few private families will endure the want of so great a spiritual treasure. And though the Bishops know it is not only a very absurd piece, but also the chief thing that makes, Puritanism, and Presbytery spread, and so popular in England, yet because it persuades the simple and vulgar sort, that Popery is idolatry, they countenance a book so prejudicial to themselves.  
Our Catholic miracles are of a different nature, and not related by such lying foolish fellows as Fox, but by the greatest Saints, and wisest men of God's Church; men so much esteemed for their virtue, learning, and judgement that Protestants themselves are ashamed to undervalue their testimony in matters of faith, and (a fortiori) ought to believe them in matters of fact, if they intent to believe any thing at all that is not mentioned particularly in Scripture: I say particularly, because Christ our Saviour assured us in general, (as our Adversaries confess) that miracles should continue in the Church forever, as signs of the true belief (Marc. 16. 20. joan. 14.12. 2. Cor. 12.12.     

The Conclusion.  
I have said as much as I think necessary for the information and instruction of such Protestants as desire to know the truth, and do not find my conscience guilty of any one falsification in this whole Treatise: And truly it were a great absurdity in me to commit wittingly that crime which I so much cry down in others. Such mistakes as have crept into the printed book, will I hope, he attributed to the Printer, or Transcriber: I am sure I have been so diligent in examining the quotations and assertions pro and con the Catholic cause, that want of care cannot be objected; and if there be no want of sufficiency in the work, that commendation is not due to me, but to the goodness and evidence of the cause I maintain. For, what acuteness of wit is requisite to defend a Religion that never was impugned but by persons so lewd, and unreasonable, that at the very first appearance of their opposition, they were condemned as heretics by the whole visible Church that then was? What profundity of judgement can be thought necessary to demonstrat that the ancient primitive letter and sense of Scripture ought to be preferred before the Devil's interpretation thereof embraced by Luther; or before any new Canon and fancies of the like debauched friars and Priests? What little learning is not more than sufficient to discover so palpable frauds and falsifications as the Protestant Writers practise, to make their Reformations seem agreeable, to God's word? What Erudition is so mean that doth not surpass the history of one age, or of Protestancy; a Religion so lately sprung up, and raised from the pride, ambition, liberty, and lewdness of the first reformers, and confined to the Northern parts of this least part of the world? How can such a Religion be Catholic either in length of time, extent of Territories, or Conversion of Nations?  
Jts true that for the space of 100 years England hath been so blind as not to see such gross errors; but this misfortune was occasioned by their fondness of Q. Elizabeth; to make good her title to the Crown they separated themselves from the communion of the Church; and when her interest vanished with her death, and for want of posterity, few were living after her long reign, that observed the motives of her reformation; most Englishmen believed the changes she made, had no relation to her illegitimacy, but proceeded from pure zeal of the Gospel. Her new Clergy both then, and eversince, have endeavoured to confirm the people in that persuasion, by falsifying Scripture, Counsels, and Fathers; but the discovery of the frauds, and the principles of Protestancy practised against the late innocent King, have opened the eyes of many to discern the flaws of the Reformation, and the fallacies of their own education; And now that it is as much the concern of the whole Nation to tolerat the Roman Catholic faith, as it was Q. Elizabeth's interest to change it into protestancy, I doubt not but that every particular persons ease in the addition of a revenue to the public, will excite both conscience and curiosity to examine, whether the prelatic Religion and Clergy of England, have not more of human invention, then of divin institution? And if after perusing this Treatise, and proposing the arguments and instances thereof to their learned Ministry, no satisfactory answer can be given to the particulars wherewith their doctrine and function is charged, to what purpose should men continue in mistakes so damnable to the soul, and dangerous to the state?  
But if the Protestant Clergy can divert the Laity from entertaining any thoughts of curiosity, or scruples of conscience in order to the examination of this matter of so great importance, and can make them believe that K. Henry 8. passion to Ann Bullen was a just cause to introduce the Reformation, and to assume the Supremacy; or that the Earl of hartford's ambition of being absolutely Protector of England, (quite contrary to K. Henry 8. Testament, and to his own Oath of not assuming any power above his Colleagues and Tutors of K. Edward 6.) was a divin inspiration to bring in Zuinglius his Sacramentarian Religion into the Realm; or that the Duke of Northumberlands poisoning the young King, and excluding the next and lawful heirs from the Crown, to confer it upon his own own son and the Lady jane Grey (pretending thereby to promote his new Zuinglian Gospel) was the work of the holy Ghost: Or that Q. Elizabeth's murder of the Q. of Scots, and her Parliaments Decrees and endeavours to prefer any natural issue of her body to this Empire, 
See Mr. Vdal in his book of the life and death of the Queen of Scots, dedicated so K. James.  before the legitimat and immediate Heirs, the Stevards (and thereby to continue her prelatic Protestancy) were things lawful according to the principles of Christianity, and Catholic faith; If the Protestant Clergy I say can persuade the laity, that all this was lawful, and agreeable to the doctrine which Christ and his Apostles did preach, either they have an abundance of wit, or they that believe them very little judgement.  
A great wit maintained that they may as well make Mahomet's Alcoran a plausible Religion in England, and gain thereby as great revenues as they do by their Reformation, and Protestant Scripture, whereof neither the Canon, letter, or sense is that which God delivered to his Church, as heretofore hath been proved. I do not speak in raillery (said the gentlemen) but seriously, 
Part. 2. A discourse with Mr Dan. Oneal● in Flanders.  when I say that men who believe the Protestant Religion to be true, may be induced by the same persons and the like reasons, to believe that Mahometism is the true Religion. This hath also been solidly proved by Doctor Reynolds in his Calvino-Turcismus: and by others also when they demonstrat that Calvinism and Turcism agree in the principal points; and every one knows that the doctrine of the 39 articles, of the Church of England, is the quintessence of calvin's doctrine, and was by him applauded, though he said that (as to Point of discipline) there were many tolerable fooleries in in that Church and Lyturgy. But let us pursue the Gentleman's parallel of Mahomet and his doctrine, 
A parallel between Mahometism and Protestancy.  with our English Reformers and their doctrine, and we shall plainly see, that there is as much reason to believe Mahometism, as prelatic Protestancy; and that both these Religious were planted, and propagated by the same means; nay that it is more to be admired how our Countrymen became Protestants, than the Arabians, or Armenians became Turcks. When Mahomet began to preach his doctrine in the East, 
See heretofore part. 2. sec. 10. & 11.  Christianity (there) was so discredited, (by being divided into sects, and into so many heresies of Arians, Manichees, Nestorians &c.) that men were disposed (by that diversity of opinions) to follow any new Religion; especially that of Mahomet, because he borrowed something from every Sect; and as the 39 Articles of the Church of England agree in some fundamental points with Catholics, and also with heretics, so Mahomet agreeth in the worship of one God with jews and Christians; and in the doctrine and worship of Christ, he comes at ●eer to Christianity as most Arians, and Nestorians, or the Antitrinitarian Protestant's of Hungary, Poland etc. nay as Bp. Morton, and some other Prelaticks. But when Luther in Germany, and Cranmer in England began Protestancy, 
S. john Damascen de haeres. saith that Mahomet granted Christ as the word of God and his son, but withal a Creature, and confessed that he was conceived of the Virgin Mary by virtue of the holy Ghost.  all the west and Latin Church agreed in the Roman Catholic faith; no other Religion was regarded; and the ●emnants of Wickleff and Hus, were hissed out of the world, at least were nothing so considerable any where, as the above mentioned heresies had been in the East, when Mahomet began there to preach his Alcoran. So that if heresy, or apostasy can have any excuse, Mahometism in its beginning was more excusable than Protestancy, by reason of the more considerable divisions that then were among Christians in matters of doctrine, then when Luther began his Reformation.  
Now let us come to particular reflections upon both. Mahomet retained some parts of Scripture as well as Protestants; and had as good grounds to reject what he did not fancy of the letter and sense thereof, as Protestants have to be choosers of their own Canon, and interpretation. Mahomet gives as many rules of Morality as Protestants; and though he allows of many wives, Protestants do the same; with this only difference; that Mahomet says 'tis lawful to keep many at once; Protestants say you must keep but one at a time, and that you cannot have the variety of wives men so much desire, 
See heretofore part. ●. sec. 2.  without the formality of a divorce; how little is requisite for the validity and legality of Protestant divorces, we have proved heretofore by the authority and principles of the first Reformers, and the daily practices of their Successors. In all other things Mahomet's sect is more austere, in fasting, praying, abstaining from wine etc. then Protestancy. And because both agree in the incoherency, and absurdity of their principles, both also agree in planting, propagating, and defending their doctrine not by miracles, or rational arguments, but by force, and sanguinary statutes. And this is the reason why Catholics are as little permitted to dispute, or reason for the Roman Religion in these Kingdoms, as Christians in Turkey; and Priests are as much perseeuted for writing books of Controversies, as Printers and Stationers and severely punished. Thus much as to the parallel of both doctrines.  
But If we compare their persons, or virtues, we shall find that Mahomet was an honester man, and deserved more credit than Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, or any of the first Protestant Reformers. He never was baptised, at least never professed any Religion, until he composed his own, with the help of an Arian Monk; but all the first Reformers had first professed the Catholic faith, which afterwards they renounced, pretending that God had forsaken his Church for many ages; and presumed to say that he had authorised and inspired them to reform (without showing any warrant) that doctrine unto which their betters in learning, virtue, and judgement actualy submitted, as unto the true Catholic, and themselves also had embraced as such, until their pride and lust prevailed against their conscience. Mahomet married a Widow, and had made no vows not to marry; the first Reformers married Nuns, and themselves also were votaries, Calvin only excepted; but his incontinency was no less scandalous, and notorious, then theirs; having lived in adultery with a Gentlewoman of Mongis, that left her husband at Lansan●● to enjoy calvin's Company at Geneva: who attempted also to commit the like sin with the Lady ●ollande of Bredrode, wise to a sickly Nobleman called james Borgongue Lord of Fallaise; in so much as she persuaded her husband to leave Geneva, and go to Lansan●●, where she revealed the whole matter. Mahomet 'tis true was a Cheat, but a mere cunning cheat then Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer, etc. for by his Dove, or fits of the falling sickness he made people believe that the holy Ghost appeared and inspired to him the Alcoran; but the Protestant Reformers had not so much to show for their new doctrine, Canon, Translations, and their new sense of Scripture. Mahomet was constant to his principles; the Protestant Parliament and Reformers were as changeable as the times, and humours of the giddy people; and therefore may with more reason than the Turks give the Moon crescent for the Crest of their Religions, as Catholics do the Cross. Here in England they changed with Henry 8. the Roman faith for Articles of Religion devised by the King's Majesty. As soon as he died they changed that faith into Zuinglianism, to comply with the Protector Somerset; within two or three years after they changed Zuinglianism into Calvinianism, at the suit of Calvin, and reform the Liturgy accordingly. After K. Edward 6. death they returned with Q. Mary to the old faith. With Q. Elizabeth they restored the new, but with some alterations. When K. James succeeded they changed their Translations of Scripture and other things. In K. Charles 1. time, prelatic Protestancy was pulled down by Presbytery, this by Independency etc. Prelatic Protestancy being restored again by K. Charles 2. the forms of Ordination (wherupon depend the validity of the prelatic Ministry, Church, and Sacraments) were not thought sufficient, and therefore are now changed into more Catholic forms; and thereby all is left doubtful, and changeable; for if the Church of England acknowledgeth to have erred in a thing of so great importance, what assurance can it have of not erring in all the rest? In a word, Protestants in this one Kingdom, and in this one age, have made mo●● changes of Religions, than Mahometans in the ten ages they have continued, and in the greatest part of the world which they have conquered.  
These things maturely considered, makes Mahometism, as probable a Religion as the best kind of Protestancy, and therefore it would be no great wonder, if they who believe the Protestant and Prelatic Clergy, and take their word and fancies for true Scripture and Christianity, should alter their belief upon the change of that Clergys' testimony; acknowledging that hitherto they had been mistaken, (which they may confess at any time because their Church is acknowledged fallible) and that now they find the Turks have the true faith, for that they reject all such books of Scripture, as any Christians ever doubted of (and that as lawfully as the pretended apocryphas, are rejected by Protestants upon the same ground) and likewise believe all Protestant fundamental points necessary for salvation, 
See Heretofore part. 2. sec. 11.  seeing they believe of Christ as much as Arians, Socinians, and Chillingworth with his Sect of wits; nay as much as the moderate and modern Prelatic writers, who say, that it is sufficient to believe Christ is the word and son of God, which Mahomet never denied. If any Mahometan Prince could pretend a title to this British Monarchy, (with probability of prevailing) why may not we think he would find the Protestant Clergy as ready to comply with his Religion, (thereby to secure their own, and promote his interest) as they were ready to change the Catholic and legal Religion, which was professed in Q. Mary's time, for complying with Q. Elizabeth, and fortifying her weak title against the legitimat and undoubted Heirs? All things weighed, there is less difference between Mahumetism and prelatic Protestancy, then between prelatic Protestancy and Popery; for that Popery and Protestancy agree only in the name of Christianity, in the motive and manner of faith, they differ, and in the ground thereof, as also in the Canon, letter, and Sense of Scripture; but Mahumetism and Protestancy though they agree not in the letter of Scripture, (Protestant's admitting into their Canon more books thereof then the Turks) yet they both agree in the rule of Religion, (though not in the application,) as also in the rule whereby their Canon and sense of Scripture is discerned, which is, every man's private judgement in controverted matters; in that point which is not controverted, (to wit, one Deity) the consent and concurrence of the generality of the world, or evident reason, is the foundation as well of Mahumetism as of protestancy; as also in the point of the immortality of the soul. Therefore I see no impossibility or improbability (said this great wit) why Mahumetism may not in time be made the Religion of these Nations, without violating the principles, or altering the grounds of Protestancy, and the prelatic Clergy be as much applauded, 
See heretofore part 2. sec. 10. how the most learned Protestants of the world became Turcks and jews sticking to the principles of Protestancy.  and rewarded for the one change as for the other: The greatest obstacle is, that no Mahometan Prince can pretend a title (even such as Q. Elizabeth's was) to the Crown.  
God almighty deliver us from so great evils, and open the eyes of them that do not see the precipices whereunto their souls are led by such principles; and grant the learned prelatic Clergy grace to prefer truth before falsehood, conscience before conveniency, and eternity before the few days which they are to enjoy Benefices, and Bishoprics. But in case they do not (for fear of losing their credit and conveniences) recant their errors. I hope the Protestant Laity will have so much curiosity as to examine whether it be possible that so many Catholic Authors as have written books of Controversies, should damn and discredit themselves, by forging and feigning Protestant frauds and falsifications, quoting the very places and pages where they are to be found; affirming that without such practices, protestancy cannot be maintained; to examine I say whether we Catholics can be so wicked and witless, as to accuse men of such grievous crimes without hopes of any honour, or profit to ourselves, but rather with a certainty of an immediate discovery of our impostures.  
If this one thing be maturely considered, the Protestant Laity and their unlearned Clergy that rely so much upon the sufficiency and sincerity of Cranmer, Jewel, Fox, Morton, Andrews, Whitaker, Fulk, Perkins, Usher, Laud, Abbots, Chillingworth, Bramhall, Cousins, Hamond, Taylor, etc. will believe us, or at least examine, and certainly find most palpable unexcusable corruptions and contradictions in every one of their own Authors books composed against the Roman doctrine, and conclude with us, that Piety and Policy is mistaken in promoting Protestancy, and persecuting Popery, and that a good revenue, may be conscientiously settled (if legaly demanded) upon the Crown; and upon the poor soldiers, and seamen that defend these nations against foreign invasions, and rebellious insurrections: Seing the Pope and his Roman Catholic Clergy, in all likelihood, will be content to resign their right and interest in the Church revenues to his Majesty, as they did in the like occasion to Q. Marry, who notwithstanding the tenderness of her conscience, was satisfied there could be no scruple of Sacrilege in applying (with consent of the true owners) ecclesiastical livings to pious and public uses.  
And now I hope I may conclude this Treatise with humbly desiring a Conference or examination of Protestant and Catholic books, at least of one for each side; let the quotations of Doctor Tailors Dissuasive be viewed, and that book or any other writ against the Roman Religion, stand for the Protestants sincerity, 'tis like he writ nothing carelessly, or rashly, his declared drift being to make a whole Nation Protestants, and professing himself to be only Amanuensis to a prelatic Convocation of reformed Bishops, which in his Preface he compares with that Assembly of the Apostles wherein choice was made of judas his Successor, and says the lot of St. Mathias fell upon himself, and that some other like himself was Barnabas the just. If this holy Convocation of Protestant Apostles should set forth a Book that hath more lies than leaves, I hope men may advise their friends to consider whether a Religion that cannot be maintained but by such men and means, and a Clergy that practiseth such frauds and falsifications, aught to be preferred before a Religion and Clergy that not only professeth (as all others do) to write truth, but presseth to come to a public trial thereof in a ●egall way; and rather than fail herein, are content, that the controversy be decided by them, that are known to be most zealously devoted to Protestancy. I do not instance Bp. Tailors Dissuasive from Popery for the Trial, as if his falsifications to maintain Protestancy were more numerous, or more enormous than those of other writers that have defended the same cause. No. He is more wa●y than many, and more moderate than most of his predecessors, or equals. But I instance his book to give my adversaries all the advantages that the learning of the Author and the Authority of a Convocation can afford. If they have a better opinion of the sufficiency of Bishop Jevell, then of Bp. Taylor, they may fix rather upon his Apology for the Church of England, then upon Doctor Tailors Dissuasive from Popery, authorized by the Church of Ireland. To Jevells Apology we oppose Harding, Stapleton, and Rastalls Answers; To Tailor's Dissuasive, Worsley, Lengar, and Sergeants Annotations. But if they refuse this offer, as pointing but at two particular Doctors of their Church, let them be pleased to have the truth of their Reformation, and the sincerity of their whole Clergy examined by answering to the frauds and falsifications wherewith I charge their whole Church, and calling, in this book.   
FINIS.   

