PROTESTANCY CONDEMNED BY THE EXPRESSE VERDICT AND SENTENCE OF PROTESTANTS.

LUKE 19.22.

By thine own mouth I judge thee.

[figure]

DOWAY. Printed in the Year 1654.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

I Cannot doubt, but that eve­ry Protestant, if he have not a mind to divest himself of common reason, and pro­clame himself to be inex­cusable, will confess Protestancy to be cast and condemned by Protestants, if by their own free and open Confession, these en­suing points be acknowledged for true; First, That the first Protestants, who, for­sooth, undertook a Reformation of the Universal Catholick Church existent be­fore Luther, after their pretended Refor­mation led so lewd lives, and held do­ctrines confessedly so absurd, that no man of sense or wisdom can judge them fit in­struments for that supposed, strange, sub­lime, supernatural, and divine work. Se­condly, That in opposition of the late and [Page] vitious Fathers of Protestants, those men who even by Protestants are stiled Anti­ent and Holy Fathers, believed, taught, and practised the very same things, which we now believe, teach, and practise against Protestants. Thirdly, That not only the Antient Fathers, but even the chiefest, and most learned Protestants, convinced by evidence of truth, stand with us against their Protestant Brethren in most of the chiefest points of Religion controverted between us. Fourthly, That our doctrine hath been approved by the Omnipotent hand of God, using for Instruments of working Miracles, those who were con­fessedly of our Religon, yea and in express confirmation of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants. Fifthly, That by the confession of Protestants we Ca­tholicks may be saved, though we live and dye in the belief of all those Articles wherein Protestants disagree from us. Which last consideration, though it were alone, ought effectually to move every one who believes an Eternity of Joy, or Torment, speedily to joyn himself with [Page]that Church, wherein by the confession of all, both friends and foes, Catholicks and Protestants, salvation may certainly be attained, if our life agree with our be­lief.

Now for proof these Truths, most im­portant to be known, I present not to the Reader any new VVork or Invention of mine own, but in effect only transcribe, and publish, what I find in that excel­lent Book, intituled, The Protestants A­pology for the Roman Church; the true Au­thor whereof thought fit to conceale him­self under the name of John Brereley Priest, though indeed he was neither Brereley, nor Priest, nor Clergy-man; not John, but rather James. He dedicated his Book to King James, and writes with so great exactness, fidelity, temper, and moderati­on, that Protestants, though they must needs feel themselves deeply wounded by the substance of his discourse, yet cannot with any shadow of reason pretend to be justly offended with his manner of discour­sing. In so much as Thomas Morton confes­seth, that whatsoever strong argument in [Page]any place in Roman Authors is to be found in favour of that Religion, whatsoever hath by chance fallen from the pen of any learned Protestant but in outward appea­rance consonant to their doctrines, which may seem any way to promote the Ro­man cause; all that we see in this volume collected to be brought and presly urged against us, with so singular a choice of the things themselves, with such force of arguments, with such an elegant and ex­quisite stile, Lastly with so moderate a kind of expression, as their subtilty, judge­ment, wit, art and moderation could do. I wish the Book were in the hands of ma­ny, but it being of some bulk, and not ea­sy to be had, and the points which here I offer being but few, and comprised in no very great compass, and of themselves ve­ry intelligible and clear to every mans un­derstanding, they will come to the know­ledge of more by being published thus a­part, than if they were to be sought in the Book it self mixed with many other mat­ters by the Author handled in different and distant places, and upon several occa­sions, [Page]and in a method not obvious to men who have no great mind to take much pains. If upon occasion I put in a word of mine own, the Reader will un­derstand it to be mine by the word Pub­lisher abbreviated by Pu.

I make use of the Edition of An. 1608. It is clear that he is most exact in his Ci­tations, citing not only the Book, but the year, Edition, place of Print, and some­times even the page and line, as appears by the Table set down in the beginning of his Book, with this title, A Table of certain Protestant writers, and their par­ticular writings, whose folio, or page (for more ready, and certain direction) are spe­cially alleged in the subsequent Discourse; and of their several Editions or year of Print, according to which they be so al­leged, unless it be otherwise noted in the margent. But yet notwithstanding all the care & exactness used by the Author, it was not in his power to exempt the Print from many Errors and Omissions, as also I cannot doubt, but he who Prints this publication of mine, will have his errors. [Page]The five Heads or Truths mentioned a­bove, I will call so many Considerations. Nei­ther have I any more to say in this place, than with my whole heart to beg of the Protestant Reader, even for the love he ows to the Redeemer of Mankind, and for the care he should have to save his own soul, that he will peruse these Considerations with a hearty desire to find, and an absolute re­solution to embrace the truth; laying a­side, prejudice, passion, sloath, and all hu­mane and wordly respects, seriously me­ditating the words of our Blessed Saviour (Matth. 16. v. 26, 27.) What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own Soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his Soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels, and then will he render to every man according to his works. If the Reader come not with such a disposition, and resoluti­on, every word he reads will rise against him in that dreadful day of Judgement, upon which all Eternity must depend. O ETERNITIE! ETERNITIE!

THE FIRST CONSIDERATION
Concerning the lives of the first Protestant pretended Reformers.

OUR Saviour forewarning us (saith Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subdivis. 1) That a good Tree yieldeth good fruit (Math. 7.17.) and, beware of false Pro­phets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Woolvs, by their fruits you shall know them (Math. 7.15, 16.) omitting petty examples (saith Brereley tract 2. chap. 3. sect 9. subdivis. 2.) we will intreat of Principals, namely of Luther, of Jacobus Andreas, the grea­test enlarger of his Doctrine, and of Zuinglius, Calvin, and Beza; and of these also (for other respects) but with a gen­tle, sparing, and forbearing touch, as not undertaking to allege any thing of them, but that which is in it self evident, and for such confessed.

Of Luther.

1 COncerning Luther's Life and Man­ners (saith Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 11.) for so much as he is strongly privileged with the opinion of the present time, we will in respect thereof but briefly touch the same, and that also not without great and respective observation, as forbearing purposely the credible Testimonies in that behalf, of Cochlaeus, Lyndanus, Staphylus and other our Catholick Writers, to whom his life and manners were well known, and choosing specially to speak thereof from no other testimonie than of himself, and his own dearest Scholars. As touching his Life before his revolt from our Catho­like Church it is confessed, that he as then See Symon Voyon upon the Catologue of the Doctors &c. Englished, page 180. And Luther ad Galatas c. 1. v. 14. fo. 35. a. after the English Translation. lived in his Monasterie, puni­shing his body with watching, fasting, and praier;See Luthers own words hereof in his Commenta­rie upon the Epistle to the Gala­thians, in English, in c. 1. fol. 35. h.Honored the Pope of meer Con­science,Luther ibid. fol. 35. b.kept Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience; and Luther ibid. fol. 35. a. whatsoever (saith he) I did, I did it with a single heart, of good zeal, and for the Glory of God, fearing grievously the last Day, and desirous to be saved from the bottom of my heart. In so much also as for some small time after his revolt, there remained yet in him some Reliques, or steps of former Sancti­mony, [Page 3]whereof Erasmus (in epistola ad Thomam Cardinalem Eboracensem) affor­deth him commendable testimonie: wher­as afterward, upon his further defection from our Church, he at last became quantum mutatus ab illo? and was so far transported with sensuality from his for­mer course of intended Chastitie, that he saith to the contrarie, Luther in Prov. 31. n. 10. addeth this amourous Rime for a morginal Glosse, Nicht li­ebers ist afferden, Ben frawn lieb, wems tan werden: being in English as is alleged here in the Text. Nothing is more sweet or loving upon the Earth, than is the love of a woman if a man can obtain it. And again, Luther tom. 7. in Ep. ad Wolfangum &c. fol. 505. He that resolveth to be without a woman, let him lay aside from him the name of a man, making himself a plain Angel or Spirit. Yet further, Luther tom. 5. Wit­temberg. serm. de Matrimo. nio fol. 119. a. vers. finem. Quam non est in meis viribus ut vir non sim? &c. As it is not in my power that I should be no man; so is it not in my power that it should be either staid or omitted, but is as necessary as that I should be a man, and more necessary than to eate, drink, purge, make clean the Nose, &c. Insomuch as he acknowlegeth himself to have been Luther in Colloquiis mens. fol. 526. a. et vide fol. 400. a. almost mad through the rage of Lust and desire of Woemen: And ( Luther in Colloquiis Germanicis cap. de Mar­monio saith, Ut nemo porest cibo vel potu carere, sic fieri nequit, ut aliquis a muliere abstineat, &c. Causa haec est, quia in utero mulierum con­cept [...], eo aliti, inde nati, la­ctati, et educati sumus, ita ut caro nostra majore ex parte mulieris caro sit, et sic plane fieri nequit, ut ab eiis sepa­remur. And tom. 2. Wittem­berg. fol. 328. b. post. med. He saith, Puella, in qua non est sublime hoc donum con­tinentiae nihilo facilius care­re potest marito, aut viro, quam cibo aut potu, somno, &c. to omit his other like sayings) he yet further saith (tom. 1. Epistolarum latinarum fol. 334. ad Philippum) I am burned with the great flame of my untamed flesh, I, who ought to be fervent in Spirit, am fervent in the flesh, in lust, sloath &c. Eight dayes are now past, wherein I neither write, pray, nor studie, being vexed partly with the [Page 4]temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. But (saith he ubi supra fo. 345) O intolerable ingrati­tude, and blasphemy, to abuse to Carnalitie the benefit of our Redemption! it sufficeth that we have known the Riches of the Glory of God the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the World, from whom sin cannot draw us, although we should commit Fornication, or kill a thousand times in one day. And being in this case, he laboureth not to keep his former kept Chastitie by his foresaid punishing his body with watch­ing, fasting, and praier, before time conti­nued by him in his Monasterie, when he was a Catholick, which course of resistance by Praier, the blessed Apostle (2. Cor. 12.7.) being so assaulted, used, and thereby pre­vailed; but unmindfull of his former Vow, and forbearing Praier, somtimes even for eight daies together, at the last (having Osiander centur. 16. pag. 97. fine. cast off his Religious habit Anno 1544) he did in speedy accomplishment of his longing desire Melancton in epist. ad Joac. Camer. de D. Lu­theri conjugio. It is extant in Melancton's Consilia Evan­gelica par. 1. p. 37. Marrie even upon the suddain Katherine Bore the Nunn, with­out any communication before had thereof with any of his friends, but having in the evening (so impatient was he of delay, as not to forbear, but that present Night, till the usual time of Marriage in the Day­time next ensuing) invited to Supper Po­merane, Luke the Painter, and Appelles the Lawier, he then so finished the Espou­salls, for which by the most antient and Imperial Laws (made See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. subdivis. 7. pag. 595) citing Zozomen hist. lib. 6. c. 3 affirming how that the Christian Emperour Jovian published an Edict, that who so allured a sa­cred Virgin to marriage, should be therfore punish'd with the loss of his head. This Jovian (saith Brereley) was in course the third Emperour after Con­stantine the Great. And the foresaid Law is yet extant, Cod. lib. 1. de Episcopis et Clericis, wherein it is said, Si quis non dicam rapere, sed attentare tantùm, jungendi causa Matrimonii Sacratissi­mas Virgines ausus fuerit, capitali poena feriatur. not lately, but during the venerable times of the [Page 5]Primitive Church) He should have lost his head. A thing at that time holden so scandalous by report of Sleydan in his Commen­taries in English l. 5. Anno 25. f. 65. b. paulo post medium, saies, In those daies Luther married a Nunn, whereby he gave occasion to his Adversa­ries to speak evil of him. And Mr. Fulk in his Answer to P. Frarines Declamation pa. 32. ante medium, confesseth that many men misliked Luther's marriage with a Nunn. Inso­much as Luther himself in Col­loquiis latinis tom. 2. de con-Jugio, saith hereof; Nisi ego clam celebrassem Nuptias, omnes impedivissent, quia omnes amicissimi clamabant, non illam, sed aliam. Sleydan, and others, that Luther himself after­wards became Melancton ubi supra pag. 38. paulo ante med. saith, Quoniam Lutherum quodammodo tristiorem cer­no & perturbatum ob vitae mutationem, omni studio ac benevolentia consolari eum conor. grieved and ashamed thereat: And his dearest Melancton did therefore specially Melancton his foresaid Epistle ad Joach. Camer. ex­tant ubi supra. and speedily Melancton in the end of his foresaid Epistle pag. 39. ante med. Ista ad te exposui verbosius, ne eventus inopi­natus te perturbaret & tristi­tia afficeret &c. write to a friend of his in excuse ther­of, wherein nevertheless he holdeth it ] Melancton ubi supra saith, Ac possit fortassis ali­quis mirari illum hoc infelici tempore bonis & honestis viris ubique graviter labo­rantibus, non modo non affici simol dolore, sed videri propemodum nihil penitus cu­rare ea mala quae ante oculos versantur. Marveilous, that Luther should be so regardless and little touched with grief at the Calamitie then present, as to undertake that mariage: Only he excuseth it with Luther's sociable condition of Melancton ubi supra saith, Atque ego rem hanc sic gest am esse arbitror: est vir iste nequaquam ex iis qui homines oderunt & congressus fugiunt, quotidianae autem vitae illius usum non ignoras, unde cogitare te caetera quam me scribere melius ut opinor [...]uerit. Life, and other Melancton ubi supra: What daily use of Life and other good Matters were these which Melancton did thus forbear to write, leaving them rather to his friends thoughts?Matters (there­upon depending, and not to be uttered) which (saith he) are fitter for you to imagin than me to write; for Melancton ibidem pag. 38. ini­tio, saith, Ego naturam Lutherum arbitror coëgisse ut fieret maritus. I am perswaded that Luther was a man infor­ced to marry by Nature. Hereunto we may adde, that Luther lying thus open, acknowledged his In Sleydan's Commentaries in English l. 3. An. 21. fol. 29. b. initio. Profession not to be of Life or Manners, but of Doctrin, Sleydan ibidem fol. 22. a. circa medium. wishing that he were removed from the Office of preaching, because his Man­ners and Life did not answer to his pro­fession, [Page 6]wherein he was so censured even by Protestants themselves, that as ap­peareth by their own report, Reported by the Prote­stant Writer, Benedict Mor­genstern in tract. de Ecclesia pag. 221. circa med. who saith of the Calvinists, Si quando volunt indulgere genio [...] non verentur inter se dicere, ho­die Lutheranicè vivimus. If at any time they would give assent to the provo­cation of Nature, they blush not to say a­mong themselves (hodie Lutheranicè vi­vimus) to day we will live Lutheran like. By which confessed premisses it appears, that Luther together with his alteration of Religion made a like answerable al­teration of his life. And yet (saith Brere­ley pag. 415) was this untoward course of life so peculiar (in their own confidence and opinion) to their profession of Do­ctrin, that as some of them affirmed, that to live thus, was to live Lutheran like; so others of them likewise doubted not to tearm it the Evangelical Instruction: af­firming withall a serious and Christian Discipline, to be a new Papacie and Mona­chism, as witnesseth Jacobus Andraeas conc. 4. in cap. 21. Lucae, saying, Mandat serio Deus in Verbo suo, & à suis Christianis requirit seriam & Christianam discipli­nam, haec vero apud nos novus Papatus novusque Monachismus existimantur: sic enim inquiunt, Dedicimus modo per solam sidem in Christum salvari &c. quamob­rem sine & permitte ut hujusmodi opera missa faciamus, cùm per Christum alioquin salvari possimus, & solum gratia Dei Christique meritis nitamur, atque ut totus Mundus agnoscat eos non esse Papistas, nec [Page 7]bonis operibus quic quam fidere, illorum eti­am operum nullum penitus exercent; Jeju­nii loco comessationibus & perpotationibus nocte dieque vacant &c. precationes ver­tunt in juramenta &c. atque hoc univer­sum vitae genus ab illis Evangelicum dici­tur institutum &c.

As concerning Marriage and Di­vorce Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 5. Luther (in serm. de Matrimo­nio) saies, Si non vult uxor, aut non pos­sit, veniat ancilla, If the Wife will not, or cannot come, let the Maid come. And whereas Mr. Whitaker (who would make the best Glosse thereof) answereth here­unto (in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 8. pag. 150) that Luther hereby only meant first to divorce, and then after to marry the maid; Yet is this Divorce (though upon such foresaid occasion either of in­firmity or willfullness) utterly rejected even by Mr. Whitaker himself (in the same place, and contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 687. fine) And neverthelesse Luther was so vehement against the wives froward refusal of her Husbands B [...]d, that he further said thereof, Luther tom. 5. Wittem­berg. serm. de Matrimonio fol. 123. a. vers. sinem. See also Luher's words cited in the Treatise against the defence of the Censure, pag. 219. post medium. And see Luther tom. 5. Wittemberg in 1. Cor. 7. fol. 113. a. initio. And Luther tom. 5. Wittemb. in 1. cor. 7. v. 11. fol. 111. b. ante medium, farther saith hereof, Quid si alter cum altero in gratiam redire nolit, sed simplicter esse velit, & alter contine­re non valens, comparem habere conjugem [...]atur, quid illi faciendum? poteritne cum alio contrahere? Respondeo, procul dubio poterit. The Magistrates duty is to bridle this Wife, yea and to put her to death: this if the Magistrate omit, the Husband must imagin that his wife is stoln away by Theevs, and dead; and consider how to marry another; For (saith he yet [Page 8]further) See the Treatise against the defence of the Censure, pag. 213. prope sinem. we cannot stop St Paul's mouth, &c. His words are plain, that a Brother or Sister are free from the Law of Wedlock, if the one depart or do not consent to dwell with the other; neither doth he say, that this may be done once only, but leaveth it free, that so often as the case shall require he may either proceed or stay. In which case (as he signifies) See the Treatise against the defence of the Censurer, pag. 213. paulo post medium. And see Luther tom. 5. Wit­temberg. fol. 112. b. fine. a man may have ten or more Wives fled from him, and yet living. Nay he doubteth not in case of Adulterie committed by a married man or married woman, to give liberty even to the offending Adulterer, In aliam profugere terram maechus potest, ibique si continere nequeat, uxorem ducere rursum. Luther tom. 5. Wittemberg. serm. de ma­trimonio, fol. 123. a. initio. to fly into an­other Countrey and marry again: So dan­gerously doth he incline to Polygamie, the which himself elswhere seemeth to defend, affirming that Luther in propositi­onibus de Bigamia Episco­porum edit. An. 1528. pro. 62.65.66. & vide Luthe. in explicatione Geneseos e­dit. An. 1525. in Commenta­rio, c. 16.Polygamie is no more abrogated, than is the rest of Moses Law, and that it is free, as being neither commanded nor forbidden. In respect whereof he signifieth that Luther in Genes. c. 16. edit. Anno 1525. he will ne­ther bring in Polygamie, nor condemn it. Insomuch that the Calvinists themselves do further say, Lutherus de conjugio quae­dam, & alia haudquaquam probanda scrip­sit. See this in Hospinian in his Concord. Discord. printed 1607. fol. 99. b. ante med. &c.

3 As concerning Magistracie (saith Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10 subdivis. 6.) how fully, plainly, and directly Lu­ther impugned the same, especialy be­fore [Page 9]the Princes of Germanie had under­taken the defence of his Doctrine, is by his own writings more than manifest, and in part from thence declared by Brereley tract. 3. sect. 5. where he cites Luther de seculari potestate tom. 6. Germanico, say­ing: Among Christians no man can or ought to be Magistrate, but each one to o­ther equally subject &c. Among Christi­an men none is superiour, save one and only Christ. And in serm. de ove perdita, and also in his Sermons englished by William Gage pag. 97. fine, and tom. 7. Wittemberg. fol. 327. b. Luther further saith, Therefore is Christ our Lord, that he may make us such as himself is: and as he cannot suffer himself to be tyed and bound by Laws &c. so also ought not the con­science of a Christian to suffer them. And in his said Sermons pag. 261. circa med. He doth admonish, that wee obey the Civil Magistrate, for (saith he) there cometh no loss of Christian Liberty or faith thereby. For, for somuch as they do not contend, that those things are necessary to salvation which they ordain &c. Howbe­it if any should contend that those Com­mandements of the Civil Magistrate be necessary to salvation (as doubtless they be, in regard that they bind us in Consci­ence, and to break them were sin) then, as it is said of the Traditions of the Papists, the contrary rather were to be done. I will [Page 10]adde (saith Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 6.) the base and invective Ca­lumniations wherewith he charged (to omit sundry other Princes and Of his like immoderate railing against sundry other Princes, as namely against Henry Duke of Brunswick, See his special Book therof a­gainst the Duke, intituled, Wi­der Hanse worste &c. And of his like railing against the Arch­bishop of Mentz Prince Ele­ctor, See Luther in tom. 3. Germ. fol. 533. a. b & 32.6. & 360. & in Colloq. mensal. fol. 342. & 343. And against the Princes of Germanie, See Luther tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190. b. & 200. & tom. 3. fol. 195. b. See all those more parti­cularly and at large alleged out of Luther's own writings by Gasper Ulemberg [...]us in his Book intituled, Graves & justae causae cur catholicis &c. prin­ted 1589. causa 8. p. 234, 235, 237, & 238. And see also re­ported by Sleydan (Luther's own Scholar) after the Eng­lish Edition l. 16. fol. 222. a. & b. the unworthy, base, scur­rilous (and not to be repeated) Pictures devised by Luther a­gainst the Pope. A thing so evi­dent, that the Protestant Land­grave in his published writ­ing penned by his Divines, saith, Lutherus non tantum mag­norum Regum, Prin­cipum & Dominorum, utrius­que nostrum cognatorum, quemadmodum etiam priva­torum quorundam hominum, ho [...]estam famam dicacitate quadam sua arrosit, & gravissimis qubusdam accusatio­ni [...]us indecenter traduxit, quo, vel unonomine adducti, Lutheri scripta absque omni exceptione nullo plane modo probare volumus, nec sine tum nostri, tum laudatis­simorum Majorum nost [...]orum famae & honoris laesione possumus: verum etiam &c. See this in Hospinian in Concord. Discord. fol. 99. b. ante medium, Printed 1607. And the Divines of the Count Palatine in their Admonitio Christiana &c. Printed 1581. pag. 233. fine, & 234. initio, do object to Luther his convitia praeter pietatem & modestiam confidenter & arroganter dicta, scurriles in rebus seriis lusus, quam multa acerbè & injuriosè scripta, non tantum in Christi insignes Ecclesias &c. sed etiam in magnos P [...]cipes. States) our late Soveraign King Henry the 8th. of famous memory, calling him (in libro con­tra Regem Ang. in Praefat.) An envious mad fool, babling with much spittle in his mouth, more furious (in the same Book extant tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 333. 334. and 335. &c.) than madness. it self, more doltish than Folly it self, indued with an impudent and whorish Face, without any one vein of Princely blood in his Body, a lying Sophist, a damnable rotten worme, a Basilisk and progenie of an Adder, a lying scurrill covered with the title of a King, a clownish wit, a doltish head, most wicked foolish and impudent Henry; and saying further (ibid. fol. 338. a.) he doth not only lie like a most vain scurr, but passeth a most wicked knave; and (ibid. fol. 340. b. & vide 333. b. 335. a) thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious King. Whereunto might be added his exceed­ing many other more like dispitefull and scurrilous words used against his Maje­stie, [Page 11]some of them being so immodestly base, a we a r [...]shamed to English them. In the place cited fol. 333. and 337. &c. He saith, Jus mihi erit pro meo Rege Ma­jestatem tuam Anglicam stercore consper­gere (and) sit ergo mea haec generalis re­sponsio ad omnes sentinas infulsissimae hu­jus larvae &c. Haec sunt robora nostra ad­versus quae obmutescere coguntur Henrici, Thomistae, Papistae, & quicquid est fae­cis, sentinae, latrinae, impiorum & sacrile­gorum ejusmodi. Sordes istae & labes ho­minum, Thomistae & Henrici, sacrile­gus Henricorum & asinorum cultus, fu­ror insulsissimorum asinorum & Thomi­sticorum porcorum, os Vestrae Dominati­onis impurum & sacrilegum: with infi­nite more such like. This intemperate railing was so evident in Luther, that himself, in loc. com. class. 4. fol. 35. b. ac­knowledgeth the Worlds Opinion here­in had of him, saying there, Video ab om­nibus in me peti modestiam, omnes ferè in me damnant mordacitatem, Insomuch as Mr. Fox Act. Monu. pag. 404. a. fine, re­ports, how that Luther's chiefest Patron, even Frederick Duke of Saxonie, wrote grievously to Luther, exhorting him to temper the vehemencie of his Stile. To his scurrilous railing we will adde what Brereley (in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers, cap 3. sect. 2. initio, pag. 60.) saith, concerning [Page 12]his contentious spirit; which was so a­bounding in him, that for fear of being idle, and to keep himself awork in that kind, he contracted with Carolostadius, and giving him Hospinian in hist. Sa­crament. part 2. at Anno 1525. fol. 32. b. ante med. saith, Lutheru [...] Carolostadi­um ut contra se publicè scri­bat aureum nummum extra­ctum ex pera ipsi oftert, in­quiens: En accipe, & quan­tum potes animose contra me dimica &c. cumque au­reum nummum marsupio suo recondidisset Carolostadius, Luthero manum in sponsio­nem pactae & susceptae con­tentionis porrexit, pro cujus confirmatione Lutherus ipsi vicissim haustum vini propi­navit, adhortans eum ne sibi parceret, sed quanto vehe­mentius & animosius con­tra se ageret, tanto illum sibi chariorem futurum. See also Lavather hereof, in Hi­stor. Sacrament. fol. 2. a. post med. a piece of Gold to write against him, he upon Carolostadius his acceptance thereof, gave to Carolosta­dius his hand upon the bargain, and ther­upon drunk to him in a cup of Wine, exhorting Carolostadius not to spare him, but to deal roundly and vehemently with him, whereupon ensued their most contentious and invective writings: This fact of Luther was so scandalous, that Hospinian though See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 7. [...]t o. ante fi [...]em. favouring Luther yet signifieth from what Hospinian in his Histor. Sacrament. par. 2. fol. 32. circa med. saith of Luthers foresaid bargain with Carolostadius, Haec Christiane lector, fuerunt, infelicissimi istius certaminis (quod ex pacto & sponsione susceptum tot jam annis Ecclesiam gravissime exercuit) infausta auspicia, quae si quis diligenter apud se ani­mo sepositis affectibus expendat, ex quo spiritu fuerint profecta tanto rectius &c. est judicaturus &c. And Daniel Tossanus in lib. consolatorio, cap. 127. saith, that Lu­ther did proceed contra Carolostadium instinctu maligui Spiritus. Spirit the same proceeded.

4 Concerning the Administration of the Word and Sacraments (saith Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 7.) Lu­ther maketh it common to Laymen with the Clergy, saying to this end Luther tom. 2. lib. de Ministris Ecclesiae institu­endis, fol. 368. a & b. 369. a. b. & vide ibid. l. de abrogan­da missa privata, tom. 2 fol. 249. a. b. & in lib. de captiv. Babylon. c. de Ordine. And see Hospinianus in Hist. Sa­crament. part. 1. pag. 22. paulo post med. & part. 2. fol. 14. b. circa med. The first Office of the Priest is to preach the Word &c. but this is common to all: next is to baptize, and this also may all do, even wo­men [Page 13]&c. the third is to consecrate Bread and Wine, but this also is common to all no less than Priests, and this I avouch by the Authority of Christ himself, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; This Christ spake to all there present, and to come afterwards; whosoever should eate of that Bread, and drink of that Wine &c. This also is witnessed by St. Paul, who 1. Cor 11. repeating this, applyeth it to all the Corinthians, making them all as him­self was, that is to say Consecrators, &c. If then that which is greater than all, be given indifferently to all men and women, I mean the Word and Baptism, then that which is less, I mean to consecrate the Sup­per, is also given to them. And the like Doctrin doth he affirm no less plainly in Luther in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem deci­mum art. 13. saith, In Sacra­mento Paenitentiae ac remis­sione culpae non plus facit Papa vel Episcopus, quam insimus Sacerdos: immo ubi non est Sacerdos, aequè tantum quilibet Christianus etiamsi mulier aut puer esset &c. quod autem absente Sa­cerdote etiam puer aut mu­lier & quilibet Christianus absolvere potest, Mat. 18. Clareè patet, ubi Christus omnibus Christianis dicit: Quodcunque solveritis super terram, solutum erit in Coeli [...]: Hanc invictam authoritatem non mihi subverten [...]. And see further in loc. commun. clas [...]. 2. pag. 136. & 138. But see his words more full than all this, alleged out of the Edition of Jena by Cnoglerus in his Symbola tria, pag. 157. another of his Writings, being (as Dr. Covell affirmeth) Mr. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker's five Books of Ecclesiastical Politie, Art. 15. pag. 101. post med. And see Luther de Missa privata Edit. An. 1534. And see Hos­pinian. in Hist Sacramentar. pag. 22. paulo post med. And Hospinian in Hist. Sa­cramentar. parte altera, fol. 1 [...]. b. circa med. saith of Luther in 1 b. de Missa privata An. 34. Eousque progreditur, ut diceret Sacramentum verum futurum, etiamsi à Di­abolo conficeretur. not afraid to affirm that Sacraments are effectual though ad­ministred by Sathan himself. Thus did Luther in respect of want of calling in his Followers, write against the Pope; though elswhere to serve his own turn against the Anabaptists (who upon the same ground used the same weapons a­gainst [Page 14]him) he See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 6. initio at u. & tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. sub. 2. at z. presseth and chargeth them for their want of ordinary calling: So Variable, Inconstant, and Tempori­zing, (as occasion required) was he in his Doctrine: wherof Zuinglius tom. 2. in responsione ad Confessionem Lutheri, fol. 458. circa med. saith, Lutherus nunc hoc, nunc illud deadem Re pronunciat, nec us­quam sibi constat: haud dubiè eain constantia & levitate in Dei Ver boutendum esse existi­mat, qua effrictae frontis scurrae inter ale­am uti consueverunt. Also Hospinianus, a learned Calvinist, in his Historia Sacra­mentaria, parte altera, in his Alphabe­ticall table, set before the begining of that Book, at the letter L. under the word Lutherus, setteth forth Luther's wonder­full inconstancy in Doctrin with particu­lar reference to his contrary sayings and Doctrines, there by him in that book at large alleged, in which course he chargeth Luther in the same table, saying; Luthe­rus sibi ipsi dissimili, in Doctrina de persona Christi 18. And under the word Lutheri, is set down Lutheri inconstantia in Doctri­na 4. b. Lapsuum & inconstantiae causae 5. Ejus de coena sententia Prima 5. b. Secunda 7. b. Tertia 8. Quarta 12. Quinta ibidem, De ejus inconstantia in negotio Coenae, Stur­mius 12. a. b. inconstantia de communione sub uno vel utraque specie 12. b. 13. in­constantia de manducatione impiorum 13. b. inconstantia de concommitantia 13. b. [Page 15] inconstantia de elevatione Sacramenti 13. b. 14. inconstantia de adoratione Sacra­menti 14. with much more there set down in this kind. And in the Book exemplified at large from Luther's own inconstant and contrary writing, according to the fi­gures of direction here as before mentio­ned. Also concerning the form of words requisit to a Sacrament, Luther affirmeth Baptism to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred, so the same be not in the name of Man but God. So Luther tom 2. Wittemberg. in lib de captivit. Babylon. cap. de Baptismo fol. 75. a. initio saith, Quocunque modo tradatur Baptismus, mo­do non in nomine Hominis, sed in nomine Domini tradatur, verè salvum facit; imô non dubitem, siquis in nomine Domini susci­piat, etiamsi impius Minister non det in no­mine Domini, verè Baptizatum esse in Nomine Domini.

5 Concerning the Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 8. sufficiency of our Redemption by our Saviours Passion in his humane nature upon the Cross, Lu­ther taught thus far to the contrary, as that not only the Humane Nature of Christ sufferd for us, for (saith he) in affirming but so much, Christ is a Saviour of vile and small accompt, and needeth himself al­so a Saviour.Luther in confessio­ne majori de Coena Domi­ni.Cum credo quod sola huma­na natura pro me passa est; Christus ille vilis nec magni pretii Salvator est. Imo ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet: but also that [Page 16] the Luther de Consiliis Part. 2. saith of the Zuingli­and: Pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant, quod Divi­nitas Christi pati non pos­set.Divinity of Christ did suffer, which is so intollerable and grosse, that it is speci­ally contradicted by divers learned Prote­stants, as Zuinglius, Hospinianus, D. Barnes, Beza, Czecanorius (in Brereley pag. 403, 404.) and affirmed to be an old condemned opinion in Apollinarius and Eutiches, and contrary to the Pro­phets, Apostles, and all true Believers. To this we may adde Luther's wicked Doctrine concerning our Saviour's de­scending into Hell, there also for to suffer Torments in Soul after his death. Thus Luther (tom. 3. Wittemberg. in Psalm. 16. fol. 279. a. post med.) saith, Christus sicut cum summo dolore mortuus est, ita videtur & dolores post mortem in inferno sustinuisse, ut nobis omnia superaret &c. And see this opinion confessed in Luther, by Fulke in his defence of the English translation of the Bible, cap. 7. pag. 204. See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect 10. sub. 8. at 16. pag. 205. (it should be 405)

6 Conterning Luther's Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdi. 9. contempt of the antient Fathers, and his own great undertaking knowledge, he saith, Luther in libro ad Du­cem Georgium. And see his like saying in Colloquiis Liti­nis cap. de consolatione. And ad cap. 1. dd Galatas tom. 5. Wittemberg. fol. 290 b. He saith Esto, Ecclesia, Augustinus, & alii Doctores; item Petrus, Apollo, imo Angelus è Caelo diversum doceant, tamen mea Doctrina est ejus­modi, quae solius Dei gloriam illustrat &c. Petrus Apostolorum summus vivebat & docet extra Verbum Dei; And after the English Translation. fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio. and in libro de servo arbitrio contra Erasmum, in the first Edition there­of He saith, (if not most arrogantly judge) Deponite quicquid armaturae suppedita­bunt Orthodoxi veteres, Theologorum Scholae, authoritas Conciliorum & Pontifi­cum, consensus tot saeculorum, ac totius populi Christiani, nihil recipimus nisi Scrip­turas: sed fic, ut penes nos solos sit certa Authoritas interpretandi. Quod nos inter­pretamur hoc sensit Spiritus Sanctus, quod afferunt alii quamvis magni, quamvis mul­ti, à Spiritu Satanae & [...]lienata mente profectum est. See this Saying alleged in Nullus & Nemo G. 6. pag. 153. And in Cnoglerus his Symbola tria. pag. 152. And Luther tom. 2 Wittemberg. fol. 486. b. fine saith, Ego verò hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui, & assero, ac penes nullum volo esse judicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut praestent obsequium. Since the Apostles times no Doctor [Page 17] or Writer hath so excellently and cleerly confirmed, instructed, and comforted the Consciences of the Secular States, as I have done, by the singular grace of God. This certainly I know, that neither Austine, nor Ambrose, who yet are in this matter the best, are equall to me herein. And again (tom. 7. in serm. de eversione Hierusalem. fol. 271. a.) The Gospel is so copiously preacht by us, that truly in the Apostles time, it was not so clear. And (apud Bre­reley trect 1. sect. 3. subd vis. 14. initio. in the Margent at the figure 4.) he affirms, (tom. 2. Wittemberg. Anno 1551. lib. de servo Arbitrio pag. 434.) the Fathers of so many Ages to have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to have erred all their life time, and that un­less they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor partaining to the Church. See further Luther's Book de servio arbitrio printed in octavo 1603. pag. 72, 73, 276, and 337. Also in Col­loquiis Mensalibus cap, de Patribus Eccle­siae, Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular, In the writings of Hierom, there is not a word of true Faith, Christ, [Page 18]and sound Religion. Tertullian is very su­perstitious. I have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostom I make no account. Bazil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not of a hair. Cypri­an is a weak Divine &c. affirming there yet further, that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age, and that the Apolo­gie of Phillip Melancthon doth far ex­cell all the Doctors of the Church, and ex­ceeds even Augustin himself. See Brereley Tract: 2. c. 2. sect: 10. subdivis. 9. How highly he esteemeth of such Doctrine as himself collecteth from the Scriptures, and how much he preferreth himself therein before the Fathers, himself signi­fieth saying (tom. 2. l. contra Regem An­gliae fol. 344. b.) Gods Word is above all, the Divine Majestie maketh for me, so as I pass not if a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Harry Chur­ches stood against me: Nay he doubteth not in plain tearms to exempt his Do­ctrine from all judgment of Men and Angels, making himself therby judge of both, saying, (Adversus falso nominatum Ecclesiasticum statum) Scire vos volo, quod in posterum non amplius hoc honore dignabor, ut sinam vel vos vel ipsos An­gelos de Caelo, de mea doctrina judicare &c. nec volo meam doctrinam à quoquam judicari, atque adeone ab Angelis quidem: cum enim certus de ea sim, per eam & ve­ster & Angelorum judex esse volo. And [Page 19]see these words, though somwhat altered in the late edition of Wittemberg tom. 2. fol. 306. a. fine. And (apud Brereley, tract. 3. sect. 7. pag. 681. marg. at e.) tom. 2. Wittemberg. lib. contra Regem An­gliae fol. 333. a. fine. he saith, Certus e­nim sum dogmata mea habere me de Caelo &c. dogmata mea stabunt &c. And will our English Divines allow this in the Doctrine of Real presence, Images &c. wherewith they charge and reprove Lu­ther? Luther also (apud Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2.) saies (in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio, & tom. 5. Wittemberg. of anno 1554. fol. 290. b.) Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, A­pollo, yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet is my Doctrine such as sets forth Gods only Glory &c. Peter the chief of the Apostles, did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the Word of God. And in the same place fol. 290. a. fine, he further saith, Sive S. Cyprianus, Ambrosius, Augustinus, sive S. Petrus, Paulus, immo Angelus è Caelo ali­ter doceat, tamen hoc certè scio, quod hu­mana non suadeo, sed Divina. For this cause sundry Calvinists have not forborn to taxe Luther with excessive Pride. Con­radus Regius (in lib. Germanico contra [Page 20]Hessium de Caena Domini b. 2.) saith, God hath for the sin of Pride (wherewith Lu­ther extolled himself, as many of his wri­tings shew) taken from him his true Spi­rit &c. and in place thereof hath given an angrie, proud, and lying Spirit. And the Tigurine Divines in Confessione Germanica, Printed Tiguri 1544. in octavo; say, Luther boasteth himself to be the Apostle and Pro­phet of the Germans, who hath learned of none, of whom all others have learned; no man hath known any thing, but what he learned of Luther; no man hath done any thing, Luther hath done all &c. And (a­pud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. sub­divis. 2. at*) Zuinglius, in responsione ad confessionem Lutheri, chargeth Luther with magna Arrogantia, & cum arrogan­ti verborum fastu, minis quoque plusquam turgidis. And Oecolampadius in responsi­one ad confessionem Lutheri, saith, that Luther was arrogantiae & superbiae affect [...] inflatus. Also the Tigurine Divines in their answer to Luther's Book against Zuinglius, say, Prophetae & Apostoli Dei Gloriae, non privato honori, non suae pertinaciae & superbiae studebant; Lutherus autem sua quaerit, pertinax est, insolentia nimia effertur &c. And Symon Lythus responsione altera ad alteram Jacobi Gret­zeri Apologiam, pag. 333. paulo ante med. saith, Lutherus plusquam debeat tribuit gloriolae partae, cujus particulam communi­cari [Page 21]cum aliis indignissime ferebat. And Thomas Naogeorgus (a learned Calvinist) alledged by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Cal­vinistarum l. 2. fol. 131. a. post med. saith of Luther, Plurima scripsit per iram car­nalem, & per aemulationem, ne succumbe­re cerneretur ulli, Doctorum veterum orbi­tam reliquit, indulgens stomacho suo ac ho­nori. And Calvin alleged ibidem fol. 126, a. post med. Hanc intemperiem quâ ubique ebullit, utinam magis fraenare stu­duisset &c. Utinam recognoscendis vitiis plus operae dedisset &c. And Conradus Ges­nerus in Universali Bibliotheca, saith, Il­lud non est dissimulandum, Lutherum vi­rum esse vehementis ingenii, impatientem, & qui nisi per omnia sibi consentientes fer­re nesciat &c. Dominus faxit, nequid con­tentione & impudentia oris obsit Eccle­siae, cujus olim crepundiatam feliciter pro­movit. Pride, even the confessed intole­rable pride was the only true cause of his persisting in his revolt, and Apostacy (a point to be carefully considered by all Protestants, who have any care to save their Souls!) For (saith Fox, Acts and Monum. pag. 404. a. fine) It is apparent that Luther promised Cardinal Cajetan to keep silence (with this annexed condi­tion of pride) provided also his Adver­saries would do the like. And Osiander in epitom. &c. centur. 16. pag. 61. fine, & 62 initio, saith accordingly: Quod Luthe­rus in Pontificem quaedam durius scripse­rit, [Page 23]id condonari sibi petit, promittens post­hac majorem modestiam, indulgentiarum­que posthac nullam se facturum mentio­nem, modo adversariis etiam suis silenti­um imponatur. And Mr. Cowper, late Bishop of Winchester reporteth further (in his Chronicle fol. 278 a. paulo post initium) that Luther by his letter, sub­mitted himself to the Pope, (with this other like condition) so that he might not be compelled to recant.

7 As concerning Luther's Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 12 impug­ning of the Masse, upon his confessed in­struction from the Devill, by sensible con­ference had with him, we referre the same to his own Testimony hereof, hereafter alleged. Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2. In the Text and Margent at 17. He did continue his accusto­med saying of Masse, until that among the Manlius, Luther's Scholar testifieth this in loc. com. pag. 42. fine. And so also the Alphabetical Table of that Book, where it is set down Luthero saepe spectra appa­ruerunt. And Luther Tuton: ad Senator: Civit: German: speaking of other Sectaries, to wit the Swenkfeldians and A­nabaptists who bragged of Ap­paritions, confesseth of himself saying, Ego quoque fui in Spiritu, atque etiam vidi spiritus, si omnino de pro­priis gloriandum est, forte plulquam ipsi intra annum videbunt. severall Apparitions hapened unto him (not of Luther in loc. com: class. 4. pag: 36. prope finem, saith, Nullas apparitiones Angelorum habeo. And ibidem page 40. ante med: He further saith, Pactum feci cum Domino Deo meo, ne­vel visiones, vel somnia, vel etiam Angelos mihi mittat, &c. vide ibidem post med. Angels, for therein he disclaimeth, but of wicked Spirits, wher­with he was infested or haunted, whereof one was so terrible that Manlius in loc. com: pag. 42. fine, & 43. initio saith, Cum Coburgi subsisteret Doctor Martinus Lutherus &c. accidit ut semper post apparitiones nocturnarum fa­cium, ipse gravi capitis morbo agitaretur. Accidit autem ut cum praecedente nocte tres ejusmodi volantes faces vidisset, fere incidiffet in Syncopen, Praesentiens autem morbum, ministrum vocabat, is Amygdalinum oleum instillabat in aurem. &c. Lu­ther tom: 7 Wittemberg: An: 1588. in lib. de Missa privata, & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 443. & tom: 6. Germ. Jenensi fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari. Also Luthers words hereof are acknowledged and set down in the treatise, against the defence of the censure, pag. 234, 235, 236. and in Luther tom: 7 Wittemberg: fol. 228. a. fine. he was almost [Page 22]cast into a sound (in prevention whereof, Oil was distilled into his Ear, and his Feet rubbed with hot Clothes) It chan­ced that upon a certain time (as himself reporteth the matter) he suddainly awa­ked about midnight: then (saith he) Satan began this Disputation with me; saying, Harken right learned Doctor Luther, thou hast celebrated Masse by the space of five­teen years &c. And so the Devill with Arguments, which himself there at large setteth down, disswaded him from fur­ther saying of Masse; whereat the Pro­testants are greatly ashamed, and strive in vain to answer to this our objecting of Luther's foresaid Disputation, had, as be­fore, with the Devill. For first Brereley in his conclus. to the Judges Sect. 9. initio at c. Mr. Clarke (in his answer to the Censure given upon the Books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer, in the special tract there, had of this matter) and Mr. Fulke (in his Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 234 initio) answer, that by Luther's foresaid discourse of his Disputation had with the Devill, is meant only a spiritual fight in mind, and no bodi­ly conference. What? no bodily confe­rence? With what Face can they affirm this? Do not the many other precedent and confessed like fearfull nightly Appa­ritions argue this also to be of the like kind? Doth not Ltuher himself, in his foresaid Treatise of this matter, report [Page 24]how the Divell Luther describing there the sound of Sathans voyce, speaking then to him, saith, Haec illo dicente &c. The Devill speaking thus to me, I burst forth all on sweat, and my heart be­gan to tremble and leap (voce forti & gravi utitur) the De­vill hath a base and strong voyce &c. And then I learned how it came to passe that some­times early in the morning, men were found dead in their beds: which words the rather to give colour to Mr. Clarkes preten­ded onely Spirituall temptation, and no bodily conference, are shamefully falsifyed, as being quite omitted by the Divines of wittemberg in their later editi­on of Luthers Works, but ne­vertheless are yet still and ex­tant in the more antient edition of Luthers Works tom: 6. Jen. Germ fol. 28. and to the e­ternall discredit of the said Di­vines of Wittemberg (who in many other things have like­wise most shamefully falsifyed Luther) are yet also ac­knowledged and verbatim re­cited by the Protestant Writer Hospinianus in Hist: Sacra mentar. par. 2. fol. 131, a. post med. and by him alleged there out of Luther tom. 6. Jen. fol. 81. then spake to him in a base and great voice, so fearfully, as made Luther to sweat, and his heart to tremble? Doth he not also report (as before) that the Devill spake to him, calling him (ac­cording to the humour of his Pride) Right learned Doctor Luther? Doth he not there also yet further affirm, how Oe­colampadius, Empser, and others, were slain with such horrible encounters, say­ing, Luther tom. 7. Wit­tsmberg: fol. 230. a. post med. See also these words confessed by Mr. Fulk against the defence of the Censure, pag. 237. circa medium: Ego planè persuasus sum Empse­rum & Oecolampadium, & similes, his ictibus horribilibus & quassationibus subito extinctos esse? This answer being there­fore without all probability, and though supposed for true, yet wholly imperti­nent; For in either case, the perswasions and arguments whereto Luther here yiel­deth, came confessedly from the Devill, and what differrence is there, whether the Devill made them to Luther by sen­sible conference, or by inward suggesti­on? A Brereley in his conclusion to the Judges, Sect. 9. at [...]. second answer of Mr. Sut­cliffe is, that Luther in his foresaid dis­course of this matter, only declared his Dream; for he in his Book de Vera Catholica Christi Ecclesia pa: 258. post med: saith, Per somnium tantùm Diabolum se colloqui visum dicit Lutherus, ut est in libro. what, but a dream Mr. Sutcliff? Is there in Luthers whole discourse here­of so much as but mention of any dream? Are not also Luthers foresaid words di­rectly [Page 25]to the contrary, that he was first suddainly awaked, and that then after, Sathan began the disputation with him? Again, doth not his foresaid affirming of Empser and Oecolampadius to have been slain with such horrible encounters, argue more than a dream? Are men I pray you slain by dreaming? or rather was not your self deeply dreaming when you made an answer so plainly untrue? But in what book of Luther (Mr. Sut­cliff) is this found? you should have done well to have alleged it. For Luthers words are, that he was then first suddain­ly awaked. And, ibidem pag. 299. pau­lo ante med: Mr. Sutcliff further saith hereof, Lutherus autem nihil aliud pec­cavit, quam quod ut homo Germanus, & non ita pridem Monachus, qui eas de Dia­bolorum apparitionibus Monasticas fabu­las è mente adhuè non ejecerat, somnium narrat crasso filo & Monachis familiari: quare si nullum aliud habeant hujusmodi calumniae fundamentum praeter somnium, quod etiam ipsi malè detorquent, nihil est &c. But although we should suppose it for true, yet this Answer is no lesse plain­ly impertinent: for what difference is it whether the Devill seduced Luther sleep­ing or waking? In either case it con­fessedly proceeded from the Devill. These foresaid answers of Mr. Fulk, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Sutcliff, being so evident­ly [Page 26]untrue, Brereley ibidem sect. 9. Mr. D. Morton (in Apolog: Catholica part: 1. l. 2. c. 21. pag: 351. an­te med.) betaketh himself to a new eva­sion. And what is that? He taketh no exceptions to Sathans sensible confe­rence had with Luther, nor to his per­swading him against the Masse, but in steed of answer, objecteth Where he saith: Apud Surium liquet Diabolum in specie Angelica appa [...]isse, & statim Abbatem ut Mis­sam celebratet hortabatur, alleging there in his margent, Delrius Jes [...]. 4. de Magia. cap. 1. q. 3.8.5. Delrius (a Jesuite) affirming, that the Devill ap­peared to an Abbot in form of an Angel, and perswaded him to say Mass: Suppos­ing this for the truth, and the whole truth of Delrius his report, how unapt yet is the example thereof? For here is no long and laboured disputation to prove the Masse good, nor did the party here assent to the Devill, nor did the Masse thereupon first begin to become publick, as in the other example we charge the Devill with long framed disputation and arguments against the Masse, and Lu­ther as overcome therewith, to have a­bandoned the Masse, then before gene­rally received. And that in this manner now in this last age began the new ap­pearing doctrin of Luther, and so many of his followers in impugning of Masse. Neither is this all, for Mr. Morton hath in his report hereof (besides his mis­naming the Abbot for the Monk) com­mitted as yet further negligence, if not fraud, in omitting both, which is there next precedent and following in his Au­thor, [Page 27]as namely that The words of Delri [...] (in the place cited be Mr. Mor­ton, uttered upon occasion to shew how the Devill often goeth about to deceive us, or by perswading us to do things of themselves good, but in an evill manner, whereof he there giveth many examples,) [...]e as followeth: Item si (Daemon) suadeat aliiqua contra Canones, vel Constitutiones, vel regulas, vel alia praecepta Majorum: hoc indicio B. Simeon Mo­naclus Trevirensis eum de­prehendit: narratur historia ab Cuerwino Abbate (apud Surium 1. Junii.) In verti­cem montis Sinai jussu Supe­riorum cum missus fiuisset ibi habitaturus, nocturnis ho­ris illi specie Angelcia Dae­mon apparuit, & ut Missam celebret hortatur: ipse nec planè dormiens, nec perfectè vigilans contradicrit, non de­bere fine praesbyterii ordine aliquem hoc ministerium im­plere: contra inimicus in­stat: &c. Whereby it appear­eth that the Devill did not make this perswasion to the Abbott, (for the Abbot whom Surius al­legeth is but the reporter thereof) but to Simeon a Monk, who, as there afterwards yet more fully appeareth, being not as yet Priest, but Deacon, refused to say Masse. the Devill useth to perswade against the Canons, &c. and that accordingly that the party whom the Devill here so perswaded to say Masse, was not yet Priest: a perswasion I con­fess fitting for the Devill, and but an­swerable to Luthers doctrine, who teach­eth (as is before said) that Laymen, and even Women, are Priests, and may con­secrat the Sacrament, and preach. Brereley in his con [...] ­sion to the judges. Sect 9. nex as [...]er n. The last of whom I sind any mention to offer help in relief of Luther from this so known scandall, is Baldwinus. And what saith he? First directly against Mr. Clark, Mr. Fulk, and Mr. Sutcliff, he acknowledgeth the conference between the Devill and Luther to have been not spirituall only, nor yet a dream, but that it was a reall truth, written by Luther not hyperbolically but seriously and according to the truth of the historie, for in his book de disputatione Lutheri cum Diabo­lo, Printed Islebii 1605. c 4. fine, & pag. 83. fine, he saith thereof: Quapropter non est cur Monachus miretur, me fateri dis­putationem illam esse veram, & neque joco neque hyperbolicè, sed serio & historicè, scriptam. And again there pag. 75. post med. he saith, Historiam illam tam pro­lixè, tam consideratè Lutherus conscrip­serit: quod enim eam scripserit & quidem serio & historicè, etiamnum & constanter fateor. Et vide ibidem pag: 76 fine. How [Page 28]then would he evade? The substance of his long answer is, that Luther had before, and then, quite abandonned the Masse: that therefore the Devill in­tended no disputation against Luther, but only by way of strong temptation, to put Luther in mind of his old errours, so thereby to drive him to despair, urging to such purpose, such only known truths and reasons against the Masse, as Luther then, and before knew to be most true, and wherein Luther was allerady satisfy­ed: in regard whereof (saith he, ibidem pag: 127. fine) Semper in praeterito loquitur Sathan &c. talis sacrificulus fuisti: the Devill speaketh alwayes to Luther as in the time past, thou saidst Masse, thou hast done this, & that, &c. But how extremely false and impertinent is all this? First, for the matter of despair it is a false Brer [...]ley in his Conclus. to the judges, Sect. 7. at q. in the margent. supposall; for there is not in all the pas­sage of that disputation so much as the least mention or signification of any perswasion to despair, whereas to the contrary in the same disputation there, fol. 228. b. paulo ante med. the Devill re­proveth Luther and the Papists, for think­ing Christ unmercifull, saying: Nos Spi­ritus rejecti non fidimus illius misericor­diae, neque habemus eum pro Mediatore aut Salvatore, sed exhorrescimus ut saevum Iudicem: ejusmodi fidem, non aliam, & tu habebas, &c. & omnes alii &c. Ideo à [Page 29]Christo tanquam crudeli Iudice confugie­batis ad S. Mariam & Sanctos, & illi e­rant Mediatores inter vos & Christum, sic erepta est gloria Christo &c. Thus doth Sathan quite against the pretence of despair, amplify the mercies of Christ, urging the same as a speciall argument against Prayer to Saints. And whereas Luther (which some urge) doth there afterwards, fol. 230. b. post medium, an­swer to the Catholicks, who (as he fore­saw would object to him that the Devill was a lyer) labours to prevent the same, alleging there to that end the example of Judas, whom the Devill tempted with urging to him, that he had betrayed the innocent blood, and so brought him to des­pair; with like alleging also the exam­ple of Cain: yet is this no part of the Conference between the Devill and Lu­ther, which is there before fully ended, but are only the words of Luther him­self, used by him uppon the occasion a­foresaid many years after, at his writing of the said Conference. But though we should admit this supposall for true, yet it is also Brereley ibid. Sect. 7. in the margent at r, impertinent; for though he had withall perswaded Luther to des­pair, as having sinned in his saying of Masse, yet this proveth not (which is the only point now questionable) that he did not also then dispute with Luther to perswade him agaiust the Masse: For [Page 30]this is evident throughout the whole pas­sage of that his long disputation, against which the other pretence of despair (though admitted to be mentioned in the same disputation, as it is not) maketh for that nothing. Secondly Brerele [...] ibidem Sect. 9. in the text, versus finem. as con­ceruing the Devills supposed speaking to Luther alwayes in praeterito, as of the time past, it is egregiously false: for as in regard of his then former saying of Masse, the Devill somtimes speaketh to him as in the Brereley in the conclus. to the judges, Sect. 8. in the margent at v and x. time past; So like­wise in regard of Luthers present custome then continued in saying Masse, he also speaketh very often as in the time present, as appeareth in Luther tom: 7. Wittemberg. An: 1558. fol. 229. a paulo post med. where the Devill saith, Tu solus in angulo tuo tacens & mutus comedis solus, et bibis solus. Et ibidem fol. 229. a. post med, the Devill speaking to Luther, as of his saying Masse in the time to come, saith, Ponam simi­litudinem: Si quis Baptismo uteretur ubi non est persona Baptizanda, &c. cujusmo­di esset hic Baptismus? &c. deest enim per­sona quae Baptismum accipiat: Quid si idem tibi accideret in tua Missa? &c. Nam persona accipiens Ecclesia non esse ibi, &c. Hic for san dices, etiam sialiis in Ecclesia non porrigam Sacramentum, tamen ipse sumo, ipse mihi porrigo, &c. And ibidem fol: 229: b. Prope finem, the Devill further saith to Luther (as being then one with the Pa­pists [Page 31]in this point,) En audaciam vestram! in tenebris geritis haec, & abutimini no­mine Ecclesiae, ac deinde onmes abomina­tiones vultis defensas n [...]mine Ecclesiae. And again, ibidem fol: 230. a. prope ini­tium: Quare ergo in Missa privata blas­phemè eontravenis claris verbis & Ordi­nationi Christi, & postea tuo mendacio, tuae impietati praetexis nomen & intenti­onem Ecclesiae, & misero hoc fuco tuum ornas commentnm? And ibidem fol: 229. b. ante med. going about to prove that Luther may not deliver the Sacra­ment to himself alone, he allegeth the example of the other Sacraments, which a man cannot use for himself, saying: Non est absolutio, si quis absolveret seipsum; non est inunctio, si quis inungeret seipsum; non est conjugium, si quis nuberet sibi ipsi &c. Haec enim sunt vestra septem Sacra­menta, (so plainly yet was Luther in these points then Catholick) si nunc nul­lum ex Sacramentis vestris aliquis ipse pro se facere potest, aut tractare, qùi fit ut tibi soli hoc Summum Sacramentum facere velis? And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 737. saith, And ibid: fol. 229. a. circa med. The Devill yet further saith to Luther, Stas ibi solus, & putas (so evi­dently is Luthers then present opinion then signifyed) Christum propter te in­stituisse Sacramentum, & protinus in tua privata Missa te conficere Corpus & San­guinem [Page 32]Domini. Thirdly Brerely ibidem Sect. 9. in the text prope sinem. as to the supposall of Luthers then having aban­doned the Masse, it is likewise but sup­posed and false, as appeareth by the De­vills foresaid often speaking to him in the present B [...]ercley in his Conclus. to the judge, [...]ct 8 [...] and z in the margent. tense, to whom Luther answers ibidem fol. 228 b. initio, as not disclaiming from the Masse, or that he had then or before given it over, but as yet standing in the defence thereof, ju­stifieth to the Devill his saying of Masse, to that end alleging (saith he) that I was an anointed Priest, Cui respondi, sum un­ctus Sacerdos, accepi unctionem & conse­crationem ab Episcopo, & haec omnia feci ex mandato & obedientia Majorum: and (in regard of such his then Catholick opinion in that point) using yet further (saith he ibidem fol. 229. b. post medium) those weapons whereto I was accoustom­ed in the Papacie, objecting the intention and faith of the Church, and that I ce­lebrated Masse in the intention and faith of the Church, &c. And that the Chuch did righty believe, and think. In his an­gustiis & agone contra Diabolum, volebam retundere hostem armis, quibus assuetus eram sub Papatu, objiciebamque intentionem & fidem Ecclesiae scilicet quod Missas pri­vatas in fide & intentione Ecclesiae cele­brassem: & si ego inquam non rectè credidi aut sensi; tamen in hoc rectè credidit & sensit Ecclesia. But (saith he) Sathan [Page 33]replyed more vehemently; verum Sathan è contrae fortius & vehementius instans, &c. Hereby, and other the premises, it appea­reth, that Luther yet hitherto defended the Mass: in respect of which (his then opinion) the Devil Brereley ibid. Sect. 9. in the text, fine. beginneth his sug­gestion of doubt saying, What if such Masses were horrible Idolatry? Which had been improper, if so Luther had then before thought the Mass to be I­dolary. Luther tom. 7. Wit­temberg. Anno. 1558. in Libro de Missa privata & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. a. fine. & tom. 9. Germ. Jenensi fol. 28. in Libro de Missa An­gulari, and see these words ac­knowledged and set down by Mr. Fulk in his defence of the Censure pag. 234. and 235. and 236. Fourthly as concerning the main point, which is, that the Devil in­tended hereby no disputation against Lu­ther, but only a temptation upon evi­dent truths, by Luther then and before known and confessed, it is of all other most false, as appeareth by Luther him­self, who expresly tearms it a disputation. Also by the Apud Brereley ibid. Sect. 7. at S. Protestant like Argu­ments (as namely among other, the Priests not preaching, but receiving alone, against the institution of Christ; his not communicating to the people in both kinds; that of a Sacrament he made it a Sacri­fice, and made gain thereof, sicut tu facis in Missa tua, as thou (saith the Devil to Luther) dost in thy Mass) at large there by the Devil begun and prosecuted, pur­posely to give colour against the Mass, and most evidently by example of the sundry other points, whereto the De­vil in like sort then endeavoured to per­swade Luther, but could not prevail: [Page 34]For first it appeareth by Luther tom. 7. Wittemberg fol. 229. a. that the Devil perswaded Luther, that he could not consecrate, because he was a wicked man, which errour (peculiar to Wickliff and some others) Luther ever abhorred, as appeareth by the Protestant Treatise intituled, Orthodoxus consensus, &c. Printed in fol. 1578. in proleg. pag. 14 b. and in Brerely tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. sub­divis. 7. at p. q. r. where Luther holdeth that even Lay-persons, and the Devil himself, might Minister Sacraments, ob­serving the words of institution. Also Sathan perswaded Luther against the indifferencie of Communion under one or both kinds, whereof see here in the Margent at Luther tom. 7. Wit­temberg. An. 1558. fol. 229. b. initio. And fol. 228. b [...]circa med. the Devil further saith, Sacerdos enim ve [...]us, est Minister Ecclesiae consti­tutus ad praedicandum ver­bum, porrigenda Sacramen­ta, sicut hoc habent verba Christi in Coena, & sicut Paulus 1 Cor. 11. de Coena Dom [...]ni loquitur: unde & à veteribus Communio ap­pellata est, quod non Solus Sacerdos debeat uti Sacra­mento, sed reliqui unà cum ipso. Nunc annos quindecim totos semper solus privatim pro te in Missa usus es Sacramento; & non communicast ali [...]s, ade [...]què interdictum tibi erat, ne por­rigeres totum Sacramentum aliis, &c. coj [...]smod [...] es tu Sacerdos, qui non pro Ec­clesia, sed pro te ipso ordinatus es? &c. Tu vero Missator privatus in omnibus Mis­sis tuis, ne semel quidem praedicasti, &c. Haeccine institutio Christi? &c. Institu­tio Christi est, ut Sacramento communicent & alii Christiani, verum tu unctus es, non ad distribuendum Sacramentum, sed ad Sacrificandum, & contra institutionem Christi Missa usus es pro Sacrificio, &c. Et quod Christus instituit ad edendum &. bibendum pro tota Ecclesia, & porrigendum a Sacerdote unà communicantibus, &c. ex hoc tu facis Sacrificium propitiatorium. O abominatio super omnem abomina­tionem, &c. And ibid. fol. 229. a. paulo post med. he saith, Solus bibis, &c. Nemini tecum communicas, & ut in more vobis positum fuit, tanquam bonum opus pro pe­cunia vend [...]s. And ibidem fol. 228. b. ante med. He further saith to Luther, Confugie­batis ad S. Mariam, & Sanctos, illi erant Mediatores inter vos & Christum, sic crepta est gloria Christo: Is not all this (with much more there objected by the Devil) very Protestant like? which indifferencie (not­withstanding the Devils Arguments to the contrary) Luther afterwards held, as appeareth in Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. [Page 35] sect. 14. in the margent at Luther ibidem fol. 229. b. pau [...]o post initium. next after f. at Fourthly. Whereto divers other like examples might be added Brereley in his Conclu­sion to the Judges Sect. 10.. Thus then the several and disagreeing answers of Protestant Writers to our objection of the Devils disputation had with Luther against the Mass, being discovered for vain and idle, I will now conclude this point with the further evident testimony of Hospinianus a learned Calvinist, who though he acknowledge Luther Hospinian: in Hist. Sacrament. part alter: in his Prolaegom: prope finem, saith of Zuinglius, Calvin & Lu­ther: Hos enim tres viros nosco à Deo ornatos fuisse multis donis & virtutibus, ingenio, luce doctrinae Cae­lestis, &c. Zelo gloriae Dei &c. Divinitusque formatos & excitatos ad Ecclesiam Christi his postremis tempo­ribus, tyran nide ac tenebris Anti-Christi horribiliter op­pressam, in libertatem & lu­cem Evangelii vindican­dam, &c. for a man adorned with excellent gifts, with the light of Heavenly knowledge, zeal of Gods glory, and as raised up to restore the Gospels light, &c. Yet, as inforced, he confesseth most plainly the thing in que­stion in Hist. Sacrament. part. alter. fol. 131. a. where he reciteth out of Luthers works, a part of the disputation (written by Luther) between the Devil and him, and then in the end of that side of the leaf addeth, saying, De hac disputatione narrat Lutherus plura, quorum summa est, se à Diabol [...] edoctum esse, quod Missa pri­vata imprimis sit res mala, & rationibus Diaboli convictum abolevisse eam, Luther being instructed by the Devil that the Mass was wicked, and being overcome with Sathans Arguments, did (there­upon) abandon the Mass. Insomuch as Hospinian doth yet further in his first Index or Alphabetical Table set before his Book, under the Letter C. and at the [Page 36]word Colloqium, among the many o­ther Colloquies had among Protestants by him there set down, place, among o­ther, this Colloquie between the Devil and Luther in these words: Colloquium Lutheri cum Diabolo in quo instituitur de erroribus Missae, 131. As also Joannes Re­gius (another prime Protestant) in his Book intituled, Liber Apologeticus, &c. under the title Consideratio censurae pag. 123. circa med. forbeareth not to defend and justifie Luthers foresaid confessed in­struction from the Devil, saying, Quid hoc ad Mysterium seu doctrinam verbi Divini per Lutherum restauratum ever­tendum, aut ad Missae etiam veritatem sta­bilendam? Et unde constat (Pu. constat by the testimony of Luther himself, tom. 7. Wittember. An. 1558. in lib. de Mis­sa privata & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. a. fine, & tom. 9. Germ. Jenen. fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari) tibi malum ipsum fuisse Spiritum, qui (Luthero) hoc dixerit? Et posito licet malus Spiri­tus fuisset, non sequitur tamen mox eum mentitum fuisse, quia & vera interdum Diaboli loquuntur, quando dicunt id, cu­jus Scriptura testis est. So confessedly is that true, which we object against Lu­ther.

8. As concerning Brereley in his Book a part of the Lives of the late pretended Reformers. Cap. 2. Sect. 1. obedience to the Spiritual Pastors, in behalf of the people he saith, The Governours of Chur­ches, [Page 37]and Pastors of Christs Sheep, have power indeed to teach, but the Sheep ought to give judgement, &c. Whereof let the Pope, Bishops, and Councels de­cree what they please, we will not hin­der it, but we who are Christs Sheep and hear his voice, are to judge whether those things be true which they pro­pound or no, and they ought to give place and subscribe to our censure and judgement, &c. Qui volunt perhiberi re­ctores Ecclesiarum & pastores ovium Chri­sti, habent quidem potestatem docendi, sed oves debent ferre judicium, utrum illi vo­cem Christi vel alienorum proponant; or­dinent Papa, Episcopi, Concilia, &c. quic­quid velint, non impediemus, sed penes nos qui oves Christi sumus, & vocem ejus audimus, erit judicium, utrum vera & consentanea voci pastoris nostri, proponant vel non, ac ipsi nobis cedere, nostrae censu­rae ac sententiae subscribere & obtempera­re debent. Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. fol. 375. a. initio; and next before there, fol. 374. b. fine, he saith: Christus ademit E­piscopis, Doctoribus & Conciliis, tum jus, tum potestatem judicandi de doctrina, ac tradit illa omnibus Christianis in genere. Is this the saying of a Sheep, or of a Wolf? Pu. Conformable to this Do­ctrine is that, which Bellarmine in prae­fat. de Conciliis & Ecclesia militante, saith of Luther. Igitur Martinus Lutherus, cum [Page 38]fama accepisset, indictum esse Concilium, continuè arrepto [...]alamo, librum confecit, atque inscripsit, De Conciliis: credes, ut ageret Deo gratias, & Ecclesiae gratulare­tur, atque omnes ad Concilium invitaret. Nihil minus; summa enim libri est, nihil es­se opus Conciliis, cum etiam vetera illa sanctissima & celeberrima erraverint, & quilibet Parochi & Ludi-Magistri non mi­nus possint in Ecclesia, quàm quaevis maxi­ma & numerosissima Concilia. Orditur à Concilio illo sine controversia antiquissimo & sanctissimo, quod Apostoli Hierosolymis celebraverunt: & quanquam in [...]o Conci­lio Apostoli decreverunt abstinendum esse à sanguine & suffocato, ad has angustias nos redigit, ut vel ab his cibis nos abstinea­mus, vel apertè fateamur liberum esse Con­cilio summo ac primo non obedire. Deinde, graviter exponit quanta calamitas esset, non vesci deinceps capreis, leporibus, cer­vis, cuniculis, anseribus, turdis, caeteris­que aviculis, & quod miserius est abstinere lucanicis, aliisque farciminibus, & juscu­lis etiam quibusdam, quae non solum pipere condiuntur, sed etiam sanguine (ut ipse lo­quitur, qui ista benè norat) vel liquido tinguntur, vel crasso, & coagulato infar­ciuntur. Quia vero tam gravis jactura nullo modo subeunda Luthero esse videba­tur, inde effecit, non esse Apostolico decre­to obtemperandum. Ex quo rursum ita [Page 39]conclusis; Ergo liberum est nobis omnia concilia relinquere, & sic liberi sumus ab omnibus Concilliis. Praeclare omnino, qua­si vero quia non tenemur ea Concilii lege, quae solum ad tempus data fuerat, jam nul­lis aliis Conciliorum legibus teneamur.

9 As concerning the [...] in his Booke a [...] [...]art of the lives of the late pretended Reformers &c. cap. 2. sect. 13. initio. souls im­mortality, Luther was in the end so ob­stinately bent against Purgatory and Prayer to Saints, that to prevent them he affirmed Luther tom. 4. Wittem. 1574. in Ecclesiasten c. 9. saith, Solomon sentire vide­tur mortuos sic dormire ut prorsus nihil sciant: & pla­ne credo non esse in scriptu­ra locum fortiorem pro mor­tuis dormientibus &c. con­tra sanctorum invocationem & purgatorii fictionem, fol. 36. b. c [...]rca med. And see Slei­dan's further report hereof con­cerning. Luther lib. 9. Anno 1534. fol. 116. a. initio, af­ter the English Translation, but read the Latine. Luther tom 4. Wittemb. fol. 37. b. ante med. saith, Sensit ergo Solomon, mortuos om­nino dormire, & nihil pror­sus sentire, jacent ibi mor­tui non numerantes Dies vel Annos, &c. Anima abit in lo­cum suum, ut intelligas in­fernum dici ubi continen­tur animae, & quasi quoddam sepulchrum animae extra hunc corporalem mundum, sicut terra est sepulchrum corporis. the Soul to sleep, to this end saying, the dead sleep &c. they alto­gether sleep and feel nothing, they lie there dead, neither numbring Daies, nor Years &c. with much more to this purpose.

10 As concerning even the most Brereley tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13. blessed and holy Trinity, Luther taught thus far to the contrary, as that the Divinity is three-fold, even as the three Persons be &c. And the same so grosly, as he is therein specially confuted by Zuinglius, tom. 2. in resp. ad confes. Lutheri fol. 474. b. fine. saying, Nec enim hunc Lutheri Sermonem immodestius vel fe­rocius exagitabo, quo, sic inquit, Hic de sola & unica Divinitate dicitur, quod illa triplex vel trium sit generum, quemadmodum & tres personae &c. In quibus verbis gravis­simi errores latitant &c. mihi certè cum librum istum, Lutheri, lego, porcum quen­dam impurum in horto floribus consito fra­grantis simis, hinc inde grunnire videre videor, tam impurè, tam parum theologicè, [Page 40]tam impropriè de Deo & sacris omnibus disputat Lutherus &c. And upon this ground perhaps it was, that where the Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7. There be three wich give witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three be one, This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity, is neverthe­less quite omitted by Luther in his Dutch Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 14. Bibles. As also he likewise put forth of the Vide Enchirid. prec: Anni 1543. Letanies this verse, Holy Tri­nity one very God have mercy upon us, af­firming that the word Luther in postil: majo­re Basiliae apud Herruagium in enarrat: Evang: Domini­cae Trinitatis. And see further Examples of this kind mentio­ned by Cnoglerus in his Sym­bola tria pag. 121 & 122. and by Ulembergius in his Graves & justae causae &c. Printed 1589. pag. 534. Where he allegeth Luther's foresaid words at large, out of the se­cond part of his Postil. printed Anno 1537. fol. 158. b.Trinity is but a humane invention, and soundeth coldly, and concludeth that his Soul hateth the word Homousion.

11 As concerning the Luther in lib. contra Jacobum La [...]omum tom. 2. Wittemb. latinè Edito An. 155 [...]. saith, Anima mea odit [...]& optimè exegerunt Arriani, ne vocem illam pro­phanam, & novam regulis si­dei statui liceret. We know [saith Brereley here] Luther's late Editions to be herein alte­red and corrupted by his Scho­lars, whereof see the like in this present section 10. subdivis. 2. and more subdivis. 14. at z. a, b, therefore we so specially cite the first Edition. Author of our Sinns, Luther teacheth thus dange­rously, saying, in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem Art. 36. Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2 sect. 10. subdiv. 14. Quomodo potest sese ad bonum praeparare, cum nec in pote­state sit suas vias malas facere. Nam & mala opera in impiis Deus operatur, ut prov. 16. dicitur, omnia propter semetip­sum operatus est Dominus, etiam impium, ad diem malum. How can Man prepare himself to good, seeing it is not (so much as) in his power to make his wayes evill, for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked &c. Thus stand Luthers words in the antient Editions of his workes at Wit­temburg and also at Basill 1521. and so recited by Roffensis in his Confutatio as­sertionis [Page 41]Lutheranae &c. printed at An­twerp 1523. Art. 36. fol. 204. a. fine Whereas in the latter corrupted editions of Wittemberg tom. 2. Anno 1592. fol. 112. a. fine, his Scholars have instead of the word operatur, thrust in regit. And a­gain (ubi supra art. 36.) he saith, Nulli est in manu sua quippiam cogitare mali aut boni, sed omnia (ut Wyccleffi articulus Constantiae damnatus rectè docet) de neces­sitate absoluta eveniunt, quod & Poëta voluit, quando dixit, Certa stant omnia lege. It is in no mans power to think Good or Evill, but all things (as Wiccliffs article condemned at Constance doth rightly teach) proceed from absolute necessity &c. This saying thus extant in the Editions, and in Roffensis before alleged, are corrupted & altered in the foresaid last Edition of Wit­temberg tom. 2, fol. 112. b. fine. Yet more (de servo arbitrio cap. 32) Luther saith, Christiani non libero arbitrio, sed spiritu Dei aguntur. Rom. 8. Agi verè non est agere, sed rapi, quemadmodum serra aut securis à fabro agitur: Et hic ne quis dubitet Lu­therum tam absurda dicere, verba ejus re­citat Diatribe, quae sane agnosco. Fateor enim articulum illum Wyccleffi (omnia necessitate fieri) esse falso damnatum in Constantiensi Conciliabulo &c. These words of Luther being extant in the Edi­tions of Luther's life time, and so appa­rently his known words, that they are ac­cordingly verbatim extant in this very [Page 42]Treatise of Luther de servo arbitrio, set forth by that prime Calvinist Jacobus Kimedoncius, and printed 1603 Neustadii in Palatinatu fol. 195. circa med. are yet neverthe less altered and corrupted in Lu­thers Editions of Wittemberg tom. 2. prin­ted 1562. fol. 455. a. post med. And see Luther's like Doctrine in the foresaid Book de servo arbitrio set forth by Kime­doncius pag. 3 [...]. Much more might be alleged from Luther and his Scholars in this behalf. Brereley in the Omissions of pag. 428. adds. Also Brentius, whom Mr. Jewell in his defence &c. pag. 473. termeth a grave and learned Father, in his Commentarie upon Amos, printed Hagonae 1530. with Luther's Preface thereto, in cap. 3. saith of Gods secret Will, Omnia à Deo potenti manu & effi­caci fiunt, sive mala culpae, sive mala poe­nae. Deus enim est qui obduravit Pharao­nem &c.

And Luther himself de servo arbitrio saith, Deus indignos coronat, immeritos damnat, quomodo hoc justum sit incompre­hensibile est modò, videbimus autem cum illic venerimus. See these words of Lu­ther alleged by the Calvinist writer Matthias Martinius, in his doctrinae Christianae summa capita, &c. Printed 1603 pag. 288. post med. From whom and from their Principles of advancing onely Faith, extenuating good works, and other like doctrines, have sprung, as [Page 43]from a Hydra, the late sect of the Liber­tines, who uppon the very foresaid It appears by Calvin's report of their words in tract. Theolog. pag. 540. a. circa med, their chief Reason to be, Cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit, nullum jam boni & mali discrimen esse ha­ [...]dum, sed quicquid agitu [...] bonum esse. grounds and colours (denying never­thelesse verbally as Protestants doe, God to be the Author of sin, and verbally also requiring integrity of life and man­ners) have set abroad to the world by their published writings (stored with testimonies of Scriptures) all Epicurism and impure liberty of life. Which point we shall repeat, and say somewhat more of it hereafter in the life of Calvin.

12. Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2 sect. 10. subdivis. 15. Zuinglius tom. 2. in resp: ad conf: Lutheri, reproveth in Luther his willfull frowardness, or obstinacie, a­gainst that which himself conceived for true, or even though it be proved to be against holy Scripture, saying, Lutherus obstinato & devoto animo conceptam semel opinionem persequi & obtinere conatur; nec multum curare solet, quodcunque de re quavis pronunciet, etiamsi vel sibi ipsi, vel divini verbi oraculo contradicere de­prehendatur. These words of Zuinglius are also in Schlusselburg in Theologia Cal­vinistarum l. 2. fol. 122. a. fine. Thus Luther of Communion under both kinds saith (de formula Missae) If the Councell should in any case decree this, least of all then would wee use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Councell and that Decree, we would use either but one kind onely, or neither, and in no case both. See Luther [Page 44]tom. 3. Germ. fol. 274. And see this say­ing of Luther alleged and rejected by Hospinian in hist: Sacramentar: part: altera, fol. 13. a. post med. And whereas Mr. Jewell answereth hereunto in his reply against Mr. Harding, pag. 107. post med: that Luther only meant that Gods truth should not hang upon the authority of man, to forbear that this is Mr. Jewels device or shift, and no words in all that passage of Luther to explain his meaning for onely such; can yet this meaning, though admitted, inable Luther to teach that in despite of the Councell wee should use either but one kind or neither, which last were directly against Christs institu­tion? For which cause Hospinian as be­fore, rejecteth this saying of Luther. Of like nature is it where he teacheth (tom. 2. Germ. fol. 214.) that if the Councell should grant the Church-men liberty to marry, he would think that man more in Gods grace, who during his life kept three whores, then he who married ac­cording to the Councels decree, and that he would command under pain of dam­nation, that no man should marry by the permission of such a Councell, but should either live chast, or if it were impossible, then not to despair, though he kept a whore. In like manner he saith in parva confessione touching Elevation of the Sa­crament, I did know the elevation of the [Page 45]Sarament to be Idolatricall (as making for Sacrifice) yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittemberg, to the end I might despite the devill Carolosta­dius: Elevationem Sacramenti sciebam esse idolatricam, sed tamen eam retinebam in Templo Wittemburgensi, ut aegrè face­rem Diabolo Carolostadio. And see Lu­ther tom. 3. Germ. fol. 55. and in Col­loquiis Mensalibus Germ. fol. 210. A Saying and Practice so gross, that A­mandus Polanus, Professor at Basill, specially mentioneth and reprooveth the same (in Syllogethes. Theolog. pag. 464. ante medium) saying further, ibidem, I will not recite more of Luther's absurd Sayings, which are many: Sed nolo plu­ra absurde dicta Lutheri recensere, quae multa sunt, quae tegenda potius quam exagitanda &c. And Hospini­an in Hist. Sacramentar. part. altera. fol. 14. a. initio, reciteth this Saying of Luther, tearming it, minimè profe­cto conveniens oratio Christiano Theo­logo, & magna infirmitas in Luthero: A speach unworthy of a Christian Divine, and shewing a great weakness in Luther. Pu. To this may be added, that Luther in his Book of abrogat­ing the private Masse, exhorts the Augustine Fryars of Wittemberg who first abrogated the Masse, that even [Page 46]against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he had Vide Tanner tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108. done the like. And Joannes Mathesius a Lutheran Prea­cher saith, Antonius In orat. Germ. 12. de Luthero. Musa the Parish Priest of Rocklitz, recounted to me, that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor he means Luther that he him­self could not believe what he preached to others: and that D. Luther answered; Praise and thanks be to God, that this hap­pens also unto others, for I had thought it had happened only to me Pu. Who can believe him who believes not himself?.

(Pu.) Pause here a little Protestant Reader, and if the salvation of thy Soul be dear to thee in any least measure, con­sider uprightly with fear and trembling, whether indeed it could be any scruple of conscience, which could move Luther to forsake the whole Church of Christ dispersed over the whole world, when he appeared, seeing he had a conscience large enough to swallow a sin confessed by him To be Idolatry, and yet how in the mean time, I can­not say whether more prodigiously or hypocritically to, &c. to forsake us Catholicks even upon pretence of Idolatry. If he could against his conscience leave Carolostadius, one of his own Brethren, expresly and formerly, upon the motive of vexing and despising him, who can wonder if he forsook the Church and Pope of Rome upon passion, rage, and hatred, and not because he found any thing taught by [Page 47]them, which his conscience could not have disgested, if his passions had not been stronger than his reason & conscience? So that his revolt was not upon judgement, but envy and passion that John Tecel a Dominican Fryar, and not he or some of his Order was appointed to promul­gate some Indulgences granted at that time, in so much that we have seen a­bove, how he would have submitted to the Pope, if confessed pride had not hindered him Confessing further that he began to Preach against Indul­gencies, when (saith he as witnesseth Sleydan l. 16. fol. 232. b. fine) I scarcely under­stood what the name of Indul­gence meant, which are Lu­thers words in Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177. b. paulò post medi­um Yea the Ar. &c.. Yea the Arguments in favour of us Catholicks against his new course were so many, and of all kinds, and so evident and convincing, that not­withstanding his strong passions, hard heart, and large conscience, (of which we have spoken even now) they forced him to great trembling, perplexity, and remorse of conscience, and to say as him­self confesseth (tom. 2. Germ. Gen. fol. 9. b. And tom. 2. Wittemberg: of Anno 1652. lib. de abroganda Missa privata fol. 244. b. ante med.) How often did my trem­bling heart beat within me, and reprehen­ding me, object against me that most strong Argument, Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds erre? Were so many ages ig­norant? What if thou errest and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? See his like sayings tom. 5 Wit­temberg, in Galatas cap. 1. fol. 290 a. ver­sus sinem. And he further saith in an other [Page 48]place tom. 5. Annotat. breviss. Dost thou O sole man, and of no accompt, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to erre, why may he not per­mit thee to erre? Hitherto appertain those Arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councils, the Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men: whom do not these hills of Arguments, these Clouds, yea these Seas of examples overwhelm? And now what trust can Protestants give to their own learned Writers, as well English, as of other Nations, who with shameful flat­tery, and inexcusable partialitie call Lu­ther, See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15. this very man (who was of so large, and yet so desperate and despai­ring a conscience) Holy Saint Luther (as Gabriel Powel saith of him in his consi­deration of the Papists supplication pag. 70. prope initium) Jewel in his Apology of the Church of England part. 4. c. 4. sect. 2. and in his de­fence of the Apology Printed 1571 [...] pag. 426. prope fi­nem. a man sent of God to lighten the world: See Acts & Monum. pag. 416. a. initio. Christus haber primas, ha­beas tibi Paule, sicundas: At loca post illos proxima Lu­ther habet.the Helias, Con­ductor and Chariot of Israel: to be reve­renced next after Christ, and Paul: Andraeas Musculus in praefat. [...]n libellum Germ. de Diaboli ty [...]annide. greater then whom lived not since the A­postles time;Schlusselburg Catalog. haeretic. l. 13. & ult. pag. 314. 316. & 489. And Michael Leander in his Theologia Christiana, &c. saith, Luthe­rus vir Dei fuit, & verè ille A [...] gelus cum aeterno Evan­gelio volans per medium Cael, Apocal. 14.the Angel and last trum­pet of God. But woe be to them that call evill good, and good evill, exalting Schis­matical and Heretical sinners, and de­spising true and Orthodox believers and Saints! Worthily therefore doth Bre­reley [Page 49]end his 15. subdivision in the place cited with this exclamation. O sin and most hateful sin of former Catholick times, which (in Gods just Judgement) made the world (for the time) subject to such efficacie of error (2 Thessal. 2.) and gross illusion.

14. We have seen above Luthers shameless words and works concerning Chastity. Let us now say something of his Charity. And (not to repeat that he would rather offend God most grie­vously even by Idolatry, than not to vex and despite Carolostadius, as Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 10. concer­ning the implacable contentions between him and the Zuinglians or Calvinists, to whom our English Divines adhere, and how they disclaimed each one an o­ther, Luther expresseth, saying: (contra Articulos Lovanienses thes. 27. tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 503.) We censure in earnest the Zuinglians and all the Sacra­mentaries for Hereticks, and alienated from the Church of God. And in Epistola ad Jacobum Presbyterum he saith, Bea­tus vir, qui non abiit in Concilio Sacra­mentariorum, nec stetit in via Zuinglia­norum, nec sedit in Cathedra Tigurino­rum. Habes quid sentiam. Blessed is the man, who hath not gone in the Councel of Sacramentaries, nor stood in the way of Zuinglians, nor sate in the Chair of the Tigurines. And (tom. 7. Wittemberg. fol. 381. b. & 382. b.) I do protest before [Page 50]God and the world, that I do not agree with them, nor ever will while the world stan­deth, but will have my hands clear from the bloud of those Sheep, which these He­reticks do drive from Christ, deceive, and kill. And again in the same place, Cur­sed be the Charity and Concord of Sacra­mentaries for ever and ever to all Eter­nity. And a little before his death he protesteth saying: Luther de Caena Do­mini tom. 2. Germ. fol. 174. And see this also reported by the Tigurine Divines in confess. Orthodox. Ecclesiae Tigur. tract. 3. fol. 108. And Lu­ther com. 3. Germ. fol. 264. calleth them persons condemned in their own knowledge, with whom he will have no inter­course neither by letters, wri­tings, or words. I have now one of my feet in the Grave, I will carry this te­stimony and glory to the tribunal of God, that I will with all my heart condemn and eschew Carolostadius, Zuinglius, Oeco­lampadius, and their Scholars, nor will have with any of them familiarity, nei­ther by letters or writings, neither by words nor deeds, accordingly as the Lord hath commanded: with infinite much more to the same effect. To make this more evident as yet, by the like answera­ble testimonies of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, the Tigurine Divines say hereof; Tigurini tract. 3. con­tra-supremam Luthe [...]i con­fessionem pag. 61. And the Author of the Treatise against the defence of the censure, doth hereupon charge Luther with breath of all Christian modesty, and immoderate zeal. pag. 155. circa med. even far beyond the bounds of Charity and modesty pag. 101. ante med. Nos condemnatam & execra­bilem vocat sectam, &c. Luther calleth us a damnable and execrable sect, but let him look that he do not declare himself an Arch-hereticke, seeing he will not, nor can­not have any society with those that confess Christ: But how marvelously doth Luther here bewray himself with his Devils? what filthy words doth he use, and such as are replenished with all the Devils in hell? For be saith, that the Devil dwelleth both [Page 51]now and ever in the Zuinglians, and that they have a blasphemous breast, insatha­nized, superthanized, and persathanized, and that they have besides a most vain mouth, over which Sathan beareth rule, being infused, perfused, and transfused into the same. Did ever man hear such speeches as these pass from a furious Devil himself? In so much as Zuinglius (tom. 2. in resp. ad confessionem Lutheri fol. 478.) saith, En ut totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur! Behold how Sa­than doth endeavour wholly to possess this man. And Oecolampadius (in respon­sione ad confess: Lutheri) accordingly forewarneth Luther, lest that being puf­fed up by arrogancy and pride he be sedu­ced by Satan. And the Tigurine Divines (in confessione Germanica impressa Tiguri Anno 1544. in Octavo fol. 3.) say, Su­perioribus diebus edidit Martinus Luthe­rus librum, quem inscripsit (Brevis con­fessio de Sacr amento) in quo non obscurè pro Haereticis Sacramentariis & scelera­tissimis hominibus, habet & condemnat Oecolampadium, Zuinglium, & omnes Tigurinos: liber plenus est daemoniis, ple­nus impudicis dicteriis, scatet iracundia & furore, &c.

