The I. Paragraph.

BEFORE we enter into the distentions of the Prote­stants, touching particu­lar Doctrines, seuerally maintayned by seuerall sydes of them; I will first lay open with what kind, and brotherly language one Sect of them (and yet all good Protestants) doth entertayne another. Now this Discors Con­cordia, this disagreeing Harmony of theirs consisteth of many parts: To wit, First, of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries, I meane the Swinglians and Caluinists; then re­ciprocally of the Caluinists against the Luthe­rans. Secondly, The Lutherans among them­selues. Thirdly, The Caluinists among them [Page 34] selues. Fourthly, The Moderate Protestant a­gainst the Puritan and the Puritan against the Moderate Protestant; within which Clause are comprehended the E [...]g [...]sh Moderate Pro­testants, and the English Puritans.

1 And to begin. Luther the first Parent of Protestancy, thus disgo [...]geth hi [...] venome against his owne brood (for the Swinglians and Caluinists primitiuely descended from his loynes. We Thes. [...]1. contra Loua­niens. seriously iudge the Swinglians and Sacramentari [...]s to be Hereticks, and Aliens from the Church of God. And more: We will Luth. tom. 7. in defens. Verbor. Coena Do­mini fol. 38 [...]. reproue and condemne them (meaning the Sa­cramentaries) for Idolaters, Corrupters of Gods word, blasphemers, and deceiuers; And of them, as of the Enemyes of the Ghospell, we will sustayne persecution, and spoyle of our goods &c. And yet more; The-Sacramentaries began their Opinion with Lyes, and with Lyes they defend it. And fur­ther:Luth. Epist. ad Ioan. Heruag. Typogra­ph. Ar­gentin. I do protest Luth. tom. 7. Wittenb. fol. 383. before God and the world, that I do not agree with them (meaning the Swinglians) nor euer will, whyles the world stan­deth, but will haue my hand cleare from the bloud of those sheepe, which these Heretiks do driue from Christ deceaue, and kill &c. And after in the same place: Cursed Vbi suprà. be the Charity and Con­cord of Sacramentaries, for euer, and euer, to all Eternity. And to conclude, Luther being (as he thought) neere to his graue, leaueth (as his Legacy) these ensuing charitable words: I hauing Luth. de Coena Domin. tom. 2. now one of my feet in the graue, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunall of God; that I will with all my hart, condemne and es­chew Carolostactius, Swinglius, Decolampadius, [Page 35] and their schollars; German. fol. 174. which words are also re­ported of Luther by the Tigur. Deuines. tract. 3. fol. 108. nor will haue with any of them Familiarity neither by letters or writings, nei­ther by word, or Deed, as the Lord hath Com­manded.

Thus much, to let passe much more of Luthers Charity towards Swinglius and his party. And this his Charity towards the Sa­cramentaries, the Lutherans, being of the next descent from him, seeme to inherit; for Bren­tius (the Lutheran) thus writeth: All the In re­cognit. Prophet. Swinglian workes are full of deprauations, cun­ning deceits, and slaunders: Westphalus (a Luthe­ran) thus auerreth: All Apo­log. contra Caluinum. p 430. c. 1 [...]. the Caluinian Works are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lyes, he further maintayning in the same place, That there are certaine pages of Caluins Workes, of which euery one contayneth at least twenty lyes and taunts. Hunnius (the eminent Lu­theran) chargeth Caluin, that heIn his Epist. De­dicat. to the Con­futation of Cal­uins de­prauat. wresteth the Scriptures horribly from their true sense, to the ouerthrow of himselfe, and others. Conradus Schlus­selburg the Lutheran: The Caluinists In Prafati Theolog. Caluinist. do nou­rish Arian and Turkish Impieties in their harts, which doth not seldome, at fit tymes, openly disclose it selfe.

To Conclude, Luke Osiander thus blaseth the Caluinists, concerning certaine Asser­tions touching Christ: But heere (Gentle Enchi­rid. contra Calu. cap. 7. Rea­der) beyond, and aboue the blasphemous things, which in the discourse afore we haue heard, against the sonne of God, out of the Opinions of our Aduer­saries (the Caluinists) there openeth it selfe a gulfe of Hell of Caluinian Doctrine, in which God it said to be the Authour of sinne &c. Stankarus [Page 36] Stan­karus con­tr [...] Calui­num. 14. (a Lutheran) thus writeth to Caluin: What Diuell (O Caluin) hath seduced thee, to speake with Arius, against the sonne of God? And againe he thus sayth: Beware (O Christian Reader) and especially all you Ministers, beware of the Bookes of Caluin, and principally in the Articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Mediatour, the Sacra­ment of Baptisme. Thus far for some tast of Luther, and the Lutherans Deportments in words and writing against the Swinglians, Sacramentarians, and the Caluinists. Now let vs see, with what Retaliation of kindnes do the Sacramentaries, or Caluinists requite the Lu­therans.

2. First, then we fynd, that Swinglius thus inueighs against Luther: Thou In Respons. ad Luther. l. de Sacra­ment. fol. 401. Luther shalt be enforced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the New Testament, or to acknowledge Marcions Heresy. And in the same place he thus fur­ther writes: En, vt totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur: Behould, how the Deuill laboreth wholy to possesse this Man, meaning Luther. A­gaine, Swinglius through contempt, calleth Luther, Marcion Swin­gl. tom. 2. in res­pons. ad Luther. Confess. fol. 458. & 40 [...]. the old Heretike; and fur­ther concludeth in these words; to wit, that Luther is guilty of high blasphemy against the Na­ture and essence of God, in that he taught, that Christ dyed according to his Diuinity. And Swin­glius in the foresaid alledged place thus: This can be by no reason explayned, or excused; for Lu­ther clearely and manifestly confesseth, that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour, if only his Humanity had suffered. Finally, Swinglius thus concludeth of Luthers wordes: In verbis [Page 37] Swin­glius tom. 2. in respons. Lu­ther fol. 474. Lutheri, &c. In the wordes of Luther, there lye most great Errours; when I read Lu­thers Booke, it seemeth to me, that a beastly Hogg doth gruntle in a garden, beset with most fra­grant flowers: So impurely, so vnlike to a Deuine Luther disputeth of God, and all holy things. Thus Swinglius.

But to leaue Swinglius, and to descend to other Sacramentaries; Campanus (a Sacra­mentary) thus fully and resolutely pro­nounceth of Luther: As In Col­loq. lat. Luth. com. 2. cap. de Aduers. Certaine as God is God so certaine it is, that Luther was a diuelish Lyar. Oecolampadius (the Sacramentary) thus fearefully speaketh of Luther himselfe: Let Luther In Respons. ad Con­fess. Lu­ther. take heed, least being puffed with Pride, he be deceiued by Satan. The said Oecolampadius thus censureth of the Lutherans in generall: TheIn Dialog. contra Melancth. Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow of the Word of God (as all Heretikes com­monly are accustomed to do) they bring not the Word of God, and yet they will seeme to build vpon the Word of God.

The Tigurine Deuines (being Swinglians or Caluinists) thus recriminate Luther: Nos Tigu­rin. tract. 3 contra supremant Lutheri Confess. condemnatam & execrabilem vocat Sectam Lutherus. &c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and execrable sect; But let him looke, that he do not de­clare himselfe an Arch-Heretike, seeing he will not, nor cannot haue Society with those, that confesse Christ. But how meruelously doth Luther bewray himselfe with his Deuills? &c. For he sayth, that the Deuill dwelleth both now, and euer in the Swin­glians, and that they haue a blasphemous Breast, Insatanized, Supersatanized, and Persatanized [Page 38] &c. Did euer any man heare such speaches passe from a furious Diuell himselfe? Thus far the Ti­gurine Deuines.

I will Conclude with Caluin, who thus exclaymeth against the Lutherans in Gene­rall. By the Lutherans Instit. l. 4. cap. 17. §. 16. Marcion is raised out of Hell: And in like sort Caluin thus more wri­teth: The Ad­monit. 3. ad West­ [...]y balum. Lutherans are forgets and Lyars. These implacable and mutuall dissentions betweene the Lutherans and the Caluinists are so great and irreconcileable, as that Conradus Schlus­selburg in Theolog. Caluinist. in his Ca­talogue praecipuo­rum Do­ctrinae Capitum. &c. Schlusselburg (the great Lutheran) reci­teth three and thirty seuerall Articles of Do­ctrine in question, and controuerted bet­weene the Lutherans, whom he defendeth, and the Caluinists, against whom he writeth. And Luke Osiander (the Protestant) did write a Treatise bearing this title: Enchiridion Con­trouersiarum, quas Augustanae Confessionis Theo­logi habent cum Caluinianis. Printed Tubingae. 1603.

And Hubberus, a learned Lutheran, wrote a booke in Dutch, printed Regiomonti. 1592. hauing this title: The Opposition of the Lutheran and Caluinian Doctrine in certaine chiefe Articles of Fayth: So iust reason had Nicolaus Gallus (the Protestant, and superintendent at Ra­tisbone) thus to complayne of the Con­tentions betweene his owne Brethren, all Protestants: Non In Thesibus of Hypo­i [...]esibus. sunt leues &c. The dis­sentions, that are among vs, are not of light mat­ters, but of the greatest articles of Christian Do­ctrine, of the Law and the Gospell, of Iustification and good Workes &c. And finally Pappus (the [Page 39] Protestant) hath no lesse resentment and feeling touching this point, thus writing: Etsi Papi­pus in Theolog. Caluinist. l 1. Art. 28. initio de vno tantùm articulo &c. Although in the beginning, one only Article was called into doubt notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so far gone as they call in doubt neither few neither the least Articles of Christian Doctrine. &c. With whome conspites Bullinger the Prote­stant, in these words: Ipsi inter Bul­linger in his [...]unda­mentum fi [...]mum. cap. 1. pag. 5. se Euange­lici acriter pungunt, & pugnant &c. Those alone, who are professours of the Gospell, do vehemently prick, and feight one against another; And from hence are hard among vs those vnfortunate names, or appellations of the Lutherans, and the Swinglians.

3. In this next place, let vs behould how the Lutherans do agree among themselues. Their contentions are so great, that Conradus Schlussenburg Schlus­s [...]lb. in Catal. Hae­ret. no­stri tempo­ris. l. 2. (the most eminent Luthe­ran) placeth six sorts of his owne Luthe­rans in the Catalogue of Heretikes; And from this seuerall sort of Lutherans did first rise that distinction of Molles Lutherant, and Rigidi Lutherani. These seuerall Kinds of Lu­therans had seuerall appellations or names, for some of them were called, Substantarij, for teaching sinne to be of the essence and na­ture of Man; Others opposite to these, were tearmed, Accidentarij who impugned the former Opinion; Some called Vbiquitarij, for confounding. Christs Humanity with his Diuinity. Some called Osiandrians, in regard of their different Doctrine of Iustification. Some others were styled Maiorists, of Grego­rius Maior, in respect of the necessity of Good [Page 40] Workes; Others, Flaccians, of Flaccus Illyri­cus, who oppugned the Maiorists therein; Fi­nally others were denominated, Adiapho­rists, for maintayning the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies, wherein they are greatly written against by the Flaccians. Now all these (as aboue is said) are Luthe­rans and do imbrace and acknowledg the Confession of Augusta: which Confession of fayth the Caluinists do wholy reiect; And yet these Seuerall sorts of Lutherans haue writ­ten and published seuerall Bookes one a­gainst another, in defence of their seuerall maintayned different Doctrines.

4. To come to the Sacramentaries or Caluinists alone, we find, that Castalio (the Sacramentary or Caluinist) condemneth Caluin himselfe, for his presumed Doctrine, of God being the Authour of sinne, thus writing hereof: By this Castal. l. ad Calui­num de Praedesti­nat. meanes, not the Deuill, but the God of Caluin, is the Father of Lyes; But that God, which the holy Scripture teacheth, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin. And then after: The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God: And these two Gods, as they be contrary in Nature, one to another; so they beget, and bring forth Children of contrary disposition; to wit, that God of Caluin, Children without mercy, proud, &c. Thus the foresaid Castalio. In like sort Caluin L. de Coena Dom. & l. 4 Instit. c. 15. sect. 1 wholy condemneth Swin­glius for his teaching, that the Sacraments are bare externall signes; andEpist. ad quan­dam Ger­maniae Ci­uitatem fol. 196. Swinglius reciprocally condemneth Caluin for his tea­ching, that to the Sacraments more is attri­buted, [Page 41] then to externall signes. According to these dissentions of the Protestants, or Sa­cramentaries among themselues. Doctour Willet a formall Protestant thus reprehen­deth M. Hooker, D. Couell, and others in these words: From this Fountayne In his meditat. vpon the 12 [...]. Psal­me. haue sprung forth those, and such other whirlepooles and bubbles of new doctrine, &c. and then after: Thus haue some beene bould to teach and write, who as some Schismatikes (meaning the Puritans) haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in exter­nall matters concerning Discipline; they haue trou­bled the Church another way by opposing themselues by new quirks and deuises, to the soundnes of Do­ctrine among Protestants. Thus far D. Willet of the strifes among the moderate Protestants themselues.

In this last passage we will descend more particularly to the doctrinall contentions of English moderate Protestants, and English Puri­tans. And to begin, the English Puritans wri­ting against the English Protestants thus say: If In a Treatise, entituled: A Chri­stian and modest of­fer. p. 11. we be in errour and the Prelats on the contra­ry side haue the truth, we protest to all the World, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ) haue great wrong and indignity offered vnto them, in that they are reiected &c. And more, the English Puritans thus complayn hereof: Do we In the mild de­fence of the silen­ced Mini­sters sup­plication to the high Court of Parlamēt. vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scripture? Nay rather, many of them (mea­ning the Bishops and their Adherents) do much swarue from the same, touching generall Grace and the death of Christ for euery particular person &c. Touching the manner of Christs [Page 42] presence in the Eucharist &c. Finally the English Puritans do more fully dismaske themselues, thus bursting out, and maintay­ning, that theThese Positions of the Puritans are ver­bally re­cited and condem­ned in the booke en­tituled: Constitu­tions and Canons Ecclesiasti­call, prin­ted anno 1604 Worship of the Church of En­gland is corrupt superstitious, vnlawfull repugnant to the Scriptures. Againe: The Articles of the Bi­shops Religion are erroneous, their rites Antichri­stian. A [...]d yet more: The gouerment of the Church of England vnder his Maiesty by Archbi­shops, and Deanes, is Antichristian, and repugnant to the word of God.

6. Now, to turne ouer the leafe, and see how the more moderate English Protestant re­compenseth the English Puritans Charity herein: And First we find, that M. Barks thus auerreth confidently. The Puritans In his Epist. De­dicat. p. 3. are bead­strong and hardened in errour; They stryke at the mayne points of fayth, Shaking the very foundation it selfe Heauen and Hell; The Diniuity and Huma­nity; Yea the very soule, and Saluation of our Sa­uiour. And yet more plainely in the foresaid place: They haue pestilent Heresies. And final­ly: They are hereticall, and sacrilegious. And further the said M. Parks thus discourseth: The Creed M. Parks vbi supra. it selfe, which alwayes hath beene the badg, or cognisance, whereby to discerne and know the faythfull from vnbelieuers &c. is the mayne poynt in question betweene vs and the Puritans. D. Couell speaking of certaine fiery English Puritans, thus deliuereth his words: The In his Examen. pag. 1. first English Mi­nisters so far descended, that some bookes, and the greatest Part of Christendome was filled with vn­reuerent, vnholy, and vnnaturall Contentions &c. M. Powell is very playne with them, for thus [Page 43] he writeth: The Powell in his conside­rations. Puritans are notorious and manifest Schismatiks, cut from the Church of God.

To forbeare diuers others like Censure, passed vpon our English Puritans, I will alledg these few following; First of the foresayd D. Couell, who registring the positions of the English Puritans, among other of their po­sitions, setteth downe these following: The In his defence of Hooker. p. 65. & 74.75. statute Congregations of England are no true Church: And againe, The Protestant Church of England hath no forme of a Church. We also thus read in the Booke of The Suruey of the pretended Discipline: The C. 5. &c. [...]4. &c. 35. Puritans peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scripture & Fathers, to serue their owne turnes. And againe: The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it. Lastly (besides diuers other such reprehensions of them) we thus read: The Catebraulls, pittifull Distractions, and Confu­sions among the Puritans proceed from such intolle­rable presumption, as is vsed, by peruerting & false interpretation of holy Scripture.

Now, by all this touching the immor­tall dissentions betweene our English Pro­testants and English Puritans, we may dis­cerne the Vanity of the Protestants answere to the Catholikes, charging them in England with Controuersies in fayth; the Protestants replying, that their Dissentions rest only touching gouerment, and other Indifferencyes, but touching the mayne Articles of Protestancy, they haue no Dif­ferencye at all. O os impudens! So ingenuously & truly doth M. Parks confesse hereof, saying: The Protestants deceaue M. Parks in his Epi [...]t. Dedic. the world, and make [Page 44] men belieue, That there is agreement in all substan­tiall Points; They affirme, that there is no question among them of the Truth.

Now the mayne Differences in doctrine betweene the Caluinists, especially bet­weene the forraine Protestants amōg them­selues, and the English Protestans and the Puritans, be (among others) these follow­ing. 1. Whether the Ecclesiasticall Minister doth truly forgiue sinne; or but only pronounce the remission thereof. 2. Touching the Churches Visibility and Inuisibility. 3. Whether in case of adultery the innocent party may marry agayne.

4. Whether Christs body be really and sub­stantially present to the Mouth of Fayth; (as D. Whitaker and M. Hooker do hould) or but Sacra­mentally only present, as the Puritans do teach.

5. Touching Reprobation and vniuersality of Grace. 6. Christs suffering in soule the paynes of Hell: His descending into Hell after his death. 7. Baptisme by lay persons in tyme of Neressity. 8. Whether Ministers should be or­dayned by imposition of handes, or by the Election of the Presbytery. 9. Whether Vsury be lawfull.

10. Whether the Sacraments do confer Grace, or but only signify it. 11. Whether there hath beene since the Apostles tyme, any extraordinary Calling; Or whether such Calling may be. 12. Whether vowes are now to be abrogated, as supposed to be but Ceremoniall, and parcell of the old Law.

13. Whether the Roman Church be a true Church, affording saluation. 14. Whether the Ciuill Ma­gistrate may be head of the Church. 15. Whe­ther the Communion ought euer to be deliuered vn­der [Page 45] both kinds. 16. Finally (to omit som [...] others) touching the vse of the signe of the Crosse, of the Surplisse of Organs in the Church &c.

The II. Paragraph.

NOw, hauing displayed in part the great Differences betweene the Prote­stants of all kinds among themselues; and this but only from the particular sentences and wordes, found here and there scattered in their writings; In this next place I will demonstrate the same more fully euen from the many scores (if not some hundreds) of Bookes, written all by Protestants against Protestants; of which, one Catalogue of them comprehends such bookes, as are written by the Caluinists against the Lutherans; Ano­ther Catalogue of bookes, written by the Lutherans against the Caluinists; A third by the Lutherans, against the Lutherans; All which three Catalogues of bookes may be found in Iodocus Coccius his Thesaurus, Tom. 2. The fourth Catalogue containes the bookes writ­ten by the Protestants one against another, touching the Question only of the Sacra­ment. The Catalogue of which bookes is taken from the Protestant Wryter Hospinia­nus, in his historiae Sacrament. part. 2. And all these were made betweene the yeare of our Lord 1574. and 1598. Since which tyme diuers other bookes of that subiect haue beene written by other Protestants, against their owne Brethren.

Now in regard of the multiplicity of the said bookes of the seuerall same Catalogues, and for greater breuity, I refer the Reader to the two foresaid Authours, Coccius and Hos­pinian, in the places aboue alledged. Yet for some delibation and tast of all the rest, I will set here downe the particular titles only of twenty of the said Bookes; from the vitu­lency and bitternes of which Titles the Rea­der may coniecture of all the other bookes, in what spirit of Charity (or rather of Ser­pentyne hatred and malignity) they are written by Protestants against Protestants. Of which twenty Bookes here alledged, not any doth touch the question of the Reall pre­sence, maintayned by the Lutherans, because I haue purposely forborne that subiect in re­lation of the Bookes here alledged, in that, the Lutherans agree with vs Catholikes therein.

1. The First Booke then, which I al­ledge, is entituled: Alberti Grauari, bellum Ioan­nis Caluini, & Iesu Christi. Printed Braptae. Anno Domini 1598. The warr betweene Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ, written by Albertus Grauerus.

2. Antiparaeus; hoc est, Refutatio venenati scriptià Dauide Paraeo editi in defensionem stropha­rum, & corruptelarum, quibus Ioannes Caluinus il­lustrissima Scripturae testimonia, de Mysterio Tri­nitatis, nec non oracula Prophetarum de Chri­sto, detestandum in modum corrupit. Printed Franeo-furti. Anno 1598. Antipaeraeus; that is, a Refutation of a venemous wri­ting, [Page 47] published and made by Dauid Paraeus, in defence of the deceits and falsifications, with which Iohn Caluin in a detestable manner hath corrupted the most illustrious or cleare testimonies of Scripture, touching the mistery of the Trinity, as also the Ora­cles of the Prophets concerning Christ.

3. Demonstratio imposturarum & fraudum, quibus Aegid [...]us Hunnius Ecclesiae Othodoxae do­ctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit. Brema. 1592. A demonstration of the impostures and deceits, with the which Egidius Hunnius proceedeth perulantly, to corrupt the do­ctrine of the Orthodoxall Church.

4. Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei, contra im­pios & blasphemos Errores Swinglianorum & Cal­uinisturum. Tubingae. 1586. An Oration, or Discourse of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, against the wicked & blasphemous Errours of the Swinglians, and the Calui­nists.

5. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaicans: Hoc est, Iudaicae Glossae & corruptelae, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacra loca & te­stimonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, Deitate Christi, & spiritus Sancti; Cum primi [...] autem vaticinia Prophe­tarum de Aduentu Messiae, & natiuitate eius, Pas­sione, Resurrectione, Ascensione ad Caelos, & Sestia­ne ad Dexiram Dei, detestandum in modum cor­rumpere non abhorruit. Wittembergae. 1593. Caluinus Iud [...]i [...]ans, written by Egidius Hum­nius; That is, a declaration of the Iudaicall expositions and falsifications, with the which Iohn Caluin was not afraid detust [...] ­bly [Page 48] to corrupt the most cleare places and te­stimonies of Holy Scripture, against the glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; As also the Prophesies, touching the Incarnation of the Messias; his Natiuity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension to Heauen, and his sitting at the right hand of God.

6. Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini, Pe­tri Boquini, Theodori Bezae, Willielmi Clebitij &c. & similium Calumnias: Item Refutatio Pelagiani seu Anabaptistici Caluinistarum Erroris, de Bap­tismo, & peccato Originali. Adduntur Collectanea plurimorū Caluins contra Deum, eius Prou [...]dentiam & Praedestinationem. Printed Errordiae. 1583. A godly Defence against the Calumnies, or deceits of Iohn Caluin, Peter Boquinus, Theodorus Beza, Willielmus Clebitius, and such others &c. Also a Refutation of the Pelagian, or Anabaptisticall errour of the Caluinists concerning Baptisme and Origi­nall sinne. Here are also adioyned certaine Collections out of Caluin against God, and his Prouidence, and Predestination.

7. Veritatis Victoria, & ruina Papatus Saxo­nici. Printed Losannae. 1563. The Victory of the Truth, and the ruine of the Papacy of Saxony.

8. Conradi Schlusselburgi Theologiae Calui­nisticae libri tres, in quibus, seu in tabula quadam, quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti tri­ [...]us Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis, pagellis, verbis proprijs, & Authorum Nominibus indicatis demonstratur, eos de nullo ferè Christianae Fidei ar­ticulo [Page 49] rectè sentire. Francoforti. 1594. Three bookes written by Conradus Schlusselburg, touching Caluinisticall Diuinity, in which (as in a table to the very eye) is demonstra­ted from more then two hundred twenty three publike writings of the Sacramenta­ries, with setting downe the pages, their owne words, and the Names of the Au­thors, that the Caluinists do scarsly belieue truly any one Article of Christian Fayth.