The Sum of this Treatise Containing the Substance of every Section.  

THE FIRST PART. Containing the Matter of Fact of the Beginning, Progress, Principles, and effects of Protestancy.  

SECTION I.  
HOw necessary a rational religion is for a peaceable government, and wherein doth the reasonableness of Religion consist. How dangerous for a temporal Sovereign to pretend a spiritual supremacy over his subjects. Heathen Princes durst not assume it without a persuasion in their subjects that it was due by descent from some Deity, or that the Gods signified their approbation thereof by prodigies and miracles. The great Turk, notwithstanding his tyranny, thinks it not policy to pretend a spiritual jurisdiction over his subjects, though slaves. The ground of policy piety and peace consists in establishing by law a Religion confirmed by miracles: that such a Religion will make the Prince powerful and popular, the Prelates respected, the people willing to obey and pay taxes. It takes away all pretexts of rebellion upon the score of a tenderness of conscience. How necessary it is for the Government to have a devout Clergy, and that Clergy at the Sovereign's devotion, and Some of them employed in State affairs. Thereby all disputes between the spiritual and temporal jurisdictions are prevented. With how much reason Statesmen dread such disputes. For the space of 1500. years the Catholic world believed that the Bishop of Rome had the supreme spiritual jurisdiction over souls, as being Christ's Vicar upon earth: and that only such as were of his Communion, and under his obedience, were members of the Catholic Church: and therefore the Greeks for exempting the Bishop of Constantinople and themselves from that obedience, were declared Schismatics: others were condemned as Heretics for teaching and professing doctrine contrary to the Roman. Both the doctrine and authority of the Roman Bishops and Clergy, hath been confirmed by undeniable true miracles, even here in England. It was held to be the only Catholic doctrine in St. Gregory the great his time. That faith which we Roman Catholics now profess is the same (in every particular) with that of St. Gregory, and of all Orthodox Christians of his time, and for confirmation whereof true miracles have been wrought.   

SECT: II.  
OF the Author and beginning of Protestancy. The first Preacher thereof was Martin Luther an Augustin Friar; who from his youth had been lianted by the Devil, and presumed to have been possessed. He resolved to preach and write against the Mass, praying to Saints, and other Catholic Tenets, after that the Devil had appeared to him, and convinced him by Protestant arguments. How weakly the Protestant writers endeavour to excuse Luther's disputation, instruction and familiarity with the Devil. Others acknowledge it and maintain that the Devil's doctrine ought to be believed when it agrees with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture, that is, with every private interpretation contrary to the sense of the whole visible Church. How much it is against piety and policy to make the Protestant, or any other private interpretation of Scripture, the Religion of the State, or to prefer it before that of the Church, and of the holy ancient Fathers, quoted subsect. 1. & passim.   

SECT: III.  
OF the principles ad propagation of Protestancy. How Luther begun his reformation by gaining Poets, Players, Painters, and Printers, to discredit by their Poems, Pamphlets, pictures and ballads, the Roman Catholic Religion, and its Clergy. How he drew also many dissolute Friars and Priests to his side, and married nine of them to so many Nuns in one day, taking also one to himself. How he made his reformation plausible to Libertins by teaching that only Faith was necessary for Salvation, without troubling themselves with good works: and popular, by preaching that no Christian ought to be subject to an other, and how thereupon the Clowns, and Tenants of Germany rebelled against their Princes and Landlords. The three fundamental principles of Protestancy are. 1. That for many ages the whole visible Church had been in damnable errors, and so continued until Luther's reformation. 2. That there is no rule of faith but Scripture as Protestants are pleased to interpret it. 3. That men are justified by only faith. How from these principles have issued innumerable Protestant Religions contrary one to the other. Luther did see his own reformation divided into 130. disagreeing sects of Protestants. None could ever prove there was one true miracle wrought to confirm the Protestants doctrine, or their pretended authority for reforming the Tenets of the Roman Catholic Church; Protestants are forced to say that miracles are ceased, and that ours are Diabolical or counterfeit. Because no true Bishops were Protestants, and by consequence they could have no Priests ordained, and so their Priesthood must have perished after the death of the first Apostatas Luther and others, the Protestant reformers and Churches taught, that all Christians are Priests both men and women: and this doctrine is supposed to be true by the Church of England in their 39 articles, and in the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1.   

