A TREATISE OF THE NATURE OF CATHOLIC FAITH, AND HERESY, WITH Reflection upon the Nullity of the English Protestant Church, and Clergy.  
By N. N.  
Printed at ROÜENS, in the year 1657.  
Permissu Superiorum.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
IF Heresy could have been brought to a stand in its own opinions, it would long since have been sunk in the opinion of all; but finding itself upon quick sand, it is forced to change footing, and not to stay long upon the same ground, for fear of sinking under ground, and falling from its present state of improbability, to its ancient state of invisibility. And albeit by this often shifting, it appears to be brought to desperate shifts, yet is it content rather to appear any thing, then utterly disappear into its own nothing. A Cheat must often change his disguise, a Mountebank his market, a Sophister his Medium, and an Army of defeated disordered Troops, can not long with security keep the same place, and posture. It is not so hard to rout them, as to find them out: so unarmed, unfortified, so disbanded, and scattered they are, for want of a Commander in chief, that they are no sooner in sight, then put to flight, and forced to retreat to some new passage of less peril.  
First, Scripture alone was thought a sufficient defence, but finding it failed them, they found it necessary to change, and even cut off some parts of this fortification, which were of advantage to their enemies. After, an outwork of Tradition was judged expedient for more security; although in effect nothing proves of more danger unto them. Bishops, and Priests formerly cast out, as of more expenses than profit, were soon called back, and desired to appear armed with true Orders, received not by extraordinary vocation, but by legal succession. Faith alone was thought armour of proof, before they had found by experience the need of good works. The Church which in the beginning they gave out for lost, and utterly perished for many ages, they came at length to seek out with more solicitude than success; being resolved not to find it in that place in which alone it is to be found: and now they seem willing to open the doors of the Church to all Christians, that they in the crowd may get in with the rest. The pretended clearness of Scripture in itself, or at least as subsigned with the testimony of the private spirit, made the definitions of Counsels seem of no use; now upon better consideration, foreseeing the prejudice they do to their cause, by appealing from the verdict of all Counsels in general, they think expedient to admit of some in particular, but namely such as treated of matters not apertaining to our present controversies: by which evasion they engage themselves in greater difficulties, than those they pretended to avoid; for no just exception was, or can be alleged against the Council of Lateran deciding the question of Transubstantiation, which may not be urged against those Counsels which obliged all Christians to believe the mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation.  
They have been so beaten from place to place, and so battered, and broken in every place they undertook to maintain, that divers of the best understanding, and least passion, would be glad to capitulate, and come to an accommodation with us, as fare as it may stand with their honour, and interest. They are content to wave that main article of the Pope's Antichristian tyranny, and yield him a preeminency in stead of a supremacy. The respect we give Images most will free from the sin, and many from the danger of Idolatry, so it may be left as a matter of superfluity: in which rank they will place our prayers to Saints, without imputing hereafter unto us any injury done to Christ's mercies, or merits. Upon the score of Tradition they will grant us prayer for the dead, provided we leave it to their private intention, whether it be to diminish their pains, or increase their glory. As to the real presence, so much excepted against by their Predecessors, they refuse not to accept of, upon condition they may shape Christ's power, and words, to the narrow model of their own senses, and be exempted from the labour of searching so fare into Metaphysic (a science not suitable to the grosser heresies of this age) as to find a distinction betwixt the appearance, and substance of bread. Notwithstanding their want of speculation in the Theoriques', they might in this mystery, as well as in that of the Trinity, have learned this practical moral Lesson, that Reason is never more reasonable, then when it leaves reasoning in things above reason. Auricular Confession heretofore traduced for a torture of Consciences, and Tyranny of the Clergy, many confess to be of good use, but few of necessity; and none can be brought to descend to particulars, for want of humility in themselves, and for want of secrecy in their Ministers. Reason of state will make them subscribe to the article of Bishops, that the Prince may have so many Peers of his own creation, and at his own devotion; and a chain of consequence draws after them, Priests, and Deacons; for, to say the truth, their winking so long at the clear signs of their Bishops invalid Ordination, is a shrewd sign of their looking more upon their Votes in Parliament, than their functions in the Church.  
They are willing to fall thus fare, and yet further, from their ancient Tenets, with hopes to be admitted as part of our Church, and cleared of the reproachful name of Heretics, as not dissenting in the fundamental points of Catholic Faith. But whilst they talk of fundamentals, they never pass the mere superficialls, and they are fare from digging so deep as to come to the main foundation of Faith. It is in vain to decide fundamental matters before we resolve upon the fundamental motive of Christian belief. No man calls in question the truth of God's Word, but the question is about the sufficient proposal of it. That is a fundamental article of Faith, and undeniable under pain of damnation, which is sufficiently proposed as revealed by God: we relying upon the infallible and unchangeable Truth of the Church's proposal, remain settled in the same Tenets, notwithstanding the opposition of Luther, Calvin, and other Sectaries; whilst they on the contrary, accepting God's Word upon the proposal of private inspiration, or human persuasion, neither agree with us, nor with one another, nor even with themselves in different times. As to our new English Religion, it is very remarkable, how the pretended supernatural inspiration, and natural persuasion, hath been always flexible to temporal respects. First they were inspired, and persuaded to pull down Monks, and cry down the Pope, and proceed no further, this being sufficient to comply with King Henry the Eighths' lewdness and covetousness. After, they went on as fare as they were led by the interest of the Protector Seamour. But when Queen Elizabeth's illegitimacy made the Pope's authority be judged wholly inconsistent with her security; then was it time to make him Antichrist, and to pursue his party with fire and sword. The title of the ensuing Kings not being questioned by the Pope, made him an object of less hate, and his adherents subject to less cruelty, and the Religion was fashioned to the humour of the Prince, yet with some regard to popular faction. Lastly the liberty of war giving licence to those infinite Sects (which lay lurking in every corner of the English Church) to sally forth, and to appear to the world in their different colours, every one took notice, how few were grounded on those Tenets, whereon the Church of England is built; and how by leaving the true proposal of God's Word, and the ancient rule of Divine Faith, men come to be so unsettled in all points of Faith, that their Religion is as changeable as private fancies, and public factions. And that all may see, how the curse of Cain, the first father of Heretics, as being the first opposer of God's true Worship, is fallen by inheritance upon our English Protestants, their last change is to turn into Quakers, whose Sect is nothing else but Protestancy fallen into a Paulscy, and inclining to a sudden Apoplexy.   

THE INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS.  

CHAP. I. How Protestancy begun and came into England.  
CHAP. II. Of the nullity of the English Protestant Clergy.  
CHAP. III. Of Heresy.  
CHAP. IU. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresy consist?  
CHAP. V Of the Catholic Church.  
CHAP. VI Whether all Christians be th● Catholic Church; or whether it may b● composed of any two, or more Congregation of them, if agreeing not in all matters whatses ever which any one Congregation, or Church pretends to be revealed by God.  
CHAP. VII. Whether the testimony of t●● Catholic Church be infallible not only (〈◊〉 Protestant's term them) in fundamental, b● also in not fundamental articles of Faith?  
CHAP. VIII. Whether any reformed, 〈◊〉 Protestant Church of the world be the Catholics and Apostolic Church? And whether th● pretended clearness of Scripture doth sufficiently propose their doctrine as Divine revelation?  
CHAP. IX. Whether any Puritanical Congregation be the Catholic Church, by reason of their pretended spirit?  
CHAP. X. Whether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with, and subjection to the Roman Church, be the Catholic and true Church of God?  
CHAP. XI. Whether Transubstantiation and the lawfulness of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church, as Divine revelation? and whether Protestants have any lawful exceptions against them?  
CHAP. XII. Whether Protestancy be Heresy?  
CHAP. XIII. Whether any Protestants may be saved?  
CHAP. XIV. Whether Protestancy be manifestly against reason, and common sense? and how may the most learned Protestants be convinced in disputes of Religion by every illiterate Roman Catholic?  
SECT. II. A Dialog between a learned Protestant Minister, and a Catholic Cloune.  
CHAP. XV. Of the difference between Christian Faith, and the historical belief of Protestants.    

A TREATISE OF THE NATURE OF CATHOLIC FAITH, AND HERESY, WITH Reflection upon the Nullity of the English Protestant Church, and Clergy.  

CHAP. I. How Protestancy begun, and came into England.  
IN the year 1516. there was no other Religion in our parts of the world acknowledged Catholic, and Apostolic, but that which Protestants are now pleased to call Popery. In the year 1517. Leo the X. Bishop of Rome (following the ●cample of other Popes) granted and published Indulgen●●s to all such as voluntarily contributed towards the war ●gainst the Turk; who at that time was grown formidable, and threatened all Christendom, having added Syria ●●d Egypt to the Otteman Empire.  
2 The Archbishop of Mentz (to whom the Pope committed the business of Indulgences in Germany) appointed one john Tetzel a Dominican Friar, to preach in the publishing of them, notwithstanding that for a long time before, this office had been given to the Augustin Friars. The preferment of Tetzel was ill taken by Martin Luther, who being an Augustin Friar, and a famous Preacher, expected himself should have been the man named to preach, and publish the Indulgences; but seeing his hopes frustrated, he resolved to write as much against Indulgences and the Pope, as he had prepared to preach in favour of both.  
3 Therefore taking occasion of some abuses (which are unavoidable in things that pass through many hands) he printed certain Conclusions, and Libels against Indulgences. These were condemned, and burnt as heretical by john Tetzel, Luther's Competitor, who at the same time exercised the office of Inquisitor in Germany. This fire did so warm Luther, and added such flames to his hot disposition, that most parts of Europe felt the smart of it. For, being once engaged, and enraged by Tetzels' Declaration against him, he would not recant his first error, but added others by denying Purgatory, the Pope's authority, merit, necessity of good works etc.  
4 Amongst others who writ against Luther's novelties, one was Henry the VIII. King of England, composing a learned Book in defence of the seven Sacraments, the Pope's supremacy, and his spiritual jurisdiction over all Christendom: this Book moved the Pope to add to Henry the VIII. titles, that of Defender of the Faith; which had been the most glorious of all his titles, if he had not so violently opposed afterwards the Pope's primacy, which he then so piously maintained against Luther. But being weary of his wife Queen Catharine, despairing to have issue male by her, and enamoured of Anne Builen, because the Pope refused to declare his marriage with Queen Catharine invalid, he made himself Pope of England, challenging all spiritual jurisdiction within his own Kingdoms, and by Act of Parliament made it treason to acknow ledge any spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in his Dominions, himself being proclaimed spiritual Head of the English Church. This was the occasion, and beginning of the pretended Reformation. Henry the VIII. notwithstanding did stick to the old Religion in all points, the Pope's primacy only excepted; because he thought no other of the new Religion was necessary to marry Anne Bullen, and to enrich himself by the spoil of Monasteries. He persecuted all other novelties, and heresies in such a degree, that though many crept into England in his reign, yet very few durst profess them, because as many as did, were burnt by his command.  
5 To King Henry the VIII. Sect. 2 succeeded his son Edward the VI a child of 9 years old; his uncle the Earl of Hartford was made Protector both of the King, and Kingdom; he was inclined to Zuinglius his heresy. Twenty days had scarce passed after his Protectorship, but his fingers did so eagerly itch to be doing, and tampering about innovation in Religion, 
Horinshed, Stow, and others a. 1547.  as upon the sixth of March next following, he sent away Commissioners into all parts of the Realm, to pull do●●ne Images, and other Ecclesiastical ornaments. He also invited out of Germany divers Sectaries of what Religion soever, but especially he desrred to have Apostata Friars, that had tied themselves to Sisters; assuring himself that they would be most pliable to his purpose. And so there came into England Martin Bucer a Dominican Friar, who had been an earnest Lutheran; Peter Martyr a Cannon Regular, that inclined to Zuinglius his opinions, but yet came with great indifferency to preach, and teach what he should be appointed; as afterwards appeared, being a Lector in the University of Oxford, when the Parliament in London was debating what opinion the Kingdom should follow concerning the Real presence: Peter Martyr kept all his Scholars in suspense, until news came of the Parliaments resolution, to which he accommodated himself: for, having detained his Scholars with tedious glosses upon the words precedent to This is my body, not to declare his sense of them before he understood the sense of the Parliament, which having received by the Post, to be interpreted in a ●gurative, not real way, he was presently inspired, that this was the clear sense of the Scaipture, and wondered now any could be so blind as not to see a thing so manifest Bernard ●chinus was the third, who had been a Ca●ecl●in, but being weary of that austere life, took a woman, 
Annal. Cap. 1543.  and writ a Book in defence of having two wives at 〈◊〉 Some say he died a Jew, but the Annals of the Capuchins testify, that he repent, and died a Cath● lick.  
6 These three Apostles of the Reformation were distributed into three principal fountains of the Land, London, Oxford, and Cambridge. With these joined Coverda● an Augustin Friar, Bale a Carmelite, and other Apostates who did so vary in their Doctrine, and Religions which they preached to the people, that all was in confusion; i● so much that the Protector writ to Cranmer, and Ridley that they should make haste to end the common Service book, or of Common prayer, Doctrine, and Rites, which they had begun.  
7 But from hence arose a great Controversy; for tha● Bucer would have one thing, Peter Martyr another, Ochin●● a third. john Bale, and Miles Coverdale would sane put i● their opinions also. Above all others did trouble the market two heady Priests, john Hooper, and john Roger, com● from beyond Seas, the one from Wittenberg, the other from Strasburg. These two dissenting wholly from th● course begun by Cranmer, and Ridley, made a great faction against the Common prayer book, especially after that Hugh Latimer sided with them, who was of great regard with the common people.  
8 The Protector seeing such differences in Religions and confusion, called a Parliament an 1547 but the Common prayer book could not then pass; this only wa● determined about Religion, that none should speak irre● verently of the Sacrament of the Altar; and that all for mer Statuts made by the Kings of England against what soever Heretics, or Sectaries, namely against Lohards' Wickliffians, Hussits, Anabaptists etc. should be recalled and annulled. So as now every man might think, say preach, or teach what he thought fit.  
9 But in the next Parliament the Common praye● book was approved, because it seemed in matter of th● Sacraments to favour, and humour divers Sectaries wh● before had opposed it. Yet the common people in man shires of England took arms in defence of the old and Catholic Religion, complaining that most Sacrament were taken from them, and they had reason to fear th● rest (if they did not look to it) would follow within short time. This was King Eduards Reformation, which he could not perfect, because he died within six years after he had begun.  
10 It is very remarkable how in this King's time it was resolved, that whatsoever should be determined by six Bishops (such as they were) and six men learned in the Law of God, or the major part of them, concerning the Rites and administrations of Sacraments; that only should be followed; so that seven men in England were thought a sufficient number to change the whole frame of Christian Religion, by changing the matter, and form of Sacraments, abolishing the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the ancient Rites, and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, which had been practised for so many ages, and reverenced by all the pious, and learned men of the world. Heresy is always accompanied with presumption; yet never did any Sectaries before this time attribute to themselves so much, as ours did, preferring the judgement of seven men to that of all the world, confirmed by so many general Counsels, and holy Fathers. The form of consecrating Priests set down in the new Ritual, is this: Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: See the Ritual printed at London 1607. and for the Act authorising it, see Kallend an 3. Ed V●. cap. 12. and Mason pag. 94.  
11 After King Eduard the VI reigned his Sister Queen Mary, who being a Catholic herself, restored the Catholic Religion by Act of Parliament, Cardinal Poole the Pope's Legate absolving the Kingdom from the excommunication and schism incurred. Some Histories of that time relate that 30 thousand Sectaries, all strangers, Were banished out of England, and amongst the rest, the two holy Apostles Peter Martyr, and Bernard Ochinus. All King Eduards pretended Bishops were deposed and imprisoned, the Catholic Bishops set at liberty, and restored to their Seas. This Queen is as much condemned by Protestants for cruelty against their Religion, as Queen Elizabeth is censured by Catholics: as if, forsooth, there were no difference between punishing upstart seditious novel●ists, and the maintainers of that Faith, Which had been in possession from the time Christianity was brought into the Land.  
12 Queen Mary deceased without issue, her Sister Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen, notwithstanding that all Catholics knew Mary Steward the Queen of Scots, to be the lawful heir of the Crown. Queen Elizabeth showing inclination to the new Religion, all the Catholic Bishops refused to crown her; yet at length by great ado she was crowned, and anointed, after the Catholic manner, by Oglethorp Bishop of Carlisle. The Reformation was by Act of Parliament again established, notwithstanding the great opposition made by all the Bishops, and others in the upper House. The Queen was resolved to puil down Catholic Religion, because Cecil, and others of her Council persuaded her, that she could not be secure as long as the Pope's authority was acknowledged in England; seeing the Sea Apostolic had declared her a bastard, and all Catholics looked upon the Queen of Scots, as the true heir to the Crown  
13 Notwithstanding it was the Queen's temporal interest to pull down Catholic Religion in England, yet it was much for her quiet, and peace of the Realm, to keep always a resemblance of it in the Clergy, as the best remedy against Puritanisme, which was thought by Her Majesty dangerous to Monarchy. Therefore the titles of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Chapters were retained, as also in her own Chapel some Images, the Altar, and a Crucifix upon it.  
Though the titles of the Catholic Clergy were bestowed upon persons who favoured the new Religion, yet the Ordination was not; because that which was instituted by Edward the VI was judged invalid by all Catholics, and so declared by public judgement in Queen mary reign; in so much, that leases made by King Edward's Bishops, though confirmed by the Dean, and Chapter, 
Brooks novel cases. Placito 463. fol. 101 printed at London 1604.  were not esteemed available, because they were no, (saith the sentence) consecrated, nor Bishops. Some Protestants are so charitable as to say, that King Edward's Bishops were declared no Bishops, to the end Bonner, and other Catholic Bishops restored by Queen Mary, might make the leases void: let the world judge whether 3 Bonner, and others, who loft their Bishoprics for conscience sake alone, would commit so great a sacrilege as must needs follow out of declaring invalid King Edward's new form of Ordination. They who renounced the propriety for Religion's sake, would not damn themselves for the profit of new leases.  
14 Seeing therefore it concerned the Queen to have consecrated Bishops, and that in King Edward's reign the Catholic Consecration was held to be superstition (most of the Clergy then being Zwinglians, or Puritans) the Queen endeavoured by all possible means to have such as she named for the Bishoprics, consecrated by Catholics; but they all resolved not to make Bishops in that Church, whereof themselves refused to be Members. An Irish Archbishop prisoner in the Tower was offered his liberty, and great rewards, if he would consecrate the newly elected; but he denied to commit so great a sacrilege.   