9. Argumentorum & Obiectorum de praeci­puis articulis doctrinae Christianae, cum Responsio­nibus, quae sunt collecta ex scriptis Philippi Melan­cthonis: additis scholijs illustrantibus vsum singula­rum responsionum partes septem. Neap oli. 1578. Seauen partes or Heades, touching the Ar­guments and Obiections of the principall articles of Christian Religion, with their Answeres; Which Answeres are gathered out of the writings of Philipp Melancthon, with the illustration of the vse of all the Answeres.

10. Responsio triplex ad Fratres Tubingen­ses. & triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimi [...] Quaestionibus; de Coena Domini; de Maiestate homi­nis Christi; & de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei, nec auditis, nec vocatis. Geneuae. 1582. A three­fould Answere to the brethren of Tubing, and their threefould writing touching three most weighty Questions; to wit of the sup­per of our Lord; of the Maiesty of Christs as man; and of not condemning the Churches of God, before they be heard, and called to answere for themselues.

11. Gulielmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ec­clesia Pastoris Institutio, de tribus Religionis sum­mis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controuer­siam vocantur. Hanoniae. 1596. An Institu­tion or Discourse, made by Gulielmus Zep­perus, Pastour of the Church of Dillinberg, concerning three chiefe Heades or points of Religion, which are called into Controuer­sy by the Professours of the Gospell.

12. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Swingliani & Caluiniani No­minis inuidia vim & iniuriam patiuntur. Tiguri. 1578. An Apology to all the reformed Chur­ches of Germany, the professours whereof suffer wrong and iniury, vnder the title of being Swinglians or Caluinists.

13. Ad Ioannis Brentij argumenta, & Iacobi Andreae Theses quibus Carnis Christi omni-praesen­tiam nituntur confirmare; Id est, aduersum renoua­tos Nestorij & Eutichetis Errores, responsum. Ge­neuae. 1570. An Answere to the argu­ments of Iohn Brentius, and to the Theses of Iacobus Andreas, by the which they la­bour to confirme the omni-presence of Christs Flesh; That is, against the reuiued Errours of Nestorius and Eutiches.

14. Colloqui Montisbelgardensis, inter Iaco­bum Andream & Theodorum Bezam, Acta. Tu­bingae. 1584. The Acts of the Conference at Mont-belgard, betweene Iacobus An­dreas, and Theodorus Beza.

15. Christophori Pezelij Apologia verae do­ctrinae, de definitione Euangelij apposita Thrasonicit prastigijs Ioannis Wigandi. Wittembergae. 1572. [Page 51] An Apology of Christopher Pezelius, tou­ching the true doctrine of the definition of the Gospell, opposed against the Thrasoni­call and boasting sleights and impostures of Ioannes Wigandus.

16. Hamelmannia, siue Aries Theologizans, Dialogus, appositus duabus Narrationibus Historicis Hamelmanni. Neostadij 1582. Hamelman­nia, Or a Theologizing Ramme, being a Dialogue impugning two historicall Nar­rations of Hermannus Hamelmannus.

17. Hieremiae Victoris vera & dilucida de­monstratio; quod Swingliani & Caluinistae nunquam se subiecerunt Confessioni Augustanae, exhibita Ca­rolo Quinto. Anno 1530. Germ. Francofurti. 1591. A true and euident Demonstration, prouing that the Swinglians and the Cal­uinists, did neuer submit themselues to the Confession of Augusta, exhibited in tyme of Charles the Fifth.

18. Christiani Kittelmanni, decem graues & perniciosi Errores Swinglianorum in doctrina, de peccatis & Baptismo ex proprijs eorum libris Colle­cti & refutati. Madelburgi 1592. Ten weigh­ty and pernicious Errours of the Swin­glians, concerning the doctrine of sinne & Baptisme, being taken out of their owne Bookes, and refuted by Christianus Kittel­manus.

19. Responsio ad scriptum quod Theologi Bre­menses aduersus Collectores Apologiae formula Con­cordiae publicarunt. Lipsiae. 1585. An answere to the writing, which the Deuines of Brema published against the Collectours of the [Page 52] Apology of the forme of Concord.

20. Ioannis Mosellani Praeseruatiua, contra venenum Swinglianorum. Tubingae. 1586. A Preseruatiue of Ioannes Mossellanus, against the poyson of the Swinglians.

Thus far of these twenty Titles of the Pro­testant venemous kind of writing, one a­gainst another. And here we may say with the Poet, ex vno discite omnes; that is, from Consideration of these twenty titles only, we may make the like coniecture of many scores of bookes by them written: Only this I may note, that if the Titles of the fore­said bookes be so fraught with Malice, what spleenfull sentences full of Rancour may, in all probability, be thought to occur here and there in the said bookes?

The III. Paragraph.

BVt what? doth the Scene of the Prote­stants Disagreements rest only in words and writing one against another? No, for it passeth further, finally into extreme and bar­barous outrages. For first, they are not con­tent to call one another Heretikes, (as by many afore alledged testimonies are eui­dent) but with all they prohibit the sale & reading of ech others books. For thus Hos­pinian (the Protestant) writeth, touching the restraint made in Sxony: Edictum promulga­tum In histor. Sa­crament. part. alte­ra. fol. 393. est &c. An edict is promulgated & diuul­ged, by the which not only the reading, but also the selling of all bookes written by the Caluinists, is [Page 53] prohibited: And the Lutherans do charge the Caluinists in this sort: Biblia Hos­pinian vbi suprà. fol. 3 [...]4. & Catechis­mum Lutheri &c. The Caluinists haue prohibited the Bibles, and the Catechisme, approued by Luther and his followers.

Secondly, they banish ech other from their Territories, not suffering them to enter therein, as Crispinus In his booke of the state of the Church. pag. 697., Osiander In Epitom. histor. Ec­cles. Cent. 16. part. altera. pag. 803. & 860., Conra­dus In Ca­talogo. Haret. l. 13. & vlti­mo, pag. 828. & 847. Schlusselburg (all Protestants) and o­thers do witnes. Thirdly, they appoint Ar­ticles of Visitation and Enquiry, concerning the discouery and apprehending of ech o­ther. For thus the foresaid Hospinian wri­teth of this point, shewing how the Saxons made a petition to their Duke, Vt famosos Hospi­nian. in histor. Sa­crament. part alte­ra fol. [...]93. Sacramentariorum libros prohiberet &c. That he would forbid all markable Bookes of the Sacra­mentaries; and that he would chastice the Authours of them with due Punishments; And that in the next visitation he would giue directions, that All Caluinists should be cast out from the Schooles, Churches, from all Magistracy, or publike gouerment. Fourthly, They commit them to imprisonment, of which point Hos­pinian thus recordeth:Hospi­nian vbi supra. Nicolaus Crellius Saxoniae Cancellarius, in vincula conijcitur. Nico­laus Crellius, being Chancelour of Saxony, is cast into bonds, or Prison. And againe in the fore­sayd place: Theologi nonnulli &c. Many Deui­nes being apprehended in seuerall places, are cast in­to bonds. Fifthly, they will not affoard ech other Common entertaynement, vsuall to all Strangers in euery Country. This course of the Lutherans, against the Caluinists is [Page 54] reported by the foresaid Hospinian In hi­stor Sacramen. part. 2 fol. 399., and by Osiander In Epi­rom &c. Cent. 16. pag. 6. 8.; And on the other syde, by the Caluinists against the Lutherans the same is related byIn Catalog. Haeret l. 13. & vlti­mo. p. 828. Conradus Schlusselburge.

Sixtly, they enter into Armes one syde against another. For, that the Lutherans did hastily and tumultuously assault the Cal­uinists, is recorded by Hospinian Vbi supra. p. 395.. And that the Caluinists did actually attempt the like against the Lutherans, is witnessed by Osian­der Epi­tom. Cent. 16. pag. 7 [...]. & p. 803.. This is further euident, by the Exam­ple of the Arminians and Gomorists not many yeares since in Holland, where one, called Barneuille, being the head of one of the Fa­ctions, was beheaded. Lastly, the implaca­ble Dissentions haue beene so violent, ex­ceeding all humane Nature, as that the Lu­therans haue extended their malice towards the dead Corps of the Caluinists; This is ve­rified by Hospinian: Cum In hi­stor. Sa­crament. part. 2. fol. 308. impetu occurren­tes Sandapilam &c. The Lutherans assaulting one, called Sandapila, by force, & in humane­ly vsing his body, did expose it to be eaten by Dogs. See here the Vatinian and irrecon­cileable hatred of the Protestants, against the Protestants.

Now here the Reader is to be aduertized, that the different Names of Lutherans, Swin­glians, Sacramentaries, Caluinists, Puritans &c. are not inuented for disgrace and contume­ly to the different Professours; but euen of necessity, for the better distinguishment of their different Doctrines. And according hereto M. Parkes thus writeth, touching the [Page 55] name of Puritans: Neither In his Apology vnder the title of Quaeru­lous Mo­tions. pag. 30. do I see any suffi­cient reason why those among vs whom singularity in Affection, and Nouelty in Faction haue denominated Puritans, should not be distinguished by that Name. Bu. Conradus Schlusselburg passeth more fully into the subdiuision of the word Prote­stant, thus writing:In Ca­talog. Hae­ret. l. 13. & vltim. de Interemi­stis p. 866. Neque verò nostra partis Theologi &c. Neither do the Deuines of our syde, name their Aduersaries, Swinglians, Caluinists, Sacramentaries, through detraction or bate; neither when we our selues are called Lutherans. Finally Hospinian thus writeth; Schismatica In hi­stor. Sa­crament. par. altera, through­out his whole-booke he vseth these different Names. ista &c. I hate these Schismaticall Names of Lutherans, Swinglians, Caluinists; and yet I vse them in this my history, for the better distinguishing of their doctri­nes, and instructing the Reader. So clearely ap­peares the great disparity of the seuerall Re­ligions among them, euen from the seuerall appellations, imposed vpon the seuerall Pro­fessours.

Hauing in the precedent passages dis­coursed of the (almost incredible) Dissen­tions in Religion betweene seuerall sorts of Protestants; and this chiefly from the al­ledging of wordes full of contumely, dis­grace, and rancour, one against another, only for matter of Religion, and from the tetri­call, harsh, and opprobrious titles of twenty of their Bookes, written in great acerbity of style; and lastly, from their externall com­portment; and yet all of them promiscuous­ly assuming to themselues in generall the Name of Protestants: I hould it now con­uenient in this next place to descend more [Page 56] particularly to the different points of Reli­gion, in which these seuerall Sects maynely dissent among themselues, one syde not ap­prouing (but wholy reiecting) the iudg­ment of the other side.

The IV. Paragraph.

I Will begin touching the Question of the Word of God, or Scripture; And first, tou­ching such Bookes of Scripture, as are reie­cted by some Protestants, but approued and allowed for Scripture by other Protestants. Secondly, the Protestants disagreements in the Translation of confessed Scripture. Thirdly, touching their dissentions in the interpre­tation of such places, or texts, which are on all sydes confessed to be Canonicall Scri­pture, and truly translated.

And to begin with the New Testament & so to ascend to the Old: we find touching Luthers Condemnation of the Apocalyps Bul­linger thus to complayne: Doctour Martin Vpon the Apo­calips En­glished. cap. 1. serm. 1. fol. 2. Luther hath (as it were) sticked this booke by a sharpe Preface, set before his first Edition of the New Testament in Dutch; for which his iudgment, good and learned Men were offended with him. With Luther herein, agree Kempnitius and Brentius in the places next herea [...]ter noted in the Margent; and yet Caluin and the Prote­stants in England admit it for Canonicall. In like sort, the Epistle of Iames is tearmed by Luther, Epistola In pro legom. b [...]ius E­pist. straminea: An Epistle swelling, Contentions, Strawy, and vnworthy alto­gether [Page 57] an Apostolicall spirit. In the same man­ner, the MagdeburgensesCent. l. 2. c. 4. col. 55., Kempnitius Exam. 4. Sess. Concil. Trident., and Brentius Confess. Witiem­berg. l. de sacra Scri­ptura. do condemne the same Epi­stle with Luther, as Apocryphall; notwith­standing Caluin & the Church of England acknowledge it for Canonicall Scripture.

In like sort Luther,Lu­ther in Annotat. in hanc Epistol. the Centurists, Kempnitius, and Brentius, in the places aboue noted in the Margent, condemne, as Apo­cryphall, the Epistle of Iude, the second Epistle of Peter, & they rest vncertaine and doubtfull of the Authority of the second and third Epistle of Iohn: But Erasmus more fully speaketh there­of; his words are these: The In Prolegem. ad hanc Epist. Second and Third Epistle of Iohn, are not to be taken as his E­pistles, but as written by some other man: And yet all these are acknowledged for Scripture by Caluin, the Caluinists, and the Church of England. Beza reiecteth the History of the adulterous Woman, recorded in the Gospell of S. Iohn c. 8. And BullingerHe is so charged by Lau­rentius Valla. (a Sacramen­tary) reiecteth that addition to our Lords Prayer: For thyne is the Kingdome, the power, and glory &c. And yet these parcells are taken for Scri­pture, by other Sacramentaries. Luther in like manner discanoneth the Epistle to the Hebrews, Prole­gom. E­pist. ad Haebreos. maintayning, that it was not written either by S. Paul, or by any other Apostle: for it con­tayneth (sayth Luther) certaine things, contra­ry to the Apostolicall Doctrine. With him con­spire in iudgment Brentius, Kempnitius, & the Magdeburgians, in the places aboue quoted.

Touching the Foure Ghospells, Luther, [Page 58] toLuth. Praefat. in Nouum Testam. & lib. de Scripturae, & Eccle­siae autho­ritate. c. 3. extenuate & depresse the Authority of three of them, cēsureth, that the Gospell of Iohn is the only fayre and true Gospell, and to be preferred before the other three, by many degrees; he further maintayning, that the generall Opinion of foure Gospells ought to be abandoned and relinquished; he protesting, that he ascribeth more Reuerence to the Epistles of Paul, and Pe­ter, then to the other three Euangelists.

To come to the Old Testament: The Booke of Baruch is accounted as Apocryphall, byL. 3. Instit. c. 10. §. 8. Caluin, andIn Exam. 4. Sess. Con­cil. Trid. Kempnitius; and yet is taken as Canonicall, by most other Prote­stants, since we do not find it in their wri­tings to be reiected by them. The Canticles, is wholy reiected byIn Translat. Latin. suo­rum. Bi­bliorum. Castalio, who main­taynes, that it contaynes matter of wanton loue; for which his Censure, he is grieuous­ly and sharpely reprehended euen by Beza. Beza in Praefat. in Iosue. The Booke entituled Ecclesiastes, is thus scurrilously traduced by Luther: The Authour Lu­ther in Conuiuia­libus, titu­lo de Pa­triarchis. & Pro­phetis. of Ecclesiastes seemes to ryde without spurrs or bootes, only with bare stockings: Yet is it taken for Scripture generally by the Caluinists. The Booke of Iob is reuerenced for Canoni­call Scripture by the Protestants of Englād, and by Caluin, and the Caluinists; and yet Luther so contemneth it, as that he thus plainly condemneth the said Booke: The Ar­gument In Conuiuia­libus ser. titulo de Patriar­ [...] is & Prophetis. of Iob is a meere fiction, inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely example of Patience.

Thus far of such parts only of the New and Old Testament, which some Protestants [Page 59] repute as Apocryphall, and therefore reiect them; other Protestants acknowledg them, as Canonicall, and therefore take them for the true and vndoubted word of God. Here be­fore I leaue speaking of the reiecting or ap­prouing of the Scripture, I will adioyne thereto, that whereas the most learned and moderate Protestants do so reuerence Moy­ses, and the Apostles, teaching and belieuing, that their Pens were so directed by the Holy Ghost, as that they did not, nor could erre in their writings; yet heare what is said to the contrary by other Protestants. And first, Lu­ther thus conuitiateth Moyses: Moyses Luth [...] tom. 3. Witten­berg. in Psalm. 41. fol. 423. & tom. 3. German. fol. 40. & in Colloq. mensal. German. fol. 152. & 153. had his lipps, vnpleasant, stopped, angry, &c. Do you col­lect all the Wisdome of Moyses, and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shall fynd them to be before God, either Idolatry or Hypocriticall Wisdome; or if it be politick, the wisdome of wrath &c. Moyses had his Lips full of gaule and anger &c. Away therefore with Moyses.

Luther, and other Protestants further rayle in great acerbity of language, and intempe­rate words, at the Apostles, for thus he wri­teth expresly against S. Peter: Peter Lu­ther in Epist. ad Galat. c. 1. after the English Transla­tion, fol. 33. & 34. & tom. 5. Witten­beg. anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles, did liue and teach, extra ver­bum Dei, besides the Word of God. The Centuristi thus taxe S. Paul: Paul doth turne Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. col. 580. to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of Presbyters being called together, he is perswaded by Iames and the rest, that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the Temple, whereunto Paul yeeldeth; which cer­tainly is no small slyding of so great a Doctour. D. Bancroft alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epi­stles, [Page 60] that a Caluinist thus said: Yf In his Suruey of the pre­tended Disci­pline. pag. 37 [...]. Paul should come to Geneua, and preach the same houre that Caluin did, I would leaue Paul, and heare Caluin.

Caluin thus bouldly affirmeth of S. Peter: Peter In Comment. in omnes Pauli E­pisto [...]as. p. 510. erred to the schisme of the Church, to the endangering of Christian liberty, and the o [...]erthrow of the grace of God Conradus Schluffeth [...] char­geth Caluin to maintayne and say; that, The Apostles In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol 40. alledged the Prophets in anoth [...] sense, then was meant. Brentius playnely writeth thus: S. Peter In A­pol. Con­fess. de Con [...]t [...]ijs p. 900. (chiefe of the Apostles) and Bar­nabas, after the Holy Ghost receaued, together with the Church of Ierusalem, erred. And D. Fulke speaking of the same matter is no lesse spa­ring, thus saying: Peter A­gainst the Rhemish Testa­ment. in Galat. 2. erred in Ignorance, against the Gospell.

I will conclude these their wonderful Inuectiues against the Apostles, with D. Whi­takers accusation of them, thus writing: It is D. Whita­ker de Eccles. contra Bellarm Controu. 2. quaest. 4. p. 213. manifest, that euen after Christ his Ascension, and the Holy Ghost descending vpon the Apostles, not only the Common sort, but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the Gentills &c. Yea, Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law; and this was a matter of Fayth. Thus D. Whitaker. Would any Chri­stian euer thinke, that such horrid words as these any Protestant (contrary to the iudg­ment of other their brethren) should dis­gorge against the Apostles themselues?

2. I now hasten to the seuerall Transla­tions of the sacred Scriptures, about which there is no lesse contention among the Pro­testants, [Page 61] then is touching which is true Scri­pture, and which is forged, and (so to speake) abastarded. And First, touching that transla­tion, which is commonly called, the Vulgar Translation, made by S. Hierome, though it be much disliked by most Protestants, and ac­cordingly hereto D. Whitaker calleth it. An ould In his Answere to M. Reynolds Preface. pag. 2. & 26. rotten translation &c. full of faults, er­rours, and corruptions of all sortes; Yet Carolus Molinaeus (a learned Protestant) thus appro­ueth it: I can In Nouo Te­stam. pag. 30. very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am ac­customed earnestly to defend. His wordes in La­tin are these: Agerrimè à vulgari consueta (que) le­ctione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere soleo. Yea this Molinaeus further sayth: I prefer Moli­nas in Luc. 17. the Vulgar Edition before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine Translations; also before Iohn Caluin his translation, and all others. D. Co­uell plainly affirmeth, that he preferrethIn his answere to M. Iohn Burges. pag. 94. the vulgar Translation, before all others. To conclude, euen Beza himselfe (contrary to most other Caluinists) doth in these words aduance the vulgar Translation: The vulgar In praefat. Noui Te­stament. anno 155 [...]. Edition I do for the most part imbrace, and pre­fer before all others.

But now leauing the vulgar Translation, the which some Protestants (as we see) do al­low, far more do reiect, (so great dispari­ty there is in their iudgments;) Let vs come to such Translations of Scripture, as haue beene made by the Protestants themselues; and let vs obserue, what mutuall and inter­changeable entertaynemēt the said Transla­tions [Page 62] haue receaued from the Pens of others their brethren, And to begin, Luther made a Translation of the Holy Scripture; yet this his Translation is condemned by Swinglius in this sort: Thou, Luther To. 2. ad Luth. lib. de Sacr. p. 412. & 413. dost corrupt the Word of God; Thou art seene to be a manifest cor­rupter, and peruerter of the Holy Scriptures: How much are we ashamed of thee? &c. And Keker­mannus (the Protestant) thus censureth this Translation of Luther:In Sy­stem. 55. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188. Lutheri versio Ger­manica &c. The Translation of Luther of the Scri­pture in Dutch &c. especially in Iob, and the Pro­phets, hath no small blemishes. And the said Tran­slation is in like manner condemned by O­siander Osian­der his condem­nation is mentio­ned by Luther, in Colloq. Mensal. Germ. fol. 245.. The Deuines of Basill, and Oecolam­padius did compyle a Translation, yet it is censured in these words by Beza: TheBeza in respons. ad defens. & resp. Castal. Translation of Basill is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost.

The Swinglians vndertooke to translate the Scriptures; against the authours of which Translation, Luther thus belcheth: They Vbi supra. 388. are Fooles, Asses, Antichristes, Deceauers, and of Asslyke vnderstandings. In so much, as when a Copy of that Translation was sent to Lu­ther, he would not receiue it, but reiected it, as Hospinian In Hist. Sacram. part. alte­ra fol. 1 [...]3. witnesseth. Castalio his Tran­slation is censured by Beza, to beBeza, in Test. [...]e­ [...]i 1558. in praefat. Sacrile­gious, wicked and Ethnicall. Caluins Translation is also reiected; for Carolus Molinaeus (the for­said markable Protestant) sayth thus there­of: Caluin in In sua Translat. Test. No­ui. part. [...]1. fol. 110. his Harmony, maketh the Text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe; He vseth vio­lence [Page 63] to the letter of the Gospell, and besides, he ad­deth to the Text.

Beza also (for the vp shot of all) made a Translation; of which translation the fore­said Molinaeus thus speaketh: Beza In Translat. Testam. Noui. pag. 64. 65. 66. de facto textum mutat; Beza euen actually changeth the text of the Scripture. And Castalio the foresaid Pro­testant, by way of retaliation, thus writeth thereof: To note In defens. Translat. pag. 170. the errours of Beza his Tran­slation, would require a great volume. And Casta­lio particularly insisteth in that false Transla­tion of Beza against Freewill, in the first Chap­ter of Iohn; where it is in the Greeke, As many at receaued him, he gaue them Power to be made the sonnes of God; Beza translating: Dignity to be the sonnes of God; Castalio thus saying: Beza Ca­stalio, vbi supra. pulcherrimum maximi (que) momenti locum de­prauat &c. [...], est Potestas, nunquam Digni­tas &c.

Now touching our English Translations of the Bible, The Disagreements of our En­glish Protestants are no lesse violent & im­placable. For First, we find one English Au­thour thus to condemne them: The English Translations Car­leyle, lib. That Christ descended not into Hell. pag. 116. 117. 118. haue depraued the sense, obscured the Truth, and deceaued the ignorant; and in many places, they detort the Scripture from its true sense. Another Protestant thus censureth them: How M. Burges in his Apo­logy. Sect. 6. can I approue vnder my hand a Transla­tion which hath many Omissions, many Additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes peruerteth the sense; being sometimes sensles, sometimes con­trary?

The Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse thus [Page 64] write: The English In the Abridg­ment of a booke deliuered to King, Iames by the said Ministers. pag. 11. & 12. Translation taketh away from the Text, addeth to the Text, and this some­times to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. They further enlarging themselues in these words: A Translation, Vbi supra. which is absurd and sensles, peruerting in many pla­ces the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Other Puri­tans are no lesse sparing in their Censures; for diuers Puritans with one consent thus write only of the Translation of the Psalmes: Our Translation In a Treatise entituled: A Trea­tise dire­cted to her Excellent Maiesty. of the Psalmes compared in our Booke of Common Prayer, doth in Addition, Substraction and Alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew, in two hundred places at least. M. Parkes, censureth the English Bibles with the Notes of Geneua in these words: As for In his Apology, concer­ning Christes descen­ding into Hell. those Bibles it is to be wished, that either they may be purged from those manifould Errours, which are both in the Text and Margent, or els vtterly prohibited.

To conclude with M. Broughtons Con­demnation of the English Bibles. This great Hebritian thus expresly writeth: The publike In his Aduertis­ment to the Bi­shops. Translation of the Scripture in English, is such, as that it peruerteth the Text of the Old Testa­ment in eight hundred forty and eight places; and it causeth Millions of Millions to reiect the New Testament, and to runne into eternull Flames. And hence it is, that D Reynolds in the Conference at Hampton-Court (being the speaker for the Puritans) openly denyed before the King to subscribe to the Communion Booke; be­cause said he, It warranted a corrupt and false Translation of the Bible. Thus far of the im­mortall [Page 65] Disagreements of the Protestants, both touching the Authority of the many Bookes of Scripture, and of the Transla­tions of the Scriptures, made by the Prote­stants.

3. I will here in this next place rest in the easines, and difficulty of the Scripture, seuerally maintayned by seuerall Prote­stants. We findIn Prolegom [...] contra Patrum à Soto. Brentins to write that it belongeth, through the easines of Scripture, to euery man, to iudge from the Scripture of the Doctrine of Religion, and to discerne truth from falshood. In like sort. D Whitaker thus writeth, touching ech vnlearned Mans reading the Scripture: The de sa­cra script, p. 529. vnlearned in the exposition of Scripture, is to demand the Opinion of the learned, and to read the Commentaries of Interpreters; but they must take heed, ne nimis illis tribuant, that they do not ascribe too much to them, but so as that in the meane tyme they retaine their owne liberty; that is, that euery illiterate fellow must finally iudge of the sense of the Scripture.

This point needeth no further allega­tions, for we see, that euery Mechanicall Fellow (if so he can but read, and thinks himselfe to be of the number of the Fayth­full) vanteth of his easy vnderstanding of the Scripture. And this deportment is the Character of ech ignorant Puritan; Yea ech silly ignorant Puritan-Woman will assume so much to herselfe, in the interpretation of Scripture: And yet to crosse, this their Va­nity, we find Luther thus to write: Scio In praefat, in Psalm. esse impudentissimae temeritatis &c. I know it to be a [Page 66] signe of most shameles temerity and rashnes for any Man to professe, that he truly vnderstandeth in all places, but any one booke of the Scriptures. And D. Field maintayneth the same, and sheweth Reasons in defence thereof, thus writing: There is no L. 4. of the Church. cap. 15. Question, but that therebe many dif­ficulties of the Holy Scriptures, proceeding partly from the high and excellent things therein contay­ned, which are without the compasse of Naturall Vnderstanding & so are hidden from naturall Men &c partly out of the ignorance of tongues &c. And the truth of this point is warranted from the practise of the learned Protestants, many of whom haue written Commentaries and Expositions of most bookes of Scripture; which Commentaries and Expositions had beene needlesly vndertaken, if the Scripture were of that facility and easines, as the Pu­ritans seeme to suggest.

Here now in this last place concerning the Protestants disagreements about Scri­pture, I will descend to shew how they dis­agree in seuerally expounding seuerall texts of Scripture. To goe through all such texts of their disagreements, would be most la­boursome and needles; therefore I will insist in some few. And First, to begin with those words of the Institution of the blessed Eu­charist, Hoc est corpus meum: Touching which text, after all the Protestants haue wholy disclaymed from the Catholikes exposition thereof; they presently dissent among them­selues.

1. For First,In lib. suo ca [...]o Basiliae, anno 1526. Carolostadius the Pro­testant, [Page 67] will haue the Aduerb, Hîc, to be vn­derstood by the Pronoune, Hoc; he thus mea­ning: Hîc sedet corpus meum.

2. Bucer In R [...] ­tract [...]. suis. affirmeth, that the Pronoune, Hoc; signifieth the whole action of the supper; So as the sense must be: This action signifyeth my body.

3. Swinglius L. d [...] vera & falsa Reli­gi [...]. cap. de Euchari­stia. teacheth, that the words of the Institution are to be taken Figurati­uely; And the Figure to consist not in the Pronoune, Hoc, but in the Verb, Est: Which ought (sayth he) to be taken for the word, Significat; he thus meaning: This signifyeth my body.

4. Petrus In examen. libri Ho­thusi [...] pro­p [...]i [...]tium. Boquinus affirmeth, that the bread is truly called the Body of Christ, pro­pter communicationem Idiomatum; as by the same forme of speach, we truly say of Christ: This Man is God.

5. Oecolampadius In lib. de genuine exposit. horum verborum, doth not rely either in the Pronoune, Hoc; nor in the verb, Est, but in the Substantiue, Body. For he maintayneth, that the bread is called the Bo­dy, by the Figure Metonymia, by which Fi­gure the name of the thing signified, is at­tributed to the signe: So as the sense (sayth he) is this: Hoc est corpus meum, that is, this bread is a Figure of my body.

6. Caluin Lib. [...] Instit. c. 17. [...]. 11. teacheth in part with Oe­colampadius, that the Figure Metonymia lyeth in the word, Corpus; But withall he addeth, that the bread of the Eucharist is not a naked Figure of Christs body, but it is a Figure, which doth exhibit and present the thing it [Page 68] selfe; And therefore Christ did not say: This bread is a Figure of my Body, but is, the body it self. And Peter L. de ver aque natura Christi. Martyr conspireth with Cal­uin herein.

7. Certaine other Caluinists mentio­ned (though their names not expressed) by Cornelius In Comment. cap. 59. Concord. in illa ve [...] ­ba. Nisi manduca­ueritis. Iansenius, do teach, that the word Corpus, ought to be taken for the Mysticall body of Christ; that is, for the Church: So as the sense of the words of the Institution should be this: This is my body, that is, you Disciples are my body.

8. Iohannes Vti te­statur. Lu­therus in­sua bre [...]i Confess. edita anno 46. Campanus (a Sacramenta­ry) thus expoundeth the words of the In­stitution; This is my body, that is: This body is created, and made by me. See here (Good Rea­der) the wonderfull disagreements of the Protestants in the exposition of these few words, who all conspire togeather in reie­cting the Catholike Interpretation; but then presently they dissent in ech ones par­ticular construction giuen thereof; They re­sembling many lynes, which meet together in one Center, but then presently they breake of, and runne seuerall wayes.

The Protestants do no lesse disagree, touching the manner of receauing the body of Christ; for First, all the Lutherans mantaine with the Catholiks, that the body of Christ is receaued with the Corporall mouth. But Caluin teacheth, it is truly present, and recea­ued with the mouth of Fayth; in regard whereof, as placing a great Mystery there­in, Caluin thus breaketh forth in words: [Page 69] Nihil Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c 17. §. 7. restat &c. Nothing remaineth but that I breake forth into admiration of this mistery, the which neither the vnderstanding is able to conceaue, nor the tongue to deliuer in words. With Caluin a­gree herein D. D. Whitak. contra Duraeum, pag 109. Whitaker, The Confession The Confes­sion of Belgia in the En­glish Har­mony, pag. 4 [...]1. of Belgia, M. Hoo­ker. Eccles. pol. l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174. Hooker, Bucer, inscript. Anglic. p. 548. & 549. Bucer, and many others. Yet this doctrine is impugned by Peter Peter Martyr, in his E­pistles, annexed to his Common places in English. p. 107. epist. 25. Martyr, Aretius serm. 1. de Coena. Aretius & Ludouicus Alamannus in positionib. apud Lugdunens, editis anno 1566. Alaman­nus, reproouing it in these words: Neque etiam per fidem &c. Neither is the body taken by the mouth of Fayth, after an incomprehensible man­ner, as they say; for this is clearely imaginary, and is euidently repugnant to the word of God. Finally the former doctrine is denyed by all our En­glishIn their Christian letter to M. Hooker. pag. 35. Puritans.

Touching those words, Thou art Math. 16. Peter, and vpon this rocke will I buyld my Church, &c. Now heere the Protestants to auoyde this pressing Authority, for the proofe of Peters Primacy, do answere seuerally, and most di­stractedly. For Caluin Lib. 4. Instit. c. 6. §. 6. sayth, that here by the word, Rock, is vnderstood Christ figu­ratiuely.Eras. in hunc locum. Erasmus maintayneth, that euery one of the faythfull, is vnderstood thereby. ButLib. de Po­testate Papae. Luther, that the Word, Rock, there signifyeth The Confession of our Fayth: So disparate the Protestants are in themselues in the constru­ction of this Text.

In like sort they are not much lesse va­rious, in expounding that Article of the [Page 70] Creed, Descendit ad inferos, He descended into Hell. ForBucer in Math. [...]. Bucer by the word Hell, vnder­standeth the Graue, by the Figure Epexegesis, or rather by an idle Tautology: Yet Caluin and most (though not all) of the Caluinists, do interprete by the word, Hell, that Christ suf­fered really and truly the paynes of Hell. For thus Caluin discourseth of this text, and the sense thereof: Since Calu. l. 1. Instit. c. 16. [...]um [...]0. & 11. Christ only by corporall Death, could profit vs nothing, his soule therefore ought to fight with euerlasting Death, that by this meanes be might expiate our wickednes and punishment. To whose construction hereinIn Ca­ [...]ches. an­ [...] 155 [...]. Brentius sub­scribeth. Yea Caluin is so pre [...]ipitious and re­solute in his exposition of the former words, as that he tearmeth all others, Perditos L. [...]. Iustit. c. 26. num. [...]1. ne­bulenes, qui doctrinam istam solatij plenam exagi­tant: Lost and damned fellowes, who should call in question this most Comfortable Doctrine. So iust reason had that Blessed Martyr Father Cam­pian, to burst out in a Christian and Zealous feruour, saying:In ra­tio, redd. Academ. rat. 8. O Tempora, Tempora, cuius­modi monstrum aluistis!

Touching that place of Scripture, I, and my Father are one; Caluin in Ioan, [...]. Caluin differently from all others, affirmeth thus: This text sheweth not, that Christ is Consubstantiall with his Fa­ther. Which exposition of Caluin is also de­fended by D. Whitaker, contra Campian. rat. 8. pag. 123. In like sort, that Sentence in Psalm. 2. Thou art my sonne, this day I haue begot­ten thee; Which text proueth the Diuinity of Christ, euen in the iudgment of most Pro­testants: Yet Caluin differently expoun­deth [Page 71] it from them, thus w [...]ing in Hebr. c. 1. Friuola Augustini argutia est &c. The subtility of Austin is here friuolous who by the word, H [...]di [...], in­terpreteth, Eternall and Continuall.

Againe where we read 1. Ioan. 5. There be three, which giue testimony in Heauen. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and those three b [...] one; alledged not only by the Fathers and Catholiks, but also euen by most Prote­stants, to proue the Diuinity of Christ; yet Caluin vpon this place thus differently from them all expoundeth these words, saying: Quod dicit tres esse v [...]um, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum. Whereas it is here said these three are one; this is to be referred not to the essence, but rather to consent.

Lastly, to auoyd prolixity, concerning the word Eloim in Genes c. 1. M. Willet vpon Genes. in c. 1. thus vrgeth 11: Against the Iewes, who deny the Trinity, we haue euident proofe in this Chapter, where the word Eloim &c. Which Interpretation Peter Martyr, and Zanchius in Hunnius his Anti-paraus pag. 16. & 19. and many other Protestants of note do approue; yet Caluin diss nteth in the Construction thereof from them all, thus writing in Genes. c. 1. Ex verbo Eloim colligero solent &c. They are accustomed to infer from the Word Eloim, that there are three persons in God but because the proofe of so great a matter seemeth to me but weake, I will not insist in that word; but rather will admonish my Readers, that they take heed of such violent Glos­ses, and interpretations. Thus far of Caluins con­structions of the former Texts, against the [Page 72] iudgment almost of all other Protestants, to impugne with the Arians, the Diuinity of Christ.

And thus far for a tast of some few texts of Holy Scripture, receauing from our Aduer­saries Pens most contrary constructions; So as admitting one of the said Constructions to be true, it followeth necessarily, that all the rest are false; for they are in sense, and in the inferences thereof, most incompatible one with another. This point shall be made more euident hereafter, by setting downe many points of Catholike Religion, maintayned by learned Protestants from the Scriptures; and therfore the said Protestants dissent wholy in interpreting the Scriptu­res touching those Doctrines, from other Protestants, not belieuing the said Do­ctrines.

The V. Paragraph.

I Will in this next place, insist in our Ad­uersaries disagreements touching their Liturgy, or booke of Common Prayer, chiefly peculiar to England; shewing how often the Protestants, through diuersity of Iudg­ments at seuerall tymes, haue altered the same; the later Edition thereof euer con­demning the former. And to begin. The Reformed Communion Booke of Prayer begun by Luther and the Lutheran Chur­ches (the oblation of the Sacrifice excepted) was so agreable and consenting with the [Page 73] Roman Church, that the Confession of Augu­sta thus speaketh thereof: Our Cap. de missa. s [...] al­so Osian­der Cent: 16. pag. 163. Churches are wrongfully accused for abolishing the Masse; for the Masse is still retayned among vs, and celebrated with great Reuerence &c. But this Liturgy or Com­mon Booke of Prayer, being reiected in En­gland; another was made (in King Edward the Sixt his raigne) by the aduice of Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Cramner, and presumed (as theIn the Statutes 2.3. of K. Edw. 6.6.1. Statutes affirme) to be done by the ayde of the Holy Ghost, and ratifyed by the Authority of the high Court of Parla­ment.

This Booke of Common prayer, printed by Edward Whitchurch, Cum priuilegio ad im­primendum solùm. anno 1549 maketh speciall defence ofFol. 116. Prayer for the Dead, and Interces­sion Fol. 117. and offering of our prayers by Angells, of Fol. 129. Baptisme by Lay persons in tyme of necessity and of the Ibi­dem. Grace of that Sacrament, of the Fol. 137. 139. Priests absolution of the Sicke Penitent, and the Priests bles­sing of the bryde & brydegrome, Of the Fol. 144. Annoin­ting of the Sicke, Of Confirmation Fol. 132. of Chil­dren; Of Fol. 116. consecrating the Eucharist with the signe of the Crosse; Finally (to omit some other Catholike points, confirmed and practised in that Communion Booke) Of the Fol. 1 [...]8. Chris­me, and the Childs annoynting, and of Fol. 126. Exor­cisme.

Now, no sooner Queene Elizabeth came to the Crowne, but that the former Liturgy of King Edward being wholy abolished, ano­ther was made; Yet not so perfect in all points, but that M. Parker thus speaketh here­of: [Page 74] The Day A­gainst Symbo­li [...]ing part. 1. ca. 5. sect 1. pag. 4. starre was not risen so high in their dayes, when yet Queene Elizabeth reformed the de­fects of King Edwards Communion Booke. And further he sayth: It is Ibidem Sect. 17. pag. 39. not the same Booke with tha [...] of King Edwards; but it is altered in very many & sundry Places: Yea so altered, as when it was proposed to be Confirmed by the Parlament, it was refused. This point of al­tering the Communion Booke of Prayer, is so euident, that M. Cartwright acknowled­geth it in these words: The 2. Re­ply. part 1. pag. 41. Church of En­gland changed the Booke of Common Prayer, twyce or thryce, after it had receaued the knowledge of the Ghospell.

Now, all what is aboue set downe tou­ching the Communion Booke, I thinke good briefly to recapitulate in the words of Do­ctour Doue an eminent Protestant) thus ful­ly discoursing of this point:Per­suasion to English Recu [...]ants. pa. [...]. Concerning the Booke of Common Prayer, when the Masse was fi st put downe King Henry had his English Liturgy, and that was iudged absolute, and without excep­tion: But when King Edward came to the Crown [...], that was condemned, and another set forth in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approue, as very consonant to the word of God. When Queene Elizabeth began her reigne, the forsaid Booke was iudged to be full of imperfections, and a new deui­sed and allowed by the Consent of the Clergy. But about the middle of her reigne, we grew weary of that Booke and great meanes haue beene wrought, to abandon that and establish another; which al­though it was not obtayned, yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince, change our Booke of Com­mon [Page 75] Prayers; We be so wanton, that we know not what we would haue. Thus far D Doue touching our English Protestants disagreements for the approuing or reiecting of their Liturgy, or Common Booke of Prayer.

Now, how yet the Puritans rest affected towards the last Edition of the Communion Booke in Queeene Elizabeth her Dayes, may appeare from their censuring it in these words: The These words are rela­ted by D. Whit­guift, as spoken by the Puritans, in his De­fence pag. 474. forme of the Communion Booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist; as the reading of the Epistles, the Gospells &c. The most of the Prayers, the manner of ministring the Sacraments &c. Againe, our more late Puritans do thus Syndicate, and condemne the Communion Booke: Many In the booke entituled: The Peti­tion of twenty two Prea­chers in London. things in the Communion Booke are repugnant to the word of God; And more: In the Communion Booke, there are things, of which there is no sense; there is Contradiction in it, euen of necessary and essentiall points of Religion. Other Puritans thus write against it: The These words are alled­ged in the Suruey. pag. [...]0. & 14. Communion Booke is not agreeable to the Word of God in many things. And yet more: The Cer­taine Conside­rations printed, anno 1605. f. 10 11. 17. Pro­testants Communion Booke and seruice, is naught: it hath grosse and palpable repugnancy in it. This point is further made euident, by the Au­thority of Doctour Couell, who being an Ad­uersary to the Puritans, deliuereth their Sen­tence, touching their extreme dislyke of the Communion Booke in these words: The D. Co­uell, in his Exam pa. 1 [...]8. Communion Booke is bouldly despised, Grosse errours and manifest impietyes (meaning in the iudg­ment of the Puritans) are in the Communion Booke.

Thus far of the Protestants irreconcilia­ble Disagreements touching the seuerall Formes of Liturgyes, or Cōmunion Bookes of Prayer, since the Catholike Religion was first abolished in England. From whence it ineuitably followeth, that during all these seuerall yeares of alterations of their Com­munion Bookes, they neuer enioyed (if their owne Censures and iudgments be perfect,) a true forme, how to pray to Allmighty God.

The VI. Paragraph.

I Will next come to their Disagreements, touching Christ our Redeemer. And, 1. tou­ching Christs Nature, Beza l. de Vni­tate Ec­cles. Beza differently from most other Protestants, teacheth, that two Hy­postaticall Vnions are constituted in Christ; the one of the Soule with the Body the other of the Diuini­ty with the Humanity. Beza in Hesbu­sium. Beza further teacheth, that Christ is not begotten of the Substance of the Father. That Christ is not Consubstantiall with his Father, Luther thus writeth: Anima Luth. contra Latimer. mea odit hoc verbum Homousion: My very Soule ha­teth this word Homousios, or Consubstantialis.

2. That Christ by his Workes did merit nothing to himselfe, contrary to the iudg­ments almost of all Christians, is maintay­ned by Caluin, who tearmeth this Doctrine, A Foolish Instit. l. 2. c. 17. §. 10. Curiosity, and rash Opinion. The same blasphemy is maintayned byIn his booke entituled: the wicked Mammon. Tin­dall, and by IohnAct. Mon. pag. 487. Teuxbury.

3. That Christ suffered not only accor­ding [Page 77] to his Humane Nature, but also according to his Diuinity, is defended byLuth. in Confess. maiore in cana Do­mini. Luther, contrary to all Christians, both Protestants and Catholiks, Luther thus speaking of this point: When I belieue, that the only Humane Nature suffered for me, then is Christ a Sauiour but of a base and small worth, and himselfe needeth a Sauiour.

4. That Christ did not dye for all the world, but only for the Elect, being most con­trary not only to the sacred Scripture, which sayth: Christ 1. Ioan. 2. & 1. Tim. 2. dyed for the sinnes of the whole World, but also almost to all learned Prote­stants, is maintayned byCalu. de arcana Dei Pro­uident. p. 155. Caluin, &Beza in respons. ad Act. Colloq. Montis­belgar. part. alt [...] ­ra. p. 215. & 221. Beza.

5. That men not belieuing in Christ may be saued (a most horrid blasphemy) is main­tayned by Swinglius, who thus writeth there­of:Swin­gl. in l. Ep. Swinglij & Oecol. l. 1. p. 39. Ethnicus, si piam mentem domi fouerit, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret. A Hea­then, if he beare within him a pious mind, is a Chri­stian, though he be ignorant of Christ. And here­vpon Swinglius concludeth: That Swing. tom. 2. fol. 18. & 559. Hercu­les, Theseus, Socrates, Arist. des &c. are now in Hea­uen: A point so euident, that Echarius (a lear­ned Protestant) thus writeth thereof: Quod In his Fasciculut Controu. printed Lipsiae. anno 1 [...]9. Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercu­les, Scipiones, Catones, & alij Gentiles &c. That Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercules, the Scipio'es, the Cato'es, and other Gentills are partakers of Heauen or eternall lyfe, Swinglius wri­teth to the King of France, whom the Tigurin De­uines, Bullinger, Gualterus, and Hardenburgius &c. do defend, for this his Doctrine. Thus far [Page 78] this Protestant. ThatIn his Apol. fol. 27. prafix. [...]. tom. Swingl. Gualterus, In Confess. Eccles. Bul­linger, In vita Bulling. Simlerus, theBul­linger in his pre­face of allowance to Swin­glius his Exposi­tion. Tigurin Deuines, maintayned this former Heresy with Swin­glius, appeareth from the references here set downe in the Margent.

From Christ. I come to Christs Successour, to wit S. Peter. Now the Primacy of S. Peter is maintayned by Caluin, thus confessing: The Cal­uin is al­ledged thus to say, in D. Whit­guifts De­fence. p. 173. twelue Apostles had one among them, to gouerne the rest. Musculus, thus teacheth: The Mus­culus so al­ledged by Whit. guift, vbi sup. à pag. 66. Cele­stiall spirits are not equall; The Apostles themselues were not equall; Peter is found in many places to haue beene chiefe among the rest. And D. Whit­guift himselfe, thus auerreth: Among D. Whit­guift vbi su [...]rd. pag. 1 [...]. the A­postles themselues, there was one Chiefe &c. that had chiefe authority ouer the rest &c. that Schismes might be compounded. Yet is this doctrine who­ly denyed by most other Protestant wri­ters.

The VII. Paragraph.

TOuching more particularly the Bishop or Pope of Rome, being S. Peters succes­sour; that the Popes Primacy is aboue other Bi­shops, is maintayned by Melancthon thus wri­ting: Quemadmodum Melanct in the Booke entituled: C [...]nturia Epistolar. Theologie. Epist. 74. sunt aliqui Episcopi qui prasunt pluribus Ecclesijs &c. As certaine Bishops are president ouer many Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops. And this Cano­nicall policy no wise man (I thinke) doth, or ought to disalow. The same Doctrine is also defen­ded by Iohn Husse, as Luther writeth, thus [Page 79] saying. Ioannes Husse In. [...] sert. Act. [...]0. [...]on repugnare vide­tur &c. Iohn Husse seemeth not to contradict, why the Monarchy of the Pope should not be: So much different are these former Authorities to the iudgments of all other Protestants, who wholy reiect the Popes Primacy.

