CHAP. I.

§. 1. SAINT Peter the Prince of the A­postles doth thus comfort, encou­rage and command us, 1 Pet. 3.14.15. But and if you suffer for righteousnesse sake, happy are ye. But be not affraid of their fear, nei­ther be troubled. But sanctifie the Lord God in your hearts, ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meeknesse and fear.

§. 2. This happinesse and comfort of [Page 2] suffering for a good cause is remarkably ex­pressed by our Saviour in the fift of S. Mat­thew, where the blessings of other vertues are placed in the future time, that they that mourne shall be comforted, they that are mercifull shall obtain mercy, and so of the rest; but of the poore in spirit, and of the poore absolutely, (as S. Luke hath it, ch. 6.20.) and of those that suffer for righ­teousnesse sake, it is affirmed in the present time, that theirs is the Kingdome of God, Mat. 5.10. the other Beatitudes are but in reversion, but this in present possession.

§. 3. And this by the mercy of God I feele in my selfe; for heaven is more the joy then the place, and this joy, because God thinks it not fit, as yet, to call me to it, he hath sent to mee; so that I can say with S. Paul, Rom. 5.3. I glory in tribulation. The Apostles encouragement to abandon feare, and to sanctifie the Lord, I will by his grace daily put in practice. But my pre­sent undertaking is the Apostles command, to give an answer to every one that asketh me a reason of the hope (and faith from whence the hope springs) that is in mee; and this with the enjoyned circumstances of meeknesse towards men, and the feare of God.

[Page 3]§. 4. And as some men here have asked me a reason; so if I were in England, I as­sure my selfe many more would do so; and having heard of my change do aske one an­other, and that with as much wonder and sorrow, as beliefe thereof. To these there­fore, and to all other both Catholiques and Protestants, I give this ensuing answer for satisfaction. To Catholiques, that they may quit all feare of my recoyling; to Prote­stants, that they may be invited to follow my example, which though it be founded in an unworthy person, yet in so glorious an action, as coming to the bosome of the Catholike Church, they have no reason to disdaine to follow me.

§. 5. In this affaire it is much more easie to find an entrance then an end. For, what time since the beginning of Christian Reli­gion, what place, what thing doth not bear witnesse to the Catholike Faith? Solomon saith, Cant. 4.4. that the neck of the Spouse the Church, is like the Tower of David, builded for an armory, whereon there hang a thousand shields, a thousand arguments of defence of the Catholike Doctrines; which the many excellent bookes of con­troversie written both by those of our own and other Nations, doe most abundantly [Page 4] declare. It shall therefore suffice me to say only so much, as may witnesse that I did not make this change without sufficient Motives: wherein I will make choice of a little of much, and say as much as I can in a little.

§. 6. Entring then into a serious consi­deration of the end for which I and all men were created, to wit, the glory of God, and our owne eternall happinesse; and of the knowledge of the meanes to at­taine thereunto, I found that by the con­sent of all Christians, this was not to be gotten by cleer & evident sight, nor by hu­mane discourse founded on the principles of reason, nor by reliance upon authority meerly humane; but only by Faith ground­ed on the word of God, revealing unto men things that are otherwise only known to his infinite wisedome. Secondly that God revealed all these things to Jesus Christ, and he to his Apostles, as he saith, John 15.15. All things which I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you; and this partly by word of mouth, but princi­pally by the immediate teaching of the holy Spirit, to the end that they should de­liver them unto mankind, to be received, believed, and obeyed over the whole world, [Page 5] even to the end thereof; as he saith, Math. 28.19. Goe teach all nations. Thirdly that the Apostles did accordingly preach to all na­tions; as S. Mark saith, Chap. 16.20. They going forth preached everywhere. And planted an universall Christian company, charging them to keepe inviolably, and to deliver unto their posterity what they had received of them the first messengers of the Gospel, as S. Paul saith to, Timothy, 2 Tim. 2.2. The things that thou hast heard of me amongst many witnesses, the same commit thou to faith­full men, who may instruct others. Fourthly that though the Apostles & their hearers be departed out of this life, yet there still re­maines a meanes in the world, by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached, and the primitive Church re­ceived of them, seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles, and beleive nothing as matter of Faith, be­sides that which was delivered of them; as S. Paul saith; Ephes. 2.20. and are built up­on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone.

CHAP. II.

§. 1. THese things being supposed, the chief difficulty to my seeming con­sisted in this, how we might certainly know now adaies, so many ages after the Apostles death, what, & all necessary points that they taught and preached: the Protestants said that this was to be found in the Scriptures which were written by them; but this did not satisfie my doubt; for supposing the Scriptures to be the word of God, delivered by the Apostles, and others in­spired by him, yet I wanted some sufficient witnesse or proofe to assure me so much, for of my selfe I could not find it. The bare word of the Protestants I saw I had no rea­son to take, because they confesse that they may erre, and I in this matter not being able to discover whether they did erre or no, relying upon a fallible guide must, al­waies [Page 7] remaine in uncertainty and fear. I observed moreover that although in most of their assertions they might upon exami­nation prove false; yet in saying that the Church might erre, and taking themselves for the Church, they had said most true; find­ing that they indeed had erred in this most important Particular of declareing what is the word of God and what not; the Lu­therans affirming much lesse for the word of God then the Calvinists, and the Church of England doth.

§. 2. Now of necessity one of these sorts of Protestants must erre, and that most dangerously; the one by beleiving that to be the word of God which is not, but the invention of men, and perhaps false and foolish,Praefat. in Epist. Iac. in Edi [...]. levens. as Luther said of S. Iames his Epistle, or the other by renoun­cing that which is indeed the Word of God, and so not belie­ving what God himself hath spoken. Their Authority being by themselves in their e­vident disagreement thus broken, I descen­ded to consider the reasons by them alled­ged to induce men to believe that the Scri­ptures are the Word of God, which in gene­ral I apprehended to be insufficient, because they did not lead the Protestants themselves [Page 8] to an agreement in the quantity thereof. But I further weighed them particularly, the principall whereof are these.

§. 3. First, they say the Scriptures are knowne to be divine by their owne light shining in them,Cal. lib. 1. Inst. cap. 7. Sect. 2. in­fine. E­ven as sweet and bitter are knowne by the tast, white and blacke by the sight: which assertion to me seemed very absurd. I confesse indeed much of the Scripture is but the amplification of the Morall Law, which is a knowledge engraf­ted in man by nature, by the light whereof we may see that it is true; but this proves it not to be the Word of God. For though all truth be from God, as he is the prime verity, and so may be called in some sense, his Word: yet by the Word of God in this case is meant, truth revealed by God im­mediately unto the pen-men thereof: and though we find much thereof to be true, as agreeing with the engrafted principles of reason, yet this proveth not that it was re­vealed immediately and extraordinarily, which is the circumstance that makes it the Word of God, in the sense of those that dispute about it. As for the historical parts both of the Old and New Testament, the institution of Sacraments, with the like, [Page 9] they have no affinity with the in-born prin­ciples of reason, and are therefore not knowne to be so much as true by any light they carry with them, much lesse to be ex­traordinarily revealed by God, and so to be his Word. Besides, if it could be discern­ed what were the Word of God, and what not, by the resplendent light thereof, as ea­sily as the light is knowne from darknesse, (as some of them say) how could there be so much dissention about the parts thereof, as it is knowne there is? the Calvinists see­ing more to be the Word of God then the Lutherans do, and lesse then the Catholikes: and yet if it shew it selfe by its owne light, the Turks may see it, as well as any of them.

And heere I observed that many had blinded themselves with looking on the light, and could not see so far as to discern between corporall and spirituall light, but because the Prophet David saith, Thy word is a lanterne unto my feet and a light unto my paths, Psal. 118.105. they conceived the Scripture was as easily discerned by its own light as the Sun. True it is that every corporall light that doth enlighten the eye of the body must be evident in it selfe, and originally cleer, but not so every truth that doth illustrate mens understanding. The [Page 10] reason is, because the eye of the body can­not by things seen inferre and conclude things that are hidden, but can only appre­hend what doth directly and immedi­ately shew it selfe: but mans understand­ing apprehends not only what shewes it selfe, but by things knowne inferres and breeds in it selfe the knowledge of things hidden. Hence though things shew­ing themselves directly and by their own light, be prime principles of the understand­ing, and the meanes to know other things; yet also things hidden in themselves being formerly known by the light of authority, may thereby become lights, that is, meanes to encrease our knowledge of hidden things. So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights, it is false that all lights that enlighten mans understanding to know other things, are evident in them­selves; yea some secondary principles and lights there are, which must be shewed by a superiour light, before they become lights themselves. In which kind is the Scripture, being a light only to the faith­full, because known by the Churches Tradi­tion to be from the Apostles; by the A­postles authority confirmed by miracles, to be of God; by Gods supreme verity, who [Page 11] cannot deceive nor be deceived, to be the truth. Moreover this conceipt of theirs doth utterly extinguish faith, and beleife of the word of God; for every thing is so far forth the object of faith, that it is not seen, as S. Paul saith, Faith is the argument of things not seen, Hebr. 11.1.In Evang. Ioan. Tract. 40. and S. Augustine, What is faith but to believe that which thou dost not see? If therefore they do see it, they cannot properly be said to believe it, but to know it: and if so, what excellency, what vertue, what merit, what pious affe­ction towards God, to believe that which they see plainely before their eyes? A bold presumption also it is in them to claime a cleerer degree of knowledge then the Apostles had, for they did but see through a glasse darkely, 1 Corinth. 13.12. but these men are convicted of the divine truth of the things they believe,Fran White Orthodoxe p. 107. by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture; which is a priviledge, which whosoever hath, equalls the blessed Saints in heaven, whose happinesse it is to see what we be­lieve, especially seeing one point of the Doctrine Protestants pretend to see, is the mysterie of the Blessed Trinity, the true [Page 12] light & resplendent veritie wherof, no man can see manifestly out of the state of Blisse.

§. 4. Secondly, they pretend to know the Scriptures, to be the Word of God, by theWhites Reply, p. 16.30.68. Feild Ap­pendix, pag. 34. Cal. Inst l. 1. c. 7. majestie of the matter, and purity of the Do­ctrine; but I conceived that though some mysteries of the Scripture carry a majesty in them in respect of naturall reason, and an elevation above it, as of the B. Trinity; yet other matters of Scri­pture seem unto reason ridiculous; as the Serpents talking with Eve, and Balaams Asse reproving of his master, with many others. Nor could the purity of the do­ctrine convince me; seeing we know that many learned and godly men have written very holily, whose writings are not there­fore accounted the word of God: Besides there are many historicall parts of the Scripture which do not at all touch upon purity, & therefore cannot be discerned by it. Againe they affirme that the Scripture may be knowne by the stile; but I consi­dered that God hath no proper stile or phrase of his owne, but can at his pleasure al stiles, & that he did vse the pens of those whom it pleased him to inspire, couch­ing [Page 13] his heavenly conceipts under their usu­all language and ability of expression; whence issueth so great difference of stiles (as is on all sides acknowledged amongst sacred Writers) and that God did only guide them in the truth they wrote, not in the stile; for then all their stiles in likeli­hood should have been alike. Indeed God hath an eternal increated manner of speak­ing, which is the production of the eternall word, by which the blessed do discern him from all other speakers, by the evidence of blissefull learning, but no created manner of speaking, (no not his speaking in­wardly to the soule) is so proper to God, as that it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meer sound of the voice or by the stile, without especiall revelation or some consequent miraculous effect.

§. 5. Thirdly, theVVhites Reply, p. 19. Harmony of the Scriptures is alledged by some as an argument to prove them to be the Word of God. But though this Har­mony appeare in divers things, yet it is most certaine that there are very many seeming contradictions, many of which are but probably answered by Commentae­tors, by assuming some things without proofe, because otherwise they must ad­mit [Page 14] contradictions; some places are not fully answered, but the Fathers were for­ced to fly from literall to allegoricall sen­ses, as appeares particularly in the foure first Chapters of Genesis, the Genealogy of our Saviour, and in the reconciling of the Chronologies of the Kings. And seeing no man is infallibly sure, that all the answers used to reconcile the seeming contradicti­ons of Scriptures are true, no man can be assured by the evidence of the thing, that there is this perfect harmony in them; nor consequently, that they are thereby knowne to be the Word of God. More­over if we were infallibly assured, that there were this perfect harmony in the Scriptures, yet this to me seemed not a suf­ficient proofe that they are the Word of God, because there is no reason forbids me to believe, that it may not be also found in the writings of some men; yea I make no question, but it is to be found, and that with lesse seeming contradiction then is in the Scripture; yet no man accounts that this proves their writings to be the Word of God. Neither as I saw, could these pretences, before mentioned, be laid hold on by the unlearned multitude, an innu­merable company whereof cannot read at [Page 15] all, and when they heare them read, if they were asked, would say, that they see not this light, this majestie, stile and har­mony, which their learned men talk of, nor do they know what it meanes, nor that a tittle of it is the word of God, but only because they are told so; Indeed S. Peter saith in the behalf of the old Te­stament, 2 Pet. 1.21. That holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. But we are as uncertaine by any thing in the words themselves, that S. Peter said this, as of all the rest, that is altogether.

§. 6. So that I could not find that there was any more then probable arguments to be drawn from the Scriptures themselves to prove them to be the word of God. For that which is the word of God, and the rule of faith, must be certaine not only in some parts, but in every part and particle, book, chapter, and line thereof, which is impossible to be knowne by the light and evidence of the sense and doctrine, seeing many places even byField of the Church lib. 4. cap. 15. VVhites Reply. p. 35 Protestants confessions are darke, obscure, and full of difficulties, and how can that be knowne to be the Word of God by the light thereof, when the light thereof is not [Page 16] knowne? As uselesse also to their pur­pose, is the majestie, purity, stile, harmo­mony, or any the like; for we believe it to be harmonious, because it is the Word of God, not to be the Word of God, because it is harmonious, which wee doe not infallibly see. So that upon these considerations I saw no evident certainty out of the Scriptures that they were the Word of God; but that they are belie­ved to be such without being seen, upon some other Word of God, more cleerly appearing to be the Word of God, and lesse liable to corruption then the Scrip­tures are, assuring us so much, and that is the Tradition of the Church: according to the saying of S. Augustine, Aug. con­tra Epist. fundament. c. 5. I would not believe the Gospell, unlesse the Authority of the Ca­tholike Church did move me. To which Hooker, one of the learnedest men that ever the Protestant party could boast of, agreeth, saying,Eccl. Pol. lib. 1. sec. 14 p. 36. Of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is con­fessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach, Ibid. l. 2 sec. 4.102. for if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to [Page 17] all, yet still that Scripture which giveth cre­dit to the rest, would require another Scrip­ture to give credit to it: Ibid. p. 103. neither could we ever come to any pause whereon to rest, unlesse besides Scri­pture there were something else acknowledged. And this something is as he saith, Lib. 2. ca. 4. p. 300. The Ecclesiasticall tradition, an argument whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall, and what not.

§. 8. Lastly, some say, they know the Scripture to be the Word of God, by the Spirit of God prompting it to their soules. And this of all the rest seemed to me most absurd. For first, I durst not ar­rogate this Spirit to my self, nor could I know it was in any other. His saying, the Spirit told him the Scripture was the Word of God, did not prove it, nor had I reason to believe he had the Spirit more than I, without some proof. If a mans te­stimony in his owne case might thus be ad­mitted, I saw that no Heretique would want it to support his impiety, by ascri­bing it to the Spirit, asEpiphan­haer. 21. Simon Magus did; only this H. Spirit he believed to be his Concubine Helena; and Protestants ascribe the title [Page 18] of the Spirit to their private fancies. If I should have said, that I know by the sug­gestion of Gods Spirit that this or that part of Scripture, or that none of it was the Word of God, my proof was as good to him, as his to me. For although the testi­mony of the Spirit of God be a sure wit­nesse to him that hath it, yet it is none to others, unlesse he can prove he hath it, by some miraculous effect. And without this kind of proof every prudent man hath reason to believe that such a boaster is a li­er, and intends to deceive others (as it is likely of the first Authors of Heresies) or else that he deceives himselfe by a strong operation of his fancy, which he calls the Spirit; because he is told by the doctrine of some Protestants, that he must feel that he hath the Spirit, (as in particular concer­ning the assurance of his salvation) desirous then to be in the right way, that which he would have, he perswades himself he hath, because else he finds himselfe at a losse, which begets a horror in him. Which to a­void, he flies to this pitifull refuge, being the best he is instructed to, that he may have some stay for his belief, and repose for his soul. And this happens common­ly, and most strongly to those that have [Page 19] some zeal, but little wit; on whom there­fore the reflection of their fancy is the stronger, and works upon them, as upon some I have read and heard of, who by their eager desire to be so, have strongly conceited themselves to be indeed Kings and Princes, and other kind of great and rich men, when truly, and in all other mens judgements, they were either mad­men or fools. So that this I perceived was to open a gap to any mans fantasticall pretence whatsoever, who had the impu­dence to ascribe it to the Spirit of God.

Nor is there any peaceable way to com­pose the differences amongst men of this nature; for each one pretending the Spi­rit, he hath no reason to yeeld to another, the holy Spirit being an infallible director wheresoever it is; yet when it is different in different men who pretend to it, as it of­ten falls out, it is a certaine signe that one of them is deceived, and both are deceived in the opinion of each other; yet neither yeelding to other, the contention ends in the action of Zedekiah against the Prophet Micheas, who gave him a box on the eare and said. 2 Chron. 18.23. Which way passed the Spirit of our Lord from me, that it should speake to thee. And so it hath fallen out a­mongst [Page 20] those that derive their know­ledge this way, that they end their differen­ces by blowes and conquests, not by Coun­cels and miracles.Plut. And as the sonnes of Pyrrhus asking him who should succeed him in his Kingdome, he answered, he that hath the sharpest sword: so if it be demanded amongst them, who hath the Spirit of God, and consequently the true Religion; It must be answered, He that hath the most strength of armes to maintaine it. But S. Peter did otherwise, who provoked by Simon Ma­gus, proved that he had the Spirit of God, by raising up a childe from death,Egesippus. which the other with all his Ma­gick could not do: who also challenging S. Peter to fly from the Capitol to Mount Aventine, while he was doing so, by the prayer of S. Peter, he came tumbling down and brake his leg, whereof he soone af­ter died. If men that boast of the Spirit cannot this way prove it, the saying of S. Augustine, is appliable un­to them,Tract. 45. in Ioan. There are innume­rable who do not only boast that they are Videntes or Prophets, but will seem to be illuminated, or enlightned by Christ, but indeed are Heretiques.

[Page 21]§. 5. Yet most certain it is, that no man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but by the Spirit of God incli­ning him thereunto; for as the Apostle saith, Ephes. 2.8. Faith is the gift of God. But there are two kinds of inspiration of the Spirit of God; one immediate without the concourse of any externall ground of assurance; the other mediate, moving the heart to adhere to an externall ground of assurance, making it to apprehend divinely of the authority thereof: they that chal­lenge the first are Enthusiasts, and run into all the fore-mentioned absurdities; they that take the latter way, must besides their inward perswasion, have an externall ground of belief; and then what is there so high and sufficient, as the testimony of Ʋniversall Tradition? Agreeable where­unto Hooker saith,Eccles. Pol lib. 2. sect. 7.8. The outward letter sealed with the inward wit­nesse of the Spirit, is not a suffi­cient warrant, for every particular man to judge and approve the Scripture to be Canonicall, the Gospell it self to be the Gospell of Christ: lib. 3. sect. 3. but the authority of Gods Church, (as he saith) is ne­cessarily required thereunto.

§. 9. And though it were true, that we [Page 22] might know the Scripture to be the word of God, without the testimony of the Church, yet it doth no where appear that the Scripture is the whole word of God, and containes all that the Apostles left un­to the Church for their direction; so that my first Quere would still be unsatisfied, to wit, how we should know the whole word of God, which the Apostles taught? For even that word which is written doth tell us that all is not written; and there­fore doth S. Paul exhort us to keepe both the written and unwritten, Stand fast (saith he) and keepe the traditions which you have learned; whether by word or by our Epistle, 2 Thes. 2.15. It is manifest that the first Church of God from the creation un­till Moses, which was about the space of two thousand years, had no word of God, but that which was unwritten, which we call Tradition; the Church of the Jewes had Scripture, but with it Tradition, as the prayer of Elias concerning raine, Jam. 5.15. The contention of the Archangel S. Mi­chael and the Devill about the body of Mo­ses, Jude v. 9. with others; and of the Scri­pture both Old and New, many books are lost, as many Parables and Verses of Salo­mon, 3 King. 3.32. with many other books; [Page 23] and S. Paul wrote an Epistle to the Laodi­ceans, Col. 4.16. and another to the Corin­thians, which are not extant, 1 Cor. 5.9. And seeing we have not the whole Canon of the Scripture, how can we be sure that that part which we have, conteineth all that we are bound to believe and do? we do not read that the Apostles were sent to write, but to preach: and S. John denies that he had expressed in writing all that he had to say, Having more things to write un­to you (saith he) I would not by paper and inke, for I hope that I shall be with you and speake mouth to mouth that your joy may be full. Now that these things that the Apo­stles did not write, but teach by word of mouth, were matters also of weight, and belonging to Faith, S. Paul assures us in these words, Night and day more abundant­ly praying, that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that want of your faith, 1 Thes. 3.10. By which it is evident, that the Apostles besides their writings, did preach other things which were wanting to their faith.

§. 10. Nor did the Apostles surely in­tend to write all points of faith; for if they had, it is probable that they all toge­ther, or some one of them, would have [Page 24] done it purposely, punctually and metho­dically; and declared so much unto the world. But we know the contrary, to wit, that they did not write all, by their own confession; and that which they did write was but accidentall and upon parti­cular occasions, as Hooker af­firmes,Eccles. Pol. l. 1. sect. 15. p. 37. The severall Books of Scripture are written upon se­verall occasions, and particular purpose; which occasions if they had not happened, it is most likely that they had not written that which they did. For instance, the Epistles of S. Peter, James, John and Jude, were written against cer­tain Heretikes, who, mis-understanding S. Paul, did thereupon teach, That faith onely without works sufficed to salvation; of which very point S. Augustine saith, Be­cause this opinion was then be­gun, De fide & operi­bus c. 14. other Apostolicall Epistles of Peter, John, James, Jude, do chiefly direct their intentions against it, that they might strongly confirm, Faith without works to profit nothing. S. John also did preach the Gospell till his last age (which was very long) without writing a­ny Scripture, and took occasion to write (as S. Ierome affirmes) by reason of the [Page 25] heresie of the Ebionites, De Scriptoribus Eccles. which then brake out. The like might be shewed of all the rest. And lastly (which is worth the observation) all the Epistles are written to such persons onely as were already conver­ted to the Christian Faith; therefore they were written not so much to instruct,Tom. 2. l. de Ec­cles. fol. 43. as to confirme, as Zuinglius also confesseth.

§. 11. By all which it is evident, so far as we can see, that the Apostles and Evan­gelists did write their books, not by any command from Christ, but upon some ac­cidentall occasion moving them thereunto. Wherein one and the same matter is often repeated, as in S. Pauls Epistle to the Ro­mans and to the Galatians; and also in all the Evangelists; and many other things are omitted, as a world of works which our Saviour did, as S. John testifieth, 2. John 21.25. and which the Apostles did also (the small book of their Acts being too little to expresse all their actions) and also the things which S. Paul ordained in the Church of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.34. by which it is manifest that they neither intended any compleat Ecclesiasticall hi­story, nor body of divinity containing all [Page 26] matters of faith and practice. So that it did neither appear to me that the Scripture contained all the doctrine of salvation that the Apostles taught, nor yet any of it; because I could not see by the directions that Protestants gave me, whether the Scripture were the Word of God or no.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. AS to know the letter of the Scri­pture, so to know the meaning thereof, I found a matter of great difficul­ty; agreeable to S. Peter, who saith, spea­king of S. Pauls Epistles, 2 Pet. 3.16. In which are certain things hard to be under­stood, which the unlearned and unstable de­prave, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own damnation: ButFalke Con. Rhē. Test. in 2 Pet. cap. 3. Morton Apol. part 1. lib. 1. cap. 19. VVhitaker contro [...]. 2. q. 5. c. 7. p. 513. Pro­testants, to avoid their dependence on the Church for the interpre­tation thereof, say, that all things necessity to salvation are easie to [Page 27] be understood, even by the most unlearn­ed Reader. But they never yet expressed what points were necessary to salvation and what not, nor have given any rule by by which it might be found out, but have left themselves the liberty of adding to, or substracting from that title, what and whensoever they pleased. And who seeth not that, with this device, they may ex­clude (if they please) almost all the points of Christian belief and practise?

§. 2. Wonderfull confusion I found herein; for here the understanding of the most unlearned Reader is made the size of things necessary to salvation: and if it be a measure unto all men, then the most learned Clerk is bound to believe no more than the most unlearned peasant that can but read; and the most unlearned need not the help of the learned for the under­standing of things necessary, but can find them out by his own reading. So that you must take the arrantest dunce in their Church that can read, and after he hath di­ligently perused the Bible, and prayed for understanding therein, that which he un­derstands, must be accounted necessary to salvation, and no more. Surely me thinks they are to blame, that have not for the [Page 28] greater credit and cleernesse of their cause, made this tryall upon some silly fellow, and from his mouth have set downe their points necessary to salvation. But by this it appears that they are willing to draw the matters necessary to salvation, for their great ease, into a very narrow compasse, and make the same measure serve the silliest clown and the greatest Clerk, which is un­comly. And (coming closer to the mat­ter) I have known some affirm, (which I believe is the opinion of very many) that to believe in Jesus Christ, without any di­stinct belief of his divine and humane na­ture, and that he died for the sinnes of the world, and that a man must repent before he die, is all that is necessarily required ei­ther for belief or practice of any man. As for those that cannot read, which are I be­lieve the greatest number, or very little in­ferior, they deal most unkindly with them, not providing a certaine means whereby they may be brought up to read, which they that can read think all are bound to, with references to the Scriptures, by the commandement of Christ, and wherby they are to find out the things necessary to sal­vation; but leave them (if at all) to be saved by the cruell blind Popery (as they [Page 29] please to call it) of an implicite faith.

§. 3. I then considered that there was much ambiguity in these words, [necessary to salvation] there being divers kinds of necessity that have place in matters of Re­ligion. First there is an absolute necessity, and a conditionall necessity; Absolute neces­sity is that which admits no excuse of im­possibility, nor any exception of place, time, or person; as in regard of those that are of age capable of knowledge: The be­lief of Christ mediator betwixt God and man: and to this kind of necessity there are some that would restrain all things to be believed, leaving themselves the liberty of all matters else to believe what they please: but with as much reason they may restraine this necessity to the believing on­ly, that there is a God, and so renounce their Christianity. Conditionall necessity is that which obligeth not, but in case of pos­sibility, and receives exception of time, place and person: Thus there are many points necessary to be believed, if a man be in place where he may be instructed in them, and hath time to receive instructi­on, which are not necessary for a man live­ing in the wildernesse, or so ready to be attached by death, as he hath no leisure [Page 30] to be instructed, or apprehension to receive it; as that Christ was borne of a Virgin, and crucified under Pontius Pilate. And many things are necessary for Pastors to believe, which are not for common people; as that the persons of the Trinity are the same in essence, but distinct in subsistence; that in Christ there are two natures, and but one person, with many the like: And in matter of practise, there are many things necessary in case of possibility, and oppor­tunity of time, and place, which are not necessary, if the conveniency to accomplish them be wanting: as the assistance at Church service, and participation of the Eucharist.

Secondly, there is a necessity of means; and a necessity of precept; Necessity of means is in those things to which God hath ob­liged us, if we will attaine the end; as of the Sacraments, to which God hath given power to confer grace; and of the Com­mandements, whose necessity is imposed upon us, if we will enter into life; and of repentance of sinnes, which is a means ne­cessary to obtain their remission. Necessity of Precept is that which only obliges in re­gard that it is commanded, contributing otherwise no real advancement to our sal­vation; [Page 31] as the celebrating the Lords day, and other such like observations; the o­mission wherof could be no hindrance to salvation, but in respect of disobedience and breach of the Commandement.

Thirdly there is a necessity of speciall belief, and a necessity of generall belief: Necessity of speciall belief is of those points which all faithfull (if they be not prevented by death) are obliged to believe with faith expresse, distinct, & determinate, which the Schoolemen call explicite faith; as the twelve Articles of the Creed. Necessity of generall belief is of those things which eve­ry particular man is not bound to believe with a distinct and explicite faith; as that Baptism given by Heretiques, is true Bap­tism; and that Heretiques which have re­ceived Baptism, must not be baptized a­gain when they return to the Church, with many such like; in which it will suffice the unlearned multitude to believe them im­plicitly, that is, to adhere to the Church that doth believe them, and by a generall belief imbrace them, by believing as the Church doth, and referring themselves to her, prepared alwaies to believe them ex­plicitly when they shall be declared to them, and themselves are capable to appre­hend them.

Lastly, there is a Necessity of act, and a Necessity of approbation: Necessity of act is of those things which every particular per­son is obliged actually to perform; as to professe the name of Christ, to forgive offences commited against him, with the like. Necessity of approbation is of those things which every man is not bound actu­ally to performe, but only not to contra­dict them, nor to condemne those that do them, nor the Church that allowes them, nor to seperate themselves from her up­on this occasion; as the choice to live in virginity and single life, with the like.

§. 4. Now according to these severall kinds of Necessity, I accounted it meet to hold for necessary to salvation, all those things that the Fathers have holden neces­sary in that degree, and according to those kinds of necessity, as they have holden them. And this I did not perceive to be a matter of such ease to find out, as Prote­stants did under their title of necessary to salvation affirm. I found innumerable places of Scripture were obscure and hard to be understood; and that their distinction of things necessary to salvation was more ob­scure and uncertain than any thing; having no limits or determination, but like the [Page 33] Gladius Delphicus, was fitted for all turns, but indeed served none, but to cozen themselves; who, presented with a point of belief or practice which they did not like, would wave it with saying, it was not necessary to salvation, Therefore as S. Philip asked the Eunuch, whether he understood what he read; who said, how can I, without some body to interpret it? So I answered my selfe, and had reason to believe that others could not truly answer better for them­selves.

An interpreter then was necessary who might judge of the true meaning of the Scripture, against the corruption of here­tiques, who all take their protection from thence; and which should determine all emergent controversies, which were need­full for the preservation of peace and uni­ty. And in bestowing of this Office I ob­served that the Protestants voices were divided;Har. Confes. p. 5. some gave it to the Scripture it selfe, saying that it must interpret it selfe, and be the Judg of all controversies.VVhites way to the Church, p. 6.27. O­thers that the Spirit of God doth interpret to e­very private man, both which I apprehen­ded absurd and unreasonable. The former, [Page 34] because nothing (if it speak obscurely) can interpret it selfe, but that which hath a li­ving voice, which the Scripture not ha­ving, cannot possibly interpret it selfe. As for the assertion of some, that the obscure places are interpreted by plain places spea­king to the same purpose, it is false; there being no such plaine places in many cases to be found, which they themselves prove by their disagreement about the sense of many places. Therefore to allay the un­reasonablenesse of this assertion, they add, that it is Scripture diligently read by us, and one place conferred with another, all circumstances weighed, and much prayer u­sed; which is in effect, that (not the Scrip­ture it selfe, but) they interpret the Scrip­ture by the aforesaid meanes.

§. 6. But all these waies of study, and conference, skill in the tongues, or the like, are but humane endeavours, and sub­ject to error, yea though much fervour of prayer be mixed therewith; and such as the meanes are, such of necessity must be the interpretation and determination; but the meanes are uncertaine, doubtfull and fallible, therefore such must be the inter­pretation; and if it be uncertaine, it may be false; and whether it be so or no, Pro­testants [Page 35] have no way to discover, but by the Spirit, as he instructs every particular man; whose insufficiency I found in my former consideration of the meanes to know the Scripture to be the Word of God. And if it cannot assure me of the letter of Gods Word, no more can it of the meaning; considering that I can neither know whe­ther another have the Spirit, nor yet whe­ther I have it my selfe or no, without some miraculous revelation: for all other proofs of having the direction of the Spi­rit, are but humane, and so subject to de­ceipt, but miracles we are sure are from God, because they exceed all humane and created power.

§. 7. And seeing Protestants ground their salvation upon faith onely, which as they say, doth onely justifie; and faith up­on Scripture only, which according to them, containes all things necessary to be believed; and the Scripture and sense thereof upon the private Spirit only, by which they expound the Scripture; it fol­lowes, that the private Spirit is the sole or principall ground to them of the sense of Scripture; the Scriptures sense the like ground of their faith; and this their faith the like ground of their salvation; there­fore [Page 36] no Protestant can have greater cer­tainty of his faith or salvation, then he hath of this private Spirit, whereof seeing he hath none, either from Scripture, Church, Councells, Fathers, common sense or expe­rience, it must needs follow that he hath certainty of nothing: and that this rely­ing upon the private Spirit must needs plunge him into infinite and abominable errors.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. FInally, Chillingworth the last re­former and calciner of the Prote­stant Religion, seeing the weaknesse of all the former pretences, hath boldly and roundly reduced all to one only principle, and that is of naturall reason: affirming that our belief of the Scripture to be the Word of God; and also our belief of the Scripture in every particular part thereof, depends upon each mans reason and [Page 37] discourse, beyond which, or different from which, he is not bound to believe a title. Yet he doth not say that this way is infalli­ble; but because all wayes else are fallible (as he supposes) and this the onely way God hath given us to be guided by, we must be herewith contented, and God also must be contented herewith in us, and give salvation to those that believe and do ac­cording to their best understanding. And this opinion I observed had got a large possession in the minds of Protestants, es­pecially of the Clergy and Gentry, whose ingenuous education gave them the high­est claime to the exercise of reason: who were therefore very glad to embrace such a principle of Religion, as of which they accounted themselves the chiefest Masters.

§. 2. This conceipt seemed to me no lesse absurd, and much more insolent than any of the other; for the other did seem at least to ascribe our knowledge of the Scripture and sense thereof to God, either speaking in the Scripture, or by his Spirit speaking to their soules, or concurring with their humane endeavours; though in conclusion they drew it to the deter­mination of their owne fancies. But this man more impiously hardy than all that [Page 38] went before him, doth directly and in plaine termes attribute all the assurance we have of the Word of God (the dire­ctor to salvation) unto our selves, and that too, as we are meer men. And this resol­ving of faith not into Authority, but into reason, and that not as preparing or in­ducing us to believe (which Catholiques allow) but as the maine ground and strongest pillar of our faith, and the de­pendence of faith upon reason, as the Con­clusion on the premises, is a doctrine incre­dibly pernicious, and the source of mon­strous impieties. And for this purpose he builds much upon thisPag. 36. n. 8. Axi­ome, we cannot possibly by na­turall meanes be more certaine of the conclu­sion, than of the weaker of the premises, as a river will not rise higher than the fountaine from whence it flowes: Hence in the same place he inferres, that the certainty of Christian faith can be but morall and hu­mane, and not absolutely infallible.

Therefore as an instance to the same pur­pose, he saith,Pag. 116. We have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, as that Jesus Christ suffer­ed under Pontius Pilate. And in larger ex­plication [Page 39] of this his doctrine he saith, If up­on reasons seeming to my understanding very good, I have made choice of a guide or rule for my directions in matters of faith; when af­terwards I discover that this guide or rule leads me to believe one or more points, which in the best judgement that I can frame, I have stronger reason to reject, than I had to accept my former rule, I may and ought to forsake that rule as false and erroneous; otherwise I should be convinced not to follow reason, but some setled resolution to hold fast whatsoever I had once apprehended. From which wild and vast principle doth follow, that if the Scripture (for example) propound things seeming more contrary to any mans rea­son and opinion, than the inducements which first moved him to believe Scripture, were in his opinion strong and convincing, he must reject the Scripture as an erroneus rule, and adhere to his owne reason and discourse, as his last and safest guide. Espe­cially considering that (according to him) the motives for which we believe the Scripture are but probable, and by con­sequence subject to falshood; which in all reason must give place to reasons seem­ing demonstrative and convincing; as there will not want many such, against the [Page 40] highest mysteries of Christian faith, if once we professe our assent to them, must be re­solved into natural discourse; For, for what reason do the Socinians, and such like de­ny the misteries of the blessed Trinity, the Diety of our blessed Saviour, and divers o­ther points, but only because they seem re­pugnant unto reason? And in these horri­ble opinions do these reasonably unreason­able men fall by just consequence from their owne principles.

For if (as they say) there be no Christi­an Church assisted with Infallibility, fit to teach any man even such Articles as they count fundamentall, and necessary to sal­vation, but that in every particular, even one may, and must follow the direction of his owne reason, be he never so unlearned; what will follow but an unhappy liberty, yea, necessity for men to reject the highest and most divine mysteries of Christian faith, unlesse they can compose all repug­nancies after an intelligible manner (as he speaks) even to every ignorant and simple person, which is impossible; or els say that it is reasonable for men to believe con­tradictions at the same time, which (as he saith) is very unreasonable. For doubt­lesse in true Philosophy, the objections [Page 41] which may be made against the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of God, are much more difficult, than any that can be brought against Transubstanti­ation; he then that will follow these new principles, must, if he deny the one, deny the other also; which as yet the greatest part of Protestants will not do; in time perhaps they may: or which is much bet­ter, observing the impiety of this opini­on, confesse both.

§. 3. This I conceive was the reason why S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 1.23. that the Apostles did preach foolishnesse in the opi­nion of the Grecians, namely because they sought wisdome; and what was that wis­dome but humane, the dictates of naturall reason? which the mysteries of the Gospell exceeding, they counted them foolishnesse: but to those that were called, it was the power of God, and the wisdome of God. By which it appears that the wisdome of God, and the wisdome of the Grecians which was humane wisdome, the light of naturall reason and discourse, were very different; wherein the Apostle gives (as it is meet these wise men should do) the preheminence to God; for that which seems foolish in God, is wiser than what­soever [Page 42] is in men; and so the mysteries of faith, which seem so contrary to humane reason, have more wisdome in them, than their reasons have that oppose them; who do therefore but prove themselves cum ra­tione insanire, to be mad with reason. This doctrine also of giving reason the tribunall in matters of faith, and that, as it is in e­very particular man, is an inlet for every man to be of a severall Religion, by diffe­ring from others in what points soever, according to the direction of his own rea­son; yea possibly to be of no Christian Re­ligion at all. For what makes the Jew to continue such, but only because he sees no reason to believe the New Testament? and if a Christian should chance to be indued with the same reason that a Jew is, he must then become a Jew: or if of a Heathen, he must become a Heathen. And for the ig­norant and unlearned people, to whom this is a rule as well as to others, what piti­full absurd Religions, or none at all, will be amongst them, who have so small abili­ties of reason, as the world knowes they have?

§. 4. Though reason be in its owne na­ture the same, and as it proceeds from God, the author thereof, in whose mind [Page 43] the universall idaea thereof is placed; yet as it exerciseth it selfe in severall men (since the ruine thereof in Adams fall) it is of se­verall dimensions, according to their natu­rall constitution, morall education, and in­dustry; whence it must needs follow that according to the different latitude of mens understandings; they must embrace more or lesse of divine truths, and so be every one of a larger or stricter belief, and of as many several Religions as they are of different de­grees of understanding. Yet notwithstand­ing this admirable variety of Religion, cha­ritable Chillingworth doth not doubt, but that God (considering humane frailty, and the power of education, which instils in us many false apprehensions, and that hereby excellent judgements are corrupt­ed) will not condemne men for such er­rors, as by reason of the former circumstan­ces, were unavoidable, but conceives that they are in a Religion, whatsoever it be, in which they may attaine salvation. So that by consequence any man may be saved, fol­lowing but the direction of his owne rea­son, although that reason direct him to de­ny not only one point, but even all the Christian faith; thus Jew, Turk, or Heathen, may by this platform be saved.

[Page 44]§. 5. And truely if a man do not believe upon this one (and virtually all) reason, to wit, that the Church is to be believed, he according to my reason, should be a Heathen rather than any thing else; because their Religion ariseth only from the prin­ciples of reason implanted in man by Gods Commissary, Nature; wherein all men, whose understandings are not by accident eclipsed, do agree; as that there is a God, that he is to be worshiped, that we must do as we would be done unto, with the like: but all other Religions depend upon testi­mony, as the Jewes and Turkes and their testimony far inferiour to that of the Christians; so that if I were not a Catho­lique, according to the direction of my reason, I ought to bee a Heathen. But if I will be a Christian, I ought to be such a one, as will according to our Saviours command) deny himselfe; Math. 16.24. And a mans understanding is a chiefe part of himselfe, even the chiefest according to most mens account, as we may perceive, in that they do more abhorre to be counted fools, which is a defect contrary to the un­derstanding, than to be counted vicious, which is a defect contrary to the will: yet this must be denied; and is by all good [Page 45] Christians, who submit to that, which (as the Apostle saith) brings into captivity all understandings to the obedience of Christ. 2 Cor. 10.5.

§. 6. Besides, whatsoever Religion any of them that are guided by this principle is of for the present, no man is sure nor he himselfe, that he shall hold it to morrow; for if his reason (howsoever deluded with false apparitions) guide him to the belief of any thing contrary to that which he now holdeth, he is presently obliged to follow it, though it be to the deniall of his whole present faith; and to change his purpose in matters of Religion, as oft as he doth his apparell; and so float in a gid­dy irresolution and inconstancy, led by the ignis fatuus the foolish fire of his owne rea­son, untill at last he sink into the depth of Atheisme and damnation. Now how suta­ble this doctrine is to the peace and tran­quillity of Common-Wealths, and King­domes, (wherin every man is left to his own liberty in the choice and change of Religi­on) though it be to Arrianisme, to the Heresie of the Macedonians, Manicheans, or to any the most blasphemous, absurd or turbulent, and that with impunity (as he challengeth) they that sit at the helme [Page 46] of government can best determine.

§ 7. Lastly, if any of these fore-mentioned waies of Protestants, for the knowledge of the Word of God, the guide to eternall life, were sufficient, what need were there of preaching, and instructing of the people, at least of them that can read? but let them take the Bible, and let nature work, which in the co-operation of their owne wise fancies, will hatch a goodly Religion no doubt, borne like Minerva of the brain of Jupiter, and be as comely as a Chymera of many seuerall shapes tackt together; and to them instead of the ancient hea­thens houshold-Gods, which every one must adore as his private God within him­selfe: ‘O sacras gentes quibus haec nascuntur in ipsis Numina!’

Who prove the truth of this saying in themselves, that,

He that is Schoole-master to himself, is Scholler to a fool.

§ 8. Observing thus the weaknesse and absurdity of all the Protestants alledged, in proof that the Scripture, is the Word of God, & easie to be understood, at least in all things necessary to salvation; and that it is to be interpreted by it self, or by the [Page 47] Spirit to everie particular man; so making way for as much variety in Religion, as there may be diversity of opinion; I saw that al­though some probable arguments may be drawn from the Scriptures to prove them to be of God, yet there was no other in­fallible way to know what is the true Word of God, first taught by the Apostles and their hearers, but by the testimony of some sure, certain, and agreeing witnesses, and what is the meaning of this Word of God, in case there should be any impor­tant difference about it, thereby to give a period to all controversies, but by some society of men renowned for their wis­dome: And this I conceived in common prudence a far better way than for a man to rely upon himselfe. But though this were a better way than those of the Pro­testants, yet if this society of men were not in these matters free from error, al­though it is more likely they should tell truth than the Protestants, yet I could not have an immovable foundation for my saith, but it would be subject to wavering and inconstancy; and so there could be no prudent setlednesse in Religion, nor any well-built hope of the end thereof, eternall life.

I saw then that it was needfull that there should be a faithfull witnesse a wise judge, and so wise and faithfull, that he should not be subject to falshood or error; otherwise it seemed to me, that God had not contrived a competent way to his own glory or mans salvation; which to be wan­ting in, is neither sutable to his wisdome nor his goodnesse. I therefore concluded that there was some society of men who must instruct us in the premises; and that this society in reason ought to be infalli­ble; and that none could with any colour pretend to be this society, but that which we call the Catholique Church, which all Christians professe to believe, according to the Creed of the Apostles. But before I could proceed any further, I was cast upon the examination of the sense of the words Church, and Catholique, finding therein much difference amongst the pretenders to these titles.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. THere were seven Cities that strove for the body of Homer; And very many societies of Christians there are, that lay claime to the body of Christ, which is his Church. And as when Telesius a young Grecian (having won the prize in the Pythian games) was to be led in triumph, there arose such a dispute between the severall Nations there present, every one being covetous to have him for their owne, that one drawing one way, another another, instead of receiving the honour that was prepared for him, he was torne in pieces, even by those who seemed most ambitious to honour him: So happens it to the Church; all those that beare the name of Christians avow, that to her only appertaines the victory over hell, and that whosoever will have part in the prize and glory of this triumph, must serve under her Ensigne: but when they come to debate about the body of this society, then every Sect (desirous to draw her to themselves) [Page 50] they rend and teare her in pieces; and in­stead of embracing the Church, which con­sists in unity, they embrace Schism and Division, which is the death and ruin of the Church.

§. 2. The Protestants do somtimes give a strict definition of a Church, somtimes a large; somtimes they restraine her to the number of the predestinate only, somtimes they enlarge her so far, that they imbrace within her compasse (because they will be sure not to leave out themselves) all the variety of Christians whatsoever. But by all the former they exclude the visibility of the Church, which is an inseperable com­panion thereof, as I shall shew hereafter; for the predistinate are not knowne to any body, nor ordinary unto themselves. But those that are so presumptuous (as very many are) to assume unto themselves the assurance of their predestination, do easily lay hold on this tenure, which they do the more boldly, by how much it is more diffi­cult for another to disprove; but as it is not easie for another to disprove, so it is as hard for them to prove; and concludes nothing therefore in the behalf of the Churches description in generall, or of their share in particular. Beside, the word Ec­clesia, [Page 51] Church, is derived from a verb, which signifies to call, not to predestinate: And the Church is a society, but the predestinate are a multitude; and there is this diffe­rence between a societie and a multitude, that a society hath a certain form and ver­tue whereby they communicate together, which the other without this association have not.

Now predestinaton, as it is meere pre­destination, establisheth nothing in the predestinate, nor is it made in them, but in God only; and by consequence doth not make them actuall parts of the society cal­led the Church. It is not the union of pre­destination, but of vocation that builds men into a Church. By the later defini­tion of a Church, they deny the very being of Heresie and Schisme; for if the whole Masse of Christians be the Church, notwith­standing the errors in faith which some of them hold, or separation in communi­on which they make, then there are none that can be called Heretiques or Schisma­tiques; or else (which is equally absurd) all Heretiques and Schismatiques are of the Church; and this destroyes the holinesse of the Church in doctrine, which is ano­ther inseparable ornament thereof. Others, [Page 46] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] [...] [Page 51] [...] [Page 52] which are some of the subdivisions of sects amongst the Protestants, as Brownists, A­nabaptists, and the like say (each sect for it selfe) that that is the Church, excluding all others from that title, even their fellow Protestants; but this excludes the univer­sality of the Church, another inseparable companion thereof, at least after the Apo­stles had propagated it. But the Church (having in it the property of heat, which (as Philosophers say) is to gather together things that are of the same nature, and se­parate things that are of different natures) includes all that are of the same faith, and admitteth no other.

§. 3. I therefore conceived (according to the judgement of the most learned) the Church to be a society of those that God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true faith, the sincere adminstration of the Sacra­ments, and the adherence to lawfull Pastors: Which description of the Church is so fitted and proportioned to her that it resembles the nest of the Halcion, which (as Plu­tarch saith) is of such a just and exact size for the measure of her body, that it can serve for no other bird either greater or lesse.

Then for the meaning of the word Ca­tholique, [Page 53] the Protestants say that that Church is Catholique, which holdeth the true faith, which though it be not spread universally over the world, yet it ought to be so, say they, and therefore it is Catholique. By which they leave men in a labyrinth of finding out the true faith in all the parti­culars thereof, which, (as they say) must guide a man to the Church that is truely Catholique, which being the object of the understanding, is much more difficult to find out, than that which is the object of the sense, as is its being Catholique. And therefore it seemed to me as proposte­rous as to set the cart before the horse, to prove a Church, Catholique, because it is true; whereas it should be pro­ved true, because it is Catholique. Beside the name Catholique is not a name of belief only, but of communion also; else anti­quity would not have refused that title to those which were not separated from the belief, but only from the communion of the Church; S. Aug. Ep. 50. nor would they have affirmed that out of the Catholique Church the faith and Sacraments may he had, but not salvation. So that Ca­tholique imports thus much, both the vast extension of doctrine to persons and pla­ces [Page 54] different, and the union of all those places and persons in Communion. There­fore allbeit the Protestants should hold the same belief that the ancient Church did, yet if they did not communicate with the same ancient Church, which by succession of Pastors and People is derived down to this present time, I could not see how they could with justice assume to themselves the title of Catholiques.

CHAP. VI.

§. 1. NOw that the Catholique Church (which society of Christians soever it be, of which we shall deliberate hereafter) is the only faithfull and true witnesse of the matter of Gods Word, to tell us what it is and what is not it; the only true interpreter of the meaning of Gods word, and the last and finall judge of all controversies that may a­rise in matters of Religion; and that shee is not onely true, but that shee cannot be otherwise seeing shee is infallible, I was perswaded to believe by many reasons. In the alleadging of which, I will avoid the ac­cusation of Protestants, of the circular dis­putation of Catholiques, saying, they believe [Page 55] the Scripture, because the Church saies it is so, and the Church, because the Scripture bids them do so.