SECT: IU.  
OF the Protestant Prelatic Church of England. The occasion of K. Henry the 8. divorce from Q. Catharin, and of his revolt from the Church of Rome, was his passion to An Bullen: the words of S. john Baptist to Herod, concerning his brother's wife, absurdly applied to K. Henrys marriage, with his Brother's widow. How zealously he had formerly maintained the Pope's supremacy: how cruelly he afterwards persecuted the professors thereof; and how impiously he judged S. Thomas of Canterbury, robbed his shrine, and burned his Relics. The Catholic Princes rejected his embasies and solicitations for imitating his example in assuming the supremacy. And how much the protestant Princes were troubled and ashamed that he made his lust the motive of his reformation. How incredible a thing is the English supremacy. K. Henry 8. at length resolved to renounce it, and return to the duty of a Christian King, but stood upon such terms, and differrd it so long that he died in Schism, excommunicated, and despairing of God's mercy. His last will and testament was broken before his body was buried. The Earl of Hartford made himself Protector, and brought into England the Sacramenrian or the Zuinglian heresy, against K. Henrys last will, and the laws of the land then in force without a Parliament and contrary to the votes of the Earls of Arundel and Southampton, and others of the 16. trusties named Governors by K. Henry 8. during the minority of Edw. 6.  

SUBSECT: I.  
HOw Seamor was directed and destroyed by Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. The said Dudley (notwithstanding he was a Catholic in his judgement as himself confessed at his death) concurred to establish protestancy in England, designing thereby to unsettle the state, and make way for excluding the right heirs of the Crown; and crown his own family, which he effected by excluding Q. Mary (for being a Catholic) and by marrying his Son to the Lady Jane Grey, who had no other right to the Kingdom but what her Zeal to the Protestant Religion and Clergy gave her. What wicked men and great cheats were Cranmer and his Comrades that composed the 39 articles of the Protestant Religion of the Church of England, and the common prayer book, that of Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies, and how the common people were made believe the change was not of Religion but of language    

SECT: V.  
OF the 39 Articles of the Church of England; they contain only some general notions of Christianity, and are applicable to all dissenting Sects of Protestancy, as Presbytery, Zuinglianism etc. The design of the composers having been rather to give men a liberty of not believing the particulars of Christian Religion, then of tying them to any certain points thereof, or to any faith, therefore they declare that the visible Church is fallible, and determine no certain canonical Scripture of the new Testament. They make the doctrine that Luther learned of the Devil against the Mass, Tradition, and praying to Saints etc. part of their Creed: as also the Tenet against spiritual Characters of Episcopacy and Priesthood (art. 25.) rejecting imposition of hands as not instituted by Christ. In the 2. last Articles they endeavour (in vain) to suppress the errors of Anabaptists; especially that of appropriating to themselves other men's goods: in vain I say, because in their former articles they declare its lawful for Protestants to dispossess the Roman Catholic Clergy of their goods and dignities, by virtue of a private interpretation of Scripture; and the Anabaptists pretend no more but that its lawful for themselves to deal after the same manner with Prelaticks: and 'tis certain there can be no disparity given. So that the two last articles of the 39 as also that of the authority of the Protestant Clergy, are against an evident parity of reason in their own Protestant Principles.   

SECT: VI.  
A Particular account of the revolutions which these 39 articles caused in England: and how they may work always the same effects, if there be such politic and popular heads amongst us, as Dudley, Crumwell and many of the last long Parliament. Q. Mary's Reign how much endangered by Protestant designs and rebellions. Duke Dudleys' speech at his death. The Roman Catholic Religion restored by Act of Parliament, and the Protestant decreed to be Heresy and Schism, as also the force and frauds of K. Henry 8. divorce discovered, and his marriage with Q. Catharin of Spain, declared valid. The Roman Clergys' resignation of the Church revenues to the Crown and present possessors. Q. Elizabeth's intrusion against the right of the Stewards effected by the zeal of the Protestant faction for suppressing of Popery.   

SECT: VII.  
NOtwithstanding that Q. Elizabeth was declared illegitimat by 3. Acts of several Parliaments never yet repealed, she possessed herself of the crown, and excluded the Queen of Scots the lawful and immediate heir to Q. Marry lately deceased. By the advice of Cecil and others she revived Protestancy, and the Supremacy, thereby to excuse her illegitimacy. She instituted a new Kind of Clergy; the Prelatic Protestant Bishops neither had, nor have any other character of Episcopacy, but what the great seal, and her temporal laws give them. Any Lay person may consecrat a Bishop of the Church of England, if he hath the King's commission to do it, all other things being superfluous, according to the Act. 8. Eliz. 1. and 25. article of the 39 How the Oath of supremacy divided Protestants, and made the Catholics more constant. The simplicity of some Protestant writers pretending that the Pope offered to confirm the English liturgy if Q. Elizabeth would acknowledge his jurisdiction.   

SECT: VIII.  
Reason's why Q. Elizabeth in her long reign could not settle her Protestant Religion, nor gain credit for the Prelatic Clergy: Neither is it possible for her Successors to make the generality of her subjects to have any esteem for either.   

SECT: IX.  
HOw injurious and prejudicial the Protestant Religion hath been to the Royal family of the Stevards: and how zealous they have been, and still are, in promoting the same. It preferred not only Q. Elizabeth, but also any natural child of hers, before the line of the Stewards. Whereof see the 8. sect. ●in: How dexterously K. James played his game; and how they who murdered his mother, were forced to invite him to the Crown of England. Of his design to reform the principles and liberty of Protestancy, intending thereby to render it less dangerous to lawful Sovereigns, and Monarchy. How K. Charles 1. pursued his Father's design; but his sufferings and death demonstrat the impossibility of confining the Protestant liberty within the rules of Government, or reason. By the fundamental principles of Protestancy, every particular person is a Supreme judge in spiritual affairs; and may more easily apply and abuse that prerogative to the prejudice of his Sovereign, than the Pope can his papal Supremacy. Therefore it's a great providence of God when any Protestant King of England escapes to be judged and deposed by his Subjects.    

THE SECOND PART.  
OF the unreasonableness of Protestancy and of the inconsistency of the principles of Protestancy with Christian piety and peaceable government.  

SECT: I.  
THe unreasonableness and inconsistency of Protestancy with Christian piety, or policy, proved by the very fundamental principle of all Protestant reformations; which principle is a supposition of the fallibility and fall of the visible Catholic Church, from the pure and primitive doctrine of Christ, to damnable errors, and notorious superstition. Such a change is demonstrated both incredible and impossible.   

SECT: II.  
THe Protestants proof of such a change is their pretended cleverness of Scripture. It is demonstrated that their Sense of Scripture is not clear in any texts controverted between Catholics and Protestants. That the principles of Protestancy incline to vice, the Catholic principles to virtue: proved in many particulars. The invisibility of the Church, a ridiculous comment.   

SECT: III.  
THe Protestant letter and Sense of Scripture is not the word of God. Doctor Cousin's his Scholastical History of the English Canon of Scripture, confuted; as also his exceptions against the authority of the Roman Catholic Canon. The Lutheran Churches of Germany agree not with the English Canon of Scripture.  

SUBSECT: I.  
DOctor Cousin's (now Bp. of Duresme) his exceptions against the Council of Trent, answered. The legality of a Council as well as of a Parliament may stand with the absence of many members, if they were summoned and expected. The absurdity of Protestant writers excepting against the want of Bishops in the Council of Trent, whereas themselves made new Religions and reformations by a Single voice of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin etc. and in England by the vote of the major part of twelve persons named by the Parliament to determine matters of faith and Sacraments; seven men were thought sufficient to do the work, and cast the Roman Catholic Religion. Protestant Bishops can no more pretend to sit and define in a general Council, then proclaimed rebels can pretend to vote in a lawful Parliament. It's as reasonable the Bishop and Church of Rome should condemn heretics, and judge all controversies of faith as it is that a King and Parliament condemn rebels and judge suits in law. A new definition of Pope or Council is no new article of faith; it is only a declaration of our obligation to believe that which formerly had been revealed but not sufficiently proposed. Doctor Cousin's his egregious falsification of Belarmin, his wresting words of St. Austin and St. Hierom.    

SECT: IU.  
THe Protestant translations of Scripture are fraudulent and falls: no certainty of Christian faith can be built upon them: Protestants admit no Copy or translation to be authentic, to the end they may be at liberty to reject what they do not fancy of the letter of Scripture as well as of the sense. The vulgar Latin is authentic Scripture. How corrupt are all English Bibles. How in K. Edward 6. his reign Cranmer, and the first Apostles of English Protestancy, changed the very text of Christ's words (This is my body) three several times. Protestants make the Apostles fallible in doctrine, even after receiving the holy Ghost, and by consequence must hold their writings or Scripture to be fallible.  

SUBSECT: I.  
MAny particular instances of Protestant corruptions in the English Bibles, to asert the Protestant and prelatic doctrine of the Church of England, Against images, Against Ordination by imposition of hands, Against the single life of Priests, Against the Sacrifice of Mass, Against vows of chastity. To favour the King's Supremacy, How fond these corruptions are excused by Whitaker, and how absurdly Scripture is made speak according to the Protestant translations. What small hopes there are that a Clergy which corrupts Scripture, or continueth and countenanceth corruptions of Scripture, will repent or recant their errors, and how little reason the Protestant laity hath to rely upon their Clergys' sincerity, or upon their English Scripture.    

SECT: V.  
THe Protestant interpretation is not the true Sense of Scripture. The principal part of God's word, is the sense he delivered to the Church, together with the letter. It's against reason to believe that the Church would be more careful of preserving the letter, then of preserving the sense of Scripture; and therefore Protestants are unexcusable for taking the letter from the Roman Church, and rejecting the sense. The holy Fathers bid us receive the Sense of Scripture as well as the letter, from the Church. An infallible mark of heresy to do the contrary. It is at least 16. to one, that the Roman Catholic Sense of Scripture is true, and the Protestant falls.   

SECT: VI.  
NO Protestant Church hath a true Ministry, Miracles, Succession of doctrine, or Sanctity of life. Their extraordinary vocation is ridiculous and incredible, it being impossible that God should send Ministers to contradict doctrine confirmed with so many signs of his own authority and approbation, as the Roman Catholic is. God never sent such vicious men as the Protestant reformers were, to reform his Church either in the old or new Testament. If the Protestant doctrine had been true, God would have wrought miracles to confirm it, for the conversion of the seduced Papists, as Protestants confess he doth for the conversion of the Jndians, japonians, and China. What wicked men were Luther, Zuinglius Calvin, Beza, Cranmer, and the rest of his Comrades that framed the Religion and Liturgy of the Church of England; and how little credit in matters of faith deserves the Parliament that confirmed the same. Calvin's miracle at Geneva foretold by Tertullian.   

SECT: VII.  
THe conversion of pagan Kings and Kingdoms to Christianity foretold in Scripture, is a more clear sign of the true Church than any other miracles; and not to be found in any other Church but in the Roman Catholic, acknowledged by learned protestants. Of Barlows threescore invisible Queens converted by protestants. No greater an absurdity than their invisible Church. The vain endeavours of Calvin and other protestants to convert Heathen nations. Bezas' despair of Success in that Ministry, and his advice to protestants to leave that labour to the Jesuits, and rather busy themselves at home. Tertullia's saying (that its a sign of heretics to pervert Christians, not convert pagans,) may be properly applied to Protestants. Their success in propagating their new Gospel no greater miracle than the propagation of Mahomet's Religion.   