15. Concerning his Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subdivis. 2. pride, where­with he was so vainly conceited, that he imagined himself to be the only one of mortal men whom Satan foresaw to be hurtful to him, saying, (loc. com. class. 4. [Page 52] pag. 50. circa medium:) Videtur mihi Satanas à pueritia mea aliquid in me praevidisse eorum, quae nunc patitur, ideo ad perdendum, ad impediendumque me in­sanivit incredibilibus machinis, ut saepius fuerim admiratus, egone solus essem inter mortales quem peteret: as if Religion had been to begin and dye with him, and accordingly he saith (in Epist. ad Ar­gentinenses Anno 1525.) Christum à no­bis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari, We dare glory Christ to have been first made known by us: and (in loc. com. class. 2. pag. 83. post med.) he saith, Nobis adhuc vi­ventibus, &c. perpauci sunt etiam inter il­los, qui pii videri volunt, & nobiscum profitentur Evangelium, qui ista reotè te­neant. Quid futurum putatis nobis abla­tis? And (class. 5. pag. 40. initio) he further saith, Timeo quod ista doctrina nobis extinctis iterum obscur abitur. And (ibidem class. 5. pag. 40. post med.) he further saith, Si nostra Ecclesia pulcher­rimè instituta, &c. sic subverteretur, ut me amplius Doctorem suum agnoscere non vellet, id quod aliquando fiet, si non vi­ventibus nobis, tamen sublatis nobis, &c. And ibidem pag. 43. paulo post med. E­rit fortè tempus, ut & mihi liceat dicere, Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in ista nocte. And again a little after there, Quantum sectarnm excitavit Satan nobis viventibus, &c? quid futurum est nobis mortuis? And ibidem class. 2. pag. 53. [Page 53] post med. he saith, Legis usus, ut timeo, post tempora nostra iterum obscurabitur, & prorsùs obruetur. The Reader will sind more of Luthers intolerable pride and testimonies thereof out of Prote­stants above in his contemning the holy Fathers, and all Antiquity; and in his impugning Magistracie, and rayling a­gainst Princes and States.

16. Concerning the Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 1. success and preservation of Christian profession in general, he affirmed and taught (to the great danger thereof) that to War against the Turke was to resist God visiting our sins by them; (Luther tom. 2. Wittemberg. in assertionib. damnatis per Leonem de­cimum Art. 34. fol. 110. which was, Praeliari adversus Turcas est repugnare visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos.) And in explicat. Articuli 34. fol. 111. a. he saith among other defensions there­of, Sicut Michaeas qui & ipse odiosus erat, quia non prophetabat nisi malum, dicam & ipse meo Achab, ite, praeliamini contra Turcas, ut resistatis virgae Dei, & cadatis sicut & Achab cecidit; which saying of Luther argued so evidently the indisposi­tion of his mind to the avail of Christians against the Turk, That M. Harvey in his Theological discourse, &c. p. 115. a. initio saith thereof, The Gospel is dispersed in most parts of the earth, as much and more then the Alcoran, howsoever Luther in a fu­rious imitation of Michaeas, hath rapt out the contrary, as if he desired rather the [Page 55]name of a Prophet among Infidels, than of a friend to Christians. And further Luther in Epistola contra duo mandata Im­perialia saith, Oro cunctos pios Christia­nos, nè ullo modo sequantur, vel in militi­am ire velint, vel dare aliquid contra Turcas, quandoquidem Turca decies pru­dentior probiorque est, quàm Principes nostri. See also tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 419. b. And Luther in confut. determin. Doctorum Paris. impress. Noriberg. 1525. saith, ut liberè animum meum aperiam, hoc apertè de me praedico, quod tam invi­tus Turcam gladio impeterem, quàm Chri­stianum fratrem: the which said opini­on (that to War against the Turk was to resist God visiting our sins) he did also af­terwards more at large defend, conclu­cluding and saying (in explicat. Art. 34. prope finem:) He that ears to hear let him hear, and abstain from the Turkish Wars whiles the Popes name prevaileth under Heaven: I have said. And hereof see the Treatise against the defence of the cen­sure pag. 230. ante med. & 231. initi [...]. And Luther in his Book de bello contra Turcas affirmeth, that the Devil by Gods permission did govern and hinder the Councels and Assemblies of the Princes of Germany, for no other cause, but that his Article of not warring against the Turk might remain in force and uncon­demned. And whereas a Protestant Writer (in his Apology of the Profes­sors [Page 54]of the Gospel, &c. against Peter Frareins pag. 31. initio) doth excuse all this as meant of those Christians which were under the Turks dominion: it is so directly against the scope and circum­stance of Luthers words (his former men­tion of resisting Gods visiting us by the Turk, and likewise of the Princes of Ger­many, and the whole passage of his Treatise made thereof at large, avoy­ding this answer, in so much as the Au­thor of the defence of the Censure pag. 231. laboureth to excuse Luther other­wise) which also are in some places as sounding to disswade us from making for­tifications against the Turk, that Roffensis in confut. Assert. Luther. Printed 1523. art. 34. Rof­fensis did therefore write specially a­gainst this his foresaid Doctrine, at large reciting and confuting his reasons. The words of Luther are, Impia et inanis fiducia est in munitionibus, vallis, bom­bardis, et si quande Deo ita fuerit visum, ut Turca grassetur in Germaniam, non tue­buntur nos aggeres isti, &c. quando genua flectimus et clamamus ad Creatorem no­strum, is poterit igneos muros nobis cir­cundare: ego odi molem istam vallorum et munitionum, quia nihil aliud est quam perditio pecuniae, et ostentatio extremae stultitiae: id potius agendum est, ut firmi­ter statuamus, nos esse in manu Creatoris, et non tantum nos sed etiam hostes et Dia­bolos, &c. Thus adviseth he, that neg­lecting [Page 56]ordinary means, we should, with out respect thereto, depend immediatly upon miraculous help from God: see these words in Luther, loc. com. class. 4. pag. 84. And ubi supra class. 5. pag. 142. circa med. it is said, Dissuadet (Lutherus) bellum Turcicum, nec in veteri nec in novo Testamento ullum gestum est bellum hu­manis viribus, nisi semper infelici even­tu: si quid autem recte cessit, de coelo fuit bellatum, &c. Which foresaid Doctrine of Luther was also so known and See hereof Belforest: in Cosmogra. l. 2. cap. 7. col. 579 grateful to the Turk, that (as Luthers own Scholar reporteth) Manlius in loc. com. pag. 636. fine. the Turkish Emperour (to the great shame of Luther) hearing hereof, demanded of our Chri­stian Embassador how old Luther was, and wished him younger, promising to be his very good Lord. And the Duke of Saxony (a Professor of Luthers Do­ctrine) was accordingly holden charge­able, as Hereof see Sleydan l. 18. fol. 277. ante medium. being confederate with the Turk. In so much as Erasmus (whom our adversaries think to have been Acts Mon. pag. 404. a. fine. in­differently affected towards Luther) saith hereof (in Epistola ad Fratres inferiores Germaniae pag. 39.) Many of the Saxons following that first Doctrine of Luher, de­nyed to Caesar and King Ferdinand aid against the Turks, &c. and said they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptized, then for a Turk Baptized, thereby meaning the Emperour. Whereunto might be added [Page 57]the further example of the German Protestants See this in Sleydan l. 17. fol. 94. b. prope initium. and fol. 95 a. post mediunt. and in Osiander centur. 16 pag. 193. circa medium. denying their Empe­rour to give aid against the Turk, unelss their own conditions were first agreed to.

17. Concerning the Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2. Canonical Scrip­tures, if it be true which M. Fulk saith (in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 214. circa med.) that whosoever denyeth the au­thority of holy Scriptures, thereby bewrai­eth himself to be an Heretick, what is then to be thought of Luther, who denyed sundry confessed parts thereof? Con­cerning the Apocalyps, Bullinger (upon the Apocalyps Englished c. 1. serm. 1 fol. 2. a. post med.) giveth testimony saying, Doctor Martin Luther hath as it were stic­ked this Book by a sharp Preface set before his Edition of the New Testament in Dutch, for which his judgement good and learned men were offended with him. And concerning the Epistle of St. James, Lu­ther not in the latter edition of Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2. Wit­temberg corrupted by the Zuinglians and others, (of which alteration made in Luthers works the zealous Lutherans in a Synod holden at For Theodosius Fa­bricius in his collections of Lu­thers sayings, intituled loci communes Doctoris Marti­ni, &c. Printed 1594. in his Preface circa med. set before the book, professeth there to fol­low the Edition of Jena, saying there further: Cur ab iditione Wittembergensi discedam, causas habeo non comtem­nendas. As in like manner Master Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline, pag. 225. chargeth the Puritans with like corruption of other Protestants works. Altemburg and Col­ [...]oqui Altemberg. in respon. ad excusa Cor. fol. 227. & vide 2. respons. ad Hypoth. [...] fol. 284. ad fol. 290. & fol. 353. & 355. & vide ibidem Hypotheses de libero ar­ [...]trio fol. 574. b. & 575. a. And Conradus Schlusseburg in his Theologia Calvi­ [...]istarum l. 2. fol. 56. b. chargeth the Calvinists with alteration of Luthers Works. [Page 58] Of the great contentions is Germany between the rigid and soft Lutherans concerning the false and corrupt editions of Luthers works, See Walterus contra Aurifabrum de cor­rupta editione Operum Lu­theri Anno 1566. And see further proof of Luthers works corrupted, in the defence of the censure pag. 55. And see Bre­reley in the conclusion to the Judges sect. 9. and in the mar­gent at d. Of this corrupting Luthers Works see also above. elsewhere, do greatly complain: as also Joachim Westphalus Apol. con­tra Calvinist. c. 46. pag. 458. And Luther himself in Epist. ad Jo. Harvagium Typographum Argentinensem [...]har­geth Bucer with corrupting his works.Westphalus a Lutheran doth in like manner charge Calvin with most foul mutations and corruptions made in certain of Luthers Works translated into French, and Printed at Geneva) but in the more antient edition of Jena (a City in Religion Lutheran) uttereth these words, which some of our adver­saries (to speak the least) have no less then over boldly Over-boldly denyed in the Tower disputation with Edmund Campian the first days conference. c.iiii. Luther praefat. in Epist. Ja­cobi in editione Jenensi fine. denyed: The Epistle of James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical Spirit. In so much as Illyricus (Luthers own Scho­lar) whom Mr. Thomas Bell tearmeth a Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 28. See Pome­ran. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 4. And Vitus Theodorus in Annot. in nov. Test. pag. ult. And the Century writers of Magdeburg cent. [...]. l. 2. c. 4 & cent. 2. l. 3. c. 4. And Hafferefferus in loc. Theologic. l. 3. sta [...]. 3. loc. 7. pag. 292. And Adamus Francisci in Margarita The­ol. pag. 488. saith, Apoc [...]aphi libri novi Testamenti, sunt Epistola ad Haebreos, E­pistola Jacobi, secunda & tertia Joannis, posterior Petri, Epistola Judae & Apocalyp.very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth, expresseth and defendeth Luthers foresaid judge­ment, saying, Luther in his Preface up­on St. James Epistle, giveth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be ac­compted for a writing of Apostolical au­thority; to which reasons I think every godly man ought to yield. Which fore­said [Page 59]judgement of Luther concerning this and other parts of the new Testa­ment is yet to this day so continued and defended by Luthers other Scholars that (to omit sundry of them) Chemnitius (Luthers greatest Scholar) affirmeth that Chem [...]itius in Enchyrid, &c. pag. 63. And see Chem­nitius in his examen. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 55. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the He­brews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalyps of John are Apocryphal, Chemnitius exam. part. 1. pag. 56. b. initio.as not having sufficient testimony of their authority: and there­foreChemnitius ibidem p. 57. a.that nothing in controversie may be proved out of these Books. Moreover Luther lib de servo arbitrio contra Eras­mum tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 471.) saith, The Jews place the Book of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be Judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the Ca­non. Protestants, when they will exclude from the Canon Books received by Ca­tholicks, they allege, that they are not in Hebrew; and yet Luther likes not Esther, though he confesseth the He­brews admit it. And of Ecclesiastes he saith (in latinis sermonibus convivalibus Francofurt. in Octavo impres. Anno 1571.) This Book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants Boots and Spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery. And much more [Page 60]is to be read in him: who (in Germ. Col­loq. ab Aurifabro editis Francofurti tit. de libris veteris & Novi Test. fol. 379.) saith further, that the said Book was not written by Salomon, but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the Jews Bible) out of many Books heaped into one Work, perhaps out of the Library of King Prolo­maeus. And further he saith ibidem tit. de Patriarchis & Prophet. fol 28 [...]. that he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down. And teacheth tit. de lib. vet. & Novi Test. The Book of Job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Comedy) to set before us an ex­ample of Patience. And he (fol. 380.) delivers this general censure of the Pro­phets Books: The Sermons of no Prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their Disciples, and Auditors, snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one Book, and by this means the Bible was conserved. If this were so, the Books of the Prophets, being not writ­ten by themselves, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soon be called in question. Concerning now the other Books of Scripture, although Luther acknowledged many of them for Canonical, how far yet hee was chargeable otherwise in mistranslating [Page 61]them, we will refer to the credit of Zuing­lius his testimony, who (tom. 2. ad Lu­ther. l. de Sacrament. pag. 412. b. 413. a.) saith hereof to Luther: Thou dost corrupt (Luther) the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scriptures, how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man. And see the like testimony of Keckermannus in Brere­ley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. initio at b. saying (in System. S. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188. circa medium) Lutheri versio Germanic. in vet. Test. praesertim in Job & Prophetis, naevos suos habet non exiguos. Omitting many other particulars, we will here ob­serve, that whereas it is said 1 Joan. 5.7. There are three which give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity, is omitted by Luther in his Dutch Bibles. In like manner where it is said Rom. 3.28. We accompt a man to be justifyed by faith, without the works of the Law, Luther, to colour his doctrine of only faith, translateth here justifyed by faith alone; and being admonished of his thus adding here to the text the word a­lone, he persisteth wilful, saying tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. & 144. Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit [Page 62]pro ratione voluntas &c. Lutherus ita vult, & ait se esse Doctorem super omnes Docto­res in toto Papatu. And concludeth last­ly, Propterea debet (vox sola) in meo novo Testamento manere, etiamsi omnes Papis­mi ad insaniam reducantur, tamen non eam inde tollent: paenitet me quod non ad­diderim & illas duas voces, omnibus & omnium viz. Sine omnibus operibus om­nium legum. (Pu. Mark his boldness to addo even to the text of holy Scripture.) In like manner Luther doubteth not to argue the Aposties themselves of error in doctrine, which is to the great preju­dice and danger of their writings (for if they did or might erre in Doctrine, how then can we be sure that they were the Scribes of the holy Ghost, and that their writings be Canonical and voyd of er­rour? To this end Luther saith (in Epist. ad Galat. Cap. 1. after the English tran­slation fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio, & tom. 5. Wittemberg. of An. 1554. fol. 290. b.) Be it that the Church, Austine, and other Doctors, also Peter, Apollo, yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet is my Doctrine such, as set­teth forth Gods only Glory, &c. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God. And in the same place fol. 290. a. fine, he further saith, Sive S. Cyprianus, [Page 63]Ambrosius, Augustinus, five S. Petrus, Paulus, imò Angelus è Coelo aliter doceat, tamen hoc certè scio, quòd humana non suadeo, sed Divina. Yet further against St. James his mentioning of extreme Unction he saith de captivit. Babylon. (de extrema Unctione in tom. 2. Wittem­berg. fol. 86. h. ante med.) Ego autem­dico, si uspi am deliratum est, &c. tamen si etiam esses Epistola Jacobi dicerem non licere Apostolum sua authoritate Sacra­mentum instituere. &c. Hoc enim ad Chri­stum solum pertinebat. I further say, that if in any place it be erred (Pu [...]or be done like a man doting or raving) in this place es­pecially it is erred, &c. (or done like one doting or raving) but though this were the Epistle of James I would answer, that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his autho­rity to institute a Sacrament. For this ap­pertained to Christ alone. As though that blessed Apostle would publish a Sacra­ment without warrant from Christ. In like manner concerning Moses he saith (tom. 3. Wittemberg. in Psalmum 45 fol. 423. a. & vide ibidem fol. 422. and tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40.41. & in Colloq. Mens. Germ. fol. 152.153.) Habuit Moses la­bia, sed profunda, infacunda, impedita, ira­ta, in quibus non est verbum gratiae sed irae, mortis & peccati: colligite omnes sa­pientias Moysis, Gentium & Philosopho­rum, [Page 64]& invenietis eas coram Deo esse vel dolatriam, vel sapientiam hypocriticam, vel si est politica sapientiam irae, &c. Ha­ [...]et enim Moyses labia diffusa fellè & ira, &c. Moses hath his lips unpleasant, stop­ [...]ed, and angry, &c. Do you collect toge­ther all the wisdoms of Moyses and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God either idolatry, or hypocritical wisdom, or if it be politick (yet but) the wisdom of wrath, &c. Moyses hath his lips full of Gall and anger, &c. away therefore with Moyses, &c.

18. As concerning Brerely tract. 2 cap. 2. s [...]ct. 10. subdivis. 3. faith, Luther reproveth as well such Protestants as say, Luther upon the Gala­thians Englished, in cap. 2. fol. 67. u. post med. Neither can faith be true faith without charity, as also those others who teach, Luther ibidem fol. 67. circa med. though my faith be never so perfect, yet if this faith be without charity, I am not justified, calling it Luther ibid. fol. 68. b. prope finem, & fol. 126. b. And see Luther in his Sermons Englished, &c. pag. 204. cir­ca. med. impiety to affirm, that faith except it be adorned with cha­rity, justifyeth not. Nay he proceeded so far, as he doubted not to say: Luther tom. 1. prop. 3. Fides nisi sit sine, &c. Faith unless it be with­out even the least good works, doth not ju­stify, nay it is no faith. Which saying of his D. Covell specially acknowledgeth and reciteth, tearming it Covell in his defence of Hookers five Books of Eccle­siastical Policie pag. 42. ante med. harsh, and justly called in question by the Church of Rome. He also further taught, that Luther tom. 2. Wit­temberg. de captivit. Baby­lon. fol. 74. and see further hereof in the Treatise against the defence of the censure. p. 198.a Christian or Baptized person is so rich, that although he would he cannot lose his sal­vation by any sin how great soever, unless [Page 65]he will not believe. Whereof he giveth this reason elsewhere, saying, As nothing justifyeth but faith, so nothing sinneth but unbelief. (Luther in loc. com. &c. class. 5. c. 27. pag. 68. initio, and in 2. part. Po­still. Germ. Printed Argentorati Anno 1537. fol. 140. b.) he saith, No sin is so great which can condemn a man: for only infidelity condemneth all men that are condemned, and on the contrary only faith maketh all men blessed.

19. As concerning Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. good Works, Luther teacheth (in his Sermons Engli­shed, &c. pag. 147. antemed.) that works take their goodness of the worker, and (pag. 278.) that no work is disallowed of God, unless the Author thereof be disallowed be­fore, saying thereof further, such a one worketh nothing but good works, neither can it be but good, which he being good be­fore shall do. And as concerning the ne­cessity of good works affirmed against him by English Protestants, (as Willet, Whita­ker, &c. whereof see Brereley pag. 392. 1.) it is so far disclaimed in by him and his followers, that they deny Illyricus in praefat. ad Rom. & vide Schlusselburg in Catalog. Haereticorum l. 13. & ult. pag: 819. circa med. good works to be so much as (causa sine qua non) of salvation, affirming the controversie with the Illyricus in praefat. ad Rom. And see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. b. and 231.324.382. and 352.Papists to be (not only) whe­ther good works do justify, but also whether they be in any respect necessary to salvation. Which last position, they call Illyricus ubi supra. a Pa­pistical error, terming it the Illyricus ibidem.Doctrine [Page 66]of the new Papists, as pernicious as the old, to say (as English Protestants do) that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious and causes efficient. They will not in the point of our justi­fication grant Schlusselburg in Ca­talog: H [...]ereticorum l. 13. in Epist. dedicatoria pag. 22. paulò post med. good works to be ne­cessary (necessitate praesentiae) so much as with necessity of presence, condemning their Brethrens contrary Doctrine for Illyricus de originali just tia ac injustitia in ap­pendice pag. 163. worse then is the Papists Doctrine: and they fortifie themselves herein with the testimony of See Luthers sayings al­leged in Actis Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 8. circa. med and in Illyricus in prae­fat. ad Rom. Luther, and have pro­ceeded so far against all necessity of good works, that some of them (as namely Amsdorphius a Protestant Divine of great Dresserus in Millena­rio Sexto Printed 1598. pag. 187. post med. saith, Nicholaus Amsdorphius Wittem­b [...]rgae primum cum Luthero & Phil [...]ppo Theolog [...]ae sta­dia coluit, postea Episcopa­tui Numburgico à Frederico Electore praefectus est, & à Luthero inauguratus: (Pu. Consecrated Bishop by Luther who was no Bishop.) And Luther com. 2. Wittemberg: writeth to him, specially tear­ming him, Optime Vir, fol. 487. initio. And in libro Concordiae bound in quatto, Lipsiae, 1581. pag. 72. ante med it is said, is inter caetera fecit mentionem Nicholai Amsdorphii, de quo Lu­therus d [...]xisser Spiritus meus requiescet in Amsdorphio, & Wellerus, Nemo tantum hausit de Spiritu Lutheri ac Ams [...]orphius. And see yet the very same affirmed of Luther and Wellerus concerning Amsdorphius, by Chemnitius, alleged by Hospinian in his Concord. discor. Printed 1607. fol. 102. b. fine. note, and by Luther much esteemed) doubt not to affirm, that Hereof see Acta Colloquii Alde­burgensis pag. 120. Sect. 11. initio; & pag 443. paulo post initium, & pag. 293. paulo ante medium. And see Nicholaus Amsdorphius speciall Book of this argument, in [...]ituled: Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem. good works are not only not necessary to salvation, but also hurtful to it; Vide Acta Colloq. Al­deburg: pag. 205. post med. fi [...]e. alleging Luther in proof of this opinion, Ibidem pag. 293. paulo ante med. it is said, Scripsit Amsdorphius, & post eum, vel per eum Flaccius, non solum non necessaria, sed & perniciosa esse opera ad salutem, & pag. 120. sect. 11 it is said: Hanc detestan­dam propositionem Amsdorphii, quam & Flaccius approbat, & editis scriptis pro­pugnat, quod bona opera non solum non sunt necessaria, sed etiam perniciosa ad sa­lutem, &c. Amsdorphius in suo libro [...]. 4. Flaccius in Annotatione super re­pet. Major. the which [Page 67] Illyricus (whom Mr. Bell in his Regi­ment of the Church pag. 25. fine tear­meth a very famous Writer, and most worthy defender of the Christian truth) doth allow and defend by publick writing: And all this so grosly and intolerably, that sundry other Protestant Writers, who acknowledge Amsdorphius Amsdorphius plae me­moriae, so called ibidem pag. 206. circa medium.for a man (otherwise) of godly memory, do yet nevertheless in this profess Ibid. pag. 205. fine, & 206. nitio, it is said hereof, Nos quidem ipsos (Lutherum & Amidorphium) inter se committimus, hanc propo­sit [...]onem non usurpaturi. And Osiander in Epitom. Hist. Eccles. centur. 16. pag. 609. saith, Nicholaus Amsdor­phius, Theologus Luthera­nus, dum falsam D. Maioris propositionem de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem evertere conatur, in alterum extremum impegit, & defen­dere conatus est hanc absur­dam propositionem; Bona opera ad salutem esse perni­ciosa. to leave both him and Luther to themselves. Which foresaid extenuating of good works, is yet nevertheless so grateful to some of the Calvinists, that their blessed So is he tearmed by D. Bulkley in his Apology for Re­ligion, &c. pag. 46. initio.man of God, and constant Martyr of Jesus Christ, Master Tindall, so greatly by them yet otherwise Commended Acts Mon. pag. 514. b. fine & 515. a. 519. initio & 521. b. initio. commended, was so careful to prevent all merit of good works, that in his Book intituled the wicked That Tindal was the Authour of this Book; see Act. mon. pag. 573. b. prope finem, & 486. a. initio & b. post med.Mammon, he doubteth not to affirm, that Act. Mon: pag. 486. b. fine. Christ with all his works did not deserve Heaven. Which sentence their Martyr John Teuxbury defendeth for Act mon. ibidem.plain enough and Act Mon. pag. 487. b. pau [...]o post med.true as it lyeth to omit that Calvin himself condemneth this Doctrine of Christs meriting to himself, though expressed in Scripture, Calvin. Institut. l. 2. c. 17. sect. 6. saith, Quaerere an sibi meruerit Christus, non minus stulta est curiositas, quam teme [...]a [...] a definitio. And a little after: Quibus enim meritis affequi po [...]uit ho­mo, ut j [...]dex esset [...]undi, caput Angelorum? And see further Calvin in Epistolas Pauli in Philip. 2 ver. 9. pag. 466. b & 467. a. in so much that in his Books of Institutions l. 2. c. 17. sect. 1. He saith against Christs meriting for us: Equidem fateor, si quis sim­pliciter, & per se Christum apponere vellet judicio Dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperietur in hom [...]ne dignitas, quae possit Deum promereri. for a foolish curiosity, [Page 68]and rash opinion) the said Tindall was so much bent against all opinion of Good Works, that he affirmed and taught, that as concerning Acts Monu. pag. 488. a. initio.the preaching of the Work, and washing of dishes, there is no difference as touching to please God. Which saying (as their foresaid Martyr Teuxbury affirmeth) is a Acts Mon. pag. 488. a. initio. plain Text, as needing no further explication, and that as for pleasing God (saith he) all is one; for, saith Tindall, Acts Mon. pag. 1336. a. ante med.there is no work better than other as touching to please God; to make water, to wash dishes, to be a Sowter or an Apostle, all is one to please God.

20 Having at length written out what Brereley delivers concerning Luther's Doctrine and Manners, Finally we may conclude the life of Luther with the words of Erasmus [a man highly esteemed by Protestants] writing to Luther Anno 1526 11. Aprilis in these words: Optarem tibi meliorem mentem, nisi tua tibi tam valde placeret. Mihi opta­bis quod voles, modo ne tu­am mentem, nisi tibi Domi­nus istam mutaverit. taking his proofs from witnesses above all exception, that is, from his own words, and the wri­tings of Protestants themselves, as I could not without a deep sense of grief reflect how many have been, and are yet deceived in that unhappy man, whom they conceive to have been sent by God to the World, for Reformation thereof, so now in order to the help of persons so seduced, I must beg of them to ponder well these ensuing Reflections.

First, as for his Doctrine, whether they can acknowledge him for their Fa­ther, or Brother, or a Protestant in any degree, who taught Doctrines so wick­ed, [Page 69]Carnal, Absurd, Temporizing, In­constant, Seditious and Blasphemous, as both Protestants and Catholicks, and all Christians, yea and all men of common Reason and human Civility must abhorr and detest; whether I say, this man can be said to have been of the Protestant Religion, and consequently that their Church remained without any being no less after than before Luther appeared.

Secondly, For his Life and Manners, by his own Confession, and the Testi­monie of Protestants (after he under­took to reform the whole Church of God) they grew to be so abhominable and shameless, as we may well judge that God Almighty out of his Wildome, Goodnes, and Justice, permitted him to fall so openly and shamefully, that who­sover did follow his Doctrine should be­come inexcusable, it being a thing very evident, that men chosen by the Holy Ghost to enlighten and reform others, are first to be freed from intollerable Er­rours in their Understanding, and Vici­ousnes in their Will, and not to fail noto­riously in both, even upon their very be­gining that pretended great worke, hav­ing before led a commendable life as Lu­ther did, which cannot but manifest to the World, that his pretended Reforma­tion could not proceed from God, but from that Enemy, who perpetually seeks [Page 70]whom he may devour. And although all the followers of Luther were inexcu­sable in adhering to such a man, against the whole Church of God united in Peace and Union, for as much as concer­ned Faith and Religion; yet they who persevere still to embrace and pursue such a Reformation are less excusable, than they who followed him in the be­gining, when men came to the knowledg of his Vices and abhominable Errours in Faith, not all at once but by degrees, as he day by day profited to the worse; whereas now every one may at one view see his Vices and Heresies put together, published and acknowledged by his own confession, and the confession of Prote­stants themselves. When the Holy Ghost moves us to some worke, he doth it suaviter & fortiter, with Sweetness and Efficacie, inspiring Constancy, Perseverance, Meekness, Humility, and Satisfaction to the Soul, according to that of the Apostle, The Gifts of God are without Repentance; Whereas we have seen that Luther confessed himself to have opposed Indulgences, when he knew not what the name meant, and would have renounced his reforming the World, if for sooth he might have done it with his credit, and wished that he ne­ver had begun that business (in Coll. mensal.) affirming futher, that he fell [Page 71]Into those troubles casually, and against his will; Casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor; not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change, which might happen. Act. Mon. pag. 404. whereby it appears that Luther was mo­ved by Ambition, Pride, Lust and En­vy, and not led by any true desire of Re­formation, which if he judged to be ae­cessary, what a huge wickednes was it in him to promise silence if his Adversaries would do the like? or to submit himself to the Pope, so that he might not be compel­led to Recant? or if the Reformation were not necessary (as certainly the Church can never need Reformation for matters of Faith) how can he, and they who fol­low him, be excused from damnable Schism and Heresie? And accordingly it is no wonder if he fell into that deep sense of remorse and perplexity of Soul, so farr as to wish his Books were all abo­lished, as we have seen above. It is also reported, Oecolampadium à Landgravio privatim admonitum de perspicuitate ac certitudine verborum Christi, cum gemitu respondisse, optare se dextram sibi fuisse praecisam, antequam de hac Controversia scribere quicquam ordiretur. But let us now with Brereley go on to other chief Protestants.

Of Jacobus Andreas.

21 AS concerning Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. sudivis. 2. Jacobus An­dreas (the prime Lutheran of this age, and the greatest enlarger of Lu­ther's Doctrine, and Chancelor of the Uni­versitie of Iubinge) no less honored and fa­mous in Germany, than ever was Calvin or Beza at Geneva, The Protestant writer Hos­pinianus discoursing briefly of his life from testimony of the learned Lutherans, allegeth them charging him, that he had no God except Mammon and Bacchus; that he never prayed neither going to Bed nor rising from thence; that in the residue of his life he shewed no spark of Godliness, but great lightness in his words, deeds and Counsells. Thus Hospinian in Hist. Sa­crament. part. 2. fol. 389. b. initio, saith, Nicolaus Seluecerus de ipso saepe coram multis bonis sideque dignis viris dixisse fertur, quod nullum omninò habeat Deum, si Mammonem & Bacchum excipias. Nam se nunquam audivisse vel conjectura aliqua saltem animadvertere potuisse (toto illo tempore quo venalem ubiquitatem circum­vexerunt) quod vel cubitum iturus, vel de lectu surrecturus, aut or ationem Domi­nicam recitaverit, aut ullum Dei mentio­nem fecerit, In reliqua vero vita, dictis, [Page 73]factis, Consiliis, nullam pietatis scintillam, summam vero levitatem semper deprehen­disse. And Hospinian, ibidem fol. 389. b. versus finem, allegeth further Sturmi­us a Calvinist, charging him with the crim of Covetousness, Adultery, robbing of the Poor, and Sacrilege. For he alle­geth the words of Sturmius to be of Ja­cobus Andreas as followeth. Virgae furi­bus inventae sunt contra avaritiae crimen, & lapidationes adulteris, si ab his duobus criminibus Jacobus Andreas solutus est, non est quod metuat: ego facilè fero quod celatum est occultum esse, neque ipsum scru­tor &c. quid secum divitiarum è Saxonia & Misnia abstulit, scio id pauperum esse debere, & ad pauperum fiscum redigi, & illorum esse debitam mercedem, quos è suis muneribus una cum uxoribus ejecit, & tam magnum esse ipsius Sacrilegium &c. And ibidem fol. 389. b. paulo post initium, he allegeth Seluecerus and the other Luthe­ran Writer Andreas Musculus, tearming him, erronem, levissimum scurram, qui ut ex dictis & factis ejus cognoscatur, ne­que Religionem, neque Conscientiam ullam habeat &c. And yet further there fol. 389. a. Apud Bre [...]eley in his book a part of the late pretended Reformers cap. 3. sect. 7. fi­ne. Insomuch as Lavather, a learned Adversarie, confesseth and writeth for newes unto Zanchius, how that this In Zanchius his Epi­stles printed: 609. lib. 2. pag. 340. Lavather writeth to Zanchius saying, Schmidelinum (alias Jacobum Andream) fertur apud nos in a­dulterio cum Ancilla deprehensum, magnum odium &c. incur [...]isse &c. Andreas was taken in publick [Page 74]Adultery, reciting withall, Ibidem paulo post. certain Verses thereupon then made thereof, by the Calvinists.

Of Zuinglius.

22 NOt to repeat what we said above of Luther's opinion concerning Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subdivis. 3. Zuinglius; To give some taste both of his carnall Disposition and Doctrine, and the same from no other testimony than taken from his own alleged writings, it is thereby manifest, that The direction or title of this writing is, Pietate & Prudentia insigni Helvetio­rum Reipub: Huldericus Zuinglius aliique Evangeli­cae doctrinae Ministri grati­am & pacem à Deo &c. in tom. 1. fol. 110. a. in itio. Zuinglius and certain other Ministers of the Evan­gelicall Doctrine, who joyned with him in the Admonition to the Helvetian Common-Wealth, after some underta­king, Zuinglius ibidem fol. 113. post med. to impart to it the Evangeli­cal Doctrine, for which they take it grie­vously to be called Cum od [...]osis & penes omnes invisis nominibus, eos infames reddunt, qui Evan [...]elicam veritatem bo­na fide praedicant, Luthera­nos, Hussitas & Hereticos illos nominando. Zuinglius ibidem fol. 113. b. initio. Lutherans and Hereticks, do first make petition for wives, saying, We earnestly request that the use of Marriage be not denied to us, who fee­ling the infirmitie of our Flesh, perceive that the love of Chastity is not given us by God: For if we consider the words of Paul, we shall find with him no other cause of marriage, a carnal saying, than for, to sa­tisfie, the lustfull desires of the Flesh, which to burn in us we may not deny, seeing that by means thereof we are made infamous [Page 75]before the Congregations. Their words are, Hoc vero summis precibus contendi­mus, ne Matrimonii usus nobis denegetur, qui carnis nostrae infirmitatem experti, castitatis studium nobis à Deo non conces­sum esse sentimus: si enim Pauli verba consideremus, non aliam apud hunc Ma­trimoniorum causam, quam carnis ad libi­dinem calentem aestum reperire licet, quem in nobis fervere negare non possumus, cum hujus ipsius opera nos coram Ecclesiis in­fames rediderunt. tom. 1. fol. 115. a. ante med. And to set forth his carnality as yet more plainly, by his own explaining that wherewith he as before professeth him­selfe, and his said Brethren, to have been so greatly troubled; he expresseth the same in these plain words there next af­ter, saying, By the burning desires of the flesh, we understand those de­sires of the flesh, wherewith a man be­ing almost inflamed, tosseth in his mind the studies of the lustfull flesh; in these only he spendeth all his thoughts, upon these he meditateth, and is wholly bu­sied in this, that he may satisfie the fury of his flesh. Aestum vero libidinis eas carnis cupiditates & affectus intelligi­mus, quibus homo tantum non accensus carnis libidinosae studia animo suo versat, ut carnis furori satisfaciat. Zuinglius ibi­dem. This being then the confessed car­nal disposition of Zuinglius and his fore­said [Page 76]brethren, he signifieth yet further, their answerable forepassed behaviour during their remaining so unmarried, saying, If we respected the liberty of the flesh, who seeth not how much more commodious it were for us, that we should forbear the lawes of marri­age, as hitherto we have done, &c. For we have known how easily in this free and loose state, being glutted with sa­ciety (of one) we might change. Wherefore for the love, not of lust, but of Chastity, and the Souls to us committed, we desire Marriage; lest that the Souls committed to our charge by example of our lust should be any longer offended. Si carnis licentiam quaerere animus esset, quis non videt, quam commodius foret, si ut hactenus, à Matri­moniorum legibus abstineremus? &c. Novimus quam facilis in hoc statu nostro soluto & libero, mulierum quarum cum nos capit satietas, permutatio fieri possit. Quare non carnis libidine, sed chastitatis et animarum nobis commissarum amore per­moti, hoc petimus, nè hoc exemplo nostrae libidinis diutius offendantur. Zuinglius ibidem fol. 119. a. ante medium. And, We have proved that the weakness of our flesh hath been (o for grief!) cause of our often shamefull falling. Quare cum carnis insirmitatem nobis non semel (proh dolor) pudendi lapsus causam fuisse ex­perti [Page 77]simus, &c. (Zuinglius ibidem fol. 119. a. panlo post med.) And in another Epistle to the Bishop of Constance writ­ten and Subscribed tom. 1. fol. 123. b. subscribed unto by Zuinglius, Leo, Jude, Erasmus, Fabricius, and eight other Ministers there named, who all cry out for Wives, after some intimation made of the Tom. 1. fol. 120. post medium. heavenly Doctrine so long (before) hidden, and then (lately) restored he further confesseth and saith: Hactenus experti hoc donum nobis esse negatum. fol. 121. a. fine. Hitherto we have tryed that this gift of Chastitie hath been denyed to us, &c. We have Arsimus (proh pudor!) tantopere, ut multa indecorè gefferimus. fol. 122. a. prope finem.burned (O for shame!) so greatly, that we have committed many things unseemingly. To speak freely with­out boasting, we are not otherwise of such uncivil manners, that we should be ill spoken of among the people to us commit­ted, for any wickedness, this one point only excepted. Non usque adeo incivilibus mo­ribus sumus, ut ullum ob flagitium malè audiamus apud gregem nobis creditum, hoc uno excepto. Was this the Spirit of the Apostles and antient Fathers? Or was this Doctrine fit or safe to be by him thus divulged to the modest thoughts of innocent young men and damsels, who wanting means of marriage, were in danger hence to suck poyson?

23. Having thus laid down this fore­said ground-work of liberty, thereupon withall he undertook to impugn the Mass by instruction (as his own Brethren re­port) [Page 78] from a Spirit, whether black or white he remembreth not, as appeareth by Zuinglius his words set down by him tom. 2. in libro de subsid. Euchar fol. 294. a. And also in Mr. Fulks Treatise a­gainst the defence of the Censure pag. 249, 250. that Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2. fine. in the margent at 1. Zuiuglius having la­boured the abolishing of the Mass at Zu­rick against a certain Scribe that had op­posed himself (in argument) against Zuinglius, Zuinglius was in that dispu­tation provoked to bring forth examples which were joyned with no parable; Therefore we began (saith he) to think of all that we could, but yet no other example came to mind, &c. but when the 13. day of April drew neer (I tell the truth, and my conscience compelleth me to utter what the Lord bestowed upon me) me thought (as I was a sleep [...] that I was again disputing with the Scribe, and my mouth so stopped, that I was not able to speak, &c. and suddainly there see­med an admonisher to be present with me (ater fuerit an albus nihil memini) whether he were black or white I re­member not, &c. which sayd, why dost thou not answer him that which is writ­ten Exodus 12. For it is the Paschal which is the See Bellarmin. tom. 3. de Eucharistia l. 1. c. 11. Quaedam citantur, where he answers this weak objection. Passover of the Lord, &c. Whereupon (saith he) I (afterwards) considered the place, and thereof before the whole Congregation Preached, [Page 79]which Sermon, when it was heard, drave away all mist. Thus were Zuing­lius his foresaid proceedings against the Mass furthered with nightly instruction in his dream, by an admonisher, whether black or white he remembreth not, wher­of though he made serious and great accompt, affirming it to be no light mat­ter which (saith he) I learned by this dream, thanks be to God, &c. In so much as Hospinianus in Hist. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 26. ante medium tear­med it a Divine Revelation, yet is the same derided as a meer illusion by his o­ther Bretheren, as namely by Jacobus Andraeas in confut. disput. Joan. Jacobi Grinaei pag. 120.254. fine, & 304. and by Schlusselburg (in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. in prooem. fol. 3. a.b.) and by Gerardus Giesekenius de veritate Corporis Christi in S. Coena pag. 64. By Benedict Morgen­sterne in tract. de Ecclesia pag. 68. and by Jacobus Heilbrunerus in Swenkfeldio-Calvinismo, &c. in praefat. ante med. And this kind of perswasion or appari­tion reported by Protestants themselves as happening likewise to In the Book intiuled Con­spiracy for the pretended Refor­mation pag. 83. initio it is said, Among others, Carolo­stadius a Preacher professing the Gospel, &c. attributed much to Cabinet teachers in private conventicles, and unto visions, and pretended co [...]ference with God. And see O siander Epitom. Centur. 16. pag 86. and Chemnitius in repetit. de Eu­char. Art. 31. and Slevdan Hist. l. 5. fol. 65 a. post. med. Carolostadi­us, Luther alleged ubi supra, sai [...]h concerning these apparitions: Planè p [...]rsuasus sum Empserum & Oecolam­padium, &c. his [...]ctibus horribilibus subito extinctos fuisse. So plainly was he persua­ded, that Oecolampadius was in one of these apparitions slain by the Devil. and Oecolampadius, was confessed­ly [Page 80]the first that dissuaded Luther from further saying Mass. In like manner Mr. Fox in Apocalyp. pag. 364 fine, & 365. initio, and in his Acts and Mon. Printed 1596. pag. 90. b. circa med. re­ports the very like pretended wonderful revelation happened to him (as it did to Zuinglius) whereby he was instructed, that by the 42. months, mentioned in the Apocalys, was understood the 294. years of the Primitive Churches first persecution. And yet is this understan­ding of them sithence rejected, and in steed thereof is thereby understood the last 1260. years before Luther by Mr. Napier upon the Revelations propositi­on 15. pag. 22, 23, 24. by Mr. Brocard upon the Revelations fol. 110. a. and by Mr. Gifford upon the Revelations pag. 890. post med.

24. Zuinglius Brerely tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subdivis. 3. after this impugning the Mass, proceeded withall after a strange confessed course of temporizing liberty, whereof he himself tom. 2. de vera & falsa religione fol. 202. b. initio saith, Retractamus igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, ut quae hic damus anno atatis nostrae quadragesimo secundo, pro­pendeant eis, quae quadragesimo dedera­mus quando ut diximus tempori potiùs scripsimus quàm rei (we had regard ra­ther of the times, than of the matter) [Page 81] sic jubente Domino, Pu. O blasphemy! as if in matter of Christian Doctrine our Saviour did command men to temporize, dissemble, and ut­ter falshood by delivering con­tradictories. Luther as we have seen above is taxed by Zuing­lius for his temporizing and contradicting himself, and now Zuinglius confesseth of himself the same sault; who then can believe either of them, and what goodly guides have Protestants?ut tali ratione aedificemus, nè inter initia canes & porci nos rumpant. Insomuch as in the Alphabe­tical Table there under the Letter Z. it is said: (Zuinglius docendo servivit tem­pori;) and this even in the great point concerning the Sacrament (whereof see Bellarm. de Eucharist. l. 1. c. 1. §. De­cimus patronus:) he proceeded, I say, further to deliver Paradoxes strange and before unheard-of, all tending to li­berty of life or Doctrine. As first, the discouragement which his Doctrine af­fordeth against all good works in gene­ral, saying tom. 1. de Providentia Dei fol. 371. a. versus finem: Sed contra, ista sunt hyperochae atque hyperbolae, Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata, &c. & quaecunque alia promissa nostris operibus facta sunt. What can more discourage us to good works, than thus to affirm with Zuinglius, that the promise of re­ward made to us, is but hyperbolical?

25. Secondly concerning Original sin, he taught that it is but a Zuing. tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 89. b. circa med. saying, Peccatum ergo originale damnationem non meretur, si modo quis Pa­rentes fideles nactus fuerit. And 90. a. post med. he saith of Original sin: Qui enim fieri potest, ut quod morbus & contagio est, peccati nomen mereatur, vel peccatum revera sit, &c. Morbus enim hic damnationem nobis afferre n [...]quit. And pag. 90. b. ante med. Ea quoque Pauli verba considerabimus, quibus Theologi nostri abusi Originalem illum morbum pec­catum esse dixerunt, &c. sed toto caelo errant. And tom. 2. fol. 115. a. paulo post med. & in Epist. Zuinglii, & Occolampadii l. 1. pag. 252. paulo ante med. he saith, Quid enim brevius dici potuit, quam Originale peccatum non esse peccatum, sed mor­bum, &c?disease [Page 82]which of it self is not culpable, neither can bring the pain of damnation, that, Zuing. tom. 2. de pec­cato orig. declar. fol. 116. a. post med. saith, Hoc ipsum volo, culpam Originalem non vere, sed metonimice à primi Parentis admisso cul­pam vocari. And in Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii l. 1. pag. 258. fine, he saith, Est ergo ista ad peccandum a­more sui propensio pecca­tum originale, quae quidem propensio non est propriè peccatum, sed fons, &c. And tom. a. ad Cardum Imp. fidei rat. fol. 539. b. initio, he saith, Patrem igitur nostrum (Adam) peccavisse fateor peccatum, quod verè pecca­tum est, &c. At qui ex isto prognati sunt, hoc morbo non peccaverunt, &c. Velimus igitur nolimus admittere cogimur peccatum originale, ut est in filiis Adae, non propriè peccatum esse, quomodo jam exposuimus. Non enim est facinus contra legem, morbus est propriè, &c. it is not truly called sin (sed metonimi­ce) but figuratively: concluding, See Zuinglius his words hereof alleged by Schlusselburg in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine & b. initio. the offence and fault of Adam cannot condemn Infants and young Children, thinking Tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 90. a. post med. he saith, Ubi legis cognitio nulla est, ibi nec peccati cognitio esse potest: ubi verò p [...]ccati cognitio non est, ibi nec praeva­ricatio est, adeoque nec damnatio, &c. sic igitur jacet Theologorum sententia, & omnibus constat, fidelium liberos propter originalem illum & haereditarium morbum damnationem subire nullam, quoad legem & legis sententiam ignorant. De iis au­tem loquor, qui per aetatem legis cognitionem habere non possunt, non de iis, qui vel scire nolunt, vel etiam scientes nesciunt. And see the l [...]ke tom. 2. fol. 118. a. paulo post med. & tom. 1. fol 372. b. initio. In so much as (in Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii pag 505. paulo ante med.) he thinketh that the Children of the Gentiles and Infidels are free from all guilt hereof, because (saith he) lex nulla cos damnat, &c. And see him there pag. 969. circa med. & tom. 2. fol. 540. ante med. where he saith, Verum quomodo­cunque de Gentilium infantibus statuendum sit, hoc certè adseveramus, propter vir­tutem salutis per Christum praestitae, praeter rem pronuntiare qui eos aeternae male­dictioni addicunt, &c. non debent igitur temere à nobis damnari qui fidem per aeta­tem non habent, &c. original sin only damnable in those that be of years and discretion, when in them it bursteth forth into action. And all this so grosly, as his own Brethren do. therefore Reprehended by Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine, & b. initio, and by Hunnius in Papism. Calvinistarum, &c. Papism. 21. sect. 132.133. And Zuinglius tom. 2. de peccat. or [...]g. declar. initio, & fol. 115. b. paulo post initium saith thereof to Urbanus Regius, Nec enim solus insolitè nos putas de humanae generationis contagione tum sentire tum scribere: sunt enim & alia mag­na nomina qui idem existimant, &c. reprehend him, Amicis cavent ne in ruinam se à. nobis trahi patiantur. Ibidem fol. 115. circa med. giving warning to their friends, lest they suffer themselves to be drawn into ruin by this his damnable opinion.

26. Thirdly, concerning salvation, and the way to Heaven, he maketh it so easy and open, that he affirmeth even the salvation of the Zuinglius in Epist Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, l. 1. pag. 39. a. circa med. saith, Ethnicus si piam men­tem domi foveat, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum igno­ret. And see Zuinglius tom. 2. de pec. orig. fol. 118. a. cir­ca med. A [...]so tom. 2. in ex­posit. fidei Christianae fol. 159. b. circa med. he affirmeth the being in Heaven of Adam, Abel, Enoch, &c. Hercules, Theseus, Aristides, &c. Heathen who ne­ver believed in Christ, (as) Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, See next heretofore k. attributing also salvation to the young dying Children of the Heathen, &c. In which his opi­nion (defended nevertheless by Gualter in Apologia pro Zuinglio, & operibus ejus prae­six. tom. operum Zuinglii fol. 27. a. b. & fol. 28, 29. a. b. Gual­ter, and See Simlerus in vita Bullingeri: and see Bullingers allowance of Zuinglius his foresaid Treatise in Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 550. b. initio. Bullinger) he is so unworthy, that sundry other Protestant Writers do therefore Reproved by Hunnius in Papismis Calvinianorum part. 1. Papism. 18. numer. 115, 117. and by Benedict Morgensterne tract. de Ecclesia p. 72. And by Lobechius Indisput. Theolog. pag. 163. initio. And by Luther, who tom. 6. in Cap. 47. Genes fol. 633. a. fine, tearmeth it a most pernicious errour. reprove him.

27. Fourthly, concerning the Apo­stles assured authority in their writings, let his judgement of them all appear in the only examples of St. Paul, of whom he affirmeth, that though he for his part would not but that St. Pauls writings should be now holden for Canonical, yet we ought not to think that Paul did then attribute so much to his Epistles, that what­soever was contained in them, was sacred, lest that in thinking so, we should saith he) impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostles. His words are (tom. 2. contra Catabaptistas fol 10. b. circa med.) Ig­norantia [Page 84]vestra est, quod putatis cum Pau­lus haec scriberet, Evangelistarum com­mentarios, & Apostolorum Epistolas, jam in manibus Apostolorum atque authori­tate fuisse: quasi vero Paulus Epistolis suis jam tum tribuerit, ut quicquid in iis con­tineretur, sacrosanctum esset, non quod ipse velim non esse sacrosancta, quae illius sunt, sed quod nolim Apostolis imputari immoderatam arrogantiam. In so much that where the Evangelists say, This is my Body, Zuinglius to supply their sup­posed defect, altereth the text with in­credible boldness, translating and saying insteed thereof, This signifieth my Body. Whereof Schlusselburg a learned Prote­stant in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. art. 6. fol. 33. b. fine saith, Nec potest hoc sce­lus Zuinglii ullo colore excusari, res est manifestissima, in graeco textu non habe­tur significat, sed, est, &c. And fol. 44. a. he speaketh to the Zuinglians saying, Nec potestis rem inficiari aut occultare, quia exemplaria Francisco Regi Galliarum à Zuinglio dedicata sunt in plurimorum ho­minum manibus, excusa Tiguri Anno 1525. in mense Martio, in octavo, &c. And yet more of the Dutch Bible of the Zuinglians, he saith there, Ego in Saxo­niae oppido Mundera An. 60. apud Scholae Rectorem Humbertum, vidi exemplar Germanicorum Bibliorum quae Tiguri e­rant impressa, ubi non sine admiratione & [Page 85]animi perturbatione, verba Filii Dei ad imitationem Zuinglii somniatoris deprava­ta esse deprehend. Nam in omnibus illis qua­tuor locis Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. & 1. Cor. 11. ubi verba institutionis Testa­menti Filii recensentur, Hoc est Corpus me­um, hic est sanguis meus, inhunc modum textus erat falsatus, hoc significat Corpus meum, hoc significat sanguinem meū. And see further Zuinglius himself tom. 2. l. de vera & falsa Religione fol. 210. a. ante med. where he saith, Sic ergo habet Lucas, & accepto pane gratias egit, fregit, & dedit eis dicens: Hoc significat Corpus meum.

28. (Pu.) Be pleased Reader to re­flect here, that as above we heard Zuing­lius deeply taxing Luther, saying to him, Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common cor­rupter of the holy Scriptures; so here we see, how the Lutherans cry shame on Zuinglians for the same crime of falsify­ing the word of God, by turning This is, into, This signifies my Body, &c. teaching every one who desires not to betray his own Soul, not to trust either of these two, or any other Protestant in their Translations, seeing there is not a Tran­slation among them, which is not con­demned by other Protestants, as we shall declare after I have noted some very particular corruptions of our English Protestants. Zuinglius is condemned by [Page 86]other Protestants for changing [This is] into (this signifies.) But was he alone guilty of this impiety? No. The Com­munion Book of the Church of England, together with the Articles and Book of Ordination were composed Anno 1547. by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Rochester, Ely, Hereford, Worcester, Linclon, Chichester, Dr. Redman, Dr. Robinson, Dr. Cox, the Deans of Pauls, of Exeter, and of Lin­coln, who at the Kings charges, partly at Windsor, partly elsewhere, contrived them: all which were ratified and con­firmed by the Parliament in the year 1548. In this Common Book (to say these few things by the way) there was Invocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead (which are the Doctrines common­ly objected by modern Protestants a­gainst Catholicks) as is yet to be seen, many Copies being yet extant. And in the Statute of King Edward the sixt it is resolved, that those that are abstemious (that is, cannot drink Wine) may re­ceive under one kind only. Afterward the then Lord Protector, at Calvins in­stigation, as appeareth by his Epistles to the Duke of Summerset, put out the In­vocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead; so variable is the Religion of Pro­testants! But to come to our purpose of proving that not Zuinglius alone was [Page 87]guilty of that foul falsification of the Scripture by translating (signifies) for (is:) In the first Edition of the said Com­munion Book, the words cited out of Scripture were rendred thus, This is my Body, &c. A year after, it was altered thus, This signifieth my Body, &c. A little after (is) and (signifieth) were both expunged, and a blank Paper put in the place of the Verb, thus, this my Body, &c. which without the Verb signifieth no­thing, or rather may be applyed to any thing, as it may please the Painter or changeable Protestant; And lastly (is) was put in again. Of this incertainty in Protestant Religion (in a matter of grea­test moment) Nicholas Heath Archbi­shop of York, and Lord Chancellour of England minded the Kingdom, 1. Eliza­bethae, in his Speach against the bring­ing in of the uncertain, and unsetled new Religions, which Speach (saith a man of great learning and credit, under whose hand I received it) I have read, and have seen divers of King Edward the sixt Service Books, some with (is) some with (signifieth) and some with a blank in the place. Now, Reader, look above and apply to English Protestants, that which Lutherans justly object to Zuinglius for his translating (signified,) for (is.)

29. Moreover, it is to be observed, [Page 88]that the Bible in King Edward the sixt days, was translated into English by the Bishops of St. Davids, Hereford, Ely, Norwich and Rochester, and therefore it is called the Bishops Bible. In it the whole Book of the Canticles, (which they pro­phanely why may not I say blasphemou­sly translate the Ballad of Ballads) and many other Chapters and verses in the Bible, were particularly noted as not fit to be read to the common people, or by them. But in the latter Bibles all things are equally permitted to all, from which liberty what could be expected, then (that which we find by lamentable expe­rience) an endless multiplication of new Heresies, without any possible means of remedy, as long as men are resolved not to acknowledge an infallible Judge of Controversies, but to leave every man to read Scripture, which they must interpret according to their own mind or fancy, not having any other infallible Rule or Guide to follow? I know that a learned Catholick in a familiar dis­course with Dr. Collins, chief Reader of Divinity in Cambridge, told him, that Protestants themselves were the true cause of so many Heresies, by permitting the promiscuous reading of Scripture to every Body, and the Doctor answered plainly, That for his part he did not ap­prove such liberty: and this is the thing [Page 89]which the Church dislikes; but it is a meer calumny to say, that she universal­ly forbids the reading of Scripture to all sorts of persons.

30. The new Translation which King James caused to be made, was over-seen, corrected, and altered by the Archbi­shop Abbats, and Smith of Glocester, as Sir Henry Savill told Mr. Richard Montague, afterward Bishop of Chiche­ster, and then of Norwich. For Mr. Mon­tague wondring that Sir Henry (to whose care was committed the translating of S. Peters Epistles) would pervert the sense of the Apostle 1 Pet. 3.18, 19. a­bout Christs descent into Hell, reading it; Quickned by the Spirit, by which also he went and Preached unto the Spirits in prison, &c. When the Greek is, Quick­ned or alive in his Spirit or Soul, in which Spirit or Soul, he comming, Preached to them also that were in Prison. And it is to be observed, that this last Translation of the v. 18. is not only against Catho­licks, but also against former Translati­ons of Protestants, which says not (quick­ned by the Spirit) but quickned in the Spirit. Sir Henry I say being thus questio­ned, answered as above, that the fore­named Bishops corrupted and altered the said Translation made by K. James his order; whereby it appears of how small authority or accompt it ought to [Page 90]be. Again, in this same Translation they have translated Gal. 5.17. the flesh lu­steth against the Spirit, so that ye can­not do the things yea would; whereas the Greek and Latine is, yea do not (de facto) the things ye would.

31. Not unlike to the said salsificati­on of Zuinglius concerning the Eucha­rist, is that of Protestant English Bibles touching the same Sacrament, to proove their Heresie, that there is a Divine pre­cept for all persons to receive both kinds, saying 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. Whosoever shall eat this Bread, (and) drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, &c. Whereas in the Greek it is, Whosoever shall eat this Bread, (or) drink this Chalice, &c. which disjunctive (or) cannot infer the necessi­ty of both kinds, as the Conjunctive (and) might seem to do, and for which end they falsify this Text, strangely standing for both species of Bread and Wine, while indeed they deprive men of the reall substance of our Saviours Body and Bloud for both species, by bringing all to a meer sign, or some phan­tastical presence by Faith, or some such imaginary way.

32. What I am now to say, though it may seem to deserve only laughter, yet it shews in good earnest the inconvenience of translating the holy Scripture into vul­gar languages, with a promiscuous free­dom [Page 91]of all sorts of persons to read them. Thus then Gen. 3. v. 7. Divers Prote­stant English Bibles say thus: They (A­dam and Eve) sewed fig-tree leaves toge­ther, and made themselves Breeches. How ridiculously doth this sound to an Eng­lish ear, that the woman should were Breeches? And yet this is the Transla­tion of the Bible Printed at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, Prin­ter to the Queens most excellent Maje­sty Anno 1593. Cum Privilegio, And Anno 1596. by the same Printer (of which I have two Copies) it is transla­ted in the same manner; As also Anno 1586. Printed by the same Prin­ter, and likewise Anno 1602. by Robert Barker Printer to the Queen. All which Editions I have at hand ready to be exhibited. If I did take pleasure to jeast in serious matters, I could say, That a Protestant whom I could name, being much troubled with this Translation, a Catholick (from whose mouth I received this story) bid the Protestant be not troubled at those Editions, seeing they were published under Queen Elizabeth, who being held by English Protestants for Head of their Church, no wonder it was, that under a Woman-Head, women did were the Breeches: which conceipt, though it did not much comfort that Protestant, yet we may in good earnest by this occasion detest those parasites and flattering Mi­nisters, [Page 92]who were not ashamed to make any temporal Prince, meerly in vertue of his temporal power, Head of Gods Church, and of all Clergy-men, even in spiritual matters; and we are to adore Gods just judgements, in permitting the temporizing Protestant Clergy of Eng­land to be degraded by Temporal Pow­er, in just punishment of their absurd Heresie that temporal Princes are upon earth Supreme Heads of Gods Church: neither ought we to wonder, that they come to suffer in their temporal power, who would needs, against all reason and principles of Christian Religion, usurp that Supreme spiritual Authority, which by our Saviour Christ was granted only to St. Peter and his Successors: Where I cannot omit what one of the most lear­ned among the Protestant English Bi­shops (we discoursing of the Universal Wars of these times) said, (and he spoke a certain and evident truth) that these Wars and troubles of Christendome be­gan upon the year 1517. when Luther first revolted from the obedience of all Churches before his time.

33. But, why do I specifie some few par­ticular mis-translations of the Protestant Bibles, seeing they themselves do mu­tually reprove, impugn, and condemn their own translations? As appears out of Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. [Page 93]4. joyned with tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 10. subdi­vis. 2. To omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinit, and to touch this point but generally only, the Translati­on of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander, Kec­kermannus, and Zuinglius, who saith here­of to Luther, thou dost corrupt the word of God; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians, tearming them in matter of Divinity fools, Asses, Antichrists, Deceivers, and of Asse-like understanding. Insomuch that when Proscheverus the Zuinglian Printer of Zurick sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there, Luther would not re­ceive the same, but sending it back re­jected it, as the Protestant Writers Hos­pinianus & Lavatherus witness. The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the Divines of Basil, is reproved by Beza, who affirmeth that the Basil Tran­slation is in many places wicked, and al­together differing from the mind of the holy Ghost. The Translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza, as being Beza resp. ad def. & respon. Castal. sacri­legious, wicked, and Ethnical. As con­cerning Calvins Translation, that lear­ned [Page 94]Protestant Writer Carolus Moli­naeus saith thereof, Moli. in sua transl. Te­sta. Novi part. 12. fol. 110. Calvin in his Har­mony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down; he useth violence to the Let­ter of the Gospel, and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's Tran­slation (to omit the dislike had thereof by Seluecerus the German Protestant of the University of Jena) the foresaid Mo­linaeus saith of him, Molin. in Testa. part. 20.30, &c. de facto mutat tex­tum, he actually changeth the text; and giveth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also Castalio in defen. trans. pag. 170. Castalio that learned Calvinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errours in Translation, would require a great volume. And Mr. Parkes saith Parks in his Apology for three testimonies of Scripture, &c As for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margent, or else utterly prohibited. All which confirmeth King James his grave and learned Cen­sure, in his In the Conference before his Majesty pag. 46. thinking the Geneva Translation to be worst of all; and that Ibid. fol. 47.in the marginal notes annexed to the Geneva Translation, some are very par­tial, untrue, seditious, &c. Lastly con­cerning the English Translations, the Puritans say, Master Christopher Carlile in his Book that Christ descended not into Hell pag. 116. a. 117, &c. Our Translation of the Psalms comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction and [Page 95]alteration, differ from the truth of the He­brew in two hundred places at the least. In so much as Purita. Petiti: to his Majesty pag. 76. initio. they do therefore pro­fess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto. And Master Carlile saith of the Eng­lish Translators, that they have Carlile pag. 118. de­praved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many pla­ces they do detort the Scriptures from their right sense; And that, they shew them­selves to love darkness more than light, falshood more than truth. And the Mini­nisters of Lincoln, In their Book delivered to King James 16. of Decem. pag. 11. Diocess give their publick testimony, tearming the English Translation, a Translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that, sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Not without cause therefore did his Majesty affirm, In the confer. before his Majesty fol. 46. that he could ne­ver yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus far Brereley.

34. Pu. Now let Protestants consider duly these points First, Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith; Faith according to them relyes upon Scripture alone; Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations; Tran­slations depend on the skill and hone­sty of men, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to erre, and no greater evidence of truth, [Page 96]than that it is evident, that some of them embrace falshood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then re­maineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a falli­ble, and uncertain ground? How ma­ny poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from Preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of texts of Divine Scripture, but are indeed the false tran­slations and corruptions of erring men? Let them therefore, if they will be assured of true Scriptures, fly to the alwaies vi­sible, infallible St. Aug. l. 4. de Tri­nit. c. 6. saith, Contra ratio­nem nemo sobrius, Contra Scripturas nemo Christia­nus, Contra Ecclesiam ne­mo pacificus senserit. Catholick Church, against which the gates of Hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be per­mitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures, Translations, or Interpretations; wherein there is a main and clear difference between us Catho­licks, who rely upon an infallible and li­ving Guide (the Church,) and Prote­stants, who believe not only every pri­vate man, but the whole Catholick Church to be fallible, and subject to er­ror; and if it were but for this cause a­lone we ought to believe the Catholick Church to be infallible, without the be­lief whereof we can have no absolute certainty what Books be Canonical, nor what is the certain interpretation of them, and the end of all will be, that we can­not believe Christian Faith to be infal­lible, [Page 97]and certainly true: in so much as Luther himself, by unfortunate experi­ence, was at length forced to confess thus much, saying, In lib. cont. Zuingl. de ver ta: Corporis Christi in Eucha. If the world last longer, it will be again necessary to re­ceive the decrees of Councels, and to have recourse to them; by reason of divers in­terpretations of Scripture, which now reign. On the contrary side, Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. pag. 259. as our learned adversaries do thus agree to dis­agree in their own translations, mutual­ly condemning (as before) each other; so also have they upon a second and more advised consideration, afforded ho­nourable testimony of our vulgar La­tin translation had from Rome, (which Master Witaker otherwise in splene and spirit of contradiction tearmeth Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds Preface pag. 2. fine & 26. initio. an old rotten translation, &c. full of faults, errors, and corruptions of all sorts, Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura quaest. 5. c. 11. pag. 543. initio.then which nothing can be more faulty or de­steined; andWhitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds pag. 223. fi­ne, & vide pag. 218. fine.of all others most cor­rupt.) To this purpose Beza saith, Beza. Annot. in Cap. 1. Lucae ver. 1. The old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy Books with mervyllous sincerity and Religion, Vetus Interpres videtur summa Religione sacros Libros interpre­tatus; which Religious observation of the old Interpreter is acknowledged in like sort by D. Humfrey de ratione inter­pret. l. 1. pag. 74. where he saith, Pro­prietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus Interpres, & quidem nimis anxiè, [Page 98]quod tamen interpretor Religione quadam fecisse, non ignorantia. Also Beza fur­ther saith in praefat. novi Testam. Anni 1556. Vulgatam editionem maxima ex parte amplector, & caeteris omnibus an­tepono, the vulgar Edition I do for the most part imbrace, and prefer before all o­thers. Carolus Molinaeus in nov. Testam. part. 30. signifieth his no less answera­ble liking thereof, saying, aegerrimè à vulgari consuetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere soleo, I can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accu­stomed reading, which also I am accusto­med earnestly to defend: In so much as he professeth See Molinaeus in Luc. 17. to prefer the vulgar E­dition, before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine translation, also before John Calvin (etiam Joannis Cal­vini, & omnibus aliis) and all others. Whereto might be added the like fur­ther answerable commendation thereof given by that famous Protestant Writer Conradus Pelicanus, who (in praefat. in Psalterium Anni 1534.) saith, Tanta dexteritate, eruditione, & fide, Hebraica quoad sensum, concordare deprehendimus vulgatam editionem Psalterii, ut erudi­tissimum pariterque piissimum, & verè Prophetali Spiritu fuisse interpretem Grae­cum & Latinum non dubitem. And whereas we affirm that St. Hierom St. Hierom. in his Pre­face before the new Testament ded cated to Pope Damasus saith hereof, Novum opus me f [...]cere cogis ex veteri, &c. You constrain me to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of Scriptures dis­persed through the world, should sit as a certain Judge, and de­termin which of them agree with the true Greek. Also H [...]e­rom. in Catal. fine, saith, Novum Testamentum Grae­cae fidei reddidi, vetus juxta Haebraicum transtuli. And see further hereof Bellarmine de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 9. at the request of Pope Damasus was Au­thor [Page 99]or reviewer of our common Edi­tion, which the Fathers St. Hierom. in praefat. Psalterii ad Sophroniā, quae est Epistola 134. saith, Cer­tè confidenter dicam & mul­tos hujus operis testes citabo, me nihil duntaxat sententiae de Hebraica veritate mutas­se, &c. interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum, & liquidò per­fidebis, &c. and see him fur­ther in prologo in libros Re­gum. And St. Austine de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 43. initio saith, Non defuit nostris tempori­bus Praesbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus, & omni­um trium linguarum peritis­simus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebaero in Latinum eloquium easdem Scripturas converterit. Cujus tamen literatum laborem Judaei fa­tentur esse veracem. And see St. Austine Epist. ad Hiero­nym. c. 3. And see Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 2. Institut. c. 12. & 21. & Gregorius Mag­nus l. 20. Moral. c. 23. and Isidor. l. 6. Etymol. c. 5. & 7. & de divinis Officiis l. 1. c. 12. and Beda in Marty­rologio. do so great­ly commend, Master Whitaker answering thereto, doth (upon a more sober and stayed judgement) alter the former ve­hemency of his stile, saying, (in his an­swer to M. Reynolds pag. 241. paulo an­te med.) St. Hierom I reverence, Dama­sus I commend, and the work I confess to be godly and profitable to the Church. As also D. Covell in his answer un­to Master John Burges, &c. pag. 94. ante medium acknowledgeth the anti­quity of the vulgar translation, saying, It was used in the Church a thousand three hundred years ago, not doubting (ibidem) to prefer that translation before others. Insomuch as that whereas the English translations be many and among them­selves disagreeing, he concludeth (ibi­dem pag. 91. prope finem,) that of all those, the approved translation authori­zed by the Church of England, is that which commeth neerest to the vulgar; and is commonly called the Bishops Bible. O truth, most strong, sacred, and invio­lable! more forcible (as St. Austine con­tra Donatistas post collat. cap. 24. obser­veth) to wring out Confession, than is any rack or torment. Pu. Since the truth of that Translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles; they are obliged to main­tain[Page 100]our vulgar Translation, if it were but for their own sake; yea D. Done (saith Brereley here pag. 257.) in his perswasion to English Recusants, &c. pag. 16. circa med. saith likewise of the vulgar Translation, We grant it fit, that for uniformity in quotation of places in Schools and Pulpits one Latin text should be used: And we can be contented for the antiquity thereof to prefer that before all other Latin Books. But let us proceed with our former discourse of Zuing­lius.

35. Fifthly, Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subd. 3. at fiftly. concerning our com­mitting of sin, Zuinglius layeth the same upon God as the Authour thereof, af­firming of God, that he moveth the thief to kill, (Zuinglius de Providentia Dei fol. 366. a. ante med. movet ergo (Deus) Latro­nem ad occidendum) that the thief killeth, God procuring him, (Deo impulsore oc­cidit. ibid. paulo post) that God moveth and inforceth till the party be slain (Mo­vet & impellit Deus usque dum ille occisus est. ibid. fol. 366. a. circa med. and a lit­tle after there, impulit Deus ut occideret) that the thief is inforced to sin, (At in­quies, coactus est ad peccandum: permitto, inquam, coactum esse. fol. 366. paulo ante medium.) In so much that in our sinning against the Law we are not (saith he) Au­thors (of the sin) but as (Gods) instru­ments: In legem enim peccarunt, non [Page 101]quasi authores, sed quasi instrumenta quibus Deus liberiùs pro sua voluntate uti potest. Ibidem fol. 366. a. initi [...].) That even one and the same fact, which hath God for the Author and impulsor, is in God honourable, and in man sin, (Ergo factum quod Deo authore & impulsore fit, illi honorificum est, [...]t homini crimen ac­nefas,) that Davids adultery perteined to God as author thereof, (Adulterium Da­vid ad Deum authorem pertinet, &c. ibid. fol. 365. b. fine) that though adultery and murther be not sin in God, because he is bound by no Law, yet saith he, they be, the works of God (as) the author, the mo­ver, and inforcer. (Unum igitur atque idem facinus, puta adulterium, aut homi­cidium, quantum Dei est authoris, moto­ris, ac impulsoris opus est, crimen non est: quantum autem hominis est, crimen ac scelus est: ille enim lege non tenetur, hic autem lege damnatur.) So e­vidently doth he make God the Au­thor, though not of sin in him­self, because he is subject to no Law; yet of sin in us. An opinion most dread­ful, odious, and execrable.

36. Sixthly, concerning our obedi­ence to the Civil Magistrate, in case he impugn Zuinglius his Religion, his Do­ctrine was, that in such case even Kings are to be deposed. See Brereley tract. 3. sect. 2. ante med. at. g. Zuinglius l. 4. E­pistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, E­pist. [Page 102]Conhardo, Somio, & Simperto, &c. pag. 868. post med. & pag. 869. saith, Promittendum est Caesari officium debi­tum, si modò fidem nobis permittat illiba­tam, &c. Romanum Imperium, imò quod­cunque Imperium, ubi Religionem since­ram opprimere caeperit, & nos illud neg­ligentes patimur, jam negatae aut contemp­tae Religionis, non minùs rei erimus, quam illi ipsi oppressores. Exemplnm est apud Hierem. 15. ubi exterminium commina­tur Deus Israeli, quod Manassem permi­sissent impunè esse pessimum. Due loyalty is to be promised to Caesar, if so that he permit to us our Religion inviolable, &c. If the Roman Empire, or what other So­veraign soever should oppress the sincere Religion, and we negligently suffer the same, we shall be charged with contempt, no less than the oppressors thereof them­selves: whereof (saith he abusing therein the Scriptures most grosly) we have an example in the 15. of Jeremy, where the destruction of the people is prophesied, for that they suffered their King Manasses, being ungodly, to be unpunished. And see Zuinglius his words, tom. 1. in explanatio­ne articuli 42. fol. 84. a. where he tea­cheth that Quando perfidè & extra regu­lam Christi egerint, possunt cum Deo de­poni. And ibid. fol. 84. b. he allegeth to this the foresaid example of Manasses. And upon his reported disorderly pro­ceedings [Page 103]in this kind (saith Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subdivis. 3. at sixtly) it was, that certain Protestants, who ac­knowledge of Zuinglius, that he taught some things well, and that he repurged the Church of Christ from the excess and filth of Popish superstition, do yet withall say, that he performed the same, not by just and lawfull Preaching of the word, but rashly, making havock of all things by a tumultuary and fanatical Spirit, &c. Vio­lently assuming arms and the sword pro­hibited by Christ, that so he might by force compel his adversaries to his opinion. Gualter in his Apologia pro Zuinglio & operibus ejus, placed in the beginning of the first tome of Zuinglius his works, Printed Tiguri 1581. fol. 18. a. ante med. allegeth them saying, Zuinglius licet quaedam benè docuerit, in multis ta­men aliis erravisse contendunt. And on the b. side of that folio prope initium, it is further alleged, Christi (inquiunt) di­lectam Sponsam Ecclesiam à Pontificiae superstitionis luxu & sordibus, non justa & legitima verbi praedicatione repurga­vit, sed tumultuario & fanatico Spiritu per omnia temerè grassatus est, &c. Vio­lenter & arma, & à Christo prohibitum gladium corripuit, nimirum in suam sen­tentiam sibi contradicentes compulsurus. In so much as he is charged to have stir­red up his Countrymen the Zwitzers to [Page 104]Civil Wars, by reason whereof those of Tigure and Berna, who followed his Doctrine, are reported to have made War upon their Neighbours, the other five Towns, exacting of them upon profered conditions of peace, O siander in Epitom. Hist. Eccles. centur. 16. pag. 203. initio. that they should receive again those whom they had banished for the (other) Religion, and should not forbid the reading of the Scrip­tures, Pu. Of promiscuous reading Scripture see heretofore. &c. To which the said five Towns disdaining to be so compelled, and being also thereupon Osiander ibid. & in Gualter, Apol. fol. 30. a. cir­ca [...]med it appeareth that they tearmed Zuinglius, Iniquis­simum belli authorem, qui superb [...]a & crudelitate im­pulsus, Tigurinis novi & ex­quissti facinoris contra socios audendi author fuit, ut vi­ctus inopia, & famis neces­sitate, eos in suas partes con­cedere cogeret. brought to so great famine, as being forestalled of victuals, by those of Tigure and Berna, the War was renewed, and Zuinglius himself was thereupon O siander ibid. slain, not as a Preacher, but as a Warriour, Gualter in Apologia, &c. fol. 31. b. fine, saith, Obiit in bello Zuinglius, & armatus obiit. ar­med in the field. Whereupon those fore­said Gualter ibid. fol. 31. b. prope finem, tearmeth them, Nostri illi perquam egregii Censores ipsum (Zuinglium) in peccatis mortuum, & pro­inde Gehennae filium esse, pronuntiare non verentur. Censurers mentioned by Gualter, who as before liked Zuinglius his pre­tended repurging of the Popish Supersti­tion, but misliked his means thereof, and whom Gualter tearmeth Gualter in Apologia fol. 30. a. prope finem, saith hereof: Non ignoro contra quos & quantos viros, hic nobis quaedam dicenda sunt, &c. sunt quidam inter hos magni nominis Theologi, qui in hac re animi sui im­potentiam produnt. Divines of great esteem, were not afraid to pronounce him dead in sin, and so consequently to have been the Son of Hell. Carion himself (as Gualter confesseth) hereupon not for­bearing to Gualter in Apolog. fol. 30. a. fine. charge the Tigurines (as) seditious (herein) against Rodulph King of the Romans.

Hitherto briefly and modestly concer­ning both Luther and Zuinglius, humbly withall referring to the equity the readers [Page 105]learned judgement, whether that in re­gard of so plain and confessed premises, we may safely joyn with the Apology of the Church of England in acknowled­ging them two for Hereof see Mr. Jewels defence of the Apology Printed 1571. pag. 426. prope fi­nem; and see the apology of the Church of England part. 4. c. 4. divisione 2. most excellent men, even sent of God, to give light to the whole world in the midst of darkness, when the truth was unknown and unheard of?

Of Calvin.

37. AS Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pre­tended Reformers cap. 6. sect. 1. initio. concerning John Calvin Born In the answer for the time to the defence of the Cen­sure, Printed 1583. fol. 85. a. prope finem. at Noyon in Picardy. Anno 1509. against whom is obje­cted (how truly or untruly, I do now for some reasons purposely forbear hereby to affirm) that he forged Letters under the names of Galasius and others, as by them written in his praise, and his then sending them to Petrus Viretus Mini­ster of Lausanna to be dispersed: his re­ported further See this in Bolseke in vita Calvini cap. 13. Where he reporteth that Calvin attemp­ted to restore to life this Brule (comitatus magna caterva amicorum) in the presence of a great number of his friends; see also in Dialog. Alani Copi l. 6. c. 29. like report of a Pro­testant Preacher in Poland, who Anno 1558. practised the like upon one Matthew publickly in the open Church at Biethage a Town neer Cracovia, at what time the said Matthew being found dead indeed, the Confederacy was thereupon there openly discovered by his wife. In like manner doth Gregorius Turonensis in Hist. l. 2. c. 3. report how that Cirola an Arian Heretick practised in like fort with one to counter feit blindness, and to request mira­culous help from this Cirola, which being accordingly so done, the party was indeed strucken blind, whereupon he exclaimed and revealed the practise: in which like respect Tertullian, in libro de praescript, not unhappily saith of Heretick [...], Agnosco maximam virtutem eorum, qua Apostolos in perversum aemulantur: illi enim de mortuis suscitabant, isti de vivis mortuos faciunt. practise with one [Page 106]called Brule and his Wife, that he should feign himself dead, whereupon Calvin should in Confirmation of his Doctrine, undertake in the presence of many to revive him, which when Calvin did, Brule was in Gods judgement found dead indeed, whereupon his wife excla­med publikely against Calvin, and dis­covered the practise; his like reported incontinency with the Gentlewoman of Mongis, who stealing from her Hus­band at Lausanna, made abode at Gene­va with Calvin; his like reported adul­terous attempting at Geneva of the La­dy Jollande of Bredrode, wife to a sickly Noble man called James Borgongue Lord of Fallaise, in so much as she perswaded her Husband to leave Geneva, and go to Lausanna, where she revealed the whole matter Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9. subd. 4.; also his extraordinary curi­ous and exquisit dyet, such, and so pub­lickly, and precisely observed, saith Bolseke in his Book of the life of Calvin, reporteth how that Calvins wine was choice, and carried abroad with him in a silver pot, when he dyned a­broad; that also special bread was made purposely for Cal­vin only, and the same made of fine flower wet in rosewater, mingled with Sugar, Synamon and Anizeseeds, besides a singu­lar kind of bisket made for Cal­vin alone; and be affirmeth this as a matter known all Geneva over. Bol­seke, as the Lords of Berna were thereat greatly offended. In report of all which, though Bolseke make solemn and great In the beginning of his said book dedicated to Monsieur of Epinac Archbishop and Earl of Lyons, he hath this Prote­station, I am here for the love of the truth to refute Theodore Beza his false and shameless lies in the praise of Calvin, prote­sting before God and all the ho­ly Court of Heaven, before all the world, and the Holy Ghost it self, that neither anger, nor envy, nor evill will hath made me speak or write any one thing against the truth, and my con­science. protestation of his truth; for so much yet as being scandalized with Calvins life, he afterwards became Catholick, and so was at the writing hereof, we will therefore in regard of our former under­taken method, be sparing to urge the same. Only we cannot forbear the pub­like testimony of that learned Lutheran [Page 107]Conradus Schlusselburg, a man of principal estimation in the Protestants Church, being as appears by the title of his Book Dioceseos Raceburgensis Super­intendens, & conjunctarum Megapolen­sium Ecclesiarum Generalis Inspector, and no less learned, and enemy to the Pope, than was Calvin himself, who See this apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 11. fine, at 3. in Theo­logia Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 72. a. circa & post med. reported of Calvin, saying, God in the rod of his fury visiting Cal­vin, did horribly punish him before the fearful hour of his unhappy Death: For he strake this Heretick (so he tearmeth him in regard of his conceived Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, and Gods being the Author of sin) with his migh­ty hand, that being in despair, and calling upon the Devil, he gave up his wicked Soul, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming, he dyed upon the disease of lice and worms (a kind of death wherewith God often striketh the wicked, with which God did strike Antiochus 2 Machab. 9.5.9.10. and Herod Act. 12.23.) increasing in a most louthsome ulter about his privy parts, so as none could endure the stench. These things are objected to Calvin by publike writing, in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasci­viousness, his sundry abominable vices and sodomitical lusts, for which (last) he was by the Magistrate (at Noyon) un­der [Page 108]whom he lived branded on the shoulder with a hot burning iron, unto which I yet see not any sound and clear refutation made, &c. Deus man [...] sua potenti adeò hunc haereticum percussit, ut desperata sa­lute, daemonibus invocatis, jurans, exe­crans, & blasphemans miserrimè animam malignam exhalârit, obiit autem Calvi­nus morbo pediculari, vermibus circa pudenda in apostemate seu ulcere faetentis­simo crescentibus, ita ut nullus assistentium faetorem amplius ferre posset. Haec publicis Scriptis Calvino objiciuntur (in quibus e­tiam de ipsius Aselgia, variis flagitiis, & sodomiticis libidinibus ob quas stigma fer­ro candenti dor so Calvini impressum fuerit à Magistratu, sub quo vixit, horrenda narrantur) ad quae non video solidam & luculentam aliquam refutationem, &c. scio & lego Bezam aliter de vita, moribus, & obitu Calvini scribere: cùm verò Beza eadem haeresi & eodem ferme peccato no­bilitatus sit, ut Historia de Candida ejus meritricuba testatur, nemo ipsi in hac parte fidem habere potest. And see further there concerning Beza l. 1. in prooemio pag. 4. b. & ibid. pag. 92. a. post med. & b. & 93. a. initio. Hierom Bolseke further af­firms in his said Book, that the City of Noyon in Picardy in which Calvin lived, and from which (saith Bolseke) Calvin upon his foresaid punishment of bran­ding fled, did testify this foresaid offence [Page 109]and punishment of Calvin, unto Monsieur Bertelier Secretary of the Counsel of Geneva, under the hand of a publick and sworn Notary, which testimony (saith Bolseke) is yet extant, and hath been seen to himself and many others. Now whe­ther this Author would lye so egregi­ously, and with setting down in Print such pretended known circumstances, wherein he was so notably disproveable, and to be discredited even in the knowledge of the whole City of Noyon (a place not remote, but in the same Kingdom) we will not affirm, nor de­termine, but leave to all indifferency of judgement. Only we adde, that where­as F. Campian (in rat. 3.) doth object this against Calvin, as a matter known and publick, tearming him therefore (stigmaticus perfuga) a branded fugitive, M. Whitaker in his answer thereto pag. 50. initio saith, Si stigmaticus fuit (Cal­vinus) fuit etiam Paulus, fuerunt alii. And being told by Duraeus contra Whi­takerum Printed 1582. fol. 73. b. that he was prophane in so comparing Calvins brands for wickedness, with Pauls brands for Christ, he doth (in respons. contra Duraeum pag. 280. answering to that very fol. 73. of Duraeus) pass over all this matter in silence, forbearing so thereby all further mention or defence thereof. Apud Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers cap. 6. sect. 1. fine. To the former testimonies affirming [Page 110] Calvins filthy despairing death, (upon the disease of Lice and Worms encrea­sing in an Ulcer about his privy parts) assenteth the Protestant Writer Johannes Herennius, who being himself an ear­nest Calvinist Preacher, and then con­tinuing student at Geneva, affirmeth (in his published Book de vita Calvini) himself to have been present and eye­witness thereof, saying, Calvinus in des­peratione finiens vitam, obiit turpissimo & foetidissimo morbo, quem Deus rebelli­bus & maledictis comminatus est, prius excruciatus & consumptus, quod ego veris­sime attestari audeo, qui funest [...]m & tra­gicum illius exitum, his meis oculis prae­sens aspexi.

38. He Brereley in the Prefac. to the Reader n. 11. & tract. 3. sect. 2. paulo post med. at. f. & n. teaches (in Dan. c. 6. v. 22.25.) that earthly Princes do bereave them­selves of authority, when they erect them­selves against God, yea that they are un­worthy to be accounted in the number of men, and we must rather spit upon their faces, thn obey them, &c. Abdicant se potestate terreni Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum, imò indigni sunt, qui cen­seantur in hominum numero; potius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita, quàm illis parere, &c. And see further this saying specially mentioned and objected to the Puritans for seditious by D. Wilts in his odedience or Ecclesiastical union pag. 6. prope initium. And Knox alle­ged [Page 111]in proof of his own seditious opini­on, Calvin and certain other Ministers then residing at Geneva, teaching, that it is lawful for Subjects to reform Religi­on, when Princes will not, yea rather than fail, even by force of Arms: and accordingly our adversaries themselves acknowledge, that-the Protestants of Geneva did depose their liege Lord and Prince, from his temporal right there, from which yet to this present he is kept, by strong force debarred: albeit he was by right of Succession, the temporal Lord and owner of that City and terri­tory.

39. His intollerable contempt of the Antient Holy Fathers will appear many wayes, when we shall come to prove, that Protestants confess the Fathers to stand for us, and for that cause they reject them. Here we will only set down his taxing the Fathers for believing and tea­ching the Sacrifice of the Mass Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. under the Letter t. (a point most opposed by Protestants, and most dear to us Catholicks) in these words, lib. de vera Ecclesiae reformatione (extant in tract. Theologic. Calvini, &c. pag. 389. a. fine & b. initio) Solemne est nebu­lonibus istis (meaning us Catholicks) quiequid vitiosum in Patribus legitur, corradere, &c. cùm ergo objiciunt locum Malachiae de Missae sacrificio ab Irenao ex­poni, oblationem Melchisedech, sic tra­ctari [Page 112]ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, Arnobio, breviter responsum sit, eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem inter­pretari Corpus Christi, sed ita ridiculè, ut dissentire nos cogat ratio & veritas, &c. And in his Book of Institutions Printed Argentorati 1539. pag. 350. ante me­dium, and after the other Edition lib. 4. Instit. cap. 18. sect. 11. he saith, Veteres quoque illos video hanc memoriam aliò detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini con­veniebat, quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae imolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferehat, &c. Imitati sunt enim propius Judaicum sacrificandi morem, quam aut ordinaverat Christus, aut E­vangelii ratio ferebat. And see Brereley (tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 3. post. 12.) where he expresly chargeth the Fathers with forging a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper without his Commandement, and adulterating the Supper with adding of Sacrifice. Thus Calvin in omnes Pau­li Epist. in Hebr. c. 7. ver. 9. pag. 924. saith, Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Do­ctores hac opinione occupatos fuisse miror, &c. certè ut error errorem trahere solet, cum ipsi Sacrificium in Christi coena, nul­lo ejus mandato finxissent, adeoque coenam adulterassent, addito Sacrificio, colores po­stea hinc inde accersere conatisunt, quibus errorem suum fucarent. And in his Book de vera Ecclesiae reformatione (extant in [Page 113] tract. theologic. Calvini) pag. 389. b. fi­ne, he further saith, Veteres excusandi non sunt, quatenus scilicet ipsos apparet à puro & gennino Christi instituto deflexis­se; nam cum in hunc finem celebranda sit coena, ut Sacrificio Christi communicemus, eo non contenti, oblationem quoque addide­runt: hoc auctarium vitiosum esse dico, &c.