First, then without dependence on the Scripture, I conceived the Catholique Church to be infallible in her Traditions, in that which she declareth to us con­cerning the doctrine of Christ, and the A­postles, and that even in the very nature of her testimony and tradition: For Tra­dition being a full report of what was e­vident to sense, namely what doctrines the Apostles taught, what Scripture they wrote, it is impossible it should be false. Worlds of men cannot be universally de­ceived in matters evident to sense, as are the things men heare and see, and not be­ing so, it is impossible they should either negligently suffer it, or maliciously agree to deceive others, being so many in number, so distant in place, so different in affecti­ons, conditions and interests. Wherefore it is impossible, that what is delivered by full Catholique Tradition from the Apo­stles, should be by the deliverers first de­vised, as Tertullian saith;Tert. de praesc. cap. 28. That which is found one and the same amongst many, is not an error, but a Tradition. Yet supposing universall [Page 56] Tradition as it is meerly humane, be in its nature fallible, yet the Tradition of the Ca­tholique Church, is by God himselfe pre­served from error; which is thus demon­strated. God being infinitely good, and ardently desiring the salvation of man­kind, cannot permit the meanes which should convey the Apostles doctrine to posterity, by the belief whereof men must be saved, to be poisoned with damnable error; to the destruction of their salvation: now the onely meanes to convey this do­ctrine, is the Tradition of the Catholique Church; Tert. de Praes. cap. 21. as Tertullian saith, what the Apostles taught, I will prescribe ought no other wayes to be proved than by those Churches which the Apostles founded. All other means, as I have shewed you before, are insufficient, and if this Tradition of the Church should be insufficient also, by reason of its liable­nesse unto error; then were there no cer­tainty at all of the truth of Christian Re­ligion, no not so much as that there was such a man as Jesus Christ; but all men would be left to grope in the wandring un­certainty of their owne imaginations, which for God to suffer, cannot fall un­der any prudent mans belief.

[Page 57]§. 2. Secondly, that which bindeth men to believe a thing to be Gods Word, God cannot suffer to delude men into error, whereby for their devotion unto his truth, they may fall into damnation; now Ca­tholique Tradition from the Apostles is that which bindes men to believe the same to be the Word of God, and that because it is thereby sufficiently proposed, the World affording no higher nor surer pro­posall; so that either this must be infalli­ble, or else God hath left us to the gui­dance of our own weak understandings (the weaknesse of which conceit I shewed even now) and all Christians to that con­fusion, which all different opinions (yet re­puted the Word of God by them that hold them) may produce.

§. 3. Thirdly, God being the Prime Verity, he cannot so much as connive at falshood, whereby he becomes accessory of deceiving them, who simply, readily, and religiously believe what they have just rea­son to think to be his Word: but there is most just and sufficient reason to believe that the doctrine delivered by full and per­petuall Tradition, from hand to hand, e­ven from the Apostles, is undoubtedly their doctrine, and the Word of God; there­fore [Page 58] he cannot suffer Catholique Tradition to be falsified. Nor can (as I conceive) any prudent man imagine that God ha­ving sent his Son into the world, to teach men the way to heaven, every moment of whose life was made notable, by doing or suffering somthing to that end, should suf­fer the efficacy and power thereof to be extinguished, by permitting damnable er­rors in the whole Church, and that soon after his departure, (as some Protestants say) and not to recover light for twelve or fourteen hundred years together; e­specially considering there was no possible meanes for any man to know the contra­ry; there was no society of men that taught otherwise, and if at any time there started up any, they were condemned of er­ror by all their fellow-Christians, and in processe of time melted from the face of the earth: The Scripture (if that were the means, as Protestants pretend) not being printed, the invention of Printing not be­ing in the world till about two hundred years ago; and the Bibles that were writ­ten being but few, by reason of the great labour of writing them; and those that were, not purchaseable but by few, because of their price, nor legible but by fewer, be­cause [Page 59] they were not printed, but written; and lastly, not to be knowne to be the Word of God (as I have shewed before) but by the testimony of those men, who (they say) were corrupted; who having corrupted the doctrine, might with much more ease have extinguished, or corrupted the Text, and made them speak what they pleased, it being known to far fewer than the doctrine was; it being difficult to ob­taine, uncertain whether it were right, and very obscure in its meaning; so that if they had been guilty of changing the A­postles doctrine, they could easily have ra­zed out all those places which Protestants urge against them, and so have prevented the strange and notable discovery that the Protestants think they have made of their errors. And if they say that God by his providence preserved the Scripture both from extinction and corruption; may not we much more reasonably say, (having warrant for it out of the Scripture also, whereas they have no warrant for the preservation of the Text) that God by the same providence did, and will alwaies preserve his Church from corruption, which is a thing much more easily known than the Scripture, & consisting of a living mul­titude [Page 60] can expresse it self more plainly: This infallibility in the mouth and Traditi­on of the Church, the Prophet assureth, Esa. 59.21. My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from hence forth for ever. And therfore S. Augustine saith,Aug. Ep. 118. that to dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse.

§. 4. To know divine and supernaturall truth by the light and lustre of the doc­trine, belongs to the Church triumphant; In­ward assurance without an externall infal­lible ground, is proper to Prophets and Apostles, the first publishers of Religion: and seeing that God doth not now instruct either of these waies (as I have shewed) but by an externall infallible ground, and this being the Tradition of the Church, it followes, that he must preserve it from er­ror, and likewise render the Church it selfe alwaies conspicuous that it may be discern­ed by sensible markes, of which we shall speake anon. And he is also bound by his providence, to assist men in the finding out of this Church, when they apply their best diligence thereunto, that so they be not deceived.

And whereas some of the more learned Protestants say, that though they have no infallible ground, besides the teaching of the Spirit, yet they are not taught imme­diatly by propheticall manner, because they are also taught by an externall probable, though not infallible motive; to wit, the Churches tradition; I conceive that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching, they cannot avoid the challenging of immediate revela­tion. For whosoever knowes things assu­redly by the inward teaching of the Spirit, without an externall infallible motive, un­to which he doth adhere is assured prophe­tically, though he have some externall pro­bable motives to direct his belief. S. Peter had some come conjecturall signes of Sy­mon Magus his preversenesse and incorri­gible malice, yet seeing he knew it assuredly, we believe he knew it by the light of pro­phecy, because beside inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground. If one see a man give almes publiquely, though he see probable signes and tokens that he doth it out of vaine glory, yet cannot he be sure thereof, but by the light of immediate re­velation, because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him certain. [Page 62] For if a man be sure, and have no certain ground of this assurance out of his own heart, it is cleer, that he is assured imme­diately, and only by Gods inward inspira­tion. Wherefore Protestants, if they will disclaime immediate revelation in deed, & not in words only, they must either grant Tradition to be infallible, or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition, whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles delivered.

Lastly, I was perswaded of the Churches infallibility in her Traditions and Do­ctrines, because she is endowed with the power of miracles; which wheresoere they are (which I shall hereafter examine) do both prove, that that society of Christians is the true Church, and that that Church is infallible in all that she proposes as the Word of God. And the reason is, because God (who is truth it self) cannot set his hand and seal, that is miracles, and works proper to himself, to warrant and autho­rize a falshood invented by men. Against whichFeild lib. 3. cap 15. Whites Reply p 216. Protestants object and say, that miracles are only pro­bable, and not sufficient testi­monies of divine doctrine; al­leadging Bellarmine who saith, we cannot [Page 63] know evidently that miracles are true, for if we did, we should know evidently that our faith is true, and so it should not be faith. To which may be answered, that such evidence as doth exclude the ne­cessity of pious affection, and reverence to Gods Word, evidence that (considering the imperfection of humane understan­ding) may enforce men to believe, cannot stand with true faith. If we know by Ma­thematicall or Metaphysicall evidence, that the miracles done in the Church were true, this evidence would compell men to be­lieve, and to overcome the naturall obscu­rity and seeming impossibility of the Catholique Doctrine; therefore as Bellar­mine saith, we cannot be Mathematically and altogether infallibly sure by the light of nature, that miracles are true. Notwith­standing it cannot be denied in reason, what our Saviour affirmes, that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to believe, the very works that I do, do bear wit­nesse of me, that the Father hath sent me, Joh. 5.36. and consequently that we may know them to be true by Physicall evidence, as we are sure of things we see with our eyes, and handle with our hands; as S. John saith, 1 Epist. 1.1. what we have seen with our eyes, [Page 64] what we have beheld, and our hands have handled of the word of life. Or we may be as sure of Miracles, as we are of such things as being once evident to the world, are by the worlds full report declared unto us; which is a morall infallibility. So that if we have not a Metaphysicall or Mathema­ticall infallibility of the truth of Miracles, yet we have a Physicall and morall infalli­bilitie, as much as we have of any thing we either hear or see.

Nor doth this Physicall evidence take away the merit of faith, because this evi­dence not being altogether and in the highest degree infallible in it self (for our senses may somtimes be deceived) it is not sufficient to conquer the naturall obscuri­ty, darknesse, and seeming falshood of things to be believed, upon the testi­mony of those miracles. For the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, Reall presence, and the like, seem as far above the reach of reason as any Miracle can seem evident to sense; hence when faith is pro­posed by Miracles, there ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming evidence of the Mira­cles, and the seeming falshood and dark­nesse of Catholique Doctrine; against which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by [Page 65] the sole evidence of miracles, except he be inwardly assisted by the light of Gods Spi­rit, moving him by pious affection to cleave to the Doctrine, which is by so cleer testi­mony proved to be his Word. Even as a man shut up in a chamber, with two lights, whereof the one makes the wall seem white, the other blew, cannot be firmly assured what colour it is untill day-light enter, and obscuring both those lights, dis­cover the truth: so a man looking upon Christian Doctrines, by the light of mira­cles done to prove them, will be moved to judge them to be truth; but looking upon them through the evidence of their seeming impossibilities unto reason, they will seem false: nor will he be able firmly to resolve for the side of faith, untill the light of divine grace enter into his heart, making him prefer, through pious reverence to God, the so-proposed authority of his Word, before the seeming impossibility to mans reason.

CHAP. VII.

§. 1. AS Catholique Tradition is in­fallible in it self, so is it most necessary for us, there being no other cer­taine testimony to any prudent man, no firme ground or motive to believe, that the Primitive Church received her doctrine from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God; nor no way to bring it downe from those times to these, but only the Tradition of the Church. For we may observe three properties of the doctrine of faith; to be true, to be reveal­ed of God, to be preached and delivered by the Apostles. The highest ground by which a man is persuaded that his faith is true, is the authority of God speaking and revealing it; the highest proof by which a man is assured that his faith is revealed, is the authority of Christ and his Apostles, [Page 67] who delivered the same, as descending from God; but the highest ground that moveth a man to believe that his faith was preached by the Apostles, is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the A­postles unto this day, assuring him so much; according to the saying ofDe praescr. c. 21. & 37. Tertullian, who maketh this ladder of belief in this sort; what I believe, I received from the present Church, the present from the Primitive, the Primitive Church from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God, and God the prime verity, from no other fountaine different from his own infallible knowledge: So that he that cleaveth not to the present Church, firmely believing the Tradition thereof, as being come down by succession, is not so much as on the lowest step of the ladder that leads unto God, the revealer of saving truth; successive Tradition un­written being the last and finall ground whereon we believe that the points of our belief came from the Apostles, which may be proved by these arguments.

§. 2. First, if the maine points of faith be to be believed to come from the Apostles because they are written in Scriptures, and the Scriptures are believed to be the Word [Page 68] of God, upon the report of universall Tra­dition, then our belief that the things which we believe come from the Apostles, and from God, resteth upon the Tradition of the Church; but it is most certaine that the Scriptures cannot be proved to have been delivered unto the Church by the Apostles, but by the perpetuall Tradition unwritten conserved in the Church suc­ceeding the Apostles; all the other waies by which the Protestants endeavour to prove the Scripture to be the word of God being vaine and insufficient, as I have proved before.

Secondly, common and unlearned peo­ple, which comprehend the greatest part of Christians, may have true faith, yet they cannot have it grounded on the Scripture, for they can neither understand, nor read it; or if read it, yet but in a vulgar lan­guage, of the truth of whose translation they are not assured, therefore must rely upon the testimony of the present Church, that that which they believe is the Word of God.

Thirdly, if all the maine and substantiall points of Christian faith must be believed, before we can securely read and truly un­derstand the holy Scripture, than they are [Page 69] believed not upon Scripture, but upon Tradition going before Scripture; and that it is so is manifest, because true faith is not built, but upon Scripture truly understood according to the right sense thereof, nor can we understand the Scripture aright, un­lesse we first know the main Articles of Faith, which all are bound expresly to be­lieve, by which as by a rule, we must regu­late our selves in the interpretation of the Scripture; otherwise without being set­led in the rule of faith by Tradition, men are apt to fall into grievous errors, even against the main articles of the faith, as of the Blessed Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God, as experience doth suffi­ciently testifie; so that reading and inter­preting Scripture, doth not make men Christians, but supposeth them to be made so by Tradition; at least for the main points, such as every one is bound expresly to know.

Fourthly they to whom the Apostles wrote and delivered the Scripture, were al­ready converted to Christianity; and in­structed in all necessary points of faith, and in the common practises of Christiani­ty; and so, by what they knew by Traditi­on, could easily interpret what was writ­ten, [Page 70] but otherwise might easily have failed in the mainest points, as some forsaking Tradition did; for example the Arrians, who were confuted by the Catholiques, not by bare Scripture, for of that the Arrians had plenty, but as it was interpreted by Tradition; Therefore none can be supposed to understand the Scripture aright, & so to know the true word and will of God, but by being such as they were, to whom the Apostles delivered the Scripture; that is, first instructed by Tradition: Otherwise they may easily erre in some chiefe articles of Faith, any of which to erre in, is damna­ble. And I would faine know, whether any understanding Protestant doth believe, that if a Bible were given to a heathen, or to one borne amongst themselves (supposing he had not been trained up by Catechisme and other traditionall instruction) whether I say he could out of that extract, as points cleerly expressed therein, the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England, or the book called the Harmony of Confessions, which is the profession of the faith of most of the Protestants of the world?

Lastly, we cannot with modesty say, that we are more able to understand Scrip­ture, than were our fore-fathers, the anci­ent [Page 71] Doctors of the Church; but they thought themselves unable to interpret Scripture, by conference of places, or such like humane means, without the light of Christian Doctrine before-hand knowne, and firmly believed upon the Tradition of the Church, witnesseRuf. Eccl. hist. l. 2. c 9. S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzene, andOrig. tract. in Mat. 29. c. 23. O­rigen, who thus writeth, In our understanding of Scriptures, we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition, nor believe otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession de­livered to us; therefore no man is able to in­terpret Scripture, without the light and assistance of Christian faith, afore-hand re­ceived by the voice of the Church, deliver­ing what shee received from her ance­stors. Dangerously and high boldnesse then it is, for men of this age, so to presume on their owne interpretations of Scripture, gotten by humane meanes, as to make them over-ballance a thousandLuther de capt. Babil. Tom. 2. VVit­tenberg. p. 344. Cyprians, Augu­stines, Churches and Traditi­ons.

§. 3. From all which I observed, that the Protestants do not well understand that place of Scripture, so frequently urged by [Page 72] them against Tradition, where S. Paul saith to Timothy, Thou hast known the holy Scrip­tures from thy childhood, which are able to instruct thee, or make thee wise unto salvation; Inferring from hence, that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise unto salva­tion; whereas this was spoken with rela­tion to Timothy only, and to such as agree with him in the cause, for which this saying is true in him, that is, such as were afore­hand instructed by Tradition, and did firm­ly believe all substantiall Doctrines of faith, and know the necessary practises of Christian Discipline, even as what God said to Abraham, I am thy protector, and thy exceeding great reward, Gen. 15.1. is not appliable to all men absolutely, but only to all men that were of the same qualificati­on, that is, faithfull and devout, as he was. Moreover the Apostle in that place spea­keth only of the Scriptures of the Old Te­stament, for the New was not written in the infancy of Timothy, nor some of it at this very time that these words were written; and these Scriptures he affirmes also to instruct Timothy, not by themselves alone, but by faith, which is in Christ Jesus, that is, joyned with the doctrine of the Christian faith, which Timothy had heard, [Page 73] and believed on the voice of Tradition.

And the following words of the Apo­stle are with equall confidence insisted on, All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, &c. is very unprofitable for their purpose, seeing that profitable can by no means be stretcht to signifie sufficient, as they would have it, and that for every man, but particularly for him that is HO­MO DEI, a man of God, that is, one al­ready instructed by Tradition, in all the main points of Christian faith and godly life, such an one as Timothy was. Thus in­deed the Scriptures may be granted suffi­cient, joyned with Tradition, but not a­lone. And whereas there are some places of the Fathers alledged by Protestants to prove the Scriptures to be clear in all sub­stantiall points, they are to be understood as the Apostles words are, with reference to such men who have been before instru­cted by Tradition; even as they that hear Aristotle explicate himself by word of mouth, may easily understand his books of nature, which are very hard to be under­stood of them that never heard his expli­cation, either from his own mouth, or by Tradition from his Schollers.

§ 4. Whereas some Protestants say, [Page 74] that the difficult places of Scripture are unfoldedVVootton triall of the Romish, &c. p. 88. l. [...]9. by Scripture, and the rules of Lo­gick, Field p. 281. lin. 20. and by other things be­side Scripture evident in the light of nature, it seems to me very incon­gruous: First, because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of the unlearned as well as the learned; and unlearned men cannot be sure of the infolded sense of the Scripture by Logicall deductions. Secondly, the Scripture it self sends us to supply her wants, not to the rules of Logick, but un­to Tradition, saying, Hold the Traditions which ye have received by word or our Epi­stle, 2 Thes. 2.15. It sendeth us to the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. which whosoever doth not heare, is as a Heathen and a Publican, Matth. 18.17. It did the same to the Jewes, who had the Scriptures also, saying, Remember the old dayes, think upon every generation: ask thy father and he will declare unto thee, the elders and they will tell thee, Deut. 32.7. The same do the Fathers, as I shall shew hereafter.

§ 5. And whereas it is further objected, that the Fathers disputed negatively from the Scripture, against Heretiques, thus; Doctrine is not cleerly delivered in Scripture, [Page 75] therefore it is not to be received as a matter of Faith; we must know that the Fathers proceeded upon this supposition that was known to all, and granted by the Here­tiques themselves, namely that the Do­ctrines they disputed against, were not the Traditions of the Church: and in this case they required the testimony of Scripture. Yea more, the Fathers did not onely re­quire places of Scripture from the Here­tiques, by way of deduction and Logicall inference (for to such all ancient Here­tiques and Protestants now pretend, where­with they delude ignorant people) but they required of them to shew their Do­ctrine in Scripture, saith Irenaeus, expresly and in termes; and to prove it, not by textsAug. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 5. which re­quire sharpnesse of wit in the Auditors to judge, who doth more probably interpret them, not by places which require an interpreter, one to make Logicall inferences upon the text, but by places plaine, manifest, cleere, which leave no place to contrary exposition, and that no Sophistry can wrest them to other sense; to the end that controversies which concern the salvation of soules, be defined by Gods formall Word, and not by dedu­ctions [Page 76] from it by rules of Logicke. And even by this way of the Fathers arguing negatively from the Scripture, the Pro­testant Religion is quite overthrowne; for seeing nothing is to be reputed a matter of faith, which is not formally and expresly to be proved by the Word of God, either written, or unwritten, and delivered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition; and seeing the Protestants doe not, nor can pretend to this Tradition, nor yet can prove their te­nets by Scripture in expresse and evident termes, but such as themselves confesse to receive probable solutions, it must hence necessarily follow that their doctrines are false, without foundation, and to be re­jected by every Christian.

§. 6. Lastly whereas Protestants object that the Pharisees are reproved by Christ for the observation of Traditions, it is alto­gether impertinent; for the Scripture doth not say that their Traditions were derived by succession from Moses the first deliverer of their law, nor did the Pha­risees pretend to it, but they were Traditi­ons of their owne, whereof some were fri­volous and superstitious, some impious, some pious,: The frivolous and supersti­tious were their washing of hands, pots, [Page 77] dishes, & the like, supposing that otherwise they might have some spirituall impurity in them; which our Saviour confutes saying, There is nothing without a man en­tring into him which can defile him. Mark 7.15. The impious were such, as whereby they violated the commandements of God, un­der the pretence of observing their Tradi­tions, as when they allowed a man under pretence of giving something to the Church to neglect his duty to his parents; Mar. 7.11. Neither of these kinds is the Ca­tholike Church guilty of. Of their pious, we have an example in their paying Tithes of mint, a very small herb, which was a Tradi­tion of their owne not commanded in their law, yet this our Saviour approves and binds them to it, saying, this you ought to have done, Luc. 11.42. And it is worth the observation, that the thing most of all objected against our Saviour, was the writ­ten word and Tradition of God by Moses about keeping the Sabbath day (as ap­peares in all the Evangelists) from which precept, not by Tradition unwrit­ten, but by logicall inferences of their owne, they concluded that our Saviour brake the Sabbath by healing or doing [Page 78] some small labour thereon. So that the Pharisaicall Traditions were not pretended to be doctrines unwritten, derived from the first deliverer of their religion, but do­ctrines concluded from the Scripture, by the rules of Logick and reason (as they conceived) according to the present man­ner of the Protestants.

CHAP. VIII.

§. 1. HAving thus found out that the Church was shee, from whom I was to receive assurance what is the word of God; and that otherwise it was impossible for me to know it, and that shee could not mistake nor erre in her directions, I conceived then, that I was bound to believe all that shee propounded to me as the word of God, whether it were written or not written (writing being no [Page 79] testimony of the truth of any thing, seeing it may be false as well as speaking) and that to doubt of any thing, was to call all into question, and to dissolve the whole nature of divine faith. For to believe hath a threefold signification in speech; first it is taken for knowledge; as where our Savi­our saith, Thomas because thou hast seen me thou believest, John 20.29. to wit, that I am risen: now he that sees one, knowes so much. Secondly, for opinion; which is an assent begot by probable reason, so men delivering their opinions, use to say, I be­lieve thus, or thus. Thirdly and most pro­perly, for an assent unto such things as doe not appear, but are assented unto by a firm reliance on the truth of him that reports them, as S. Paul saith, Faith is the argument of things not seen, Heb, 11.1.

And this reliance on an Author, such as cannot deceive or be deceived (at least in those things which he propounds unto us to be believed) must beget in us an e­quall belief of things that have humane possibility or probability on their side, and of things that are clean against it; the matter propounded makes no matter, nor yet the manner of propounding; it is the Author, and our apprehension of him [Page 80] that controles all opposition. By this do we believe the inexplicable mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation of God, the Mo­ther-hood and yet Virginity of the B. Vir­gin Mother, with many others, with as much ease, as we believe that Noah had three sons, or that S. Peter had neither silver nor gold: and by this do we believe the latter with as much strength and firmnesse as the former. For he that believes a thing because such an one sayes it, who he be­lieves cannot lie, must believe all that he sayes, and that with the same firmnesse, be­cause the reason of his belief still remaines, namely, the inerrability of the speaker. But if he apply his belief according to the probability of the thing spoken, and no further, then he doth not believe, because of the truth of the speaker, but of the thing spoken, which he must gather from probabilities of reason, wherein he doth not believe the thing for the truth sake of the speakers testimony, but for the likelihood thereof, which he finds by the measure of his own understanding; which is not to believe the other, but himselfe; and the other no more than he would do the arrantest lyer in the world, yea the Devill himself, that is, so far as he by his [Page 81] reason conceives that he speakes the truth. Which reason of his, if it be infallible, he doth not believe the thing properly, but he knowes it; if it be but probable, he be­lieves it not properly, but hath an opinion of it; and no more assurance than of other humane reports, whose authors have no se­curity from error; which as they may be true, so they may also be false. And thus to believe, is not to believe by divine and in­fallible faith, but by humane and fallible; and so it cancells divine supernaturall faith, the first in order of the three theologicall vertues, without which no man can be saved.

§. 3. So that all the place that reason hath in the government of our faith is this, to lead us to believe that testimony which cannot deceive us, and for the particular objects of beliefe, to take them upon trust of that testimony, without checking at them whatsoever they be; and though they be bones to Philosophy, yet make them milke to faith; and not as Heretiques doe, make us demand a reason of every parti­cular point of faith, which if it square not to their apprehensions, they cashiere: This is not faith, but fancy. For, to rely upon a humane basis such as reason is, [Page 82] will not support such a mighty statue as divine faith: And, to use Chillingworths own similitude, Water will not rise higher then the fountain from whence it springs: if therefore particular reason be the go­vernour of our faith, which reason is a hu­mane and fallible thing, it cannot rise to, nor support a divine faith: But divine faith is that which God requires of us in the businesse of Religion, and that which is not such, is none. And it is convenient, that as God ordained man to a supernatu­rall end, namely the blissefull vision of himselfe, which is a thing far above all excellencies of nature; so he should bring him to this blisse, by believing things above the reach of reason, which in man is his nature; and to beget this faith by Mira­cles, his owne acts, which are above the power of nature; and by the testimony of those that do those supernaturall acts; to whom, if he have given his deeds, it cannot be doubted but he hath given his word, of any part whereof to make a­ny doubt, is to call the credit of all into question; the house of Faith being like some artificiall buildings, whereof if you pull out one pin, you loosen the whole frame: So if a man disbelieve any one [Page 83] point delivered him by the Catholique Church, he unjoynts the whole frame of faith, and virtually denies it all; and that because they have all the same height of proof, to wit, the testimony of the Church; which if she can lie in one thing, she may (for ought wee know) in another, and so in all, and thus bring a man to doubt of all, and then to denie all: And that those men that doe denie some one point of Ca­tholique Tradition (though unwritten) doe not denie all, is not for that they have any faith, but out of secular ends, and deceiptfull reason.

§ 4. Indeed some Protestants grant that if Tradition be universall, and perfectly Catholique, it doth oblige to the belief thereof, but not otherwise; by which uni­versall Tradition they meane, such as never any one gainsaid. But if such onely are to be called Catholique Traditions, there is scarce any thing left for Christians to be­lieve, (and indeed to that passe have many brought it;) for some have denied the di­stinction of Persons in the Trinity, others the Divinity of our Saviour, others his hu­manity, others the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and a hundred more: now if no Tradition [Page 84] be to be called Catholique, but such as was never denied by any one, or some number of Christians, then a man may deny the fore-mentioned, and many other points and Articles of faith, because their Tradi­tion hath not been so universall, but that some have denied it; yea some books of the Scripture it self were not universally received, till about four hundred years af­ter Christ.

By Catholique or universall Tradition then must be understood, that which the Catholique Church hath alwaies taught, not which all Christians, for then we must look for Tradition in the mouths of Heretiques, whose property it is to deny some Tradi­tion or other, under pretence that it is op­posite to Scripture. And if any have taught contrary, the Catholique Church hath con­demned them for Heretiques, which is a sufficient proof that untill such Hereticall Spirits opposed some one or more Tradi­tions of the Church, they were universally believed. As for example, the Doctrine of Christs consubstantiality, or being of the same substance with the Father, no reasona­ble man will deny, but that it was generally believed in the Church, before the daies of the Arch-heretique Arrius, and that [Page 85] the Councel of Nice condemning of him, was a sufficient proof that the doctrine he opposed was the universall Tradition of the Church, by force whereof he was over­throwne, and not by Scripture only, there being no place of Scripture so plaine, but he would give some answer to it, and like­wise alledge plenty of Scripture in the proof of his own Heresie, while he took upon him to interpret it himself, (forfa­king the traditionall sense thereof) and would receive no answer to it. And if Ar­rius his denyall of that point of Faith, will make it universall for place, or the do­ctrine it self new, and so universall for time; (as some in other instances do al­ledge) because it was then first declared by reason of that opposition, then it may be lawfull under the same pretence for men to deny all the Traditions of the Church, all the decrees of Generall Coun­cells of the Church, and to revive all the He­resies that were in the Church.

§. 5. Moreover to attri­bute conditionall infal­libility to the Church, and not absolute in all that she delivers (Chillingworth pag. 118. Pet. Martyr loc. Com. clas. 4. c 4. sect. 21. Confess. Helvet. c. 17. as some Protestants doe) [Page 86] making her infallible onely while she fol­lowes the Scripture and Ʋniversall Tradi­tion, is to give her no more priviledge than to a child or fool, who are also infalli­ble while they affirm nothing, but what is agreeable to Scripture and universall Tra­dition. But if we know not Scripture nor Tradition but by the Churches direction, how shall we know in her exposition of Scripture, and deciding of controversies, that she doth erre, unlesse we know it from her also? seeing her authority in the one is as good as in the other, and by those reasons that we may deny the truth of the one, we may deny the other. And if she say, she have expounded Scripture tru­ly, and decided controversies aright, by the rule of Scripture and Tradition, who shall gainesay her? Can any man be so foolish as to think his word is of more credit than the whole Churches? Or that his reason is better then hers? Or that if she may erre from her rule, he may not do so also? And if their infallibilities be both of the same strength, who in his right mind would not believe millions affirming the same thing, rather than one, or some few affirming the contrary? If there were a rule so plaine and clear that all men un­derstood [Page 87] it, and none could pervert it, then there were no need of a judge or directer; but if the rule be obscure, or liable to mis­interpretation, as all words are, let them be expressed never so plainly, then it is meet that there should not onely be a Judge, but that this Judge should be infal­lible, seeing the businesse concerns the sal­vation of mankind, and not be subject to the petty after-examinations of proud and discontented people, as if one or more of them did know the meaning of the rule better than the Judge, when that Judge is the universall Church. And that which these men affirm in this matter amounts to this wise Maxime; That the Church is infallible, while she is infallible: and so is the Devill.

§. 6. Frivolous then and without foun­dation, is that late started distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamen­tall, and the assertion built thereon; That the Church may erre in the one and not in the other; and so by consequence we are not bound to believe her in all things. In­deed in regard of the materiall object or thing to be believed, some points are fun­damentall, others not; that is, some points are to be believed explicitely and distinct­ly, [Page 88] others not: and more points are to bee believed explicitely, by some than by others, as I have shewed before, speak­ing of points necessary to salvation. But in regard of the formall object and motive for which we believe, namely, the truth of God revealing it by his Church, there is no distinction of points of faith, we being e­qually bound to believe all that is suffici­ently proposed unto us, as revealed by God, whether the matter be great or small: and whether the points be funda­mentall in their matter or no, yet they are proposed unto us by the same authority; therefore we are bound equally, with the same firmenesse of faith, to believe every one as any one. For example, the Creed of the Apostles containes divers fundamentall points, as the Diety, Trinity of Persons, In­carnation, Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour; it containes also some points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall, as under what judge he suf­fered, that he was buried, and the circum­stance of time when he rose againe, to wit, the third day; Now whosoever knowes these to be contained in the Apostles Creed, is bound to believe them as firmely as the other, and the denyall of any one of them, [Page 89] is a fundamentall and damnable errour, a giving of God the lie. For the nature of faith doth not arise from the greatnesse or smalnesse of the thing believed, for then there should be as many different faiths, as there are points to be believed, but from the motive for which a man believes, which is Gods revelation testified by the Church, which being alike for all objects, it is manifest, that they that in things equally revealed by God, do grant one thing and deny another, do forsake the very formall motive of faith, Gods revelation, and so have no true divine faith at all.

§. 7. Moreover if the Churches infallibi­lity be tied to a certain matter in Religion, then it is meet we should know that first, that so we may accordingly apply our be­lief, if it be fundamentall, then without doubt to imbrace it, if not, to exercise our liberty, and believe it so far as we see cause; but then we must know the matter where­in she is infallible, distinctly and particular­ly, as also infallibly, or else we may mistake, and believe, when we need not, and dis­believe when we ought not. Now from whence shall we have this knowledge? God hath no where revealed it; and it ought to have been revealed together with [Page 90] the Commission given to the Church to teach, or else shee might have deceived us before the caution came; but the Church it selfe hath told us no such matter; we have no such Tradition; therefore we must have this most fundamentall point of all the rest, which is, to know what is funda­mentall and what not, either by inspirati­on, or by the strength of reason, both which are ridiculous; or by some autho­rity coequall to the Churches, and yet not hers, which is most absurd. And in this busi­nesse, the Protestants seemed unto me, to deal as obscurely and deceiptfully, as did once Richard the second King of England, who in a return to peace betwixt him and his subjects, granted pardon to all, except fifteen, but would not declare what their names were; but if at any time he had a mind, out of some new displeasure, to cut off any man, he would say, he was one of the fifteen, whom he excepted from the benefit of his pardon: In like manner the Protestants say, we will believe the Church in all points, but those that are not funda­mentall, not expressing what they are; and when they have a wanton disposition to deny their belief to something that the Church hath declared, they shelter their [Page 91] denyall under the protection of this un­limited distinction, and say, it is a point not fundamentall. And if on the other side they find it for their advantage to close with other Churches, they say, they are all one Church with them, because forsooth they agree, in they know not what, that is, in their inexplicable fundamentalls.

§ 8. But Chillingworth hath undertaken to give us, though not a catalogue, yet a description, (as he supposes) by which we may discern between fundamentalls, & not fundamentalls, or circumstantialls, as he calls them.pag. 137. sect. 20. The former be­ing such as are revealed by God, and commanded to be preached to all, and beleived by all. The later such, as though God hath revealed them, yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation, particularly to teach them unto all, and the people may securely be ignorant of them. And this is even the same obscurity in more words; for what is to be preached to all, and believed by all, and what the Pastors may forbear to preach, and the people may be ignorant of (especially seeing the same degree of ignorance is not secure to all people alike, but receives infinite variety, according to [Page 92] their meanes of knowledge) is as unde­terminable, as what is fundamentall and what not. But suppose the Pastors doe preach more than they are bound to preach and reveal that truth, which if it had not been revealed, the people might safely have been ignorant of, may they be igno­rant or unbelieving now it is revealed to them? If they be, then they deny that ve­ry authority upon which they believed the most fundamentall points, which is the ground of all belief, and by conse­quence deny the whole faith: From whence wee may see, that the Pastors teaching is not to be stinted by the things the people ought necessarily to believe; but the peoples necessity of believing ought to be enlarged according to the measure of the Pastors preaching. The Church is not con­fined to the teaching of fundamentalls on­ly for the matter, but whatsoever shee teacheth is fundamentall for the forme, and motive of beliefe. The circumstantialls are (as he confesseth) revealed by God to the Church; and if the Church reveal them to the people, the people must either believe them, or deny to believe God. And though common people, and others also, may safe­ly be ignorant, before they have been in­structed, [Page 93] yet they may not be so after; nor hath God confined the Pastors instructing of the people to any certain matter, to fundamentalls only; for Christ bids his Apostles teach all nations, to observe all things, whatsoever he commanded them. Matth. 28.20. And though common people may safely be ignorant of many things, yet they must not be unbelieving of any thing; but by an implicite faith at the least, believe all that the Church believes, by adhering, and resigning themselves to her, being prepared to believe explicitly what and when shee shall declare it to them: Which faith is originally and funda­mentally built upon the Word of God, not as written, but as delivered by the Tra­dition of the Church, successively from the Apostles; upon the authority whereof, we believe that both Scriptures and all other Articles of faith were delivered to them by the Apostles; to the Apostles, by Christ; to Christ, by God, the fountain of all truth.

CHAP. IX.

§ 1. NOw considering all that hath been said before, the summe whereof is this; That we have no meanes to know certainly the doctrines of the A­postles; but only the Tradition of the Church, and that that Tradition is, and ought to be infallible; hence I conceived, that this consequence was necessary, that there should be, and is alwaies, a visible Church in the world, to whose Traditions men might cleave; and that this Church is one, universall, Apostolicall, Holy.

First there is alwaies a true Church of Christ in the world; for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures, and all other Articles came from Christ and his Apostles, and so consequently from God, but the Tradition of the Church, then there must needs be in all ages a Church, receiving and delivering these Traditions, else men in some age since Christ, should have been destitute of the [Page 95] ordinary meanes of salvation, because they had no meanes to know assuredly the doctrines of Christianity, without assured faith whereof, no man can be saved. And although a false Church may deliver the true Word of God, as it is contained in the Scripture and the Creed, yea even a Jew or Heathen may do so, for this is but casuall; yet none but a true Church can deliver the Word of God, with assurance to the receiver that the text is incorrupt, thereby binding him to the belief thereof; Now it is necessary that men have the true Scripture, not only casually, but they must be sure the Text thereof be uncorrupt; therefore there must be a true unerring Church, whose authority is so aut hentique, that it is a sufficient warrant for men to believe the doctrine shee delivers, to come from the Apostles.

Secondly, this Church must be alwaies visible, and conspicuous; For the Traditi­ons of the Church, must ever be famous, and most notoriously known in the world, that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine, De utilit Cred. c. 14. I believe no­thing but the consent of Nations, and Countries, and most celebrious fame. Now if the Church were at any time in­visible, [Page 96] or very secret and hidden, then could not her Traditions be famously known, nor could men that were willing to submit themselves to her directions, know where to find her, out of whose communion they cannot attain salvation.

Thirdly, this Church is Apostolicall, that is, derived from the Apostolicall Sea, by the succession of Bishops and Pastors; for else how can we be assured that we have the Apostles doctrine? It must be one ge­neration that must certifie another; and if there should be any interruption, in that time, all might be lost and changed. And how could the Tradition of Chri­stian Doctrine be notoriously Apostolicall, if the Church, delivering the same, hath not a manifest and conspicuous pedigree and derivation from the Apostles? Which is a convincing argument used by S. Augu­stine; Epist. 48. circa med. How doe we trust out of the divine writings, that we have manifestly received Christ, if we have not also from thence mani­festly received his Church? The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles, famous and illustrious, where­of not one hath been opposite in Religion to his immediate predecessor, proves e­vidently [Page 97] that this Church hath the Do­ctrine of the Apostles. For as in the rank of three hundred stones ranged in order, if no two stones be found in that line of different colour, then if the first be white, the second is white, and so the rest unto the last; even so if there be a succession of three hundred Bishops all of the same Re­ligion, if the first have the Religion of the Apostles and S. Peter, the second hath, and so the rest even unto the last.

Fourthly, this Church is one, that is, all the Pastors and Preachers deliver, and con­sequently all her Disciples and children be­lieve one and the same Faith. For if the Preachers and Pastors of the Church disa­gree about matters which they preach as necessary points of Faith, they lose all their credit and authority; for who will believe witnesses on their own words, if they disagree in their testimony?

Fifthly, I infer, that this Church is uni­versall, spread over all Nations, that she may be said to be every where, morally speaking (that is, according to common humane account, by which a thing dif­fused over a great part of the world, and famously knowne, is said to be eve­ry where; In this manner, the Apostle [Page 98] said, that the faith of the Romans, was re­nowned in the whole world.) Rom. 1.12. that so the whole world may take notice of her, as of a worthy and credible wit­nesse of Christian Tradition, howsoever her outward glory and splendour, peace and tranquillity, in some places and at some times be more or lesse eclipsed, and shee be not alwaies in all places at once. And the reason of this perpetuall visible universality is, because the Tradition of the Church is the sole ordinary meanes of faith toward the Word of God. This Tradition there­fore must be so delivered, as that it may be known to all men, seeing God will have all men (without exception of any nation) to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1. Tim. 2.4. which they cannot do, unlesse the Church be so diffused in the world, that all known nations may take notice of her. And Gods will that all men should be saved, though it be but an ante­cedent will, as Schoolemen call it, yet it inferreth two things, which some Pro­testants deny; first the salvation of all men; secondly the meanes of their salvation. In respect of the meanes, the will of God is absolute, that all men in some sort or other have sufficient meanes of salvation. In re­spect [Page 99] of the end, to wit, the salvation of all men, the will of God is not absolute, but as Schoolemen say, virtually conditionall; that is, God hath a will that all men be saved, as much as lies in him, if the course of his providence be not intercepted, and men will cooperate with his grace. And the reason why some Nations hear not the Gospell and Word of God, is not the defect of his Church, but the want of working in the naturall causes, to discover such Countries; which defect God will not ever miraculously supply. But if the Church were invisible to the world, and hoarded up her Religion to her selfe, either not daring, or not willing to professe and preach the same unto others; Nations may be knowne, and yet the Word of God not known to them. If therefore this Church should be hidden for a long time, mens souls should perish, not through de­fect in the naturall causes, but only through the hiddennesse, obscurity, and wretchednesse of the supernaturall meanes, to wit, of the Church; not endewed with so much zeal and courage, as to professe her Religion, and to propagate it in the world, which cannot be; Therefore it is impossible that the true Church should [Page 100] not be ever universall, and famously known.

Sixthly, this Church is holy, both in life and Doctrine. Holy for life, shining in all admirable sanctity, the rayes whereof do overcome the hearts of the beholders; such as the Holy Apostles gave example of, as of poverty, chastitie, obedience, chari­ty in undergoing all forms of labour, and danger for the safety of soules; patience invincible in the rough handling of them­selves by wonderfull fastings, and all kind of austerities; fortitude heroicall in suffering martyrdome, not onely with pa­tience, but with joy, though given them in all the most hideous shapes, that mans imagination steeled with malice, could in­vent. And although this kind of sanctity does not shine in all the members of the Church, but in the more eminent pro­fessors, and principally in the Pastors, yet if this kind of sanctity together with Mi­racles were wanting, she could not be so sufficient a witnesse to Infidells, who ordinarily are not won to the affecti­on, and admiration of Christianity, but by beholding such wonders of power, and sanctity in the Professors thereof. Holy shee is also for doctrine, in regard [Page 101] her traditions are divine and holy, without commixture of error; for if the Church could deliver any one, or few errors, inter­mingled with many truths, her Traditions even of the truth were questionable, and could not be believed upon her word: E­ven as if we admit in Scripture, any error in smaller matters, we cannot be sure of its infallibility in matters of greatest moment; as he that shall say, Gods written word is false, or uncertaine, when it tells him, that S. Paul left his cloake at Troas, may also say with as much reason, that it is false or uncertain, when it tells him that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary: Even so he that grants that some part of Traditions or the Word of God unwritten, may be false, inferrs by consequence, that every part thereof may be so; and that because we have no antecedent ground or touch-stone to try Traditions by, but they must be belie­ved for their own sakes, being therein more fundamentall than the Scripures, which are not known to be Apostolicall, but by Tra­dition; whereas perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its own light; for what can be more evident, then that that is from the Apostles, which is delivered as Apostolicall [Page 102] by perpetuall succession of Priests and people, affirming and believing the same.

§. 2. But against this truth, that if the Church may erre in one thing, neither wee, nor shee can be sure that shee speakes truth in any thing, Chillingworth makes these (in my judgement) impertinent interrogati­ons: A Judge may possibly erre in Judge­ment, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? A travayler may possibly mistake his way, must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? pag. 117. sect. 106. In which he weakly falls into com­parison betwixt matters which are the object of the sense, or of the under­standing, and of faith; which in this case have no proportion betwixt them. For the doctrines of faith, (as they are of faith, being altogether, and all equally, without the reach of our knowledge) we have no way to attaine to, but by the help of others, whom we must absolutely believe; and if we know that they may deliver that which is false to us, wee can never be sure that any thing they deliver to us, is not false, unlesse we had some superiour rule to try and examine their Traditions by, which cer­tainly we have not. Nor can the Church it [Page 103] selfe, if shee may erre in the delivery of one thing, be sure that shee doth not erre in every thing, because shee hath no infallible rule to examine her doctrines by, out of her selfe; who if shee be assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot erre in any thing, if not, for ought shee knowes, shee doth in all things. Now that the Church is assisted by God, and that mans reason cannot be the highest judge, to whom the last appeal is made in matters of faith, which descend from God, I have shewed before. As for a humane Judge, as he may erre through ig­norance, wilfulnesse, or negligence, which to conceive of the Church, is absurd, yea blasphemous, shee having Christ for her Head, and the Holy Ghost for her Spirit; so he cannot bee more certaine of the truth of his judgement, than his reason can make him, which will not reach to an absolute infallibility. And as a travayler may mistake his way in one journey, so he may in ano­ther, if he have no more certainty nor bet­ter guide of the one way, than of the o­ther; which is the Churches case in pro­pounding and believing matters of faith, revealed to her by God, which, like the Circumference from the Center, are all e­qually distant from our knowledge, and [Page 104] the Church hath an equall Prerogative of infallibility by the guidance of the Holy Ghost in all, who therefore can erre in no­thing, or in all things, which she saith she so receives, and delivers. Yet Chilling­worth saith, that his consequences are as like the other, as an egge to an egge, or milk to milk; but more truly, they are as like as an egge to an oyster, or milk to ink.

§. 3. And lest any Protestant, who honours the Scriptures much with his lips, though he be far removed with his heart, should think that I am injurious to the Scripture, in saying that Tradition is more fundamentall, than Scripture it selfe, I de­sire him to take notice, that Tradition and Scripture, according to different compari­sons, are equall and superior the one to the other. Compare them in respect of certainty of truth, they are equall, both being the Word of God, the one written, the other unwritten, and so both infinitely certain. Compare them in respect of depth, of sublimity, and variety of doctrine the Scripture is far superiour to Tradi­tion, Tradition being plaine and easie do­ctrine, concerning the common, capitall, and practicall Articles of Christianity, whereas the Scripture is full of high & hid­den [Page 105] senses, and furnished with great variety of examples, discourses, and all manner of learning. Compare them in respect of an­tiquity, and evidence of being the Apo­stles, the Scripture is inferiour to Traditi­on, in time and knowledge, and cannot be proved directly to be the Apostles, and therefore Gods, but by Tradition. As Phi­losophy is more perfect than Logicke, and Rhetoricke than Grammar, in respect of high and excellent knowledge; yet Lo­gicke is more prime, originall, and funda­mentall than Philosophy, Grammar than Rhetorique, without the rules and princi­ples whereof they cannot be learned: E­ven so Tradition is more prime and origi­nall than Scripture, though Scripture in re­spect of depth, and sublimity of discourse, be more excellent then Tradition.

CHAP. X.

THese premises considered, I look'd round about to see amongst al the so­cieties of the world professing the name of Christ, to which of them the title and dig­nity of the Church, might most justly [Page 106] be applyed; and I found that the Roman Church, that is the multitude of Christians spred over the face of the known world, adhering to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is the One, Holy, Catholique and A­postolique Church. The vulgar objection a­gainst the title of Catholique Roman, that is, say they, universall, and yet but particu­lar, seemed very childish; the one title be­ing applyed in regard of the doctrine, and the extent thereof, which is universall; the other of the discipline, and the fountaine, and head thereof, which is particular, from the Bishop of Rome. For the word Catho­lique is taken three waies, to wit, formally, causally, and participatively. Formally, the universall Church only, that is to say, the society of all the true particular Churches, united in one selfesame Communion, is cal­led Catholique. Causally, the Roman Church is called Catholique, for as much as shee in­fuseth universality into all the whole body of the Catholique Church. For to constitute universality there must be two things, one that may be instead of matter thereto, to wit, the multitude; and the other instead of form thereto, to wit, unity; for a mul­titude without unity, doe not properly make universality; Take away vnity from [Page 107] the multitude (saith S. Au­gustine) and it is a tumult, De verb. Dom. sceundum Luc. Serm. 26. but bring in unity, and it is a people. Therefore the Roman Church (which as the center and beginning of the Ecclesiasticall Communion, infuseth unity, which is the forme of universality, into the Catholique Church) may be called Catholique causally, though in her own be­ing, shee be particular: Even as the chief Captaine of an army, on whom all the in­feriour Captaines, Officers, and common Souldiers have their dependency, and with whom they hold correspondency, is called The Generall, though he be but one parti­cular man, because it is he, that (by the rela­tion that all others have to him) gives u­nity to the whole body of the Army. And thirdly, particular Churches are called Ca­tholique, participatively, because they agree and participate in doctrine and Communi­on with the Catholique Church.

§ 2. Now I was induced to believe, that the Roman Church, is the only true Catholike Church; by these ensuing reasons. First God being the Prime Verity, revealing truth, can­not suffer the knowledg of saving doctrine to be impossible, but it is impossible, if it be hidden; or if a false meanes of knowledge [Page 108] thereof, be so drest with the marks of the true, as that the true become undiscernable from it: And if the Roman be not the true Catholique Church and Tradition, then the true Catholique Church and Traditi­on is hidden, and a false Church hath the marks of the true so cleerly, that no other can with any colour pretend to be Catho­lique rather than it; that is, to have do­ctrine delivered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers, to whole worlds of Christian children. Hence either there is no meanes left assuredly to know the saving truth, or else it must be inward teaching by immediate revelation, without any externall infallible meanes; or the Scripture, known to be the Word of God, and truly interpreted, by the light and e­vidence of the things, or by the force of naturall reason, the vanity and falshood whereof I have already shewed: for knowledge of supernaturall truth, by the light and lustre of the doctrine, is proper to the Church triumphant, inward assurance without an externall infallible ground is proper unto Prophets and the first publish­ers of Religion. Hence it may be concluded, that if God be the Prime Verity, teaching Christian Religion darkely, without making [Page 109] men see the light of things believed; and mediatly, by some externall infallible meanes, upon which inward assurance must rely, then he must ever conserve the Catho­lique Church and Tradition visible and con­spicuous, that the same may be by sensible marks discerned.