SECT: VIII.  
OF the Protestant justifying faith how absurd and inconsistent with Christian virtues: how dangerous to Princes and all civil government: Cromwell was directed by it, and it may raise many Cromwell's. It's as dangerous an opinion as Atheism; and therefore cried down by K. James in the Conference at Hampton Court: yet can it not be disowned by the Church of England without disowning Protestancy, and the Prelatic Religion. How much the best Protestant Princes and their Ministers are forced to suffer by this justifying faith of their subjects: what great errors in policy they much condescend unto: Proved by the settlement of Ireland. The late Earl of strafford's project and policy to make Roman Catholics considerable in Irland. Protestant Monarchy is more supported by Irish Popery, then by Scotch or English presbytery. How fallacious, and dangerous a thing it is they call the English Protestant interest, in Irland. In all parts of the world where Protestancy is professed, their own Authors confess that vice and villainy must reign; and there most, where their justifying faith is purest. The Roman Indulgences and jubilees give no such liberty or indemnity as the justifying Protestant faith. We Roman Catholics ought to praise, and thank our Sovereign and his Ministers for not feeling worse effects of this justifying faith, and of Protestancy. To use us with Christian moderation they strive against the principles of their own Religion.   

SECT: IX.  
THat the rule of the Protestant faith and judge of controversies (which is Scripture as interpreted by every Protestant) is not consistent with Christian Faith, humility, Charity, peace either in Church or State. All heretics appeal to the letter of Scripture, therefore Luther called it the book of heretics. Every particular person (according to the fundamental principle of Protestancy) must be a Supreme judge of Scripture, Counsels, and Fathers and of the whole Church. How ridiculous it is to see shallow wits, and silly women, explain Scripture, condemn Counsels, Fathers, and the whole Catholic Church; which folly proceeds from want of judgement, humility, charity, and Christian faith: It occasioned our late troubles, and rebellion, which was grounded upon the Principles of Protestancy. A Protestant people cannot be otherwise governed then a people whereof every one by privilege or birthright, may appeal from the law interpreted by public Courts of Judicature, to the law interpreted by every private person. The Protestants imaginary general Counsels, and their appeals thereunto, discovered to be a cheat to divert and delay any determination of religious controversies. Every Protestant is a Pope, more absolute and dangerous, than the Bishop of Rome. K. James his saying that every Protestant in the house of Commons was a King by his Religion. How little the oath of Supremacy contributes to the King's Sovereignty, or Security, or to the subjects loyalty. The Protestant rule of faith is but every ones fancy applied to the words of Scripture. And therefore they often change according to their weakness of judgement or strength of passion. Auditius his expression of their monthly faith; and Melanctons' saying (both Protestants) that they knew whom to avoid, but knew not whom to follow, are ingenuous. The Protestant confessions, and articles of faith composed, and professed by every national Church, oblige not the members of those Churches, because the Collectors and composers of such articles are not infallible, and will be thought not to agree with Scripture, at least as every particular person will explain it. The 39 Articles of the Church of England are so ambiguous, that they may be applied to all dissenting Tenets of Protestants, both at home and abroad; and therefore are printed and pressed in England to satisfy disagreeing parties: and yet no party is contented with that indifferent symbol, though each party callenges them in some occasions, as favouring their own opinions, nor any thing more contrary to piety and policy than articles so applicable to contrary Tenets, and interests. An arbitrary Religion is more dangerous and prejudicial to a state, than an arbitrary government. How unfit the 39 articles and the Oath of Supremacy are to be made the distinctive sign of trust and loyalty to the King. A man is more engaged to stick to the King by a red scarf, or a garniture of ribbons of the King's colours, then by an oath of so incredible a thing as the Supremacy; and so unsignificant articles as those of the 39 that contradict the Roman Catholic doctrine. That Religion that hath not a more certain or infallible rule of faith then the Protestant Prelatic of England hath, is not fit to be made the distinctive sign of trust, or loyalty, or the Religion of the state.   

SECT: X.  
HOw fundamental principles of the Protestant reformations maturely examined, and strictly followed, have led the most learned Protestants of the world, to Judaisme, Atheism, Arianism, Mahometism etc. And the protestant Churches of Poland, Hungary and Transilvania, to deny the mystery of the Trinity; and our best modern English wits and writers, to admit of no other rule of Religion▪ but natural reason. Instanced in Castalio, Bucer, David George, Bernardin Ochin, Neuserus, Calvin, Alemanus, Socinus, Chillingworth, Stilling fleet, Faukland etc. How prelatic Protestancy is contemned by the best protestant wits, and writers as being incoherent to the principles of protestancy, and contradictory in its own Tenets. How Presbiterians agree with the Anti-trinitarians in their way of reforming. A Prelatic is a Presbiterian against Papists, and a Papist against Presbyterians. His own Religion includes both their Tenets, though contradictory: he hath but one Tenet whereunto he is constant, and that is Episcopacy de jure divino. Calvinists are said by Lutherans to be baptised Jews, and that Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinism, are 3. pair of hose of one cloth. All protestant reformations are remnants of the same piece, though with different trim according to the diversity of their reformers fancies. Why our English protestants deny not the Trinity, as well as those of Hungary: without violating the principles of protestancy they may do it. Articles of Christian Religion against conclusions clearly deducible from the principles of protestancy are not valued by protestants. It is the case of the Church of England.   

SECT: XI.  
THe indifferency, or rather inclination of Protestancy to all kind of infidelity, is further demonstrated by the prelatic and Calvinian doctrine of fundamental and no● fundamental articles of faith. The design of this new distinction manifested and frustrated. The design is to make all Christians (though declared heretics) that dissent from Roman Catholics, one Church, and of the Protestant communion. The Greeks and others, reject Protestants as heretics. By their doctrine of fundamentals Turks and jews may be of one Church and communion with Christians. Protestants proceed in matters of Religion as weak Statesmen do in state affairs. For their separation from the Roman Catholic Church they cannot be excused from a damnable sin and schism. Their writer's charity towards Catholics is but forced and feigned. Whatsoever is required that a Church be truly Catholic, is visible in the Roman. It may judge and censure all other dissenting congregations, without note of partiality, or illegality. Protestants have no credible nor legal witnesses to testify that their doctrine is the same which Christ and his Apostles taught: Roman Catholics have. If all sects of Christians were admitted to general Counsels, and therein Judges of themselves, and of their faith, greater illegality it would be; and greater partiality, than that only Roman Catholics be Judges of their cause. Since the Apostles time, one part of the Christians judged the other; and the part that judged the other, was that which obeyed and stuck to the Bishops of Rome as St. Peter's Successors; proved in every age until this present.   

SECT: XII.  
HOw Gods veracity is denied by Protestancy; as also by the prelatic doctrine of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith. The belief of God's veracity consists not in acknowledging that whatsoever God said, is true: (never any heretic denied that, and all heretics deny God's veracity) but consists in believing that God will not colour nor countenance falsehood with supernatural and evident signs of truth. Protestants give less credit and obedience to God's Ministers and Orders declared by the Church though qualified with undeniable signs of God's truth▪ then they do to a Constable, Catchpol, or any other the meanest officers of a Court or Commonwealth; though their warrants or badges may be more easily counterfeited, than the miracles or signs of the Roman Catholic Church. They will not believe God speaks or commands by the Roman Catholic Church, though it hath the supernatural signs of his trust, and showeth his great seal Miracles; but they believe that the King speaks and commands by any Minister of state, or inferior Magistrate. No Ministers of judicature or officers of war, have so authentic marks of the King's authority to command the subjects, and to end Suits of law, as the Roman Catholic Church hath of God's authority to instruct mankind, and determine controversies of faith. As it is rebellion to contemn the King's authority represented by the authentic badges thereof in his Ministers; so is it heresy to contemn God's authority represented in the Roman Catholic Church by supernatural signs; as miracles, sanctity, Conversion of nations etc. God's veracity might be lawfully questioned, if it were lawful to judge that he permits the Roman Catholic Church to err in any point of faith whatsoever: Proved by a similitude of my Lord Chancellor delivering the King's mind to the Parliament in his Majesties own hearing and presence. Veracity is a virtue inclining to speak truth, not only when the person speaks, but when any other speaks by his commission; for then, the person that employs an other to speak, is bound (by virtue of his own veracity) to endeavour (to the uttermost of his power) that his Minister, or Messenger utter nothing but truth: and this is to be understood not only in matters of great, but also of small importance. Protestants make their own conveniency (not God's veracity) the motive of their faith: and measure thereby, which articles are fundamental, which not. The most fundamental article, (or the foundation of faith) is, to believe, that God can not permit his Church to err, even in not fundamentals. A Demonstration ad hominem against the Protestant doctrine of the Church's fallibility in not fundamentals.   

SECT: XIII.  
THe same further demonstrated; as also that neither the Protestant faith, nor that of the Sure footing in Christianity, is christian belief. Not the matter believed, but the motive and manner of believing, makes our belief Christian. Protestant's and the Author of the Sure footing believe not any thing in matters of faith which they do not imagine to be evident, in itself, or evident to them that it is revealed. They agree in making clear or self evidence the rule of faith, but vary in the application of that rule: the Author of the Sure footing applies it to all or most of the Roman Catholic Tenets; Protestants to few. The doctrine of the Sure footing can not be excused by the opinion of some Schoolmen, that say, an act of faith is possible and consistent with evidence of the revelation. Christian faith must have a mixture of obscurity. Mr. Robert Boils expression (that faith and twilight agree in this property, that a mixture of darkness is requisite to both; for that with too refulgent light the one vanisheth into knowledge, as the other, into day) is not only witty, but agreeable to the sense of the ancient Fathers, and to Scripture: Hebr. 11.  
To believe, is to trust the person believed, and take his word for the truth▪ as you do a man's word, or bill for money. God's worth and veracity being infinite, we ought not to admit of any doubt in matters of faith: our assurance of faith must not be grounded upon evidence either of the object, or of the revelation but upon an impossibility that God should (by evident signs) oblige mankind to believe, that he revealed the mysteries of Christianity and yet not reveal them; or permit the Church to deceive us. God were not omnipotent, did he permit the Church to err in any matter of faith, though not fundamental: because according to the proportion of ones inclination to any thing, is the application of his power to effect the same: and God's inclination to truth, (even in not fundamentals) being infinite, he must be infinitely concerned, and applied to preserve the Church from falsehood in the least articles as well as in fundamentals. The different manner of believing God, and men. We could not believe God if it were evident to us he spoke what we assent unto. Wherein doth consist the guilt of heresy? Declared by that of rebellion. The absurdity of the private spirit, and of all other Protestant pretexts against the public testimony and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.   