Now touching the Pope being Antichrist, the Protestants do thus differ from among themselues. First some of them teach, Anti­christ is not yet come; to wit,In Ep. [...]auli Cole los & Thessal. pag. [...]40. Zanchius, Franciscus In his Progno­sti [...]on f [...] ­nis nou­di. p. 74. Lambertus, and some others; And hereupon it is, that M Doue In his Sermon of his second comming of Christ, versus fi­n [...]m. chargeth some Protestants, in this sort: Some Prote­stants make a doubt, whether Antichrist be yet re­uealed, or no. Now some others do thinke, that Antichrist is come, but that the Turke is this Antichrist. Of this opinion is Melancthon; for so he is alledged to thinke by M. In his Theolog. Discourses p 1 [...]8 Haruey. Of the same iudgmēt also i [...] Bucer, who tear­meth the Turke, Ipsissimus In his lib. psalm. 5. psalm. 22. f [...]. 146. Antichristus, as al­so M. Fox In Act. Mon. of anno 1 [...]76. pag. [...]..

The VIII. Paragraph.

TOuching those Protestants who be­lieue, that the Pope is Antichrist, obserue heere their great Dissentions, concerning the tyme of Antichrists comming. And first D. Willet In Syn. p. [...]00. placeth Antichrists first comming, in the yeare, 607. making Boniface the third, to be the first Antichrist. With whom agrees D. Whitaker, saying:De Eccl. con­tr [...] Bellar. Contro. 8 [...] Quaest 4. pag. 141. Gregory the Great, was the last true and holy Bishop of that Church &c Therefore because our Aduersaries demand of vs the [Page 80] tyme of Antichrists first comming, we designe and set downe to them the very tyme of his comming. With whom conspiresIn his Answere to a Coun­terfayte Catholike. p. 36. D. Fulke. Iulius Vpon the Reuel. 5.10. the great Protestant, maketh Hildebrand, who was Pope anno 1074. to be the first Anti­christ: with whom D. Downam seeme to conspire in these wordesIn his Treatise concerning Anti­christ. pag. 1 [...]0.: Gregory the sea­uenth (alias Hildebrand) was the first of the Po­pes, who was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist. Beza teacheth, that Leo who was Pope an­no Domini 440. did clearly Beza. Confess. gener. 7. Sect. 21. breath forth the arrogancy of the Antichristian Sea. But M. Napper Vpon the Reuel. p. 66. ascendeth to higher tymes, affir­ming that Antichrist came in, anno Domini 313. and maintayning, that Siluester the Pope, was the first Antichrist.

But the Reformed Churches ofSo re­lateth M. Hoo­ker in his Ecclesie­stic. Poli­cy. Tran­siluania ascribe a greater antiquity to the comming of Antichrist, who confidently a­uer, that his first comming was in the yeare 200. Yet Sebastianus Francus (no vulgar Pro­testant) riseth higher, placing Antichrists first comming in the dayes immediatly after the Apostles, for thus he writeth: For certaine, In Epist. de abrogun­dis in vni­uersum statutis Ecclesiast. throgh the worke of Antichrist, the externall Church, together with the Fayth and Sacraments vanished away, presently after the Apostles departure.

So incredible and indeed ridiculous are the Dissentions of the Protestants, touching who is Antichrist, and at what tyme (drea­ming him already to haue beene come) he first appeared. But I hasten to other Points.

The IX. Paragraph.

I Will next intreate of the Church; and First of the Visibility of the Protestant Church, seuerally mantayned by seuerall of our Ad­uersaries. Secondly, whether in the Prote­stant Church, there hath beene Personall suc­cession and Vocation of Ministers; Thirdly, who be the Persons of Members that Constitute the Protestants Church. Fourthly, whether the present Roman Church be the true Church of God, and the same Church with the Prote­stants. Lastly, whether Papists (as the Prote­stants call the Catholiks) dying Papists, may be saued; In all which seuerall points, the Reader shall fynd strang Dissentions in the Protestants writings touching them.

1. And to begin with the Visibility of the Protestant Church; we fynd most Pro­testants confidently to iustify the Visibility of it in all Ages. And according hereto D. Field with a most frontles impudency thus writeth; We D. Field in his booke of the Church l. 3. c. 8. pag. 76. firmely belieue, all the Churches of the World, wherein our Fathers liued and dyed, to haue beene true (Protestant) Churches of God; &c. And that they, who taught, imbraced, and be­lieued those damnable Errours, which the Romanists defend against vs, were only a Faction; Which words necessarily imply, that the Protestant Church was in his iudgment euer visible.

In like sort, a litle Booke written in the yeare 1624. and intituled: A Treatise of the Perpetuall visibility and succession of the true Church [Page 82] in all ages; written (as is thought) by the last pretended Archbishop of Canterbury, D. Abbots, or els by D. Whyte, or D. Featly, in proofe of the vninterrupted visibility of the Prote­stant Church, iustifyeth their like iudgment herein. Finally D. White and D. Featly in their priuate Conference in London some yeares since, with M. Fisher and M. Sweet, of the So­ciety of Iesus, with great venditation in words auerred the continuall Visibility of the Protestant Church in all ages; and the greater Part of Protestants do mantayne the same.

Now let vs see, how these men are cros­sed and impugned in this their Tenet by o­ther learned Protestants. First D. Iewell (me­rely crossing D. Fields former most bold & shameles assertion) thus sayth: The In his Apology of the Church. part. 4. l. 4. truth (meaning the Protestant Fayth and Reli­gion) was vnknowne at that tyme, and vnheard of, when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell: And vpon this it proceedeth, that Bucer styleth Luther: The In E­pist. An­no 36. ad Episcopum Hereford. first Apostle to vs, of the reformed Doctrine. With these former agree Benedictus Morgensterne the Protestant, thus saying: It is ridiculous Tract. de Eccle­sia pag. 145. to say, that any before the tyme of Luther, had the purity of the Gospell. And Conradus Schlusselburg (the Lutheran) is no lesse feruent in this point, thus auerring: It is In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 130. impudency to affirme, that any learned men before Luther did hould the Doctrine of the Gospell. From all which authorities it appeareth, that before Luthers first breaking out, the [Page 83] Protestant Church was inuisible through­out the whole world.

But let vs see, what more the Protestants confesse (contrary to the assertions of infi­nite other their Brethren) touching the in­uisibility of the Protestant Church, during the seuerall ages before Luther. First then Cae­lius secundus Curio (a learned Protestant) thus teacheth: Factum De amplitu­dine regni Dei p. 212. est, vt per multos iam annos Ecclesia latuerit &c. It is brought to passe, that the Church for many yeares hath beene latent, and that the Citizens of this Kingdome, could scarsly (ac ne vix quidem, and indeed not at all) be knowne of o­thers. In the same Dialect writeth M. Perkins, saying: We In his exposi­tion of the Creed pag. 44 [...]. say, that before the dayes of Lu­ther, for the space of many hundred yeares, an vni­uersall Apostacy ouerspred the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the World.

Doctour Fulke speaketh heere of more particularly touching the time of the Prote­stants Churches Inuisibility, saying: The In his answere to a Counter­feyte Ca­tholike. p. 16. Church in tyme of Boniface the third, it being anno 607. was inuisible, and fled into wildernes, thereto remayne a long season. The forsaid D. Perkins in another of his Bookes, writes more expresly of this point; his words are these; During In his exposition of the Creed. the space of nyne hundred yeares, the popish Heresy hath spred it selfe ouer the whole earth.

M. Napper riseth higher, acknowledging thus:In his Treatise vpon the Reuela­tion. pag. [...]8. Betweene the yeares of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papisticall reigne began, reigning vniuersally without any debatible Contra­diction, one thousand two hundred and sixty yeares: [Page 84] Yea the said M. Napper in another place as­cendeth to higher tymes, thus writing: Du­ring Vpon the Reuel. in c. 11. & 12. euen the second and third age, (to wit after Christ) the true Church of God and light of the Gospell, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himselfe: with whome conspireth M. Brocard, saying: During Vpon the Reue­lat. pag. 100. the second and third age after Christ, the true Temple of God and light of the Gos­pell, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist. Seba­stianus Francus (a great Protestant) more li­berally acknowledgeth of this point, wri­ting in this manner: For In Epistol. de [...]brogan­dis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Ecclesiast. certaine, through the worke of Antichrist, the externall Church, toge­ther with the Fayth and Sacraments, vanished a­way presently after the Apostles departure; And that for these Foureteene hundred yeares, the Church hath not beene externall, and Visible. With whom D. Fulke, as forgetting what before he had writ­ten, touching anno 607. fully agreeth, auer­ring thus: The true In his answere to a Coun­terfeyte Catholike. p. [...]3. Church decayed immediat­ly after the Apostles tyme.

Thus much concerning the Protestant Church, where we see, that whereas most Protestants do teach, that it hath in all ages continued Visible; diuers others most re­markable Protestants do not only dissent from these former, in teaching the contrary Doctrine, to wit, that the Protestant Church hath beene wholy inuisible for many ages; But also these later disagree among them­selues, touching the tyme of the Latency of their Church; Some of them designing a shorter tyme, others a longer tyme of its In­uisibility; Yea one and the same Authour, at [Page 85] seuerall tymes writeth seuerally of the tyme of their Churches Inuisibility, as appeareth by the aboue alledged different iudgments of Doctour Fulke, and M. Napper: So won­derfull are their contentions herein.

2. In this Passage, I come to the Do­ctrine of Personall succession, and vocation of Mi­nisters in the Protestant Church, differently mantayned by different Protestants. For first Caluin challengeth to himselfe, extraordina­ry calling, as being sent from no Man, but only from God in these words: Quia Lasci­tius the Prote­stant, re­citeth this saying of Caluin, l. de Rus­sorum & Muscouit. Religione. c. 13. Pa­pa tyrannide &c. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, true succession of Ordination was broken of; Therefore we stand in neede of a new Course herein; and this Function, or calling was altogether extraordinary. In this Opinion conspire most other Protestants, especially of the more earnest sort: According hereto M. Perkins In his workes printed anno 605. fol. 916. writeth, that the calling of Wicliffe, Hus, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr &c. was ex­ [...]raordinary. And Doctour Fulke iumpeth with the former, saying: The A­gainst sta­pleton, Martiall. pag. 2. Protestants that first preached in these dayes, had extraordinary calling: Thus far in Defence of extraordinary calling in these dayes.

Now the Reader shall see, how others more sober Protestants do wholy reiect this extraordinary calling immediatly from God, [...]xcept it be confirmed with miracles, as it was in the Apostles. First, M. Cartwright thus writeth: To In his second Re­ply. part. 2. pa. 14 [...]. minister the Sacraments is an ho­ [...]our in the Church, which none can take to him. [...]ut he which is called vnto it, as Aaron was. Mus­culus, [Page 86] the great Protestant, writeth thus: Ve­catio In loc. Comm. pag. 394. quae immediatè est à Christo, iam in vsu non est, vt erat olim &c. The calling immediatly from Christ, is not now in vse, as it was in former tymes. The Bishop of Winchester thus tea­cheth: They In his perpetuall gouerment of the Church. l. [...]. p. 111. can haue no part of Apostolicall commission, that haue no shew of Apostolicall suc­cession. D. Sarauia agrees with the former, say­ing: Speciem In de­fens. tract. contra respons. Beza. p. 306. & 307 illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium non admitto &c. I do not approue that shew of extraordinary calling, seing it is not warranted with any authority of Scripture, or certaine example.

Now whereas diuers other Protestants do teach, that all extraordinary calling to the ministery is accompanyed with working of Miracles, or els is a meere illusion; In this manner and restriction writeth Luther; say­ing: Vnde Tom. 3. len. Germ. fol. 491. venis? quis te misit? vbi sigilla quod ab hominibus missus sis? Vbi miracula? &c. And Amandus In partitio­nib. Theol. l. 1. p. 308. Polanus, In his soueraigne Remedy a­gainst Schism. p. [...]5. Henoch Clapham, In loc. Comm. p. 304. Musculus, and many others too lōg to write, do maintayne the same. Yet this wholy makes against the calling of Luther himselfe, Caluin and all other Sectaries of this age, tou­ching their vocation; Seing it is granted by Doctour Fulke in these words: It is A­gainst the Rhemish Testam, in Apoc. 13. knowne, that Caluin and the rest (whom Papists call Arch­heretiks) do worke no miracles; with whom D. Sutcliffe conspireth, saying: We In his Exam. of D. Kellisons Suruey, printed 1606. pag. 8. do not pra­ctise miracles, nor do we teach, that the Doctrine of Truth is to be confirmed with miracles. Thus much touching the contrary, and Crossing-Iudg­ments [Page 87] of the Protestants, concerning the ne­cessity of Personall Succession in the Church of Christ.

3. I next come to discouer their disa­greements touching such persons, as they acknowledge to be members of the Prote­stant Church, in which point we shall fynd wonderfull opposition among the Prote­stants. First I will shew all such sorts of per­sons, which many Protestants exclude from being members of their Protestant Church. And First, we find all Heretikes to be exclu­ded; and herein I will begin with the iudg­ment of the Lutherans, then of the Calui­nists. Touching the Lutherans, the Centurists thus write:Cent. 6. in the Preface. Neither Heretiks, nor deuisers of Phanaticall Opinions, are of Christ, but they are of Antichrist, and the Deuill. And Luther is of the same iudgment, saying:In his Explicat. of the Creed. Neither Gentill, Iew, Heretike, or any sinner can be saued, vnlesse he make attonement with the Church, and in all things do, & teach the same; he meaning his owne Prote­stant Church.

To come to the Sacramentaries, Caluin thus teacheth:In­stit. l. 2. c. 15. Num. 1. Rightly Austin denyeth Here­tiks to haue the same Foundation with the Godly, al­beit they Preach the name of Christ. D. White: All In his way to the Church. p. 10. Heretiks teach the truth in some things; Yet we deny them to be of the Church of God. The Confes­sion of Basil: Art. 24. We driue away all, whosoeuer dis­senting from the Society of the holy Church, do bring in or follow strange & wicked Doctrines. To con­clude, D. Sutcliffe: In his booke of the Church. c. 1. Heretiks are not of the Church. Now here I am to aduertise the [Page 88] Reader, that seeing most of these Testimo­nies (as also diuers other following) do speake literally of the true Church of God, that therefore the Protestants meane thereby their owne Protestant Church; seeing they teach, it alone to be the true Church of God.

To come to Schismatiks; they are in like sort reiected from being members of the Protestant Church: For first Luther thus writeth: I belieue, Luther in his great Catech. tom. 5. pag. 628. there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes, agreeing in all things, with­out Sects or schismes. Melancthon: Neither In his booke a­gainst Swenkfeld. tom. 2. pa. [...]01. is there more, then one Church of Christ: Neither doth this Company consist of diuers sects. D. Fulke, thus accordingly teacheth: What Of the Succes­sion of the Church. skilleth it, whe­ther one (being drawne by Heresy, or schisme from the body of Christ) be subiect to eternall damnation? D. Whitaker: It is Contro­uers 2. q. 9. c. 9. false, that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches. To con­clude with D. Field: The name Of the Church l. 1. cap. 7. of the Ca­tholike Church (he thereby vnderstanding his owne Protestant Church) is applyed to distin­guish men, houlding the Fayth in the Vnity, from Schismatikes.

The Anabaptists are in like manner by di­uers Protestants, disclaymed from being members of their Protestant Church. For thus doth the Confession of Switzerland teach: We Cap. 20. condemne Anabaptists, who maintayne, that Infants are not to he baptized, The Confession of Ausburg teacheth the same, saying: We Cap. 9. con­demne the Anabaptists, who disalow the Baptisme of Infants, and thinke them to be saued without Baptisme. Which Confession of Ausburg doth in [Page 89] like sort eliminate and exclude the Arians from their Church, in these words: We Act. 1. condemne all Heresies, rising against this Article (meaning the Article of the Trinity) as the Mani­ches, Arians, Eunomians. &c. That the Papists (as the Catholikes are contumeliously called) are excluded from the members of the Pro­testant Church, is so generally taught (and but truly taught) as that I need not to insist therein, only D. Whitakers words shall serue at this tyme, thus scurrilously rayling: I Contro Duraeum. 2. sect. 2. will not allow the very name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church, because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to haue. Thus far to shew what men are not acknowledged by most Protestants (and in part, most truly) to be members of the Protestant Church: But now we will see, how they are contradicted by other Protestants, and sometimes by their owne pens.

And first we fynd the Anabaptists to be ac­counted mēbers of the Protestants Church for D. Whitaker thus writeth: We Con­trouers. 4. 9. c. 2. p. 716. may abstaine from Baptisme, so there be no contempt thereof. Oecolampadius: Baptisme L. 2. Epist. pag. 363. is an exter­nall thing, which by the Law of charity may be dis­pensed with: and D. Morton seemes to enclyne to the same iudgment, thus saying: We In his answere to the Prote­stants A­pology l. 4. c. 1. sect. 10. Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists, not to be vtterly desperate.

Touching the Arians, M. Morton iustifyeth, that the Arians are of the Protestant Church, because, (to vse his owne words) the Arians In his booke of of the kingdome of Israel & the Church. p. 94. hould the foundation of the Gospell. M. Hookers [Page 90] words are these: The Arians Ec­cles polic. l. 4. pag. 181. in the refor­med Churches of Poland &c. Now these Refor­med Churches in Poland are Protestanticall Churches; therefore the Arians are included as members of the said Protestanticall Chur­ches.

Touching Idolaters, whether they be of the Protestant Church or no, heare what the said M Hooker writeth:Eccles. pol. l. 3. p. 216. Christians by ezter­nall Profession they are all, whose marke of recog­nizance hath in it those things, which we haue men­tioned, yea although they he impious Idolaters, wic­ked Heretikes &c. Thus he.

Touching Infidells, M. Fox relateth, how a Protestant of Eminency for learning, did thus teach: A Turke, Act. Mon. pag. 493. Saracene, or any Maho­metan whatsoeuer may be saued, if he trust in one God, and keep the Law. But if such a man may be saued, then followeth, that he is of the Protestant Church; seeing most Protestants teach, that the Protestant Church only affor­deth Saluation. AndCent. 6. pag. 404. Bale admonisheth vs, to be wary in condemning ouer rashly any Turke. Finally this their most wicked opinion is already made euident, by the aboue alledged testimonies of Swinglius and others, who teach, that Heathens (dying Heathens, and not belieuing in Christ) may be saued.

That the Papists and the Protestants are members of one and the same Protestant Church, is taught (though most falsly) by these Protestants following: The Confession of Ausburge, speaking of the Catholiks and the Protestants, thus belieue & say: We In Praefat. are [Page 91] all souldiers vnder one Christ. And Luther thus: In Lu­ther in Epist. contra A­nabapt. Popery there is true Christianity, yea the kernel of Christianity, &c. M. Hooker: we L. Eccl. pol. 3. c. 118. glad­ly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Iesus Christ. M. Bunny: We In his Treatise of Pacifi­cat. are no seuerall Church from them (meaning the Papists) nor they from vs. D. Whitguift: TheIn his answere to the Admoni­tion. pag: 40. Papists do be­lieue the same Articles of Faith, which we do. Final­ly D. Whyte: In the In de­fence of the way. c. 38. substantiall Articles of our Fayth, we agree with the Papists. From all which testimonies it followeth, that these said Pro­testants thus teaching, do hould the Catho­liks to be members of their Protestant Church.

I will conclude, shewing, that whom di­uers Protestants hould to be Antichrist, other Protestants acknowledge the same man to be in state of Saluation; and consequently a member of the supposed true Protestant Church. This I proue thus: Most Protestants teach, that the Pope is Antichrist (as is well knowne) yet other Protestants confesse, that some Popes euen since they began to be Antichrist, are saued. But none are saued, but such as are members of the true Church. And according hereto, I find M. Powell thus to write; I will in L. de Antichr. c. 33. pag. 338. no wyse say, that all the Popes from the tyme, wherein Papistry was reuealed to be Antichristianity, are damned. With whom D. Whitaker euen in the same words thus af­firmes. I In his answere to the first Demon­stration of D. Sanders. will not say, that from the tyme, that Papistry began to be Antichristianity, the Popes themselues haue beene all damned. And yet we see, euen by these two last testimonies, that [Page 92] both D. Whitaker and M. Powell teach, that the Pope is Antichrist, by the reason of the Word Antichristianity, by them both vsed in their said testimonies. I will shut vp their Disagreements, touching the members of the Protestant Church, with the malicious Asseueration of Musculus, thus writing: I imbrace In loc. comm. de Coena pag. 552. all for brethren in the Lord, howsoeuer they disagree from me, or among themselues, as long as they maintayne not the Popish Impiety. Thus far of Protestants contrary iudgments, touching who are members of the Protestant Church, and who are not.

I will conclude their dissentions touching the Church, whether the Papists (as we are styled) dying Papists (though in part it hath beene all ready displayed) & out of the Pro­testant Church, may be saued. Euery man knoweth, that all the Puritans as houlding Papists Religion to be idolatrous, and super­stitious, and the Pope to be Antichrist, deny to them all Hope of saluation. Yet D. Some thus censureth of this point: Yf In his Defence against Penry. p. 176. you thinke, that all the Popish sort, which dyed in the Popish Church, are damned, you thinke absurdly, and do dissent from the iudgment of all learned Protestants. D. Barrow: I dare In his 4. Ser­mons, and two Que­stions dis­puted, ad Clorum. p. 448. not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder Writers do acknow­ledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. M. Cartwright: I doubt In his Reply to D. Whit­guifts De­fence, p. 82. not, but diuers Fa­thers of the Greeke Church, and who were Patrones of Freewill, are saued. And the same sentence is deliuered by D. Whitaker Con­tra rat. Camp. pa. 74. touching the Saluation of the Ancient Fathers, notwith­standing [Page 93] their doctrine of Iustification and merit of works. D. Field: We doubt Of the Church. l. 3. c. 46. not, but that the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome with more then a Luciferian pryde, exalted himselfe, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, and that is held a sauing Profession of the truth of Christ. To contract this point, D. Couell thus expresly teacheth: We In his Defence of M. Hoo­ker. pag. 77. affirme them of the Church of Rome, to be parts of the Church of God; and that those, who liue and dye in that Church, may notwith­standing be saued; charging other Protestants teaching the contrary (to vse his owne words) with ignorant Zeale.

Thus much touching the dissentions of the Puritans, and the moderate Protestants, concerning the saluation of Papists, dying Papists, cōcluding this point with the iudg­ment of the Deuiues of Geneua (contrary to other their brethren), who teach, that the Baptisme of Catholike Children either by Protestant Ministers, or Catholike Priests; is aualeable, because (say they) the So teach the Deuines of Geneua in the Propo­sitions and Principles disputed [...] Geneua. p. 128. Children are comprehended within the Couenant of eternall life, by meanes of the Fayth of their Parents. Which very point is in like manner taught (to the great dislike of many Puritans) by D. Whit­guift In his Defence pag. 62 [...]., and M. Hooker Ec­cles. pol. l. 5. pag. 1 [...]. For most (if not all the Puritans) teach; that Papists dying Papists, cannot be saued; seeing (say they) their Fayth is Idolatry, and superstition.

The X. Paragraph.

I Next come to the Ancient Fathers, because they were the most learned and eminent members of the Ancient Church: where we shall see the strang diuersity of the Prote­stants Iudgments of them; Some of the Pro­testants reuerencing and imbracing their Authorities; others wholy betrampling their testimonies, and entertayning them with all contempt and scorne. And First, we will al­ledge the iudgments of diuers Protestants, admitting their Authorities and worth; ac­cording hereto we fynd, that D. Iewell in his Sermon at Paules Crosse, thus cryed out: O Gregory, O Austin, O Ierome &c. if we be decea­ued, you haue deceaued vs, And after in the said Sermon: As I said before, so I say againe; I am con­tent to yield and subscribe, if any of our learned Aduersaries, or if all the learned men that be aliue, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence, out of any old Catholike Doctour, or Father, or out of any old Generall Councell, for the space of six hundred yeares after Christ. Which challenge D. Whi­taker after iustified in these words, writing to Father Campian: Audi Whi­tak. in respons. ad ration. Camp. rat: 5. Campiane &c. Heare O Campian, that most true and constant Challenge, which Iewell that day made, when he appealed to the antiquity of the first six hundred yeares &c. That is the proffer and Challenge of vs all, we do pro­mise the same with Iewell, and we will make it good.