And if any object, that the senses of men in this search may be deceived, through na­turall invincible fallibility of their organs, and so be no ground of faith, that is alto­gether infallible; I answer, that evidence had by sense, being but the private sense of one man, is not ordinarily fallible; but when the same is also publique & generall, that is, when a whole world of men concur with him, then his evidence is altogether in­fallible. Besides, seeing God will not teach men immediatly, but will have them cleave to an externall infallible means, and to find out this means by the sensible evidence of the thing, he is in a manner bound by the perfection of his veracity to assist mens senses with his providence, that therein they be not deceived, when they use such diligence, as men ordinarily use, that they be not deceived by their senses. Now what greater evidence can one have, that he is not deceived in this matter of sense, [Page 110] that the Roman doctrine is the Catholique, that is, doctrine delivered from the Apo­stles, by worlds of Christian Ancestors, unanimous amongst themselves in all matters of faith: what greater assu­rance (I say) can one have, that here­in he sees aright, than a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth? And surely this was the meaning of God by the Prophet Esay, when speaking of the Church of Christ, he calls it a direct way, so that fools cannot erre therein, Esa. 35.8. which cannot be, but by following a world of Ancestors going before them in the same Tract. Otherwise it is not only possible for fools, but even for them that seem to be wisest to erre, yea in this case it is impossible to be otherwise.

And if it be further objected, that I believe the Catholique Church, is an Arti­cle of Faith, and Faith is the argument of things not seen. I answer, an Article of Faith may be visible according to the substance of the thing, and yet invisible according to the manner it is believed in the Creed. The third Article, He suffe­red under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, according to the sub­stance of the thing, was evident to [Page 111] sense, and seen of the Jewes, and is now be­lieved of their posterity; but according to the manner that it is believed in the Creed, to wit, that herein the Word of God by his Prophets was fulfilled, and that it was done for the salvation of man; in this manner this visible Article is invisible, and so it is believed in the Creed. In like man­ner that there is in the world a Catholike Church, and that the Romane is this Catho­lique Church, Pagans, Jewes, and Here­tiques, (if they shut not their eyes against the light) do clearly behold; but that here­in the Word of God, concerning the per­petuall amplitude of his Church, is accom­plished, that this is an effect of Gods va­racity, to the end that the meanes to learn saving truth may not be hidden, this is a thing invisible; and according to this no­tion the Catholique Church is proposed in the Creed. Secondly, propositions of Faith must be invisible according to the Predicate or thing believed, but not alwaies according to the Subject, or thing whereof we be­lieve some other thing. The things the A­postles believed of Christ, to wit, that he was the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, were things invisible; but the sub­ject and person of whom they did be­lieve [Page 112] these things, was visible to them; yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fore­tell certain tokens, whereby that subject might by sense be seen and discerned from all other, that might pretend the name of Christ; or else his comming into the world to teach the truth, had been to little purpose. In this sort the Predicate or thing believed in this Article, the Holy Catholique Church, to wit, Holy, is invisible, but the Sub­ject, to wit, the Catholique Church, which we affirme and believe to be holy in her do­ctrine, is visible and conspicuous to all. Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes & tokens, whereby shee may by sense be cleer­ly discerned from all other that may pre­tend to the title of Catholique. For, were not this subject, the Holy Catholique Church, which we believe to be holy and infallible in her teaching, visible and discernable from all other that pretend to that title, of what use were it to believe that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world, hidden we know not where, like a Candle under a Bushell, or a needle in a bottle of hey?

§ 3. Secondly, if there must be alwaies in the world (as was proved before) one, holy, Catholique and Apostolique Church, [Page 113] that is, a Church delivering doctrines uni­formly, thereby making them credible; universally, thereby making them famously known to mankind; holily, so making them certain, and such, as that on them we may securely rely; Apostolically, so making them flow in the channel of a never-inter­rupted succession of Bisbops from the Apo­stles; then this Church must be either the Roman, or the Protestant, or some other opposite to both. Protestants cannot say a Church opposite to both, for then they should be condemned in their own judge­ment, and be bound to conforme them­selves to that Church, which can be no o­ther but the Grecian; a Church holding as many doctrines which the Protestants dis­like, as the Church of Rome; as might easily be proved if need were. It is further ma­nifest, that the Protestants are not this One, Holy, Catholique and Apostolique Church, since their revolt and separation from the Church of Rome; because in that very act of separation they did extinguish all these titles; for they changed the do­ctrines they once held, they forsook the bo­dy whereof they were Members, brake off from the stock of that tree whereof they were branches; neither in their departure [Page 114] did they joyne themselves with any other Church different from the Roman, profes­sing the particular Protestant doctrines; so that they made a new Church of their own not agreeing in all points of faith, with any that went before; neither have they which have come after them (as there are very many Sects risen out of the first Pro­testant) agreed with them. And therefore there is none, or the Roman is the One, Holy Catholique, and Apostolique Church.

§. 4. Thirdly the Protestants had the Holy Scripture from the Holy, Catholique, and Apostolique Church, otherwise they can­not be sure that they are the true Scriptures of the Apostles; because the testimony and Tradition of any other Church is fallible, and may deceive them; And if it may, for ought they know it hath, seeing they lived not in the Apostles daies, thereby to make themselves certain thereof; and so they will be altogether uncer­tain of that which they make the only object of their faith.Luther cont. An­ab. To. 7. German. Ien fol. 169. whitaker de Ec­cles. l. 3. p. 369. Now it is most certain that they had the Scriptures from the Roman Church, ac­knowledged by Luther himselfe, and also by Doctor Whitaker; only they took the [Page 115] wicked boldnesse to cancell some parts thereof; therefore, they must either ac­knowledge, that they are not sure that the Scripture is the Word of God, or that the Church of Rome, from whom they re­ceived it, is the true Church. And if the true Church hath delivered the true Text of Scripture, then hath she also, together with the true Text, delivered the true Apo­stolicall sense; because the Apostles them­selves did not deliver to her the bare Text, but with it the true sense, to be delivered perpetually to posterity; not by making a large and entire comment of all difficult places, but by delivering with the Text the sense also, about the maine and prin­cipall points; So that they who by Tra­dition receive from the Apostles the true Text, must together with it receive the true sense. Now principalChemnit. exam. Cont. Trid. p. 1. fol. 74. Doctor Bancroft in the Survey, p. 379. Pro­testants affirme the former, saying, No man doubteth, but the Primitive Church recei­ved from the Apostles, and Apostolicall men, not only the Text of Scrip­ture, but also the right and native sense; Which is agreeable to the Doctrine of theVincentius Ly­rinens. cap. 2. Fathers, that from the Apostles, together with the [Page 116] Text, descends the line of Apostolicall inter­pretation, squared according to the Ecclesia­sticall and Catholique sense. WhereuponAug. de util. cred. c. 14. S. Augustine affirms the la­ter, that they that deliver the Text of Christs Gospell, must also deliver the Exposition, saying, that he would sooner refuse to believe Christ, than learn any thing concerning him, but of those by whom he was brought to believe Christ. For they that can deliver by uni­form Tradition a false sense, may also deli­ver a false Text, as received from the Apo­stles; their freedome from, or liablenesse to error in both being equall. If therefore the Church of Rome have delivered the true Text, then she hath also delivered and preserved the true sense, or else we are sure of neither; and so she only is the true, ho­ly, Catholique, and Apostolique Church; or else there is none.

§. 5. Fourthly, it is granted by Prote­stants, that the Romane Church was once the true Church, and it cannot be proved that she hath changed her doctrine since the Apostles time, therefore she is still the same true Church. And that she hath not changed her Doctrine is thus proved; the Doctrines that have continued for di­vers [Page 117] ages in the Christian Church, and no time of their beginning can be assigned, must needs be Doctrines descending from the Apostles, and unchanged; and such are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Than the Doctrines of the Romane Church which Protestants reject, have been uni­versally received for many hundreds of years, is by many learned Protestants con­fessed. Perkins saith,Expos. of the Creed, p. 307. & 400. du­ring the space of nine hundred years, the Popish Heresie hath spread it selfe over the whole world, and for many hundred years an uni­versall Apostacy over-spread the whole face of the earth, so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world. Fulk saith,Treatise ag. Sta­pleton, & Mar­tiall. p. 25. the Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred years, some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. AndOn the Revelat. p 64. Na­pier saith, The Antichristi­an and Papisticall reign be­gan about the year three hundred and sixteen after Christ, (which is now above 1300. years ago) raigning universally without de­bateable contradiction, Gods true Church abi­ding certainly hidden and latent. Secondly, Protestants cannot tell the time when the [Page 118] Church of Rome began to change and swerve from the Apostolicall doctrine, there­fore doubtlesse she hath never changed her faith. Now that doctrines universally received, although they be not written, are Doctrines derived from the Apostles, is affirmed byDe Baptis. lib. 5. c. 23. S. Augustine, and allowed byD. sence p. 351. 352. D. Whit­guift, Archbishop of Can­terbury, who in his book a­gainst Puritanes, citing di­vers Protestants, as concurring in opini­on with him, saith, whatsoever opinions are not knowne to have begun since the Apostles time, the same are not new or secundary, but received their originall from the Apostles. But because this principle of Christian di­vinity brings in (as Cartwright the Puritan there alledged speaks) all Popery in the judgement of all men, I will further demon­strate it, though of it selfe it be cleer e­nough.

Christ by his Spirit being still present with his Church, cannot permit errors in Faith so to creep into the Church, as that by the very principles of Christianity they become unreformable; but if errors so creep into the Church, as that their begin­ning cannot be knowne, and their progresse [Page 119] become universall, then do they so enter and prevaile, that by the principles of Chri­stianity, they are past reformation; and that because whosoever undertakes to re­form them, is to be condemned as an He­retique; for he that will undertake to re­form Doctrines universally received by the Church, opposeth himself against the whole Church, and is therefore by a knowne and received Principle of Chri­stianity and Christs owne precept, to be accounted as a Heathen and a Publican, Mat. 18.17.Epist. 118. And as S. Augu­stine saith, To dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse: For, the Church by Christ is appointed the Judge and corrector of all others, as our Saviour saith, Tell the Church, and there­fore is not to be judged nor corrected by any; he that hath the high presumption to doe so, presently pulls on himself the censure of a Heathen. And justly too, for (like the Giants amongst the Poets who waged war against the Gods) he doth not only oppose the present Church, but the Church of all ages, even the Apostles them­selves; and who is sufficient for these things? And he begins a new course of Christiani­ty, seeking to overthrow that Doctrine [Page 120] which is universally received, and cannot be proved by any Tradition of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the world, than by the Apostles themselves, through the power of innumerable miracles. Wherefore these Doctrines, if they be errors, are er­rors, whose reformation no man by the principles of Christianity ought to at­tempt. And seeing it is impossible there should be any such errors, the Principle of S. Augustine stands firm, That Doctrines received universally in the Church without any known beginning, are truly Apostolicall, and of this kind are the Roman Doctrines, from which Protestants have revolted.

But some Protestants object, that the er­rors of the Pharisees were universally re­ceived in the Jewish Church, yet reformed by our Saviour. To which may be answered that Protestants (out of their desire to make Catholiques seem like the Pharisees) make themselves seem, as if they did not any whit understand the Gospell. For the Traditions of the Pharisees were not uni­versall Traditions, but certaine practises of piety invented by themselves, and dedu­cted by their skill from Scripture, where­by they would seem singularly religions, and not as other men. Secondly, Christ Jesus [Page 121] proving himselfe to be true God, might reforme errors universally received; and the Church of the Jewes falling, erect a new Church of Christians as he did; which is not lawfull for any one else to doe. For Christian Religion must continue to the worlds end, by vertue of the first Tradition thereof, and must never be interrupted without extraordinary and propheticall beginning, by immediate revelation and Miracles; If therefore errors be delivered by the full consent of Christian Tradition, they are irreformable. Again some Prote­stants say, that one may oppose the whole Church, and confute her errors by Scripture, & not be as an Heathen or Heretique; for not every one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen, Whites Reply, p. 136. but only such as in­ordinately and without just cause oppose it. And who I pray shall judge of the just­nesse of the cause? By this doctrine, every man is made an examiner and judge of the whole Church, & hellish confusion brought in thereby. For if against the sentence of perpetual universal Tradition, a private man may, without the guilt of heresie, pretend Scripture, and stand obstinately therein, & though the Church do give seeming and [Page 122] appearing answers (as some of them con­fesse) to his Scripture, yet condemne her answers, saying they are sophisticall, (as some of them do) what can be more dis­orderly? or what is Hereticall obstinacy, if this be not? Wherefore S. Augustine saith absolutely,Epist. 48. it is impossible men should have just cause, to depart from, & im­pugn the whole Christian Church. And why? but because it is a ruled case in Christianity, he that heareth not the Church is an Heretike.

Yet notwithstanding this, the Prote­stants doe charge the Church of Rome, DE FACTO, to have falne into errors, and to have changed her faith; and that because points of doctrine undefined, (about which Doctors have disputed, and held different opinions) have been afterwards defined by the Church, so that it was not lawfull for any after that, to make doubt thereof; the Church by this meanes hath held in later ages, that to be DE FIDE, a matter of faith, which the former ages did not, and so (say they) hath changed the faith, and believes and delivers more than shee received from the Apostles. But this I found to be no change of faith, but only a declaration of some point explicitly, which was implicit­ly and involvedly believed before. For all [Page 123] the Articles of faith were immediately re­revealed by Christ to his Apostles, and by them againe delivered to their posterity; so that since, there have been no new and particular revelations, but the first being laid up in the treasury of the Church, (for which cause S. Paul calls it a depositum, a stock, or pawn,) other truths have been de­duced from thence, as occasion hath requi­red. For when any one endeavours to cor­rupt the doctrine delivered by the Apostles, the Church calls her Pastors and Doctors to examine the matter, and being infalli­bly assisted by the Spirit of truth (which our Saviour promised should be with his Apostles to the end of the world, that is, with the Church their Successor, which was to continue to the worlds end) shee declares what is true, and what is false; as agreeing with, or disagreeing from that doctrine which shee hath received from her Fore-fathers the Prophets and Apostles, upon whom shee is built; as S. Paul saith, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephes. 2.20. For as in a building there is not the least stone which rests not upon the foundation; so in the doctrine of the Catholique Church, there is not the least point which is not grounded on, or [Page 122] [...] [Page 123] [...] [Page 124] contained in that which was delivered by the Apostles.

For example, in the principles of every Science are contained divers truths, which may be drawn out of them, by many seve­rall conclusions, one following another; These conclusions were truths in them­selves before, though they did not so ap­pear to us, till wee saw the connexion they had with the premises, and how they were contained in them; And by the many se­verall conclusions so drawn, the truth of those principles doth more shew it selfe, but doth not receive any change in it selfe thereby: even so in the prime principles of our faith, revealed immediately by God, and delivered to the Church, are contained al truths, that any way belong to our faith; but it was not necessary that the Church should manifest all these, at their first meet­ing in Councell, but only so much in every severall Councell, as should concerne the present occasion of their meeting; which is some particular heresie, or heresies then sprung up, and so more according to the successive growth of heresies; which when shee hath done, shee cannot be charged with creating of a new faith, or altering of the old; but shee doth only, out of old [Page 225] grounds and premises draw such conclusi­ons, as may serve to destroy new heresies, and shew them to be contrary to the anci­ent faith. In this manner the Church hath grown and increased in knowledge by de­grees, and shall still do so to the end of the world. And as the sun spreads the raies of his light more and more betwixt morn­ing and noon, and his beames display them­selves in a valley, or some roome of a house, where they did not before, without any change of light in the sun himselfe; So may the Church spread the light of her faith, shewing such or such a point to be a divine truth; which before was not known to be so; or which though it were a divine truth in it selfe, yet it was not so to us, for want of sufficient proposall, that is, of the Churches; wherein the Church resembles our Blessed Saviour, her Lord and Spouse; who though he never received the least in­crease of grace and knowledge, from the first moment of his being conceived, yet the Scripture saith, He grew in wisdome and age, and in favour with God and men, Luc. 2.52. to wit, because he shewed it more and more, in his words and actions.

This also further appeares by the me­thod which Catholique Fathers and Doctors [Page 126] observe in and out of Councells, in proving and defining points of faith; namely by having recourse to the authority of Gods Word, conteined both in Scripture and Tradition, and to the belief and practise of the Church; in searching whereof, the Holy Church joynes humane industry with Gods grace and assistance. For when any question or doubt of faith ariseth, particu­lar Doctors severally dispute and write thereof; then if further cause require, the Holy Church assembles her Pastors and Do­ctors together in a generall Councell, to ex­amine and discusse the matter more fully, as in that first Councell of the Apostles whereof the Scripture saith, The Apostles and Elders assembled together, to consider of this word, Acts 15.6. The Pastors being thus come together, and having the pre­sence of our Saviour, and his Holy Spirit (according to his promise) amongst them, out of Scripture and Traditions, joyning therewith the consent of holy Fa­thers and Doctors of foregoing times, she doth infallibly resolve and determine the matter; not as new, but as ancient, ortho­dox, and derived from her forefathers; ma­king that which was ever in it selfe a divine truth, so to appeare to us, that now wee [Page 127] may no more make question thereof. So that from hence it appeares, that the Church makes no new Articles of faith, such as then may be said to have their be­ginning, but only explications and collec­tions out of the old, which were delivered to the Apostles, and by them to us.

And though the Church doe thus grow in the knowledge of points of faith, yet this is no newnesse of faith, but a mainte­nance of the old, with a kind of increase, by way of explicating that which was invol­ved, cleering that which was obscure, defi­ning that which was undefined, & obliging men to believe more firmly and explicitly, that which before they were not bound so to believe.

That is only to be called a new faith, which is contrary to that which was held before, or hath no connexion with it; and when we cease to believe that which we believed before; this indeed is change of faith, the other is but encrease. And if this encrease of faith by the declaration of Councells, may be called a change and in­novation of faith, there is no Heretique but may challenge antiquity to himselfe, and put novelty on the score of the Church. For he may say such a thing, for [Page 128] example, that the Sonne is of the same sub­stance with the Father, was not held de fide, a matter of faith, before the Councell of Nice, therefore it is new. That Baptisme administred by Heretiques is good baptis­me, was not held as a matter of faith before the daies of S. Cyprian, therefore it is new. And the Heretique may say, that he believes only that which was believed before such or such a Councell (which he please, for the case is alike in all) and therefore he believes the antient Faith: By which way of arguing, he may renounce the de­crees of all Councells, as Novelties, and maintaine many Heresies, as the antient Faith. Yea by this absurdity a man may de­ny divers Books of the Scripture, as the E­pistle to the Hebrewes, the second Epistle of S. Peter, the Epistle of S. Iames, of S. Iude, and the Apocalyps, with some others, because they were not admitted for Cano­nicall, untill 300. or 400. yeares after they were written. Yet when they were decla­red to be Canonicall, there was no change of faith in the Church thereby: for the believing of these Books was involved in this revealed Article, I believe in God; and the believing of them to be Canonicall, was involved in this revealed Article, I be­lieve [Page 129] the holy Catholike Church: onely hereby was an increase of the materiall ob­ject of our faith to us, not in it selfe; we being bound upon the declaration of the Church, to believe that thing firmely and without dispute, which before perhaps we were not so obliged to doe.

§ 6. A fifth argument moving me to be­lieve that the Roman Church is the Catho­lique, was this: That doctrine which hath been delivered by Tradition, as the do­ctrine of our Ancestors, without any oppo­sition made by any known Catholique Fa­thers and Doctors: and if any did oppose the doctrine, he was censured of Novelty, and after admonition (if he persisted therein) was condemned of Heresie, such doctrine is derived from the Apostles and unchanged, and such is the doctrine of the Roman Church.

'Tis true indeed, that divers points of the Roman doctrine have been opposed, as by Arrius, Pelagius, Berengarius, Waldo, Wick­liffe, Husse, and many others, but these were not accounted orthodox Fathers, but were taxed of Novelty and innovation, and for such are delivered to us, by Tra­dition and history of the times wherein they lived. And it cannot be prudenty [Page 130] imagined; that if the Church of Rome had (like these men) attempted to change the doctrine of the Apostles, there should be no Tradition of it, no historicall narra­tion of it, but that all the good and true Catholiques should be asleep, to this great businesse of defending the flock from Wolves; or (which is more absurd) should against their knowledge, and con­science suffer damnable errors to steal in, to the destruction of themselves, and all the world that should succeed them. Now the opposition of the Church in the fore­mentioned manner, is so far from obscu­ring the Churches doctrine, that it makes it far more famous, and illustrious, and ap­parently Apostolicall; even as the sun strugling with a misty morning, breaking through it, appears more beautifully glori­ous, and unconquerable. And this Doctor Feild a learned Protestant confesseth, when a doctrine is in any age constantly delivered as a matter of faith, Field of the Church, l. 4. c. 14 and as re­ceived from ancestors, in such sort as the contradictors there­of were in the beginning noted for novelty, and if they persisted in contradiction, in the end charged with heresy, it is impossible but such a doctrine should come by succession from the Apostles.

But Protestants think it sufficient, that they find (as they say) the Roman doctrine contradicted in the writings of orthodox Fathers, though their opposition was not noted by antiquity, nor by the fame of Tradition delivered to posterity. But this answer leaves no meanes to common people to know certainly the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church, which is the guide of their faith, but by reading and ex­amining the Fathers, which to them is im­possible. Besides if that some few obscure and hard passages out of the Fathers, may suffice to call the Tradition of the Church into question, then there is nothing so cleerly and unanimously delivered by Tra­dition, but may fall under a new examina­tion; seeing nothing is or can be writ so plainely, especially where there is very much also written, but that some obscure and oblique passages may be raked out, to make shew of a contradiction; and if this counterpart may have the title of antiquity set over it, what Heresie will want its de­fence out of the Fathers? What Tradition was more constantly delivered by the Christian Fathers and Doctors, than our Saviours Consubstantiality with his Fa­ther? Yet the new Arrians (as we may [Page 132] see in Bellarmine) bring divers testimonies out of the antient Fathers, Lib. 2. de Christ. c. 19. to prove, that in this point they contradicted themselves and one another. In like manner, doe the Pro­testants now bring some obscure places out of the Fathers, in the defence of their heresies, which yet in a true sense doe im­port no such thing, but being a little ob­scure, they more easily wrest them to their corrupted meaning. But on the contrary, the Fathers are abundant and cleer, in those places which maintaine the Catholique doctrines, and none of the Fathers of those times did accuse other of error in those points, which if they had thought them so, there is no doubt they would. For wee cannot imagine, the true believers of those times lesse vigilant than of these; and we see now, that no man can broach an error against faith, but presently he hath abundant opposition, and further questioning, if the cause require.

Therefore it is apparent, that Pro­testants when they alledge the Fathers, as contradicting themselves, and one another in the Catholique Doctrines of those times, either mis-alledge their [Page 133] words, or mistake their meaning. For, if those contradictions were reall, why did not antiquity note them, as it noted their differences about smaller disputable matters. S. Hierome and Epiphanius took pains to note the errors of Origen; yet a­mongst them all they did not note a­ny, which the Church of Rome now holds, though his writings be full there­of. If the sentences of the Fathers be true in the sense that Protestants al­ledge them, why did not some charge them for maintaining the contrary Ro­mane Doctrines, a thousand times more frequently mentioned in their writings? And on the other side, if the Romane Doctrines were true, why did not some tax them for maintaining of Protestan­tisme? doubtlesse they would if they had understood them in the sense that Protestants now do. It is manifest there­fore that they that lived in those times (who were therefore better able to understand their meanings, than the Pro­testants that are sprung up so many hundred yeares after) did not conceive that the Fathers maintained the Prote­stant doctrines in their writings; for if they had, they would quickly have been reproved [Page 134] seeing the current of Christian Religion e­ven of those times, was agreeable to the present Roman; for asNapier On the Re­velat. p. 191. also Cent. Mag. cent. 2. c. 4. col. 55. Napier saith, during e­ven the second and third ages, the true temple of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. And according toTreatise of Anti­christ, lib. 2. c. 2. p. 25. Downeham, the ge­nerall defection of the vi­sible Church fore-told, 2 Thess. 2. began to work in the Apostles time.

§. 7. On the contrary, wee find in the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, that the Doctrines which Protestants now hold, were condemned as hereticall in those per­sons that then held them, and they were not therein opposed by any other Ortho­dox Fathers. For example, the Protestants hold that the Church may erre, so did the Donatists, for which they are frequently reproved by * S. Augustine. Passim. cont. Donat. Protestants deny unwrit­ten Traditions, & urge Scripture only, so did the Arrians, and are con­demned for it byEpiphan. Her. 75. Aug. cont. Maxi­min. l. 1. c. 2. & ult. S. Epi­phanius, and S. Augustine. Protestants teach that [Page 135] Priests may marrie; so did Vigilantius, and for it is condemned byCont. Vigilant. c. 1. S. Hierome. Protestants de­ny prayer for the dead; so did Arrius, for which he is condemned byAug. haer. 53. E­piphan. har. 75. S. Augustine and S. E­piphanius. Protestants deny invocations of Saints; so did Vigilantius, for which he is condem­ned by S.Hier. cont. Vigil. c. 3. Hierome. Prote­stants deny reverence to Images; so did Xenaias, for which he is re­reproved byHist. lib. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus in these words, Xenaias first (O audacious soule, and impudent mouth) vomited forth that speech, that the Images of Christ and those who have pleased him, are not to be worshipped. Protestants deny the reall presence; so did the Capernaites, who were, saithIn Psal. 54. & 55. S. Augustine, the first Heretiques that de­nied the reall presence, and that Judas was the first suborner and main­tainer of this heresie. Protestants deny con­fession of sinnes to a Priest; so did the Novatian Heretiques, for which they are reproved byLib. de poenit. c. 7. S. Ambrose. So did the Montanists, and are reproved by Saint [Page 136] Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. 54. Hierome. Protestants say that a man is justified by faith only; so did the Pseu­do-Apostles, for which they are condemned by S.De fide & oper. c. 14. Augustine. I might increase this Catalogue by the addition of many o­ther, and make the new Protestant Religi­on appear but a frippery of old Heresies: but these shall suffice. From all which it ap­pears, that the Fathers held the same faith with the present Romane Church, and that there was no opposition of Fathers against Fathers, nor of any one Father against himself, at least in matters of faith; but that they all held the unity of the faith; that they that held the contrary were by them condemned of Heresie; that in bring­ing any places out of the Fathers to con­firm their Heresies, they did misinterpret them, as the Protestants now do; that therefore the Doctrine of the Romane Church is Apostolicall and unchanged; and therefore she is the true Church.

CHAP. XI.

§. 1. IN further pursuit of the true Church, I addressed my self, by the marks thereof to find it out. For I accounted it vaine to try by the Scripture, whether the particular doctrines of Prote­stants, were the doctrines of the Apostles, unlesse I could find their Church to be the true Church, by the marks of the true Church set down in Scripture. For either the Scripure can clear all controversies, or it canntot; if it cannot, there will be no end of controversie amongst them that rely only on Scripture; if it can, then surely it can clear this most important one, which is the true Church, by the marks thereof; and if so, it is fit that that should be determined in the first place, on which all the rest depends,Ep. dedic. as Do­ctor Feild acknowledgeth. And whereas some Protestants make the truth of the doctrine to be the onely mark of the Church, it is preposterous, being the [Page 138] declaration of a thing obscure, or preten­ded to be so, by a thing more obscure; in as much as to know the truth of the do­ctrine in all the particular instances, is har­der than to know the society of the Church. And it is necessary to know the truth of doctrine in all the particulars, before we can thereby know the true Church, because if she erre in any one point of faith, she thereby falls from the title of the true Church. Now who is he that can boast to know the integrity of the doctrine of the Church, in all the par­ticular controversies, against every socie­ty that holds the contrary, by infallible proofs of Scripture, and invincible answers to all their objections? If any could do this, who knowes not that ignorant and unlearned people (of whose salvation notwithstanding God hath the same care, as of the learned, and to whom the marks of the Church should be equally com­mon, since they are equally obliged to obey her) are not capable of this exami­nation?Cont. Ep. Fund. c. 4. For the rest of the people (saith S. Augu­stine) it is not the quicknesse of understan­ding, but the simplicity of belief that secure them.

Therefore it is manifest, that they must have other marks to know the Church by, than that of her Doctrine; namely, marks proportionable to their capacity; to wit, externall and sensible marks, as eminency, antiquity, perpetuity, with the like; even as children and ignorant people must have externall and sensible marks, and other than the essentiall forme of a man, to know and discern a man from other li­ving creatures. Else how could S. Paul say, God hath made in the Church Apo­stles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Do­ctors, to the end we should be no more little children, blown about with every wind of doctrine, Ephes. chap. 4. ver. 11. if hee had not given us other marks to know the Church than the purity of the Do­ctrine? Besides purity of Doctrine be­ing the essentiall form of the Church, can­not be a mark of it, because they are commonly repugnant and incompatible conditions. For the mark doth commonly demonstrate the thing to the sense, and the essentiall form doth shew it to the under­standing; the mark designes the thing in existence, the essentiall forme designes it in essence; the mark shewes where the thing is, the essentiall form teaches what [Page 140] it is; the mark is sooner known than the thing; and contrariwise the thing is soo­ner known than the essentiall form of the thing;1 Phys. c. 1. for the thing defined (as Aristotle saith) is known before the definition. A Mark then must have three conditions; The first is to be more known then the thing, since it is that, which makes the thing to be known. The second, that the thing be never found without it. The third, that it be never found without the thing, either alone, if it be a totall mark, or with its fellowes, if it be a mark in part. According to these conditions, I found divers Marks set down in Scripture appliable only to the Church of Rome.

§. 2. Of which the first is to be Catho­lique, that is, universall; which was fore-told by the Prophet Esay, saying, All Na­tions shall flow unto it, Esay 2.2. And by the Psalmist, that it should have the Heathen for its inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for its possession, Psal. 2.2. And by our Saviour saying, This Gospell of the Kingdome shall be preached in all the world for a witnesse to all Nations, and then shall the end come And that repentance and remis­sion of sinnes should be preached in his Name [Page 141] amongst all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Mat. 24.14. Luc. 24.47. Therefore to di­stinguish Christs true Church from all He­reticall Sects, the Apostles in their Creed, and the antient Fathers in their Writings, have given her the Sirname of Catholique; a name ever insisted upon by the Fathers a­gainst Heretiques, no lesse than now.

And that the Roman Church is this Ca­tholique Church dispersed over the whole world, is manifest to all those that have either read the histories of the world, or have been eye-witnesses of the severall Countreys thereof; wherein though the publike profession thereof be Hereticall, Mahometicall, or Heathenish, yet even there hath the Romane Catholique Church both Fathers and children, Pastors and people. And like the Sea, what she loseth in one place, she wins in another; what she hath lost by the falling away of the Protestants in Europe, she hath gained with increase, by the propagation of her faith in the East and West Indies, where whole Kingdomes are converted thereunto; as a Protestant Author confesseth, saying,Simon Lythus in re­spons. altera ad alte­ram Gretseri Apo­logiam. p. 333. The Jesuites within the com­passe of a few years, not con­tent with the bounds of Eu­rope, [Page 142] have filled Asia, Africa, and America with their Idols. And thus shee was Catho­lique, by Napier a Protestant Writers con­fession forementioned, and others, for 12. or 1300. yeares ago, and ever since.

And whereas Protestants say that this universality is no true mark of the Church, because it is appliable to Turkes and Pa­gans, it is doubtlesse a very poor objection; for the markes of the Church are not given her by God, to distinguish her from all sorts of Religions, but only from those that are contained equivocally under the same next kind, and may be supposed and taken for Churches; that is to say, from other Christian societies, to wit, from Hereticall and Shismaticall Sects, which challenge by false markes the title of the true Church: To which purpose S. Augustine saith, dis­puting with the Donatists, Thou askest of a stranger whether he be a Pagan or a Christian, he answers thee, a Christian; thou askest him whether he be a catechumene, Aug de Pastor c. 13. or one of the faithfull; he an­swers thee, one of the faithfull; thou askest him of what communion he is, he answers thee, a Christian Catholique.

Besides, the Roman Church hath this forme of universality, beyond all Religions [Page 143] of the world, even Turkes or Heathens; That there is no place of the known world where there are not Roman Catholiques, propagating their Religion, by converting the people of the land, whosoever they are; which is manifestly wanting to all o­ther Religions, and is therefore in this re­gard also more universally spread over the face of the earth than any other. Others say that this universall spreading of the Church is antidated by Roman Catholiques with application to themselves, for that it was not to take beginning, but from the time of Luther, because some places of Scripture which speak of the largenesse of the Church, say it shall be in the later daies. But it is manifest, that by later daies, is meant all the space of time from Chirst to the end of the world; as S. Peter (inter­preting a prophecie of Joel, which saith, that it shall come to passe in the last daies, that God will powre his Spirit upon all flesh, Acts 2.17. by which is intended the amplitude of the Church) applies it to that present time when the holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles. Nor can any reasonable man imagine that it can sort with the good­nesse of God, and his tender love to man­kind, to suffer the light of his truth (in the [Page 144] not spreading of his Church) to be eclipsed for 14. or 1500. years, seeing that according to the opinion of some learned men, groun­ded upon fair probabilities, the world is likely to last but 2000. yeares after Christ. Howsoever this universality of the Prote­stant Religion is but begun, it is not perfect­ed; for the Roman Church is yet actually ex­ceeding larger; and Protestants that allow this for a mark of the true Church, & now begin hopefully to apply it to themselves, are bound to be of the Roman, till they see their expectation satisfied, in the Protestant Churches exceeding her in latitude; which I dare boldly say will not be as long as they live, and therefore they ought to die in the Roman Faith.

§ 3. But if we examine the matter a lit­tle more strictly, we shall find, that the Pro­testants plea for universality wilbe cut very short, when we consider, that though they make themselves all of one Church, when they would vie for multitude with the Ro­man Church; yet compared with one ano­ther, we shall find that they are very many Churches; not distinguished by nation on­ly, but by doctrine and points of faith; and that there are many Churches in one Nati­on, as in England for example, and will be [Page 145] many more, if the desired Independency be advanced. Now it is not sufficient that the Protestant Religion in generall be enlarged, but it must be the true Protestant Religion, which every particular Sect thinking it self to be of, and denying it (the most of them) to the rest, the universality of the Religion wilbe mightily abated. Indeed when they muster their strengths together, and make boast of their greatnesse, then they rake all into the title of Protestantisme, who have revolted from the Roman Church & count them on their side; as if the definition of a Protestant were, one that is opposite to the Church of Rome; So that if there were a thousand sorts of Heretiques in the world, they would in this case account them but one Church. But the word Catholique be­ing a note of Communion, (as I have shew­ed already;) as the Roman Church calls none a Catholique that doth not commu­nicate with her; so cannot the Protestant Church of Engl. count any to be of her Re­ligion, thereby (by inlarging of her bounds) to prove her selfe Catholique, unlesse they will communicate with her, which the Gre­cian Churches wil not, the Lutheran Chur­hes will not, many of the Sects within the Kingdom will not, as Presbyterians, Anti­nomians, [Page 146] Anabaptists, Brownists, Familists, Erastians, Socinians, Arminians, Seekers, Adamites, Shakers, Independents, with many others; These I say will not com­municate with the Protestant Church of England, nor will they communicate each with other, but have, at least most fre­quently, their Congregations (as they call them) separate and apart; so that these are all to be accounted severall Churches and Religions, and no one is further universall, than the communion thereof doth spread; which is so litle a way, that none of them is (nay though they were al united together, would they be) able to stand in competiti­on with the Roman Church; under whose Communion are many entire Kingdoms, and in all known parts of the world an in­finity of people, even in Asia, Africa, and America, where the name of Protestant, much more any particular Sect thereof, is altogether unknowne. Besides, all the Christian Churches, which are now sepa­rated from the Roman, were once united to her, both in faith and communion, and then either she was the Catholique Church, or there was none in the world, which is impossible; therefore they that departed from her, departing from the Catholique [Page 147] Church, became Schismatiques, and depar­ting from the faith they received from her, become Heretiques.

§ 4 Lastly, the very possession of the name Catholique is a proof, that it doth belong to her, seeing no sort of Christians else can usurp it from her. For howsoever some, when being so hard pressed, that they cannot claime the title of true Chri­tian, unlesse they assume the name of Ca­tholique, do then arrogate it to themselves, and say, that they are Catholikes; yet in ordinary speech if you speak of a Catho­like, every one understands thereby a Ro­mane Catholike; all other Sects voluntari­ly taking to themselves the name of some men for their founder, as of Luther, Cal­vin, whom they call their Reformers, or of some place, as the Albigenses: or from some accident of their pretended reformation, as Protestants; by which the legall Pro­testants delight to stile themselves, with this addition, of the Church of England, re­nouncing therein (as they suppose) Luther and Calvin, as ashamed, or seeming to scorne to derive themselves from any one man; as though the Church of England in this matter, namely, in opposition to the whole Church, both present and prece­dent, [Page 148] were of more consideration then one single man; Moreover, certain enough it is, that the Reformation of the Church of England began by one man, and he no God neither (except it were such an one as Jupiter was, who transform'd himself in­to a beast for the love of women) before it filled the whole Kingdome, and arrived at that high pitch of perfection, that some suppose. And who that man was, is well enough knowne, and what godly motives he had; which they must confesse, or else, that their Church is like Melchizedek, without Father or Mother; or like a Mu­shrump, started up in a night, no man knowes how.

On the contrary, the true believer will own no name, but that of the Catholique Faith, which was first devised by the A­postles in the Creed, and which the succes­sors of the Apostles in that Faith have al­waies worne; As the Anti­ent Father Pacianus ad. Symp. Ep. 1. S. Pacianus saith, in an Epistle to Symp­ronianus a Novatian Heretique, ‘Chri­stian is my name, Catholique is my Sir-name; that names me, this marks me out; by that I am manifested, by this I am distinguished.’ And Saint [Page 149] Cyrill. Hieros. Ca­tech. 15. Cyrill of Jerusalem ex­pounding the Creed; ‘For this cause (saith he) thy faith hath given thee this Article to hold undoubtedly, and in the holy Catholique Church, to the end, thou shouldest fly the polluted Conventicles of Heretiques. And a little after, "when thou comest into a Town, inquire, not simply where the Temple of our Lord is, for the Heresies of impious persons, do likewise call their dens, the Temples of the Lord; neither ask sim­ply where the Church is, but where is the Catholique Church? For that name is the proper name of this holy Church.’ And on the contrary,Hieron. cont. Luci­fer. c. 9. S. Hierome saith, ‘If in any part thou hearest of men denominated from any but from Christ, as Marcionites, Valentinians, &c. know that it is not the Church of Christ, but the Synagogve of Antichrist.’ AndLib. deutilitat. cred. cap. 7. S. Augustine fully, ‘Al­though there be many he­resies of Christians, and that all would be called Catholikes; yet there is alwaies one Church, if you cast your eyes upon the extent of the whole world, more abundant in multitude, and [Page 150] also as those that know themselves to be of it, more sincere in truth, than all the rest: but of the truth, that is another dis­pute. That which sufficeth for the que­stion is, that there is one Church, to which different Heresies impose different names, whereas they are all called by their particular names that they dare not disavow: from whence it appears in the judgement of any not pre-occupate with favour, to whom the name of Catholike, whereof they are all ambitious, ought to be attributed. And again,De vera relig. cap. 6. We must hold the Chri­stian Religion, and the communion of that Church, which is called Catholique, both by her own and by strangers: for whether Heretiques and Schismatiques will or will not, when they speak not with their own, but with strangers, they call the Catholiques no otherwise than Catholiques.’ As for the Protestants, it is certain, that neither by o­thers, nor yet by themselves in ordinary speaking, are they called Catholiques. No nor yet in their most solemne and serious speaking; as appears by the severall Acts both of the King of England, and of the Houses of Parliament, wherein both sides [Page 151] publish to the world (and yet in a sense different from one another) that they will maintain the Protestant Religion. But the Roman Church hath alwayes possessed the name of Catholique, and therefore she is such.

CHAP. XII.

§ 1. THe second mark of the Church is Antiquity; as God saith by the Prophet Jeremy, Stand in the waies & see, & inquire of the old paths, which is the good way, and walk therein, Ier. 6.16. And our Saviour saith, Mat. 13. that the good seed was sown first, and afterwards the tares. And even in nature truth is before falshood. And this Antiquity I found applyable in the highest degree to the Roman Religion; for though some heresies are very antient, as is intima­ted, in that the tares were sowen soon af­ter the good seed, yet the truth is more antient, and so is the Church of Rome. This antiquity of hers, for the greatest part of time, is confessed by Protestants, Perkins, (whom I alledged before) grants it for 900. yeares; Napier goes higher, and [Page 521] saith it raigned universally and without any debateable contradiction 12. hundred and 60. yeares. And seeing this raign of the Catholique Religion, which Protestants call Popery, was then universall, it is ap­parent that it did not then begin; for such an universall possession could not be got on the suddain, as they may perceive by the Protestant Religion, which is not improved to neere that universality in a­bove a hundred yeares; so that in all pro­bability (even according to the opinion of Protestants) the beginning thereof must be in, or neere the Apostles times.

Now whether we take the Roman Church for the society of Christians that acknow­ledge the Bishop of Rome for their head, or whether we take it for Fathers and Doctors holding the doctrines of the present Church of Rome, in both respects it will ap­pear that the Church of Rome is most anti­ent and Apostolicall. The former is proved by the testimony of S.Iren. cont. Val. lib. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, who calls the Roman Church, the greatest and antientest Church founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. And of S. Augustine, Aug. Epist. 162. who saith, In the Roman Church hath alwaies [Page 153] flourished the Principality of the Aposto­lique Seat: This word [alwaies] inclu­ding all the time upward, from that present, to S. Peter. So that by this it is manifest, that there was a Roman Church, even from S. Peters time, who was the first Bishop and Pope thereof. Which S. Augu­stine confirmes in another place saying, Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter, De Baptis. cont. Don. lib. 2. c. 1. &c. that is the rock which the gates of hell do not overcome. Nor do the Prote­stants deny the antiquity of the Church of Rome, but only some of them deny S. Peter to have been Bishop there, or indeed ever to have been there in person; which I count a fancy not worth the confuting, and they may with as much truth, and more reason, deny King William the Conquerour to have been King of England, or so much as to have been in England, seeing there is much more, and more noble testimony of that, than of this.

The main thing that they deny is the Antiquity of the doctrine of the Church of Rome; for they say the Primitive Fathers taught the Protestant Doctrine and not that which the Church of Rome now teacheth; Which I found to be false, by the examina­tion [Page 154] of particulars; all which if I should here set down, I should swell this intended little Treatise into a huge Volume. It shall suffice me therefore to give a scant map of the Churches doctrine in the Primitive times, and the testimony of some Fathers of the first five hundred yeares, of every se­verall age some, in the proof of some of the present Catholique doctrines, most strongly opposed by Protestants; referring him that is desirous of larger proof, to the painefull volumes of Coccius and Gualte­rus. Noting first two things by the way: The former, that it is not necessary that Catholiques should give this proof; For it is sufficient that they are in possession of this faith, and that they all say they recei­ved it from their Ancestors, and they from theirs, and so upward to the first beginning of Christian Religion; and that the Prote­stant cannot by any sufficient testimony of Fathers or histories prove the contrary; a thing which the Protestants no doubt would highly boast of, if they were able to performe it in their owne behalf. The lat­ter is, that many Protestants do confesse, that the antient Fathers did hold many points of belief of the present Roman Church; Whitguift Archbishop of Canter­bury [Page 155] saith, (and that without exception of the very first times)Defence a­gainst Car­twright p. 472. 473. ‘almost all the Bishops and Writers of the Greek Church, and Latine also, for the most part, were spotted with the doctrines of free will, of merit, of invocation of Saints, and such like.’ And the like is affirmed by many others, in many other points; as is largely shewed by the book entituled, The Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church. Against which the Protestants have no­thing to say, but that which is worse than nothing, to wit, that they were the spots and blemishes of the Fathers. And who I pray are they that undertake to correct Magnificat (as we say) and like Goliah to defie the whole hoast of Israel? But they say, that a dwarf standing upon a Giants shoulders, may see further than the Giant can; and so they by perusing the Fathers, may see further than the Fathers could; Further perhaps they may, in some cases, but never contrary; they cannot by their help see that to be black, which they saw to be white; that to be false, which they saw to be true.

§ 2. Let us then take a view of the Roman Doctrines, as they were held in the [Page 156] dayes of S. Augustine, and the foure first generall Councells, which were held be­tween the yeares 315. and 457. to which first foure Councells some Protestants seem to give much honour, and to subscribe to their Decrees, but they do but seeme. In those times the Church believed the true and reall presence, and the eating with the mouth of the Body of Christ in the Sacra­ment, as Zuinglius, the Prince of the Sacra­mentarians, acknowledges in these words:lib. de ve­ra & falsa relig. cap. de Eucharist. From the time of S. Augustine the opinion of corpo­rall flesh had already get the ma­stery. And in this quality sheChrys. in 1. Cor. Hō. 24 adored the Eucharist with out­ward gestures and adoration, as the true and proper body of Christ. The Church then belie­ved the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, Cyril. A­lex. ep. ad Caesar. Pat. even besides the time that it was in use; and for this cause kept it after Con­secration forCypr. de laps. domestical Com­munions,Euseb. hist. l. 7. to give to sick,Amb. de obit. Sayr. to carry upon the Sea,Euseb. hist. l. 5. to send in­to far Provinces. She then be­lievedPaulin. in vita Ambr. Tertul. ad ux [...]c. 55. Basil. Ep. ad Caes. Pat. that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for [Page 157] the sufficiency of participation, but that all the body and all the blood was taken in either kind: And for this cause, in domesti­call Communions, in Commu­nions for children, for sick per­sons, by Sea, and at the houre of death, it was distributed under one kind onely.

In those times the Church believedCyp. ad Coecil. ep. 63 that the Eucharist was a true, full, and entire Sacri­fice, not onely Eucharisticall, butEuseb. de vita Const. l. 4. propitiatory, and offered it as well for the livingChrys. in 1 Cor. hom. 41. as the dead. The faithfull and devout peo­ple of the Church in those times made pilgrimages toBasil. in 40. Martyr. the bo­dies of the Martyrs,Ambr. de vid. prayed to the Martyrs to pray to God for them,Aug. in Psa. 63. & 88. celebrated their Feasts,Hier. ad Marcell. Ep. 17. reverenced their Reliques in all honourable formes. And when they had received help from God, by the intercession of the said Martyrs,Theod. de Grac. aff. l. 8. they hung up in the Temples, and upon the Altars erected to their memo­ry, Images of those parts of [Page 158] their bodies that had been hea­led. The Church of those times heldBasil. de sanct. Spir. the Apostolicall Traditions to be equall to the Apostolicall Writings; and held for Aposto­licall Traditions all that the Church of Rome now imbraceth under that title. She also offe­red prayers for theTertul. de Mon. Aug. de verb. Ap. dead, both publike and private, to the end to procure for them ease and rest, and held this custome as a thingAug. de cura pro mort. necessary for the refresh­ing of their soules. The Church then held theHier. ad Marcel. Ep. 54. fast of the forty daies of Lent for a custome, not free but necessary, and of Apo­stolicall Tradition. And out of the time of Pentecost, fasted all the Fridaies of the years, in me­mory of the death of Christ, ex­cept Christmasse day fell on a Friday,Epiph. in compend. which she excepted as an Apostolicall Tradition. That Church heldEpiph. cont. Apo­stol. Haeres. 51. marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sinne, and reputedChrys. ad Theod. Hier. cont. Iov. lib. 1. those that married together after their vowes, not onely for Adulterers, but also [Page 159] for incestuous persons.

That Church held theCyp. Ca­cil. Ep 63. min­gling of water with Wine in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, for a thing necessary, and of di­vine and Apostolicall Tradition. She heldAug. de pecc. orig. cap. 40. Exorcismes, Exsuffla­tions and renuntiations, which are made in Baptisme, for sacred Ceremonies and of Apostolicall Tradition. She, besides Baptism and the Eucharist, heldAug. cont. Petil lib. 3. cap. 4. Confir­mation, Aug. de nupt. & conc c. 17. Marriage, Amb. de poenit. c. 7. Penance, Leo 1. Epist. or auricular Confession, Aug. cont. Parm. l. 2. c. 13. Orders, and Extreme-Ʋnction, for true & proper Sacraments: which are the seven Sacraments which the Church of Rome now acknow­ledgeth. That Church in the Ceremonies of Baptisme usedCyp. Epist. 70. Oyl, Conc. Carth. 3. c. 5 Salt, Gr. Naz. de Bapt. Wax-lights, Aug. Ep. 101. Ex­orcismes, theAug. cont. Iul. lib. 6. cap. 8. sign of the Crosse, Amb. de Sacra. l. 1. word Ephata, and other things that accompany it; none of them without reason and excel­lent signification. She also heldAug. de an. & ejus orig. l. 3. c 15 Baptisme for infants of abso­lute necessity, and for this cause permittedTertul. de Bapt. Lay-men to baptize [Page 160] in the danger of death. That Church used Holy Water, conse­crated by certain words and ce­remonies, and made use of it both forBasil. de S. Spirit. c. 17. Baptisme, andEpiph. har. 30. against Inchantments, and to makeTheod. hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 3. Ex­orcismes, and conjurations a­gainst evill spirits. That Church held divers degrees in the Ec­clesiasticall Regiment, to wit,Concil. Lacd c. 24. Conc. Carth. 4. c. 2. Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, the Acolyte, Exorcist, Reader and the Porter; conse­crated and blessed them, with di­vers forms and ceremonies. And in the Episcopall Order, acknow­ledged divers seats of Jurisdicti­on of positive right, to wit, Archbishops, Primates, Patri­archs, andHieron. ad Damas. Ep. 57. Concil. Chal. Ep. ad Leon. one super-eminent by divine Law, which was the Pope; without whom nothing could be decided appertaining to the universall Church; and the want of whose presence ei­ther by himself or his Legats, or his Confirmation, made all Councells (pretended to be uni­versall) unlawfull.