CHAP. II. Of the Nullity of the English Protestant Clergy.  
1 THe Queen notwithstanding all this reluctancy of Catholic Bishops, named in her Letters Patents Anthony Kitchen Bishop of Landaf amongst others, to consecrate Parker, and his fellows; because he was the only man amongst all the Catholic Bishops that took the oath of Supremacy in her reign. But this frailty was not a sufficient ground to think that he would consecrate Parker, and others whom he knew to be Heretics, and averse from the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which himself so constantly adhered unto (the Supremacy only excepted) during his life. 
Sacrobosc● lib. de investig. Christi Ecclesia cap. 14. D. Champ. cap. 14.  Many others of the Catholic Bishops complied with Henry the VIII. in that particular, who now refused to ordain Parker: the same was Landaffe resolved to do; but at last by fair words and promises, they prevailed with the old man to give them a meeting at the Nag's head in Cheapside, where they hoped he would ordain them Bishops, despairing that ever he would do it publicly in a Church; because that would be too great and too notorious a scandal for Catholics, amongst whom Landaffe desired to be numbered. Bonner's Bishop of London being well informed of all that passed, sent one Master Neale his Chaplain, an honest and learned man, who had formerly been Lector in Oxford, to the Bishop of Landaffe, forbidding him under pain of excommunication, to exercise any such power of giving Orders in his Diocese: wherewith the old man being tertified, and otherwise also moved in his own conscience, refused to proceed in that action, alleging chief for reason of his forbearance, his want of sight. Which excuse Parker, and the rest, interpreting to be but an evasion, were much moved against the poor old man; and whereas hitherto they had used him with all courtesy, and respect, they then turned their copy, reviling and calling him doting fool, and the like; some of them saying, This old fool thinketh we cannot be Bishops unless we be greased, alluding to the Catholic manner of Episcopal unction.  
2 Being thus deceived of their expectation, and having no other means to come to their desire, they resolved to use Master Scoryes help, an Apostata religious Priest, who having borne the name of Bishop in King Edward the VI time, was thought to have sufficient power to perform that office, especially in such a straight necessity as they pretended. He having cast off together with his religious habit all scruple of conscience, willingly went about the matter, which he performed in this sort; having the Bible in his hand, and they all kneeling before him, he laid it upon every one of their heads, or shoulders, saying, Take thou authority to preach the Word of God sincerely. And so they risen up Bishops of the new Church of England.  
3 This story of the Nagshead was first contradicted by Mason in the year 1613. yet so weakly and faintly, that the attentive Reader may easily perceive he feared to be caught in a lie, and convinced by some aged persons that might then be living, and remember what passed in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign. In the year 1603. none of the Protestant Clergy durst call it a fable, or a tale of a Tub, as some now do. Bancroft Bishop of London being demanded by Master William Alabaster how Parker, and his Colleagues were consecrated Bishops? answered, He hoped that in case of necessity, a Priest (alluding 〈◊〉 Scory) might ordain Bishops This answer of his was ob●●cted in print by Holiwod against him, and all the English clergy, in the year 1603. not a word replied, Bancroft ●imselfe being then living. I have spoken with both Catholics, and Protestants that remember near 80. years, ●nd acknowledge that so long they have heard the Nagshead story related as an undoubted truth. In the beginning of the late Parliament some Presby terian Lords pre●nted to the upper House a certain Book, proving that ●●e Protestant Bishops had no succession, nor consecration. and therefore were no Bishops, and by consequence ●ad no right to sit in Parliament. Hereupon Doctor Mor●on pretended Bishop of Durham, who is yet alive, made 〈◊〉 speech against this Book in his own, and all the Bishop's behalf, then present; he endeavoured to prove succession from the last Catholic Bishops, who (said he) ●y imposition of hands ordained the first Protestant Bishops at the Nagshead in Cheapside, as was notorious ●o all the world etc. Therefore the aforesaid Book ●ought to be looked upon as a groundless Libel. This was told to many by one of the ancientest Peers of Eng●and, present in Parliament when Morton made his speech. And the same he is ready to depose upon his oath. Nay, he can not believe, that any will be so impudent, as to de●y a thing so notorious, whereof there are as many witnesses living, as there are Lords and Bishops, that were that day in the upper House of Parliament.  
4 This narration of the Consecration at the Nagshead have I taken out of Holiwood, Constable, and Doctor Champneys works; they heard it from many of the ancient Clergy, who were prisoners for the Catholic Religion in Wisbich Castle, as Master Bluet, Doctor Watson Bishop of Lincoln, and others. These had it from the said Master Neale, and other Catholics, present at Parker's Consecratiod in the Nagshead, as Master Constable affirms. The story was divulged, to the great grief of the newly consecrated; yet being so evident a truth, they durst not contradict it; notwithstanding that not only the nullity of their Consecration, but also the illegality of the same, 
Counterblast fol. 301.  was objected in print against them not long after, by that famous Writer Doctor Stapleton, and others, whose words I will set down in the proper place.  
5 Parker and the rest of the Protestant Bishops not being able to answer the Catholics arguments against th● invalidity of their Ordination, nor to cry down the illegal and extravagant manner of it at the Nagshead, wer● forced to beg an Act of Parliament, whereby they might enjoy the temporalities, notwithstanding the known defects of their Consecration against the Canons of th● Church, and the Laws of the Land. For, albeit Edwar● the VI 
Sanders lib. 3 de schism. Mason Pag. 121. Poulton in his Kalend. pag. 141. n. 5.  Rite of Ordination was reestablished by Act o● Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reigns yet it was notorious, that the Ordination of the Nag's head was very different from it, and framed ex tempore b● Scorys Puritanical spirit, that hated no less a set form o● consecrating Bishops, then of praying to God. The word of the Act are: Such form and order for the consecrating 〈◊〉 Archbishops, Bishops, Priests &c. as was set forth in the tim● of King Edward the VI shall stand, and be in full force, and effect; and all Acts and things heretofore had, made, or done by any person, or persons, in or about any Consecration, Confirmation, or Investing of any person, or persons elected to the office or dignity of Archbishop, Bishop etc. by virtue of the Queen Letters Patents, or Commission since the beginning of he reign, be, and shall be by authority of this Parliament declared, and judged good, and perfect in all respects, and purposes any matter or thing that can, or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise, notwithstanding. 8. Eliza. 1. By which Act appears, that not only King Edward's Rite, but any other used since the beginning of the Queen's reign upon her Commission, was enacted for good, and consequently that of the Nagshead might pass. Hence it wa● that they were called Parliament Bishops.  
6 Master Mason a great stickler for the valid Ordination of Parker, 
Pag. 133.  of whom depends that of all the Protestant Clergy, seeing this to be over clear to be denied, laboureth to shadow it at least in some sort, saying, that th● Queen did but dispense with the trespasses against her own Laws, not in essential points of Ordination, but only in accidental; not in substance, but in circumstance. But if the Consecration was at Lambeth, and according the form o● King Edward the VI what veed was there of any dispensation, especially given not in conditional, but in very absolute terms? both substance, and circumstance was according the Protestant Laws. The truth is, all the world ●ught at the Nagshead Consecration; and held it to be ●valid, not so much for the circumstance of being per●rmed in a Tavern, as for the new form invented by ●ory, differing not only from that of the Church, but al●● from that which is prescribed in the English Ritual of ●dward the VI and confirmed 1. Eliza.  
7 This is demonstrated in the public, 
Abridgement of Dyer's reports 7. Eliza. 234.  and notorious ●se of Bishop Bonner, who being prisoner in the Marshal●a was indicted by Master Horn (one of the first Protestant ●●shops, consecrated by Master Parker, or together with ●m) for refusing to take the oath of supremacy He appeared before the Judges of the King's Bench. The indi●ment being read, he excepted against it, because the oath ●as said to have been tendered unto him by Robert Horne ●●shop of Winchester, who was by no Law Bishop, and ●herefore had no authority to tender him the oath. After ●uch debate at the bar, and after by all the Judges at ●argeants-Inne in Fleetstreet, in Judge Catline the chief ●ustice his Chamber, it was resolved by all the Judges, ●hat Bishop Bonner his plea upon this issue, that he was not culpable, because Horn was no Bishop when he tendered ●im the oath, should be received, and that the Jury should ●y it: no● what the trial was, appeareth by that he was ●t condemned, nor ever troubled any further for that ●se, though he was a man specially shot at. Hereupon in ●e next year following 8. Eliza. the aforesaid Act of parliament was made.  
8 Notwithstanding all these testimonies, and evidences ●f Protestants against themselves, and the constant prause of Catholics reordaining their Ministers not condi●onally, but absolutely, (an evident argument of their ●eere secularity, and laiety) the modern Protestant ●ergy endeavour to make the world believe, that Parker, ●d the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated by im●sition of hands of true and lawful Bishops with great solemnity at Lambeth. This they prove by certain Re●rds produced by Master Mason in the year 1613. fifty ●ares after they ought to have been showed, and in a ti●e, it can not be testified by any lawful witnesses of ●eirs, that they were not forged. There can not be a more evident mark of forgery, than the concealment of Registers, if they be useful, and necessary to the very same persons in whose custody they are: if they did produce none, when their adversaries did insult, and triumph over them, it's as impossible any should be then extant, as it is, that men should conspire with their greatest adversaries, to take upon themselves, and their Church, an everlasting infamy. It is not worth the refuting, that which some modern Protestants say: Ye have no Witnesses for the stor● of the Nagshead, and other things objected against Protestants, but Roman Catholics, we value not their testimony, because they are our known adversaries, a party concerned against us etc. This weak answer is very frequent, though no less ridiculous, than the exception that a certain Officer of the Parliament in Ireland, made against the testimony of all the Inhabitants of a Village he had pillaged. They complained to his Commander, who showing unto the Officer, how many witnesses there were of his misdemeanour; he replied, there was not one lawful witness amongst them, because they were all concerned in the business and a part: when Protestancy begun in England, and the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nagshead, all who were not Protestants, were Roman Catholics; no others could be witnesses of their Ordination but Catholics, or themselves; and truly their own silence in a matter that concerned them so much to speak against, doth demonstrate they had nothing to say against the testimony of Catholics. Silent witnesses in some circumstances prove more than any others. Qui tacit, consentire videtur.  
9 As soon as Master Mason published his Records. Fitz Herbert suspected them, his words are these: It was my chance to understand that one Master Mason hath lately published a Book, Wherein he endeavoureth to prove the first Protestant Bishop's Consecration by a Register. Thou shalt therefore understand, good Reader, that this our exception against the English Clergy is no new quarrel now lately raised, but vehemently urged divers times heretofore many years ago, yea in the very beginning of the late Queen's reign urging them to show how, and by whom they were made Priests, Bishops etc. And what, trow you, was answered thereto? was there any Bishop named who had consecrated them? was Master Masons Register, or any other authentical proof thereof produced by ●aster Jewel, or Master Horn? No truly. This then being 〈◊〉, I report me to the judgement of any indifferent man, What redit Master Masons new found Register deserveth being produced now after fifty and odd years to testify this Consecration, whereof not so much as any one witness was named, nor ●ny Register pretended by those whom it most imported to prove 〈◊〉. 5. or 6. years after it was supposed to be done. This and much more did Fitz Herbert print in the year 1613. in his Appendix to the Discovery of Doctor Andrews absurdities, falsities, lies etc. I say that no mention was ever made of Registers, or Records testifying Parker's Consecration at Lambeth, until Master Mas●n printed his Book by Master Abbot's command. For, though in a Book called Antiqui●ates Britanniae pag. 39 edit. Hanoviae an. 1605. there be a Register of the Protestant Bishops in England, thrust in with-but any necessity, or purpose, immediately after Saint Austin the first Archbishop of Canterbury, yet that very Register doth not mention any certain place, or form of their Consecration; so that it might be performed as well at the Nagshead, as at Lambeth.  
But that all the world may see how this very Register was forged. I will set down the words of the learned Author of a Book called The judgement of the Apostles, and first again points of Doctrine questioned between the Catholics and Protestants of England, printed an 1633. 
Pag. 209.  It hath been pretended from a new borne Register of Matthew Parker, that ●he was made a Bishop by Barlowe, Scory, and three others, by virtue of a Commission from Queen Elizabeth, and this new work was acted on the 17. day of December, an. 1559. but ●alas, they had then no form, or order to do such a business. 
Pag. 349.  Whereas this printed Book of Parkers Antiquitates Britanniae is the first that mentioneth any such pretended Consecration of him, and the rest, and the other Writers seem to borrow this from thence: in the old Manuscript of that Book which I have seen, and diligently examined, there is not any mention, or memory at all, of any such Register, or Consecration of either Matthew Parker, 
Pag. 211.  or any one of those pretended Protestant Bishops, as the obtruded Register speaketh of. And any man reading the printed Book will wanifestly see it is a merely foisted, and inserted thing, having no connexion, correspondence, or affinity either with that which goeth before, or followeth it. And containeth more things done after Mathe● Parker had written that Book. But now let us see how th● Protestant Clergy was charged with the nullity, and illgalitie of Ordination; and how they never stopped the Adversaries mouths with Mason's Registers, or Records.  
10 Consider (saith Doctor Bristol) what Church that i● whose Ministers are but very lay-men, 
Mot. 21.  unsent, uncalled, unco● secrated, holding therefore amongst us, when they repent, an● return, no other place but lay-men, in no case admitted, no n● looking to minister in any office, unless they take Orders, whic● before they had not? Master Fulke, who was ignorant of no● thing in this point, that Master Mason did know, answering Bristol his objection, denyeth ordinary calling to b● always necessary; which desperate shift he would neve● have used, if he had been provided of so easy and sufficient an answer, as Master Masons Records would have afforded him, if they had been authentical, or extant.  
11 Master Reynolds: 
Calvino Turcis lib. 4. cap. 15.  There is no herdsman in all Turkey which doth not undertake the governmen of his herd upon better reason, and greater right, order, and authority, than these your magnificent Apostles, and Evangelists can show for thi● divine, and high office of governing souls, reforming Churches etc.  
12 Doctor Stapleton in his Counterblast against Maste● Horn pretended Bishop of Winchester hath these urging speeches: 
Folly 7. & 9  To say truly you are no Lord Winchester, nor elsewhere, but only Master Robert Horn. Is it not notorious that ye, and your Colleagues were not ordained according to th● prescript, I will not say of the Church, but even of the very Statues? How then can you challenge to yourself the name of the name of the Cord Bishop of Winchester? 
Fol. 301.  You are without any Consecration at all of your Metropolitan, himself poor man being no Bishop neither.  
13 Doctor Harding in his Detection of sundry foul errors against Master jewel. 
Fol. 129.  You tell not half my tale (which truly is noted by many, that Master jewel passes over the difficulties without answering, or mentioning) I laid for my foundation out of raint Hierome the se words Ecclesia●onest, quae non habet Sacerdotem: that is, no Church, which hath not a Priest, or Bishop, etc. for Sacerdos, as you know, doth signify both a Priest, and Bishop. I ask then as well of your Bishoply vocation, and of your sending, as of your Priesthood etc. These being my questions, Master Jewel, you answer ●●ither by what example hands were laid on you, nor who sent ●u, but only say, he made you Priest, that made me in King ●dwards time. Verily I never had any name, or title of Priest●od given to me, during the reign of King Edward. I only ●ke the order of Deaconship, as it was then ministered, fur●er I went not, etc. Truly after I had well considered with ●y self these questions, which in my confutation I moved unto ●u, I took myself neither for Priest, nor yet for lawful Dea●n in all respects, by those orders which were taken in King ●dwards days, being well assured that those, who took upon ●em to give orders, were altogether out of order themselves, ●nd ministered them not, according to the Kite, and manner of ●e Catholic Church, as who had forsaken the whole succession 〈◊〉 Bishops in all Christendom, and had erected a new Conregation of their own planting, the form whereof was ima●ned in their own brains, and had not been seen, nor pra●ised in the world before.  
14 Master jewel answers all this with profound silence, ●s though it had never been written, albeit he would ha●e the world believe that he hath fully answered in sub●ance, at least the whole Book, wherein these things are contained. Now whether the true reason of this dissembling silence be not the want of all probable means, and records, let the discreet Reader judge. Only he says without any proof, that their Bishops are made by form. ●nd order, and by the consecration of the Archbishop, and other ●hree Bishops, and by the admission of the Prince.  
To this Doctor Harding replies: But ye were made you ●ay, by the consecration of the Archbishop, and other three Bishops. And how I pray was your Archbishop consecrated? what ●hree Bishops in the Realm were there to lay hands upon him? You have now uttered a worse case for yourselves, than was by ●ne before named. For your Metropolitan, who should give an●horitie to all your consecrations, himself had no lawful consecration. If you had been consecrated after the form, and order which hath ever been used, ye might have had Bishops out of France, to have consecrated you, in case there had lacked in Eng●and. But now there were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you; which 〈◊〉 an evident sign that ye sought not such a Consecration as had ●eene ever used, but such an one, whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed.  
15 All this sharp reply affirming so directly Master Paker not to have been consecrated, whereby the consecrations of all the rest are necessarily and confessedly prove to be none, Master jewel (finding nothing to answer the reunto) dissembleth, as he doth the former, and takes occasion from some words of Master Harding, to discour● of the notice which ought to be given to the Bishop 〈◊〉 Rome, and others, when Bishops were consecrated. Bu● not one word of the main point, nor of Master Mason h●● Records. What therefore can any man of indifferent judgement think in this case, but that these Records wer● not then extant, or were forged? For if they had been i● those days, and not forged, how is it possible that the 〈◊〉 should not be produced by Horn, jewel, Parker, and th● rest whom it specially behoved to make proof of thei● own calling, being so often, and earnestly urged thereunto by their adversaries, triumphing over them for want o● due, and authentical proof thereof? Yet these Record were never mentioned by any of them. To say that i● Parker's life the Reader is remitted to I know not wha● Registers, as also that an Act of Parliament 8. Eliz relate to some Registers, or Records concerning the consecration of the English Clergy, is no proof of Master Masons Records; because it's but a general term, and a word o● course, which men do rather suppose then examine, whe● they mention things that have been practised in form times. But that there were no Records of Parker's consecration at Lambeth in the eighth year of Queen Elizabeth, nor when his life was written, is evident to any ma● who will reflect upon how much the Catholic Doctor then, and before, urged to see some evidence of his, an● others consecration, and yet none was ever produced. But suppose there were Records of Parker's consecration 8. Eliz doth that prove they were not forged? could they not b● forged as well in Queen Elizabeth's time, as in King Iame● his reign? If they were then extant, and n●t produce● against the Catholic Doctors, it was because in Queen Elizabeth's time, many were living who would have proved them to be forged. So that the Act of Parliament, and the life of Parker relating the Records, makes them more incredible, then if no mention at all were made of them.  
16 An other reason why Master Mason's Registers, 
Sect. 2.  and Records ought to be judged counterfeited, is, because they disagree with those that Master Goodwin used in his Catalogue of Bishops, sometimes in the day, sometimes in the month, and sometimes in the year, as is manifest in the consecrations of Doynet, Ridley, Coverdall, Grindall, Horn, Gneast, Piers: which necessarily proveth falsity in the one at least, with a prudent suspicion of forgery in both. Again Master Mason, Master Sutcliffe, and Master Butler, all speaking of Master Parker's consecration, do all differ one from the other in naming his Consecrators. For Master Mason saith it was done by Barlowe, Scory, Coverdall, and Hodgekins. Master Sutcliffe saith besides the three first named by Master Mason, there were two Suffragans, as the Act of consecration yet to be seen (saith he) mentioneth. Master Butler saith the Suffragan of Dover was one of the Consecrators, who notwithstanding is not so much as named in the Queen's Patents, whereby Commission was given to the named therein to consecrate Master Parker. So that these men seem to have had three divers and disagreeing Registers of one and the same action, and therefore the credit of every one of them is made uncreditable. Master Mason ought to have answered as Master Whitaker, and Master Fulke, who had reason to be better informed of the Records, than he, because they lived in, and about the time, the English Ordination was first called in question. 
Contra Dureum pag. 821. Answer to a counterfeit Catholic, pag. 50. pag. 67.  I would not have you think (saith Whitaker) we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our own vocation unlawful without them, and therefore keep them to your selves. Master Fulke speaks more plainly: You are highly deceived if you think we esteem your Offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons better than Laymen. And in his retentive: With all our heart we defy, abhor, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasy, Antichristian orders. Is it credible that these prime Protestants would answer thus, if they had not known full well that the story of the Nagshead was true?  
17 But (grant the Records were not forged) there can be produced no Records to witness, that Master Barlowe was consecrated, and yet Master Mason acknowledgeth, that Master Barlow was the man who consecrated Parker: 
Champn. cap. 14.  because Hodgekins the Suffragan of Bedford, was only an Assistant in that action, and the Assistants in the Protestant Church, do not consecrate. Master Mason proves Barlowes consecration only by conjectures, because he discharged all things belonging to the order of a Bishop, even Episcopal consecration. But by the like form of argument might he be proved (saith Doctor Champney) to have been a lawful husband, because he had a woman, and divers children. Secondly (saith Mason) Barlowe was acknowledged, and obeyed as a Bishop. So were Ridley, Hooper, Farrer, and others, during the time they held the rooms of Bishops in King Edward the VI time, and ye● were they judged (as we have seen before) by both spiritual, and temporal Court, not to have been consecrated.  
18 Seeing therefore no Records of Master Barlowe consecration do appear, and that we have no reason to believe they perished by fire, or other extraordinary accident, happening to the metropolitans, and all other Registers, how can he be judged to have been truly consecrated? Especially seeing (as Master Mason saith) the Register of Cranmer bear record of Master Barlowes preferment to the Priory of Bishame, 
Pag. 127.  of his election to the Bishopric of Saint Asath, and of the confirmation of the same; how is it therefore possible that his consecration (if ever it had been) should not be found likewise recorded? But the truth is, that Barlowe, as most of the Clergy of England in those times, were Puritans, and inclined to Zuinglianisme; therefore they contemned, and rejected Consecration as a rag of Rome, and were content with the extraordinary calling of God, and the Spirit, as all other Churches are, who pretend Reformation Neither is it credible that there was any other consecration of Parker, and his Comrades, but that which pass at the Nagshead. For if there were, john Stow would not conceal it in his Annals, who is so diligent in setting down all that passed, in and about London, especially concerning Master Parker, to whom he professeth love, and respect; therefore he would not omit his consecration, i● it were for his advantage to have it published; he having related the consecration of Cardinal Poole (Parker's imme● diate Predecessor) with so many particulars. This dot● confirm Doctor Champneys and Master Constable's testimony concerning Stow his acknowledging by word o● mouth to many persons, that the story of the Nagshead was very true, and that Parker had no other Ordination.  
19 But what then must be said of Master Masons Records? It's no want of charity, to judge they were forged; because they who make no conscience to falsify Scripture, will forge Records. How notoriously the English Clergy falsified Scripture, is demonstrated by Gregory Martin, in a learned Book, entitled, A Discovery of the manifold corruptions etc. It's little judgement, or much passion to think, that Master Masons Records are not forged; for, if they were true, how could they be concealed from Catholics, and Protestant the space of 50. years; the knowledge of them being so necessary for to determine the controversy of Protestant Ordination. It's want of charity, and judgement, to think that all the English Catholic Doctors would charge the Protestant Clergy with nullity of Consecration without ground. Stapleton, Harding Bristol, and others, who did forsake all athomes for conscience sake, did surely examine the business before they published to the world in print the nullity of Parker's Ordination, and charged him, and all the rest of being unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, and thereby engaging posterity to commit so many damnable sacrileges in reordaining those who had been already validly ordained.  
20 Master Mas●n in his second Edition endeavours to answer some of the exceptions here mentioned against his Records, as also Barlowe, and Parker's Consecration. But truly he brings nothing that can satisfy any prudent, and indifferent person. He proves that Parker was consecrated at Lambeth, and not at the Nagshead; because the Right Honourable Charles Howard Earl of Nottingham (saith Mason) told a friend of his (not named) in the year 616. that he was invited to Parker's consecration at Lambeth, and that he was present at the banquet thereof. This story, though it were true, only proves, that there was a good dinner at Lambeth which might very well be to conceal the shameful consecration at the Nagshead. Besides, we must take the Earl's friend word for the Earl's testimony; and Master Masons word for this anonymous friends testimony. We bring more than one to witness of the Nagshead consecration, not only Master Neale, and other Catholics present thereat, men of learning, and nature judgement; but also john Stow a Protestant: all of them knew how to distinguish between an Episcopal Consecration, and a banquet. This testimony of Maste● Neale, and other Catholics, who were present (as Mast● Constable affirms) were not delivered to one only friend as that of Nottingham, but to many virtuous Priest's wh● communicated the whole story to Holiwood, Champn● Parsons, Fitzsimons, and many others, all men of known integrity, who published it to the world in print. Th● Priests and Jesuits to whom the Records were known 〈◊〉 King james his time, protested against them as forged, an● improbable, as appeareth by the testimony of men yet living, whose honesty can not be called in question: an● Father Fairekloth himself, one of the imprisoned Jesuit● testified so much to many, by word of mouth, and in w●ting. So that its strange how some Protestants have g● ven out so confidently the contrary: and how they e● deavour to make this so well grounded story a mere fable; and thereby call so many persons of much mo● learning, virtue, and prudence than themselves, fools, 〈◊〉 knaves.  
21 Master Mason doth also endeavour to prove, th● Barlowe was consecrated Bishop in Honry the VIII. reign because (quoth Mason) he sat in Parliament, and was 〈◊〉 possession of the temporalities. But Honry the VIII Le● ter Patents whereby he was installed in the temporality of his Bishopric, which Mason himself citys, makes o● lie mention of his Acceptation, and Confirmation, but no● of his Consecration. Why should this last be omitted, 〈◊〉 he were really consecrated, and the two first mentione● If he was installed in his temporalities not being concrated, he might also sit in Parliament without consection. As for the pretended exactness of the English Records, and the authentic Copies of every Bishop's Cosecration, not only in the Archbishop's Registers, but so in the Chancery, and other Courts, and Bishopric (which is the only ground whereby the Protestant C● gy do now endeavour to make credible the new Record and Parker's Ordination at Lambeth) in case all this sho● be granted as true, it doth rather prejudice, than ma● ta'en their cause: because it proveth as much against B● low, as it seems to favour Parker. For, if the exactness and multiplicity of Records concerning every Bishop consecration, doth demonstrate (as they pretend) their ●ot being counterfeited; it being morally impossible to sergeant so many hands, and testimonies; how is it possible that no Copies of Barlowes consecration do appear in any Court, or Bishopric of England? Yet Ma●ter Mason objects that Gardiner his Consecration doth ●ot appear in any Records that ever he could see, and ●et we hold him to be a true Bishop. Therefore we ought ●o believe the same of Barlowe, though his Consecration ●e not registered. To this I answer first, that its very like, Master Mason did not trouble himself so much with seeking after Gardiner's consecration, as after Barlowes; because one did not import him as much as the other. But in ●ase Gardiner's Ordination were as necessary for the valid Consecration of the Roman Catholic Church, as Bar●owes, and Parkers are for the English Protestant Church: my second answer is, that if (all circumstances considered) Gardiner's Consecration were as doubtful as Barlowes, and Parkers, we Roman Catholics would take to ourselves ●he same advice, we give English Protestants; that is, to repair with all speed to some other Church of undoubted Clergy. If not, they are guilty of the loss of their own souls, for venturing so rashly (being forewarned) to commit so many, and so great sacrileges against God, and his holy Sacraments  
22 But as to the impossibility of forging so many Registers; in case there be so many, it is easily answered, ●hat it is no more, then that the Consecrator, and other persons concerned, should have conspired to give in, a fal●e Certificate, that the Consecration was performed with all due ceremonies, and rites; and thereby deceive the Courts, or make them dissemble: and this is a thing mo●e possible, and probable, then that all the Protestant Clergy should have conspired not to produce the said Registers when they were so hardly pressed by their adversary's. Or that so many Catholics should have been so ●oolish to invent, and maintain the story of the Nagshead in such time, when if it had been false, they might ●ave been convinced by thousand witnesses. Or that so many grave and learned Divines, who for conscience sake ●eft all, should without fear of damnation engage themselves, and posterity, in damnable sacaileges, by occasioning so many sacrilegious reordinations upon their charging Protestants with no Ordination: no moderate an● prudent man can suspect that such persons should damn● their souls out of mere spite against the Church o● England. If we Catholics did reordaine the Protestant Ministers upon title of their heresy, and not of thei● known invalidity, we should also reordaine the Graecian Priests, which is notoriously against our practice, and Tenets: in so much that we hold ourselves obliged to examine with all diligence, whether there be any probability of the person having received valid orders; and finding but any probable appearance thereof, the practice is, and hath been for divers ages, to give orders not absolutely but conditionally; whereas it is notorious that all our English Ministers who after their conversion have been made Priests, received their Orders in absolute terms without any condition adjoined, in the same manner which w● use in ordaining mere laymen.  
23 Let us go one step further with our Protestant Clergy, and suppose that their first Bishops were ordained by Catholics, we reserve yet another nullity in store fo● their consecration. And to wave many doubts that might be moved concerning the matter of their Ordination, w● will only speak of the form, or words prescribed in the Protestant Ritual. It is a known principle common to both Protestants, and Catholics, that in the form of Ordination there must be some word expressing the authority, and power given to the person ordained; the intention of the Ordainer expressed by general words, indisserent, and appliable to all, or divers degrees of holy Orders, is not sufficient to make one a Priest, or a Bishop● As for example, Receive the holy Ghost, these words being indifferent to Priesthood, and Episcopacy, and used i● both Ordinations, are not sufficiently expressive of either in particular; unless Protestants will now at length profess themselves Presbyterians, making no distinction between Priests, and Bishops; but they are as fare from that, as we Catholics. In the words, or form whereby Protestants ordain Bishops, there is not one word expressing Episcopal power, and authority. The form 〈◊〉 this: Take the holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir 〈◊〉 the grace of God, which is in thee by impositions of hands, fo● God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and lo●e, and soberness. The grace of God is given by imposi●on of hands in all holy Orders, as also the spirit of ●ower, love, and soberness. There is not one word in ●his form expressing the difference, and power of Episcopacy. Let Protestants search all Catholic Rituals not only of the West, but of the East; they will not find ●ny one form of consecrating Bishops, that hath not the ●ord Bishop in it, or some others expressing the particuar authority, and power of a Bishop, distinct from all o●her degrees of holy Orders. See joannes Morinus in his ●earned Commentaries De sacris Ecclesiae Ordinibus, printed ●t Paris an. 1655 who sets down the ancient forms both ●n Greek and Latin, as well of Priesthood, as of Episcopacy.  
24 The form, or words whereby men are made Priests, must express authority, and power to consecrate, or make present Christ's Body, and Blood: whether with, or without Transubstantiation, is not our present Controversy with Protestants, but only whether their form hath words expressing authority, and power to make Christ's Body truly present. See the form of Priesthood used by the English Clergy set down by me in the first Chap. num. 10. and you will not find one word expressing this power, and authority. Receive the holy Ghost, doth not involve it, because it's used in the consecration of Bishops, who would be recordained Priests when they receive Episcopal Order, if the said words include power ●o consecrate Christ's Body. To dispense, or minister the Sacraments come fare short of the power, and authority of consecrating the elements, or making present Christ's Body: Deacons did minister, and dispense the Body of Christ to the people in ancient times, but were never ●houht to have power, and authority of consecrating. The power of remitting sins doth not include power to consecrate, or make present the Body and Blood of Christ; for, every layman hath power to remit sins by baptising, and no layman hath power to consecrate, or make present Christ's Body. Therefore words giving power to remit sins, doth not include power to consecrate all Sacraments ordained for remission of sins, as some Protestants endeavour to make the ignorant believe. In all forms of ordaining Priests that ever were used in the Eastern, or Western Church, is expressly set down the word Priest, or some other words expressing the particular, and proper function, and authority of Priesthood. If any States, or Country should say, We choose such a person to be King, in the word King is sufficiently expressed all Kingly power, and authority. Therefore the Grecians using the word Priest, or Bishop in their forms, do sufficiently express the respective power of every Order.  
25 The true reason why the English form of making Priests, and Bishops, is so notoriously deficient, and invalid, is, because it was made in King Edward the VI his time, when Zuinglianisme, and Puritans did prevail in the English Church; the real presence was not believed by them of the Clergy who bore sway, therefore they did not put in the form of Priesthood any word expressing authority, and power to make Christ's Body present. They held Episcopacy, and Priesthood to be one, and the same thing; therefore in the form of making Bishops, they put not one word epressing Episcopal function, only some general terms that might seem sufficient to give them authority to enjoy the temporalities and Bishoprics. This is also the true reason why Parker, and his Colleagues were content with the Nagshead consecration, and why others recurred to extraordinary vocation in Queen Elizabeth's time. It's very credible, that if Master Laud had found success in his first attempts, he would in time reform the form of the English Ordination, and thrust in some words expressing the power of Priests, and Bishops; seeing he, and others of the Protestant Clergy of late, 
Kallend. an. 3. Ed. Vl. c. 12. Mason pag. 94.  did differ so much in opinion concerning Priesthood, and Episcopacy, from those who lived in King Edward the VI time, and in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign. He could not miss with six Prelates, and six other men learned in God's Law, whereof the greater number might devise as warrantable a form of making Bishops, and Priests, as was devised by the same number in King Edward's time. Yet all had been in vain, because neither Master Laud himself, nor any of the rest then living, could consecrate others, even with the Catholic form, seeing none of them all had valid Ordination, as hath been demonstrated. Therefore it was thought expedient to cover the want of the reality of true Ordination, with an exterior formality of long cloaks, and surplises, and supply the want of Sacrifice with crosses, and candlesticks upon the Altars.  
26 Master Mason commends much the wisdom of the English Church that so discreetly, and religiously pared away all superfluous Ceremonies in Ordination: and saith, it was a singular privilege of Master Parker, that being the 70. Archbishop after Saint Austin the Apostle of England, yet of all that number he was the only man that received Consecration without the Pope's Bulls, and superfluous aaronical ornaments. How discreet, and religious the English Church was in paring away pretended superfluities in Ordination, can not be determined by Master Mason, until he makes appear that all is superfluous in that kind which he, and the Puritans, who made the English Ritual in King Edward the VI time, fancied superfluous. It is not the part of any particular Church to pair away any thing that hath been delivered to them by antiquity to be observed. Though some words have been added to ancient forms of Ordination, for their greater explanation, or solemnity, yet none were ever so rash, as to pair away any, especially those that seemed to signify the power, and authority intended by the Ordainer.  
27 To conclude this matter, I say with Saint Jerome: Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem. How can the Protestant Church be the true Church, seeing it hath not any one Priest, or Bishop? Though it were not evident that it hath no valid Ordination, yet so many manifest uncertainties, and doubts, as themselves must acknowledge concerning their Ordination, doth demonstrate the nullity of their Church. For if there remain but one solid, and prudent doubt of the validity of Ordination of any Church, its impossible it should be the true Catholic, and Apostolic: because a doubtful Clergy makes a doubtful Church; and a doubtful Church is no Church. The first step to Christian, and Catholic belief, is the well grounded credibility, excluding all prudent doubts, of that Church whereof we are members; if we have any prudent ground to doubt of the Clergy, we have the same to doubt of our Church, and of the Faith, or Doctrine proposed by its testimony: and the true Faith admits of no such doubts. Therefore Protestants before they can prudently believe to have true Faith, or be in the Catholic, must clear all the doubts heretofore objected against their Ordination, which I will briefly sum up.  
28 First they must prove clearly, that the story of the Nagshead was a fable, and consequently that Master Neale, and the other Catholics, who said they were eye-witnesses of what passed, were impudent Impostors, and content to be convicted as such in the same place, and time that they invented so palpable a lie. Secondly, they must make appear evidently, that all the Catholics of that time, both Bishops, Priests, and others, who believed Master Neale, and suffered much for conscience, were all run mad, because they believed so great a foppery; or if they did not believe him, they were most wicked, and sacrilegeous persons, to engage posterity by their relation and testimony, to reordaine the Protestant Clergy. Thirdly, they must demonstrate, that all the first Protestant Bishops, and others consecrated by them, did conspire, not to contradict the story of the Nagshead, and their own invalid consecration, for the space of fifty and odd years, to the great discredit of themselves, and their whole Church: where as they might easily stop their adversaries mouths, by producing witnesses, and Records of the pretended solemn Congregation at Lambeth, being so often demanded in printed Books, by whom, and how were they ordained? Fourthly, it must be made appear to the world, that Bancroft Bishop of London, could be ignorant of the public Registers of Parker's Ordination at Lambeth, himself being so much concerned in it, and in the knowledge of it: if he were not ignorant of the public Registers, why did he answer so fond, and contrary to the very Protestant principles, that a Priest might ordain Bishops in case of necessity? Fifthly, it must be manifestly proved, that not only Bancroft was ignorant of the public Registers, but that all the Bishops of England, who were present in the late Parliament, knew nothing of them; whereas Doctor Morton pretended Bishop of Durham, affirmed publicly in the upper House, that the first Protestant Bishops were consecrated at the Nagshead. This answer all the rest approved by their silence, and were glad to have that retiring place against the Presbyterians, who proved clearly, that they were not consecrated at Lambeth, as Master Masen pretends. But if Doctor Morton and the rest of the Bishops knew any thing of Mason's Book, and Registers, as infallibly they did, why did not they stick to that? This proves evidently, that none of them did give credit to Masons new found Registers.  
29 Sixthly, supposing Master Masons forged Records were true, it must be made clear that there was in their Ordination a competent number of true Bishops, and consequently that the Bishops of Edward the VI were validly consecrated, notwithstanding the Declaration of the contrary by public Acts, and sentences in Queen mary's reign. Seventhly, if there was not a competent number of true Bishops, whether in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign there, as any such necessity as Protestants pretended, having then in England 14. Catholic and true Bishops. Eighthly, it must be made appear that Barlowe was consecrated, who was the principal Consecrator of Parker, for if he were, how is it possible that in all the Registers of England, and Wales, there should be no mention of his Consecration? Lastly, it must be proved clearly, that the form used in the ordaining of Protestant Ministers, and Bishops, is valid. It will be a very hard task to clear all these doubts, and exceptions How unfortunately was Charles the First, late King of England, misinformed in matter of his Bishops, and Clergy. What scruple could he have had, if he had known the truth, to give way to the Parliament, to pull down Parliament Bishops; who were so fare from being de jure Divino, that they were not so much as de jure Ecclesiastico.  
30 And thus much I thought fit to produce at the present in confutation of what either hath, or may be said in behalf of the English Protestant Clergy, and report me to the judgement of the impartial Reader, how much he ought to rely upon their ministry, that by so many titles is proved to be null. But though any person should not be convinced of the nullity of their Ordination, he can not but harbour a prudent doubt thereof, there being so evident reasons, and motives for it, as have been set down in this Chapter. Now, to receive the Sacraments from Priests of so doubtful authority, is without all doubt a damnable sacrilege, it being a thing in the highest degree against the light of reason, and the rules of Faith to expose to so manifest hazard the reverence of the Sacraments, and the remedy of our souls. It is time now to pass from the historical relation of the introduction of a new found Heresy, and the intrusion of a new fashioned Clergy, to a more strict, and Scholastical examination of the nature of Heresy, and Catholic Faith.   