SECT: XIV.  
PIety and policy mistaken in making prelatic Protestancy the legal Religion of the state; and in continuing the Sanguinary and penal statutes against the Roman Catholic faith. It was want of Christian piety in Q. Elizabeth to introduce the Protestant Religion, but not want of human policy, because she had no title to the Crown but by Protestancy. The title of the Stevards is unquestionable; and therefore they need not the Support of Protestancy. How dangerous and damnable a thing it is, to make the temporal laws of the land the rule of faith: the Protestant prelatic Religion hath no better. The Principles and privileges of Protestancy being inconsistent with Sovereignty and government; every Protestant Commonwealth found it necessary to mould and moderate those principles and privileges by human laws, according to the customs and constitutions of every Kingdom; and therefore Episcopacy (without which our Parliaments could not be legal) was here in England continued with prelatic Protestancy, though contrary to the Tenets of Protestancy, and to the examples of other Protestant Churches. Whence followeth continual discontents and designs of the generality of these Protestant nations against their prelatic Clergy; and the little esteem and affection there is for the same Clergy among the reformed Churches abroad. How unsafe it is for the Prince and government to establish by law a Religion and Clergy so generaly hated, and that acknowledgeth itself to be fallible in doctrine, and therefore (for all they know) lead their flocks to eternal damnation. Laws enacted to favour Religion, aught to suppose, not pretend to make the Religion reasonable. Reason is the ground of human laws; but human laws can not be the ground of Religion. How dangerous it is to press too much the Act of uniformity against so great and zealous a multitude as the Sectaries are. Their errors ought to be confuted with reason, not rigour. The prelatic Clergy (whose spiritual Censures and authority ought to quash all dissensions) doth cause the mischief, and engageth the state in perpetual troubles for maintaining (by force of law) the improbability of their character and jurisdiction, against the evidence of reason.  

SUBSECT: I.  
THe prelatic character and Religion is so incredible that few serious men in their judgements continue any long time Prelaticks. By pretending a mean, and moderation between Papists and Presbiterians, the Prelaticks fall into manifest contradictions in defending their own character, doctrine, and discipline. How learned Protestants are forced to confess that the Prince may force his subjects by laws to his Protestant persuasion; and that every Protestant subject (notwithstanding the Prince his prerogative) hath a private authority to judge of the Prince his Religion; and is bound to stick to his own contrary judgement. What great confusion this must occasion. It is the nature of all Religions that give private men liberty to judge of Religious controversies, to cause such disorders. How this inconvenience is prevented in the Roman Catholic. One of the differences between it and the Protestant is, that when Protestants rebel, they do not violate the principles of Protestancy, which makes every man Supreme in matters of faith, and by consequence of state. When Catholics rebel, they go against their principles, that give no such supremacy or liberty. In these last one hundred years there have been more rebellions upon the score of Protestancy, then have been since Christ's time upon the score of the Roman Catholic Religion. In what sense the Roman Catholic is a growing Religion. Whether it be policy to persecute a Religion that increaseth against the rigour of the laws; and to promote a Religion that doth not increase with all the helps of laws and favours of the Prince. The sanguinary and penal statutes are thought to be so unjust, (even by Protestants) that no honest and sober man thinks them fit to be put in execution. Whether it be policy to continue such statutes? All seditious persons begin their designs against the government with pressing the execution of the statutes: and sometimes thereby make the zealous and giddy multitude rebel. Whether it were not piety and policy to repeal statutes, that, if put in execution, make the nation and government infamous; if not put in execution, may occasion rebellion, by reason of an indiscreet zeal in the giddy multitude? Besides, their being enacted to suppress the principles and destroy the persons of the Catholic party, which maintained the Stevards right to the Crown, aught to facilitat the repeal.   

SUBSECT: II.  
THe sanguinary and penal statutes of England against Catholics, can not be justified by the proceeding of the Inquisition, or by laws and edicts of Christian Kings and Emperors against heretics. The first English Protestant's acknowledged themselves to be heretics, when they petitioned to the Parliament (1. Ed. 6.) for a repeal of all ancient statutes against heretics, not daring to preach and profess their reformed doctrine until the Parliament had condescended to their petition. Queen Elizabeth's reformation confirmed by Sanguinary statutes diametricaly opposite to primitive Christianity: and therefore very strange, that men so knowing as the English nobility and gentry, should continue them; or that persons so pious, loyal, and well bred, should not (either out of Christian charity to Catholics or out of a dutiful civility to the Royal family that now reigns) repeal laws enacted by Q. Elizabeth for ruin of the Stevards' party, and for excluding themselves from the Crown.     

THE THIRD PART.  
COntaining the conscience and conveniency of tolerating the Roman Catholic religion by Act of parliament; proved by the little conscience of the Protestant clergy, in maintaining Protestancy with frauds and falsifications: and by the great inconveniencies this Monarchy suffers by pressing the prelatic and Protestant Religion upon tender consciences.  

SECT: I.  
DEmonstrated that either the learned Protestant, or the Roman Catholic Clergy, are Cheats. Proved by the impossibility of concealing the truth of Christianity, and of the true Church otherwise then by the frauds, and falsifications of either Clergy: So manifest are the signs of the Catholic Church and so particularly mentioned in Scripture. And as one of the two Clergyes are Cheats, so either the Catholic or Protestant laity, are damnably careless in matters of salvation. Reason's why the Catholic laity can not be thought careless; the Protestant may. How easily the truth may be known and how the Protestant laity may be considerably eased from extraordinary taxes, by informing themselves of the truth of Religion. The impudence and impiety wherewith Bp. jevell and the first prelatic clergy imposed Protestancy upon this nation, to favour Q. Elizab: pretensions, and to raise themselves from Pedantry to Peerage. Proved by jevells Challenge and Sermon at Paul's Cross; and by his and the Prelatic clergyes Apology for their Church of England: pretending that the Catholic Church for the first 600. years was Protestant. How this imposture was confuted by the Catholic writers; and the Protestant writers forced to acknowledge their own error. How the same imposture was again maintained by succeeding prelaticks, and how unsuccessfully. How Tailor revived now again the same shameful imposture, and with how great infamy to his person, and discredit to his cause. The Protestant laity can not, without committing a damnable sin give any credit to their Clergy in matters of Religion, after so many and so manifest Discoveries of the frauds and falsifications whereby (alone) they defend Protestancy. How a conference and Trial about this matter can not be conscientiously denied, nor the denial stand with good policy.   

SECT: II.  
THe same further demonstrated; and that there can be no reason to suspect the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Clergy.  

SUBECT I. AND II.  
WHether it be charity to treat Cheats with ceremony, when they are convicted of damning souls by frauds and wilful falsifications. And whether the first reformers of the English Church (Cranmer and his Comrades,) ought not to be censured accordingly. The frauds, and wilful falsifications, hypocrisy, incontinency, impiety and Atheism of the prelalatick Protestant Clergy in K. Edward 6. reign. What a wicked man Arch. Cranmer▪ was. of Peter Martyr, Echinus, Bucer, Latimer, and Ridleys' impieties.   

SUBSECT. III.  
OF Hooper, Rogers, Poynet, Bale, and Coverdale. Hooper and Rogers combined against Crammer and Ridley. How Latimer joined with them. Their Project of Puritanism. How Hooper inveighed against plurality of benefices when he had none, and enjoyed two Bishoprics when his faction prevailed; and left his friend Rogers in the lurch. How Rogers and Coverdale conspired with Tyndall to falsify Scripture. Bishop Poynets contest and Suit in law, with a Butcher, about the Butcher's wife, notwithstanding that Poynet had one of his own. But Sentence was given for the Butcher against Poynet▪ contrary to the Principles and liberty of Protestancy, and to what the protestant Church had resolved before in the like case between Sir Ralph Sadler, and one Barrow, whose wife was decreed to be married to Sir Ralph, during Barrows life. Bishop Bales conversion to protestancy, related by himself, and attributed to his beloved Dol. What an impostor he was. Bish: Coverdales' drunkenness, and corruptions of Scripture. How corrupt and ungodly a Scripture is the English translation of the Bible. It was condemned by act of Parliament as fraudulent and falls. Notwithstanding which censure it was (and is) imposed upon the Nation as the word of God; sometimes it was called Mathews Bible; othertimes the Bishop's Bible or the Bible of the large volume, with little or no alteration. Coverdales' vanity in attempting to convert to protestancy the University of Oxford. Laurence Sanders a Protestant Martyr and Priest; his resolution to die for legitimating his little bastard.   

SUBSECT: IU.  
ARch. Cranmers' conference with Doctor Martin and other Catholics. How weakly he defended the Protestant cause. How vainly Protestant's pretend Scripture for their doctrine, as all heretics do. How Cranmer was proved to be an heretic by the definition of Origen, Tertullian, etc.    

SECT: III.  
OF the Protestant Clergy in Q. Mary's reign, the same that afterwards founded Q. Elizabeth's Church. Their frauds, factions, cheats, and changes of the English Protestant religion during their exile in Germany, Related by Dr. Heylin. How the Germane Protestants called the English Protestants, the devil's Martyrs, and would not entertain their banished Clergy and Confessors. How thereupon the English clergy changed and accommodated their Religion to that of the places wherein they lived, and printed books at Frankford and Geneva containing contrary doctrines for humouring dissenting churches. How often they changed their Liturgy at Frankford. Of Grindall, Horn, Sandys, Chambers, Pakhurst, Whithead, Whittingham, Williams, Goodman, Wood, Sutton, Fox; their frauds, factions, divisions and books against Q. Mary etc. How unfit men to be Bishops and to found a Church: and yet they were the chief pillars and Prelates of Q. Elizabeth's reformation.   

SECT: IU.  
ABominable frauds, and wilful falcifications of the protestant Clergy in Q. Elizabeth's reign to maintain their doctrine set forth under the name of an Apology and defence of the Church of England. How Q. Elizabeth gained the Nobility and House of Commons to vote in Parliament for reviving Protestancy. Of Bish. jewels ridiculous challenge at Paul's Cross. How all the Protestant Clergy conspired with him in his impostures. How they were confuted by Doctor Harding, Stapleton and other Catholics. All the Protestant writers borrow from Jewels impostures their arguments and authorities against the Roman Catholic Religion. Acknowledged by Dr. Heylin in his history of the Church of England.  

SUBSECT: I.  
THe Protestant Clergys' fraud and falsehood against Communion under one kind. It was a thing indifferent in the ancient Church. Proved by several instances: Jewels ridiculous evasions.   

SUBSECT: II.  
Jewel and the Protestant Clergy censure as heretics the same ancient Fathers they appeal unto in other controversies, for condemning the marriage of Priests. They corrupt the Ecclesiastical history for the same reason; and bring an example of an imaginary Bishop to confirm their corruption: and pretend that S. Gregory Nazianzen says that a Bishop may minister the better in the Church for having a wife in his house, and that his own Father was instructed in Ecclesiastical functions by his wife.   

SUBSECT. III.  
Jewel (and his prelatics) charge Cardinal Hosius and all Catholics with contemning the holy Scriptures contrary to his own knowledge, and even after he had been admonished of the imposture.   

SUBSECT. IV.  
FAlsifications and frauds against the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy, scripture falsified to impugn the same.   

SUBSECT. V.  
Protestant's fraud's and falsifications to deny and discredit the Sacrifice of Mass. Their pretence that the ancient Mass was the same thing with the English communion or Liturgy. jewels impudence.   

SUBSECT: VI.  
PRotestant falsifications and corruptions of Scripture to make the Pope Antichrist, and the succession of Bishops a mark of the beast. Q. Elizabeth's first Bishops were violently bend against Episcopal Succession, because it was notorious that themselves wanted such a succession. Want of Succession a mark of heretics. Proved by Fathers.   

SUBSECT: VII.  
PRotestant falsifications to prove that Popes may, and have decreed heresys.   

SUBSECT: VIII.  
ITem to prove that Popes have insulted over Kings.   

SUBSECT: IX.  
ITem to prove that S. Austin the Apostle of England was no Saint but an hypocrite, as also to discredit Catholic Writers.   