40. The Doctrines and sayings of Calvin, and Calvinists, whereby he un­avoydably makes God the Author of sin in us, are so known, and so strongly im­pugned by Protestants themselves, as I need not be long in alleging them par­ticularly and at large, but refer the Rea­der to Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 14. Where he will find exactly cited these, (and other like) Doctrines: Calvin Instit. l. 3, cap. 23. sect. 6. That God doth ordain by his Counsel and Decree, that among men some be born destined to certain damnation from their Mothers womb, and that the decree of God in this behalf, is only because it so pleaseth him, without any respect had to their works either good or ill. That, God exciteth the wicked will of one thief to kill another, guideth his hand and weapon, justly inforcing the will of the thief. That God not only permit­mitteth, but leadeth into temptation, even with an active power, and not permissive only; and doth truly, and by his determi­nate purpose harden, make blind, and in­cline [Page 114]the heart to evill: that God hardned Pharao, not speaking hyperbolically but truly, and hardned him that so he might resist: that God would that Pharao should not obey his Commandement, yea he wrought in him, that he should resist it, nor could he do otherwise. That God wor­keth effectally in our sins, that the falling of the ten tribes he calleth his work; that Davids adultery was the proper work of God, as was the conversion of Paul; that God pronounceth Absolons incestuous pol­lution of his Fathers Bed to be his own work; and that in our sinning, neither Satan nor we are Authors, but as the in­struments of God. That whatsoever thing God doth foresee (and he foreseeth all sins) the same he doth will, decree, and ordain to be done, that therefore he is the Author of all those things which the (Popish) Cen­surers think that he idely permitteth. Which Doctrines are so absurd, that even Calvin confesseth it for Calvin. Instit. l. 1. cap. 18. sect. 3. inex­plicable how God may be said to will sin, which he himself forbiddeth to be done, and sundry Protestants of great estimation do thereupon reject and con­demn them, expresly also for that cause charging their Authors with teaching that God is the Author of Sin. From whence and from their other foresaid principle of advancing of only Faith, extenuating good works, and their other [Page 115]like Doctrines, have sprung, as from a hydra, the sect of the Libertines: who upon the very foresaid grounds, and co­lours Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. b. paulo ante med. saith of their said principal man, con­testatur sibi longe aliam esse mentem, seque D [...]um m [...]li authorem facere nolle affir­mat. (denying nevertheless verbally, as Calvin doth God to be Author of sin, and verbally also requiring Calvin ibid pag 548. a. prope finem, saith of their contesting in this case (as Ca­tholicks say of Calvin himself) Contestetur quantum vol. t, se licentiam peccand, praebe­re nolle, hoc enim nihil al ud est, quàm inane nimisque ri­diculum simolationis velum obtendere, quoniam ipsi ni­hil est, cùm Deus omnia fa­cere putatur. Might not th [...]se very words of Calvin against them, be returned aptly against Calvin himself. integrity of life and manners) have set abroad to the world by their published Concerning their sundry published writings, See Calvin tract. Theologic. pag. 510. a. ante med. & pag. 532. a. fine. writings (stored See their frequent alle­gation of Scripture in Calvin ubi supra. 533, 534, 535, 536, &c. And see in Calvin their allegation of these very Scrip­tures, which Calvin and other Protestants usually alleage in defence of their foresaid Do­ctrine. For they alleage Amos 3.6. and Esay 45.7. (apud Calvinum ubi supra, pag. 542. b. ante med.) 1 Reg. 22.21. (p. 346. a. ante med.) and Hieremie 10.32. (apud Cal­vinum ubi supra pag. 541. b. post med) ad Epist. ad Rom. c 7. (ubi supra pag. 542. a. initio) & 1 Joan. 3.9. (ubi) supra pag. 547. b. post med.) with testimonies of Scrip­tures) all Calvin ubi supra pag. 527. b. post med. & pag 543. a. ante med. Epicurism, and impure li­berty of life. I sayd (upon the very fore­said grounds.) For it appeareth by Cal­vins report of their words in tract. Theo­logic. pag. 540. a. circa med. their chief reason to be (cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit, nullum jam boni & mali dis­crimen esse habendum, sed quicquid agitur bonum esse: because whatsoever God doth is good. And Calvin ibidem pag. 518. a. ante med. saith of the same Libertines: Temulenti isti à Deo fieri omnia perstre­pentes, eum mali Authorem constituunt. Deinde quasi immutetur mali natura, cùm sub hoc nominis velo tegitur, bonum esse affirmant, &c. And Calvin also ubi supra pag. 542. b. paulo post medium, saith furthermore of one of their chief men: Persuadet nihil esse mali in stupris & adul­teriis, cùm à Deo fieri omnia cognoscimus. And again ibidem pag. 543. a. paulo ante medium, he saith yet further of him. In summa huc tantùm spectat ut discrimen tollat boni & mali, ut nemini quidvis fa­cere [Page 116]aut perpetrare Religio sit, cùm omnia Deo tribuat. And like as Calvin excu­seth the absurdity of his like Doctrin, pre­tending it to be inexplicable, and above understanding, requiring therefore our humble belief thereto, saying, Instit. l. 1. c. 18 sect. 3. Ubi non capimus quomodo fieri velit Deus, quod facere vetat, veniat nobis in memoriam nostra imbecillitas, & simul reputemus lucem quam inhabitat non frustra vo ari inaccessam, quia cali­gine obducta est: so they in like excuse of their Doctrine, say as Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. a. prope finem reporteth their words) Omnes nostri sensus Deo subjicien­di sunt, nec quicquam de sapientia nostra persuasum habere debemus: mens nostra subigenda, ut veluti captiva Christo morem gerat. So agreeable verbatim almost are they with the foresaid reason de­livered by Calvin, that Calvin immedi­atly upon his foresaid recital of their said words, addeth, saying thereof: Quod & ipsi fatemur, imò nullo utitur apparatu hic impostor, quem ex Doctrina nostra fura­tus non sit. So confessedly doth their Do­ctrine jump and agree with Calvin in the very first grounds and reasons thereof.

41. Although See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13. initio. the Nycene Coun­cel, and Athanasius his received Creed be, that Christ is very God of very God, Yet saith Whitaker (contra Camp. 208. pag. 121. circa med.) of Calvins opinion [Page 117]to the contrary, which condemneth this for barbarous: Howsoever the Fathers of the Nycene Councel affirm Christ to be God of God, Calvin nevertheless affirmeth that we are strongly to believe, that Christ is God himself. Utcunque Patres illi (Niceni) Christum esse dixerint Deum de Deo, ta­men firmissimè tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus Christum ex se habere ut Deus sit, nisi volumus Christum sua Divinitate spoliare. And Danaeus contra Bellarmi­num part. 1. ad Controvers. 2. & cap. 19. pag. 121. saith, Hanc phrasin, Deus de Deo, verè sensit & scripsit Calvinus im­propriam esse, ac barbariem redolere. And which is most fearful, that, if the Father have his essence of himself, the Son his of the Father, and the Spirit from them both, do not then three Essences hereupon arise? Si Pater (saith Calvin in admonitione ad Polonos extant in tract. Theologic. pag. 793. b. fine) suum esse habet à seipso, Fi­lius suum esse à Patre, Spiritus ab utroque, annon tres Essentiae emergent?) All which (to forbear the Fathers) is contrary to the testimony both of Scripture, (Christ, saying, as the Father hath life in himself, so likewise hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John. 5.26. And again, As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father. John. 6.57.) and to the other more sober learned Protestants. For Szegedinus (in loc. com. pag. 634. [Page 118] paulo post med.) saith directly, Dicendum est Filium eam ipsam Deitatem quae est Patris habere, non ex sese, sed ex Patre. Also Mr. Hooker (in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. pag. 113. initio) saith, The Father alone is originally that Deity, which Christ is not. And see him further pag. 106. fine, & 113. ante medium. Which his assertion D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 16.17. specially defen­deth, affirming further pag. 17. initio, that Christ hath received his substance by the gift of eternal generation, & pag. 18. ante med. that Christ is God by being of God, light by issuing out of light, and more plainly yet ibid. pag. 121. Also Mr. Fox Apoc. pag. 474. initio, saith, Christus Deus ex Deo. And Lobecius in disput. 30. Theo­log. pag. 49. saith, Filius non solum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre, verum etiam suam Essentiam. Solus enim Pater vitam seu Essentiam habet à seipso. And D. Dove in his Confutation of Atheism pag. 37. fine, saith, God the Father from everlasting understanding himself, begat his Son, coeternal with himself, &c. And the confession of Belgia in the Harmony, &c. pag. 34. initio saith, We believe that Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is the only Son of God. And Melancthon (in loc. com. of An. 1561. pag. 24. fine) saith, Pater aeternus sese intuens, gignit cogitationem sui, quae est imago ipsius, di­citur [Page 119] [...], quia cogitatione generatur, and ibid. pag. 25. initio) he saith, Secun­da Persona filius dicitur, quia de substan­tia Patris natus est: Moreover Calvin (Epist. 2. ad Polonos, extant in his tract. Theolog. &c. pag. 396. a. paulo ante me­dium) saith, Precatio vulgo trita est; Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus miserere no­stri, mihi non placet, ac omninò barba­riem sapit. Calvin also affirms, that the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father (in Act. Serveti pag. 872. and pas­sim.) Hereof see also Cnoglerus in his tria symbola pag. 34. and he (Calvin) al­so saith, that according to his Divinity he maketh intercession to God the Father (in Ep. ad Polones) and see also his words in respons. ad Polonos, extant in tract. Theolog. &c. pag. 791. b. fine, and that the name of God is properly attributed to the Father by way of excellency (in tract. Theolog. &c. in explicat. perfid. Gentilis pag. 784. a. initio) Ingenuè tradimus [...], Dei nomen, Patri propriè as­cribi, insinuating so thereby, that the name of God is attributed to the Son and the Holy Ghost, but improperly, and as it were after a secondary respect. And ibid. pag. 773. b. post med. Absurdum nega­mus [...], Dei nomen, interdum Patri ascribi, quia ut alibi dictum est, fons est, ac principium Divinitatis. In like man­ner he forbeareth not to call Christ the [Page 120]Vicar of God, occupying the second degree of honour, saying in Harmon. in Matth. 26. v. 64.) Dicitur autem Christus se­dere ad dextram Patris, quia summus Rex constitutus, quasi secundam ab eo honor is & imperii sedèm obtinet, sedet ergo ad Patris dexteram, quia ejus est vicarius, &c. And in admonit. ad Polenos (extant in tract. Theolog. &c. pag. 794. b. initio) he saith, Sententia Christi, Pater major me est, restricta fuit ad humanam ejus naturam; ego verò non dubito ad totum complexum extendere. And see there pag. 792, a. initio. And in Matth. 22. v. 44. and in 1 Cor. 15. v. 27. As also Amlungus (a prime Calvinist did let fall, that Christ was inferior to his Father according to his Divinity. Osiander in Epitom. &c. cent. 16. pag. 965. initio, reporting the con­ference at Hertzburg Anno 1585. be­tween the Divines of Saxony, and the Cal­vinists of Hennalt (and in his praecipuus An [...]l [...]ngus) of whom Amlungus (saith he) was the chief, saith, Inter caetera Amlun­go haec impia vox excidit, Christum etiam secundum Divinitatem esse minorem Pa­tre. There are also other sayings of our Adversaries which seem to sound dan­gerously against the equality and con­substantiality with God the Father. Ma­ster Jewel and Master Fulk affirm, that Of this confessed opinion of Mr. Jewel and Mr. Fulks re­tentive pag. 89. paulo ante med. and see his confutation of the Papists quarrels Printed 1583. pag. 64, 65. Christ was according to his Deity his [Page 121]Fathers Priest, andSee Fulk against the Remish Testament in Hebr. 5. in sexto, sect. 4. fol. 399. b. paulo post m [...]d.offered Sacrifice, (not only) according to his Manhood, but (also) according to his Godhead. An er­ror confuted by St. Austine in Psalm 109. saying, According to that he is born of God the Father, God with God, &c. all with him who begetteth him, he is not a Priest, but a Priest for his flesh assump­ted. And Theodoret in Psalm 109. saith accordingly, Christ exerciseth Priest­hood as man, and receiveth Sacrifice as God. In respect of sundry which pre­mises, Stancarus, in most other things a Calvinist, doubted not to affirm (con­tra Ministros Genevenses & Tigurinos fol. 94.95. and fol. 118.123.) that the reformed Churches professing the Faith of Geneva, and Tigure, be Arian. And he further saith, Conclusum est ô Calvine, Doctrinam tuam de Filio Dei esse planè Arianam, à quâ resilias quàm primùm te oro atque obtestor. It is concluded ô Cal­vin, that thy Doctrin concerning the Son of God, is wholly Arian, which I earnest­ly beseech thee to abandon with all speed.

42. To which further purpose is no less apt and memorable the further con­fessed testimony of Adam Neuserus (a learned Calvinist, and The Protestant Writer Osiander in Epitom. &c. centur. 16. pag. 818. fine saith, Adam Neuserus Pastor Heydelbergensis ex Calvi­nismo prolapsus est in Aria­nismum. And Conradus Schlusselburg Theolog. Cal­vinist. l: 1. art. 2. fol. 9. b. tearmeth him, Ad [...]m Neuseru [...] olim Heydelbergensis Ec­clesiae primarius Pastor. &c. chief pastor at Heydelberg) who after his revolt unto A­rianism, and from thence again unto Mahometism, See this thus reported by Osiander in Epitom, &c. cent. 16. pag. 208. fine, and Osiander there pag. 209. ini­tio, affirmeth, that D. Gerla­chius hath at Tubinga the o­riginal writing (or letter it self) so written to him by Neu­serus. did write to Doctor Gerlachius (a Protestant Preacher) from [Page 122]Constantinople 2. Junii Anno 1574. saying, None is known in our time to be made an Atian, who was not first a Cal­vinist (as) Servetus, Blandrata, Paulus, Alciatus, Franciscus David, Gentilis, Grebaldus, Silvanus, and others (all of them Calvinists revolted to Arianism) Therefore who so feareth to fall into Aria­nism, let him take heed of Calvinism. Thus far Neuserus. Neither may it suf­fice here for our adversaries to answer, that Calvin, and the fore-alleged Pro­testant Writers do, notwithstanding their foresaid sayings, all of them acknowledge the Doctrin of the three Persons, and one God; for in vain, or, at least not well but coldly is that acknowledged in gene­ral, which is either reputed for matter of Fulk in answer to a coun­tersect Catholick pag. 15. pro­pe finem affirmeth, that the true Church under the Empe­rours Constantine, Constans, and Valens, was greatly in­fected with the Heresy of the A­rians, as though the Church with Arianism could be a true Church, What else is this, but to repute Arianism for a matter of [...]ndifferency? Also Mr. Tho­mas Morton in his treatise of the kingdom of Israel, and of the Church, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, pag. 94. fine, af­firmeth, that the Churches of A­rians are to be accompted the Churches of God, because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is, faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God, and Sa­viour of the world. And ibid. p. 91. ante med. be further saith, Whensoever a company of men do jointly and publickly by wor­shipping the true God in Christ profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world (which, as before, in his opinion the A­rians do) that there is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption whatsoever, &c. So evi­dently doth he affirm the Arians Church to be the Church of God, and a true Church. indifferency, or else again impugned by other contrary inferring particulars, which are as before so many and divers in the forenamed Protestants, that sun­dry of their own The learned Lutheran Pelragus in admonitione de Arianis, having pag. 41.42.43. excused in what be can Melancthons dangerous sayings, doth yet pag 45. say, Non hic Calvinianos in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis [...] laboriosè ostendam, non Adami Neu­seri, non Blandratae, non Pauli Alciati, Francisci Davidis, Gentilis, Grebaldi, Silva­ni & aliorum facilem è Calvini Schola ad Arianos lapsum & progressum commemo­rabo. And Jacobus Andraeas in praefat. refutationis Apologiae Danaei pag. 54. saith, Minimè mirandum est ex Calvinianis in Polonia, Transilvania, & Hungaria, aliis­que in locis quam plurimos ad Arianismum, quosdam etiam ad Mahometismum ac­cessisse, quorum impietati haec Calviniana doctrina iter parat. And see the like affir­med by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. Art. 2. fol. 9.2. post med. And Hun­nius in his Antiparaeus pag. 97. initio, saith, Tot celebres Antitrinitarii ex Calviniano­rum Scholis & Ecclesiis prodierunt. Writers do there­fore [Page 123]affirm them to have been the true and next occasion of these so late new uprising and many daily increasing A­rians in Beza in Epist. Theo­log. Ep. 81. pag. 303. pau­lo post med. saith hereof, Hinc illud incendium, quod tota jam vastata Polonia, in Tran­silvaniam quoque pervasit. And Ep. 16. pag. 122. post med. be saith hereof, Poloniam totam & Transilvaniam in hunc miserrimum statum re­dactam vides. Polonia, Hungary, and Tran­silvania; A thing as yet more probable, in that the principal Heads or beginners of these late Arians were, as Neuserus confesseth, all of them at first Calvinists, and so to this present in most other points do these Arian Churches yet continue, thinking themselves hereby more refor­med than others, of whom Mr. Hooker therefore saith in his Ecclesiastical Po­licy, l. 4. pag. 183. fine, The Arians in the Reformed Churches of Poland, think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption, and that the Popes triple Crown is a sensible mark, whereby the world might know him to be that mystical Beast spoken of in the Reve­lation, in no respect so much as in his Doctrine of the Trinity.

43. And the Protestant Writer Luc. Osiander in Epitom. &c. centur. 16. pag. 269. fine, saith of these Reformed Ari­ans, Asserunt Deum unum in Essentia, trinum in Personis, esse commentum An­ti-Christi, esse triplicem Cerberum, esse Deum Baal, Moloch, &c. Symbolum A­thanasii vocant fidem & doctrinam Sa­tanasii, vanissimè insuper jactitant Lu­therum vix tectum Babylonicae turris de­texisse, se verò ex imis fundamentis eam [Page 124]exscindere; thinking the vulgar Prote­stant to be over Popish, and as far short of Reformation in respect of the Trinity, as do the Puritans think him to be in re­gard of Bishops and Ceremonies. In de­fence of which their horrible Heresie they do daily Print and publish their ma­ny Gratianus Prosper a principal Arian publ [...]shed in defence of Arianism a Book of this title, Instrumentum do­ctrinarum Aristo elicum in usum Christianarum Scho­larum, exemplis Theologicis illustratum per Gratianum Prosperum, Losci Anno 86. Wherein are reduced into form of argument all or most of the Scriptures usually alleged in proof of Christs Divinity, and by him undertaken there to be answered, As also he propoun­deth very many other Scriptures and reasons reduced into like form of argument against the Divinity of Christ. As also So­cinus another Arian published lately his Book thereof against Volanus. And the other publi­shed writings of Gentilis, Servetus, Blandrata, and many other late Arians, are known and many. Books, taking advantage to fol­low Calvins example in their like per­verting of the Scriptures, &c. proudly See this in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subd. 2. at i. k. And whereas the Calvinists in Polonia did dispute against the Antitrinitaries there, and charged them with arguments taken out of the Fathers, the Antitrinitaries answered the Calvinists from them­selves saying, Hi sunt vetusti panni, quos [...]vos ipsi primi lacerastis in aliis fidei articulis, &c. & lacerata jamdudum calceamenta. See this in Nullus & nemo H. 9. rejecting the produced testimonies of the Fathers, and in Symle­rus de aeterno Dei Filio l. 1. c. 2. saith of the Arians, Hienim nos ad Scripturas pro­vocant, & quia omnem antiquitatem sibi adversari non ignorant, omnes sine excep­tione rejiciunt. And see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis 2. at i. k. the like appeal of other Arians to only Scripture, expresly pretending the same by like examples of the Calvi­nists. appealing from them, with shew of great confidence, to only Scripture. In their allegations whereof, they are, as were the old Ari­ans, St. Austine (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. at [...]g.) contra Maximinum A­r [...]a [...]um Episc. l. 1. initio, induceth the Hereticks saying then to Catholicks (as Protestants do now:) Si quid de Divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus: Hae vero voces quae extra Scripturam sunt, nullo casu à no­bis susc piuntur: Cum ipse Dominus moneat nos & dicat, Sine causa colunt me, do­centes mandata & praecepta hominum. And again ibid. versus finem libri, the Heretick further saith, Oro & opto Discipulus esse Divinarum Scripturarum, &c. Si affirma­veris de Divinis Scripturis, si alicubi Scripti lectionem protuleris, nos Divinarum Scripturarum optamus inveniri Discipuli. See the very many Scriptures alleged only by the Arian Gratianus Prosper in his Book intituled, Instrumentum doctrinarum, &c. very frequent and plentiful; as also no less prompt in making answer, [Page 125]as Calvin doth, and by imitation of his example, unto sundry those very texts of greatest importance which were here­tofore by the Fathers, and are now by us urg'd in proof of Christs Divinity. In so much as many (and some of them ve­ry learned Protestants) and of great re­putation in their Churches, (quite con­trary to M. D. M. D. Field of the Churc [...] l. 3. c. 29. initio, pag. 138. ante med. saith, The tenth imputation is of Arianism, which Heresy we accurse to the pit of Hell, with all the vile calumni­ations of damned slanderers that charge us with it. Neither did any of our men incline to it. Fields untrue and bold denyal) are fully perswaded that Aria­nism (or further infidelity) is as it were the Materia prima, or very last end or center, whereto the poyse or Bias, in this behalf, of Calvinism, is by the proper di­rection of its genius, daily more and more moving and inclining. In most other points the Antitrinitarians and A­rians continue yet Protestants, as appea­reth by Gratianus Prosper the Arian, in his Book intituled, Instrumentum Do­ctrinarum, &c. Printed Losci Anno 86. wherein he setteth down their several o­pinions to be, The inequality of Christ with God the Father; That Children are not to be Baptized, till they be of dis­cretion to answer for themselves (which Zuinglius and Oecolampadius think to be but a matter of indifferency, as is declared in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subd. 3. at e. f. And that the Roman Church may not (in any sense) be called the Church of Christ.

44. Pu. Mark here who be they, who [Page 126]are most opposite to the Roman Church, namely they, who deny the Blessed Tri­nity and our Saviours Divinity, in res­pect whereof they tearm themselves the Reformed Church, condemning the other Protestants for Popish and superstitious. And as to Puritans common Protestants were esteemed Popish, so Puritans who believe the Trinity and the Consubstan­tiality of our Saviour with his Father, are also tearmed Popish, and now even they who deny the Trinity, &c. will be judged Popish by other Sects, who will pretend to be more Reform'd, for exam­ple, by Independents, Anti-Presbyteri­ans, &c. So that indeed Protestants are no­thing but an heterogenious Body, consi­sting of persons, whereof every part or member must think themselves obliged not to communicate with the rest, that is their Community must be an aggregate of Schisms and Schismaticks.

45. Concerning the known Texts of Scripture usually alleged in proof of the Trinity, and misapplyed otherwise by Calvin; to allege some few examples insteed of many; First, concerning this known text, I and the Father are (unum) one (thing Joan. 10.30. Calvin avoy­deth it saying, Abusi Pu. Mark how Calvin contemns Antiquity in a matter of greatest moment, and in fa­vour of wicked Arianism.sunt hoc loco veteres, ut probarent Christum esse Patri [...]. Neque enim Christus de unitate sub­stantiae disputat, sed de consensu. Calvin [Page 127]in Joan. c. 10. v. 30. Which exposi­tion of Calvin being the old condem­ned answer of Arius is defended by Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 123. fine. Secondly concerning the word Eloim Gen. 1. v. 1. Mr. Willet up­on Gen. in cap. 1. pag. 19. fine, & 20. initio, confesseth and urgeth saying, A­gainst the Jews that deny the Trinity we have evident proof in this Chapter ver. 1. Where the word Eloim, &c. And in like manner it is thus urged by Zanchi­us in Hunnius his Antiparaeus, &c. pag. 16.17. And by Peter Martyr ibidem pag. 14. and by very many other Pro­testant Writers alleged in that tract. Yet is this so common and known place avoyded by Calvin in Gen. c. 1. saying, Ex verbo Eloim colligere solent hic notari in Deo tres Personas, sed quia mihi parum solida videtur tantae rei probatio, ego in voce non insistam, quin potius monendi sunt lectores, ut sibi à violentis hujusmo­di glossis caveant. Thirdly, concerning Gen. c. 19. v. 24. it is said, The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord, &c. Upon which place Mr. Willet up­on Genes. c. 19. v. 24. pag. 214. paulo ante med. saith, This place is well urged by the Fathers to prove the Eternity of Christ. Yet Calvin in Gen. c. 19. saith to the contrary, and against the Fathers, quod veteres Christi Divinitatem hoc te­stimonio [Page 128]probare conati sunt, minimè fir­mum est, &c. And see Calvin in tract. theolog. &c. pag. 793. b. ante medium. Fourthly, concerning Psalm 2. v. 7. where it is said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: although not only the Fathers, but the Apostle also Hebrae. 1.5. do allege this in proof of Christs Di­vinity, yet Calvin in Psalm 2. saith to the contrary thereof, Scio hunc locum de aeterna Christi generatione à multis fu­isse expositum, qui & in verbo (hodie) ar­gutè Philosophati sunt, sed, &c. And a­gain Hebr. c. 1. v. 5. he further saith, Pu. See what respect Cal­vin bears to St. Austine, whom even Protestants do so much e­steem. frivola enim Augustini argutia est, qui (hodie) aeternum & continuum fingit. Christus certè aeternusest, &c. Sed hoc nihil ad praesentem locum, &c. Fifthly, concer­ning Psalm 33. v. 6. where it is said, By the word of the Lord, the Heavens were made, and all the hoast of them by the spi­rit of his mouth, Calvin rejected the ex­position herein of the Fathers in behalf of the Trinity, saying (Instit. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 15.) Sciens & volens supersedeo à multis testimoniis, quibus usi sunt Vete­res. Plausibile illis visum est citare ex Davidis Psalm 33. &c. ut probarent Spi­ritus Sancti Divinitatem, sed illa ratio infirma fuit. See further concerning this place Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 59.60. &c. Sixtly, concerning that known place 1 Joan. 5.7. where it is [Page 129]said, There be three that give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost, and these three be one, Cal­vin upon this place saith, Quod dicit tres esse unum ad Essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum potius. Thereof see further Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 112.113. &c. The further examples of Calvins expositions in this kind are so exceeding many, as would grow to a great volume, and are for such accordingly collected and digested into special volumes, not by us, but by that famous and learned Protestant Preacher Aegidius Hunnius in his three special volumes of this ar­gument, one of them intituled, Calvi­nus Judaizans, hoc est judaicae glossoe & corruptelae, quibus Joannes Calvinus il­lustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testi­monia de gloriosa Trinitate, &c. detestan­dum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit, &c. per Aegidium Hunnium S. Theol. Doctorem & professorem in Academia Wittembergensi Anno 1595. Another of them intituled, Antiparaeus, &c. Prin­ted Wittembergae 1603. And the third intituled, Antiparaeus alter, Printed ut supra. And see like observation and col­lection made of sundry Scriptures (de­praved as before by Calvin) in sundry other Protestant Writers of great note, as in Conradus Schlusselburg in Theolog. Cal­vinist. l. 2. fol. 38.39.40.41. & 42. a. [Page 130]And in the Book (there alleged) of D. Jo­annis Matthaeus l. de Cavendo Calvinistarū fermento. And in Pelargus his admonitio de Arianis p. 50.51. &c. And if our adver­saries hereto answer, that Calvin, all this notwithstanding, professed to believe the Doctrin of the Trinity; yet seemeth this but verbal, seeing he really evadeth so very many of those chiefest places usu­ally alleged in behalf of the Trinity, and by such his evasion directed the Arians how to avoid the rest: For the very same kind of evasion or answer is as strong a­gainst the other, as against these. To forbear as over-infinite the particular examples of those very same evasions or answers made by sundry Arians, which Calvin maketh to the alleged Scriptures, concerning the Trinity, and to speak thereof only but in general; Hunnius in his Calvinus Judaizans pag. 44. saith hereof: Hanc glossam, &c. [...] excipiunt, amplexantur, & exos­culantur Franciscus Davidis, Blandrata, caeterique juratissimi, perfidissimique ho­stes adorandae Trinitatis. And Pelargus an other Protestant Writer of great note, in his admonitio de Arianis, &c. pag. 45. ante med. saith, Non hic Calvi­num in plurimis Scripturae expositioni­bus [...] non Calvinianos in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis [...], laboriosè estendam, &c. ex ipsis Arianorum libris ubi sua posuerint latibula, ubi parata sibi [Page 131]cognoscunt receptacula, paucis referam. And see there pag. 50. the Arians words avoyding under the express alleged au­thority of Calvins name and exposition, certain of the fore-alleged Scriptures. And see there further pag. 51. & 52.

46. See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 8. Concerning Calvins Do­ctrin concerning our Saviour Christ, he teacheth, that Christ at and before his Passion, suffered in soul the horrible tor­ments of a damned and wicked man; Di­ros in anima cruciatus damnati ac perditi hominis pertulit (Calvinus l. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sect. 10.) that he not only offered his body in price, but also suffered in soul the pains due to us: (Calvinus ubi supra; in Harmonia in Matth. 27. v. 46.) E­ven that death which is inflicted upon the wicked by God in his anger (Calvinus in­stitut. l. 2. cap. 16. sect. 10.) eam mortem pertulit, quae sceleratis ab irato Deo in­fligitur. And, all the pains for which the damned stand answerable, only ex­cepted, that he could not be deteined there­in (Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10. qui dependeret ac persolveret omnes, quae ab illis sceleratis expectendae erunt, paenas, hoc uno duntaxat excepto, quod doloribus mortis non poterat detineri.) From whence also followeth the sequel of that despair, wherewith God inflicteth the damned. To which purpose certain Calvinists affirm accordingly of our Sa­viour, [Page 132] See M. Whitaker con­tra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 556. cir [...]a medium; and Master Nowels Catechism Greek and Latine pag. 281. And see Mr. Bilsons survey, &c. pag. 377. fine & 445. post med. and Calvin in Harmonia in Mat. c. 26. ver. 39 versus finem, and Marloret in Mat. 26. that he was in great horror with the feeling of eternal damnation: that Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10. he did strive with the horror of eternal damnation, Calvin in Harmonia in Matth. 27. ver. 37. & 39. And see in M. Bilsons survey pag. 387. ante med.feared more than his bodily death, even See in M. Bilsons sur­vey pag. 392. prope initium. the other death far more dreadful, namely See in M. Bilsons sur­vey pag. 503. circa & post med. the death of the soul, or second death, and was for the time in despair. Brentius in Luc. part. 2. hom 65. & in Joan. hom. 54. & Mar­loret in Matth. 26. & Calvin in Matth. cap. 27. v. 46. saith, Sed absurdum vide­tur, Christo elapsam desperationis vocem. Respondeo, facilem esse solutionem, hanc desperationem ex sensu carnis profectam. And ibidem in ver. 47. Sic videmus om­ni ex parte fuisse vexatum, ut desperatio­ne obrutus, ab invocando Deo obsisteret, quod erat saluti renuntiare. And Beza ad Haebr. 5. v. 7. affirmeth, that, Christo divinae maledictionis horrore percusso, e­lapsa est vox desperationis. In so much, as they affirm him to have been there­upon distempered or unadvised in his prayer; Calvin in Harmonia in Matth. 26. v. 39. sayeth, Haec ratio est, cur mor­tem deprecatus mox sibi fraenum injiciat, Patrisque imperio se subjiciens, votum il­lud subitò elapsum castiget & revocet. And after, Non fuit igitur haec meditata Christi oratio, sed vis & impetus doloris subitam ei vocem extorsit, cui statim ad­dita fuit correctio, eadem veheme [...]tia prae­sentem caelestis decreti memoriam illi ab­stulit, [Page 133]ut non reputaret in ipso momento se hac lege missum esse, &c. Certè in pri­mo voto Christi non apparet placida illa moderatio quam dixi, quia Mediatoris of­ficio defungi quantum in se est, renuit, ac detrectat. Pu. O blasphemies of Calvin! If Christ did despair, and did refuse to redeem mankind (as his Father had de­cree'd and commanded he should be our Redeemer) how can he be a Redeemer of sinners if he himself did commit so great and grievous sins as Despair and Disobedience are?

47. Pu. As we concluded the life of Luther with a saying of Erasmus, so now we may well end the life of Calvin with the words of Hugo Grotius esteemed one of the most learned, and eloquent, and moderate Protestants of this age, who in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica ad Articulum pag. 17. saith thus of Calvin, Qua vero humanitate solitus fuerit Cal­vinus excipere à se dissentientes, ex scriptis liquet. Castalionem, quia illam, quam Calvinus docebat, praedestinationem op­pugnabat, nebulonem & Satanam vocat: Cornhertium & nebulonem & canem: Scriptorem de officio pii viri in hoc Re­ligionis dissidio, qui erat Cassander, ipsi autem putabatur esse Balduinus, appellat frontis ferreae hominem, pietatis exper­tem, prophanum, impudentem, impostorem, [...], petulantiae deditum. Ei Scripto cum [Page 134]se opposuisset Balduinus, vocat eum homi­nem nihili, obscaenum canem, improbum falsarium, multa scelestè ac nequiter co­gitantem, & conspirantem cum improbis nebulonibus, Cynicum, scurram, perfi­dum, fatuum, belluinâ rabie, Satanae ad­dictum. Cassandrum [...], m [...]rosum, la­miam, larvam, serpentem, pestem, car­nificem. Quid quod Bucerum ita vexavit, ut virum mitem coegerit haec scribere longè verissima: Judicas prout amas, vel odisti: amas autem vel odisti prout libet. Imo & ob atrocia dicta Bucerus ei nomen dedit fratricidae.

Of Beza.

48. NOw Apud Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers cap. 7. sect. 1. as concerning Theodore Beza, whose life was in like manner written by Hierom Bolseck, and by him published, Anno 1582. wherein he objecteth against Beza many great and hainous imputations set down in par­ticular, with special naming of times, places and persons, as for example (a­mong other) the selling of his Priory for ready mony in hand, and further letting it to others in farm for five years upon mony before hand received, wher­upon the abused parties (upon his se­cret stealing away) fell at publick sute, [Page 135]which depended of record in the Court at Paris; Also his then stealing away (at the time of his said flight) the Taylors wife dwelling in Calender street at Pa­ris; furthermore the getting of his maid with Child at Geneva, and his then feig­ning both himself and the Maid to be sick of the Plague, whereby none should dare to come to them, whereupon he requested that they might be lodged in two Chambers of Petrus Viretus in an outer Gardin; which obtained, he cau­sed a Barber Surgion to let the woman bloud, and to give a strong Purgation, after which she was delivered of a dead Child, which they Buryed in that Gar­den, as the said Barber after confessed to Bolseck himself; during which mean time Beza (to cover the matter) com­posed certain spiritual Songs of the great pains he suffered by vehemency of the Plague, and Printed them at Geneva; whereto are further added, his Printed seditious Books for stirring up of Civil Wars in France, whereof one was in­tituled, the French furies, an other Truth, an other the Watch, an other the waking Bell, with others. Besides many other like grievous imputations, and the same delivered as being so particular and pub­lick, that the untruth of them (if any were,) could not but become discovera­ble to all mens knowledge: Although [Page 136]that all these were in Beza's life time pub­lished by Hierom Bolseck, and with With great sh [...]w of con­fidence, for it is by [...] dedicated even to the honourable, Magi­strates, Counsellors, and other Governors of Geneva, for that (saith he) they could best tell whether most of those re­ports were true or not, and of such as they knew not, could best learn and inquire; And he professeth to have written Be­za's life purposely in Beza's time, to the end Beza then li­ving might answer for himself. great shew of confidence, by him de­dicated to the Governors of Geneva, and not without earnest Protestation of his truth and fidelity therein, yet in re­gard of my See heretofore in this Consideration num. 24. prope initium. former alleged reason concerning Bolseck, and the other me­thod, whereto I have restrained my self, I will purposely forbear, either to af­firm, and make good, or otherwise to disable Bolsecks foresaid report of them, as contenting my self with such only o­ther testimony, as is delivered by lear­ned Protestants themselves. In which course is not unworthy of observation, how much Beza differed from the A­postolical zeal and Spirit, in his uncha­ritable and prophane disclame of all care of Beza in his words ex­tant in Saravia, defensio tract. de diversis Ministrorum gra­dibus, Printed Londini M. D. XCIII. cap. 1 [...]. pag. 309. circa med. saith, N [...]que verò nobis hic curiosè inqui­rendum puto num ad omnes gentes pervenerint A postoli, nec etiam magnopere nobis de legatione ad remotissi­mas aliquas gentes laboran­dum, quum nobis domi & in propinquo sit satis superque, quod nos & posteros exerce­at, has igitur potius tam longinquas peregrinationes locustis illis, &c. Jesu nomen ementientibus relinquamus, &c. converting Heathen Nations to the faith of Christ, leaving that (profes­sedly) to the Jesuits: a resolution in him so unchristian, that D. Saravia (a lear­ned Calvin [...]st) for such Saravia ibid. pag. 309. post med. condemneth it, saying, Responsionem hujusmodi à Domino Beza non expectabam, nec à quoquam Theologo, cui Evangelii praedi­catio cordi sit ut esse debet, &c. adserere judico impium, & ab omni Christiana charitate alienum. Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap 3. sect. 9. subd. 5. First then among Antony Faius l. de vita & obitu Clarissimi Viri D. Theodori Beza (Printed) Genevae 1606. pag. 9. paulo post med. confesseth and mentioneth, Poemata illa quae (Wolmario) praeceptor [...] suo inscripsit; in quibus non mores, sed stylum Catulli & Nasonis ad imitandum sibi proponens, Epigrammata quaedam licentiosiùs quàm po­stea voluisset, Scripta effudit. those (confessed many) licentious Po­ems [Page 137]of Beza, wherein he imitated the stile of (the most wanton) Catullns and Naso, occurreth that known scandalous Epi­gram, made of his inordinate liking to his Ganimede, in which he debateth whether sin he may prefer; and in the end he concludeth with preferring the Boy, before his Candida. Beza's Epi­grams Printed at Paris 1548. is extant among other his Epigrams of Andeber­tus and Candida, beginning thus:

Abest Candida, Beza quid moraris?
Andebertus abest, quid hic moraris?
Tenent Parisii tuos amores,
Habent Aurelii tuos lepores.
Et tu Vezeliis manere pergis,
Procul Candidula amoribusque:
Immo Vezelii procul valete,
Et vale Pater, & valete fratres:
Nam Vezeliis carere possum,
Et carere Parente, & his & illis,
Ac non Candidula, Andebertoque, &c.

Next there followeth;

Sed utrum, rogo, praeferam duorum?
Utrum invisere me decet priorem?
An quenquam tibi Candida anteponā?
An quenquā anteferā tibi Andeberte?
Quid si me in geminas secē ipse partes?
Harum ut altera Candidam revisat,
[Page 138]
Currat altera versus Andebertum.
At est Candida sic avara novi,
Ut totum cupiat tenere Bezam:
Sic Bezae est cupidus sui Andebertus,
Beza ut gestiat integro potiri,
Amplector quoque sic hunc, & illam,
Ut totus cupiam videre utrumque
Integris frui integer duobus.

Then next after followeth,

Praeferre attamen alterum necesse est,
O duram nimium necessitatem!
Sed postquam tamen alterū necesse est,
Priores tibi defero Andeberte,
Quod si Candida forte conqueratur,
Quid tum? basiolo tacebit uno.

We confess that Master Fulk in his Treatise against the Defence of the Cen­sure doth in his there answer hereto who­ly rest in denyal thereof; for whereas the Defence of the Censure pag. 86. doth in particular charge Beza with this mat­ter of Andebertus and Candida, Master Fulk in his foresaid Treatise against the Defence, &c. Printed at Cambridge by Thomas Thomas, pag. 246. comming to answer these particulars, taketh no notice of them in particular, but only answereth with a denyal in general of all imputations objected against Beza. But in vain. For the matter is not only affirmed by the foresaid Protestant Wri­ter Conradus Schlusselburg in his Theolo­gia [Page 139]Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 72. a. circa med. & post med. saying, Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 11. fine in the margent at 3. Scio & le­go Bezam aliter de vita, moribus, & o­bitu Calvini scribere: cum verò Beza eadem haeresi & eodem f [...]rmè peccato no­bilitatus sit, ut historia de Candida ejus meretricula testatur, nemo ipsi in hac par­te fidem habere potest. And see further there concerning Beza l. 1. in prooemio pag. 4. b. & ibid. pag. 92. a. post med. & b. & 93. a. initio. And Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 93. a. initio, saying, Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subd. 5. Con­stat & hoc, Bezam obscaenissimos versus scripsisse ad Germanum Andebertum, Au­reliae electum, & [...]undem tanquam Ado­nidem à Beza factum esse: as also affir­med by Tilmanus Heshusius another Protestant Writer of great fame and re­putation, in his Book intituled, Verae & sanae confessionis, &c. saying, Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 11. Spur­cissimis suis moribus dedecori fuit ipsius Disciplinis honestis, quique nefandos a­mores, illicitos conc [...]bitus, scortationes, faeda adulteria sacrilego carmine decan­tavit orbi, non contentus eo quod ipse more porci in coeno flagitiosarum libidinum sese volutaret, nisi etiam aures studiosae inventutis sua illuvie contaminaret: Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9. subd. 5. further in the same Book affirming, that Beza was accustomed to sing to the instrument his sacrilegious rythms: but also it is yet further confessed by our English Writers, Mr. D. Spark, and [Page 140]Mr. D. Morton, who both do, for their best answer thereto, affirm that Be­za indeed did this, but before his cal­ling to the Gospel, even when he was Popish: Mr. D. Spark in his answer to Mr. John d' Albines (this foresaid mat­ter being there objected pag. 397. he in his answer thereto pag. 400.) saith thereof: All this was before he was of our Religion, even whiles he was one of yours, and he was yours when he made them. And Mr. D. Morton in his Apologia Ca­tholica part. 1. l. 2. c. 21 pag. 355. cir­ca med. reciteth the objection, Orbi no­tum est, quàm salax fuit Beza, qui publi­catis poematibm paidastrias suas celebrare non erubuit, Galliae probrum, Symoniacus, Sodomita, omnibus vitiis coopertus; wher­to, he in his words there, and next, and immediatly following, answereth, con­fessing and saying, Erat, erat, sed dum in volutabro vestro miser haeserat, &c. Ille Beza igitur dum Papista, hircus fuit. Which their answer, is impertinent; for though we deny not, but many grievous sinners have repented and become after­wards very holy men; yet that any one ever since Christs time, offending so in­humanely and unnaturally (as is here confessed of Beza) should be called ex­traordinarily by God to restore and pub­lish to the world true Religion then for­merly decayed (as Beza in the conference [Page 141]had at Ratisbone affirmed his calling to be extraordinary: whereof see Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. fine at the margent at f.) is the point now only urged, and whereof we affirm all example to be wanting. For as to that which Master Morton (in Apolog. Catholica pag. 355.) allegeth of Saul made Paul, is unapt (if not injurious to the Apostle) seeing his er­rour was only his persecuting of the Church grounded upon preposterous zeal towards God (Acts 22.3, 4.) and not in other wickedness of life, to the con­trary whereof himself saith, As tou­ching my life from my Childhood, and what it was, all the Jews know, that after the most strait sect of our Religion I lived a Pharisy. But besides that this their an­swer is impertinent, it appeareth also to be most untrue, even by the testimony of Antony Faius (Beza's dearest Antony Faius l. de o­b [...]u & vita Bezae pag. 46. fine. Col­legue and Successor at Geneva) who af­firmeth that Beza being but Antony Faius ubi su­pra pag. 8. fine & 9. ante med. and see pag. 11. ante med. twelve years old was brought up in learning un­der VVolmarius, and by him then in­structed out of the pure fountain of Gods word, in the ready knowledge of true Chri­stian piety: In so much also as Beza him­self doth in his last VVill and Testament give (special) thanks to the immortal God, for that at the [...]6. year of his age, he was enlightned with the knowledge of true Christian Religion, as witnesseth Antony [Page 142]Faius in his Book de obitu & vita Be­zae, pag. 73. initio, where he maketh re­cital of Beza's will, in which (saith he) Beza gratias agit Deo immortali, quod anno aetatis suae 16. verae Christianae Re­ligionis cognitione ac luce donatus sit. VVhich time of his supposed inlightning (computation being had of his Birth Antony Faius ubi su­pra pag. 8. post med. 24. Junii anno 1519. and of his foresaid Epigrams Printed at Paris un­der his name, by Robertus Stephanus anno 1548.) appeareth evidently to have been many years before his publishing of the foresaid Epigrams, the which also as may seem by Antony Faius (before ci­ted at a.) he dedicated even to his fore­said Mr. Wolmarius, by whom he was (as before) first instructed in Religion. Hitherto of Beza's unchast Epigrams: In further proof whereof much more as yet is affirmed by Schlusselburg (in his Theologia Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 92. a. post med. & b.) from recital out of Beza's other writings. Only we adde hereto a remembrance of that Poetical vein, which Beza afterwards waxing old continued and used, when turning the Psalms of David into Latine verse (a work greatly commended by Antony Faius l. de vita & obitu Bezae pag. 80. saying, that Psalmos vario Latinorum carminum ge­nere elegantissimè & suavissimè expres­sos orbi Christiano dedit: And see this [Page 143]Treatise of Beza further mentioned pag. 78. fine) he did among other Paraphrase the 50. Psalm, which being wholly pe­nitential, and comprehending in it no­thing but matter of grief and tears, let it be indifferently weighed, upon perusal but of part thereof here alleged (we will not say how lasciviously, but) how un­answerable to Davids contrition the same is by Beza penned. He therefore saith of David,

—Rex David amore
Correptus, vertit Bersabae ad limina vultus;
Bersabae, quâ non formosior altera cunctas
Isacidum populos inter numerata puellas.
Sed cōjuncta viro, & mater jā digna videri
Et mox tam raras mortali in corpore dotes
Miratus, patulae radiantem frontis honorē,
Purpureas (que) genas, pulchri & discrimina nasi,
Os roseū, & flavos per eburnea colla capillos,
Marmoreumq, sinum, porrecta (que) brachia longè,
Et teretes digitos, me vero ludere in istis
Fas oculis, inquit, &c. —

And a little after he describeth Bersabe.

Omnibus arridet pulchrae sibi cōscia formae,
Nunc sinit extrema crispātes frōte capillos
Ludere, nunc varia discriminat arte va­gantes:
Iam caelare sinū simulat, māmas (que) coërcet,
Et super objectat tenuit velamina tele:
[Page 144]
Iam cunct as ostentat opes, collo (que) superba
Nudato, pulchra mentitur imagine Divam;
Interdum excultis illi qui stabat in hortis
Marmor [...]o insignis labro atque perennibus undis
Fonte lavat, celeresque oculis jaculatur a­mores:

VVas this the Spirit of Davids repen­tance, or rather of Beza's yet hitherto continued vein of Naso and Catullus, whom he is mentioned to have imitated heretofore? These wanton verses were such an open scandal, that now in the o­ther late Editions they are for very shame quite omitted, and left forth, but yet still extant, and to be seen in Beza's tractat. Theologic. Printed Genevae in fol. anno 1570. pag. 661. a. circa med. But to proceed on with Beza's life, that learned Lutheran Conradus Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 92. b. fine) reporteth further saying, This also is manifest, that Beza espoused his Candida, without her Parents assent, and for four years space before he maryed her, kept her as is Concubine. Constat & hoc Bezam fibi despondisse suam Candidam insciis Pa­rentibus, & cum ea quatuor annos consue­visse, ea concubina utendo antequam Can­didam uxorem duxerit. And whereas it is also reported, that his secret flight in Company of the said VVoman, for pre­venting [Page 145]of troubles hereupon to him intended, was the first occasion which brought him with her to Geneva, where (saith the reporter) he was forced to mar­ry her in prevention of open scandal of their then conceived incontinency; it is not altogether without scruple, that An­tony Faius not ignorant of this so com­mon report, and undertaking to make mention of Beza's marriage, doth no better prevent or clear it, but rather (as some conceive) give colour thereto, tel­ling how that Beza being intangled with the inticement of voluptuousness, ambiti­ous sweetness of glory gotten upon the E­dition of his Epigrams, and with hope of preferment, did (least he should be over­come by those youthful desires) promise himself in marriage, but (yet) secretly, one or two of his godly friends made pri­vy thereto. (Faius de vita & obitu Bezae fol. 11. initio.) Nam & voluptatum ille­cebris & ambitiosula gloriae dulcedine quam ex Epigrammatum suorum editione erat adeptus, honorumque amplissimorum spe irretitus, aliquandiu detinebatur, &c. ac primùm, nè à juvenilibus illis desideriis superaretur, uxorem sibi despondit, sed clam, conscio uno & altero ex piis amicis. And that continuing with the party in this state a long time together, at last (saith Faius ibidem pag. 12. fine) beta­king himself into voluntary exile, he with [Page 146]his (foresaid) Spouse came to Geneva, and there first openly in the Church celebrated the marriage according to the solemn rite of Christians: Seque in voluntarium exi­lium cum sua conjuge recipit Genevam, Anno 1548. ibi primùm palàm in Ec­clesia solemni inter Christianos ritu ma­trimonium celebravit. If Beza did not at first marry her, and yet as is confessed accompany with her, for the overcoming of his youthful desires, then is he upon the matter guilty of the accusation; and if he did then marry her though but secret­ly, and did also afterwards (as is here confessed) marry her over again openly in the Church at Geneva, how is he then free from Sacrilege? And how this may be thought but to colour the matter of his foresaid accusation, or (as some perhaps will urge) rather to agree with every circumstance thereof, we will not determine, but refer to indifferency of judgement, as also we commend to like judgement, what sign of mortification beseeming Beza's pretended See this in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 6. fine in the margent at f extra­ordinary vocation, was by him shewed, when after Antony Faius de vita & obitu Bezae pag. 54. ante med. saith, Anno 1588. men­se Aprili è vivis excessit Claud a de Nossa Bezae con­jux, cum qua conjunctissime vixerat annos quadringinta. the death of his said wife called indeed Claudia, though in the fore­said Epigrams veiled under the name of Candida, himself being then sole with­out Children, Antony Faius ubi su­pra pag. 74. ante med. saith of Beza, Liberos nullos un­quam habuit. and at the time of her said death Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 8. fine, affirming Beza to be born 24. Junii Anno 1519. which compared to her foresaid death in April 1588. it fol­loweth by computation, that he was then aged 69. years wanting but one Month. aged threescore nine years, he yet afterwards in more than ordinary [Page 147]hast, even within the compass but of some few It appeareth by Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 96. fine, & 67. initio, that Beza dyed 13. Octo. 160 [...]. aged 86. years, 3. Months, And it appeareth further pag. 74. ante med. that his second wife had been then marryed to him during the space of 17. years, which number of 17. years, being deducted from the foresaid years of 1588. in which his first Wife as before dyed. And this perhaps was the cause why Antony Faius being c [...]rious in setting down precis [...] ­ly the very year and certain time of Beza's other procee­dings, as nom ly of his Birth (pag. 8.) his death (pag 66.) his first marriage at Geneva (pag. 12.) the death of his first Wife, and many other like; for­beareth yet to observe this course in like setting down the certain time of his second marriage, though yet nevertheless the observant Reader may otherwise collect the same from him, in that upon his foresaid mention of Beza's first wives death, set down pag. 54. he doth say pag. 55. that Beza made his second marriage, aliquanto post tempore, a small time after, and the same there set down as in order precedent to Beza's actions of anno 1589. mentioned pag. 56. initio: Months Antony Faius ibidem pag. 55. paulo post medium. marryed, not with­out great note thereof, both at home and abroad, Katherine, the (young) Widow of Franciscus Taruffus. As likewise (for­bearing his confessed) See his insolencie noted by Master Bancroft (now sithence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury) in his Survey of the pretended holy Disciplin pag. 54. initio. insolency, Master Bancroft ibidem.pride, Ibidem pag. 59. post med.lewd saying, and Ibidem pag. 219. fine, & 220. initio.discre­diting himself in being crank with the an­tient Fathers; we commend to all equi­ty of Judgement, the many See Master Ban­crofts Survey of the pretended holy Disciplin pag. 42. post med. where it is said, He that shall read Master Calvins, and Master Beza's Epistles, and the Commentaries of France, with divers other discourses, and some of them known Protestants, would certainly mervail to un­derstand, into what actions they thrust themselves, of war, of Peace, of subjection, how far it extendeth, of Reformation without staying for the Magistrates, of [...]eagues, of Impositions, and what not? They write their Letters to this State and that State, &c. And D. Bol­seke in his Book of Beza's life, and the defence of the Censure pag. 88. & 89. charge Beza with many odious Conspiracies, and with publishing of many seditious Books there named in particular. And Master Bancroft in his Survey pag 48. maketh mention of divers Books of deposing Princes Printed at Geneva. accusati­ons of those sundry complotted sediti­ons and conspiracies, wherewith he is, (how truly or untruly we will not say) charged to have troubled forein Nati­ons, together also with those his confes­sed unworthy Master Barcroft in his Survey, &c. pag. 127. post med. disordered writings, wherein he is by our English Protestants said to See this in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 2. subd. 2. at k. arm the Subjects against the [Page 148]Prince, and to See ibidem at l. overthrow in effect all the authority of Christian Kings and Magistrates.

49. To Brereley in the Preface to the Read [...] sect. 13 pag. 21. allege briefly some few par­ticulars of Beza's seditious practises: doth not he allow and highly commend the Wars in France for Religion against the Laws and lawful King of that Coun­try, saying (in his Epistle Dedicatory of his new Testament to the Queen of Eng­land, in Edition Anno 1564.) That the Nobility of France (under the noble Prince of Condy) laid the foundation of restoring true Christian Religion in France, by con­secrating most happily their bloud to God in the battail of Dreux? Did he not write a seditious Book of this Argument, intitu­led de jure Magistratuum in subditos? so known and evident, that Master Sutcliff in his answer to a certain Libel supplica­tory pag. 75. paulo post med. (and see pag. 71. paulo post medium) saith thereof, their Doctrin doth wholy tend unto trouble and rebellion: Beza in his Book of the power of Magistrates, doth arm the subjects a­gainst the Prince in these causes. A Book (saith he yet further ibid. pag. 192. post med.) which overthroweth in effect all the authority of Christian Kings and Ma­gistrates. And again (ubi supra pag. 98. initio) he allegeth Beza his judgement concerning excommunicated Princes, say­ing, Beza roundly teacheth, what reason [Page 149]have Christians to obey him that is Satans slave? And the like is yet further con­fessed in this kind against Beza by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey of the holy pre­tended Disciplin pag. 48. prope initium. And in his Book entituled dangerous Po­sitions. pag. 21. & 18.

As also that temperate Protestant Wri­ter D. Saravia argueth sufficiently Be­za his seditious Doctrin in this his over­modest or rather excusing reprehension and answer thereto, saying, Quid his verbis, &c. Some rest doubtful what Mr. Beza intendeth by these words, where he thinketh it not right, that the godly should stay till the Wolves be expelled by publick authority, and that he may seem secretly to insinuate that those Wolves may be ex­pelled by private authority, as was done in the Low-Countries, and other places, &c. (Saravia in defens. tract. de diversis gra­dibus Ministrorum, contra responsionem Clarissimi viri D. Theodori Bezae c. 2. pag. 74. paulo ante med.) And see Be­za's own words there. And see him also in his Epist. Theolog. Epist. 68. pag. 318. ante med. where he saith, Habeo alia nonnulla majoris momenti, quae tamen per liter as satis commodè significare non pos­sum, perplacet autem mihi quod de conven­tu absque ulla Principum aut civitatem authoritate privatim instituendo scribis. And then thrusteth in this Bodge: Quam­vis [Page 150]nullis prorsus conselis Principibus id fieri minimè velim. And so likewise in the words reprehended as before by Sa­ravia, he saith expresly, Si piis semper expectandum putas, dum lupi ultro cedant, vel publica authoritate expulsi, tibi mini­me assentior. But yet saith he with a like Bodge, Nihil seditiose movendum extra controversiam est, sed piè & constanter amplectendas affirmo omnes Divinitus oblatas veri cultûs Divini restituendi oc­casiones, &c. Et ni ita factum esset, quas tandem Ecclesias bodie haberemus? What hypocrisic is this, to teach Reformati­on against the Magistrates mind? And yet forsooth not seditiously, as though it could be so performed without sedition. These are in words smooth pretences, but indeed no other than plain seditions and treasons, whereby himself in his foresaid words signifieth his Church to have enlarged her self.

Hereto may be added Mr. Bancrofts saying (in his Survey of the pretended ho­ly Disciplin pag. 42. circa med.) He that shall read Mr. Calvins and Mr. Beza's two Books of Epistles, and likewise the Commentaries of France, with divers o­ther discourses about those affairs, & should withall give any credit, either to Heshu­sius, Balduinus, Carpentarins, or others, men learned all of them, and some of them known Protestaents, would certainly mer­vail [Page 151]to understand, into what actions and dealings they thrust themselves, of War, of Peace, of subjection, how far is enter ded, of Reformation without staying for the Magistrates, &c. Besides Br [...]ky in the Presa [...] [...] [...] pag. [...]4. See a was present in the Batta [...] of Dre [...] de­fended by him present. as [...] Fas­us de vita & ob [...] Be [...] pag. 45. prope [...] saith. Post mense [...] [...] conten [...] ­sun [...] [...] [...]. &c. side [...] [...] Chr [...]st [...] [...] [...] bor are [...]. &c. And the Protestants of Mea [...] (as is recorded in the general inventory of the History of France, pag. 593.) transported with indiscreet zeal grounded upon their numbers, did [...]ly to the Churches, be at down Images, and make the Priests retire: Whereto is but agreeable their like confessed insolency at Greuoble, Charti [...]s, and Orle [...]nce, [...]e­ [...] Preaching there [...] with his Sword and Pistol, and exhorted the people to shew their manhood, rather in killing the Papists, than in breaking Images. Re [...] Apud li [...]ley in his [...] of the [...] of the late [...] cap. [...]. sect 4 [...] pag. 18 [...], 184. is also charged with Pultr [...]s known murther of the old Duke of Guise, who being thereupon [...] Pul [...] [...] ­ [...] [...] all might [...] hi [...] P [...] ­stol [...] the [...], and of his [...] being sound and taken [...] th [...] [...] after, at the [...] be did the deed: the Protestant Author of se [...]und [...] [...], &c. saith, [...] pesta no [...] in eum prope locum unde [...] &c. [...] [...]. pag. 345. [...]. very strangely [Page 152](if not miraculously) apprehended, did at the time of his execution, publickly The Protestant Author of the Treatise intiuled Secun­dae partis Commentariorum de statu Religionis & reip. in Regno Galliae libri tres, Carolo nono Rege, Printed 1571. pag. 357. post med. saith of Poltrots execution, illud interfecti Guisii supplicium ded [...], quaestionis habitae edito quodam se ipto, Pol [...]rot us Amiral [...]um facinoris illius authorem & hortatorem appellabat, & Theodo um Bezam cum alio mimmè nominato Ministro illi accusa­tion [...] involvebat ut ad eam rem impulsorem, &c. Also Pultrots confession at his death yet extant in P [...]int, chargeth Beza as persuader and procurer thereof, in answer whereto Mr. Whitaker in his answer to F. Camp an (rat. 8. and after the English Edition pag. 223.) doth surmise that Pultrot was induced to accuse noble and innocent men, through hope of impunity, or sear of punishment: By which pretext all accusations made by the confessions of offenders at their deaths, are most improbably taken away. charge Beza, as being the first Au­thor, and perswader thereof.

50. As Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 14. in the text and margent at 15. concerning his unworthy opinion of the Apostolical times he doubted not (if not most arrogantly read and judge) to prefer in knowledge of the truth, the now Protestant Writers, e­ven before those other that flourished immediatly, and next after the Apostles times. For in Epist. Theolog. Epist. 1. pag. 5. initio, he saith, Itaque dicere nec immeritò quidem, ut opinor, consuevi, dum illa tempora, Apostolicis etiam proxima, cum nostris comparo, plus illos conscien­tiae, scientiae minus habuisse: nos contra, scientiae plus, conscientiae minus habere, haec mea sententia est.

51. Whereas Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15. sect. 2. the Catholick Faith holdeth one substance or unity of Essence in three Persons, Beza saith to the con­trary, (in his Confession in English Printed 1585. pag. 1. and see Confes. [Page 153]Genev. c. 1.) the word of God teacheth plainly that the Divine substance is (not wholy in three Persons, but) distinct re­ally and truly from everlasting into three Persons.

52. Concerning Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 8. at 15. our Blessed Sa­viour, Beza (ad Haebr. 5. ver. 7.) affir­meth, that he was for time in despair: Christo Divinae maledictionis horrore per­cusso, elapsae est vox desperationis.

53. As Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended R [...]formers, &c. cap. 7. sect. 3. concerning Beza's no­table dissembling and temporising in matter of Religion, I will only allege one example thereof mentioned by the Protestant Writer Osiander, who repor­teth See this in Osiander centur. 16. l. 3. cap. 28. pag. 657. post med. that certain Protestants being cast into Prison at Paris, the French Cal­vinists sent, as Legates into Germany, Beza and Farellus, that they might ob­tain from the Protestant Princes, their intercession to the French King for the (foresaid) Captives. These Legats, Be­za and Farellus going first to Worms unto the Lutheran Divines, Melancthon, Brentius, Marpachius, and Jacobus An­dreas, offered unto them a Confession of their Faith, in which they did profess (among other things,) the very sub­stance of Christs flesh to be exhibited in the Sacred Supper, and that the diffe­rence among the (Protestant Divines, was not of the thing it self, but only of the manner of the presence, which was [Page 154]known only to God: Pleraque in illa con­fessione sic posita erant, ut videre [...]ur non Calvinistica sed Lutherana: hujus Con­fessionis autographon ego vidi, & legi manu Theodori Bezae & Farelli subsignatum &c. Tigurini Theologi hanc Bezae & Farelli con­fessionem ut nimis Luthera­nam reprehenderunt, qui­bus responderant Beza & Farellus; opus sibi fuisse bo­no dolo ad liberandos fra­tres: [...]tem se in illa confes­sione clam apud se in scrinio pectoris sui, duas voces (per fidem & spiritualiter) reti­nuisse. Osianderabidem pag. 65. ante med. Also the Lu­theran writer Holderus in his Book inti [...]eled. Asinus, Prin­ted Tubingae. 1587. cap. 29. pag. 49. circa med. saith hereof. Tigurini ubi de re to­ta certiores [...]unt, tanta ho­minis impostura acriter do­lent, & eam contessionem magna contentione impug­nant, Bezamque falsi reum peragunt: quid verò inte­rim Beza, num se deserit? minimè: Audi artem tali artifice dignam: vult per­suadere Tigurinis, dolum aliquando bonum esse, & a­liud agere, aliudque simu­lare, &c. and many things were so put in that Confession, as they seemed not Calvinistical, but Lutheran: the original Copy of this confession I my self (saith Osiander) both saw and read, it being subscribed with the hand writing of Beza, and Farellus: hereupon they had recourse to the Duke of Witem­berg, by whom they also obtained from other Princes intercession to the French King: (at their return) the Tigurine Divines reprehended this Confession of Beza and Farellus as over Lutheran; to whom Beza and Farellus answered, that they stood in need of some good de­ceipt, whereby to deliver their Bre­thren. Also that in the foresaid Confes­sion, they privately retained with them­selves in the secret of their brest, these two words, viz. by Faith, and spiritually; thus far the Protestant writer Ofiander concerning the said Confession, which (as himself saith) he both saw and read over, with his own eys: And is it now so hateful and reproveable in some Ca­tholicks to equivocate though verbal­ly, and in case of safety of their own or Brethrens lives, and yet lawful for Beza to equivocate, not verbally, but by subscribed writing, neither as in case of safety of life, but of profession of Faith? A course so peculiar in Osiander's opi­nion to the Calvinists, that he doubteth [Page 155]not to say of them, Osiander centur. 16. lib. 3. c. 61. pag. 796. pau­lo post med. saith, Hanc enim Maximam seu regulam ha­bent Calvinistae, licere pro gloria Christi mentiri. They hold this for a ground or principle, that it is lawful to lye for the glory of Christ.

54. Let us end the life of Beza with the words of Hugo Grotius (in Voto Pacis, &c. pag. 18.) saying, Beza fatetur per quindecim annorum spatium, quo alios docuit justitiae viam, nec sobrium se fa­ctum, nec liberalem, nec veracem, sed haerere in luto.

To the foresaid lives I have thought it not amiss to adde somewhat of Me­lancthon, Luther's dearest friend, and one of the most famous Protestants in those beginnings, of whom Luther (apud Brereley tract. 2. sect. 3. subd. 14.) in the margent at 4.) saith, that the Apo­logy of Melancthon doth far excell all the Doctors of the Church, and exceeds even Austine himself: as also of Bucer, a famous Protestant, and called into Eng­land to teach Divinity in the University of Cambridge; and lastly I will say a word of that furious Heretick John Knox, a seditious botifeu and incendiary, and pestilent Preacher of Heresie in Scot­land.

Of Melancthon.

55 COncerning Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13. sect. 2. [...] Melanthon; First he is charged to affirm, that there be three Divinities, as there be three per­sons. Melancthon. in locis Communibus Anno 1545. cap. de Christo. Insomuch as he is for this Doctrine reprehended by Stancharus l. 4. de Trinitate. See his words alledged in the Treatise intituled Nullus & nemo fol. 3. b. And by Cnog­lerus in his Tria Simbola pag. 34. & 124.

56 Moreover Brereley in his Omissi­ons pag. 396. Melancthon in Con­sil. Theolog. pag. 134. prope initium, ad­viseth in behalfe of King Henry the 8th. (whose Divorce from his first wife he thought unlawfull) saying, Respondeo si vult Rex successione prospicere, quanto satius est id facere sine infamia prioris conjugii. Ac potest id fieri fine ullo pericu­lo Conscientiae cujusquam aut famae per. Poligamiā &c. Quia Poligamia non est res omnino inusitata: Habuerunt multas con­juges Abraham, David, & allii Sancti vi­ri, unde apparet poligamiam non esse con­tra Jus Divinum. This advice was thus given by Melancthon Anno 1531. as appeareth there pag. 128. paulo post med. And, apud Brerely tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 5. marg. e. Melancthon Consil. [Page 157]Theolog. part 1. pag. 648. affirmeth, that in case of divorce and dismission upon Adultery; the offending party, whether Man or Woman may marry again. Affir­ming there further this to be the Do­ctrine of Luther and Pomerane. And see also there further pag. 550.

57 Concerning Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7 in the margent at †. Melancthon's incon­stancy touching the Reall Presence, see in l. Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii l. 3. pag. 603. post med. where Melancthon in his Epistle there to Oecolāpadius saith most confidently in behalfe of the Reall Presence: Non modo cogitavi ipse quid in utram partem dici possit, sed inquisivi etiam veterum ea de re sententias &c. Cum omnia quae in utraque parte firmissi­ma videntur, expendi, dicam pace tua, non tamen eo in sententiam tuam: nullam enim firmam rationem invenio, quae con­scientiae discedenti à proprietate verborum (Christi) satisfaciat &c. And see Me­lancthon's words more vehement, full and at large, ibidem in his Epistle to Fre­dericus Miconius alleged there pag. 618. & 644. post med. & 645. And see Hos­pinian in historia Sacramentar. part. al­tera fol. 68 b. And yet of Melancthon's change afterwards unto Calvinisme, see the same confessed by Hospinian in Hist. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 115. a. initio. & circa med. & fol. 141. b. initio. And by Osiander in Epitom. &c. Centur. 16. [Page 158] pag. 615. initio, where Osiander doth expresly charge Melancthon with incon­stantia Viro Theologo indigna. And see no lesse there pag. 667. Hence it is that though the Protestants in Colloq. Attem­bergensi printed in quarto Jenae ad Salam. 1570. fol. 510. b. paulo post medium do there commend and tearm Melancthon to be optimum & Sanctissimum Virum &c. Yet in regard of such his noted and known inconstancy in Doctrine, it is also there fol. 337. b. circa medium said of him illud saltem de locis Phillippi paucis et modeste addimus. Primum constare Philippum toties fere eos mutasse, & re­bus & verbis, ut quibus sit fides adhiben­da, in dubio est. Lutherum istam crebram mutationem improbasse, ex fide dignis accepimus. And see further of Melan­cthon's inconstancy, the Protestant Wri­ter Schlusselburg. in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 91. a. post med. & b. & fol. 92 a, b. & fol. 94 & 95. And see Osiander in Epitom &c. Centur. 16, pag. 809. circa & post medium. & pag. 703. paulo post medium where it is said of him: Hu­jus viri eruditioni si constantia in vera re­ligione respondisset, plane incomparabilis vir extitisset &c. Wherefore I may con­clude with the words of Gasper Ulenber­gius, in libro cui titulus, Granes & juste cause cur Catholicis in communione ve­teris, ejusque veri Christianismi perma­nendum [Page 159]sit &c. Causa 15 c. 15. pag. 315. Edit. Collon. 1589 in octavo. Where he saith, Quamobrem non est usque adco a ve­ritate alienum, quod Melancthonem no­bili cuidam Johanni Bartholomeo a Vel­berg, consuluisse aiunt, ut a Catholico communicandi atque orandi ritu non disce­deret, ac inter cetera, hoc ejus quoque ver­ba, ad eundem nobilem dicta referunt. Nullum habeo digitum (inquit) in manu mea, cujus jactur a non optarim, me nun­quam ad scribendum de rebus Theologicis accessisse, sed vocasse Philosophiae meae quemadmodum feci a principio, verum longius nunc progressus sum quam ut re­gredi passim, hactenus Melancthon, ex cujus verbis promptum est Estimare quo­modo ipsius Conscientia, propter grave hoc in Religione dissidium, cui suscitando ipse quoque manum admovit, constituta fuerit, Scribit hoc Wolfangus, Agricola, Beca­nus & Pastor Paltensis in Concione de Ma­trimonio.

Of Bucer.

58 COncerning Bucer's Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 5. Doctrine, among his many other grosse absurdities, wherewith Mr. Cartwright allegeth in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 522. prope initium. Chargeth him (apud Brerely hic at l.) he was so inclining to the Lybell of Divorce permitted by [Page 160] Moses, that he doubted not to teach, that as there is at this day, like hardness of Hearts, so the distressed Wives ought to be releived no less now than in time past; For (saith he) the Magistrate now, hath no less Authority in this matter than Moses had, and at this day ought to use the same. Bucer, in sacra quatuor Evangel. &c. In Mat. 19. fol. 147. paulo post med. And see the Index or table to that book under the letter R. at the word Repudium. And see the other Edition of his Book Anno 1536. pag. 390 prope finem, & 391 ante med. In Matth. c. 19. he saith (apud Bre­reley hic at d. in the margent) Sive juste sive injusté repudiata aliqua fuerit, si nul­la ei sit spes ad primum virum redeundi, cupiat autem piè vivere, maritoque opus habeat, ducens eam nequaqam peccabit. And in further proof of the continuance thereof to this time, he yet further saith, Neither is it to be beleived that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded, but he commanded to the hard of heart, that if they would not intreat their wives with Nuptiall equity, they should then procure liberty by a Libell of divorce to marry again. Bucer ibidem paulo post. (apud Brereley hic at 5.) And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana de Regno Christi l. 2. c. 26 & 27. pag. 99 & 100. affirmeth further most plainly the same Doctrine, & ibidem c. 28. pag. 101. in [Page 161]which places he doubteth not to teach, that Quicunque nolit &c. Whosoever will not induce his mind to love his Wife, and to intreat her with all con­jugall Charity, that man is comman­ded by God to put her away and mar­ry another: And that this being com­manded in the old Law, pertaineth also to Christians. See this ibidem pag. 100 In like sort also doth he allow and de­fend liberty of Divorce and Marriage again, in case of the ones departure from the other (Bucer in script. Anglican. de Regno Christi, l. 2. c. 26. pag. 114. &. c. 41. pag. 122) In case also of Homicide (ibidem, l. 2. c. 37. post med &. c. 40 ini­tio) or but repairing to the company or banquet, of imm [...]dest persons (ibidem, l. 2. c. 37. pag 115. ante med. &. c. 40. pag. 120 post med.) likewise in case of incu­rable infirmity of the Woman by Child­birth, or of the man by Lunacy or other­wise, whereby either party is become unable to render marriage right (Bucer ibidem, c. 42. pag. 123 prope finem & 124 circa med) In these and many other such like cases, he yet further generally concludeth the lawfullness of Divorce and Marriage a­gain. ibidem. pag. 124 prope finem, and see also the marginal note there, where is set down, Conclusio, quod aliis de causis quam fornicationis concedenda sint legiti­ma divortia novaque inire connubia. And [Page 162]in the Text there, it is said: Haec adfe­renda putavi ad eam explicandam questi­onem, num concedi a Christianis Principi­bus & Rerumpub. moderatoribus possit di­vertium facere & ad alteras transire nup­tias, aliis quam fornicationis et stupri de causis. Ex quibus, siomnia rite et ex ver­bo Dei ponderentur, satis liquebit nemi­nem, nec virum, nec mulierum, cui opus sit ad bene casteque vivendum conjuge, ac conjuge cohabitate, aut conjugii ne­cessaria officia faciente, prohibere debe­re, quin vir talem quaer at uxorem et habe­at, et mulier talem virum, si depreheasum & evictum sit, vel virum cui pia mulier nupta fuit, vel mulierem quam vir pius uxorem duxit, praestare necessaria conjugii officia, aut abstinatè nolle, aut hujusmodi comisisse scelera, ut propter turpitudinem suam non possit: aut denique incurabili impediri impotentia, quo minus per cor­poris vires illa valeat conjugii officia per­solvere. Moreover Bucer concludeth the lawfulnes of Divorce and marriage again to be Verbo Dei consentienter, Agreeable to the word of God: ibidem pag. 124. versus finem, and see pag. 120 prope finem. And all this in that very book of his de Regno Christi, which is by our learned Adversaries highly magnifyed: of which book Nicholas Car (in epist. de obitu Bu­ceri ad Joannem Checum, extant in Bu­cer's Scripta Anglicana pag. 873. fine) [Page 163]saith, Liber Buceri de Regno Christi editus continebat absolutissimam & perfectissi­mam totius Doctrinae Christianae effigiem. In like manner also in case of the Hus­bands one years voluntary absence, the Opinion of Bucer (in Script. Anglic. pag. 122 ante medium) is, that it is law­full for the Wife to marry again. An Errour so manifest and confessed, that it being objected to Mr. Whittaker by Du­reus (contra Whittakerum printed at Pa­ris 1581. fol. 287. b. fine) Mr. Whitta­ker in his Reply to that Booke and very folio, forbeareth all mention and defence thereof.

59 As concerning divers Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7. in the margent at †. notable In­constancies (for which Luther in Ep. ad Joan. Har. Typ. Arg. calleth Bucer a ve­ry Monster, charging him further with Perfidia, in Lutheri Locis Comm. quinta Class. fol. 50. antemed.) See further Osi­ander in Epitom. &c. Centur. 16. pag. 249 initio. That after his first Apostacy from our Religion, he defended with Luther the Reall-Presence, is in it self evident and confessed by Peter Martyr in his Treatise of the Lords Supper, annexed to his Common Places in English 138. ae. fine. after which he became a Zuinglian, as appeareth by Bucer himself in Epist. ad Norimb. & ad esseingenses. After which he revoked that Opinion, and joy­ned again with Luther, as appeareth by [Page 164]the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's House in Wittemberg Anno 1536. And is further confessed by Osiander in Epit. &c. Centur. 16. pag. 246 post med. and by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvanist. l. 2. fol. 17. b. ante med. and by Lavaterus in Hist. Sacrament. pag. 31. alleged al­so by Schlusselburg ubi supra. Insomuch as Lavaterus in Hist. Sacrament. allegeth by Schlusselburg l. 2. fol. 129. a. post me­dium saith of Bucer, non parum abaliena­tus a Tigurinis esse visus est, quos ante & amârat plurimum, & singulare quâdam pietate coluerat. And see there also fol. 129. b. circa med., where it is further said, Bucerus a Tygurinis Zuinglianis omnino abalienatus est. And see Bucer's first Edition of his Commentaries upon the sixt of John and the 26 of Matthew, where he asketh Pardon of God and the Church, for that he deceived so many with the Errour of Zuinglius. And see further also Functius in Chronic. And for his fourth change after all this into Zuinglianism again, at his coming to Cambridge, it is to all men evident, and he therefore noted by the Protestant Writer Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvin. l. 2. fol. 70. b. fine, where he saith, Idem tamen Bucerus Anno 1551 Cantabrigiae in Anglia, iterum ad Zuinglianorum haere­sim deficit. And ibidem fol. 17. b. circa med. it is further said, Bucerus Anno 1551 [Page 165] Cantabrigiae in Anglia rursus parva cum honestate ad Calvanistas defecit. So evi­dently he did change his Doctrine, First to Lutheranism, and from thence after­wards to Calvinism, from thence back again to Lutheranism, and from thence lasty again to Calvinism. And all this thus done both by Melancthon and Bucer, with solemn Profession and shew, at eve­ry such change, of all full confidence and resolution of opinion, and the same with great vehemency pretended evermore, as plain and evident from the Scriptures. Pu. Which shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith, but that we must have recourse to a living in­fallible Judge of Controversies.

Of Knox.

60 THE most turbulent and seditious Doctrines and Deeds of John Knox, the pretended Reformer of Reli­gion in Scotland, are so notorious and known and exorbitant, that I have no mind to set them down in particular, nor can any man of a quiet spirit take plea­sure in recitall of them. Yet if any de­sire to be further informed, he may read Brerely in his Preface to the Reader, par­ticularly (besides other places) sect. 14. [Page 166]Here therefore I will only set down that which a person of honour, of worth, and truth relates; namely, that when King James came first into England, being received and entertained by a per­son of eminent rank at that time, took occasion one day at dinner (where at least a hundred persons attended to see and serve him) to inveigh in earnest manner against some kind of disobedient, sediti­ous, and mutinous persons, upon which subject he was large: and as for Knox in particular, I remember well (saith the foresaid most worthy person, the Relator hereof, who then was present) and so well that I am able to depose it, that the King sayd in particular of him, that God thought fit to set a visible mark of Reprobation up­on him even in this life before he went to the Devill; which was, that being sick in his Bed with a good fire of coales by him & a candle light upon the table, a woman or maid of his sitting by him, he told her that he was extreamly thirsty, and there­fore willed her to fetch him some drink. She went, and returned quickly, but found the Room all in darkness; For not only the Candle, but the Cole-fire also was utterly extinct, and she by that light which her self brought in imediatly after, saw the body of Knox lying dead in the middle of the floor, and with a most gast­ly & horrid countenance, as if his body [Page 167]were to shew the condition of his Soul.

61 Pu. Holy Scripture saying, Prov. 17. v. 6 The Glory of Children their Fa­thers; I beseech the Protestant Reader to weigh unpartially what Fathers the Protestant pretend Religion hath by re­flecting upon what we have demonstra­ted, even out of learned Protestants con­cerning the Doctrins and Lives of their first Reformers; and if they find them to be such as indeed they were, they ought to resolve speedily to forsake such infamous Fathers, and return to that Re­ligion from which those Sectaries depar­ted: to which end these ensuing Reflecti­ons may help, if they be pondered, not cursarily, nor with prejudice, or a Reso­lution to find out some kind of answer to all that may be objected; but upright­ly and with a harty desire to find the Truth, for attayning the salvation of their Souls. Consider then and collect from what we have said

First, that as I said heretofore, seeing they taught Doctrines which Protestants themselves do not only reject, but detest and abhorr, they cannot be said to have been of the Protestant Religion, and so Protestants must find some other begin­ning or beginners of Protestancy, than those whom hitherto they have taken for their glorious Fathers, and persons qua­lified with such gifts and endowments as [Page 168]make them fit to reform the whole Chri­stian world: and these being once remo­ved from the rank of their Forefathers, how will they answer this question: Who in particular were the first beginners of their Protestant Church? at what time and in what place did they live? To which demand, I am sure they cannot answer with satisfaction, but perforce they must be content to be like the Donatists of whom St. Optatus sayd, that they were Filii sine Patre, Sonns without Father; and every one must be to himself a begining of his Faith and Religion. A dreadfull point in the business of an Eternity, and necessary subject to that weighty saying of St. Bernard; Qui se sibi magistrum constituit, stulto se discipulum subdit. He who will be his own Master, shall be Schol­ler to a Fool.

Secondly, For Manners, who can imagin that God being Truth, Purity, and Peace it self; would choose for Re­formation of the World) such men, as confessedly have shamefully erred a­gainst Truth for Doctrin, and against not only Purity, but common honesty and morality: and against Peace by be­ing, both for their Doctrines and Practi­ses, Authors of Tumults, Seditions, and Rebellions.

Thirdly, it ought to be considered with deepest grief and Tears, what a lamenta­ble [Page 169]thing it was, that people should have been seduced from that antient Religion which the World professed, with the specious names of Dr. Luther &c. and with a fair but false and lying title of Re­formation, by men, who indeed were such as hath been declared and proved from their own Writings, and the ex­presse and direct Assertions of their own brethren.

Fourthly, since we have found them to be most inconstant in their Doctrine, in matters of highest concernment, ex­presly professing to have temporized, & accommodated themselves to the times, and not to that which even themselves judged true, who can rely on them, un­less he first resolve not to be settled in a­ny truth, but to be ranked among those who circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae? which in effect is no better than to have no true Faith at all.

Fiftly, seeing they cannot, nor ever could agree with those whom they stile Brethren; and (which is the main point) have no possble means of agree­ment; no men in wisdome can join them­selves to the common generall name of Protestants, not knowing which of them in particular hold the Truth; nor who are or are not Protestants; nor why they should believe one sect of them more than another; neither is it possible to join [Page 170]with them all, they believing and profes­sing to believe contradictory Tenents, some of which must needs be false.

Sixtly, Seing those first Reformers are confessed to hold Doctrines in them­selves damnable, and detested even by Protestants, how can they be excused from Heresy? And seing they left the whole Catholick Church extant before Luther, upon pretence of Errous in Do­ctrine of lesse moment than those wher­in they thus differ among themselves, and yet forsake not one another, but will needs be Brethren and of one Commu­nion, how can they be excused from Schism by their division from the Com­munion of all Churches?

But now having declared what kind of men the Progenitots of Protestants were, let us in the next place examine of what Fathers we Catholicks may deser­vedly glory, even by the Confession of our Adversaries, who by evidence of Truth are forced to confesse, that the Antient Holy Fathers taught the same Doctrines, and practised the same things, which Protestants disprove in us, and for the Reformation whereof they pre­tend to have forsaken our Church. This then, according to the order prescribed in the Preface, must be the subject of the next Consideration.

THE SECOND. CONSIDERATION
By the Confession of Prote­stants, the Antient Holy Fathers believed and practised the same things which we believe and practise against Protestants.

1. FIrst (saith Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 1.) concer­ning Vows, it is confessed, that the Fathers did allow Vows of per­petual Chastity, affirming them to be ob­ligatory. Non ignoramus (saith Chemni­tius exam. part. 3. pag. 14. ante med.) quod Patres vota perpetui caelibatûs pro­bent, quodque illa obligatoria etiam ag­noscant. In so much as he (Chemnitius) doth thereupon specially recite and re­ject in this behalf, the several sayings of Basil, Chemnitius ibid. pag. 40. a. ante med. Ambrose, and Chrysostom. Al­so of Ibid. pag. 42. a. Epiphanins, Austine, and Ibid. pag. 42. b. ante med. In­nocentius. And it is likewise yet fur­ther affirmed, that the Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 490. saith, Erant ergo Clementis aetate professio­nes & vota, fateor. I am tune incaeperant homines defle­ctere à Verbo Dei, &c. With whom agreeth Mr. Parkins in Problem, &c. pag. 191. ini­tio, saying, In antedictis sae­culis, stipulationes de con­tinentia publice in Ecclesia fieri solebant: nam Anno Christi 170. Clemens Alex. l. 3▪ stromat. ait, &c. profession and [Page 172]Vows of Chastity were extant among Chri­stians in the time of Clement Bishop of Alexandria, who by Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 11. paul [...]ante med. saith, Cle­mens de se ipso loquitur, quod prope ad Apostolorum tempo [...]a successerit. his own testi­mony lived neer to the Apostles times: that Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 524 fine saith, Scio Epipha­nium cum multis aliis ex Pa­tribus in eo errare, quod pec­catum esse dicunt votum hu­jusmodi violare, cum onu­fuerit, & malè illum id referre in traditiones Aposto­licas. Epiphanius and many other Fa­thers erred therein: that Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 140. linea 27. & cent. 3. c. 7. col. 176. l [...]ea 39. Tertullian and Cyprian taught Vows of Chastity: that the famous antient Iustus Molitor de Ec­clesia militante, &c. pag. 80. fine saith, Chalcedonense Concilium contra Spiritus Sancti oracula, Monachis, & Virginibus monialibus u­sum conjugii interdixit.Council of Chal­cedon did (hereupon) forbid Marriage to Monks and Nuns: that St. Augustine and all the Fathers assembled with him in the Carthage Council So saith Danaeus con­tra Bellarm. primae partis altera parte pag. 1011. ini­tio. And see Concil. 4. Car­thag. can. 104. and 1 Tim. 5.9, 10, 11, 12. abused ma­nifestly the word of God, saying upon the Apostles words: If any Widow how young soever, &c. hath vowed her self to God, left her secular habit, and under the testi­mony of the Bishop and Church appeared in a religious weed, if afterward she go to secular Marriage, she shall according to the Apostle have damnation, because she dared to make void the vow of Chastity, which she made to God: that Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 5. fol. 381. b. sect. 10. initio. And see Danaeus contra Belar. 1. partis altera parte pag. 1011. To make good what here is granted by Mr. Fulk and Danaeus, see the first Faith mentioned by the Apostle, expounded in like manner of the Vow of Chastity by the Greek Fathers, namely Epiphanius haer. 48. Basil. lib. de Virginitate parum ultra medium. And by Theodoret, Chrysostom, Occomenius, and Theophilact, in their several commentaries in 1 Tim. 5. and also by the Fathers of the Latin Church, namely by Augustine de Sancta Virginitate cap. 23. & de bono viduitatis cap. 8. & 9. and in Psa. 75. by Innocentius Epist. 2. ad Vict. cap. 13. by Gelasius Epist. 1. cap. 23. by Tertul. de Monogamia. By Hierom. l. 1. contra Jovin. c. 7. & in Ezech. c. 24. prope finem. By Fulgentius Epist. 3. and by Ambrose, Primasius, Sedulius, and Beda in their several commentaries in 1 Tim. c. 5. likewise by the first Faith (mentioned in the A­postles foresaid saying, 1 Tim. 5.11.12.) [Page 173] most of the antient Fathers do expound the vow or promise of continency: that al­so vows of Chastity have been used Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sect. 17. saith, Hoc in­quiunt ab ultima memoria fuit observatum, ut se alli­garent continentiae voto, qui totos se Domino dicare vel­lent: fateor certè antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hunc morem, sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo. And Master Wotton in defence of Master Parkins, &c. pag. 491. pau­lo post med. confesseth the ge­neral received doctrin of the Fathers in this matter, saying thereof, But the Fathers are not for us, what then? Is no­thing true which cannot be confirmed by their testimony, &c. Indeed it is one of the ble­mishes of the antient Writers, that they were so highly conceited of single life, &c. Therefore it is not to be looked for that antiquity should afford us any testimony herein, against the practise and judgement of those days. ab ultima memoria, and antiquitus recep­tum; that Peter Martyr de Caelibatu & Votis pag. 477. ante med. saith, Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus nimium tribui caeptum est caelibatui, &c. And Herman­nus Hamelmannus l. de Traditionibus Apostolicis, &c. col. 460. linea 58. saith, Post mortem [...]oannis Apostoli statim caeperunt defectiones à fide, &c. prohibitiones nuptiarum, & ciborum, vota, caelibatus, &c. And see also there col. 254. linea 30. And seë Johannes Bugchagius in Jonam cap. 3. edit. Wittembergae Anno 1550. immediatly after the A­postles times too much was attributed to vows: that Ignatius himself (though their Schollar) signifieth in his Epistles his too Centur. 2. c. 3. col. 64. fine l. 40. it is said, Ex Epistolis Ignatii apparet, h [...] ­mines jam tum paulò impensiùs caepisse amare & venerari Virginitatis studium. Nam in Epist. ad Antioch. ait, Virgines videant, cui se consecrarint. And see Ig­natius his like phrase of professed widdows in Epist. ad Tarsenses, prope finem, where he saith, eas quae in Virginitate sunt honorate, sicut sacras Christi, viduas pudicas ut Sacrarium Dei veneremini. And Polycarpus the Apostles Scholar in his Epistle ad Philippenses (specially mentioned and alleged by Eusebius l. 4. c. 13. fine, & l. 3. c. 30. fine, and by Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. fine) saith in like manner, Viduae verò pudicae circa fidem Dei interpellent incessanter pro omnibus, &c. cognoscentes seipsas quia sunt sacrarium Dei.much liking of the profession of Virginity: and Centur. 2. c. 10. col. 167. linea 24. de virginitate minus com­modè loquitur. speaketh incommodi­ously of Virginity,Abraham Schultetus in his Medulla Theologiae Patrum pag. 450. circa med. allegeth Ignatius saying ad Philip. Saluto Collegium Virginum. Whereupon he immediatly inferreth: Ergone in illo Ecclesiae flore fuerunt, quae casti­tatem & continentiam perpetuam profiterentur Virgines? Fuerunt omnino, &c. In like manner the Century Writers cent. 4. c. 6. col. 467. linea 28.36. & col. 476. [...]in. 32. And Osiander in his Epi [...]om, &c. cent. 4. l. 4. c. 20. pag. 507. initio, and 503. fine do affirm, and allege Monasteries of professed Virgins in that Century or age in which Constantine lived.saluting, and affir­ming Colleges of Virgins: and so plainly, that certain of our learned Adversaries, even those who will not acknowledge the evidently-mentioned Vows of those times, are yet nevertheless inforced to confess, even of that first age, how that [Page 174] Schuletus ut supra. in that flower of the Church there were Virgins, that professed perpetual Chastity. That lastly St. Ambrose and Epiphanius derive Peter Martyr de cae­libatu & Votis pag. 543. paulo post med. & pag. 525. initio. And St. Augustine tom. 6. contra Faustum Ma­nich. l. 30. c. 4. answereth accordingly to Faustus the Manichee, who objected St. Paul to prove (with our adversaries) vowed Chastity to be the Doctrin of Devils, saying to him, Ipsi jam timeo Apostolo, ne daemonio [...]um do­ctrinam intulisse tunc lconio videatur, cum Theclam oppignoratam jam thalamo, in amorem, sermone suo, perpetuae Virginitatis incendit. professed chastity from the institution of St. Paul.