CHAP. III. Of Heresy.  
1 BEfore Protestancy be compared with Heresy, its necessary to declare what Heresy is. Catholic Divines commonly define it to be an obstinate error against any Doctrine of the Catholic Church. But because Protestants do not agree with us in determining what the Catholic Church is; that we may not be engaged in a new dispute, before we explain what we have in hand, I thought fit to define Heresy in such a sort, that the definition may seem indifferent to all Christians, and suppose, or beg nothing to favour Catholics, or condemn Protestants; because if adversaries agree not in some principles, they can not come to an issue to end the Controversies.  
2 The definition is this: Heresy is an obstinate error against the Word of God, or the true sense thereof sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation. How shall it be known when any verity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation? The bare word, or testimony of men doth not seem to be a sufficient proposal of Gods revealed truths: because every Sect give their word, and testimony, in favour of their own Religion; assuring us that God revealed the doctrine, and interpretation of Scripture which they follow. And yet the contrary is evident; seeing God can not reveal the contradictions, nonsense, and contrary Tenets which are taught in so contrary Religions. Therefore the testimony of men, if not confirmed by some supernatural sign, or miracle, can not be a sufficient proposal of Divine Revelation.  
3 But if any Doctrine be testified by lawful witnesses to be Divine Revelation, and their testimony be confirmed by miracles, all men are bound to believe that the said Doctrine was revealed by God. This is the reason why the perfidious Jews did sin grievously in not believing the Doctrine of Christ, being confirmed with so many evident miracles. It is not necessary every person see a miracle, that the true Faith, and Doctrine of the Catholic Church be sufficiently proposed to him as Divine Revelation; it's enough that he can not prudently deny, or doubt, that miracles have been wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine proposed. Christ's Doctrine was sufficiently proposed as Divine to many Jews, who were not present at his miracles; it's enough they were credibly reported. Saint Augustine proved that miracles were wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion by this ingenious Dilemma. Either the world believing such strange, and improbable things (to human sense) as our Faith teacheth; and so contrary to our natural inclinations; did see them confirmed by miracles, or no. If they did see miracles, we have our intent. If they did believe without seeing any miracle, we have our intent also; because that very belief is the greatest of all miracles: for how is it possible that sober, and wise men should be so mad, as to believe, and embrace a new and strange Doctrine, so repugnant to their senses, and contrary to their liberty, and natural inclinations, if they had not been wrought upon by some supernatural power, and signs? In one word therefore we may conclude, that only Faith, or Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, which is not only proposed as such by the testimony of a Church, but of such a Church whose testimony hath been confirmed by unquestionable miracles, either seen by the believer, or at least so credibly reported to him by the testimony of honest, and learned men, that it were want of prudence in any person whosoever, to deny the truth, and sufficiency of such a testimony, and proposal.   