SUBSECT: X.  
Protestant's fraud's and falsifications of Scripture, as likewise their altering of the 39 articles of Religion, to make the laity believe that there are true Bishops and Priests in the Church of England. Jtem their forgery of records. The Evasions of Primate Bramhal and others, concerning their Episcopal succession, confuted.   

SUBSECT: XI. & XII.  
AN advertisement to the Reader concerning Bishop jewel, of some learned Protestants converted to the Roman Catholic Faith by discovering the falsifications and frauds of his books. Mr. hooker's sincerity questioned for his immoderate praises of so great and notorious an impostor, in his Eccles. Polit. A feigned Protestant story of the two Doctors Reynolds. How jewel excused his falsifications in presence of the Earl of Leicester, by saying that Papists must be dealt with as Papists.    

SECT: V.  
Fraud's, follies and falsifications of john Fox his Acts of monuments; and of his Magdeburgian Masters in their Centuries. The little sincerity of the English Church and Clergy in countenancing such falls dealing. All sober men that read the works of the Magdeburgian Centurists must conclude they composed them rather in drinking stoves then in retired studies: so rash and foolish are their censures of the greatest Doctors and Saints of God's Church. Valentia the jesuit aptly compared these centurists to malefactors that confess, all the knowing and honest men of the country or city witness that they are thiefs and heretics etc. And then these malefactors refute all this, by only saying that the said knowing and honest men, so highly esteemed by all the world for their knowledge and integrity, spoke incommodiously, and ignorantly, when they accused the thiefs. john Fox his absurdity in making the true Church visible to Protestants, and invisible to Catholics. What a ridiculous Church of Protestants he fancies, and deduceth only from the time of Pope Innocent 3. and composeth of a rabblement of all sectaries, divided among themselves, and dissenting also from Protestants. Proved in particular instances of Waldenses, Albigenses, Wickleff, and others. His three simple Miracles of Luther's, and how Fox describes a revelation of his own, and how he was made a fool by revelation. The Prelatik clergy recommend Fox his works to all Godly people, though the learned of them know it to be a collection of frauds, follies, and fables.  

SUBSECT: I.  
IOhn Fox his Calendar of Protestant Saints. In all 456. whereof Bishops Martyrs 5. and Cranmer the principal; by him you may judge of the rest. Bishop's Confessors. 1. Virgin Martyrs none. Maid Martyrs 3. Kings and Queens Martyrs and Confessors 1. (Edward 6.) Other men and women Martyrs 393▪ other men and women Confessors 57 The greatest disputers (against the Catholic Bishops) of these Martyrs, were a Cook, a Cowherd, a Tailor, a Blaksmith, a miller's wife, a Cutler's wife, and a married maid, So Fox calls her. How madly these poor souls ran to the fire. Fox his Martyrs were all fanatics.   

SUBSECT: II.  
Wilful falsifications committed by John Fox in his acts and monuments. He falsifies St. Bede, and an ancient english Synod, to make them Quartodecimans, and to favour the Protestant doctrine of divorces. He falsifies also St. Antoninus, to discredit Pope Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand: and a Council, to favour the marriage of Priests. The ancient Greeks and Latin Churches held the single life of Priests. 120. lies in three leaves of Fox his book; and more in the whole then in Sleydans' History, though eleven thousand are gathered out of Sleydan by the Germane writers. His censuring Acts of ancient English Parliaments for condemning Rebels and heretics. His falsifying Sr. John Oldcastles profession of faith; to make us believe he was a Protestant in the point of Purgatory.   

SUBSECT: III.  
DOctor Charks egregious falsification of St. Austin, and how falsely he excuseth Luther's doctrine of the lawfulness of Adultery and incest.   

SUBSECT: IU.  
ARch. Cranmer and Peter Martyrs falsifications against transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass.    

SECT: VI.  
HOw some Protestant writers in Q. Elizabeth's time seeing their fellows proved falsifiers, waved the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and Counsels, and yet the others continued their former course of falsifying both Fathers and Counsels. Of Whitaker, Arch. Whitgift, and Fulk▪ How they contemn the Fathers and Church, when they relate ancient condemned heresies that Protestants now profess. Doctor Willet a great Impostor: how impudently he falsifies, taking God to witness he will speak nothing but truth: it is the general custom of Protestant writers.   

SECT: VII.  
FAlsifications and frauds of the prelatic and Protestant Clergy ever since the beginning of K. James his reign, for continuing and maintaining Protestancy.  

SUBSECT: I.  
THeir corruptions of Scripture notwithstanding that the King commanded the English Bibles to be corrected. They corrected some few things that gave advantage to the Puritans against Episcopacy leaving other corruptions as formerly. Instead of correcting their falls Scripture, they forged new Registers. How they falsify Scripture in the first commandment (Exod. 20.4.) and yet object against us catholics that we take away the 2. commandment. How absurd this their objection is. See also how they corrupt Scripture to humour K. James in the supremacy: divers others. Arch. Abbots and the Bp. of Gloucester altered the true translation of St. Peter's epistle to impugn Purgatory; accused of this impiety by Sir Henry Savill that translated it rightly. How they corrupt Scripture against prayer to Saints. That Saints in heaven do hear our prayers, proved by reason and authority. Whether it be not more than credible that Archippus Abbots who falsified Scripture, would forge Registers. How unreasonably the prelatic Clergy in their Dedicatory to King james (set before the new translation of Scripture) desire his Majesty to protect the same against the objections of Puritans and Papists.   

SUBSECT: II.  
OF Dean Walsinghams' scruples and Search into matters of Religion; and how by discovering the frauds and falsifications of his own Protestant Clergy, he became a Roman Catholic. The occasion of his doubts. His memorial to K. james (as being head of the church) for satisfaction. His reading of the Defence of the Censure, and his judgement thereof. How that book proves Scripture is more clear for Catholic Tenets, then for Protestant: of Dean: Walsinghams' appearance before his Grace at Lambeth: his conference with Doctor Covell. This Doctor's fraud and folly in diverting Walsingham from the truth. Of Dean Walsinghams' third and fourth appearance before my Lord of Canterbury. How he was abused and threatened by his Grace, for desiring to know the truth. Of the Knight of the corner (Perkins) and his persuasions. How the Archbishop (to be rid of a man that pressed to know the truth) remitted Dean Walsingham to the Commissary of St. Alban, and to others who gave him no satisfaction. Of Bell's libels delivered, by the Archbishop to satisfy Mr. Walsingham. His last appearance before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and an assembly of Divines. How in their presence he produced the corruptions and falsifications of the Protestant books recommended unto him by his Grace, and yet neither he nor that assembly durst compare Mr. Walsinghams' notes of frauds with the same books as Mr. Walsingham desired; but dismissed him, wishing he were far enough, for discovering their cheat, and the weakness of their Religion.   

SUBSECT: III.  
Reflections upon Mr. Walsinghams' Relation. This like case, and cheat doth happen as often as the Protestant Clergy observeth any conscientious person troubled in conscience through the unreasonableness of their Religion. A case of conscience concerning one millions of revenue proposed, and desired it be decided by the Parliament, and that some knowing person, (my Lord Chancellor) be the Moderator of the conference for that purpose.   

SUBSECT: IU.  
A Relation of a Trial held in France about Religion. How necessary the like is in England, for the credit of Protestants, and convenience of the state.    

SECT: VIII.  
PRotestant falsifications to persuade that the Roman Catholic doctrine is inconsistent with the Sovereignty and safety of Kings, and with civil Society between Catholics and Protestants. How the Protestant writers having been worsted at Scripture, Counsels, Fathers &c, now endeavour to defend Protestancy by reasons of state, and become unfortunate Politicians. Divers falsifications touching this subject published by Morton Bishop of Duresm. How he answers some objections with new lies: others, which laying the blame upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Stork etc. To most objections, he gives no answer. The whole National Synod and Protestant Clergy concur in an imposture concerning the sign of the Cross in Baptism, against Roman Catholics. The Protestants falsifications of the Canon Law about deposing of Kings: About cheating excommunicated persons: About murdering and massacring Protestants. divers falsifications to assert a spiritual Supremacy in Kings. According to the Law of England, our Kings may minister all ecclesiastical functions, consecrat Bishops; and their letters patents are sufficient to give any lay person (man or woman) power to consecrat Bishops and Priests. Ten wilful falsifications set down together by Bish: Morton for proving that Catholics hold the Pope cannot be deposed nor become an heretic. Primate bramhall's falsification to prove that Popes may and have decreed heretical doctrine.   

SECT: IX.  
PRoved by reasons and examples that no Religion is so little dangerous to the sovereignty and safety of Kings, or so advantageous to the peace and prosperity of subjects, as the Roman Catholic, notwithstanding the Pope's spiritual supremacy. Bellarmin (the Author most excepted against in the opinion of deposing of Kings) says that a King cannot be deposed for being an heretic, unless he forceth his subjects to heresy. The Author of this Treatise doth not intend to promote Beauties' doctrine, but only showeth there can be no danger in it though it were allowed as true. Not any thing more contrary to sound policy, then to lay for the foundation of loyalty an Oath or engagement against opinions plausible, popular and practised. The best way to suppress them is to silence the Authors, not censure their doctrine. How little the Pope's power is feared by protestants, though they make it the pretext of persecuting Catholics. How little his censures can disturb the government in regard of the notoriousness of the fact, and the solemnity of his sentences, required for their validity. How Arch: Laud and other protestants contradict themselves in this matter. A fancied possibility without probability can bring no danger to the government. How unreasonable it is to exact a more strict profession of allegiance from catholic subjects to a protestant Sovereign, then is given by any other Catholics to their Catholic Sovereign. That the french Kings exacts such engagements, or Remonstrances from their subjects against the Pope's authority, as is required in England and Ireland from catholics against the same, is a gross mistake. All such disputes are prohibited in France, as tending to sedition, and no way profitable. The Censure of the Parliament of Paris, and some Doctors of the Sorbon against the Pope's authority, disannulled by the King and privy Council in France. Protestants cannot clear their own principles in this particular from the aspersions they lay on the Catholic Tenets. One of the fundamental principles of Protestancy is, a power in the people to depose Sovereigns, and dispose of their Kingdoms for the use of the Gospel. Proved by the examples of all Kingdoms and States that received the Reformation, even the Prelatic of England.   

SECT. X.  
THat Protestants could never prove any of the wilful falsifications wherewith they charged Roman Catholic writers: but on the contrary themselves are convicted of that crime whensoever they attempted to make good their charge against us. Of the Index Expurgatorius. Bp. Tailors objections in the Dissuasive; as also Bp. morton's, Bp. Jewels, etc. retorted upon themselves. Item Sutcliffs accusations against Bellarmin. The Council of Chalcedon confirmed by Act of Parliament of Q. Elizabeth, and by consequence the Pope's spiritual supremacy, which that Council asserts.  

SUBSECT: I.  
Protestant's convicted by Belarmin of holding 20. ancient condemned heresies; and how fourteen are admitted by them, or at least unanswered; and the other six whereof they endeavour to clear themselves, are excused only by falsifying Fathers, and Catholic Authors: among which are two Pelagian heresies, two Novatian, one Manichean, and one of the Arians. Besides these, Protestants maintain justification by only faith with the Simonians and Eunomians. That God is the author of sin, with the Florinians. That women may be and are Priests, with the Peputians. That Concupiscency is a sin; with Proclus. That the true Church was invisible for many ages, with the Donatists. That men ought not to fast the Lent, pray, nor offer Sacrifice for the dead, with the Aerians. That Saints ought not to be prayed unto, nor their relics or images worshipped, with Vigilantius.   