D. Sutcliffe thus auerreth: The In his Exam. of D. Kelli­sōs suruey. Fathers [Page 95] in all points are for vs, and not for the Pope. D. Wil­let is no lesse confident herein, thus prote­sting: I take In his Antilog. p. 263. God to witnes, before whom I must render an account &c. that the same Fayth and Religion, which I defend, is taught and confir­med in the more substantiall points by those Histo­ries, Councells, and Fathers, that liued within fyue or six hundred yeares after Christ. Kempnitius: We In Exam. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 74. doubt not, but that the Primitiue Church re­ceaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and na­tiue sense thereof. And againe: We are greatly confirmed in the true and sound sense of the Scri­pture, by the testimony of the ancient Church. The Confession of Bohemia: TheIn the Harmony of Con­fessions, pag. 400. ancient Church is the true and best Mistris of posterity, and going be­fore, leadeth vs the way. D. Bancroft speaking of Caluin and Beza, thus sayth: For In his Suruey of the pre­tended holy Dis­cipline. M. Caluin, and M. Beza, I do thinke of them, as their Writings do deserue; But yet I thinke better of the ancient Fa­thers, I must confesse. I will conclude this their acknowledgment of the Primitiue Church and Fathers, with D. Iewell (with whom I first did begin) he thus writing: The Primiti­ue In his Defence of the A­pology. Church, which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs, hath euer beene accounted the Purest of all others, without exception.

But now let vs see, how Diametrically and repugnantly other Protestants stand to these former Protestants, touching the Authority and dignity of the ancient Fathers: And to forbeare the former Confessions of Prote­stants, touching the Inuisibility of their Church, during the first fiue or six hun­dred [Page 96] yeares after Christ, aboue related, which euidently demonstrateth, that such Prote­stants, who teach so long an Inuisibility, do consequently teach and grant, that the Fa­thers of those tymes, were in iudgment Pa­pists, and not Protestants; for if they had beene Protestants, then the Protestanticall Church had most remarkably beene visi­ble and conspicuous in the said Fathers: To forbeare the iteration (I say) therof, I will descend to the particular Reproualls, giuen by the Protestants against them. And first, do we not find the same D. Whitaker, (ob­serue the inconstancy of this man) who a­boue so much maintayned D Iewells appeale thus to write? (Ex Whi­tak. contra Duraeum. l. 6. p. 423. Patrum erroribus vester ille religionis Cento consutus est: Your Popish Religion, is but a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours, sowed together.

Pomeran (the Protestants) thus writeth: Nostri Patres, siue sancti, fiue non sancti &c. OurPome­ran in Io­ [...]au. ancient Fathers, whether they were holy, or not holy I not much rest vpon, were blinded with the spi­rit of Montanus; and through humane Traditions & Doctrines of the Deuills &c. they did not teach pu­rely of Iustification &c. Neither were they sollici­tous to preach Iesus Christ in his Gospell. Iacobus A­contius (the Protestant) thus condemneth the Fathers: Quidem In stratagem. Satanae. l. c. p. 196. eò redierunt &c. Certaine men (meaning Protestants) are gone so far, as that they would haue all points to be tryed by the autho­rities of the Fathers &c. But this custome I hould to be most pernicious, and altogether to be auoided. D. Humfrey so smally pryaeth the Fathers, as [Page 97] that he rebuked D. Whitaker, for renewing D. Iewels challenge, in appealing to the an­cient Fathers aboue related, in this manner: D. Whitaker Lib. de vita Iewel li. printed at London. pag. 212. gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a manner spoy­led himselfe and the Church. Melancthon: In 1. Cor. cap. 3. Pre­sently In 1. Cor. cap. 3. from the beginning of the Church the an­cient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning Iu­stification by Fayth, encreased Ceremonyes, and de­uised peculiar worships. Beza thus ballanceth the Fathers, with the Protestants of this age, saving: Yf we In E­pist. Theo­log Ep. 1. compare our tymes, next to the tymes of the Apostles, my iudgment is, that those ty­mes had plus conscientiae, scientiae minus; and we scientia plus, conscientiae minus. The Archbishop of Canterbury thus vanteth against those ancient tymes: The In his Defence of the answere, to the Ad­monition. pag. 472. 473. Doctrine taught & pro­fessed by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder, then it was in any age after the Apostles.

I will close vp the Aristarchian and cen­suring iudgments of the Protestants against the ancient Fathers (merely contrary to the former alledged Protestants) with the scurri­lous and depressing words of Luther passed vpon them; who thus in one place writeth: The Tom. 2. Wit­tenb. anno 1551. lib. de seruo arbi­trio. Fathers of so many ages, haue beene plainly blynd, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; they haue erred all their lyfe tyme; and vnlesse they were a­mended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor appertayning to the Church. And fur­ther: The In Col­loq. men­sal. & lib. de seruo arbitrio. Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctours of the Church, and excee­des euen Austin himselfe. And of his owne iudg­ment, with reference to their iudgments he [Page 98] thus Thrasonically boasteth: I Con­tra Hen­ricum re­gem An­gliae. eare not, if a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians, a thou­sand Churches stood against me.

But to come to particular Fathers, marke how Luther showers downe words of re­proach against them; In the In Colloq mensa lib cap de Patribus Ecclesia. writings of Ie­rome, there is not a word of true Fayth in Christ & sound Religion: Tertullian is very superstitious; I haue houlden Origen long since accursed: Of Chryso­stome I make no account: Basill is of no worth, he is wholy a Monke, I waygh him not of a hayre. Thus Luther, and with this I end this Paragraph; ad­uertising the Reader, that besides the dissen­tions which these last alledged Protestants haue with the former Protestants, acknow­ledging the Fathers authorities and worth; these sharpe censures deliuered, in so full a manner against the Fathers, make greatly in proofe of our ancient, Catholike, and Ro­may Fayth; Seeing they irreplyably proue, that those most blessed and learned Fathers (so neere to the dayes of our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles) were Papists in Fayth and Religion, and not Protestants.

The XI. Paragraph.

CEasing to discourse further of particular Fathers, how they are admitted by some Protestants, and reiected by others, I will as­cend to speake of Generall Councells, which consist of the Assembly and confluence of many hundred of Fathers; touching which point we shall fynd great contrariety of opi­nions, [Page 99] among the Protestants. And first, for the reiecting of the authority of Generall Councels▪ we fynd D. Whitaker thus expresly to say:L. d [...] Concil. contra Bellarm. q. 6. Generall Councels may erre. But Peter Martyr is more full and plaine herein, shew­ing the reason, why Councells are not to be admitted; thus writing: As long L. de rotis. pag. 476. as we insist in Generall Councells, so long we shall continue in the Papists Errours. In like manner, D. Fulke thus depresseth the authority of Generall Councels; The In his answere to a Counter­feyt. Ca­tholike. p. [...]0 & 90. and p. 86. whole Church militant may erre altogether, as euery part thereof. Beza actual­ly chargeth the Primitiue Generall Councells, with errour saying:In his Preface vpon the New Te­stament. Dedicated to the Prince of Condy. anno 1587. Euen in the best tymes (meaning the Primitiue tymes) the ambition, ignorance, and lewdnes of Bishops was such, that the very blynd may easely perceaue, how that Satan was President in their Assemblies.

But now obserue, how other learned Protestants contradict their former bre­threns sentences herein: And first Doctour Bil­son discou [...]sing of the meanes to decyde Controuersies in Fayth, thus writeth: To haue In his perpetuall Gouer­ment &c. pag. 37 [...]. no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasticall contentions, were the vtter subuersion of all peace; & thereupon the said Doctour concludes thus: Synods Vbi suprà p. 370. are an externall Iudiciall meanes, to discerne errours, and the surest meanes to decide doubts. And he further thus writeth: Yf Vbi suprà pag. 374. Sy­nods were not, the Church neither at any tyme was, nor indeed safely can be without tempests. D. Sut­cliffe, as not allowing triall of Controuersies only by Scripture, thus writeth:In his reuiew of his Examination of D. Kellisons Suruey. printed. 1 [...]06. p. 41. It is false, [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] that we will admit no iudge but Scripture; for m [...] appeale still to a lawfull Generall Councell. M. Hooker In his Preface to his booke of Eccle­siast. Poli­cy. relateth, now Beza as being tyred with disputs only from Scripture, submit­teth himselfe finally to a lawfull Assembly, or Councell.

And the said M. Hooker in the place aboue alledged, thus further writeth: We are sure of this that Nature, Scripture and Experience haue taught the world, for the ending of Controuersies, to submit it selfe vnto some iudie [...] all and definitiue sen­tence; meaning to the iudgment or a Gene­rall Councell. D. Field conspireth with M. Hooker herein, thus writing:In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist. Dedicat. Seeing the controuersies in Religion in our tyme are growne so many in number, and in nature so intricate, that few haue tyme, leasure, and strength to examine them; what remayneth for man, desirous of satisfa­ction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which, among all the Societies of the men in the World, is that blessed Company of Holy ones, that househould of Fayth, that spouse of Christ, that Church of the liuing God &c. He meaning the iudgment of the Church deliuered in a Ge­nerall Councell. To conclude, an Externall iudgment or Definitiue Sentence (besides the Scripture) which is chiefly the sentence of a Generall Councell, is further taught by D. Baneroft In his Sermon, preached 1. Februa­ry. 1588, pag. 4 [...]. D. Couell In his modest Examina­tion. pag. 108. and 109., and finally (to o­mit others) euen by the Puritanes; of whose iudgment herein s [...]e D. Baneroft [...] Pag. 1 [...]4, Suruey.

The XII. Paragraph.

TO come to Traditions. That they are re­iected by most Protestants, it will be needlesse much to labour therein; Seeing they are so luxuriant (especially the Puri­tans and the most forward Protestants) and abundant in the condemnation of all Tra­ditions, yet obserue,L. [...]. pistol. Swinglij & Oeco­lamp. pag. 301. how diuers points of Christian Fayth, not taught in the Scriptu­res, are acknowledged by other learned Pro­testants, to be Apostolicall Traditions. And to begin:Tom. [...] l. de Bap­tism. fol. 9 [...]. Swinglius, and (h) Oecolampadius confesse, that Baptisme of Infants is not taught in the Scripture; to whose iudgment D. Field subscribeth in these words:Of the Church pag. [...]1 [...]. Baptisme of In­fants is a Tradition, because it is not expresly deliue­red in Scripture, that the Apostles did Bapt [...]ze In­fants; nor any expresse precept there found, that they should so do. M Hooker Ec­cles. pol. l. 2 sect. 7. p. 1 [...]8. is so full in acknow­ledging the Doctrine of Traditions, as that he maketh speciall answere to the Fathers obie­cted against Traditions, by diuers Protestants. D. In his Defence. pag. 539. Whitguift proueth most fully the Tra­dition of Easter day, from the Apostles. D Co­uell affirmeth (to vse his owne words) that the In his Answere to Iohn Burges. pag. 130. moderate vse of the Crosse is an Apostolicall Constitution. The said D. Couell doth also refer the word of Archbishop, vntoIn his Ex [...]minat. against th [...] Plea of the Innocent. c 9. pag. 104. Apostolicall ordination.

The alteration of the Sabaoth from Satur­day to Sunday, is acknowledged by the De­ [...]tines of Geneua (to set downe their owne [Page 102] words) for In their Pro­positions, and Principles, pag. 80. sect. 13. an Apostolicall Tradition, to be perpetually obserued. Of the same iudgment touching the change of the Sabaoth day (to omit others) is Vrsinus (the great Protestant) saying: Hanc In Doctrinae Christian, Compend in Prolegom. pag 36. esse Apostolicam Traditionem credimus. For greater breuity I will con­clude with M. Hooker, and D. Whitaker, tou­ching Canonicall Scripture; of which point M. Hooker thus discourseth: Of Eccles. pol. l. 1. sect. 14. pag. 86. things neces­sary, the very chiefe is to know, what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which point is confessed im­possible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. So he, re­ferring it to Tradition. D. Whitaker speaking of the same subiect thus writeth: Canonicall Scripture, is not Ad­uers. Sta­pleton. l 2. cap. 6. pag. 170. & l. 2. c. 4. pag. 1 [...]0. tryed by testimony of spirit, but by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition &c. Thus far tou­ching different iudgments of Protestants, concerning the Doctrine of Traditions.

The XIII. Paragraph.

TOuching the Sacraments, no lesse are their Disagreemēts. And first, touching the number of them, whereas most Protestants acknowledge but two Sacraments, to wit Baptisme and the Eucharist, yet the Protestant Deuines assembled at Ratisbone anno 1541. do teach in that their Conference, that there are seauen Sacraments; of which point Bu­cer complayneth, saying:B [...]cer [...] Art. Colloq. R [...]isb [...]n. Protestantes non grauatim admiserunt septem sacramenta: The Pro­testants (meaning at their meeting at Ratis­bone) haue not vnwillingly admitted, or approued seauen Sacraments. In like sort, the number of [Page 103] seauen Sacraments is taught by the Prote­stant Deuines in their Conference at Lypsia, where they were assembled. This is auerred byIllyric in adh [...]r­tatione ad Constan­tiam, in aguita Christi r [...] ligion. printed in 8. Magde­burgae. 1550 paul [...] post ini­tium; & paulo post medium. Illiricus.

2. That the knowne Intention of the Church is necessary to the administration of the Sacraments, is denyed by certaine En­glishIn their Christ. Let. to M. Hooker. pag. 29. & 30. Protestants, condemning M. Hooker for mantayning the contrary Opinion, as appeareth out of M. Hookers owneEccles. pol. l. 3 [...]. [...]. sect. [...]3 [...]. p [...]. 120. wri­tings. As also the same Doctrine is mantay­ned by D. Couell In his Defence of M. Hoo­ker p. 10 [...]., and almost by all mode­rate English Protestants. And yet it is so con­demned by Luther, as that D. Couell D. Co­uel. in his Defence of M Hooker. Art. 5. p. 101. The same is auerred of Lu­ther, by Hospinian. in his Histor. Sacrament. part. altera. fol. 14.) char­geth Luther with teaching: That the Sacra­ments are effectuall, though administred by Satan himselfe.

3. That certaine Sacraments do imprint an indeleble character in the Receauers of them, is denied by M. Willet In Synop. p. 419., and by most Puri­tan Protestants, yet affirmed by D. Couell In his Defence of M. Hooker. pag. 87 & [...]1., and by M. Hooker, who is reprehended there­in by M. Willet In his Meditation vpon 122 Psalm. printed 16 [...]3. p. [...]1.. In like sort it is affirmed by most moderate Protestants.

4. That Sacraments do not only signi­fy, but also confer grace, is affirmed by Melan­cthon, who thus writeth thereof:In c. 4. Epist. ad Roman, after the first Edition. Repudian­da est Swinglij opinio, qua tantùm ciuili mode in­dicat de signis &c. That Opinion of Swinglius is to be reiected, which teacheth, that Sacraments are on­ly [Page 104] Netes, and signes of our Profession. The same is also mantayned affirmatiuely by Osian­der In Eucheirid, coher [...] fiar, quas Augusta­nae Confes­sionis Theologi habene cum Caluinia­nis. p. 27 [...]., D. Whitaker Contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. [...]61. & 664, M Hooker Eccles. polic. l. 5. sect 57. p. 226. & 527., D. Bil­son In his true Diffe­rence, part. 4. pag. 539. & 5 [...]. & 368., and many others; yet it is denyed & reiected for Popish, by D. Fulke A­gainst Purgato­ry, pag. 35., M. Willet In his Synops. p. 415. (whoIn his meditation vpon the 122. Psalm. pag. 92. reprehendeth some P [...]o [...]stants for their mantayning the cōtrary Doctrine) by the Suruey Pag. 103. & 104. of the booke of Common Prayer, and by most English Puritans.

The XIV. Paragraph.

1. TO speake particularly of the Sacra­ment of Baptisme. Luther houldeth Baptisme to be of no force, thus writing: Si habes Luther. l. de Captiuit. Babilon. benè &c. If thou be Baptized, it is well, if thou wantest it, no losse: Belieue and tho [...]ri sa­ued before thou be baptized And Caluin Lib 4. Iustin cap. 15. [...]. 7. pri­zeth Baptisme at no higher worth, then the Cere­mony thereof performed by S. Iohn Baptist. And of the same iudgment are theCent. 2. c. 4. Centurists, thus writing: before we will ascribe any Operation to the Sacrament of Baptisme, we will mantayne, that Infants haue Fayth by which they are saued. And according here to Luther thus concludeth: It is Luth. aduers. Coe [...]um. better to omit the baptising of an Infant, since his oblation if he do not belieue, is vnprofitable. The same opinion of the inefficacy of Baptisme, (to omit Caluin, Beza &c. teaching the same) is mantayned by most Puritanes. And con­spiringly hereto D, Whitaker (as is aboue al­ledged) [Page 105] thus teacheth: We Cont [...] 4.9. [...]2. pag. 716. may abstayne from Baptisme, if there be no contempt or scandall following. Now that there are other Prote­stants, who ascribe an Efficacy to Baptisme, is euident: for we fynd, that to the Children of the Faythfull, dying vnbaptized, saluation is not promised, to be taught by the Confession of Ausburg In the Harmony. pag. 403., by D. Bilson In his true Dif­ference. part. 4. pag. 36 [...]., by Vrbanus [...]n 1. part. ope­rum Cate­ch. minor. fol. 105. Regius (the learned Protestant) byIn loc. Com­mon 238. 239. &c. Sarce­rius (the Protestant,) by thePag. 16 Conference before King Iames; and finally, by the most of the more temperate Protestants.

2. Againe, whereas all Protestants (for the most part) do vse in Baptizing of Chil­dren, these precise and particular words: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the sonne, & the Holy Ghost; there are diuers other Prote­stants, who teach, that no particular forme of words is necessary thereto: For first Luther mantayneth, that Baptisme is auayleably mi­nistred, in what words soeuer, so that (as sayth he) the Tom. 2. Witten­berg. in [...] de Capti­uit Babi­lon. c. [...] Baptism. fol. 75. same be not in the name of Man, but of God. The same thing of not vsing any pecu­liar and set forme of words, is taught byIn Ca­techis. cap. de Baptis­mo. Brentius, & by Swinglius who thus writeth.Swing. tom. 2 l. de Baptism. fol. [...]. Christus Baptismi formulam, quâ vteremur, his verbis non iustituit &c. Christ did not ordayne that forme of Baptisme in words, which we [...] vse, as the Deuines hither to haue falsly deliuered. Final­ly the same is iustifyed by many other Pro­testants ouer long here to be set downe.

3. To conclude: Baptisme in tyme of Necessity, ministred by lay Persons, and Women, it iustified & warranted by Schlus­selburge In Theo [...]og. Caluinist. l. [...]. fol 68. & 61., [Page 106] by M. Hooker L. 5. sect. [...]1. pag. 137., by D. Couel In his Defence of M. Hoo­ker. p. 518., by Iacobus In Epitom. Colloq. Montis­belgar. pa. 64. Andraas, and by diuers o­thers; Yet it it impugned by D. Willet In his Synops. p. 4 [...]2., by CaluinSo is Caluin al­ledged by Schlussel­burg. in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 1. fol. 60. & 61., and infinite others. Thus far touching the great Dissentions of the Pro­testants concerning the Doctrine of the Sa­craments, both in generall, and in parti­cular.

The XV. Paragraph.

IN this next place I will examine the like disagreements of our Aduersaries tou­ching the Doctrine of Freewill, Predestination, and Reprobation. And to begin with Freewill: That most Protestants (as Caluin, Beza, & infinite others) deny Freewill in Man, is ouer euident; & therefore needlesse it were to insist in their Authorities & words there­in: Therefore I will alledge some other emi­nent Protestants (contrary to their former brethrens iudgments) teaching and main­tayning the Doctrine of Freewill.

And first, I alledge Castalio (the learned Caluinist) as iustifying Freewill in Man, most vehemently to charge Beza, for falsly transla­ting and corrupting the first Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell (a place aboue by me alledged) in deniall of Freewill, touching the Greeke word, [...], which signifieth Liberty, or Freedom, and yet translated by Beza, Dignity, thereby to weaken this place for the proofe of Freewill; of which his translating Castalio thus complayneth: The In De­fence Translat. pag. 183. word [...], here vsed, signifieth Power, but neuer Dignity: Now [Page 107] seeing Beza would not haue, that Christians should haue this power from Christ what other thing is this, then to enuy at the benefits of Christ, bestowed vpon Christians? Molinaus (the remarkable Prote­stant) is so great a defendour of Freewill, as that Peter Martyr thus rebuketh him: Molinaeus In his Epistles annexed, to his Com­mon pla­ces, Engli­shed In his Epistle to Caluin. adiudgeth certaine things amisse, touching Free­will.

M. Perkins (though at other tymes may seeme to impugne Freewill) yet in the close, he thus expresly writeth:In his reformed Catho­like. pag. 26. Because God giues men Commandement to repent and belieue; there­fore they haue power to repent and belieue; God with his Vbi su­pra pa. 5 [...]. commandement giuing grace, that the thing prescribed may be done. D. Willet, aduerse to the Doctrine of Freewill, doth charge Hemingius and Snecanus (Protestants of note) for their defending of the Doctrine of Freewill, in these words: They In his Synops. pag. 808. & 810. meaning the two for­mer Protestants) are more erroneous, concerning Freewill, then are the Papists. M. Hooker thus writeth of Freewill: Eccles. polic. l. 5. p. 101. Distributiuely at the least, all grieuous actuall offences may be auoyded; so that in this sense to be preserued from all sinne, it is not impossible; which words necessarily implye freedome of will. With M. Hooker accords D. Couell In de­fence of M. Hoo­ker &c. art. 5. herein. To be briefe the Doctrine of Freewill is in like sort taught byCeut. 16. p. 814. Osian­der the Protestant, and by some Protestants, recorded by M. Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1533. & 1605..

The XVI. Paragraph.

TO come to the Doctrine of Reprobation, and Predestination; Beza thus writeth of this point:In his treatise englished and inti­tuled: A display of Popish practises. p. 17. & 38. God doth create some men to perdi­tion, appointeth and decreeth them to his hatred and destruction. And thereupon he teacheth, that God In res­pons. ad act Colloq. Montisbel. p. 285. 2 [...]1. did not suffer death for such men. With whom agreeth Caluin, thus teaching, or ra­ther blaspheming: God Instit. l. 3. c 13. sect. 6. doth ordayne by his Counsell and decree that among men some be borne destined to certaine Damnation from their Mothers Wombe, who by their destruction may glorify God: with these former conspireth M. Willet thus saying: God In Sy­nops. pag. 554. hath ordayned some to be vessells of wrath, without any respect had to their Works, either Good or Bad. And hereupon Peter Martyr con­cludeth thus: Sinnes In his Common Places. part 3. pag. 12. foreseene are not the cause of Reprobation.

Now see how these are crossed and im­pugned by a whole army of other learned Protestants, both Lutherans & Caluinists, their brethren. For first to begin with the Luthe­rans: In res­pons. Beza ad Colloq. Montis­belg. part. altera. pag. 251. Iacobus Andreas, Conradus Schlussel­burg In Theolog. Cald. l. 1. art. 12., Kempnitius In Eucheirid. pag. 158., The In the harmony of Confessions in English. pag. 268. 269. Confession of Ausburg, The Century In loc. Comm. pag. 140. writers; and finally (to omit diuers other Lutherans) euen Me­lancthon himselfe, though for a time in the be­ginning, he maintayned the contrary Do­ctrine, do iointly reiect this former doctrine of Reprobation.