CHAP. IU. In what doth the obstinacy of Heresy consist?  
1 THere was never any Heretic so madly obstinate, as to give God the lie to his face, and in plain terms; all Sectaries acknowledge him to be Truth itself, and therefore not capable of deceiving, or of being deceived. The obstinacy of Heretics is against God's verities, not as they are uttered immediately by himself, but as they are proposed by his Church. If God himself were pleased to speak immediately to men, in such a manner, that it were evident, and clear to them, the words, and sense which the Church proposeth, were dictated by himself, we should be little troubled with Heresies, none would be obstinate All the obstinacy of Heretics proceeds from the difficulty they find in believing that God doth speak, or declare his sense by the Church: this once granted, our understanding hath no difficulty to ubmit by an implicit Faith to whatsoever the Church proposeth as God's Revelation, or Word.  
2 Against clear evidence there can be no obstinacy; the object of it must be involved in some obscurity, otherwise the will (which is the source of obstinacy) could not master the unstanding. He who denies what is clear, and evident, is more mad, then obstinate. There is nothing more generally acknowledged, or more cleate, and evident to the understanding of all Christians, than this proposition, If God said, or meant any thing it's very true. The obstinacy therefore of Heretics, doth not contest with this clear, and confessed truth: it only doubteth, or denyeth, that God said, or meant any such thing as the Church pretends; but no Heretic ever denied, or doubted, but that if God meant, or said what the Church pretends, it must be true.  
3 The difference therefore between an Heretic, and a Catholic, is not, that the Heretic denies, or doubts, all that to be true which he thinks God revealed, or meant; but the difference consists in this, that the Heretic doth obstinately deny, or doubt, that God said, or meant what ●he Church proposeth as Divine Revelation; and the Catholic doth firmly believe, he did say, and mean, whatsoever the Church proposeth as revealed. The Heretic believes what the Church proposeth, only conditionally, If God revealed it; reserving to his own private ●udgement (or to that of his first Patriarches, Luther, Calvin, Chillingworth &c.) the decision of this controversy, Whether God revealed it, or no? But the Catholic believes absolutely, and doubts not but God revealed what the Church proposeth as revealed, submitting his judgement (in matters of Faith) to whatsoever the Church doth define, or declare.  
4 The obstinacy of Heresy may be well compared to the obstinacy of Rebellion, Heresy being indeed a Rebellion of private, and proper judgement against God's authority, and veracity appearing sufficiently in his Church. Put the case that a Province of Spain, or France did reject any Laws, or Ordinances made by their King, and intimated by his Officers to the people, and proclaimed in the same Provinces. In case these Laws, and the said Officers (who have all the exterior signs, or marks whereby the King's authority is usually discerned) were contemned by the people, not because they doubt of their Kings legiflative power, but because they will not believe he made such Laws, or gave any such Commission to his Officers; would not the people, notwithstanding all this pretended ignorance, be Rebels, and obstinate against their Sovereign? would it excuse them from the guilt of Rebellion, to allege in their own behalf, that they did not think, or believe, the King commanded any such thing, as his Officers pretended, and proclaimed? Their very excuse involves obstinacy, and Rebellion. The obedience and duty, which Subjects own to their King, must be extended also to his Officers; they must obey their Sovereign, not only when himself commands, but also when the Officers that have the ordinary signs of his authority, do command in his name.  
5 This is the case of Heretics. They protest if they had thought, or believed, that the Doctrine of the Roman Church was revealed by God, they would embrace it with all their heart. But they do not consider, that this very If, or doubt, is their crime, and heresy. What reason, or prudent ground have they to doubt, that Go● doth speak by the Roman Church, as Kings do by the● Officers? No Officers, or Ministers have more authen●tick, and credible signs of their King's authority, the the Roman Catholic Church hath of God's Commission and trust, of proposing his Revelations, and interpreting his meaning of Scripture, as is demonstrated in the 14● and other Chapters. Now its sufficient to know, that th● signs of the true Church are Miracles, Sanctity of Doctrine and life, conversion of Nations, continual succession (from th● Apostles to the present age) both of Pastors, and Doctrine etc. These signs are obvious to our senses, and may b● perceived by all people, Clounes, Soldiers, and other illiterate persons, that will inquire, and examine the history of their own Country, or the Religion of their Ancestors. Whatsoever amongst all the Christian Churches, hath these signs, That Church must be heard, obeyed and believed, as having God's authority, and Commission to decide all doubts, and controversies of Faith; whosoever believes not her Definitions, and obeys not her Decrees, is an obstinate Heretic, and Rebel.   

CHAP. V Of the Catholic Church.  
1 SEeing the obstinacy of Heretics is against God's Revelations, as they are proposed by the testimony of the Catholic Church, it's required something be said of this Church. That there is a Catholic and visible Church in this world, is granted (tacitly) by all Heretics, seeing every Sect o● them pretends to be the whole, or at least one part of the Catholic Church.  
2 The Catholic Church is a multitude, or Congregation of men, whose testimony doth so sufficiently propose their Doctrine to be God's Word, and the true meaning thereof, that it is evidently imprudence, and infallible damnation in any person whosoever, not to acquiesce i● the said testimony, and not to believe (without the least doubt) what it proposeth as Divine Revelation. There are but two ways to convince the understanding of man; the one is evident, and clear reason; the other is authority. To some things its necessary, even for salvation, we give our assent, though no evident, and clear reason appeareth; authority (that is, the testimony of lawful witnesses) must be taken for reason, and supply the want of it. It is unreasonable, and damnable, not to honour our Princes, and Parents, though they have no other evidence, or reason to show, that they are our lawful Princes or Parents, but the authority, and testimony of lawful witnesses. God therefore having decreed that men should believe some mysteries above reason, commanded all, to believe under pain of damnation whatsoever the Church saith he revealed. It is not unreasonable that God should condemn us for not believing the testimony of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, which are above reason; seeing we shall be condemned, if we believe not the testimony of our Neighbours concerning our Princes, and Parents. Is it a lawful excuse for any man to say, If I had believed such a man to be my Sovereign, I would obey him; or such a woman to be my Mother, I would honour her? If there be lawful witnesses for Prince, or Parents, their testimony is to be believed; the very not believing them is a crime, though there be no more evidence for it, than the said testimony. Therefore à fortiori, the not believing the testimony of the Church, confirmed with so many signs, in matters of Faith, is a crime, and obstinate heresy.  
3 Some Protestant Divines of the English Church are so civil, as to admit of us Roman Catholics, and so eharitable, as not to exclude any Christians from being a part of the Catholic Church: yet we have reason to think, that it's no civility, or kindness, but interest, that moves them to open the door to us, because if they reject us, themselves can not pretend to be a Church, having neither succession of Bishops, nor (without begging our testimony) any solid proof, that Scripture is God's Word. What Books of Scripture they are pleased to accept of as Divine Revelation, they do it upon our score and word; but the sense which we delivered to them with the said Books, as the most principal part of God's Word, they do refuse; never being able hitherto to give any tolerable reason why they take our word more for the letter o● Scripture, then for the sense, and meaning of it? If we deserve credit in one, why not in both? being no less against our conscience, and as much in our power, to corrupt the letter, as the sense. But of their obstinacy in this particular, and others, I shall discourse more at large when speak of Protestancy. Now I will proceed in the discovery of the true Church.   

CHAP. VI Whether all Christians be the Catholic Church or whether it may be composed of any two, or more Congregations of them, if not agreeing in all matters whatsoever which any one Congregation, or Church pretends to be revealed by God?  
1 THis is as much as to demand, Whether Catholics, and Protestants both, may be part of the Catholic Church? Protestants (as w● have seen in the former Chapter) say, that a●● Christian Congregations are parts of the Catholic Church, as well as we Roman Catholics. Thi● assertion they ground upon the signification of the wor● Catholic, which is as much to say, as Universal. In the sa● me sense they explicate Catholic Tradition to be onel● that which is contradicted by any Christian Church. According to this opinion, no Congregation of Christian can be Heretics; because Heretics must be obstinate against the Doctrine of the Universal, or Catholic Church: but no Christians can be obstinate against th● Doctrine of the Catholic or Universal Church; seein● themselves are part of it, and they can not be obstinate against themselves, or their own Tenets, and Doctrine therefore none can be Heretics. This absurd, and heretical sequel is a sufficient refutation of the Protestant principle, and their explication of the word Catholic.  
2 But let us prove directly that neither all Christians, nor any two Churches dissenting in their testimonies, concerning whatsoever matters of Faith, can be the Catholic Church. My proof is this: The testimony of the Catholic Church, concerning what is pretended to be revealed, or not revealed by God, must oblige all persons who are informed of it, to believe what it saith, and proposeth. But if all Christians, or any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies (suppose Roman Catholics, and Protestants) be parts of the Catholic Church, the testimony thereof can not oblige any sober person to believe what both say, and propose. First, because one Church contradicts the other, and its impossible to believe contradictions at one, and the same instant. Secondly, when witnesses do not agree in their testimonies, if they be of equal authority, no man is obliged to believe either side, but rather is bound in prudence, to suspend his judgement. Therefore if the Catholic Church be composed of all Congregations, and Churches of Christians, or of any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies concerning matters of Faith, no man is obliged to believe the testimony of the Catholic Church, but rather to suspend his judgement, and credit nothing: which sequel is absurd, and contrary to the Doctrine not only of Catholics, but also of Protestants. Therefore the Catholic Church must not be all Congregations of Christians, or any two dissenting, but one only Congregation of persons who agree in one Faith.   

CHAP. VII. Whether the testimony of the Catholic Church be infallible not only (as Protestants term them) in fundamental, but also in not fundamental articles of Faith?  
1 THough we Catholics say that all articles of Faith, if once sufficiently proposed, are, in one sense, fundamental; because under pain of damnation they must be believed: yet in ananother sense we admit a distinction between fundamental, and not fundamental articles of Faith. Fundamental articles may be called such as no ignorance of them can excuse men from damnation, for not being believed. Not fundamentals may be called such articles as if proposed, must be believed; but if not proposed sufficiently, the ignorance of them is excusable.  
2 But whether these articles be both called fundamental, or only the first sort of them, our controversy with Protestants is the same, and the question is not set here out of its proper place; because the resolution of it is necessary to answer an objection, which Protestants make against the Doctrine of the former Chapter. All Christians (say they) do agree in fundamental points of Faith, as in the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. what great matter is it, if they agree not in other things of little importance, without the knowledge, and sufficient proposal whereof, they may be saved, as Purgatory, Transubstantiation, & c? Why should we be obliged to believe things that are not absolutely necessary for salvation? especially seeing Roman Catholic Divines do not deny, that ignorance of not fundamentals is not damnable? Therefore all Christians (though dissenting in not fundamentals) may be called Catholics, and the universal Church; because they agree in all necessary articles of Catholic Religion; and though their testimonies do not agree in Purgatory, u.g. being an article of Faith; why should their disagreement in that petty point invalid their testimony concerning the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, and other fundamental articles.  
3 This discourse, and objection of Protestants hath damned many a soul, because they did not examine the truth of it as they ought. But to declare the fallacy of it, something must be said of the Church's infallibility. Most Protestant's do grant, that the testimony of the Church is infallible in proposing the fundamental articles of Christian Religion; as, in delivering Scripture to be God's Word, and in declaring the mystery of the Trinity etc. because Christian, and Catholic Faith must admit of no doubts concerning the truth of fundamentals; and if the Church be not infallible in proposing those to us, we must necessarily doubt of their truth; for, though we doubt not that whatsoever God said is true, yet we can not but doubt, whether he revealed or meant any such thing as the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation, if we do not believe that the Church is infallible in proposing the said mystery? God therefore in his Providence can not permit the Church to err, or deceive us in fundamentals, seeing its necessary for our salvation not to doubt of the truth of fundamental mysteries; but if the Church may err in proposing them, we can not but doubt of their truth. This reason (say Protestants) can not be applied to not fundamentals, because they are not absolutely necessary for salvation; and our salvation is the only motive that God had to make the Church infallible in proposing articles of Religion. Therefore none is bound to believe, that the Church is infallible in not fundamentals.  
4 If the only motive that God had to make the Catholic Church infallible, were our salvation, this discourse of Protestants might have some colour of truth; but God's motive in all his actions, is not only our salvation, but (in first place) his own honour, and glory. There is nothing concerns God's honour more, then that, whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as revealed by him, be credited by us without the least doubt; whether the matter be great, or of little importance. Therefore the Church's infallibility, and our obligation of believing it, ought not to be measured by the greatness, importance, or absolute necessity of the matter proposed, in order only to our salvation; but also by the sufficiency of the proposal, in order to God's honour, and veracity. If a matter not absolutely necessary for salvation be as sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God, as the mystery of the Trinity, the obligation is as great of believing the one without any doubt, as the other. The reason is clear; because there is as great an injury done to God, by denying, or doubting of his veracity, and revelation, in a small matter, as in a great. In believing we are as much bound to have a regard to God's honour, as to our own salvation; and his honour is as much concerned in being believed without the least doubt concerning Purgatory, as concerning the Trinity, if both mysteries be equally, or sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation.  
5 Seeing therefore that the self same Roman Catholic Church, and testimony, which proposed sufficiently in the year 1516. to Luther, and all other Protestants since that time, Scripture, the mystery of the Trinity etc. to be Divine Revelation; did in the same year, and doth now also propose Purgatory, Transubstantion, and other points (which Protestants call not fundamental) to be revealed by God: its evident that there is as great obligation of believing without any doubt Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and others not thought fundamentals by Protestants, as the fundamentals. But these articles which Protestants call not fundamental, can not be believed without some doubt, if the Church be not infallible in proposing them; as they themselves must grant by force of the parity made with their fundamental articles. Therefore the Catholic Church is as infallible in its testimony concerning not fundamental articles being Divine Revelation, as it is in fundamentals; or if not, it must be fallible in both.  
6 Yet if matters be well considered, we shall find, that its impossible to deny any article of Faith, (though not absolutely necessary, and therefore (in the opinion of Protestants) of little importance) but a necessary and fundamental article must be denied together with it. There is no article of Faith more fundamental, and necessary for salvation, than God's veracity. They who deny Purgatory, u.g. deny God's veracity; because they who deny any thing that is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, deny God's veracity, whether the matter proposed as revealed by him, be great, or small. Neither can Protestants give any other reason; why by denying the Trinity, God's veracity is denied, but because the Trinity is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation. Therefore if Purgatory, or Transubstantiation be as sufficiently proposed as the Trinity; by denying them, and others the like, God's veracity is also denied. So that all articles of Faith, if sufficiently proposed, are fundamental, and necessary for salvation.  
7 My second answer to the discourse, and argument of Protestants, is, that witnesses contradicting themselves in circumstances, though of little importance, are not to be prudently credited in the main points wherein they agree. The testimony of the two old Judges was not valid in the crime of adultery objected by them against Susanna, 
Dan. 13.  because though their testimonies did agree in the crime, and in what was material to condemn her; yet they varied in some circumstances not material. What did it import (as to the guilt of Susanna) whether she committed adultery under a Figtree, or a Pine? Though it was a circumstance very indifferent, and of little importance in itself, yet the incoherency in it did prove that the two old men's testimonies in the maine were invalid. Therefore although not fundamental articles were not necessary for salvation, yet the incoherency in such little matters doth invalid the Catholic Churches testimony even in fundamentals, and the main points of Christian Religion. Therefore it must be granted that the testimony of the Catholic Church either is not prudently credible, and infallible, in necessary, and fundamental articles; or that it is prudently credible, and infallible in not fundamentals. It followeth also out of the premises, that the Catholic Church can not be all Churches of Christendom, because there are not two of them whose testimonies concerning Faith do not differ, at least in not fundamental points of Religion, and by consequence the testimony is absolutely incredible, because incoherent.  
Against what hitherto hath been said, some may object, that the Fathers unanimously testifying fundamental articles to be revealed by God, aught to be credited, though they contradict one another in matters not fundamental. Therefore the same may be said of many dissenting Churches, or Congregations of Christians; why should not the Catholic Church be composed of all Christians agreeing in the principal points of Christian Religion, though they agree not in others of less importance. The example of tke Babylonian Judges in the case of Susanna, can not be applied to the Catholic Church: they were not credited by Daniel in the fact which they unanimously testified, because the circumstance wherein they varied, was so concomitant, and connected with the fact itself, that it was impossible to see one, and not the other. Therefore the contradicting themselves in the circumstance of the tree, did demonstrate that they never saw Susanna commit adultery. But no such connexion appears between fundamental, and not fundamental articles of Christian Religion; the Trinity, or Incarnation may be sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony of both Protestant, and Roman Church, though Purgatory, or Transubstantiation be only held by Protestants, to be only a probable opinion of the Roman Clergy, and consequently not sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, because it wants the concurrence of a considerable part of Christianity in the testimony which it gives of those, and the like not fundamental Tenets.  
To the first part of this argument I say, that the Fathers in their greatest differences agree in submitting their judgements to the Sea Apostolic, or to a general Council, as to the visible and infallible Judge of Controversies Not to Protestant Churches, each one pretending to be Independent of the other, and of the Roman also. Such independency, and obstinacy of judgement is wholly inconsistent with unity of Faith, and identity of Church.  
Now to the second part concerning Susanna, and the two old Judges, I answer, that all mysteries of Christian Religion are connected in the motive of belief; so that we can no more discover a matter of Faith without the motive, than a matter of fact without its circumstance. Wherefore the motive being the same in all, they are all united to the motive, and consequently so inseparable one from another, that denying one you deny all, as denying the motive, whereon all, and every one do rely.  
If the greatness of the matter proposed, or the number of proponents, and not the quality of the proposal, did authorize, and induce the obligation of believing whatsoever the Catholic Church testifieth to be Divine Revelation, the aforesaid argument might trouble Catholics: but seeing that both the testimony of few, and matters not absolutely necessary for salvation, may be confirmed with supernatural signs, and with true marks of the Catholic Church, and Doctrine, there is no necessity of obtruding upon it any Protestant Congregation, thereby to give more credit. Christians were not very many in the beginning of the primitive times; and yet they filled up the number of the Catholic Church. The Arrians were thought to be more numerous than the Catholics, and yet it was never thought necessary, by any Orthodox, to have the concurrence of their suffrage, or testimony concerning Religion, and declaring what was fundamental, and not fundamental. I see no reason why the Catholic Church of this age should court Protestant's more ●hen the Church of the fourth and fifth age did Arrians, Nestorians etc. I am sure the Arrians were more in number then Protestants, and much more learned, they had a more certain Ordination of Priests, and Bishops, and many of them were of as good life, and conversation as any Protestants are, or were since the beginning of the pretended Reformation. Why therefore should Protestants be a part of the Catholic Church, and not Arrians, or Nestorians?  
If Protestants be admitted as part of the Catholic Church, the Turks, Jews, and all others, who believe there is one God, may with reason complain, that they also are not looked upon as Catholics. For they, and we agree in the two fundamental articles, which only (according the opinion of many learned Divines) are necessary, necessitate medij; to wit, that there is a God, and that he is Remunerator. Turks, and Jews believe this, therefore they agree both with us, and Protestants in fundamentals. Let us all therefore be parts of the Catholic Church. And though Jew's, or Turks be not baptised, that can not prejudice them, according the principles of Protestants; their implicit, or conditional faith will excuse them, as well as Protestants from damnation, If God revealed the necessity of Baptism, or that Scripture is his Word (saith a Turk) I believe both, but until that be made clear unto me, I am not more bound to believe either absoluly, and without doubt, than Protestants are to believe Transubstantiation. I see no reason why this implicit, and conditional faith should not save Jew's, and Turks, as well as Protestants, if the mysteries not believed by either, be equally proposed. Therefore Protestants are no more part of the Catholic Church, than Turks, or Jews: I am certain we have no more need of the testimony of the one, then of the other, to establish what ought to be believed as Catholic Faith, or what articles are fundamental.   