In that Church their service was said throughout theHier. praef. in Paralip. East in Greek, and throughout theAug. Ep. 57. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 13. West as well in Africa as Eu­rope, in Latine: although that in none of the Provinces (ex­cept in Italy, and in the Cities where the Romane Colonies resi­ded) the Latine tongue was un­derstood by the common peo­ple. She also observed the di­stinction ofAug. Ep. 118. & Psa 63. & 83. Feasts, and ordi­narie daies, the distinction ofHier. ad Helis. Ep. 3. Theod. hist. Ec. l. 2. c. 27 Ecclesiasticall and Lay habits, theOptat. l. 1. p. 19. reverence of sacred vessels, the custome ofTheod. hist. l. 5. c. 8. Isod de Diu. Off. l. 1. c. 4. shaving andGreg. Naz. de pac. or. 1. unction for the collation of Orders, the ceremony of theCyrill. Hier. Cac. Mart. 5. Priest washing his hands at the Altar before the consecration of the mysteries;Concil. Lacd. c. 13. pronounced a part of the Service at the Al­tar with a low voice; madeAug. de. Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. processions with the Reliques of Martyrs, Hier. cont. Vigil. kissed them,Hier. cont. Vigil. carri­ed them in cloaths of silk, and vessells of gold,Hier. c. Vi. took and e­steemed the dust from under their Reliquaries, accompanied [Page 162] the dead to their sepulchres withGreg. Naz. in lul. Orat. 3. Wax Tapers in signe of joy for the certainty of their fu­ture resurrection. The Church of those daies had the pictures of Christ and his Saints, bothEuseb. de. vita Const. l. 3. out of Churches Paulin. Ep. 12. Basil. in Martyr. Barlaam. and in them, and upon the veryPrudent. in S. Cassi­an. Altars of Martyrs; not to adore them with God-like Worship, but by them to reverence the Souldi­ers and Champions of Christ. The faithfull then used theTert. de Coron. mi­lit. sign of the Crosse in all their con­versations,Cyril. cōt. Iul. l. 6. painted it on the portall of all the houses of the faithfull,Hier. in vit. Hil. gave their blessing to the people with their hand by the sign of the Crosse, Athan. cont. Idol. imploy­ed it to drive away evill spirits,Paul. Ep. 11. proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on Good-Friday. In brief, that Church u­sed either directly or propor­tionably, the very same Cere­monies, that the Roman Church useth at this day. And finally that Church held,Tert. de Praescript. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 4. c. 32. that to the Catholike Church only belongs [Page 163] the keeping of the Apostolicall Traditions, the authority of the interpretation of Scripture, and the decision of controversies of faith; and that out of the suc­cessionCyp de u­nit. Eccles. Conc. Car. 4. c. 1. of her Communion, ofHier. cont. Lucif. Aug. de util. cred. c. 8. her Doctrine, ^c and her Mi­nistry, there was neither Church nor salvation.Cyp. ad Pup. Ep. 63 ad Mag. Ep. 76. Hier. ad Tit. c. 3. And let the in­different Reader now judge, whether by this face we may know the Romane, or the Prote­stant Church.

§ 3. But because there is between two or three hundred years, from the time of the first generall Councell, to the Apostles, and that some Protestants say, that as Mephi­bosheth in his infancy fell from his nurses lap, whereby he became lame, and halted all his life after: So the Church in the most primitive times fell from the true faith, whereby she hath ever since gone awry: we will still go on in the quest of the Ro­man Churches Antiquity even to the times of the Apostles, alleadging some one (a­mongst many) of every age of the first five hundred years, (to make the proof the fuller) in confirmation of some Roman doctrines that are most mainly gainsaid by [Page 164] Protestants; Wherein will appear that false and vaine challenge of Bishop Jewell, re­newed by D. Whitaker, who to the glori­ous Martyr Campian writes thus. ‘Resp. ad. Rat. Camp. Attend Campian, the speech of Jewell was most true and con­stant, when provoking you to the anti­quity of the first six hundred years, he of­fered that if you could shew by any one cleer and plain saying, out of any one Fa­ther or Councell, he would grant you the victory: it is the offer of us all the same do we all promise, and we will all, per­form it.’ Indeed in the first three, of the first six hundred years, the Church was al­most under continuall persecution, and so the writers of those times were few, and much of that which they wrote did perish in those great ship-wracks of persecution; and the matters that they wrote of, most commonly, were of another quality than concernes our present differences, the He­resies of those daies being for the most part different from the present; and much of their writings being spent in Apologies for themselves against the Heathen. Yet all these advantages of the Protestants are too narrow to cover their designe; For in those ages (to retort the former boast of [Page 165] the Protestants) there is not one single proof, out of any one Father (rightly in­terpreted) for any one point of doctrine, held by Protestants opposite to the Roman Catholique; and for the Roman Catholique there is abundance. In the alleadging whereof, I will begin at the bottom, and so go upward, in some of which testimonies there shall be intermingling the interpre­tation of some Scriptures to the same pur­pose, whereby I will include the testimony of Scripture also, as it is interpreted by these Fathers, who were doubtlesse better expositers than John Calvin, or any of his followers.

And first of the Reall and corporall pre­sence of our Saviour in the Holy Eucahrist, and of the Holy Sacrifice of the Masse. In the fift age or hundred of years, S. Au­gustine expounding the title of the Psalme, in which it is written, ‘And he was carried in his owne hands, saith,Aug. Conc. 1. in Ps. 33. Bre­thren who can understand how this could be done in man? for who is carried in his own hands? a man may be carried in the hands of ano­ther. How this may be understood in Da­vid himselfe, according to the letter, we find not; but in Christ we find. For [Page 166] Christ was carried in his owne hands, when commending his own body, he said, This is my Body, for he carried that body in his hands.’ Nor have the Protestants more reason to deny this place to intend the true, reall, naturall body and person of our Saviour, because Turtullian saith, it is a figure of his body; than the Manichees and other Heretiques had to deny a reall body to our Saviour, when he lived upon earth, because the Scripture saith, He took upon him the forme of a servant, and was made in the likenesse of men, Philip. 2.7. From which place they inferred, that he was not a man really and indeed, but had only the forme and likenesse of a man. And if they would 'not stand to the judgement of the Church for the sense and meaning of these words, who could convince them? For they drew all other places to the sense of this, and would not suffer this to yeald unto them, though they were never so ma­ny, or never so plaine.

In the fourth age, S. Ambrose saith ‘Lib. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Before it be consecrated it is but bread, but when the words of consecration come, it is the body of Christ. To conclude, heare him saying, Take and eat of it all, for this i [...] [Page 167] my body: and before the words of Christ, the chalice is full of wine and wa­ter; when the words of Christ have wrought there it is made blood which re­deemed the people. Therefore mark in how great matters the word of Christ is potent to convert all things. Moreover our very Lord Jesus testifieth unto us that we receive his body and bloud, what ought we to doubt of his fidelity and testimony. And again he saith,Lib. de iis qui misteriis initiantur. c. 9. Perhaps you may say, I see another thing, how do you affirme to me that I shall receive the body of Christ. This yet re­maines to us to prove. How great exam­ples therefore do we use, to prove that it is not this which nature hath formed, but which benediction hath consecrated, and that there is greater force of benediction than of nature, because by the benediction the nature it selfe is changed. Moses held a Rod, he cast it down, and it is made a Serpent &c. which if humane benediction were so powerfull that it converted na­ture, what say we of the divine consecra­tion it selfe, where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do work.’

In the third age, S. Cyprian tells us [Page 168] plainly, if the former be not plaine enough for Transubstantiation; that, ‘Serm. de Coena Dom. prope init. That bread which the Lord did give to his disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh; and as in the person of Christ his humanity was seen, his divinity lay hid; so in the visible Sacrament, the di­vine essence doth infuse it selfe after an expressible manner.’

In the second age we find S. Iraeneus speaking thus;Lib. 4. c. 32. in fine. ‘But giving councell unto his diciples to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures, not as to one that wanted, but that they might be neither unfruitfull nor ungratefull, he took that which is bread of the creature, and he gave thanks, saying, this is my body. And the cup in like manner, which is of that creature, which is according to us, he con­fesseth his blood, and taught a new obla­tion of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, of­fers to God through all the world, to him that maketh the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament nourishments to us; of which in the twelve Prophets: Ma­lachy [Page 169] 1.10.11. hath thus fore-signified, I have no wil to you saith the Lord Omni­potent, and I wil not receive a sacrifice of your hands; for from the rising of the sun unto the going downe, my name is glori­fied amongst the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my Name, and a pure sacrifice, because my name is great amongst the Gentiles, saith the Lord Al­mighty. Manifestly signifying by these words that the former people ceased to offer to God, but in every place sacrifice is offered to God, and this pure, but his name is glorified in the nations.’

Nor can this be meant of the Sacrifice of all Christians in generall, but only of the Priests, (because as by the Chapter it doth appear) God speakes of rejecting the Priests of the old law and their Sacrifice, and choosing a new priesthood, whom he calls the sonnes of Levi, Mal. 3.3. by which figuratively is meant, the Priests of the new Law, and so do the Ministers of England frequently stile themselves, the Tribe of Levi. Besides Protestants confesse that theirVVhitak. cont. Dur. l. 8. p. 572. praiers and best actions are impure and sin­full, it cannot therefore be meant of such Sacrifices, for this is a pure [Page 170] sacrifice and proper, which none but Priests can offer, & is therefore according to the exposition of S. Irenaeus, the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ, the purest sacri­fice that can be imagined. In this age also Justin Martyr saith, In Apol. 2. ad Anton. Impe­rat prope fi­nem. * ‘For we do not take those things as common bread, and com­mon drink, but as Jesus Christ our Saviour made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our Salvation; so the bread and wine being made the Eu­charist by the praier of the word proceeding from him, by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change, we are taught, that it is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Christ in­carnate.’

Lastly in the first age, S. Ignatius, Mar­tyr and Disciple of S. John the Evangelist, speaking of the error of the Saturnians saith,Epist. ad Smyni­um, ut citatur à Theodoreto▪ Di­al. 3. ‘They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not con­fesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Saviour, which suffered for our sinnes, which the Father by his [...]ounty raised.’ And S. Andrew the Apostle [Page 171] saith,lib. pass. S. An­dreae, apud Suriū. ‘I daily sacrifice an immaculate Lamb to the omnipotent God: which when it is truly sacrificed, and the flesh thereof truly eaten of the people, doth continue whole and alive.’

Concerning the honour and Invocations of Saints, in the fift age S. Augustine saith,Serm. 17. de ver­bis Apost. prope init. ‘It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be commended.’ And accor­dingly he did commend himself in these words,Meditat. c. 40. ‘Holy & immacu­late Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, vouchsafe to intercede for me to him whose Temple thou hast deserved to be made. Holy Michael, holy Gabriel, holy Raphael, holy Quires of Angells and Archangells, of Patriarchs and Prophets, of Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Con­fessors, Priests, Levites, Monks, Virgins, and all the just, both by him who hath chosen you, and in whose contemplation you rejoyce, I presume to ask, that you would deign to beseech God for me a sinner, that I may deserve to be delivered from the jaw of the Devill and from e­ternall [Page 172] death.’ And again he saith,Lib. de loquutio­nibus in Gen. prope finem. ‘Jacob blessing his Nephewes the sonnes of Joseph, among other things he saith, and my name shall be invoked in these, and the name of my Fa­thers. Whence it is to be noted, that not only hearing, but also invocation is somtimes said, which are not things pertaining unto God (only) but unto men.’

In the fourth age we find S. Gregory Na­zianzene speaking thus to S. Basil the greatIn Orat. 20. quae est in laudem Ba­silii Magni. ‘But thou holy and heavenly head, I pray thee behold us from heaven, and either with thy prayers stop the provocation of the flesh, which God hath given us for instruction; or truly perswade, that we may beare (it) with a valiant mind: and direct all our life to that which is most availeable; and after that we shall passe out of this life, receive us also there in thy Taberna­cles.’ And S. Hierome against Vigilantius saith,Cont. Vigilant. c. 3. initio. ‘Thou saist in thy book, that while we live we may pray for one an­other, but after we shall be dead, the [Page 173] prayer of no man is to be heard for ano­ther, especially seeing the Martyrs re­garding the revenge of their blood, shall not be able to obtain; to which he an­swers, 'If the Apostles and Martyrs being yet in the body can pray for others, when as yet they ought to be solicitors for themselves, how much more after crowns, victories and triumphs?’ And a little af­ter he answers to the objection of their being dead, saying, ‘To conclude, the Saints are not said to be dead, but a­sleep.’

In the third age Origen giues us this example,Initio sui La­menti. ‘I will begin to prostrate my self on my knees, and to beseech all the Saints, that they help me, who dare not beg of God, by reason of the abun­dance of (my) sin. O Saints of God I beseech you with tears and weeping full of griefe, that you fall down to his mer­cies for me miserable wretch; And after; woe is me, Father Abraham pray for me, that I be not estranged from thy bo­some, which I have greatly desired, not condignely truly, by reason of my great sin.’

In the second age, Justin Martyr speaks [Page 174] thus,Apol. 2. ad An­ton. Pium Imper. non longe ab ini­tio. ‘Moreover we doe worship and adore him (to wit God;) and the Son who came from him, and taught us these things, and the Army of others that followed, and of the good Angells assimilated, and the propheticall Spirit, reverencing in word and truth, and fairly delivering it as we are taught, to all that will learn.’

And in the first age, in the Liturgie of S. James the lesse,Ante Med. we have these words, ^e ‘Let us make commemoration of the most holy, im­maculate, most glorious, our blessed Lady, Mother of God, and alwaies Vir­gin Mary, and of all Saints and just ones, that we may all obtain mercy by their prayers and intercessions.’

§. 5. Thirdly, for the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images, and chiefly of the holy Crosse, hear what S. Augustine saith in the fift age,Tract. 118. in Ioan. fine ‘What is the signe of Christ which all have known, but the Crosse of Christ? which signe unlesse it be applied, whether to the foreheads of believers, or to the water wherewith they are regenerated, or to the oile wherewith [Page 175] they are anointed with the chrisme: or to the Sacrifice wherewith they are nou­rished, nothing of them is rightly per­formed.’

In the fourth age we shall find Athana­sius speaking thus, and expressing the man­ner of Catholiques worship of Images; ‘ad Antiochum Principem. Let it be far from us, that we Christians adore images as Gods, as the Greeks do; we declare only our affection, and the care of our love towards the figure of the person expressed by his image: there­fore oftentimes we burne as unprofitable the wood which ere while was an image, if the figure be worne out. Therefore as Jacob when he was to die, adored the top of Josephs rod, not honouring the rod it selfe, but him who held the rod; So we Christians do no otherwise adore images, but even as moreover when we kisse our Fathers and children, we declare the de­sire of our mind. Even as the Jew also did adore in times past, the Tables of the law, and the two golden Cherubins, and certaine other Images, not worshiping the nature of the stone, or gould, but our Lord who commanded them to be made.’

Homil. 8. in diversos Evangelii locos.In the third age * Origen saith thus: ‘To conclude, * in Ezekiel the Prophet, ch. 9. v. 4. when the Angell who was sent had slaine all, and the slaughter had begun from the Saints, they only are kept safe, whom the letter TAU, that is, the picture of the Crosse had signed. Let us rejoice therefore most dear brethren, and let us lift up holy hands to heaven in the form of a Crosse: when the devils shall see us so armed they shall be van­quished.’ And note I pray by the way, that some English Bibles doe leave out the let­ter TAU, in this place of Ezekiel, but how justly let any indifferent reader judge.

In the second age, heare S. Justin Mar­tyr speaking of the parts of dead beasts, thus arguing,Ad quaest. 28. Gentilium. ‘How, is it not most absurd, to account these things cleane, by reason of the profit which is reaped of them, and that the Greeks do detest the bodies and sepulchres of holy Martyrs, which have power both to defend men from the snares of the Devills, and to cure dis­eases which cannot be cured by the art of the Physitian.’

In the first age, S. Ignatius speaks thus:Epist. ad Phil. ante med. ‘For the Prince of the world rejoyceth when one shall deny the Crosse: For he knowes the confession of the Crosse to be his overthrow: For that is a trophie against his power, which when he shall see, he trembles, and hearing, he feares.’

§. 6. Fourthly, concerning Confession and Priestly Absolution, in the fift age S. Augu­stine thus exhorteth,Homil. 49. ante med. ‘Do pe­nance such as is done in the Church. Let no man say to himself, I doe secretly, I do to God, God knowes (who pardons me) that I do in my heart. Is it therefore without cause said, what you shall loose in earth, shall be loosed in heaven? Mat. 18.18. Are therefore the keyes given to the Church of God, to no purpose? Do we fru­strate the Gospell of God? do we fru­strate the words of Christ?’

In the fourth age, S. Basil the great speakes thus,Suis regulis brevioribus interr. 288. ‘Men ought necessarily to open sinnes to them who are intrusted with the dispensation of the mysteries of God. For truly we see, that [Page 178] even those antients did follow this or­der in penance, after which manner it is written in the Gospell, that they did con­fesse their sinnes to John, Mat. 3.6. and in the Acts ch. 18. v. 18. to the Apostles themselves, by whom also all were ba­ptized.’

In the third age, S. Cyprian beseecheth them saying,Serm. de lapsis. ‘Let every one confesse his fault I intreat you brethren, while as yet he that hath offended is in this life, while his confession can be admitted, while sa­tisfaction, and remission given by the Priests, is gratefull to the Lord.’

In the second age Tertullian speaking a­gainst mens concealing part of their sins in Confession, thus reproves them,lib. de poenit. c. 10. ‘The hiding of a sin doth promise plainly a great profit of bashfulnesse: To wit surely, if we shall steale any thing from humane knowledge, we shall then also hide it from God. The esteem of men and the knowledge of God are they so compa­red? Is it better to lie hid damned, than to be openly absolved? It is a miserable thing so to come to Confession.’

And in the first age S. Clement advi­seth [Page 179] thus,Clem. Ro. E­pist. 1 ‘If peradventure envy or infidelity, or some of these evills which we have remembred above, shall privily steale in­to any bodies hearts, he that hath a care of his soule, let him not be ashamed to confesse these things, to him that hath authority, that he may be cured by him, by the Word of God, and wholesome Counsell, whereby he may, by found faith and good works avoid the pains of eter­nall fire, and attain to the everlasting re­wards of life.’

Now concerning Purgatory and Pray­er for the dead, in the fift age S. Augustine saith,De civit. Dei l. 20. c. 24. & l. 21. c. [...]3. ‘Neither could it be truly said of some Matth. 22.32. That they are not forgi­ven neither in this life, nor in the life to come, unlesse there were some who though they are not forgiven in this life, yet should be in the life to come. And again,Serm 41. de Sanct. prope in­itium. 'There are many who not rightly understan­ding this reading, are decei­ved with false security, whilst they believe that if they build capitall sinnes upon the foundation, Christ, those sinnes may be purged by transitory fire, [Page 180] and they afterward come to life everla­sting. This understanding, &c. is to be cor­rected, because they deceive themselves, who so flatter themselves, for with that transitory fire wherof the Apostle said, 1. Cor. 3.15. He shalbe saved, yet so as by fire, not capitall but little sins are purged.’ And concerning Prayers for the dead, he saith, ‘Serm. 32. de verb. Apost. It is not to be doubted, that the dead are holpen by the prayers of the Church, and the saving Sacrifice, and by almes which are given for their soules, that God would deale more mercifully with them, than their sinnes have deserved.’

In the fourth age S. Ambrose in his inter­pretation of the fore-mentioned place of S. Paul, saith,Amb. in 1 Cor. 3. ‘But whereas S. Paul saith, yet so as by fire, he sheweth indeed that he shall be saved, but yet shall suffer the punishment of fire, that being purged by fire, he may be saved, and not be tor­mented for ever, as the Infidells are with everlasting fire.’ And S. Hierome saith, ‘there are some,In Comment. in cap 11. Pro­ver. who may be absolved after death of ligh­ter sinnes, of which they die guilty, either being punished [Page 181] with paines, or by the prayers and alms of their friends, and the celebration of Masses.’

In the third age we shall find S. Cyprian speaking thus,Epist. 52. ad Anton. post. med. ‘It is one thing to stay for pardon, ano­ther to attain to glory; one thing being cast into prison, not to go out thence untill he do pay the uttermost farthing, Mat. 5.27. another thing presently to receive the reward of faith and vertue: one thing being afflicted with long pain for sinnes, to be mended and purged long with fire, another thing to have purged all sins by suffering: to conclude, it is one thing to depend upon the sentence of the Judge in the day of Judgement, another thing to be present­ly crowned of the Lord.’

In the second age, Tertullian in agree­ment with the rest, saith,lib. de anima cap. 58. ‘In sum, seeing we understand that Prison, which the Go­spell doth demonstrate, to bee places below, and the last farthing wee interpret every small fault, there to be punished by the delay of the Resurrecti­on; no man will doubt, but that the soul doth recompence something in the places [Page 182] below, saving the fulnesse of the Resur­rection by the flesh also. And in his book De corona militis, he saith,cap. 3. 'we make yearly oblations, for the dead. And a little after,cap. 4. If you require a Law of Scripture, for these and other the like Disciplines, you shall find none. Tradition is shewed thee for the Author, custome the confir­mer, and faith the observer.’

And in the first age S. Clement speaking of S. Peter, reports thus of him,Clem. Ro. Ep. 1. de S. Pe­tre prope fin. ‘His daily preaching a­mongst other divine com­mandements, was this &c. e­very one as farre as he understands and is able, to love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself, to relieve the poor, to cloath the naked, to visit the sick, to give drink to the thirsty, to bury the dead, and diligently to perform their fu­neralls, and to pray and give alms for them.’

§. 8. Concerning Traditions in the fift age, S. Augustine saith,Lib. 4. de bapt. con. Do­nat. c. 24. ‘That which the whole Church doth hold, and is not institu­ted by Councells, but is al­waies retained, is rightly believed not to [Page 183] be delivered, but by Apostolique authori­ty. And S. Chrysostome, In 1 Thes. 2. In 1 Thes. hom. 4. It is manifest, that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things without writing. And as well these as those are worthy of the same credit; wherefore let us esteem the Tradition of the Church to be believed. It is a Tra­dition, seek no further.’

In the fourth age, S. Basil speaks thus,Lib. de Spirit. sancto c. 27. ‘The opinions which are kept and preached in the Church, we have partly out of written Doctrine, partly we have received by the Tradition of the Apo­stles, brought to us in a mystery. Both which have the same power to piety, and no man contradicted these, who hath but mean experience of Ecclesiasticall rights.’

‘In the third age,Heres. 61. we must use Traditions (saith S. Epipha­nius) for all things cannot be received from divine Scripture, wherefore the ho­ly Apostles have delivered some things by Tradition, even as the holy Apostle saith. As I have delivered to you, and els­where, so I teach, and have delivered in Churches.’

In the second age, S. Irenaeus thus expo­stulateth;lib. 3. c. 4. ‘But what if the A­postles neither had left Scrip­tures unto us, ought we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they deli­vered to them, to whom they commit­ted the Churches?’

And in the first age S. Dennys tells us, ‘thatAreopag. c. 1. Eccles. Hierar. those first leaders of our Priestly Office, delivered to us those chief and super­substantiall things, partly in writings, partly in unwritten institutions.’

I could give plenty of proofs in all o­ther particulars; But as the cluster of grapes (which was brought out of Canaan to the Israelites) was a testimony of the fruit the Land brought forth, Numb. 13.23. So this small parcell of antiquity ta­ken out of their great store, is proof suffi­cient that the most antient Church, even in all the first ages, and the Scripture it selfe in the judgement of those Fathers, did teach the same Doctrines that the Roman Church now doth, and hath had a perpe­tuall and uninterrupted succession in those Doctrines, and her Pastors; and is therefore the self-same Church with the Apostles. A thing fore-told by Daniel, who [Page 185] cals it a Kingdom which shall never be dissol­ved, Dan. 7.14. And in which the Maxime of wise Gamaliel is verified; if this counsell or work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, Act. 5.38, 39.

§ 9. But among the Protestant Churches I found no such thing; neither Antiquity in their Doctrine, (but contrariwise their Doctrine condemned by Antiquity, as I have shewed before) nor yet in the bodie of their Professors. And though they alledge some places of the Fathers in proof of their Doctrines, yet they corrupt the mea­ning, as may easily appear to those, that di­vesting themselves of all interest, can and will indifferently examine the places; who shall find that they make not for them. Nor indeed can they, for my former al­ledged reason; namely, that if Antiquity had understood them so, to wit, in the Pro­testant sense, some or other would either have reproved them for so frequently els­where affirming the Roman Doctrines (as Protestants confess they did, as I have shew­ed) or for affirming those Protestant do­ctrines, which were contradictory to them; which seeing they did not, 'tis manifest they believed no such contradictions in their wri­tings, but understood those places w^ch Pro­testants [Page 186] alledge as Catholiques now doe, as ma­king nothing to the Protestants purpose. But for their Catholique doctrines, it is ma­nifest that they cannot be interpreted to comply with the Protestant Religion; for if they could, why do the most learned Protestants accuse them of Popery? It is a rule ofDe doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 25. 26. S. Augustine in the interpretation of Scripture, which is also as proper for the Fathers, and agreeable to reason, that where there are many cleer places on the one side, and some few ob­scure places on the other, the obscure must give place to the cleer, and be reduced to an agreement with them in meaning; which rule if it be observed, it will easily appeare whether the Fathers were of the Roman or the Protestant Church.

As for the Antiquity of the body of the Professors of the Protestant religion, it whom the antient Apostolicall Church hath her resurrection, which like Epimenid [...] (they say) fell asleep when she was yong and waked not till she was old, no man knowing what was become of her in the mean while, I could not indeed find i [...] more antient than some very old men somewhat above sixscore yeares; old Pa [...] [Page 187] that died in England but few years agoe, might have been grandfather to the Reli­gion, or at least elder brother to the Fa­ther thereof Martin Luther, who in the year 1517. (like a prodigious Comet) be­gan to appear, and ingendring with the devill, blasted the beauty of the Spouse of Christ, and filled the Christian world with Heresie and bloud. And in the year 1529. Luther and his Disciples received the name of Protestants, from their Protestation and Appeal from the decree of the Diet of Spi­ra; in which title, the nation of England (I think) doth more triumph, than any of Luthers ofspring.

And whereas they do pretend, some of them, to have alwaies had a Being before that time, it will fitly be examined in the next mark of the Church, which is, visibi­lity. For the maxime of law will hold good in this case, IDEM EST, NON ES­SE, ET NON APPARERE, it is all one, not to be, and not to appear. For the present, seeing no more of them than yet we doe; we may speak to them in the words of Tertullian Tertul. de prae­script. 17. QUI ESTIS VOS, UNDE ET QUANDO VENISTIS? who are you, from whence and when came you? [Page 188] for either they are as young as Luthers A­postasie, or else older than Christ and his Apostles, even Jewes, and so old, that the mark is quite worn out of their mouth.

CHAP. XIII.

§. 1. The third mark we will seek the true Church by, is Visibility; which was foretold by the Prophet Esay 2.2. & Micah 4.1. It shall come to passe in the last daies, that the mountaine of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountaines, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. Also Ezek. 37.28. The nations shall know that I am the sanctifier of Israel, when my sanctifi­cation shall be in the middle of them for ever. And S. Augustine resembles it, (accord­ing to the saying of our Saviour Matth. 5.14.) A city placed on a hil that cannot be hid. And he hath placed his tabernacle in the sun, Psal. 18.6. that is in open view &c. his ta­bernacle, [Page 189] his Church, is placed in the Sun, not in the night, but in the day. Tom. 9. in Epist. Jo. Tract. 2. And further saith of the Church, thatCont. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. she hath this most certain marke, that she cannot be hid; she is then known to all Nations: the sect of Donatus is unknown to many Na­tions, that then cannot be she.

To the children of the Church it is appoin­ted by Christ, that for the redresse of their grievances, they tell the Church, Mat. 81.17. which were a delusion unlesse the Church were alwaies visible: who did also forewarn us against all obscure congregations, saying, If therefore they shall say unto you, behold he is in the desert, go you not forth, behold he is in secret places, believe it not, Mat. 24.26. Now according to these assurances, I found, that the Roman Church was alwaies and emi­nently visible, but the Protestant never e­minent, and for the most part, not visible at all. Concerning the visibility of the Church of Rome, it is proved before, by those testimonies which shew the antiqui­ty, & perpetuall continuance thereof, which cannot be proved but with the granting of her visibility. Nor have I found the Prote­stants denying it, the thing being so visible, that it leaves no place for objections. But [Page 190] they think to wipe out this mark, by say­ing, that it is not necessary to a true Church to be alwaies visible: but others disliking that assertion, by reason of the absurdity thereof, do affirme, (to counterpoize the Roman) that the Protestant Church hath been alwaies visible.

§. 2. And first, they that hold that the Church hath been invisible, and that there­fore visibility is not a certain mark of the Church, indeavour to prove it by the ex­ample of the Church of the Jewes in the daies of Elias, 3 King. 19.10.18. who com­plained that the Prophets were slaine, and he only was left alive, and God answered, that there were left seven thousand that had not bowed the knee to Baal. To which objection I found the answer of Catholiques very true, namely, that this complaint of Elias was uttered with rela­tion to the Kingdome of Israel onely, wherein Elias then was, and was persecu­ted by King Ahab; but in the Kingdome of Judah, the Church did florish, and was sufficiently known to him, and all men, under the reigns of Asa and Joshaphat 3 Kings 22.41. who reigned in Judah when Achab reigned in Israel. As what time the number of true believers was so great, [Page 191] 2 Chron. 17.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. that the men of war only, did amount to many hundred thousands.

And whereas M. Meade makes reply to this answer, saying, that the Church was invisible, in the Kingdome of Iudah also, in the daies of Manasses because it is said, 2 Chron. 33. that Manasses set up Idolatry, committed all impiety, and caused Judah and Jerusalem to erre; I answer, that this comes short of a proof; for though the Kings example in all cases, though never so bad, have a mighty influence on the peo­ple, yet this proves not but that the King­dome, or an eminent part, or at least a visible part both of Priests and people, was still untainted; even as it was in the daies of the persecution of Antiochus a­gainst the Jewes, who set up the Abomi­nation of desolation, the Idoll of Olympick Jupiter, in the Temple, and compelled men to worship it. Besides, if it were as he would have it, the case is much different between a very short time of the invisibi­lity of the Church of the Jewes, (for we read in the same Chapter, that Manasses quickly repented, and amended all) and the invisibility of the Protestant Church, which by their own confessions was above [Page 192] a thousand years. Also the comparison be­tween the Church of the Jewes and Christi­ans is not equall: the New Testament be­ing established in better promises, Heb. 8.6. and therefore that may be incident to the one, which is not to the other. More­over if there had been this totall eclipse, it had relation but to the Nation of the Jewes only, besides which were many o­ther faithfull people, in all ages, as ap­pears by the examples of Melchizedek, Job, &c. in the Old Testament; and in the New of Cornelius, and the Eunuch to the Queen of Candace, amongst which the Church might be visible, though amongst the Jewes invisible.

§ 3. Others I have heard say, that by Ca­tholikes own confession, in the daies of An­tichrist, the Church shall be invisible; But I never have read any Catholique that said so, yet on the contrary, I have found Pro­testants affirmBullinger. in Apoc. 20. Fulk against Rhē. in Thes. 2. sect. 5. the visibility of the Church, and that uni­versally even all the daies of Antichrist, which makes a­gainst themselves if they ac­count the Pope Antichrist (as most of them do) and themselves the Church. Yet Doctor White, contra­ry [Page 193] to his brethren, saith, thatF. VVhites Reply, p. 61. lin. 15. & 26. in time of persecution, the true Church may be reputed an impious Sect by the multitude, and so not be known by the notion of true and holy, nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason. To which I answer: that as there are four properties of Church-doctrine, so there are foure notions of the Church. The first is to bee Mistresse of saving truth; and according to this no­tion, the Church is invisible to the na­turall understanding both of men and Angells; for God only and his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth. The se­cond is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly revealed by secret inspiration: according to this notion (ordinarily speaking) the Church is invisible to almost all men that are, or ever were, the Apostles and Prophets only excepted. The third, to be Mistresse of the Doctrine which Christ and his A­postles by their preaching and miracles planted in the world: according to this no­tion, the Church was visible to the first and Primitive times; but now is not. The fourth is to be Mistresse of Catholique doctrine; that is, of Doctrine delivered & received by full Tradition and profession, all the adver­saries [Page 194] thereof (that are under the title of Christian) being divided amongst them­selves, and notorious changers; and accor­ding to this notion the Church is ever vi­sible and sensible to all men, even to her e­nemies. Otherwise there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the A­postles taught, nor consequently what God by inspiration revealed to them. And if she and the light of truth she carries with her, should be hidden and lost, we must begin again anew, from a second fountain of immediate revelation from God, and build upon the new planting thereof with Miracles in the world, by some new A­postles. And if this be absurd; then there must ever be in the world a Church visi­ble, whose Traditions are famously Catho­lique, and consequently shewing them­selves to be the Apostles, to all men that will not be obstinate.

And that the Church shall be univer­sally visible even in the daies of Antichrist, may be gathered out of the Scripture, Rev. 20.8. For she shall then be every where persecuted, which could not be, unlesse she were visible, and conspicuous even to the wicked. And even during the first 300. years after Christ, wherein the Church in­dured [Page 195] incomparably more universall and raging persecutions than ever were, yet theMagd. cent. 1, 2, 3. Fulke cont. Stapleton de success. Eccl. p. 246. Century-writers, and sundry others do take certain and particular notice of the Catholique Bishops and Pastors, by name, in those very ages; of their administration of the Word and Sacraments, and their open impugning of Heresies. And surely our Lord himself had been (which is blasphemy to think of him, who is the eternall wisdome of the Fa­ther) the most imprudent of all Law-ma­kers, to have a Law so obscure, and expo­sed to so many suppositions, depravations, and false expositions, whereto the malice of the Heretiques of all ages hath subjected it, without leaving a depository to keep it, and a judge to interpret it, or to leave it to such a keeper, and such a judge as should be invisible.

§. 4. Other Protestants I have observed, who though they confesse the invisibility of their Church, yet professe the being there­of, and assigne the place for it, to be in the Roman Church, mixed like a great deal of ore with a very little pure gold, so that it was not discernable. But this assignati­on of their Church seemed to me very un­reasonable; [Page 196] for either those Protestants did professe their owne faith, or they did not; if they did, then doubtlesse they were visible, and the Roman Church would soon have taken notice of them, as she did in all ages of such (though it were but one man) that differed from her. If they did not make profession of their faith, what wretched sonnes of fear were they, that to preserve their temporall security durst not publiquely avow their own Religion; but comply in all things with a Religion (in their opinion) false and impious, and dissemblingly do all the externall acts thereof, and this, all their lives, for many generations successively.

This was not the part of a true Church, or of any true member thereof; who will surely die, rather than deny his Saviour; as he doth, who believing himselfe to be of the true Religion, makes profession of that which he deemes to be false. Nor did they fulfill the Prophesie of Esay concern­ing the true Church, which saith, I have set watchmen upon thy walls, which shall never hold their peace day nor night, Esay 62.6. But Doctor Feild hath a new fancy of his owne, which I never observed in any but himselfe, who saith to this purpose, that [Page 197] before the separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome, the Church of Rome it selfe was the Protestant Church, and that the Papists were but a faction of the Court of Rome; an assertion so grosly false, that all the world is a witnesse against it, yea even (I think) all other Protestants themselves, and needs no confutation.

§. 5. Others taking all these Pleas for insufficient, do affirm that their Church was in being, and in sight also in all ages, but that through the injury of later times no testimony thereof is now remaining, but that all their records through the vio­lence of the Pope and his Clergie, have been utterly suppressed: Of which vaine conceipt there is no proof at all; and if the assertion without proof will serve their turne, it may serve also for any other Religion, Christian, or not Christian, who if they please, may say the same thing, but are never like to be believed by any man of common understanding. Besides it thwarteth all experience, as appeares by the example of Husse and Wickliffe whose writings are yet extant, of Charlemaines pretended Book against Images, and Ber­trams concerning the Sacrament. Also by the decrees of Catholique Councells, and [Page 198] the large writings of Catholique Doctors, reciting and condemning all opinions con­trary to the Roman faith. Lastly by the Ec­clesiasticall Historiographers of every age, who make this the argument of their wri­tings; yea even from them, the Protestant * Centurists of Mag­deburg, Cent. Madg. Osiand. Ep. Il­lyricus Catol. VVhitak. cont. Duraeum pag. 276. &. 469. and others, do recite the opinions mentioned and condemned in every age by the Church of Rome; of which some were the very same, that have since been revived by Protestants; So that the Church of Rome hath been so far from ex­tinguishing their records; that she hath been the chief recorder of them and their doctrines.

§. 6. The last and most valiant attempt of Protestants, is to affirme that as the Church must be allwaies visible, so theirs hath been in persons distinct from the Roman Church; and thereby invite us toA Protestants book so entitu­led. look beyond Luther. Which barren endeavour of theirs hath been like Peters fishing all night, and catching no­thing. For they whom the Protestants claime for their predecessors, were neither of their Religion, nor yet alwaies visible, [Page 199] there happening huge gaps betwixt them, nor can the Protestants by any art or in­dustry bring both ends together. First they were not of the same Religion; for to be of the same Religion or Church with ano­ther imports an agreement in all points of faith; for the truth of doctrine being of the essence of the Church, whosoever erres in any little thereof, he ceaseth to participate of the soule of the Church, which is the Spirit of truth, and is but a dead member, one equivocally and in name, but not in truth. We see that the Arrians, Macedonians, and many other Heretiques, were accounted, (and are so by many Protestants) not of the Catho­lique Church, for one single error against faith: now the Protestants disagreeing in many points, not only from one another at this present, but from all that went be­fore them, and that in points which they believe to be revealed in the Scripture, their only rule; are neither one Church a­mongst themselves at this present, nor any one of them one, with any society that hath gone before.

In particular, the Grecians whom they court to their faction, are no Protestants; for they hold damnable errors in the judg­ment [Page 200] of Protestants; to wit; Invocation of Saints; Adoration of Images; Tran­substantiation; Communion in one kind for the sick, with many others. So that Protestants are in great penury of pro­fessors of their Religion before Luther; that are forced to call the Grecians in, as Protestants in essence; for they may even as well name the Pope himselfe. As for John Husse and his followers, who brake out about the year 1400. and are claimed to be Predecessors in the Protestant Religi­on, it is certaine that they were no Prote­stants, but held such Doctrines that if they were now in England, they should suffer as Papists. For they heldp. 216. seven Sacraments, p. 209. Transubstantiation, p. 217. art. 7, 8. the Popes primacy, and theLuther in Colloq. Ger. c. de Missa. Masse it self, as Fox in his Acts and Monu­ments acknowledgeth.

No greater title have they to Wickliffe, who appeared about the year 1370. in whom some Protestants say their visibility was maintained; for he did vi­sibly maintain Popery, asWiclerus de blasphe­mia c. 17. holy water; theIdem de Eucharist. c. 9. worship of Reliques, and Images; theIdem in Ser. de as­sumpt. Ma­riae. intercession of [Page 201] the Blessed Virgin Mary;Idem de apostosia. c. 18. the Rites and ceremonies of the Masse, all theIdem in postil. sup. c. 15. Marci. 7. Sacraments, with all the points of Catholique doctrine now in question. Moreover he held errors in the condemnati­on wherof both Catholiques and Protestants do agree, as thatActs & Mon. p. 96. a. art. 4. if a Bishop or Priest be in mortall sinne, he doth not order, conse­crate, or baptize.Idem p. 96 fine. That Ecclesi­asticall Ministers should not have temporall possessions. HeOsiand. Epit. hist. Eccl. p. 459 art. 43. condemned lawfull oathes with the Anabaptists, and held many other pernicious do­ctrines. Let any man then judge whether this man and his followers were Protestants or no.

Then they ascend higher, and claim on Waldo a merchant of Lions, who brake out of the Sheepfold about the year 1220. with his followers, as men in whom the Prote­stant Church was visible; But these men were no more of kin to them, than the for­mer: For they held theIn Ep. 244. p. 450. reall pre­sence in the B. Sacrament, for w^ch they are reproved by Calvin, who therfore [Page 200] understood them in the Catholique sense, not in the Protestant. And the most essen­tiall Doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling of the merit ofIlliri [...]us Catolog. Test. p. 1498. vo­luntary poverty, affirming all Ministers to be damned that had rents and possessions, and that the Church perished un­der Pope Silvester, and the Emperour Constantine, through the poyson of tem­porall goods, which Clergy-men began then to enjoy (as they said) against the Law of God. Surely Protestants do not account this an Article of their faith. Moreover the Waldenses heldIdem Ca­tol Test. p. 1502. these Anabaptisticall Errors: That children are not to be bap­tized; That there is no diffe­rence betweene a Bishop and a Priest; a Priest and a Lay man; That the Apostles were Lay-men; and that every Lay-man that is vertuous is a Priest, may preach and administer Sacraments; That a woman pronouncing the words of consecration in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate, yea transub­stantiate bread into the body of Christ; That it is a mortall sin to swear in any case; That Magistrates being in mortall sin do lose in their office, and no man is to obey them: with [Page 201] many other absurdities too tedious to be recited.

The like may be said of the Albigenses; and also of Beringarius, who broached his Heresie about the yeare 1048. who was a Protestant but onely in the point against Transubstantiation, which he also recanted, and died a Catholique. And what do any of these, or all these together availe the Protestants? every one of them extend­ing but to some part of time between this and the Primitive Church, and is also but the example of some one or other private man, in whom the revolt first began, who was first a Catholike, and beginning after­wards to hold some one or few points of the Protestant faith, continued in all other matters of controversie a Catholique.

By all which it appeares, that none of these were Protestants, and that therefore in them the visibility of the Protestant Church is not maintained: And that if it were, yet seeing they lived at severall times, ununited by a line of time one to another, (but jumping over severall ages, against the Law of nature, which non facit saltum) and that therfore in the between-spaces, there was an invisibility of the Pro­testant Church; the main question of their [Page 204] Churches perpetuall visibility is yet unsatis­fied: Especially when we consider that for about a thousand yeares, which was the time betwixt Beringarius and the Apo­stles, the Protestants pretend to no prede­cessors. As for the most Primitive Fathers, whom they affirm to maintain the Prote­stant Doctrine, I have in brief shewed it to be false already, and they that will search shall more largely find it so. Also they all died members of the Roman Church. So that the Protestants have not in them (to wit the Fathers) a visible Church, distinct from the Roman, nor was the Roman theirs. From whence it is manifest, that there is not any one Protestant Church in the world, that can shew her visibility in any Kingdome, ci­ty, poor countrey village, or particular person from the Apostles time to Luther; the truth wherof M. Wotton is not ashamed to confesse, where he saith (in his answer to a Popish Pamphlet p. 11.) You will say; shew us where the faith & religion you professe were held? Nay prove you they were held no where, &c. and what if it could not be shewed? yet we know by the Articles of our Creed, that there hath been alwaies a Church, in which we say, this Religion we now professe must of necessity be held, & with us it is no inconvenience to [Page 205] have the true Church hid. This stands you up­on to disprove, which when you attempt to do by any particular records, you shal have parti­cular answer. Than which saying, what more ridiculous? To presume that their Church was alwaies visible (in the land of Ʋtopia sure, where no man ever saw it) because it is the true Church, wheras they should prove it the true Church, because it hath been al­waies visible; the knowledge of her visibility being much more easie than of her truth, which is the main thing in controversie. And to require of Catholiques proof, that they were not visible, by particular records, is ex­treme foolish; records being memorialls of things that were, not of things that were not.

§. 7. All which considerations, shaking the confidence of many Protestants in the visibility of their Church before Luther, af­ter they have thus fluttered up and down, finding (like the Dove out of the Arke) no rest for the sole of their foot, they at last fly to the Scriptures, & think to pearch upon that; under whose obscurity, and their corruption of them, while they will admit none to interpret them but themselves, they frame what sense they please, as any bodie els may do, & with great confidence, but little judgement (as all Heretikes do) [Page 204] assure themselves thereof. But if they will allow the Fathers for good interpreters, as none but those that are puffed up with the Spirit of Pride, will refuse to do; then we find (as I shewed before) that even Christ and his Apostles were of the Roman, not the Protestant Religion, and the first Founders and publishers thereof.

But Doctor White (in his Reply. p. 105.) concludes thus, that this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scrip­ture, that they maintaine the same faith and religion which the Apostles taught, this alone is sufficient to prove them to be the true Church. But they that cannot by the markes of the Church set downe in Scrip­ture, cleere themselves to be the true Church, do most fondly appeale to Scrip­ture to shew the truth of their particular points. For what more vaine, than to ap­peale from Scripture, setting things down cleerly, unto Scripture, teaching matters obscurely, or not so cleerly? Now no par­ticular point of doctrine, is in holy Scrip­ture so manifestly set down, as is the Church and the markes whereby we may know her. No matters about which the Scripture is more copious and perspicuous than about the visibility, perpetuity, am­plitude [Page 205] the Church was to enjoy; so that as S. Augustine saith, the Scriptures are more cleer about the Church, than even about Christ, in Psal. 30. Conc. 2. and (De uni­tat. Eccles. c. 5.) that the Scripture in this point is so cleer, that by no shift of false interpretation it can be avoided, the im­pudence of any fore-head that will stand against this evidence, is con­founded.Tract. 1. in 1. Ep. Ioan. That it is a prodi­gious blindnesse not to see which is the true Church. ForAug. l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. & l. 13. cont. Faust. cap. 13. God would have his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity, as clear as the beams of the Sun, that the controversie a­bout the true Church being cleerly deci­ded, when questions about particular Do­ctrines that are obscure, arise; we may fly to her, and rest in her judgement; and that this visibility is a manifest sign where­by even the rude and ignorant may discern the true Church from the false. What va­nity then is it for Protestants, not being a­ble to clear by Scripture the cleerest of all points, to appeal to her for the cleering of other points, by lesse evident places?

CHAP. XIV.

§. 1. A Fourth mark of the Church is personall succession of Pastors, and their mission by ordinary callings; which is alwaies to be found in the true Church, as is foretold by the Prophet Esay, ch. 59. v. 2. My spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth for ever. And the Apostle saith of our Saviour, Ephes. 4.11.12. that he appointed Pastors and Tea­chers in the Church, to the consummation of the Saints, for the work of the ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all meet in the unity of the faith. And this charge is not to be undertaken by usurpa­tion, but by lawfull calling and mission; as the Apostle saith, Heb. 5.4. No man takes to himselfe this honour, but he that is [Page 207] called of God, as Aron was, to wit visibly, and by peculiar consecration. And againe, How shall they preach except they be sent? Rom. 10.15. And our Saviour saith, who so entreth not by the doore into the sheepfold, but climeth another way, is a thief, John 10.5. And God in the old Testament reproves those that went without mission, saying, J have not sent these Prophets, yet they ran, Jeremy 23.21. I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophecie fasly in my name, Jer. 27.15. And this is a note of the Church so pertinent, that S. Augustine (Lib. cont. Epist. Fundament. c. 4.) saith, the succession of Priests, from the very Seat of Peter the A­postle, to whom the Lord commited his sheep to be fed, even to the present Bishoprick, doth hold me in the Church. And Optatus Mile­vitanus reckons all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter to Syricius, who then was Pope, to shew that the Church was not then with the Donatists, who by like succes­on could not ascend up to the Apostles; and then (lib. 2. cont. Parmenianum) he addes, Shew you the originall of your chaire, who challenge the holy Church to your selves.

Now that this mark is found upon the Church of Rome, I know no man that [Page 208] denies. But the Bishops (where they are) and Ministers of Protestant Churches, can­not thus derive themselves from the Apo­stles. The Roman Church indeed made Lu­ther Priest, and gave him Commission to preach her Doctrine, but to preach against her Religion, who gave him order? That Commission (seeing he had it not from any Church) he had either from himself, min­ting a Religion out of his owne braine, coloured with abused Scripture, which he then proudly pretended to know better than all the Christian world beside;Tom 7. VVit­tenberg. fo. 228 or from the Devill, with whom he conferred, and to whose arguments he yeelded, as himself confesseth.

Also the succession of the English Bi­shops and Ministers was interrupted upon their pretended Reformation; the lawfull Bishops being turned out, and others pre­ferred to their place, by the temporall au­thority of the Kingdome in chief; which had no power to choose or consecrate Bishops, and ordain Priests. Or if they were at first consecrated by lawful Bishops of the Church of Rome, as for their credit they pretend, yet they had not thereby Commission to preach their new Doctrine differing from [Page 209] the Church of Rome, nor howsoever is their succession lawfull; for in a lawfull succession, it is required that the former Bishops be dead, or lawfully deposed; but these conditions were not observed in En­land, the Catholique Bishops being violent­ly cast out, by the Authority of Q. Eliza­beth, assuming to her self the title of head of the Church, a thing never arrogated by any temporall Prince of the world, untill her Father King Henry the eight gave the ex­ample.