To come to Caluinists. M. Hooker thus writeth:Eccles. polic. pag. 104. Gods generall inclination is, that all men might be saued. D Couel: God hath In his Defence of M. Hoo­ker. p. 62. & 63. a gene­rall inclination to saue all men &c. And that with a conditionall Will, he willeth all men to be saued; Who therefore that they are not saued, is not his de­cree, but their owne fault. M. Fox is also full here­in, thus teaching:In A­pocalyps. pag. 473. Seeing the benefit of Re­demption, which taketh away the sinnes of the world, is an vniuersall thing: It is demanded, whether the Grace of this Redemption do appertaine equally to all the posterity of Adam, or be restrayned to a cer­taine number? I answere, that the incredulity of men, not the default of the Lambe, maketh this re­straint. D. Willet much complayneth, that this Doctrine is so generall among Protestants, thus writing:In Sy­nops. p. 784. Vniuersality of grace (which potentially includes, that God for his part reprobates no man to damnation) seemeth much to be approued by our owne Countrymen, and hath already gotten some Patrones in our Church. Bullinger thus confidently writeth of this point: TheVpon the Reuela­tions En­glished. c. 5. fol. 79. Lord dyed for all, but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption, is through their owne Fault, for the Lord excludeth no man. Amandus Polanus (the great Caluinist:) God In par­titionib. Theolog. p. 11. [...]. by his Conditionall will would haue all men saued.

I will conclude with Hemingius (a learned Caluinist) who thus fully discourses of this point: Pugnat cum verbo Dei v [...]cant [...] &c. This opinion (to wit, which teacheth that God doth Re­probat man from his mothers wombe) feighteth with the word of God, calling and inuiting all men to re­pentance; [Page 110] It In lib de vniuersali Gratia. pag. 111. maketh men partly sluggish partly secure, and partly desperate: for many are driuen to despayre whites by this Opinion is ouerthrowne the Doctrine of Vniuersall Grace, in which all men are commanded by Fayth to include themselues. Thus far Hemingius. And thus much touching the contrary opinions of the Protestants, con­cerning Reprobation.

Now, concerning the Doctrine of the Certainty of Mans Iustification, and of Predestina­tion; the Protestants are litle lesse concor­dant among themselues, then we see, they are in the Doctrines of Freewill and Repro­bation. And as touching those, who main­tayne, that Iustifying Fayth once had cannot be lost, and consequently, that a man once hauing this Iustifying Fayth, is certainely and infallibly predestinated, and assured of his saluation; We first will alledge D. Willet, who thus reprehendeth such Protestants, as teach the contrary: These In Sy­nops. p. 811. Patrones of v­niuersall Grace and conditionall Election, do conse­quently hould, that men may loose their Election and Fayth: Hemingius p. 30. the same is also main­tayned by Snecanus. Thus D. Willet.

But to proceede to others, D. Whitaker thus teacheth: Si quis L de Eccles. pag. 31. actum fidei hae­bet &c. He who maketh an act of fayth, his sinnes cannot hurt him. Beza thus conspiring­ly instructeth his followers: He An­draaes (the Prote­stant) re­porteth these words of Beza in Epist. Col­loq. Mon­tisbelg. pa. 48. & 44. who ones belieueth, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God, or loose his Fayth by Adultery, or any other like sinnes. From whence it followeth, that a man once hauing true Fayth, is infallibly as­sured [Page 111] of his saluation. Luther thus Catechi­seth his Schollers: A Christian, Lib. di Captiuit. Babylon. This say­ing of Luther is also men­tioned by the Prote­stant Au­thour, in his trea­tise against Defence of the Censure. p. 198. or baptized Person is so rich, as although he would, he cannot lose his Saluation by any sinnes how greatsoeuer, vn­lesse he will not belieue. In like sort, the said Lu­ther hath further thus left written in defence of the certainty of Predestination: AsLuth. in Loc. Comm. printed Magde­burg. 1594. Class. 5. c. 27 p. 68. nothing iustifyeth but Fayth; so nothing sinneth but vnbe­liefe. Yea some Protestants thus strangly write for certainty of Predestination: We See the Acts and Mo­numents. pag. 1563. pag. 488. cannot be damned, except Christ be damned with vs. M. Perkins earnestlyM. Perkins in his refor­med Catho­like. p. 3 [...]. & 55. maintayneth the said Doctrine; as also it is taught by Caluin, and finally by most Puritans, and the most for­ward Protestants in these dayes.

Now let vs see, how crosse & Antipodes-like do other Protestants (as maintayning the contrary,) tread to their former Bre­thren. I will begin with the Lutherans, and first with Kempnitius who thus writeth: True In Exam Concil. Trident. printed 1578. part 2. p. 1 [...]3. liuely iustifying Fayth may be lost, and the par­ty made guilty of eternall Damnation. The Confession of In the Harmony of Confessions in English. pag. 214 Ausburg condemneth the con­trary Doctrine, for Anabaptisme. The Prote­stant Deuines of Saxony do also thus teach: It is Ibid. p. 80. and see, p. 223. manifest, that some, who are regenerate &c. are againe reiected of God, and made subiect to eternall Punishment; And more: Iustification In the Harmony &c. pag. [...]95. and regeneration may be shaken of and we lose eter­nall life. This doctrine of the vncertainty of Saluation is in like manner taught by diuers other Lutherans (whose sayings were ouer [Page 112] long here to set downe) as byIn his Disputat. Theolog. p. 117. & 318. Lobechius, (Doctour and Professour in the Vniuersity of Rostock) by Conradus In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. art. 14. fol. 45. Schlusselburg, by Iacobus In Epi­tom. Col­loq. Mou­tisberg. Editio ter­tia. p. 73. 74. &c. Andreas, by In his Disput 17 pro [...]a [...] ­ctiss. Lib. Concord. Disput. 16. pag. 650. Gesnerus (Doctour and Professour at Wittemberg) and finally (to omit many other Lutherans, for greater expedition) by Philip Melancthon, who thus writeth:In Concil. Theolog. pag 3 [...]. Excidunt homines à gratia, aciustifi­cantem fidem amittunt: Men do fall from grace, and lose their iustifying Fayth.

To come to the Caluinists teaching the same Doctrine. And first M. Perkins thus con­fesseth hereof: This In his foure Treatises, necessarily to be con­sidered of all Chri­stians, Treatise fourth. Sect. 14. testimony of being persua­ded, that we are Adopted and Chosen in Christ, is weake in most men, and scarsly can be perceaued. Musculus (the great and famous Protestant) thus teacheth: Yf In loc. Com. loc. de peccato, sect. 5. he, who hath beene made partaker of heauenly Grace, do fall from that Grace, and of a iust and faythfull man become vniust and vnfaythfull &c. this mans conscience (the purity of Fayth being lost) is made guilty vnto Damnation. M. Robert Rollocke (Rectour of the Vni­uersity of Edenburgh) and greatly praysed by Beza, thus teacheth: I tell thee In his booke of Lectures vpon the Epist. of Paul to the Coloss. l. 3. p. 64. that notwith­standing thou art redeemed, and by the bloud of Christ freed from sinne and death; yet if thou take delight in sinne, the greater shalbe thy Damnation. The same Doctrine is maintayned by seue­rall English learned Protestants, as by D. Oueral In the Conference before his Maiesty. p. 4 [...]., by D. Harsenet D. Harsenet did preach of this very subiect at Paules Crosse., and by all those who are at this present called among vs, by [Page 113] the name of Arminians.

Thus far touching the mutuall Disagree­ments of the Protestants in the Doctrines of Freewill, Reprobation, and Predestination: aduer­tizing the Reader, that such Protestants, who maintayne the Doctrine of Freewill, do con­sequently and potentially teach the vncer­tainty both of Reprobation and Predestination; The reason hereof being, in that the foun­dation of the contrary Doctrines, to wit of the certainty of Reprobation, and Predestinatio [...] is chiefly grounded, vpon the deniall of the Doctrine of Freewill.

The XVII. Paragraph.

IN this next place, I will descend to the Doctrine of good workes. And First I will set downe the opinions of diuers learned & moderate Protestants, some approuing euen the merit of works; others at least the necessi­ty of them to Iustification and Saluation. And to begin with this later point. The necessi­ty of good workes (at least to accompany Fayth, though not as cause of our Iustifica­tion) is taught by D. Fulke A­gainst the Rhemish Testament. in 2. Petr. 2., by D. Whi­taker A­gainst M. Reynolds., by D. Willet In his Tetra [...]ly­lon Pa­pisint, pag. [...]0.. And of this point speciall mention is made of the great Dissen­tions had betweene the Deui [...] This is related in Colloq. Alten­berg. fol. 168. and i [...] Artit Colloq. Al [...]burg. p. 101. & 48 [...]. of England, and the Lutherans in Germa [...]; the one side maintayning the necessity of good workes, the other denying the same. No [...] that other learned Protestants do not only teach the necessity and presence of good workes; but also [Page 114] that our good workes are meritorious in re­gard of Christs Passion, and promise to them, is affirmed by M. Hooker Ec­cles Fol. l. 5. sect. 72. pa. 208., by Me­lancthon Loc. Comm. de bonis Operibus circa medium., by Spandeburg In Margarit. Theol. pag. 48. & [...]0. ( [...]he Protestant) and by thePag. 495. & 273. Confessions in the Harmony.

2. To descend more particularly to good workes; And first we find that Vowed Chastity is defended by Augustin Marloret (the Prote­stant) saying: The In [...]. Timoth. c. 5. Widowes (he meaning those mentioned by S. Paul.) did giue their [...]ayth to Christ their spouse, willingly barring them­selues from Mariadge; by the Protestant Authour of the booke entituled: Antichristus Pag. 148. 149., siue Prognosticon finis mundi; by M. Alison In his Confutat. of Brow­nisme. p. 71. (the Protestant:) all which Protestants do main­tayne and affirme the votary resolution of the said widowes; Yea M. Alison expresly thus writeth: This place (meaning of S. Paul tou­ching the said widowes) is thus expounded by Bullinger, Claudius, and others. In like sort, Vowed Chastity is taught by M. Hooker as law­full, who further thus writeth of the vow of Pouerty: Anauias Eccles. pol. l. 2. p. 103. his solemne row to God did strictly bynd him, to the giuing of his Possession to the Churches vse. Yea Christian Vowes in ge­nerall are maintayned by Musculus In loc. Comm. de votis. p. 524., by M. Willet In Sy­nops. pag. 241., by Amandus In par­titionib. Theol. l. 2. p. 3 [...]4. Polanus, and (to omit other [...]) by M. Perkins, thus writing: Now In his reformed Catholike p. 157. in the new Testament we haue like man­ner to vow &c. Of this kind are the vowes to keep set fastings &c.

But now let vs cast our eye, another way, and see, how other Protestants do impugne [Page 115] and crosse these their brethren, and how fiery and violent they are, in depressing and betrampling of all good works in generall, as also of Vowes. And first, we fynd Luther thus to write: It Vpon the Galat. English. c. 2. is impiety to affirme, that Fayth, except it be adorned with Charity, iustifyeth not. Yea Luther further proceedeth, thus tea­ching: Fides, Tom. 1. Propos. 3. nisi sit sine &c. Fayth except it be without the least good works, doth not iustify; nay it is not Fayth. And according hereto Amsdor­phius (a Protestant) writeth a booke, enti­tuling it: Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad sa­lutem. Agreably hereto Schlusselburg (the Lu­theran) teacheth in this manner: Good In Ca­talog. Hae­ret. l 23. in Epist. De­dicat. pag. 22. workes are not necessary, necessitate praesentiae; so much as with a necessity of Presence.

In like manner Illyricus affirmeth, Good works In Praefat. ad Rom. are not so much, as Causa sine qua non, of Saluation. The said Illyricus further procee­deth, saying: The I [...]ly ri­cus vbi suprà. Controuersy with the Pa­pists is not (only) whether workes do iustify; but whether they be in any respect necessary to saluation; which later point to maintayne (sayth he) is a Papisticall Errour. And yet more in these words: The Doctrine of the New Papists, is as per­nicious as the Old; to say, that the Apostle meant to ex­clude good works from Iustification, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious and causes efficient. Yea some Protestants are so far from gran­ting merit of works, as that Caluin himselfe af­firmeth: To Instit. l. 2. c. 17. sect. [...]. maintayne that Christ did merit any thing to himselfe, non minus stulta est curiositas, quàm temeraria definitio; is no lesse a foolish curio­sity, then a rash sentence; And according hereto [Page 116] Tyndall (the Protestant Martyr) writeth thus: Christ Fox Act. Mon. pag. 486. with all his works did not deserue Hea­uen: which said Tyndall is so far gone against good workes, as thus M Fox hath registred him to say: As for Act. Mon. pag. 1136. pleasing God, there is no worke better then another; As touching to please God, to make water, to wash dishes, to be a sower, or an Apostle, all is one.

Now to come more particularly to the good works of perpetuall Chastity, volunta­ry Pouerty, and Fasting; The Protestants con­trary to their former Brethren thus teach: Luther thus maintayneth in expresse words, touching Chastity, or perpetuall Virginity: If we Luth. Tom. 1. Witten­berg. ad cap. 7.1. Cor. fol. 107. respect the nature of Matrimony, and single lyfe in themselues, matrimony is as gould, and the spirituall state of single life as dung. To whom D. Whitaker subscribes in these words:Con­tra Camp. rat. 8. Virgi­nity is not simply good, but after a certaine manner. Touching Fasting, M. Perkins sayth:In his reformed Catho­like. pag. 220. Fasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent, as is eating and drin­king. And M. Willet affirmeth that: Neither Synop. p. 241. is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating, Lastly, concerning voluntary Pouerty, the same M. Willet thus teacheth: He is an In his Syneps. p. 145. Ene­my to the glory of God, that changeth his rich estate (wherein he may serue God) for a poore; thus he, not making difference betweene a Stoicall dulnes, and a Christian contempt of transitory things, himselfe belike being so greedy to haue for a tyme the gouerment and rule of a litle peece of the entralls of the earth.

To conclude with deniall of the Do­ctrine of rowes (contrary to the iudgments of [Page 117] the former aboue alledged Protestants:) First then, Peter Martyr writeth a booke against single life, and vowes, stiling it: de Calibatu & vo [...]is. In like sort Swinglius sayth:Part. 1. in expla­nat. art. 30. fol. 6 [...]. Concer­ning vowes, I say, that all vowes are abolished by Christs comming. To whose iudgment herein subscribes Bullinger In his Decads in English. pag 380. saying: Vowes belong to the Iewish Ceremonies; of the same mind is D. Fulke In his Retentiue to Bri­stowes Motiues. pag. 153., and diuers others. Thus much concerning the great discrepancy and diuer­sity of the Protestants among themselues, touching the Doctrine of Good Workes, and of Vowes.

The XVIII. Paragraph.

IN this place I will display the Protestants like difference touching Sinne, and the Na­ture thereof: And first, concerning what Sinne is; Not only all Catholikes, but also many learned Protestants teach, that Sinne in its owne Nature, is a meere Non Ens, or only Priuation of what should be, and there­fore God neuer made Sinne, who made only Entia. And hereupon the said both Catholiks and Protestants conclude, that sinne (as being a Non Ens, or priuation) hath no Efficient, but only a Deficient cause. I will alledge Peter Martyr thus discoursing of this point: AnPeter Martyr in loc. Comm. places in English part. 1. cap. 17. sect. 12. pag. 1 [...]4. Euill thing (and such is sinne) hath no effi­cient, but a deficient cause; If any will search out this efficient cause, it is euen like, as if he would see the darknes with his eyes, or comprehend silence with his eares, which being Priuations, it is no need that [Page 118] they should haue efficient causes. Thus Peter Mar­tyr, with whom conspire herein Szegedinus Szege­dinus Loc. Com. pag. 230. and Keckermannus In his Systema sacrae Theolo­giae. l. 2 p. 248. 249. &c. (both remarkable Protestants) besides diuers others.

Now other Protestants, meerely cros­sing these former, do seuerally teach hereof: for D. Whitaker Whit. contra Campian. rat. 8. teacheth Sinne to be an Accident, or Quality; But Illyricus Illyri­cus varijs libris de peccato Originali., (the chiefe of the Magdeburgenses) affirmes sinne to be a Substance; See also Heshusius hereof in Epist. ad Illyricum, An peccatum sit substantia. See also Piscator hereof in volum. 1. Thesaur. Theologic. l. 7. p. 169. sect. 104. And accor­ding hereto the foresaid Illyricus in the place next aboue alledged, defineth Originall sinne, to be (after the fall of Adam) the internall sub­stance, which the Deuill doth worke or cause, and which he transformeth into himselfe.

2. Concerning the distinction of Sinne, into Veniall, and Mortall sinne: All the Prote­stants do admit this distinction in words; but in the explication of this Distinction, they maynely differ. For most of the more forward Protestants teach, that this Diffe­rence of sinne lyeth not in the diuersity of the sinnes themselues, but in the diuersity of the partyes committing them. According hereto, Musculus (the pryme Protestant) thus writeth:Muscu­lus in loc. Com. de peccato. sect. 5. de discrimine peccati ve­nia is & mortalis. pag. 28. Sciendum est, magis in hac causa, personas peccantium: quam ipsa peccata esse conside­randas. We are to know, that in this point, rather the persons of such as sinne then the sinnes themsel­ues, are to be considered. And hence it riseth, that many Protestants teach, to wit; (to omit [Page 119] others) Caluin, and Doctour Fulke, that All sinnes (how great soeuer) to the Faythfull Pro­fessours, are So teach Cal­uin Instit. l 2. c. 4. sect. 28. & D. Fulke against the Rhemi [...]h Testam. in Epist. Ioan fol. 447. Veniall; and to others M. Willet M. Willet in his Synops. p. 560., and Musculus Mus­culus in loc. cem. pag. 28. affirme all sinnes (how small soeuer) are mortall. And vpon this ground are builded Luthers words: No Luth. in his Ser­mons En­glished, & printed anno 1578. pag. 167. worke it disalowed of God, except the Authour there­of be disalowed before.

But now contrary to this explication of the former distinction, most of the more so­ber Protestants teach, that this distinction of Sinne is in one and the same Person; and there­fore they place this diuersity of Sinne, to con­sist in the disparity of the sinnes themselues, and not in the diuersity of the Persons com­mitting the said sinnes. This is taught by Ia­cobus Andraeas, so alledged and reprehended by Beza In respons. ad [...] Colloq. Montisbes­gar. p. 64.. The same doctrine is further iustifyed byIn Ce [...] ­cil. Theol. pag. 546. Melancthon, by Adamus In his Margarit. Theol. pag. 469. Fran­cisci, by Hemingius In Encheirid. pag. 103. printed Londini, anno 1577.; and to pretermit many others, by thePag. 80 & 70. Harmony of Confessions. That all sinnes are equall, is maintayned by Caluin Cal­uin in Antidot. Concil. Trident., by Wicliff Wiclef, apud Waldens. l. de Sacrament. c. 1 [...]4., and some ohers; yet con­tradicted herein by Doctour Whitaker D. Whitaker contra Campian. in rat. [...]., and almost all the more temperate Protestants.

I will next descend to that Doctrine main­tayned by some Protestants, (though wholy reiected by others) who teach, that no sinne is hurtfull to that man, who belieueth: And first we fynd Luther thus to write: A Christian Luth in tom. 2. Wittenberg. de Captiuit, Babilon, fol. 74. or [Page 120] Baptized person, is so rich, that although he would, he cannot los [...] his saluation by any sinne, how great soeuer, vnlesse he will not belieue. And further, Lu­ther thus reacheth: As Luth. in loc. Co [...]naelass. 25. c. 27. nothing iustifyeth but Fayth, so nothing sinneth, but vnbeliefe. Others ac­cording here to teach, that sinnes are not hurt­full to him that belieueth; for thus D. Whi­taker writes, as is aboue noted: Nos dicimus si quis actum fidei habeat &c. We D. Whitak. de Eccles. contra Bellarm. Controu. 2. q. 3. pag. [...]01. maimayne, that if a man doth exercise an act of fayth, to that man sinne is not hurtfull. D. Fulke teacheth thus: When Dauid D. Fulke, in the Tower disputat. with Edm. Camp. the second dayes conferēce committed adultery, he was and remayned the child of God. Yea they further teach, thus saying: He that See this in Epitom. Colloq. Montis­bilgar. pa. 44. & 48. once truly belie­ues, cannot after fall from the grace of God, or lose his Fayth by his Adultery, or any other like sinnes. Others againe say, thus: Sinne is So sayth M. Wotton in his ans­were to the late Popish Articles. pag. 9 [...]. pardoned, as soone, as it is committed.

Finally (to omit many other such like sentences and authorities of them) they thus conclude: When See this in Act. Mon. pag. 1338. we sinne, we diminish not the glory of God; all the danger in our sinne being, the euill Example to our neighbour. How doth this Doctrine open the sluse to all Impurity, Wickednes, and Libertinisme? the maintay­ners of which Doctrine are in the number of those, who (as S. Iude sayth) transfer Iude Epist. vers. 14. the grace of God into wantonnesse. Now this Do­ctrine of extenuating and lessing sinne is so mainly contradicted and gainsaid, by all morall and Ciuill Protestants, as that it were needles to set downe the names of them: In like sort it is implicitly impugned [Page 121] by all those particular Protestants aboue al­ledged, who requyre goodworkes, at least to accompany Fayth; For it sinne cannot be pre­iudiciall to Fayth, to what end then should the former Protestants teach, that good workes of necessity must accompany Fayth?

In this last place concerning Sinne, I will set downe the disagreements of Protestants, of which some do teach that God is the Au­thour of sinne: Other Protestants condemning this Doctrine, as most blasphemous, and in­iurious to God. And to begin with such, as really teach God to be the Authour of sinne, I pro­duce Luther thus saying: How Luth. in [...]ssert. damnat. per Leo­nem, art. 36. can man pre­pare himselfe to good, seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes euill; Nam mala opera in impijs Deus operatur; for God worketh the wicked work [...] in the wicked? Beza thus writeth: God In his Display of Popish practises. p. 202. exci­teth the wicked will of one Thiefe to kill another, guideth his hand and weapon, iustly inforcing the Will of the thiefe. M. Willet thusIn Sy­nops. pag. 563.; God not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation, euen with an actiue power, and not permissiuely only. D. Barrow thusIn his Treatise of Gods Pro­uidence, in English c. 4.: God doth truly and by his determinate purpose, harden, make blynd, leade into temptation, and enclyne the hart to euill. Swinglius thus: God Swi [...] ­gl. tom. 1. de Proui­dentia Dei. fol. 366. moueth the Thiefe to kill, and the Thiefe killeth God procuring him. And againe: The Swin­glius vbi saprà. Where he sayth, A [...] inquus, coactus est a [...] peccan­dum, pe [...]e mitto. thiefe is inforced to sinne. And more: Deo impulsore Swinglius. vbi suprà. occidit; The thiefe killeth, God mouing and inforcing him thereto. Melancthon thus: The AdulteryMelancth. in Rom. 8. of Dauid was the proper worke of God, as was the Conuersion of Paul. Finally that Caluin teacheth [Page 122] the said Doctrine, appeareth not only from Castali [...] charging him therewith, in these words, by this meanes not the Deuill but the God of Caluin is Authour of Lyes: but also from the places of Caluins Instit. l. 2 c. 4. sect. 3. 4. & 5. et. l. 1. c. 18. sect. 1. owne bookes, here no­ted in the Margent.

Now this Doctrine is mainly contradi­cted (and this most deseruedly) by other Pro­testants. And first D. Whitaker, as maintay­ning the contrary Doctrine, and in defence, that not any Protestant teacheth this fore­said doctrine, thus prouoketh his Aduersary in most confident wordsWhi­taker con­tra Camp. rat. 8. pag. [...]15.: Yf Caluin, Pe­ter Martyr, Melancthon, or Luther, or any of ours affirme God to be the Authour of sinne, I will not de­ny, but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy, and wickednes: So much doth this D [...]ctour dislike the foresaid Doctrine; and so gladly would he vindicate and free his Protestant Brethren (if he could) from maintayning the said wicked Position. In like sort, Hemin­gius He­mingius, l. de Vniuer­sal. Grat pag. 109., as maintayning this contrary Do­ctrine, chargeth and reprehendeth the Calui­nists for their teaching, that God is the Authour of sinne.