CHAP. VIII. Whether any reformed, or Protestant Church of the world be the Catholic and Apostolic Church? And whether their pretended clearness of Scripture doth sufficiently propose their doctrine as Divine Revelation?  
1 IN the fifth Chapter num. 
This definition of the Church is clearly insinuated in Scripture Act. 1. v. 8. Luc. 24.48. joan. 18.37. Act. 5.32. Act. 2.32. Act. 4.33. Rom. 10. Math. 28. etc.  2. it hath been said, that the Catholic Church is a multitude, or Congregation of persons, whose testimony doth so sufficiently propose their Doctrine, or Faith, to be God's Word, and the true meaning thereof, that it is evidently imprudence, and infallible damnation in any person whosoever, not to acquiesce in the said testimony, and not to believe without the least doubt what it proposeth as Divine Revelation. The testimony of the true Catholic Church must not be credible only to silly souls, that believe any thing they hear, by reason of their ignorance, or because they were not rightly informed: it must be credible to the most prudent, and informed persons, by reason that the said testimony is confirmed with so clear signs, and marks of God's providence in planting, and propagating the Faith professed by the true Church, that (all circumstances considered) no informed, and prudent person may judge any other Church to have as much as a probable appearance of the true one, when they are compared with the Catholic.  
2 How the Protestant Churches, and Reformation did begin, hath been said in the first Chapter; which supposed, let us now examine whether any person can prudently believe, that either the Protestant Church of England, or that of Stratzburg, or Zurick, or Geneva, be the true Catholic Church of God? The ground of the belief of these, and all other reformed Churches, are reduced to two; one is clear Scripture pretended against the Roman errors, (as they call them;) the other is, the private Spirit, whereby they interpret the true sense of Scriptures to be contrary to the Tenets, and Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. This is all the evidence which Protestants have to prove, that each of their own Congregations is the true Spouse of Christ, and that the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon. Miracles they do not pretend to; and as for the two other signs which most of their Authors brag of, (that is, the sincere preaching of the Word of God, and the lawful administration of the Sacraments) these two can not be known, nor perceived, until that, whereupon they depend, be first known to be the true sense of Scripture, or the true Faith be known. But when the true Faith is known, we have no more need of signs to bring us to the knowledge of it, or the true Church that professeth it, than a Pilot hath of marks to be guided by into the haven, after he is within safe, and at anchor. Therefore these two signs of Protestant are not true signs, because they are as unknown, and as hard to be found out as the Church itself, which ●s contrary to the nature, and essence of a true sign.  
3 As for the first ground of Protestancy, and Reformation, which is the pretended clearness of Scripture against the Doctrine of the Roman Church; it can as little confirm the testimony of the Church of England, or Zurick, etc. as the Turks Alcoran. First they tell us that Scripture is against Transubstantiation, Purgatory, worship of Images etc. We deny it, and bring (at least) as clear texts of Scripture for ourselves, as Protestants do against us. They say the words, and sense of Scripture are so clear against our Doctrine, that none can deny them. Yet we reply, that we are not so impious, nor obstinate, as to maintain Doctrine point blank against God's Word, and sense. Now the question is, whether the testimony of Protestant Churches against us, or ours in our own behalf, and defence concerning the clearness of Scripture, be most credible to sober, and prudent men? I answer that the testimony of Catholics of the obscurity of Scripture, against Transubstantiation, worship of Images etc. is not only more credible than the testimony of Protestants to the contrary; but also that the testimony of Protestants, saying, that Scripture is clear against Transubstantion, worship of Images, Purgatory etc. may be demonstrated to be false.  
4 That this may not be thought a vain undertaking, suppose that our controversy with Protestants concerning the clearness, and obscurity of Scripture in controverted points, is to be understood after all combinations and confronting of texts, which seem to have relation, o● dependence one of the other. I suppose also, that som● Catholic Doctors have read, and considered Scripture and all controverted texts, as diligently as Protestants; a● may appear by their printed Books, wherein they answer all Objections made by Luther, Calvin, jewel etc. 〈◊〉 think it also no discredit for Protestants to admit, tha● (at least) some of our learned men, and well versed in Scripture, have so much honesty, as not to conceal from the world that true sense of Scripture, which seemeth to themselves clear and evident, after the combination, and examination of all controverted texts. But to be brief and decline all comparisons, which are odious, let us suppose for the present (which Protestant's aught, to take as a courtesy) that learned Protestants, and learned Catholics, are equally honest, and equally learned; both honest, and both learned, if the contrary be not made appear by the ensuing demonstration.  
5 It is impossible for men equally learned, and equally honest, to have any controversy about the sense of any words of Scripture, if the sense be clear, and evident. But Protestants, and Catholics (who are supposed to be equally learned, and equally honest) have controversies about the sense of such words of Scripture as concern Transubstantiation, worship of Images, and other controverted points. Therefore its impossible that the sense of such words of Scripture as relate to Transubstantiation etc. should be clear, and manifestly against the Doctrine of Catholics. Therefore the testimony of all Protestant Churches maintaining the clearness against them, is not only incredible, but manifestly false. Because the testimony of Catholics (though in their own defence) is made evidently true by the controversy itself, a visible, and undeniable effect, that can proceed from no other cause (amongst learned, and honest men) but from the obscurity of the words, and sense, wherein their judgements differ. If they squabble about what is clear, both parties, or at least one, is ignorant, or not honest. We Catholics have no reason to think that all our Doctors want knowledge, and sincerity; its clear to all Christen●ome, that in our Church we have in all parts of the world ●oth learned, and honest men: and if Protestants think ●he same of themselves, they must grant that our controversies do manifestly demonstrate the obscurity of Scripture.  
6 Seeing Scripture is obscure, and in no place clear against Transubstantiation, worship of Images, Purgatory etc. what ground, or warrant had the first Protestants for their pretended Reformation? would not all the world have reason to laugh at us Catholics, if we should part with that ancient sense of Scripture in favour of Transubstantiation, Purgatory &c. (which we received from the Church that went before us, assuring it was revealed by God) upon the bare word of Luther, Calvin, Knox, or the ●2. persons that made the Ritual, and pretended to reform in Edward the VI time, the Sacraments, both in matter, form, and number? What signs, or miracles did they show for their extraordinary Mission, and Apostleship of reforming the Doctrine of the Catholic Church? If any man who received his Land, by inheritance from his Ancestors, ought not to part with it, if not forced by better evidence than his own, how can we part with our Faith, and sense of Scripture (which is the ground of all our supernatural inheritance, and happiness) until Protestants show a better title, than the inheritance, or continual succession of our Doctrines from the Apostles? They must produce better evidence than their pretended clearness of Scripture. If they laugh at Quakers, notwithstanding all the texts of Scripture which they have at their finger's ends, against Protestant Doctrine; how do they imagine did Catholics look upon the first pretended Reformers? One advantage these new Quakers have against all Protestants, which Protestants have not against Catholics; and it is, that a new Quaker may say with truth to an old or new Protestant, he hath as prudent ground, and as good evidence for his own interpretation of Scripture, and Religion, as the Protestant hath for his; their fancies (the only ground of both their Faith) being much alike, and their Mission being not warranted by any precedent Church. This the Protestants can not object against Catholics, because we had always the word, and warrant of a precedent visible Church for our interpretation of Scriptures, and Religion.   

CHAP. IX. Whether any Puritanical Congregation be the Catholic Church, by reason of their pretended spirit?  
1 THere not a tradesman, or simple woman, amongst the purer sort of Protestants, who do not imagine themselves to be more infallible in interpreting Scripture, than the Pope, and all the general Counsels together This infallibility they attribute to the Spirit of God, which they all pretend to have. But this fond imagination is as easily refuted, as the clearness of Scripture hath been in the former Chap. because every pure Protestant, or Puritan, pretends to have the Spirit of God; but that Spirit contradicting itself according the diversity of Tenets which the purely inspired hold, it is impossible it should be the Spirit of God, who can not inspire contradictions. Yet they are so obstinate, that its impossible to persuade them to the contrary, though you may clearly convince them. The Pope must be Antichrist, Catholic Kings the horns of the Beast, & religious Orders, rags of Rome wherewith the Whore of Babylon adorns herself. The Puritans must only be the Elect, the Saints, and pure Zealots of the beauteous discipline of Zion: which to carry on, though whole Nations be extirpated, their holy Spirit doth not only rid them from any remorse of conscience, but assures them no work can be more meritorious. If you inquire of them, how they know whether this spirit of theirs be good, or bad, of God, or the Devil? Calvin their Patriarch, and Master answers, that they do discern it as clearly as they do white from black, sweet from sour, and light from darkness; his proof is the experience and testimony of every one of the faithful Brethren, concerning the pureness of his own spirit.  
2 This calvinistical and private spirit being so hidden, and undiscernible, can not be a sufficient, and prudent ground (at least for any man that hath it not) to believe it is the Spirit of Truth, and of the Catholic Church. Men who are not in the true Church, must be led into it by some credit, and exterior signs. And though Faith be a gift of God, yet it is communicated by preaching, and hearing, Rom. 10. We do not deny that God must help all Catholics interiorly with his supernatural grace, and spirit; but the difference between the Puritan, and Catholic spirit, is, that the Puritan spirit inspireth a belief contrary to reason; the Catholic spirit inspires a belief non contrary, but agreeable to reason. Though Christian Faith be above reason, it is not unreasonable. But it can not be agreeable to reason that any person believe a Puritanical spirit without any more proof of the goodness of it, than a Puritans word, against a sense of Scripture which hath been continued in the Roman Churches since the primitive times, as is evident by tradition, testimony of Fathers, and acknowledged by the Magdeburg Centuries, and other Protestant Writers. Therefore the private spirit can not be a sufficient proposal of the true Faith, or a credible, and convincing sign of the true Church.  
3 Another proof that no private spirits interpretation of Scripture can be the true one, being contrary to the public testimony of the Church which went before it, and Puritans pretend to reform; may be borrowed from Saint Peter, who giveth to understand, 
Pet. 1.20.  that no private interpretation can be the true sense of Scripture. The reason is clear, because there is none (if not confirmed in grace) who may not be an obstinate Heretic against the true sense of Scripture in controverted texts; but no man can be obstinate against his own private interpretation, and the sense of his private spirit. Therefore he can not be an Heretic, if the private interpretation of Scripture against the public testimony of the precedent, or present Church which he impugneth, be the true meaning, and sense of God's Word.  
4 Perhaps Puritan will grant that its impossible for any of them to be an Heretic, seeing their spirit is infallible. If this be granted, it's also impossible for any other to be an Heretic, or obstinate against their spirit, or interpretation; because he who is obstinate, may be convinced; and it's not possible to convince any man but by clear reason, or at least by lawful witnesses. Clear reason Puritan can not pretend for their spirit, because it's against reason to believe it. Lawful witnesses for it there can be none, or no more than one; which is not enough, nor allowed as lawful in a man's own case. Though every Puritan giveth not only a testimony of his own, but also of his brethren's spirit, yet he is no lawful witness for any other man's spirit; because he hath no better evidence, or ground for the testimony he gives, than the other man's own word in commendation of his own spirit; he neither seethe the spirit of the other, nor any sign whereby it may be made credible; only he may witness that the man whose spirit it is, sayeth, it is of God; but one man's word, in his own case, is no sufficient evidence for a lawful testimony. Therefore there are no lawful witnesses for the private spirit, and consequently, none can be obstinate against us, because none can be convinced that it is of God. Whence it followeth, that the spirit can be no sufficient proposal of God's Word, or sense; and therefore not inspired Congregation of Protestants can be the Catholic Church.   

CHAP. X. Whether that Congregation of persons which live in communion with, and subjection to the Roman Church, be the Catholic and true Church of God?  
1 THis question seemeth to have been resolved by what is said in former Chapters. Because i● there be a Catholic Church, 
Vide summam Conc●liorum A.F. longo in Con●il. ●●or●n, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈…〉.  and that is no● all Congregations of Christians taken together, nor any Protestant Church in particular, the dispute can only be now between the Greek Church, and the Roman; but the Grecians having so many times altered their Faith, so many of their ancient Patriarches being condemned Heretics, and all their Church being legally convicted of Schism, and Heresy, in three general Counsels, of Florence, Lions, and the Lateran, they can not pretend to be the true Church, which never erred I do not speak of that part of the Greek Church which communicates with us Roman Catholics, because that is part of the Roman. But suppose the Roman Church were not the Catholic, I see not what advantage Protestant's may have by pleading for the Grecians, seeing these agree not with them, but are altogether against the pretended Reformation, and condemn it as Heresy, as appears by the answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Protestants of Germany, mentioned by Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 21. in fine.  
2 To prove therefore that the Roman Church is the true Catholic, it must be made appear, that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine of Faith, as Divine Revelation, this sufficient proposal can not be done by clear and evident reason, because the mysteries of Christian Religion are above humane capacity. Therefore it must be done (according to what hath been said in the 4. Chap.) by authority, and the testimony of lawful witnesses. But lawful witnesses in matters of Faith, are only they, whose testimony hath been confirmed by miracles, as hath been demonstrated in the 2. Chap. Therefore we must prove also miracles, if we intent to prove that the Roman Church is the whole Catholic, and that it proposeth sufficiently its Doctrine as Divine Revelation. Now to the proof of the assertion.  
3 That Doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, which is delivered to us as such by the testimony of lawful witnesses, confirmed by miracles. But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is delivered to us as Divine Revelation by the testimony of lawful witnesses, and their testimony is confirmed by miracles. Therefore it's sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, and by consequence the Church of Rome is the true Catholic  
4 If the Minor, or second proposition be proved, my intent is concluded. That the Roman Church hath lawful witnesses of its Doctrine to be Divine Revelation, hath this difficulty: A lawful witness requires not only knowledge of what he testifieth, but also honesty; both qualities are necessary, an honest fool being as little to be credited as a knowing knave. But how can the Roman Church now extant in the 17. age of Christianity, have lawful witnesses of the Doctrine, and sense of Scripture, which Christ and the Apostles taught the world so long since? Though honesty can not be denied to many Roman Catholics, yet the knowledge what the Apostles taught, which is required for a lawful witness of the true Church, can not be granted to any, seeing none is now living on earth, that conversed with the Apostles. This argument doth equally impugn all Churches, yet none can answer it but we Roman Catholics.  
5 It concerns all the world, even our very adversaries, to grant, that the Roman Catholics have lawful witnesses with sufficient knowledge of what Religion, and sense of Scripture was taught by the Apostles in the primitive Church, nay which is more, that no other Church pretending to Reformation, can have sufficient knowledge required for lawful witnesses of the true Religion, sense of Scripture, and Doctrine of the primitive Church. If the Roman Church hath not sufficient knowledge for lawful witnesses of Christ, and the Apostles Doctrine, no hereditary King, or Prince, can have a title, or right to his crown; because the right descended to them by inheritance, doth depend upon a lawful testimony averring, that they are the true heirs of such a man, who reigned perhaps three or four hundred years ago. Henry the iv of France proved himself by lawful witnesses to be the heir of Saint Lewis But who couldbe a lawful witness that Henry the Great descended of Saint Lewis? All France did give a lawful testimony of it, because it was a constant tradition in the whole Kingdom, descended from Saint Lewis his time to this present age. That is to say, in every Century, or age, there were honest men, and lawful witnesses who testified, that Henry the IV: Ancestors descended from Saint Lewis; though one only age could remember, or see Saint Lewis, yet the next ensuing did see the first, and heard their testimony; the third did see the second etc. In every age did live men whose testimony might be relied upon. It must be granted therefore by all, that the knowledge which is grounded upon a continual, and never interrupted tradition, is sufficient for lawful witnesses.  
6 That the Roman Catholic Church hath a continual, and never interrupted tradition of its Faith, and sense of Scripture being taught by Christ, and the Apostles, can not be denied by our adversaries, it being evident to the world, that they who contradicted any article of this Faith we now profess, in former ages, were looked upon, and condemned as Heretics; which is an infallible argument that we, in every age, received our Doctrine from the former not as the word of men, but as the Word of God, or as Divine Revelation: for, if it were not believed as Divine Revelation, why should we condemn men as Heretics, because they denied it? Neither do Protestants deny, that we believed our tradition, and the testimony of our Church, to be grounded upon Divine Revelation; they only say we were mistaken, and that both our tradition, and testimony of the Roman Church was fallible. But then we urge, that they acknowledge both were infallible in delivering to them the Scripture, and testifying that it was the Word of God: therefore in delivering, and testifying all the rest, seeing the same testimony delivering many things together, must be of equal authority in all, and equally believed by them who accept of it as a lawful proof. All our pretended Reformers had no other ground in the year 1517. to believe Scripture as Divine Revelation, but the testimony of the Roman Church. Therefore they ought to believe all the rest, or not to believe Scripture.  
7 I said, it concerns also our adversaries to grant, that their reformed Churches have no lawful witnesses in matters of Faith; because there can not be that sufficient knowledge which is required in a lawful witness of Faith, without tradition, whereby it may appear, that the Faith and sense of Scripture of this age doth agree with that of the primitive Church. If once our adversaries acknowledge lawful witnesses of things passed long since, without a constant, and never interrupted tradition, every man whose spirit of ambition moves him, may pretend to be true heir of any hereditary crown, or estate; and without further proof than his own word, and spirit, or some obscure text of Scripture, will exclude Kings and others, whose rights are grounded upon tradition. But if tradition be so necessary to preserve, and make credible the testimony of men in matters of estates, and rights in the Commonwealth, it can not be superfluous to make credible the testimony of men concerning matters of Faith.  
8 It remains now we prove that the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church hath been confirmed with supernatural signs, or miracles. But seeing there are in the Roman Church lawful witnesses who prove, that the Faith which they now profess, is the same with that of the primitive Church, miracles also are proved by the same witnesses, it being granted by Protestants themselves, that miracles were wrought in the primitive Church to confirm the Faith, which Christ, and his Apostles taught. Yet in the Roman Catholic Church there are now lawful witnesses, and have been in every age since Christ's preaching, that there have been miracles done in confirmation of the Roman Faith. This is evident to all who read the Ecclesiastical Histories of present, and past times. Neither can our adversaries deny, that we have lawful witnesses for miracles now wrought in our Church (even in confirmation of that Doctrine wherein we differ from them) and reported by so credible testimonies, 
See the 13. Chap.  that it were imprudence in any person whosoever to deny them, which is enough to propose sufficiently our Doctrine as Divine Revelation.  
But Protestants do not believe our miracles, because they imagine that they are against Scriptures, that is, against their own interpretation of it, and that some miracles have been false, and forged. We do not say that all things which the common people think to be miracles, are really true miracles; but we affirm that true miracles there are in our Church, and very frequent, confirming that very Doctrine which Protestants reject: the forgery or knavery of some particular wicked men in feigning miracles, can not prejudice all, especially such as are seen, and experimented by persons of known integrity, and learning, able to discern between true and false miracles: otherwise it will follow, that all the new Testament must be called in question, or denied to be God's Word, because Saint Thomas his pretended Gospel, or Nicodemus his writings are condemned as forged, or Apocryphal.  
That no reformed Church of Protestants can have lawful witnesses to propose sufficiently their Doctrine as Divine Revelation, is evident; because for the space of 1500. years, they were without any visible Church, or tradition; therefore their witnesses also are invisible, and by consequence not lawful, or credible. Fox and others made a certain Catalogue of men who opposed the Doctrine of the Roman Church in former ages; but they were known Heretics, and did neither agree amongst themselves, nor with Protestants, in their Tenets, or Religion, as hath been demonstrated by Father Persons in his Examination of Fox his Calendar, and by many others.  
9 I conclude therefore, that seeing Protestants grant there is, and hath always been a Catholic Church upon earth, and that Church must have lawful witnesses testifying their Doctrine to be Divine Revelation; it being evident, that no Congregation of men can produce any such lawful witnesses, but the Roman Catholics (amongst whom I include also them of the Greek Church who agree with us) it's also evident, that there can be no Church Catholic but the Roman.   