But it is worth the observation, that the Bishops and Ministers of England, to main­tain the lawfulnesse of their succession, do affirm, that they were consecrated by Ca­tholique Bishops, their predecessors, which while they do not prove, it shewes the interruption of their succession, and while they affirm, it shewes that they believe their succession and calling insufficient, un­lesse they derive it from the Church of Rome; thereby acknowledging the Church of Rome the true Church, which they in their Doctrine and dependence have for­saken; and there can be no reason to for­sake the true Church upon what pretence soever. For the errors of the Church of Rome are but supposed, and their Refor­mation, [Page 210] neither is but supposed, they being infallibily sure of nothing, since they hold their Church may erre, and so for ought ought they certainly know, it did, in accu- and forsaking the Church of Rome, and in their own imaginary amendment, and instead of Christ have chosen Barrabas. And what can be more inconsiderate, than to forsake the true Church (by their own confession) upon pretences, of whose truth they are (by their own confession also) un­certain. For he that confesseth he may erre, in that wherin he may erre (being an object of the understanding, not of the sense) cannot be sure that he doth not erre. And so they are altogether at a losse, and a ground, not infallibly, no nor prudently sure of the least tittle they affirm. They cannot be infallibly sure, because they may erre, as themselves confesse; they cannot be prudently sure, seeing there is a hun­dred voyces and judgements of men for the Roman Church, to one for any Prote­stant Church: They had therefore done much more wisely, to have followed the admonition of S. Paul to Timothy, DE­POSITUM CUSTODI, keep that which is committed to thy charge, 1. Tim. 6.20. and what is that, saith Vincentius Lirinen­sis? [Page 211] He answereth, (Comomnit. advers. haer. c. 27.) ‘It is that which thou art trusted with, not that which is found out by thee: that which thou hast received, not which thou hast devised: a thing not of wit, (that is of thine own fancy) but of learn­ing, (that is, which thou hast learnt:) not of private usurpation, but of publique Tradition: a thing brought to thee, not brought forth by thee; wherein thou oughtest to be, not the Author, but the keeper; not a Master, but a Scholler; not a leader, but a follower.’

§. 2. As for their assertion, who say, that Roman Catholiques and Protestants are all one Church, it is both false & foolish. False it is, because the differing in any one point of faith proposed by the Church, makes one party not to be of the true Church; & it is certain, that the Church of Rome and England differ in many. Doth not the Church of England account the four grand Heretiques, who were condemned in the first four Generall Councells, to be out of the Church, and not one with her that con­demned them? and they held each of them but some one, or very few points different from the Church of Rome. So that either they must confesse themselves also, not to [Page 212] be one with the Roman Church, or else that all Hretiques are of it, which is absurd; and contrarie to the mind ofDe fide & Symbolo. c. 10. S. Augustine, who saith, that neither Heretiques nor Schis­matiques are of the Church.

If Protestants say, that they that were condemned in those Councells did indeed hold Heresies, and so were not the Church, but their own are truths and amendments of the Doctrine of the Church; I answer, so did those Heretiques also say, yea and prove it by Scriptures and Fathers, in their own sense, and did believe their Doctrines to be the pure Word of God, as confident­ly as any Protestants in the world do theirs; who cannot say more for themselves than they did, and they were (some of them) as numerous and as learned, as Protestants are; nor was there more authority against them than against the Protestants; which is, The Catholique Roman Church, guided by the Spirit of God, and the Word of God writ­ten & unwritten. Moreover they were the parties accused, so are the Protestants, it is not fit therefore that they should be the Judges.

If they say, that they also accuse the Church of Rome of errors, and therefore [Page 213] it is not fit that she should be Judge; I an­swer, some body must, if ever we will have an end of controversie, and then whe­ther the whole society of Christians, or some one or few men, (for so all Heresies began, and so did the Protestant Religion in one Luther) let any indifferent man judge. Moreover, God hath made the Church the Judge, saying, tell the Church, and that is the Church of Rome, as those Protestants must grant, who say, they are one with it, and that it was the Church, when they revolted from her.

And to consider the matter, according to reason, seen in the practise of all socie­ties and bodies, whether Ecclesiasticalll or Civill; if any one or few members break the law and rule of the whole, who shall judge whether it be well or ill done? Sure­ly either the head, or the head and whole representative body together. And this was the proceeding against Luther and the Protestants in a Generall Councell, by which they were condemned, and cast out of the Church. Which judgement if it be not suf­ficient; but that the condemned party (justifying himself by his own bare affir­mation, or interpretation of the Law, ac­cording to his own particular fancy, con­trary [Page 214] to the whole body, whereof he is or was a member) may be admitted, what Heretique or Rebell will ever be found guilty? or will not in despite of all man­kind, be accounted a true Christian, and loyall subject, and the soundest member of the whole body? Secondly, it is both poore, and absurd for Protestants to seeke for shelter and countenance, under that Church which they have abandoned, dis­graced, and cruelly wounded, (though to their owne destruction;) thereby also abusively perswading many people to keep still in the Protestant Church, while they think they are of the Roman, they be­ing (as their new Masters teach them) both but one Church.

§. 3. But Catholiques, whose consent it is very fit should be taken in this matter, acknowledge no such union of Churches, betwixt themselves and Protestants; for Catholiques doe not allow their Ordinati­on, and Consecration of Bishops, and Priests for good, which appeares, in that if a Priest of the Roman Church revolt to the Protestant party, he is allowed by them to be a lawfull Priest, but not so if a Pro­testant Minister returne to the Roman Church. Also some Protestants grant, that [Page 215] Roman Catholiques may be saved in their Religion, but Catholiques doe not grant the like to Protestants; which they would doe surely, if they thought they were all one Church. Besides, the denying to com­municate with each other, is a proof, that, in the opinion of both, they are not all one Church.

And whereas Protestants magnifie their own charity, in this kind conceit of theirs, and accuse Catholiques of the want therof, it is very idle; for the controversie about the meanes of salvation, and the Church wherein it is to be had, is not to be deter­mined by the judgement of charity, but of discretion. Catholiques judge no particu­lar man to be damned, because they know not the operations of God upon his soule in his latest minutes; but they judge that all men out of the Roman Catholique Church are out of the road of salvation, because they are assured thereof by the word of God. And if to grant the possibi­lity of salvation to others, be such a testi­mony of charity, as they conceive; then surely Origen was of all men most charita­ble, who held that at the last, even the de­vills themselves should be saved, and yet I find no man agreeing with him in this cha­ritable [Page 216] opinion. But the truth is, (as I conceive) that Protestants are thus kind to Catholiques for their own ends; which are, to provoke Catholiques to shew the same favour to them, that so they may have the better security in their way, by the concurrent opinions of others: and also for feare, lest by denying salvation to the Church of Rome, they cut off the hope thereof from themselves, who ac­knowledge no lawfull ministry, by conse­quence no Church, and by consequence no salvation, but that which they derive from the Church of Rome. Which seeing they do indeed want, they are neither united with her, nor can justly hope for salvation without her.

CHAP. XV.

§. 1. A Fifth Mark of the Church is u­nity in doctrine: of which it is said by S. Paul, I beseech you that all speak one thing, be ye knit together in one mind, and one judgement; 1. Cor. 1.10. endea­vouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the [Page 217] bond of peace, Ephes. 4.3. Continue in one Spirit and one mind, Philip. 1.27. of one ac­cord and one judgement, Philip 2.2. Thus in the first times were the multitude of them that believed of one heart and one soule, Acts 4.32. Thus our Saviour prayeth (and no doubt was heard) that they may be one: John 17.11. and the effect of that prayer, we see in the Church of Rome, and no where else. Thus also the Holy Ghost describes the Church of Christ, saying, my dove is one, Cant. 6.8. And the want of this unity is so improper to God, that he is therefore termed, the God, not of dissention, but of peace, 1 Cor. 14.33. And it is such an assured meanes to shorten continuance, that the Scripture saith, if you bite and devoure one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another, Galat. 5.15. and that a king­dome divided against it self shall perish, Luc. 11.17. And by the want of this mark of unity, did the antient Fathers discover the Heretiques of their times. S. Crysostome saith, (Op. imperfect. in Math. Hom. 20.) ‘All infidells that are under the devill, are not united nor hold the same things, but are dispersed by divers opinions; one saith so, and another so, &c. in the same manner are the falshoods of Heretiques, [Page 218] who never hold the same things, but have so many opinions, as there are per­sons.’ To the same purpose speakes Jrenae­us, Tertullian, and others, (Iren. l. 1. c. 5. Tertull. de praesc. advers. haer. 42.)

And this unity I found apparently in the Church of Rome; and the contrary as ap­parent amongst Protestants. Thus the an­tient writers do wonderfully agree in all matters of faith; so also do all the de­crees of all lawfull Councells and Popes; though they were men living in severall ages, in severall countries, and wrote in se­verall languages: And now also all Ca­tholiques in the world, howsoever other­wise divided by country, language, parti­cular interest, civill dissentions, or war, yet agree exactly in all points of faith. And this because they have a certaine compasse to steere by, to wit the generall Tradition of the Church, and the decrees of Generall Councells, who they have reason to be­lieve, doe preserve that which was deliver­ed by the Apostles; and if any doubt a­rise about the sense of Scripture, are bet­ter able to interpret it than any other persons; to which therefore they doe modestly and wisely submit their judge­ments. But no such agreement was ever [Page 219] found, or ever can bee found amongst Protestants, or any sort of Here­tiques. S. Irenaeus (lib. 1. cap. 21.) saith of Simon Magus his Heresie, that it was divided into severall sects. S. Augu­stine of the Donatists, (lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 6.) that in his time it was cut into small threds. And particularly the same is hap­pened to Protestants, who soon after their separation from the Church of Rome, were divided amongst themselves, and have ever since so continued, multiply­ing daily in their divisions; insomuch that even in the one Kingdome of England, and even in the one City of London, there are very many: And in many par­ticular houses there are some different Sects of Religion, each pretending to be the true Protestant, and denying that title to the other.

Nor is there any meanes to reconcile their differences, but they are rather like­ly to grow more, and greater, as wee see at this day. For no Sect will acknow­ledge another its superiour in matter of Religion, nor stand to its judgment, ex­cept it be by force; no not any one parti­cular person thinks himself obliged to submit to the whole world; therefore they [Page 220] use to say, that they will not pin their faith upon another mans sleeve,; but all pretend to be guided by the Word of God, which each one will interpret for himselfe, and ac­cuse all others of error so far as they dissent from him. And though Sects and Heresies do first arise out of the Catholique Church, as the Apostle saith, There must be Heresies; 1 Cor. 11.19. yet the Church doth not lose her unity hereby; because she having a certain Touch-stone whereby to try them, namely, the judgement of the Church; if they will not submit to that, they are ex­communicated, and by judiciall sentence cut off from that body, from which they first cut themselves by mis-belief; as the Apostle saith, an hereticall man after the first and second admonition avoid, Tit. 3.10. whereby they preserve the rest of the bo­dy intire, and at unity within it self. So that the Heresies do not arise from the Doctrine of the Church, but from the ma­lice of the Devill.

But amongst Protestants the liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture, and the examining and judging the Preachers Do­ctrine thereby, being given to every silly soul, (as Doctor Bilson saith,True difference, part. 2. p. 353. The people (are) discerners [Page 221] and judges of that which is taught, as with good reason they ought; for it was upon this ground that they first separated from the Church of Rome, undertaking to be judges of her Doctrine; and if the present Clergie should not continue this liberty to the people against themselves, who are no more infallible than the other, nor can pretend to it; they would play very foule play with the people, and (instead of gi­ving them liberty of conscience, which they promised, only translate them from one Tyrant over their consciences (so they cal­led the Church of Rome) to another the Church of England) there must needs arise varieties of Sects in Religion, according to the various conceipt and apprehension of people, even out of the very nature of this their Doctrine, which is the ground-work for all the rest; and is the most exercised in those who are most conversant in the reading of Scriptures, to wit, the Puritans and Sectaries.

And in the many differences that are a­mongst them, they call no Generall Coun­cells, nor indeed can they, by way of au­thority, no Sect acknowledging it self subject to anothers Jurisdiction, if it be under another temporall Governour; [Page 222] but constitutes a Church by it selfe abso­lute, and independent. And in the varie­ty of Sects in any one Kingdome or Go­vernment, neither party believing it self justly subject to another in matter of con­science; But supposing themselves alwayes in the truth, they think they are bound to maintain that truth, with the hazzard of their lives, and to oppose their lawfull So­veraignes in the defence thereof; and when­soever they have power they put it in ex­ecution, and turn Rebells for Gods sake; As we see many have done heretofore, and the English are (many of them) now in the accursed act. Nor can the men, un­der whose conduct the people do this, hope for more calme obedience from them, lon­ger than by force they are subdued to it, unlesse they give them that in possession, which now they have in hope, and for which they have all been united in their ser­vice, to wit, Liberty of Conscience to every particular person, to be of what Religion soever he shall make to himself out of the Bible, free, & independent on the jurisdicti­on of any other.

And with very good reason, for seeing they have all shaken off Christs yoke, why should any man put a yoke upon an­other [Page 223] mans conscience, and oblige him to believe, or do, or suffer that which is against his Word of God? Thus, as their Religion is divisible according to their se­verall senses of the Scripture, so Kingdomes are divisible according to their Religions: So that there must still be division, either in Religion, or in War for the defence thereof. Yea so accurately doth Heresie teach to run division, that it is meerly by accident that any two Protestants are of the same Religion in any one point; for seeing they do not oblige themselves to agree in any one Principle, but only the letter of the Scripture, and refer the interpretation to themselves, (as Chillingworth (Preface fine) saith, Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, & indeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others,) it is but by the constitution of their brains, and the grain of their fancie running the same way, that brings any two of them to an u­nion in the same belief, concerning any point of Religion; which constitution, as it was accidentall in their generation, so it is daily changeable by age, education, and many other occurrences; and so also as uncertain for the future, as accidentall at the present.

Thus all tends, to division amongst them, through the nature of their doctrines and the method of knowing and preser­ving them. And this division of theirs in doctrine and opinion, is the reason, why when I mention the belief of Protestants, I usually say, some Protestants, because they are not all of a mind, scarce in any one point, wherein they differ from Catho­liques. And some of them are so silly as to think, that if they themselves doe not be­lieve such a point, no Protestant else doth, supposing all Protestancy included in their owne brests; which indeed is nothing so: only they have reason, according to their principles, to believe (as they do) that that which every particular man holds, is the true Protestancy, and ought to be a rule to all the world beside.

§. 2. The Catholique Roman Church hath in it the propriety of heat, and doth congregare homogenea, gather together things of the same kind, and disgregare he­terogenea, separate things that are of diffe­rent natures; casting out of her Commu­nion all sorts of Heretiques. And on the contrary the Protestant Religion hath the property of cold, which is congregare hete­rogenea, to gather together things of diffe­rent [Page 225] natures, enfoulding under her name a miscellane of Religions, freezing them al­together, and withall making them so brittle, that every chance breakes them in­to smaller sects and sub-divisions, which in the end will be the destruction of the whole, as it hath been of all foregoing he­resies.

And this truth Sir Edwin Sandys, a learn­ed Protestant (In his Relation of Religion of the Western parts) confesseth, saying, ‘The Papists have the Pope, as a common father, adviser, and conductor, to recon­cile their jarres, to decide their differen­ces, to draw their Religion by consent of Councells unto unity, &c. whereas on the other side, Protestants are like severed or rather scattered troupes, each drawing adverse way, without any meanes to pa­cifie their quarrells, no Patriarch one or more, to have a common superintendency or care of their Churches, for correspon­dency and unity: no ordinary way to as­semble a generall Councell on their part, the only hope remaining ever to asswage their contentions.’ Of which seeing there is no hope, the sword must be the Umpire. Which if it should in England prevaile on the Puritane or Roundheads side, as they [Page 226] now stile them, (which God forbid) I think I may without rashnesse say, that it falls out by the just judgement of God, that they that cast out the Catholique Reli­gion and Catholique Bishops their prede­cessors, upon pretence of the Reformation of Errors, which they discovered (as they said) by the pure word of God, are upon the same pretences cast out themselves, and are forced to say with Adonibezek in the first of the book of Judges, As I have done, so God hath rewarded me. So true a rule it is, that he that practises dis­obedience to his superiours, teaches it to his inferiours.

§. 3. But the Protestants say that they do not differ from one another in funda­mentalls, no not from the Catholiques, so much at unity with all the world do they professe to be. The impertinency of their distinction of fundamentalls and unfunda­mentalls I have before discovered; and little reason have they to use it in this case. For to my apprehension all their differences are in fundamentalls, yea all that they believe they account fundamen­tall: For the Church of England saith in her sixth Article, That whatsoever is not read in Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not [Page 227] to be required of any ma that it should be be­lieved as an Article of Faith, or be thought re­quisite or necessary to salvation: & as nothing but what may be proved by the Scripture, is by her accounted necessary to salvation, which is the same with fundamentall; so I suppose that all that can be proved by the Scripture is necessary to salvation, even in their own opinion; for I think they will not say, but that it is necessary and funda­mentall to believe God, in all that he saith, whether the matter be great or small; now Protestants professing to believe no­thing necessarily, but what may be pro­ved by the Scripture, and their differen­ces being in the things which they believe, it followes, that their differences are in things, which are proved by Scripture, that are the pure Word of God, and the meaning of the Holy Ghost, (as they use to speak) and therefore must needs be (in the severall opinions of them that hold them) fundamentall, and necessary to salvation.

To instance in some particulars of their disagreement; (for to speak of all, were to enter into a Labyrinth) First con­cerning Scripture it selfe, I think they will grant it is a fundamentall point, I am sure, [Page 228] their learned Hooker doth so, (Eccles. Pol. lib. 1. sect. 14.) who saith, Of things necessary the very chief is to know what books we are bound to esteem holy, and as sure I am that in this there is great disagreement; for the Lutherans) do deny (besides those books of the Old Testament which the Calvinists also deny)Ch [...]mnit. exam. conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. also Enchyrid. p. 63. the second Epistle of S. Peter, the second and third Epistle of S. John, the Epistle to the He­brewes, of S. James, of S. Jude, and the Reve­lation; all which the Calvinists and the Church of England do undoubtedly believe to be the Word of God. And if they disa­gree about their prime Principle, how can agreement be expected in the things that they derive from thence? Secondly con­cerning their translation of Scriptures, in the truth whereof consists the truth of Gods Word, to those that understand it not, but as it is translated; very great are the disagreements, and bitter the repre­hensions between Luther and Zuinglius, between Calvin and Molineus, between Beza and Castalio, between legall Prote­stants, and Puritans of England, each par­ty condemning the others translation. I will instance chiefly in the English.

The Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse, in a book delivered to King James, being an a­bridgement of their grievances, say (pag. 11.13.14.) that the English translation of the Bible is, a translation that takes away from the text, that addes to the text, and that sometimes, to the changing or obscuring the meaning of the holy Ghost. ‘And Broughton the great Linguist, in his Advertisement of Corruptions, tels the Bishops, that their publique translations of Scripture into English, is such, as that it perverts the text of the old Testament in 848 places, and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the new Testament, and to run in­to eternall flames.’ And yet the transla­tors of the Bible, and the Bishops were of a­nother mind; or else surely they would not have commended it to the use of the people. And what a wofull condition were the people in, who must be guided by such a Bible, in which either there was certaine falshood, or they were not cer­taine that it was the truth.

Secondly the Reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist by consubstantiati­on, and to the bodily mouth of the recei­ver, is affirmed by the Lutherans, but deny­ed by the Calvinists. Thirdly that Christ [Page 230] descended into Hell, which is an article of the Creed, is affirmed by Hill in a Treatise of that subject, by Nowell, and by many Protestants, but is denyed by Carleil, in a book written to that purpose, and com­monly by all Puritans. Fourthly Evange­licall Councells are affirmed by Hooker, (Eccles. Pol. l. 3. sect. 8. p. 140.) but are denyed by Perkins (Reformed Cath. p. 241.) and most of the Church of England. Fiftly concerning the head of the Church, or the supreame governour in causes Ec­clesiasticall (which one would think a fundamentall matter) the Church of Eng­land holds that the King, or Queen (when the Kingdome is governed by a Woman) is the head thereof; but the Church of Hel­vetia saith,Harmony of Consess p. 308. & for­ward. we acknowledge no other head of the Church but Christ, and that he hath no de­puty on earth; and many there are in England of the same o­pinion, who are not afraid to say so now, though it be by law a capitall offence. Sixtly the government of the Church by Bishops, one would think were a funda­mentall point, for it is affirmed to be jure divino, by divine law, by many Protestants in England; and particularly Bishop Hall [Page 231] wrote a book (a few yeares since) to that purpose; and yet this is denyed by a great party in England, as the Bishops by woe­full experience do know.

A hundred other differences might be named, in the maintenance whereof books have been written one against another, one side holding with the Catholiques; so that there is scarce any point of Catholique do­ctrine, but is maintained by some or other Protestants, & amongst them all, almost the whole Catholique doctrine: If therefore they differ from the Church of Rome, they differ from one another. And that their differences are not light, but about most important matters (in their own opini­ons, being about matters (as they con­ceive) revealed in the word of God, to which all men are bound to adhere,) even their persuit of those differences doth plainly demonstrate; which stretcheth to theLuth. con. art. Louan. Thes. 27. condemning of one an­other for Heretiques, Osiander [...]pit. Eccl. hist. cont. 16 par. altera p. 805. and ba­nishing each other from their severall territories,Hospi. hist. Sacrament. par. alt fol. 393. 395. 397. 398. forbidding the reading of each others books, imprisoning of their per­sons; and finally breaking into [Page 232] open Arms one against another: & are not al these tragical particulars (to our infinite grief) now acted on the stage of England? & the chief pretence is Religion. And sure­ly they are guilty of extreme folly, that will fight, to the fundamentall overthrow of themselves & families (& for ought they know, of the whole Kingdome) for mat­ters which they hold not-fundamentall.

§. 4. But the Protestants think to wipe off this staine of disagreement by retort­ing it upon the Catholiques, accusing them of as great disagreement, as is amongst themselves, which when I considered, I found altogether impertinent. For a­mongst Catholiques there are two sorts of points, some defined by the Church in a Generall Councell, and so infallibly certain; others not defined; In the former they all exactly agree, in the later each man fol­lows the direction of his particular reason. Like to this, there are amongst Protestants certaine Articles (as they call them) which are agreed upon in each severall dominion of Protestants, which are set down in their Harmony of confessions; con­cerning which, first it is to be noted, that there is great disagreement in generall be­twixt their Churches, they never meeting [Page 233] all together in any one Councell to deter­mine any one thing; so that they are not united in any one point by consent. Then in particular dominions the decrees that they publish are not firmely believed by all under those dominions, but are ac­counted as directions only, not obligati­ons; Therefore in England many both of the people and Clergie also, doe deny, some one, some another particular, ac­cording to their pleasure; and yet the Generall Church of Protestants, and the particular of England, doth suffer men, teaching and professing contrary do­ctrines, as points of faith, to abide in her communion, and passe under the name of Protestants. And seeing that of contrary doctrines one side must needs be false, while the Protestant Church permits both sides to be preached, as matter of faith, and the Word of God, she knowingly suffers the profession of false doctrine, and so is the mother of falshood, as much as truth, and therefore cannot be the true Church.

The Church of Rome doth not so, but if any preach or professe contrary to that which is decreed, she shuts them out of her Communion, and disinherits them of the title of Catholique. As for other points, [Page 234] which are without the compasse of her de­crees (wherein there is a mighty latitude according to the extent of mens reasons) she permits every man to hold, as his par­ticular understanding shall direct him. The Puritanes will have all governed by the written word of God; The Chillingwor­thians will have all guided by particular reason, and both sorts differ amongst them­selves. The Church of Rome more wisely in matters of faith and Religion is directed by the Word of God, either written, or unwritten, and therein her children ne­ver differ; or if they do, are renoun­ced; In Schoole points and things un­defined her children are guided by their particular reason; and herein they do and may differ, yet without disunion, as well as in points of Philosophie: For, Schoole points are not points of Religion properly; religion being derived à RELIGANDO, from binding; but in School points men are not bound to the belief of either side, but have free li­berty to hold, or change, as they think they have cause, untill it be otherwise de­termined by a Councell. And this may be done, without the just imputation of di­vision, as S. Augustine (De Bapt. cont. [Page 235] Donat. l. 1. c. 18. & l. 2. c. 4.) saith, ‘Di­vers men be of divers judgements, with­out breach of peace, untill a generall Councell allow some one part for pure and cleer.’ Thus doth he excuse S. Cypri­ans disagreement and error concerning the baptizing of such as were baptized by He­retiques, saying, ‘that himselfe durst not have condemned the same, unlesse I had been strengthened with the most agreable authority of the Catholique Church, to which Cyprian himselfe no doubt would have yeelded, if at that time the truth of the question had been made cleer and ma­nifest by a generall Councell.’ Which some refusing to doe, after that that opinion of Cyprians was by a Councell condemned; to shew the difference of holding against a point defined, and not defined, Vincenti­us Lyrinensis chap. 9. thus breakes out, O admirable change, the authors of one self opi­nion, are called Catholiques, and the follow­ers of it heretiques!

Secondly there is in doctrines a diffe­rence between the conclusion or point of faith it selfe, and the reason or manner thereof; in the former of these, unity is required, and is performed most axactly a­mongst Catholiques; but in the later [Page 236] (which concernes but the reason of that conclusion, which reason is for the most part reduced to some Scholasticall subtil­ty) learned men have in all ages, and may (without breach of unity) main­taine their difference. For although all men be bound to the decree'd point of faith, yet they are not so, to the reason and manner thereof, unlesse the same also be defined by the Church.

And hereby are answered all the obje­ctions of Protestants concerning the disa­greement of Catholiques, as of the Tho­mists and Scotists concerning the Concep­tion of our Blessed Lady; of the Domini­cans and Jesuites about the concurrence of Grace and Freewill, with such like, in which the Church hath not yet interposed her Decree. And some Protestants affirm (out of their profound politicall insight) that she never will; and that because (for­sooth) she dares not; out of fear to dis­please so mighty a party, as each opinion hath. And yet they know, that the Church was not afraid to decree against the opi­nions of Luther and his brood, notwith­standing she lost some Kings, and much people thereby; but the losse was not on­ly hers, but theirs much more; she lost [Page 237] some incurable members, but they lost themselves. And doubtlesse when she sees it meet to determine any of the contro­versies amongst the learned, shee will doe it without any fear, but of God.

In the mean time we see that their dif­ferences of opinions breed no more distur­bance in the Church, nor rancor amongst themselves, than their different colours and shapes of apparrell. Brotherly charity is not violated amongst them: they will all goe to the same Church, they will com­municate together, and confesse to one a­nother; nor is there any of them but if he be asked, will say, that he will stand to a Generall Councell in any of the points of difference amongst them, and submit his judgement to hers. But Protestants have no Councells, nor any authority to call a Councell out of the extent of their tempo­rall dominions; the Articles of Religion which they have agreed upon apart, are very different one from another, as may be seen in their Harmony of Confessions; nor in the same Dominion will they stand to any determination of Convocation, Synod, or Assembly, further than it decrees ac­cording to the Word of God, of which e­very one will be a judge for himfelfe. And [Page 238] in the mean time they violate brotherly charity, make schisms and separations one from another, refuse to goe to Church, or communicate together, and in defence of their differences, wage war one against a­nother. So that their Harmony of Confessi­ons may more truly be called the confusion of Confessions; and their Churches, the tu­mults of Religion.

The greatest unity they have is not in believing, but in not believing; (though therein they are not exact, as I have shew­ed before:) their faith (as they call it) being for the most part negative, consist­ing in denying what Catholiques affirme; as denying and not believing the infallibi­lity of the Church, the Reall Corporall pre­sence, seven Sacraments, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, with many other, abating their positive faith almost to nothing: now not-believ­ing is not believing; and their profession and union in the most, is not of faith, but of infidelity. And for their positive belief, I think it consists in two Articles only, That there is a God, and that Jesus Christ died for the sinnes of the world; and who­soever affirmes more than this, it will be no hard matter to find some other Prote­stants [Page 239] that will deny it: what union then is there amongst them, but that which was betwixt Symeon and Levi, to be brethren in evill? and in writing the Articles of their Religion, as Draco did his lawes, in blood? For what nation is there, where the Protestant Religion hath settled her foot, where they did not in the setling thereof fill their hands with blood? And by Rebellion and unutterable cruelties pro­pagate (as they thought) the Gospell of peace? The Kingdome of England only excepted, where the change was made by the Princes. Which change not having gon far enough from the Catholique Roman Re­ligion, the people, having got the sword into their hands, doe now attempt (ac­cording to the patern of all their fellow Protestants) to make a second Reformation, with such witty Rebellion and cruelty (the only things wherin they did ever excercise any wit) that as no posterity wilbe able to imitate, so no posterity will keep it silent; but blazon it throughout the world, to their eternall infamy; when the Religion, their Idoll, to whom they sacrifice all this humane blood shall be sunk (from whence it came) to hell.

CHAP. XVI.

§. 1. ANother mark of the Church is Miracles; of which our Savi­our saith, John 14.10. He that believes in me, the works that I doe he shall do, and greater; of which words, the marginall notes of the English Bibles printed Anno 1576. say, This is referred to the whole Body of the Church, in whom this vertue doth shine for ever. And againe Christ saith, Mar. 16.17.18. These signes shall follow them that believe; in my name they shall cast out de­vills, they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall re­cover. In so much that S. Augustine (Cont. Ep. Fund. c. 4.) reckons this (amongst many things forementioned) that holds him in the Churches bosome, saying, ‘The consent of people and nations retaines me: the authority begun by Miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, confirmed by antiquity, retaines me: the [Page 241] succession of Prelates since the Sea of Peter (to whom our Lord consigned the feeding of his sheep after his resurrecti­on) to the present Bishops Sea, retaines me; & finally the very name of Catholique retains me, which not without cause, this Church alone, amongst so many & so great heresies, hath so maintained; as when a stranger asks where they assemble to communicate in the Catholique Church, there is no heretique that dares shew him his own Temple, or his own house.’

§. 2. Now concerning Miracles, the Protestants say that they are ceased, and it is true; to wit, amongst them, since they ceased to be members of the true Church; and is therefore a signe that they have ceased to be so. For this promise hath no limitation of time, but is to continue for ever in the Church. Nor do they prove the contrary by Scripture; and if they cannot prove it by Scripture, according to their own principles, they are not to be believed.

And whereas some do alledge Fathers and Schoolmen to prove that Miracles are ceased, they ought to distinguish, and to know that there are two manners of be­ing of Miracles, to wit, ordinary and ex­traordinary; concerning which three [Page 242] things are affirmed. First that in the Primi­tive Church Miracles were absolutly ne­cessary for the planting of the Gospell in the world; John. 5.36. Acts 4.29.30. and then the gift of Miracles was ordinarily annexed to the ministry of preaching; so that most Christians commonly had that gift in one kind or other, 1 Cor. 12.28. Acts 8.17. Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by 12. fishermen, which was the Miracle of Miracles, no further Mira­cle is absolutely necessary for men to whom this is known; and therefore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching, or common almost to all Christians, as before it was. Thirdly notwithstanding this; in all ages there were, are, and ever shal be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily endued with the gift of Miracles, for the comfort of Christians, and conversion of remote nations, to whom the same of the first miraculous planting of our Reli­gion is not come: And of Miracles of this kindAug. de. civit lib. 22. c. 8. Greg. Dial. the writings of the Fathers and all Christian hi­stories are full, in so much that S. Augustine having mentioned many Miracles saith, ‘what [Page 243] shall I do? I am not able to remember all that I know, and doubtlesse sundry of ours, when they read these, will grieve that I have omitted so many, which like­wise they know aswell as I.’ And con­cludes, that it would require many books to set downe the Miracles of healing done onely at the monument of S. Ste­phen.

Beda hist. l. 1. c. 26. Many Miracles also were done by S. Augustine the Monk; who being sent from Pope Gregory a­bove a thousand yeares ago, con­verted the Kingdome of England the third time to the Roman Catholique faith. Yea, many Miracles were done in severall a­ges and severall places by Roman Catho­liques, by the confession of Protestant writers themselves; In so much that the Centurists of Magdeburg do make re­port thereof in their 13. Chapter of every severall Century, for thirteen hundred years after Christ, out of the credible writers of those severall times. In particular,Antonius 3. part. Hi [...]. tit. 23. 24. S. Francis, S. Do­minick, and other holy men about their times did abound in Miracles; also S. Katherine of Sienna, and S. Bernard, who being a Roman [Page 244] Catholique is yet acknowledged byDe Ecclés. p. 369. post. med. Whitaker for a true Saint. So didHackluit Navigat. vol. 2. part. 2. p. 88. & Hart­well of the Kingdome of Congo, in the Epist. S. Xaverius in his conversion of the Indies of late yeares; and many other Romish Priests, in the conversion of the Kingdome of Congo in Africa; and the same so credible, that they are published to the world by Pro­testants themselves.

I will instance in some few, that have been done in confirmation of some particular points of the Roman Faith. Concerning Prayers to Saints, S. Augustine (de civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8.) saith, that a devout woman called Palladia, being diseased, did in the presence of him and others, pray to S. Stephen, at his monument, and was presently made whole. Concerning Images, Eusebius (l. 7. c. 14.) reports, that the woman mentioned in the Gospell, whom our Saviour cured of a bloody-flux by the touch of the hem of his garment, ere­cted the Image of our Saviour, at the foot whereof there sprang up an herb, which when it grew so high, as to touch the bottome of the garment of the Image, had power to cure all diseases: [Page 245] De passio­ne imaginis Christi in Berito, al­ledged in the 2 Coun­cell of Nice, Act. 4. Athanasius also, andDe gloria Martyr. l. 1. c. 22. Grego­rius Turonensis make mention, that upon violence offered by the Jewes to the Image of Christ, blood did miraculously issue from thence. The Miracles done by the signe of the Crosse, by re­port of the Fathers are almost infinite; in so much as Couell the Protestant in his Answer to Burgesse (pag. 138.) saith, ‘No man can deny, but that God after the death of his Son, manifested his power to the a­mazement of the world, in this con­temptible sign, being the instrument of many Miracles.’

Concerning the neglect of Confession, we read divers Miracles in S. Bedes History, (l. 5. c. 14.) S. Francis and S. Dominick, prea­ched against the Albigenses, who (denied Purgatory, Prayer for the dead, Confession, Extreme Ʋnction, the Popes authority, In­dulgences, Images, Ceremonies, Traditions, with many other, and are by the Prote­stants claimed for their Predecessors in the Protestant Faith;) and wrought many Miracles, whereof one of S. Francis is most notable to this purpose, and is recorded by Mathew Paris (an approved Author a­mongst [Page 246] Protestants, who thus relates it, (pag. 319.) ‘The fifteenth day before his death there appeared wounds in his hands freshly bleeding, such as appeared in the Saviour of the world hanging on the Crosse. Also his right side appeared so open and bloody, that the inward parts of his heart were to be discerned, whereupon there repaired to him great store of people; amongst whom the Cardinalls themselves demanded of him what this sight imported? to whom he said, This sight is therefore shewed in me to them, to whom I preached the my­stery of the Crosse, that you may be­lieve in him, who for the salvation of the world suffered upon the Crosse these wounds that you see; and that ye may know me to be the servant of him whom I preached, &c. And to the end, that you may without doubt persevere in this constancy of faith, these wounds which you see in me so open and bloody, shall immediately after I am dead be whole, and close like to my other flesh.’ After­wards he yeelded up his soule to his Crea­tor, without all anguish or pain of body; and being dead there remained no marks of his foresaid wounds.

Lastly, for confirmation of the Reall Presence, it is reported, that in a town cal­led Knobloch, in the year 1510. one Paul Forme a Sacrilegious person, went secretly into the Church by night, brake the Pyx, and stole from thence two consecrated Hosts, one of which he sold to a Jew, who in disdainfull malice said, If thou be the God of Christians manifest thy selfe; and thereupon pierced the Sacrament with his dagger, whereupon blood did miraculous­ly flow forth. This Miracle was so pub­lique and evident, that 38. were thereupon apprehen­ded, and burned in the Mar­quisate of Brandenburg, and all other Jewes banished out of the said Territory. And this is reported for credi­ble, not onely bySurius in Chron. Ponta­nus l. 5. rerum memorab. Catho­lique, but byIoan. Manlius loc. Com p. 87. Osiander Epit. cent. 16. c. 14. p. 28. fine. Protestant writers.

If I should undertake to set down all the Miracles that have been done in the Catholique Church, I might say, as S. Iohn did of our Saviours doings, that if they were all written, the whole world could not contain the books, Ioh. 21.25. To all which Protestants answer, as the Blasphemous [Page 248] Iewes did to our Saviour, that they were done by the Devill. To whom Catholiques cannot give that answer our Saviour did, If I, by Belzebub cast out Devills, by whom do your children cast them out? Mat. 12.27. For your children cast out none. And tru­ly I believe that they that do thus accuse the Miracles done by so many holy Ca­tholique men and women, would have done the same to our Saviour, if they had lived in his daies. For Miracles being the last and highest proof of other things, can have no proof for themselves, but the evidence of sense, to them that see them, and their testimony and report to others.

But if (as Protestants say) the Miracles of Catholiques were done by the Devill, how were they Miracles? For the Devill can do none, though he can do wonders; & if they were Miracles, how were they done by the Devill? Now that they were Miracles, many Protestants do grant, and there­fore Chillingworth their Paragon doth also confess, that they are done by God; whence any reasonable man would infer, that his next word would be, the profession of himself, a Roman Catholique, in which Church God works Miracles, the last [Page 249] and highest motive of belief. But instead hereof (O the accursed power of the de­vill) he belcheth forth the most blasphe­mous speech against God, that ever struck the tender sense of a pious eare: and saithIn the preface of his book, fine. ‘that it seemes most strange to him that God in his justice should permit some true Mira­cles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many to delude the world.’ As if God, the Fa­ther of truth, would set his seal, which is Miracles, to confirme falshood, to delude the soules of men into sin, and so change titles with the Devill, and be the father of lies, and deceiver of mankind: Than which, what can be imagined more hellish? More true and pious was the saying of Nicodemus, and appliable to our workers of Miracles; we know that thou art a teach­er come from God, for no man could do these miracles that thou dost, except God were with him, John 3.2.

But wee may take up the complaint of the Prophet Esay; who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arme of the Lord revealed? Esay 53.1. Protestants will not believe these things; and in matter of proof Catholiques can goe no further; [Page 250] our Saviour himself did not; so that now nothing remaines, but for God to touch their hearts with his grace, and to move them to believe that which they have most reason to think to be his word: which God of his great mercy grant. And if they consider it, they shall find it the most un­reasonable thing in the world to deny Miracles in the Roman Church, for that there are and shall be Miracles in the world no prudent man (I suppose) will deny, at least for the conversion of the people; Yea we read of many Miracles done in the Church of the Jewes, amongst those that were of the true faith, and therefore were not intended for conver­sion, but for confirmation, or to some o­ther end; And why may it not be so in the Church of the Christians? Now Prote­stants or any other Christians doe not so much as pretend to Miracles, therfore they that are, are amongst Roman Catholiques. Indeed I have read of Calvin that for the credit of his new doctrine, he would make shew to the people of doing a Miracle; and hired one that was sick to counterfeit himselfe dead, who when Calvin should speak certain words, was to rise up, as it were from the dead; but he not stirring [Page 251] nor answering at his cue, they looked, and found him dead indeed;Capcavil. in chronicis Pontificum Leodiensium But on the other side, the sonne of Calvin being bit by a mad dog, and his father not able to cure him, he was sent to S. Hubert in Ardenne, where the body of that Saint is kept with great veneration, and fre­quent Miracles wrought thereby, and there was he made perfectly whole, and thereupon abjured the Religion, wherein his father brought him up, and became a Roman Catholique.

§. 3. Now for the Miracles that are said to be done in the Roman Church, we have as high humane Testimony as can be imagined; So that Protestants may with as much reason deny all humane story, as that there were Henries and Edwards Kings of England, whom they never saw; yea they may as justly deny or doubt of the truth of their owne names, which they doe not know, but by report, and mens calling them so, and the poor record of a Church-book; but Miracles have much more famous Records, and more people that believe them. And can they prudently i­magine all Christians (but themselves) so stupid and foolish to believe these things [Page 252] without sufficient proof? who in all o­ther matters, they must (without the help of modesty) acknowledg more wise and learned then themselves. What did Christ and his Apostles doe more, than the Ro­man Church hath since done? and what can Protestants say more against her, than the unbelieving Jewes or Gentiles might say against them? And because some feigned Miracles are sometimes discovered, from thence to charge all with the same accusa­tion, as it is unjust, so it is absurd, and de­stroies all humane faith; they may as well deny all that is, or hath been done in the world, whereof they have not been eye-witnesses, because some of those reports have been false. Therefore as they believe Catholiques, when they say some were feigned; so in justice they ought to be­lieve them, when they say others are not so. Otherwise by the same way of reasoning, they may say that the Miracles of Moses were not true, because the Ma­gitians were counterfeit; or that the new Testament is not the word of God, because there were many Gospells & Epistles coun­terfeited under the names of the Apostles. And surely Catholiques would never en­deavour to discover feigned Miracles, if [Page 253] they were not sure that some were true, but rather by one act condemn all that have been since the Apostles, that are, or shall be, for false and counterfeit, as Protestants in effect doe, when they say, that Miracles are ceased.

Moreover to affirme that Miracles are Antichristian, as some Protestants doe, is improper; first because it is yet in que­stion betwixt us, whether Antichrist be come or no, which Protestants have not proved, nor never will with reference to the Pope. Secondly it is granted on both sides, that Antichrist shall doe no Miracles properly, but only some signes and won­ders; not exceeding the power of nature and the devills art; whereof one is to cause fire to come down from heaven, Apoc. 13.13. which never any Pope did; but the Miracles done in the Church doe exceed all created power. And lastly many Mira­cles were done in the Roman Church be­fore the time or times, (for they agree not in their reckoning) that Protestants say Antichrist did first appear; as at the reliques ofChrysost. in lib. cont. Gentiles. Babylas, Nazian. in Cyprian. Cyprian, Ieron. in vita Hilar. Hilarion, and many others. So that all Catholiques may [Page 254] say with Richardus de Sancto Victore (not with doubt or feare of being deceived, but with assurance to the con­trary)Lib. 1. de Trinit. c. 2. O Lord if it be error that we believe, we are deceived by thee, for thou hast confirmed these things to us with signes and wonders, which could not be done but by thee.

CHAP. XVII.

§. 1. ANother Mark of the true Church, is, the conversion of Kingdomes and Nations from Heathenisme, to the faith of Christ: As the Prophet Esay saith, Kings shall bee thy nursing-Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers, Esay 49.23. thou shalt suck the milke of the Gentiles, and the brests of Kings, Esay 60.61. Their Kings shall minister to thee, and thy gates shall be continually o­pen, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles, and that their Kings may be brought, &c. Esay. 60.10, 11. And the En­glish Bible printed Anno, 1576. upon the 49. of Esay, vers. 23. saith, The meaning is, that Kings shall be converted to the Gospell, [Page 255] and bestow their power and authority for the preservation of the Church. And this Mark I found on the Roman Catholike, but not upon the Protestant Church.

The first three hundred years after Christ, being a time of great persecution, there were few or no Kings converted to Christianity; and from Constantine to Bo­niface the third, which was almost 300. years more, there were few Kings conver­ted, except the Emperours of the East and West; and they were converted to the Ro­man Catholique, not to the Protstant Faith, as Napier (in his Treatise on the Rev. p. 145.) confesseth, saying, ‘After the year of God 300. the Emperour Constantine subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester, from which time till these our daies, the Pope and his Clergie hath possessed the outward and visible Church.’ Now since the yeare 600. these Prophesies have been accomplishing, and they have been done by the Roman Church, not by the Prote­stant Churches; which were (untill Luthers daies) under hatches, and invisible, by their owne confession before mentioned.

And if wee look upon the conversion of Kings and Nations in these later times since their ignis fatuus (which they call [Page 256] the glorious light of the Gospell) hath ap­peared, we shall find it performed not by Protestants but by Roman Catholiques, in the remote and divided parts of theJoan. Petrus Maffeus hist. Indica­rum. 16. East andJos. A­costa de natur. novi orbis. West Indies, and ofHartwell of Congo, Epist. to Reader. Africa, as by sufficient testimony appears. In so much that Simon Lythus a Protestant before alledged, saith, ‘The Je­suites within the space of a few years have filled Asia, Africa, & America with their Idolls.’ And whereas it is objected that the Gothes were converted to the Christian Religion by the Arri­ans; firstCap. 22. de not. Eccl. Bellarmine proves it to be false; secondly if it were true, yet it is of no moment to prove the pow­er of any other Religion but the Roman Catholique, for the converting of nations, and the fulfilling of the large Prophesies of the Scripture therein; seeing they that are pretended to be converted by the Arrians, were but the lesser part of the Gothes, most of them having been Catholiques before. Thirdly this example doth rather make for the Roman faith, in that of all the world converted to Christian Religion, there is but one poor half example of con­version [Page 257] (and that false too) wrought by any other Religion. Which when it is ob­served, that this pretended conversion was wrought by Arrians, who (even in the opinion of most Protestants) were Heretiques, it will turne to the shame and reproach of Protestants, who pretending to be the true Religion, cannot shew so much.

As for their affirming of converting some to their faith, who before were Ca­tholiques, it is impertinent, for so any He­retiques, that ever were, and had the un­happy successe (as some have had) of drawing any King or Kingdome to their Heresie, might say, that they converted them; so that by the mark thus placed, the true Church could not be discerned from the false. That therfore which doth distin­guish them, is the Conversion of Heathen, which hath been performed throughout the world, by Roman Catholiques only. And that which the Protestants have done is no more than what other Heretiques have done before them, and what is the practise of all Novellists, of whom Ter­tullian affirmes, (Praescript. cap. 42.) ‘That their imployment is not to convert Heathens, but to pervert them, who [Page 258] are already converted.’ And how barren their attempts have beene in the other and true way of Conversion from Heathenisme, is by their ownePhil. Nicol. Com. de Regno Christi. l. 1. p. 395. Richer. inter Epist. Calv. Epist. 237. Authors, to their shame, con­fessed.

And doubtles it must needs seem a pro­digious thing, that Protestants or any o­ther Heretiques should have so little zeal or meet with so ill successe in the convert­ing of the world to Christ, if they alone be the true Christians; or that the Prophe­sies of dilating the Church of Christ, should be performed by the endeavour of Catholiques, and yet they not be the true Christians; or that the Roman Catholique doctrine should be false, and yet it alone have the vigor and efficacy to convert soules, which the Prophet David Psal. 18. ascribes to the doctrine and law of God. As for the Protestants, it is not to any rea­sonable man probable, that they shall ever convert any Nation, or so much as any one single person, except some poor wretch or other whom fear or gain will drive or draw to any thing, seeing they have not meanes amongst them proportionable to such an end; wanting both Miracles, [Page 259] and also that admirable sanctity of life with which many Catholiques, especially those who have converted Nations, have been endowed; For what prudent Hea­then will believe the stories of the Creati­on, of Adams fall by eating of an Apple, of Gods Incarnation and death, of his Mo­thers Virginity, with the rest, being so dis­proportioned to corrupted humane rea­son, unlesse they be proved unto him by some visible acts, which are in his judge­ment, as high above nature, as are the points proposed him to believe? such are Miracles, above the power of nature; and high Sanctity, above the reach of flesh and blood. Or who can blame them if they do not without these signes believe? seeing our Saviour saith of the Jewes, If I had not done works in them, which no other man hath done, they should not have sin, John 15.24. Which works seeing ehe Protestants cannot shew, there is no hope left to them ever to convert a Nation; but if they do, they may also convert me to them againe.

CHAH. XVIII.

§. 1. ANother Mark of the true Church is holinesse of doctrine; of which our Saviour saith Math. 7.13.14. Strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leades to life: and wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction. Now it is evident by the known doctrine of the Roman Catholique Church, that the way through which shee directs her chil­dren, is very strait and narrow. Shee in­joyns Confession of sinnes not only to God, but to his Priest: also; not only Contriti­on and sorrow for sinne, but also Satis­faction by doing of Penance, and resti­tution of reall damages done to our neighbours. Shee obliges to set times of fasting & prayer, & magnifies the merit of good works; propounding also and com­mending the sublimer acts of voluntary Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, and the excercising of other great acts of austeri­ty for the subduing of sinne in the flesh, and to expresse our love to Christ who [Page 261] suffered so much for us: And to this end hath set forth a world of books of admirable devotion, and direction of e­very moment of a mans life to holinesse, and height of purity.

On the contrary look upon the Prote­stants and we find a wide gate of liberty set open, through which every one natu­rally delights to passe. They deny Con­fession, Purgatory, or any Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sinne, after it is remitted by Contrition; as also all merit of workes, whereby they make all fasting, prayers, mortifications, and good works uselesse, and quench the fear of committing sin; for out of doubt, next to the pure love of God, and fear to Hell, the fear of temporall punishment, and the Confession of our sinnes to men, are the greatest restrainers of vice. They teach that chastity is not in our power, co-ope­rating with Gods grace;Luther to. 5. wit. Serm. de matrim. fol. 119. ‘that it is not in our power to be without a woman, &c. it is not in their power that it should be staied or omitted; but is as neces­sary as to eat, drink, purge, &c.’

Now what a flood-gate of liberty doth this set open to young men and maids, [Page 262] yea to all single persons, who have not e­very day the oportunity of Marriage; as also to all married people in the absence or infirmity one of another? For who (if he be taught that he cannot abstain) will strive to reach at an impossibility?