In like manner concerning the mar­riage of Priests, to omit all other testi­mony thereof hereafter alleged (see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. examp. 3. at f. g. h. i. & tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 3. at o. and 98. sundry, and yet more antient examples alleged against Priests marriage) it is confessed that even So saith Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 330. circa med. that notable and famous Council of Nyce (which saith Mr. Whitgift Whitgift ibid.is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves) did (as Mr. Cartwright acknowledgeth) affirm and teach, Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 485. circa med. and see this yet further confessed by Mr. Ban­croft in his Survey of the pre­tended holy disciplin pag. 486. And by the Century Writers cent. 4. col. 656. lin. 44. And by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 8. sect. 3. fol. 14. a. post med. And see also Socrates hist. l. 1. c. 8. ante med. and Zozom. hist. l. 1. c. 22. that unto those that were chosen unto the Ministry un­marryed, it was not lawful to take any Wife afterwards: only being marryed before entrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that (precedent) marriage? And Paphnutius, [Page 175]one of the Council, sheweth concerning Priests unlawfulness to marry after Priesthood undertaken, that not only this was before that Council, but was also yet further an antient tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested. Thus far Mr. Cartwright. In so much as the Coun­cil of Carthage (whereat St. Austin was present) doubted not to refer this to the Concil. 2. Carthag. can. 2. saith, Omnibus pla­cet, ut Episcopi, Presbyte­ri, & Diaconi, &c. ab uxo­ribus se abstineant, ut, quod Apostoli docuerant, & ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos cu­stodiamus. Apostles doctrin. And Mr. Jew­el accordingly confesseth concerning the Fathers opinion against marriage of Priests, saying thereof: Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 164. and after the Edition of Anno 1571. pag. 195. f. fine. To make further good Mr. Iewels confession, the studious Reader may yet further read the prohibition of Priests marriage, for the Greek Church in Ori­gen (in Num. homil. 23.) in Epiphanius (haer. 59. ante med.) in Eusebius (de de­monstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 9.) Nyssenus (de virginitate c. ult.) Basil (ad Amphilochium can. 3. & 6. & in cap. 3. Esaiae) Chrysostom (hom. 2. in Iob) Iustinian (c. l. 1. tit. 3. de Episcopis & Clericis n. 45. & in Nomocanon. tit. 9. c. 29. & authent. col. 1. Quomodo Episcopos, &c. tit. 6. c. 1. & 5. & Novella 123. de Episcopis & Clericis c. 14. & 29.) & in Concilio Neocaesariensi can. 1. & Synod. Trullana can. 6. & 12. & 48. And for the Latin Church in Innocentius Ep. 1. c. 9. Leo Ep. 84. ad Anastasium Thessal. & 92. ad Rusticum, & Hierom. contra Vigilantium cap. 1. & in Ep. ad Titum. c. 1. & Ambrose Ep. 82. & in 1 Tim. c. 3. And to omit many par­ticular Fathers in Concil. 2. Arelatensi can. 2. & 3. & in Concilio Elibertino can. 33. & Concil. Roman. can. 8. & Concil. 5. Carthag. can. 3. & Concil. 1. Toletan. can. 1. & Concil. 1. Arausican. can. 22. & 23. & Concil. 1. Turo­nensi can. 1. & 2. & Concil. Agathense can. 9. A doctrin so evident in the antient Fathers, that our learned adversaries do accordingly confess the same. See to this end the doctrin hereof acknowledged by Hospinianus (hist. Sacramentar. part. 1. pag. 132.) in Syricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, the 2. Council of Arles, the Council of Neocaesa­ria, &c. acknowledged in like manner by Chemnitius (in his examen. &c. part. 3. pag. 50. a. b. & 52. a. & 62. a.) in Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Innocentius, Syricius, and Epiphanius, acknowledged likewise by Osiander in his Epitom. &c. centur. 4. in the Council of Neocaesarea (pag. 46. in can. 1.) in the 2. Council of Arles (ibid. pag. 195. in can. 2.) in the council of Eliberis (ibid. pag. 167. in can. 33.) in the first Toletan Council (centuria 5. pag. 45. in can. 1.) in the Councel of Ag [...]tha (ibid. [...]ntur. 5. pag. 122. in can. 9.) in Syricius (ibid. pag. 176. in can. 9.) in the fift Council of Carthage (ibid. pag. 156. in can. 3.) in the first Arausican Council (ibid. pag. 298. in can. 22. & 23.) in the Council called Turonense (ibid. pag. 395. in can. 1. & 2.) and in the Synod called Venetica (ibid. pag. 406. in can. 11.) And see yet further the antient Fathers confessed, and thereupon reproved herein by the Century Wri­ters of Magdeburg in centur. 3. col. 148. line 48. & centur. 4. col. 303. through­out. Here I grant Mr. Harding is like to find some good ad­vantage, as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. In like manner concerning Monks, it is confes­sed, that the more antient Fathers, [Page 176]namely Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 344. post med. Ruffine, Theodoret, Zozo­men, Socrates, &c. do mention Monks almost in every page. And that in the same Century or age in which Constan­tine our first Christian Emperour lived, Centur. 4. c. 10. col. 1294. line 50.51. there were Monks throughout Sy­ria, Palestine, Bithynia, and other pla­ces of Asia. Also throughout Centur. 4. col. 1306. line 19.20. Africa and Ibi col. 1331. lin. 53. Ibid. c. 6. col. 471. lin. 24. & col. 474. lin. 14. & col. 475. lin. 42. & col. 476. lin. 17. See further mention of their wonderful austere life in Epiphanius haer. ultim. versus finem, & in Socra­tes hist. l. 4. c. 18. prope i­nitium. & in Zozom. hist. l. 3. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 29. pau­lo post initium, & in Eva­grius hist. l. 1. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. and see throughout in Palladius his Historia Lausaica, & in Theodorets [...]; and see hereaf­ter in this considerat. num. 23. at 50. Europe; with like further con­fessed mention, as well of their Ibid. col. 472. lin. 21.22.50. and of their peculiar habit, see Ambrose serm. 94 and Zozom. l. 3. c. 13. paulo post ini­tium, and Hierom. Ep. 4. ad Rusticum Monachum, & Greg. l. 3. dial. c. 1. and Cassianus l. 1. de institut. caenob. And see hereafter in this Consideration Num. 23. at 51, 52, 53. au­stere life and Religious See the Century Writers centur. 4. c. 6. col. 464. lin. 56. & col. 466. lin. 31. & col. 474. lin. 38. habit; as also of their Centur. 4. c. 6. col. 464. 464. lin. 59. monasteries, their volun­tary professed Concil. Chalcedonense can. 15. decreed that, Si qua Virgo se dedi­caverit Deo, similiter Monachus, non licet eis nupt [...]is jungi: for which it is repre­hended by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp rat. 4. pag. 62. fine, and by Osiander in Epi­tom. cent. 5. l. 3. c. 13. pag. 356. in can. 7. & pag. 359. in can. 15. & 16. and by Iustus Molitor de Eccles. militante pag. 80. fine. And of the vowed Chastity of Monks, See further Chrysost. Ep. 6. ad Theodorum Monachum ante med. & Concil. Chalce­donense can. 16▪ & Concil. 6. Constantinop. can. 41, & 44. & Basil regula 14. & & serm. 1. de institutione Monachorum, & in Ep. priori ad Monachum lapsu [...], & Con­cil. Antisiodorense can 24, & in Dionysius Areopagita de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia c. 6. Thus much of the Greek Church. And for the Latine Church in Europe, see Leo Ep. 92. ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum c. 13. & Syricius Ep. l. c. 6. & Concil. 2. Turonense can. 11. & 16. & Concil. 4. Tolet. can. 51. And for the Church of A­frick, See St. Austin in Psalm 75. & Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. initio. poverty and [z] cha­stity. In so much as Mr. Cartwright [Page 177]affirmeth, that Mr. Cartwright in his first Reply part. 1. pag. 502. circa med. Monks are Antichri­stian, notwithstanding their antiency: and that Mr. Cartwright ibid. pag. 510. ante med. Hieroms Monks, Hermits and Anchorets were at that time very gross. As also Calvin professeth him­self to dislike Calvin institut. l. 4. c. 13. sect. 16. saith, Inte­rim non dissimulo, vel in il­la, quam Augustinus com­mendat, prisca forma (Mo­nachisimi) esse nonnihil quod mihi parum placeat. the Monachism which Austine commendeth, and yet are the undoubted miracles of the Monks of those said times, as namely of Au­stin, Antony, Paul, Hilarion, the Monks of Egypt and others, undoubtedly reported for certain, by the antient See Brereley tract. [...]. cap. 3. sect. 7. at 1. Fathers, and confessed for true by the See hereafter in this Con­sideration num. 23. at 54. Pro­testant Divines of Magdeburg.

2. Secondly, concerning the Blessed Sacrament, as namely concerning the form thereof, the Consecration thereof, the Real Presence, the reservation there­of, the great reserved care (had more thereof, than of the water of Baptism) least any part thereof should fall down to the ground; the mixture of water with Wine in the Chalice, and the receiving thereof fasting and chast. As concer­ning the form thereof, it is confessed upon the testimony of Epiphanius in Ancho­rat. ante med. saith, Acce­pit hoc & ubi gratias egis­set, dixit: Hoc meum est, hoc & hoc, & videmus, quod non aequale est, neque simi­le, non imagini in carne, &c. hoc enim est rotundae formae, &c. Epiphanius, that the Sacrament was (as the Lord [Page 178]Bishop of Winchester translateth his words) Mr. Bilson in his true difference, &c. part. 4. pag. 566. Also Gesnerus in his compend [...]um doctrinae cae­lestis, Printed Wittemb [...]g 1606. loc. 33. pag. 263. circa med. saith, Quod [...]utem panem rotunda forma usur­pamus, nonne è Papistic [...]s superstitionibus reliqu [...]um est? Minime, quandoqu [...] dem Epiphanius antiquissimus Scriptor, suo tempore illas rotulas usitatas fulsse in An­chorat. commemorat, &c. round in figure; or as Master Cartwright confesseth a round Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitg [...]fts desence, &c. pag. 593. post med. and see Pre­torius de Sacramentis pag. 287. ante med.Wa­fer cake brought in by Pope Alexander, who lived Osiander centur. 2. pag. 10. circa med. and Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 594 initio, say he lived An. 111. about 1500. years since. An usage so further antient, that, as our Adversaries confess, Hospinion in hist. Sa cramentar, &c. l. 4. pag. 370. post med. saith hereof, Quando primùm caeperint, vel domi vel in Templis pa­rare, ex farinae spuma, vel panis minutas & rotundas, instar denariorum, host olas & buccellas, cert [...] sciri non potest, &c. mentionem fa­ci [...] Epiphanius panis rotun­di in Caenae, &c. the beginning thereof cannot be found. As touching the consecration thereof, whereas our learned Adversaries hold, that Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Mat, 26. sect. 7. fol. 53. b. paulo ante med, & in 1 Cor. 10. §. 4. fol. 227. b. paulo ante med. & M. Willet in his Synopsis p. 464. con­secration doth consist not (only) in the words (pronounced) but in the whole action, &c. Whereto are required the ta­king, eating, drinking, &c. The Fathers to the contrary refer this consecration, not to our taking, drinking, eating, &c. but to the words of Christ, not Greg. Nyssen in serm, Cate, de divino Sacramento.be­cause it is eaten (saith St. Gregory Nys­sene) doth it become the body of the Word, but forthwith by the word it is changed into the body, as it is said by the word, This is my body. A testimony so plain with us, that the Centurists do therefore recite, and place it under their title of the Cen. 4. c. 4. col. 287, lin. 18. & col. 295. lin. 27. & 40.hurtful opinions and errours of the Doctours. This point being made yet further plain by the Fathers confessed practise of See this next hereafter. reserving the Sacra­ment unreceived (which had been vain and defective, had not consecration been perfect without receiving:) and no less plain by the many other like [Page 179] Chrysostom in homil, de proditione Judae versus fi­nem saith, Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur, & Dei virtute consecrantur. Hoc est, ait, corpus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecran­tu [...]: and ad Pop. hom. 60. post med. he saith, Qui nam­que dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, & verbum facto con­firmavit. St. Ambrose de Sa­cramentis l. 4. c. 4. saith, Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini Iesu, &c. ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum, &c. vides ergo quam operatorius est sermo Christi. And again l. 4. c. 5. he further saith, Ante verba Christi, calix est vini & aquae plenus, ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur, qui redemit plebem. And Eusebius Emissenus, hom. 5. Pasch. versus finem saith, Antequam invocatione summi nominis con­secrentur, substantia illi [...] est panis & vini, post verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis est Christi. In respect hereof St. Hierom saith of Priests, that, Corpus Christi sacro ore conficiunt (Hierom in Epist. 1. ad Heliodorum c. 7.) And see the Centurists cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 184. lin. 33. Where holy Pontianus is by them reproved for his like saying. And St. Cyprian de caena Domini paulo post initium, saith of the Sacrament: Omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. And before them all Holy Irenaeus l. 5. c. 1. post initium saith, Quando mixtus calix & fractus pa­nis percepit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia, &c. sayings of the Fathers, concer­ning consecration, whereof some do also further concern the Priests St. Austin serm. 19. de san­ctis saith, Crucis charactere, &c. altaris Sacramenta cum interpositione Do­minicorum verborum conficiuntur: & serm. 181. de tempore he further saith, Hoe enim signo Crucis, consecratur corpus Dominicum. And in Evang. Ioan. tract. 118. he saith, Quod signum (Crucis) nisi adhibeatur, five frontibus cre­dentium, five ipsi aquae qua regenerantur, five oleo quo chrismate unguntur, five sacrificio quo aluntur, nihil eorum rite perficitur. And see the very like saying in Chrysostom in homil. quod Christus sit Deus, circa med. And in Matth. hom. 55. circa med. And see what is confessed hereof by the Centurists centur. 3. c. 6. col. 141. lin. 34. and by Mr. Burges hereafter in this Considera­tion num. 23. at 82. signing of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross: We will now next speak of the Real Presence, con­cerning which it is confessed, that Gregory the Great Humfred Iesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626, post medium.taught transub­stantiation; that The Century writers cent. 5. col. 517. l. 23. say, Chrysostomus transubstan­tiationem videtur confirmare: nam ita scribit, &c. And see Musculus in loc. com. pag. 336. circa med. reciting and reproving a saying of Chrysostom concer­ning the Sacrament. Chrysostom is thought to confirm Transubstantiation; that Centur. 4. c. 10. col. 985. lin. 30. Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation; that [Page 180] Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass fol. 221. a. fine, and see as much confessed by the Century Wri­ters cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. lin. 3. And by Oecolampa­dius in libro Ep [...]stolarum Oecolampadii & Zuingli [...] lib. 3. pag. 756. and by V [...] ­dian. de Eucharist. Apho­rism. l. 5. pag. 150. & 151. the Books of Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, affirm the opinion of Christs bodily presence in the Sacra­ment. Wherein Peter Martyr like­wise professeth to Peter Martyr in de­fens. object. Gardlner. part. 4. pag. 724. And see also Pe­ter Martyrs further dislike of Cyrils sayings in his Epistles, annexed to his common pla­ces in English, in his Epistle there to Beza pag. 106. b. ante med. Where he saith, I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmed such a communion, as thereby even the substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ, first is joyned to the blessing (for so he calleth the holy bread) &c. In so much as in his second Alphabetical table (there) of the additions under the letter H. at the word Heresy, is set down there, Heresy of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ 106. b. And in his E­pistle to Calvin ibid. pag. 98. a. ante med. he reproveth further for this opinion Cyril and some other Fathers. dislike the judgement of Cyril: that In the treatise attributed to Vrsinus, intituled Commonefactio cujusdem Theologi de S. Caena, & ejusdem commonefactio­nis consideratio. pag. 211. & 218. in Cy­prian are many sayings, which seem to affirm Transubstantiation; In so much as they do Unworthily, For the Book of Sermons en­tituled, de operibus Cardinalibus Christi, commonly attributed to Cyprian, (wherein among others are contained the several Sermons de Baptismo Christi, de Caena Dom. de ablutione pedum, &c. which Sermon de Caena Dom. con­teineth the sayings now intended) is dedicated to Cornelius, who was Bishop of Rome when Cyprian lived, and to whom Cyprian himself l. 1. Epist. 1. & Epist. 3. did write, in so much that Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in 1 Cor. c. 11. fol. 282. a. circa med. allegeth testimony from thence, affirming, that the Author de Cae­na Domini was not in time much inferior to Cyprian. And Erasmus in his Annotati­ons annexed to Cyprians works, Printed at Basil 1558. upon the folio 287. affirmeth it to be the work of some learned man of that age. unworthily af­firm, that Sermon of his in which those sayings are extant to be coun­terfeit. That lastly Ignatius Mr. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights reply pag. 408. ante med.who was St. Johns Scholar, and lived in Christs time, did (as Theodoret 1200. years since, and themselves now do Theodoret. dial. 3. & Ha­melmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis, &c. col. 746. lin. 18.19.22.23. &c. allegeth not only Theodoret, but also one Wydefortus, alleging Anno 1396. this saying of Ignatius out of an antient copy of that time. And so likewise doth Chem­nitius in his examen part. 1. pag. 94. a. fine. affirm, and as the Lutherans do object in Vide Recitationes de Con­cilio scripti libri Concordiae, &c. (Printed at Lipsia 1581) nona recitat. pag. 177. ante med. proof of their real presence) say of the Hereticks in his time, they do not admit Eucharists [Page 181]and oblations, because they do not con­fess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suf­fered for our sins. And one of our Adversaries Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 256. saith, Commentum Pa­pistarum de transubstantia­tione matu [...]e in Ecclesiam irrepsit. confesseth accor­dingly, that Transubstantiation entred early into the Church. And another Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass pag. 236. a. ante med. saith, I have not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. As concerning reservation of the Sacrament where­as according to our Adversaries Do­ctrine, Mr. Willet in his Sy­nopsis pag. 460. ante med. it is no Sacrament unless it be received; The contrary was so plainly taught and practised even in the more antient times of Chrysostom. in Ep. 1. ad Innocentium. St. Chrysostom, Cypr. in serm. de lap­sis post med.Cyprian, Irenaeus apud Eusebi­um hist. l. 5. c. 24.Irenaeus, Iustine in Apolog. 2. prope finem. This testimony of Iustin is so plain, that Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 77. circa med. saith thereof, Iustine (his saying) of the Deacons carry­ing the Bread of the holy Supper of the Lord to those which were not present at the action of the Supper, is contrary to the in­stitution. And see M [...]. Cart­wrights like judgement in Mr. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 585. paulo post med.Justin, &c. that Mr. Fulk con­fesseth hereof saying, Fulk against Heskines, Sanders, &c. pag. 77. pro­p [...] finem. that the Sacrament (of some) was reserved in the elder days of the Church, is not so great a Controversy, as whether it ought to be reserved: and Calvin acknowledgeth Calvin instit. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 39. the reservation of the Sacrament (to be) veteris Ec­clesiae exemplum,See Peter Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum, object. 88.the example of the antient Church. And (to omit others) Chemnitius doth likewise [Page 182]acknowledge, that Chemnitius examen part. 2. pag. 102. a. paulo post medium. witnesses of this custom of private reservation of the Eucharist are Tertullian, Cypri­an, Ambrose, Hierom, Basil, &c. And that Chemnitius ibidem. certain of the antient Fathers greatly commended the same, as Nazianzen, Ambrose, &c. And that it was Chemnitius ibid. antiqua consuetudo la­tè patens, & diu propagata. In so much as See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 19. in the margent at k. Peter Martyr cannot but acknowledge, that (by the testimony of St. Cyril) the Anthropomorphites were specially condemned for their impugning of the Sacraments reser­vation. As concerning the great ob­served care had more of this Sacra­ment, than of the water of Baptism, that no part thereof should fall to the ground, to avoid tedious repetitions, we refer to that which is (in Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 3. in the margent at 16.) alleged in that behalf, from the known and evident testimonies, of St. Austine, and Cyril (who lived a­bove 1200. years since) and of Ter­tullian and Origen who lived almost fourteen hundred years since.

As concerning the necessity of mingling water with Wine in the Chalice, before consecration of the Sacrament, it is so abundantly testi­fied by the Fathers Iustin Apolog. 2. fine, and Irenaeus l. 5. c. 1. Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3. Ambrose l. 5. de Sacramentis c. 1. & l. 4. c. 5. Hierom. in Marc. c. 14. Au­gustim. tract. 120. in Ioan. & de Eccles. dogmat. c. 75. & de doctrina Christiana l. 4. c. 21. Euseb. Emissen. Ser­mo 5. de Paschate. Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 24. & Con­cil. Arausican can 17. & Concil. 3. Brach. can. 1. & Concil. Trib. can. 21. & Concil. African. can. 4. & ex capitulis Graec. Syn. c. 55. & Concil. 6. Constanti­nop. can. 32. of all ages, and Countries, that Mr. Whitgift [Page 183]saith Mr. Whitgift in his de­fence, &c. pag. 473. prope initium. Cyprian was greatly overseen in making it a matter so necessary in Celebration of the Lords Supper, to have water mingled with wine, which was at that time, no doubt, common to more than to him. Mr. Cartwright likewise acknowledgeth, that Mr. Cartwright alle­ged in Mr. Whitgifts foresaid defence pag. 525. fine. in the mingling of water with Wine, a necessity and great mystery was placed, as may appear (saith he) both by Ju­stin Martyr and Cyprian. And Mr. Jewel speaking of this mixture, con­fesseth in like manner, saying, Mr. Iewel. in his reply pag. 34. paulo ante med. in­deed St. Cyprian and certain old Fa­thers spake of it, and force it much. Adde but now hereto, that the Ar­menians, being the first we read of that denyed this mixture, affirming (with our Adversaries) that only Wine was to be used, were therefore specially condemned of errour, as witness Theoph lact in Ioan. cap. 19. m [...]n [...]ioning the wa­ter and bloud which issued from Christs side, saith, Con­fundantur Armeni qui non admiscent in mysterris a­quam vino; non enim cre­dunt, ut videtur, quod aqua ex latere egressa sit. Theophilact, and the Fa­thers of the sixt Council Concil. 6. Constanti­nop. can. 32. saith, Novimus quod in Armenianorum Re­gione, vinum tantum in sa­cra mensa offerunt, aquam illi non miscentes, qui Sa­crificium incruentum pera­gunt, which their usage that Council there condemneth, say­ing there further against it, Nam & Iacobus Domini no­stri Iesu Christi frater, &c. & Basilius Coesariae Archi­episcopus, &c. mystico, no­bis in scripto tradito, Sacri­ficio, ita peragendum, in Sacro Mysterio, ex aqua & vino, sacrum poculum, edi­derunt.of Con­stantinople, who about a thousand years since alleged against them, Ibid. ut supra. St. James his Liturgy in proof of the soresaid mixture. As concer­ning the receiving of the Sacrament fasting, St. Austine saith, Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. & vide Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 29. & 48. And Brereley in his omissions of pag. 85. saith, See this confessed by Hospinian in hist. Sacram. part. 1. l. 2. pag. 48. ante med. where having alleged this saying of Austin he saith thereof, Non obscurè innuit Augustinus jejunium hoc traditio­nem Apostolicam esse. It plea­sed [Page 184]the Holy Ghost, and was universal­ly observed, that our Lords Body should enter into the mouth of a Christian, before other meats, as Tertullian saith thereof, Tertul. l. 2. ad Vx [...] ­rem and see this in the Cen­turists cent. 3. col. 132. line 10. ante omnem cibum, before all meat, the reason wherof St. Austin affirmeth to be Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. & see Hospinian in hist. Sa­cram. part. 1. pag. 48. & 25. (in honorem tanti Sacramenti) in honour of so great a Sacrament.

As concerning injoyned Chastity upon receiving of the Sacrament, the words of St. Hierom. adv. Iovin. Apol. saith, I appeal to their conscience, who the same day after carnal copulation do com­municate, and as Persius saith, purge the night with wa­ter, why dare they not go to the Martyrs. & vide Concil. Elibertinum, apud Osiandium in Epitom. cent. 4. pag. 181. fine. Hierom do so plainly testify observed Chastity by the Lai­ty before the time of their Commu­nion, that Mr. Fulk in this case ac­knowledgeth Mr. Fulk against Hes­kines, Sanders, &c. pag. 458. paulo post med. Hieroms admoniti­on given to married Persons, to abstain from company with their wives, &c. which he there tearmeth Mr. Fulk. ibid. paulo post. unworthy, and Mr. Fulk ibid. Popish Divinity. Which said Popishness, was yet by the other Fa­thers religiously observed, as is con­fessed further by Hospinianus in histo­ria Sacramentaria l. 2. pag. 46. circa med. saith, In pri­mitiva Ecclesia Eucharistia sumpta fuerat castè. And he doth there demonstrate this particulary in sundry antient Fathers. Hospinianus. And as the Laity at their certain times of receiving, were thus enjoyned; so likewise to Priests, in regard of their daily celebration, was the ob­servation of their chastity daily en­joyned. Brereley tract. 1. s [...]ct. 7. subd. 3. And whereas Mr. Whi­taker giveth example in Pope Siri­cius saying, Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480. ante med. And whereas Mr. Morton in Apolog. Cathol. c. 73. pag. 219. allegeth testimony to prove that Siricius did make the first decree thereof: this (though admitted) only argueth some then late precedent negligence in not observing the then before observed rule of Chastity: but it argueth no more the Doctrin thereof, to be then first begun, than did the Fathers of the Nycene Council in their Decree of homousion argue thereby the Doctrine thereof to be first as then begun. Siricius was the first [Page 185]that annexed perpetual chastity to the Ministers of the word; whereto we answer, first, that Mr. Whitaker alle­geth no proof that Siricius was the first: neither doth he, or can he name any one Catholick writer of that time so reporting. Secondly we allege most plainly to the contrary, how that Optatus, who lived in the same time with Siricius, affirmeth, that Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas saith, Cum Siri­cio totus Orbis in una com­munionis societate concor­dat. all the world joyned in Communion with Sircius, so far was he from being then reputed an Innovator. St. Hie­rom also, who lived in the time of Damasus Predecessor to Siricius, saith of the very point now in question, Hieron. in Apolog. ad Pamach. c. 3. and the same Doctrin doth he affirm in cap. 1. ad Titum, & l. 1. c. 19. adversus lovin. if marryed men like not this, let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice, if they use the act of marriage. And this opinion was then not first begun, but (to the contrary) so universal, that St. Hie­rom affirmeth it to be the general Do­ctrin and practice of the Churches in Asia, Africk, Europ. As namely of Hieron. contra Vigi­lantium c. 1. saith, Quid fa­ciunt Orientis Ecclesiae? quid Egypti & sedis Apostolicae? quae aut Virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint, ma­riti esse desinunt. the Churches in the East, of E­gypt, and the Sea Apostolick. And in [Page 186]like manner was the marriage of Priests long before these times so plainly impugned for unlawful, even in the Greek Church by Epiphanius haer. 59. after other plain words had hereof, saith, At dices mihi, in quibusdam locis adhuc libe­ros gignere Praesbyteros, Diaconos & Hypodiaconos: at haec non est juxta Cano­nem, &c. So plainly doth he acknowledge thereby a former canon. Epipha­nius, the most antient Origen. in Num. hom. 23. saith, Certum est, quia impeditur Sacrificium in­desinens iis qui conjugali­bus necessitatibus serviunt, unde videtur mihi quòd il­lius est solius offerre Sacri­ficium indesinens, qui inde­sinenti & perpetuae se devo­verit castiati. See this saying of Origen confessed and re­jected, as being against Priests marriage, by Chemnit us in his examen. part. 3. pag. 50. a. initio. & vide ibid. pag. 58. b. post med. & vide O­rigen in Levit. hom. 4. & l. 8. contra Celsum. Origen, and also even by that Misapplyed, For that many learned Protestants do urge it in proof of Priests mar­riage, whereas it proveth the contrary. misapplyed if not untrue example of Paphnutius, whereof many probabilities are ap­pearing. As first, there is not so much as any mention made of this matter by any who wrote of the Ny­cene Council before Socrates time, as neither by Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, nor yet so much as by Ruffinus, who hist. l. 1. wrote many things of Paphnutius, and of the Nycene Council: and could then all these be silent of so great a matter, & so earnestly debated in the Nycene Council? Secondly, it seemeth to be against the 3. Canon of the Nycene Council, which altogether forbiddeth Priests to have dwelling with them any woman, other than their Mother, Sister, their Fathers Sister, their Mothers Sister, &c. Whereas if as Socrates reporteth in the exam­ple of Paphnutius, the Council had left liberty for married lay-men af­terwards made Priests to have kept still their former wives, why then was not the wife first placed here in the exception, but altogether omit­ted? [Page 187]If answer be made, that there was no such cause of suspition with the wife; it is replyed thereto, that if the Council had reteined any such implyed consideration, why yet was there not exception also for the wives woman-servants, as well, or rather than for the other? or indeed why was there any such exception at all of Mother, Sister, or Aunt? Could there be conceived any such danger of suspition with these against him that might lawfully keep his wife? This Canon therefore of the Nycene Council is so direct therein, that our learned adversary Osiander in his E­pitom, &c. cent. 4. pag. 123. in can. 3. hath no other evasion, but to an­swer, that this prohibition was made to such of the Clergy, as did volunta­rily live chast. And what else is this, but implicatio in adjecto? for if this chastity was in them but voluntary, how then were they according to the words of this Council altogether prohibited? It is no less than plain contradiction. For which cause Mar­tin Luther tom. 2. Germ. Jenae fol. 97. saith hereof, I do not acknowledge the holy Ghost in this Nycene Coun­cil, because it forbiddeth him, who hath gelded himself, to be made Priest, and also commandeth the Clergy [Page 188]to have none dwelling with them, but their Mother, Sister, &c. Had the ho­ly Ghost no other thing to do in Coun­cils, but to bind his Ministers to such imposed, dangerous, and not necessary Laws? Thirdly, the 2. Council of Arles celebrated soon after the Ny­cene Council, giving mention and allowance thereof can. 10. and ma­king most of its Canons in imitation of the Nycene Council, decreeth can. 2. & 3. most plainly against such Priests accompanying of their wives (as is acknowledged by Osiander in Epitom. &c. centur. 4. pag. 195. in can. 3.) which it would never have done, if so the Nycene Council, but so lately before had left the matter at liberty. And the like may be said of the no less antient Council called Elibertinum. can. 27. & 33. and of Concilium Telense can. 9. and Con­cilium 2. Carthaginense, can. 2. & Concil. 5. Carthag. can. 3. & Concil. 1. Tolet. can. 1. Also of Epiphanius who as before at h. affirmeth it to be against the Canon. And St. Hierom who advers. vigilant. c. 1. affirmeth the practices of the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and the Sea Aposto­lick (to be) that if their Priests were before their Priesthood formerly marryed (mariti esse desinunt) they [Page 189]give over their wives: affirming as before, that all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, know they may not offer Sa­crifice, if they use the act of Marriage. Upon all which premises it is now referred to the judgement of the in­different Reader, whether it be more reasonable to think that so many Fa­thers and Councils living before So­crates (the first Author of this re­port concerning Paphnutius) and va­rying from him in this point, erred; or rather that Socrates living after them all, should erre in his singular and contrary report hereof, especi­ally considering aswell that the fore­said 3. Canon of the Nycene Coun­cil it self, directly as before, confu­teth his said report, as also for that he is as yet otherwise discovered for a suspected Writer, and of no credit in his report of those matters, where­in he is found dissenting from the o­ther more antient Writers, and is in such respect holden chargeable by the antient Father Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 5. And more fully by Mr. Whit­gift late Lord Archbishop in his de­fence, &c. pag. 350. post med. And is also yet further (by Nicephorus l. 6. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 37. and by Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 350. post med.) noted to have been a Novatian, whose [Page 190]errour (as appeareth by Socrates him­self l. 5. c. 20.) was that the obser va­tion of Easter was but a matter of in­differency: in behalf whereof Socra­tes l. 5. c. 21. affirmed that there was no Law of the Church to force men o­therwise, most falsly and directly a­gainst Concil. Antiochen. can. 1. and many other no less antient testimonies of the Nycene Council, and of Epi­phanius, Austin, and Theodoret, con­fessed by Mr. D. Covel in his Exa­mination, &c. against the plea of the Innocent pag. 65. ante med. As also in like untrue manner, and to give colour to his supposed indifferency of things, he in the same place af­firmeth the like indifferency of fa­sting-days, abstinence from certain meats, and sundry other points, most clearly against the confessed testi­monies of all Antiquity. Among which this his report of like preten­ded indifferency Fathered by him upon Paphnutius in the case of mar­ryed Priests accompanying their wives, is thought most probably to be one. As for Zozomenus like report of Paphnutius, he living after Socra­tes, and (as the Protestant Writer Gauvinus in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. affirmeth) but following Socrates in his report hereof (being [Page 191]also a Writer otherwise reproved by St. Gregory, quoniam multa men­titur, l. 6. Ep. 31.) his testimony is sufficiently confuted by that which is said in answer to the testimony of Socrates. For this cause It doth appear by So­crates hist. l. 1. c. 8. ante med. & Zozo, hist. l. 1. c. 22. and by the Century Writers cent. 4. c. 9. col. 656. lin. 44 and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhe­mish Testament in Matth. 8. sect. 3. fol. 14. a. post med. that Paphnutius, though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolve marriage contra­cted before Orders given, yet he affirmed to the Nycene Council, that those who were made Priests before they were married, should not afterwards marry: alleging for this (ve­terem Ecclesiae traditionem) the antient tradition of the Church. So plainly doth Paph­nutius hereby acknowledge, that this Doctrin was then holden for the Churches an­tient Doctrin. our lear­ned Adversaries doubt not therefore to So Chemnitius in his examen Concil. Trid. part. 3. reprehendeth Hierom, Ambrose and Origen, pag. 50. a. ante med. And Epiphanius pag. 62. a. initio. and Trigivillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. reprehendeth So­crates and Zozomene for their report of Paphnutius, saying thereof, Socrates hoc à [...]o temerè adjecit, &c. Socrates added this report rashly of his own devising, &c. with like falshood did he wrest the saying of Paphnutius in the Nycene Coun­cil, &c. And Z [...]zomen following after Socrates, followeth his explication in main­tenance of the Doctrin of D [...]s condemned by Paul 1 Tim. 4. reprehend the said Fathers. And as Epiphanius and Paphnutius in their cited testimonies hereof, do in plain tearms rest upon the Chur­ches Doctrin before their times: so likewise the Fathers of the Concil. 2. Car­thag. can. 2. saith, Om [...]bus placet, ut Episcopi, Prae [...]byteri, & Diaconi, &c. ab uxoribus se abstin [...]. ( [...]nd for this reason there set down) ut quod Apostoli docuerant & ipsa servav tantiquitas, nos custodiamus. Car­thage Council, whereat St. Austin was present, doubt not in like man­ner to ground this point upon anti­quity, and the Apostles Doctrin. So evident thereby it is, that Siri­cius in his foresaid Doctrin hereof brought in no innovation or change.

3. Thirdly, Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 3. as concerning An­ti-christ, and also Altars, and Sacri­fices, which he is foretold to Daniel 12.11. take [Page 192]away, Mr. Whitaker confesseth tou­ching Anti-christ saying: Whitaker l. de Anti­christo pag. 21. And M. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 508. post med. saith, Divers of the antient and the chiefest of them ima­gined fondly of Antichrist, as of one singular person. The Fathers for the most part thought that Anti-christ should be but one man, but in that, as in many other things they erred. Concerning the short time of his persecution or reign ga­thered from the Scriptures, Mr. Fox confesseth, that Fox in Apocal. c. 12. pag. 345. fine post med. almost all the holy and learned Interpreters, do by a time, times, and half a time, under­stand only three years and a half, af­firming further this to be Fox in Apocal. c. 13. pag. 392. fine. the con­sent and opinion of almost all the holy Fathers. As concerning Altras and Sacrifice, which (as Dr. Reynolds granteth) are Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart. pag. 552. fine.linked by nature in relation and mutual dependance one of other, so as the one being proved, the other is thereby established; and first concerning Altars (in respect whereof the other was termed See hereafter in this con­sideration num. 23. in the margent at * next before 13. See also the Sacrament tear­med the Sacrifice of the Altar, by St. Austin in Enchirid. cap. 110. & de cura pro mortu [...]s cap. 18. and by Greg. in Lucam hom. 37. and by Hierom Ep. 59. ad Pauli­num in solut. 5. quaestionis. And by Cyrillus Hierosoly­mitanus, in his words alle­ged hereafter in this Conside­ration num. 17. in the mar­gent under t. at Anno 320. the Sacrifice of the Altar) Peter Martyr reproveth the antient Fathers, say­ing, Peter Martyr in his Common places in English part. 4. pag. 225. b. post med. Petrus Alexandrinus attri­buteth more to the outward Altar, than to the lively Temples of Christ. And yet further against Peter martyr ibid. pag. 226. a initio. Optatus: Op­tatus l. 6. against Permenianus saith, What is the Altar? even the seat of the Body and Bloud of Christ; Ibid.such sayings as these (saith Peter Martyr) edified not the people, &c. And in no [Page 193]less plain manner is Optatus foresaid saying mentioned and reproved Centur. 4. cap. 6. col. 409. l. 25. by the Century Writers. As al­so Peter Martyr reproveth the Fa­thers in general, saying, Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 4. pag. 225. b. ante med. And Mr. Cartwright in his second Re­ply, the last part pag. 264. circa med. saith, The antient Writers abuse herein may ea­sily appear, in that, in this too great liberty of speech, they used to call the holy Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice, and the Communion table an Altar. And see Praetorius de Sacra­mentis pag. 287. post med. where he saith, Anno 262. Sixtus secundus abrogavit mensas hactenus usitatas, & constituit Altaria, quae magis repraesentant Judais­mum quam Christianismum. The Fathers should not with so much li­berty have seemed here and there to have abused the name Altar: A word nevertheless so frequent with the antient Fathers, that Ignatius the A­postles undoubted Scholar is by Master Cartwright and Mr. Jacob Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 517. prope finem saith, Ignatius calleth the Communion Table unproperly an Altar; Mr. Cartwright placing in his margent there [...]. And see the like mention of this word in Ignatius confessed by Mr. Jacob in his reasons taken out of Gods word, &c. pag. 58. post med. And see the same word accordingly used by Ignatius in Epist. ad Philadelph. con­fessed to have used the same accor­dingly.

Now as concerning Sacrifice (in respect whereof the Ecclesiastical Minister, was by the Fathers See hereafter in this Consideration num. 17. initio at 5. cal­led properly a Priest) it is affirmed by our learned Adversaries, that the more antient Fathers, namely See this affirmed by Cal­vin hereafter in this Conside­ration num. 17. in the mar­gent under the letter t. And M. D. Field l. 3. of the Church, c. 19. pag. 107. post med. saith in excuse of Calvin, The reason doubtless that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, was, for that they lived in the midst of Jews and Gentiles, both whose Religion consisted principally in Sacrifice, the Fathers therefore to shew that Christian Keligion is not without Sa­crifice, and that of a more excellent nature than theirs were, did much urge, that Christ once offered for the sins of the world upon the Altar of the Cross, is daily in my­stery offered, stain, and his bloud powred out on the holy Table, and that this Sa­crifice of Christ, stain for the sins of the world, thus continually represented, and li­ving in our memories, is the Sacrifice of Christians. Thus confesseth he the plain Doctrin of the Fathers, pretending only them to have thus urged Sacrifice against the Jews and Gentiles: whereas it is evident that their frequent assertions of Sa­crifice are in their Commentaries upon the Scripture, and such other their writings, as concern nothing at all, either Jew or Gentil, but meerly and only the instruction of Christians. In respect whereof Mr. Fulk affirmeth, that the Fathers received their confessed Doctrin of Sacrifice from the Jews and Gentils, saying in his rejoyn­der to Bristowes reply, &c. pag. 28. ante med. The name of Sacrifice, which the Fathers used commonly for celebration of the Lords Supper, they took of the Gentiles, and Jews: but how prove you they had it from the Scriptures? A­thanasius, Ambrose, Austin, Arno­bius, &c. erred herein; and so fully, [Page 194]that their Supper (is therefore said to have) carried the face of a renew­ed oblation, imitating over verily the Jewish manner of Sacrificing, &c. and that they Calvin in omnes Pau­li Epist. in Haebr. c. 7. ver. 9. pag. 924. b. saith, Quo ma­gis tot veteres Ecclesiae Do­ctores hac opinione occupa­tos fuisse miror, &c. certè ut error errorem trahere so­let, cum ipsi Sacrificium in Christi caena nullo ejus man­dato finxissent, adeoque cae­nam adulterassent, addito Sacrificio, colores postea hinc inde accersere conati sunt, quibus errorem suum fucassent. And in his Book de vera Ecclesiae refor­mat (extant in tract. Theologic. Calvini) pag. 389. b. fine, he further saith, Veteres excusandi non sunt, quatenus scilicet ipsos apparet a puro & genuino Christi instituto deflexisse: nam cum in hunc finem celebranda fit caena, ut Sacrificio Christi communicemus, eo non contenti, oblationem quoque addi­derunt: hoc auctarium vitiosum fuisse dico, &c. forged a Sacri­fice in the Lords Supper, without his Commandement, and so adulterated the Supper, with adding of Sacrifice. That Cyprians judgement (herein) is The Century Writers in their third Century col. 83. lin. 34. reprove Cyprian saying, Sacerdotem inquit (Cy­prianus) vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri Sacrificium offerri. And in their Al­phabetical Table of that Century, at the Letter S. they say hereof, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Caena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus, 83.34. superstitious. That also the writings of Irenaeus and Ignatius (who are most antient) are herein The Centurists cent. 2. c. 4. coll. 55. lin. 43. undertaking to set down the declining, peculiar incommodious opinions, and errors of the Doctors of those times, do in their said tract of this matter col. 63. prope initium say, Et si Doctores hujus sae­culi de Sacrificio incruento in Eucharistia Deo faciendo, nihil habeant: tamen quaedam ambiguè & incommodè dicta in quibusdam occurrunt, ut in Epist. Ignatii ad Smyrnenses: Non licet (inquit Ignatius) sine Episcopo, neque of­ferre, neque Sacrificium immolare, neque [...]. Which words they do afterwards col. 167. lin. 17. affirm to he periculosa & quasi errorum semina, And col. 63. lin. 20. they say in like manner of Irenaeus, De oblatione porrò, & Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. &c. satis videtur loqui incommodè, cum ait, Novi Testa­menti novam docuit (Christus) oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis acci­piens, in universo mundo offert Deo. In so much as they have no other colour to excuse Irenaeus foresaid saying, but to think that he hereby only meant the oblation of bread offered by the people to the use of the Lords Supper, and afterwards the re­mainder thereof to the use of the Priests and the poor, as though Christ, in his obla­tion made in his institution of the Sacrament, whereof Irenaeus expresly here pro­fesseth for to speak, did (to use Irenaeus his words) teach or prescribe this foresaid offering to the use of the poor to be the new oblation of the new Testament: this be­ing no less than open violence to Irenaeus word, and meaning; the Centurists do therefore (col. 113. lin. 23.) plainly charge him to have been neghigent and impro­per in his speaking, &c. often calling the Eucharist an oblation. Lastly these foresaid sayings of Ignatius and Irenaeus are so plain in the Centurists, that although they be accordingly extant in all Copies and Libraries, the Centurists yet blush not to say of Ignatius his saying, that they do partly suspect it, as inserted (col. 113. lin. 9.) and of Irenaeus his foresaid saying, they say, Si tamen locus fraude & mendo va­cat. col. 63. lin. 22. Which extreamest shift, they would never have thus under­gone, had not the said sayings appeared plain and manifest with us, and against them, in this question of Sacrifice. For which cause they do, as before, place them in their foresaid special tract or recital of the Doctors errors, of those times; affirming with­all, as before, Ignatius his foresaid words to be incommodè dicta, & periculosa, & quasi errorum semina. And of Irenaeus, that, satis videtur loqui incommodè, &c. Which said reprehension made by the Centurists, is in them so evident and not to be excused, that Mr. Sutcliff doth accordingly confess the same, in his subver­sion of the three conversions pag. 32. circa med.incommodious and dangerous, [Page 195]and that Sebastianus Francus in his Epist. de abrogandis, in universum, omnibus sta­tutis Ecclesiasticis. presently after the Apostles times, the Supper of our Lord was turned into a Sacrifice. In so much as some of our Adversaries doubt not to charge the most antient Fathers, even with Andraeas Chrastoni­us [...]. de Opificio. Missae, pag. 167. initio, reciting the Fa­thers opinion hereof saith, Di­cta autem Patrum non so­lum impetrationem, sed etiam intrinsecam quandam vim placandi innuunt. Origines hom. 13. in Leviticum ait: Ista est Commemoratio sola, quae propiti­um facit Deum hominibus. Athana sius in sermone de defunctis apud Damasce­num, ait: Incruentae host [...]ae oblatio propitiatio est. To which end he allegeth likewise further the particular sayings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gre­gory, Bede, and of the third Council of Brach. And concerning the Fathers fur­ther testimonies for Mass, see more hereafter in this consideration num. 17. in the margent at the Letter t. propitiatory [Page 196]Sacrifice, and Sacrifice for the dead. And with further acknowledgement that Sacrifice for the dead is the tra­dition of the Apostles: which point of Sacrifice is so confessedly antient, that our learned Adversary Mr. As­cham is enforced to acknowledge that Ascham in Apolog. pro Caena Domini, &c. pag. 31. post med. saith, Quibus tem­poribus, & per quos homines, Caena Dominica de posses­sione sua per Missam detur­bata sit, verissimè sciri non potest, &c. puto tamen o­riginem Missae partim ex Sacrificils illis dimanasse, quae impii Sacerdotes Iudaei supra modum auxerunt, &c. existimo etiam magnam partem Missae, ex Gentibus, in nostram Religionem profluxisse, &c. Thus wandreth he upon surmise without all proof. no first beginning thereof (since the Apostles times) can be shewed. So chargeable were the Fa­thers, no less than we now are, in that great question of See Bullingers Decades in English pag. 1082. a post med. Sacrifice.

4. Fourthly, concerning prayer for the dead, it is affirmed that Mr. Fulk in his reten­tive, and pag. 106. initio, and see Bucer in sacra quatuor Evangelia of 1536. pag. 31 [...]. ante med. it prevailed within three hundred years after Christ: that Mr. Fulk in his con­futation of Purgatory pag. 78. fine, and 320. ante med. and 326. initio. Ambrose al­lowed prayer for the dead, and that it was the common error of his time: that Mr. Fulk ibid. pag. 194. ante med. Chrysostom and Hierom al­lowed prayer for the dead: that See Mr. Fulk ibid. pag. 349. post med. Au­stin blindly defended it: that it was likewise taught by Chemnitius examen. part. 3. pag. 93. b. 94. a.b. Origen, Am­brose, Prudentius, and Hierom, also by Chemnitius ibid. pag. 107. b. ante med.Austin, Epiphanius, and Chry­sostom: [Page 197]that Mr. George Gifford in his demonstration that our Brownists be full Donatists, pag. 38. and see hereafter in this consideration num. 18. it was general in the Church long before the days of St. Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian and Tertullian: that also Mr. Fulk ac­knowledgeth Mr. Fulk in confutati­on of Purgatory, pag. 362. ante med. & vide ibid. pag. 303. circa med. & 393. pau­lo ante med. And Brere­ley in his Omissions of pag. 90. saith, And see Calvin de vera Ecclesiae reformat. rat. extant in Calvin. tract. Theolog. pag. 394. b. an­te med. Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles: that And Bucer in his enar­rat: in sacra quatuor Evan­gelia Printed Basiliae 1537. in Matth. c. 12. pag. 311. paulo ante med. saith, Ex eo quidem quod ab initio prope Ecclesiae, preces & Eleemosynae fiunt pro de­sunctis, sensim irrepsit ea sen­tentia, quam D. Augusti­nus ponit in Euchiridio cap. 110. n [...]que negandum est defunctorum animas pieta­te suorum viventium rele­vari cum pro illis Sacrifici­um mediatoris offertur, &c. Hinc itaque non dubitarim exortum hoc in defunctos officium pro illis orandi & sacrificandi, &c. prayer and alms were made for the dead almost from the very be­ginning of the Church. That like­wise prayer for the dead is taught in the writings Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 353. And Chemnitius in his examen. part. 3. pag. 110. a. circa med. saith, Apud Diony­sium oratio pro defuncto fit in Templo; And see further there pag. 100. b. post med. and 101. a. initio, & vide Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarchi. c. 7. part. 3. now extant un­der the name of Dionysius Areopagi­ta, who is mentioned in the Act. 17.14. Acts, and those writings, as well Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in 2. Thess. 2. sect. 19. fol. 361. b. paulo ante med. thinketh that Dionysius lived in the time of O­rigen. And Hermannus Pacificus in his Theses &c. pag. 139. fine, maketh this Dionysius much antient to Chrysostom saying, Quae mysteriorum explica­tio consentit cum iis quae multo ante (Chrysostomum) Dionysius de hac re scripsit, cum ait in lib. de Eccles. Hierarchia, &c. And Mr. D. Bridges Lord Bishop of Oxford, in his defence of the Government, &c. pag. 917. prope finem, saith, I take this Dionysius to have been before Basil. ac­knowledged by Mr. Fulk to have been written above 1300. years since (which was long before the objected Whereas it is usually objected against this Book, that if it had been the writing of Dionysius, then Eu­sebius or Hierom would have mentioned it, this confessed antiquity thereof before their times avoydeth that objection, which is also no less plainly avoyded by Euse­bius hist. l. 5. c. 26. and H [...]erom (in Catal. prope initium) who signify that the Books of sundry Writers were unknown to them. times to the contrary of Eusebius and Hierom) as also alleged special­ly by Mr. Sutcliff, as being Sutcliff de Praesbyterio c. 13. pag. 91. prope finem saith, Dionysius antiquitatis optimus sane testis: videtur enim esse antiquissimus, &c. And Mr. Oliver Ormerode in his picture of a Puritan Printed 1605. fol. G. 3. a. ante med, saith, I referre you to Tertullian, Iustin Martyr, Cyprian, &c. but what do I cite these Fathers? Dionysius Areo­pagita, who lived in the Apostles time, maketh mention of the Cross in Baptism, de Ecclesiast. Hierarchia cap. de Baptismo, And see further there fol. G. 2. b. fi­ne. Also the Protestant treatise, entituled Consensus Orthodoxus Printed in folio Tiguri Anno 1578. fol. 198. b. initio, allegeth, and affirmeth Dionysius, who wrote de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia to have lived Anno Christi. 96. And the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to the admonition pag. 105. sect. ult. allegeth Dionysius saying, Dionysius Areopagita in his Book de Caelesti Hierarchia, and 7. chapter speaketh thus, &c. And see Mr. Cooper in his Di­ctionarium historicum, &c. annexed to [...]is Thesaurus, &c. Printed 1578. at the word Dionysius Areopagita. And Humfred. in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 513. fine, & 514. initio saith, Hunc Areopagitam, Suidas, Michael Singelus, Gregorius Turonensis, & alii, Pauli Auditorem credunt fuisse illum Scripto­rem Ca [...]estis & Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae. most antient, and the best witness of anti­quity.

In like manner concerning Lym­bus Patrum, whereas Bellarmine al­legeth in proof thereof the plain te­stimonies of the Greek Fathers, as namely of Bellarm. tom. 1. lib. 4. de Christi anima cap. 14. Justin, Irenaeus, Cle­mens, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Nazi­anzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, &c. And of the Latin Fathers, Bellarm. ibid. Tertullian, Hyppolitus, Cyprian, Hilary, Gaudentius, Prudentius, Am­brose, Hierom, Ruffinus, Austin, Leo, Fulgentius, &c. our Adversary Da­naeus answereth to their testimonies saying, Danaeus ad Roberti Bellarmini disput. part. 1. pag. 176. paulo post med. As concerning them, they were not instructed out of Gods Word, neither do they confirm their opinion [Page 199]from it, but only from their own con­jectures, &c. In like plain manner doth Mr. Jacob make his acknow­ledgement saying, See this in Mr. Bil­sons Book of the full redemp­tion of mankind pag. 188. fine. And see Mr. Iacob fur­ther in his defence of the trea­tise of Christs sufferings pag. 199. paulo post med. and 100. ante med. And see Mr. Bilsons like acknowledgement in his Book of the full redemp­tion, &c. pag. 189. post med. and in his survey, &c. pag. 656. post med.. All the Fa­thers with one consent affirm, that Christ delivered the souls of the Pa­triarchs and Prophets out of Hell at his comming thither, and so spoyled Satan of those that were in his pre­sent possession. Whereunto might be added the like liberal and plain M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 567. fi­ne, answereth to Duraeus his testimonies from the Fathers, concerning Lymbus Patrum, saying, Quod Scripturis e­vincere minùs potuisti, id Patrum testimoniis procul­dubio conficies; de quibus, ut tibi, quod sentio, liberè, breviterque respondeam, a­pud me una Scripturae vo­cula plus habet ponderis, quam mille Patrum, sine Scripturis, pronuntiata: itaque non expectabis, dum singulatim hos Patrum er­rores diluo: And see further Mr. Whitaker ibid. pag. 773. initio, And D. Barlow in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. post med. saith hereof, This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking Inferi for Abrahams bosome, expound it, that christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to convey the Fathers deceased, before his resurrection, into the place, where now they are. confession of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. D. Barlow. In so much as Jo­annes Lascicius a learned Protestant of Polonia, doubteth not to affirm Joannes Lascicius in his Book entituled, De Ruscorum, Muscovitarum, & Tartarorum Religione pag. 122. initio, & 123. and derive the Doctrin thereof from manifest See the testimony of Ignatius in his Epistle ad Trallianos paulo post med. It is acknowledged by Mr. D. Hill in his defence of the Article, That Christ descended into Hell, fol. 22. a. circa med. and by Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christs sufferings, &c. pag. 657. & 658. And see the like testimony of Thaddaeus apud Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. ult. It is also alleged and defended by Mr. Bilson in his Survey, &c. pag. 657. & 658. & 660. testimonies of Ig­natius, Mr. Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 408. ante med. who was Scholar to St. John, as also of Thaddaeus, who was one of the Matth. 10.3.twelve. The authority and credit of which last testimony, Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 74. post. med. Frigevillaeus Gauvius (an other Protestant Writer) undertaketh spe­cally to defend.

5. Fiftly as concerning Freewill, it is affirmed, that the most antient Centur. 2. c. 10. col. 221. lin. 51. & vide ibid. col. 58. lin. 49. and col. 43. lin. 58. and see D. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. [...]at. 5. pag. 527. fine, and Osiander Centur. 2. l. 4. c. 4. pag. 84. fine. Irenaeus admitteth Freewill (even) in spiritual actions; that Justin Osiander centur. 2. pag. 56. paulo post med. and the Century Writers centur. 2. col. 207. lin. 49.extolled too much the liberty of mans will in observing the Comman­dements of God. And yet further of Freewill, that Protestants So say the Puritans in their brief discovery of un­truths, &c. conteined in D. Bancrosts Sermon pag. 203. fine. And the Contury Writers cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. lin. 30. speaking of the times next af­ter the Apostles, say, Nullus ferè doctrinae locus est, qui tam citò obscurari caeperit, atque hic de libero arbitrio: & ibid. col. 59. lin. 11. they further say of those times. Eodem modo Clemens liberum arbitrium ubique asserit, ut appareat in ejusmodi tenebris non tantum fuisse omnes ejus seculi Doctores verùm etiam in posterioribus cas subinde cre­visse, &c. know that ever since the Apostles time, in a manner, it flourished every where, until Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. And that according­ly the most antient Fathers, namely Hereof see Abraham Schultetus in medulla Theologiae Patrum pag. 39. post med. & 304. post med. & 466. fine, & 151. paulo ante med. & 105. circa med. & 98. circa med. & 48. prope initium & fine, & 66. fine, & 73. initio, & 40. ante med. And see the Century Writers cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. lin. 30. & col. 59. lin. 11. & cent. 3. c. 4. col. 77. & 78. & col. 48. lin. 15. Cyprian, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ju­stin, Irenaeus, Athenagor as, Tatianus, &c. erred therein.

6. Sixtly, as concerning freewil and merit of works, Humfred. Iesuitismi part. 2. pag. 530. ante med. And concerning the confessed Doctrin of merit of works in Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophilus, Cyprian, Iustin Martyr, &c. See Abra­ham Schultetus ubi supra pag. 48. ante med. & 132. post med. & 151. post med. and the Century Writers cent. 2. c. 4. & cent. 3. c. 4. M. D. Hum­frey saith, It may not be denyed, but [Page 201]that Irenaeus, Clement and others (quos vocant Apostolicos) called A­postolical (in respect of the time in which they lived) have in their wri­tings the opinions of Freewill, and merit of works. And in like manner do our learned Adversaries affirm, that Austin taught See Brentius in confess. Wittemberg. And Osiander cent. 4. pag. 520. post med. and the Divines of Wittem­berg in the English Harmony of Confessions pag. 509. post med, and the Century Vriters cent. 5. col. 507. lin. 40. & col. 1133. lin. 26. and Me­lancthon l. 1. Epist. pag. 290. a. initio & b. initio. affiance in mans merits towards remission of sins; The Centurists cent. 3. col. 265. lin. 54. and col. 266. initio. that Origen made good works the cause of justification; that Cent. 5. col. 1178. Chryso­stom handleth impurely the Doctrin of justification, and attributeth merit to works; that not Mr. Whitaker in res­pons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. and see him in Mr. Fulks defence of the English translations pag. 368. ante med. Cyprian only, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error, as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin, and to satisfy Gods Justice. In so much as Luther doth therefore call Luther in Gal. c. 4. and after the English transla­tion fol. 220. a. post. med. & b. ante & post med. Where for the Latin word Iustitiarios the English translateth Merit­mongers. Hierom, Ambrose, Austin and o­thers, Justice-workers of the old Pa­pacy. And Bullinger doth also ac­knowledge, that Bullinger upon the A­poc. serm. 87. fol. 217. b. prope initium. the Doctrin of merits, satisfaction and justification of works did incontinently after the A­stles time lay their first foundations. And Mr. Wotton forbeareth not to taxe for this very point See Ignatius his saying concerning merit, extant in his Epistle to the Romans, alleged in Mr. Wottons defence of Perkins, &c. pag. 339. fine. of merit Irenaeus who lived al­most 1500. years since, doth l. 5. adv. haer. versus fi­nem, & apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 30. versus finem, allege a saying of Ignatius yet to be found in his said Epistle to the Romans, And Hierom in C [...]tal. and Euseb [...]us l. 3. c. 30. do mention Ignatius his Epistle to the Romans, alleging likewise a great part thereof, answerably found in the said Epistle, now extant. And like mention and recital do they make of sundry his other Epistles. the undoubted Mr. Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 408. circa med. acknow­ledgeth and urgeth these Epistles of Ignatius, alleging in proof of them Hierom and Eusebius. And Mr. Cartwright in his answer thereto, doth not so much as deny the said Epistles. and confessed [Page 202]writings of Ignatius the Apostles known Scholar, answering Mr. Whitgift ubi supra, saith Ignatius was St. Johns Scholar, and lived in Christs time, and see pag. 343, pro­pe finem. to his objected testimony, Mr. Wotton in his defence of Mr. Perkins pag. 340. And whereas Mr. Wot­to [...] in the same place to prove these Epistles counterfeit allegeth this saying of Ignatius: whosoever doth not fast eve­ry Lords Day or Sabbath, except Easter day only, is a murderer of Christ, which saith M. Wotton is absurd: to forbear Mr. Wottons misalleging of Ignatius his words, woich are directly to the contrary of that be allegeth, condemning indeed fasting upon the Lords Day: whereof see M. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 99. fine, who allegeth this intended sentence as the undoubted saying of Ignatius. As concerning the matter, the Lords Day being the Day of our Saviours Resurrection, and so to us a day of joy, it was ever in regard thereof, prohibited to fast thereupon. As concerning the phrase of killing Christ, it is to be taken, as spoken of murdering or killing only by way of signi­fication, or in a like sober sense, as when the Apostle affirmeth us to be buryed with Christ in Baptism. Rom. 6.4. & Coloss. 2.12. Or as when he affirmeth of sin­ners, that they crucify again to themselves the Son of God. Hebr. 6.6. In so much as Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 102. ante med. and Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. circa med. do both of them specially mention, and answer this very objection urged by Mr. Wotton. And Brereley in his Omissions, &c. of pag. 94. saith. And so likewise doth Mr. Buddle in his discourse of Evangelical Fasts, pag. 13. post med. I say plain­ly this mans testimony is nothing worth, because he was of little judge­ment in Divinity.

7. Seaventhly concerning Free­will, merit of works, invocation of Saints, and such other like, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, discour­sing of Mr. Whitgift in his defence, &c. against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. fi­ne, & 473. initio. Doctrin taught in any age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any other exception, of age or Father, that (to use his own words) [Page 203] Mr. Whitgift ubi su­pra pag. 473. paulo post initium, and see Mr. D. Co­vel, in his examination, &c. pag. 120. post med. affirming in like manner, and saying, Divers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errors about freewil, Me­rits, invocation of Saints, &c. almost all the Bishops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with Doctrines of Freewil, of Merit, of in­vocation of Saints and such like. And so accordingly, concerning invoca­cation of Saints, Mr. Fulk saith, Fulk in his rejoynder to Bristow pag. 5. fine. I confess that Ambrose, Austin and Hierom held invocation of Saints to be lawful. And it is in like manner yet further confessed and affirmed of the Fathers in particular, that Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 2 Pet. c. 1. sect. 3. fol. 443. paulo post med. in Nazianzen, Basil and Chry­sostom is mention of invocation of Saints: that Ibid paulo post med. Theodoret also spea­keth of prayers unto Martyrs; that Ibid paulo ante med. Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of St. Peter for him; that Ibid. paulo ante med. many of the antient Fathers held, that the Saints departed pray for us.

And to omit like further confes­sion concerning Mr. Fulk against Pur­gatory pag. 310. Ambrose, Chemnitius examen. part. 3. pag. 200. a. fine, saith, Invocatio Sanctorum tandem circa Annum Do­mini 370. per Basilium, Nyssenum & Naz anzenum in publicos Ecclesiae conven­tus invehi caepit.Ba­sil, Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen,Chemnitius ibid. pag. 211. a. ante med. And see further concerning Hierom, Bullinger in Apoc. Serm. 87. fol. 270. b. ante med.Theodoret, Hierom, and concer­ning also even Chemnitius ibid. pag. 211. a. initio allegeth St. Austin invocating St. Cy­prian, and concludeth saying thereof, Haec Augustious: sine Scriptura, tempo­ribus & consuetudim cedens. St. Augustin him­self; St. Cyprian who was much their antient, is charged The Centurists cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 23. say, Certè in fine prioris Epistolae libri primi non obscurè sentit Cyprianus, Marty­res & Sanctos desuncto [...] pro viventibus orare. to affirm, that [Page 204]Martyrs, and dead Saints did pray for the living. And the Centurists charge Origen (who was antient to Cyprian) with Centur. 3. col. 83. lin. 49. they allege Origen saying, O beate Job, ora pro nobis miseris. prayer for himself to holy Job, and Cent. 3. col. 75. lin. 29. it is said, Angelos etiam Origine invocandos putavit, hom. 1. in Ezek. invocation of Angels, affirming further, that Centur. 3. c. 4. col. 83. lin. 47. it is said, Videas in Doctorum hujus se­culi scriptis non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum. there are manifest steps of Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that antient age.

8. Eightly concerning Baptism, and grace conferred by it, and other Sa­craments; it is confessed that the most antient Fathers (who succeeded next to the Apostles Scholars) name­ly Justin, Clement, &c. Centur. 2. c. 4. col. 47. lin. 43. and in cent. 3. c. 4. col. 82. lin. 55. it is said, Affirmare audet Cyprianus quod persona Baptizans Spi­ritum Sanctum conferat, & Baptizatum intus sanctifi­cet, &c. thought regeneration (not to be signified but) wrought by Baptism and the word, unto which (two) joyned together, they attribute efficacy, that is to say, remis­sion of sins; that Zuinglius tom. 2. de Baptismo fol. 70. it was a great error of the old Doctors, in that they supposed the external water of Bap­tism, to be of any value, towards the purging of sin; that Musculus loc. com. pag. 299. post med. saith thereof, Inconsideratè dictum est ab Augustino, &c. Austin did inconsiderately affirm the Sacraments of the New Testament to give salva­tion; that also Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 125. lin. 16. Origen, Tertul­lian, and Cyprian mention how that the Baptized persons were accustomed to be signed with the sign of the Cross. That there were likewise then used [Page 205]in Baptism, sundry other Ceremo­nies▪ Cent. 3. col. 82. lin. 50. & col. 148. l. 4. And see Cyprian l. 1. Epist. ult. ante med. where he saith, Opor­tet verò mundari & sancti­ficari aquam priùs à Sacer­dote. And see Cent. 4. col. 415. lin. 44. as the Priests consecration of the water of Baptism, Cent. 3. col. 124. lin. 53. & col. 126. lin. 20.Abrenun­tiation,Cent. 3. col. 125. lin. 1. & 124. lin. 57.triple immersion, Centur. 3. col. 125. lin. 9.un­ction, &c. that (by Beza's judge­ment) such Beza in Epist. Theo­log. Epist. 8. saith, Totum illum apparatum quo vetu­stistimi etiam illi Baptismum & Caenam Domini se exor­nare posse putarunt, non sa­tis mirari possum, &c. pag. 79. initio. And having reci­ted sundry of those Ceremonics he calleth them, histrionicas ineptias pag. 80. prope ini­tium, saying there further, Certè qui Apostolos faciunt istarum ineptiarum autho­res, nè refutatione quidem digni sunt, quantumeunque sunt verusti Scriptores, &c. And a little afterwards, Plerique tamen ex vertastistimis illis Christianorum Sacra non aliter quam Cereris mysteria quaedam occultanda censuerunt, &c. Et totam illam actionem, &c. in [...] quaedam, & nè ipsis quidem mystis plerisque intellecta, Sacra transforma [...]unt.Fathers (as were) most antient adorned their Sacraments with excess of Ceremonies; Su [...] saith Cartwright in Mr. Wh [...]tgifts defence, &c. pag. 522. fine, he chargeth Austin with absicedity herein, and ibid, pag. 516. And Bullinger in his Decades in English, decad. 5. serm. 8. pag. 1049. a. circa med. that Austin was of mind, that Children could not be saved without Baptism: that Musculus loc. com. de Baptismo pag. 308. post med. Austin and many Fathers were of the same opinion. In so much, that as Calvin confesseth, the Fathers have hereupon doubted not, Calvin. instit. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 20. al­most from the very beginning of the Church, to use the Baptism of lay per­sons in danger of death. In like manner concerning Chrism or Con­firmation, to omit the plain sayings of Aug. contra lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. tom. 7. saith, Sacramentum Chrismatis in genere visibilium signorum, Sa­crosanctum est, sicut ipse Baptismus. And tom. 9. in Epist. Ioan. tract. 3. he saith, Vnctio Spiritalis ipse spiritus sanctus est, cujus Sacramentum est in un­ctione visibili. And ibid. tract. 6. he preventeth an objection saying, Numquid modo qu bus imponitur manus, ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum, hoc expe­ctatur, ut linguis loquantur? aur quando imposumus manus istis infantibus, attendit unusqu sque vestiù [...], utrum linguis loquerentur, & cum videret eos linguis non loqui, ita perverso corde aliquis vestrum suit, ut diceret, non ac­ceperunt Spiritum Sauctum? And a little after. Si vis nosse quia accepisti Spi­ritum sanctum, interroga cor tuum, nè fortè cum Sacramentum habes, virtu­tem Sacramenti non habeas. St. Austin and other Fathers, [Page 206]as also the like evident confession of Calvin. institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 43. saith, Si quis vetustate tueri hujusmodi inventiones velit, nec ipse ignoro, quam verustus sit Chrismatis & exufflationes in Baptismo usus, quam non longè ab Apostolorum aeta te Caena Domini tacta ru­bigine fuerit. Calvin, Chemnitius reprehendeth herein sundry of the most antient Fathers, namely St. Cyprian, the Laodicene Council, Melchiades, Cor­nelius and Tertullian. And the Mi­nisters of Lincoln-Diocess charge The Ministers of Lincoln-Diocess in their abridge­ment, &c. pag. 42. ante med. Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with error of using the Cross, in con­firming those that were Baptized, &c.

9. Ninthly, concerning Confes­sion, Absolution, Penance and sa­tisfaction, it is confessed, that even Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 127. lin. 28. where the Cen­tury Writers say, Absolutio­nem deinde à peccatis i [...]a confercbant, si qui poeniten­tiam agebant, peccatum pri­ùs confessi essent. Sic e­nim confessionem magnopere Tertullianus urget in libro de poenitentia; & usit atam fuisse privatam confessio­nem, qua delicta & cog [...]tata quoque parva confessi sunt, ex allquot Cypriani loc [...]s apparet, ut ex S [...]mone quinto de lapsis, & l. 3. E­pistolarum Epistola 14. & 16. ubi desertè a [...]t, In minoribus etiam peccatis, quae quidem non in Deum committuntur, necesse est ad exomoleg sin venire, inque frequenter fieri jub [...]t, l. 1. Epist. 3. &c. in those (former) times of Cy­prian and Tertullian was used private confession (even) of thoughts and les­ser sins; and that the same was Vide ibid. then commanded and thought necessary; that also as then Centur. 3. col. 127. sin. 40. Penance (or) satisfaction was injoyned according to the offence; that the same Fathers Whi­taker contra Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. And see him also alleged in Mr. Fulks defence of the English Translations cap. 13. pag. 368. ante med. thought by (such) their external Disciplin of life, to pay the pains due Vide Chemnitium exa­men. part. 2. pag. 58. a. post med. and 64. b. ante med. and 65. a. post med.[Page 207]for sins, and to satisfy Gods justice. That Whitaker in resp. ad Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. paulo ante med. And see Calvin institut. l. 3. c. 4. sect. 38. initio. not Cyprian only, but al­most all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error: and that the Priest when confession was (as be­fore) made, and penance injoyned, Centur. 3. col. 127. lin. 44. did afterwards absolve the penitent (even) Vide ibid. and see this Ceremony of imposing the Priests hand in absolution, mentioned by Cyprian in serm. de lapsis, paulo ante med. & l. 3. Epist. 17. & 18. & in Concil. 4. Carthag. Can. 76. & 78. & Chrysost. in Iohn 20. hom. 85. fine. with the now like used Ce­remony of imposing his hand.

10. Tenthly concerning the Pri­macy of Peter above the other Apostles (acknowledged by Calvin alleged in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 173. saith, The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest: and see further pag. 496. ante med. Calvin, Musculus alleged there pag. 66. post med. saith, The Celestial Spirits are not equal; the Apostles themselves were not equal; Peter is found in many places to have been chief a­mong the rest, which we deny not.Mus­culus, and sundry other M. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 375 initio saith, Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief &c. that had chief authoraty over the rest, &c. that Schisms might be compounded; & vide ibid. post med. And see him further there pag. 395. In so much as he doubteth not to answer there pag. 62, 63, 65, 68, 70. certain places of Scrip­ture sbjected by our other Adversaries against Peters Primacy. learned Protestants) the anriquity of this opinion is fully confessed by Mr. Fulk, who speaking of Leo and Gre­gory Bishops of Rome, the first of them about Anno Domini 440. and the other about 59 [...]. saith, Mr. Fulk in his Retentive against Bristows mo [...]tives, &c. pag. 248. fine. the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat (of Rome) neer five or six hundred years before them (so anti­ently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal) and then greatly encreased, they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of [Page 208]Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow-Apostles than the holy Scrip­tures of God do allow. So confessed­ly antient, and of long continuance was this opinion of Peters Primacy, even in those elder times of Leo and Gregory. A thing so evident, that our other learned Adversaries repre­hend sundry of the other much more antient Fathers, for their affirming the Church to be built upon Peter, namely Conturists cent. 4. col. 1250. l. 2. Hierom, Cent. 4. col. 555. lin. 30.Hilary, Cent. 4. col. 558. l. 54.Na­zianzen,Cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 73. it is said, Tertullianus non sine errore sentire vi­detur, Claves soli Petro commissas, & Ecclesiam su­per ipsum extructam esse.Tertullian, Centur. 3. col. 84. lin. 59. saith, Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse: ut l. 1. Epist. 3. l. 4. Ep. 9. &c.Cyprian, Cent. 3. col. 85. lin. 3. it is said, Origines tract. 5. in Matth. dicit, Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum. Idem hom. 17. in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem.Origen, and in general Calvin. institut. l. 4. c. 6. sect. 6. saith, In Petro fundatam esse Ecclesiam, quia dictum sit, super hanc Petram, &c. At nonnulli ex Patribus sic exposuerunt, sed reclamat tota Scriptura, &c. And Danaeus in respons. ad Bellarmin. disput. part. 1. pag. 277. post med. saith of the Fathers, Dictum en im Christi Matth. 16. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. pessimè de per­sona Petri sunt interpretati, &c. many Fathers: reproving also others for their entituling Peter the Cent. 4. col. 556. lin. 17. they allege Optatus calling Peter, Apostolorum Caput, unde & Cephas appellatur, and see next hereto­fore at 10. where they allege Origen calling Peter Apostorum Principem. And Mr. Fulk in his Retentive, &c. pag. 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity, for saying of Peter, praeferri omnibus Apostolis moruit, &c. he deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven, to be commu­nicated to the rest, & vide ibid. fine; in like manner is Peter called Prince of the A­postles by Cyril of Hierusalem Catech. 2. Prince and Head of the rest, by Cyril of A­lexandria l. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. The Pastor and Head of the Church, placed by Christ over the whole earth, by Chrysostom in Matth. hom. 55. ante med. and Aposto­lorum vertex in the same homily circa med. The Master of the whole world, by Chry­sostom in Ioan. hom. 87. paulo ante med. & ad Pop. hom. 80. ante med. The rock and top of the Catholick Church (in the Council of Chalcedonact. 3) Head of the Apostles, and Cent. 4. col. 554. lin. 32. & col. 1074. lin. 13. Arnobius is reprehended for tearming him E­piscoporum Episcopus: in respect whereof the Centurists do there further say, de Petro minus commodè loquitur. the Bishop of [Page 209]Bishops. In so much that whereas the Fathers doubted not publickly to celebrate a yearly Concil. 2. Turonense can. 16. saith, Sunt etiam qui in festivitate Cathedrae Domini Petri Apostoli, &c. See this confessed Centur. 6. col. 580. lin. 2. And S. Au­stine serm. 15. de Sanctis, saith, Institutio solemnita­tis hodiernae a Senioribus nostris Cathedrae nomen ac­cepit, &c. rectè ergo Ec­clesiae natalem illius sedis colunt, quam Apostolus pro Ecclesiarum salute suscepit, dicente Domino, Tu es Pe­trus, &c. ideo dignè fun­damentum hoc Ecclesia co­li [...]. And see further mention hereof in Beda in Martyro­logio. festival day in honour of Peters Sea (which respect had thereto is more than we find had to any other Sea of any other Apo­stle) Danaeus answering hereunto, affirmeth the Fathers assertion here­of to be, Danaeus in resp. ad Bel­lar. disput. part. 1. pag. 275. fine & 276. initio. the judgements and testi­monies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched, or made blind with this error. And thus much concer­ning Peters Primacy confessedly, as before, taught by the Fathers, and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift, and sundry other Protestants, Mr. D. Covel not only further Mr. Covel in his exa­mination, &c. against the plea of the innocent, Printed 1604. having spoken pag. 106. post med. of one above the rest to suppress the seeds of dissention, saith further thereof pag. 107. prope initium: If this were the principal means to pre­vent Schisms and dissentions in the Primitive Church, when the graces of God were far more abundant and eminent than now they are: Nay if the twelve were not like to agree, except there had been one chief among them; for saith Hierom, among the twelve, one was therefore chosen, that a chief being appointed, occasion of dissention might be prevented, &c. affirming it in particular, but also as laying down the general received reason thereof, saith to the Puritans: Ibid in the words there next following. How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity &c. for in all Societies, au­thority (which cannot be where all are equal) must procure unity and obedi­ence. And that this authority of Church-Government by him affir­med in the Apostles times, was not then so personally tyed to any one as [Page 210]to dy with him, but was to survive, and continue to the Churches good, himself further signifieth, saying ex­presly of the Apostolick Church-Government in general, That it was not to Mr. Covel. ibid. pag. 106. circa med. saith, If it concern all persons and ages in the Church of Christ (as surely it doth) the Govern­ment must not cease with the Apostles; but so much of that authority must remain to them, who from time to time are to supply that charge.cease with the Apostles: most evidently so by these premises im­plying an eminent authority conti­nued in the Church of God, and re­siding in one, whereby to prove u­nity and obedience, and to keep all the (obedient) Pastors of the world in peace: whereto also See Martin Luthers saying most pertinent to this purpose, and alleged next hereafter in the margent under * and next before 18. Martin Lu­ther agreeth: for otherwise saith, M. D. Covel Mr. Covel ubi supra pag. 107. paulo post med. By what course of authority inforcing obedience can the Churches divided members, dispersed in other several King­doms and Nations, be go­verned, unless according to these principles laid down by Mr. Covel, some one have authority over them all? If it rest in the several other Prin­ces of those other several King­doms, who then shall have authority to command those Princes severally absolute in Government, disagreeing al­so perhaps in Religion, and some of them (as in the times of the Primitive Church) not yet Christian? And if no assured means be in this case left, how then is that av [...]yded, which Mr. Covel here saith of the Church being in far worse case than the meanest Commonwealth? For howsever the said several Kingdoms of such said several Princes, make each of them on absolute and several Common-wealth, yet the several Congregations, dispersed throughout those several Kingdoms, do all of them make but one spiritual Common-wealth and Church so Christ, obliged in duty to the belief and profession of one and the same faith. See fur­ther hereof in the next Consideration num. 68. and in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7. after o. at the figure 7. the Church (which though dispersed in several King­doms under several Christian Magi­strates maketh yet but one Church) should be in a far worse case than the meanest Common-wealth, nay almost than a den of Thieves, if it were left destitute of means, either to convince Heresies or suppress them: yea (saith he further, which is much to be no­ted) though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magi­strate, &c. Hitherto of Peters Pri­macy.

Now as concerning that only pre­heminence or Primacy which Ja­cobus Andraeas thought necessary Hospinianus in his Hi­storia Sacramentaria, parte altera, fol. 389. a. circa med. reporteth of Iacobus Andraeas a prime Lutheran, Demonstrare conatur Ec­clesiarum tranquillum sta­tum tueri difficile esse, nisi ad aliquem tanquam ad sum­mum Administratorem & Pontificem rerum summa deferatur. to establish the Church quiet, which al­so our learned and so greatly See Melancthon great­ly commended for a man rai­sed up of God, by Luther in praefat. primi tomi, oper. Melancth. And also in Act. Colloquii Altembergensis pag. 94. paulo ante med. and pag. 230. paulo post med. com­mended Adversary Melancthon, Melancthon in the Book entituled, Centuria Epistolatum Theologicarum, &c. Epist. 74. quae est Melancthonis pag. 244. paulo post med. saith from the opinion of himself and other his Brethren, Quemad­modum sunt aliqui Episcopi qui praesunt pluribus Ecciesiis, &c. As certain Bishops are president over many Churches: (so) the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops, and this Canonical Policy no wise man, as I think doth, or ought to disallow, &c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my opinion profita­ble to this end, that consent of Doctrin may be retained: wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this article of the Popes Primacy, if other articles could be a­greed upon. And see Melancthons other like saying set down by Conradus Schlus­selburg in Catalog. Haereticorum l. 13. & ult. pag. 633. acknowledged as due, and ap­pertaining to the Roman Sea, and which (as the learned Puritans freely confess) doth by way of proportion necessarily arise and follow upon the Protestants acknowledgement, either of a Catholick visible Mr. Iacob in his reasons taken out of Gods word, &c. pag. 24. saith, By acknowledging a Catholick visible Church, it followeth necessarily, that there is and ought to be on earth an universal Government Ecclesiastical, &c. for if there be properly one visible Church, and Government Ecclesiastical throughout the world, then this must be in some one place eminently, for some whither must we go, when Christ biddeth us tell the Church: now there is no place in all the world so likely as Rome is to be the visible and spring­head of universal Government of the Catholick Church. And see more evidently in subdivis. 13. at 2.3. Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. Also Martin Luther in loc. com. class. 1. cap. 37. pag. 107. post med. saith, Cum Deus voluerit habere unam Ecclesiam Catholicam per totum Orbem, necesse fu [...]t unum aliquem populum, imo unum aliquem Patrem istius unius populi eligi, and quem & su [...]s posteros, spectaret totus Orbis, & fieret unum ovile: & fic ex omnibus gentibus in infini­tum variatis moribus; tamen unica fieret Ecclesia.Church, or [Page 212]else but of Bishops M. Cartwright in M. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 380. ante med. saith, if it be necessary for keeping of un [...] ­ty in the Church that one Arch-Bishop should be Primate over all; why not as meet, that for the keeping of the whole uni­versal Church, there should be one Archbishop over all? And in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 582. paulo post med. he fur­ther saith, This point of kee­ping peace in the Church, is one of those which requireth as well a Pope over all Arch-Bishops, as one Arch-Bishop over all Bishops in a Realm. And the very same is more ful­ly as yet affirmed by Beza: see his words at large in Sarav a de diversis Ministro­rum gradibus, &c. pag. 491. fine & 492. initio.Government, confessedly Of the confessed Govern­ment of Bishops and Arch-Bishops in all ages since the Apostles, see Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 470, 471. testified and pra­ctised in all succeeding ages, since the Apostles, and without which foresaid Papal Primacy, as is infer­red by Mr. Cartwright and others, Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 582. med. saith, If an Arch-Bishop be necessary for calling a Provincial council, when the Bishops are divided; it is necessary there be also a Pope, which may call the general Council when division is between the Arch-Bishops, for when the Churches of one Province be divided from other, as you ask me, so I ask you who shall assemble them together? Who shall admonish them of their duties when they are assembled? If you can find a way how this may be done, without a Pope, the way is also found whereby the Church is disburdened of the Arch-Bishop. See also this point more plain­ly confessed by Conradus Schlusselburg. Sir Edwin Sands, and others alleged hereafter in the third Consideration. cannot be assembled any general Council, which is yet nevertheless the confessed, only hope remaining ever to asswage Protestants contentions. In respect whereof Melancthon did as before, assent to acknowledge the Popes foresaid Primacy.