CHAP. XI. Whether Transubstantiation, and the lawfulness of the worship of Images be sufficiently proposed by the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church, as Divine revelation? and whether Protestants have any lawful exceptions against them?  
1 THere are so many Books printed in defence of these Catholic Tenets, that I judge it superfluous to treat of them ex professo. I will only answer some exceptions that Protestants have made against them to myself, in divers occasions. That the Roman Church doth propose these articles sufficiently as Divine Revelation, is clear; because it proposeth them by the same testimony, and confirmed by the same's signs, whereby it proposeth Scripture to be God's Word: this last proposal Protestants themselves grant to be so sufficient, that no man may in prudence deny it. Therefore the same must be said of all the rest, and in particular of Transubstantiation, and worship of Images.  
2 But let us hear the exceptions of Protestants against each of these mysteries. Against Transubstantiation they object the evidence of our senses; it never being read in Scripture (say they) that God by a miracle deceived men's senses, or made appear to them one thing for another. Moses and Aaron's rod in Egypt, was really converted into a serpent, and seemed so also to the senses of the spectators. The Magician's rods seemed to be serpents to the senses, but really were not. From hence they conclude, that by false miracles, and illusions the senses may be deceived, but never by true supernatural signs, or miracles. Against Transubstantiation they object also novelty of the word, and of the thing defined, which was in the Council of Lateran first, and after in the Council of Trent.  
3 As for worship of Images they look upon it as idolatry, or at least as a thing inclining the common people to it, and therefore both dangerous, and unlawful. Some object also novelty against it, the first time (say they) worship of Images was heard of, being some 800. years ago, in the second Council of Nice.  
4 Now to their first exception, and the evidence of their senses against Transubstantiation, I answer, that the senses are not deceived, because (according to common Philosophy) their proper object (which are the accidents) do remain. But seeing divers both Catholics, and Protestants do deny that there be any accidents separable from their proper substance, my second answer is, That there are two sorts of miracles. Some miracles are wrought, not to be seen, but to be believed; because they are not only miracles, but also mysteries of Christian Faith. The Incarnation, or Union of God and man in one person is one of the greatest miracles, yet it was not done to be seen, or manifested to our senses in this life, but (being concealed from them) to be believed. The miracle of Transubstantiation is called by Christ himself Mysterium Fidei, a mystery of Faith; it was not done to be perceived by our senses, but to be believed by our understanding.  
5 Other miracles there are which have been wrought by God, to the end they may move us to believe, not themselves, (for they are seen, and manifest) but some other revealed truth; these miracles are patent to our senses, because they give us sufficient evidence, that the mysteries of Faith may prudently be credited as Divine Revelation. Such was Moses his miracles in Egypt; the rod was not turned into a serpent, that Pharaoh, and the Egyptians should believe what they did see with their eyes, but that they should believe somewhat else, to wit, that Moses was sent by God.  
6 Supposing this difference between miracles, there can be no difficulty in answering the objection made by Protestants against Transubstantiation. Miracles which are not wrought principally to the end that they may be believed by Faith, but rather to the end they may be evidently seen, and by their means other mysteries believed, can not deceive the senses; because than they would be of no use, God's providence, and end in working them, would be frustrated. Miracles which are together mysteries of Faith, and are done that they may be believed, and not seen, must not appear evidently to our senses, but rather be concealed from them; otherwise we should have evidence, and belief of one thing in the same time. The mystery of Transubstantiation is a miracle not to be evidently seen, but to be believed. Therefore it's no marvel that it be not patent to our senses: when Christ turned water into wine, he did it in such a manner, that the sense perceived it to be wine, because from that evident and sensible miracle, they might infer, and believe, that he was the true Messiah. But when he changed bread, and wine into his own Body, and Blood, there was no appearance of change, it seemed to remain still bread, because the insensible change of one substance to another, was a mystery to be credited, and not to be seen. The Manna (which was a figure of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar) did savour to the Jews whatsoever they fancied, though it remained the same substance it was before: I see therefore no reason why we Christians should give more credit to our , than the Jews, who had as much reason to doubt of the Manna, as we of the Sacrament; nay we have less, because Christ's words are so absolutely, and clear, This is my Body: if it be his Body, it is not bread; being impossible that Christ's Body should be bread.  
7 Seeing God will not have the mystery of Transubstantiation be evident to our senses, it's not to be thought either superfluous or incredible, that the species, or appearance of bread and wine, work the same effects, which their substance would have done, if it were present: for, God is as coherent in supernatural things, as in natural; its necessary therefore for the concealment of this mystery, and for the merit of Christian Faith, that no want of the substance of bread, and wine, may be perceived in the Sacrament by any curious experience of men, who would eat, and drink only conscerated species. The not manifesting this great mystery to our senses, requireth, that the same effects be worked by the species, as by bread, and wine.  
8 Some Protestants think it a contradiction that one body be present in many places together. But all Catholics hold that Christ's Body, and Blood, have a spiritual presence in the Sacrament, which once granted, there can be no difficulty in believing that our Saviour's Body, and Blood, may be in many places at the same time; because it's granted to all things which have a spiritual presence.  
9 If any inquires, how can a body have a spiritual presence? I answer him with demanding, how can a spirit have a corporal presence? How can an Angel have the appearance, and presence of a young man? whereof there are many examples in Scriptures Whence it followeth, that our senses may be deceived, or (to speak more properly) may give occasion to the understanding to be deceived, not only in the mystery of Transubstantiation, but also in others, expressed in Scripture; which is contrary to what our adversaries object. Angels seemed to the eyes of Abraham, joshua, Tobias, and others to be young men, and yet they were not men, but spirits.  
10 As for their saying that Transubstantiation is a novelty brought into the Church by the Council of Lateran an. 1215. it's a mistake; because the very condemning of of Berengarius as an Heretic, for impugning this mystery, doth demonstrate it was no novelty; but believed as an atticle of Faith, not only before the Council of Lateran, but since the Apostles. For otherwise, how were it possible that the Patriarches of Jerusalem, and Constantinople, 70. metropolitans, 400. Bishops, and 800. conventual Priors, who were present at that Council, should all agree to declare Transubstantiation to have been revealed by God to the primitive Church, and yet the same to be at the same time invented, when the Council defined it? The Church doth not make new articles of Faith when it defines any controverted Doctrine, it only declares, that such Doctrine was delivered to the primitive Church, though perhaps it was not proposed generally to all Churches, and Catholics; it groundeth the definition upon Scripture, or Tradition. The same which Protestants object against the word Transubstantiation, did the Arrians against Consubstantiality in the Council of Nice, saying it was a novelty, and not in Scripture.  
11 The lawfulness of worshipping Images is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the second Council of Nice in these words: We do unanimously profess to stick to Ecclesiastical traditions which are in force either by custom, or writing; whereof one is the making of Images, Which is agreeable to the Gospel, and profitably invented for the belief of God's true Incarnation. This supposed, following the beaten road, and the steps of our Divine, and holy Fathers, and observing the tradition of the Catholic Church, wherein the holy Ghost doth inhabitate, we define that holy Images ought to be worshipped &c. of Christ, of our Lady, Angels, Saints etc. For so the discipline of our holy Fathers doth conclude, as also the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end to the other hath received the Gospel.  
12 Notwithstanding this clear testimony of the Catholic Church. Protestants confound the worship of Images with idolatry, not distinguishing between an Image, and an Idol (Idol signifies the likeness of a false God; Image is the likeness of any thing that doth, or may exist) translating in the English Bible Image for Idol, and make the poor ignorant people believe, that we Catholics dare not set down in our catechisms the first Commandment at full, as it is in Scripture; because it forbiddeth worship of Images: whereas out of the very text it appears, that God forbids only the likeness of any thing to be adored as God, or made to that purpose. In Canisius the Jesuit his catechism is set down the first Commandment as it is in Scripture. In all other catechisms the substance of the first Commandment is set down: for in adoring but one God is employed, we must not worship any other things as Gods. It might be as well objected against our catechisms, that in the last Commandment we put in brief only these words, Thou shalt not covet another man's goods; omitting ox's, and asses etc. which these wise Objectors put us in mind of. catechisms, being briese instructions for children's memory, require the shortest expression of the substance of every Commandment.  
13 But when Catholics urge Protestants with the same Commandment, because they have their own statues, and pictures made, which are as much prohibited by the Commandment, as the statues, or Images of Saints; they can find an explanation for the text, and distinguish between civil, and religious worship: we honour (say they Kings, and Princes Images with a civil worship only, and not religiously, as ye do the Images of Saints: which religious worship is due to God alone. I would feign know why can not religious worship have a latitude, and be more, and less, supreme, and inferror, as civil worship hath Its civility not only to worship Kings, but also noble men and others; ho are their servants; but the supreme civil● worship is due only to the King himself; an inferior de● gree is due to his servants, to every one according his calling. What inconveniency is it to hold the same (with proportion) of religious worship. The supreme religious worship, which is called Latria, is due to God alone; why may not there be an inferior degree of religious worship due to Saints, and their Images; religious worship being only an exterior acknowledgement of some religious, o● supernatur all excellency in the person worshipped: Saint Poter is known because he was a Saint, and not because h● was a Fisher. Sure Protestants will not deny, that th● Saints who enjoy God, have a supernatural excellenc● bestowed upon them by his Divine Majesty. Therefore the Saints (and by consequence their Images) may be ho● noured, with a religious worship of an inferior degree.  
14 As for the danger of idolatry amongst the commo● people, we Catholics have no reason to apprehend any having so long experience of the contrary. We resort more to the Church, or Chapel where one Image is, the another, according the graces which we receive our sel●s, or the miracles which we credibly hear to be done 〈◊〉 others. To persuade us not to believe any such mira●es, is to take away all belief, and society amongst men. ●s evident some miracles done at these Images are true, ●ough some may be false. For its impossible that all the catholics, and many Heretics, should conspire together to deceive the world, and damn themselves, for a ●ing which (if false) imports most of them nothing. If ●ere be miracles, the worship of Images can not be un●wfull, because God induceth not men by miracles to ●nne; rather there is an obligation of believing, that it is ●ry lawful. And as for the danger of idolatry, there is 〈◊〉 more in worshipping Images, than there is, that the ammon people of England should cry up an Image, or atue of the King, for their King, and rebel with it against himself.   

CHAP. XII. Whether Protestancy be Heresy?  
BY Protestancy I mean all, and every point of that Doctrine of Protestants, wherein they differ from any Tenet which Roman Catholics hold as a point of Faith. The articles of Christian Religion in which they, and we agree, ●n not be properly called Protestancy, because they are infferent to both, and were believed by us Roman Catho●ks long before any Protestants were seen, or heard of 〈◊〉 the world. Most of the articles of Protestancy, are ne●tive, that is, not ot believe Transubstantiation, Purgatory, 〈◊〉 lawfulness of praying to Saints, or worshipping them in ●ir Images, etc. so that to be a Protestant, is, not to beve. Protestants on the other side say, that to be a Ca●lick, is, to overbelieve, and to be a Protestant, is, to beeve only that which is necessary. But then we ask, who all be Judge of what is necessary, and superfluous? Not ●man Catholics, say they, because they are a part, and ●cerned. By the same reason we may exclude all Prote●nts from judging, and not only Protestants, but all Christians, because every Church of Christendom pretends to believe all that is necessary; all therefore and ev●ry one may be excepted against, as a part, and concerne● So that if Roman Catholics be excluded from determ●ning what is necessary to be believed, we must be judge by the Turks, Pagans, or Jews, in the controversies 〈◊〉 Christian Religion, and of Scripture. Me thinks we Ca● tholicks are  conditioned, more prudent, and mo●● provident in our belief, than Protestants; because though we should believe too much, we can not be damned fo● want of necessary belief; we may lend some to o● Neighbours, and reserve to ourselves as much as is nece● sary. But Protestants stand upon such nice terms wit● God, and the Church, that if they come not short of wh● is necessary (as twenty to one they will) their Neighbour shall be nothing the better for their belief.  
2 I might urge this argument in a serious way, and v● home, if this were its proper place. But to return to th● question, whether Protestancy be Heresy? I answer, th● all opinions, or Tenets, whether negative, or affirmative that Protestants hold contrary to that which the Rom● Catholic Church believes as an article of Faith, are H● resies; which I demonstrate in this manner. Whatsoev● opinion is contrary to any Doctrine sufficiently propose as Divine Revelation, is Heresy; but all Protestants prper Tenets, or opinions are contrary to some Doctri● sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation Therefore 〈◊〉 Protestant's proper Tenets, or opinions are Heresies. Th● first proposition is granted by our very adversaries, an● hath been proved in the 3. and 4. Chap. The second 〈◊〉 clear by what may be borrowed from the same Chapter and from the so. and I apply to our question by this sy● logisme. All the proper Teners of Protestancy are co● trary to some Doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church doth testify to be Divine Revelation; (that is, 〈◊〉 have been revealed by God to the primitive Church;) b● the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church is a suf● cient proposal of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelation Therefore all Tenets, or opinions proper to Protestancy are contrary to some Doctrine sufficiently proposed Divine Revelation.  
3 If the second proposition of this last syllogism, argument, be demonstrated, Protestancy is demonstrated ●o be Heresy. Therefore I prove it (in my judgement) ●ery clearly. That testimony is a sufficient proposal of Sods revealing any Doctrine to the primitive Church, which testimony is confirmed by miracles, and hath continued without interruption, being exhibited in every ●ge (from the time of the Apostles to this present) by ho●est, and knowing men. But the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church hath all this. Therefore it's a sufficient ●toposall of any Doctrine to be Divine Revelation, or to ●ave been revealed by God to the primitive Church. That the testimony of the Roman Church is confirmed by ●●iracles even in those very points of Doctrine wherein protestants differ from us, is so evident, that no prudent ●an, if not obstinate, can deny, and is particularly proved 〈◊〉 the 13. Chap. For how is it possible, that all the world ●as I said before) should conspire to abuse Protestants, and ●amne themselves by feigning miracles; and that, not only in this age, but in every age since the primitive Church. The forging of some is no prudent prose that ●ll are forged If there are no miracles in the Roman Ca●olick Church in confirmation of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Worship of Images etc. there is no Faith to be given my men whosoever.  
4 Now it remains only to be proved, that there hath ●een a continual succession of honest, and learned men ●f the Roman Church in every age since the primitive Church to this present, who did bear witness that the Doctrine which every respective former age delivered to ●he next ensuing, and we believe as Faith, was revealed by ●od to the first Christians. But this being evident by the condemning as Heretics all those who in any age held protestant Tenets, and being also proved in the 10. Chap. ●s superfluous, and troublesome to repeat it here again. Whosoever desires to be informed more at large, and of ●very point in particular, let him read the Protestant Apo●gy for the Roman Church. There he will find what I ●ay to be so clear, that our very learned Adversaries are forced to acknowledge it, and recurre to that old, and desperate shift of Heretics, who say, that the word of ●en is not to be believed, as if the word of the same men who assure us that Scripture is the Word of God, were credible in that, but in nothing else. Of this we have sai● enough before in the 5. Chap.  
5 Yet I will not omit to argue against Protestants a● Saint Augustin did against Jews, and Pagans with that in● genius Dilemma, whereof I made mention in the 3. Chap Either the first learned, and honest men who adored th● Blessed Sacrament, believing there was no bread in it worshipped Images, etc. did see miracles to confirm these pretended novelties, which crept in (as Protestant say) t● the Church; or they did see no miracles to confirm them. If they did see miracles, I have my intent. If they did se● none, I have also my intent, because the greatest of all m● racles is, that wise, and learned men should without an● miracles seen, adore for God that which seems to be piece of bread, and worship a statue, or picture; which 〈◊〉 not only contrary (as Protestants say) to clear Scripture but also to common sense, and reason. By the same Diego em● ma I prove that every point of the Doctrine of Catholic against Protestants: was sufficiently proposed as Divin● Revelation. Either it was sufficiently proposed to the fir● Christians who believed it, or not. If it was, Protestancy is Heresy. If it was not, how is it possible, that not only the first who believed, or taught these superfluities, bu● all the wise, and honest men of the world for many age before the pretended Reformation, should impose upon themselves unnecessary articles, as necessary, and thereby betray posterity, and damn themselves, for believing things which had no ground in Scripture, nor were testi● fied to them by any credible testimonies of the Christian● who went before them, to be Divine Revelation? All tha● Protestants can say in their own defence hath been con● futed in the 3.4.7.8. and 9 Chap, for all must be reduce● to three heads: 1. That Scripture, and Fathers are clea● against Roman Catholics. 2. That the private spirit i● for Protestants 3. That Protestants are neither obstinate nor Heretics, because they do not believe that God re● vealed Transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc. All these thre● evasions, and more have been confuted in the foremen tioned Chapters, to which I remit the Reader.  
6 I do not see what exception Protestant's can add t● their former against the testimony of the Roman Cath● lick Church, unless they say, I that it is not make an● thing prudently credible as Divine Revelation, because we Catholics can not make appear by reason how what we say, is true, as, how accidents can be without their proper subject etc. but upon this score they may as well reject the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, as Transubstantiation. The Catholic Church is not the Author of the Doctrine it proposeth, it's only a witness, as Christ himself declared, when he sent the Apostles to preach, Ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem etc. 
Act. 1.  Only God who is the Author of Catholic Doctrine, can give a clear reason of some mysteries; and though the Church can not, its testimony ought to be believed. Many Clowns who unanimously say they have seen an Eclyps', or extravagant inundation of the Sea, deserve credit, though they be no Philosophers, or Mathematicians, and consequently can not give any clear reason of an eclipse etc. Therefore the testimony of Catholics ought not to be rejected concerning Transubstantiation, or any other mystery, though they can not give clear reason for it; it's enough for them to recurre to God's omnipotency.  
7 But how (say Protestants) can we be called Heretics, or obstinate, if we are content to submit our judgements, and believe what is sufficiently proposed as God's Revelation? We only deny, that the Roman Church doth propose sufficiently as God's Revelations their Decrees in the Counsels of Trent, and Lateran etc. To this I have answered in the third Chap. and now again do affirm, that there is no Prince who doth propose his commands, and sense concerning any matter, more sufficiently by his subordinate Ministers, than God doth his Word, and sense of Scripture, by the Roman Church. Because there hath not been only a continual succession of this Doctrine we profess, from the primitive Church to this present (which neither the Greek Church, 
See Chap. 9  nor any other can pretend to, having changed the Doctrine of Faith more than once;) but because there do appear such evident signs of the Roman Churches being appointed by God to declare to all the world the true Faith, and sense of Scripture, that it must be obstinacy in the highest degree, to doubt of the sufficiency of the Roman Churches proposal, and testimony. First the conversion of Nations by Roman Catholics in all parts of the world is evident. Secondly, no other Church doth pretend to miracles, but we alone. Thirdly, we hear of no eminent sanctity confirmed by prophecy, and other supernatural signs in any Church but in ours. Fourthly, there is no unity, peace, or end of controversies but amongst us, all submitting our judgements in matters of Faith to any general Council approved by the Pope. Fifthly, no Church hath continual tradition, and succession of Doctrine, but we Roman Catholics.  
8 All these signs are marks of the true Catholic Church, and are so obvious to our senses, that idiots may take notice of them; if they will but inquire, and spend as much time in that, as in reading the History of their own Country, or of informing themselves of their Ancestors. This is the true reason why no Protestant's can pretend ignorance of the true Church, nor rely upon the word of their Ministers. If they inquire not, they will be damned for being ignorant. If after due inquiry made, they become not Roman Catholics, they will be damned for Heresy, not only for denying the truth of our Doctrine, and Faith, but also the sufficiency of its proposal He is a rebel who denyeth, that the accustomed exterior signs of the Prince's commission, and authority, which are seen in his Officers, is not a sufficient proposal of his will and pleasure, to have the said Officers obeyed as his Judges, or Deputies etc. I see no reason why the same ought not to be grated (with proportion) in our case; unless Protestants think that Princes ought to be more respected in their Ministers, than God in his Church; or that there is greater evidence required to believe that God doth speak by his Church, then to believe that Princes do speak by their subordinate Ministers. Truly though this greater evidence were required, Protestants can have no excuse, because the signs of the Roman Church are greater evidence, that it alone is the true one, by which God declares, and speaketh his mind, than the signs of any Magistrate in a Commonwealth, or Kingdom, are of the true regal authority of the said Magistrate, by which Kings, and Princes declare their mind to the Subjects. See more in the 4. and 5. Chapters.   

CHAP. XIII. Whether any Protestants may be saved?  
1 THough Protestancy be Heresy, all Protestants are not Heretics; there is a difference (saith Saint Austin) between Heretics, and them who believe Heretics. The greatest wits may be misinformed, if they rely upon other men's informations.  
2 To the question proposed I answer, that such Protestants as never had any occasion to doubt, whether their own Religion be the true one, may be saved, if they never committed a mortal sin; because they are baptised, and die in the grace of God, which they received in the Baptism. Now whether there be any Protestants who never committed a mortal sin, the Lord knows; this I am sure of, that there are very few in any part of the world, who have not great reason, and many occasions to doubt of their own Religion. Because amongst them, or near unto the places where they live, there are Catholics; who (as Christians and true Friends) advertise them of the falsehood, and novelty of their Sect. And though the Protestant Ministers assure them, that they are in a safe way of salvation; when others as honest, and learned as the Ministers tell them the contrary, they are bound, under pain of damnation, at least to examine the truth, and grounds of both Religions, according their capacity, and possibility; which if they do sincerely, that is, setting aside all regard of honour, interest, conveniency, and all other temporal affections, which obstruct the understanding, God in his providence will give them knowledge of the truth, and resolution to embrace it.  
3 But in case Protestants contemn the charitable warnings given them by Catholics, of the Schism, and Heresy wherein they are involved, and neglect Gods inspirations of examining the truth; there is no question to be made that if they die in that condition, they are damned; because though they were brought up Protestants, they had reason to doubt of their Religion, seeing as honest, and learned men as those that gave them their education, and instruction, advertised them seriously of their danger. And not to examine whether the danger be real, or not, in a matter of so high concernment, is not excusable; no ignorance can be pretended, after they are admonished by sober, and honest men.  
I conclude therefore, that only such silly souls as believe the Pope hath horns, and the Jesuits cloven feet, can be excused by ignorance from damnation, for not believing as Catholics do; because if any such be, they are so simple, that they believe all which the Minister says, as God's Word, and that nothing ought to be called in question. How many Ministers there be, who deserve this credit, and esteem of infallibility, even amongst the least prying, and simple people, let their own Parishes, and the world define. This I dare say, that there are few Protestants who commit not at least one mortal sin; and that is enough to damn them, though their invincible ignorance (as school men speak) may excuse their want of true Faith. But the want of Charity is as damnable as the want of Faith; and we have no reason to judge that God will do so extraordinary a favour to Protestants, who are out of the Church, and have not the help of the true Sacraments, as to give them an act of contrition in the last hour.  
4 I have often said, that I can not but admire to see any person of solid judgement, and good understanding, a Protestant. The more I consider the grounds, beginning, and progress of these new Religions, the more I am confirmed in my admiration What matter can then be of greater wonder, then to see wise men prefer the testimony of some few wanton, and dissolute Priests, and Friars, to the testimony of the grave, and ancient Fathers of the Catholic Roman Church? Let the Council of Lateran be confronted with Cranmer, and the six or seven Ministers, who invented the English Church, and with the Parliament that confirmed it. Let both the Counsels of Lateran, and that of Trent, be compared with the petty Assemblies of Ministers in the English Protestant Church, or in the Kirke of Scotland, Dort, or any other, pretending Reformation. Shall a few Ministers know better the Catholic tradition, the sense of Scripture, and Fathers, than the Council of Lateran, wherein sat two Patriarches, and the Pope, 70. Metropolitans, 400. Bishops, 800 conventual Priors, all learned men, out of the most parts of Christendom? Shall one Apostate Paulo Dolce his word be taken concerning the Council of Trent, and preferred to the testimony of all the Catholic Churches, which hath accepted all its Decrees in matters of Faith? I speak not of other Counsels, nor of the clear testimonies of Fathers, which are obvious to all persons who understand Latin, in Bellarmine, Coccius, and other Authors.  
5 Most of all I admire to see any person stick to the Common prayer Book, or to that Church, as if it were the true Catholic. How is it possible, that God should permit the public exercise of Catholic Religion, and Church, to be brought so low, and to so narrow a compass, as we see the Common prayer? If Antichrist reign were come, or the Turk had possessed the whole world, than it might be thought, that the Church fled to the wilderness, and became almost invisible; but when (through the mercy of God) we see Christianity flourish, not only in Europe, but in all other parts of the world, how is it credible, that God should permit the true, and pure exercise of Catholic Religion to be invisible?  
6 Therefore I judge it a duty of conscience, and charity, to warn all Protestants, that they may be pleased to reflect upon the Authors, and first Apostles of their Reformation Is it credible that God would make choice of such wicked persons as they were known to be, to reform his Church? Suppose there were some abuses in the Court of Rome; must therefore the Pope's authority be tread under foot? Must Kings lose their Crowns, because some Courtiers are lewd? If Luther had been appointed to preach for Indulgences, he had never writ against them, the Pope, or the Church of Rome. If Henry the VIII. had prevailed with the Pope to declare null his marriage with Queen Catharine of Spain, he had never made himself spiritual Head of the Church of England. If Calvin had obtained the Bishopric of Geneva, Puritan had never been so fierce against Episcopacy. If Queen Elizabeth had not been declared illegitimate by the Doctrine, and Church of Rome, the Common prayer, and Reformation had ended with Edward the VI who begun it. Doth not the world see, that these pretended Reformations of Religion were only pretexts for Princes to obtain their politic ends; and for dissolute, and incontinent Clergy, to gain authority, whereby their liberty, and vices might not only be excused, but applauded by the ignorant, and common people. Let Protestants therefore examine how things past, because ignorance in so important a matter can not be warranted by relying upon other men's judgements, seeing they may so easily inform their own.  
7 Neither ought they to sooth themselves with that no less usual, then groundless excuse. Agree you Clergy men amongst yourselves, and we will agree, & submit our judgements etc. But until then, we are not obliged, seeing our Ministers are learned, and honest men. We Catholics declare to all the world, and the same must Protestant do, that the Church out of which there is no salvation, may be so easily discerned from all false Sects, by signs so visible and obvious to all persons though illiterate, that to trust to Minister's testimony in so important a matter, is damnable negligence; especially seeing we charge them of not believing Clergy men, nor ordained. As for the Protestant Ministers being learned, and honest men, its certain that either we, or they want learning, or honesty, and that either they, or we impose upon the people manifest falsehoods; which may easily be discovered by any person, that desires to be saved. Let our Doctrines, and Tenets be examined, and it will clearly appear, that the Protestant Faith doth tend to liberty of believing, and doing what every man thinks convenient; which is an infallible mark of Heresy, and damnation.   