The Caluinists are also condemned for this their impious Doctrine, by Sitzlinus In his Disputat. Theolog. de proui­dentia Dei. sect. 141. (the Protestant) by Iacobus Andraeas (the remarka­ble Protestant) who in expresse words thus writeth: Deus An­draeas, in Epitom. Colloq. Montis­blegar. pa. 47. 49. 53. est authour peccati, secundum Bezam. This point is so euident, as that the Magistrates ofVide literas Se­natus Ber­nensis ad ministros &c. 1555. Berna, decreed it to be pu­nishable by their Lawes, for any to preach Caluins Doctrine hereof, within their owne [Page 123] Territories & Iurisdiction; or for the people to read any of Caluins Bookes of that sub­iect. The foresaid Doctrine of God being the Authour of sinne, is further contradicted & condemned byLib. ad Caluinum de Praede­stinat. Castalio, by Amandus Pola­nus, in partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. Polanus, by M. Gib­bens in his Que­stions v­pon Ge­nesis, pag. 108. Gibbens, by the Booke en­tituled Corpus doctrina &c. printed 1561. in folio, pag. 618. It is further condemned, not only almost by all the Lutherans, but euen by all moderate and temperate Protestants: So disagreeing are the Protestants touching this Tenet.

The XIX. Paragraph.

TOuching the Doctrine, which denyes we ought to haue any absolute Princes or Magistrates, now in the tyme of the Gospell; Luther thus teacheth: Among Luth. de secular. potestat. in tom. 9. German. Christi [...] [...]en, none is Superiour, saue one, and only Christ. And yet more fully: Among Luth. vbi supra. Christians no man can, or ought to be a Magistrate; but ech one is to o­ther equally subiect. And furtherLuth. Sermons Englished and prin­ted 1579. pag 97.: As Christ cannot suffer himselfe to be tyed or bound by Lawes &c. So ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them. Other Protestants, though they do not write so absolutely against Princes and all Magistracy; yet they wounderfully seeke to depresse and lessen their Authority, for thus Swinglius indoctrinateth his fol­lowers: Quando Swing. tom. 1. in explanat. Art. 41. perfidè, & extra regulam Christi egerint Principes &c. When Princes do e­uill, and contrary to the Law of Christ, they may be deposed. Againe, Swinglius thus further teach­eth: [Page 124] Romanum S [...]ing in l. Epist. Oecolamp. & Suing. l. 4. Epist. [...]nhardo [...]omio. Imperium, imò quodui [...] aliud imperium &c. Yf the Roman Emperour, or any other Prince or Soueraigne shall begin to oppresse the sin­cere Religion; & nas illud negligenter patimur &c, And we negligently suffer the same, we shall stand charged with the contempt thereof, as much as euen the oppressours themselues.

Now this sentence is so much displeasing to moderate and loyall Protestants, as that Doctour Bilson in place of further answere to them, thus sayth: As I In his true diffe­rence. part. 3. pag. 273. muse at Swinglius his wordes so I like not his iudgment. Caluin in Daniel. c. [...] Caluin con­spireth with Swinglius thus affirming: Earthly Princes de depriue themselues of authority, when they erect themselues against God; Yea they are vn­worthy to be accounted among the number of men; and we are rather to spit vpon their faces, then to obey them. With these words of Caluin, Do­ctour Wilkes doth vpbrayde the Puritans, saying: They were Wilks in his obe­dience of Ecclesiast. Vnion. pa. 60. your teachers, who account those Princes (who are not refined by your spirit) vnworthy to be accounted among the number of men, and therefore rather to be spitted vpon then obeyed.

Beza, according to his former brethren, much betrampleth vpon Christian Princes; for he did write a booke, bearing this title: De iure Magistratuum in subdites; A booke much disliked and condemned by D. Bancroft In his Suruey of the Pre­tended Discipline. p. 48. and D. Succliffe; of which booke D. Succliffe thus censureth: Beza In his Answere to a cer­tain libel supplica­tory. pag. 75. in his booke of the Power of Magistrates doth arme the subiects against their Princes in these cases &c. And the same Doctour thus further inlargeth himselfe in his dislike of that booke, sayingD. Sutcliffe vbi supra. pag. 98.: A book [...], [Page 125] which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Chri­stian Magistrates.

The writings of Caluin and Beza touching the Magistracy and authority of Princes, is so violent and indeed traiterous, as that the foresaid D. Bancroft thus passeth his iudgment of them: He that In his Suruey of the pre­tended Discipline. pag. 41. shall reade M. Caluins and M. Bezaes two bookes of Epistles &c. Would cer­tainly meruayle to vnderstand, into what actions & dealings they put themselues, of War, of Peace, of subiection, of reformation, without staying for the Magistrate Knox of Scotland, thus answerably teacheth: Yf Princes Kno [...] to En­gland and Scotland. fol. 76. be Tyrants against God and his Truth their subiects are freed from the Oath of Obedience, Bucanan (his familiar friend) thus vnanimously writeth: The L. de iure Regni. pag. 13. People haue right to bestow the Crowne at their pleasure. And yet more; If Su [...] ­ [...]am vbi suprà. pag. 40. were good, that rewards were appoin­ted by the People for such, as should kill Tyrants, as commonly there are for those, which haue killed Wolues. These two Scottish writers were so strong and headlong in this their Doctrine; as that the Bishop of Rochester in his Sermon at Paules Crosse, calleth these two men: The two Prea­ched the tenth of Nouem­ber, and printe [...] 16 [...]. fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scot­land. Thus much for a tast of the Doctrine of some turbulent Protestants, against the soue­raingty of Princes; and contradicted by the former more moderate Protestants, as also by all other graue and loyall Protestant wri­ters.

The XX. Paragraph.

TOuching Poligamy, or hauing many wi­ues at one tyme, Luther thus writeth hereof: Poligamy Luth. in Propos. de Biga­miae Epis­cop. Edit. anno 1528. Propos 62. 65 66. is no more abrogated, then is the rest of Moyses Law; and it is free, as being nei­ther cammanded, nor forbidden. Whose doctrine herein, Bucer did so much imbrace, as that he thus writeth: Whosoeuer Bucer in his scripta Anglica­na de reg­no Christi. cap. 28. pa. 101. will not induce his mynd to loue his wyfe, and to treate her with coniu­gall Charity, that man is commanded by God, to put her away, and marry another. And this Bucer vbi suprà. pag. 100. being commanded in the old Law, pertayneth also to Chri­stians.

The Doctrine of Poligamy was defended by Bernardine Ochine, of which subiect he did write certaine Dialogues. AndMuscu­lus in Ep. Pauli ad Philip. Co­los. &c. in [...]. Tim. 5. pag. [...]96. Musculus thinketh Polygamy was tolerated in the Apo­stles tyme. And from hence it riseth, that Bucer alloweth liberty of diuorce, and to take another wife, in case of the ones departure Bucor in hic scripta Anglic. de regno Dei. l. 2. c. 26. pag. 104. frō the other; Of Bucer vbi supra, l. 2. cap. 37. &c. 40. Homicide, or theft; Of but repayring to the Company Vbi supra, c. 37. p. 115. or banquets of im­modest Persōs; Or in case of incurable infirmity of the woman by Child-birth; or of the Mans Luna­cy, or otherwayes, whereby either is made vnable to render Nuptiall right; And then Bucer concludeth the lawfullnesVbi su­pra, p. 124. of Di­uorce, and mariage againe, and sayth: It is, verbo Dei Vbi supra. p. 124. and see pag. 120. consentienter, agreeable to the Word of God. Furthermore,Vbi supra. c. 42. p. 123. & 124. It was decreed in Ge­neua, [Page 127] that if the Husband wereVide Canones Gener. l [...] Geneuen­ses, anno 1560. absent, the wife might cause a prefixed tyme of his re­turne to be proclaymed; and if he returned not within that tyme, the Minister might giue the wife licence, to take another Hus­band. Which kind of Diuorce, and second Marying againe, is also defended by Beza L. de repudi [...] 5. pag. [...]85., by Amandus In par­titionib. Theolog. pag. 730. Polanus, by M. Willet In his Synops. of Anno 1600.; Yea this kind of diuorce is so defended by Bucer, as that he teacheth the wife may so proceed, in case only of one yeares voluntary absence of the Husband.

Now this former Doctrine of Poligamy, and of Diuorce through the causes alledged, is as we see, impugned by almost all other modest writers, as that it needeth not to set downe their particular Names; since the contrary Practise is obserued euen in all Pro­testant Countries among men of any inte­grity and honesty in manners and Conuer­sation. Yea that euen in case of Diuorce v­pon Adultery, the innocent Party could not mary againe, was preached at Paules Church by D. Doue, and was after defended in the V­niuersity of Oxford by D. Howson In ter­tia Thes [...] printed anno 16 [...], and it is the professed doctrine of most others. And thus much touching the Protestants Disa­greement, concerning the Doctrine of Poli­gamy, and Diuorce.

The XXI. Paragraph.

NOw after I haue discouered the great and irreconcileable dissentions of the [Page 128] points aboue set downe, I will descend to certaine Catholike Articles (different from some Catholike points aboue touched,) in which diuers Protestants do compart with vs Catholikes therein, and many more do dissent from their other Brethren teaching with vs. And because I will make choyse to set downe twenty Catholike Articles (besi­des those aboue intreated of, some one or two only excepted, of which it is discour­sed aboue) wherin the Protestants do main­ly differ from the Protestants; in regard ther­fore of the multiplicity of the Articles, and because I feare, I haue allready dulled the cares of the Reader with a fastidious tedious­nes, in discouering the particular sentences and words of the Protestants, either affir­ming or condemning the foresayd points aboue treated of; I will content my selfe in these Catholike points following, only to refer the Reader to such places of the Prote­stants Writings and bookes, wherein these ensuing Catholike Points are either defen­ded or impugned; forbearing (for greater breuity) to produce their particular Words and Authorities.

1. And I will begin with Christ his des­cending into Hell, presently after his Corporall Death: This is taught by D. Hill In his speciall of that [...]ila., and by Melancthon, M. Newell, and Aretius (all Prote­stants,) all which Authours are alledged by the said DoctourD. Hill vbi supra. fol. 33. & 44. Hill; yet is this Do­ctrine impugned for popish, by Beza In Act. 2., Bucer In Math. 26., and infinite others.

2. Limbus Patrum is in like sort taught, by Oecolampadius In l. Epist. Swinglij & Oeco­lampad. l. 1. p. 19., bySwin­glius in his Epist. Swinglij & Oeco­lampadij. l. 3. p. 560. & 561. Swinglius, by Peter In his Common places En­glished. part. 2 cap. 18 pag. 161. Martyr, by Lascitius In his booke enti­tuled de Russorum & Musco­uit. relig. pag. 122. & 123. the Protestant, and by Bullinger In his Decads. fol. 66.; But contradicted by most other Protestants.

3. Intercession of Saincts, defended by Oe­colampadius Oecolampad. ad Orat. 1. Chrysostomy de Iuuentio & Maximo Martyr., by M. LatimerAct. Hon. pag. 1322., and o­thers; yet impugned by D. Whitaker Contra Duraum. pag. 793., and most other Protestants.

4. Intercession of Angells, maintayned by Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 6. & 7., Melancthon In Apolog. Confess. August. fol. 179., M. Hooker L. 5. sect. 23. pag. 52. & 53, D. Couell In his answere to M. Iohn Burges, pag. 90., Peter Martyr, and by the Commu­nion Printed 1549. fol. 117. booke in King Edwards tyme: Impug­ned by most Protestants.

5. Inuocation of Saincts, allowed by Lu­ther, who sayth: De inuocatione In purga­tione quorundam Articulorum. Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio & iudico, San­ctos esse inuocandos; By Oecolampadius In Orat. 1. Chrysostom. de Iuuentio & Maximo., by certaine Protestants in Polonia (whereof seeIn Loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat 4. loc. 5. pag. 463. Hafferenferus) by Latimer Act. Mon. pag. 1312., by Thomas Bilney Act. Mon pag. 462.: contradicted by most other Prote­stants.

6. Payer for the Dead, taught by Luther and Vrbanus Regius, alledged by D. Couell in the place aboue cited. as Vrbanus In prima parte Operum, in Formula cautè loquenoi. cap. de Sanctorum cultu. Regius doth [Page 130] witnes; by thePrin­ted 1549. fol. 116. Communion Booke in king Edwards tyme; byAct. mon. pag. 149. William Thorpe, and by Martin Bucer In his Script. Anglican. p. 450.. Heereto may be annexed the Doctrine of Purgatory, taught by Luther Lu­ther. tom. 1. Witten­berg. in resolut. de Indulgen­tijs con­clus. 15. fol. 112., and taught in Disputatione Lipsica cum Ickio, and by Latiner Act. Mon. pag. 1313 & 1315..

7. That the ten Commandements are not Impossible, taught by M. Perkins In his reformed Catho­like. p. 26. & 51., by M. Hooker Ecclesiast. policy. l. 2. pag. 101.; who is reprehended therefore by certaine English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reuerend man M. R. Hooker; Taught also by M. In his meditation vpon the 122. psal. printed 160 [...]. Willet, by Ca­stalio de Perfecta Obedient. legis Dei. the eminent Protestant, who is therfore impugned by Doctour In his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference. pa. 697. Reynolds.

8. Patronage of certaine Angells ouer cer­taine Countryes and Kingdomes, maintayned by Caluin Cal­uin. Instit. l. 1. cap. 14. sect 7., by Peter In his Common places in En­glish. part. 1. pag. 1 [...]0. Martyr, by Hyperius In Method. Theolog. pag. 297. the Protestant & others; yet impugned by M. Willet In Synops. pa. 264., D. Fulke Against the Rhemish Testament. in Reuel. 1., and many others.

9. Images to be in Churches, maintayned by Luther, and Brentius (asBeza so sayth in respons. ad act. Colloq. Montis belgar. part. altera, in Praefat. pag. 12. Beza witnesseth) by Iacobus in Epitom. Colloq. Montis. belg. pag. 39. Andraeas, byIn his Examen part. 4. pag. 14 & p. 33. Kempnitius, byIn Cent. Exercitas. Theolog. pag. 270. Bachmannus &c. yet contradicted by D.Against the Rhemish Testament in 1. Epist. Ioan. cap. 1. fol. 456. Fulke, and almost all the Puritans.

10. Touching Reuerence and bowing downe at the name of Iesus (which is the same to the eare, which Images are to the eye:) This Reuerence is defended by Do­ctour Whitguift In his Defence, pag. 742., by Musculus In loc. Comm. pag. 59. the Great Protestant) by the learnedIn Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss. c. 2. fol. 123. Zan­chius, by LeonardIn his Summon for slee­pers. Wright (the Prote­stant;) Finally by Queene Elizabeths Art. 52. In­iunctions: Contradicted for Popish by all the most forward Protestants.

11. That the Good workes of one may help another, is maintayned byIn loc. com. de Eucha­ristico sa­crificio in his Edi­tion of anno 1561. pag. 425. Melancthon, and by the Harmony of Confessions p. 298. yet im­pugned by the greater nūber of Protestants.

12. That Christ (as man) was from his Natiui­ty, freed from Ignorance, is defended by Iaco­bus AndraeasIn E­pitom. Colloq. Montis­belg. p 33., by Osiander In Eu­chirid. contro­uers. printed Tubingae. 1603. p. 146, 147., and gene­rally affirmed by most of the Lutheran Pro­testants, ouer many to recite; And yet im­pugned by Beza In resp. ad Acta. Col­loq. Montisbelg. part. 1. pag. 147. & 148., D. Willet, D. Willet in his Sy­nops. p. 199. & p. 600 and M. Sut­cliffe M. Sutcliffe in his reuiew and Examina­tion of D. Kellisons Suruey, printed 1606. p. 55., who will not ascribe to the Huma­ne Nature of Christ, fulnes of knowledge, in respect of its Personal Vnion with the God-head, but thus sayth to the contrary: Yf Christ, as Man, by the Vnion, be Omniscient, why is he not Omnipresent, and in all places?

13. Euangelicall Counsels (to wit, that a Man may do and performe more, then he is commanded) taught byLuther, in As­sor [...]. ar. 36. Luther, by D. Co­uell In his Defēce of M. Hooker. Art. [...]. p. 49. 50. 51. 52, by M. (z) Hooker: Impugned by M. [Page 132] Willet Eccle­siast poli­cy, l. 3. sect 8. p. 140. (who particularlyIn his Medita­tion vpon the 122. Psal. p. 91. chargeth M. Hooker with his Defence of this and other Catholike Opinions; In like sort impugned by M. Perkins In his reformed Catholike. p. 241., and many others.

14. That it cannot be knowne to vs, which Scriptures be sacred, which not, otherwise then by the Churches Tradition; affirmed by Pe­ter Martyr In his com. pla­ces pa. 1. c. [...]. sect. 8., by Lubbertus De Princip. Chrstian Dogm. l. 1. c. 4. p. 18. (the Prote­stant) by D. Whitaker Ad­uersus Stapleto­num. l. 2. cap. 6. p. 370. & p. 357. & l. 2. c. 4. p. 300. & p. 298., by M. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sect. 14. p. 86. & l. 2. sect. 4. p. 102. & l. 3. sect. 8. p. 147., and some others: Yet impugned byInst. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 4. Cal­uin, Vrsinus Vrsinus in his doctrinae Christianae compend. in Proleg. p. 13. the Protestant, as also by cer­taine EnglishIn their Christian Letter to M. Hooker, p. 9. & 10. Protestants.

15. That Infants haue not actuall Fayth in the tyme of their Baptizing, is affirmed by D. Whitaker D. Whita. contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. 6 [...]1., by Beza In resp. ad Act. Montisbelg. part. 2. p. 124., by M. Cartwright In D. Whitguifts Defence, p. 611., by Iacob Kimzdocus In his Redemption of mankind, l. [...], 15. p. 654. (the Protestant) and by most other Protestāts: Yet impugned by Luther Luther in loc. com. Class. 2. p. 122., by Andraeas See An­draeas his words, in Beza his resp. ad Act. Colloq. Montisb. part. [...] p. 124., and generally by the Lutherans.

16. That the Sacraments of the Old Testa­ment were not equall in working and effect, with the Sacraments of the New Testament, affirmed for the most part by the Lutherans, whereof see Schlusselburg In Theol. Caluin. l. 1 fol. 95., Luther Loc. Com. Class. 1. p. 88., and Osian­der In Epit. Cent. 11. p. 411.; yet the contrary maintayned by the Caluinists, of which point seeIn his Synops. p. 418. M. Willet.

17. Auricular Confession of sinnes, taught byIn loc. Com. de Confes­sione, fol. 289. Sarcerius the Protestant, thus writing: Falsum est &c. It is false to affirme, that Confes­sion, which is made to God, should take away all Priuate Confession. The same is taught, by Lo­bechius In Disput. Theol. pa. 295. sect. 4., by Schlusselburg In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 147., by Melancthon Lib. Epist pag. 234., by the ConfessionsIn the Harmony of confes­sions, pag. 231. & p. 357. & 358. of Saxony and Bohemia, and diuers others; yet impugned for Popish, by most of the Puritans.

18. That Temporall punishment is reserued for sinne remitted, by Gods Iustice, is affirmed by Iohn Knox In his answere against the Ad­uersaries of Gods Predesti­nation. pag. 215. 216, 217., by Gasper Oleuianus In Symbolum. pag. 8. the Pro­testant) and by the Publike Confessions of the Protestants; yet contradicted for Popish, as implying the Doctrine of Purgatory, by M. Willet In Synops. pag. 514., by Caluin, Beza &c. and most o­ther earnest Protestants.

19. That the true Visible Church cannot wholy erre, affirmed by D. BancroftIn a Sermon, preached by D. Bancroft., by the Deuines of Geneua In their Propositions and Princi­ples disputed, pag. 141 sect. 12. & 13., by M. Fox Act. Mon. pag. 999., and others: Impugned by D. Fulke In his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike. pag. 8 [...]., who thus writeth: The whole Church Militant consisting of men, which all are lyars, may erre altogeather, as euery part thereof; And impugned in like sort by the Puritans, who in their briefe Discouery of vntruths Pag. 34., do reproue D. Bancroft for his teaching the contrary Doctrine, in a Sermon preached by the said Doctour, 1588. pag. 34.

20. That set tymes of Fasting, and fromIn the Harmony of Confess. pag. 229. [Page 134] certaine meates appointed, not only for po­lytick Order, but for spirituall considerations, is affirmed by the Protestant Authour of the booke, entituled: Quaerimonia Pag. 31. & 94. and 103. Ecclesiae, prin­ted Londini 1592. who reproueth Arius for his denying of all religious Fasting; who al­so answereth the Obiection of Montanus. It is also affirmed by M. Hooker Ec­cles. polic. l. 5. sect. 72. p. 204. & 205., in so much, as heM. Hooker vbi suprà, 209. answereth the vulgar obiection of Montanus, and the Common obiection from S. Paul 1. Timoth. 4. and thus concludeth: Arius was worthily condemned for his opposition a­gainst Fasting. Yet is this Doctrine gainsaid for Popish, by D. Whitaker Con­tra Du­raeum. l. 9. pag. 830., who obie­cteth 1. Timoth. 4. to proue this Fasting to be the Doctrine of the Diuells. In like sort the foresayd Doctrine is condemned, as Popish, by D. Fulke, who to the contrary, obiectethD. Fulke a­gainst the Rhemish Testa­ment. in Math. 15. sect. 5. fol. 28. Montanus, and defendeth Arius D. Fulke, in his Ans­were to a Counter­feyte Ca­tholike. pag. 45..

Thus far touching these former twenty Points of Catholike Religion, maintayned by di­uers learned Protestants, and contradicted in great Dissention of spirit, by other Pro­testants.

The XXII. Paragraph.

IN this last place of Displaying the Pro­testants Disagreements, I will insist in certaine Catholike Points, the which, though the Protestants which are to be alledged, do not wholy imbrace and intertayne them, as absolutly true (as the former Protestants a­boue cited haue done, touching the twenty [Page 135] Articles allready discoursed of;) yet they hould them to be of that Adiaphorous Na­ture, and indifferency, as that either by de­nying or affirming them, the said Prote­stants hereafter to be produced, do hould them to stand compatible with mans Sal­uation; though other more seuere Prote­stants do altogether condemne the said Ar­ticles as Popish, and do exclude the Belie­uers of them from all hope of Saluation: So irresolute and contradicting the Protestants are among themselues, in their different and irreconcileable Iudgments, and Censures herein.

1. To begin. First, touching prayer to Saints, D. Goad, D. Goad & D Fulke, in the Disputa­tion had in the Tower, with Fat. Campian. 2. dayes confe­rence, ar­gum. 8. rat. 111. and D Fulke thus write: It doth not exclude from being members of the Church &c.

2. Touching the Reall Presence, D. Rey­nolds thus sayth: the Reall In his 5. Conclu­sion, an­nexed to his Confe­rence pag. 722. Presence is but (as it were) the grudging of a former Ague, if the Party otherwise hould the Christian Fayth. Iaco­bus Acontius (a learned Protestant) thus ac­cordeth with D. Reynolds, saying: It is In l. 3. Strata­gem. Sa­tanae. p. 135. eui­dent, as well concerning those who hould the Reall Presence of Christs Body in the bread, as those o­thers which deny it, that although of necessity the one part do erre, yet both are in the way of Salua­tion, if in other things they be obedient. And Frith (one of M. Fox his Martyrs) sayth: TheAct. Mon. pag. 503. matter touching the substance of the Sacrament, bindeth no man of necessity to Saluation, or Dam­nation, whether he belieue it, or not. Luthers iudg­ment is the like herein touching Transub­stantiation, [Page 136] as he is cited by Amādus In his Syllog. Thesium Theolog. pag. 464. Polanus.