Againe, they teach that the Comman­dements are impossible to be kept; and this ordinarily slackens all indeavours to that end. That men are justified by faith only; which ushers in the neglect of all good works. That men have not free will, no not by the grace of God; and this makes all exhortations to vertue, and dis­swasions from vice fruitlesse in them. And that all that are saved are assured thereof in this life, than which, what greater temptation to presumption and the bold­nesse of sinning? And if there be any in whom these principles do not take this effect, it is not because the doctrines do not afford it, but because they are restrain­ed by some other motives.

Therefore Sir Edwin Sandys (in his Re­lation sect. 48.) saith, ‘Let the Protestants look with the eye of charity upon them of the Papacy, as well as of severity, and they shall find some excellent orders of government, some singular helps for the [Page 263] increase of godlinesse and devotion, for the conquering of sin, for the profiting in vertue: and contrariwise in them­selves, looking with a more single and lesse indulgent eye, they shall find there is no such absolute perfection in their Doctrine and Reformation: yea to speak more truly and fully, they shall find no­thing but imperfection.’

§. 2. Another Mark of the true Church is holinesse of life; to which purpose our Sa­viour saith, A good tree brings forth good fruit: and again, Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves, by their fruits you shall know them, Mat. 7.15, 16, 17. Ac­cordingly I found the sanctity of the lives of Roman Catholiques to be highly extol­led, especially of those who were the Con­verters of Nations, or Founders of Re­ligious Orders; and that by Protestants themselves. Of S. Augustine and his com­panions who converted England the last time to the Roman Faith, it is thus recor­ded,Holinshead Chron. part. 1 p. 100. Stows Annalls, p 64. ‘After they were recei­ved into Canterbury they be­gan to follow the trade of life which the Apostles used, exercising themselves in continuall pray­er, [Page 264] watching and preaching, despising all wordly things, living in all points accor­ding to the Doctrine which they set forth.’

The like honourable testimony is affor­ded to the several Converters of Nations to the Roman Faith; which for brevities sake I passe over: Only I will mention the approved Sanctity of S. Xaverius, who in the last age converted sundry Nations of the East Indians, expressed by Hackluit in his book of Navigations (2. vol. 2. par. p. 81.) in this manner ‘That godly Professor, and painefull Doctor of the Indian Na­tion in matters concerning Religion, Francis Xaverius after great labours, injuries, and calamities suffered with much patience, departed, indued with all spirituall blessings, out of this life, An­no 1552. after that many thousands were by him brought to the knowledge of Christ.’ In like manner concerning the first Authors of the severall Orders of Religion, S. Benedict, S. Dominick, S. Fran­cis, and others, their sanctity of life was most eminent, and is testified by good authori­ty, and confessed byCent. Mag. cent 13. [...]ol. [...]1 79 also [...] p. 117. Prote­stants themselves.

And since I have had the happinesse [...] come amongst them, I may say of the Cler­gie in generall, as the Queen of Sheba said to Salomon, that the one half of the good­ness I find amongst them, was not told me. How many rare and excellent men are there, both Secular and Religious, full of admired Sanctity? who as our Saviour faith of himself, make it their meat and drink to do the will of him that sent them; who despising all worldly honour, wealth, and pleasure, exercise a more noble and vertuous ambition, in aspiring to a high place in the Kingdome of heaven, by the service and love of the King thereof, ex­ercising that service in the lowest and humblest undertakings of the body, and that love in the strongest and highest rap­tures and languishments of the soule, un­expressible in themselves, and unknown to all, but those that have them. Such pow­erfull influence hath the soule of Catho­lique Relegion on the members of the body thereof, that it invites great plenty in all ages, and of all conditions, Emperours, Kings, Princes, and all sorts of Nobility and Gentry, to devest themselves of all worldly interest, to renounce the world [Page 266] with as much eagernesse, as others embrace it, to take up the Crosse of Christ, to serve him in Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. And even the weak sex of woman, whose naturall delicacy, tendernesse, and infir­mities, may seem to carry with them a Pa­tent of exemption from extraordinary se­verities and mortifications of themselves, yet such is the omnipotency of Catholique Religion, that even these do equall, if not excell the men, in the tough exercise of de­nying themselves, of taking up their Crosse and imitating of Christ; invited hereunto more by pure love of God, and gratitude for his doing and suffering for them, than for the expectation of reward.

And though perhaps there are some Clergie and Religious people, that do not make good that title with their deeds, yet they are but few in comparison of the o­ther, and no impeachment to them, or to the Religion, more than Judas was to the rest of the Apostles. The common people are also generally more devout toward God, lesse injurious to their neighbours, as Protestants acknowledge, who speaking of them in former times, when Gods wor­ship (as they said) was darkened with [Page 267] mans Traditions and supersti­tions,Cent. Mag. cent. 7. c. 7. col. 181. ‘yet the study to serve God, and to live God­ly and justly, was not want­ing to the miserable common people, &c. they were so attentive to their prayers, as they bestowed almost the whole dayther­in, &c. they did exhibite to the magistrate due obedience, they were most studious of amity, concord, and society, so as they would easily remit injuries: all of them were carefull to spend their time in ho­nest vocation and labour; to the poore and strangers they were most courteous and liberall, and in their judgements and contracts most true.’ And the like is af­firmed of Roman Catholiques of later times by Luther (in Dominic. 26. post Trin.) and by Stubbs in his Motive to good works, pag. 43.

§. 3. Now concerning the want of sanctity in the Protestants, both Clergie and Laity, I will say nothing in particular of these present times, and of antient times I can say nothing, they being but a no­vice Religion. They are extreame apt to blazon one anothers faults, as is manifest by the bitter invectives that past betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists, and at this [Page 268] present in the Kingdome of England be­twixt the Presbyterians and Independents, Malignants and well affected, & the Cava­liers and Roundheads, as they call each o­ther. I confesse there are many amongst them stored with morall goodnesse, espe­cially in the Kingdome of England, and especially amongst the legall Protestants; but the devotion and zeal is amongst the Puritanes, which hath eaten up almost all morall honesty among them. I will only instance in the want of sanctity of some of them who are the Converters of the world (as they say) to the purity of the Gospell; whose unhallowed actions, if they could be objected against the Apostles, the first publishers of the Catholique Religion, it might (without a second objection) breed a stand in those infidells that were approaching to the belief thereof.

Luther, the Lucifer and morning star of the Protestant Religion, doth thus pro­claime his own lustfulnesse, (To. 5. Wit. Ser. de. matrim. fol. 119. a. versus finem) ‘As it is not in my power to be no man, so it is not in my power to be without a woman.’ And (Tom. 1. Epist. fol. 334 ad. Phil.) ‘I am burned with the great flames of my untamed lust; I, who ought to be fer­vent [Page 269] in Spirit, am fervent in the flesh, in lust, sloth &c. with much more to this purpose.’ And to make himselfe more fa­mously impious, he married a vowed Nun, adding to lust, Sacriledge, both in him­selfe and her. He is also by his fellow Pro­testants charged withZuinglius to 2. in Res. ad confess. Lu­theri fol. 878. a. ante med. Oecolam. pad. in resp. ad confess. Lu­theri. arro­gancy, insolency, and pride, for which (say they) God with-drew his true Spirit from him; which he exercised against persons of the highest quality, particularly against Henry the eighth King of England, and said,in l. cont. Angliae Re­gem. ‘The di­vine Majesty is on my side, so that I doe not care though a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cy­prians, a thousand Henricane Churches stood against me.’ And in his defence of his Translation of the new Testament, he saith, ‘If thy Papist wil prattle concerning this word (alone) which he added to the text, where it is said that we are justified by faith) presently answer, Doctor Mar­tin Luther will have it so, and saith, a Papist and an asse are the same. So I will, so I command, my will be a law. For wee will not be the schollers of the Papists, [Page 270] but the Masters and Judges.’ And Sleydan his deare Scholer (l. 3. fol. 29. b. initio. & l. 2. fol. 22. a.) doth report, that he him­selfe acknowledged his ‘profession not to be of life or manners, but of doctrine; wishing that he were removed from the office of preaching, because his manners and life did not answer his profession;’ In so much that it gained the place of a Proverb amongst the Protestants of those daies; to expresse their riot and intempe­rance, by saying,Morgens­terne in [...]ra. de Eccl. p. 225. HODIE LUTHERANICE VI­VEMUS, to day we will live like Lutherans. His impu­dent railing, his foule, filthy, and Bedlam-like expressions have bred a stench through all his writings; and it is no wonder: for who would look for better language, or beter life from one who was such a darling of the de­vill,Luther in Conc. Dom. Re­minis. fo. 19. apud Cochleum Idem in Col­loq. Germ. fo. 275. 281. that he knew him very well (as he to his great credit con­fesses) ‘that he had eat more than one measure of salt with him, and that the devill slept with him oftner than his wife Katherine.’

Concerning Calvin, that admired A­postle of Protestants, it is affirmed by Con­radus [Page 271] Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calvinistar. l. 2. fol. 72.) a man of eminence in the Pro­testant Church, and certainly a great ene­my to the Church of Rome, that ‘God in the rod of his fury visiting Calvin, did horribly punish him before the fearfull houre of his unhappy death; for he so struck this Heretique with his mighty hand, that being in despaire, and calling upon the Devill, he gave up his wicked soul, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming. He died of the disease of lice and worms, increasing in a most loathsome ulcer a­bout his privy parts, so as none present could indure the stench. These things are declared concerning his lascivious­nesse, his sundry abominable vices, and Sodomiticall lusts; for which he was by the Magistrate, under whom he lived, branded on the shoulder with a hot bur­ning iron; unto which I yet see not any sound and clear refutation made.’ Thus far he.

Of Beza also another Father of the Protestant Religion, many foul and impi­ous things are recorded; his odious con­spiracies and seditious books are mention­ed by Bolseck in his book of Beza's life, and by Bancroft in his Survey, pag. 127. 54. [Page 272] 59. 219. 220. By whom also he is taxed of insolency, pride, and impudence, in be­ing too bold with the antient Fathers. Lastly, he wroteFaius de vi­ta & obitu Beza p. 19. many lasci­vious Poems (and that after he was turned Protestant) and one Epigram amongst the rest most infamous; wherein debating with himself, whether he should prefer his lust with Candida his wench, or An­debertus his boy; in conclusion he prefers the later, and of two evill doings, both of which he ought to have avoided, he doth deliberately choose one, and that the most foul and unnaturall. These things and much more to this purpose are recorded of these, and others the sup­posed Apostles, converters of the world, and restorers of the purity of Evangelicall Doctrine, of whom we may say, as Josephs brethren did to Jacob of his Coat all smeered with blood, VIDE UTRUM TUNICA FILII TUI SIT, AN NON, See whether it be thy sonnes coat or no, Gen. 37.32. Judge whether these be the lives of the Sonnes of God, sent to con­troule the world, to reform and lead out of error the misguided sonnes of men. Surely any prudent man will believe, that [Page 273] either God never intended the change they have made, or if he did he would have chosen other kind of men than these: such as Moses and the Prophets, who gave the Law unto the Jewes; and Christ and his Apostles who brought the Gospell to the Gentiles.

As for the common multitude, Luther (to the credit of his Doctrine) confesses, (Postill. super. Evang. Dominicae 1. Advent.) that the world grows daily worse, men are now more revengefull, covetous, licentious, then they were ever before in the Papacy. And a­gain he saith, (Domin. 26. post Trin.) before (when we were seduced by the Pope) every man did willingly follow good works; and now every one neither saith, nor knowes any thing, but how to get all things to himself by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury, &c. And of those that have changed from the Catholique Roman to the Protestant Reli­gion, it is confessed by Luther (in Serm. convivial. Germ. fol. 55.) & Musculus, (Loc. Com. cap. de Decal. in explanat. 3. praecepti p. 62. circa med.) That they have changed their lives into worse: Which made Pau­lus Eberus, a Protestant writer of note complain, saying, (in praefat. Comment. Philip. in Ep. ad Cor.) which evills seeing [Page 274] every one doth behold with his proper eyes, he doubts (not without cause) whether our Evangelicall congregation be the true Church. Which also with the other rea­sons forementioned hath made me not at all to doubt thereof, but to believe assu­redly, that it is not the true Church.

§. 3. As for the recriminattion of the Protestants, and charging the lives of some Popes, and many of the Clergie and Religious, with great impiety, as it is not denied, so far forth as it is true, so it is in it self impertinent; for what Church pre­tends to have every particular person, though of the highest rank, blamelesse? Let them look upon the heads of their own Churches, whosoever they be that they count so, and see whether by their owne members they are accounted spotlesse; particularly the first head of the Church of England, King Henry the eight. And upon their own Clergie, of whom not I, but Doctor King, Bishop of London, (in Jo­nam. Lecture 45.) saith, that scarce the tenth man of the Ministry is morally honest. But howsoever the successors may faile, yet it is a matter highly suspitious, yea altogether convincing, that they that pretend to be the first revealers or revivers of the forsa­ken [Page 275] truth of God, if they be not of godly lives are counterfeit Messengers and false Prophets. And the Protestants have no reason to make an inventory of the faults of Catholiques, for so many hundred years as they confesse Catholiques have possessed the Church, and that throughout the world, and compare it with their own faults, whose Church is little above one hundred year old, and possessing but some corners of the world.

Nor is the sanctitie of the Church (I confesse) to be measured exactly by the zealous complaints against sin on either side; for zealous complaint is hyperbo­licall, even in holy Scripture. But it is manifest that the Protestant Religion hath not that sanctity of life in it that the Ca­tholique hath, when neither the founders thereof had any at all, nor the followers any more, but much lesse, than when they were Catholiques. In fine, compare the lives of Roman Catholiques and Protestants both Clergie and Laity, and of the same Nation, (for that some Nations perhaps are addicted to vice in generall more than others, and every Nation to some one or few particular vices more than another,) the best to the best, and the major part to [Page 276] the major part, we shall find (so have I done) and I have heard even Protestants themselves confesse, that they are excee­dingly overballanced by the Catholiques.

CHAP. XIX.

§. 1. THe last Mark of the Church which I will mention is, her ne­ver going forth out of any visible society of Christians, elder than her self; of which going out, as a note of error and falshood, the Apostles say, They went forth from us, 1 Joh. 2.19. Certain that went forth from us, Acts 15.14. Out of your selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, Acts 20.30. These are they that separate themselves, Jude vers. 19. Certain it is, that the true Church is most antient, as truth it self is elder than falshood, if therefore there have risen in the Church men of indifferent judgements or affections from the true Church, they have presently made a separation, gone out of the Church, wherein they were, [Page 277] and erected a new Church to themselves; As S. Augustine saith, (Tract. 3. in Ep. Joan. de Sym. ad cateth. l. 1. c. 5.) ‘All Heretiques went out from us, that is, they go out of the Church; and againe, The Church Catholique fighting against all Heresies may be opposed, but she cannot be o­verthrowne: all heresies are come out from her, as unprofitable branches out from the Vine, but she remaines in her vine, in her root, in her charity.’ A vain thing therefore it is for Protestants to charge the Church of Rome with depar­ting from the Word of God, and the Do­ctrine of the Apostles, unlesse they can prove that she departed from some for­mer Church that held other doctrine than she doth. But certain it is, that this cannot be proved, seeing she was planted by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and never separated her self from any precedent Church.

It is true indeed that there were Churches elder than she in time, as she is a particular Church, as the Church of Ierusalem, where the Gospell was first preached, and of An­tioch, where S. Peter was first Bishop, with other Churches in Asia, but these all agreed in the unity of Faith, [Page 278] and were all subject to the Church of Rome, after it was planted, in union under the head thereof S. Peter and his successors, as I shall shew by and by. And the Church of Rome did never seperate from any of these, but many of these from her, in the Heresie of Arius and others, as Prote­stants will not deny. If then she did never separate from any elder Church, so that men might say here is a Church, and there is the Church of Rome, once the same with her, and now separated from her, she must still be the first and true Church, or there is none upon earth.

But certain it is on the contrary side, that all the former Churches, which Pro­testants themselves will call Heretiques, as Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Enty­chians, Donatists, with many others, did separate from the Church of Rome, and she can tell when, and why; and no lesse certain is it, that all that are now called Protestants, and all the pedigree of their fore-fathers, Waldo, Wickliffe, Husse, Lu­ther, Calvin, and all the Kingdomes wherein their followers are, were once, and first of the Roman Catholique Church, and have forsaken her Communion and departed from her, and have not joyned [Page 279] to any other Church more antient, and subsistent apart from her, by which shee was condemned of novelty and separati­on, nor are they able to shew any such Church; therefore the Roman must needs be the true Church: Or else (which is a most absurd and impossible imagination) the true Church hath been utterly extin­guished, and revived againe; and that not by the service of such men, as proved their calling by miracles or sanctity of life (as Roman Catholiques have done, to all the nations they have converted) but were men notable only for their wicked­nesse.

And these amongst many others which might be added, and of which much more might be said, are those infallible Markes that prove the Church of Rome, and those that communicate with her to bee the one, true, holy, Catholique, and Apostolique Church. That Church of whose infallible and never-erring Judgement, the Scripture assures us, calling it, The ground and pillar of truth; which hath the Spirit of God to lead it into all truth; which is built upon a rock, against which the gates of hell shal not prevaile; wherein Christ placed Apostles, Prophets, Doctors and Pastors, to the con­summation [Page 280] and ful perfection of the whole body, that in the mean time we be not car­ryed away with every blast of doctrine, 1 Tim. 3.15. John 16.13. Mat. 16.18. Ephes. 4.11.12. That Church which what­soever it says, God commands us to doe, and he that will not, is an heathen and a Publi­can; which whatsoever shee shall bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and whatsoever shee shall loose one earth, is loosed in heaven; which is the spouse of Christ, his body, his lot, Kingdome and inheritance given him in this world, Math. 23.3. and 18.17.18. Of which S. Cyprian (Epist. 55.) saith, To S. Peters chaire and the principall Church infidelity or false faith cannot have accesse. And S. Hie­rome, (Apol. advers. Ruff. l. 3. c. 4.) ‘That the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed. And S. Gregory Nazianzen, (Carm. de vita sua) 'Old Rome from antient times hath the right faith, and alwaies keepeth it, as it becomes the city which over-rules the world.’ Which being so, what remaines to every man, but laying aside endlesse dis­pute about particulars, to cast himself into the armes of this Holy mother Church, and wholly rely upon her infallible judge­ment, wherein Christ Jesus her husband [Page 281] hath promised, and hath reason to pre­serve her. And to submit themselves to the visible head thereof the Pope of Rome, of whose authority, as I did my self par­ticularly enquire, and was moved there­by, so I will briefly propound it to others.

CHAP. XX.

§. 1. THe Protestants doe usually blas­pheme the Pope and Sea of Rome with the title of Antichrist, of the Whore of Babylon, of the Mother of Abo­minations, of the Beast with seven heads and ten hornes, and many other like courteous compellations; and it is the maine de­signe of some of the Clergie to perswade the people into a belief that he is Anti­christ; which conceipt when it hath once strongly seized them, as it doth, yet by ve­ry weake and silly arguments, they care not to enquire any further, but conclude from thence (and that justly, if it were true, that neither he nor his adherents, are either Head or members of the Church. But the contrary I found most evident by the testimony of all antiquity. First that our Saviour appointed S. Peter his Vicar & [Page 282] Head of his Church here on earth; and after him, his successors in the Sea of Rome, nor do we read either in Scriptures, Coun­cells, Fathers or histories, that any other of the Apostles but Peter, was thought, or pretended by any, to be the chiefest over the rest, and over the whole Church; and that it is necessary that some one be Head, both reason and authority doe convince.

Nor is it a denyall of Christ to be the Head, while we say, that S. Peter was, and the Pope is so. For Christ we confesse is the Head originally and immediately, the Pope derivatively from and by him; Christ is the principall, the Pope but his deputy, and representer; and these two head­ships doe not contradict (as some Prote­stants imagine) but are subordinate the one to the other. And with as much rea­son they may deny a King to be head of his Kingdome, because the Scripture saith, Psal. 46.8. God is King over all the earth, as deny the Pope to be head of the Church, because Christ is so. S. Basil (Concione de poenit.) shewes us the difference of their headships: ‘Though Peter be a rock (saith he) he is not a rock, as Christ is; for Christ is the true immovable rock of him­selfe, Peter is immoveable by Christ the [Page 283] rock, for Jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities not voiding himselfe of them; but holding them to himselfe, bestowes them also on others: He is the light, and yet you are the lights; He is the Priest, and yet he makes Priests; He is the Rock, and he made a rock.’ Therefore our Saviour saith to Peter, (Math. 16.18.19.) Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against it. And, I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Nor is it contrary to this (as Prote­stants imagine) to say (as the Fathers sometimes doe) that the Church was built upon the confession of Peter, these two expositions not excluding, but in­cluding one another. For they intend that the Church was built causally on the con­fession of Peter, and formally on the ministry of the Person of Peter; that is to say the confession of Peter was the cause wherefore Christ chose him, to constitute him the foundation of the ministry of the Church: and that the person of S. Peter was that, on which our Lord did properly build [Page 284] his Church; as S. Hilary (in Mat. c. 16.) saith, The confession of S. Peter hath re­ceived a worthy reward. So that to say, the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, is not to deny that it is built on the person of Peter, but it is to expresse the cause wherefore it is built upon him; as when S. Hierome (ad Pammach. advers. error. Joan. Hierosol. Ep. 91.) said, that Peter walked not on the waters, but faith; it is not to deny that S. Peter walked truly on the water; but it is to expresse that the cause that made him walk there, was not the naturall activity of his body, but the faith that he had given to the words of Christ. So that these two propositions are both true, Peters faith walked on the wa­ter; and Peters person walked on the water; so likewise these, the Church is built on the faith of Peter, and the Church is built on the person of Peter: the confession of Peters faith being the cause why Christ built his Church upon Peters person.

Againe our Saviour said to Peter, Si­mon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee. He said unto him feed my lambs, John 21.15. And thus the second and the third time. Which speed [Page 285] was directed to Peter alone, as appeares by these words [more than these] where­by he is separated from the rest; and by these words is given to him the Ecclesiasti­call power to feed, and also to governe, as the word in the originall doth signifie; and that not some alone, but all the whole flock of Christ. Of which the Fathers give abundant testimony: S. Aug. saith (Serm. 5. in fest. Pet. & Pauli.) speaking of S. Peter, that he ‘only amongst the Apostles deserved to hear, verily I say unto thee thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, worthy truly, who to the people, who were to be builded in the house of God, might be a stone for their foundation, a pillar for their stay, a key to open the gates of the Kingdome of heaven. And againe, (Quaestion. vet. &. nov. Test. q. 7 [...].) 'Our Saviour when he commands to pay for himself and Peter, seemes to have payed for all; be­cause as in our Saviour were all the causes of superiority; so after him all are con­tained in Peter; for he ordained him the head of them, that he might be the head of our Lords flock. S. Gregory also (lib. 4. Ep. 32.) saith, 'It is cleer to all that know the Gospell, that by our Lords [Page 286] mouth, the care of the whole Church is committed to Holy Peter, the Prince of all the Apostles, for to him it is said, Pe­ter lovest thou me?’ feed my sheep; and further he applies the places of Scripture spoken to S. Peter above mentioned, to this end. And S. Chrysostome (Hom. 87. in Joan. 21.) saith, ‘that Peter was the mouth of the Apostles, and the Prince and top of the company, and therefore Paul went to see him above others.’ As for S. Pauls reproving of S. Peter, it was for an error of conversation not of do­ctrine, as Tertullian saith, nor doth it any way diminish his Primacy, but only shews, that an inferiour may reprove his superi­our, if the matter require it, and the man­ner be not unseemly; which no man will deny: Therefore this instance is nothing to the purpose, being thus also answered by S. Augustine. lib. 2. de. Bapt. c. 1.

§. 2. And as Christ ordained S. Peter to be the supreme Pastor and Head of the Church, so it was his will, that that office should continue in S. Peters successors in the Sea of Rome. That there should be one chiefe Pastor alwaies in the Church for the government thereof, and deciding of controversies, Gods practise in the Church [Page 287] of the Jewes (Numb. 20.28. Exod. 18.15. &c. Deut. 17.8. &c.) gives us reason to be­lieve; who appointed the High Priests therein to succeed one another, to this end. That the office of a Pastor is alwaies needfull, our Saviour implies in calling his people, his sheep; and sheep without a shepherd are like to be but il provided for: and as they are alwaies sheep, so they ought alwaies to have a shepherd; which office in ordinary being given to S. Peter first, ought to continue out of the necessi­ty of the cause thereof, so long as the sheep continue, which will be to the end of the world: Which S. Peter not being now able to doe in person; reason re­quires that it should be done by his Suc­cessors. The Apostle 1 Cor. 12.21. compares the Church to a body, and saith, The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you; which cannot be understood of Christ our head, for he may truly say to us all, that he hath no need of us; it must therefore be meant of some Head here on earth, which must continue as long as the Church continues a body, and that is to the worlds end.

And that the successors of S. Peter are this Head, S. Chrysostome doubts not to [Page 288] affirm who demanding why Christ shed his blood,De Saterdot. l. 2. initio Leo Serm. 2. de Annivers. assump sua ad Pontific. answers, ‘It was to gaine that flock, the care whereof he committed to Peter & to Pe­ters successors.’ And S. Leo, Peter continues and lives in his Succes­sors. And that his successors are the Bishops of Rome is out of doubt; none but they ever assuming it to themselves, or ha­ving it granted by others. For the Bishop of Antioch succeeded not S. Peter in the go­vernment of the whole Church, but of that diocesse; for succession to any in his whole right, is not but to him that leaves his place either by naturall death, deposition or voluntary resignation; now S. Peter living and ruling left the Church of Anti­och, and placed his Sea at Rome, where he also died; so that he that succeeds him in that Sea, must succeed him both as he was Bishop thereof, and likewise as he was Head of the whole Church: as for the Bishop of Antioch he did never either possesse, or pretend to higher than the third place amongst the Patriarchs. (Cone. Nic. Can. 6.)

Gelasius (In decret. cum 70. Episcopis) affirmes that the ‘Roman Church is pre­ferred before other Churches, not by any [Page 289] constitutions of Councells, but she ob­tained Primacy by the Evangelicall voice of our Lord; saying, thou art [...] upon this rock I will build m [...] [...] And S. Hierome in his 59.’ Epistle [...] to Pope Dam [...]sus saith, ‘To [...] she [...] require from the Priest the [...] [...] ­tion, and from the Pastor [...] I speak with the successor of th [...] [...] sho [...] &c. I following none but Christ in [...] joyned in Communion to your holyn sse, that is to the chaire of Peter; upon that, rock I know the Church to be builded 3. whosoever out of this house eates the lamb, is prophane, whosoever shall not be in the Ark of Noe shall perish in the deluge.’ And S. Aug. writing to Pope In­nocentius (Epist 92.) saith, ‘wee think that by the Authority of your Holynesse: derived from the authority of Holy Scriptures, they will more easily yeeld, who believe such perverse and pernicious: things.’ Wherein he derives the Popes au­thority from the Scriptures. And S Ber­nard writing to Pope Eugenius saith thus, ‘Thou alone art not only the Pastor of sheep,De consider. l. 3 cap. 8. &. Epist. 190. ad Innoc. PP. but also of Pastors. Thou de­mandest how I prove this?’

‘Out of the word of our Lord. For to whom, I do not say Bishops, but also of the Apostles, were all the sheep so abso­lutely and indeterminately committed? Peter if thou lovest me feed my sheep: which? the people of this or that city, country, or Kingdome? Hee saith, my sheep. To whom, is it not plain, that hee did not assigne some, but all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished, &c. To conclude, James (who seemed a pillar for the Church) was content with Jerusalem onely, yeelding the uni­versality to Peter.’ And with the Fathers apart, doe concur the Fathers united in Councell, by whom in many Councells this truth hath been declared, as in the Coun­cell ofSess. 14. c. 7. Trent, the Councell of Florence, Sess. ult. the Councell ofRespons. Synod de authoritat. Conc. general. Ba­sil, the Councell ofPart. 2. Act. 3. Ephesus, the Councell ofSub. Innoc. 3. e. 5. Lateran, the second Councell ofAct. 2. Nice, the Councell ofConc. Chal. Act. 1. &. Act. 3. tom. 2. p. 252 edit. Venet. Chalcedon, as is easy to shew at large if need required.

§. 3. As for the attempt of the Bishop of Constantinople a­gainst the Pope, it was not for the Primacy and headship of [Page 291] the Church Catholique, but only of the Churches of the East; And the title of u­niversall Bishop which he claimed, was not with intent of superiority over the Pope, but over the other Patriarchs, who were all of the Easterne Empire, and in association with the Pope for those parts, yet with subjection to the Pope, acknowledg­ing him the root and stock of the universa­lity; even as Menas Patriarch of Constan­tinople in the time of this contention ac­knowledges, saying,Concil. Constant. sub. Men. Act. 4. ‘we will in all things follow and o­bey the sea Apostolique.’ And as the Emperour and Pa­triarch both acknowledge; as S. Gregory (lib. 7. indict. 2. ep. 93.) reports in these words; ‘Who is it that doubts but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Sea Apostolique, which the most religious Lord the Emperour, and our brother Bishop of the same city conti­nually protest.’ And if it were true (as Protestants imagine) that the Bishop of Constantinople contended with the Pope for the absolute Primacy over the Christian world, this doth no more prove his right, than Perkin Warbecks pretention in the [Page 292] daies of King Henry the seventh, did prove his right to the crown of England. And certain it is that neither the one, nor the other did obtain that which he aspired to, but were rejected by the voice of mankind, which is an argument that their claim was unjust.

§. 4. Another great objection of Protestants against the Popes Primacy, is fetched from S. Gregory, who was Pope himselfe; and is this, ‘That he that intitled himselfe uni­versall Bishop, exalted himselfe like Lu­cifer above his brethren, and was a fore­runner of Antichrist.’ To the understand­ing of which words, I found that the word universall hath two meanings,; the one proper, literall and grammaticall, whereby it signifies Only Bishops excluding all others; the other transferred and Metaphoricall, whereby it signifies the supreme over all Bishops: and S. Gregory censured this title in the first sense; because that from hence it would have ensued, that there had been but one Bishop only, and that all the rest had been but his Deputies and not true Bishops, and true Officers of Christ; as he saith, (l. 7. ind. 2. Ep. 96.) If there be one that is universall Bishop, all the rest are no more Bishops. Now S. Gregory main­tained [Page 293] that all Bishops were true Bishops, Ministers and officers of Christ, although concerning jurisdiction, they were subor­dinate the one to the other. He therefore that usurps that title wholely to himselfe, exalts himselfe (with relation to the E­piscopall order) above his brethren, de­nying him the essence and propriety of Bishops, and officers of Christ, and makes them only Commissioners to him, as if they had the originall of that office from him; and not from God.

And in this sense S. Gregory withstood the title of universall Bishop, and not to deny (in case of jurisdiction) the superi­ority of one Bishop over another, and the Bishop of Rome over all: For that he main­taines (Lib. 7. ind. 2. Ep. 62.) saying, ‘If there be any crime found in Bishops, I know no Bishop but is subject to the Sea Apostolique.’ He also addes for explica­tion of the matter in hand, (Lib. 4. ind. 13. Ep. 32.) that ‘The care of the Church hath been committed to the holy Apostle, and Prince of all the Apostles, S. Peter; the care and Principality hath been com­mitted to him, and yet he is not called u­niversall Apostle. In which words hee a­scribes the Primacy and headship of the [Page 294] Church to S. Peter, & yet denies the univer­sality:’ it must therfore needs be, that the word universal in S. Gregories sense, in this case, is not the deniall of the Primacy of Ju­risdiction over the whole Church, but of his being the only Apostle, as if there were none but he, & such as should derive their authority originally from him, & not from God. And with application to the Pope, it is the denyall of his being the only Bi­shop, as if there were no Bishop in the world but he, or such as he should consti­tute his deputies, as from himself, and not by command from God, and as the Offi­cers of God.

Moreover the Histories of all ages beat record, that the Bishop of Rome hath exer­cised authority over all other Bishops in the world, even in all Forraign Nations, (both before S. Gregory and after, and even in his person, and therefore he cannot mean the universall Government, when he re­proves the title of universall Bishop;) as by creating them himself; by confirming them, created by others; by deposing them, by re­storing them, being deposed by others; by appointing them his Vicars, by finall deci­ding their controversies; by accepting their Appeales; by making Lawes over all the [Page 295] Church; by dispensing with them; by in­flicting his censures; by being President in Generall Councells; by calling of Councells, so far as concerned the Ecclesiasticall au­thority, which is the chiefest; though the Emperours concurred therein in regard of temporall authority, and of that only, to make them obligatory to the secular tribunall, and executory by the Ministry of the Officers of the Emperour; as witnesseth the sixt Generall Councell, (Act 18.) spea­king of the first Generall Councell of Nice, which saith, ‘The most sacred Constan­tine and the Praise-worthy Sylvester cal­led the famous Councell of Nice:’ which may also be proved of all the rest. And by the saying of Athanasius (ad solit.) ‘That an Emperour presiding in Ecclesia­sticall judgements is the Abomination of Desolation, fore-told by Daniel.’ And of Osius the Bishop of Cordua, in an Epistle of his to Constantius the Emperour; ‘Go not about to meddle in Ecclesiasticall af­fairs; and command not us in such mat­ters, but rather learne of us; God hath committed the Empire to thee, and the government of the Church to us.’ And by the Protestation of the Emperour Con­stantine, Pogonat sent to Rome for the [Page 296] holding of the sixth Generall Councell, ‘I will not sit as Emperour amongst them, I will not speak imperi­ously,In Epist. Greg. 2. ad Leon. Imp. Ep. 1. but as one of them, and what the Prelates shal ordain, I will execute.’

All which do undoubtedly prove the Pope of Rome both by divine and humane Law, and by the right of prescription in all ages, to be the supreme Pastor and Head of the Church. And all the objecti­ons urged by Calvin, & all other invaders of this Sea, are but like water furiously beating against a Rock, broken into drops, and forced creepingly to recoile, and to foame and cry through shame and indig­nation at their vaine and impossible at­tempts: impossible indeed, unlesse they have more force then the gates of hell, for they shall never prevaile against this Rock.

CHAP. XXI.

§. 1. AFter all these fore-going consi­derations, for my more explicite satisfaction, I descended to the examina­tion of all the particular Doctrines in con­troversie betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants; whom I found in all things to be exceedingly over-weighed both by Scripture, Councells, Fathers, and reason. Of which I will say no more than I have done, but onely to shew in some few particulars, how our poore En­glish people are abused by their ordinary Preachers, and made to believe monstrous things of the Doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, who for the most part stating the question false, and laying to the Catholiques charge the things that they do not teach, raise an error out of their own fancy, and then fight against it most cou­ragiously, under the title of Popery. And [Page 298] every young Minister is so valiant herein, that he thinks he baffles the most learned Cardinall Bellarmine, as Goliah thought he could have done David; and in this case for the most part the most ignorant and imprudent are the forwardest. And this I add to rectifie the opinions of the lesse learned, and to reconcile them so far to the Catholique doctrines, as to believe they are not so monstrous as they are vulgarly imagined.

First then they tell the people that the Papists (as they call them) are Idolaters, in that they worship Images, stockes, and stones, little painted babies and puppets, with many such like titles, wherewith they make themselves merry; and then alledge all the places of the Scripture, or Fathers, wherein the Idolatry of the Heathen is re­proved. Now it is most certain that this is an unjust charge against Catholiques; first because the worship of Images and I­dolls is not all one, seeing the words are of different signification, as is manifest by those places where it is said, Let us make man after our Image, (Gen. 1.26.) And a man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. (1 Cor. 11.7.) with many the like; wherein if they say [Page 299] that Image & Idoll were all one, they must say also that when God made Adam, hee made to himselfe an Idoll. Secondly Ca­tholiques doe not worship Images, as God, which the Heathen and Jewes, when they had committed Idolatry, did, as appears by Elias who saith unto them, 3. Kings 18.21. If the Lord be God, follow him, if Baal be God, follow him; cleerly intimating there­by, that they that followed Baal, follow­ed and worshipped him as God. Thirdly it is only the worship of Images for God, which is by God forbidden, as appears, Exod. 20.23. where it is said, you shall not make to your selves Gods of silver and Gods of gold, and Lev. 26.1. you shall make no I­dolls and graven Images, &c. to bow downe therto, for I am the Lord, and my glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to gra­ven images, Esay 24.8.

By which places (as by all other) is forbidden that kind of bowing, honour, and worship which is due to God only, because it is said, I am the Lord, therfore I­mages are not; and my praise and my glory I will not give to another, that is, that praise and glory which is due to me only; for o­therwise (seeing man is another thing from God) it would be unlawfull to give [Page 300] any kind of praise, or bow down to men, which no body I think will affirme. This and this only, is properly Idolatry; name­ly, to worship a creature, believing it to be God, and giving to it the divine in­communicable attributes, and in that ima­gination to exercise devotion to it; which is far from the belief or practise of Catho­liques. But that holy creatures, as Saints and Angells are to be worshipped, with such worship as we give to persons of se­verall qualities here on earth, as bowing and kneeling; or such as we give to all whose help we desire, as praying; and these (in the absence of the parties) by and through their Images; and that the Images themselves are to be reverently handled for their sakes, whom they repre­sent, no rationall man can deny.

§. 2. And whereas many Protestants stumble at the word worship, and think that it imports a thing that is to be done to God only, they are therein mistaken; worship signifying any kind of reverence and respect either of body or mind; and is communicable to all creatures accord­ing to their dignity: therefore in the Eng­lish Phrase we call all eminent Gentle­men, worshipfull, that is, men that deserve [Page 301] reverence or worship; and all men do worship others, when they put off their hats, or bow their bodies to them. And whereas they say, it is but civill worship which they give to men, it is impertinent; for civill and religious worship do not dif­fer in the outward act or expression, but in the object that is worshipped; that be­ing civill worship which is given to a civil person or thing, which is religious wor­ship, being directed to a holy person or thing. Now Saints, being holy persons, their Images or other things that belong to them may be said to be holy; first be­cause they have relation to them; as the Scripture saith, put off thy shooes from thy feet; for the place where thou standest is ho­ly ground, Exod. 3.5. which was in regard of the presence of the Angells by whom the Law was delivered, Gal. 3.19. Secondly be­cause Images are dedicated to honour God withall, by and through them whom they represent, of which the Scripture saith, whatsoever shall once be consecrated, shall be most holy to the Lord, Levit. 27.28. for which cause all the Vestments and Ʋ ­tensils of the Temples were called holy; therefore the reverence and respect done to Images is and ought to be holy or re­ligious [Page 302] worship; for whatsoever is holy, is religiously honourable or worshipfull, and that so far, and in that sense that it is holy; and so are Images of religious persons.

The Councell of Trent (Sess. 25. decret. de Sanct. Imag.) hath expressed the doctrine of the Catholique Church herein, in these words, ‘The Image of Christ, of the Vir­gin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be had and retained, especially in Churches; and due honour and worship is to be imparted to them; not for that any Divinity is to be believed to be in them, or vertue for which they are wor­shipped; or that any thing is to be beg­ged of them, or that hope is to be put in them, as in times past the Pagans did, who put their trust in Idolls; but because the honour which is exhibited to them, is re­ferred to the first pattern, which they re­semble. So that by the Images which we kisse, and before whom we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and his Saints, whose likenesse they beare.’ Whatsoever is more than this, are but School-points, which no man is bound to believe further than his particular reason guides him.

But howsoever the belief is (say the Protestants) yet the practise is otherwise, and some ignorant people doe pray to I­mages believing them to be very God, and so seek succour from them, as from God; and it is better (say they) that the wor­ship of Images should be abolished, than that it should be the occasion of Idolatry. Their affirmation as it is not to be belie­ved, considering the plentifull meanes of instruction in all places, and the easinesse of the thing to be apprehended, so their inference is false; for (passing by their preferring their own judgement herein, before all the world of Catholiques, which objection lies against them in all that they say, and is a great one) I answer, the good use of a thing is not to be taken away be­cause of the abuse, especially when the good use is very abundant, and the abuse very rare, and easily amended by instructi­on; otherwise all good things must be a­bolished, because by some or other they are abused. These men that argue thus, wil not say that wine is to be destroyed, because some men are drunk therewith; or the use of swords forbidden, because some men commit murder with them; espe­tially, that the reading of the Bible should is [Page 304] be prohibited, because some men pervert it (as the Apostle saith) to their own damnation. The use of Jmages then (not­withstanding this objection) is lawfull, and unfit to be abolished.

Nor truly can any man, whose naturall understanding is not corrupted by his cor­rupting of Scripture, boggle at it. It is a Principle in nature, gathered out of Ari­stotle, IDEM EST MOTUS IN IMA­GINEM ET EXEMPLAR, that the i­mage may and ought to stand for the per­son whose image it is, and is by imaginati­on to be taken as if it were the person, and what we doe to the Image, is done by ima­gination to the person. And this is expres­sed by the Prophet David saying, Adore his footstoole, (which the Protestants of En­gland falsly translate at his footstool) be­cause he is holy, Psal. 98.5. God appointed that the Tabernacle should be taken by i­magination for his house, the Mercy-seat for his Throne, and the Ark for his foot­stool, and so he imagined there present, as sitting with his feet on the Ark; and this ordination being supposed, the Prophet saith, Adore his footstool; yet taking of the Ark, as a place where God is present, [...] but a positive ordinance (whereas Ima­ges [Page 305] by the law of nature stand for those whose images they are) yet this positive ordinance supposed, the law of nature al­so binds men to worship and adore it, with reference to God, imagined to sit thereon.

This ever hath been and is the opinion and practise of all the world, except it be of those who under the shew of grace have extinguished the light of nature, and yet even these in their humane practises doe the same things; as if Christ and his Saints were the only men that after death or in absence were incapable of honour. It is well known that the Kings and Queenes of England are honoured by uncovering of the head in all places, where they are but supposed to be present; and when they are dead, untill their funeralls are so­lemnized, there is the same respect exhi­bited to their Images as to themselves. And what Puritane lover is there that will not in the ardour of his affection, kisse, lay in his bosome, and talk to, not only the picture (which doth more immediately and directly represent a person, than any thing else) but even the handkercher, glove, or letter, which are but reliques of her whom he desires in marriage? And is [Page 306] it lesse Idolatry to doe these things to mortall men than to immortall Saints, though there be as much difference obser­ved in the degree of honour, as there is be­tween the dignity of the persons? Surely if they consider it duely, they will find that they must either leave their religion in this point, or their manners and civility in all points, seeing either both or neither are I­dolatry.

§. 3. Secondly they teach the people, and the people ordinarily believe, that Ca­tholiques think to be saved by their good workes, and that without being beholding to Christ; For they make an opposition between these two assertions; wee are saved by Christs merits; And we are sa­ved by our own merits: Hence they be­lieve that Catholiques are the proudest and most ungratefull to God of all people in the world. But this doctrine is misliked a­mongst them, because it is misunderstood.

For Catholiques hold that no work is meritorious with God of its owne nature; but to make the same meritorious many graces are required. First the grace of a­doption in Baptisme, whereby soules are supernaturally beautified by participation of the divine nature, whence a triple dig­nity [Page 307] redounds to works: One from God the Father, who in respect of adoption, re­gards good works, as the works of his children: Another from God the holy Ghost dwelling in us, by whom good works are honoured, as by the principall author of them; so that he rather then wee, doth the works: Thirdly they receive dignity from God the Sonne, whose members we are made by grace, which grace he by his merits pur­chased for us, so that the works we doe, are reputed not so much ours, or his; as the work of a particular member is attri­buted principally to the head. Secondly there is required grace prevenient where­by God stirres up mens hearts to pious workes; and grace adjuvant to assist us in the performancee of the works, making our free-will produce works that are su­pernaturall; and above the reach of meer man. Thirdly there is required the grace of mercifull indulgence, in not using us in the rigour of his justice; for God might require the good works we doe, as his own by many titles: as by the title of justice, being the works of his servants and bond­men; by the title of religion, as being the works of his creatures; by the title of gra­titude, as being the works of persons in­finitely [Page 308] obliged to him; by which titles if God did exact upon works with utter­most rigour, no goodnesse would be left in them to be offered for meriting of hea­ven; But his infinite benignity remitting this rigour, moved thereunto through the merits of Christ, is content that wee make use of our good works for the purchasing of glory, and doth not exact them as wholely due by all his titles. The fourth is the favour of Gods liberall promise, by which he obligeth himselfe to reward the good works of his children according to the measure of their goodnesse, without which the most excellent works of Saints could not establish an obligation on him. And finally there is required the grace of perseverance, without which no man is crowned.

And so far are Catholiques from boast­ing or trusting in their merits, that the Councell of Trent (Sess. 6. Can. 16.) faith, God forbid that a Christian should ei­ther boast or trust in himself, and not in our Lord, whose goodnesse is so great towards all men, as that those things which are his gifts, he will have to be our merits. To be worthy of a thing, to deserve or merit it, signifie [Page 309] all one; and that by our works we de­serve and are worthy of heaven, is the fre­quent phrase of Scripture: The workeman is worthy of his hire, saith our Saviour; Luke 10.7. And S. Paul, That you may be counted worthy of the Kingdome of God; for which also ye suffer, 2. Thes. 1.5. And again, That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing, fructifying in all Good works, Colos. 1.10. And our Saviour, They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy, Revel. 3.4. And againe, Come ye blessed of my Father possesse the kingdome &c. for I was hungry and ye gave me meat &c. Math. 25.34. alledging these as the cause why God received them into everlasting habi­tations; with plenty of other places to this purpose.

As for the most frequently objected place of Luc. 17.10. when you have done all those things that are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do; According to S. Ambrose (lib. 8. in Luc.) Christ com­mands hereby to acknowledge what we are of our selves, to wit, unprofitable, not what we are by his grace, for that is pro­fitable; according to the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2.21. If any man therefore shall cleanse him­selfe [Page 310] from these, he shall be a vessell unto ho­nour, sanctified and profitable to our Lord, prepared to every good work; according to S. Augustine, (Serm. 3. de verb. Dom.) we may be said to be unprofitable ser­vants, because in doing all that is commanded, we do but our duty, we are Gods servants and slaves, and owe him all, nor could we look for reward had he not voluntarily covenanted with us. And to this base and poor condition of ours, for the preservation of our humility, Christ in these words sends back our thoughts: which hinders not, but that (supposing Gods bountifull promise and covenant) we may through his grace truly merit and expect reward; himself saying, Mat. 20.14. Didst thou not covenant with me for a penny? take that which is thine own, and go thy way. S. Chrysostome observes, that Christ saith not, you are unprofitable ser­vants, but bids them to say, they are; willing us thereby, after our good deeds, to think humbly, lest they be corrupted with pride; for that otherwise they only that work evill are by God accounted un­profitable, but they that do good, profita­ble, as our Saviour saith, Mat. 25.21. well done good and faithfull servant, because thou [Page 311] hast been faithfull over a few things. [...] place thee over many things; enter [...] the joy of thy Master. And the [...] servant cast ye into utter darkness [...] if all Protestants be unprofitable [...] they must expect the sequele there [...] darknesse, that is damnation.

§. 4. Thirdly many Protestant Mini­sters teach, and the people ordinarily be­lieve, that Catholiques hold that there is nothing required to the remission of sins, but only to confesse them to a Priest, and the businesse is done. Whereas indeed they teach, that not only Confession to a Priest, but also Contrition and sorrow for their sinnes, (which is all that Prote­stants require,) as also Satisfaction for the temporall punishment due to sin, is requi­site, and so make it a matter of far greater paine than the Protestants do, who re­proach it for the easinesse thereof. Now all these parts of Penance are plainly ex­pressed in Scripture; our Saviour saith to the Priests, whose sinnes ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sinnes ye shall retain, they are retained, Joh. 20.23. and S. James bids us confesse our sins one to another, Jam. 5.16. and if to another, to whom but to him that hath power to forgive?

The Jewes did object against our Savi­our, as Protestants do now against Priests, saying, who can forgive sinnes, but God only? Mark 2.7. which error of theirs to con­fute, he miraculously cured the man sick of the Palsie, That ye may know the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sinnes, as our Saviour faith to them; which had been no crossing of their erroneous conceipt, as the word [But] doth intimate it was, unlesse he had pardoned him, as man, with Commission from God, and not as God immediate; for otherwise he should have said, why, I am God, and so I pardon him, but he did it as man, doubtlesse with dele­gation from God; as another Evan­gelist expresseth it, saying, that the mul­titude glorified God, which had given such power to men, Mat. 9.8.

Nor need the simplest Protestants won­der that men should forgive sinnes, seeing Catholiques teach that they do it not by their own power, but by power given them from God; to whom it belongs originally and by his own power to for­give sins, and to them but derivatively and ministerially from him. So it is said, that God only doth wondrous things, Psal. 72.18. and yet we read in Scripture of many men [Page 313] that wrought Miracles, 3 Kings 8.39. So it is said, that God only knowes the hearts of men, 4 Kings 5.16. and yet we read of others that knew the secrets of the heart. Nor can this forgivenesse of sinnes (the power whereof God hath given to men) be in­terpreted of power only to declare for­givenesse (as Protestants would have it) for this a child, or an Infidell may do as­well as any other; they may tell them that if they repent God will forgive them; nor needed such a power as this onely, be ushered by Christ, by brea­thing on them and saying, Receive the Holy Ghost, Joh. 20.22. nor by these words, As my Father sent me, so I send you; for surely his Father sent him to do more than barely to declare and tell them they were forgiven if they repented; and our Saviour should have changed the form of his words, and not have said, whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted; but whose sins ye remit, they were remit­ted before by God.