CHAP. XIV. Whether Protestancy be manifestly against reason, and common sense? and how may the most learned Protestants be convinced in disputes of Religion by every illiterate Roman Catholic?  

SECT. I.  
1 THe true Christian and Catholic Religion is so evidently credible, that all others must necessarily be evidently incredible. It is not in Religion, as in cases of moral Divinity. Two contrary opinions in moral matters may be prudently followed; each of them as probable; because there are learned men that patronise both. If there were two, or more Gods, and they could differ in opinion, or judgement, men might accommodate themselves to which they pleased But seeing there is but one God, there must be but one Faith, and one Religion. This one Faith is more than any probable opinion, it is an undoubted and prudent assent of the understanding, to whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation. An undoubted and prudent assent doth suppose there can be no prudent probability in any other contrary Faith, or Church: for, if once we grant, that two Religions are probable, or prudently credible, we have none at all; because we reserve a doubt of both, and are indifferent for any. True Faith admits no doubts, or indifferencies. Supposing this, no prudent Protestant can take ill that, which I intent to prove in this Chap. unless he will have Catholics acknowledge, that they have one true Faith, or Christian Religion.  
2 If it be proved that Protestancy is contrary to reason, it's evidently demonstrated to be a false Religion, because whatsoever is against reason can not be true. The true Christian Faith doth perfect the understanding, and not deceive that faculty of man, whereby he is distinguished from brute beasts. God is the Author both of Reason, and Religion, one must be subordinate to the other; its true, Faith is above Reason, but never stands in opposition with it, there must be good correspondence between both. Rational creatures are saved by a rational way There is a generation of men that think, none can enter into the true Church by Faith, if he leaves not his wits behind him at the door; so great an antipathy they conceive is between Faith, and Reason, that to embrace the one, is to renounce holy, and exclude t●e other. This error proceeds from confounding the mystery believed with the belief. It's very certain that the truth of Divine mysteries ought not to be censured by human understanding, because they are above its reach; that which seemeth to man very improbable, may be an infallible verity. But that we fall not into extremes, on the other side, its fit we know, that no person is bound to believe any mystery he understands not, before he seethe reason to believe it: though that reason clears not the mystery, yet it makes manifest our obligation to believe it. None is bound to part with his ov●ne Religion, or opinion, before he knoweth upon what score. There is nothing so much, and so properly our own, as our thoughts; our lands, and all other properties may be forced from us, our thoughts can not, they remain free, though ourselves should be slaves. Seeing therefore its a right of nature, not to part with our own goods, being in possession, unless better evidence be produced by others, than we can show for them; the same right must be extended to our thoughts, even in matters of Faith; because the Law of grace doth rather perfect, then destroy the Law of nature, and equity.  
3 To prove that Protestancy is manifestly against reason, it's enough to prove, that it is manifestly against reason to believe as Protestants do. There is not one article of any Protestant Church, opposite to the Roman Catholic Faith, that is, not manifestly against reason in this sense. This assertion may be proved first, because Protestancy is Heresy, as hath been proved in the 12. Chap. and Heresy is manifestly against reason; for Heresy involves obstinacy, and an obstinate man is manifestly unreasonable; because he is guided by his will, not by his understanding. None can properly be obstinate, if not convinced; convinced none can be but by clear reason, or by lawful witnesses, to whose testimony evident reason commands all men give credit, and submit their judgements, if there be not clear evidence against it. All Commonwealths do acquiesce in, and take the word of honest men, in both public, and private affairs; as in punishing Malefactors, disposing of inheritances etc. That the Catholich Church hath a great multitude of lawful witnesses, and testimonies against Protestancy hath been demonstrated. Therefore Procestancy is manifestly against natural reason, which dictates to all rational creatures to conform themselves to the testimony of lawful wicnesses, when they have no evidence against the said testimony. Protestants can not pretend evidence of reason against Catholic Tenets, because they are above reason. Evidence of the private spirit is ridiculous, and incredible to others, therefore unfit for the true Catholic Church, as hath been proved in the 9 Chap. There remains only their pretended evidence, or clearness of Scripture, which hath been alsoo confuted in the 8. Chap. Other lawful witnesses against ours, they have none, unless we grant that an invisible Church never heard of before Luther, hath lawful testimonies. And as for the sentences of some Fathers which they wrist in their own behalf, we produce others against them of the same Fathers, in which they explain themselves. Therefore it's manifestly against reason to believe as Protestants do, because they have no prudent ground for Protestancy; their Faith is not above reason, but below it; that is, unfit to be embraced by any rational creature.  
4 Another manner of proving Protestancy to be manifestly against reason, is, by this clear principle. When witnesses, and testimonies are contrary, they only are to be believed, who confirm what they say, with visible, and evident signs. Reg. 3 Solomon judged that the child (about whom there was so great a dispute betwixt the two women) did belong to her, who shown a visible, and sensible horror against the dividing of the infant into two parts. Though the other was confident enough in testifying the child was her own, yet because her testimony was not confirmed by any exterior, and visible sign, the contrary testimony was preferred, and believed by Solomon. If we will judge of Religions, as wise, and rational men, we must examine, which of all Christian Churches testimony is confirmed with evident, and visible signs. No Protestant Church (all of them being invisible for so many ages) can pretend so evident, and visible sign. The Roman Catholic Church doth not only pretend to visible signs, but they are so evidently appearing in the said Church, that no Protestant can deny them without forfeiting his judgement, or his ingenuity. The visible signs of the true Church, must have so evident a relation to God the Author of both Church, and Faith, that whosoever will reflect upon the said signs, can not prudently deny that they are a sufficient proof of God being the Author of the Doctrine, or Faith confirmed by them. There can not be a more rational and sufficient proof of any Doctrine being taught by Christ, and his Apostles, than a continual succession from them to us, both of Pastors, and Doctrine, delivered from age to age by the Doctors of the Church. See this in Esay 59.21. Psal. 45.16. Ephes. 4.11.12.  
5 As for our succession of Pastors, it is confessed by Protestant. Our succession of Doctrine from the Apostles to this present, must also be granted; because they could never tell us (though continually pressed in that particular point) when did the Roman Church fall from the true, and sincere Faith, which confessedly it once professed And And truly before Protestants prove that the Roman Faith was changed in any age, they must first prove, that all the Pastors, and Doctors of that age did conspire together to damn both themselves, and posterity, or, if they did not conspire to so incredible a thing, it must be necessarily said, that in that age wherein the first change of any article of Faith happened, all the Catholics of the world weremad, or slept for the space of a hundred years; because if they were awake, and sober, its impossible, but in some parts of the world (nay in every part, and Country) some learned, and honest men would contradict so damnable, and abominable practices, and advertise future ages of the innovation of Christian Religion, contrary to clear Scripture, and the known belief of all Catholics in former ages. It's as evident therefore that we Roman Catholics have not changed that Faith, which we received from the Apostles, as it is evident, that there was not any age wherein all the world conspired to damn themselves, and their posterity; or, as it is evident, that there was not any age wherein all the world was so benumbed, stupefied, or enchanted, that no Writer had the use of his fingers to set down in writing a matter of so great consequence; having notwithstanding the free use of their pen in relating a thousand other changes of less importance. We have no reason to judge that former ages were less vigilant, and careful in preserving the purity of Christian Religion, and the true sense of Scripture, than the present is, because their vigilancy appeareth by their suppressing of Heresies in every age: which suppression, and protestation against the said Heresies of every respective age, was never judged, or condemned, for an innovation against the Doctrine received from former times; but rather is a confirmation of it; so that the exceptions made by Berengarius, Waldo, and other such persons against Roman Catholics, doth rather strengthen, then weaken the Doctrine of the Roman Church, seeing their exception was so strongly, and constantly cried down by all the world for innovation.  
6 Some have said, that as grey hears grow in a man's head, and the corruption of a language grows on by little, and little, without particular notice taken of the precise time; so the change, and corruption of Religion hath crept in insensibly in the Roman Catholic Church. But this is a most silly similitude; as if men were as much concerned to watch the new growth of every grey hear, or the mispronunciation of every word, as the Pastors, and Doctors of the Church, and all Christians, are concerned to observe the beginning of a new article of Faith; or as if this were no more observable, or making no more impression upon men's minds, or no more change in the practice of the Church, than a grey hair in a man's head, or an odd word in common speech. Put the case, that in this age, to fertile of sopperies, some great, and considerable part of Christianity should set up a calf to be adored for the God of the Christians, would this be no more remarkable than a grey hair in a man's head? No less remarkable is it to hold up a wafer cake for the like adoration; and over and above to oblige people to swear, that it is no bread. Is it credible, or possible, that if in Berengarius his time, this had been begun, that the whole world would not have cried out against it, and not only the Doctors out of Scriptue, but the very children out of their catechisms had cried it down; or that so many Bishops, and learned men assembled in so many Counsels, namely in that most univerfall complete Council of Lateran, should have declared so hard a matter to be a necessary p●int of Christian Faith; and that so many ages since, should have universally accepted it, and defined it again in other Counsels, if it had been a mere innovation, and not an ancient tradition, and belief of the Catholic Church? The like may be said of the respect we give to Images, or any other articles of our Faith.  
7 Another evident, and visible sign confirming the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church alone, 
joan. 14.12.  is, Miracles; whereof in all ages we have good store to spare to the Protestant Churches, which never could produce one clear, 
Lib 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 8 prope sinem.  and undeniable Miracle: whereas Saint Austin telleth us how that in the presence of him, and oaths, a devout woman called Palladia, who being sore diseased, and repairing for her health to the monument of Saint Stephen, recovered suddenly her health by praying to the Saint: a thing now condemned by Protestants as superstition, or idolatry, and injurious to God. Ad sanctum Martyrem (saith Saint Austin) orare perrexer at, 
I. Aug. lib. 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. II. Nazian. in Cyprian. saith, Omniapotest pulvis Cypriani cum fide etc. miraculum usque ad nos transmiserunt. Chrysost. in libro contra Gentiles. III. Eusebius hist. l 7. c. 14. Athan de Passione imaginis Christi in Berito alleged in 2 Concil. Nicen. act. 4. IV. S. Chrysost. de Sacerdot to lib. 6. c. 4. V. VI S August. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. circa mediuw. S. Gregor. hom. 37 in Evang. S. Beda hist. l. 4. c. 22. ante med. VII. S. Hieron. in vita Hilarionis versus finem. S. Athanasius in vita Antoniuses. VIII. Epiphanius haer. 30. ante med. Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 21. IX. Cyprian. in serm. de lapsis post med. S. Ambros. in Orat. funebri de obitu fratris sui Satyri cap. 7. X. Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatistas'. Bernard. in vita Malachiae. XI. Evagrius l. 4. c. 25. XII. joann. Clymachus in lib. Climax grad. 4. Beda hist. l. 5. c. 14. XIII. S. Bernardus in vita Malachia.  quae mox ut cancellot attigit, collapsa similiter velut ad somnum, sana surrexit &c There is not any point of our Faith, wherein Protestants differ from us, but God hath worked miracles in confirmation of it against our adversaries. See the Saints, and Fathers cited in the margin for proof of this Assertion: and in particular concerning 1. Prayer to Saints, 2. Relics, 3. the Image of Christ, 4 real presence, 5. Sacrifice of Christ's Body, 6. Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, 7. the great virtue of the sign of the Cross, 8. Holy water, 9 reservation of the Sacrament, 10. Holy Chrism, 11 Adoration of the Cross, 12. Confession of sins to a Friest, 13 and extreme unction.  
8 Another cleate, and visible sign of the true Church, is the conversion of the Kings, 
Apocal, 20.11. Esay 49.24.  and Nations of the Gentiles. Only the Roman Catholics can challenge this mark, not only in former ages, but also in this present, as is notorious to our very adversaries in both the indies, jason, China, Persia &c I have heard of some Catholic Countries perverted by Protestants, as England Scotland, Swe●●land etc. but never of any converted to Christianity. It were tedious to run over all the signs of the true Church: these are sufficient to demonstrate, that the testimony of Catholics ought to be preferred in matters of Religion, before the testimony of Protestants; because outs is confirmed by visible, and supernatural signs; theirs with none; unless you will take for true miracles john Fox his ridiculous dreams, and stories, which he relates in his Acts, and monuments; a Book so condemn! by most wise men, that one of them hearing a certain person to be much taken with the reading of it, concluded him to be a very silly man, and of less judgement than he was esteemed by others, that were ignorant of his being so addicted to Fox.  
9 If Protestancy be as contrary to reason, and common sense, as hath been hitherto proved, what wonder is it, that any illiterate Catholic should convince the most learned Ministers, and pillars of Protestant Churches; unless it be supposed that we are deprived or at least, know not how to make use of our reason, and common sense? Controversies of Christian Religion are not to be decided by examining the truth of the mysteries we believe; that is to be supposed, and not disputed. To be a good Controvertist, is not to give reason of what you believe; but to give reason why you believe what you understand not; this last requires no Greek, or Hebrew, nor School learning, and therefore may be as well performed by a Catholic Clown, is by a Bachelor of Oxford, or Cambridge.  
10 Now to descend to particular methods, hereby the learned Protestants may be convinced by illiterate Catholics, I will only mention two, both of them very ordinary, and usual, amongst the most vulgar sort of people. The first is by ask of Protestants, What news of Religion? The second by enquiring of them, by what right, or warrant, do they condemn any article of the Roman Catholic Faith? I do seriously aver, that every Countryman, who hath wit, and judgement enough to except, at the Assizes, against an illegal, and false witness, hath leaming enough to convince in controversies of Religion, the most learned Protestant Minister. And every carrier, or husbandman, who hath so much wit, and judgement, as not to believe an extravagant, and incredible history, or ballads, of some strange feigned Monster, hath wit, and judgement enough to convince any Protestant whosoever. The reason of this Assertion is very clear; because there was never so incredible a Monster, or Chimaera, composed of so many contradictions, and impossibilities, as this new fangled Religion, framed by the fancies of a company of dissolute Priests, and Friars, pretending to have been enlightened by the Spirit of God, and sent by an extraordinary calling (without miracles) to reform not only the manners, but also the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. What Country Clown amongst Catholics can be persuaded to believe, that all this which the first Protestants pretend, is true? Is it not obvious to every rational creature, that God never made use of so wicked instruments to reform the world, and plant the true Religion. What evidence do Reformers produce against the Doctrine of the Roman Church? what witnesses? what signs to confirm their testimonies? Do Protestants agree amongst themselves? All this will be more clearly understood by the ensuing Conference between a Catholic Clown, and a learned Protestant Minister.   