As touching this only Primacy we allege, that Mr. Fulk affirmeth in general, that not some few, but Mr. Fulk in confirma­tion of Papists quarrels, &c. Printed Anno 1583. pag. 4. initio. many of the antient Fathers were deceived to think something more of Peters Prerogative, and the Bishop of [Page 213]Romes dignity, than by the word of God was given to either of them. And as concerning particulars (to forbear what is generally That Boniface the third claimed to be Head of the Universal Church Anno 607. is confessed by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 160. ante med. by M. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 36. initio, by Mr. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. by Mr. Downham in his Book of Antichrist l. 1. pag. 4. post med. And by Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia, contra Bellarmi­num, &c. pag. 144. post med. where he affirmeth, this Bo­niface and all his Successors to be Antichrists. And the very same is affirmed by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a coun­terfeit Catholick pag. 27. cir­ca med. by M. Powel de Antichristo in Praesat. pag. 1. fine. confessed of the 1000. years last past) the Century Writers of Magdeburg in their fifth Century (the last part or end where­of was one hundred, and the begin­ning thereof two hundred years, with­in the compass of Mr. Jewels own challenge) do confess and say con­cerning even those antient times, that Cent. 5. col. 774. lin. 31. in this fifth age the Roman Bishops applyed themselves to get and establish Dominion over other Chur­ches: that to this end Cent. 5. col. 777. lin. 55. and in example there­of say further there, Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino (cui suas partes, vide­licet, ut Synodo Ephesinae praesideret, delegavit) privilegium dedit usurpandi titulum Papae, & mitram. they usur­ped to themselves right of granting privileges and ornaments to other Archbishops. That also Cent. 5. col 778 lin. 16. and in example there­of say further there, Nam Leo Max mum Ant ochenum confirmavit in Episco­pa [...]u; ac Proter [...]o Alexandrino Episcopo jura ant qua ejus Sedis juxta Cano­nes & Privilegia confirmasse, [...]nd [...]atur Epist. 68 Leonis, & 69. and ibid. lin. 37. it is further said, Vsurpabant sib pot starem mandandi al [...]is Episcopis, ut quem spsi velient & proponerent in dissit [...]s Ecclesiis, Episcopum ordinarent, aut quem ipsi nollent, deponerent: sic C [...]l [...]stinus in Ep [...]stola ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, & Joannem Antiochenum, & Rufum Th [...]ssalonicensem, man­dat [...] ut Proclum Constantinopoli designarent Episcopum, &c. they con­firmed Arch-Bishops in their Seas,See this next heretofore at 25. and see further cent 5 col. 778. lin. 46. and see next here­after at 67. in the margent: and of Anthimus of Constantinople deposed by A­gapitus, see cent. 6. col. 55. lin. 20. and Liberatus in B [...]eviar. cap. 21. of Dios­corus in like manner deposed, and see Gelasius in Epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae.deposed, Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 31. it is said, Sum [...]bant sibi facultatem excommu­nicandi alios Archiepiscopos, & Ecclesias, sic Leo excommunicavit Orienta­les, & Felix Ocaclum, Gelasius damnavit Acatium & Petrum, miffis literis in Orientem.excommunicatd, and [Page 214]Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 38. And in example thereof say further there. Nam Ge­lasius in tomo Anathematum, Petrum Alexandrinum se­cundae Sedis Antistitem ne­gat absolvi a quoquam pose se, quam ab Episcopo primae sedis, scilicet Romano.absolved others; Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 8. it is said, Arrogant sibi potestatem citandi alios ad dicendam coram sese cau­sam: sic Constantinopoli­tanus (Episcopus) Romam citatur, & Maximum cita­turum sese promittet Boni­facius.arrogating (also) power to themselves of citing other (Arch-Bishops) to declare their cause before them: and that Centur. 5. col. 778. lin. 5 [...]. it is said, Constituerunt & postularunt, ut in Episcoporum causis liceat ad sese appellari, ut patet ex Actis sextae Carthaginensis Synodi, & Epistola ad Bonifacium, & Sixtus Epist. 3. ad Orientales cap. 5. decernit, ut contra Epis­copum ad sedem Apostol cam appellantem nihil aliud statuatur quam Roma­nus Episcopus censuerit. Gelasius in Epistola ad Faustum Magistrum, impu­denter mentitur, in Canon bus sancitum esse, ut Appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad examen Romanae sedis deferantur, & abipsa nusquam appelletur. against a Bishop appealing to the Apostolick Sea, nothing should be determined, but what the Bishop of Rome censured: that also Cent. 5. col. 780. lin. 8. it is said, Conati sunt eam sibi super Archiepiscopos ven­dicare authoritatem, ut si quid illi agerent, ex authoritate Romani Episcopi eg sse viderentur, quasi servi ejus & mancipia essent: sic Leo Epist. 84. indicat Antiftites Thessalonicenses semper vicem Apostolicae sedis implevisse, ac mo­net Anasta sium (who was then Bishop of Thessalonica) ut in longinquis Provin­ciis, quodam modo, praesentiam su [...] Visitationis impendat, & nihil decernat, nisi quod fibi probari agnoscat. Sic Gelasius in Epistola ad Dardanos, dicit, se curam Alexandrinae Ecclesiae delegasse Acacio Constantinopolitano, ideoque cum debuisse ad ipsum referre omnia. And see further col. 778. lin. 26. & col. 779. lin. 17. example is given of Legates sent into remote Provinces (as) Con­stantinople, Ephesus, and Africk. Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 43. it is said: Ausi sunt ab Archi-Episcopis postulare, ut si quid suo judicio non possent determinare, ad sese referrent: sic Leo Ep. 84. c. 7. Thessalonicensi hanc legem dictitat, &c. And see col. 1230. lin. 26. & col. 780. lin. 45. And see further hereof Stephanus Mauritaniae Episcopus in Epistola ad Dama­sum. And Anastasius Hierosolymitanus in Epist. ad Felicem. they appointed their Le­gates in remote Provinces, challen­ging Authority to hear and determine all uprising controversies, especially See their te­stimony and examples hereof given col. 781. lin. 9. in Questions of Faith: that like­wise, Col. 781. lin. 20. Ge­neralia Concilia indicendi potestatem sib [...] sumpserunt, ut patet Epist. 93. cap. 7. Leonis, &c. Ac Synodos sine sua authoritate convocatas, ut illegitimas re­jecerunt. they took upon them power [Page 215]of appointing general Councils, and Col. 781. lin. 36. Jus p [...]dendi Synodis univer­salibus sibi adscripserunt, &c. Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ephesina Sy­nodo Praesidendi potestatem suo nomine concessisse videri vult. Ac Leo Paschasinum Siciliae Episcopum, ut Chal­cedonensi praesideret, misit. And see the subscription of Paschasinus in Concil. Chal­cid. act. 3. to be Presidents in general Coun­cils. And when themselves were ab­sent, even by Vt supra: and see this heretofore in the margent at 24. and see Centur. 5. col. 781. lin. 52. And see Danae­us in resp. ad Bellarm, part. 1. pag. 323.their Deputies: which were oftentimes no meaner than some one or other Patriarch, See next before at 34. also col. 781. lin. 57. In Sy­nodis perp [...]ram acta retra­ctarunt, Apostolicam jactantes authoritatem, &c. Postea ex eo sibi jus de Sy­nodis judicandi arrog [...]runt, & Decreta retractandi, &c. And see Concil. Chal­ced. Act. 1. where it was said, Synodum ausus est facere sine authoritate sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam licuit, nunquam factum est. rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their autho­rity. And as these are confessed to be the known practice of those antient Roman Bishops; so also is the like answerable respect and acknowledge­ment then had to that Sea, by other Fathers of those times, no less plain­ly testified by the said Century wri­ters.

To this like end they say concer­ning the Roman Bishops, Centur. 5. col. 744. lin. 53. that they had flatterers (in those times) who affirmed, that without permission of the Roman Bishop, none might un­dertake the person of a Judge, who then likewise Cent. 5. col. 775. 16. Ex errore quodam affirmant, antiquitatem ei super omnes, Principatum Sacerdotii con­tuliss [...]. Concerning this asser­tion of antiquity, &c. see fur­ther Anastasius Hierosoly­mitanus in Epist. ad Felicem, and Innocentius Epist. 2. ad Vict. And see him in Epist. ad Concil. Milevitanum cited cent. 5. col. 781. lin. 4. & 5. and Leo Epist. 88. ad Anastalium Thessalonicensem cap 1. & Epist. 93. ad Episcopos per Vien­nam cap. 2. averred that anti­quity (therefore it was not then first [Page 216]begun had attributed the principali­ty of Priesthood to the Roman Bishop above all: that accordingly Cent. 5. col. 774. lin. 57. Victor called the Roman Church, the Head of all Churches: that Col. 775. lin. 4. Turbius Astu­riensis flattered Pope Leo and acknow­leged his Superiority: that Col. 778. lin. 51. and Leo Epist. 24. & 25. saith of his Legates in the Ephesme Council, Nostri fideliter re­clamârunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus obtulit: and hereof see further the letter of Valentinian to Theodosius in Praeamb. Con. Chal. where it is said, Con­stantinopolitanus Episcopus (Flavianus) Episcopum Romanae Civitatis per libellos appellavit. And again, Libel­lum ad Apostolicam sedem miss [...]rit. And Liberatus cap. cap. 18. saith of Iohn Tali­da (Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno, and Petrus Moggus intruded into his place) Romanum Pontificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut & beatus fecit Athanasius. some­times Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the Sea of Rome, as did (say they) Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Council of E­phesus, and that Councils Col. 782. lin. 36. Patres saepe honoris ergo pretebant ab iis Decreta confirmari. Sic Chalcedonensis Synodus ad Leonem scribit: Rogamus in tuis D [...]creris nostrum honora judicium, & sicut nos cupidi in bonis, adjecimus con­sonantiam: sic & summitas tua, filiis quod decet, adimpleat: And the Council of Carthage Epist. ad Innocentium desireth Innocentius in like tearms; Vt Statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur authoritas; alleged cent. 5. col. 823. And see the Council of Ephesus in Epist. ad Celestinum Papam.reque­sted to have their Acts confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: In so much as they conclude and say of St. Leo (who was one of those Fathers of this fift age, to whom Mr. Jewel did namely appeal) Centur. 5. col. 1262. lin. 30. And that Peters Primacy was thought to descend or come to the Bishop of Rome, is likewise affirmed by Vigilius in Epist. ad Euterium cap. 7. by Anastasius in Epist. ad Anastasium Augustum: by the Emperor Iustinian in his Epistle to Iohn the second cod. de sum. Trinitate & fide Cathol. tit. 1. by the said Iohn in his Epistle to the said Emperor, cited ibid. by Pe­lagius the second in Epist. ad omnes Episcopos: by Gelasius in Epist. ad Fau­stum, & in Epist. ad Episcopos per Lucaniam, &c. c. 11. And see Decret. Ge­lasii cum 70. Episcopis initio. And by Innocentius the first in Epist. 1. ad De­centium, & in Epist. ad Victoricum initio, &c. Thirdly and most especially, in Rescrip. ad Conc. Carth. which Rescript. is acknowledged and commended by St. Austin (one of the Fathers of that Council) in Epist. 106. where he saith thereof, Pope Innocentius did write answer to the Bishops in all things as became the Bishop of the Apostolick Sea. And see more hereof hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. at 104. in the margent. Leo very pain­fully [Page 217]goeth about to prove, that singu­lar preheminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles; and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church. To allege other writers, Beza further saith, Confess. Genev. cap. 7. sect. 12. and Mr. Whita­ker de Conciliis contra Bel­larminum pag. 37. paulo ante med. saith, de Leone prime parum laboro, mag­nus ille fuit Antichristiani Regni Architectus. And yet bid. pag. 34. circa med. he saith of Leo, Fuit ille qui­dem doctus & pius Episco­pus, sed fuit tamen magis ambitiosus, &c. It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth clearly breath forth the arrogancy of the An­ti christian Roman Sea. In like man­ner saith the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury of these times: Mr. Whitgift in his de­fence, &c. pag. 342. post med. It is certain that then, (viz. in the time of the Carthage and African Councils) the Bishop of Rome began at least to claim Superiority over all Churches. And it is in like sort confessed of Ce­lestinus (who is tearmed by Mr. Whit­giftSo doth Mr. Whitgift tearm him in his defence pag. 588. fine.a godly Bishop, and by the an­tient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis Vicentius Lyr. in li­bro adver. haer. prope finem.Pope Celestine of blessed memory) See this confessed in M. Cartwrights second reply part. 1. pag. 500. paulo post med. and see M. Cartwrights defence pag. 342. post med. that he claimed the hearing of matters in the African Churches, and See this in Mr. Cart­wrights second reply part. 1. pag. 512. ante med.claimed Superiority over all Churches, taking upon him as it were the name of universal Bishop. That also Centur. 5. col. 1274. lin. 38. & 47. and Mr. Sy­monds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 58. fine. Gelasius held, that Councils are subject to the Pope, and that all [Page 218]should appeal to him, but none from him: with the like whereof Pope Mr. Symonds ibid. pag. 57. circa med. Xistus is also charged: that like­wise the Council of Chalcedon, whose Authority is to our Adversaries e­stablish [...]d by special Anno 1. Elizabeth c. 1. versus finem is established the authority of the four first general Councils. Act of Par­liament, See this in Mr. Cart­wrights second reply part. 1. pag. 510. circa med. And see Mr. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 344. initio. And see Saravia de diversis gradibus Ministrorum pag. 403. post med. did offer the name of universal Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome.

Hitherto concerning those only Fathers, that lived in the age or Century next ensuing the four hun­dred years after Christ, and their not doubtful, but confessed testimo­monies of the Jurisdiction, really executed and extended by the Popes of those times, not only over their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italy, but over remote Provinces, and the other greatest Arch-Bishops, and Patriarchs of the world; as name­ly, of Antioch, Hierusalem, Alexan­dria, and Constantinople, &c. And by them then accordingly acknow­ledged.

As concerning now the like testi­mony from the more antient Fathers that lived in the age next precedent, which is the time wherein Constan­tine the great lived, although the [Page 219]Church began as then, but as it were, to take breath from her former long endured persecutions, whereby nei­ther, her writers were so many, nor her face of outward Government so known as in the times succeeding: yet is there not wanting even for that time sufficient testimony in this kind. In regard whereof the Centurists affirm, that Centur. 4. col. 549. lin. 42. In this age the mystery of iniquity was not idle. To this end they further allege, that Centur. 4. col. 550. lin. 28. the Bi­shops of Rome challenged by Ecclesia­stical Canon, the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent. And Mr. Cartwright saith accordingly of Damasus (whom St. Hierom and Pro­testants themselves tearm Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3. at 106. pag. 296. Hieron. Ep. 57. to Pope Damasus saith, Ego nullum primum nisi Chri­stum sequens Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior: su­per illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est, (&c.) Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit. And Op­tatus l. 2. contra Donatistas saith, Negar [...]non potest sci­re te in urbe Roma, Petro primo Cathedram Episco­palem collatam esse, in qua sederit omn um Apostolorum caput Petrus, unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisqu defende [...]ent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra sin­gularem Cathedram alteram collocaret, ergo Cathedra unica est, &c. And again; De dotibus suprad [...]ct [...] Cathedra est prima, quam probavimus per Petrum nostram esse. And St. Austin Epist. 102. prope initium saith, In Ecclesia Ro­mana semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus. And (apud Brereley pag. 106.107. at 5 [...]. margent) in Bullingers decades in English on the page next before the first decad, is set down the Creed of Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome, &c. and in the end of that page is also set down the Imperial Decree of the Emperors Gra­tian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to imbrace the Religion taught by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria, whereof see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subd. 1. fine in the margent at 6. bles­sed) that Mr. Cartwright in his reply part. 1. pag. 502. paulo post initium. And in proof thereof he allegeth there in his margent Zozomen hist. lib. 6. c. 23. post med. he spake in the Dragons voice, when he shameth not to write, that the bishops of Romes sentence was alove all other to be attended for in a Synod. And Mr. Whitaker con­fesseth the Ecclesiastical Whitaker de Conciliis, &c. q. 2. pag. 42. fine 43. initio. Canon [Page 220](of those times, whereby it was de­creed,) That no Council should be ce­lebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome: And that Ibid. pag. 44. pauio ante med. saith bereof, Fa­temur Julium sibi talem au­thoritatem vendicasse. And Mr. Cartwright in his 2. re­ply part. 1. pag. 510. paulo post med. saith, Julius Bi­shop of Rome saith, it was decreed by the Laws of the Church, and immediatly after the Nicene Council, that the Bishop of Rome must be cal­led to the Synod, and that, that was voyd which was done there besides his sentence. And see part. 2. pag. 110. circa med. This appeareth more plainly in Socrates and the Tripartite History. For where­as the Arians had affembled a Council at Antioch whereat Maximus Bishop of Hierusa­lem, and Julius Bishop of Rome were both of them ab­sent. Yet is the only absence of Iulius specially fet down, as the only cause of disanul­ling the said Council. And so accordingly it is said, Maximus Bishop of Hierusalem was absent from thence, &c. Neither was Iulius Bishop of the greatest Rome pre­sent thereat, neither did he appoint any in his place; whereas yet the Eccelesiastical Canon doth command, that no Council ought to be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Hist. Tripartit. l. 4. c 9. & Socrates l. 2. c. 5. & see Histor. Tri­part. l. 4. c. 19. and see l. 5. c. 29. also in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Julius doth accordingly al­lege this Canon. Juli­us made challenge thereby: For which And whereas Bellarmine doth object this example of Iulius, and other Bishops of Rome, alleging this Canon: Danaeus his only answer is, That this obje­ction, nullius est momenti: nam ab ipsius Romani Pontificis, id est, partis in sua causa testimonio profertur (in resp. ad Bellarm. part. 1. p. 595. circa med. at quarta ratio, &c.) Danaeus reproveth him and cer­tain other Bishops of Rome. Also it is confessed, that M. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 45. post med. See also Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 32. And Innocentius Epist. ad Victoricum cap. 2. Damasus wrote to the Councils of Africk, that the judgement of the causes of Bishops, and all other matters of great importance, may not be determined, but by the au­thority of the Apostolick Sea. And that accordingly See this in Mr. Cartwrights 2. reply part. 1. pag. 501. initio. And the Conturists cent. 4. col. 529. lin. 19. say, Romani Episcopi regulam fecerunt, ut ad se omnia prae­scribi primum mandarent, ut patet ex Epistola lulii apud Athanasium Apo­logia secunda. Inquit enim (Iulius) an ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur? &c. Julius Bishop of Rome at the Council of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes, that appertained not to him. In like manner concerning appeals made to Rome, it is testified, that [Page 221] Mr. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 53. fine. And see the like in Da­masus Epist. 2. ad Stepha­num & ad Concilia Africae. Julius decreed, that whosoever suspected his Judge, might appeal to the Sea of Rome. That also Theodo­ret (a Greek Father who lived in the latter end of this Century, and was deposed by the second Council of Eph [...]sus) See Cent. 5. col. 1013, lin. 12. it is said of Theodo­ret: Appellat ad judiciū leo­nis, eique supplicat, &c. And Theodoret himself, in his E­p [...]stle to Leo placed before his Commentaries upon Pauls E­pistle saith, Behold after all this travail and sweat, I am condemned, being not so much as accused: But I look for the sentence of your Apostolick Sea, and I humbly beseech and re­quire your Holiness in this case to aid me (justum ve­strum & rectum appellanti judicium) appealing to your right and just judgement, and command me to come before you, &c. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Praesbyterum he further saith. Nudarunt me Sacerdotio, &c. D [...]p [...]ecor teut sanctissimo Archiepiscopi (Leoni) sundeas, ut Apostolica authori­tate utatur, jubeatque ad vestrum adire Concil um: tenet enim sancta ista se­des gubernacula regendarum cuncti Orbis Ecclesiarum, &c. did accordingly make his appeal to Pope Leo, and was there­upon by him Cent. 5. col. 1013. lin. 26. it is said, Restituit Theodoreto Episcopatum▪ Sanctissimus Leo. And see the same in Concilio Chalcedonensi act. 1. restored to his Bisho­prick: that Chrysostom in Ep. ad Innocentium saith, I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully done in my absence, and I not refusing judgement, may not be of force, as of their own nature, they are not, and that those who have done wrong may be subject to the penalty of the Ecclestastical Laws, &c. and command us to be restored to our Church, &c. See this in Palladius in vita Chrysostomi, extat in Aloysio Lipomanno tom. 2. l. 3. part. 2. And Chrysostom. Ep. 2. ad Innocentium desireth that (his enemies) if they will repent, may not be excommunicated. Chrysostom did the like to Innocentius, who thereupon See in Cent. 5. col. 663. lin. 36. Pope In­nocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife, who were adverse to Chrysostom, and took part with Theophilus, where he saith, I the least of all and a sinner, having yet the Throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me, do sepa­rate and remove thee and her, from receiving the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God: and every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to Minister or give to you those holy mysteries, after the time that you have read the present letters of my bond, I pronounce them void of their dignity, &c. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishoplicke Throne in Chrysostoms room, though he be dead, we depose, and command that his name be not written in theroll of Bishops. In like manner we de­pose all other Bishops which of purposed advise have communicated with him, &c. To the deposing of Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) we adde excommunication, &c. de­creed Chrysostomus adversary, Theo­philus, to be excommunicated and de­posed: that lastly, the famous and So it is tearmed by Mr. Thomas Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 158. initio.antient Council of Sardis consisting [Page 222]of See Socrates history l. 2. cap. 16. initio, & Zozo­men l. 2. cap. 11. 300. Bishops and above, assem­bled from See Cent. 4. col. 747. lin. 50. and Theodoret hist. l. 2. cap. 8. Spain, France, Italy, Sardinia, Greece, Egypt, Thebais, Li­bia, Palestine, Arabia, &c. and most other parts of the Christian world, and whereat sundry Fathers of the Nicene Council were Of this presence there­at, see Theodoret hist. l. 2. cap. 7. & Socrates hist. l. 2. cap. 16. and Carion in Chro ni. pag. 282. post med. present, The seventh Canon of this Council acknowledged and recited by the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 764. l. 6. And by Osiander in epitom, &c. pag. 294. is, Placuit, ut si Episcopus, &c. It hath ser­med good to us, that if a Bi­shop be accused, if the Bishops of the Province assembled toge­ther have judged the matter, and have deprived him, if the party deprived do appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome, &c. If the party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again do, intreat the Bishop of Rome, (ut è Latera suo Praesbyteros mittat) to send Legates from his side; it shall be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shall think good, &c. And see also in those Authors the 4. and 5. Canons of the said Council.decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome. And so confessedly, that the same is accordingly granted, and the said Council therefore reproved, by O­siander in Epitom. &c. pag. 294. circa med. (a pud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3. at 104. margent) speaking of the Council of Sa [...]dis decreeing appeals to Rome, professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof saying, Inveteratus communis, & de manu traditus fuit error, quod Petrus fuerit Ro­mae primus Episcopus, ideo hunc honorem habendum censuit successori Petri, juxta communionem opinionem, &c. Osiander, Calvin, Of Calvin and Peter Martyr see in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. in the mrgent at d. subd. or exemple 2.Peter Martyr, Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 30. & 122. & 124. circa med.Trigevillaus Gauvius, and The Centurists do confess and recite this Canon ut supra at 70. the Century Writers. In so much that whereas the Arians had expel­led Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, [Page 223]Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and divers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church, it is testified that Julius (Bishop of Rome) upon the A­rians first accusation made to him a­gainst Athanasius, Nicephorus l. 9. c. 6. and H [...]st. Tripartit. l. 4. c. 6. it is said, Ipsis Romam v [...]nire praecepit, & venera­b [...]lem Athanasium ad judi­c [...]um regulariter evocav [...]t, ille continuo, evocatione suscepta, venit, &c. And see Theo [...]oret hist. l. 2. c. 4.summoned A­thanasius the great [...] according to the Canons. And afterwards upon relation had from Athanasius of the truth of the matter, Hist. Tripart [...]t. l. 4. c. 15. and see Zozom [...]n hist. l. 3. c. 7. Julius hea­ring the accusations and complaint of each one, &c. Commanded certain of the Bishops of the East to appear before him, at a certain day, &c. And as the Centurists confess Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 20. and see this further in So­crates hist. l. 2. c. 11. pro­pe initium. And Zozomen hist. l. 3. c. 7. initio saith of Julius, Accum propter sedis d [...]gnitatem cura omnium ad ipsum spectaret, singulis su­am Ecclesiam restituit. resto­red every one of those (foresaid other wronged) Bishops to their own place (or Bishoprick) and that not by in­treaty or arbitrably: but (as the Cen­turists say) fretus Ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa, Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 15. and Zozomen ut supra and see Socrates l. 2. c. 11. and Hist. Tripartit. l. 4. c. 15. Also D. Philippus Nicolai d [...] Regno Christi l. 2. pag. 149. circa med. saith of this matter, Julius Pontifex, re­ferent bus Socrate & Zo­zomeno literas ad Orienta­les d [...]dit, in quibus, ut ipsae literae contestantur, non se­mel indicat, sibi soli, qui sit primae sedis; ut ait, Praesul, singulari quodam privilegio, ut ex praescripto di­vino, jus competere, Synodos generales convocandi, nee minùs ad se quoque solum, ejus Vrbis Antistitem pertinere dicit, ut de causis Episcoporum, & id genus aliis gravioribus negotiis cognoscat: Ad eundem modum & pari ambi­tione Damasus, &c. & postea Innocentius, &c.by Prerogative of the Roman Sea. Which premises are made as yet much more evident, by Julius his undoubted Epistle extant in Athanasius his second Apology, and alleged by the This Epistle is alleged cent. 4. col. 735. in which is mentioned their citation col. 737. lin. 10. & 742. lin. 26. unto judgement col. 737. lin. 58. & col. 742. lin. 23. & col. 745. lin. 9. at a certain day (col. 739. lin. 19. & col. 740. lin. 11.) & col. 746. lin. 31. Ju­lius saith to them, An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est definiri posset? &c. Quae enim accepimus à beato Petro Apostolo, ca vobis significo. See this saying reprehended cent. 4. col. 529. lin. 22. Centurists.

As concerning the other prece­dent age or Century next ensuing the second hundred years after Christ, in which, persecution so raged, as the Churches Government was thereby the more obscured, as also of the written Monuments of that time, little is at this day remaining; St. Cyprian moveth Pope Stephen Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 13. ante med. saith, Diri­gantur in Provinciam & ad plebem Arelarae consistentem à te literae, quibus, abstento Martiano, alius in locum e­jus substituatur. And after­wards in the same Epistle fine, he further saith, Significa planè nobis, quis in locum Martiani Arelatae suerit sub­stitutus, ut sciamus ad quem fratres nostros dirigere, & [...]ui scribere debeamus. by his Letters to depose Martia­nus (from his Bishoprick) and to ap­point an other in his place. And he also maketh mention of Basilides, who Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 4. circa med. saith of Basilides: Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longè po­situm, & gestae rei ac veri­tatis ignarum fefellit, ut ex­ambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum de quo fuerat justè depositus.going to Rome thought to deceive (Pope) Stephen then ignorant of the matter, so to procure himself injustly restored to the Bishoprick, from whence he was justly deposed. Which very examples, together with sundry other like before men­tioned, concerning the confirming, deposing, and restoring of Bishops, be­ing objected by Bellarmin, are in themselves furthermore so plain and confessed; that Danaeus in his answer thereto cannot deny the same; but [Page 225]only answereth and saith, Danaeus in resp▪ ad Bellarm. part. 1. pag. 317. post med. It doth not follow, that because the Bishop of Rome used this right, therefore he had that right, certainly he had no right to do this, but only Tyranny and Usur­pation. So confessedly antient is this supposed Tyranny and usurpa­tion. In like manner the Centu­rists do reprehend Pope Stephen for undertaking, Centur. 3. col. 168. lin. 31. in this age to threa­ten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus, and all (others) through­out Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, for rebaptizing Hereticks. And in a special several Tract of their fourth Chapter, entituled Cent. 34, col. 71. lin. 31. Inclinatio Do­ctrinae, complectens peculiares & in­commodas opiniones & errores Do­ctorum, and in the same Tract under the title there Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 84. lin. 35. de Ecclesia & Pri­matu Romano, they do immediatly next after, reprove Tertullian, for that, say they, Col. 84. lin. 37. he did erroneously think the Keys to be committed to Pe­ter alone, and the Church to be built on him. In like manner is St. Cypri­an there charged for his affirming, Col. 84. lin. 60. the Church to have been built upon Peter, and Col. 84. lin. 44. one Chair founded by our Lords voice upon the rock, and that Col. 84. lin. 49. there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholick Church, and for his calling Peters Col. 84. lin. 56. Chair the principal Church, from whence Priestly unity [Page 226]ariseth; And lastly for his (say they) Col. 84. lin. 51. teaching without any foundation of Scripture, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the Mother & root of the Catholick Church.

Lastly, as touching the very then precedent age or Century, which was next after the Apostles, where­of as Mr. Hutton Mr. Hutton in his an­swer to the second part of rea­sons of refusal to subscription pag. 195. post med. observeth, few monuments are but now remaining: Victor (as Mr. Whitgift affirmeth) was Mr. Whitgist in his De­fence, &c. pag. 510. prope sinem.a godly Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time in great pu­rity, (as) not being long after the A­postles times: yet is he charged by Amandus Polanus Professor at Basil Amandus Polonus in sil. Thesium Theolog. pag. 165.to have shewed a Papal mind and arrogancy: and by Mr. Spark Mr. Spark against Mr. John d'Albines in his answer to the Preface ante med. And see Osiander in Epitom. &c. cent. 2. pag. 87. & 96.some­what Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds, when he took upon him to ex­communicate the Bishops of the East. Mr. Whitaker also not forbearing to charge him with Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag 480. initio. exercising juris­diction upon other Churches. In like manner holy Irenaeus, who lived next after the Apostles, and (as is said of him) The Protestant writer Hamelmannus l. de Traditio­nibus, col. 528. lin. 17. saith, Sciendum est Polycarpum, Irenaeum, ac alios qui his conteniporanei suere, me­moria adhuc tenere potu­isse vivae vocis praedicatio­nem Apostolorum. And see Mr. Bridges in his desence, &c. pag. 309, initio. might yet remember the Apostles own lively Preaching, is disliked for his affirming, that The saying of Irenaeus is l. 3. c. 3. where he saith, Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam (Ro­manam) propter potentio­rem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Eccle­siam, &c. These words (ne­cesse est) and (omnem con­venire Ecclesiam) and (propter potentiorem principalitatem) seem so forcible, that the Centurists cent. 2. col. 64. lin. 10. do say thereof, Novitatem quandam resipere quibusdam videri posset quod in examplaribus Irenaei, qualia nunc ha­bemus, extat, &c. So fortheir best answer, insinuating (without any proof, and a­gainst all Copies new and old) that the place is forged. all the Churches ought to accord to the Roman Church in regard of a more powerable principality: where­in the Centurists charge him with a [Page 227]See this in the Alphabe­tical Table of the second Cen­tury at the word Irenaeus.corrupt saying, concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church. Which foresaid gradation thus continued up to the Apostles age, is confessed so evident, that the Protestant writer D. Philippus Nicolai referreth the be­ginning hereof Philippus N [...]colai in Comment. de regno Christi pag. 221. circa med. under­taking to speak de origine & incremento Pontificiae dig­nitatis, affirmeth, that Pri­matus affectatio, communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum, ac etiam primorum urbis Episcopo [...]ū, &c. (And Brere­ley in his Omissions of pag. 112. saith,) In so much as the learned Protestants in their Catalogus Testium Veri­tatis tom. 1. Printed 1597. doubt not to derive from St. Peter himself (as being the prognosticon or type thereof) the confessed (in their opinion ambitious) claim of his Successors the Bishops of Rome, saying to this purpose there, pag. 27. fine. Ambitione ac cupiditate potentiae la­bor [...]sse aliquoties Petrum negari non potest, &c. quia Petri imbecillitate pro­culdubio significatum est, eos Episcopos qui de Petri successione gloriantur, consimili, imò vero infinitis part bus majore ambitione laboraturos, &c. Qua­re haec tam perversa Petri ambitio, & rerum divinatum ignorantia, tum neg­ligentia, (&c.) haud dubiè significavit Romanum Episcopum, quòd primus, ac Privilegiorum Petrihae [...]es [...]ss [...]volet, mox futurum rerum Caelestium igna­rum ac contemptorem, humanatumque opum, potentiae ac voluptatum studio­sum, &c. to the infirmi­ty of the Apostles, and of the first (next) succeeding Bishops of Rome. In like further testimony whereof the other Protestant Writers Mr. Middleton in his Papisto-mastix Printed 1606. pag. 200, circa med. saith, Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions and Pe­ters Primacy, or Romish Episcopality. This Pap as (as appeareth by testimony of I­renaeus alleged by the C [...]nturists c [...]ntur. 4, col. 172. lin. 27.) lived in the Apostles time, and was Scholar to St. John, as witnesseth Mr. Fulk in his answer to a coun­terfeit Catholick pag. 35. paulo post med. And Mr. Middleton maketh no other exception to his authority, but that be was a Chiliast, whose error (as the Centurists cent. 3. col. 231. lin. 54. do report) was, that after the Resurrection, Christ would a well with us here upon earth for a thousand years, whereto Cerinthus the Heretick in the Apostles time added an expectation of all helly cheer and fleshly lust to be then accomplished (whereof see St. Aug. hae [...]. 8.) from which Papias was free, as but only mistaking literally that which St. John saith mystically of our reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Apoc. 20.6. Into which mist-king also did holy Irenaeus and Justinus Martyr both of them fall (as is noted by the Centurists Centur. 2. col. 227. lin. 32. and col. 212. lin. 57.) and yet their testimony in other matters not con­tradicted, is, and ever was of great authority in the Church of God. Also Bullin­ger de Scriptu [...]ae authoritate, &c. Printed T [...]guri Anno 1538. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166. a. post med. saith, Q [...]anquam dominandi cupido ab ipsis statim Aposto­lorum temporibus, potissimum vero à Constantim M [...]gni imperio (sub quo non [...]ulli a [...]unt primum venenum effusum esse in Ecclesiam) non semel se exer­cuerit in quibusdam Romanis Episcopis, &c. And Mr. D. Downham in his treasise concerning Antichrist l. 2. c. 8. pag. 79. paulo post initium seemeth like­wise to acknowledge, though not the then open exercise of (the Popes) universal Do­minion: yet the private Doctrin thereof, saying, The (very same) Antichrist, which is to be destroyed at the second comming of Christ, was come even in the Apostles time, although he was not revealed by exercising openly a Soveraign and universal Dominion. In like respect whereof Mr. Middleton in his foresaid Papisto-mastix pag. 193. post med. saith, We are sure that the mystery of iniquity did work in Pauls time, and fell not asleep so soon as Paul was dead, waking again 600. years after, when this mystery was disclosed, &c. and therefore no marvail though perusing Councils, Fathers and stories from the Apostles forward, we find the Print of the Popes feet, &c. And see Mr. Fulks like full acknowledgement in his saying alleged heretofore in this number at 40. are plenti­ful.

11. Eleventhly, as concerning the special forbearance or restraint to fast upon Sunday; it is confessed that the contrary undertaken liberty to fast upon that day Brereley in his Omis­sions, &c. of pag. 113. saith, Mr. Welsh in his reply against Gilbert Brown pag. 156. circa med: saith, we think it no heresy to fast on the Lords Day, more than other days, &c. (renewed now by the Puritans) was reproved by the Apostles own Clemens l. 5. Aposto­lic. Constitut. cap. ult. fine, saith, Obnoxius peccato est qui die dominico jejunat. And the like is affiemed by Ig­natius in Epist. ad Philippens. See this confessed by Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 99. prope finem. Scholars, and o­ther Tertul. de Corona militis c. 3. saith, Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. And see this confessed by Mr. Cartwright ubi supra. Also St. Austin Epist. 86. ad Casulanum, circa med. saith, Quis non Deum offendet, si velit cum scandalo totius, quae ub [...]que dila­tata est, Ecclesiae, die dominico jejunare? And Conc. 4. Carthag. can. 64. saith, Qui dominico die studiosè jejunat, non credatur Catholicus. Fathers, in so much as some of them doubted not specially to con­demn the same in Aerius Epiphan. haer. 75. ante med. reporteth and condemneth the error of the Aerians, saying of them, A­pud ipsos stud [...]um est, ut pot ùs in die dominica jejunent, quarta verò & pro­sabbato edant. and the [Page 229] Aug. Ep. 86. ad Ca­sulanu [...] post med. saith, To fast on the Lords Day is a great offence, especially since the detestable heresy of the Ma­nichees, &c. who appoint un­to their hearers this day as lawful to be fasted upon. And see this alleged by Mr. Whit­gift in his defence, &c. pag. 102. circa med. Manichees. As concerning the appointed fast of Lent, St. Ambrose saith, Ambrose serm. 25.34. & 36. It is sin not to fast in Lent, For which Mr. Cartwright Mr. Cartwright alle­ged in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 100. initio. re­proveth him: and yet no less is af­firmed by Aug. de tempore, serm. 62. & 77. St. Austin, Chrysostom. ad pop. hom. 6. prope finem.Chry­sostom and other Concil. 8. Tolet. can. 9. Fathers. In so much as Chemnitius confesseth that Chemnitius examen Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 89. b. ante med. saith, Quadra­gesimam enim Ambrosius, Maximus Taurinensis, Theo­philus, Hieronymus, & alii affirmant esse traditionem Apostolicam. Ambrose, Maximus Taurinensis, Theophilus, Hierom, and others do af­firm, the fast of Lent to be an Apo­stolical tradition. In more undoubted proof whereof, other Protestant Writers do not only affirm See this in Abraham Scultetus in Medul. Theo­logiae Patrum, pag. 440. i­nitio. the superstition of Lent and fasting to have been allowed and commanded by Ignatius Mr. Whitgist in his de­fence, &c. pag. 408. circa med. who was Scholar to St. John; but do also defend See Abraham Scultetus ubi supra: and the same Epistle of Ignatius (being ad Philippens [...]s) is in like manner cited and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 102. ante med. and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibid. pag. 99. prope finem. And Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. circa mod. answereth our Adversaries usual objection made against it. And so like­wise doth Mr. Whitgift in his desence, &c. pag. 102. that very Epistle of Ignatius, in which this Doctrin is extant, to be his true Epistle and not counterfeit. Adde but now hereunto, that our learned adversaries do acknowledge how that in the Primitive Church Whereas Epiphanius haer. 75. ante med. reporting the errors of Aerius, affirmeth of him that he said, Neither shall fasting be appointed; for these things be Judaical and under the law of bondage. If at all I will fast, I will choose any day of my self, and I will fast for li­berty. And see the like in St. Augustin haer. 53. and confessed by Mr. Fulk and Pan­taleon (hereafter in this Consideration num. 21. in the margent at c.) This opinion of Aerius, though thus condemned, was yet so agreeable, and the very same with the new doctrin of Protestants, that Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 9. pag. 830. initio saith, De jejunio nihil a fide Catholica alienum docuit Aerius. And see this condemned opinion of Aerius yet further defended by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 45. initio. And by Danaeus de haeresibus cap. 53. fol. 175. b. & 177. a. b. though yet others, who distike our adversaries over-plain No­vellism herein, do specially condemn Acrius and his foresaid defended doctrin, as doth namely Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 210. paulo post med. And the Protestant Author of the book intituled Querimonia Ecclesiae, Printed Londini 1592. pag. 31. fine, & 94. ante med. & 103. fine. Hereof see (hereafter in this Consideration in the place before cited) Aug. haer 53. and Epipha­mus haer. 75. ante med. And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 44. fine and 45. initio confesseth this, saying, I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter, Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofi­table, as witness both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an error. Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed. And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith, The eleventh is the heresy of Aerius: He con­demned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of thanksgiving for them. He disliked set fasts, and would not admit any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, &c. He was justly condemned, &c. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantalcon in Chronogra­phia pag. 28. initio. And Osiander in Epitom. &c. cent. 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying, Item non oporrere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem, Jejunia ordinata non esse obiervanda, &c. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem. Ae­rius [Page 230]was specially condemned for his then impugning of our Doctrin, concerning the Churches appointed Fasts: and that also they themselves do in our behalf give true and full answer to our other adversaries com­mon and misapplyed objecting of the mistaken example of Whereas Mr. Fulk a­gainst the Rhemish Testament in Matth. c. 15. fol. 28. a. versus finem, & in Act. A­post. c. 13. sect. 5. fol. 208. a. fine, Arerius in loc. com­mun. pag. 272. versus finem, and many others do commonly object, that Montanus the Heretick was the first that appointed laws of fasting: Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesia­stieal Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. fine, & 210. initio, answereth with us, that the Montanists were reprehended only, for that they brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting, continued their fasts a great deal longer, and made them more rigo­rons, &c. Whereupon Tertullian maintaining Montanism wrote a book in defence of the new fast, &c. And the foresaid Protestant Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 110. initio, answereth in like manner saying, Euseb [...]um (inquiunt) Monta­num primas de jejuniis tuliffe leges, manifestò docet: sed falluntur graviter in hac re ut in aliis, &c. Abrogatis Ecclesiae jejuniis novum inducit (Montanus) jejunandi morem, &c. See this answer more at large in the book it self. Monta­nus, [Page 231]and wrested saying of Whereas Mr. Fulk a­gainst the Rhem. Test. in 1 Tim. 4.3. and commonly most Protestants do object the saying of St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3. against our Catholick Doctrin of fasting from cer­tain meats; Mr. H [...]oker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. post med. saith with us hereof, Against those Hereticks which have urged perpetual abstinence from certain meats, as being in their very nature unclean; the Church hath still b [...]nt her self as an enemy, St. Paul giving charge to take heed of them, &c. And the foresaid Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 106. & 107. giveth the same answer to the said saying of St. Paul (as likewise doth St. Austin contra Faustum Manich. l. 30. cap. 4. & c. 6. & contra Adimant. Manic. c. 14.) An answer so evidently true, that Mr. Jacob (the Puritan) in his defence of the Church and Ministry of England pag. 59. initio, acknowledgeth, that the place of Paul (1 Tim. 4.3.) is understood of Marcion and Tatianus, who did absolutely condemn Mar­riage and certain meats; and so (saith he) are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing else. St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3.

12. Twelfly concerning unwrit­ten traditions, and Ceremonies, the Canonical Scriptures, Images, Re­licks, and consecration or hallowing of Creatures. And first concerning unwritten Traditions, it is confessed as followeth. Whereas St. Chryso­stom saith, Chrysost. in 2. Thess. hom. 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but ma­ny things without, and these be as worthy of credit as the other; Master Whitaker in answer thereof saith, Whitaker de sacra Scriptura pag. 678. paulo post med. I answer, that this is an inconsiderat speech, and unworthy so great a Fa­ther. And whereas Epiphanius saith, [Page 232] Epiphanius haer. 61. circa med. We must use Traditions, for the Scripture hath not all things, and therefore the Apostles delivered cer­tain things by writing, and certain by Tradition; with whom agreeth St. Basil saying, Basil de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. Some things we have from Scripture, other things from the Apostles Tradition, &c. both which have like force unto godliness. Mr. Doctor Reynolds answering to these foresaid sayings of Basil and Epipha­nius saith, D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his con­ference, the 1. Conclusion. pag. 689. I take not upon me to controle them; but let the Church judge, if they considered with advice enough, &c. Whereunto might be added the like further confessed Where Eusebius l. 1. De­monstr. Evang. cap. 8. is ob­jected to say, That the Apo­stles published their Doctrin, partly by writing, partly with­out writing, as it were by a certain unwritten Law; Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 668. fine saith thereto, I answer, that this testimony is plain enough, but in no force to be received, because it is against the Scriptures. And whereas D [...]onysius de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 1. versus finem saith, That the Apostles d [...]d deliver (their Doctrin) partly by wri­ting, partly without writing, &c. Mr. Whitaker (hereafter alleged in this Consi­deration num. 13. a [...] t.) de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med. saith, I do ac­knowledge that D [...]onysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions. te­stimony from Eusebius and from Dyonysius Areopagita the Apostles Scholar.

And thus much briefly concerning the Fathers of the Greek Church. Now as concerning the like confes­sed Doctrin in the Fathers of the Latin Church, to avoid tediousness, St. Austin only (as being most Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae, &c. pag. 96. ante med. saith, August [...]us Patrum omnium communi sentent [...]a purissimus habe­tur. Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 170. fine, tearmeth Austin the greatest of all the Fathers, & worthiest Divine the Church of God e­ver had since the Apostles times. ap­proved by our Adversaries) shall serve for all: who labouring to prove [Page 233]that those who are Baptized by He­reticks should not be re-baptized, saith, Aug. de Bap. contra Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof, but that custom which was opposed herein against Cyprian, is to be believed to proceed from their tradition, as many things be, which the whole Church holdeth, and are therefore well believed to be comman­ded of the Apostles, although they be not written. Wherein, and See the like saying in St. Austin Epist. 118. ad Ja­nuarium. other his like sayings, his meaning is so e­vident and confessed, that M. Cart­wright speaking thereof saith, See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 103. ante med. To allow St. Austins saying is to bring in Popery again. And that, See Mr. Cartwrights words alleged ubi supra. And see his further assertion hereof in his 2. Reply against Master Whitgift part 1. pag. 84. fine, & 85. & 86. If St. Austins judgement be a good judge­ment, then there be some things com­manded of God, which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no suffici­ent Doctrin conteined in the Scrip­tures: Adde but now hereunto, that See Chemnitius exa­men part. 1. pag. 87. 89 90. Chemnitius reproveth for their like testimony of unwritten tradi­tions, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori­gen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierom, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil, Dama­scene, &c. That Mr. Fulk See Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 362. ante med. & 303. & 397. and a­gainst Martial pag. 170 178. and against Bristows Motives pag. 35. & 36. also confesseth as much of Chrysostom, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Hierom, &c. That lastly M. Whit. See Mr. Wh [...]taker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. acknow­ledgeth the like of Chrysostom, Epi­phanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augu­stine, [Page 234]Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Euse­bius, Damascen, &c. Now as con­cerning Ceremonies Mr. Calfehil (to omit others) affirmeth that See this saying of Master Calfchil in Mr. Fulks rejoyn­der to Martials R [...]ply Printed 1580. pag. 131. fine, & 132. initio. the Fathers declined all from the simpli­city of the Gospel in Ceremonies. In like manner concerning the Macha­bees, Ecclesiasticus, Toby and other the Books of the old Testament Unworthily so s [...]cluded by Mr. Whitaker in his an­swer to Mr. Reynolds refu­tation pag. 22. & 23. for it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the [...]ongue, wherein they are written, as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only Language. The known vanity of which said asser [...]ion is sufficiently further dispro­ved by example of Daniel, a great part whereof (viz. from cap. 2. ver. 4 u que ad fi­nem cap. 7.) though not writ­ten in Hebrew, is yet by our adversaries themselves ac­knowledged for Canonical. Neither is it approved that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their wri­tings, but such as were known, and also further declared by certain testimony, to be Prophets. For our adversaries cannot yet tell who were Authors of the several Books of Judges; the third and fourth of Kings, the two of Chron cles, and the Books of Ruth, and Job; even Mr. Wh [...]taker himself in disput. de Sacra Scriptura pag. 603. post med. saith hereof; Multo [...]um l [...]brorum authores ignorantur, ut [...]o­suae, Ruth, Paral [...]ppomenon, Hester, &c. And Mr. Will [...]t in his Synopsis pag. 4. post med. saith, We receive many Books [...]n the old Testament, the A [...]thors whereof are not perfectly known. Also Calv [...]n, B [...]za, and the publishers of the Eng­lish B [...]bles of Anno 1584. & 1579. in the Preface or Argument upon the Ep [...]stle to the H [...]brews, do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof, Calvin and Beza there affirming, that it is not written by Paul; whereof see also Calvin further in cap. 2. Hebr. ver. 3. fine. unworthily secluded by Mr. Whi­taker, from the Canon, for tha [...], saith he, they were written in Greek or some other forein language, (and not in Hebrew) nor had for their known Authors, those whom God had decla­red to be his Prophets; that these Books were nevertheless holden for Sacred and Canonical by St. Austin, the third Council of Carthage, and other Fathers, is made evident by their manifest St. Austin de doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 8. saith, Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris contin [...]tur: Q [...]nque Moylcos, &c. Job, Tobias, Hester, Judith, & Machabaeo [...]um l [...]b [...]i duo, & Esdrae duo, &c. Illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, & alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam fimilitudine, Salomonis esse dicuntur: Nam Jesus filius Syracheos con­scripsisse constantissimè perhibetur, qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter Propheticos numerandi sunt: reliqui sunt, &c. Also the third Council of Carthage can. 47. saith, Placuit, ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas ni­hil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Ca­nonicae Scripturae Genesis, E [...]odus, Levit [...]cus, &c. Salomonis libriquinque, &c. Tobias, Judith, Hester, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo, &c. And see the like accompt made by Innocent us in Epist. ad Exuperium cap. 7. By Gela­sius tom. 1. Concil. decret. cum 70. Episcopis. By Isidor. l. 6. Etymolog. cap. 1. By Rabanus l. 2. Instit. Cler [...]corum; and by Cassiodorus l. 2. divin. le­ctionum. sayings had thereof. [Page 235]And howsoever certain of our lear­ned Adversaries were not abashed in the Tower disputation publickly and seriously to evade and answer, that St. Anstin in his sayings hereof used the word Canonical In the Tower disputation with F. Campian Anno 1581. the first days conference. impro­perly, the very contrary thereof is so evident, not only in St. Austin and the third Council of Carthage (whereat St. Austin was present and In Concil. 3. Carthag. fine it is said, Augustinus E­p [...]scopus plebis Hipponae sub­scripsi. subscribed) but also in sun­dry other Fathers, that the same is plainly confessed in divers of the same Fathers, by Mr. Reynolds in his Conclusions annexed to his con­ference, the second Conclusion pag. 699. post med. & 700. initio, reproveth herein the third Council of Carthage. D. Reynolds, Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura pag. 32. & 33. acknowledgeth the foresaid like Judgement of the Carthage Council, Innocentius, and Gelasius.Zanchius, Hospinianus in Hist. Sacramentar. part. 1. pag. 160. paulo ante med. reje­cteth herein the Judgement of the Carthage Council. And ibid. post med. & pag. 161. ante med. he likewise rejecteth Innocentius & Gelasius: & pag. 161. post med. he reproveth St. Austin.Hospinianus, Lubbertus d [...] principiis Christian. dogm. l. 1. cap. 4. pag. 8. prope finem sa [...]th, Concedo quosdam ex his libris à Carthaginen­ [...]ibus admissos, s [...]d nego eos propterea esse verbum Dei. Nulla enim Cono lia habent istam author [...]atem.Lubbertus, Hiperius in Method. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. fine saith, In Concilio Carthag [...]ensi tertio adduntur ad Canonem, &c. Sa­pientia & Ecclesiasticus, libri duo Machabaeorum, Tobias, Judith, &c. quos libros omnes eodem ordine numerat Augustinus, Innocentius & Gelasius. And then afterwards more at large reciteth their Judgement.Hipertus, D. Field of the Church, l. 4. c. 23. pag. 246. circa med. & 247. circa med. acknowledgeth the like judge­ment herein of St. Austin, Innocentius, and the third Council of Carthage. D. Field, and See D. Covel against Burges, pag. 76. fine, & 77. most plainly confessing St. Austins like judgement had of the Book of Wisedom; and ibid. pag. 87. ante med. he further saith of all these Books: If Ruffinus be not deceived, they were approved as parts of the old Testament by the Apostles. D. Covel. And where­as [Page 236]our Adversaries do object, that Origen in Psalm. 1. apud Eusebium Hist. l. 6. c. 19. Origen and Epiphanius de pond. & mensur. and also Haer. 8. Epicureorum circa med. Epiphanius do in their mentioning the Scriptures of the old Testament, seclude these from the Canon; and that Hieron. praefat. in lib. Regum. St. Hierom affirmeth them to be Apo­cryphal; it is answered thereto: First, that the Fathers in those places do not speak of their own opinion, but do only report what was the opinion of the Hebrews, and what Books they thought Canonical. From which now defended opinion of the Hebrews, Origen was so far from the Hebrews opinion hereof, that he doubted not to defend for sacred against Julius A­fricanus (who doubted there­of) the History of Susanna, which the Hebrews and Pro­testans reject; hereof see O­rigen in Epist. ad Julium A­fricanum, and hom. 1. in Leviticum. He doth likewise (in Epist. ad Julium Afri­canum) affirm that part of Hester to be sacred and Canonical, which the Protestants refuse, as not being in the Hebrews Canon. Origen, Epiphanius haer. 76. ante med. numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the divine Scriptures: and in libro de pond. & niensur. paulo post init. he referreth Sapientia unto Salomon as Author thereof.Epiphani­us, Hierom As concerning Hierom, whereas he (in praefat. Daniel.) unto an unwary Reader may seem to seclude certain Chapters of Daniel rejected by Protestants, as not being in the Hebrews Canon; In so much that Ruffinus mistaking herein (as the Protestants do) Hieroms meaning, doth reprehend and charge Hierom, with refusal of these foresaid parts of Daniel (accordingly also as doth Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 1. pag. 18. circa med. allege the foresaid place of Hierom against those Chap­ters of Daniel) St. Hierom. Apol. 2. adv. Ruffinum circa finem answereth and explaineth himself saying, Non enim quid ipse sentirem, &c. Truly I did not set down what my self thought, but what the Hebrews are accustomed to say against us herein, calling there fierther Ruffinus stultum Sycophantem, a foolish Sycophant, for mistaking and charging him with the Hebrews opinion. See yet this point of St. Hierom thus explaining himself confessed by Mr. D. Covel in his answer to Master John Burges, &c. pag. 87. circa med. And see the conference of Hampton Court pag. 60. Also St. Hierom [...]n prolog. in Machab. most expresly placeth the Books of Machabees (rejected by the Hebrews) among the stories of divine Scripture. And Hier. in praefat. in Judith saith of that Book. Apud Haebraeos liber Judith inter Agiographa legitur, cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt (to wil with the Jews) minùs idonea judicatur, &c. Sed quia hunc li­brum Synodus Nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse, acquievi, &c., and sundry other [Page 237] St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 36. saith, Among which are the Books of Ma­chabees, which not the Jews, but the Church accounteth for Canonical. And St. Isidore l. 6. Etymolog. c. 1. saith of the Machabees: Though the Hebrews do not receive them into their Canon, yet the Church of Christ doth honour them a­mong the divine Books. So clearly did the antient Fathers disclaim from the Hebrews Catalogue which our ad­versaries profess to maintain and follow. Fathers were most clearly dissen­ting, many of them to the contrary, usually alleging and citing these Books, and (to prevent all evasion and Cavil) not under the naked and only name of Scripture in general, but with such further circumstance or Epithets So is the Book of Wisedom alleged by Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 1. & de habitu Virginum ante med. & de exhort. Martyrii cap. 12. initio, & de mortalitate prope finem. By Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem l. 1. c. 5. & l. 2. c. 9. & ad Feram Diaconum resp. ad quaest. 1. prope initium. by Cyril. l. 2. in Julianum ultra med. By Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Strom. By D [...]onysius de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. By Egesippus apud Eusebium l. 4. c. 22. By Mel to apud Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 26. fine. By St. Austin de prae­dest. Sanctorum l. [...]. c. 14. and see Synod. Alexandrin. in Epist. ad omnes u­bique Ecclesias. And it is yet further referred to Salomon, as Author thereof, by Epiphanius haer. 76. Ambrose serm. 8. in Psalm. 118. H [...]lary in Psalm. 127. Tertul. de praescript. Melito apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 26. So likewise is the Book of Ecclesiasticus alleged by Fulgentius, de remiss. pec. l. 1. c. 12. & 29. & l. 2. c. 4. and de fide ad Petrum c. 3. and de Incarn. & Gra. Christi cap. 28. Cyprian de mortalitate post initium, and serm. de Eleemosyna initio, & l. 3. Epist. 9. Au­stin de Doctrina Christiana l. 22. c. 8. and de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 20. Ambros. l. 4. de fide cap. 4. & serm. 30. & l. de Nabath Jezraelita cap. 12. fine, & lib. de Tobia c. 1. Hier. Ep. 33. Maximus Taurinensis hom. 1. de Eleemosyna. E­piphanius haer. 76. ante med. Junilius de part. divin. leg. c. 3. 5. 6. and (which further proveth they thought it Canonical) it it referred to Salomon as Author there­of, by Hilary in Matth. can. 7. Cyprian. l. 3. Epist. 9. & ad Guirinum c. 35.61.69. & Serm. de Eleemof. prope initium: Basil. l. 4. contra Eunomium; Ambr. in 1 Cor. c. 7. Chrysost. de decollat. Joannis Baptistae initio. & hom. 3. imperfect. in Matth. Innoc. Ep. ad Exuperium: Gregor. l. 10. Moral. c. 14. Clemens Alex. l. 7. Strom. and Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 47. So also is the Book of To by alleged by Cyprian Serm. 1. de Eleemosyna, [...]n [...]t [...]o, & de orat. dom. prope finem. Ambr. l. de Tob [...]a c. 1. & l. 6. exam. c. 4. & l. 10. Ep. 82. Au­st [...]n Ep. 120. c. 29. & Ep. 121. c. 9 & de diligendo Deo, c. 3. H [...]lary in Psalm. 129. circa med. And Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 34. numbreth Toby among the other Pro­phets, of whom the Hereticks called Gnostioi did feign certa [...]n soolish devices. The like might be further alleged of the other controverted Books, but this place is not capable thereof. of divine Scripture, [Page 238]wherein the Holy Ghost speaketh, or such other like, as are peculiar only to those Scriptures that be Canonical. Secondly though we should suppose that these Fathers had omitted or denyed all or some of these Books in their Catalogue of the Scriptures, accordingly as the Protestants ob­ject that the Concil. Laodicen. can. ult. Laodicen Council doth in its Catalogue of the Scrip­tures omit all those Books, as indeed the same Council doth also there likewise omit the Apocalyps: yet is the objection hereof (though suppo­sed for true) of no force, because it is evident that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in so great variety Of the great variety of pretended Scriptures see in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 6. in the margent un­der the letter b. where he saith: Of the very many writings forged under the Apostles names, see Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 19. & l. 6. c. 10. & St. Austin contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. l. 1. c. 20. & Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis, & Zozomen. hist. l. 7. c. 19. post med. and see also the Protestant Writer Ham [...]lmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis, &c. primae partis l. 1. col. 251. & part. 3. l. 3. col. 841. lin. 15. & 22. In which places mention is severally made of sundry writings forged under the names of Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Thomas, Matthew, Andrew, John, and divers others, and St. Paul 2 Thess. 2.2. insinuateth the then forging of Epistles in his name. of pretended Scriptures, great care and [Page 239]search was requisite, whereby to de­termine which Scriptures were Ca­nonical and which not, whereby it came to pass that sundry Books were for the time misdoubted, or by some Fathers or Councils omitted or not received, which yet afterwards upon greater search and consideration ge­nerally acknowledged. A thing so evident, that our learned Adversa­saries themselves do accordingly con­fess and illustrate the same by many confessed and known In the Tower disp. 1581. the first days conference, D. 1. The Deans of Pauls and Windsor say, Euscbius affirmeth plainly the Epistle of St. James to be a counterfeit or bas [...]ard Eorstle. Also Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christs sufferings, &c. Printed 1604. pag. 664. paulo post initium saith, The Scriptures were not fully received in all places, no not in Eusebius time. He saith the Epistles of James, Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John are contradicted, as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted, &c. the Churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the second and third of John, nor the Epistle of Jud [...], nor the Apocalys, &c. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia: will [...]ou hence conclude that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolick, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of? So fully doth Mr. B [...]lson answer our Adversaries like usual objection had against the Macha­b [...]es, and the other B [...]nks of the old Testament now in question. More confessed examples her of alleged by Protestants Brereley rec [...]teth, tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 6. in the margent at the Letter c. sa [...]ing, In the Tower d. sp. Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian the first days conference, D. 1. the Deans of Pauls and Wind [...]or do thus report of themselves: for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth: The Epistle of James is said to be pub­lished by some other und [...]r his name, and of the 2. of Peter he saith, that it is denyed of many to he [...]s: we also alleged Eusebius writing thus; thes Books that be gain­said, though they be known to many, he these, the Epistle attributed to James, the E­pistle of jude, the later of Peter, the second and third of John. And in the fourth days conference fol. 2. b. M. D. Walker saith, Hierom saith concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews, many have doubted of it. And also con­cerning the 2. of Peter, he saith it was doubt [...]d of by many, and so with some were the two last Epistles of John, &c. examples; Mr. Bilson thereupon Mr. Bilson in his saying alleged next here­tofore in the margent under g. conclu­ding, [Page 240]that this denyal or omission made by certain Fathers of certain Scriptures, is no argument against the said Scriptures. Whereupon it necessarily followeth, as well by Ma­ster Bilsons foresaid conclusion, as by unavoydable sequel of the other premisses, that the Canonical Scrip­tures are to us at this day discerned and made known, not by that which certain Fathers do omit, deny, or doubt of; for so should we upon this ground deny also with the Luthe­rans, the Osiander a prime Lu­theran speaking of the last Ca­non of the Laodicen Council (commonly objected by our Ad­versaries) wherein are omit­ted the Books now in question, and the Apocalyps, saith (in his Epitom, &c. cent. 4. pag. 299. fine) Non recitantur libri Machabaeorum, & re­ctè quidem: In eo autem erratum est, quod Epistolam Jacobi & Judae, & posteriores duas Joannis, inter Cano­nica Scripta numerant: quae Scripta non longè post A­postolorum tempora, non pro Scriptis Canonicis habita sunt, &c. Rectè autem omissa est Apocalypsis, ea enim non est Joannis Apostoli, &c. And see this point more fully in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 3. fine at a. and tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2. initio, in the text and margent there at o. p. q. r. s t. u. And see at large in the Pro­testant Authors themselves the places there cited, wherein they reject these Scriptures, under colour, and pretence, that they were denyed or doubted of in the Primitive Church, Epistles of James, Jude, the second of Peter, the 2. and 3. of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalyps, no less than the other Books now in question: but by that which many of the Fathers do con­stantly affirm. And seeing the Chur­ches assertion, as being in the judge­ment of our very Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 5. initio saith, the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this judgement she hath of the Holy Ghost. And Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. and after the other Edition of 1571. pag. 242. circa med. saith, The Church of God hath the spirit of Wisedom, whereby to discern true Scripture from false. The Protestant Author of the Scripture and the Church (which Bullinger so greatly commendeth in his Pre­face thereof to the Reader) doth (cap. 15. fol. 71.72. & cap. 16. fol. 74.75.) af­firm, that The Church is indued with the Spirit of God: (and that) the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein, which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings, and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy: And afterwards he further saith, We could not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed, that this doctrin was delivered by the Apostles. To this end Mr. Hooker in his first Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect. 14. pag. 86. ante med. saith (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subd. 3.) 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, whereof he giveth a very sensible demonstration (ibid. l. 2. sect. 4. pag. 102. fine) saying, It is not the word of God, which doth or possibly can as­sure us that we do well to think it his word; for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it; Neither could we come to any pause wherein to rest, unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us, &c. Which he acknowledgeth to be the authority of Gods Church l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 146. fine, & l. 2. sect. 7. pag. 116. ante med. And Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect, 11. subd. 1. at s. allegeth further the like judgement of Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hookers five Books art. 4. &c. pag. 31. ante med. saying, Doubtless it is a tolerable opinion of the Church of Rome, if they go no further (as some of them do not) to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves: but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the Church. And after in the same page, It is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the word of God: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of Gods Church, which teacheth us to receive Marks Gos­pel who was not an Apostle, and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apo­stle, and to retain Lukes Gospel, who saw not Christ, and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus that saw him. Adversaries, [Page 241]an infallible and sure direction to us in this question of the Canonical Scriptures, is as heretofore positive­ly delivered and made plain to us by no less testimony than of St. Isido [...]e, Innocentius, Gelasius, the Fathers of the Carthage Council, (and to omit others) of St. Austin himself, who in our Adversaries confessed judge­ment, was M. D. Covel in his an­swer to John Burges pag. 3. fine saith, Saint Austin, a man far beyond all that ever were before him, or shall in likeli­hood follow after him, both for humane and divine lear­ning, those being excepted that were inspired. Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. fine saith, Austin, the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times: And Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae, &c. pag. 96. ante med. saith, Augustinus Patrum omnium commu­ni sententia purissimus habetur. chief and best of all the Fathers; what can be more clear and convincing herein for us and a­gainst [Page 242]our Adversaries, than that which is, as heretofore, though but briefly, yet plainly thus delivered, from the not doubtful, but confessed judgement of St. Austin and those other many antient Fathers? Mr. D. M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. John Burges pag. 85. fine saith of the un­truths or repugnances suppo­sed to be in these Books now in question: We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scrip­tures, and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true. And pag. 87. fine & 88, 89, 90. [...]e maketh special answer to certain such objected repug­nances. Covel (a prime man among our Adversaries) not forbearing in this case, to undertake special defence and answer against such weak see­ming repugnances or contradictions (occuring Concerning the like see­ming repugnancy of other Scriptures Mr. Jewel in his defence, &c. pag. 361. fine, affirmeth, that St. Mark alleged Abiathar for Abimelech: and that St. Matthew nameth Hieremias for Zacharias: and in St. Matthew 27.9. are words alleged under the name of Hieremy, which are not found in Hieremy but in Zachary 11.13. Also in Mark 15.25. our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour, whereas in John 19.14. Pilate sate in judgement upon him, about the sixt hour. In like manner Luke 3.35, 36. affirmeth Sale to be the son of Caynan, and Caynan the son of Arphaxad, and so Arphaxad was Grandfather to Sale: whereas in Genesis 11.12. it is said that Arphaxad lived 35. years, and begat Sale: upon which said last appearing difficulty, though, Beza in Nov. Test. in his several E­ditions of An. 1556. & 1587. to reconcile Luke with Genesis, do in the said third Chapter of Luke ver. 36. leave out these words, Who was the son of Caynan; and is therein defended by Mr. Fulk in his defence of the English Translations against Mr. Martin in the Preface sect. 18. pag. 41. yet the English translation of An. 1576. dare not follow Beza therein. To these few examples sundry other like might be ad­ded, all which notwithstanding we are bound to acknowledge the said Scriptures for true and sacred (and so likewise the other Books now in question) though the oc­curring difficulties were greater than yet is urged. likewise in the other confessed Canonical Scriptures) as are vulgarily objected against the Books now in question.

As concerning Images, it is affir­med that Mr. Fulk against Hes­kins, Sanders, &c. pag. 672. initio 47. & 675. circa med. Paulinus caused images to be Painted on Church Wals: that Cent. 4. Magdeburg. c. 10. col. 1080. lin. 50. Lactantius affirmeth many super­stitious things concerning the efficacy of Christs image; that Centur. 8. c. 10. col. 850. St. Bede erred in the worshipping of Images; that St. Bale in his pageant of Popes fol. 33. Gregory by his Indulgen­cesOsiander in Epit. cent. 6. pag. 288. fine, and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 2. pag. 343. fine, & Chemnitius in his examen, part. 4. pag. 32. b. fine.established Pilgrimage to Ima­ges, and defended worshipping of Ima­ges; that St. Leo See Bale in his pageant of Popes pag. 24. & 27. and Mr. Symonds on the Reve­lations pag. 57. fine saith, Leo decreed that reverence should be given to Images, &c.allowed the wor­shipping of Images; that Functius a Protestant Writer (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subdivis. 2. at * before) in libro 7. com­mentariorum in praecedent. chronologiam, at Anno Christi 494. confesseth say­ing, Porro is Xenayas primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excita vit. And Nicephorus in hist. Eccles. l. 16. c. 27. saith, Xenayas iste primus (O audacem animam & os impudens!) vocem illam evomuit, Christi & eorum qui illi pla­cuere imagines venerandas non esse. And see also hereof Cedrenus in compendio histor. Xenayas was specially noted or condemned for being the first that stirred up War against Images.

And in no less plain (if not more full) manner, are the Fathers likewise charged with affirming the great See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. ante med. at u. x. y. & ibid. post med. at 80, & 81, & 82. vertue of the sign of the Cross, with Ibid. and see Mr. Per­kins problem, pag. 83 their worshipping of it: and also with confessed testimonies of undoubted See hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. initio at u. & post med. at 83. miracles shewed by God in it.

As concerning Reliqus of Saints, it is affirmed that the antient Fathers erred See hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. prope initium at m. & * and after at 35. both in Translation, and [Page 244] Chemnit. in his exam. part. 4. pag. 10. a. post med. saith hereof, Ex Translatio­nibus mox factae fuerunt cir­cumgestationes reliquiarum, ut apud Hieronymum & a­pud Augustinum, &c. Circumgestation, or carrying a­bout of Reliques. Also in Chemnitius examen part. 4. pag. 10. b. ante med. Pilgri­mage to Reliques: that Osiander in Epit. cent. 4. pag. 506. ante med. and see the other Century Writers of Magdeburg cent. 4. col. 1250. lin. 45. St. Hierom did foolishly contend that the Reliques of Saints were to be worshipped: that Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 46. alleged hereafter in this Consideration num. 21▪ at d. Vigilantius was specially con­demned for his contrary doctrin, and that many great Hereof M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med. saith, I do not think those miracles vain, which are reported to have been done at the Mo­numents of Saints. And Luther in purgatione quorundam Articulorum, saith, Who can gainsay those things which God to this day worketh miraculously and vi­sibly (ad Divorum Sepulchra) at the Monuments of the Saints. And see Mr. Fox act. mon. Printed 1576. pag. 61. b. ante med. where he saith, The Idol ceased to give any more Oracles, saying, that for the Body of Babylas (the Martyr) he could give no more answers. And see Mr. Fox in the margent there, and Chrysostom contra Gentiles post med. And of many other miracles read only St. Austin de ci­vit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and see what is further confessed by Chemnitius in his examen part. 4. pag. 10. ante med, as reported by the antient Fathers. miracles are confessed to have been undoubtedly done at the Reliques of Saints.

As concerning the consecration of Creatures, it is confessed that the Fathers give testimony of Consecra­tionSee hereafter in this Consideration, num. 21. ini­tio at 1, and ibid. post med. at 100. And Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. at d. further saith, In proof that our then Con­version was to every particu­lar point of our now professed Catholick Faith M. D. Humfrey in Jesutismi part 2. rat. 5. pag. 5. & 627. saith, In Ecclesiam vero quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Onus Ceremo­moniarum, &c. intulerunt pallium Archiepiscopale ad sola. Mistarum solemnia, Purgatorium, &c. Oblationem salutaris hostiae, & preces pro demortuis, &c. Rel quias, &c. Transubstantiationem, &c. novas Templorum consecrationes, &c. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est, quam ut Indulgentiae, Monachatus, Papatus, reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis chaos exstruatur? Haec autem Augustinus magnus Monachus, à Gregorio Monacho edoctus, importavit Ang­lis, &c. And see the like description of Gregories doctrin made by Charion. in Chronic. lib. 4. pag. 567. ante med. & pag. 568. ante med. saying, Gregorius publicum ritum Invocationis Divorum instituit, & ossibus ac pulveribus San­ctorum templa dedicari jussit: Auxit plurimum salsam persuasionem de Mona­chatu, & de operibus sine mandato Dei excogitatis, de satisfactionibus, de vo­tis, de caelibatu; opinionem etiam de oblatione corporis & sanguinis faciendâ pro mortuis comprobavit, &c. cum tragicè declamitet se abhorrere ab Vni­versalis Episcopi apellatione, id se tamen quod titulus profitetur, vehementer cupivisse, reipsa declaravit, cum imperium in alienas sibi Ecclesias sumpserit. And John Bale in Act. Romanorum Pontificum Printed at Basile 1558. pag. 44. & 45, & 46, 47. saith, Gregorius Magnus omnium Patriarcharum Roma­norum, vita & doctrina praestantissimus, &c. parentum domus in Monasteria vertit (&c.) super Apostolorum mortua cadavera Missas celebrari mandavit, &c. Imaginem Divae Virginis circumferri permisit (&c.) peregrinationes ad statuas pro plebis devotione per indulgentias confirmavit: Purificationis Mariae festum cereis illustratum, & Palmarum diem solemnem processionibus bonoravit. I­nitium Quadragesimalis Iejunii cinerum aspergine sacravit: usum carnis, la­ctis, casei, butyri atque ovorum jejunantibus interdixit, &c. Templis lumina dedit, sex Monasteria condidit, mulieres Monachorum caenobia subire vetuit, & Monachos Monialium tecta, &c. Ne bigamus fiat Presbyter prohibuit, &c. Indul­gentias certis diebus & templa visitantibus primus concessit, &c. Dialogorum libros quatuor pro sulciendo Purgatorio fecit, cinerum consecrationes (&c.) crucis adorationes, ac Missas pro mortuis admisit (&c.) haec om­nia ut Patriarcha Romanus fecit. And elsewhere, namely centur. 1. fol. 3. he further affirmeth, that Augustin was sent from Gregory to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith: and that King Ethelbert dyed one and twenty years, post susceptum Baptismum, after he had received Popery. Also Luke Osi­ander in his Epitom. Historiae Ecclesiasticae, cent. 6. pag. 289. fine, & 290. initio, describeth it yet more particularly saying, Augustinus Romanos ritus, & consuetudines Anglicanis Ecclesiis obtrusit, nimirum Altaria, Vestes, Imagi­nes, Missas, Calices, Cruces, Candelabra, Thuribula, Vexilla, sacra Vasa, Lustrales aquas, Romanarum Ceremoniarum Codices, &c. And ibidem pag. 288. prope finem, he saith of Gregory, In pluribus articulis turpiter & Ponti­ficiè hallucinatus est: nam & libero arbitrio, & bonis operibus nimiùm tribuit, de paenitentia non rectè docet, caelibatum ministrorum Ecclesiae acriter ursit, Invocationem Sanctorum, eorumque eultum, sed & imaginum idolatricam venerationem approbavit, palliavit, & defend it. Also the Century Writers of Mag­deburg, in their sixth Century cap. 10. col. 748. circa med. make no less plain re­port as yet of Augustines like doctrin to us English men, and collecting (elsewhere in the same Book) out of Gregories own writings by them cited, certain his opinions, which they hold for erroneous, as being Popish, they do in their Index or Alphabetical table of that sixe Century after the first Edition thereof, at the word Gregory, spe­cially set down (with figures of particular reference, where every such said opinion is to be found) as followeth: Ejusdem error de bon [...]s operibus, de confessione, de conjugio, de Ecclesia, de Sanctorum invocatione, de Inferno, de Justifica­tione, de libero arbitrio, de Purgatorio, de P [...]nitentia, de satisfactione. Also they charge him yet further out of his own writings with Consecration of [...] Cha­ilces, and Corporals col. 369. fine, with Oblation of Sacrifice for the dead. col. 373. post med. with exorcism col. 376. circa med. with translation of Reliqus col. 381. fine & 382. with Monachism col. 383. initio & 384. with Pilgrimage col. 384. initio, with Consecration of Churches, with Mass, R [...]liqus, and sprinckling of holy­water col. 364. 365. with Consic [...]ation of the fo [...]t of Baptism, of Chrism, and Oyl, col. 367. prope initium: with celebration of Mass col. 369. fine & 370. initio & 693. post med. & 694. and with claim and exercise of Jurisdiction and Prima­cy over all Churches col. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. &c. With which last point concerning Primacy, he is in like manner charged and reproved by Mr. D. Fulk in his consutation of Purgatory pag. 310. ante med. and by Peter Martyr in cap. 8. Judicum, and by Carion in Chron. lib. 4. pag. 568. ante med. and by Luke Osiander in his Epitom. centur. 6. pag. 242. and Mr. Powel de Antichristo in praefat. pag. 1. fine, & 2. initio, signifieth his opinion to be, that the Pope hath been Antichrist, semper post Greg. Magni tempora, at all times since Gregory the great.of Churches, See the Centurists cent. 5. col. 744. lin. 24. And Dio­nysius de Eccles. Hierarchia c. 3. mentioneth the Consecration of Altars with in­fusion of sacred Oyl. And see Concil. Agathense can. 14.Altars, Osiander in Epitom. cent. 4. l. 3. c. 38. pag. 391. initio. And see Concil. Laodicen. can. 21. & Con­cil. Agathense can. 66.Church-vessels, of Consecration of See next hereafter num 13. at x. Monks, and The Centurists cent. 4. col. 874. lin. 2 [...]. And see Ambrose l. 3. de Virginibus, and Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 11. & 104. & Concil. Agathense can. 19. & Concil. 2. Carth. can. 3.Virgins, of hal­lowedThe Centurists Centur. 3. col. 143. lin. 48. Chemnitius part. 2. pag. 58. b. post med. And Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 12. circa med. saith, Ol [...]um in Altari sanctificatur: and see Concil. Laodicen. can. 48. & Concil. 2. Carth. can. 3. Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. Aug. l. 5. con. Don. c. 19. & 20.Chrysm, See heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at sect. next before 4. And see Mr. Perkins problem. pag. 136. And Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in 1. Ti. 4. sect. 13. fol: 378. a. prope initium. And see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 4. post med. and Ambrose de myster. init. cap. 3. ad Basil. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 27. And see Epiphanius haer. 30. ante med. And Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 3. c. 13.water, Holy Bread is affirmed so plainly by St. Austin de pec. mer. & remiss. l. 2. c. 26. that Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, &c. pag. 377. circa med. doth therefore tearm it a superstitious bread given in St. Austins time to those that were Catechumens, in­steed of the Sacrament. And Sir Philip Mornay in his Book of the Mass pag. 51. initio, chargeth Basils Liturgy with holy bread distributed after service to such as had not communicated. And St. Hier. in vita Hilarionis post. med. saith, Con­currebant Episcopi, Praesbyteri, Clericorum & Monachorum greges, &c. Et hinc inde ex urbibus & agris vulgus ignobile, sed & potentes viri & Judices, ut benedictum ab eo panem vel oleum acciperent.bread, Centur. 5. col. 744. lin. 22. & see Concil. 4. Tolet. can. 8. and Gregory l. 9. Ep. 28. and Prudentius in Benedict. Cerei Pasch.Candles, &c.

13. Thirteenthly it is confessed yet further in general concerning Dionysius Areopagita and Hermes, [Page 247]who are holden most antient and Of Dionysius mention is made Act. 17.34. and of Hermes Rom. 16.14. Apostolick: namely, that Diony­sius in his foresaid writings which were above a thousand years since (as D. Humfrey Humfred in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 513. fine & 514. initio saith, Hunc Areopagitam, Suidas, Mi­chael Singelus, Gregorius Turonensis, & alii, Pauli auditorem credunt fuisse il­lum Scriptorem caelestis & Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae. confesseth) pub­lickly extant and alleged under his name, (doth casually and obiter a­mong other things) make mention (over and besides the foresaid do­ctrine of prayer for the dead) of Hamelmannus de Tra­ditionibus Apostolicis col. 707. lin. 27. & col. 736. lin. 56. And Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med. saith, I do acknow­ledge that Dionysius is in ma­ny places a great Patron of Traditions. Apostolick unwritten Traditions of Hamelmannus ubi su­pra col. 707. l. 4. & col. 737. l. 51. Chrysm Hamelmannus ubi su­pra col. 707. l. 49. & col. 743. l. 4. And D. Reynolds in his conference pag. 488. post med., Consecration of Monks: of Mr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 488. post med. Chancels severed with sancti­fication from the rest of the Church, ofHamelmannus de Traditionibus col. 741. post med.Altars, places sanctified, and sundry Ceremoni [...]: of the peoples Hamelmannus ibid. col. 742. circa med. mutual salutation upon the Pax pronounced: of Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum pag. 484. circa med. saith, In libro de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia multa scribit de Templis, de Altaribus, de lo­cis Sacris, de choro, de consecratione Monachorū, de Tonsura & rasione capitum.the tonsure and rasure of Priests heads; of perfuming or Hospinianus in hist. Sacramentaria lib. 1. pag. 104. post. med. burning Incense at the Altar, and of Humfred. Je­suitismi part. 2. pag. 519. circa med. and Luther tom. 2. Wittemberg. Anno 1562. de captiv. Babyl. fol. 84. b. ante med. saith, At dices, Quid ad-Dionysium dices, qui sex enumerat Sacramenta? &c. Respondeo, scio hunc solum haberi ex an­tiquis pro septenario Sacramentorum, licet Matrimonio omisso senarium tan­tum dederit. As concerning the number of Sacraments mentioned by the Fathers, it is to be noted, that the Fathers do speak of them but casually, and as occasion is mi­nistred; So sometimes they do in some places but mention one Sacrament, in other places two, in others three, in some place Baptism only, in an other Order, in a third Confirmation. In this sort St. Austin contra literas Petil. l. 2. c. 104. affirmeth, The Sacrament of Chrism (or Confirmation) to be in the kind of visible sings, and sacred even as Baptism it self. And in Epist. Joan. tract. 6. he mentioneth not only the Sacrament thereof, (but) also the vertue of the Sacrament. In an other place, namely tom. 7. l. 2. contra Epist. Parmen. c. 13. he mentioneth Baptism and Or­der. And to prove that Orders once received cannot be lost, no more than Baptism, he saith, S [...] en [...]m utrumque Sacramentum est, quod nemo dubitat, cur illud non amittitur, & illud amittitur? Neutri Sacramento injuria facienda est. And a­gain, Vtru [...]que enim Sacramentum. est, &c. In like manner St. Cyprian in­serm. de ablut. pedum initio saith, Docetur quae sit Baptismi & asiorum Sa­cramentorum stabil [...]tas, mentioning therewith all sundry of them. And so plainly, that Chemnitius speaking thereof, in examen. part. 2. pag. 7. b. post med. con­fesseth, that quinque numerat, he there reckoneth up five Sacraments; Only an­swering thereto for his refuge, that Cyprian was not Author of that Treatise. The vanity of which his answer against that Treatise of Sermons extant under Cyrians name is sufficiently refelled heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 7. In like manner doth Innocentius the first-mention extreme Vnction; in so much as Bale in his Pageant of Popes fol. 26. and Szegedine in speculo Pontificum pag. 33. an­te med. reprehend Innocentius, for that he affirmed, Annoyling of the sick to be a Sacrament. Six of our Sacraments: [Page 248]that the Book of Hermes entituled Pastor, affordeth in▪ like manner testi­mony or ground-work of Abraham Scultetus in medulla Theolog. &c. pag. 467. post med. Free­will, and Monastical solitude, ofHamelmannus de trad. Apost. col. 252. fine & col. 253. initio & col. 254. lin. 38. & Abraham Scultetus ubi supra pag. 467. post med.Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, of Hamelmanus ubi supra col. 253. l. 54. & col. 254. lin. 49. Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 251. lin. 48. & col. 254. lin. 30.merit and justification of works, of professed chastity in Ministers, of fasting Hamelmannus ubi su­pra col. 254. lin. 36.from certain meats, of Ibidem col. 253. lin. 46. the Innocent parties remaining unmarried in case of adultery, of Chemnitius examen. Concil. Trid. part. 4. pag. 127. prope finem.works of Supererogation, and of Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 254. lin. 53. saith, Fuit igitur borum Papismi [...]nitium impurus ille liber Pa­storis, vel Hermetis. Popery. And though in the Pri­mitive Church some question Vide Eusebium hist. lib. 3. c. 3. prope finem. was made of this Book, as whether it were Canonical Scripture or not (many Fathers It was thought to be sacred, and for such alleged by Origen l. 10. in Epist. ad Rom. Tertul. l. de oratione. Clemens Alex. l. 6. Strom. Athanasius in libro de Decretis Nicen. Synod. Cassianus Collat. 13. &c. 12. by Iraeneus l. 4. c. 37. thinking it was:) yet is it confessed to have been received at [Page 249]the least for Hamelmannus ubi su­pra col. 254. lin. 24. saith, illum pro Ecclesiastico ha­buerunt quidem Patres: and col. 730. lin. 25. he saith, Hermetis libellus qui dicitur Pastor, est olim aliquando in numerum Ecclesiasticorun [...] librorum relatus. And see the same yet further confessed by Mr. Hooker l. 3. pag. 34. prope initium. In so much as Eusebius hist. l. 5. c. 3. Rufinus in Symbolum, & Hieron. in Catal. do commend this book for profitable, and so Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 93. fine confesseth of Hierom. Ecclesiastical. And the authority thereof to have been by so many since specially alleged, by Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 253. lin 10. saith, Liber Pastoris videtur receptus esse ab Irenaeo & Clemente. And col. 255. lin 42. he saith, Ostendit Euseblus à quibusdam librum Pastoris receptum esse, & imprimis ab Irenaeo, sic & Origines l. 1. de Principiis c. 3. citat quaedam ex libro Pastoris, ejusque libri lectionem commendat hom. 13. in Ezech. Origen, Clement, and Irenaeus, who lived next to those Apostolick times.