And that this power should be gi­ven only to the Apostles, if it be taken for absolute power of forgivenesse, (as some: Protestants affirme) is unreasonable; For seeing the reason and use of it, which [Page 314] is to reconcile God and man together, after mans offending him by sin, will re­main to the worlds end, therefore to the worlds end is committed to them the Ministry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5.18. 19.20. For this power of forgiving sinnes, was not given to the Apostles as a par­ticular priviledge wherewith to dignifie their persons above other Priests, but for the use and benefit of Christs Church, which will alwaies in this world stand in need thereof, & therefore doth he in their Successors alwaies continue the power.

§. 5. As for Satisfaction, which Prote­stants are taught to believe is needlesse; it is plaine in Scripture; as first, that after the sin is pardoned, which is in regard of our reconciliation to God, and freedome from eternall punishment, yet there re­maines a lyablenesse to temporall punish­ment; as appears in David, whom after he had repented; and God pardoned his sinnes, yet he punished one sin with the death of his child, another with three daies pestilence, 2 King. 12.13.14. & 24.10, 12, 13. Nor can this punishment be only for ad­monition & not of justice, seeing the Text saith it was, because he had made the enemies of God to blaspheme. Moses and Aaron died [Page 315] both in Gods favour, yet were punished with death before they entred into the land of Canaan, for their offence at Meri­bah; now where death is the punishment, it cannot be intended for their admoniti­on and amendment in time to come, but as a scourge for their offences. And the Psalmist saith plainely, Thou forgavest their sins and didst punish their inventions; Psal. 98.8. If he forgave them, why did he punish them? If he did punish them, how did he forgive them? He forgave the e­ternall punishment, and inflicted the tem­porall. Also the Apostle saith, whom ye for­give any thing, I forgive also; for if I for­gave any thing, to whom I forgaue it, for your sakes forgave I it, in the person of Christ: 2. Cor. 2.10. Which words can­not concerne the remission of the fault, seeing that was pardoned before by the parties great sorrow, mentioned in the 7. verse, but must be meant of the temporall punishment, which was imposed in the name of Christ. This truth Calvin doth not deny, nor Beza upon this place, who saith, that the abatement of this rigour was afterwards called Indulgence.

And wherefore (I wonder) do Pro­testants when they would divert some [Page 316] present or near approaching danger, fast, and pray, and preach, and give almes, (when yet by their contrition they think their sinnes forgiven,) if they did not hope by these meanes to prevent or re­move their temporall evills, which in their prayers they confesse to be inflicted for their sinnes? Thus doth the force of rea­son drive them to the practise of that, which out of opposition to the Church of Rome, in their doctrine they contradict. And though Christs satisfaction was suffi­cient for all the punishment due to our sinnes, yet if he hath appointed that we shall also satisfie, as knowing it in his wise­dome a thing most meet, who shall gainsay it? His praiers also and his obedience was sufficient to obtain heaven for us, shall we therefore neither pray nor obey? You will say we shall, because we are com­manded; so also are we commanded to sa­tisfie, as the Prophet Daniel saith, Redeem, thy sinnes with almes, and thine iniquities with mercy towards the poore, Dan. 4.24. which Text to avoid, the Protestants doe corrupt. Now to redeem sinnes is the same in effect as to satisfie for them, for how is any thing redeemed, but by satisfying the price of its redemption? Why then should [Page 317] Protestants (under the pretence of magni­fying the operation of Christs satisfaction, without our concurrence, which Catholikes yet acknowledge to proceed from him) disobey him, and leave him thereby the lesse satisfied with us? But this was Lu­thers most acceptable way to flesh and blood, to cast all the burden on Christ, and leave nothing to themselves, but the pleasing liberty of sin, which though it should infinitely extend it self, needs no other cure amongst them, but only their barren faith.

§. 6. Againe, Protestants are taught to believe that to entreat Gods favour by the merits of Saints (as Catholiques doe) is a great derogation from the merits of Christ. But why? Catholiques doe not deny, but that the merits of Christ are of infinite value, and there is motive enough in them for God to bestow all favour on us; yet seeing the Saints have merited of God, it is lawfull also to entreat him by those merits; and what he doth sometimes doe and not by Miracle, it is lawfull at any time to entreat him to doe: Now he did blesse the house of Potiphar for Jo­sephs sake, therefore doubtlesse it was law­full for Potiphar to intreat God to blesse [Page 318] him for Josephs sake; and if so, then much more for the sake of Saints in heaven, who are more in Gods favour, then Jo­seph could be here in this life. Thus Moses desires God to asswage his wrath against the Israelites, saying, Remember Abraham Isaac, and Israel thy servants; Exod. 32.13. and for what should he remember them but for the good works and service they had done? and for that to spare their children.

Calvins shift in answer to this and the like places is trifling, when he saith that God is only entreated to remember his Covenant with the Patriarchs, whereby he promised to blesse their posterity; for there is mention not only of Gods Cove­nant, but of the righteousnesse and merits of the Saints. Salomon praies thus, Psal. 131.1. Lord remember David and all his meeknesse, his afflictions, as the Protestants read it, which is all one for our present purpose, both being meritorious; and a little after he saith, For thy servant Davids sake turn not away the face of thine anointed; where God is invocated by the merits of David, who was dead and gone: and God likewise for Davids sake did hear and prosper Abia, as the Scripture saith, [Page 319] For Davids sake did our Lord his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, that he might raise up his son after him, and establish Ierusalem, because David had done right in the eyes of the Lord, 3. Kings 15.4.5. Much more is found in Scripture to this purpose. Nor can it be a derogation from the merits of Christ, whose value, as it is infinite in it selfe, so it gives all the tincture to all the merits of all Saints; like the Elixer, which turnes all into gold, that it touch­es; And like the radiant Sun enkindles all other celestiall fires; yea so far is it from being a dishonour to him, that it adds to him a great encrease of honour; by being able to raise his servants to such a pitch of excellency, that they can merit favours both for themselves and others.

§. 7. Againe Protestants are taught to believe that it is an arrogant thing to think that a man may doe more than he is commanded, (as Catholiques teach) where­as they think he cannot do so much. Yet what more plaine in Scriptures? What more evident in reason? That wee are commanded to give almes is true, but the proportion is not exprest; let a man give so much dayly, as that he may justly think he hath discharged his duty, and [Page 320] sinnes not, though he give no more; and then may he give more, and so do more then he is commanded. Suppose a man bound to fast and pray in such or such a measure, which when he hath done, he hath discharged the duty of a Christian; yet when this is done, he may take some of the time wherein he may lawfully feed and recreate himself, and bestow this also in fasting and prayer; doth not he in this doe more, than he is com­manded? I think no impartiall man will say the contrary: Else there were no compasse or latitude of goodnesse wherein men might move, excelling one another in degrees, yet the lowest void of sinne: Else he that were not most good must be evill; there would be no medium betwixt sin and excellency; And men that were desirous to please God would abound in scruples that could ne­ver be satisfied; it being impossible in every mans condition, to find out that indivisible point of prayer, fasting, almes, and the like, beyond or short of which, he must be guilty of sin.

Our Saviour saith, There are Eunuchs, who have made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdome of heaven, Mat. 19.12. & 21. and [Page 321] this is more than any man is bound to, for he may marry if he will, and yet go to heaven. He saith again, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. No man can reasonably suppose this to be a command, for then all men were bound to obey it; and if not, than he that obeyes it, doth more than he is commanded. And to think that this was a personall command to this man only (as many do) is ridiculous; our Saviour had spoke of the Commandements before, which when the young man said he had ob­served, Christ gives him this counsel of per­fection; and the Apostles immediately after affirmed, that they had observed it, in lea­ving all things to follow him. Concerning Virgins (saith the Appostle) I have no com­mand, but I give counsell, 1 Cor. 7.25. plain­ly distinguishing betwixt counsell & com­mand; betwixt that we must do, and what we may do; betwixt well & better, He that marries doth well, but he that marries not, doth better, 1 Cor. 7.38. and he that doth well, doth not sin, doth not break a Commande­ment; but he that doth better, doth more than not sin, doth more than he is comman­ded. And though it be harder indeed to [Page 322] do all that is commanded, than in some degrees to do more than is commanded; yet the highest degrees of acts of per­fection and things uncommanded, are harder than the highest of things com­manded; yet neither impossible by the grace of God, as the Apostle saith, I am able to do all things through him that ena­bleth me, Phil. 4.13. So that the doctrine of doing more than is commanded, is not so fraught with pride, as Protestants imagine.

Catholiques say, that God doth not re­quire of us all the good that he inables us to do, as is proved; and this is the ground of works of supererogation, and doing more than is commanded: Protestants say that God requires of us all that he en­ables us to do, yea and more, commanding things impossible, and then punishes us for not doing them, which is most tyran­nicall. Now if God do not require all, but only thus much, to do well; then the do­ing better than well, is a stock which God of his great bounty gives us to improve for our selves in a higher measure, and to of­fer him liberalities, beyond the bond of duty. And what pride is it for man to ac­knowledge this sweet providence of his creator, & to praise his merciful indulgence [Page 323] in not exacting so much as he might, but giving him a way & means to shew his vo­luntary & unexacted love to him? Especial­ly believing that this divine favour (not to exact the uttermost of mans perform­ance, and consequently mans ability to present to God more perfect and excel­lent service than he requires) is given through the merits of Christ.

§. 8. But above all, the Reall presence is the prodigie of opinions in the conceipt of Protestants; whose playnnesse in Scripture notwithstanding leaves not where to adde to it with cleerer proofe; as appeares by Christs words of institution, This is my body, so often repeated, Mat. 26.26. Mar. 14.22. Luc. 22.19. They fight against it therfore with arguments drawn from the power of nature, & think, because it exceeds the power of nature, therfore it cannot be. To whom it may be said, as our Saviour said to the Jews, who thought that mens bodies in heaven were like their bodies here on earth, ye erre, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Mat. 22.29. And why then do Protestants believe, that God was in the form of a man, a thing as impossible in na­ture, as for God & man together to be under the form of bread or wine. And because they [Page 324] would make sure work if they could, the former objection being in the opinion of many of them insufficient, they say that it doth not only exceed the power of na­ture, but of God also, in that it implies a contradiction; but this the most learned of them have never been able to prove, nor never will, I hope they will all take Luthers judgement herein, whom they will not deny to be learned enough to discerne a con­tradiction,Tom. Wittemb. 1557. defens. verb. Coenae fol. 388 and he saith, what Scripture have they to prove that these two Propositions be directly contrary? Christ sitteth in heaven, & Christ is in the Supper. The contradiction is in their carnall imagination, not in faith, or the word of God.

They also fright the people from this belief, by presenting to them the uncom­linesse and inconveniences that may en­sue; which objections are but raked out of the ashes of the old Heathen and Here­tiques, who made the like against Gods taking our flesh upon him, as that it was undecent that God should lie in a wo­mans womb nine moneths, that he should be circumcised, whipt and spit upon, and finally suffer a most shamefull and painfull [Page 325] death. But seeing Protestants doe believe, that Christ, when he was on earth, was subject to all humane infirmities except sin, why should his liablenesse to such infirmi­ties make them forbear to believe that he is in the Sacrament? But to acquit them of that trouble, they may take notice, that Christs body in the Sacrament is not sub­ject to those inconveniences that it was before his death, because it is now a glo­rified body, and not subject to suffer any thing; For as the Sun shining on a dung­hill is not defiled therewith, and as the Deity it selfe is every where, and yet suf­fers no infection from the foulnesse of any place; So the body of Christ being immor­tall and impassible, cannot be defiled or hurt with the touch or impression of any unclean or hurtfull thing, more than a man can hurt or defile a Spirit; for of that nature are all glorified bodies, as the Apostle saith, It is sowen a naturall body; it shall rise a spirituall body. 1. Cor. 15.44. So that in this respect, Protestants have more reason to believe the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, than that he once had a reall body conversant here on earth.

But some of them againe do acknow­ledge [Page 326] (as they say themselves) the Reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and therein seem to be Catholiques; and please themselves in seeming to be so, and think we can desire no more; but they do but cozen both themselves and us; for when their Presence is sifted, we find no reality in it. They say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, but not corpo­rally or bodily: by which bodily they mean, either that his body it selfe is not there, or that it is not there with the cir­cumstances and accidents of a body, as quantity and the like. If they mean the former, to wit, that he is really there, and yet his body is not there, I would faine know how this may be; For a body to be really in any thing, must fignifie to be bo­dily or in body there, or nothing. There­fore to say that Christ is really there, who is a body, and yet not there bodily, is the contradiction they speak of, and is in their reall presence, not in the Catholiques; For it is as much as if they should say, his body is there, and it is not there. If by not bodily they mean not with the accidents of his body, as quantity, figure and the like, and that so Christ is not bodily in the Sacra­ment, but spiritually, that is, after the na­ture [Page 327] of a Spirit, then they agree with Ca­tholiques, who say the same, and in this sense he may be, and is both corporally and spiri­tually present in the Sacrament. Now if by really they mean in regard of his Deity, which is every where, this is true, but is not the true meaning of really; for he is no more there in this sense, than he is every where else, & so their confession of a reall presence imports nothing distinctly, and is but a delusion. For Christ being a man as wel as God, & the body of a man as wel as the Godhead concurring to the making of his person, he that is whole Christ and un­separated, cannot be said to be any where really, unlesse he be there also bodily; and if his body be there, his body is by us recei­ved, and that not only spiritually, that is, under the conditions of a Spirit, or spiritu­ally, by receiving the grace of his holy Spi­rit into our Spirits, and souls; but also cor­porally, in regard of himselfe, who is a body, and in regard of us, who receive his body into our bodies; and this not by faith, but with faith; that is, not by an i­maginary conceipt that he is there, or that the benefits of his passion are con­veyed to the receiver that thinks so, which is the Protestant saith in this case; but [Page 328] with faith, that is, faith and charity also a­biding in our souls, without which though we doe receive him truly & really, yet we do not receive him worthily & profitably.

But according to the Protestant way of receiving, it is impossible to receive him unworthily, which is contrary to the Scri­pture, and the common beliefe of all Chri­stians; for according to them, none re­ceive him, but they that receive him wor­thily, faith being the means with them, which makes them receive him both really and worthily, which who so wants, doth not receive at all: so that every one that receives him really, receives worthily, and the rest receive nothing but bread and wine, and so do not receive Christ un­worthily, but only bread and wine at the most unworthily; and how this should, make them properly guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, which they do not receive, and liable to damnation thereby, as the Apostle saith it doth, is beyond the reach of my apprehension.

Others coming yet nearer, say, that they believe the reall and corporall pre­sence, but they do not believe Transub­stantiation; they believe that Christ is truly there, but the manner (they say) is un­knowne [Page 329] and unexpressible. But they ought to know that men ought firmely to believe the manner of a mystery revealed, when the same belongs to the substance of the mystery, so that rejecting the manner, we reject also the substance of the mystery. Now the mystery in substance is, that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, in such sort that the Priest (the Minister thereof,) shewing what seems bread, may truly say thereof in the person of Christ, this is my body. This supposed as the substance of the mystery, I infer that two Catholique doctrines concerning the manner thereof, belong to the substance of this mystery, and cannot be called in question without danger of misbelief. First the reall presence of the whole body of Christ under the forme of bread. Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation, be­cause it cannot be done otherwise. Even as he that believes the mystery of the In­carnation, the substance whereof is, that in Jesus Christ the nature of God and the na­ture of man were so united, that God is truly man, and man God; he must neces­sarily believe that this union is not meta­phoricall and in affection only, but true and reall: Secondly that this union is sub­stantiall, [Page 330] not accidentall; Thirdly that this union of natures is not by making one na­ture of both (as Eutyches taught) but hy­postaticall, whereby the nature of God and man is united in one person. This my­stery is high, subtile, and incomprehensible to flagging reason, yet must be believed seeing it belongs to the substance of the mystery, which could not be true, if it were not thus: so it is in the reall pre­sence.

As for the novelty of the word, which some object, they have little reason to do so, knowing it is some hundreds of years older than the name Protestant, and for the thing, it is as antient as our Saviours celebrating his last supper. And had not the Catholique doctrine been opposed by He­retiques, perhaps the word had not yet been in use: no more had consubstantiall, used in the Nicene Creed, had not Arrius denyed the Son to be consubstantiall, or of the same substance with the Father. For the Church doth, and may make fit words to explicate the truth of her doctrine, as oc­casion requires; wherein she doth not change the doctrine, but expresseth it more plainly or significantly.

(CHAP. XXII.)

§. 1. I Will instance in two particulars more, because I know that Prote­stants doe mightily check at them; the former is Communion in one kinde; the la­ter, Prayer in an unknown tongue. Concern­ing the former, Protestants are by their Ministers instructed to beleeve, that in this matter, Catholiques are sacrilegious a­gainst God, and injurious to men, robbing the Church of the precious blood of Christ, and giving the people a lame and halfe Sacrament, instead of one whole and entire. But to rectifie their understandings, they may be pleas'd to take notice, that the Catholique Church doth not count it in it selfe unlawfull to receive in both kinds, nor yet doth she hold it necessary, but in its owne nature indifferent; and so by consequence determinable to one or both kinds, according to the differences of persons, times, and places, as she in her wisedome shall think fit. But Protestants think it absolutely necessary for the Laity to receive in both kinds, first because it was so instituted, secondly because it was (as [Page 332] they think) so commanded. These being the two hinges of this their opinion, we must here a while arrest our considerati­ons; wherein I shall shew, that there is no precept of receiving under both kinds, and that the institution hath not the force of a precept.

§. 2. To begin with the institution, we must know, that for a man to be bound to use any institution of God, two things are required. First that the end of the institu­tion be necessary, and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof: whence all men hold, that though the propagation of mankind by marriage, be an institution of God, necessary for the continuation of the world; yet while there are enough that comply with that duty, to which man­kind is in generall bound, every particular person is not oblig'd to marry. Secondly that if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attaine the end of an institu­tion, that also the whole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end; for if there be variety of meanes ordained, sufficient for the attaining of that end, a man is not bound to use all that which is instituted, but it is sufficient to use so much [Page 333] thereof, as will lead a man to that end. Whence all men againe hold, that al­though God created and instituted va­riety of meats and drinks, for the main­tainance of mans corporall life, yet no man is bound to use them all, but he dis­chargeth his duty sufficiently, if he use so much of any of them, as will suffice to ar­rive at that end, for which they were insti­tuted, to wit, the maintainanee of his cor­porall life: so that if a man can live of two or three sorts of meat, he is not bound to use ten or twenty; and if he can live of meat without drink, he may without of­fence choose whether he will ever drink or no.

To apply this to our present purpose, it is apparent enough that by the force of divine institution only, no man is bound to use Communion under both kinds. For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessary, and all must endeavour the attaining thereunto, to wit, maintainance and in­crease in grace, which is the life of the soule; yet there are other meanes of Gods institution also, by which we may attaine to this end. Whence it is, that learned Di­vines hold, that though the Sacrament of [Page 334] the Eucharist be necessary NECES­SETATE PRAECEPTI, by the ne­cessity of precept, yet it is not necessary, NECESSITATE MEDII, as they speak, that is, the use thereof is not such a necessary meanes, for the mainte­nance of spirituall life, but that a man wanting meanes of sacred communion, may by other meanes preserve himselfe in the state of Grace.

And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserve spirituall life, yet Com­munion in one kind is abundantly suffici­ent thereunto, as I shall presently shew; and if so, by force of the institution there is no more required. For we must know, that there is a great difference between an institution and a precept; the precept of both kinds (if Christ gave any) doth bind, whether both kinds be necessary for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no; but the institution of both kinds doth not bind to the use, further than the thing instituted is necessary to the maintenance of the said spirituall life; to which seeing one kind is sufficient, the institution of both kinds, doth not oblige us to the use of both.

[Page 335]§. 3. Now that Communion in one kind is sufficient, (Transubstantiation being sup­posed) easily appeares; in that the Sa­crament in the sole form of bread, (seeing it containes the author and fountaine of life, whole and intire, according to body, soule, blood, and his infinite person,) is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule, yea no lesse than Communion under both kinds. For this one kind con­taineth in it no lesse than is contained in both, that is, whole Christ, God and man. His body is there by force of these words, This is my body, and by concomitance there is the blood, the soule, the divinity, for there is the person of Christ alive, which implies all these particulars, it being im­possible he should be there otherwise, as S. Paul saith, Christ rising againe from the dead, now dieth no more, death shall have no more dominion over him, Rom. 6.9. And to the receivers of Christ; by eating only, he promiseth the end of the Sacrament, which is life; He that eateth me, he shall live by me: John 6.58.59. and to the sole recep­tion of him under the forme of bread; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And this surely he would not have said, if re­ceiving in both kinds had been necessary.

[Page 336]§. 4. But because Protestants deny Transubstantiation, I will, without that supposition, prove, that to receive in one kind is sufficient. First because that in one kind is contained the whole substance, es­sence, and parts of the Sacrament; and secondly because it is not against any di­vine precept. As for the institution, I have proved already, that it hath not the force of a precept.

First in one kind alone is contained the whole substance and essence of the Sacra­ment; which are these fowre; matter; word, signification, causality. First there is the element or matter of the Sacrament, which is consecrated bread and manduca­tion thereof: secondly, there is the word or form of speech, shewing the divine and supernaturall purpose, whereto the ele­ment is consecrated, This is my body; and these two make a Sacrament, according to S. Aug: Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. Thirdly there is a signe or signification therein, and that three-fold: first of spirituall food, for the nourish­ment of the soule; secondly of union and conjunctions between Christ and his Church, and between the faithfull one with another, even as in the bread there is [Page 337] a mixture of flower and water, and in the flower of many graines together. Thirdly the death and passion of Christ is hereby signified; For as by the wine we have a motive to remember his blood, shed and separated from his body; so by the bread we may conceive his body deprived of blood, by the effusion thereof upon the crosse: whereupon Christ, as S. Paul testi­fies, 1. Cor. 11.24.25. did after the conse­cration of each kind, particularly recom­mend the memory of his passion; as knowing, thas in each of them alone, was a sufficient memoriall thereof. Lastly there is causality, that is, a working in the soule the spirituall effects it signifies; as our Saviour saith, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, Joh. 6.59.

And if any object, that though there be all the essentiall parts of the Sacrament in one kind, yet there are not all the integrall parts: I answer, that bread and wine are not two integrall parts of the Sacrament, more than the severall particles of the bread and wine are integrall parts; and as the Sacrament is sufficient, whether it be in a greater or lesse quantity of bread or wine, so is it, whether it be in bread on­ly, or wine only; for our Saviour institu­ted [Page 338] the whole Sacrament both in bread, and in wine, as two distinct intire matters thereof, not as integrall parts thereof, and gave us leave to use or both, or either; as shall appeare, in that he hath not obliged us by any precept to the use of both. And thus it appeareth, that the Sacra­ment in one kind is full, intire, and com­plete in substance, and that by participati­on thereof, prepared consciences do re­ceive the benefits of Christs death, and passion.

Neither doth it hereupon follow, that because the Sacrament is essentially and intirely contained under either kind, therefore the Priest receiving underboth, receiveth two Sacraments, for being re­ceived both at once, they make but one, as being ordained to one refection, signi­fying one thing, and producing one effect; Even as six or seven dishes of meat set up­on a table do make but one dinner, where­as part thereof being served one day, and part another, would make two. And the reason why Priests receive under both kinds is, because they offer up a Sacrifice, representing the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, which were not perfectly re­presented, but by both kinds, wherefore [Page 339] also in this sort was it prefigured in the Sacrifice of Melchizedek, offering bread and wine. It being thus proved that whole Christ, and the true essence and parts of the Sacrament are under either kind, it followeth, that in distributing it in one kind only, there is no irreverence offered to the Sacrament, it not being given (as Protestants thinke) halfe or maimed, but essentially and intirely whole: nor is any injury done to the people, by depriving them of any grace meet to salvation, see­ing the very fountaine of grace is no lesse received under either kind, than under both. Nor is it the opinion of the grea­ter part of Catholique Divines, that more grace is obtained by communicating in both kinds, than in one; yet if it were, this advantage might be easily ballanced by other meanes; as by the more frequent receiving in one kind, and by our obedi­ence to the Church. Now by the premisses it is evident, that whether we respect the institution of the Sacrament, or the na­ture thereof, no obligation or necessity ariseth of receiving in both kinds. The only question therefore remaining is, whe­ther we be bound thereunto by any ex­presse Precept of our Saviour, or his A­postles.

Protestants believe we are, and for proof thereof alledge these places: Ʋnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of Man; and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, Joh. 6.54. And, taking the Chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, drinke ye all of this, Mat. 26.27. Also, In like manner the Cha­lice after he had supped, saying, this Chalice is the New Testament in my blood, this do ye, as often as yee shall drinke, in remem­brance of me, 1 Cor. 11.25. But none of these places rightly understood, nor any other, do prove, what the Protestants pre­tend to. Particularly to the first of these places I answer, that seeing the Protestants do generally interpret this Chapter of S. John, not of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but onely of believing in Christ, it is no objection for them; but because most Catholique Divines do inter­pret it of the Blessed Sacrament, it is an objection against us; to which therefore I further answer: First, that all words of Scripture, that in their forme seem to im­port a Precept, do not so indeed; as where our Saviour saith to his Apostles, that they ought to wash one anothers feet, Joh. 13.14. yet no man ever held it for a matter of necessity. But supposing for the pre­sent [Page 341] that it include a Precept, I further an­swer, that as we distinguish in the Sacra­ment, the substance and the manner, the substance being to receive Christ, the man­ner to receive him in both kinds, by for­mall eating and drinking; So the same distinction is to be made in our Saviours Precept about this Sacrament. For how­soever his words may sound of the man­ner of receiving in both kinds, yet his in­tention is to command no more than the substance, to wit, that we really receive his body and blood, which may be done un­der one kind.

The truth whereof will appeare if we consider, first the occasion of the words objected, which was the incredulity of the Capernaites, whose doubt was not whether the Sacrament was to be given in one or both kinds, but (as Protestants still doubt) whether he could give us his flesh to eat. Secondly the manner of his speech, which was not by making men­tion of any kind at all in the said words, but only of the things themselves; for he doth not say, unlesse you eat the bread and drink the wine, you have no life, but, unlesse you eat the flesh and drink the blood; both which are equally contained under [Page 342] either bread or wine; So that if a man re­ceive the forme of bread only, or of wine only, he doth therein both eat and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ. And in o­ther places of this Chapter, where he makes mention of one kind, it is of bread only, and not at all of wine: so that this place is of no force, for the forme of wine, unlesse the body and blood of Christ be separated, and that receiving the form of bread, we receive the body onely, and of wine the blood only, which must sup­pose Christ still dead, which is most impi­ous and impossible.

§. 5. And if any think, that because it is said, unlesse you drinke, therefore Christ must be received under a forme that may be drunke as well as eaten, or else it is not drinking his blood, but eating his blood, as well as his body; I answer, it is called eating and drinking, not so much in regard of the action, as the subject; so that flesh being the usuall subject of eating, when the Sacrament is called flesh, the action is called eating; and blood being the usuall subject of drinking, when there is mention of receiving the blood, the action is called drinking; and we are not bound to re­ceive him in a drinkable forme, because we [Page 343] are bid, to drink his blood, but we may be said to drink, because we receive that which is in its nature drinkable, to wit, blood, which we doe, when we receive the body. And if this will not serve the turn, they may further argue against us, that if we swallow the Host whole, we do not eat it, eating implying, chewing, more or lesse, and so do not fulfill the precept of eating the flesh. And we may argue in like manner against them, that if they do not take wine enough to make a draught, they do not drinke, but onely tast or sip thereof, and therein also do not fulfill that which they think they are here comman­ded. But as a Protestant (I suppose if the bread and wine should be so mixed toge­ther in a cup, that both might be drunk together, or else eaten with a spoon, or in the manner of a moist piece of past, or swallowed like a pill,) will believe that he receives in both kinds, and fulfills this (in his opinion) Precept of drinking the blood; So the body and blood being joy­ned together in either kind, to us that be­lieve Transubstantiation, we receive both, when we receive either kind, which act of receiving with relation to the flesh may be called eating, to the blood, drinking, [Page 344] yea though it should be taken in such a manner, as strictly speaking, should bee neither eating nor drinking.

I adde moreover, (with relation to them that do not believe Transubstantia­tion,) that the conjunctive particle [And] doth frequently signifie disjunctively, that is, [Or:] For example, the Apostle saith, (Acts 3.6.) Silver and gold have I none, where it is manifest that the sense is, silver or gold I have none; for if he had had ei­ther, he had had no excuse of want, for his not giving of almes. So also S. Paul speaketh of this very Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.29. 27. He that eateth and drinketh un­worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himselfe; which he interpreteth in the same Chapter, saying, Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of our Lord un­worthily. In like manner those words, Ex­cept ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, if they be taken for eating and drinking un­der the severall formes of bread and wine, are to be understood disjunctively, thus, Except ye eat the flesh, or drink the blood of the sonne of man, you shall not have life in you. Which disjunctive sense is proved to be the sense intended in this place, be­cause else Christ should contradict him­self; [Page 345] for he promiseth in this same Chap­ter life eternall to eating only, He that eateth me, the same shall live by me, and, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever; now if he require unto life eternall, eat­ing and drinking both, under distinct forms and kinds, it is manifest he should contradict himselfe: and because this is impossible, we must necessarily interpret this place, with relation to the severall formes of bread and wine, disjunctively, thus, unlesse you eat or drink.

The second text urged for Communi­on in both kinds, is, Drinks ye all of this, Mat. 26.27. which being rightly under­stood, will appeare to be spoken, neither to all mankind, as to Jewes, Turks, Infi­dells; as Protestants also acknowledge, nor yet to all the faithfull, but to all the Apostles, and to them all only: Which is manifest out of the Text it self; for what one Evangelist saith was commanded to all, another relates to have been answe­rably performed by all, They drank all thereof, Mark 14.23. But the second All is restrained to all the Apostles, what rea­son then is there to extend the former words further then to all the Apostles? And the reason why Christ said, drink [Page 346] yee all of this, and did not say, eat ye all of this, was not, as Protestants vain­ly imagine, because Christ fore-saw that some would deny the use of the Chalice to the Communicants, but that the first to whom our Saviour gave the cup, and so the rest untill the last, were to know, that they were not to drink all, but were to leave so much, as might suffice for them or him that was to drink after, without new filling and conse­cration. Which forme of words, he used most plainely a little before the supper of the Pasche: for as S. Luke saith, Luke 22.17. Taking the chalice he gave thanks, and said, take it, and divide it amongst you; whereas breaking the bread himselfe, and giving to every one his part, and not the whole to be divided amongst them, there was no such necessity of the said words.

§. 6. As for the words of our Saviour, doe this in remembrance of me, they doe no waies infer a precept of receiving in both kinds. First because our Saviour said these words absolutely only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread, but in the forme of wine only conditionally, doe this, as oft as ye shall drink, in remembrance of me; not commanding them to drink, but in case [Page 347] they did drink, (which was lawfull and usuall in those times, but not so now, as I shall shew by and by,) that then they should doe it in memory of Christ. So that this precept, do this, being the only precept given by Christ to his Church concerning this matter, and given absolutely of the forme of bread, conditionally of the form of wine, there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs precept, by communion under one kind only. S. Au­gustine saith (Epist. 1 18.) that, Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward, but left authority unto the Apostles to make such appointments, by whom he was to dispose and order his Churches. But suppose Christ had spoken these imperative words, doe this, after the giving of the cup, yet are they to be understood with restriction to those things that belong to the essence and sub­stance of this action; for if we extend it further, to the accidentary circumstances thereof, in which Christ did then institute and give the Sacrament, many absurdities will follow. For by this rule we must al­waies celebrate the Eucharist after supper, and in unleavened bread, the receivers must take it into their hands, and the Priest must [Page 348] wash the feet of those to whom he admi­nisters it, with the like. Now seeing to bind men to these circumstances of our Savi­ours action, is (in all mens judgements) very absurd, we must not extend the pre­cept, doe this, to the said, or the like cir­cumstances, but acknowledge that the pre­cept includes only the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacra­ment, of which kind, communion in both kinds cannot be, it being also a circum­stance, the substance thereof being intire in one only kind, as hath been proved. So that the Protestants wrangling thus for the cup, doe but fulfill in themselves (though in a different sense) the pro­phecy of Isaiah, ERIT CLAMOR IN PLATEIS SUPER VINO; there shall be crying for wine in the streets, Isay 24.11.

Thus it appeares, that Communion in both kinds is not of the essence or integri­ty of the Sacrament, nor necessary by any divine precept; from whence it followes, that as a thing indifferent, it may be per­mitted, or restrained, according as the wisedome of the Church shall think fit. For the precinct of humane power streacheth to things indifferent, and only to them. Things absolutely commanded, man cannot [Page 349] forbid; things absolutely forbidden, man cannot command; and therefore the terri­tory of humane legislative power, must be in things indifferent, or else there is none at all; which is against Scripture, reason, and the most generall beleef and practise of mankind. The Apostles practi­sed this power upon the Gentiles, by im­posing upon them a new law of absti­nence for a time, from things offered to I­dolls, and blood, and that which is strangled; Acts 15.29. which yet Christ himself ne­ver imposed, but left it indifferent; where­as after the Apostles decree, it became ne­cessary; wherefore it is said, that S. Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and Elders, Acts 15.41.

§. 7. Now the reasons moving the Church to restrain communion to one kind, were many and weighty. First to prevent thereby the occasion of error; for whereas in the primitive Church, the use of one or both kinds was indifferently practised, as is apparent by testimonies of antiquity, yea by the example of the Apostles, Acts 2.42. and our Saviour himselfe Luke 26.30. yet. when as the Manichean heretiques [Page 350] rose,see Aug. lib. de haer. c. 46. Leo Serm. 4. de Quadrag. who abstained from wine as a thing in it selfe un­lawfull to be drunk, and by consequence abstained from it also in the Sacrament; holy Bishops did hereupon much commend the use of the chalice. But this error being ex­tinguished, and another ari­singAeneas Sil­vius hist. Bo­hem. capt. 3.5. against the integrity of Christ under either kind, as al­so avouching the absolute ne­cessity of both, the Church of God here­upon began more universally to practise communion under one kind; and withall, in declaration of the truth, and for pre­vention of Schisme, did absolutely decree the lawfulnesse thereof, with prohibition to the contrary. So in more antient times when the Ebionites taught unleavened bread to bee necessary in consecration of the Eucharist, the Church commanded the consecration thereof to be made in leavened bread; And when the heretique Nestorius denyed our Blessed Lady to be the mother of God, and only to be called the mother of Christ, the Church condem­ned him, and commanded that she should be called Mother of God. And the Church hath ever found this the most effectuall [Page 351] means, for the confutation and extirpation of heresie, namely, by contrary decrees and practise to declare and publish the truth.

A second reason moving the Church to forbid the use of the cup, was the deser­ved reverence due to this highest Sacra­ment; in consideration whereof, the Ho­ly Fathers did appoint most diligent care to be used, lest any little particle of the Host, or drop of the Chalice should fall to the ground. Now the multitude of Christi­ans in laterages being very great, & the neg­ligence of many in sacred things as great, through the coldnesse of their zeale & de­votion, it could not morally be possible, but that frequent spilling of the blood would happen, if the Chalice were to be given ordinarily to the people,Aeneas Silvius Ep. 13. de errore Bohem. & Nar­rat. de Bohem. ad Conc. Basil. of which pro­phanation there hath been over frequent experience.

(CHAP. XXIII.)

§. 1. PRayer in an unknowne tongue hath two branches, one concerning publique prayer in a tongue, which the people that are present doe not under­stand; [Page 352] the other private prayer, in a tongue, which the party praying doth not under­stand; both which Protestants think ab­surd in reason, and contrary to Scripture; but Catholiques beleeve truly that they are neither. For maintenance whereof, let us consider the meaning of S. Paul (1 Cor. ch. 14.) the place by them violently, but imper­tinently objected against us.

We must then know, that as the gift of tongues was given to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, when he in the shape of tongues desended upon them; so the same gift, with divers others, was continued a­mongst the Christians for some time after. This gift, amongst the other, they did ex­ercise in their publique Church-meetings, where they assembled for the benefit & e­dification of the hearers, speaking some ex­temporary prayer, or other holy discourse, both for matter and language, as the Spirit gave them utterance, with great affection & elevation of the mind towards God. Yea the language many times was such, as no man present understood, as is intimated verse 2. for he that speaketh in an unknowne tongue, &c. no man understands him; no nor many times did the speaker understand himselfe; for the gift of tongues, and the [Page 353] gift of interpretation of tongues were two distinct gifts, as we see in the 12. ch. and did not alwaies meet together, as we may gather from the 13. verse of this chapter, where the Apostle exhorteth him that speaketh in an unknowne tongue, to pray that he may interpret, which was a signe that ordinarily they could not; & by verse 14. where he saith, If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is un­fruitfull; now this must be meant of a tongue, which he himself did not under­stand, otherwise his own understanding could not be unfruitful. And thus also doth S. Augustine (de Genes. ad lit. lib. 12. cap. 8.9.) and other Fathers interpret S. Paul.

By this it is manifest that the Apostle doth not here reprove the practise of the Church of Rome, in her Latine Liturgie di­rectly, seeing this here reproved, and that are extreamly different. Therefore ours can be only so far reprovable, as it agrees with the other in the reasons for which it was reproved, which are want of interpretati­on, & therby want of edification to the au­ditors, & of sufficient warrant to the unlear­ned, through want of understanding of what was said, to say thereto Amen. Now seeing ours doth not agree with that, in any [Page 354] of these, it is therefore irreproveable. Yet if it should agree with that in any of these, it should not notwithstanding be unlaw­full; because they differ in the maine and principall part, the end; for these Church-meetings were intended for the instructi­on & edification of the auditors, therefore it was fit the exercises thereof should be in a tongue which they that were to be in­structed, understood, but the publike Litur­gie of the Church was instituted for the service & praise of God, & therfore may be, without unlawfulnesse, in any tongue that he understands, to whom it is dedicated.

The truth of all this will appear, if we consider the differences between that case and ours. The languages then spoken were utterly unknowne many times to any man there present, even to the speaker himself, but the Liturgie of the Church is in a lan­guage or languages known to very many, as the Latin in the Latin Church to all Scho­lars, to most Gentlemen, & youths bred in Grammer Schools, & in some countries to most Mechanicks; it cannot therfore abso­lutely be said to be an unknown tongue. And though it cannot be proved unlawful to have the Liturgie in a tongue absolute­ly unknowne, yet where the Latin tongue [Page 355] hath been unknowne to all or most of the better sort, the Church hath dispensed with the use thereof; as appears by the dispensa­tion of Pope Paul 5. to turn the Liturgie of the Masse into the vulgar language of Chi­na, & to use the same until the Latin tongue grew more known & familiar in that coun­try. Moreover the prayers & other spiritual excercises which S. Paul speaks against, were extemporall, made in publike meetings, ac­cording to the present inspired devotion of the speaker; So that the unlearned hea­rer, or he that supplied his place, the Clark, except he understood the language, & con­sequently the matter, could not prudently say Amen to it, seeing he knew not whe­ther the thing that was spoken, were good and lawfull or no. But the Liturgie & Ser­vice of the Church hath set offices for every day, approved by the Church, & therefore from hence a man may be confidently assu­red that it is good & lawfull, and therefore he may boldly say Amen. Besides there are means applied to the ignorant multitude, by which they are, or may be (if they use diligence therein) made to understand the publike Prayers of the Church; namely Sermons, Exhortations, Catechismes, private instructions, Manualls & Primers in vulgar [Page 356] languages, where the Prayers used in the Church are found: So that the ordinary & common passages of the publike Service may be, and are easily understood even by women & children, & they may understan­dingly say Amen. Therefore as the Apostle did allow of an unknowne tongue in the exercises of the Corinthians, provided there were some to interpret it; so the Service in Latin is very allowable even under this no­tion, while there are the aforesaid meanes used for the interpretation thereof.

And the Congregation is edified, as the Apostle appoints it should be, by the things that are done & said in the Church, while the people have but a generall under­standing of the severall passages thereof. And if they were in a vulgar language, the difference for matter of understanding would be but in a little more or lesse; for that every woman, boy, & girl in a Church, should be able to understand word by word the Liturgie therof, be it in what language it will, is morally impossible; seeing there are great store of words in every tongue in common use amongst the better sort, which common people do not understand. And suppose this might be avoided in those parts of the Liturgie, which are composed [Page 357] by the Church, by making choice of the most vulgar words that might be found, yet it is impossible to be so in that which makes the greatest part of the Liturgie, to wit, the Scripture. And if yet all the words of the Scripture could be bowed to their understanding, for the Grammatical signi­fication thereof, yet without all paradven­ture, the sense, (which is the chiefe thing to be understood, and for which only the language doth serve, by reason of the innumerable figurative speeches therein) is altogether impossible. For example let any unlearned Englishman say, whether these following places in English, for so much as concernes the full sense thereof, be not all one to him, as if they were in Hebrew. I will set them downe according to the Eng­lish Protestant translation, and their num­ber of the Psalmes. Moab is my washpot, o­ver Edom will I cast out my shoe, Psal. 60.8. Also this, Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove co­vered with silver, and her feathers with yel­low gold, Psal. 68. v. 13. And this in the same Psalme, v. 30. Rebuke the company of spearemen; or as it is in the margent, the beasts of the reeds, the multitude of the bulls with the calves of the people &c. Also this as [Page 358] it is in the Service book; Or ever your pots be made hot with thornes, so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw, Psal. 58.8. Therefore when Protestants read these and the like unintelligible places of Scripture to the unlearned people, without interpre­ting them, their end in reading being only the instruction of the people, they truly fal into that error, of which they untruely ac­cuse us, of speaking in the Church without the edification of the people. So have ma­ny of them alone in their Sermons also, speaking Latin, or some other more un­known tongue, without interpreting it.

Moreover, the end of the Church meet­ings here spoken of by the Apostle, was to instruct the ignorant, and convert the infidels, as may be gathered out of the 23. and 24. verses. But the drift of the Church in appointing Liturgies, and set formes of publique prayer, and readings in the Masse, was not for the peoples instruction, though that as I have shewed be not neg­lected, but for other reasons: as first, that by this publique service, a continuall dayly tribute or homage of prayer and thanks­giving might be publiquely offered and payed unto God by his Priests: Second­ly, that Christians by their personall assi­stance [Page 359] at this publike Service, might professe & exercise exterior acts of religion common with the whole Church, represented by the Synaxis or ecclesiasticall meeting of every Christian Parish. Finally, that every Christian by his presence yeelding consent unto the publike prayers, praises & thanksgiving of the Church, might participate of the graces, be­nefits, & fruits, which the Church doth ordi­narily obtaine by her Liturgies & publike ob­lations. Now for these ends there is no need that every one should understand word by word the prayers that are said in the publike Liturgie, but it sufficeth that the Church in generall, and in particular, Pastors & Ecclesia­stical persons dedicated to the Ministeries of the Church, have particular notice of all the prayers that are said, and that all may be taught, and instructed in particular, if they desire it, and will be diligent therein.

But Protestants are more easily lead into this error, of beleeving, that the Church Ser­vice must be said in the vulgar tongue, be­cause they conceive the principall intent thereof with us, is, as it is with them, for the instruction of the people. For with them they doe not usually read the Church Pray­ers, unlesse there be company to heare, not is there any receiving of their Communion, [Page 360] unlesse there be a number of the people to communicate; But in the Catholique Church it is not so; for with us the Office of the Church is said, though there should be no people present, for it is the Priests Office, & not the peoples; and the daily Sacrifice is offered, though there be no people present; these are done to the service & honour of God, and for the benefit of the people too, (though not for their instruction,) and they are bound to be present at Masse only upon Sundaies & other Holydaies, yet may be pre­sent at any other time, and are present more frequently & numerously than the Protestants are at their Service or Sermons: and for the substance of things done or said, understand much more. And all women & children in their answers to the Priest are as ready, (if not more) than ever they were in the use of the Liturgie of England. And while they un­derstand the generall purport of that which is said, though they cannot apply every Latin word to its proper signification in the vul­gar, yet I suppose their understandings are more edified, then theirs that know the sig­nification of most of the words, but not a jot of the inward sense & meaning thereof, as happens to the unlearned Protestants, while they hear most parts of the Scripture read in the vulgar tongue.

Moreover most certain it is, that the pre­sent custome of the Roman Church, to have their Liturgie in a tongue not vulgar, is a­greeable to the custome of the Church in all ages, and also of all Churches now in the world, bearing the name of Christian, (though opposite to the Roman) only those of the pretended Reformation excepted: which constant concurrence is a great signe that the same is very conform unto reason, & not any where forbidden in the Word of God. The Scripture was not read in any lan­guage but Greek over al the Churches of the East, as S. Jerom (praefat. in Paralip.) wit­nesseth. Also the Greek Liturgie of S. Basil was used in all the Churches of the East, yet the Grecian was the vulgar language of all the countries of the East, as is apparent by many testimonies, particular­ly of theBasil. de Spiri­tu Sancto. c. 19. Capadocians, d Hieron. in Pro [...]m. 2. lib. com. ad Galat. & Act. Apost. c. 1. v. 10, 11. Me­sapotamians, ^d Galathians, Theodoret. in histor SS. Pa­trum hist. 13. Ly­caonians, Hieron de Script. Eccles. in Anton. Egyptians, Syrians: yea that all these Countries, & most of the Orient, had their proper language distinct from the Greek, is manifest out of Acts 2. where divers nations of the East being assembled in Jerusalem at [Page 362] Pentecoste, & hearing the Apostles speak with tongues, said, How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born? Acts 2.8. No lesse manifest is it, that the Latin Litur­gie was common anciently to all those of the Western parts, yea even in Africk, as ap­pears by testimonies of S. Augustine (Epist. 57 de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 13. in Psal. 123. & in Expo­sit. Ep. ad Rom. & Ep. 173.) Yet was not the Latin the vulgar language of all the nations of the West, but every one had his owne di­stinct, as now they have, & particularly in England the British language was then in use. Nor yet was the Latin language vulgarly known in all these nations, though under­stood by the beteer sort, as it is at this day; & in all likelihood more generally known now, than then, in as much as the study of Arts & Sciences, & communion in Religion, are fit­ter meanes to spread a language, than the sword of a Conqueror. So that it is manifest that the Christian Church did never judge it requisite, that the publike Liturgie should be turned into the mother tongue of every nation, nor necessary that it should be pre­sently understood word by word by every one of the vulgar assistants; neither doth the end of the publike Service require it: As for those Sects that use no Liturgie at all, but in [Page 327] their Church-meetings do only make an ex­temporall prayer before & after Sermon, (as the custome is now for the most part in Eng­land) that the people may pray with them, they do as they ought in using the vulgar tongue; & Catholiques (if they used such ex­ercise) no doubt would do it in like manner.

§. 2. As for the comfort & more plentifull edification of the understanding which some few want, in that they do not so perfectly un­derstand all the particulars of divine Service, it may by other means abundantly be suppli­ed, without turning the publike Liturgie in­to innumerable vulgar languages, which would bring great confusion into the Chri­stian Church. For first the Church could not be able to judge of the Liturgie of every country, when differences arose about the translation thereof; and so divers errors & heresies might creep into particular coun­tries, and the whole Church never able to take notice thereof. Secondly, particular countries could not be certain that they had the parts of the Scripture used in the Litur­gie truly translated; for they can have no o­ther assured proof thereof, than the Churches approbation; nor can she approve what she her self doth not understand. Thirdly, if there were as many translations of the Liturgie, as [Page 328] there be severall languages in the world, it could not be avoided, but that some would in many places be ridiculous, incongruous, and full of mistaking, to the great prejudice of souls, especially in languages that have no great extent, nor many learned men that naturally speak them. Fourthly, the Liturgie must of necessity be often changed, together with the language, which doth much alter in every age, as is very well knowne. Fifthly, in the same country, by reason of different dialects, some provinces understand not one another; and in the Island of Japonia (as some write) there is one language for men, another for women; one language for Gen­tlemen, another for rusticks: into what lan­guage then should the Liturgie of Japonia be translated? So that it is cleer, that the incon­veniences of divine Service translated in all vulgar languages are insuperable, the com­modity is but to the most ignorant part, and that but in part, and to be recompenced by other means, and is so, by prayer books, and other instructions in abundance in the vulgar tongue; In so much that I dare boldly say, (for I have been an eye-witnesse) that in the cities of Paris and Rome there is five times as much preaching, and ten times as much catechising of youth and ignorant people, as [Page 329] is in London; so that blindnesse & ignorance to Catholiques, is ignorantly & blindly obje­cted. Lastly we cannot imagine that if S. Paul had intended, that which the Protestants la­bour to enforce out of the above-named chapter to the Corinthians, that both he and his fellow Apostles would have practised the contrary at the writing thereof, and all their lives after; for we doe not find that they or any after them did use any Liturgie, but in one of the learned languages, which though they were vulgar to some people in those times, yet but to a small part, in com­parison of all the nations of the world, a­mongst whom they celebrated Masse.