SECT. II. A Dialog between a learned Protestant Minister, and a Catholic Clown.  
11 CAth. What news good Master Doctor of your English Protestant Church? Minist. As much persecuted as ever Bapists were by Queen Elizabeth. There is liberty given to all Sectaries, Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. we only are excepted against. Cath. I see no reason why ye Protestant's should not be reform by Puritans, and Quakers, as ye reform us Catholics; I am sure they bring as many texts of Scripture against your Doctrine, and Discipline, as ye did against ours. Minist. We reform only your Papistical abuses that were contrary to the clear Word of God. Cath. The same thing do Puritans, or Presbyterians say against you. But it's incredible news to me that, which you tell me, of any abuses we should have in our Church, contrary to the express Word of God. Minist. Didst thou ever read the Scripture? Cath. No truly. Minist. I knew so much: the reason why ye are not permitted to read the Bible, is, that ye may not discover the errors which Jesuits, and other Mass Priests teach ye; as the respect to Images, and Statues, praying to Saints, Purgatory etc. These, and many more are clearly contradicted by Scripture. Cath. Though I were permitted to read Scripture, I can not; because I never learned to read. Yet I have spoken with many learned men who read Scripture, and they all unanimously assure me, that there is not one word in all Scripture, contradicting worship of Images, praying to Saints, or Purgatory. Now, I see no reason why I should reject their testimony, and take yours.  
12 Minist. Faith is a gift of God, thou must not tie it to any man's sleeve: pray to God that he may give thee his Spirit. Cath. I have heard much of a Spirit that every one of ye Protestants, and Puritans, pretend to have; but I could never see any effect, or sign of it. Minist. We Protestants pretend no such Spirit. Cath. How come ye then to alter the old sense of Scripture, which was in England for a thousand years before Edward the VI if no Spirit did inspire, or interpret the Scripture after the reformed fashion, why did ye not stick to the old way? Minist. Because we could not in consciences there being so many clear texts against Popery. Cath. That is incredible; for in the space of a thousand years, some man or other would meet with those clear texts. Minist. Well, thou art an honest fellow, we will not dispute, thou art not capable of understanding what I have to answer to that objection of thine. Cath. Nay good Master Doctor, trust my understanding for once, I pray resolve my doubt. Min. Truly I must deal clearly with thee, I am of opinion that for the space of one thousand years past, all Roman Catholics did hold damnable Doctrine, manifestly contrary to Scripture, yet I believe their ignorance did excuse them from damnation.  
13 Caeh. How is it possible that there should be so much ignorance in all the world for the space of a thousand years that none could see those clear texts of Scripture which you, and other Protestants pretend to see? Min. Mistake me not Countryman, the texts of Scripture which we produce against your errors, and superfluities, are not so very clear, but that they may be misunderstood, if God doth not enlighten the understanding, as he hath done to us Protestants. Cath. I thought you pretended no such Spirit, or private inspiration. I hear reported by credible Authors, that the first Protestants, or Reformers in every Country, were dissolute Piests, or Friars, who married, and lived not so exemplarly as the Catholic Clergy doth. Therefore I can not persuade myself, that God would enlighten them more than us; at least I am not bound to believe it, unless I see miracles, or some other marks of sanctity, which is more than ever I perceived as yet in any of your Religion. I hope you will pardon my freedom. Min. I warrant thou dost believe all the miracles that are reported to have been done at Loreto, Sichem, and other Chappells Didst thou ever see any miracle thyself? Cath. No indeed, but I have seen others who were present at the working of strange miracles, as that of Naples, when the Jefuit Mastrilli was cured on a sudden by Saint Francis Xaverius, and sent by him to lapon, where he died a Martyr. Many others I have heard testified by credible Authors, that I have as much reason to believe, as any who should endeavour to persuade me the contrary; therefore trouble not yourself in this matter, unless you will have me doubt of all things I hear, because I have been deceived in something Min. Why believe not ye our miracles, as ye would have us believe yours? Cath. Because we never hear of any clear, and undeniable miracles; I am sure ye have none to confirm the articles wherein ye Protestants differ from us, no nor any that looks like miracles when they are compared with ours.  
14 Minist. Seeing thou dost not desire to speak of miracles, let us return to Scripture. Grant, that the texts of God's Word, which we bring against Popery, were not clear; must they not therefore be believed, because (forsooth) they are obscure. Christian Faith must be obscure, honest fellow. Doth not thy Parish Priest instruct thee thus? Cath. My Pastor, and Confessor both tell me, that the mysteries of Christian Faith are obscure, but never incredible. Min. Now friend I have caught thee. Is it not incredible that there is no bread in the Sacrament of the Altar? Why therefore dost thou believe Transubstantiation as a mystery of Faith? Cath. It is rather incredible there should be any bread in the blessed Sacrament; for if there were, why should all Catholics deny a thing that hath so great appearance? Whether bread be there, or no, Priests have the same alms for saying Mass: no gain accrues to them by Transubstantiation. On the other side, its impossible that all Catholics should be so mad, as to contradict their own senses, if God had not commanded them not to credit their eyes and taste in this Divine mystery; but rather to rely upon his words, and believe, that the blessed Sacrament is his Body: if it be Christ's Body, it can not be bread, because our bodies are no bread, and Christ's Body is of the same nature with ours.  
15 Min. Alas poor ignorant soul! Christ's words must be understood spiritually, he himself told the Disciples, that his words are spirit, and life. Cath. 
john 6.  I heard our Pastor the last Sunday explain that same text to confirm Transubstantiation. For, he said, that Christ is in the Sacrament truly, and really, but with a spiritual presence, and that we receive his very Body, and Blood, though not in a corporal manner: there is some difference (quoth he) between eating of Christ's Flesh, and eating a piece of beef. This only was Christ's meaning, when he said that his words were spirit, and life, which no way can prejudice Transubstantiation, though some Puritans think that they are contrary to the real presence. Whether bread be there, or no, Christ's true Body, and Blood, is received in the Communion, according Protestants; so that it concerns them, as much as Catholics, to interpret these words of Christ's, as we do: unless ye will become Calvinists, by saying, that ye eat Christ's Body by Faith; that is, ye believe to receive him, when ye do not; which is a lying, and false Faith; or that ye receive his grace, but not himself; and that is to deny in plain terms, the real presence. All this did our Pastor teach in the catechism.  
16 Min. Well, in this matter none is bound to believe your Pastor, or his catechism: we believe that Christ is really present in the Sacrament; but how he is there, we do not examine; neither ought the Roman Church, or the Council of Lateran impose Transubstantiation upon us, as a thing necessary to be believed. Cath. I have heard talk much of that Council of Lateran, they say there were present thereat the Pope, and two Pattiarches of the East, 70. Metropolitans, 400. Bishops, and 800 other learned men, out of all parts of the world If Transubstantiation was not a necessary article of Faith, they did very ill to declare it one, and condemn as Heretics all such as denied it. Yet me thinks, the testimony of so many learned men is of greater weight (I pray Sir, pardon me if I offend you, I do not intent it) than the testimony of any reformed Church to the contrary. I never heard of such a Council in any Protestant Church. It's true, I hear that the Ministers of Stratzburg, and of the Church of Zurick, look as reverendly as the Protestant Church of England; and have set forth as exact a Confession of their belief, as ye have done of yours in the 39 articles; but I could never learn that any of you had such an Assembly as the Council of Lateran, or of Trent. Therefore ye can not blame Catholics to prefer the testimony of these Counsels before the testimonies of the Church of Stratzburg, Zurick, or that of England, which was modelled (as our Priests tell us) by six Bishops, and six other men, or the major part of them; seven of them were sufficient to cast Christian Religion, take away Sacraments, altar the matter, and form of them, and change the ancient ceremonies. Without doubt its more reasonable to rely upon the Council of Trent, then upon the twelve, or seven persons that invented the Common prayer Book, and the Ritual of the English Church.  
17 Min. Hast thou ever heard of one Fr. Paulo, who writ the History of the Council of Trent, and describes how the holy Ghost was sent in a bag thither from Rome? Cath. I have heard much of that man; they say he was no Saint, at least of our Church, and had a spleen against the Pope. If what he writes, were true, not only the Bishops, and others who were in the Council of Trent, had been mad, or Impostors; but all the Catholics of the world, who accepted the same as a true Council, aught to be declared, and recorded natural fools. It's more credible that Fr. Paulo was a lying Knave, then that all the Catholics of the world are natural fools, or that all the Bishops of the Cowncell were Impostors. Therefore I can not believe his History of the Council of Trent. Truly his expression of the holy Ghosts journey in a bag, proves him to have been a profane fellow. They say his history is both solidly, and elegantly confuted by Palavicini the Jesuit. It's strange to me, how sober Protestants can believe such fopperies, and wicked practices of the chief Prelates, and persons of the Catholic Church  
18 Min. Hold there friend. Dost thou think that only the Roman Catholics are the whole Catholic Church? ye are but a part. Cath. I am sure Roman Catholic alone were the whole Catholic Church before that Luther, and Calvin begun their pretended Reformation. They, and all ye Protestants differ from us in Faith. Therefore ye are no part of the Catholic Church that was called so in the year 1516. If God hath Instituted another Catholic Church since, and ye make that appear. I am content to call ye Catholics; but until then, Master Doctor you must excuse me. Min. Ye and we believe the same things, only ye differ from us in some petty matters, not necessary to be believed, as Transubstantiation. Cath. Do you call that a petty thing, which the Catholic Church defined to be a matter of Faith? who shall be the Judge of what is necessary, or not necessary to be believed? Min. Not your Pope, nor his Counsels, because y are a part, and have a prejudice against our Doctrine. Cath. So have ye against ours, and by your consequence ye must not judge of it. Ye are best be judged by the great Turk, if ye will not admit of the Pope to be Judge of Controversies in Religion. Yet it's not credible that God would have us be judged by Turks, or Jews. What think you Master Doctor? Min. But why should the Pope, or Roman Church judge us Protestants, and we not judge them? Cath. Your Protestant Churches are not yet come to years of discretion. Our Church was in possession of judicature before yours was born: ye must produce better evidence than we can show, before you can rationally pretend to deprive us of what we possessed these 16. hundred years.  
19 Min. I never met with a more obstinate Clown than thou art. Cath. Why do you say I am obstinate? Is it because I take not the word of your English Church (that is of 12. or 7. men) in matters of Faith, and Sacraments, against the testimony of all Catholic Counsels, and the tradition of the whole Church? Min. I wonder that thou didst not make mention of tradition before now. Woe to them that prefer the traditions of men before the Word of God Cath. I do not take Scripture (as you interpret it) to be the Word of God Our Preachers teach us, that the Word of God must necessarily involve God's meaning, and sense. But ye Protestants intrude your own fancies, and dreams, and make them a part of God's Word, rejecting the true sense and meaning of Scripture, which the Catholic Church had learned of the Apostles, and preserved from the first age of Christianity to this present. Minist. What a calumny is this? Name but one fancy, or new interpretation of ours intruded into Scripture. Cath. Do not ye say that the respect we give to Images is idolatry, or at least forbidden in Scripture, as a thing inclining men to idolatry? The Catholic Church condemned long since this fancy of yours as heresy: and ye make the common people believe, that we are idolaters for holding that sense of Scripture, which hath been taught, and practised in the Church since the beginning, as learned men assure us, and they say the second Council of Nice do testify.  
20 Min. Worship of Images is dangerous, and therefore forbidden in Scripture. Cath If that be so, how did all the Church approve of it for so many ages, and stick to it still, notwithstanding your contradictions? We have men of conscience and learning; how is it possible they should damn themselves, and others, for worship of Images? Min. I see there is no ground to be expected by discoursing with thee, because when thou art pressed with God's clear Word, thou dost recurre to the tradition, and practise of the Church, and to I know not what miracles. Therefore I fear God hath delivered thee over to Satan, as an obstinate, and reprobate Heretic. Cath. Make it appear to me, that your sense of Scripture is God's meaning, and then I will not contradict your Doctrine. But I see no prudent ground to believe, that your new interpretations, contrary to the practice, and tradition of the ancient Catholic Church, should be dictated by God. On the contrary side, ye can not deny, that we Catholics have all the reason in the world to stick to our old sense of Scripture, confirmed by so many miracles, and testimonies of antiquity.  
21 Let this suffice to show how illiterate Catholics may convince the most learned Protestants. Our cause is so good, and clear, that common sense is enough to defend it, and confound our greatest, and most able adversaries. No Catholic Clown can be convinced by any learned Protestant, if he be not more then ordinarily simple. Truly there is nothing more incredible, then that all the visible Churches of the world should have been forsaken by God, and in damnable errors, for so many ages, as Protestants pretend; and that to reform the world, God should pick out amongst all men, the most ●icked, who continued, or rather increased their abominable, and scandalous conversation, after they begun to preach their new Gospel. See the lives of all new Reformers in the three Conversions of England, and in the prudential Balance, if you doubt of this assertion. Is it not a mere foppery to think that 12. or 7. men, who modelled the new Church of England in Edward the VI time, should judge better of Christian Faith, matter, and form of Sacraments, and of religious ceremonies, than the Counsels of Lateran, and Trent, and all the world in former ages? Is it not impossible, and contrary to Christ's own promises, that the exercise of true Religion, and Faith, should be as invisible, as the English Church is at this present, in times; wherein Christianity (through the mercy of God) doth flourish in all parts of the world? The Catholic Church was never brought to be invisible by the Arrians, though by them much persecuted. Let any Catholic Clown but reflect upon these, and other things, visible to all the world, and he may confidently dispute, and convince the most learned Protestant.    

CHAP. XV. Of the difference between Christian Faith, and the historical belief of Protestants.  
THat supernatural Faith is a special gift of God, is granted even by Protestants themselves. The superuaturality of it consists not in believing an extravagant, and improbable object; because that may be done naturally. For there is nothing however so false, and improbable to the understanding, that will not at length be believed by men, if constantly reported to them by others of whom they have a good opinion, and not contradicted by any whose testimony they value. The Turks believe that Mahomet was a great Prophet, and Saint The Jews believe that the Messiah is not yet come. The Puritans believe that every one of themselves is inspired with a Divine spirit etc. And though every one of these stories be false, improbable, and also contradicted by Catholics, yet because these Sectaries have a good opinion of their own Congregation, and a very bad one of us, Catholics, they believe the first, reject, and contemn the second. Turks, Jews, and Puritans do not believe these fond articles of their own Religion with any supernatural Faith; their belief is merely historical, just as children believe the history of the Knight in the Sun, Don Quixote de la Manche etc.  
All Christians have not supernatural, and Christian Faith. Many who received it in their Baptism, lose it by heresy. Heretics are called Christians, because they are baptised, and not because they are endued with Christian belief. They believe some mysteries of Christian Religion, but with a mere historical Faith They assent to the mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation, not because God revealed them, but because they are pleased to judge it very probable, or certain, that God revealed some such thing. That their own fancy, or opinion, and not God's Revelation, doth move Protestant's to believe what they do believe of Christian Religion, is evident; because they choose to themselves amongst all articles, which the Catholic Roman Church proposed to the first Authors of Protestancy Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, etc. before the pretended Reformation, what they think fit, and most probable. All the rest (though equally proposed to them by the testimony of the said Roman Church, as Divine Revelation) they reject as fabulous, or apocryphal, because it suits not with their liberty, fancy, and manners.  
Hence it is that all Heretics are damned by their own proper judgement, and opinion; for he that makes choice of some articles, and rejects others, when all are equally testified to be revealed by God, doth not believe the very articles he chooseth because God revealed them, but because he is of opinion that God revealed them, and not the others which he rejects; not regarding the testimony of the Church proposing all equally as revealed A Jew believes that the Messiah is not come, because he thinks God revealed Christ not to be the Messiah, and yet his Faith is not supernatural. Protestants therefore may believe what they please, because they think God revealed it, and yet their Faith be neither Christian, nor supernatural: their own persuasion alone, is not sufficient 〈◊〉 supernaturalize their belief. The difference between historical, and Christian, or supernatural belief, is not, that Christian belief alone hath for its object, supernatural mysteries; (a man may believe the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation with as historical a belief, as the history of julius Cesar.) The difference consists in this, that the understanding doth meet with so great, and manifest difficulties, in crediting what is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation, to be really revealed, and true, that it may appear to any indifferent, and rational man, God doth concur more particularly to the assent of what is proposed as Christian Faith, than he doth to the assent we give stories, Chronicles or any other human history, though containing never so strange and extraordinary events. To believe not only strange, and (to the sense of man) improbable things, but also to believe them with a prudent belief (not out of ignorance, or misinformation) without the least doubt, or suspicion of falsehood, is so much above the way, and faculty of nature, that the Faith whereby this is done, must of necessity be an extraordinary, and supernatural gift of God's omnipotency.  
Now let us examine, whether Protestants do so strain their understanding by their belief (even of supernatural mysteries) that it may be evidently called an extraordinary gift of God's omnipotency? To be brief, I do say, that Protestants have no more supernatural Faith in believing the Trinity, or Incarnation, &c then in believing any strange, or extraordinary accident that john Stow recounts in his Chronicles: and consequently, their Faith is merely historical. My reason is this: Protestants believe as articles of Faith only those points wherein all Christian, though heretical Churches agree to be clearly contained in Scripture, or to be delivered by Tradition of the said Churches. Whatsoever is controverted amongst Christians, they look upon it as not necessary to be believed. It's true most of them tell you, they believe the Apostles Creed; others come as far as Saint Athanasius his Symbol; some are pleased to admit of the 4. first general Counsels. The motive of this their belief is not, because the true Catholic Church testifieth that God revealed what they believe, but because no Christian Church, or Sect, wherewith they converse, ●oth contradict any of these points. Such things as are contradicted, or controverted by any, are not believed as articles of Faith If this be not merely historical, and human belief, there is none at all. What man is there, whether Turck, or Jew, that doth not believe after this manner, whatsoever is reported by many, and condicted by none whose authority hath any weight in his opinion? The reason why Turcks stick to their Alcoran, and the Jews to the Law of Moses, notwithstanding all our contradictions, and testimonies, of the one being wicked, and the other abolished, is, that they have a prejudice against us Christians, they value not any thing we say in matters of Faith If Protestants had not the same prejudice, by their education, against Turcks, that Turcks have against Christians, they would make the Catholic Church yet more universal then at the present they do: the Alcoran perhaps should be part of the Bible; those only should be articles of Faith wherein both agree; not only all Heretics, but Turcks should be members, and part of the Catholic Church.  
Many are of opinion, that the liberty of life which Protestants have (warrant by their new Religion) is the strongest motive of their obstinacy in it, and of propagating the same. Though this be true in some persons, it can not be applied to all Protestants: some of them (give the Devil his due) have morality, and come near the old Pagan Philosophers in their life, and conversation. But there is not one amongst all the Protestants of the world, especially of the English Church, or Common prayer men, that is not inveagled, and carried away with a liberty of believing only that, as an article of Faith, which is not contradicted by any Christian Congregation, or Church, however so different from his own. Why should Papists (saith every Protestant) impose unnecessary articles of Faith upon us? why should any one be obliged to believe what is not clear in Scripture? There is no liberty more earnestly sought after, then that of the understanding; all men are naturally taken with it; no captivity is more troublesome than that of proper judgement: its impossible, without a supernatural favour, and grace of God, to b●dle the inclination, and ordinary course of that faculty, which of its own nature is so curious, and vehement that it can not be quiet until it knows the reason of what we hear. To believe, is to captivate and confine the understanding to a dungeon of darkness Not to believe, is to leave it at its own choice, and liberty; this last is natural, and agreeable to our inclination, and by consequence is no proper effect of a supernatural power. It's impossible therefore that it should be Christian Faith, or a supernatural gift of God. In this sense the way of heaven is strait, because Christian, and not historical belief, is the foundation, or first step to salvation: we must force ourselves to it by straining our understanding to believe, and not give it liberty to accept, and reject what we please, making ourselves Judges of all Controversies concerning Scripture, and Christian Religion. Let the negative articles of Protestancy be examined (as Protestants, they have no affirmative) and we shall find that nature, and not grace, leads them to that liberty which they assume to themselves of shaking off not only the yoke of interior acquiescence, and exterior obedience to the decrees, & definitions of the Catholic Roman Church; but also it will manifestly appear, that Protestants, and all men are solicited by a natural propension to make ourselves Scripture (as our selves shall interpret it) or (which is the same) the Rule, or Judge of Controversies. Therefore it's no supernatural action, nor no meritorious act, to believe after this manner, as Protestants do: for men have no difficulty in believing themselves; and they believe themselves, not God, when their own interpretation of Scripture is followed against that of the Church.  
It remains now a reason be given, Why do Protestants believe the most obscure, and difficult mysteries of Christian Religion, if their Faith be merely historical? How can they without a supernatural power, and favour, believe that the Scripture is God's Word, the Trinity, the mystery of Incarnation, & c.? To this doubt I answer, that (as I said in the beginning of this Chapter) there is no difficulty in believing the most improbable, and extravagant things, when they are told us by persons we credit, and are not contradicted by any whose testimony we value. In matters of Religion Protestant's value no men but Christians, and such mysteries as they believe, are not contradicted by any Christians, at least in our parts of the world. They believe therefore all they believe, because they have been told so by their Parents, and others who had the charge of instructing them; and not because God revealed it, which is the only motive of Christian, and supernatural Faith.  
It's a received principle, that he who denies one article of Christian Religion, believes none at all. It can not be said that he believes none with historical belief, as Protestants believe the mystery of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Scripture to be God's Word. The meaning of all Divines is, that he who denies one article of Faith, believes none at all with Christian, or supernatural belief. This is most true; for, to believe like a Christian, is to believe the mysteries of Christian Religion, because they are sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation by the testimony of the Church; not of every Church, but of the true Catholic one, which only giveth lawful authority, and sends Preachers, and Doctors to instruct the people. God hath not promised his help, and supernatural inspi●ations (which are necessary to believe with Christian Faith) to them who are unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, but only to such lawful Ministers as are appointed, and ordained by them who derive their Doctrine and succession from the Apostles through a never interrupted line. That no Church but the Roman Catholic doth propose sufficiently as Divine Revelation the Doctrine which they preach, hath been proved in the 8. Chapt. whence it followeth, that out of the Roman Catholic Church there can be no true Faith, nor salvation; and that to deny one article of Faith in the least matter, is to deny all; because the motive of our belief is denied as much in a little matter, as in the greatest. See the 7. Chap. The motive being denied, or rejected; nothing can be believed with Christian Faith, because of the motive depends all. An infallible argument of denying the motive of Christian Faith is, to contemn the testimony of that Congregation of men which hath the signs of being the true Catholic Church, as a legal, and orderly succession of Doctors, and Doctrine, conversion of Nations, Miracles, and marks of so eminent, and extraordinary sanctity of life, that the like was never found in Heathen Philosophers, but fare exceeds all that hath been discovered in any that wanted supurnaturall grace, as is the entire renunciation of all the worldly pleasure, profit, and honour; an inflamed affection towards God, and his glory, with an unfatigable zeal of the salvation of souls, and desire of suffering for Christ's sake, whereof we Catholics alone have an infinite number of undeniable examples. No other but the Roman Church can as much as pretend to have the signs of the true Church, as miracles remarkable either in number, or quality, etc. Therefore whosoever denies one article of the Roman Religion, denyth also the motive of Catholic Faith, which (as we have proved) is proposed only by the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church; and consequently he who doth not stick to it, believes nothing at all with Christian, and supernatural Faith. The very Devils, and damned souls have the Protestant, or historical belief. God, who is Author of all graces, and favours, both natural, and supernatural, grant to all Protestants that precious gift of Faith, without which it is impossible to please His Divine Majesty, or to obtain the end whereunto we were all created.   
FINIS.