14. Fourteenthly, this confessed continued current of Testimonies from the Fathers, is so certain and e­vident, that sundry of our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to make general disclaim in the antient Fathers. Hence it is that Mr. Whi­taker affirmeth, Whitaker contra Du­raeum l. 6. pag. 243. fine saith, Ex Patrum erroribus vester ille Pontificiae religio­nis Cento consutus est. The Popish Re­ligion to be a patched Coverlet of the Fathers errours sewed together. And that also M. D. Humfrey did grie­vously reprehend Mr. Jewel for his so bold appealing to the Fathers, af­firming therefore of Mr. Jewel that herein Humfredus in libel. de vita Jewell Printed Londini pag. 212. And see the same also in Mr. Fulks retentive against Bristow pag. 55. cir­ca med. he gave the Papists too large a scope, was injurious to himself, (and) after a manner spoyled himself [Page 250]and the Church; which like disclaim in the antient Fathers is no less plain­ly professed by Jacobus Acontius (in his treatise Jacobus Acontius in Stratagematum Satanae l. 6. pag. 296. saith of the Prote­stants allegation of the Fa­thers, Quidam eo redierunt, ut Patrum authoritatibus omnia denuò replerent, quod utinam tam secundo fecissent successu, quam bona spe ag­gressi sunt, &c. Equidem perniciosissimam omninoque fugiendam hanc offe abitror consuetudinem. And see the like in Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 462. circa med. dedicated to her late Majesty) and by sundry Lutherus tom. 2. Wittemberg. Anno 1551. lib. de servo arbitrio pag. 434. affirmeth the Fathers of so many ages to have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to have erred all their life time, and that unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. And see further Luthers Book de servo arbitrio Printed in Octavo 1603. pag. 72.73, & 337. Also in Colloquiis Mensalibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae, Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular, In the writings of Hierom, there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. I have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostom I make no accompt. Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not of a hair. Cyprian is a weak Divine, &c. affirming there yet further that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin himself; And Pomerane in Joannam. saith, Nostri Patres sive sancti, sive non sancti, nihil moror, excaecati sunt Montanico Spiritu, per tra­ditiones humanas & doctrinas Daemoniorum, &c. non purè docent de Justi­catione, &c. Nec solliciti quidem sunt ut Jesum Christum per Evangelium suum verè doceant. And Beza in his Preface upon the new Testament dedicated to the Prince of Condy Anno 1587. affirmeth, that, Even in the best times, the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of Bishops was such, that the very blind may ea­sely perceive how that Sathan was President in their assemblies or Councils. other Protestant Writers, many of them not doubting specially to reprove e­ven those Fathers that lived next to the Apostles times; Mr. Whitaker and others to such purpose Abu­sing: for where as Euseb. l. 3. c. 26. fine allegeth Egesippus saying, Till those times the Church remained a pure Virgin, and incorrupt: for if any then were willing to deprave or corrupt the sincere rule of healthful doctrin, they lay hid in the obscure corners of darkness; But after the Apostles death, &c. then certainly the false and subtil conspiracy of wicked errors took beginning through the fraud and craft of those who laboured to disperse false doctrine, &c. Mr. Whitaker in resp. ad rationes Campian. rat. 7. pag. 102. and contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 490. & 491. urgeth this to prove that presently after the Apostles times the true Church was no longer a chast Virgin, but became adulterous and corrupt: An inference many ways most absurd. For first Egesippus only meaneth, that during the Apostles times the Church remained a Virgin, that is, not so much as assaulted openly by Hereticks, who then lay secret and lurking, where as after the Apostles times they stepped forth, and gave open and violent assaults, invading sometimes and usurping even upon Bishops Seas, and corrupting or altering with their damnable heresies many of the Churches revolted Children: which yet, no more made the visible true Church to be as then heretical; or unchast, than Luthers like late dispersion of his doctrine, and infecting therewith of many, who were formerly Catholicks, maketh our now Church to be Lutheran. Secondly if otherwise the Church so presently after the Apostles times, ceased to be a Virgin, and so became adulterous and corrupt, who seeth not then the blasphemy thence ensuing? For in what one age since the Apostles times to this pre­sent, may the Church then be thought to be preserved chast? Thirdly it is against manifest Scripture, as where it is said of the Church, I will marry thee to me for ever, &c. I will marry thee to me in saithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. Osee. 2.19, 20. and I will make this my Covenant, saith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in 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 evermore. Isa. 59.21. Very pertinenently therefore saith St. Cyprian to the contrary, Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est & pudi­ca, &c. l. de unitate Ecclesiae post initium. abu­sing [Page 251]the mistaken testimony of Ege­sippus. To this end also doth M. Nap­per in his discourse hereof to his late Majesty not only condemn all the Fathers that lived for Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 4. at q. r. s. t. saith Mr. John Napper in his treatise upon the Revelations pag. 43. versus finem affirmeth, that the Popes Kingdom hath bad power over all Christians from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperour Constantine, for these thousand two hun­dred and sixty years, and that (ibid. pag. 145. col. 3. fine) from the time of Constantine until these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. That also (ibid. pag. 68. versus finem) be­tween the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign be­gan, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction 1260. years, Gods true Church most certainly abiding so long latent, and invisible. Ibid. pag. 191. initio, & pag. 161. col. 3. circa med. & pag. 156. ante med. & 237. paulo post med. & 23. fine, & pag. 188. ante med. 1260. years last before Luther, but doth also pro­ceed yet further, affirming that Mr. Napper upon the Reve­lations pag. 191. initio, and see the Century Writers cent. 2. cap. [...] col 125. lin. 49. During even the second and third ages (next after Christ) the trne tem­ple of God, and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. In like manner doth M. Fulk [Page 252]averre, Mr. Fulk in his an­swer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 35. prope finem. the true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles times; and that Mr. Fulk ubi supra prope initium. immediatly after the Apostles times, errors and abuses crept into the true Church. With whom agreeth Mr. Downham, affirming, that Mr. Downham in his treatise of Antichrist. l. 2. c. 2. pag. 25. prope finem. This mystery of iniquity, which St. Paul 2 Thess. 2. ver. 7. af­firmeth to be working in his times, is more than boldly per­verted by Mr. Downham, and our other Adversaries to be as then working in the Church of Christ, directly a­gainst St. Paul himself, who tearmeth the Church, the pil­lar and stay of Truth. 1 Tim. 3.15. The working therefore of this mystery of iniquity in the Apostles times, was not in the Church, but in the Chur­ches then persecutors and sun­dry heresies of those first times: As also it is yet working in the heresies of this time, the same being (as some Divines hold) the very next and ultima, or at least penultima myst cal working before the Revelation of Antichrist himself. the general defection of the visible Church, (foretold 2. Thess. 2.) began to work in the Apostles times. And Melancthon saith accordingly, that Melancthon in 2 Cor. cap. 3. & Hamelmannus de traditionibus col. 460. saith, Post mortem Joannis Apo­stoli caeperunt defectiones a fide, doctrinae daemoniorum sub specie verbi Dei, prohi­bitiones nuptiarum & cibo­ruth, vota, caelibatus, &c. presently from the begin­ning of the Church, the antient Fa­thers obscured the doctrine, concer­ning the justice of faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. As also Peter Martyr affir­meth in like manner, that in the Church Martyr de Votis pag. 477.errors did begin immedi­atly after the Apostles times; And that Martyr de Votis pag. 490. fine. presently after their Age, men began to decline from the word of God? and that therefore Martyr de Votis pag. 476. paulo post med. saith, Quamd [...] consist mus in Conciliis & Patribus, versabimur semper in iisdem or­roribus. so long as we do insist upon Councils and Fathers, we shall be alwaies conversant in the same errors. In so much as Beza and others doubted not (if not most ar­rogantly read and judge) to prefer in Beza in Epist. Theol. Ep. 1. pag. 5. initio saith, Itaque dicere nee immerito quidem, ut opinor, consuevi, dum illa tempo [...]a, Apostolicis e­tian [...], pro [...]ima cum nostris, comparo, plus illos conscientiae, scientiae min [...]s h [...] ­buiffe: nos contra, scientiae plus, conscientiae minus habere, haec mea senten­tia est, &c. And Mr. Whitgift in his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. fine, & pag. 473. ante med. saith to Mr. Cartwright, The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder than it commonly was in any age after the Apostles, &c. how greatly were almost all the Bi­shops and learned writers of the Greek Church, and Latines also for the most part, spotted with Doctrines of Freewil, of Merits, of invocation of Saints, and such like (other points of Popery?) surely you are not able to reekon in any age, since the Apo­stles times, any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this day.knowledge of the truth, their [Page 253]now Protestant Writers, even before those other that flourished immediatly, and next after the Apostles times. Caelius Secundus Curio (a principal Protestant writer) expressing fur­ther to that end Caelius Secundus Curio in his Book de ampli­tudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 43. circa med. (which said Book is greatly commended by Beza in Epist. Theolog. pag. 232.) saith, An ignoramus quantis in tenebris, quanta­que caecitate & ignorantia versatus sit mundus, ab A­postolorum fere aetate, usque ad haec tempora, in quibus Dominus, praeter omnem expectationem, se ipse cae­pit apetire? in how great darkness, blindess and ignorance the world hath continued almost from the Apostles age to these very times, in which above all expectation our Lord began to manifest himself; And an other learned Protestant writer, af­firmeth accordingly, that The Author of the Book intituled. Antichristus, sive Prognostica finis mun­di, (apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 6. subd. 1. at g.) pag. 12. fine saith, Spiritus qui annunciat futura, non operatur nisi eunte Evangelio, quod sub finem ex confesso Lutherus pri­mus invexit. And pag. 13. post med. he further saith, Non manifestatur autem Psuedo propherarum surrectio, nisi Evangelio, quod inde primitivo Apostolo­rum Evangel [...]o ante Lutherum, ut diximus, nunquam ivit. Ne quis autem Hussiticu [...] Evangelium pertinere hu [...] put [...]t, id prohibet, [...]uod Christus illud Evangelium edicit, quod sub finem per universum forbem esse [...] itu [...]um. Porro H [...]ticum Evangelium [...]ohemis tantum venit: signo orgo esse non potest. Na [...] commune Orbis Evangelium signo esse voluit, non illud unius gentis, Lutheri Evangelium per Orbem volat, tam voce quam prelo. from the Apostles times, till Luther, the Gospel had never open passage, not (so much as) in Huss his time. In respect of which their so common received opinion, Sebastianus Francus conclu­ded [Page 254]for certain, that S [...]bastianus Fran­cus in Epistola de abrogan­dis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis. If our Adversaries do hereunto an­swer, that this Sebastianus Francus denyed the Baptism of Infants, and being so an A­nabaptist, his testimony is not to be regarded; it is replyed thereto; First, that being o­therwise a learned writer, and no less enemy to us than our Adversaries, his testimony as against himself and them, is therewith of no less force than theirs. Secondly, that the de­nyal of Childrens Baptism, till they be of years of belief, is osspecially by our adversa­ries (who deny the necessity of Baptism to infants) excepted against unworthily, in comparison of their own far greater differences, concerning Real presence, Christs descent into Hell, his suffering in soul the pains of Hell, Reprobation, and many more of like consequence, notwithstanding which, they yet profess to be Brethren of one Church. Thirdly, that accordingly Zuinglius and Oecolampadius do affirm the Baptism of Infants to be but a matter of indifferency, and such at the Church may worthily omit, and rightly take away. For Zuinglius (apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9. subd. 3. at e. f.) tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 96. a circa med. saith, Num enim tanti momenti res haec est, ut tantas turbas & diffidia propter hane excit [...]re conveniat, etiamsi parvulorum Baptismus nullis omnino Scrip­turarum testimoniis inniteretur? Externum quiddam est & ceremonale, quo ut aliis rebus externis Ecclesia dignè & honestè uti potest, vel idem hoc omit­tere, & rite tollere, &c. And in Zuinglii & Oecolampadii Epistolarum libro secundo pag. 363. post med. Oecolampadius saith of Baptism of Infants, Cogi­tare illos decebat rem externam effe quae charitatis lege dispensabilis est ad aedi­ficationem proximi: fatemur non esse legem Baptizandi pueros, sed etiam non est lex quae arceat pueros. And see him further pag. 301. prope finem. And so accordingly Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English Ep. 34. to Robert Cooch pag. 133. b. circa med. tearmeth him his dear friend in the Lord, his dear friend in Christ. Ibid. pag. 115. a. initio, and yet did the said Robert, as appeareth there pag. 114. b. circa med. deny Baptism to Infants, as likewise Oecolampadius (in libro Epistolarum Oecolam­padii & Zuinglii pag. 300. prope finem) writeth of this very point to Baltazar Pacimontanus tearming him there, Charissime Frater, and yet was he a chief Anabaptist. Fourthly this Sebastianus Franeus was so far enemy to the other barba­rous Anabaptists, that be specially reprehendeth them (apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 5. subd. 1. at x.) Chron. part. 111. fol. 236. b. & seq.) where also he numbreth up seventy of the Anabaptists different opinions, and concludeth their fur­ther differences to be so great, as no man can either know or number them, affirming further, that scarce two of them are found to agree in all things. Statim post Apostolos, omnia inversa sunt, &c. Presently after the Apostles times, all things were turned upside down, &c. And that for certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith and Sacra­ments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure: and that for these 1400. years, the Church hath been no where external and visible.

15. Fifteenthly, to seal up (as it were) the premisses, whereas Master Whitgift doth against Mr. Cart­wright learnedly and truly urge, this general rule or proof of Apo­stolick Doctrine, saying, Mr. Whitgift in his defence, pag. 351. post med. And see also further hereof D. Field of the Church l. 4. cap. 21. pag. 242. the title of that Chapter being, Of the Rul [...]s, whereby true traditions may be known from counter­fe [...]. For so much as the Original and beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Arch-Bishop, &c. such is their antiquity, cannot be found so far as I have read, is to be supposed they have their Ori­ginal from the Apostles themselves, for as I remember St. Austin hath this rule in his 118. Epistle. In so much as he yet further saith in proof of this rule, Mr. Whitgift ubi su­pra pag. 352. ante med. and sce Zuinglius his words here­of tom. 2. fol. 94. b. circa med. it is of credit with the writers of our time, namely with Ma­ster Zuinglius, Master Calvin, and Master Gualter, and surely I think no learned man doth dissent from them.

It is now by the premisses and by manifest Mr. Whitaker in resp. ad Camp. rat. 7. pag. 101. initio confesseth, that the time of the Roman churches change cannot easily be told. And Ma­ster Gabriel Powel in his con­sideration of the Papists sup­plication pag. 43. circa & post med. being provoked, that if our (Catholick) Doctrin be error, then to tell us when it came in, who was the Author of it? &c. answereth thereto, acknowledging and saying, We cannot tell by whom, or at what time the enemy did sow it, &c. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Author of e­very one of your blasphemous opinions, &c. confession of sundry learned Protestants made more than evident, that the several Doctrines of our Faith, are according to this rule no less free from all noted and known beginning, fince the Apostles times, then are the other foresaid Doctrines of Metropolitans and Bi­shops; a thing so manifest, that Ma­ster Cartwright (though our adver­sary) doubteth not yet further to ac­knowledge the same, saying therefore [Page 256]of this very rule in plain words: Mr. Cartwright his words in Mr. Whitgifts fore­said Defence, &c. pag. 352. initio. that thereby a window is open to bring in all Popery. And Mr. Cartwri [...]ht alle­ged ibid. pag. 103. paulo ante med. I appeal (saith he) to the judgement of all men, if this be not to bring in Popery again, to allow of St. Austins saying, &c. So evidently do our learned adversaries, and the Apparent probability; For seeing Pastors and Doctors must be in the Church till the end of the world (Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. and Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Ephes. 4. fol. 335. a. ini­tio) and that they shall not be silent (Esay 62.6. and the marginal notes of the English Bible in Esay 62.6.) but shall alwaies resist all false opini­ons with open reprehension (Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 11. initio and 92. ante med.) And that the Religion being of God, no fear of man shall keep them back (Mr. Dearing in his Reading up­on the Epistle to the Hebrews in c. 2. ver. 12. lect. 10. cirea med.) and seeing al­so, that all new and strange Doctrine is at its first beginning, against and contrary to the other then before general received opinion, as being for the time but private and singular, in the first teacher thereof: Yet it doth therefore upon these premises most evidently follow, as well, that all such new doctrine was ever at its first beginning resisted and openly withstood; as also that by reason of such open and known resi­stance, such said beginning is discovered and left known to posterity. Which point as it is abundantly verified in the many examples of all such confessed heresies, as are out of question between our adversaries and us, whose resistance and secondary be­ginning since the Apostles times is yet to us discovered and left known: So again to think that it should hold in all other, and fail only in these matters, now in contro­versy between our adversaries and us, may be thought no less than very partial, strange, and inforced. Vpon all which is necessarily deduced, that according to Ma­ster Whitgifts foresaid rule and assertion, whatsoever opinion is not known to have begun since the Apostles times, the same is not new or secondary, but received its O­riginal from the Apostles themselves. apparent probability of this foresaid rule in it self, confirm and prove our foresaid Catholick Religion, whereto we were so many ages since converted, to be not new or secondary to the Apostles times, but only Primitive and undoubtedly Apostolick.

16. As Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 4. concerning Transub­stantiation, Master Whitaker giveth example in Innocentius the third say­ing, [Page 257] Whitaker l. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 480. circa ined. saith, Qui transubstan­tiationem primus excogita­vit, is fuit Innocentius ter­tius in Lateranesi Conci­lio. And Brereley in his O­missions of pag. 183. saith, And Mr. Sutcliff de M [...]ssa Papistica l. 2. c. 5. fol. 196. b. circa med. saith, Tran­substantiationis nomen In­centius. 3. primùm publicè recipendum decrevit, nec rem, nec nomen ante illud tempus notum fuisse conseat. He that first invented Tran­substantiation was Innocent the third in the Laterane Council; whereto we answer, first, that Mr. Whitaker bare­ly affirmeth, but proveth not this assertion, neither doth he allege so much as one Author of those times, charging this Pope Innocent or that Council with any Innovation or change of Doctrine in this matter. And we further say that Mr. Whita­ker urgeth this example, howsoever against his knowledge and learning: yet most clearly against all evidence of truth. For this Council of La­terane was holden Anno 1215. and as appeareth by the said Council and further testimony of Crespinus in his Book of the Estate of the Church: pag. 345. fine. Protestants there were present thereat, the Pa­triarchs of Hierusalem and Constan­tinople, 70. Metropolitans, 400. Bi­shops, and 800. Conventual Priors. Now that so many learned men of so many several remote Nations of the Christian world, as were here assembled, should all of them agree to decree Transubstantiation, and yet the same to be an Innovation (as Mr. Whitaker saith) then first invented, is more then improbable. The truth hereof therefore was most plainly to the contrary, that in the age before [Page 258]that Council, the doctrine of Tran­substantiation, was publick and ge­neral, only Berengarius as then im­pugned the same, and was there­in publickly contradicted and spe­cially written against, by divers There did in that age write purposely in proof of the Real presence Anselmus, Lan­francus, Guitmundus, Adel­mannus, Algerus, Hugo Lingonensis, and others. In so much that Papyr Masson. Annal. Francorum l. 3. in Henrico Rege testifieth, say­ing, Berengario, omnes il­lius temporis Theologi bel­lum indixere. And Oecolam­padius in lib. Epist. Oeco­lampadii & Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 712. fine saith, Vivo Berengario multi contra ipsum scripserunt. Fathers of several Nations in that age. In so much as the fore­said Council of Lateran was at length then afterwards assembled against that this new seeming opi­nion. A thing so evident, that Master Fox act. mon. Printed 1576. pag. 1121. b. circa med. And Joachim Came­rarius in his Historiae narra­tio, &c. pag. 161. paulo post med. saith, Transub­stationis dogma de evanes­centia panis, post annum Christi 850. tanquam in quieta possessione mansit, us­que ad Berengarii tempora, & annum Christi circiter 150. Nam etsi antea privatis scriptis quorundam notata res fuit; publica tamen [...], à Berengario prima extitit. Fox confesseth and saith thereof, About the year of our Lord 1660. the denying of Transubstantia­tion began to be accompted heresy, and in that number was first one Berenga­rius who lived about Anno 1060. So far was Transubstantiation from be­ing (as Mr. Whitaker pretendeth) first affirmed, or invented afterwards in the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. Secondly we say, that also the many sayings (over tedious here to recite) of the other much more antient Fa­thers, who lived long before the La­teran Council, are so plain and preg­nant for Transubstantiation, that the learned Protestants themselves do in plain tearms accordingly acknow­ledge the same, and therefore repre­hend the said Fathers. To omit the [Page 259]plain testimony Osiander in Epitom. Hist. Eccles. cent. 9, 10, 11. & pag. 95. fine saith, Anno. 950. exorta est in Clero Cantuariensi acris contentio de pane Eucharistico. Alii en [...]m asseverabant priorem panis substantiam remane­re, & nihilominus simul ibi verum Christi corpus por­rigi. Alii verò pugnabant, recitatis verbis Domini, priorem substantiam ele­mentorum prorsus evanes­cere, atque transire in cor­pus Domim, &c. And Cris­pinus in his Book of the estate of the Church pag. 286. circa med. & pag. 289. initio & 323. post med. confesseth that Paschasius (who lived Anno Dom. 880.) taught Transubstantiation. herein of Osian­der and some others, in this sort, it is confessed and affirmed, that Affirmed by Mr. Car­lile in his book, that Christ descended not into Hell fol. 58. and by Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Oecolam­padii & Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 661. And see Mr. Fulk against Heskins pag. 217. post med. & 204. ante med. & 296. fine. And by Carion in Chronic. pag. 451. initio. Da­mascen taught Transubstantiation: that both See Vrsinus his treatise [...]ntituled: Commonefact. cujusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Coena, & ejusdam commonefactionis consideratio pag. 211. post med. where it is said, Theophilactus & Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem, & vide Chemnicium examen. part. 2, pag. 83. a. paulo post med. & pag. 90. b. circa med. Damascen and Theo­philact do evidently incline to Tran­substantiation: that Humfredus in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. saith, In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Intulerunt, &c. Transubstantiationem, &c. Gregory the Great and Austin brought into Eng­land Transubstantiation: that The Century Writers, cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985. lin. 30. say of Eu [...]bius Emissenus, that parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit, &c. Eusebius Emissenus did speak un­profitably of Transubstantiation: that The Century Writers undertaking in their fift Century c. 4. col. 496. lin. 4. to set down, Errores Doctorum hujus Saeculi, do therein col. 517. lin. 23. say, Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare: [...]am ita scribit in sermone de Eucharistia. Num vides panem? num vi­num [...]num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? Absit, ne sic cogites. Quemadmo­dum enim si [...]cera, igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit, sic & hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia. Chrysostom doth seem to con­firm Transubstantiation; whereto sundry other like examples might be added. A thing so evident that Adamus Francisci (a Protestant Wri­ter) doth therefore acknowledge how that Adamus Fran­cisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 256. post med. saith, Commentum Papi­starum de Transubstantiatione maturè in Ecclesiam irrepsit. Transubstantiation entred early into the Church.

17. The Brereley tract 1. sect. 4. subd. 11. in the text and mar­gent at 2. & 3. antient Fathers of the Primitive Church are likewise by our learned adversaries confessed to have believed Melchisedechs offering of Bread and Wine in Sacrifice to have been a prefiguration of our new Sa­crifice of the new Testament. For Mr. Fulk against Heskins, &c. pag. 99. post med. saith, I confess that di­vers of the old Fathers were of opini­on, that the Bread and Wine which Melchisedech brought forth, was sa­crificed by him, and that it was a fi­gure of the Sacrament, which they im­properly call a Sacrifice. And see the Fathers further reproved herein by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testa­ment in Haebr. c. 7. sect. 8. fol. 405. b. fine, and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 818. and 819. and Ma­ster Fulk against Heskins pag. 100. circa med. confesseth, how the Fa­thers thought that Melchisedech here­in resembled the Priesthood of Christ. And Calvin in omnes Pauli Epistolas in Haebr. c. 7. v. 9. pag. 924. b. circa med. confesseth likewise saying, Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Doctores hac opinione occupatos fuise miror, [Page 261]ut in oblatione panis & vini insiste­rent, sic autem loquuntur: Christus Sacerdos est secundum ordinem Mel­chisedech; atqui panem & vinum Melchisedech obtulit, ergo panis & vini sacrificium Christi Sacerdotio convenit. And Andraeas Chrastovi­us de opificio Missae contra Bellar. l. 1. pag. 28. sect. 66. doubteth not, upon the authority of the antient Fathers in this point, with us to affirm and de­fend the said sacrifice against his o­ther Protestant Brethren, saying thereof, Consensum & interpretatio­nis harmoniam Christianis Pastoribus abjicere non licet, idque cum propter Apostolici saeculi vicinitatem, tum propter singularem omnium concor­diam, quae in omnibus locis habetur, &c. omnium veluti conspiratione oblatio Melchisedech Sacra proponi­tur, ut non tantum Abrahae militi­bus, sed etiam Deo incruentum Sacri­ficium oblatum videatur, &c. Hence it is that our Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. at s. 2.3, 4, 5. t. Spiritual Pastors by reason of their Catholick St. Chrysostm wrote a special Book of this Priest­hood. Priest­hood, are (as Saint Austin saith) now (not improperly, but) Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 10. post. med. saith, Non utique de solis Episcopis & Presbyteris dictum est, qui jam propriè vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes. And the most antient Father Irenaeus l. 4. c. 20. affirmeth besides the spiritual Priestly Order of all the just, an other peculiar Priesthood of the Apostles, who are in respect thereof by him said to attend daly upon God and the Altar. properly called Priests in the Church, to whom [Page 262]therefore, the words Presbyter and Sacerdos are indifferently St. Austin ut supra. And the Greek word [...], which signifieth Sacerdos, is used and referred to Chri­stian Priests by Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hie­rarch. c. 5. & Epist. 8. ad Demophilum Monachum. And Ignatius in his un­doubted Epistle ad Smyrnen­ses, now extant, whereof di­vers sentences are verbatim alleged under the name of Ig­natius, and title of this Epi­stle, by Hierom lib. de Viris Illustribus, and by Eusebius l. 3. c. 32. as is more at large urged and proved by Mr. Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 408. circa med. and he (not so much as therein gainsaid by Mr. Cartwright) affirmeth the Bi­shop to be as the high Priest and Christs Image, in respect of his Priesthood: affir­ming further, that in the Church nothing is greater than the Bishop, who sacrificeth to God for the safety of the whole world. And Nazianzen in Epist. 8. ad Simpli­cium haeret. affirmeth, the Priest to be the mediator between God and man, and sa­crificing together with Christ. This point is so evident and common in the Greek and Latin Fathers, that Mr. Whitaker l. 9. contra Duraeum pag. 813. initio acknowledgeth the same, and answereth only, that the said Fathers used the words [...] and Sacerdos, non propriè sed [...], not properly (directly against St. Austins foresaid testimony) but by abuse of speech: and yet (as Mr. Whitgift in his said defence, &c. pag. 411. versus finem, confesseth and saith,) this name Priest is usually applyed to the Minister of the Gospel in all histories, Fathers, and writers of Antiquity. refer­red, in respect of the blessed Sacra­ment, which is by them offered up to God, Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 17. circa med. under Christ the (high) Priest, and Ambr. in 1 Tim. cap. 4. ver. 14.in his stead, or Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 3. post medium.place, as the Churches external and accep­table oblation, and acknowledged by For these last thousand years Mr. Beacon (whom the Ministers of Lincoinshire in their abridgement, &c. pag. 65. ante med. affirm to be a Divine of chief note in their Church) in his works set forth 1560. the third part in his Treatise intituled, The Reliques of Rome, fol. 344. a. post med. saith, The Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about Anno Domini 600. &c. And from Charls the great unto Charls the fifth, the Mass reigned as a most mighty Queen in all the Churches of the West part of the world. See the like confessed by Danaeus de Anti­christo pag. 101. initio. And Melancthon l. 4. Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186. & 187. saith of Gregory, He allowed by publick authority the sacrifice of Christs Body and Bloud, not only for the living, but also for the dead. And the like is affirmed of Gregory by Carion in Chronic. pag. 567. paulo ante med. Also Musculus loc. commun. de Coena Dom. pag. 339. fine saith of Pelagius Predecessor to Gre­gory, Pelagius commemorationem mortuorum in secreta Canonis Missatici re­tulit, (&c.) ut mortuis virtus & efficacia Missae communicaretur. And see this Pelagius directly further charged with the opinion of Mass helping the dead by Ma­ster Symonds, upon the Revelations pag. 81. ante med. Also Symmachus was Bishop of Rome (Anno 501.) of whom the century writers cent. 6. cap. 10. col. 664. lin. 30. say, Notas Antichristi & hic habuit, Missam enim in formam re­degit. Before him was Saint Leo (Anno 440.) of whom Mr. Bale in his Pageant of Popes fol. 27. saith, Leo the first allowed the Sacrifice of the Mass, not without great blasphemy to God. And see this in Bale in Act. Roman. Pontific. Printed Basileae 1558. pag. 32. fine, & 33. initio. Before Leo was the Carthage Coun­cil, whereat St. Austin was present, whereof Pelargus in his Schola fidei, &c. prope finem in his tract there de Conciliis pag. 13. faith, Synodus Carthaginen­sis quinta intercessionem & Misvam pro defunctis invexit. And Osiander centur. 4. pag. 16. circa med. saith of the 79. Canon of the 4. Carthage Council. Hic Ca­non (si non fictitius est) ostendit eo etiam tempore rationes, & oblationes pro defunctis factas. Before these Councils was St. Ambrose (Anno 370.) Whom the Century writers cent. 4. cap. 4. col. 295. lin. 3. reprove and charge with not writing well de transubstantiatione & applicatione pro mortuis. And ibid. lin. 23. they further say, Ambrosius locutionibus utitur, quibus ante eum ex Patri­bus nemo usus est, ut Missam facere, offerre Sacrificium, &c. Before him again was Gregory Nyssen of the Greek Church (Anno 340.) of whom Andraeas Cra­stonius in his Book (against Bellarmine) de opificio Missae lib. 1. sect. 164. ini­tio, & pag. 81. saith, An ignorat opinionem Nysseni per se absurdam esse (&c.) Ait ille (Nyssenus) Cùm itaque dedit (Christus) discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum, (&c.) jam latenter (&c.) ineffabiliter & invisibiliter corpus immolatum erat, (&c.) And see further hereof Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 4. pag. 320. fine. Also Cyril of Hierusalem another Father of the Greek Church flourished (Anno 320.) whom Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria pag. 167. initio chargeth and reproveth saying, Quod ad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum at­tinet, dicit ille quidem prosui jam temporis recepta consuetudine, sacr ficium altaris maximum juvamen esse animarum. And Calvin in libro de vera Eccle­siae reformatione, extant in Tract. Theolog. Calvini, &c. pag. 389. a. fine & b. initio saith of the Fathers of this age, Solemne esse nebulonibus istis (meaning us Catholicks) quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere, (&c.) cum ergo objiciunt locum Malachiaede Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi, oblationem Melchisedech, sic tractari, ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, Arnobio, breviter responsum sit, eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi, sed ita ridiculè, ut dissentire nos cogat ratio & veritas, (&c.) And in his Book of Institutions Printed Argentorati 1539. pag. 350. ante med. and after the other Edition l b. 4. Institut. cap. 18. sect. 11. he further saith, Ve­teres quoque illos video hanc memoriam aliò detorsisse, quam institutioni Do­mini conveniebat, quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae imolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat, (&c.) Imitati enim sunt propiùs Judaicum sacrificandi morem, quamaut ordinaverat Christus, aut Evangelii ratio fere­bat. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 3. at sect. after 12. where he expresly chargeth the Fathers with forging a Sacrifice in the Lords Supper without his com­mandement, and of adulterating the Supper with a Sacrifice. Before these times li­ved St. Cyprian (Anno 240.) whom the Century writers cent. 3. cap. 4. col. 83. lin. 34. reprove saying, Sacerdotum inquit (Cyprianus) vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri sacrificium offerri. In so much as that in their Index or Alphabetical Table in the end of that 3. Century under the letter S. it is said, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Coena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus col. 83. lin. 34. And Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, &c. pag. 100. circa med. saith, It is granted, that Cyprian thought the Bread and Wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ: Also Tertuilian lived (Anno 220.) him doth Luc. Osiander centur. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. pag. 10. circa [...]med. reprove saying, Tertullianus appro­bavit oblationes pro defunctis orationes annuas pro natalitiis. In like sort is here reproved by the Century writers cent. 3. cap. 5. col. 138. lin. 56. and no less plain­ly by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of purgatory pag. 265. circa & post med. Before Tertullian lived Irenaeus (Anno 170.) him Calvin reproveth as before, and the Century Writers cent. 2. cap. 4. col. 63. lin 20. charge saying: De oblatione por­rò Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 32. (&c.) satis videtur loqui incommodè, cum ait novi Testamenti novam docuit (Christus) oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo. Before him lived Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar (Anno 90.) of whom the Century Writers in cent. 2. cap. 4. col. 63. lin. 9. say, Quaedam ambigua & incommodè dicta, in quibusdam occur­runt, ut in Epistola Ignatii ad Smirnenses: Non licet (inquit Ignatius) fine Episcopo, neque offerre, neque facrificium immolare. And cent. 2. cap. 10. col. 167. lin. 17. the Century Writers affirm these words of Ignatius to be perricu­losa, & quasi errorum semina. Lastly Mr. Beacon in his foresaid Treatise fol. 344. a. post med. saith seriously, The Mass was begotten, conceived, and born anon after the Apostles times, if all be true, that Historiographers write. And Hos­pinianus in Historia Sacramentaria lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 20. fine saith, Jam tum primo illo saeculo viventibus adhuc Apostolis, magis huic Sacramento quam Baptismo insidiari ausus sit (Daemon) & homines à prima illa forma sensim ab­duxerit, (&c.) and Sebastianus Francus in Epistola de ebrogandis in univer­sum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis, saith most plainly, Statim post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt (&c) coena Domini in sacrificium transformata est. In so much as Mr. Ascham (a prime Protestant) in his Apolog. pro Coena Dom. pag. 31. post med. acknowledgeth that no beginning thereof after the Apostles time can be shewed, saying, Quibus temporibus, & per quos homines Coena Dominica de possessione sua per Missam deturbata sit, verissimè sciri non potest, &c. Vouchsafeth now your Majesty but to adde hereunto the answerable Doctrin of the an­tient Jews saith Brereley (tract. 1. sect. 4. subd. 11. & 12.) that the words of Scripture are literally answerable also hereunto, Matth. 26.28. Marc. 14.24. Luc. 22.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11.24. saying, (not which shall be given or offered, but) which is given, and (not to you, but) for you: That also the Apostle calleth our Ta­ble [...] an Altar for sacrifice, Haebr. 13.10. A word confessedly likewise used by Ignatius heretofore (in this Consideration num. 3. at 11.) that the Prophet Esay 66. ver. 21. foretelling the Ecclesiastical Ministers of the New Testament, tear­meth them Priests, (hereof see the English Bible of 1576. in Esay 66.21. and Ma­ster Hooker l. 5. sect. 78. pag. 236. post med. And Mr. D. Reynolds in his con­ference with Mr. Hart pag. 544. paulo post med.) that the holy Ghost also fore­telleth Priestood and Sacrifice, and the same, not the offering upon the Cross, which is now in Act of sacrifice transitory and past, but to continue for ever, and not in a bloudy manner, but accordingly to the Order of Melchisedech, Psal. 110.4. that likewise the Prophet Malachy cap. 1. ver. 10. & 11. foreshewing the rejecting of the legal Priestood and Sacrifice, foretelleth the now Sacrifice of the Christian Gen­tiles to succeed, which he tearmeth a clean oblation: that the Prophet Daniel fore­shewing likewise the end of the world, and Antichrists then comming, foretelleth in like manner, that as then, the daly Sacrifice shall be taken away, cap. 12. ver. 11. which one sacrifice cannot be meant of the many spiritual sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving, for that Antichrists persecution shall rather increase, than take those away. As neither can Malachies prediction of that one clean oblation be taken to signify those said spiritual sacrifices, because they are many, and but improperly cal­led sacrifices, and were not new or peculiar only to the Gentiles, but were also be­longing to those of the old Testament, no less than now to us. learned Protestants to have [Page 263] [Page 264] [Page 265]been for such accordingly offered, not only for these thousand years last past, but also for so many o­ther precedent ages, as being (in our opinion) not any new redempti­on, but rather a continual commemo­ration and application of the force and benefit of that one Sacrifice, which was offered once for all, Hebr. 28.

18. To what hath been said already concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, we may in this occa­sion about innovations, adde that which Brereley hath tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 6. of the same matter, where he saith, Mr. Whitaker giveth exam­ple (to wit of innovation in Religion made by the Roman Church) in Gregory the Great, saying, Whitaker contra Du­raeum l. 7. pag. 480. He that first delivered Purgatory for a cer­tain doctrine, was Gregory the Great. Whereto in Gregories full discharge from all innovation in this point, we [Page 266]answer, that long before Gregory, St. Austin (whom our adversaries do un­worthilyVnworthily, for where­as Mr. Fulk against the Rhe­mish Testament 1 Cor. 3. sect. 6. fol. 267. b. circa med. to prove that St. Austin doubted of Purgatory, allegeth these words of St. Austin, It is not incredible that some such thing is done after this life, and it may be inquired of, whether it be so, and either be found or hid. Aug. Ench [...]rid. cap. 69. & 68. And ad Dulcitium quaest. 1. And in like pretence that St. Austin denyed Purg [...]tory, Ma­ster Fulk doth there further allege these other words of St. Austin, The third place we are utterly ignorant of, &c. Aug. Hypognost. contra Pelag. l. 5. This we say is extreamly abusively to urge the Fathers doubtful obscure words against their other plainer sayings, and known meanings. Therefore in answer or explanation of these saying of St. Austin, we say as to the first, that St. Austin doubteth not there of Purgatory, but only (which point is at this day yet doubted of) whether that (to use St. Austins words in the very same place) some of the faithful after this life be saved so much later or sooner by a certain Purgatory fire, as they more or less loved their transitory goods. So that his doubt there is not whether there be any Purgatory, which by these his very words he presupposeth, and in the very same Book saith thereof, as is here alleged in the text at g. it may not be denyed, &c. but only as he yet further explaneth himself, whether that (to use his own further words) rerum saecularium quamvis licitè concessarum tales cupiditates, &c. such affection to worldly things lawfully injoyed (as to Wife, Children, &c.) that without grief of mind he cannot part from them, be punished in Purgatory or not? And of this point he saith, as is before objected (and as we our elves yet say) it may he inquired of, whether it be so, and either be found or hidden. Thus much of his unworthily supposed doubt. Now concerning the second place of his like supposed denyal of Purgatory, we say that St. Austin useth that alleged saying, not in denyal of the temporal pains of Purgatory, but only upon occasion, and by way of disputation against the Pelagians, who imagined, that besides Heaven and Hell there was a third place of everlasting life prepared for infants that dyed unbaptized. In respective confutation of which said imaginary third everlasting place, he saith, as is alleged, the third place we are utterly ignorant of, &c. acknowledging no more places of ever histing continuance, but Heaven and Hell: and affirming withall further to the Pelagians, that such infants shall for ever re­main, not in this pretended third place, which they imagined, and he denyed: but saith he, (damnatione omnium levissima) in a state of condemnation of all other most easy. Aug. contra Julian. Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. Their punishment (as the School­men hold) being not paena sensus, any sensible torment, because they never committed actual sin, but paena damni, the punishment of loss, or privation of Heaven: Into which, in regard of their original sin, and want of actual faith, they could not enter without Baptism, Joan. 3.3. Furthermore the other sayings of Austin most plain for Purgatory are over-many and known to be here recited: in so much as he himself foreseeth (as it were) and explaneth our adversaries other common and unworthy objections out of him, concerning his sometimes mentioning Sacrifice offered for Mar­tyrs, and those that be in Heaven, declaring and explaning, that for them it is offe­red as a thanksgiving, and for others, that are not as yet in such persect estate, as a propitiation. Aug. Enchirid. cap. 110. & vide Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 17. & in Joan. tract. 84. Our adversaries therefore may do well more advisedly to con­sider of these and such other like obscure seeming sayings of the Fathers, before they object them to us, and to remember B [...]za's direction in his answer to a like objected doubtful saying from Calvn, where after exphcation made thereof he saith, Com­paranda sunt enim inter s [...] saepenumcro unius ejusdemque Scriptoris loca, ut quae fuerit ejus sententia liquidò perspiciatur, quum omnia omnibus locis, etiam de re una quapiam dici nec possint, nec debeant. Hoc qui non faciunt, dici non potest quam injuriam saepe bonis doctisque Scriptoribus faciant. B [...]za in Ep [...]st. Theolog. Ep. 82. pag. 382. ante med. This admonition of B [...]za but duly obser­ved by our adversaries, would save them much labour of often alleging so many un­worthy frivolous and mistaken objections, as are by them in many controversies no less tediously, than commonly urged from the obscure serming sayings of the Fathers.pretend to have been doubtful of Purgatory, and to have denyed it, to that end abusing his more obscure sayings accordingly, [Page 267]as the antient Father Vincent Lyr. advers. haer. ante med. saith of the Hereticks of his time: Captant plerun. que veter is cujuspiam Viri scripta paulò involutius edita, quae pro ipsa fui ob­scuritate, dogmati suo quafi congruant, ut illud nescio quid, quodcunque proferunt, [...]que primi neque soli sen­tire videan [...]ur. Vincentius Lyrinensis noteth of the like practise of the Novellists of his time) delive­reth the same for most certain, saying (amongst his many Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 25. paulo ante med. saith, Ex his quae dicta sunt videtur evidentiùs apparere in [...]llo judicio quasdam quo­rundam purgatorias poenas futuras, &c. And l. 21. c. 13. fine, he further saith, Tem­porarias paemas al [...]i in hac v [...]ra tantum, alii post mor­tem, alii & nunc & tunc, &c. patiuntur. In so much as Mr. Fulk though fa [...]sly pretending St. Austins incer­certainty herein, is yet insorced to confess and say of this place, Austin de civit. Dei l. 21. c. 13. concludeth very clearly that some suffer temporal pains after this life, this may not be denyed. Mr. Fulk in [...] confutation of Purgatory pag. 110. paulo ante med. other plain testimonies of this kind: Aug. de verb [...]s Apost. Serm. 34. saith, Orationibus vero San­ctae Ecclesiae & Sacrificio salutari & Elcemosyn [...]s quae pro corum spiritibus ero­gantur, non est dubitandum moriuos adjuvari, ut cum [...]eis misericordiùs aga­tur a Domino, quam corum peccata merucrunt, hoc enim à Patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia. And in his Book de cura pro mortuis c. 1. he saith of prayer for the dead; Non parva est universae Ecclesiae quae in hac consuetudine claret authoritas. It is not to be doubted, but the dead are holpen by the prayers of the holy Church, and the healthful Sacrifice, and alms which are imployed for their souls, that God will deal with them more mercifully then their sins deserved. For this doth the Universal Church observe as delivered from our Forefathers. And else where he saith no less certainly, [Page 268] Aug. in Enchirid. c. 10. saith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pic­tate suorum viventium re­levari, cum pro illis Sacri­ficium Mediatoris offertur. It may not be denyed, but that the souls of the deceased are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when for them is offered the Sacrifice of the Mediator, &c. In so much that he for the Latin Church doubted not to Aug. haer. 35. saith of Aerius, Fertur quoque pro­pria dogmata addidiffe non­nulla, dicens, Orare vel of­ferre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere. censure Aerius for an He­retick, for his denyal of this doctrine. As also Epiphanius for the Greek Church condemneth Aerius in like sort, saying against him in defence of Prayer and oblation for the dead: Epiphanius haer. 75. and ibid. versus finem he fur­ther saith, Ecclesia necessario hoc perficit traditione à Patribus accepta. The Church hath received (this) through the wide world: it was agreed upon before Aerius was. Hence it is, that Mr. Fulk confesseth and saith, Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 44. fine. Aerius taught, that Prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius and Austin, which they compt for an error. Also he acknow­ledgeth that Mr. Fulk in his confu­tation of Purgatory pag. 320. ante med. & pag. 326. initio, & 349. circa & post med. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Austin allowed Prayer for the dead: that Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 320. ante med. & pag. 326. initio, & 349. post med. & pag. 78. fine. it was the common error of their times; that Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 161. ante med. And he yet further affirmeth ibid. pag. 78. fine saying, Austin spea­keth of the amending fire in the place by Mr. Allen alleged. He doth so indeed, but Austin had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time. So confessedly was the amending fire of purgatory the common doctrin of St. Austins time. the error of Pur­gatory was somewhat ryfly budded in Austins time; that Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 362. ante med. & vide ibid. pag. 303. circa med. & 303. post med. Tertullian, Au­stin, Cyprian, Hierom, and a great ma­ny [Page 269]more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the A­postles. In like manner Mr. Gifford affirmeth, that even Mr. George Gifford in his plain demonstration, that our Brownists be full Dona­tists, &c. pag. 38. initio. And Arnobius lib. 4. contra Gentes sub finem saith, Cur immaniter, &c. Why deser­ved our Churches to be pul­led down barbarously in which the highest God is prayed un­to, peace and pardon is asked for all men, for Magistrats, for friends, for enemies, for the living, and for the dead? in the (Chur­ches) publick worship, to Pray for the souls of the dead, was general in the Church long before the days of Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian, and Tertul­lian which was before him and nearer to the time of the Apostles. Where­unto might be added like testimony from Calvin. Institut. l. 3. c. 5. sect. 10. acknowledgeth, that ante mille & trecentos annos usu receptum suit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis (and a little after) sed fateor in errorem abrepti fuerunt, &c. And Brereley in Omissions of pag. 190. saith, And Calvin de vera Ecclesiae reformat, rat. extant in his Tract: Theolog. pag. 394. b. ante med. fur­ther saith, Superest alter ordo mortuorum, quorum mentionem in Coena fieri volunt, ut detur illis locus refrigerii, lucis & pacis: non nego hanc fuisse vetu­stissimam consuetudinem, & quoniam magna est vis consuetudinis, aut potius regnum, ideò ejusmodi preces fateor Chrysostomo, Epiphanio, Augustino, & similibus probatas suisse, quod à majoribus quasi per manus tradita essent. Calvin. So clearly is Gre­gory (who lived so many ages after these Fathers) discharged from all innovation in this point.

19. Likewise beside what hath been said before in this Consideration num. 9. that Protestant writers ac­knowledge the Fathers to have held and taught Confession even of Ve­nial or lesser sins, Brereley saith tract. 3. sect. 1. at a. b. that Fathers and Protestants do acknowledge Confes­sion of our sins. At a. in the mar­gent he saith thus, To omit the plen­tiful [Page 270]testimonies of the Fathers, St. Leo describeth the usage of the La­tin Church in Epist. 91. ad Theodo­rum Foro-Julii Episcopum, saying, Christus hanc Ecclesiae Praepositis tra­didit potestatem, ut & confitentibus a­ctionem poenitentiae darent, & eosdem salubri satisfactione purgatos, ad com­munionem Sacramentorum per ja [...]u­am reconciliationis admitterent. And Epist. 80. ad Episcopos Campaniae he further saith, Cum reatus Conscien­tiarum sufficiat solis Sacerdotibus in­dicari confessione secreta. And it is said in the antient ripartite History lib. 9. cap. 35. Ad hanc causam Pres­byterum bonae conversationis servan­temque secretum ac sapientem virum statuerunt, ad quem accidentes hi qui delinquebant, delicta propria fate­bantur. At ille secundùm uniuscujus­que culpam indicebat mulctam: quod etiam hactenus diligenter in Occiden­talibus servatur Ecclesi is, maximè apud Romam, ubi etiam locus est cer­tus Poenitentium. And St. Basile sig­nifieth the like doctrin of the Greek Church in quaestionibus brevieribus int [...]rrogat. 288. saying, Necessariò peccata iis aperiri debent, quibus credita est dispensatio mysteriorum Dei, siquidem rationem hanc, in poenitentia etiam veteres illos cernimus sequutos [Page 271]fuisse, &c. And the Century Writers cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 127. lin. 29, 30, 31, &c. describe the like doctrin and usage of the Church of Africk, out of the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian, and see further hereof in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 7. in the margent there at the letters r. s. t. u. x. y, &c. and in this Consideration num. 9. at 10. Also here at b. Bre­reley saith, Sarcerius in loc. commun. de confessione fol. 289. b. saith, It is an error, adserere confessionem, quae coram Deo fit, sufficere, ita ut contem­nas claves & absolutionem per fra­trem. Hic error prorsus tollit usum clavium & absolutionis, (&c.) Fal­sum ergo est, confessionem, quae coram Deo fit, tollere confessionem privatam, &c. In like plain manner is private Confession defended most earnestly against our Adversaries by sundry of their own other Brethren, as name­ly by Lobechius in Disputat. Theolog. pag. 295. sect. 4. By Conradus Schlus­selburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 147. a. By Melancthon l. 1. E­pistolarum pag. 234. ante med. By the Confessions of Saxonie and Boheme, in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 231. circa med. & pag. 357. & 358. initio, and by many others.

20. Finally we may conclude how [Page 272]far the antient Fathers stand for us, out of the ensuing words of Andraeas Duditius, (apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 6. at m. n. o. p.) who is by Beza in Epistolis Theolog. Ep. 1. ad Andraeum Duditium pag. 13. ante med. tearmed Clarissimus & Ornatis­simus Vir, a most eminent and ador­ned man, and (ibid. pag. 23. circa med.) observantly beloved of Beza for his piety, learning, and elegant wit, and by him (ibidem. pag. 2. initio, & 3. ante med.) saluted with Frater, the acknowledgement and title of a Brother. This Andraeas Duditius confesseth for all that of the Roman Church; that it is not divided with so many dissentions, but hath the plausible appearance of venerable antiquity, or­dinary Succession, and perpetual con­sent. Beza in Epist. Theolog. pag. 13. paulo ante med. repeateth his words saying, Etsi (inquis) multa eaque hor­renda propugnantur in Romana Ec­clesia, quae infirmo & putrido funda­mento nituntur; tamen non ita multis dissensionibus scinditur, & habet ve­tustatis venerandae, successionis ordi­nariae, consensûs perpetui speciem plau­sibilem: & si veritas est quam vete­res Patres mutuo consensu sunt profes­si, ea Pontificiis tota stabit, &c. Haec tu de Pontificiis: At Nostri quales [Page 273]tandem sunt? Palantes (inquis) omni doctrinae vento agitati, & in altum sublati, modò ad hanc, modò ad illam partem deferuntur: horum quae sit ho­die de religione sententia scire fortas­se possis, sed quae cras de eadem futurae sit opinio, neque tu certò affirmare queas. In quo tandem Religionis ca­pite congruunt inter se Ecclesiae, quae Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A capite ad calcem si percurr as omnia, nihil propemodum reperias ab uno af­firmari, quod alter statim non impi­um esse clamitet. Haec tu in nos, mi Duditi, totidem verbis, &c.

21. Besides, that divers Protestants confess, and acknowledge, the do­ctrine, and practise of the Church of Rome at this present, in the most principal points of difference be­tween them and us, to have been taught and practised by the most an­tient Fathers; they confess more­over divers points, which they teach and practise, to have been condem­ned by the antient Fathers for hereti­cal, and those who taught and practi­sed such points contrary to our now professed Catholick Faith, who have been censured as Hereticks. Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subd. 2. pag. 214. lin. 5. in the text. The undoubted examples whereof, to be alleged not rackedly or impertinent­ly, as Mr. Willet in his te­trastylon Papismi p. 107, 108, 109, &c. Mr. Willet most intollera­bly [Page 274]hath done against us, but directly and plainly, are many, and by our very Adversaries acknowledged: So in the first 440. years next after Christ, was (as is confessed) the de­nyal of prayer and offering Sacrifice for the dead, and of our appointed fasts, condemned as singular novelty in Hereof see Aug. haer. 53. And Epiphanius haer. 75. ante med. And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfe [...]t Catholick pag. 44. fine, & 45. initio, confesseth this, saying, I will not dissemble that which you think the grea­test matter, Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness, both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an er­ror. Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed. And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith, The eleventh is the Heresy of Aerius, he condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of thank sgiving, for them. He disliked set Fasts, and would not admit any difference between a Bishop und a Presbyter, &c. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantaleon in Chronographia pag. 28. initio. And Osiander in epitom. &c. centur. 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying, Item non oportere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem, Jejunia ordinata non esse observanda, &c. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem. Aerius. So also was the de­nyal of prayer to Saints, and wor­shipping of Saints Relicks, condem­ned likewise as then in Hieron. contra Vi­gilantium c. 2. & 3. and Mr. Fulk confesseth this likewise ubi supra pag. 46. pau­lo ante med. saying, Last of all Vigilantius shall be brought in, who wrote a­gainst invocation of Saints, superstition of Relicks, and other ceremonies; him Hierom reproveth. Vide centur. 4. col. 1250. lin. 45. and Osiander in Epitom. cent. 4. l. 4. pag. 506. ante med. And see thi [...] further confessed by Crispinus in his discourse of the estate of the Church pag. 131. post med. And Austin de Eccles. dogm. c. 73. saith accordingly, Sanctorum corpora & praecipuè beatorum Mar­tyrum reliquias, ac si Christi membra sincerissimè honoranda, (&c.) credimus: si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit, non Christianus, sed Eunomianus & Vigilantianus creditur. Also Saravia in defens. tractat. de diversis, &c. pag. 349. paulo post initium, and Beza ibidem pag. 346. circa med. do both of them affirm, that Aerius was likewise charged and condemned by the Fathers for his then affirming that the Saints departed are not to be prayed unto. Vigilan­tius. In the same times were con­demned in like manner, the denyal of Images, in Functius (a Protestant Writer) in lib. 7. Commentariorum in praecedent. Chronologiam, at Anno Christi 494. confesseth saying, Porro is Xenaias primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excitavit. And Nicephorus in hist: Eccles. l. 16. c. 27. saith, Xenaias iste primus (ô audacem animam & os [...]mpudens!) vocemillam evomuit, Christi & [...]orum qui alli placuere in agines ven [...]andas non esse. And see also hereof Codrenus in compendio histor. Xenaias, and the [Page 275]denyal of voluntary poverty and mo­nastical profession, in Hiero me contra Vigi­la [...]um prope finem saith, Quod autem asseris eos me­lius facer [...] qui utuntur rebus suis, & paulatim fructus pos­sessionum suarum pauperi­bus dividunt, quam illos qui possessionibus venundatis semel omnia largiuntur; non a me eis, sed a Domino respondebitur: Si vis esse perfectus, vade & vende omnia quae habes, & da pauperibus, & veni [...]equere me. Ad [...]um loqui [...]u [...], qui vult esse perfectus &c. iste quem tu laudas, secundus & tert u [...] gradus est, quem & nos recipimus, dummodo s [...]amus prima secund [...] & terths praeferenda: nec à suo stud [...]o Monachi deterrendi sunt à te, lingua Viperca & morsu saevissimo, de quibus argumentaris & dicis, si omnes se clauserint & fuerint in solitudine, quis celebrabit Ecclesias? &c. And see this plainly confessed by Crispinus in his Book of the Estate of the Church pag. 131 & 132. Vigilantius, and others; The denyal of the power In like manner is Januarius for this like doctrine repreved by St. Austin serm. 49. ex diversis cap. 1. And Justus is for the same reproved by Gregory l. 4. dial. c. 55. And see further hereof Leo Ep. 92. ad Rusticum. And Concil. Chalcedon cap. 7. And Austin Ep. 89. ad Hila­rium, and Chrysostom l. adversus Vituperatores vitae monasticae. And Austin contra literas Petil. l. 3. c. 40. chargeth and reproveth Petilianus, saying of him, Deinceps perrexit ore maled [...]co in vituperationem Monachorum & Monasteri­orum, &c. And Austin in Psalm 132. charges also the Circumcellians, for that, saith he, dicere consueverunt, quid sibi vult nomen Monachorum? And again, Quid ergo dicunt illi qu [...]nobis de nomine Monachorum insultant? (&c.) qui no­bis dicunt, ostendite ubi scriptum sit nomen Monachorum? of Priests to remit sinns, in the See hereaf­ter in this Consideration: num. 23. multo ante med. at d. And in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. at x. in the margent is cited St. Ambrose lib. 1. de paenitentia cap. 2. saying of Novatians, Sed aiunt se Domino deferre reverentiam, cui soli re­mittendorum criminum potestatem reservant. Immo nulli majo [...]em injuriam fac [...]unt, quam qui ejus volunt mandata rescinde [...]e. Nam cum ipse in Evan­gelio suo dixerit Dominus, Accipite Spi [...]itum Sanctum, quorum remis [...]ritis peccata remittentur eis (&c.) quis est ergo qui magis honorat, utrum qui man­datis obtemperat, an qui resistit? And cap. 7. he further saith to them, Cur Baptizatis si peccata per hominem dimitti non licet? In Baptismo utique re­missio peccatorum omnium est, quid interest u [...]rum per paenitentiam, an per lavacrum hoc jus sibi datum, sacerdotes vendicent: unum in utroque ministe­rium est. Also Pacianus in Epist. 1. ad Sympronianum Novatianum, saith, Nunquam Deus non paenitenti comminaretur, nisi ignosceret paenitenti. So­lus hoc (inquies) Deus poterit. Verum est. Sed, & quod per Sacerdotes suos facit, ipsius potestas est. Nam quid est illud quod Apostolis dicit, Quae liga­veritis in terris? (&c.) In like manner in Socrates in hist. Tripart. l. 2. cap. 13. fine, is reproved Acesius the Novatian, for that he taught, concerning such as fell in persecution, in vitandos quidem ad paenitentiam; spem verò remissionis, non à Sacerdotibus, sed à Deo solummodò sust [...]ere, qui potestatem habet peccata remittere. Haec cum dix [...]ss [...] Acesius, Imperato [...] ait, O Accsi pone scalam, &, si potes, ascende solus in caelum. So strange and singular in those times was this opinion deemed. & vide hist. Tripartit. l. 8. c. 9. prope initium. Novatians; The denyal of Free­will [Page 276]and of Remission of Sinns, and Grace conferr'd in B [...]ptism, in the Hieron. in prooemio li­brorum adversus Pelagi­anos fine saith, Manichaeo­rum est, hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium, & Dei adjutorium. and see Hieron. in explana­tione Symbol. ad Dama­sum. And St. Austin de fi­de contra Manich. c. 9. saith, Adversus haec solita caecitate Manichaei latrant, & cum convincuntur naturam non esse malum, sed in potestate esse hominis facere benè aut malè, dicunt non esse animae liberam voluntatem, & non vident caeci­tatem suam, &c. & vide ibid. c. 10. & in actis cum Felice Manichaeo l. 2. c. 4. And Chrysostom. in Joan. hom. 45. prope initium saith, Christ said to them, no man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him. Hereat the Manichees do rise up contending by testimony of this Scripture, that we can do nothing of our selves, &c. but this taketh not away our freewill, but sheweth that we need Gods help. And concerning the other point touching Bap­tism, Mr. Whitaker l. 10. contra Duraeum p. 883. confesseth the same saying, Nos in Baptismo peccata remitti & gratiam conferri credimus ac docemus, quod negari soliti sunt Manichaei, ergo nos à Manichaeis alieni sumus, & vide Sar­cerium loc. commun. tom. 1. de Baptismo fol. 232. b. post med. Manichees; The See this affirming in the first Consideration in Luther num. 11. in Zuinglius n. 35. in Cal­vin num. 40. and in other Protestants apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 14. throughout. affirming of God to be the Author of our sin, in Symon Vincentius Lyr. lib. adversus haeret. post med. saith, Who before Symon Magus, &c. was bold to affirm God the Creator to be Au­thor of our wicked deeds, &c. and who before Novatianus (taught) that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, than that he should return and live? And St. Austin ad Art. sibi falso imposit. Art. 10. saith, Detestanda, &c. it is a hateful and abominable opinion to believe that God is the Author of any ill will or action. And of this condemned opinion see further Eusebius hist. l. 5. c. 19. concerning Florinus his error. And see Mr. Hanmer in his Chronograph. pag. 30.Magus, and others; The denyal of the necessity of Childrens Baptism, in the Innocentius in rescripto ad Melivitanum Concilium post med. saith of the Pelagians, Illud vero quod vestra fraternitas eos asserit praedicare parvulos eternae vitae praem [...]is absque Baptismatis gratia posse donári, perfatu­um est. In like plain manner is this point condemned in the Pelagians by St. Austin haer. 88. contra Jul. P [...]lag. l. 6. c. 7. & de pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 9. & 27. and by St. Leo Ep. 86. ad Episcopam Aquileinsem. Pelagians; The denyal of the Blessed Sacraments re­servation, [Page 277]in the Cyril ad Calosyrium saith, I hear, they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof do remain till the next day following, is unprofitable to Sanctifi­cation; but they are mad in so saying, for Christ is not made an other, neither shall his body be changed, but the vertue of blessing and lively grace do alwares remain in it. This point is so plain and confessed, that Peter Martyr adversus Stephani Gardi­neri librum de Eucharistia, Printed Basileae Anno 1581. object. 213. col. 838. post med. saith of this saying of Cyril, Quod autem subjicitur Eucharistiae reliquias asservatas in crastinum diem à sanctificatione non cessare, spectat opinor ad receptam quandam con­suetudinem, &c. Ea consuetudo etsi saperet nonnihil superstitionis, tamen illi Cyrillus, aliique subscribebant. Statim enim à temporibus Apostolorum, paulatim caeptum est degenerari ab illa veteri simplicitate divini cultûs. Anthropomor­phites: The impugning of vowed Cha­stity, in Mr. Fulk in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholick pag. 45. paulo ante med. acknowledgeth that Jovinian was condemned, for that (among other things) he taught that such as could not contain, though they had vowed Virginity, should nevertheless be married. Jovinian; The de­nyal of the single and unmarried life of Priests, in Hierom contra Vigilantium c. 1. cendemneth this Doctrine in Vigilantius, saying hereof against him, Quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae? quid Egypti & sedis Apostolicae? quae aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desinunt? Vigilantius, See Hie­rom l. 1. contra Jovin. c. 19. & 14. & ad Pamachium Apolog. c. 8.Jo­vinian, and Epi­phanius haer. 59. ante med. saith, At dices mihi, omnino in quibusdam locis ad­huc liberos gignere & Presbyteros & Diaconos & Hypodiaconos? Whereto he answereth, At hoc non est juxta canonem, sed juxta hominum mentem, &c. And see Syricius in Epist. ad Himerium Taraconensem c. 6. & 7. others; The denyal of injoyned times of penance, in the Hereticks called Theo­doret l. 4. haer. fab. de Audianis, reproveth them saying, Demde confessis, &c. they give remission to such as are confessed, without prescribing time for penance, as the Laws of the Church command. Audiani; The denyal of the diversity of Merits, in Aug. de tempore serm. 191. saith, Jo­viniani damnamus errorem, qui dicit, nullam in futuro meritorum distantiam. And Hieron. l. 1. adversus Jovin. c. 2. reproveth Jovinian for that he taught that Marriage and Virginity were (ejusdem meriti) of equal merit, confessed by Pan­taleon in Chronographia pag. 32. And by the Centurists cent. 5. col. 518. fine, and by Wotton who in his defence of Mr. Perkins, &c. pag. 500. circa med. saith, that herein the Fathers dealt unchristian-like with Jovinian. And this error of Jovinian is exceeded rather than equalled by Luther and Mr. Whitaker. (Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 8. subd. 5. in the marg. at g.) Luther tom. 5. Wit­temberg. in exeg. ad cap. 7. 1 Cor. fol. 107. b. post med. saith of marriage and single life: De usu vel abusu, &c. Of the use or abuse of the States at this present we will say nothing, but of the condition and nature (of life) in themselves, and do conclude, that Matrimony is as gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as dung. And in Assert. Art. he further saith, Matrimony is much more excellent than Virginity. Christ and his Apostles did dissuade Chri­stians from Virginity. See this saying acknowledged and defended by Mr. Whi­taker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 151. ante med. where he saith of Virginity, it is not simply good, but after a certain manner. It is never better than marriage (nisi [...]) but in regard of the circumstance, whereas marriage is often times simply better than it: it is to be desired, not alwaies, but in respect of the trou­bles which accompany marriage; directly against St. Austins particular confu­tation of this very reason I. de Virginitat. cap. 13. alleged and acknowledged in Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Cor. 7. sect. 13. fol. 273. b. post med. And Mr. Whitaker ubi supra concludeth in defence of Luthers foresaid words, saying, Haec certè Lutheri propria non sunt; ea enim omnes boni ag­noscunt & defendunt. In so much that whereas St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.38. saith, He that joyneth his virgin in marriage, doth well, he that joyneth her not, doth better, Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 693. post med. answering here­to saith, Melius hoc loco vocat Paulus, quod est commodius, &c. And St. Am­brose and others say against Jovinian: Agrestis ululatus est, &c. promiscuè velle omnia confundere, &c. diversorumque gradus abrogare meritorum. Hereof see further Concil. Telense & rescriptum Ambrosii (ibid.) & aliorum ad Syricium, prope initium. Jovinian; The denyal of the [Page 278]commandements being possible, in certain other Hieron. in explanat. Symb. ad Damasum saith, Execramur blasphemiam eo­rum, qui dicunt, impossibi­le aliquid homini à Deo prae­ceptum est, &c. And the same words hath St. Austin de tempore serm. 191. & vide Hieron. ad Cleantium, and Concil. 2. Arausi­canum can. 25. In so much as the Protestant writer Christopher Hoffman in his Commentaries de paenitentia Printed Hallae Suevorum ex offi [...]na Petri Bru­baclii, Anno Domini 1540. and greatly commended by Melancthon in his pre­face thereto, l. 1. fol. 55. b. initio saith, Hieronymus scripsit, anathema esto qui dixerit, Deum impossiblia praecepisse: sed cur non anathema potius Hierony­mus, qui tam audacter sentit contra Deum, &c. And see this saying of St. Hie­rom yet further alleged under his name, and rejected by Luther tom. 2. Wittem­berg. fol. 216. b. ante med. where he tearmeth it, Decretellum humanum è Hieronymo sumptum. Hereticks of those times: The denyal of Exorcism and Exufflation used in Baptism, was con­demned [Page 279]likewise in Aug. de nuptiis & con­cup [...]scentia l. 2. c. 29. saith, [...]ulianus antiquissimam Ec­clesiae traditionem nefario crimine aspergit, qua exor­cizantur, & [...]ut dixi exuf­flantur parvuli, & vide Aug. ibid. l. 2. c. 17. & contra Julian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 2. Julianus the Pelagian: The affirming of concu­piscence to be in the Baptized truly sin, and not taken away by Baptism, but (as it were) cast asleep by faith, was condemned in Vivente adhuc cor­pore antequam moriatur ne­cesse est simul vivere pecca­tum intus in nobis, radices su­as abscondens, &c. quare con­stat contrahi quidem ac so­piri per fidem nunc pecca­tum, ut ne fructus noxios producat, non tamen radicitus tolli, apud Epiph. haer. 64. ante med. and see the like doctrin renewed by Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 10. and by Melancthon in loc. com. Printed Basileae 1561. pag. 121. initio, & post med. and by Mr. Wil­let in his Synopsis pag. 558. and generally by most Protestants, who deny original sin to be truly remitted in Baptism. Proclus: The overthrowing of Optatus l. 6. contra Donatistas chargeth the Donatists saying, Quid enim est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei (in quibus & vos aliquando obtulistis) frangere, radere, removere? &c. Quid enim est altare, nisi sedes & corporis & sanguinis Christi? haec omnia furor ve­ster aut rasit, aut fregit, aut removit, &c. Quid vos offenderat Christus cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? Quid vos offendistis, etiam vos ipsi, ut illa altaria frangeretis? Altars, and ca­sting away of sacredBrereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. [...]ubd. 2. in the margent at y saith, Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas reporteth, how the hereticks caused the (reserved) Eucharist to be thrown to dogs, which dogs there­upon all raging, rent in pieces their Masters, as guilty of the holy body: they also (saith Optatus) threw out of the window (ampullam chrismatis) a vial (or little bottle) of Chrism (or holy Oyl) to the intent to break it, the which be­ing stayed by an Angels hand, God preserving it, light safe among the stones. In like manner of later times doth St. Bernard remember how Malachias cured a lunatick child in confirming him (saith Bernard) with sacred unction: A mi­racle (saith Holinsh [...]ad) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, (and thereupon) blown through the world. Hereof see Holinshead his Chronicle of Ire­land, the Edition of 1577. in the history thereof next after the description pag. 13 a. lin. ult. & pag. 13. b. lin. 1. and after the last Edition pag. 55. a. lin. 56. and see also St. Bernard in vita Malachiae.Chrism, was specially condemned in the Dona­tists: The affirming of Adam to have lost the Image of God after which he was created Renewed by Illyricus in lib. de orig. pecc. and so confessed by Mr. Whitaker in respons. ad Camp. rat. 8. pag. 131. ante med. renewed also by Calvin, who l. 1. Institut. c. 16. sect. 4. affirmeth the remain thereof to be nothing but horrenda deformitas, which said horrenda defor­mitas cannot be the Image of God. And l. 2. Institut. c. 1. sect. 1. he affirmeth ex­presly of Adam, that obliterata fuit in eo caelestis Imago, Renewed also by Sze­gedine loc. commun. pag. 12. ante med. and by Luther in loc. commun. class. 2. pag. 21. post med. where he saith, Similitudinem Dei amisimus; as also Szegedine in his forecited places saith of the Image of God in man, that it was ob­literata and amissa. (renewed sithence by [Page 280] Illyricus and others) was condemned in the At verò quod secundum imaginem est, Adam perdi­disse dicit (Epiphanius haer. 64. paulo post initium.) And again: Et vide quòd cor­ruit sermo eorum, qui di­cunt Adam id quod secun­dum Imaginem perdidisse (Epiphan. haer. 70. ante med.) Originists and others: The denyal of Chrism or Confirmation to the Baptized by a Bishop, was con­demned in the In Eusebius hist. lib. 6. c. 35. post med. it is said of Novatus his being Bapti­z [...]d, Neque caetera, quibus post baptismum secundum Ecclesiae canonem imbui opo [...]tuerat, acquisivit, ne­que Domini sigillo ab Epis­copo obsignatus suerit, quo quidem neut quam potitus, quomodo quaeso Spi­ritum sanctum adeptus est? And Theodoret lib. 3. haeret. fab. saith of the No­vatians: Iis qui ab ipsis tinguntur sacrum Chrisma non praeb [...]nt, &c. Novatians: And lastly (to omit sundry others) the de­nyal of the Churches continuing vi­sible, was condemned in the Au­gustin. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 12. reproveth the Donatists as being haeretical; for that (saith he) they used to collect certain places of Scriptures, & ea deto [...]quere in Ecclesiam Dei, ut tanquam defecisse ac periisse de to [...]o orbe v [...]deatur. And alle­gech yet further the Donatists words to have then been of the Church (as the Pro­testants words now are of the Church before Luthers time) Apostatavit & peri [...]t Ecclesia de omnibus Gentibus (Aug. in Psalm. 101. con. 2.) whereof St. Austin there saith, Hoc dicunt qui in illa non sunt, O impudentem vocem! And Aug. Epist. 170. ad Severin: saith, Facile tibi est attendere, & videre Civitatem supra montem constitutam, de qua Dominus alt in Evangelio, quod abscondi non possit. Ipsa est enim Ecclesia Catholica, unde [...] graecè appellatur, quod per totum orbem terrarum diffunditur: Hanc g [...]ar [...] nulli licet, ideo secundum verbum Domin. abscondi non potest, & vide Aug. de unit. Ecclesiae c. 12. & 13. & Epist. 48. ad Vincentium Rogatianum. And de Symbolo l. 4. c. 10. he further saith, Ecclesia totum possidet quod à vi [...]o suo accepit in dote, quaecunque congregatio cujuslibet [...]aeresis in angul [...]s sedet, concubina est, non matrona, &c. Do­natists and Hieron. dial. advers. Luciferanos paulo post medium, & cap. 6. prosecuteth this point at large saying (among much other matter:) Ubi sunt isti nimium prophani, qui plures Synagogas asserunt quam Ecclesias? &c. Si Ecclesiam non habet Christus, aut si in Sardinia tantum habet, nimiùm pauper factus est, &c. (And then he answereth their objections, saying, (Q [...]od si de illa quae in Evangelio Scripta est sententia, sibi blandiuntur, putasne cum venerit Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? Sciant illam fidem nominari, de qua Dominus aiebat, Fides tua te salvum fecit. Luciferans. And all this done by the sundry Writers who lived in the first 600. years after Christ.

22. All Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 16. paulo post initium. which being as hereto­fore abundantly proved, not from the Fathers obscure sayings (for that course is in regard of our adversaries bold and endless tergiversation pur­posely forborn:) but (for their more full convincing) from the only fre­quent confession of learned Prote­stants themselves, and those not few, but in number many; neither vulgar, or of mean esteem, but such as be prime and eminent men amongst them: we cannot but with amaze­ment wonder, that any should have a conscience so cauterized, or stand so convict in their own judgement, as with exceeding boldness, and with­out all forehead, to publish to the world, with no less than solemn Pro­testation, both in Print and Pulpit, a full and resolute denyal of what­soever is, as heretofore by themselves, so frequently and abundantly confes­sed, concerning the undoubted an­tiquity of our Catholick Religion. Alas! what meant Mr. Jewel (a man undoubtedly learned) with such pub­lick and solemn acclamation to pro­test and say, Mr. Jewel in his pub­lick Sermon at Pauls Cross. And see this also in D. Hum­frey, in his Johannis Juelli Angli vita & mors, Printed 1573. pag. 123. post med. O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierom! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O [Page 282]Dyonyse! O Anacletus! O Calixtus! O Paul! O Christ! if we be deceived, you have deceived us; this you taught us, &c. And again, concerning no fewer than twenty and seven several articles by him specially repeated, to insist, and further say, Mr. Jewel in his pub­lick Sermon. And see his words alleged by D. Humfrey ubi supra pag. 125. circa med. And in his reply to Mr. Har­ding fol. 1. As I said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield and subscribe, if (so) any of our learned adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive [...], be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholick Doctor or Fa­ther, or out of any old general Coun­cil, &c. for the space of six hundred years after Christ, &c. protesting withall, that he affirmeth thus much, not See this in D. Humfrey in his foresaid Treatise pag. 123. fine. as carried away by the heat of zeal, but as moved with the simple truth: whereas Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 16. paulo ante sinem in the margent at k. concerning this his pretended appealing to the Fa­thers, M. D. Humfrey saith of him, that therein, he was injurious to him­self, and after a manner spoyled him­self, and the Church. And the learned Protestant writer Jacobus Acontius in a special Treatise dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, tearmeth it, a most pernicious course, and altogether to be avoyded. Also Peter Martyr de Cae­libatu & votis pag. 462. circa med. signifieth his answerable dislike, say­ing, Quod ad alterum attinet, de Pa­trum [Page 283]judicio, quoniam adversarii nostri & in hac causa & in aliis controver­siis semper provocare solent ad eos, pro­nuntio mihi non videri esse hominis Christiani, ad hominum judicia pro­vocare à Scripturis Dei. And pag. 476. post med he saith, Quamdiu con­sistimus in Conciliis & Patribus, ver­sabimur semper in iisdem erroribus. What also meant Mr. D. Whitaker thus confidently likewise to say ther­of to us? Whitaker in respons. ad rationes Campiani rat. 5. fine pag. 90. ante med. saith, Audi Campiane, quam ea die Juellus vocem veris­simam ac constantissimam emisit, quando ad sexcento­rum annorum antiquitatem provocavit, vobisque obtu­lit, ut si vel unicam, ex ali­quo Patre aut Concilio, cla­ram & dilucidam sententi­am asterretis, non recusaret quin vobis palmam conce­deret; ea est nostrûm om­nium professio; idem om­nes pollicemur; fidem non fallemus. The speech of Mr. Jew­el was most true and constant, when provoking you to the antiquity of the (first) six hundred years, he offered, that if you could shew but any one clear and plain saying out of any Father or Council, he would grant you the vi­ctory: it is the offer of us all: the same do we all promise, and we will perform it. To which publick testimonies thus confidently delivered by Master Jewel, and Mr. Whitaker (men of chief Concerning Mr. Jew­el, Mr. Hooker in his Eccle­siastical Policy l. 2. sect. 6. pag. 112. prope finem, tear­meth him, the worthiest Di­vine that Christendome bred for some hundred of years. Also Lubbertus de principiis Christian. dogmat. l. 1. c. 5. pag. 48. circa med. saith of Mr. Whitaker, Q [...]od & ante me observavit illud decus Angliae Whita­kerus. And concerning them both, they were such eminent men, that their lives were specially written, Mr. Jewels as before by Mr. D. Humfrey, and Mr. Whitakers by Mr. Abdy Ashton in Latin, and Printed at Cambridge 1599. rank and place in our Ad­versaries Church) might be further added sundry like bold assertions of divers other learned Protestants, who with like pretended vehemency of [Page 284]asseveration have claimed Mr. Sutcliff in his exa­mination of Mr. D. Kellisons Survey pag. 17. ante med. saith, The Fathers in all points of Faith are for us and not for the Pope. Ma­ster Willet in Antilog. &c. pag. 163. saith, I take God to witness, before whom I must render accompt, &c. that the same Faith and Re­ligion which I defend, is taught and confirmed in the more substantial points by those Histories, Councils, Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264. he blusheth not to say, It is most notoriously evi­dent, that for the grossest Points of Popery, a Tran­substantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping of Images, Justification by works, the Suprema­cy of the Pope, prohibi­tion of Marriage, and such other, they (Papists) have no shew at all, of any evi­dence from the Fathers within five hundred years of Christ. the an­tient Fathers to be on their part, not forbearing also to charge us with the unworthy and hatefull note of No­vellism and Innovation. In which their bold demeanour with the Fa­thers (whereof some few See heretofore in this Consideration num. 18. initio in the margent at * their pretending of St. Austin to have denyed or rested doubtful of Purgatory. And see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 9. throughout, their like pretending of St. Gregory against the Bishop of Romes then claymed Primacy. exam­ples are in this Treatise casually men­tioned) they have so far proceeded, that they have not doubted to inforce their many testimonies, not only a­gainst us, but also (which is excee­ding gross) even against the Fathers themselves, and which is most, even one and the same Father against him­self. So but in the only question of Traditions (omitting in this hast all examples of other kind) Mr. Whita­ker saith of Basil: Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag 670. post med.Secum ipse pug­nat, he is contrary to himself. And Lubbertuus saith accordingly, Lubbertus de Prin­cipiis Christian. dogmat. l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 675. ante med. saith, Oppono Basilium controversum Basilio non controverso; That the Book and the very saying there controverted was most clearly St. Basils, St. Damascen so many ages since in orat. 1. pro imaginibus sufficiently proveth, specially there reciting the very said Book 27. Chapter and particular controverted saying, and all of them under the name of Basil. In so much as almost no Protestant Writer doth deny the said saying to be Basils. I oppose Basil against Basil; and of Da­mascen he saith Lubbertus de Principiis Christian. dogmat. pag. 678. fine. sibi non constat, he is contrary to himself; and of Chry­sostom, [Page 285]Lubbertus ubi supra pag. 676. paulo post med.Ego Chrysostomum Chry­sostomo oppono, I oppose Chrysostom against Chrysostom. And Mr. Whi­taker saith of him, Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. circa med. secum ipse pug­nat, he doth vary from himself. Also Mr. Whitaker saith of Cyprian, Whitaker ubi supra pag. 686. circa med.Let us not attend what Cyprian said, but let us examin him by his own Law. And of St. Austin, Whitaker ubi supra pag. 690. post med.although in this place he may be thought to favour Traditi­on; yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scrip­tures. Thus much of certain plain examples given but in this one only question of Traditions: which their incredible boldness towards the an­tient Fathers, is to be less marvailed at, seeing they are not abashed to in­treat also no less boldly their own Protestant Authors of these very times, inforcedly urging and alle­ging them against their confessed and known meanings. As in the example of the Lutherans, who are known and confessed to defend the Real being of Christs Body in the Sacrament, Hereof see Mr. D. Co­vel in his defence of Mr. Hoo­ker, &c. pag. 118. prope finem. before participation, and present also Affirmed by the fifteen Lutheran Divines, as appea­reth by their words in the answer made to them, inti­tuled Apolog. modest. ad A­cta Conventus quindecim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit. pag. 35. fine, & 48. fine. And see Luther there alleged, affirming the same pag: 36. paulo post med. to the bodily mouth even That the wic­ked receive truly Christs body, is affirmed by Jacobus Andraeas in confut. disput. Joan. Jacobi Grinaei pag. 110. circa med. & 115. & 244. initio. And by Chem­nitius in his Enchiridion pag. 345. And by Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 260. & 261. and by Marpachius in Peter Martyrs Epistles annexed to his Common places in English pag. 96. a. post med. And see Luther al­leged by Peter Martyr in his collections annexed to his Common places in English, and his Treatise there of the Lords Supper pag. 138. a. fine, & b. initio. of the unworthy receiver. In [Page 286]so much as they That the Lutherans do adore the Sacrament during the use thereof, see Chemni­tius in his examen. part. 2. pag. 91. b. circa med. and Benedict. Morgenstern tract. de Ecclesia pag. 147. & 149. & 135. & Apolog. modest. ad Acta Conventus quinde­cim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit. pag. 40. circa med. And Luther tom. 7. Wittemberg. fol. 335. a. an­te med. & Schlusselburg in Catal. haeret. l. 3. pag. 867. adore it▪ Mr. Fulk is not abashed most boldly and un­truly to affirm, that Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick art. 17. pag. 61. fine. the Luthe­rans and Zuinglians do both consent in this, that the body of Christ is re­ceived spiritually, not corporally, with the heart, not with the mouth. And to pass over the no less incredible bold­ness herein of M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 42. pag. 170. ante med. saith, Yea I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examina­tion of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Vbi­quitary Presence, or the like, between the Churches reformed by Luthers Mini­stry in Germany and other places, and those whom some mens malice called Sacramentaries. M. D. Field, Pe­ter Martyr affirmeth upon report Pe­ter Martyr, in his Common places, part. 4. pag. 188. fine. of credit, that Luther judged not so grosly of this matter, &c. and Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 195. b. ante med. that he in very deed put no other conjunction, but Sacramental, be­tween the body of Christ and the signs. As though the hot tragical Of the great contentions concerning the Real presence had between the Lutherans and Zuinglians, see Luc. Osiander in Epitom. cent. Eccles. cent. 16. see l. 2. c. 10. pag. 133, 134, 135, &c. And Pe­ter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places pag. 137. b. & 139. a. And Mr. Cowper in his Chronicle fol. 284. b. 290. b. & 370. b. and Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 322. and they are yet further notified by the very many writings by them published to the world one against an other, mentioned in Brereley in the last Catalogue of Protestants Books. con­tentions had, and yet to this day con­tinued, about the Sacrament, between the Lutherans and Zuinglians, were to the world unknown, or but only a dream or an imaginary fiction. And [Page 287]hence it is, that the Lutherans do grie­vously complain against our adver­saries, Gerhardus Gieseke­nius a Lutheran, in his Book De veritate corpor is Christi in Caena, contra Pezelium pag. 93. so chargeth the Cal­vinists. because (say they) that you allege Luthers words against his mea­ning. Which thing as Luther did in his life time perceive by experience, and grievously thereof Lutherus in praefat. in Smalcaldicos articulos extant in Luc. Osiander E­pitom. cent. Eccles. cent. 16. pag. 253. saith there pag. 254. citca med. Quid di­cam? quomodo querelam instituam? adhuc superstes sum, scribo, conciones ha­beo, & praelego publicè, & quotidiè, & tamen virulen­ti homines non tantum ex Adversariis, sed etiam falsi fratres, qui nobiscum sen­tire se aiunt, mea scripta & doctrinam meam simpliciter contra me adferre, & alle­gare audent, me vivente, vidente & audiente, eriamsi sciant me aliter docere, & volunt virus suum meo labore exornare, &c. Q [...]id ergo, bone Deus, post obitum meum siet? complain; so also did he specially foresee, and a little before his death Ibid. next after he saith, Deberem quidem ad omnia respondere, dum adhuc vivo, &c. And the Tigurine Divines in Confess. Or­thodox. Eccles. Tigur. tract. 3. fol. 108. allege Luthers Confession made a little before his death, wherein Luther saith, Ego quidem sepulchro vicinus, &c. I that walk now nigh to my grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunal seat of Christ my Saviour, that I have with all carefulness condem­ned and avoided those fanatical men and enemies of the Sacrament, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Swinckfeldius and their Scholars, whether they be at Zurick, or in what other place soever, under the Sun. forewarn against the same. In like manner do the Lutherans charge our Adversa­ries, for that with like extream bold­ness, Gerhardus Giesekenius l. de veritate corporis Christi in caena pag. 76. fine saith, Zuinglianam Augu­stanam Confessionem reddere conantur, sed tam manifestis mendaciis & con­spicua falsitate, &c. And see there further pag. 118. ante med. And see in Luc. Osiander in centur. 16. pag. 146. post med. the like or worse complaint against the Zuinglians, concerning the Confession of Augusta. In like manner whereas the Confession of Ausburg was exhibited by the same Divines, and in the same year, and to the same Emperour Charls the V. as was the Confession of Augusta, as appeareth by comparing of Luc. Osiander cent. 16. pag. 144. & 145. with the Catalogue of Confessions initio set before the Harmony of Confessions in English, and their doctrin of the Real Presence is delivered in the very same words, as in the Confession of Augusta; Yet Mr. Chatterton, or who else soever was Author of the Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions in English, is not abashed in his observations upon the Confession of Ausburg, to indeavour by his explication, to make it agreeable in sense to Calvinism. And so likewise as is there testified, did the Neustadians in their late admonition, c. 5. they endeavoured to make the confession of Augusta (which teacheth the Real Presence) to be Zuinglian, that is, against the Real Presence, exclaiming thereat, and saying there­of, [Page 288] Gerhardus Giesekeni­us ubi supra pag. 77. prope initium. Si haec res, &c. If this thing had been done in Arabia, America, Sardinia, or such like remote Countries, and of former times, this usurpation of fraud and historical falshood were more tolerable: But seeing (say they) the Question is of such things as be done in our own times, and in the sight of all men, who with a quiet mind can in­dure such lyes? And as thus with the Lutherans; so likewise with our Ca­tholick Writers of this age is our Adversaries like practise no less no­torious. To forbear their exceeding boldness in alleging See Erasmus and Pi­cus alleged for Protestants in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 2. in the margent at * after o. Erasmus and Picus Mirandula as Members of their Protestant Church, it is beyond be­lief, and a very wonderment that M. D. Field (a man otherwise grave and learned) should not be abashed by his publick writing so confidently to a­verre of our so many Christian Ca­tholick Churches dispersed through the world at Luthers first appearing; that they were all of them (saith he) D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 76. post med. & 72. ante med. the true (Protestant) Churches of God, and that they which (then) be­lieved those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend, were a par­ticular [Page 289]faction only; most directly a­gainst that which so many learned Protestants have as from common knowledge most plainly, and fully Confessed to the contra­ry in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. at i e. * f. and so forwards, to the end of that subdivision. confessed to the contrary. By which examples thus given of our Adver­saries boldness with their own Pro­testant and our Catholick writers of this present age, your most excellent Majesty may the more easily conje­cture the like boldness in Mr. Jewel, Mr. Whitaker, and others, in their provoking, as before said, to the an­tient Fathers.

Pu. This infamy of Protestants falsifying Authors is acknowledged and confessed by Mr. William Chil­lingworth, who amongst all the Pro­testant Divines of England was pickt out to defend their cause. This man in his ninth Motive to be a Catho­lick speaks in this manner: Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications and calumnies, whereof their prime Controversy-wri­ters are notoriously, and in a high de­gree guilty. And what do you think doth he answer to this his own Mo­tive, after he was turned Protestant. Take it in his own words. Iliacos in­tra muros peccatur & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault than Pro­testants. [Page 290]To which I answer, that we Catholicks for our part may be well content to leave Protestant-wri­ters with the just imputation of gross falsifyers and Calumniators, of which vices he accuses them. But we can give him no commission to utter against us more than he can e­ver prove, or can have any shadow of truth. For my part, if any Ca­tholick should in matters of Faith and Religion, defend his cause, though in it self good, with falsifications and calumnies, both his book and he would deserve to be purged by fire. Nevertheless I must adde, that there is a main difference between Catho­licks and Protestants in this particu­lar, though our writers were supposed to be as guilty of this crime as he con­fesseth our Adversaries to be. My reason is clear, because we do not re­ly either upon our own understan­ding, for interpreting Scripture, or on the judgement and fidelity of any private person. But Protestants, not believing any infallible publick Judge of Controversies, must depend very much on the fidelity of their prime Controversy writers, whom this man first as we have heard affirmed, and now again in his answer to his Motives and after he was turn'd Pro­testant [Page 291]confirms, to be notoriously and in a high degree guilty of gross falsifi­cations and calumnies.