SUBSECT II.  
FAlsifications objected against Baronius by Dr. Sutcliff. How ridiculous. The difference between the falsifications objected by Catholics, and those that are objected by Protestants.    

SECT XI.  
CAlumnies and falsifications of Luther, Clavin, Archbishop Laud, and Primate Usher, to discredit the Roman Catholic Religion, and uphold Protestancy, against their own conscience and knowledge. What impudent impostors were Luther and Calvin. Proved in many particulars. Frauds and falsifications and calumnies of Primate Usher (called the Irish Saint by Protestants) against the real presence, and Transubstantiation. Against sacramental Confession. Against absolution of sins by a Priest. His cheat concerning Duli● and Latria. No new invention of Jesuits, but the ancient doctrine and distinction of the Fathers. Against prayer to Saints. His imposture of the Breviary of the Premonstratensian Order.  

SUBSECT. I●  
OF Bp. Laud, the English Protestant Martyr. How fraudulently he would fain excuse the modern Greeks from being heretics, notwithstanding his 39 Prelatic articles condemn their doctrine of the holy Ghost as heresy. He abuseth S. Austin to make Protestants believe that general Counsels may err against scripture and evident reason. He abuseth Vincentius Lyrinensis, laying to that ancient Father's charge, his Graces own blasphemy: and commits therein many frauds. He falsifies Orcam, and resolves the Prelatic Faith into the imaginary light of Scripture, and the private spirit and therein agrees with Presbiterians and Fanatiks And pretends that Prelaticks are not Schismatics and Sectaries. But to excuse them commits divers frauds. His pretence of the lawfulness for private Churches to reform themselves, confuted. His doctrine doth justify all the sectaries proceeding against himself and the Church of England. His vanity in pretending that the Church of Britain is independent of the Pope: as also that the Pope can not be judge in his own cause. His fraudulent and absurd explanation of S. Ireneus against the primacy of Rome; item of the gallican liberties. His abusing and corrupting S. Greg. Nazian because that Saint asserteth the infallibility of the Roman Church. His falsifying of Gerson upon the like account. A fair offer to Protestants for the trial of falsifications.    

SECT. XII.  
Whether it be piety, or policy, to give the Protestant Clergy of these 3. Kingdoms a million sterl. per an. for maintaining (by such frauds and falsifications as hitherto have been alleged) the doctrine of the church of England which also they acknowledge to be fallible, and by consequence (for all they know) falls. And how the said million per an: may be conscientiously applied to the use of the people, without any dangerous disturbance to the Government. It was policy in Q. Elizabeth to make such a clergy and Religion, but not piety. The case being now altered, neither piety nor policy to preserve either. No seditious or interessed persons can disturb the Government (by pretending zeal for preserving a Religion and Clergy so prejudicial to the soul and state) if liberty be granted to discover the cheat whereby the people are abused. Many Protestant mistakes wherewith the common sort were fooled, are now cleared; and their own conveniency will invite them to examine further the errors of doctrine incident to education, from which errors the Protestant Church doth acknowledge itself not exempted. If the Protestant faith be true, such a trial as we desire will be of great satisfaction to the Professors thereof, and confirm them in their religion, and convert Papists and Sectaries to the same; if it be falves, besides the salvation of souls by a discovery and procession of the Roman truth, these kingdoms will be able not only to defend themselves, but offend foreign Enemies after we are enabled thereunto by a conscientious addition of a million sterl. per an, to the public revenue. No danger of sacrilege in applying the Church revenues to pious and public uses, for the preservation of the people; practised by the ancient Catholic Clergy. Not one good reason why the Church of England ought not to admit of such a public conference as we propose and desire. Bishop laud's reason to the contrary confuted. The denying and differing it a sign that Protestants are guilty. Catholics grant conference to Protestants whensoever they demand it.  
The Protestant laity have reason to question their Clergies Ordination and character, as well as their doctrine. The new change of their forms of ordination, very suspicious. That the Roman Religion is such a growing Religion, proves it is the true Religion, fit to be made the Religion of the state.    

THE FOURTH PART  
THe Roman Catholic Religion in every particular, wherein it differs from the Protestant, is confirmed by considerable Miracles, recorded not in vain Legends, or modern Authors, but in the most authentic histories of the world, and by the ancient Fathers, and Doctors of God's Church.  

SECT: J.  
SUch Miracles as are approved by the Roman Catholic Church are true Miracles. The doctrine confirmed by those Miracles, cannot be rejected without doubting of God's Veracity. Every Protestant doth see [though not observe] true Miracles, in confirmation of the Catholic faith. What great scrutiny is made by the Roman Catholic Church into true Miracles, and the lives of men, that are to be canonised for Saints. There can be no combination or cheat in such matters. Some Miracles permanent, that be seen by all men, as that of S. januarius in Naples. An undeniable Miracle of S. Francis Xavier wrought upon Marcello Mastrilli, most remarkable for many circumstances. Miracles to confirm Popery, related by the Magdeburgian Centurists; but by them [absurdly] attributed to the Devil, or said to be feigned. True Miracles cannot be wrought to confirm falsehood: 'tis against God's veracity to permit the same. Miracles oblige us to believe the doctrine, in confirmation whereof thy be wrought The difference between Antichrists, and Catholics Miracles, or true and falls Miracles. That all the Roman Catholics adore the Sacrament, and believe Transubstantiation, as also other points of Popery, is an evident Miracle of God, and can not proceed from the Devil's power or art. The Devil temps men to be heretics by the means and ministry of their senses, and by humouring the same, not against the evidence and inclination of sense. The general signs and marks of the Church, are undeniable Miracles. No other Church besides the Roman Catholic, can show those signs.   

SECT: II.  
OF particular miracles that confirm the Roman Catholic Tenants and our sense of Scripture, related by S. chrysostom, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Austin, S. Nilus, S. Cyprian the Martyr, S. Optatus, S. Gregory the great, and others, in confirmation of adoring the B. Sacrament, Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Communion under one kind, prayer for the dead, and Purgatory. Primate Ushers falsifications and fraud to discredit some of these Miracles discovered. Of Miracles in England, related by Waldensis, and recorded by the Archbishops of Canterburyes Register. How Protestants falsify the very statutes, and law books. Miracles wrought by S. Bernard to confirm every controverted point of the Roman Catholic doctrine against the Protestant. Protestant writers confess S. Bernard was a Saint; and yet say his Miracles were wrought by the Devil. How absurd.   

SECT: III.  
MIracles to confirm the worship and virtue of the sign of the Cross, recorded by St. Paulinus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius, St. Hierom, St. Gregory Tu●onensis, Nicephorus and Theodoret.  
How by Tradition from the Apostles the primitive Christians were accustomed to sign themselves frequently with the sign of the Cross. The first and worst Heretics were enemies of that sign. Christ's Cross multiplied by miracle in St. Paulinus his time. Protestant miracles are but cheats. Not one of them true. Protestants agree with Pagans, heretics, and Magicians, in contemning miracles, and the sign of the Cross. How the Devils dread the same.   

SECT: IU.  
MIracles in confirmation of the Catholic worship of Jmages, related by the most eminent authors of the Ecclesiastical History, and by the 2. Council of Nice an. 787. wherein were 350. Bishops. St. Peter's shadow was the Image of his body; and by scripture (Act. 5.15.) it appears to have wrought Miracles. The Protestant Imposture concerning Christ's statue that julian the Apostata broke, confuted. S. john D●mascens hand that was cut off by the practices of Image-breakers, restored by his praying at our Lady's Image.. The Protestant evasion of civil and religious worship, confuted.   

SECT. V.  
MIracles related by S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostom, S. Hierom, S. Optatus S. Bede, S. Bernard, S. Anselm, and others in confirmation of prayer to Saints, worshipping their Relics, of the virtue of holy water; the Sacraments of Confirmaon, Confession, and extreme Unction. The doctrine of Indulgences confirmed by the same Miracles that confirm worship of Saints, Pilgrimages, etc. The truth of all S. Thomas of Canterburyes Miracles evidenced by one that Fox recounts, and picks out to discredit the test. What little reason Protestants have to suspect our Catholic Miracles of forgery. How severe the Roman Church is in the scrutiny, and punishment of such Impostures. Reflections upon Bishop Tailor's Treatise of Confirmation. Confession, and extreme Unction, maintained to be Sacraments by ancient Fathers. S. Bedes holiness and learning acknowledged by Protestants. He relates Miracles, whereby the errors of Protestancy are confuted. How absurdly Protestant's contemn the authority of the holy Fathers in Miracles, admitting it in matters of faith. How ridiculous John Fox his Miracles are; how unwisely the Prelatic Clergy countenance his Acts and Monuments, that have so spread Puritanism in England. A Parallel between Protestancy and Mahometism.    
FINIS.   