3. Touching Receauing vnder one, or both kinds, Luther thus writeth: Quamuis Luth. in Epist. ad Bobe­mos. pulcrum quidem esset &c. Although it were very seemely to vse both the kinds in the Eucharist; and though Christ in this matter did not command any thing, as necessary; yet it were better to affect Peace, then to contend about the species, or Formes of this Sacra­ment. And Luther further thus writeth: Si Luth. de vtra­que specie Sacramen­ti. veneris ad locum, vbi tantum vna species ministra­tur, cum alijs vna tantum specie vtere &c. Yf thou come to such a place where one only species or For­me is ministred, then with such men vse only one Forme or species. And the same Indifferency of receauing vnder one or both kinds, is fur­ther taught byMe­lancthon, in [...]ent. E [...]ist. Theolog. p. 252. Melancthon, and otherSee these o­ther Pro­testants houlding the indif­ferency of this point, al­ledged and by M. Iewell not de­nyed in his Re­plye. pag. 110. 106. Protestants. And yet euery man knoweth, that almost all Puritan-Protestants do seeke to charge the Catholiks with breach (as they pretend) of our Sauiours Precept, in re­ceauing the Sacramēt only vnder one kind.

4. Concerning Freewill, M. Perkins thus teacheth: A weaking Errour is that, the houlding whereof doth not ouerturne any point in the Foun­dation of Saluation, as the Errour of Freewill, and other such like. Of the same iudgment is M. Cartwright In his Reply. 14 sect. 1.2. and in M. Whitguifts Defence, p. [...]2., touching Freewill, Prayer for the Dead, and a number of others, as necessary Doctrines, wherein (sayth he) Men, being nusled, haue notwithstanding beene saued. And M. Cartwright a litle before in the place alled­ged, thus wryteth.In his Exposition of the Creed. pag. 402. Yf you meane by matters of [Page 137] Fayth, and necessary to Saluation, those, without which a man cannot be saued; then the Doctrine, which teacheth there is no Freewill, or Prayer for the Dead, is not within your Compasse. For I doubt not, but Diuers Fathers of the Greeke Church, who were great Patrones of Freewill, are saued. The same indifferency of Prayer for the Dead, is maintayned by D. Fulke Con­futation of Purga­tory. pa. 336., by Penry Penry in his booke en­tituled: M. Some laid open p. [...]., by Iohn Frith. Act. men. pag. 501. Frith, and others.

5. Concerning the Indifferency of honou­ring Saintes Relikes, and prayer for the Dead, M. Sparks thus writeth: We Ans­were to M. Al­bins. p. 382. are not so hasty, to pronounce sentence of Damnation for any such Er­rours: For you know well inough, that we make not these matters such, as that either we thinke all must he saued that hould the one way; or all condemned, that hould the other.

6. Touching our B. Ladies being preserued from Originall sinns, and the worshipping of Ima­ges, M. Bunny houldeth these Points as mere Indifferences, thus writing: In In his Pacifica­tion, sect. 12. p. 104. & 105. these (points) and such like, whosoeuer will condemne all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully perswaded herein, as we are &c. committeth an vncharitable Acte to those his brethren.

7. Concerning Satisfaction, and Merit of works, D, Whitaker thus writeth: The Fathers Con­tra Camp. p. 7 [...]. And M. Wil­lam Rey­nolds. c. [...]. p. 135. & 136. thought by their externall Discipline of lyfe, to pay the paynes due for sinne; wherin they derogated not a litle from Christ his Death &c. which though it be an Errour, yet were they notwithstanding good Men, and holy Fathers.

8. Concerning the Popes Primacy. M. Wotton Ans­were to a Popish [...]. denieth, That to hould the Kings [Page 138] Supremacy, is an essentiall Point of Fayth? But Luther thus extenuateth this point, say­ing: The Popes Luth. in Assert. art. 36. Primacy is among those vnne­cessarie trifles, wherein the Popes leuity and foolish­nes is to be borne withall. And Melancthon is no lesse indifferent in this Article, thus writing: The Me­lancth. in his Epistle, extant, in the booke, entituled: Centuria Epistolar. Theologicarum. Epist. 74. pag. 245. Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profita­ble to this end, that consent may be retayned; where­fore an agreement might easely be established, in this article of the Popes Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed vpon.

9. Touching Masse, Luther thus speaketh of the Indifferency thereof: Priuate Luth. in Colloq. Germ [...]nic. cap. de Missa. Masse hath deceaued many Saints, and carryed them a­way into Errour, from the tyme of Gregory, for eight hundred yeares. And Tindall thus speakes hereof: I doubt Act. Mon. pag. 1338. not, but that S. Bernard, Fran­cis, and many other holy Men erred, as concerning Masse. So well in his iudgment did Masse stād with holines.

10. In this last place, touching the In­differency of Masse, and diuers other points of Fayth, Benedict Morgensterne thus writeth: Condonanda In tract. de Eccles. pa. 41. there writing of former tymes. erant pijs &c. These things were pardonable in the godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church, Saints for Mediatours, and the Masse for the Supper of our Lord. In like sort M. Francis Iohnson (the Pro­testant) thus writeth: Did not Iohn In M. Iacobs Defence of the Church, and Mini­stery of England. pag. 13. Husse, that worthy Chāpion of Christ, & others also of the Martyrs of foretimes, say & heare Masse euē to their dying Day? &c. Did not diuers of them acknowled­ge, some the Popes calling and Supremacy, some seauen Sacraments, some auricular Confession? &c.

Thus far these Protestants touching the Indifferency of these former Catholike Points, teaching most differently from the iudgmēts of other Protestants, maintayning that the beliefe of the said Points stand not with Saluation. And thus far touching the incre­dible Dissentions and Diametricall oppositions of the Protestants among themselues, concer­ning so many Articles of Christian Fayth, displayed & layed open throughout this whole Treatise. And here now I refer to the Censure of the Iudicious (as I did in the Front of this Discourse) whether that a man (solicitous and carefull of his Saluation) can with any shew of Reason, Communicate with that Church, which is thus deuided with the maintenance of such crosse, and contradictory Opinions, as we fynd the Protestants in these few leaues to be. And where perhaps it may be here replyed (for Errour is glad of a weake Sanctuary) by some one or other in this sort (as is intima­ted in the Preface): I Professe my selfe to be a Protestant, according to the Forme of English Pro­testancy: what for ayne Protestants do write, or how they do differ among themselues, I am not to regard; This refuge, and tergiuersation is most poore.

First, in that there is no more reason, why a man should be rather an English Prote­stant, then any other kind of Protestant: Since all kinds of Protestancy (as reiecting the authority of Gods vniuersall Church) proceed Originally from the priuate Spirit, to [Page 140] the which, Protestancy euen commits Ido­latry; And yet there is no more reason, why an English Protestāt should assume to him­selfe an infallibility of his priuate Spirit, then any other foraine Protestant of other Country. Secōdly, because the English Pro­testants haue no reason to disclayme from the Protestants of other Countries, if so we will belieue the English Protestants them­selues; for D. Iewell (though most falsly) thus teacheth: The Lutherans, and the Swinglians D. Iewell in his Apo­logy of the Church of En­gland. p. 101. (within which number the English Prote­stants are comprehended) are good friends, they vary not betweene themselues, vpon the princi­ples and Foundations of their Religion, but only vpon one Question, which is neither waighty, nor great. With whom agreeth D. Whitaker speaking to his Aduersary Father Campian, for his conioy­ning together the Lutherans and Swin­glians in Fayth and Religion; for this Do­ctour thus writeth: Quòd In res­pons. ad rationes Camp. rat. 8. versus [...]em. autem Lutheran [...]s cum Swinglianis coniungere voluisti, in eo nos qui­dem nequaquam offendisti &c. In that thou dost conioyne and vnite the Lutherans & the Swinglians together, thou dost not offend vs; for we willingly ho­nour Luther as our Father, and all them (meaning the Lutherans and the Swinglians) as our most Deare Brethren in Christ. Thirdly, the inuete­rate Dissentions euen among the English moderate Protestants themselues, as also bet­weene the English moderate Protestants a­gainst the English Puritans, both touching the Translation of the English Bible, the Com­mon booke of prayer, and diuers other points of [Page 141] Controuersies aboue displayed, manife­steth the shallownes of this former Replye.

Thus much concerning the auoyding of this seely Refuge; & I haue thought good to insist in the discouering the vanity of it in this place (though it be aboue touched in the Preface, only by mentioning of it) be­cause it is the ordinary Asyle, or Sanctuary, whitherunto many Protestants do flye, when they heare the Catholikes to vpbraid them with mutuall Dissentions, in the Arti­cles of Protestancy.

The XXIII. Paragraph.

NOw before I close vp this Treatise, I will draw certaine Inferences, or Resul­tancies out of the former Premisses.

1. The First whereof may concerne the beliefe of the former Catholike Points by Protestants; which beliefe is indeed no su­pernaturall beliefe (I meane, it is not any of the three supernaturall vertues) but only it is in them a meere priuate opinion or induce­ment, to giue a naturall consent to that, which is true. For the better and more cleere illustration of which point, the Reader is to conceaue, that two things do necessarily concurre to the producing of the Vertue of supernaturall Fayth. The one is, Prima S. Thomas part. 2. q. 8. veritas reuelans, which is God: The other is called the authority of the Church. This prima ve­ritas reuelans, being God, is otherwise called by the Deuines, Obiectum formale Fidei. This [Page 142] prima veritas, doth reueale all true points of Fayth. The second; to wit, The Authority of the Church, is called Amussit, Regula, or the Pro­pounder, because it propoundeth to the mem­bers of the Church, all such points to be be­lieued, which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued. Now to applye this to our purpose: This Prima veritas reuelant, as also this Propounder do indifferently propound to the Members of the Church, all points of Fayth to be belieued, as well as any one on­ly point; and the Persons to whom such points of Fayth are reuealed, and propoun­ded to be belieued, do through the same au­thority of the Church belieue all points of Fayth, to be reuealed alike. Therefore seeing the former Protestants belieuing the former particular Catholike Articles, do belieue them, not through the Authority of the Church, propounding them to be belieued; for if they did belieue them, by force there­of, they would in like sort belieue all other Catholike points; seeing all of them are a­like reuealed by God to the Church, and a­like propounded by the Church to Chri­stians to be belieued: Therefore from hence it followeth, that the former Protestants do belieue the foresayd Catholike Points, only through the force of their owne priuate spi­rit, which intertayneth them as points pro­bable and true. And thus the Close of all is, that the said Protestants do belieue, or rather giue assent vnto Truths, falsly, (so mans Gho­stly Enemy, when he speaketh the truth, he [Page 143] lyes,) that is, they belieue truths vpon false Grounds and Principles; For they belieue certaine Catholike Doctrines; but they be­lieue not the Church teaching those Do­ctrines. Thus much touching the first Po­risma.

2. The second shalbe the scandall and stumbing block, which these great Dissen­tions among the Protestants do beget, in the minds of other Protestāts; to wit, a forsaking of the Protestant Religion, and imbracing the Catholike Religion. To begin: We fynd Duditius (the markable Protestant) thus to confesse of this point: The Beza in his Epistol. Theolog. Epist. ad An­draeam Duditium. p. 13. rela [...] ­teth Du­ditius thus to say. Protestants are caryed about with euery wynd of Doctrine, now to this part, now to that; whose religion what it is to day, you may perhaps knowe; but what it wilbe to morrow, neither you, nor they can certainly tell. Thus Duditius. And Syr Edwin Sands in like manner thus writeth: Protestants In his relation, &c. fol. 8. are as se­uered, or rather scattered troupes, ech drawing ad­uerseway &c. In like sort, Georgint Maior (a great Lutheran) thus disconsolately wri­teth: Obijciunt In O­rat. de Confusio­nibus Dogma­tum vete­ribus, & recentibus. & nobis Papistae &c. The Pa­pists do obiect to vs Scandals and Dissentions; I do freely acknowledge such to be as cannot be sufficient­ly lamented. And Melancthon thus complayneth hereof, as is aboue noted; Nulla Me­lanch. in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 245. res aequè de­terret homines ab Euangelio ac nostra Discordia; no one thing deterreth and withdraweth men more from the Gospell, then the Discord among our sel­ues. And vpon this ground it is, that Dresserus the Protestant, thus speaketh of Staphylus who was once a Protestant; Oh Theologorum [Page 144] dissidia Dresse­rus in Millenar. [...]. pa. 214. ad Catholicos defecit Staphylus. Staphy­lus reuolted to the Catholiks, by reason of the Disa­greements among the (Protestant) Deuines. And dare our Aduersaries notwithstanding, sug­gest the Protestant Church to be the true Church, it being thus depriued of Vnity, the inseparable marke of the true Church?

3. A third may be, that whereas many Protestants aboue alledged, do approue and allow many Articles of our Catholike Fayth, that such Confessions euen of the Ad­uersaries themselues, do much aduantage our said Religion; For why should their iudg­ments agree with the Catholike Church therein, but that the force of the Truth con­strayneth them thereto? and therefore it is truly said of D. Whitaker: The Whi­tak. contra Bellarm. l. de Ec­cles. Con­trouers. 2. q. 5. c. 14. argument must be strong and efficacious, which is taken from the Confessions of the Aduersaries: And I do freely ac­knowledge, that Truth is able to extort testimonies euen from its Enemies. Whose Sentence herein is agreable to the iudgment of Irenaeus thus writing: It is Lib. 4. c. 14, an vnanswerable prooffe, that bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themsel­ues. And further it may be inferred, that see­ing most Protestants do reiect the Doctrine of Traditions, that therefore those Prote­stants who are related aboue to giue an as­sent to our Catholike Positions, do conse­quently belieue, that the said Articles are most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures; see­ing these Protestants will belieue nothing as matter of Fayth, but what hath its proofe from Scripture.

4. A Fourth is, their reiecting of parts of true Scripture, and their contentions, tou­ching the seuerall translations of confessed Scripture. Now it bring once granted, that it is not certainly knowne, what bookes be Scripture, and that all translations of Scri­pture yet extant are false; how preiudiciall must this be to the Protestants, who erect the Scripture alone for the sole Iudge of all Controuersies in Fayth? Seeing admitting, that the Scripture should be this Iudge, yet this is to be vnderstood of those writings, which are infallibly Diuine Scripture, and are truly and faythfully translated; Since o­therwise such bookes of the Bibles, which are Spurious and not the true Word of God, and such Translations of true Scripture, which are adulterated, and made contrary to the Sense of the Holy Ghost therein, should become this Iudge; And thus it followeth, that the Protestants till this day (euen by their owne implicit Censure) neuer enioyed a true Iudge, for the decyding of Controuer­sies in sayth.

5. Touching the imaginary facility in fynding out the true sense of the Scripture, iustifyed not only by some learned Prote­stants; but also by euery silly Puritanicall Woman, and Mechanicall fellow that can out read, vanting themselues to be (as it were) possessed with the Holy Ghost; how dangerously doth this assertion lye open to the defence of any Heresy? I will here set downe some few Texts, wherof the literall [Page 146] words may seeme to iustify strang Errours and Heresies: so certaine Drugs taken in their grosse substance, are hurtfull to a mans health, which being extracted, become most medicinable. The texts shalbe these: 1. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath Immortality. 1. Timoth. c. 6. Now from this place one might seeme to argue, that since God alone is immortall, the soule of Man is not immortall, but dyeth with the body: an Atheisticall blasphemy. 2. He that striketh thee on the Cheeke, offer also the other; and him, that taketh away thy Cloake, forbid not to take thy Coate also. Luke 6. Which words of our Sauiour seeme to implye that we must offer vpon such an occasion, the other cheeke to be strocken, and suffer our Coate to be taken away with our Cloake; And if we do not this we sinne, since it is a sinne, not to ob­serue the precept of Christ. 3. Call no man your Father vpon earth. Math. 23. &c. Which words seeme to sound, that the sonne ought not to call that man, which begot him, Fa­ther. 4. Yf any man come to me, and hateth not his Father and mother, and Wyfe and brethren, and sisters &c. he cannot be my Disciple. Luc. 14. Here the naked words sound, that whereas in the ten Commandements we are taught to ho­nour our Father and mother, as also obli­ged to loue our wyues and friends; yet here the next way to serue Christ truly, is to hate our Parents, our Wyues, & other our nearest Friends. 5. Vanum est vobis ante lucem surgere; Psalm. 126. It is but vayne for you, to ryse before [Page 147] it he light; thus it seemes a man ought not to ryse before Sunne-rising: A good pretence for sluggards. 6. Melchisedech King of Salem &c. Without Father, without mother without Genea­logy, hauing neither beginning of Dayes, or end of Lyfe. Hebr. 7. A text, from whence (if one rest only in the naked Words) an illiterate man may seeme to euict, that this Melchise­dech, being a man, is neuerthelesse as it were another God, as neither hauing beginning nor ending, as being sempiternall; And also that he is another Adam, as not begotten by any Carnall Copulation. 7. I do accomplish those things (quae desunt passionum Christi) that want of the Passions of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church. Colos. 1. From when­ce the poore Puritan-Reader might be in­duced to thinke, that the Apostle did here speake no lesse then blasphemy, as intima­ting, that something were wanting, or de­fectiue in the Passion of Christ, which him­selfe was to fullfill and make perfect. 8. La­stly, to turne my Pen more particularly to our She-ignorant Puritans, who by carry­ing the Bible, they thinke they can vnder­stand any part thereof: Now how would these ignorant Fooles vnderstand this text a­gainst themselues, Melior est iniquitas viri, quam mulier benefaciens; The Iniquity or wicked­nes of a man, is better then a Woman doing good? Ecclesiast. 42. by which words the Puritan-Woman must be forced to confesse (vnder­standing the words, as they simply lye) that a man fraught with all wickednes, is to be [Page 148] preferred before herselfe, who seemes to be full of the spirit, and the written word. Thus far these few examples (for instance sake) to the which many hundred more may be ad­ioyned. All which are most true in the sa­cred and intended sense of the Holy Ghost; yet they conuince, that the Scriptures are not of that facility and easines for the per­fect vnderstanding of them, as diuers Prote­stants alledged towards the beginning of this Treatise (merely contrary to the more graue iudgments of other Protestants their brethren) do make shew to teach.

6. In this next place, we may call to mynd, what Indignity and dishonour, that most blasphemous and miscreant Opinion and Sentence of Swinglius, and his Compa­nions (as so many Charons, seruing to wast soules ouer to Hell) do offer to the Christian Fayth, by teaching (as is aboue shewed) most differently from all their owne Chri­stian Protestant Brethren, That a man though not belieuing in Christ so that he lead not a wicked lyfe, may be saued. For who houldeth this for true, litle pryseth the Passion of Christ; they being in the number of those, of whom it is said: They deny 1. Petr. 2. him, that bought them; the Lord bringing vpon themselues speedy Damnation: So forgetfulll they are of that other sacred Sen­tence: There is no Iohn. 1. other Name vnder Heauen, giuen vnto men, then that of Iesus, wherein we must be saued. And thus these men make him to become to themselues, Petra Scandali, who to all good Christians is, Lapis angulularis.

7. Touching the Diuersity of Persons, which are included within the members of the Protestant Church, aboue defended by some Protestants, and denyed by others; Their disagreements are so vncertaine, as that some admit Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, Heret [...]kes, Infidells, yea (by supposall) An­tichrist himselfe; So making their Church to consist of certaine mungre [...]l Persons; where­as other Protestants do exclude all these kinds from being members of the Protestant Church; Now I say, their irresolution and vncertainty of Iudgment is so wonderfull herein; as that no Protestant) can assure him­selfe; with what kind of men he may com­municate in practise of Fayth & Religion, and from what men he ought to abstayne, in all such spirituall entercourse and associa­tion.

8. Touching the deniall of Freewill, the certainty of Reprobation, and of Predestination, and both without any reference to our good or bad works: Contrary to other learned Protestants Iudgments. How do all these Doctrines most forcibly impell men to the perpetrating of the most flagitious crymes whatsoeuer? Seeing vpon these their groūds (granting them by supposall for true) they may iustly Apologize for themselues. First, that they are to be pardoned in all such their Enormous actions, seeing they had not Free­will to forbeare the committing of them; & punishment euen in force of Reason, belon­geth to such only, in whose power it is to [Page 150] do, or not to do such or such a wicked thing. Secondly, they may Reply, that seeing by their former Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation, a vicious lyfe is no way pre­iudiciall to a mans predestination, not a ver­tuous life for the preuenting of Reprobatiō, why may they not then liue, yea become thrall to all pleasure, voluptuousnes, & sen­suality without any remorse or sting of Cō ­science? Againe, by their sayd Doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation, we yearely see many most lamentable Tragedies of diuers, shortning their owne dayes by vio­lent deaths, wrought by their owne Hands; some euen butchering themselues, through a vayne hope and expectation of ariuing the sooner to Heauen; And others agayne per­petrating the lyke, through a most wicked and desperate conceyt of their Reprobation, & that it is not in their power (concurring with Gods grace) to preuent it: so forgetful these men are of those most comfortable words of holy Scripture:Ezech. 18.31.32. Cast away all your transgressions &c. for I desire not the death of him, that dyeth. This speaketh he, who hath placed hisPsalm. 18. Tabernacle in the Sunne; and who him­selfe, being Sol increatus, is not inexorable; but wil lend a willing eare to him who hath true penitency of his sinnes, saying to such: Deleui Isa. 44. vt nubem, iniquitates tuas, & quasi ne­bulam peccata tua.

9. In lyke sort touching their Doctri­nes, that good workes are not auaylable to­wards Iustificatiō, nor are respected by God; [Page 151] nor sinnes or bad workes any way exitiall or hurtfull to Saluation; as also that Tenet of diuers Protestants, that God is the Authour of all our Sinnes; what a sluce and fludgate do these Doctrines open to all turpitude in mā ­ners and Conuersation? For seeing it is nau­seous and vngratefull to mans nature, to weary himselfe out in the exercise of a ver­tuous lyfe, if such a life (as wanting all plea­sing motiues thereto) be no wayes benefi­ciall to his Soule; as on the contrary, most sweet to man, to liue in all voluptuousnes, pleasure, and Iouialisme, if so this course can­not be in any sort dangerous to him; and this the more, seeing he is indoctrinated by diuers Protestants, that what sinnes are cō ­mitted by him, God is the Authour of them, & himselfe but Gods bare instrument therein; they by such their beliefe running vpon the Dint of those words, spoken by the Psalmist in the Person of God:Psalm. 128. supra dorsum meū fa­bricauerunt peccatores: As if I would say, they haue transferred the committing of their sin­nes euen vpon me. Thus they making God, who dyed for sinne, to be the Patrone of sinne.

10. The Doctrine of Polygamy and Di­uorce, according to Swinglius and others (most different from the iudgment of other Protestants) how doth it sow the seeds of dissention betweene husband and wyfe to repudiate one the other, and to part a sun­der vpon the least dislike, or discontent on eyther side, & bo [...]h of them to mary againe? [Page 152] they being warranted by this Doctrine to take vpon occasion of such discontents, as many wyues and husbands as they will; so both the parties liuing after their first Diuor­ce, in a continuall state of Adultery, and be­getting and bringing forth seuerall broods of bastards.

11. The Positions of some Protestants aboue alledged, that no Princes or Magistrates are now to be in the tymes of the new Te­stament, ingendreth nothing, but a tu­multuous Anarchy, intestine simulties, warrs and Traiterous insurrections of the Sub­iects against their Prince; threating (vipar-lyke) an vtter euisceration of their owne Country: And woe be to that Nation or Realme, which nourisheth such Monsters of sedition and disloyalty, and which pla­ceth all Soueraingty and Principality in the common people, the many-Headed-Tyrant of Mankind; since the certaine euent there­of will be, that a mans owne Country shall finally become a Golgathae, or field of bloud. And with this my Pen giues it last pause to this short discourse.