23. Besides all that hath been said, the antiquity of Catholick Religion is proved by the confessed belief and practise of the Primitive Church in the time of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperour Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3. For it is evident that Constantine Civitatem multis tem­plis in honorem Martyrum illustrissimisque aedibus sa­cris adornavit. Euseb. de vi­ta Constantini l. 3. c. 47.ere­cted Temples in memory of Martyrs,Apostolorum templum ad perpetuam illorum me­moriam conservandam aedi­ficare caepit. Euseb. de vi­ta Constant. l. 4. c. 58. and ibidem cap. 59. it is said, Haec omnia dedicavit Im­perator, ut Servatoris nostri Apostolorum memoriam a­pud omnes gentes aeternita­tem compararet. And Bullinger in his Treatise De origine erroris, Printed Ti­guri 1539. fol. 102. b. ante med. saith, Constantini Magni tempore Iuxus & nimius templorum ornatus initia accepit.dedicated a most sumptuous Church in memory of the Apostles, Euseb. de vit. Constantini lib. 4. cap. 60. saith, In opportunum venturae mortis diem hic locum sibi provida dispensatione designavit, &c. ut detunctus quoque precationum quae ibidem essent ad Apostolorum gloriam offerendae, particeps efficeretur.provi­ded his Sepulcher there, to the end that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers there offered:The Centurists cent. 4. col. 452. line 29. say, Constantinus etiam diem festum ad­modum solemnem ad celebrandam dedicationem Templi indixit, &c.he celebrated the dedication of the Tem­ple with an yearly festival day:Ibi­dem cent. 4. col. 497. lin. 50. it is said of Constantine: Templorum recens ex­tructorum consecrationes, exornationes superbas, alia que superstitiosa, quo­rum maximam partem Constantinus excogitavit, & in multis Ecclesias propa­gavit. This consecration of Churches was antiently done with the sign of the Cross, as St. Augustine serm. 19. de Sanctis testifyeth, saying, Crucis charactere Ba­filicae dedicantur, altar a consecrantur. And also with sprinkling of holy water: whereof see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 4. and St. Gregory apud Bedam hist. li. 1. c. 30. ante med. and confessed by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 4. sect. 13. fol. 378. a. prope initium.He caused Churches new builded to be con­secrated, [Page 292]for service therein to be celebrated, it being then usual for The Centur. cent. 4. col. 408. lin. 54. say, Christia­nos in templis nondum con­secratis non convenisse cla­rè indicat Athanasius in A­pologia ad Constantium. Of this Conseccation of Churches, see further Concil. 5. Car­thag. can. 6. And Gelasius Epist 1. ad Episcopos Lu­can [...]ae can. 27. and Leo E­pist. 88. ad Episcopos Germ. & Galbae. ad Concil. 2. Bra­char. can. 6. & Concil. 1. Brach. can. 37. & Concil. 2. Spalense can. 7. Christians to have their assem­blies (for publick prayers) only in places consecrated. In so much as in a­voydance of prophane places, Tabernaculum Eccle­siae figuram exprimens, cum contra hostes praelio conten­deret, secum circumferre consuevit, ad eum finem, uti neque sibi in solitudine vitam agenti, neque exercicui deesset aedes sacra, &c. Nam [...] Sace [...]otes & Diaconi (&c.) tabernaculum assiduè secuti sunt, &c. Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. versus finem. he carryed about with him a portable ta­bernacle (or Church,) and Priests and Deacons attending it, for celebration of the divine mysteries: The Centurists cent. 4. col. 497. lin. 48. s [...]y, Accensiones candelarum inter­diù in templis Constantinus instituit. And col. 410. lin. 7. it is said, Cereas candelas & lampades in locis Conventuum a Constantion ipso accensas interdiù fuisse Eusebius retulit. Of lights in the Church, see further Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 6. and Eusebius hist. l. 6. c. 8. ante med. And Eusebius de vita Constan­tini [...]. 4. c. 66. and Hierom contra Vigilantium cap. 3. And Paulinus natal. 3. Felicis saith hereof, Clara coronantur densis altariadychnis (&c.) nocte dieque micant.He had lights in the Church in the day time; H [...]erom contra Vigilantium ante med. saith, Constantinus Imperator sanctas reliquias, Andraeae, Lucae, & Timothei, transtulit Constan­tinopolim, apud quas daemones rugiunt. And Bullinger de orig. erroris Prin­ted Tiguri 1539. fol. 67. b. circa med. saith hereof, Nimius est in eo St. Hiero­n [...]mus, quod ait ad sanctas Andreae reliquias rugiunt daemones. And ibidem fine Bullinger allegeth and reprehendeth Hierom further saying, Dicit Hierony­mus, quod si reliquias Sanctorum transferre & in aureos loculos recondere non licet, saci ilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius, omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi sed & fatui judicandi, qui rem vilissimam & cineres dissolutos in seri­co & vase aureo portaverunt, &c. whereupon Bullinger inferreth saying, Nolumus sanctis Dei hominibus, Constantino divo, Arcadio sancto, &c. nominis glo­riam illustrem obscurare, &c. testimonium illis perhibeo, quod studium Dei habent non secundum scientiam, &c.He translated to Constantinople the holy Relicks of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, at which the Devils did roar; The Centurists cent. 4. col. 1529. lin. 28. say, Planè simili superstitione Constantinus reliquias quasdam de Cruce ab Helena reperta Constantinopolim dicitur transtu [...]sse, ut effet ejus Vrbis conservatrix.He did also (as the Centu­rists [Page 293]say) superstitiously translate to Constantinople in conservation of that City, certain Relicks of the Cross found by Helen; The Centurists cent. 4. col. 457. lin. 56. say, De pe­reg [...]nation. bus ad loca sa­cra caeperunt hoc saeculo pri­mum suo Constantino, loca Terrae sanctae (&c.) in pre­tio haberi, &c. Helena ma­ter Imperatoris mulier su­perstitiosa illuc profecta a­dorand [...] causa, &c. And Eu­sebius hist. l. 6. c. 9. saith of one Alexander, who lived 100. years before Constan­tine. Alexander Hierosoly­mam tum voti tum Iocorum visendorum causa propera­vit. And see Herom de viris Illustribus in Alexandro. And of like Pilgrimage to Hicrusa [...]em, even upon Vow, see Palladius in Historia Lausaica c. 113. of Phi­loromus c. 118. and Hierom Ep. 46. ad Rusticum. And see further mention of yearly pilgrimage to Hierusalem in Zozomen. hist. l. 2. c. 25. under him in that age were pilgrimages to Hierusalem: The Centu­rists cent. 4. col. 704. lin. 10. say, Secunda Synodus apud Arelatum celebrata est Constantin [...] Imperator is & Silvestritempore circa annum Domini 326. And lin. 21. they repeat the second Canon of that Council to be, Assu [...] aliquem ad Sa­cerdotium non posse in vinculo conjug [...] constitutum, nisi fuerit promissa con­versio, non oportet. And see many other like testimonies hereof hereafter in this Con­sideration v [...]sus finem at 98. and see heretofore in the beginning of this Consideration at h. i. k. the doctrine in this behalf of the Fathers of the Nycene Council, whereat Constantine was present. In his time it was decreed by Council, that Priests might not marry: The Centurists cent. 4. col. 467. lin. 8. say, Fu­isse ante Constantinum etiam Virgines seu mulieres continentes, & castitatem perpetuam professas, ex libro 4. Eusebii de vita Constantin. apparet, ubi mag­nopere approbasse disciplinam ejusmodi Imperatorem Constantinum affirmat; adeo ut, & frequenter eorum contubernium adierit. Helenam vero etiam Con­stantini matrem Hierosolymis Virgines Deo sacras reperisse Socrates testatur l. 1. c. 17. quarum professionem usque adeò probarit, ut ministram illis sese prae­buerit, &c. And Euseb us de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 28. saith, Sanctissimum perpetuarum virginum caetum constanter colebat Constantinus, &c. And see Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 9.He ho­noured sacred Virgins professng per­petual Chastity:The Centurists cent. 4. col. 1294. lin. 53. begin a special Tract, the title whereof is, Monachi per Syriam, Palestinam, Bithyni­am, & reliqua Asiae loca sub Constantino magno, whereof they give there many examples.Under him were Monks throughout Syria, Palestine, Bithyma, and the other places of A­sia, [Page 294] also Centur. 4. col. 1306. line 18. they begin another like Tract, whereof the title is; Africani Monachi per Aegyptum sub Constantino magno.throughout Africk. And See the Centurists cent. 4. col. 470. line 40. and in Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 13. initio it is said, Antonium magnum illum monachum in solitudinibus Aegypti-mag­na cum nominis & famae celebritate vitam degen­tem, Constantinus Imperator propter ejus virtutis splen­dorem sibi amicum fecit, literas honorificè scriptas ad eum missit.he greatly reverenced Antony the Monk, whose most religious and au­stereZozomen, hist. l. 1. c. 13. prope initium saith of Antony, Erat ei cibus panis solùm & fal: potus au­tem aqua, tempus prandii solis occasus, saepenumero ad biduum & amplius ci­bo abstinuit, vigilabat semper fere integras noctes, & usque dum lucesceret pre­cari non destitit; quod si quando somnum capiebat, illam super parvam stoream cepit; non rarò autem humi jacens, ipsa terra pro cubili usus est. And see all this confessed by Osiander in epitom. & cent. 4. pag. 100. Whereto he further ad­deth, Vestimentum ejus (ut alii referunt) interius erat cilicium, exterius verò animalis pellis, &c. ad montem sublimem habitaculum suum constituit, &c. erat autem cellula in qua habitabat Antonius, non plus mensurae per quadram tenens, quàm homo dormiens extendi poterat, &c.life Protestants tearm Osiander in Epitom: cent. 4. c. 2. pag. 100. paulo post med. saith, Vita Antonii non caret multiplici superstitione. And see further there pag. 102. post med. and see the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1313. line 45. See his monastical strict life reported by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1315. line 44. and his confessed miracles ibid. col. 493. line. 20. Which his miracles were so many, that Athanasius wrote a special Book of his life (teste Socrate hist. l. 1. c. 17. initio.)su­perstitious:Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 14. versus finem saith hereof, Ab omni licentia & vitae ratione luxu diffluente sese vocavit, inedia & corporis afflictione se [...]psum coercuit, &c.He chastised his body with fasting and other bodily affliction; Chrysostom. in Ep. 2 Cor. hom. 26. versus finem saith hereof, Nam & ipse, qui purpuram indutus est, accedit illa amplexus sepulchra, & lastu deposito stat Sanctis sup­plicaturus, ut pro se ad Deum intercedant. And see the same also in Chrysostom ad pop. hom. 66. versus finem.He went to imbrace the Sepulcher of Peter and Paul, humbly praying to those Saints that they would be inter­cessors for him to God;Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 2. saith of Constantine. A que interdum vultum salutari illa passionis signavit nota. And see the same confessed and so translated by D. Abbots in his answer to D. Bishop pag. 168. initio.He signed his face with the sign of the cross; Eusebius in orat. de laudibus Constantini ante med. saith, Imperator (Constantinus) triumphale signum honorat. And Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. fine saith of Constantine: Sanctae cruci plurimum tri­buit honoris, tum propter subsidia in bello contra hostes gerendo ex ejus vir­tute sibi illata, tum propter divinam sibi de ea oblatam visionem; And see there cap. 4. And Prudentius in Apotheosi doth accordingly affirm this usage of the an­tient Emperors, saying thereof, Vexillumque Crucis summus dominator adorat. In so much as Szegedinus in his Speculum Pontificum pag. 229. saith, Crux honorari caepit tempore Constantini. And see the like practice hereof in Conwal King of Scotland reported by Holinshead in his Chronicle of Scotland, after the first Edition Printed 1577. pag. 136. and after the later Edition pag. 107. a. line 69.Honored the same sign; Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. as next before at x. And Eusebius de vita Constan­tini l. 2. c. 7. saith, Jam in qua parte istud Crucis vexillum visum fuit, hostes fugam capere, victores persequi: qua re intellecta Imperator sicubi partem ali­quam sui exercitus languentem cernebat, ibi salutare illud vexillum tanquam quoddam subsidium ad victoriam obtinendam locari mandavit, cujus adjumen­tis extemplò parta est victoria, quippe dimicantium vires divina quadam po­tentia fuere admodum confirmatae.Had affyance and success of victory in the [Page 295]vertue thereof, andHereof see Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 1. c. 25. & l. 2. c. 3. & l. 3. c. 48.erected it pub­lickly; HeZozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 9. post med. saith, Jussit Constantinus, &c. ut Con­ciliorum decisiones firmae & immutabiles existerent.ordained that the De­crees of Councils should be kept firm and inviolable;Eusebius de vita Con­stantini l. 3. c. 10. fine saith, Cum parva quaedam sella ex auto fabricata illi esset loco posita, non prius con­sedit quam Episcopi ad id innuissent. And Theodoret l. 1. hist. c. 7. circa med. saith, Illo ipse Imperator postremus cum paucis se comitantibus ingressus est (&c.) deinde sella in medio posita (istud enim sibi permitti ab Episcopis postulaverat) consedit. And the Century writers cent. 4. col. 460. line 31. say, Ac notum est quam reverentiam & observantiam Episcopis habuerit in Synodo Nicena [...]bi nec confidere prius quàm Episcopi annuissent, voluit. And Carion in Chro [...]. pag. 274. post med. saith hereof, Assedit Constantinus inter Episcopos sede non altiore.He would not sit down at the Council of Nyce, till the Bishops had thereto given him there assent: Crispin us in his Book of the State of the Church pag. 99. prope finem saith hereof, Constantine said, God hath ordained you Bishops, and hath given you power to judge of your selves; by means whereof we yield our selves to your judgement. Men may not judge you, but God alone. And in Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 16. post med. Constantine saith, Mihi vero non est fas, cum homo sim, ejusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare, &c. And see further hereof Ruffinus hist. l. 10. c. 2. And St. Austin tom. 2. Ep. 166. circa med.He would not undertake the Judgement of Church causes, but com­mitted the same over to Bishops;The Century writers, cent. 4. col. 702. line 18.he [Page 296]procured the Synod at Arles, in which the Roman Bishops authority is so far forth acknowedged, as that Osiander in Epitom. &c. centur. 4. pag. 182. fine. for the uniform observation of Easter day Concil. 1. Arelatense can. 1. apud Osiandrum ubi supra, where it is said, De observatione Paschae Domi­ni (constitutum est in hac Synodo) ut uno die & tem­pore per omnem orbem ob­servetur, & juxta consuetu­dinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas. This was the Coun­cils Petition to Pope. Silvester.throughout the whole world, he should direct forth his letters, and that according to the former custom; so far was such his authority from being then first begun. In so much as it is yet further said of Constantine, that he Mr. Napper in his Treatise upon the Revelations dedicated to King James, for the supposed worthiness there­of reprinted at London An­no 1594. pag. 145. fine saith, After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constan­tine subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Silvester, from which time till these our days the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church. And see further there 43. versus finem. And see next hereafter in this Consideration at 111. in the margent. subdued all Christian Churches to the Pope, Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his palma Christiana ad Serenissimam Reginam Angliae pag. 35. post med. saith, Per quod nomen de­signatus fu [...]t Episcopus Romanus & Constantinopolitanus, quos Constantinus magnus prae caeteris praeferebat, tribuens Romano Primatum ante omnes.attributed Primacy to the Roman Bishop before all: being there­fore charged Ibid. pag. 34. fine he further saith, Ex eo apparet fatale suisse ut Constan­ti [...]s daret potestatem Bessiae, quam statim Julius exercuit: nam etiam Con­rtantinus magnus ferebat arma draconis in insigniis suis, (&c.) ita ut ipse sit Draco qui dedit potestatem best [...]ae, & typus Draconis serpentis antiqui, qui Be­stiae potestatem dedit Apoc. 13.2. fatally to have given power to the beast. The Centurists cent. 4. col. 653. line 26. report this opinion of Acesius signisied to the Emperour to be: ad paenitentiam quidem admoneri (homines) spem verò remissionis non à sacerdotibus, sed ab ipso Deo expectare, qui possit & potestatem habeat remittere peccata. Cum haec Acesius dixisset, subjunxit Imperator, pone scalam ô Acesi, & solus ascende in caelum. Socrates l. 1. c. 7. And see this error of the Novatians further confuted by Ambrose. And Pacianus alleged heretofore in this Consideration num. 21. in the margent at g.He reproved Ace­sius the Novatian for denying the pow­er given Priests to remit sin, under pre­tence Vbi supra. that God only remitteth sin. Of Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 45.his Priests (or Clergy by him assembled to the Dedication of the [Page 297]Temple, not only) some of them did preach and interpret the holy Scrip­tures (but also) others of them who could not so do, appeased the Deity with unbloody Alii qui &c. horum nihil poterant officere, incruentis consecrationibus divinum Numen placabant, & suppli­ces Deo preces offerebant pro communi pace, pro Ecclesia Dei, ipsoque Imperatore, &c. By these Vnbloody Sacri­fices and mystical consecrati­ons thus particularly distin­guished, as several from the foresaid Preaching and prayer, cannot be understood other than the said Priests celebration of the blessed. Sacrament, as is plainly acknowledged by D. Abbots in his answere to D. Bishops Epistle to the King pag. 183. ante med. & 184. paulo post med. Which in regard of the then external oblation thereof by those sun­dry Priests, Eusebius tearmeth Unbloody Sacrifices, so thereby distinguishing the same, in manner of Oblation, from Christs other bloody oblation upon the Crosse; according to which sense it is often by the other Fathers tearmed the Unbloody Sacri­fice, as by Chrysostome in Psalm. 95. Athanasius alleged heretofore in this Con­sideration Num. 3. at * next after h. in the margent. Cyril: Alexand: in inter­pretatione Anathemat: 11. Nazianzen orat. funeb. in Basilium, and orat. 1. in Iulianum. In so much as they are therefore reproved by Calvin in Epist. ad Haebr. c. 9. vers. 26. pag. 946. b. fine. & 947. a initio. So that if unto these Un­bloody Sacrifices thus mentioned by Euschius, we do adde the foresaid appeasing of God thereby (by him also mentioned) we do then hereby find, not onely Sacrifice, but also propitiatory Sacrifice.Sacrifices, and mystical Consecrations, and prayed for the health of the Emperour. At Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 61.the time of his last sickness he intended to expiate his sins by efficacy of the holy mysteries, and the imtiation of the healthfull la­var (of regeneration at those times purposely) Osiander in epitom: &c. cent. 4. pag. 248. ante med. saith: Veteres Baptis­mum distulisse videntur, &c. ut deinde Baptisma suscipiendo universa delicta simul abluerent. deferred; and so Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 61. it is said: Humi procumbens genibus in ipsa Martyrum aede errata sua confessus, &c. And of Confession made to the Priest long before these times, see heretofore in this Conside­ration num. 9. at 10. prostrating himself upon his knees, confessed his sins in the house of of the Martyrs; and thereupon re­ceived Eusebius vbi supra. imposition of hands. Centur. 4. col. 454. line 26. it is said: Turba frequens preces cum fletu pro anima imperatoris fudit [...] And see Eusebius de vita Constant: l. 4. c. 71.After his death prayer was made for [Page 298]his soule, and the mysticalEusebius vbi supra saith: Adhuc quidem licet contem­plari ter beatae animae tumu­lum (&c.) divinis ceremo­niis & mystico sacrificio sanctarumque precationum societate perfrui.Sacri­fice offered

And In the brief discourse of the Churches Estate &c. an­nexed to Crispinus his book of the Estate of the Church, it is affirmed, how that about the end of this period (which continued untill Constantine) the love of solitude and monkery, the abstinence from mariage and from cer­tain meats on particular dayes, many seasts and o­ther seeds of superstition af­ter succeeding, took a mar­vailous root: so the com­mencement of Prayer for the dead, and Sacrifice of the Masse did discover them­selves, &c. as concerning the Chur­ches doctrine of that age, it was in like manner so evidently our now professed Catholick faith, that to for­bear much other particular proof, and what is by certain our other ad­versaries confessed in this behalf, the Century-writers of Magdeburge, whose writings are by our English Protestants affirmed to be So saith M. Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi pag. 21. fine. An excellent work, and So saith M. D. Hill in his defence of the article that Christ descended into Hell fol. 23. b. post. med. worthy of immortal memory, in their fourth Century by them dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (in which they specially undertake to deliver to her Highness The Centurists cent. 4. in Epist. dedicatoria Sere­nissimae Reginae ac Dominae Elizabethae &c. prope finem, say to the Queen concerning that fourth Century: Redit hic Constantinus jam ad te adferens statum ejus Ecclesiae quae suo tempore totum Orbem suo splendore illustravit, &c. And there again: Non dubitavimus Con­stantini Britannici Ecclesiasticas res tuae Majestati jucundissimas atque accep­tissimas fore. that state of the Church which in Constantines time illustrated the whole world) do professe to Centur: 4. col. 287. line 16. the title there of that special Tract is, Inclinatio Doctrinae complectens peculiares & incommodas opiniones, [...]ipulas & errores Doctorum.set down the peculiar (supposed) errors of the Do­ctors of those times, and do joyn with others in charging sundry of them severally and respectively with some or other particular opinions by col­lection from their own writings, which in general are as followeth, namely [Page 299]withCentur. 4. col. 291. line 7. it is said, Patres om­nes ferè hujus aetatis de li­bero arbitrio consusè lo­quuntur. And immediatly af­ter they do there recite and re­ject the particular sayings of Lactantius, Athanasius, Ba­sil, Nazianzen, Epiphani­us, Hierom, &c.Freewil, Cent. 4. col. 292. & 293. there under the titles de Justificatione, and de bonis operibus.Iustification by works, Ibid. col. 293. through­out, and there line 59. where they conclude, saying, Jam cogiter pius Lector quam procul haec aetas in hoc articulo de Apostolorum doctrina desciverit. And see O­siander cent. 4. pag. 102. post med. & 506. ante med. & pag. 520. circa med. & 430. ante med. & pag. 70. prope finem.Merit of works, Centur. 4. col. 425. line 54. it is said, Ad hoc Praesbyterium aliquem, &c. deputarunt, ad quem qui delique­runt accedentes quae gessissent confiterentur, &c. ea lege confitentes absolvebat, ut à se ipsi paenas commissorum exigerent. And see there col. 426. line 10. And see next heretofore at 9.Con­fession of sins to a Priest, andConcerning injoyned Penance ut supra: and see further Centur. 4. col. 834. line 14. & col. 868. line 56.in­joyned Penance,Centur. 4. col. 425. ut supra, and col. 834. lin. 60. mentioneth Reconciliationem per manus impositionem: and see col. 878. line 5. and line 16.Absolution of such as had confessed (given) with impositi­on of the hand: also with affirmingCen­tur. 4. col. 1245. line 33. and see Calvin institut. l. 4. c. 19. sect. 17.Penance to be the second table after shipwrack, and errourCen­tur. 4. col. 294. line 1. it is said, Paenitentiam haec aetas ut ferè & superiores neque recte definiit, neque partes ejus satis explicavit, &c. And col. 231. line 12. it is said, Doctrinam paenitentiae (&c.) satis tenuiter & frigidè (&c.) quem­admodum & in superioribus saeculis tractatam videas ab hac aetate.in the doctrine of penance: withSee centur. 4. col. 299. line 55. and see this further more plainly confessed in sundry Fathers of this age, and the age before, alleged heretofore in this Consideration num. 12. at 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.unwrit­ten traditions,Centur. 4. col. 295. under the title there de Invocatione Sanctorum, & col. 296, 297. are recited and rejected the particular sayings of Basil, Ambrose, Prudent [...]us, Ephrem, Athanasius. And see the sun­dry Fathers of this age and other precedent ages confessed and rejected heretofore in this Consideration num. 7.Invocation of Saints, Centur. 4 col. 304. under the title there de Pur­gatorio, where are recited and rejected the sayings of Lactantius, and Hierom, and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 18. throughout.Purgatory, Centur. 4. col. 409. line 15. it is said, Aras in templis suisse id quoque hujus saeculi Historia testan [...]ur &c. verùm haec etiam consuetudo à Judaica in Ecclesiam Christi per­manavit, &c. And see heretofore in this Consideration n. 3. at 6, 7, 10, 11.Altars Nazianzen in Julianum mentioneth altaria à purissmo & incruento Sacr [...] ­ficio nomen habentia. And St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 10. Erigimus al­taria in quibus sacrificemus uni Deo, &c. And Gildas de excidio Britan. c. 26. calleth the Altar, Sacrificii caelestis sedem. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 3.so [Page 292]called of Sacrifice thereon offered, andAug. serm. 19. de Sanctis saith, Crucis chara­ctere Basilicae dedicantur, altaria conscerantur. Of Con­secration of Altars, see Gre­gory Nyssen de S. Baptism. And Concil. 2. Spalense can. 7. & Concil. 1. Bracharense can. 37. & Concil. 1. Hip­ponense can. 5. dist. 1. c. al­taria, & Concil. 3. Aurelia­nese can. 15. And Aug. de tempore serm. 255.Consecrated with the sign of the Cross, andConcil. Agathense can. 14. saith, Altare placuit, non solum unctione chrismatis, sed etiam sacer­dotah benedictione sacrar [...], in quo nobis divina sacrificia consecrantur. And before all these, Dionysius Arcopagita de Eccles. Hieratch c. 4. saith, Divini Altaris consecrationem sanct [...]ssimorum mysterium lex sanctissimi unguenti castissimis infusionibus perficit.Chrism, and called alsoThe Centurists cent. 4. col. 409. line 26. and Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 4. pag. 226. a. initio, reprehend Optatus for saying, Quid est altare, nisi sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi, &c. cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? And Gildas de excidio Britan. c. 26. calleth the Altar, Sacrificii caelestis sedem, & Ambrose l. 5. de sacram. c. 2. saith, Quid est enim altare, nisi forma corporis Christi? & l. 4. c. 2. fine he saith, Forma corporis altare est, & corpus Christi est in altari. And Hesichius in Leviticum l. 2. c. 8. saith, Est autom locus sanctus altare, ibi enim Sanctus Sanctorum requiescit.the seat of the body and bloud of Christ, with See this point of real presence confessed in the writings of Ambrose and in Cyril, heretofore in this Consideration n. 2. at 4.5.real presence, andSee confessed testimonies for Transubstantiation alleged by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 109. line 3. & line 40. & col. 985. line 30. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 1, 2, 3, 6, 11.transubstantiation, withCyril. Hierosolym it: (who lived in this age) Catech. 5. prope finem saith hereof, Take heed lest any thing of it fall from thee, & Mr. Fulk in his re­joynder to Bristow and answer to Sanders, in answer hereto tearmeth it a meer superstitious precept, pag. 687. post med. And Austin l. 50. homiliarum hom. 26. saith, Quanta follicitudine observamus, quando nobis corpus ministratur, ut nihil de ipso in terram cadat. Tertullian in libro de corona militis saith, calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur. And O­rigen hom. 13. in Exodum saith, You that are accustomed to be present at the divine mysteries, do know that when you receive the body of our Lord, you do with all wariness and reverence take heed that no little thereof fall down.care (more than was then had concerning the water of Baptism) that no part of the Sacrament should fall down to the [Page 293]ground, withOf reservation see cen­tur. 4. col. 427. line 45. & col. 430. line 2. And see [...]re­ [...]osore in tins Consideration num. 2. at 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.reservation of the Sacrament with Chemnitius in his exa­men. part. 2. pag. 92. alleg­eth the several sayings of Au­stin, Ambrose and Nazian­zen (all of them living in this Century) affirming in his opinion, the adoration of the Sacrament, and he reprehendeth there for their de­nyal thereof the Calvinists, by the express term of Sacramentaries. And whereas Nazianzen orat. 11. quae est de Gorgonia sorore, telleth how his diseased Sister prostrated her self before the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped on it, ô miracle (saith he) she departed presently receiving health; M. Fulk in respons. ad Stapletonium de successione Ecclesiastica pag. 230. circa med. trifleth in his answer hereinto, being inforced to say, Eucharistia in altarinon fuit ab ea adorata quamvis in magna reverentia, & fortasse non sine supersti­tione habita. And Ambros. in orat. praepar. ad Missam is so plain in this point, that the Centurists centur: 4. col. 430. line 52. do therefore reprove those prayers of Ambrose, saying, Continent adorationem panis in Sacramento. And so likewise saith M. Perkins in his probiem. &c. pag. 21. initio, and Crispinus in his book of the Church pag. 87. fine, and yet are those prayers acknowledged and alleged for the writings of Ambrose by M. Bilson in his true difference, &c. part. 4. pag. 622. circa med.worshipping of it, and special words of invocation prae­scribed when the Sacrament was S. Basil de spiritu Sancto c. 27. alledging unwritten traditions, saith, Invocationis verba dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae & poculum bene­dictionis, quis scripto reliquit? See this saying acknowledged and but weakely put off by M. Fulk in his rejoynder to Bristow, &c. pag. 685. post. med.shew­ed: with receiving itSee this heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. in the margent at 32. & 33.fasting and See this heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. in the margent at 35. & 36. And see also the same further confessed in Osianders Epitom. &c. centur: 4. pag. 180. fine.chast; withSee the sundry Fathers who lived some of them in Constantines times, others next after his time, others before his time, confessedly in this question of Sacrifice here­tofore in this Consideration num. 3 next after 12. at *. ¶.§. g. h. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 17. in the margent at t.offering of it in sacrifice to God, as being propitiatory, not onlySee this heretofore in this Consideration num. 3. fine at * next after h. confessed in sundry Fathers of this age and the age before, by Andraeas Crastovius a learned Calvinist. Also Basil in Liturgia prayeth, ut digni simus offerre tibi ra­tionabile istud & incruentum Sacrificium pro nostris peccatis & populi ignoran­tia. And Cyprian de Caena Dom: prope initium saith, Quotiescunque his verbis & hac fide actum est, panis iste substantialis & calix solemni benedicti­one sacratus, ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit, simul medicamentum & holoc [...]ustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates.for the living, but alsoHospinianus in historia Sacramentaria lib. 2. pag. 167. initio saith of Cy­rill of Jerusalem, who lived in the beginning of this Century: Dicit Cyrillus pro sui jam temporis recepta consuetudine sacrificium altaris maximum Juvamen esse animarum. So common was this doctrine in Cyrills time; See Cyrills saying hereof in Catech. 5. Mystagog: And see the saying of Ambrose therein rejected Cen­tur: 4. col. 295. line 3. and also Cyprian and Tertullian cent. 3. col. 138. line 56. & 139. line 6. and Osiander of Tertullian cent. 3. pag. 10. Also S. Austine l 9. Confess: c. 12. affirmeth that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica, being dead. And in Enchirid c. 110. he saith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacri­ficium Mediatoris offertur: affirming there further, that the sacrifices of the Altar or of almes which be offered for the dead, are thanksgiving for those that be very good (or in heaven) and propitiations for those that be not very evill (or not in hell) affirming (els where de verbis Apost: serm. 34.) that the univer­sal Church doth observe as delivered from our forefathers, that for those who are dead in the communion of Christs body and blood, when in time of sacri­fice they be remembred in their places, prayer is made for them (ac pro illis id quoque offerri commemoretur) and (besides this prayer) for them also it is re­membred that the Sacrifice be ostered: In so much as S. Austine is herein re­jected by Hutterus l. de Sacrificio Missatico pag. 525. fine. See also this point confessed in Austine and many other Fathers heretofore in this Consideration num. 4. at k. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 17. in the margent under t. And see also Bullinger in his decades in English pag. 1082. a. post. med.for the dead; with affirming it to [Page 302] be So it is affirmed to be by Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 3. and by S. Austine de Civitate Dei l. 16. c. 22. & lib. 17. c. 5. fine, &c. 20. & l. 18. c. 35. circa med. and in Psalm. 33. con. 2. and see this point ac­cordingly confessed by Andrae­as Crastovius l. 1. de opifi­cio Missae pag. 28. & pag. 58. & 102. & 171. And see M. Fulk against Heskins pag. 100. circa med. And see heretofore in this Considera­tion num. 17. in the text.a Sacrifice, according to the Or­der of Melchisedech, with specialSee the Century-writers Cent. 4. col. 662. line 2. & col. 703. line 36. & col. 705. line 31.liberty for Deacons to distribute it, but not to offer it (so distinct then was distribution from the offering thereof;) with terming itCentur. 4. col. 878. line 12, & 13.the vi­aticum for such as were sick, withHieron: in Epist. ad Theophilum Alexand [...]inum ante libros paschales mentioneth sacros calices, sanctaque velamina ex consortio corporis & sanguinis Domini, eadem qua corpus eju & sanguis majestate veneranda.holy coverings (or corporals) holden venerable by reason of their accompa­nying (or touching) the Body and Blood of our Lord, and The Centurists cent. 4. col. 835. line 46 [...] and Osiander in Epitom: cent. 4. pag. 391. initio, and see Concil Agathense Can. 66. & Concil. Laodicen. Can. 21. & Concil. 1. Bra­charense can. 18. And Greg. Nyss [...]n in orat. de Baptismo, where he saith, Altate hoc sanctum cui assistimus, &c. quoniam Dei cultui consecratum atque dedi­catum est, ac benedictionem accepit (&c.) non amplius ab omnibus, sed à solis sacerdotibus contrectatur. And see Nazianzen in orat. de seipso contra Aria­nos initio.holy ves­sells, which Subdeacons (and lay per­sons) might not touch: with carefull [Page 303]committingCentur. 4. col. 490. line 57.of the holy Chalice to the Priests custody; withCentur. 4. col. 835. line 45. the Laodicen Council is alleged saying, can. 21. Non oportet subdiaconos licentiam habere in sacrari­um ingredi & contingere va­sa Dominica. And see sur­ther mention of this Vestry in Concil. 4 Ca [...]thag. can. 36. and in Concilio Agathensi can. 66. And in Ambrose l. 1. Offic. c. 50. alleged by the Centurists centur. 4. col. 409. line 40. and see Osian­der in Epitom. cent. 5. pag. 391. initio, reproving this.a Ve­stry (or place wherein Holy things were laid) into which Subdeacons might not enter; withCent. 4. col. 480. line 35. & col. 428. lin. 40. & col. 429. line 3. & col. 868. line 32. & col. 871. line 48. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 26, 27, 28.mixture of Water with Wine in the Chalice, in time of Consecration: Also with the Centur. 4. col. 421. line 46. And see this more plainly also heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 3.sign of the Cross in Baptism, withSee these at large expressed in Cent. 4. col. 417, 418, & 419.Abrenuntiation, Exorcism, Anneyling, threefold immersion, and sundry other like Ceremonies used in Baptism; with holding That Cent. 4. col. 239. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 7, 8.In­fants dying unbaptized are not saved; withCen­tur. 4. col. 415. line 25. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 9.Baptism of Lay-persons in case of necessity; withCent. 4 col. 1160. line 53. & col. 1161. line 2. & col. 1243. line 39. and col. 934. line 29. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 2. *.Remission of Sins (not signifyed but truly) given in Bap­tism; withCent. 4. col. 415. line 44. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at §. next after 3. Also St. Ambrose de mysteri [...]s initiat. c. 3. post med. saith, Aqua cum fuerit mysterio crucis consecrata, &c. And St. Austin de Sanctis serm. 19. saith, Crucis mysterio fons regenerationis consecratur. And the like consecration of the water of Baptism with the sign of the Cross he affirmeth in Evan. Joan. tract. 118.Consecration of the wa­ter of Baptism; withCentur. 4. col. 423. line 4. & col. 837. l. 20. & col. 478. line 17. where it is aid, Baptizatiab Episcopis signabantur & chrismate inungebantur. And see here line 27. and see heretofore in this Consideration n. 8. at t. u. x.The Bishops [Page 296]firming of the baptized with Chrism; with reservation orSee cent. 4. col. 420. line 10. where it is said, Chrisma in ampulla conser­vari solitum indicat Opta­tus.keeping of Chrism in a Box; withCent. 4. col. 865. line 43. & col. 503. line 8. & col. 1274. line 44. & col. 869. line 14. Os Consecration of Chrism by a Bishop, see fur­ther Concil. 1. Bracharen­se Can. 37. and Concil. Romanum sub Silvestro can. 5. and Concil. 2. Car­thag. can. 3. and Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 36. & Con­cil. 4. Carchag. can. 36. and Concil. Vasense can. 3. and Concil. 1. Toletan. can. 20. and Concil. 2. Hispalense can. 7. and Damasus Ep. 4. de Corep scopis, and Leo Ep. 88. ad Episcopos Germaniae & Galliae, and In­nocentius Ep. 1. ad Decentium cap. 3. and before all these Dionysius Areopagi­ta de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. not far from the end.Conse­cration of Chrism by a Bishop only; withCentur. 4. col. 456. line 33. & col. 457. throughout, & 482. line 44. & col. 1446. line 17. and see heretofore in this Consideration in the beginning of num. 23. at m. & see Chemniti­us his examen. part. 4. pag. 10. a.Solemn Translation of Saints Reliques, and their Centur. 4. col. 602. line 54. & 1250. line 45. & col. 457. line 49. and Chemnitius ubi supra. And St. Hierom. contra Vigilant. c. 3. affirmeth this estimation of Relicks to be in his time the received do­ctrine (saith he) non unius Urbis sed totius Orbis.worship; with reverentSee this in Zozomen. hist. l. 5. c. 8. Ambrose Ep. 85. ad sororem. Hierom. contra Vigilant. c. 3. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. & serm. 11. de Sanctis, & Concil. 5. Caithag. can. 14, and Concil. African. can. 50.placing of Saints Re­licks under the Altar; withChemnitius examen. part. 4. pag. 10. b. ante med. saith, Suscipiebant etiam peregrinationes ad loca ubi re­liquias miraculis celebres & claras audiebant. And see Osiander in Epirom. &c. cent. 4. pag. 393. post med. And centur. 4. col. 457. line 57.Pil­grimage to them, and to such like o­ther holy places, oftentimes made by Chem­nitius examen. part. 4. pag. 10. a post med. saith, Apud Augustinum in tran­slatione reliquiarum Stephani, mulier caeca illuminata est: & aliquando quae­dam miracula ad reliquias edebantur. &c. And the Centurists cent. 4. col. 457. line 47. say, Si Ambrosio credimus, aegri enim qui vestes Sanctorum manu contigissent, sanabantur, obsessi liberabantur, &c. And see many examples here­of in St. Augustin de Civit Dei l. 22. c. 8.diseased persons, who were there­upon (miraculously) cured: and the same so credibly reported, as Master Whitaker dare not rest in denyal ther­of; withIn cent. 4. col. 409. line 42. are alleged many examples hereof.images in the Church,Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med. saith hereof, Nec illa miracula vana fuisse puto, quae in Martyrum monumentis facta narrantur.[Page 305]withCent. 4. col. 410. line 11. And see heretofore in this Consideration in the be­ginning of this num. 23. at l.lights in the Church in day time, with Anchorets, Cent. 4. col. 470. line 20. under the title there de Eremitis. And Ancho­rets col. 474. line 50. of whom it is said, Anachoretae soli habitabant per deserta, & ab eo quod procul ab ho­minibus recesserunt nuncu­pantur.Eremites, Cent. 4. col. 488. line 27. And see Concil. Agathense can. 38.Abbots andCent. 4. col. 300. line 39. & col. 301. line 46. & col. 464 line 9. under the title de Monach. & 465.Monks; their vowed Centur. 4. col. 300. line 52. & col. 301. line 48. & col. 466. line 19. And in the Council of Chalcedon can. 16. it is said, Si qua Virgo se dedicaverit Deo, similiter Monachus, non licere eis jungi nuptiis, &c. in so much as this Council is therefore reproved by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. pag. 62. And by Osiander cent. 5. pag. 359. in can. 15. & 16.Chastity, Centur. 4. col. 301. line 29. & 39. & col. 464. line 58. where it is said, Apparet mona­sticen professuros facultates suas prius distribuisse, oportet (inquit Basilius) mo­nachum ante omnia id vitae genus amplecti, ut nihil possideat. And see St. Au­stin Ep. 89. ad Hilarium 4. quaest. And see heretofore in this Censideration num. 21. at e. f.voluntary poverty, Centur. 4. col. 471. line 23. where it is said of them, Nec pane, nec obsoniis vescentes, neque vinum bibentes. And col. 474. line 15. where it is said, Alii à volucribus abstinent, utuntur ovis & piscibus: alii etiam à pi [...] cibus abstinent, caseo verò vescuntur; alii autem neque caseum sumunt; jam verò adhuc alii etiam à pane abstinent, &c. And col. 475. line 42. it is said, Vivitur pane, leguminibus, & oleribus, que sale solo condiuntur. And see So­crates hist. l. 4. c. 18. prope initium, and Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. and Epi­phanius haer. ult. prope finem.great abstinence from Wine, Flesh, and certain other meats; their inclosing or muring up of them­selvesHereof see Osiander in Epitom. cent. 4. pag. 100. fine, & pag. 440. post med. and Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. paulo post initium saith, Se separatim in aediculas concludunt, quae tantum habent lati­tudinis altitudinisque, ut in illis, neque corpore erecto consistere, neque s [...] li­berè inclinare possint. And see the like in Zozomen. hist. l. 3. c. 13. circa med. and see like mention of Monks cels in Concilio Agathensi can. 38. in Zozomen. hist. l. 6. c. 31. initio, in Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 21. & 36. & 43. & 69. & 109. and in Theodoret in his Theophil. cap. 2, 3, 4, 9, 15. and Evagrius hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. maketh mention of one Simeon dwelling in a pillar, & see centur. 4. col. 465. line 19. alleging it out of Nazianzen.in Cels, their other won­derful austerity of life, Centur. 4. col. 474. line 22. it is said, Multi vero etiam humi dormiunt, alii neque cal­ceamenta induunt, alii saccum gestant occultum, and see the same in Epiphanius haer. ult. fine. And see centur. 4. col. 465. line 19. of their going barefoot, out of Nazianzen.in going barefoot, lying upon the ground, wea­ring [Page 306]sackcloath, &c. theirSee this Cowl men­tioned cent. 4. col. 472. line 20. where is mentioned tegu­mentum quoddam capitis, quod cuculium dixerint. And see further mention here­of in Zozomen. l. 3. c. 13. ante med. and in Ambrose serm. 94. who mentioneth their cowl and leather girdle.cowl, Ambrose ut supra, and in the Centurists cent. 4. col. 472. is mentioned out of Zozomen, Zona prae­terea circa lumbos.girdle, and other religiousIn the Centurists cent. 4. col. 472. line 49. it is said, Tiaris laneis capita tegunt, quas purpureis maculis veluti punctis obsignari praecepit. and in Zozomen. hist. l. 3. c. 13. ante med. is mentioned their humera­le. And see further Hierom Ep. 4. ad Rust cum monachum. Cassianus l. 1. de institut. Caenoblorum, and Gregory l. 2. dialog. c. 1.habit; their undoubted and greatCentur. 4. col. 493. line 18. it is thus confessed, Fuerunt inter Monachos seu Eremitas hac ae­tate, Viri donis miraculorum celebres, ut Antonius, ejusque discipuli Macha­rius, Isidorus, Heraclides, &c. And see centur. 4. col. 1445. line 3. & col. 493. line 18. And see hereafter an the fourth Consideration num. 2. at 1. in the margent.miracles, theCent. 4. col. 467. line 27. it is said, Basilium in Ponti Vrbibus Monaste­ria construere, & Virgines castitatem vovere instituisse Ruffinus narrat l. 2. cap. 9. and ibidem line 48. it is said concerning the Virgins of Europe, Virginitatis vo­tum apud eum sexum commune fuisse Ambrosius indicat. And see yet further mention of vowed Virgins ibidem line 8. And col. 706. line 57. & col. 483. line 25. & col. 487. line 49. & col. 301. line 1. & 54. and for former times see Cen­tur. 3. col. 140. line 27. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 23. initio. at p. and also see heretofore in the beginning of this Consideration num. 1.vowed chastity of Virgins, See centur. 4. col. 467. i [...]e 7. under the title there, De Monasteriis Virginum at line 28, & 36. & col. 476. line 34 & col. 1335. line 58. & col. 1337. line 11. and Osiander in his epitom. cent. 4. pag. 507. initio, & pag. 503. fine.Monasteries of Virgins, Osiander in epitom. cent. 4. pag. 503. fine saith, Trium (Monasteriorum) quae Virginum erant Paula fuit Gubernatrix; and hereof see the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1335. line 38. Also the Centurists cent. 4. col. 125. line 30. give like instance in Publia saying, Erat in eadem urbe Publia nobilissima faemina caetus Virgi­num quae castitatem profitebantur magistra. And see Theodoret l. 3. c. 17. pro­pe initium.a woman Governess of professed Virgins, their Centur. 4. col. 468. line 18. saith, Potest ex codem libro a­nimadverti quae ratio tum fuerit velandi Virgines, primum enim velabantur in templo ad altare in die Paschae solemni conventu candelis accensis, &c. and see there line 27. & col. 867. line 2. Before these times Tertullian wrote a treatise de velandis Virginibus.Veil, Of womens religious habit see centur. 4. col. 874. line 28. & col. 879. line 37. and see Palladius in historia Lausaica cap. 41. Hieron. Epist. 15. ad Marcellam, & Ep. 22. ad Eustochium de Virginit. and in vita Hilarionis, and Concil. 4. Carth. can. 11. & 104.religious habit, and specially [Page 307]Consecration of Vir­gins is in plain tearms men­tioned centur. 4. col. 865. line 44. & col. 869. line 15. & col. 874. line 27. And Ambrose l. 3. de Virginibus saith, dicite quantas Ale­xandrina totiusque Orien­tis & Africanae Ecclesiae quotannis consecrare consu­everint, pauciores hic homi­nes prodeunt, quam illic Virgines consecrantur.consecration. The likeCentur. 4. col. 466. line 42. under the title there, De consecratione Monachi.con­secration of Monks, andConcil. Chalcedon can. 24. saith, Quae semel consecrata fuerint monaste­ria cum judicio sui Episco­pi, maneant perpetua, &c. nec ulterius posse ea fieri saecularia habitacula decre­vimus. See this Council men­tioned and commended Cent. 4. col. 855. line 1. & col. 667. line 18. & col. 515. line 1.Mona­nasteries: also with the Centur. 4. col. 453. line 29. it is said, Nuptias celebrari in Quadragesima Concilium Lao­dicenum interdixit, can. 52. and see col. 837. line 33.forbid­ding of marriage in Lent, withCentur. 4. col. 441. under the title de Quadragesima line 55. it is said, Jejunatum esse à carnibus & vino indicat Nyssenus, and see col. 837. line 25. and see heretofore in this Con­sideration num 11.the fast of Lent from flesh, and withCentur. 4. col. 440. line 26. it is said, Jejunia obser­vasse, ac religiosius quidem seu superstitiosius quam superioribus saeculis hujus aetatis Christianos, historiae testantur.superstitious fasting, evenCent. 4. col. 440. line 39. it is said, Epiphanius haer. 75. Jejunium feriae quartae & sextae seu prosabbato in om­nium Orbis terrarum regionibus in Ecclesia constitutum esse asserit usque ad horam nonam, ejusque constitutionis authoritatem ad Apostolos refert.in all Nations upon Wednesday and Fri­day; with exception nevertheless to be exempted then, as now,Cent. 4. col. 440. line 51. it is said, Diem Natalis Domini à jejunio libe­rum haberi, etiam si in quartum aut prosabbatum incidat.if they light upon Chrismas day; withCentur. 4. col. 453. line 33. & col. 874. line 37. & col. 482. line 28. and see Concil. 4. Carth. can. 13.the Priests blessing of the Bride and Bridegroom after marriage; withCent. 4. col. 453. line 48. it is said, Ritus & ceremo­niae funebres hoc saeculo (superstitione crescente) rum ex Ethnicismo, tum Ju­daismo cumulatae sunt.superstitious funer alrites and ce­remonies, asCentur. 4. col. 454. line 13. & line 23. and line 28. it is said, Sole bant & caerei praeferri suneri inter deducendum, &c. And Sacerdotes lampades caereosque praetulerunt suneri.lighted tapers, Cent. 4. col. 455. line 14.covering the grave with flowers, Col. 455. line 26. it is said, Celebris ob desuncti memoriam suit dies quadregesimus post obitum; and the Centurists Cent. 3. col. 138. line 57. do out of the age before allege Tertullian saying, Oblationes pro desunctis pro Natalitiis annua die facimus, we make oblations for the dead and for the birth (of Martyrs) upon their years day: And see Centur. 3. col. 139. line 4. and here­of see Bristows reply to Fulk Printed 1580. pag. 54.myning days, Centurists cent. 4. col. 454. line 26. it is said, Turba frequens omnis generis hominum secuta est, ac preces cum fletu pro anima Imperatoris fudit. And see the like col. 456. line 24. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 4. at 2, 3, 4, 5. &c.Prayer for the Soul of the dead party, affirmed in those [Page 308]times[74] See this confessed here­tofore in this Consideration num. 4. at k.from Apostolick tradition. Also with special appointment of(75) Centur. 4. col. 432. line 13. it is said, vultu con­verso ad Orientem Christia­nos orasse author est Basilius de Spik. Sancto c. 27. See many other testimonies there­of there alleged.prayer towards the East; and to(76) Cent. 4. col. 432. line 58. & col. 433. line 8. & col. 663. line 8. and see centur. 3. col. 135. line 4. and see Osiander in Epitom. Cent. 4. pag. 131. circa med.pray standing upon the Lords day, at Pentecost, and Easter, with(77) Centur. 4. col. 433. line 28. and see these Canonical howrs consessed also for the age before cent. 3. col. 134. line 45.Ca­nonical howrs,Centur. 4. col. 459. line 18. it is said, Quin & de nocte ad preces surrexerunt. And see col. 411. line 52. & col. 434. line 24.Rising in the night to prayer; withHere­of see centur. 4. col. 433. line 42. & 53.set form of pray­er, andSee Litanies mentioned cent. 4. col. 433. line 43. & col. 414. line 1. & col. 411. line 39.Litanies; whereunto might be added example also even of saying orCent. 4. col. 1329. line 24. & O siander in Epitom. cent. 4. pag. 454. and Zozomen hist. l. 6. c. 29. post med. reporteth the matter, saying of Paul the Monk; In dies singu­los trecentas orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam reddidit, ac, ne per im­prudentiam in numero erraret, trocentis lapillis in sinum conjectis, ad singulas preces, singulos inde ejecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabat sibi o­rationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse. And see other like examples of saying prayers by accompt or numbring of them in Palladius his historia Lausaica cap. 24. & cap. 51.numbring prayers upon little stones (or Beads;) also with Master Fulk against Hoskins, Sanders, &c. pag. 657. circa med. affirmeth, that by report of Paulinus, the Cross was by the Bishop of Hierusalem brought forth at Easter (yourly) to be worshipped of the people. See this report of Paulinus further confessed by Master Perkins in his problem, &c. pag. 83. post med. And see Evagrius hist. l. 4. c. 25. Also Danaeus in primae partis altera parte ad Bellarminum 5. Controvers. responsione pag. 1415. initio affirmeth, that Cyril and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious and blinded with this inchantment of the Crosses adoration. And see in the beginning of this num. 23. at x.worshipping of the Cross, [Page 309]withAmbrosius multa commemorat superstitiosa de Cruce inventa. Centur. 4. col. 302. line 1 & 13. it is said, Ephrem crucis signa­tioni nimium videtur tri­buere. And Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, &c. pag. 657. circa med. affirmeth that Ruffinus and Cyril had a superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross. and Cent. 4. col. 459. line 31. it is said, Ad omnem inces­sum crucis sig no frontem confignarunt. And concerning the Century or age before, the Centurists cent. 3. col. 121. line 52. say, Crucis imaginem seu in locis pub­licorum congressuum, s [...]u domi privatim Christianos habuisse, indicare videtur Tertullianus. And see col. 240. line 57.superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross, withOsiander in Epitom. cent. 4. &c. 326. ante med. saith, Julianus metu percussus ilico ex consuetudine Chri­stianismi, frontem cruce signat, ibi daemones subitò disparent.signing the forehead therewith, with attribu­ting to itMaster Burges in his words extant in Mr. Covels brief answer to the said Burges pag. 130. ante med. saith of the Fathers opinion of the Cross (with exception only to the point of adoration touched next heretofore at 80.) that there is nothing ascribed to the Cross in or out of Baptism by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply ingaged in the same; so as if we will use it as the Fathers did, &c. we take the Soul to be fenced by crossing of the body, and the Cross to have ver­tue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witch-craft, &c. In proof whereof he doth allege there in his margent divers Fathers no less or more an­tient than the compass of this fourth Century; and see further there pag. 136. post med. And the Puritans in their short Treatise of the sign of the Cross, &c. Printed in 8. at Amsterdam by J. H. 1604. pag. 21. fine say, The Fathers delivered to us the sign of the Cross with an opinion of vertue and officacy; not only in the act of blessing our selves, and in the expelling of devils, but even in the conse­cration of the most blessed Sacraments, to which purpose they do there allege the special sayings of Tertullian, Hierom, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Austin. And see also the Centurists cent. 4. col. 302. line 11. & 27. & col. 1493. line 19. and Ter­tullian ad Vxorem l. 2. c. 5. Chrysostom in Matth. hom. 55. paulo post med. Austin de Sanctis serm. 19. & in Joan. tract. 118. fine, Lactantius l. 4. c. 27. Athanasius de incarnatione Verb [...], and de vita Antomii. Origen. hom. 6. in Exo­dum c. 15. Ignatius Epist. ad Philippenses.vertue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft, &c. and with undoubtedM. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. Burges pag. 138. paulo post med. saith concerning the antient times, 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, as being the instrument of many miracles. And see heretofore in this Consideration in the beginning of this num. at p. and see examples of such miracles in Theodoret hist. l. 5. c. 21. post med. And Epiphanius haer. 30. ante med. Hierom in vita Hilarionis versus fi­nem; and Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 1. fine. And Theodoret in his Theo­phil. c. 13. &c. 9. &c. 2. and Eusebius in orat. de laudibus Constantini ante med. after Christophersons translation, Printed Coloniae 1581. pag. 299. post med. & 300. post med.great miracles, which God hath wrought by it. In like manner with [Page 310]Cent. 4. col. 873. fine & col. 874. initio. and see these inferiour Orders men­tioned as yet much more an­tiently by Cornelius apud Eu­sebium hist. l. 6. cap. 35. and after Hanmers English tran­slation c. 42. and by Ignatius Scholar to St. John Ep. ad Antiochenses prope finem.Deacons, Sub-deacons, Acolytes, Exorcists, Readers, Door-keepers, and the specialCentur. 4. col. 873. fine & 874. initio. and see Con. 4. Carth. can. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.rites used in ordai­ning of them; with mention also of theCentur. 4. col. 435. line 2. say, Constitutiones Concilii Laodiceni Ordina­tiones judicio multitudi­nis fieri prohibuerunt. And after, Ac pro iis apud eum Episcopum, penes quem jus esset Ordinandi, preca­cabantur, quemadmodum ex Epistola quarta Basilii ad Gregorium, ejusdemque ad Caesariensis trigesima apparet. And cent. 4. col. 489. line 60. it is said, Or­dinatio Ministrorum propria erat Episcopi, &c.ordaining of Priests not by popular election (as the PuritansSee Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 192. post med. and 225. ante med. & 196. ante med. And see the use of the Kirk of Scotland Printed at Rochel. 1596.pretend) but by ordination from a Bishop, then, as now, givenHere­of see Leo Ep. 87. ad Epis. Africanos ante med. & Ep. 81. ad Dioscorum A­lexand.fa­sting, with the external sign ofCent. 4. col. 435. it is said, Recitat Theodoretus rursus & alios ritus, &c. ut genibus flexis ad sacram mensam assistere, & in frequenti populi conventu manus imponere, qui ritus inde usque ab Apostolis ipsis in om­nium locorum Ecclesiis diutissimè haesit.im­position of hands, conferring inwardTouching the Doctors of this age, Gregory Nyssen one of them (in orat. de S. Baptismate) saith of the party or­dained, that in regard of outward form, he is the fame he was, having his invi­sible soul changed into better by an invisible power and grace. And Ambrose in 1 Cor. c. 12. saith, In loco Ordinis officii Ecclesiastici pofitus gratiam habet, qualisvis sit, non utique propriam, sed ordinis per efficaciam Spiritus Sancti. And see further Ambrose [...] dignitate sacerdotali c. 4. and Austin in quaest. vet. & nov. Test. quaest. 93. See this grace given in Orders confessed by Mr. Hoo­ker in his Ecclesiastical policy lib. 5. sect. 77. pag. 230. prope finem, and by Mr. Bilson in his perpetual government of Christs Church pag. 109.grace. In respect whereof it was reputed forS. Au­stin tom. 7. contra Epist. Parmen. l. 2. c. 13. saith of Baptism and Orders, Si enim utrumque Sacramentum est, quod nemo dubitat (&c.) neutri Sacramen­to injuria facienda est. And again, V [...]umque enim Sacramentum est, & qua­dam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cum Baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur. This thus comparing it with Baptism, and referring the name of Sacra­ment to them both a like, argueth that St. Austin used the word Sacrament properly. And see further Austin de Baptismo contra Don. l. 1. c. 1. Also St. Cyprian (who lived before this fourth century) in serm. de ablut. pedum, initio, making mention (Baptismi & aliorum Sacramentorum, of Baptism and other Sacra­ments) reckoneth up withall in that accompt, sacros Ordines, holy Orders. In so much as Chemnitius in his examen. part. 2. pag. 7. b. post med. confesseth this authors answerable judgement thereof, and only evadeth in affirming this Sermon to be forged; an evasion confuted heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 7.a Sacrament, [Page 311]with further mention ofIn Pacianus Ep. 3. ad Simpronianum, the Priest is tearmed Vnctus Sacerdos. See this Vnction further men­tioned in Dionysius Areopa­gita de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. Eusebius hist. l. 10. c. 4. initio, after Christopher­sons version. And in Cypri­an serm. de chrismate initio, contemned therefore by Chem­nitius examen. part. 2. pag. 247. a. ante med. and in Gregory l. 4. in libros Re­gum cap. 5.the Priests unction; with like mention al­so in general ofCentur. 4. col. 504. line 7. it is said, Meminit A­thanasius Vestimentorum Ec­clesiasticorum, ornamento­rumque & utensilium.Ecclesiastical vestments, and in particular ofThe Albe is mentio­ned in cent. 4. col. 876. line 16. & in Chrysostom. ad Pop. hom. 60. & in Liturgia, & in Matth. hom. 83. And in Concil. 4 Carth. can. 41. & in Hierom. l. 1. adv. Pelag. c. 9.the Albe, Cent. 4. Col. 835 line 48. & 51. and see this Stole further mentioned in Concilio Aurelianensi can. 16. & in Concil. Laodicen. can. 22. & 23. & in Ambrose in orat. funebri de obitu fratris Satyri.the stole, (called Orarium) the Vestment calledThat this Dalmatica was in Cy­prians time, see Mr. Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 269. post med. and pag. 270. he allegeth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind; and see the same Vestment mentioned by the Author Quaestionum veteris ac novi Testam. quaest. 46. extant in St. Augu­stins works tom. 4. (that this Author lived before St. Austin see there quaest. 44.)Dalmatica, See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence pag. 268. and Mr. Whitgift ibid. pag. 269. initio, alleging Theodoret hist. l. 2. c. 27. paulo post initium.the golden Cope, and the Bishops See this in Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common places in English pag. 119. a. prope finem, and in Mr. Whitgift his defence, &c. pag. 264. paulo ante med. & 268. circa med. & pag. 269. paulo post med. he proveth Cyprian to have also worn the same.Pontifical plate or Myter, worn by St. John the Apostle. M. D. Rey­nolds confessing further, thatD. Reynolds in his conference pag. 598. post med, and concerning Ecclesiastical Vestments see further Eusebius hist. l. 10. c. 4. initio.in the Liturgies which bear the names of Basil and Chrysostom, are (likewise) mentioned the amice, the girdle, the chisible, and the fannel: with teaching [Page 312]thatCentur. 4. col. 616. line 1. it is alleged out of the Council of Neocaesarea can. 1. Praesbyter si uxorem duxe­rit ab ordine suo illum de­poni debere. And see the same further confessed cent. 4. col. 486. line. 58. & col. 303. line 18. & col. 704. line 21. & col. 1293. line 5. & 17. and see heretofore in the begin­ning of this Consideration num. 1. at g. h. &c. and heretofore in this Considerati­on num. 2. in the margent at f. g. h. i.Priests might not marry after Orders taken; thatCent. 4. col. 847. line 47. saith, it was decreed, bigamis ordinationem ad sacerdotium non esse conferendam, and see the like in Centur. 4. col. 303. line 10. & col. 877. line 40. & col. 1293. line 25. also Ma­ster Fulk in his Retentive against Bristow, and discovery of Sanders rock pag. 164. initio granteth that he which had had two Wives could not be a Priest in Hieroms time; and see this confessed also for the Century or age before in cent. 3. col. 85. line 60. & col. 86. line 7. and by Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 509. post med.Biga­mus (or he that hath been twice married) may not be Priest, withCentur. 4. col. 497. line 50.sumptuous Churches consecra­ted, and superstitious insolency in ce­lebrating of Mass, appointed to be said in no places but such as were hallowed by a Bishop; with denyal ofCent. 4. col. 549. line 28. it is said, Intempestivè etiam sibi Imperatores interdum judicium de causis fidei sumebant, quod Athanasius in Constantio reprehendit, & Ambro­sius in Valentiniano, &c. and Athanasius in Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes allegeth Osius saying to Constantius the Emperour; desine quaeso & memineris te mortalem esse, reformida diem judicii, serva te in illam diem purum, ne te mis­ [...]as Ecclesiasticis, neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potiùs ea à nobis dis­ce: tibi Deus imperium, quae sunt Ecclesiae nobis concredidit, &c. cave ne, quae sunt Ecclesiae ad te trahens, magno crimini obnoxius fias, &c. And again in the same place; Quis enim videns eum in decernendo principem se facere E­piscoporum, & praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis, non meritò dicat illam eam ip­sam abominationem desolationis effe, quae à Daniele praedicta est. And see the like judgement of Ambrose Epist. 32. post med. & 33. circa med. And Master Cartwright to this purpose alleging the same in Mr. Whitgifts defence, &c. pag. 700. initio, and see the like further in Zozomen hist. l. 6. c. 7. initio, and in Concil. 3. Carth. can. 9.au­thority to the Emperour in Ecclesiasti­cal causes; with affirmingCentur. 4. col. 515. line 30. saith, Hilarius minùs commodè de Petro Apostolo loquitur, quod aedificationi Ecclesiae subjacet, & sit ejus fundamentum; and col. 557. line 45. saith, Hieronymus minùs commo­dè loquitur de Petro, quod Dominus super cum fundaverit Ecclesiam. And see the like out of Nazianzen Cent. 4. col. 558. line 54. and see further col. 1250. line 2. And see this more evidently as yet in the much more antient Fathers, namely Tertullian, Cyprian & Origen heretofore confessed in this Consideration num. 10. initio, at 8, 9, 10.the Church to be built upon Peter; and [Page 313]further teaching ofSee the assertion of Peters Primacy confes­sed in sundry Fathers of this age cent. 4. col. 556. line 15. & col. 551. line 31. & col. 1074 line 13. and the same more fully heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 5, 6, 7, 12.Peters Pri­macy, and with deducing the sameThe Centurists Cent. 5. col. 1274. line 32. charge Gelasius who lived anno 480. saying, Romanam Ecclesiam jure divino contendit (Gelasius) [...]ffe omnium primam, in Ep. ad Brut. &c. cap. 11. And Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis initio saith, Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis constitutis caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelica voce Domini Primatum obtinuit, Tu es Petrus, inquiens, & super hanc petram, &c.jure divino from Peter to his Brereley in his Omissions (&c.) of pag. 295. saith, Bucer in praeparatoriisad Concilium saith, We plainly confess, that a­mong the antient Fathers of the Church, the Roman Church obteined the Primacy above others, as that which hath the Chair of Peter, and whose Bishops almost alwaies have been accounted the Successours of Peter. And Osiander cent. 4. pag. 294. circa med. speaking of the Council of Sardis de­creeing appeals to Rome, professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof, saying, Inveteratus, communis, & de manu traditus fuit er­ror, quod Petrus fuerit Romae primus Episcopus, ideo hunc honorem haben­dum censuit successori Petri, juxta communem opinionem, &c. And St. Chry­sostom l. 2. de Sacerdotio cap. 1. affirmeth, that Peter was the head of the Apostles, and preferred before the other Apostles, saying further in the same place; why did Christ shed his own bloud, but to purchase those sheep, the charge whereof he committed to Peter and his Successors? In like manner concerning St. Leo (being one of those Fathers to whom Mr. Jewel in his pub­lick chalenge appealed) the Century writers Cent. 5. col. 1262. line 30. con­fess of him saying, Leo very painfully goeth about to prove that singular prae­eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church; and see no less confessed of Leo by Master Reynolds in his conference pag. 42. & 43. And see Mr. Fulk his testimony of the other Fathers like judgement heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 22. Also that Peters Primacy was thought to descend or come to the Bishop of Rome, is in like-manner yet further affirmed by sundry other Fathers cited heretofore in this Consideration num. 16. in the margent at 45. in so much as from this Pri­macy thus attributed to the Apostle, Damasus (alleged by Theodoret hist. l. 5. cap. 10.) did (as the Censurists cent. 4. col. 351. line 37. do confess and re­prove) commend his Children the Bishops of the East for their due reverence done to the Apostolick Sea; And Concil. Melinitanum in Epist. ad Inno­centium Papam (apud Aug. Ep. 92.) saith to Innocentius; Quia te Domi­nus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit, &c. arbitra­mur authoritati Sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate de­promptae, facilius cos esse cessuros. And see also the Centurists cent. 5. col. 775. line 13. where it is said, Galla Placidia in Epist. ad Pulcheriam, & Valenti­nianus in Epist. ad Theodosium nimium Romano Episcopo propter beatum Petrum & Vrbis amplitudinem tribuunt. And see Mr. Fulks retentive, &c. pag. 285. fine.successour the Bishop of Rome, whose Episcopal Sea the antient Fa­thers [Page 314]therefore tearmedProsper de in­gratis cap. 2. saith, Sedes Roma Petri quae Pasto­ralis honoris facta caput mundo. A saying so plain that Danaeus therefore tearmeth Prosper the Popes Parasite, and this his saying false, in res­pons. ad Bellarm. part. 1. pag. 594. circa med. And Mr. Fulk in his retentive, &c. pag. 278. paulo ante med. tearmeth Prosper (over partial to the Sea of Rome,) & S. Austin in Psalm. contra partem Donati saith, Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa Petri sede, &c. ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. And see the words of Leo heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 45. and Petrus Chry­sologus in Epistola ad Eutichem saith, Hortamur te, frater honorabilis, ut his quae à beatissimo Papa Romanae Civitatis praescripta sunt, obedienter at­tendas, quoniam beatus Petrus qui in propria sede vivit & praesidet, prae­stat quaerentibus fidei veritatem.Peters Sea, andSee the Centurists herein charging and reprehending the antient Father St. Cyprian heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 87. and Hierom. Ep. 57. to Pope Damasus saith, Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae, in est, Cathedrae Petri, commune consocior; super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, qui­cunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est, (&c.) Quicun­que tecum non colligit, spargit. And Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatist. saith, Negari non potest scire te in Vrbe Roma, Petro primò Cathedram Episco­palem collatam esse, in qua sederit omnium Ayostolorum caput Petrus, unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret, ergo Cathedra unica est, &c. And again, Igitur de dotibus supradictis cathedra est prima, quam probavimus per Petium nostram esse. And St. Austin Epist. 162. propè initium saith, In Ecclesia Romana semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus. And see the saying of Julius alleged heretofore in this Con­sideration num. 10. at † next before 79.Peters Chair, honou­ring the same above other with a pe­culiarSee this heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 14.festival day. And de­creeing even publickThe Council called Vasense can. 6. saith, In omnibus Missis, &c. & hoc nobis justum visum est, ut nomen Do­mini Papae quicunque sedi Apostolicae praefuerit, in nostris Ecclesiis recite­r [...]r. This is acknowledged and reproved by the Centurists Cent. 5. col. 775. line 7. This Council was so antient that the second Canon thereof is cited under the name of this Council in the 2. Council of Arles can. 28. as it is recited by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 706. line 34.prayer to be made for the Pope in Mass time: [Page 315]And lastly with sundry noted exam­ples of confessedSee these exam­ples heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 56, 57, 58. and so fore­ward till 79.Primacy in the Bishop of Rome. In so much as cer­tain Protestant writers (being asha­med over grosly to dissemble in such and so manifest evidence of particu­lars) doubt not therefore to deal plainly with us herein, affirming that Helen Mother to Constantine was Centur. 4. col. 458. line 5.a superstitious woman, and the visible Church in his timeApud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 4. post med. at q. r. s. t. in the text and margent Mr. Napper in his treatise up­on the Revelations pag. 43. versus finem, affir­meth that the Popes King­dom hath had power o­ver all Christians from the time of Pope Silve­ster and the Emperour Constantine, for these thousand two hundred and sixty years: and pag. 145. col. 3. fine he affirmeth, that from the time of Constan­tine, untill these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. And pag. 68. versus fi­nem he affirmeth, that also between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Anti­christian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction 1260. years, saying pag. 191. initio, Gods true Church most certainly abiding so long latent, and invisible. And see the further confession of others heretofore in this Consideration num. 23. at 4, 5, 6. next after c. and at * next after f. In so much as Mr. William Leigh the Prin­ces Chaplain, in his great Britains great delivery, &c. Printed 1606. B. 2. af­firmeth accordingly, that the Popes ever since the first 300. years after Christ (which conteineth the time now in question) have been Devils. And Szegedine in loc. Commun. pag. 397. circa med. saith of Silvester, Marcus, Julius, &c. who were Bishops of Rome living in Constantines time, that they were mitrati Episcopi, qu [...] etsi non pessimi fuerunt, traditionibus tamen suis ac decre­tis, Antichristo magno sedem paraverunt. And Brerely in his Omissions (&c.) of pag. 297. saith, As also Mr. Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow pag. 2. circa med. saith, I never meant to acknowledge the Emperors Constantine, Jo­vinian, Valentinian, &c. to be such as I would wish for: for both in their Religion and manners divers things are found which I would wish had been more agreeable to the word of God.An­tichristian and Papistical; whereupon [Page 316]we doubt not in behalf of our whole Religion, to say now to our Ad­versaries, as did your Majesty to the Puritans in defence of the Cross in Baptism used in Constantines time:In the sum of the Conference before his Ma­jesty with the Bishops and other of his Cleargy pag. 69, post med.Is it now come to that pass, that we shall appeach Constantine of su­perstition? If then it were used, I see no reason but that still we may conti­nue it. And to your most excellent Majesty we only crave humble leave to say, as did the Centurists in this case to Queen Elizabeth;The Centurists in their Epistle Dedicatory to Queen Elizabeth pro­pe finem set before their fourth Century.To your Majesty this labour seemeth due, as describing that age wherein Con­stantine the great deserved best of the universal Church of Christ; for which he hath received eternal memory, And whereas (according to histories) he was born in Britain, and of Bri­tish Progeny, and governed that King­dom with great piety and vertue, he now returneth to your Highness, represen­ting to you that State of the Church which in his time illustrated the whole world with the splendour thereof. That man must needs have an iron heart, which is not moved with the godly, succesful, and laudable pro­ceedings of his Ancestors. Seeing therefore your Majesty is adorned with all good learning, we doubt not, but [Page 317]that Constantines Ecclesiastical histo­ry shall be to your Highness most plea­sant and grateful, &c.

24. Pu. Now good Reader, out of the foresaid Premises, that the antient holy Fathers are even by Protestants themselves confessed to stand for us, thou canst not but con­clude, First, That either our Doctrines do not exclude Salva­tion, or else that all those whom even Prostestants stile Holy, and Antient, and acknowledge them to be Saints in Heaven, were in­capable of Salvation, which to affirm is no less than most temera­rious and cruel blasphemy, imply­ing that our Blessed Saviour had no true Church on earth when Luther appeared, and that Gentiles were converted to Christian Religion from Paganism and worship of false Gods, with no better effect than to be damned.

25. Secondly, That no man who hath care of his soul will not judge, that for interpreting Scripture, and in matters of Faith, more credit is to be given to the Fathers, who were so neer, yea who were of the Pri­mitive Church, and holy, mortify­ed, and induced with all dispositions [Page 318]making them capable of Gods holy impressions and inspirations, than to Luther, and other Novellists appea­ring so lately for time, and for do­ctrine and manners teaching and living so carnally and wickedly, as Protestants cannot dissemble it (as hath been proved in the first Consi­deration) and consequently more o­pen to receive the suggestions of Satan, than the motions of the Ho-Ghost.

26. Thirdly, that if Luther and his followers could not have been excu­sed from Heresie and Schism, if they had lived in those antient days, and had opposed the Doctrine, and for­saken the Communion of those Fa­thers; so neither can they avoid the just imputation of Heresie and Schism, in opposing the Doctrine, and aban­doning the Communion of us Ca­tholicks, who are confessed to agree with the Fathers, and antient Chri­stians of those times.

27. Fourthly, that in a word, we cannot but be safe, since our very Adversaries confess that we agree with those (holy Fathers) whom they confess to be saved.

28. Fiftly, that this our agreement with Antiquity, and of Antiquity with [Page 319]Truth, is so manifest and forcible, that among all the chief points wher­in Protestants do disagree from us, there is not any one of moment, wherein divers chief learned Prote­stants do not agree with us against their pretended Brethren; so that by the confession of all sides, if either Antient Fathers or modern Secta­ries cannot be saved, we are se­cure.

And that this agreement of Pro­testants with us is truly affirmed by me, the Reader will find evidently proved in the next Consideration.

THE THIRD CONSIDERATION.
Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion against their Protestant Brethren.

BRereley tract. 3. sect. 7. saith, The sundry Articles of our Catholick Faith, defended, and that most ear­nestly, against the other opinions of our learned Adversaries, by sun­dry of their own no less learned Brethren, and all this by either party, upon preten­ded certainty from the Scriptures, are many, known and evident, as may appear by the seventy, and a­bove, examples thereof, here particularly alleged.

1 First, as concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth, it is affirmed by Luther, and Lutherans; and contradi­cted for Popish, by Calvin and his followers.

Secondly, the Reall presence not only of the efficacy of Christs body, but also of the body it self, after a wonderfull and incomprehensible [Page 302]manner, to the mouth of Faith, is affirmed by Cal­vin Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 7. & 10. & 32. by Mr. Rider in his friendly Caveat &c. the third leaf a. circa med. And by Mr D. Whittaker contra Du­raeum pag. 169. by the confession of Belgia in the English Harmony pag. 431. By Bucer in Script: An­glican. pag. 548. post med. & 549. And by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174. circa medium, & pag. 177 post med. & vide Apolog. modest. ad acta conventus quinde­cim Theolog. Torgae nuper habit. &c. pag. 19. & pag. 13. initio & 23 & 47. And contradicted as inclining to Popery (to omit the known Doctrine of Oecolampadius and Zuinglius) whereof see Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174. ante med. & Lavat. in Hist. Sacramentar. pag. 4. & Calvin in libello de Coen. Dom. versus finem, extant in Calvin's tract. Theolog. pag. 12. a. & Schlusselburg in Theol. Cal­vinist. l. 1. fol. 78. b. & 82. b. by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common-places in English pag. 107. b. Ep. 25. & ibidem pag. 98. a. & pag. 108. a. for which Bucer in his Scripta An­glicana pag. 548. post med. & 549, ante & post medium reproveth Peter Martyr. Also by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena, by Szegedine in loc. commun. pag. 182. at 12. & 15. and by our English Puritans in their Christian letter to M. R. Hooker pag. 35. paulo post medium, and by certain French Protestants mentioned by Hospinian in hist. Sacramt. par. altera fol. 344. a. post. med. & b. initio. And by others mentioned by Mr. Rogers in his Catholick Do­ctrine &c. pag. 176. circa med. And by Ludevi­cus Alemannus in positionibus apud Lugdunenses e­ditis [Page 303]Anno 1566. who said hereof, neque etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, ut vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat appertis­simè Dei Verbo: of whose opinion see further Be­za Epist. 5.

Thirdly, that Sacraments do not only signifie, but also confer Grace, is affirmed by Osiander in Enchirid. Controversiarum quas Augustanae Con­fess. Theol. habent cum Calvinianis pag. 272 post me­dium, & in Epitom. Histor. Eccles. &c. centur. 16 pag. 527.529.531. & 538. by Jacob. Andraeas in Epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 58. prope initi­um, & pag. 42, initio, and by M. D. Bilson in his true difference &c. part. 4. pag. 539. ante med. and 592. post medium, & 368, post medium. by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect. 57. pag. 127, & 128. and by M. D. Whittaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 662. paulo ante medium. & 664. post medium, & Melancthon in c. 4. Ep. ad Rom. after the first Edition saith, Repudienda est Zuin­glii opinio, qui tantum civili modo judicat de signis, scilicet Sacramenta tantum notas esse professionis &c. apud Ulembergium causa 20. pag, 697. And contradicted for Popish, by the Survey of the book of Common prayer, pag. 103 & 104. by Mr. Wil­let in his Synopsis pag. 415 ante med. and he repro­veth some Protestants herein in his meditation upon the 122 Psalm pag. 92 ante med. And by Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 35, and many others.

Fourthly, that the Church must continue visi­ble, is affirmed by Melancthon and sundry others, alleged in Brerely tract. 2, c. 2. sect. 1 post medium [Page 304]at d. e. f. g. in the margent, where at d. Bartholo­maeus Kekermannus in System. Theolog. pag. 408. ini­tio, saith, Novi Testamenti Ecclesia ratione notarum et formae externae, semper debet esse sensibilis seu con­spicua, ut nimirum reliquae Gentes, quae adhuc extra Ecclesiam sunt, scire possint cuinam Ecclesiae sese de­beant aggregare, id quod de Ecclesia Novi Testamenti Esay c. 61. ab initio magnific is verbis praedixit. And Hiperius in Method. Theolog. pag. 552. prope finem saith, Profectò nisi signa haec extarent, ac vera Ec­clesia sensibus deprehenderetur, qui scire possit homo cuinam coetui salutis consequendae ergo adhaerendum sibi foret. And Peter Martyr in his Epistles annex­ed to his Common-places in English pag. 153. a. circa medium, reporting certain points wherein he professeth to agree with us Catholicks, saith, We also do not appoint an invisible Church, but do define Congregations, unto which the faithfull may know that they may safely adjoyn themselves: affirming further a little there before, that this opinion is (saith he) cōmon with us to Catholicks. Ibid. at e. M. Henoch Clapham, in his soveraign remedy against Schism pag. 18, after many proofs alleged by him from the Scriptures and otherwise, concludeth saying: Not only all Antients ever hold the Churches ever vi­fibility, but also all learned men of our age. Also Mr Field l. 1. of the Church, c. 10. pag. 19. ante med. saith: The persons of them of whom the Church con­sisteth, are visible, their profession known, even to the prophane and wicked of the world, and in this sort the Church cannot be invisible &c. (with much more very plainly in that behalf.) And pag. 21. circa medium, he further saith, It is true that Bel­larmine [Page 305] laboureth in vain, in proving that there is and allwaies hath been, a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry, or use of Sacraments, for all this we do most willingly yield unto, howsoever perhaps some few have been of opinion, that &c. In like full manner is the Churches visibility affirmed from the Scriptures, as well by Melancthon in locis commu. edit. 1561. c. de Ecclesia, pag. 354. initio saying, Quotiescun (que) de Ecclesia cogitamus &c. ibidem in Brereley at 6. When­soever we think of the Church, let us behold the company of such men as are gathered together, which is the visible Church: neither let us dream that the Elect of God are to be found in any o­ther place than in this visible Society, &c. Neither let us imagin of any other visible Church &c. But let us know that the Ministry of the Gospell must be publick &c. And having then alleged sundry Texts of Scripture in behalf of the Churches ever visibility, he concludeth saying, Hi & similes loci non de Idea Platonica, sed de visi­bili Ecclesia loquuntur. And see there pag. 360. post med. And see Melancthon further in Praefat. l. corp. Doctrinae Christianae in Ecclesi is Saxon. & Misni­sis Elector is Saxon. impress. Lip. Anno 1561. And in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 512. & part. 2. pag. 201. & 394. As also by D. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 240. where he saith, Declaratum est, nos Ecclesiam non in aëre collocare, sed in terra, nos Ecclesiam confiteri esse oppidum supra montem positum, quod abscondi non potest, Matth. 5. montem excelsum Domus Dei, cunctis collibus editiorem, ad quem omnes Gentes confluent, Esay 2. &c. cur ergo [Page 306]anxiè & curiosè probant, quod est à nobis nunquam negatum &c? (And ibidem pag. 241. initio he saith) visibilis est propter exercitia pietatis, quae vi­dentur ab omnibus in Ecclesia, nam dum ministri do­cent, alii discunt, illi Sacramenta administrant, hi communicant &c. qui ista non videt, talpa est caecior, visibilis est, quia notae sunt insignes & conspicuae &c. and pag. 242. initio, he saith, non enim clancularii secessus &c. convocationes sunt Christianae. Secret aboads are not the Christian convocation &c. because this communion of Saints is an open testi­fication of Christianity. ibid. in Brerely at b. And pag. 281. fine, affirmeth concerneth the Church militant (which is the only point in question) Opor­tere Ecclesiam esse conspicuam, conclusionem esse cla­rissimam. And ibidem in Brerely under 6. fine, Ju­stus Molitor in his Treatise de Ecclesia militante &c. contra Bellarmin. pag. 36. sect. 4. saith, Haec invisibilis Ecclesia electorum in illa nempe visibili Ecclesia latet, & extra [...]eam nec inveniri potest, si­cut rectè dicitur extra Ecclesiam (nempe visibilem) non est salus &c. And see further there, pag. 38. sect. 10. Ibidem in Brereley at 5. Calvin. l. 4. Instit. c. 1. sect. 4 saith, Verum quia nunc de visibili Ec­clesia disserere propositum est, discamus vel uno ma­tris elogio, quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio, imò ne­cessaria, quando non alius est in vitam ingressus, nisi nos ipsa concipiat utero, nisi pareat, nisi (&c.) de­nique sub custodia & gubernatione sua nos tueatur, do­nec exuti carne mortali &c. Adde quod extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio. Ibi­dem in Brereley at f. Melancthon in concill. Theol. part. 2 saith, Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Eccle­siam [Page 307]&c. quo spectat haec portentosa oratio, quae negat esse ullam visibilem Ecclesiam? pag. 393. fine, & 394 initio. Lastly ibidem in Brereley at g. M. Henoch Clapham in his Soveraign Remedy against Schism pag. 17. post medium, saith: contrary to all Scrip­tures they do affirm that there hath been no vi­sibility of the Church for former hundred of years, which position is against Psalm 72.3.17 Esay 59.21. Matt. 2.24.26. Whereupon M. He­noch Clapham in his Soveraign Remedy against Schism pag. 23. post medium saith, Our Saviour forbids going out unto such desert and corner-Gospells Mat. 24.23, 24, 26. and St. Augustine tom. 4. quaest. Evang. l. 1 quaest. 38 saith accordingly: Constituta ergo authoritate Ecclesiae per orbem terrarum clara atque manifesta, consequenter Discipulos admonet, & qui in eum credere voluerint, ne schismaticis atque haereticis credant: unumquodque enim schisma & u­naquaeque haeresis aut locum suum habet in orbe ter­rarum partem aliquam retinens, aut obscuris atque occultis conventiculis curiositatem hominum decipit. Ad quod pertinet quod ait, Si quis vobis dixerit, ecce hic est Christus aut illic, quod significat terrarum partes & provinciarum, aut in penetralibus, aut in deserto, quod significat obscura & occulta conventicula haereticorum &c. And see him further contra Fau­stum Manich. l. 13. c. 13. Notwithstanding this Doctrine is contradicted for Popish by M. D. Fulk in the Tower-Disputation with Edm. Camp. the se­cond dayes Conference, by M. Willet in his Sy­nopsis pag. 48 circa medium, and many others.

Fiftly, as concerning the necessitity of good works to salvation it is affirmed by M. Willet in [Page 308]his Tetrastylon Papismi pag. 90. fine, and by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 2 Pet. 2. sect. 3. fol. 444. a. post med. and by Mr. Whitaker against M. Reynolds pag. 350 post med. and contradicted for new Papistry as pernitious as the old, by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others; Whereof see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. & 231. b. & 324. a. & 382. b. fine. & Acta Colloquii Aldebur­gensis pag. 5. & 7. & 151. initio, and in Brereley tra. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. at k, l, m, o, p.

6 Sixtly, concerning Evangelicall Counsells, viz. that a man may do more than (de facto) he is com­manded, is affirmed for most clear by M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140. post med. and l. 2. pag. 103. & 122. post medium, by D. Covell in his defence of M. Hooker art. 8. pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. by Luther in assertionibus art. 30. and others. And contradicted for Popish by Mr. Willet (particularly reproving M. Hooker for this and other like Catholike Opinions) in his medi­tations upon Psalm 122. pag. 91. post med. By Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholick pag. 241. and many others.

7 Seventhly, as concerning the Doctrine of Uni­versality of Grace, and that Christ died for all, is affirmed by Zuinglius in l. Epistol. Oecolampadii & Zuinglii l. 1. pag. 274. circa med. By Hemingius Enchirid. Class. 3. pag. 220, 221. and l. de universali Gratia, by Hiperius in Method. Theolog. l. 2. pag. 431, 435, 436. by Snecanus in Method. descrip. 430. by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity l. 5. pag. 104. by Bullinger upon the Apocalyps in Eng­lish fol. 79. b [...]initio. by Mr. Gibbons in his Questi­ons [Page 309]upon Gensis pag. 108. circa med. by Mr. Smith in his Treatise of prayer in generall for all man­kind &c. and (besides the Lutherans) by very many other learned Calvinists, alleged by Huberus in his Theses &c. pag. 159, & 163, & 164, & 166, & 167, & 168. And contradicted for popish by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis of Anno 1600, pag. 789, circa medium, and 808, post initium. And by Be­za, Calvin, Knox &c. in whole Treatises.

8 Eighthly, that God doth permit or suffer sin, and not will or decree the same, is affirmed by the Book intituled Corpus Doctrinae &c. printed 1561, in folio. pag. 618. fine, and by Jacobus Andraeas in epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 47, 49, & 53. By Hemingius l. de universali Gratia, and almost all the Lutherans, and (of the Calvinists) by A­mandus Polanus in partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 75, 76. & 10, 11, 12. by Snecanus in Method. descript. pag. 621, 622, & 645, 650. by Bullinger in his Decads Englished, pag. 492, 493, 494. by Castalio in l. ad Calvinum de Praedestinat. by Melancthon in loc. commun. de causa peccati & contingent. and in libro de Consil. Theolog. part. 2. pag. 111, & 112. by M. Gibbons in his questions upon Genesis pag. 108. circa med. And contradicted for Popish, by Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 4. sect. 3, 4, & 5. & l. 1. c. 18. sect. 1. & l. 3. c. 23. sect. 8. By D. Baro in his Treatise of Gods Providence c. 4. paulo ante med. by Aretius loc. commun. loc. 40. de induratione pag. 129. by M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 562. fine, 563, ante med. and many others.

9 Ninthly, that men are not certain of their e­lection, and that he, who is once in state of Grace, [Page 310]may finally fall, is affirmed by their publique confes­sions cited in the Harmony &c. pag. 224, post medi­um, & 80. paulo ante med. & 230. post medium, & 233. fine, by Chemnitius Examen part. 2. pag. 193. a. post medium, & part. 1. pag. 190, b. initio, by Mus­culus loc. commun. pag. 29. circa medium, by Lo­bechius in disput. Theolog. pag. 317, 318. by Haffen­refferus in loc. Theolog. &c. pag. 184, 188, & 331. by Rungius in disput. &c. ex Epist. ad Corinth. part. 1. thes. 5. by Gesnerus in disput. pro libro concord. pag. 150, 156, 157, 650. by Jacobus Andraeas in Epitom. Colloq. Montisbelgar. pag. 47, 61. by M. D. Overell Dean of Pauls in his Speech set down in the Conference before his Majestie, pag. 42. cir­ca med. and contradicted for Popish by M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholike pag. 39, & 55. by Cal­vin, Beza &c.

10 Tenthly, that in case of Divorce upon A­dultery, the innocent party may not marry again, was some few years since preached openly at Pauls Cross, by D. Dove, and since defended publikely in the University by D. Howson in tertia thesi, prin­ted Anno 1602. and is the constant Doctrin of ma­ny others. And is yet contradicted for Popish by M. Fulk against the Remish Testament, fol. 38. a. circa med. and many others

11 Eleventhly, that to Children of the Faithfull dying unbaptized, salvation is not promised, is af­firmed by Vrbanus Regius in 1. part. operum in Ca­tech. min. fol. 105. by Hoffmannus in Commentar. de poenitent. l. 3. c. 4. fol. 229. a.b. by Sarcerius in loc. commun. fol. 238, 239, 240. by the Confession of Aus­berg in the Harmonie pag. 403. fine. and by Mr. [Page 311]Bilson in his true difference &c. part. 4. pag. 368. ante medium, & 369. ante med. and see the Summe of the Conference before his Majesty pag. 16. And contradicted for Popish particularly in the Pro­testants, by the Survey of the book of common praier, pag. 105. and by Mr. Willet in his medita­tion upon Psalm 122. pag. 92. ante medium, and vul­garly by Beza, Calvin &c.

12 Twelfthly, Freewill is affirmed by sundry Protestants mentioned in M. Fox his Acts and Mo­numents pag. 1533. b. paulo post medium, and pag. 1605. b. fine, also by Snecanus and Hemingius, wit­ness whereof M. Willet in his Synopsis printed An­no 1600. pag. 808. post initium, & 810. post initium, and by sundry others, Brereley in his Omissi­ons of pag. 688 lin. 12. whereof see Benedict Mor­gensterne in tract. de Eccles. pag. 6. & Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 86. b. And is contra­dicted for Popish by Calvin, Beza &c.

13 Thirteenthly, that in regard of Christs Pas­sion and promise, our good works proceeding from Faith, are meritorious or deserving, affirmed by their publick Confessions in the Harmony &c. pag. 495. ante medium, and pag. 273, circa medium, by Spangeburge in Margarit. Theol. pag. 48, & 50. post medium, by Melancthon in loc. commun. &c. de bo­nis operibus circa med. And see M. Hooker l. 5. Ec­cles. polit. sect. 72. pag. 208. fine. Contradicted for Popish by Calvin, Beza &c. Brereniely his Omissions of pag. 688. lin 19. And M. Hooker herein is namely contradicted by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that reve­rend man Mr. Hooker, printed 1599, pag. 12.

14 Fourteenthly, temporall punishment reser­ved by God in Justice for sin remitted, is affirmed [Page 312]by John Knox in his answer against the Adversa­ries of Gods Predestination, pag. 215, 216, 217. by Gasper Olevianus in Symbolum pag. 8. ante med. and by the publike confessions of Protestants in the Har­mony &c. pag. 229, paulo ante medium, and pag. 235. circa et post medium, and 508. initio. Contra­dicted as inclinining to Purgatory, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 514. by Calvin, Beza &c.

15 Fifteenthly, (were this place capable there­of) we could likewise allege at large divers other points, defended in like manner from the Scrip­tures by sundry of our learned Adversaries, as namely Peters Primacy, by Mr. Whittgift in his de­fence &c. pag. 373. initio & circa med. & 70. initio, & 394, & 375. and by Calvin alleged by Mr. Whit­gift ubi supra pag. 373, ante medium, & 469, ante med. and by Musculus alleged ibidem pag. 66. post medium, & pag. 68. and by Mr. Bridges Bishop of Oxford in his defence of the Government &c. pag. 445, & 446.