§. 3. As for private prayer, the Catho­lique Church permits all men, whether out of the Churches, or in them, to pray in what language they please; yea the Pater, the Ave, and the Creed, are commanded by di­vers Councells to be learned in the vulgar tongue; and divers bookes of prayers in the vulgar tongue are published and used in all Catholique Countries. Yet those Catholiques that do pray or sing Psalmes in Latin, which they doe not understand, either by choice or obligation, are not to be condemned. For ei­ther they understand the prayer in the whole masse thereof, as the PATER NOSTER, for [Page 330] example, though they know not perhaps whether PATER signifie our, and NOSTER, father, or the contrary, yet saying this pray­er with due devotion, and knowing that it is our Lords prayer, which they can very well repeat in their mother tongue, no man I suppose can be so absurd to think this pray­er is not acceptable to God, though the pi­ous thoughts be not measured geometrical­ly to the words. Or else they understand on­ly more generally, that such or such a pray­er or Psalme, for example, MISERERE, is a Psalme full of penitent affections, and this they say with much inward sorrow and con­trition for their sinnes; and who can deny that this pious affection is pleasing to God, though the thoughts and words doe not mathematically correspond the one to the other, I am sure the Apostle approved the like, saying in the 17. verse of the forementi­oned chapter, Thou verily givest thanks well; And to conclude, he doth absolutely allow it, in the 28. verse saying, But if there be no interpreter let him keepe silence in the Church, and let him speak to God and himselfe. And in this matter, as well as the rest, the Prote­stants also may keep silence, unlesse they could speak more to the purpose.

§. 4. These points & all other I examined [Page 331] with diligence, and found that Prote­stants ordinarily did not truly apprehend many of the Catholique doctrines, nor justly oppose any of them. But I have only touched these few particulars, to let the unlearned Protestant Reader see, that the Catholique doctrines are not such mon­strous things, as they ordinarily conceive them, but rather that it is monstrous in them not to believe them. And to awaken the further diligence of all Protestants to search into the truth of all points, so far as they are able either by themselves or others, (if they will not at the first cast themselves upon the infallibility of the Church, which I conceive I have suffi­ciently proved in the former part of this Treatise, and is the shortest and surest way) and to read the Bookes of Catholiques set forth to this purpose; & not to exercise an implicite faith to the Protestant Religion, and even against the rule of it, to their hurt, seeing they will not yet do it to the Catholique Religion, to their advantage: In which Catholique books they shall find all the Pleas for Protestancy, all their objecti­ons against Catholique doctrine answered, with that learning and solidity, with that cleernesse and fullnesse, that were not [Page 332] faith also required (which is the gift of God only) to the apprehension of those things, which the Church teaches, it were impossible (in my judgement) impossi­ble (I say) that any reasonable man should continue (in his judgement) a Protestant.

Yet many there are I fear, who though they be in belief and judgement Catho­liques, yet in outward profession are Pro­testants. Who like the inferiour spheares, which are moved one way by the PRI­MUM MOBILE, and a contrary way by their owne peculiar motion; So they are moved to believe the Catholique verities by the influence of God upon their soules, but to remain in the Protestant Communi­on by the private instigations of flesh and blood; Who wanting the seasoning of Charity, doe warp and shrink from that, to which their judgement hath joyned them; Whose faith like bullion though it be good metall in it selfe, yet wanting the stamp of of Catholique Communion and obedience, is not currant in the Kingdome of heaven, nor will serve in their journey to defray them thither. But they (accord­ing to the condition of all weak minds) accounting the Present evill (as losse of [Page 333] goods, friends, and the like) the most in­tolerable, desire to avoid that, and put to adventure the ensuing: And so while they saile through the troublesome Sea of this life, unskilfull of steerage in a storme, do strike and split their soules upon the flats of fear, and rocks of presumption: forgetfull of that dreadfull threatning of our Saviour, He that shall deny mee before men, shall be denyed before the Angells of God, Luc. 12.9.

Now to the diligence of examination before mentioned, for those that are not yet convinced in their judgements, a Pro­testant is bound by Chillingworths owne rule; who (though he say that for as much as there is no infallible guide, and that therefore a man must follow the choice of his own reason in what he doth believe, and that God will be contented with that, be it more or lesse, true or false, being as much as he can attain to, yet) addes withall, that a man must imploy his uttermost endeavours to the finding out of the truth. And who is it amongst the Protestants that hath done that? Who hath spent all his spare time, much lesse, who hath spared all the time he could to this enquiry? I think no Protestants con­science [Page 334] can acquit him in this case; and if not, he must not think to quiet himselfe by saying, that to the best of his under­standing the Protestant Religion seemes true, if he have not imployed all his en­deavours to find whether it be so or no; which cannot be, unlesse (with King Philip of Macedon he keep one ear for the party accused) hee equally heare both sides.

Wherefore devesting themselves of all prejudice and prepossessed opinions, like white paper, wherein there is nothing written, let them addresse themselves with all their spare time, yea they ought to make spare time, rather than to want it, to a sad and serious consideration of the great businesse of Religion, the truth where­of who so gaines, though with the losse of all temporall felicity, doth highly im­prove his estate; considering that, as our Saviour saith, what will it profit a man to gain the whole world, and to lose his owne soule? Math. 16.16. And let no man de­fer this most important affaire, and put it off to the later end of his life, (which how soon it will happen, the youngest know not;) as if the Kingdome of heaven were like a market, cheapest at the later end of [Page 335] the day; or that because nature hath pla­ced the seat of his memory in the hinder­most part of his head, therefore he may de­fer the remembrance of God, and of com­ming to him by the path of true Religion, to the hindermost part of his life. But as God himselfe saith, while it is called to day, harden not your hearts, Psal. 94.8. lest his delay pull upon himselfe the forsaking of God, and steel his forehead to the per­petuall refusall of his mercifull invitation; and so he (and especially the Citty of London, which hath been purpled with the blood of so many martyrs) hear the complaint and curse of our Saviour sound­ing in his eare, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee; how often would I have ga­thered thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and you would not behold your habitation shall be left unto you desolate, Math. 23.37.

CHAP. XXII.

§. 1. HE that will apply himself to this inquest as I have done, shall find, that the objections of Protestants a­gainst Catholique Doctrines are very weak and sleight, they are but paper-pellets, and make more noise than hurt; the workes also that they raise for their owne defence are as weak, and easily dismantled. I found that their objections were answered again and again, which a later writer would take no notice of, but retrive the first ar­guments and urge them as fresh, as if they had never been urged before, or at least had never been answered; forgetting to make reply to the Catholique Answers, which was indeed because they could not do it. And in their writings I found much abuse of all Authors, even from the Bible it self to the Authors of latest times, either misalledging the words, [...]or misconstruing [Page 337] the meaning, or urging that for their pur­pose, which was indeed to no purpose.

§. 2. Particularly for their mistransla­ting of Scripture, (wherein they grievous­ly accuse one another, as I shewed be­fore) I will alledge two or three places (of a great many) for a tast, wherein their unfaithfulnesse is apparent; as first that notable depravation of their Master Lu­ther, which I have mentioned before, in adding the word [only] where the Apo­stle saith, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. Al­so where the Apostle saith, give diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1.10. the English Bibles leave out these words, by good works, and yet Beza in his notes upon the place, acknow­ledges these words to be in almost all the antient Greek Copies. Also in the same Chapter & fifteenth Verse, these words are read according to the originall, I will do my diligence also, you to have often after my decease, that you may have a remembrance of these things: shewing thereby that he would pray for them after he was dead; as S. Chrysostome expounds it, saying, Re­joyce ever (you blessed Apostles) in our Lord, without intermission pray for us, fulfill your [Page 338] promises; for ô Blessed Peter thou cryest out speaking thus, I will do my diligence after my coming to make mention of you, 2 Pet. 1.10. Now the English Bibles read this place thus, Moreover I will indeavour, that you may be able after my decease, to have these things alwaies in remembrance, cor­rupting the sense, and making it signifie only that he would indeavour that they should remember those things, when he was dead; whereas he saith, that he would indeavour after he was dead, that they should remember those things; and there­by it proves that he prayed for them af­ter be was dead; a Doctrine which many Protestants will not allow. Also in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 11. v. 27. where the Apostle saith, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord, the English translates it thus, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, put­ting and for or, thereby making the Apo­stle speak of the receiving of the bread and wine unworthily in an united sense, whereas he speakes of them in a divided sense.

Thus in very many places do they deal [Page 339] with the Scripture, like the Elephant when he goes to drink, who troubles the cleer water with his feet, because he will not see the deformity of his face; So they trouble and defile the sense of Scripture either in words or exposition, because they would not see the deformity of their Er­rors. Many falsifications also and corrup­tions of Catholique Authors, by the Pro­testant writers, I have met with; as where they speaking something by way of sup­position, they alledge them as if they speak it positively and absolutely; where they bring the objections of Heretiques, they alledge them as speaking the words in their owne names; where they relate with reprehension the sayings of wicked men, they alledge them as saying those words themselves; which is, as if they should charge S. Mathew himselfe with the words of the Pharisees against our Saviour, Be­hold a glutton and a drinker of wine. Math. 11.19. But I will not be particular in this matter, because many that have been guilty in this case, have been called to a strict account by their Catholique answe­rers.

And when they are pressed by Catho­liques with plaine and direct proofes, O [Page 340] what serpentine wriglings and windings, to escape the assaulters, doe they make! O what perverse, ridiculous, & contradicto­ry answers and evasions do some of them make! in which they doe at once shew both much wit, and much folly; for fooles could not speak as they doe, and wise men would not. In so much thatAnswer to a Jesu­ites challenge, chapt. of limb Patrum Bishop Ʋsher Primat of Armagh, a very learned man, to avoid the con­fession of Christs descent into hell, according to the Article of the Creed, in the plaine sense thereof, doth so turn it and winde it, that he makes the sense of the words, He descended into hell to be, He ascended into heaven: to such pittifull refuges doth the weaknesse of a bad cause drive them. And thus they that have the most learning amongst them, be­ing by unhappy accident bred up in an er­roneous Religion, and thereby presuming it to be true, do bend all the endeavours of their learning to the maintenance of their errors, and the obscuring of the truth; which learning, if it were directed to the right end, might by just title claime a place in the first file of desert: even like a torch which turned downward, is extin­guished [Page 341] with that wax, which held upward would make it bright and glorious. But though their learning were a hundred times doubled, yet as Aarons serpent de­voured the Magicians serpents, Exod. 7.12. so the wisedome of God, which is in his Church, will confound the sensuall wisdome of all her opposers; seeing there is no wisdome, nor prudence, nor councell a­gainst God, Prov. 21.30.

§. 3. I further observed that the argu­ments of Protestants for themselves were very fallacious; most frequently in that which the Logicians call FALLACIA CONSEqUENCIA, which is when the consequence is not justly inferred; for example, they argue thus; the Sacra­ment is called a figure of Christs body, therefore it is not his true and reall body; which is a false Consequence, for it may be both; even as Christ is called a figure of the substance of his father, Heb. 1.3. and yet is also the same substance. Christ saith, come unto me, therefore we may go to no body else, which is false; for we may go to him and others also. The Apostle saith, that we are Justified by faith, therefore say they not by works; whereas we are justified by both. We must confesse our sinnes to God, [Page 342] therefore not to a Priest; whereas wee must do both, Christ is the head of the Church, therefore the Pope is not; where­as both are in severall capacities. The like might be said in many others; by which kind of arguing, unlearned people are ex­ceedingly deluded, & think that while one thing must be done, that must be done on­ly; the veine of that word (only) invent­ed by Luther in the matter of justification by faith running through the whole body of their Religion.

§. 4. Moreover I found this contradicti­on amongst the Patrons of Protestancy; that some of them reject the Fathers, and accuse them of being infected with the errors which prevailed in their times; and what were their errors? even all that they taught contrary to their Protestant do­ctrines; so making themselves the rule to judge the Fathers by, and not the Fathers (which any wise man would think more fit) a rule to themselves; who no doubt knew the Scriptures also, and what was a­greable or contrary to them better than they: Protestants being herein like carpen­ters who wear their rule at their backs, cast­ing behind them & neglecting those that should guide their belief. But other Prote­stants [Page 343] ashamed of this insolency, pretend for the credit of their cause, that the Fa­thers are altogether on their side; and then with much labour hunt out some ob­scure passages, most liable to be wrested, and triumph therein, as if they had found a demonstration, which when they are sifted, either they make nothing for them or else quite against them: who in this case are like to a man ready to be drown­ed, who to save himselfe will catch hold on a naked sword, with which he cuts his fingers; So Protestants sunk into the de­spaire of their cause, think to save them­selves by that which serves but to encrease their overthrow.

They pretend also to answer many pla­es of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques, and to give their words a Protestant mean­ing, and thereby run the Fathers into ma­nifest contradiction of themselves; in re­gard that the Fathers have but some ob­lique passages which seem (and but seem) to make for them, (as whoever spake so exactly, nay who can possibly speak so ex­actly, as that his words may not be made to seem different from his meaning?) but they have whole Bookes, Ser­mons, Tractates, and a world of disper­sed [Page 344] places, of purpose, in the maintenance of Catholique truths. And though they say that the Fathers taught Protestant doctrine, and they give a Protestant sense (though very incongruous) to many of the places of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques, yet they dare not use those words and Phrases of the Fathers, as of the▪ Masse, the Altar, the Sacrifice, concerning reall pre­sence, prayers to Saints and for the dead, merits, satisfaction, and Purgatory, with the like, in their prayers, Sermons, and books which if they speak Protestant Doctrine, in the true sense of the Fathers, (as they say they do) why do they not with the sense, make use of the words and speeches also? I can conceive no other reason, but for fear the peoples understandings (not so fraught with prejudice, nor acquain­ted with their uncouth evasions,) should carry them to the direct meaning there­of, and so either in those things become Popish themselves, or accuse their teachers of Popery.

§. 5. Another fraud I have observed a­mongst the Canonical Protestants, which is, that when they dispute against Catholikes, they have recourse to the Scripture, and wil be tried by that only; but when they dis­pute [Page 345] against the Puritanes and other Sects amongst them, who deal with them at their own weapon of Scripture only, then they have recourse to the Fathers, and the Tradition of the Church, and use the same arguments against Sectaries, that Ca­tholiques do against them; and particular­ly in the points of baptizing of Infants, against the Anabaptists; and the keeping of the first day of the week holy, against the Sabbatarians, who would have Satur­day; for either of which there is not any command in Scripture. And shall Tradi­tion serve them in those cases, and not in others? Or shall Scripture with them prove all other points, and not those? And this shift is such a one, as S. Augustine (in Psal. 80.) witnesses to be common to Foxes and Heretiques. For as Foxes have two holes to save themselves by, one, when they are driven from the other; so Heretiques (whom the Scripture figures out by Foxes, when the Spouse saith, Let us take the young Foxes that destroy the vines, Cant. 2.15.) have a double passage to save them­selves by; the one, when they are assaulted by the other; so that he that will catch them, must set his nets before both issues, and besiege both passages, as the excellent [Page 346] Catholique Writers have done, and have left them neither Tradition nor Scripture wherby to escape.

For although the Scripture do not teach all in direct and particular terms that Ca­liques do, yet it teaches nothing that Pro­testants do, in the things they differ from Catholiques. And in generall the Scripture teaches all that Catholiques do, by refer­ring us to Tradition. And this is sufficient; for it is not required, that all that we be­lieve or do, be expresly set downe in Scri­pture, it is enough, that there be no Scripture against it, for what is not forbid­den is lawfull; as the Apostle saith, where there is no law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15. If then there be no law of Scripture against it, it is lawfull; espe­cially if it be warranted by the Tradition of the Church, to which the Scripture re­ferres us, and is to us more evident to come from God, than the Scripture is, which we do not know to do so, but by the Churches testimony.

So that I found the Protestants were like to the Giant Procustus, men­tioned by Plutarch, who having a great iron bed fit for himself, all strangers that he took he layed therein, and if [Page 347] they were too long for the bed, he cut off so much of their leggs, if too short, he stretched them out till they came even; So the Protestants having built a Religion after the modell of their owne fancy, doe examine Scriptures, Councells, Fathers, and all authority by it, whereof some they cut off, as being too long, in affirming more than they do; and others being too short for their purpose, they miserably serue, tenter, and rack, till they come to the length they desire. And had I the wicked ambition by impiety to make my selfe famous, I believe, I could conjure up new opinions, which (laying aside the autho­rity of the Church) I could varnish with as much reason and Scripture, as any they professe; Whose attempts have had no bet­ter successe then Achelous had in fighting with Hercules, who took upon him seve­rall shapes, hopeing in one or other to o­vercome him; but was by Hercules beaten through all his shapes, and forced at last to take his owne proper shape, and yeeld: So Protestants fighting against Catho­liques, are by them beaten through all their changes, and formes, and shifts through which they wander, and are forced at last to take the true forme [Page 348] of Protestancy, which is obstinatly to deny the plaine and manifest truth; But I hearti­ly pray that it would please God to bring them to the true form, which they ought to have, which is of Roman Catholique; untill which they will (like the blinded Sodomites) perpetually roule, wander and grope in the darknesse of uncertainty, and instability, till eternall darknesse seize upon them. For by embarquing them­selves in such an enterprize as is the board­ing of the Ship of Peter, they are like to arrive at no other port, but ruine and de­struction.

§. 6. Moreover I found this proceed­ing of the Protestants to be most uneason­able, and full of pride, in that they being but few in number, especially in their be­ginning, yea but one, one infinitely auda­cious, Luther, once a child of the Roman Church, should presume to correct or re­forme the whole Christian world; a thing which no man would admit in the private regiment of his own family, that a sonne or servant should presume to find fault with, and change the customs of the house against the consent of the Father, Master, and all the rest, and assume to himselfe alone to be judge of the cause.

One earnestly desiring Lycurgus to e­stablish a popular State in Lacedemon, that the basest might have as great authority as the highest, answered, Begin to doe so first in thine owne house; which he refused, and thereby saw the injustice of his own demand: So these men that will not ad­mit within themselves, either in matters Ecclesiasticall or civill, that they whose duty it is to obey, should command, they whose duty it is to learne, should teach, withwhat face can they defend the practise thereof in the Church, which is the house of God; of which our predecessors were guilty in the first attempt, and this present generation in the continuance of their Rebellion? Nor let them think that their having of the Bible in the Mother-tongue will save them, as if it were like the Palla­dium to the Trojans, a thing dropt down from heaven, no man knowes how, with this condition annexed, that while they kept it in their city they should never pe­rish; while in the mean time they ex­treamly pollute it with two things, their interpretation and their conversation; whereas the Church of Rome hath not only the word, but the meaning of God also, as the Apostle saith, we have the sense of [Page 350] Christ, 1 Cor. 2.16. both proved by never-erring authority.

And lastly weighing all the Protestants arguments with all impartiality, or if there were any inclination of the bal­lance, it was to their side, with whose doctrines I had been from my childhood seasoned, and had been a teacher of others for the space of neere twenty yeares, and to whom to receive contrary impressi­ons, I knew must prove extreamly prejudi­ciall; who therefore addrest my selfe to this enquiry, with the disposition of a jealous husband, seeking that which I was most loath to find; yet all this notwith­standing, I found that all their pleas and pretences, and their answers to Catho­liques were weake, sleight, false or imper­tinent; and (like to a certain fish called Sleve, mentioned by Plutarch, which hath a body like a sword, but wants a heart,) they had (at least in the opinion of some) a shew of strength and sharpnesse, but in­wardly had no power, Spirit, or vigour. And that all their specious shewes of pu­rity, Reformation, and Evangelicall truth, were but like a shallow brook or plash of water, wherein we may discern the Sun, or moone and stars, with the whole face of [Page 351] heaven, as if it were as deep as heaven is high, when if we but sound it with our little finger, we pierce it through even to the earth: So their pretences of the pure Word of God, heavenly truth, and nothing but the truth, (as if like Promethe­us they had fetch'd it themselves from heaven) being fathomed, I found no dee­per than the shallow conceits of private heads; And that like Micol they had sent away David, and laid an Image in his place, 1 Kings 19. they had renounced the true and living Word of God, which is the true sense thereof, and laid an image of their owne fancy, drest in the same let­ter, in the room thereof; and so were (though not of Saints and Images which they ought, yet) worshippers of their owne imaginations, which they ought not, as being a high Idolatry.

§. 8. These, these are the motives, which have inclined me to believe that the Church of England and all other Prote­stant Churches, are guilty both of Here­sie and Schisme; two sinnes of highest nature, the one against God, the other a­gainst our neighbour, the one against faith, the other against charity, by de­nying their beliefe to doctrines revealed [Page 352] by God the supreme Author, and propo­sed by the Catholique Church, the supreme witnesse of divine truth; and by rending the seamlesse coat of Christ, separating from the Communion of his Church, and that (as some of their most learned say,) for things not fundamentall; and what can be more imprudent, than for an un­fundamentall error to commit a funda­mentall sinne? And such it is to separate from the true Church, as the learned a­mongst them confesse the Church of Rome to be.

And as the pretended errors for which they did separate, (they confesse) were not fundamentall, so for ought they know (for they confesse that the judgement of their Church may erre) they were no er­rors at all; and so again, for ought they know, they have not reformed, but defor­med themselves; and are gone out of Gods blessing (as we say) into the warm Sun. What madesse it is to make, or con­tinue a separation from a true Church, so acknowledged by all Christians, upon pretences not accounted true by any but themselves, and nor certainly known to be true, so much as by themselves. And as S. Augustine (de unit. Eccles. c. 3.) argues [Page 353] against the Donatists; If both sides were true they had no cause to separate, and to fly from those whom they had in possessi­on: If both false, there was no cause of separation, that they should fly from those who were no more faulty than themselves. If our doctrines are true and theirs false, there was no cause of their separation, because they ought rather to have amen­ded themselves and continued in unity: and if ours are false and theirs true, there was no cause of their separation, because they ought not to have forsaken the inno­cent world, to whom either they would not, or they could not demonstrate their truth. Nor can it excuse them to say, that such or such things are against their con­science; for as much as they ought to re­gulate their consciences by the Word of God in the mouth of the Church, not of themselves, (otherwise contentious and self-will'd Spirits will never want this plea, to separate from the Church, and so to serve God with their Will-worship,) and not to demand of the Church, that she make her conscience stoope to a compliance with theirs, which is insolent and unreasonable.

'Tis true that he that doth any thing [Page 354] against his conscience sins, so also if he do not that which he is commanded, he sins; therefore to reconcile this conflict of con­science, men may and must (though it go against the grain of their private judge­ment) submit themselves by an implicite faith to the Church, by believing her to be wiser than themselves, and so belie­ving what she saith to be true. Other­wise this conscience would be a plea for all disobedience and impiety; when wic­ked men might say, that they could not be perswaded in their conscience, that the things they were commanded to believe or do, were good, but rather the contra­ry were so, and therefore they would do them. Thus erroneous men may think it lawfull to commit murder or adultery, as all Rebells do the one, and Familists and Adamites the other. And we see that Protestants (who make conscience their Plea against the Church of Rome, and a ground of Separation) will not admit this from others that are under their command.

The legall Protestants of England would not permit any man, under pretence of conscience, to refuse the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, but thought all men [Page 355] bound to submit their beliefes therein to them. And now the Reformers of the re­formed, who heretofore complained of it as an Egyptian burden, to have any thing imposed on them against their conscience, make no scruple to impose upon other mens consciences, in their oaths, Protesta­tions and Covenants of conspiracy and Re­bellion against their lawfull Prince, and of believing a Religion not only now in Being, but whatsoever hereafter shall be by them contrived; nor will they suffer any mans tendernesse of conscience, to be a ground for the separation of his obedi­ence. So that the separation of all Prote­stants from the Church of Rome under pre­tence of conscience, as it hath no ground of truth, so hath it not either of prudence or justice.

§. 9. And if the Protestants, especially the Chilling worthians, will be (as they pre­tend) the servants of reason, and follow her whither she shall guide them, I cannot see how they can avoid coming to the Catholique Roman Church. For seeing that (according to them) there is no infalli­ble certainty of the truth of any point of Faith, (for if there be so, it is in their fun­damentalls; yet seeing they have no in­fallible [Page 356] knowledge what those funda­mentalls are, they must needs slide back againe to their former universall uncer­tainty:) all the assurance they have in matter of religion, can be but probable: Now Aristotle the great Master of reason, gives this rule of probability; That (saith he) is probable, which seems so to all, or to the most, or to the most wise; and amongst them, to all, or to the most, or to the most famous and eminent; which rule is so con­sonant to reason, as I think no reasonable creature will deny it. Nor can any Prote­stant (except pride and ignorance shut the doore of his confession) deny that this rule of probability, amongst all sorts of Christians is applyable only to the Ro­man Catholique Church; there having been infinitely more, and more wise and learn­ed people of her Communion, than of any other; yea many times there have been, when shee hath enfolded all Christi­ans in her armes, and not one to be found out of her Communion, her doctrines then (in reason) are to be received as most probable.

And (as some Philosophers say) naturall bodies doe neglect the lawes and rules of of their particular motions, to serve and [Page 357] follow the lawes of universall nature; of which one is, That there must be no Vacu­um, or place utterly empty; which law to observe, we see that heavie bodies will rise upward, which otherwise would fall downward: So the particular rules of reason, in particular men, (if they will shew themselves the dutifull children of reason) must give place to this generall and universall rule of reason implanted in mankind; and when they are inclined one way to an opinion, by their own pri­vate and domestique reason, they must sus­pend that inclination, and conquer the provocations thereof, and readily yeeld unto the fundamentall and universall law of reason; which is, that in matters of whose truth there is no infallible certain­ty, that is most likely to be true, and hath the most reason on its side, wherein the most, and the most reasonable of reason­able creatures doe agree Which if they doe, they shall not run upon the rock of believing contradictions, (as some of them imagine;) but shall find themselves obliged by the train of their owne princi­ples, to become Roman Catholiques.

These considerations, together with the great assistance of Gods grace, have [Page 358] caused me to forsake the Communion of all Protestant Churches, who, like those mentioned in S. John, say they are Jewes, the true Church, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan, Revel. 2.9. And not to content my selfe to be a Catholique in o­pinion only, keeping it private to my selfe, to save my temporall interest; nor with the two Tribes and halfe, forbear to enter into the land of Canaan, but stay on the other side of Jordan, tempted there­unto by the pleasantnesse of the land; but, disdaining to match my love so low, as of this creeping world, with the renoun­cing of all I possessed, or that my hopes could reach at, to the pulling on my selfe the displeasure of my friends and kindred, the reproach and hatred of the Protestant party, to the abandoning of my selfe, my wife and children, to all the calamities (which are all) that beggery, and perpe­tuall banishment could throw upon us; lanching forth into the deepe of this wide world, without rudder, anchor, sailes or tackling, to humble our selves at the feet of our Holy Mother the Church of Rome, which is the one, true, holy, Catholique and Apostolique Church; and will be so, and will be accounted so, when these, like their [Page 359] predecessors, revolters from the Church of Rome, shall be no more; And to choose to perish for want (if it be the will of God) in communion with the Catholique Church, rather than to have the Empire of the world stoop under my command, and be a Protestant: And to say, as Themistocles did to his wife and children, though in a diffe­rent sense, PERIISSEMUS NISI PERIISSEMUS, we had perished, if we had not perished, if we had not perished temporally, we had perish'd eternally: nor would I sell the inward peace and con­solation I here find, though at such a rate as would undo the world to buy it; for he that purchaseth worldly prosperity with the losse of the true faith, out-buyes it, and will prove a bankrupt; with which the tendries of the whole world being coun­terpoized, prove too light: as our Savi­our saith, What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, and to lose his owne soule? Math. 16.20.

And all this, because they that are out of the true Church are out-lawes against: God, are without Christ, and with­out God in the world, as the Apostle speakes, Ephes. 2.12. and because (as [Page 360] all antiquity testifies) thatConcil. Cart. 4. c. 1. ‘out of the Catholique Church there is no salvation.Aug. Ep. 152. That whosoeuer is not in the Catholique Church can­not have life.Aug. de Sym, ad Ca­tech. lib. 4. That he shall not have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother.Cyp. de unit Eccl, That Christ is not with those that assem­ble out of the Church.Ibidem. That though they should be slaine for the confession of Christ, this spot is not washed away even with blood.Ibidem. That he cannot be a Martyr that is not in the Church.Aug de gest. cum. Emerito. That out of the Catholique Church one may have Faith, Sacra­ments, and in sum every thing except salvation.Prosp. pro­mis. & prae­dic. Dei par. 4. c. 5. That he that communicates not with the Catholique Church is an Heretique and Antichrist.Fulgent. de fide ad Pet. c. 19. That no Heretique nor Schismatique, that is not restored to the Catholique Church before the end of his life, can be saved.’

And this Catholique Church is the Ro­man Church, because the Bishop of Rome [Page 361] is the head thereof, appointed so by God, and received by the Christian world in all ages (as I have proved before) and that not only for a time, but at this time, and for ever. And this being the Rock on which the Church is built, surely it shall never be removed, nor he, that like the wise-man, builds thereon; as our Saviour saith, the raine fell, the floods came, the winds blew; and rushed upon the house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock: Matth. 7.25, 26, 27. On the other side all other Churches are built upon the sandy foundation of humane invention, and must expect the fate of the fooles house, on which the the raine fell, the floods came, the winds blew, and rushed thereon, and it fell, and the ruine thereof was great,

CHAP. XXIII.

§. 1. NOw for a Conclusion, let me invite the Reader to stand (as it were) upon mount Nebo, as Moses did, and take a view of the Land of Canaan, the Roman Catholique Church, on the one side, and the wildernesse of the Prote­stant Churches on the other.

Here amongst Catholiques, you shall see a Church like the cloud that appeared to Elisha, as big as a mans hand, which by and by spread over the face of the earth; a Church which hath incircled in her armes (at least in their predecessors) all that ever wore the name of Christians; which hath stretched her dominions, as far as the Sun his beames, and wheresoever he hath bestowed his corporall, she hath bestowed her spirituall light.

There amongst Protestants, you shall see Churches that have got possession only [Page 363] of the most obscure places, and that by patches, like a poor mans land; and those too usurped by fraud, and violence from the just owners thereof; not purchased, but stolne.

Here you shall see a Church that hath continued without interruption since the first planting thereof; that hath kept per­petuall Term without Vacation; that in all the rough tempests of this worlds per­secution, hath still rid out the storme: and though by the tyranny of heathen and he­retiques millions of her children did fall, it was but like the morning deaw, watering thereby the seeds of grace, which them­selves had sowne; and when they calmly bled, it was but oyle to the Apostles lamps, whose bright flames may yet serve to light posterity to heaven. And as the enemies of the city of Rome were wont to weep to see it on fire, because it would afterwards be fairer built; so the devill (though he caused it, yet) did mourne to see the Church of Rome on fire in her Martyrs, which was ever repaired by a greater en­crease of converts, who constantly kept the faith, till they lost themselves in keep­ing it, like Naboth who kept his possession, with the losse of his blood.

There you shall see Churches like Castor and Pollux rising and setting by turnes, sometimes alive, sometimes dead; with such huge great gaps between the times of their subsisting, that for any succour they could have from them, millions of soules might in the interim have dropt in­to hell. And as the Moabites when they saw the waters look ruddy, thought they had been mingled with blood, when it was but the reflexion of the morning sun beames on them; so when they suffered any thing, they called it persecution for their obedience to God, when it was in­deed but the effect of justice on them, for their Rebellion against Gods deputies Ec­clesiasticall and civill, the high Priest and the Prince: and instead of giving them increase, as persecution hath alwaies done to the Church, it did (with the aid of their inward discords) utterly extingnish them. Who have had none, but have made many Martyrs; reviving even in these later & pre­sent times, the antient copies of cruelty a­gainst Catholikes; blindly believing that by killing Gods servants, they do God ser­vice: Whose meek spirits have paid as large a tribute of patience unto heaven and suf­ferance to the world, as any that went be­fore [Page 365] them; and have proved in them­selves, the truth of the Spouses saying in the Canticles; ch. 5. v. 10. My beloved is white and ruddy, being blanch'd with the whitenesse of innocence, & guled with the blood of martyrdom, the fury of whose malice and persecution hath pursued many even through the gates of death, adding pro­phanation to their cruelty, by disturbing the dead bodies, and silent urnes of Saints departed. A poor revenge and foolish, which doth more expresse their hatred, than satisfie it; and shewes that their ma­lice doth more afflict their owne minds before it is executed, than it can doe their enemies bodies in the execution: So eager, so importunate is sinne, ever to its owne shame.

§. 2. Here you shall see a Church that hath alwaies been in view; whom neither fear nor coynesse hath made to hide her head, and whose admired beauty hath in­vited all men to her chast embraces, and like Medusaes head hath turned them to stones of this living building, by the ad­miration of her surpassing beauty.

There you shall see Churches, such (which is very strange) as were never seen, or very seldome; keeping such un­kind [Page 366] and retired state, that men (like Dio­genes who went about Athens with a can­dle and a lanterne at noone day, to seek an honest man) must doe so about the world to find them out, and in the mean time perish for want of spirituall aid: who never had any beauty, riches, or rarity a­mongst them, but only Giges his ring, whereby they did for the most part walk invisible. The English Proverb saith, that where God hath his Church, the devill hath his Chappell; and so he hath alwaies had in Heretiques, who in regard of place have been mingled with Catholiques; but that the devill should have all the Church, and God not so much as the Chappell, (as they pretend) is most incredible.

§. 3. Here you shall see a Church like the city of Jerusalem, that is at unity with­in it selfe; and like the wals of Byzantium, so closely united, that they seem to be all but one entire stone. And as God spake of old, By the mouth of his Prophets, Luc. 1.70. intimating, that though they were many Prophets, yet they had all but one mouth, in regard of the unity and agreement of their sayings; so speakes he now by the mouth of the Priests in the Catholique Church: A body having Christ for the [Page 367] head, from whom (as the Apostle saith) the whole body being fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt supplies, according to the effectuall working in the measure of every part, makes encrease of the body to the edifying of it selfe in love; Whose powerfull union, like the Bundle of Arrowes presented by the Emperour Sala­dine to his sonnes, as the Embleme of united strength, cannot be broken by the assault of any force; which like the floating Ilands, or the stone Tyrrhenus, being unbroken, floats still aloft, and keepes her head above the main; when others like clods of earth rent from the Jland, or broken in pieces of that stone, sink to the bottom and pe­rish.

There you shall see Churches stand like the stones in some high waies to measure their length, a mile asunder from each o­ther; And as the Cameleon changes it self into all colours except white; So they wander through all the forms of opinions that fancy can imagine, saving only truth; Which need no externall disasters to try their strength, no forraine enemies to at­tempt their destruction; For like the Ser­pents teeth sown by Cadmus, or the eter­nally-hating brethren Eteocles and Polyni­ces, [Page 368] they with mutuall cruelties destroy each other. Here a Church that for the admirable effects of her unity, deserves the name of that pretious stone, which for the rarity thereof is called Ʋnity. There such, as for the variety and deformity where­with they are possessed, may be termed Legion.

§. 4. Here you shall see a Church that religiously triumphs over all Christian Kings and Kingdomes of the world, ma­king them the Trophees of her spirituall victories and conversions; whose power­full influence hath cast a charme upon the fierce and lionly natures of barbarous Princes; and hath not only made the Lion and the lamb to live together, (as was foretold by the Prophet) but hath turned the Lions into Lambs. Alexander the great being asked if hee would run at the Olympick games, said, I could be content, so I might run with Kings; Here then may be exercised a vertuous ambition, and truly worthy of the majesty of the most excellent King of England, who if he will honour the Church and himselfe to run this way, shall run with almost all Kings of the Christian world, both his owne and other Kings predecessors, and that at the true [Page 369] Olympick exercises, the exercises of hea­ven.

There you shall see Churches that ne­ver had the power to invite a King or na­tion to their Communion, but such as were born to it; or at first compel'd to it, by the violence of some prevailing faction; or moved to it, by oblique and self-reflecting ends. Barren and in jurious Churches, that live not by their own labour, and the gaines they make thereof, but boast only of that which they have ravished from o­thers; and convert not from Heathenism, but neerer to it.

§. 5. Here you shall see a Church wor­king wonders far above the power of all created Beings; commanding (by the rich dowry of her husband and Saviour) heaven, earth and hell, and all the frame of the creation; making them bow their fixt and stubborn natures, and meekly yeeld to the dreadfull command of man, propt by omnipotent Divinity. In which the miracle of miracles, Transubstantia­tion, is most frequently wrought, even millions of times a day, and sufficiently proved to be so, by the frequent effusi­on of blood that it hath made (like mur­dered bodies many times bleeding afresh [Page 370] in the presence of the murderers) to con­fute the incredulity of Jewes and Here­tiques; which if it do not so, to those that do not see it (having credible testi­mony thereof) as well as to those that see it, shall one day, with the rest of his most precious soul-healing balm, be re­quired at their unhappy hands, when he shall come incircled with flames, and ar­med with dreadfull thunder, to throw down vengeance on the impious and un­believers; who shall remedilesly feel that which heretofore they would not believe, that he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark. 16.16.

There you shall see Churches that do wonders indeed, but they are wondrous evills; the fowlest in all the stock and brood of villany; too many to be repea­ted, but not to be forgiven; for that therefore I will alwaies pray. Churches that are so poor in proof of their Do­ctrine, that they neither come neere the Church of Christ, nor yet do so much as the accursed Antichrist; for he shall do some wonders, but they do none: Or at least it is but one only Miracle that they do, and that is, that being (as they say) the true pure Church of God, they do no [Page 371] Miracle. And one Miracle I beseech God to do amongst them, (and especially in the once-every-way happy, and the now-every-way miserable Kingdome of En­gland;) that is, once more to convert them to his true faith, and Catholique Roman Church, where it is only to be had; that they may see and submit, before it be too late, to him whom they have pierced; and may (as Christ admonisheth the Church of Ephesus) remember from whence they are faln, repent and do their first works, (Rev. 2.5.) be­fore all hope, to see the Kingdome flourish, be withered; and that by their falling from bad to worse; there remaine no­thing but a fearfull expectation of seeing it over-run, and possessed by some barba­rous Nation, as the Greek Churches are by the Turks, (for their Heresies most likely, and Schism from the Church of Rome,) or else, that they will become such themselves.

§. 6. Here you may see a Church that is the worlds SANCTUM SANCTO­RUM, most holy place, guilded with the lives of innumerable (both men and wo­men) persons of matchlesse sanctity, shi­ning through the vailes of their coarse cloth, and neglected flesh; yea in the [Page 372] feebler Sex, God making his power (as he saith to S. Paul) perfect through weak­nesse. People so charitable to others, that they will forgive every one, but them­selves; and so severe to themselves, that they had rather lose the reward of their well-doing, than the punishment of their evill. Whose fasting and prayers, like empty-bellied instruments send up harmo­nious musick to heaven, and exceed the Spheres. Who suffer no mutiny of pas­sions against reason, or of reason against God. Who disdain to stoop to the lure of sense, or to serve it in any thing be­yond the margent of necessity; but as­cending up to the mount Tabor of heaven­ly contemplation, do there abide with Christ, and are transfigured with the beau­ty of holinesse; on whose hearts is writ­ten (that which was on the brest-plate of Aaron) Holinesse to the Lord. These are those noble Worthies of God, who like Ʋriah one of Davids Worthies, are asha­med to injoy the pleasures and delicacies of this life, while they consider that their great Generall wanted them; but like him spend all their time in suffering evill, and doing good; and are therein like to arched roofs, whereon the more [Page 373] weight is laid, the firmer and stronger they are. And are (many of them) so ex­tasied with heavenly raptures, that their unbodied soules leave them forgetfull of all things that may tend to their tem­porall preservation. Having such strong impressions of the presence of God, that wheresoever they are, or whatsoever do­ing, they so behave themselves, as if with S. Hierome, they heard the sound of the Archangells trump summoning them to judgment: Which high degrees of holi­nesse they underprop with the basis of hu­mility; and (like the weightiest eares of corn) bow down their heads the lowest to the earth; and stand like figures in Arith­metique, where the last in place is greatest in account. So that this alone may per­swade infidells that God was made man, while they see men thus made Gods. Into their secrets O Lord let my soule come, let my glory be joyned to their assemblies.

There you shall see Churches calcula­ted onely for the meridian of flesh and blood; whose Apocryphall Priesthood cannot beget Canonicall, much lesse super-canonicall vertues; whose Priests (like an­ticks which we see carved on the sides of sumptuous buildings, seem with their [Page 374] bowed shoulders to bear up the house, when they are indeed borne up by it: so they pretend to be the only Pillars of the house of God, but indeed have no share therein, but what they derive from this Church of Rome; Thou bearest not the root, but the root thee, Rom. 11.18. And what re­maines of the perfume of goodnesse yet amongst the people, (bating the dispo­sition of nature) is but the reliques of the Roman scent, perhaps not yet utterly faded.

§. 7. Lastly look upon the Roman Ca­tholique Church, and you shall see a thing so complete and perfect in all her dimen­sions, as if it had been (as indeed it was) moulded on a heavenly frame, many members built up into one body, and that body united under one head, maintai­ning most sweet and admirable corre­spondence, having in it selfe all fit means for the spirituall conservation both of the individuum, and species, of the particular body, and of the kind: For birth here is Baptisme; Confirmation for strength and advancement in the state of grace: The sacred Eucharist for our daily stock of spirituall improvement and encrease. And so our spirituall sicknesses [Page 357] and wounds, which we receive in our Chri­stian warfare, here are Physitians with the balme of Gilead, the good Samaritanes with wine and oyle to powre into our wounds, the holy Priests after the order of Melchisedeck with the Sacrament of Pe­nance to cure all our maladies. And there­ceipts for these cures contriv'd with won­drous art; for as bodily evills are cured ei­ther with things of the same quality or the contrary, so here. For wounds given by the world, here is a cure by giving the world away in almes. For wounds received from the flesh, a cure by mortifying the flesh with fasting and other austerities. A cure for the fiery darts of the devill, by the darts of prayers shot up to heaven. And when we depart this life (for this warfare must not alwaies last) here is precious oile to embalme our soules with grace; which like the oyle to the antient Roman wrast­lers, makes us nimble & agile in our latest wrastlings with the devill, that we may slip out of his hands, and be presented, ren­dering a sweet smelling savour unto God. And that this holy Church may continue in succession, untill her royall Bridegroom call her up to his own throne, here is Holy Sacramentall Matrimony, both to repre­sent [Page 376] that union, and by grace to encrease it. And that this multitude may not beget confusion, here are holy Orders, by vertue whereof, they that are ordained do go­vern this society, as spirituall Magistrates, and conduct it, as spirituall Captaines, through the wildernesse of this world, to the land of Canaan, the heavenly Jerusa­lem, which is above. Here is the true Com­munion of Saints both of those in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, by the parti­cipations of each others Prayers, Merits, and Satisfactions. Here is, as in all well-go­verned Common-Wealths, Justice both commutative, and distributive: Commu­tative betwixt God and Christ, who pay­ed a ransome for us, and purchased an e­state for us, and we take possession upon the conditions required: distributive in rendring rewards and punishments ac­cording to the geometricall proportion of mens merits or offences.

§. 8. Here are the Arcana imperii, high and mysterious things, such as are worthy the wisedome and contrivance of God. Things to be believed, by the world, thought incredible; things done by God, and to be done by us, by the world thought impossible, things to be suffered, [Page 377] by the world thought intolerable: and they are believed, done, and suffered, which could not be effected, but by a pow­er omnipotent. And because they are so difficult, none but God could subdue mortalls to the belief and practise of them; and therefore, even because they are such, they prove him only to be their author. For who can imagine that Confession, a thing so much against the bias of flesh and bloud, or the belief of Transubstanti­ation, a thing so far above the reach of hu­mane reason, could have got such possessi­on in the soules of Christian mankind, and that without any externall violence, had not the finger of God writ it on mens hearts. In doctrines of this Church, that will admit the use of reason for their pro­portionablenesse, no things seem more reasonable; and where they are above reason nothing can be more sublime, and befitting God the Author of this Religion, and Christ Jesus the husband of this Church. God, who is the God of reason, (of which that small portion which man is Master of, which yet ennobles him a­bove all bodily creatures, is but a ray from the splendor of his all-seeing sun-light, a spark from his celestiall fire) worketh all [Page 378] things according to the counsell of his will, Ephes. 1.11. which counsell implies pru­dence, and reason in his actions; accord­ing to the type of that eternall law where­by he workes himselfe, and commands all his creatures to work. And by this cha­racter the doctrines and the discipline of the Catholique Church proclaim him for their Author; and are not therefore to be disgraced (as they are by Protestants) by the ill-sensed name of policy; giving to the vertue of highest wisedome, the su­perscription of deceitfull cunning. And the knowledge of those things, which in the government of this noblest Kingdome of Christ surmount the reach of present reason, are reserv'd for a reward of our humble belief, in the life to come; when our faith shall be happily turned into sight; and we shall cleerly see, and be fully and eternally satisfied, with the reason of al those things, which now our short under­standings have not line enough to fathom. Excellent things are spoken of thee thou city of God, Psal. 86.3. And as it is written of Alexander the Great, that his body was of such an excellent composition, that it sent forth sweet vapours that perfumed all his clothes; and our Saviour we know [Page 379] had such abundant vertue flowing from him, that it cured such as touched him; such is the body of the Church, of so rare, so holy, and so rationall a composure, that vertue goes out of her, and sanctifies; and wisedome, and makes reasonable all her garments, all her utensils, and whatsoever appertaines to her, the smell of thy garment is like the smell of Frankincense, Cant. 4.11.

And if any third party that were nei­ther of the Roman, nor of any Protestant Church, should observe the admirable frame of this Church, both in regard of the doctrine & discipline, he would surely say, as the Apostle to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 14.25.) God is truly in you; and with the Patriarch Jacob, How dreadfull is this place? this is no other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven; Gen. 28.17. and as in the Canticles 6.10. this is she that goeth forth like the springing morn, faire as the moon, choice as the sun, terrible as an army in battel aray.

But looking on the Churches of Prote­stants or any sort of Heretiques, he should see a body without a head; or (which is as monstrous) an hydra, a beast with many heads, and that possibly may have as ma­ny more, if Kingdomes should be lessened [Page 380] and encreased: having a law without a Judge; but every one that is a party, clai­ming that power, in his owne cause. Where they have no assurance that their law is un­corrupt, but by the testimony of those they account their adversaries, and the greatest lyars and seducers of the world. Who have amongst them no faith but opini­on, no charity, but humanity, no hope fitly tempered with fear, but bold presump­tion and pretended assurance; for which, they that are the most confident, have the least cause of any men in the world. Where there is no beauty, comelinesse, or order worthy the Bride of Christ, not yet of the design or owning of any gene­rous, or wise and prudent man. But as some Philosophers hold that the world was made by the accidentall concourse of A­tomes; So they seem to be made by chance, and by chance to come together, not be­ing united by any internall form, but only in a politicall opposition of her, who is their Mother and Mistresse.

The Senate of Rome having chosen three men to go on an Embassie, whereof the one had his head full of cuts and gashes, the other was a fool, and the third had the Gout; Cato laughing said, that the Sen [...] [Page 381] had sent an Embassadour, which had nei­ther head, heart, nor feet; And even such imperfect things are all hereticall and de­formed Churches, which want faith for their head, charity for their heart, firmnesse and perseverance for their feet. Holding such monstrous and absurd opinions, that they make up a bundle of Heathenisme, Turcisme, Heresie, and contradictions to common-sense. Can then any indifferent and prudent man, who knowes that God made the world with wisdome, in number, weight and measure, can he think that they are the Church of God, the deare Spouse of Christ, for whose sake he descended from his heavenly Throne, and took and lost humane life? Or will he not rather say, that they are mad? 1 Cor. 14.26. Who are framed neither in number, weight, nor measure; their societies and Churches be­ing (or being possible to be, according to their principles) as many as their per­sons; their opinions vaine and foolish; and their government confused and mis­shapen, seeming rather a chaos than a cre­ation. In summe there is nothing that can be said for a true Catholique Church, but may be truly said for the Roman; & there is [...]othing that the Protestant Churches have [Page 382] said, or can say for themselves, but have been, or may be said by Heretiques; and are said by those who subdivide and sepa­rate from them; which pretences if they be good in them against the Church of Rome, they are good in others against them; which yet they will not admit. So that the Church of Rome is the true Church, or there never was any true Church; and all Protestants are Heretiques, or there ne­ver were any that deserved that name.

§. 9. What remaines then for all Prote­stants of what sort or title soever, but to listen to the voice which sayeth, Goe out of her my people, that yee be not partakers of her sinnes, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revel. 18.4. To redeem their soules from forfeiture, that have been thus long mor­gag'd to eternall death: and with the Prodigall son to returne home to the Ca­tholique Church, their mother, and thereby to God their Father, in whose house there is plenty of celestiall Manna, while they perish for want of food, or become fellow commoners with the hogs, and feed upon huskes and draught: and thereby to give joy both to earth and heaven in their con­version; seeing that as the elements never rest contentedly but in their proper place [...] [Page 383] so they will find no rest, but in the bosome of the true Church, which is the proper place of every Christian. To listen to the voice which crieth, Return, return ô Sunamite, return, re­turn, Cant 6.13. And the Spirit and the Bride say, come: And let him that heareth say, come: and let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the wa­ter of life freely; Revel. 22.17. by coming to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an in­numerable company of Angells: to the gene­rall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, Heb. 12.22.23.24. before he come to them as a terrible Judge, revea­led from heaven with his mighty Angells in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospell of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2. Thess. 1.7.8. And that they may all doe so, especially the Kingdome of England, and most especi­ally the most excellent King thereof; Strike, ô strike their and his soule, (O Lord) with thy omnipotent grace, whose magne­tique vertue may draw his Royall heart [Page 384] to thee, and make him a glorious and hap­py instrument of drawing others, till they all meet in the unity of the faith; so to continue, untill their mortality shall put on immortality, and his temporall crown of thornes be exchanged for an eternall crown of glory, Amen.