THE CONCLUSION To the right Honourable the Committee OF PARLIAMENT, FOR RELIGION.  
May it please your Honour's  
VEnerable St. Bede in his History of the Church of England, recounteth, how St. Austin the Monk, 
S. Bede lib ● hist. cap 25. who lived an. Dom. 700.  and our Apostle (Sent by St. Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert our Saxon Ancestors from Paganism to Christian Religion) arriving at the Isle of Tanet in Kent, gave notice unto King Ethelbert (than a Pagan,) that he and his fellow-preachers were come from Rome, and brought to him very good tidings; to wit, that such as would follow and obey their doctrine, should enjoy an everlasting Kingdom in heaven, with the true and living God. The King moved with curiosity, came into the Island of Tanet, and notwithstanding his suspicion that the Monks were Magicians, returned this civil and prudent answer; you give us very fair words, and promises, but yet for that they are strange, and unknown unto me, I can not rashly assent unto them, forsaking that ancient Religion which thus long both I and my people have observed. But for so much as you are come so far to the intent you might impart unto us such knowledge as you take to be right, true, and good, w●e will not seek your trouble, but rather with all Courtesy we will receive you and minister unto you all such things as are behooveful for your living. Accordingly he allowed them lodging and other necessaries in the City of Canterbury, and after hearing, and examining their doctrine, became a Christian.  
The very same tidings and Doctrine that St. Austin and his Companions delivered to King Ethelbert, do I most humbly offer unto your Honours in this book, as your own Bishops and writers 
[A] 
See john Bole Bishop of Ossery in act. Rom. Pontif. edit Basil. 15●8. pag. 44.45 46. & 47. See also Osiander in Epitome. Cent 6 pag. 288.289. & 290.  
Carion in Chronic. lib. 4 pag. 567.  
See the Century writers of Magdeburg Cent. 6 cap 10. col 748 384 37●. 376▪ 381 425. ● seqq  
See Dr. Humphrey in jesuitismi. p. 2. ra●. 5 pag 5. & 627. all of them confessing that S. Austin taught the very same doctrine in all particulars that we Papists now profess.   confess, and is plain in St. Bedes History, testifying that as they approached near the City (of Canterbury) having the Cross and Image of our King and Saviour JESUS Christ, carried, as their manner was, before them, they sung Litanies▪ they served God in continual prayer, watching and fasting; They resorted to an ancient Church built in the honour of St. Martin (made while the Romans were yet dwelling in England) and there did say Mass etc. This their doctrine they proved to be true by working of many miracles, and to be the very same, which Joseph of Arimathea and the Apostles had preached to the ancient Britons; whose Bishops St. Austin courted to join with him in converting of the Saxons; a Courtesy he never would have desired or demanded, had their Doctrine differed from his; 
S. Bede lib. 1. cap. 25. & 26.  of certain ceremonies used by them in Baptism, and of their jewish way of celebrating Easter, he did not approve, and all Protestants grant he had good reason; neither could the Britons themselves gainsay it, when by common accord they prayed that God would vouchsafe by some heavenly sign to declare whether their particular traditions, or rather St. Augustine's (with whom, 
S. Bede lib. 2. cap. 2.  saith Bede, all the other Churches throughout the whole world agreed in Christ) were most acceptable to his Divin Majesty; 
S. Bede lib▪ 1. cap. 32. Sets down S. Gregory's letter to king Ethelbert, wherein he gives him this character of S. Austin: our right reverend Brother Augustin, Bishop, being brought up in the rule of Religion, having good knowledge in the holy Scriptures, and a man through the grace of God, of much virtue, whatsoever he shall advertise you to do, gladly hear it, devoutly perform it, diligently Remember it.  and the Briton Priests having prayed in vain for the restitution of fight to a known blind man, St. Austin compelled by just necessity, fell on his knees, prayed, and forthwith the blind man saw. Then the Britons confessed indeed that they understood that to be the true way of righteousness, which Austin had preached, and showed unto them. This miracle God wrought by his servant to reduce the ancient Britons to an uniformity in ceremonies. Many 
(B) And ibid. cap. 13. he sets dow● S▪ Gregory's letters to S. Austin, exhorting him no● to glory in himself for the Miracles which God wrought by him for the instruction of others. I know (saith holy Gregory) dear Brother that it pleaseth God to sh●●● by the● great miracles among the people, Whom by thee he hath called to his faith. Whereupon it is needful; that of that most heavenly gift, both thou joy▪ with fear, and fear with joy. Thou hast to joy, for that by means of the said Miracles the English men's souls are won to the faith: Thou hast to fear, least through the miracles ●hich be done by thee, thy weak mind be lifted up in presumption falling as far inwardly by vain Glory, as thou art by outward prays puffed up▪ etc. And concludes his letter thus! And whatsoever grace thou either haste, or shall receive to work miracles, think i● given thee▪ not for thine own sake, but for theirs, the Minister of whose salvation thou art ordained.  other greater miracles did he work by the same St. Austin, whereby our Modern Ministers are convinced of heresy, for being obstinate in their errors against Transubstantiation, worship of Images, Purgatory, Prayers to Saints, Jndulgences, the Sacrifice of the Mass etc. for that with these Popish Doctrines both St. Austin and his Master St. Gregory are charged by your own Protestant writers, and censured as converting the Saxons from Paganism to this Superstition.  
I hope your Honours will not give unto us, (who desire only liberty of conscience, whereof the worst consequence can be this that the ancient Religion of Christ may thereby be restored) a worse answer than King Ethelbert returned to S. Austin: Though what we affirm of the Catholic belief, will seem strange to you that have hitherto supposed the same to be idolatry, or superstition, and perhaps suspect us to be as great Sorcerers as King Ethelbert did S. Austin and his Companions: But without question so pious and prudent Persons as Your Honours, will not be less charitable than a Pagan, to men that besides an everlasting Kingdom in heaven, come to offer you a million sterl. per an. upon earth; especially seeing we do not desire you should condemn your own Protestant Religion, nor credit ours, before you see what your Clergy can answer to our reasons, and to corruptions and falsifications of Scripture, and Fathers, which we desire to object against them in a public conference, if it be your Honour's pleasure to grant us that favour; for obtaining whereof they will be as earnest Suitors as we, if they believe their own doctrine. But in case they decline or defer so reasonable, and seasonable a request as we humbly concieve ours to be, I hope Your Honours will not think that men who dare not defend their Religion against provoking adversaries, that offer to show the falsehood thereof, and the frauds whereby it is, and only can be maintained, deserve so great reverence, and revenues, or can be fit to direct others in the way of salvation.  

(C) D. Fulk in his confut of purgat. calls St. Augustine's preaching, our perversion Mr. powel calls him a falls Apostle; Mr. Ascham in Apol. pro Caen. Dom. pag. 33. calls him the establisher of all Popish Doctrine. Mr. Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi, pag. 122. placeth St. Gregory and St. Austin among the first Fathers of Superstition, and Captains and Ringleaders of Popish Divines. etc.  As for their railing against St. Austin our Apostle, notwithstanding that God approved of his Doctrine (with many miracles) it is no satisfactory way of reasoning: neither (as I persuade myself) will they be able to rally so grave and sober a Committee as your Lordships, out of a million per an. by quoting their own Translations and sense of Scripture, or by wresting texts to their own advantage, and to the great prejudice both spiritual and Temporal of these Nations, against the Common sense and consent of the visible Church for 16. ages. They have had indeed hitherto better Success in this particular, than they could expect from so wary and wise a people as the English; but the improbability that a Clergy would be so impudent, and impious, as to falsify Scripture, forge Registers, and build faith upon fancy, hath gained them more credit than they deserved, and made the Laity more credulous, and careless than Christians ought to have been in a matter of so great importance as the everlasting happiness of their souls, and in a subject so tempting and suspicious, as the revenues of the Church. Now that it hath been the fate, or fortune of this Monarchy to be involued in wars, which have discovered the insufficiency of the King's revenue to maintain the same, and that we have no other security of a peace (when concluded) but the words of Dutch and French, drawn up into a formality of Articles, which will be no longer observed than it will be their conveniency so to do; and that the honour and safety of these three Nations can not be secured without greater, and more Constant supplies and subsidies, than perhaps (after a little time) will be safe to exact of the impoverished multitude: seeing, I say, this is the present condition of our State, (and will be also for the future, whensoever it pleaseth our neighbours, to be our enemies) not only all lawful ways of raising moneys must be sought after, but many ways ought to be examined, that perhaps hitherto were supposed unlawful.  
Wherefore as the French King hath lately commanded a severe scrutiny to be made into a new pretended Nobility (of a hundred years standing,) reducing them to their own Rank and quality of Citizens, and hath by penalties, and payments of the Taille raised very considerable sums of money, I presume to suggest unto your Honours, (who are appointed to rectify the mistakes, and correct the abuses of Religion) the Equity, and conveniency of the like scrutiny into Queen Elizabeth's pretended Clergy: and dare engage my life, that after your Serious examination of those Protestant Ministers right to the Church livings, and the Roman Catholic Clergys resignation of their right to his Majesty, ye will find a just title in the Crown to a revenue sufficient not only to prevent all domestik dangers, but also to secure us from all foreign disturbances, whether Popish, or Protestant.  
This human consideration is no● offered to so zealous and pious persons, as your Honours are known to be, for a motive of Changing Religion; 'tis only intended for a matter worthy your Judicious reflection, whether men of so much conscience and credit▪ as our Catholic Authors are reputed to be in the most considerable parts of Christendom, would so particularly, frequently, and confidently (in their printed Books) accuse the Protestant Clergy of wilful and unexcusable falsifications; and offer to own the charge in a public Trial, and pretend that without such practices the Protestant Divines can not maintain their reformations; how is it possible, I say, that knowing and conscientious persons can be such impudent Impostors? or if ye think our Catholic Clergy can impose such manifest untruths upon our own laity, as the Protestant Ministers pretend we do, when we condemn Protestancy; why may not the Prelatik Clergy of England be Subject to, and suspected of the like impudent practices. There being therefore as fair a possibility of gaining a million per an. for the Crown, as it is incredible that men of reputation would publish impostures so easily discoverable without any hopes of profit thereby to themselves, but rather with an assurance of discredit to their cause, and of credit to their Adversaries; and nothing lost (but a little time) in that Your Honours will be pleased to appoint a time and place for a public trial thereof, (it being but a matter of fact, and soon determined) I humbly beseech Your Honours that you will be moved with conscience, curiosity, and conveniency, so to order this affair, that the world may be satisfied which of the two Clergys (Catholic or Protestant) abuseth their Flocks by a cheating Religion.  
Not many years since, one Mrs. Stanhop, an English Protestant Gentlewoman that resided in Paris, had thoughts of changing her Religion, her chief motive being the novelty of Protestancy: Dr. Cousin's (now Bishop of Duresme) after taking upon himself in that City the Charge of the English Prelatic Congregation, notwithstanding his conformity with the Presbyterian Hugonots, and his frequent excursions to Charenton; and being vexed to lose so virtuous and exemplar a soul as Mrs. Stanhop was reputed to be in his Protestant Church, he seriously endeavoured to persuade her, that the ancient Religion of England was Protestancy; and that Popery was the novelty. But it seems the Gentlewoman (though she had not perused S. Bedes Ecclesiastical History) had read our Chronicles, the Annals of john Stow, and other Protestant lay-writers, much more sincere than Dr. Cousin's; and whereas before his discourse she only doubted, after she had considered and reflected upon the improbability and extravagancy of his imposture, her doubt changed into a certainty of the falsehood of Protestancy, seeing so learned a Doctor could not maintain its antiquity and truth by a better argument. I Think she is yet living, and a Religious in Paris; I am sure many persons of credit and quality yet living, can testify the truth of this passage, which is but a petty Protestant fraud in respect of other sleights and Falsifications mentioned in this Treatise, wherein Dr. Cousin's also beareth a part.  
I have not presented Your Honours with this story of Doctor Cousin's as if it had been a rarity; it is the ordinary practice among Protestant Prelates and Preachers to feed their Flocks with such stuff▪ there can be no other against the universal tradition, and all the Histories of Christendom. My design in recounting such a passage, is only this, that your Honours may be pleased to consider, whether Doctor Cousin's (or any other Protestant Prela●, to continue in his Bishoprik or Benefice) will not do as much now for keeping his Royalties and Revenues of the County Palatin of Duresm, as he did then to be a petty Pastor of a private Chapel in Paris? Will any learned Protestant Minister stick to imitate such an example, knowing it is the only way for such persons as they are, to thrive, and become great in the English Church and State? Your Honour's Charity may be so great as to suspend your judgements concerning their sincerity, but your consciences are so tender, that you will not keep these Actions in suspense of a matter wherein they are so much concerned. The only way to satisfy them, and yourselves, as I said before, is, that ye be mediators to the King and Parliament for a Public Trial either of the Protestant Clergys' cheat, or of the Catholic Clergys Calumnies. If what is laid to the protestant Clergys charge in this Treatise, be proved, the Crown gains a million sterl. per an. If not, the Protestant Church and Clergy gains credit; so that these nations can be no loser's by the Trial we humbly desire; for that, if granted, it will be known which of both is the true Religion, and perhaps that may appear to yourselves to be the true Religion, which offers to triple the public revenues, and to make this Monarchy not only the most Christian, but the most considerable of the Vnivers; and then will be fulfilled the vulgar prediction of our King, Erit Carolo Magno Major; and your Honours will be the chief instruments in making him so great, and his subjects happy; which is the only design of  
Your Honour's most obedient and most humble servant. J. W.