16 Sixteenthly, the impugning of the Civill Magistrates headship, though but of a particular Church, by the Century-Writers, Praefat. Centur. 7. pag. 11, ante medium, where it is said of the Ci­vill Magistrats, Non sunt Capita Ecclesiae, quia ipsis non competit iste Primatus, & vide pag. 13. and by Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 650, & 181, & 301, & 694, & 695. and in his second Re­ply part. 1. pag. 414. where he allegeth Calvin to that purpose. And see further there pag. 413, & 415, & 418. And by Calvin, in the Survey of the Holy pretended Discipline &c. of Mr. Bancroft, pag. 251, fine, and by Viretus alleged there, pag. 252, [Page 313]& 253, & 254. and by Martin Chemnitius who in E­pist. ad Electorem Brandenburg. saith of our late Q. Elizabeth; Foemineo & à saeculis inaudito fastu se Pa­pissam & caput Ecclesiae fecit.

17 Intercession of Angells, by Mr. D. Covell in his answer to Mr. John Burges, pag. 90, circa me­dium, and by Peter Martyr alleged fully there pag. 91, ante med. and by the Communion book in K. Edward's time printed 1549. fol. 117. a. circa med. and by Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 23. pag. 52, & 53. and by Calvin Institut. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 6 & 7. & l. 3. c. 20, sect. 23. and by Melancthon in Apol. Confess. August. fol. 179. b. post med.

18 Intercession of Saints, by Latimer Acts and Monuments pag. 1312. a. initio, art. 6. & pag. 1315. a. paulo ante med. and by Oecolampadius ad orat. 1. Chrysostomi de Iuventio & Maximo Martyribus; and see this only point of Intercession impugned by M. Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 793, circa med.

19 Invocation of Saints, by Luther in Epist. ad Georgium Spalatinum, and also in purgatione quo­rundam articulorum; where he saith, De intercessio­ne Divorum, cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio, & judico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque invocan­dos; by Oecolampadius in orat. 1. Chrysost. de Iuven­tio. & Maximo, by Thomas Bilney a Protestant Mar­tyr, Acts and Monuments pag. 462. b. post med. art. 6. by Latimer, acts and Monuments pag. 1312. a. an­te medium, & b. paulo ante medium, & pag. 1315. a. paulo ante med. and by certain Protestants in Polo­nia, whereof see Hafferenferus in his loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat. 4. loc. 5. pag. 463. ante & circa med.

20 Vowed Chastity, by Augustine Marloret in [Page 314]1. Tim. c. 5. verse 11. pag. 375. a. fine, and Mr. R. Alison and others alleged in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subdivis. 9. in the Margent at 13 & 14. where at 14. it is said, The Protestant Author of the book intituled, Antichristus, sive prognostica finis Mundi, pag. 148. fine, & 149. saith, Quod Lutherus hanc primam fidem de fide justificante intelligit, & non de fide pudicitiae, id planè coactum est &c. loquttur A­postolus de fide seu voto officii &c. quia autem Pau­lus vitio vertit quod nubere postea voluerint, claris­simum est hanc conditionem in voto intercessisse &c. and Mr. Alison in his Confutation of Brownism pag. 71. affirmeth likewise of these Widdowes, that be­fore God and his Church they had vowed not to marry. And thus (saith he) is this place ex­pounded by Bullinger, Claudius, Guilliam, and o­thers, Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 689. lin. 27. and by Mr. Buddle in his discourse of E­vangelicall Fasts pag. 19, circa medium, & 20, an­te & post med.

21 Voluntary poverty, Chastity; and Obedi­ence, by Mr. D. Covell, in his defence of Mr. Hoo­ker art 8. pag. 52. fine, & 51. paulo post med. and for voluntary poverty, see Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesia­sticall Polity, l. 2. pag. 103, paulo post medium, al­leged in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subdivis. 9, at 11. where in the Text, Mr. Hooker in the place cited, acknowlegeth Ananias his solemn Vow unto God, which strictly bound him to the giving of his Po­sessions to the Churches use: And ibidem in Brere­ley in the margent at 11, it is said, and Mr. Fenton in his Sermon of Simony printed 1604. pag. 46. fine, saith, Albeit we had liberty before to use Eccle­siasticall Livings as meer Temporalls, yet after these [Page 315]Vows our case is the very same with that of Ananias Acts 5.2. &c. Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 689. lin. 31. See also Mr. Buddle in his dis­course of Evangelicall Fasts pag. 19. paulo post med. & pag. 20. paulo ante med.

22 Prayer for the Dead, both by Luther and Urbanus Regius, Teste Urbano Regio in prima parte operum in formula cautè loquendi cap. de Sanctorum cultu. And see Urbanus Regius in loc. commun. cap. 19. & 18. and by the Communion-book in K. Ed­ward's time, printed 1549. fol. 116. a. circa & post med. & 149. b. post med. & by William Thorp Acts & Monum. pag. 149. a. paulo post initium, and by Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 450. circa med. Brereley in his Om [...]ssions of pag. 690. lin. 3. and by Zuinglius tom. 1. in explan. art. 90. fol. 53. a. ante med. & circa med. & in explan. art. 60. fol. 104 post med. Brereley in his addition of Errours and Omissions of pag. 690. lin. 3. and by Melancthon in Apolog. Confess. August. fol. 216. b. & 217. a. in­itio.

23 Purgatory, by Luther tom. 1. Wittemberg. in resolut. de indulgentiis, conclus. 15. fol. 112. a. prope finem. and in Disput. Lipsica cum Eckio, and by La­timer Act. mon. pag. 1313. a. paulo ante med. & b. ante med. &. pag. 1315. b. paulò ante med.

24 Lymbus patrum, by John Lascicius in the book intituled, de Russorum, Muscovitarum, & Tar­tarorum Religione pag. 122. & 123. and by Oecolam­padius in libro Epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampa­dii 1. pag. 19. and by Zuinglius ibidem l. 3. pag. 560. & 561. and by Peter Martyr in his common places in English, part. 2. c. 8. pag. 621. a. ante & circa med. & part. 3. c. 16. pag. 377. a. versus finem, & pag. 378. b. circa med. & 379. a. initio, and by Bullinger in his Decades, fol. 66. a. and also in Luc. 16. alleged in [Page 316] Mr. Bilson's Survey of Christs suffering, pag. 656. post med.

25 Images in the Church, though impugned by Mr. Fulk as against the Commandements l. a­gainst the Rhemish Testament in 1. ep. Joan. c. 1. fol. 456. b. ante med. & fine, and in his defence of the English Translations, c. 3. pag. 119. initio: are yet de­fended by Luther and Brentius, teste Beza in re­spons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. altera in praefat. pag. 12. post med. & vide ibid. pag. 30. ante & post med. by Jacobus Andraeas in epitom. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 39. fine, by Chemnitius in his Ex­amen part. 4. pag. 14. a. circa med. & pag. 33. b. paulo post med. and by Bachmannus in Centur. exercitat. Theolog. pag. 270. fine, & Centur. 1. pag. 53. post med.

26 Worshipping of Images, by Thomas Bilney a Protestant Martyr, Act. mon. 462. b. art. 7. & 464. b. art. 5. and by certain Protestants of Germany, teste Beza in his respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelga [...] part. altera pag. 23. post med.

27 Reverence and bowing at the name of Jesus, (which is the same to the Ear, that the Image is to the eye, and being lawfull at, or to the said name, proveth the like lawfullness thereof at, or before his Image) is affirmed by the late Queens Injuncti­ons Art. 52. and by Mr. Leonard Wright, in his Summons for Sleepers, pag. 30. by Musculus in loc. Commun. pag. 59. fine, by Zanchius in Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Colloss. Thessal. in Phillip. c. 2. v. 10. fol. 123. Col. 2. by Mr. Whitgift in his defence &c. pag. 742.

28 That the good works of one may help ano­ther, by Melancthon in loc. commun. de Eucharistico [Page 317]Sacrificio ante medium, and in his Edition of Anno, 1561. pag. 425. initio, and by the Harmonie of Confessions pag. 298. ante medium.

28 The power of Priests, not only to pronounce, but to give remission of Sinnes, by sundry Prote­stants alleged in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. in the mar­gent at y. where it is said, Lobechius, Dr. and Pro­fessor in the University of Rostock in disput. Theol. pag. 301. answereth our Adversaries common ob­jection, saying, Est quidem solius Dei à peccatis ab­solvere, sed ita, ut hoc faciat alias immediate (&c.) ali­as mediatè per suos Mini [...]ros, condonando nobis cul­pam, (&c.) Errant ergo Calviniani, qui, (&c.) absolu­tioni Ministri Verbi illam efficaciam detrahunt (&c.) contendentes Ministrum absolvere tantum ut inter­nuntium, &c. In like plain manner is our Adversa­ries objection of God only forgiving sin, and their deniall thereupon of that power to Ecclesiasticall Ministers, no less plainly further answered and re­felled by sundry other Protestants, as namely by Andreas Althamerus in Conciliat. locorum Scripturae pugnantium, &c. loc. 194. fol. 21. a. b. and by Jaco­bus Helbrunerus in Swenckfeldio Calvinism. pag. 55. Insomuch as Absolution is (affirmed to be) pro­perly a Sacrament by Melancthon in Apolog. con­fess. August. Art. 13. de numero & usu Sacramen­torum fol. 161. b. initio, by Spangeburg (in his Mar­garita Theologica pag. 116. & 117) by Andreas Althamerus in conciliat. locorum Scripturae pugnam, (&c.) loc. 191. fol. 211. b. initio, & loc 195. fol. 219. b. and by Sarcerius in loc commun. tom. 1. de potest. Ecclesiae fol. 305. b. post medium. Also the power of Priests to forgive sins is affirmed by the Eng­lish [Page 318]Communion-book in the visitation of the sick, where the Priest saith (And by his authority com­mitted to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins &c.) for which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse in their Abridgement pag. 72. fine, and the Survey of the book of Common prayer pag. 154 & 155. do ex­presly reprove therein the said Communion-Book.

30 Confession of sins to a Priest, heretofore in the second Consideration num. 19. circa finem.

31 Distinction of Mortall and veniall sin in one and the same person (and therefore not from the diversity of persons, but from the disparity of the sins) affirmed by Melancthon in Concill. Theol. pag. 546. initio, and in loc. commun. de discrimine peccati mortalis, ac venialis. and see also his latter Edition of 1561. pag. 346. initio, & 350. fine, & 345 circa med. and see Corpus Doctrinae, &c. printed in folio 1561. pag. 525. post med. & pag. 488. and by Adamus Francisci, in his Margarita Theologica pag. 469. and by Bachmannus in Centur. Exercit. Theol. pag. 663. & 664. and by Mr. Jacob in his defence of the Ministrie and Church of England pag. 88. prope initium, by Musculus in loc commun. pag. 29. circa med. also by the Protestants, alleged in the Acts of the Disputation in the Councell of the Empire holden at Ragenspurge, &c. set forth by Martin Bu­cer and Melan [...]hon, Englished and printed 1542. pag. 165. circa med. by Hemingius in Enchirid. pag. 103. fine, printed Londini 1577. by the Harmony of Confessions pag. 80. & 81. circa med. & 290. post med. & 82. prope initium, and by Jacobus An­draeas alleged in Beza's respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 68. fine, 69. initio, & 70. pau­lo [Page 319]ante med. Insomuch as he is therefore specially reprehended by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 1. in praefat. pag. 23. fine. & 24. paulo ante med.

32 The indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds, by Luther alleged in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. at † next after f. in the margent at fourthly, where it is said: Fourthly as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds, Luther, in Epist. ad Bohemos, saith thereof: Quamvis pul­chrum quidem esset utrâque specie in Eucharistia uti, & Christus hac in re nihil tanquam necessarium prae­cepit, praestaret tamen pacem (&c) sectari, quam de speciebus contendere, and Luther, de utraque spe­cie Sacramenti, saith: Si veneris ad locum ubi tan­tum una species ministratur; cum aliis una tantum specie utere (&c) Brereley tract. 2. c. 2▪ sect. 5. initio in the margent at x. And the like indifferencie hereof is affirmed by Melancthon in Centur. Epist. Theologic. pag. 252. initio, and see the Protestant Writers, affirming in plain tearms the indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds, alleged, and by Mr. Jewell not denyed in his Reply, pag. 110. & 106.

33 Sacrifice of the New Testament, according to the Order of Melchisedech, by Andraeas Crasto­vius in libro de opificio Miss [...]e l. 1. pag. 28. paulo post medium, & 119. paulo ante med. & 51. post med. & 58. paulo post med. & 122. ante med. & 171. and see Mr. Jewell in his Reply pag. 7. initio.

34 That the first motions of our Concupiscence without our consent thereto, are not sin, by Zege­dine in loc. commun. printed Basileae, 1588. pag. 229. post med. where he saith, Peccatum tribus gra­dibus [Page 320]exurgit, & absolvitur, suggestione, delectatione, & consensione plena &c. qui non consentit, sed dele­ctationi repugnat, & tentationi, immo, delectationem respuit, peccati impuritate non inficitur, &c. contra­dicted by Keckermannus in System. Theologic. pag. 275. post medium.

35 That the Commandements are not impossi­ble, by Sebastian Castalio de perfect. obed. leg. Dei (and he therein namely contradicted by Mr. Rey­nolds in his second conclusion annexed to his Con­ference pag 697. ante medium,) also by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Policie l. 2. pag. 101. prope finem, where he saith distributively, at the least all great and grievous actuall offences, as they offer them­selves one by one, both may and ought to be avoi­ded (wherein he is namely reprehended by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reverend man Mr. R. Hooker pag. 15. circa med. and by Mr. Willet in his Meditation on Psalm. 122. printed 1603. pag. 91. post medium,) and see Mr. Hooker's said Saying, yet affirmed by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker art. 7. pag. 54. and see this like possibillity now in the time of the Gospell, further affirmed by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholick pag. 26. fine, & pag. 51. prope finem & 52. ante med.

36 That no professed Widow might be such, as had before been Bigama, or twice married, by Marloret in 1. Tim. c. 5. verse 9. pag. 374. post med. and by Calvin in omnes Pauli Epistolas in 1. Tim. 5.9. pag. 778. circa med. and see Calvin's words so understood by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey, &c. pag. 218. circa & post med. who in the same place alle­geth [Page 321] Beza, and Mr. Cartwright, as herein contra­ry to Calvin.

37 Transubstantiation, affirmed by Luther af­ter his revolt from our Church, teste Hospiniano in Histor. Sacramentar. part. alter a pag. 12. circa med. and see Melancthon in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 584. initio, affirmed also by D. Barnes (one of Mr. Fox's Martyrs) who in his Protestation at his death said expresly, that the Sacrament after the words spoken by the Priest doth change the substance of Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ; which his Protestation being then pub­lished by a professed Gospeller of that time, and then also answered unto by D. Standish in his book then printed in octavo in English, the said words are yet extant therein, though fraudelently since o­mitted by Mr. Fox, who acts monument. pag. 610. 611, 612. following the said Copy verbatim, and coming by course to those very words, doth pur­posely overpass them: See also Transubstantiation believed by the Lord Cobham, act. mon. pag. 272. a. and by John Husse act monum. pag. 209. a. fine & b. initio, & paulo post med. & pag. 197. b. fine.

38 That Christ is God of God, and hath his substance of his Father, is affirmed by Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. sub- 13. sect. 1. in the margent at s. Zegedine in loc. com. pag. 634. paulo post med. where he saith directly Dicendum est, Filium eam ipsum Deitatem quae est Patris habere, non ex sese, sed ex Patre. Also Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Pollicy l. 5. pag. 113. initio, saith, The Father alone is originally that Die­ty which Christ orginally is not. And see him fur­ther pag. 106. fine, & 113. ante med. which his As­sertion, Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker [Page 322]pag. 16. & 17. specially defendeth, affirming further pag. 17. initio, That Christ had received his substance by the gift of eternall Generation, and pag. 18. ante med. That Christ is God by being of God, light by issu­ing out of light: and more plainly yet ibidem pag. 121. which his Doctrine is reproved by the Puri­tans in their Christian Letter, &c. pag. 6 ante med. and by Mr. Willet in his meditation upon Psalm 122. printed 1603. pag. 91. Also Mr. Fox in Apoc. pag. 474. initio, saith, Christus Deus ex Deo, and Lobehi­us in disput. 30. Theolog pag. 49. saith, Filius non so­lum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre, veram etiam suam essentiam. Solus enim Pater vitam seu essentiam habet à seipso, and Mr. D. Dove in his Confutati­on of Athism pag. 37. fine, saith, God the Father from everlasting understanding himself, begat his Son, coeternall with himself, &c. and the Confessi­on of Belgia in the Harmonie, &c. pag. 34. initio, saith, We beleive that Christ, in respect of his Divine nature, is the only Son of God, and Melancthon in loc. commun. of Anno 1561. pag. 24. fine, saith, Pa­ter aeternus sese intuens, gignit cogitationem sui quae est imago ipsius, dicitur [...], quia cogitatione gene­ratur, & ibidem pag. 25. initio, he saith, Secunda persona Filius dicitur, quia de substantia Patris na­tus est. Brereley ibidem in the margent at n. o. p. q. This Doctrine is impugned by M. Whi­taker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 121. circa med. where he saith, Utcunque patres illi (Niceni) Christum esse dixerunt Deum de Deo, tamen firmissime tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus; Christum ex sese habere ut De­us sit, nisi Christum volumus sua Divinitate spoliare, and see Calvin. Institut. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 23. where he saith, Quomodo autem Creator qui omnibus esse dat, [Page 323]non erit ex seipso, sed essentiam aliunde mutuabitur? and in his Explicat. perfid. Valent. Gentil. (extant in his tract. Theolog. &c. pag. 774. a. circa med. he saith, Hoc modo videmus precariam fieri ejus Divi­nitatem, cui datum est esse. Impugned likewise by Mr. Willet Synopsis, pag. 610. fine, and Snecanus in his Method. descript. &c. pag. 107. ante med. he saith, Filius qua Deus non habet essentiam Deitatis à Patre. and Calvin in explicat. perfid. valent. Gentil. extant in tract. Theolog. pag. 774. a. ante med. saith, Jam tibi responsum fuit non posse Deum esse Filii sui Patrem, nisi personae respectu, quia alioqui vel parti­bilis esset Dei essentia, vel Filius ipse Deus non esset. By Beza contra Heshusium, saying, Non est penitus de essentia Patris, whereas Mela [...]cthon loc. commun. of Anno 1561 pag. 25. initio, saith to the contrary, De substantia Patris natus est, also by Calvin in his Explicat. perfid. Valent. Gent. (extant in his tract. Theolog. &c.) pag 771. b. ante med. saying, Si essen­tiam communicavit Pater cum Filio, vel in solidum, vel ex parte communicavit: Si ex parte, dimidium nobis Deum fabricas, &c. adde quod hoc modo nimis scelestè ac faedè laceratur Dei essentia, and pag. 772. a. ante med. he further saith, Si ex parte Pater suam Divinitatem in Filium transfudit, jam lacera erit Divinitas: si in totum, ergo Divinitas quae ante fue­rat penes Patrem, in Filium conversa, in ipso Patre evanuit, and see the like in Calvin Inst. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 23. fine & circa med.

39 That Christ, as Man, was from his Nativi­ty freed from ignorance, and full of knowledge; affirmed by Jacobus Andraeas, alleged by Beza in Respon. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 1. pag. [Page 324]147. fine, & 148. initio, & pag. 134. circa & paulo post med. and affirmed further by Andraeas in Epit. Coll. Montisbelgar. pag. 33. circa & post med. by O­siander in Enchirid. Controversiarum, printed Tu­bingae 1603. pag. 146, 147, &c. And affirmed also further generally by the Lutheran Protestants, o­ver-many to recite, yet contradicted by Beza ubi supra, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 599. & pag. 600. paulo ante med. and many others, and namely by Mr. Sutcliffe who (in his Review and Examination of Mr. Kellisons Survey, printed 1606. pag. 55. post med.) will not attribute to the human nature of Christ, fulness of knowledge, so much as but in respect of its personall union with the Godhead, but saith to the contrary, If Christ as man, by the union, be omniscient, why is he not also omnipotent, and present in all places?

40 That Christ after his Passion descended in Soul into Hell, affirmed by D. Hill in his Defence of the Article, that Christ descended into Hell, throughout that book; by Mr. Bilson in his survey of Christs suffering, &c. and of his descent into Hell pag. 650, 651, 652, 653. &c. by the Lutherans ge­nerally, and very many Calvinists, and impugned by Mr. Carliele in his special book, that Christ descen­ded not into Hell; by Mr. D. Willet in his like spe­ciall book intituled Lymbo-Mastix: also by Mr. D. Fulk alleged by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 605. 606.

41 That Christs corporall death was sufficient without his further suffering in Soul the pains of Hell, affirmed by Mr. Bilson in his severall Treati­ses of that very Argument, viz. in his book of [Page 325]the Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. sub. 8. in the margent at 19. full Redemption of mankind by the Death and Bloud of Christ; and also in his Survey of Christs sufferings &c. and affirmed also by many others, and contradicted by Brereley ibidem in the margent at 8.9.10. Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 19. sect. 10. and by Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 603. post med. and see Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 129. initio, also Mr. Willet in his Sy­nopsis of Anno 1600. pag. 985. ante med. & vi­de pag. 987. initio, where he saith, That Christ suffering in his Flesh only, wrought not our Redempti­on; by Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10. Dires in ani­ma cruciatus Damnati ac perditi hominis pertulit.

42 That the Sacraments of the old Testament were not, in working and effect, equall with ours, affirmed generally for the most part by the Luthe­rans, whereof see Schlussselburg in Theol. Calvini­starum l. 1. fol. 59. a. circa & post med. & b. and Lu­ther in loc. com. class. 1. pag. 88. circa med. and Luc. Osiander in epitome &c. Centur. 16. pag. 411. prope finem, contradicted for most part by the Calvi­nists, whereof see Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 418. paulo post med.

43 The visible signe of Imposition of hands in confirmation, with the inward Grace thereby conferred (which proveth it a Sacrament) affir­med by the Communion-Book turned into latine, and printed at London by Tho. Vautrollerius. Anno 1574. in the tract of Confirmation, and by Mr. D. Covell in his modest Examination &c. against the Plea of the Innocent, pag. 192. paulo ante med. where he saith, In Baptism we are regenerate to life, but in Confirmation we are strengthed to battail, and by Mr. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 66. pag. 69. fine, & 170 initio, & 173. post med. Im­pugned [Page 326]by the Survey of the Book of Common­praier, pag. 117. & 118. by Josias Nicolls in his Plea of the Innocent, pag. 25. post med. where he repro­veth in this behalf the foresaid Cōmunion-book, as also doth Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence, pag. 726. initio, and the Ministers of Lincoln Di­ocess in their Abrigement, pag. 76. ante med. say, The Communion-Book giveth to Confirmation the definition of a Sacrament; and most, or rather all the other Calvinists, who use the same, deny yet the inward Grace given therewith, professing to use it as but by way of instruction or catechizing,

44 The like visble signe, and invisible Grace given in Orders, affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ec­clesiasticall Polity l. 5. sect. 77. pag. 230. prope finem & initium, by Mr. Bilson in his perpetuall Govern­ment of Christs Church, pag. 109. Insomuch as it is accounted a Sacrament by Melancthon in loc. com. Edit. 1536. de Sacramentorum numero, where he saith, Maximè mihi placet Ordinem, ut vocant, in­ter Sacramenta numerari, and see his Edition of 1561. pag. 383. fine, & 384 initio, and see his other Edition of 1552, & 1558. accounted likewise for a Sacrament, by Calvin Institut. l. 4. c. 19. sect. 28. alleged by Mr. Bilson ubi supra: See all this impug­ned by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 545, & 546. and generally by many others.

45 That Deaconship is a distinct order from Priesthood, and a step thereto, affirmed by Mr. Whitgift in his Defence &c. pag. 586, & 587, & 582, 583, 584, 585, & 688. and so it is at this day used in the Church of England, as an Ecclesiasti­call degree, distinct from the Ministrie, and yet contradicted by Mr. Cartwright ubi supr a pag. 519. initio, & 587. ante med.

46 That there is no extraordinary calling since the Apostles times, affirmed by Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect 3. subd. 2. in the margent at [...]. Musculus loc. commun. pag. 394. where he saith, Vocatio quae im­mediatè est à Christo jam in usu non est, ut erat olim, habebat sua signa, unde cognosci potuit, de quibus me­minit Marcus Evangelista cap. ult. dicens, Praedica­verunt &c. sequentibus signis &c. and Brereley ibidem in the margent at a. Lobechius in disput. Theolog. pag. 358. fine, & 359. initio saith, Immediatam porrò vocationem cum mediata ab Apo­stolis permutatam esse Scriptura testatur &c. credi­mus immediatae vocationis usum Deo in hoc mundo nullum amplius futurum: nullam quippe de ea dedit promissionem, nullum mandatum; and D. Saravia in his book of the divers degrees of Ministers pag. 9. initio, tearmeth extraordinary Calling, an un­known Coast, out of which (the now Defenders thereof) can no waies wind themselves: And see Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 86. fine, & 87. initio, and see Saravia in defen. tract, &c. contra resp. Bezae, pag. 306, & 307. and ibidem pag. 37. circa medium he saith, Sed speciem illam extra­ordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium &c. cum nullo testimonio Scripturarum, nec exemplo cer­to doceatur, non admitto: est enim periculi plena, & novi malique exempli &c. ea sola fretus nemo se mi­nisterio Ecclesiastico ingerere debet, and see there pag. 35, 36, 38, &c. Insomuch that pag. 59. fine, & 60. post med. & 74. fine, he reprehendeth Beza, for that in the Disputation had by him and other Pro­testants, with Catholikes, in the Conference at Poy­sy, being demanded of their calling, Beza affirmed the same to be extraordinary. See hereof more in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. at y, z, a. and see the [Page 328]contrary affirmed by others in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. at f. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. prope finem, at r. & sect. 11. subd. 3. at *.

47 The indelible Character imprinted by cer­tain Sacraments, affirmed in expresse terms by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker. pag. 87. fine, & 91. initio & circa med. where he allegeth St. Augustin for it: And for the Doctrine thereof, see Mr. Hooker l. 5. pag. 228. circa & paulo post med. yet impugned by other Protestants, whereof see Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 419. and see him repro­ving Mr. Hooker herein in his meditation upon Psalm 122. printed 1 [...]03. pag. 91. fine.

48 The baptism of Women and Lay persons in case of necessitie, affirmed by Jacobus Andreas in epitom. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 46. prope initium, & 58. circa med. by Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 61. pag 137. circa med. & prope finem, & sect. 62. initio, pag. 139. ante med. by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker. pag. 91 fine, & 92. ante med. by Mr. Whitgift in his defence &c. pag. 518. ante med. who also there allegeth Zuinglius; by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 68. b. and many o­thers: yet contradicted by Calvin, as appeareth in Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 60. b. ante med. & 61. a. initio, and contradicted by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 432. fine, & 433. and by many others.

49 The known intention of the Church, need­full to the Administration of the Sacraments, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 58. p. 126. versus finem, and by D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 103. ante med. and more plainly [Page 329]104. post med. & 106. post med. And yet impugned specially in Mr. Hooker by certain English Prote­stants, in their Christian Letter to Mr. R. Hooker pag. 29. fine, & 30. initio & post med. and promiscuous­ly by others.

50 Seven Sacraments, by the Protestant Divines assembled in the Conference at Lipsia, teste Illyrico inadhortatione ad Constantiam in agnita Christi reli­gione &c. printed in Octavo, Magdeburg. 1550. paulo post initium, & ante med. and by the Protestant Di­vines assembled in the Conference at Ratisbon anno 1541. whereof Bucer in Actis Colloq. Ratisbon. saith, Protestantes non gravatim admiserunt septem Sacramenta.

51 Implicite Faith, commonly tearmed, Fides implicita; affirmed by Dr. Field of the Church, l. 3. c. 2. pag. 65. circa med. and in his Epistle Dedicato­ry to the L. Archbishop, neer the begining of that Epistle he-saith, Alleged by Brereley tract 2. c 3. sect. 11. subdi. 1. in the margent under 1. For seeing the Controver­sies in Religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricat, that few have time and leasure, fewer strength and understan­ding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such conse­quence, but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the world, is that bles­sed company of Holy ones, that Houshold of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, that so they may imbrace her Communi­on, follow her Directions, and rest in her judg­ment? So that Implitite Faith is here by Mr. D. Field implied, and allotted to those that want [Page 330]strength of understanding to examine Controver­sies: In respect whereof he directeth them as be­fore said, to rest in the Churches Judgment. Affir­med also by D. Baro l. de Fide & ejus ortu pag. 40. initio, & pag. 91, 92. initio, 94. ante med. 97. initio, by Mr. Jacob in his Reasons taken out of Gods Word, pag. 55. ante med. Insomuch as we are taught to rest in other judgements by the French Confes­sion, in the Harmony, pag. 319. prope finem, and by Jacobus Acontius stratag. Satan. l. 4. pag. 203. paulo post initium, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall Polity, in the Preface, sect. 6. pag. 28. paulo ante & circa med. by Melancthon l. 1. Epist. ep. ad Regem Angeliae, pag. 49. fine: yet impugned as Popish by certain Eng. protestants, in their christian letter to M. Hooker pag. 30. post med. and generally by others.

52 Usury alltogether unlawfull, affirmed by D. Pie in his Treatise intituled usuries sprite conjured, with his answer to a treatise written in defence of Usury, printed 1604. and in his Epistle Dedicatory, he allegeth Mr. D. Powell, and sundry others who have written herein against Usury; yet contradicted by sundry Protestants mentioned there pag. 20. fine, & 32. initio, Contradicted also by Bucer in script. Anglican. pag. 789, 790, 791. &c. and contradi­cted by Geneva it self, witness whereof is Mr. Hutton in his second part of the answer &c. In his Preface to his fellow Brethren &c. where he saith, Two Ministers at Geneva were deposed and banished for speaking against Usury, allowed in that State; See all so Usury further defended by Matthew Virell in his principal grounds of Religion, Englished and printed 1595. pag. 148. post med. & 149. ante med.

53 That Antichist is yet to come, affirmed by Brereley tract. 1. sect. 9. subdivis. 3. in the margent at 18. and in the margent and Text at † Franciscus Lambertus in his book intituled, An­tichristus sive prognostica finis Mundi, pag. 74. post med. 75, & 79. and see Franciscus Lambertus his Commentarie upon the Revelations. And by Zan­chius in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil. Colloss. & Thess. pag. 246. a. and in his Miscellaniorum libri tres &c. printed Neapoli Palatinorum An. 1582. pag. 298, & 299. read the places. And concerning the like judg­ment of others, Mr. Dove in his Sermon of the se­cond coming of Christ &c. versus finem confesseth that some Protestants make a doubt whether Anti­christ be yet revealed or no. Insomuch as the Puri­tans, in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the high Court of Parliament, do therfore specially charge the Protestants with affir­ming that the Pope is not Antichrist, saying con­cerning themselves and the Protestants: Doe we vary from the sincere Doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay rather many of them do much more swarve from the same, touching generall Grace, and the death of Christ for every particular person, touching Images in the Church for devotion, touching the manner of Christs presence in the Eucharist, that the Pope is not Antichrist, concerning the necessity of Baptism, touching Auricular Confession &c. See also these words thus further alleged by Mr. Powell in his Rejoynder to the milde defence, annexed to his book of things indifferent &c. printed 1607. pag. 118. post med. and impugned generally by those o­ther who pretend the Pope to be Antichrist.

54 Certain distinct degrees and orders of An­gells and Arch-Angells &c. affirmed by Mr. Hut­ton [Page 332]in his second part of the answer to the Reasons &c. pag. 168, & 169, & 170. throughout: and by Trigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 39. and by Kekermannus in System. Theolog. pag. 159. fine, & 160. initio, & 163. ante med. by Pis­cator in volum. 1. Thes. pag. 93. ante med. and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English, part. 1. pag. 120. b. paulo post med: and see Marlo­ret his Enchirid. printed Londini 1591. pag. 20. post med. Yet contradicted by Calvin Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 5, & 6. where he maketh the diversity to con­sist only in diversitie of Names or Callings given to them all in general, diversly according to the diversitie of their imployment, and with him in o­pinion herein Hiperius in Method. Theolog. pag. 287. initio, & paulo po [...] medium, & 288. paulo ante & post med. and many others do agree, insomuch as the Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse, in their Abridgment &c. pag. 74. post medium, will not grant that there are Arch-Angells.

55 The Patronage and protection of certain An­gells over certain Countries and Kingdomes, affir­med by Calvin Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 7. and by Hi­perius in Method. Theolog. pag. 291. initio, and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English, part. pag. 120. a paulo post med. and in the mar­gent there, and contradicted by M. D. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in Revelat. 1.20. sect. 9. fol. 464. a. paulo ante medium, and by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 294. paulo post initium, and many others.

56 That by Michael the Arch-Angell, is meant not Christ, but a very Angell, affirmed by the Eng­lish [Page 333]Communion-Book which appointeth a peculi­ar Collect for St. Michael, and by Marloret in his Enchiridion printed Londini 1591. p. 20. post med. and by Wygandus & Matthaeus Judex in their Syn­tagma &c. ex Novo Testament printed Basil. 1585. pag. 509. initio. Yet contradicted by M. D. Wil­let in his Synopsis pag. 293. fine, & 294. initio, and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Re­vel. 1. sect. 9. fol. 464. a. ante med. & ibidem in c. 12. sect. 3. fol. 477. a fine, and by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocesse, in their Abrigement &c. pag. 74. circa med. reprehending there, the Communion­book, because, say they, it affirmeth that Michael mentioned Revelat. 12. is a created Angell.

57 That the observation of Sunday for our Sa­bath, is not alterab [...]e to any other Day, affirmed by Mr. Whitgift in his Defence &c. pag. 89. fine, and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibidem pag. 89. paulo an­te med. and by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 382. ante med. and in his Edition of Anno 1600. pag. 431 circa med. by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testa­ment in Revelat. 1. sect. 6. fol. 463. b. ante med. and by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles &c. cap. 33. pag. 80. sect. 12, & 13. Yet most clearly contradicted by Calvin in his book of Institutions. And see his other Edition l. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. by Peter Martyr in 1 Cor. 16. and in his Common places in English part. 2. pag. 375. b. circa med by Ursinus in his Doctrin. Christian. compend. pag. 775. initio, & 777. circa med. and by Mr Thomas Bell in his Survey of Popery, print­ed 1596. l. 3. part. 1. c. 5. pag. 117.

58 That the alteration of the Sabbath from Sa­turday [Page 334]to Sunday, is not proved by Scripture (but is therefore Apostolike tradition) affirmed by Bul­linger in his Decads &c. Englished, Decad. 2. & serm. 4. pag. 140. b. initio, by Mr. Whitgift in his defence &c. pag. 88. fine, & 89. post med. and most fully and at large by Mr. Thomas Bell in his said Survey of Popery l. 3. part. 1. c. 5. p. 116. Insomuch as it is acknowledged for an Apostolike tradition to be perpetually observed by the Divines of Gene­va, in their said Propositions and principles, &c. pag. [...]o sect. 13. and see Mr. Fulk in Revelat. 1. sect. 6. fol. 463. a. prope finem, and Ursinus in his Doctrin. Christianae compendium in prolegom. pag. 36. saith thereof, Hanc esse Apostolicam traditio­nem credimus: Yet contradicted by Hieron. Zanchi­us de Sacra Scriptura, printed 1593 pag. 123, & 124. and by many others.

59 Set time of fasting, and from certain meats, appointed not only for politick Order, but for spi­ritual Considerations, affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 72. initio, pag. 204. fine, & 205. initio. Insomuch as pag. 209. fine, he answereth the vulgar objection of Montanns, & ibi­dem post med. he likewise answereth the common objection from St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3. and pag. 210. paulo post med. he saith, Aerius was worthily condem­ned for his opposition against Fasting, with whom a­greeth the Protestant Author of the Treatise inti­tuled Querimonia Ecclesiae, printed Londini 1592. reproving in like manner Aerius. pag. 31. fine, & 94. ante med. & 103. fine, answering also the said objection of Montanus pag. 110. ante & post med. and answering likewise the said objection from St. [Page 335] Paul pag. 106. circa med. Yet contradicted by Mr. Fulk, who to the contrary objecteth Montanus (a­gainst the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 15. sect. 3. fol. 28. a. post med. & in Acta Apost. c. 13. sect. 5. fol. 208. a. fine) defendeth Aerius (in his Answer to a counterfait Catholick, pag. 45. initio, as also doth Mr. Whitaker more fully contra Duraeum l. 9. pag. 830. initio) and objecteth 1 Tim. 4.3. to prove this fasting to be the Doctrine of Devills (in 1 Tim. 4. sect. 5. fol. 375. a.)

60 That making of Vowes was not part of the old Law, now abrogated, but continueth yet in force, and to be performed; affirmed in divers ca­ses Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subd. 9. in the margent at 10. by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholicke pag. 156 post med. saying: And now in the New Testament we have warrant in like manner to vow, &c. Of this kind, are the Vowes to keep set times of fasting, &c. By Musculus in loc commun. de votis pag. 524. circa med and by Mr. Willet in his Sy­nopsis pag. 241. postmed. and by Amandus Pola­nus in partitiouibus Theolog. l. 2. pag. 394. And Da­naeus in primae partis altera parte contra Bellarmi­num pag. 987. affirmeth, Fas esse Christianis homini­bus vovere quae cum Dei voluntate consentiunt. Yet contradicted by Brereley ibidem in the margent at 7. Peter Martyr de caelibatu & vo­tis pag. 302. fine, & 303. & ib. pag. 304. post med. he further saith, Votum ego cerimoneale antiquae le­gis praeseptum fuisse affirmo, and pag. 52. ante med. he saith, Consentaneum est quando Christiana liber­tate fruimur, & sub Evangelii gratia & luce vivi­mus, ritum ceremoniā (que) vivendi omittendam esse &c. Quare ut aliae ceremoniae quae variè ac multipliciter ista & consimilia docebant, per Christum sublatae sunt, [Page 336]ita & vovendi ratio debet facessere &c. and by Mr. Fulk answering to Psalm 76.11. who saith, that Text pertaineth to the Old Testament, in his Reten­tive against Bristow's Motives &c. pag. 153. fine, and by Bullinger in his Decads in English pag. 380. ante med. saying, Vows belong to the Jewes Ceremo­nies, and by Zuinglius part. 1. in explanat. art. 30. fol. 69. b. initio, saying, de votis universum hoc dico, quod per Christum sunt abolita.

61 That Fasting, Chastity, and the giving of ones Goods to the Poor for Religious uses, imbra­cing Poverty, is of greater perfection and accep­tance before God, than not fasting, marrying, or retaining of the said Goods: Affirmed by Mr. Hoo­ker l. 5. pag 205 initio, & 208. fine, & l. 3. sect. 8 pag. 140 fine, and by M. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker art. 8. pag. 51. circa med. Yet directly con­tradicted in the Case of retaining Goods, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 245. post medium saying, Alleged by Brereley tract 2. c. 3. sect. 8. fine, at him the margent. He is an enemy to the Glory of God, that changeth his rich estate wherein he may serve God, for a poor, and in the case of marriage most grosly, by Brereley ibid. at g. in the margent. Lu­ther tom. 5. Wittemberg. in exeg. ad cap. 7.1 Cor. fol. 107. b. post med. saying of marriage and single life, De usu vel abusu &c. of the use or abuse of the States at this present we will say nothing, but of the condition or nature (of life) in themselves, and do conclude that Matrimony is as Gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as Dung. And in Assert. Art. he further saith, Matrimony is much more excellent than Virginity, Christ and his Apostles did diswade Christians from Virginity. See this saying acknow­ledged and defended by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. [Page 337]rat. 8. pag. 151. ante med. where he saith of Virgini­ty, it is not simply good, but after a certain manner. It is never better than Marriage (nisi [...]) but in regard of the circumstance, whereas marriage is often times simply better than it; It is to be desired, not alwaies, but in respect of the troubles which ac­company marriage: directly against St. Augustins particular Confutation of this very Reason l. de Virginitat. c. 13. alleged and acknowledged in Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Cor. 7. sect. 13. fol. 273. b. post med. and Mr. Whitaker ubi supra, concludeth in defence of Luther's fore­said words, saying, Haec certè Lutheri propria non sunt; ea enim omnes boni agnoscunt & defendunt: Insomuch that whereas St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.38. saith, He that joyneth his Virgin in marriage doth well, he that joyneth her not doth better, Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 693. post medium, answering here­to saith, Melius hoc loco vocat Paulus, quod est com­modius &c. and by Mr Wotton in his defence of Mr. Perkins pag. 500. initio where he saith, marriage is simply better, and paulo ante med. where he defen­deth Jovinian, condemned for but equalling mar­riage with Virginity; and in the case of fasting, by Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect 8 subd. 5. at f [...]m the mar­gent. Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 243. ante med. saying, Neither is God better worshipped by eating or not eating, and by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholike pag. 220 fine, saying, Fasting is in it self a thing indifferent, as is eating and drinking.

62 That he, who hath the gift of Continencie, may lawfully either marry, or for the Kingdom of Heaven refrain from marriage. Affi [...]ed di­rectly by Bucer in sacra quatuor Evangelia in Matt. [Page 338]19.10. fol. 150. b. circa med. and after the other Edition at Basil 1536. pag. 400. paulo post initium, by Wygandus & Matthaeus Judex in their Syntagma &c. ex Novo Testamento coll. 1011. paulo ante & post med. by the Century-Writers Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 4. coll. 454. lin. 39. by Chemnitius in Enchirid. c. de conjugio pag. 411. by Mr. Hooker l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140. prope finem, by M. D. Covell in his de­fence &c. pag. 51. circa med. and by the H [...]mony of Confessions pag. 543. post med. & 545. prope fi­nem. Yet contradicted (because otherwise it pro­veth evidently that a man may supererrogate, or do more than he is commanded) by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 236. circa & paulo post med. & fine, where he absolutely restraineth such from liberty of marriage, whereto many others do, for the same reason, assent.

63 That sin against the holy Ghost is only finall impenitence, and that all sins, during this life, may be repented of, are remissible, and the parties may be praied for: affirmed by Mr. Smith in his Treatise of praier in generall for all men, against those that preach, that all men are not to be prayed for; by Urbanus Rhegius in loc. com. c. de peccato fol. 20. b. fine, & 21. a. initio, by Wygandus & Mat­thaeus Judex in their Syntagma ex Novo Testament. coll. 580. b. lin. 40. & 58 [...]. lin. 34. & 584. lin. 28. & lin. 41. & lin. ult. & 585. initio, by Chemnitius in Enchirid. pag. 269. & 273. Yet impugned by Mr. D. Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory pag. 274. post med. and against the Rhemish Test. in 1. ep. Joan. c. 5. sect. 4. fol. 455. b. circa & post med. and by M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 562. ante med.

64 That one Text of Scripture may have divers understandings, and all of them true (against our Adversaries practise, who, to make the same plain by one example for many, if they can shew that St. Au­gustin or some other Father, doth by Fire 1 Cor. 13.15. upon occasion of other application, under­stand the tribulation of this life, do therefore urge this Exposi [...]ion thus given against the other com­mon received sense of Purgatory; though also given elswhere by the very same and other Fa­thers, which the said Fathers by their other fore­said firster sense never meant to gainsay: This slight being usuall by our Adversaries is hereby once for all prevented) affirmed by the Translator of the English Bible published 1576. in his Epistle to the Brethren of England, Scotland and Ireland, circa med. by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneva &c. cap. 52. pag. 149. post med. by Hierome Zanchius de facra Scrip­tura pag. 422. fine, 424, 425. and by Aretius in loc. com loc. 59. pag. 187. circa med. & pag. 177. circa med. (with whom herein agreeth St. Augustine de Civit. Dei l. 11. c. 19. initio, & l. 12. confess. c. 31. & de Doct. Christ. l 3. c. 27. & lib. 1. c. 36. & de util. cred. c. 3. & de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. c. 21) Yet contradaict­ed by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 151. and M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 26 fine.

65 The distinction of Order and Jurisdiction (whereby the greatest Archbishop and the meanest Bishop or Priest are said to be equal or unequal, the equality being in respect of Order, and the inequa­lity in respect of Jurisdiction, which distinction serveth to explain the seeming repugnant sayings, [Page 340]whether of Scripture or Fathers, which otherwise might be thought to affirm somtimes a superiority, at other times an equality between Peter and the o­ther Apostles, and so likewise between the Pope and other Bishops) Affirmed by Mr. Whitgift, and Brereley tract. 2. c. 3 sect 10. subd. 2. sine in the margent at m. Mr. Bridges in his defence &c. pag. 313. & 445.446. 1156. fine, and Mr. Whitgift acknowledg­eth this distinction, affirming in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition pag. 303. post med. that Archbishops quoad ministerium doe not differ from other Pastors, but touching Government, affirm­ing also pag. 386. ante med. and answering to a common objection out of Hierome, who equalleth the meanest Bishop with the Pope, that they are e­qual quoad Mnisterium, but not quoad politiam, And see him there further pag. 320. fine, & 461. initio, & pag. 390. prope initium, and contradi­cted for Popish, by Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 389. prope finem, and by many others.

66 That the true visible Church cannot wholly erre; affirmed by Mr. Fox in his Martyrs, as by Philpot, Act. Mon. pag. 1401. a. prope finem, by Bilney Act. Mon. 464. b. art. 4. by Ridley Act. Mon. pag. 1361. b. post med. & pag. 1286. b. prope finem, by James Baynham Act. Mon. pag. 493. b. prope fi­nem, also by Mr. Fox himself Act. Mon. pag. 999. a. fine, at art. 36. by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon, and page mentioned next hereafter in number 67. by the Divines of Geneva, in their Propositions and Principles disputed &c. pag. 141. sect. 12. & 13. and most expresly by Bertrand de Loque, Minister of Delphinine, who in his discourse of the Church c. [Page 341]12. pag. 198. saith of this very question, The Contro­versie in my judgement is not of the Catholike (or universal) Church, for we all agree herein that she cannot erre touching Faith &c. wherefore this questi­on is touching (only) a particular Church: Impug­ned by Mr. Fulk, who in his answer to a counterfait Cathotholike pag. 8 [...]. fine, saith, The whole Church militant consisting of men, which are all liars, may erre altogether, as every part thereof. And by the Puritans, who in their Brief Discovery of untruths, in a Sermon preached 1588. by D. Bancroft, pag. 34. do expresly reprove Mr. Bancroft for his teaching our Catholike Doctrine herein.

67 An external Judgment, or difinitive sen­tence (and not only Scripture) appointed for the ending of Controversies; affirmed by Mr. D. Field in his words alleged heretofore in this Considera­tion, num. 51. by M. Bilson in his perpetual govern­ment &c. pag. 372. initio, by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon preached February 8. 1588. pag. 42, 43. (see his saying alleged and reprehended in the Pu­ritans foresaid Discovery &c. pag. 34.) by Mr. D. Covell in his Modest Examination &c. pag. 108. pau­lo ante med. & 109. prope finem, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity in the Preface sect. 6. initio, pag. 26. circa med. & pag. 28. ante med. by Melan­cthon in Consil. Theolog. part. 2. pag. 1. & 2. And in the end (after much winding in and out) by Mr. D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart pag. 99. post medium, and by the Puritans, whereof see M. Bancroft's Survey &c. pag. 304. fine: Yet con­tradicted vulgarly by over many (to be named) Sectaries of all sorts, who (thereby to exempt [Page 342]themselves from all triall) do pretend that the Church may erre, and therefore that only Scrip­ture is to be our Judge. See this at large pretended by the Protestants throughout the late Conference at Ratisbon, printed Lavingae Anno 1602.

68 Those that be learned know that the Go­vernment of the Church is neither Popular, nor Aristocratical, but a Monarchy: affirmed in these words by Mr. Whitgift in his defence &c. pag. 641. post medium, by M. D. Covell in his Examination &c. against the Plea of the Innocent pag. 109. & 107. alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num. 10. after 15. at a. b. c. e. by Luther alleged there afterwards in the margent under * next before 18. and vulgarly by many other Protestants, who af­firm the temporal Magistrate to be the head of the Church. But yet many others (who discern the known difference between the several Common­wealths of forein Nations governed by several Princes, and the particular Churches of those Na­tions: as namely that those sundry Common­wealths be each of them of it self a several absolute politike body, governed severally by distinct lawes, whereas yet all those several National Churches, professing all of them one Faith and Religion, make but one Catholike Church, one Body, Ephesians 2.16. & 3.16. One visible Church of Christ. Hooker l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 126. prope finem,) do therefore im­pugn Mr. Whitgift's foresaid Assertion, foresee­ing that by sequell thereof the several Churches of Forein Nations, making, as aforesaid, all of them but one visible Church, one Body, should be accor­dingly governed by one visible Ecclesiastical Head, or Monarch. And hence it is, that Mr. Jacob in his [Page 343]Reasons taken out of Gods word, retorteth (how probably we refer to judgement) Mr. Hookers Asser­tions, saying there pag. 24. paulo ante med. It follow­eth from this necessarily, that there ought to be a Catholike or universal government Ecclesiastical. This is a Conclusion whereunto Mr. Hooker setteth down both the Proposition and Assumption, viz. E­very visible Church, truly and properly so called, ought to have a correspondent Ecclesiastical go­vernment; but there is a Catholike or Universal visible Church on earth (to which premises every Child can adde the Conclusion) ergo there is, and ought to be on eartha Catholike or Universal Ec­clesiastical government. Thus far Mr. Jacob, upon supposall of a Catholike visible Church and Mo­narchical government.

69 That Children have not actual Faith: affir­med by Brereley tract. 1. sect. 6. subd. 3. in the margent at r. Mr. Cartwright in M. Whitgift's defence pag. 611. and by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbelgar. part. 2. pag. 124. initio, & in the propositions and principles disputed in the Uuiver­sity of Geneva pag. 178. sect. 4. and by Jacob Ky­medoncius in his Redemption of mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine, and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 682. initio. Yet impugned by Luther in loc. commun. class. 2. pag. 12. fine, and generally in his Writings, and by David Rungius in his dis­put. in Academia Wittemb. printed at Wittemb. 1606. pag. 195. sect. 144, 145, 146. &c. by Jac. Andraeas, see his words in Beza's Respons. ad Acta Coll. Montisbel. part. 2. pag. 124. ante med. and see there part. 1. in praefat. pag. 21. fine, & 22. circa med. and impugned generally by the Lutherans; see further of this con­fessed [Page 344]Controversie Musculus in loc. commun. pag. 309. post medium, and Jacobus Kimedoncius in his Redemption of Mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. post med. & 165, & 166.

70 That the Controversie of the Scriptures, as which be sacred, which not, is not to us determi­ned otherwise than by the Churches tradition; af­firmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 1. sect. 14. pag. 86. ante med. and lib. 2. sect. 4. pag. 102. fine, & 103. initio, & l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 147. circa medium, and by M. Whitaker adversus Staple­tonum l. 2. c. 6. pag. 370 prope initium, & pag. 357. prope initium, & l. 2. c. 4 pag. 300. ante med. & p. 298. post med. and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 1. c. 6. sect. 8. initio, pag. 42. b. and Lub­bertus de principiis Christian. dogmat. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 18. circa med. Pu. and Chillingworth also proves through his whole book, that we receive the cer­tainty of Scripture upon the Authority of the Church: Yet impugned by certain English Pro­testants in their Christian Letter to Mr. Hooker pag. 9 & 10. by Ursinus in his Doctrinae Christianae com­pendium in prolegomen. pag. 13. circa med. by Cal­vin. Institut. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 4. post med. and general­ly by divers others, who to avoid the Churches Authority, do referre the proof and knowledge of the Scriptures to the testimonie of the Spirit.

71 That the Church of Rome is part of the house of God, a Limb of the visible Church of Christ &c. is affirmed by Brereley tract. 1. sect. 6. subd. 1. in the Text and mar­gent at e.f.g.h. 1. k.l.m.n.o. Mr. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions disputed ad cle­rum &c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine, saying, I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the [Page 345]learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God; by Mr. Hooker in his fifth book of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 188. initio, saying, The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ; and Johannes Regius in his liber Apologe­ticus &c. in Considerat. Censurae, &c. pag. 95. fine, saith, In Papatu autem cum fuerit Ecclesia vera &c. and Mr. Hooker ubisupra pag. 130. ante med. saith, We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ; by Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 18. pag. 109. circa med. saying, Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God, and pag. 113. post med. saying of Catholikes and Protestants, We are no several Church from them, nor they from us, also by D. Some in his defence against Penry, and Refutation of ma­ny absurdities &c. in Mr. Penries Treatise pag. 164. ante med. saying, That the Papists are not alto­gether Aliens from Gods Covenant, I have shewed before; and ibidem pag. 182. initio, saying, In the judgement of all learned men, and all Reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church; a Ministrie, a true Christ &c. and pag. 176. prope finem, saying, If you think that all the Popish sort which died in the Popish Church are damned, you think absurdly, and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants; Likewise by M.D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker his five bookes of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 77. ante med. saying, We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and die in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved: Insomuch that he doubteth not (ibidem pag. [Page 346]68. paulo post med.) to charge the Puritans with Ig­norance for their contrary opinion; Yet impugned so generally by others, as to name any, is need­less.

72 The Patriarchship or Primacy of one, over the Church, in several Nations and Kingdomes, is acknowledged by Melancthon, alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num. 10. paulo post ini­tium, in the margent at 17. by Jacobus Andraeas, alleged there in the Margent at * next before 16. by Luther alleged ibidem in the Margent at * next be 18. and by Sir Edwin Sands, who more than infi­nuateth the known want hereof in the Protestants Church, to be to them as matter of defect and im­putation, Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 3. in the margent at l. saying in his Relation &c. fol. S. 2. on the B. side: 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 Councils unto Unity &c. whereas on the contrary side, Protestants are as severed or ra­ther scattered Troops, each drawing adverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrells; no Pa­triarch, one or more to have a common superinten­dance or care over their Churches for correspondency or Unity; no ordinary way to assemble a general Coun­cill of their part, the only hope remaining ever to as­swage their Contentions, and by Brereley in his Omissions and Aditions of pag. 702. l. 19. Andraeas Fric­cius de Ecclesia l. 2. c. 10. pag. 570.

73 Unwritten Traditions, necessary to be ob­served, are confessed even by such Protestants as are professed Adversaries thereto: As namely Mr. D. Field in his Treatise of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. fine, where having impugned unwritten [Page 347]Traditions, in the end yet, as inforced, confesseth and concludeth saying, Let us come to those Traditi­ons which concern the Manners and Conversation of Men, that the Apostles delivered many things of this nature to the Churches, some by way of Precept, some by way of Counsell only, some to continue but for a time, some to continue for ever, we make no doubt: Of this sort is the observation of the Lords-days; and sun­dry other things there are, which doubtless the Apo­stles delivered by Tradition. And see the unwritten Traditions of the Lords Day, and of the Canoni­cal Scriptures further acknowledged next hereto­fore under the several numbers of 57, & 58, & 60. and see also in Mr. D. Field ubi supra pag. 239. circa med. the Tradition of Lent-Fast; And Mr. D. Covell in his Answer to John Burges pag. 139. circa med. affirmeth the moderate use of the Cross to be an A­postolical Constitution; as also the said Mr. D. Covell in his Examination against the Plea of the Innocent c. 9. pag. 104. paulo post med. referreth ex­presly the tearmes of Archbishops unto Apostoli­cal ordination; and the then Bishop of London, and late of Canterbury in the Conference before the King pag. 11. initio, referreth likewise Confirmati­on to Apostolical Institution, signified not, but necessarily proved from Heb. 6.2. also Mr. Whitgift in his defence &c. pag. 539. fine, affir­meth and proveth abundantly the Apostles Tradi­tion of Easter; and Oecolampadius doth affirm the baptism of Infants not to be taught in the Scrip­tures, in libro Epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampa­dii pag. 301. post med. & 363. post medium; and so likewise doth Zuinglius tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 96. [Page 348] a. circa med. and Mr. D. Field pag. 239. tearmeth it a Pradition, because (saith he) it is not expresly de­livered in Scripture (either) that the Apostles did baptise Infants, nor any expresse precept there found, that they should do so, only undertaking that Scrip­ture delivereth to us the ground thereof, which is impertinent, unless he shew that it withall delivereth also to us a necessary proof thereof, which his for­mer words deny, for which cause, he tearmeth it, as before, a Tradition: and see lastly Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 2. sect. 7. pag. 118. post med. & 119. where he maketh special answer (as we do) to divers Testimonies of the Fathers, as namely of Irenaeus, Hierome, and Augustin alleged there by Mr. Cartwright, and usually by other Protestants in behalf of only Scripture; and see there sect. 5. pag. 106.

74 Concerning Equivocation or doubtfullness of Answer, affirmed by some Catholikes, not in mat­ter of Faith, (for it is evident to the contrary that we refuse to go to Protestant Churches, or to make the least dissimulation of our Faith) neither in Ci­vill Contracts (for who confessedly more credible, or of better performance therein than Catholikes?) neither in the case of our Prince or Countrey (for concerning either of these, we are bound in Con­science to make our selves Transparent; insomuch as to conceal any thing prejudicial to these, were in the sight of God, grievous and multiplied Iniqui­ty:) but only as in case of unlawfull Demands, to betray the Professors of Religion to the Persecuters thereof: or to reveal, to the hurt of others, that which the party demanded is in Conscience [Page 349]bound to keep secret. For so much as the Doctrine hereof is objected, as a special imputation to Ca­tholikes; we will (forbearing the question thereof) only but briefly examine, whether any like (if not worse) Equivocation or doubtfulness of speech be affirmed by our Adversaries. Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 2. c. 13. sect. 39. pag. 547. a. post med. after much discourse of this matter, conclu­deth saying, In these cases I think it is not forbidden, nay, I rather think it is most lawfull to speak doubt­fully. Zuinglius tom. 3 fol. 45. a. initio, intreating of Abraham's speech to his servants, when intending to sacrifice his Son, he said to them, abide you here, and I and the Child will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. Gen. 22.5. saith of Abraham's reserved meaning, Mentitus non est, neque enim mentitur, qui secretum aliquod celat, ne quid pericu­li inde nascatur. Mr. Willet upon Genesis 27. pag. 290. ante med. teacheth by many examples of Scripture, that dissimulation in outward gesture is tollerable, & pag, 292. circa med. he saith, It is one thing to conceal the Truth, an other to lye: As Abra­ham did hide the Truth, when he said Sarah was his Sister, Gen. 26.7. Melancthon in loc. commun. prin­ted Basilliae 1562. pag. 763. paulo post initium, saith, Non enim nemino mendacia figuras quibus ex proba­bili causa aliquid tegitur quod non necesse est dici, ut Raab negat speculatores domi suae esse: tales figurae nominantur officiosa mendacia. Of these figurative Locutions, or (as Melancthon tearmeth them) Offi­ciosa mendacia Luther tom. 6. Wittemberg. fol. 352. b. prope finem, saith, Simile est mendacium Raab Jo­suae, Est igitur mendacium officiosum, quo saluti, famae [Page 350]corporis vel animae consulitur &c. Igitur honestum & pium mendacium est, ac potius officium Charitatis appellandum. Zegedine (a learned Calvinist) in loc. commun. pag. 422. initio, affirmeth, Mendacia licita & bona quae commendantur. In proof whereof he there allegeth from Scripture the example of Raab, and of divers others. Wolfangus Musculus in loc. com. pag. 106. paulo post initium saith, Alius menti­tur ex timore Dei, sic obstetrices Aegyptiae, Exod. 1. Alius ex charitate, vel fide debita, sic Michol. 1. Sam. 19. Alius ex fide, sic Raab Haeb. 11. &c. To come now to Adversaries known practise, Mr. Fox re­porteth of Wiccliff, saying, Wiccliff to avoid the rigour of things answered with intricate words &c. To forbear the like known and confessed exam­ple of the Waldensis (who for peace and tranquil­lity sake used to be present at Masse, which they held and professed to be Idolatricall) alleged in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2 sect. 3. subd. 4. in the Text and margent at 17. John Careless, Protestant Mar­tyr, being demanded by the Magistrate if he knew such a man, recordeth his own Answer thereto in these words: No forsooth I do not know any such, nor have I not heard of him that I wot of. But yet (saith he) I lyed fasly, for I knew him indeed: Act. Mon. pag. 1530. a. post med. As concerning the Equivo­cation or doubtfull speaking and writing, even in matter of Religion used by Martin Bucer, it is re­ported in the example of the Sacrament, by the Protestant-Writers Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvi­nist. l. 2. fol. 129. a. post med. from the words of La­vater the Calvinist, and by Osiander in epitom. Hist. Eccles. &c. Centur. 16. pag. 249. initio, and by [Page 351] Josias Symlerus (Bucer's dearest friend) who (in his Oration of the Life and Death of Peter Martyr annexed to the end of his Common-places in Eng­lish fol. Q q. on the a. side paulo post initium) repor­teth that many learned Calvinists did, in explica­tion of the Sacrament, use a certain affected obscu­rity; that accordingly Bucer often times exhorted Peter Martyr that in the question of the Lords Sup­per he would use some certain obscure and doubt­full kind of speaking. That also thereupon Peter Martyr gave place to Bucer, and used the self same Forms of doubtfull speaking that Bucer did, see fur­ther hereof, Hospinianus in Hist. Sacrament. part. 2. fol. 210. a. fine, & b. initio. And of the very same doubtfull writing of Melancthon in the same questi­on of the Sacrament, Osiander in epitom &c. Cent. 16. pag. 614. giveth Testimonie saying, Calvinus crebris ad Melancthonem literis datis, hortatus est eum, ut aperte & perspicuè sententiam suam de Caena Domini profiteretur &c. Sed Philippus neque aper­tam, & ab omnibus ambiguitatibus alienam confessi­onem sibi extorqueri persuaderi passus est, &c. ita Philippus interdum cum Calvinistis collusit, inter­dum cum Lutheranis facere videri vult, and Osian­der ibidem pag. 826. initio, saith of the Calvinists Divines of Wittemberg. Wittembergenses Theologi edunt confessionem de Caena Domini, non totam since­ram, sed ambiguitatibus involutam &c. Theologi au­tem Jenenses admonent Ecclesiam Christi, &c. Wit­tembergensium phrases in hoc negotio esse ambiguas, quae in utramque partem flecti queant, & meros esse Cothurnus, and pag. 841. versus finem he mentio­neth and reproveth occultissimos Calvinistas, qui [Page 352]sub ambiguitatibus & dissimulatione veritatis latita­re cupiebant, and see further there pag. 912. post med. & 913. initio. Insomuch as ibidem pag. 796. paulo post med. he reporteth for a received Princi­ple or R [...]le with the Calvinists, saying Hanc max­imam, s [...]u Regulam habent Calvinistae, licere pro glo­ria Christi mentiri. They have this for a ground or principle, that it is lawfull to lye for the glory of Christ. And thus much briefly concerning Equivo­cation or worse than it) taught or practised by Lu­ther, Zuinglus, Peter Martyr, Melancthon, Mus­culus, Szegedine, Bucer, and many others before mentioned.

75 As concerning blessing of our Meate and Forehead, with the sign of the Crosse, and further use thereof in the publique Liturgy, Joannes Crec­celius in his Discriptio & refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae &c. printed Magdeburgi Anno 1603. pag. 118. post medium, giveth Testimonie of the Lutherans Doctrine saying: Nos autem non improbamus signum sanctae Crucis, si semel atque iterum absque supersti­tione liberè in divinis officiis adhibeatur atque usur­petur: imò si privati cibi & potus libere signentur. Nam cum imus cabitum, sive surgimus ex lecto, cru­ce nos juxta Lutheri & aliorum priorum institutio­nem signamus, and Joannes Manlius (Luther's Scholler) in loc. commun. pag. 636. fine saith, Re­spondit Lutherus, signo Crucis facto, Deus me tueatur &c. As also the Communion-Booke in the time of King Edward the Sixt (penned by advice and approbation of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other Protestant Divines of that time, and) printed Anno 1549. fol. 116. b. prescribeth the [Page 353]Priests signing of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross. And fol. 131. a. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Fountain of Baptism with the sign of the Cross: All which is vulgarly contradi­cted by many others, as being in it self superstiti­ous and against Scripture.

76 To these Seventy and Five several points, we could adde sundry other Catholike Opinions, defended in like manner by our learned Adversa­ries: As the guilt of original sin, and condemnation of the Heathen, against Zuinglius (whereof see Bre­reley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9. subd. 3. from g. to q.) The Divinity of Christ, against the Reformed protestant Churches of Polonia, and Transilvania, (whereof see Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 13. sect. 3. at p. q.) The Authority of Bishops: and sundry other points against the Puritans. And all these affirmed or denyed on each part upon pretended certainty from the Scriptures.

77 Pu. To this Consideration belong those ma­ny and learned Writers, who expresly teach, that many of the chiefe points which we hold against Protestants, are not necessary to Salvation, but in­different, (which is sufficient for us to be secure of Salvation for matters of Faith. Of this kind Bre­reley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. at † next after f. in the margent, giveth divers examples; As of Freewill, Prayer for the Dead, Honoring of Saints and Re­liques, Invocation of Saints, Real presence, Tran­substantiation, Receiving one or both kinds, Our B. Ladies being preserved from Originall sinne, Worshiping of Images, Granting Primacy to the Pope, and denying it to Kings, Satisfaction and [Page 354]Merit of Works, Masse, Seven Sacraments, Auri­cular confession. Of all which Brereley (ubi supra) cites exactly the Protestant Authors, and the places of their Books, which we will put down in the fifth Consideration, where we shew that Protestants yeild us Salvation. And it is to be observed that even Puritan Writers grant this indifferency, as appears in Brereley.

78 Besides what hath been said, that several Pro­testants hold with us in divers points of our Faith; Protestants when they pretend to make a Cata­logue of Professors of their Faith through all Ages, are wont to allege the Waldenses, Wiccliff, and Husse; and yet it is certain, that these men, in most points, held with us against Protestants.

79 Of Waldo, or Waldenses, Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 3. subd. 3. & 5. sheweth out of Protestant Wri­ters, That they held the Real presence in the Sacra­ment, That the Doctrine of Justification by only Faith, was so unknown to Waldo, and he so wholly affected to our Catholike Doctrine of Merits and Works, that he did forsake all things, that being poor he might follow Christ, and the Evangelicall perfection, which our Adversaries reject for Po­pish. Insomuch as he and his followers, were a very Order or Profession of begging Friars, and there­fore called the poor men of Lyons, professing) as D. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. pag. 270. circa med. urgeth) a kind of Monasticall life, wherein they were so forward, that they afterwards made means to Innocentius the third, then Pope, to have their Order by him confirmed, but could not prevaile, by reason of certain supestitious things perceived in [Page 355]their Conversation, and it is notorious that they maintained divers absurd and grosse Heresies, con­trary both to Catholikes and Protestants, as Brere­ley shewes ubi supra subd. 4. & 5. They held also with Catholikes in the number of Sacraments, in the Doctrine of single life, Vowes, Holy Scripture, good Workes, justification, Baptism of Infants, Purgatory, &c. as the protestant Writer Benedictus Morgenstern witnesseth in tract. de Ecclesiae pag. 79. paulo post medium.

80 Wiccliffe, saith Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 4. with his Disciples, went barefooted, and basely clo­thed in course russet Garments down to the heeles, and seemed to contemn all temporal Goods for the love of eternal Riches, adjoyned himself to the beg­ing Fryars, approving their poverty, and extolling their perfection, retaining also his former Catholike opinion (as Brereley proves out of Wiccliffs own writings) concerning Holy water, the worshiping of Reliques and Images, the intercession of our blessed L. St. Mary, (whereof he saith in Serm. de assumpti­one Mariae: Videtur mihi quod impossibile est nos praemiare sine Mariae suffragio &c.) the apparrell and Tonsure of Priests, the Rights and Ceremo­nies of Masse, extream Unction, and all the seven Sacraments, and all those sundry other Points of our Catholike Faith, now in question, with denyall whereof he is not found so much as charged.

81 Husse (as Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 5. proves out of Protestant Writers) beleived seven Sacra­ments, Transubstantiation, the Popes Primacy, the Masse it self, and being a Catholike Priest, he said Masse even to his dying day, and observed the [Page 356]Vowes of Priestly Chastity; in the Doctrine con­cerning Free-will, Predestination, informed Faith, the cause of Justification, and merit of good works, Images, he agreed with Catholikes.

82 To the aforesaid learned Protestants, I may adde two famous men, the one an Englishman, the other a Stranger, I mean D. Andrews pretended Bishop of Winchester, and Hugo Grotius a man of great estimation among Protestants.

83 As for D. Andrewes, in his Stricturae, or A brief Answer to the 18. chapter of the first book of Cardinall Perron's Reply &c. n. 1. he disclames from the opinion of Zuinglius, and also saith plainly, It cannot be denyed but reserving the Sacrament, was suffered a long time in the Primitive Church: From whence we must inferre, that Christ is present in the Sacrament permanently, and not only in the Action or use. Yea he grants that in time of perse­cution Christians were permitted to carry away how great a part they would, and to keep it by them, and to take it at times to comfort them; that those that lived in remote desart places, as Anchorets and Hermets, were permitted to carry with them how much they thought good, because a long time together they were not to come back to places where any Chur­ches were; that they did carry it about with them in their journey &c. Out of which Concessions, I in­ferre by the way, that Christians did not alwaies receive the Sacrament under both kinds, seing it is clear, that Wine could not be so long conserved in hot countries, nor delivered to so many, in different Vessels to be kept at home or carried up and down in journies &c. n. 9. he saith, For offering and pray­ing [Page 357]for the dead, there is little to be said against it; it cannot be denyed but that it is antient. n. 10.11. He acknowledges the Fast of Lent, and that Protestants fast not on Christmas day, though it fall upon a Fri­day or a Saturday. n. 12. He professeth the restraint of Priests from marrying not to be against either Jus Naturale, or Divinum. From which grant it fol­lows, that the Arguments which Protestants are wont to allege out of Scripture, or natural reason, to prove the unlawfulness of such restraint, are of no force: For if they were of force, it should be a­gainst Jus Naturale or Divinum, and no positive Law could ordain it. n. 13. He grants, that Vows of a single life, made orderly and duly, are to be kept, and cannot be broken without offence. n. 14. He doth not disallow the mingling of Water with Wine in the Eucharist, as also n. 17. He doth not reprove in the Ceremonies of Baptism, the sign of the Crosse, and the consecration or hallowing of the Water, and confesseth, that Crism indeed is very antient. n. 18. He confesseth the necessity of Baptism, via or­dinariâ. n. 20. He confesseth, that the antient Church had the five Orders of Ostiarius, Lector, Ex­orcist, Acolythus, Subdeacon, which we hold and keep, but Protestants reject. n. 20. He saith, the Church of England doth hold, that there is a distin­ction between Bishop and Priest, and that de jure di­vino. n. 23. He tells us, that the Protestant Church of England holds Good workes necessary to Salvati­on, and that Faith without them saveth not: that no man is predestinate to do evill: nor that it is safe for any man peremptorily to presume himself prede­stinate. From whence it follows, that men are not [Page 358]justifyed by an assured and certain beleif that they are just and predestinate: for with such a Faith it could not be presumption, but certainty to be­leive himself predestinate. n. 25. He grants, that in time of persecution, and after in the time of Peace, so long as the Christians dwelt mingled with the Heathen, they shewed plainly by making and using the Crosse, that they were not ashamed of that sign, wherewith the Heathen men did use to deride them. What then shall we say of Protestants, who deride us Catholikes for not being ashamed of that sign, wherewith the Heathen men did use to deride Chri­stians? and much more, what shall we say of those who sacrilegiously abuse and break down that holy sign? Ibidem he grants, that the primitive Chri­stians, in time of persecution, used Lights and Incense (though voluntarily he faign to himself the reason for which they used them) and after when Peace came, Christians retained both the Lights and the Incense, to shew themselves to be the Sons and Suc­cessors of those antient Christians, which in former times had used them, shewing their Communion in the former Faith, by the communion of the former Usages. What then shall we say of Protestants, who in us deride those things as superstitious, but that they shew themselves not to be the Sons and Suc­cessors of those antient Christians, nor to have communion of that former Faith? In the Brief of the 26. Heads, he saith, The Church of England holds Feasts in Memory of the Saints and Martyrs, with other points, which I omit. In his Sermon upon the 20. of St. John, n. 23. he saies, confessi­on to a Priest is necessarie, urging that of St. Au­gustine [Page 359]hom. 49. de 50. homil. Nemo tibi dicat occul­tè ago paenitentiam; apud Deum ago, ergo sine causa dictum est: Quae solveritis in Terra, soluta erunt in Coelo, ergo sine causa claves datae sunt Ecclesiae Dei: frustramus Evangelium Dei, frustramus Verba Christi. Finally to joyn his deeds with his words, when the Bishop of Spalata, by way of complaint, said to some (of Andrews:) iste Episcopus toruè me aspicit, this Bishop shews me a soure countenance; Andrews not denying the thing, answered: This man could have no good meaning in coming to England from a place, where he had in abundance all things for the salvation of his Soul.

84 Now to shew how far Grotius stands for us against other Protestants, I will cite only, and that breifly, what I find in two Books which he wrote in his ripest age, after long study and mature consi­deration. The one book he calls Votum pro pace Ec­clesiastica, the other, Rivetiani Apologetici pro Schismate contra votum pacis facti, discussio.

85 First then, he teacheth that Good-Works are not only a way to, but also a cause of reigning. vot. pag. 26. Secondly that there is true merit vot. pag. 27. Discuss. pag. 46.50.53. line 1. & 2. Third­ly, that we are not certain of our salvation certitu­dine fidei. vot pag. 28. Discuss. pag. 55. and ibidem. Fourthly, that with Gods Grace, we may observe the Covenant between God and Man. Fifthly, that the Pope is constituted above all Bishops to take a­way the occasion of Sciusm, vot. pag. 32. Sixtly, that antient Churches and Fathers were wont to have recourse to him in doubts concerning Faith, Discuss. pag. 23. That the Popes power and prima­cy [Page 360]is necessary for deciding Controversies in Reli­gion, Discuss. pag. 63. & ibidem pag. 66. & sequen­tibus, he proves the primacy and prerogative of the Pope, by divers excellent proofs of the antient Fa­thers and times; and to conclude, he saith, that there can on Union in matters of Faith, and Religion be hoped for, except under the Pope. Discuss. pag. 255. his words are these: Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque corpus, semper optatam a Grotio, sci­unt, qui eum norunt. Existimavit autem aliquando (&c.) incipi posse à protestantium inter se conjuncti­one. Postea vidit, id plane fieri nequire; quia praeter­quam quod Calvinistarum ingenia firme omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima, Protestantes nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur: quae causae sunt, cur factae partes, in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; imo & cur partes aliae at­que aliae sint exsurrecturae. Quare nunc plane ita sen­tit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestantes inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis, qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent; sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio, quae evenit, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est primatus Episcopi Romani secundum canonas, fatente Melancthone; qui eum primatum e­tiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem. Ne­que enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere pontificis libidi­ni, sed reponere ordinem, sapienter institutum, &c. Seventhly, that the Baptism of St. John Baptist did not forgive sins, but was imperfect in compa­rison of Christian Baptism, Discuss. pag. 76. vot. pag. 38. Eightly, that Saints hear our prayers, and that the antient Writers did beleive that Saints [Page 361]hear us. Vot. pag. 68. 69. 70. & 71. That the antient Fathers defended and practised Invocation of Saints, he proves at large, Discuss. pag. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. out of Chrisostom, Augu­stine, Hierom, Prudentius, Basil, Theodoret, Am­brose, Origen, and concludes, that from so great consent of Fathers it appears, that praying to An­gels and Saints, was approved by the Churches of those times, and that if it be Idolatry, there was no Church of God upon Earth. Yea he saith that K. James acknowledges that in the fourth Age there is to be found examples of Invocation of Saints, and that it is free from Idolatry he proves it out of Luther in Epistola ad Georgium Spalatinum, and ad Erfordienses, and out of Oecolampadius in Annotati­onibus ad Chrisostomum, and that Bucer doth not condemn it. Ninthly, that Catholiks are not [...], or Bread-adorers, or Idolaters in worship­ing Christ in the Sacrament. Tenthly, that Com­munion of the Laity under both kinds is not neces­sary, nor any divine command. vot. pag. 81. Discuss. pag. 249. Eleventhly, he saith that anointing the sick was used in the primative times, and lasted through all Churches without interruption till Lu­thers time, vot. pag. 82. Discuss. pag. 128. Twelfth­ly, he defends learnedly the authority, and certain­ty of Tradition, and answers what may be objected to the contrary; vot. pag. 101. 102. 103. 104. Discuss. pag. 26. 179. 189. Thirteenthly, that the vulgar Translation of the Scripture of all others is the sa­fest, Quae (saith he) nullum habet malum dogma, sicut tot saeculorum & gentium concensus judicavit, which contains no ill Doctrine, as the consent of so [Page 362]many Ages and Nations have judged. Fourteenth­ly, he holds works of supererogation. Vot. pag. 112. 15. Seven Sacraments Discuss. pag. 75. 76. 128. 16. Works of satisfaction. Discuss. pag. 84. 220. That they who teach Justification by Faith alone run in a circle, and utter unintelligible things. 17. Prayer for the dead, and Purgatory, Discuss. pag. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. &c. 18. That Grace may be lost. 19. Distinction of Mortal and Venial sins. Discuss. pag. 206. 207. &c. 20. He doth not deny that God may be painted ea forma, qua se patribus conspiciendum dedit, which he proves even from the learned Jews, as also from Philoso­phers. Discuss. pag. 114.

86 But to shew that we may in Favour of Ca­tholiks allege not one or many particular men, but the whole Protestant Church of England, it is to be observed, that their Communion book, to­gether with the Articles and book of Ordinati­on, were composed in the year 1547 by the Arch­bishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Rochester, Ely, Hereford, Worcester, Lincoln, Chichester, wherein is Invocation of Saints, and prayer for the dead, as hath been said in the first Consideration num. 28.

87 The further I proceed in this so important an Argument, and Consideration, the more mat­ter offers it self. We have shewed divers waies, how many learned Protestants stand for us against their Brethren; There remains yet a Demonstra­tion of the same Truth, taken from a great preten­ded Protestant, who proves and grants this to be true, even by denying it to be true. The case stands [Page 363]thus, Mr. Chillingworth in his book (approved by three principall men of Oxford) c. 5. n. 91. pag. 292. speaketh thus to the Author of the book intituled Charity maintained by Catholikes. who, part. 1. c. 5. n. 31. pag. 196. saith to D. Potter, You cannot be ignorant, but that many cheif learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our Doctrine and practise, and do in several, and many Controversies, acknowledge that the antient Fathers stand on our side. Now seeing we have in this third Considera­tion proved, that many cheif Protestants in the most important differences between us and them, hold our Doctrine to be true, and consequently to be most antient, I wonder how Mr. Chillingworth will answer the now alleged words of Charity main­tained. His Answer consists in alleging some parti­cular points, wherein he pretends that our Doctrine is not confessed to be antient, in which enumeration if we can demonstrate his Instances to be either un­true or impertinent, this our third Consideration will remain true; That chiefest Protestants in chie­fest points, hold with us against their pretended Bre­thren. For it is a true Axiom, Exceptio firmat oppositam regulam; If he can shew only some par­ticulars wherein Protestants agree not with us; he yields, ipso facto, that for the rest they hold as we do, and so, as I said, his verball denyall is a real proof of our Doctrin and Practise; Let us examin his particulars.

88 First, he specifies the Doctrin of the Com­munion in one kind: But of this we have shewed that the Doctrin of Catholikes (which is, that the Communion of the Laity in one kind, is neither com­manded [Page 364]nor forbidden, but of it self indifferent) is defended to be indifferent by many of the chiefest, and most learned, and of greatest authority among Protestants.

89 Secondly, he names the lawfulness and ex­pediency of the Latine service. I wonder how he durst question the lawfulness of Latin service, it being practised in the Universities: And in Queen Elizabeths time, in Wales the service was read in English, where the people understand it not. Yea Nichol. Harpsfield in Hist Wiccleffianorum c. 16. inter caetera saith, Ex aliis dogmatibus (quae Wicclif­fianis communia erant) quae Licestriani isti sectaban­tur fuit & illud, non licere Missas aut Horas Matuti­nas, sive Vespertinas, sonore, & alta voce in Ecclesia & Templis recitare. Cardinal Richilieu deservedly taxes hereticall Ministers, for reading in certain Countries the Service in a language not understood by the people of those Countries, saying, (in his book called Defensio praecipuorum fidei Catholicae Capitum, c. 4. sect. 2. pag. 121.) to the Ministers of Charanton: Populum universum quae dicuntur in­telligere pugnatis oportere, & tamen sectatores ve­stri, qui in Bearnia, Gallia, Marbonensi, Provincia, Fasconia degunt, non sunt Gallicae linguae peritiores, quam latinae populi, qui in Ecclesia Catholica vi­vunt; & tamen illarum regionum Ministri Gallicam in officiis linguam usurpant, non autem illarum Pro­vinciarum linguam. The same Cardinal, sect. 1. pag. 111. saith, Habendum esse aliquem hominum dele­ctum, neque omnia omnibus passim proponenda, nemo dubitat (inquit Whitakerus l. contra Duraeum sect. 15.) Evangelii doctrina multos reddit perversiores [Page 365]& improbiores; addit idem Whitakerus Controvers. 1. q. 2. c. 17. The Reader may be pleased to see what we have said above about promiscuous rea­ding of Scripture in English, as not permitted in K. Edwards time, and Considera­tion 1. num. 29. disallowed by D. Collins. The greater the Authority of Scripture is, with greater obstinacy men stick to their Errors, falsly pretended to be contained in Scripture, read or heard. Besides, D. Potter pag. 62. 63. puts Latine service among those points which are not funda­mental, nor necessary to constitute a Church; and in King Edward's time, Stow (Chron. pag. 594.) reporteth, The French King being deceased &c. also the Church of St. Paul in London being hanged with black, and a sumptuous Herse set up in the Quire, a Dirige was there sung; and on the next morrow, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury (Cranmer) assisted of Eight Bishops all in rich Myters and other their Pontificalls, did sing a Masse of Requiem &c. The Protestant Hospinianus in Hist. Sacramentar. part. 2. fol 33. saith, Docet (Lutherus) liberum esse sive in vulgari, sive in peregrina lingua celebrare: Which is the very Doctrine of Catholikes, who teach, that there as no Divine Precept or prohibition to celebrate publick Offices in a learned or vulgar language, and therefore it must be left to the power and Ordinance of the Church, which we are commanded to hear, and of which we must learn what in particular circum­stances is most expedient for the Common good. Of this point I will allege, what Brereley hath in his Liturgie of the Masse, tract. 5. sect. 4. subd. 3. pag. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. where he saith; The more antient proof and reason (of celebrating the pub­like [Page 366]Liturgy in Latin) is establisht and certain; for seing it is heretofore made plain, that in the other much more antient times, the Chancell in which the Priest did celebrate the publike Liturgy, was so Apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. tract. 1. sect. 2. subd. 1. in the margent. at m. o. Concil 6. Const. Can. 69. saith, Nulli omnium, qui sit in laicorum nu­mero, liceat intra sacrum Altare ingredi &c. ex antiquissima traditione. Hist. Tripartit. l. 9. c. 30. versus finem, It is reported concerning Chancels, how that Ambro­sius non quievit sed differentiam locorum edocuit. And that St. Ambrose said there­upon, O Imperator, interiora loca tantum sacerdotibus sunt collata, quae caeteri nec ingredi, nec contingere permittuntur: egredere igitur &c. And see further con­cerning Chancells, Socrates Hist. l. 5. c. 17. versus finem. And Zozomen. Hist. l. 7. c. 24. And Concil. Laodicen. can. 19. and Concil. Agathens. can 66. And Germa­nus Constantinopolitanus in Theoria paulo post initium, saith, Cancelli locum orationis designant, quosque extrinsecus populus accedit: intrinsecus autem sunt sancta sanctorum solis Sacerdotibus pervia. And apud Brereley in the Preface sect. 7. initio at e. D. Reynolds in his Conference &c. pag. 488. allegeth that Dionysius ma­keth mention of Churches and Chancels therein severed with such sanctification from the rest of the Church, that Lay-men might not enter thereinto. See more hereof in Brereley ubi supra tract. 1. sect. 2. subd. 1. in the margent at n. severall to the Clergy, as that the Lay people might not enter thereto; and that also divers parts of the publike prayers usuall there in Mass-time, were Apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. in the Preface, sect. 14. at the second h. In Basil's Liturgy fol. 38. at g. and fol. 41. b. Pontifex secretè: and the same yet further there, fol. 34. b. 38. a. b. 39. a. b. 41. b. 45. b. 43. b. And in Chrysostom's Liturgy fol. 56. a. fine, & fol. 50. b. it is said: & dicit sacerdos remissa voce: and fol. 59. a. it is said: dicit orationem hanc sacerdos sedatissima voce: and see there fol. 61. circa med. and apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. tract. 5. sect. 3. at e. in the margent it is said; In Basil's Liturgy it is said, tunc elevans manus Pontifex dicit secretè. fol. 38. & vide ibidem fol. 36. 39. 40. 42. 43. &c. And this ceremony is further mentioned in Chrysostom's Liturgy fol. 56. & 61. and the antient Laodicen Councill can. 19. saith hereof, tres orationes fi­ant, prima per silentium, secunda, & tertia, per vocis pronuntiationem, & tunc demum of culum pacis dari debere. And see Innocentius Epist. 1. ad Decentium, c. 1. whose testimony in this point [...]s so plain, that Hutterus de Sacrificio M [...]ssatico, pag. 590. answering thereto, saith thereof: Innocentii primi authoritatem merito explo­dimus, quippe ab hoste veritatis petitum; and before all these see St. Clement (the A­pastles Scholar) in constit. Apost. after the Antwerp print of 1604 l. 2. c. 61. fol. 56. Hereto also is not impertinent the Veil used of antient in the Greek Church, wherewith the Priest was for the time compassed about, whereof S. Chrysostome (apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. tract. 2. sect. 7. initio at z.) ad pop. hom. 61. circa med. saith: Dum hic profertur sacrificium, & Christus immolatur, & ovis Dominica, cum au­dieris, oremus omnes communiter, cum vela videris retrahi, tunc supernè caelum aperiri cogita, & Angelos descendere &c. pronounced in secret, it is thereby made un­doubted, [Page 367]that the publike Liturgy was not then made audible and common to the Lay people. Also there is not any appearing necessity herein of the vulgar language, for seeing that the Priests proper and principal end in his celebrating of Masse and Sacrisice, is thereby not to instruct the people, but to worship God (as saith St. Augustin thereof Hereof Brereley in the Liturgy of the Masse, tract. 3. sect. 1. subd. 2. at f. in the mar­gent saith, Aug. contra Fau­stum Mani­chaeum l. 20. c. 21. speaking of the sacrifice which Christ commanded in his institution of the New Testament at his last Supper, saith, Non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis Martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari Novi Testamen­ti manifestatione praecepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum qui latria dicitur, & uni Deo debetur. What can be more plainly spoken to prove that Christ in his Institution of the Sacrament, ordained and commanded Sacrifice? cultu latriae) and to make Hieron. in c. 1. ad Titum saith, Quid de Episcopo sentiendum est, qui quotidie pro suis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est victimas? and Ambrose in Psalm. 38. saith, Vidimus principem sacerdotum ad nos venientem, vidimus & audivimus offerentem pro no­bis sanguinem suum: sequamur ut possumus sacerdotes ut offeramus pro Populo Sacrificium, etsi infirmi, tamen honorabiles sacerdotio; and Nazianzen Epist. 8. ad Simplicium haeret. tearmeth the Priest The Mediator between God and Man; and Ignatius in Epist. ad Smirnens. saith, In the Church nothing is greater than the Bishop, who sacrificeth to God for the safety of the World; and Chrysostom. de sa­cerdot. lib. 6. c. 4. initio, saith: Nam eum qui pro omni civitate (quid autem dico pro civitate?) Imo pro universo mundo legatione fungitur, & deprecatur iniqui­tatibus omnium propitium Deum fieri, non solum viventium sed etiam mortuorum, qualem putas esse debere? And apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. in the preface &c. sect. 14. at the first r. in the margent, it is said, In Basils Liturgy fol. 40. a. post med. Suscipe nos appropinquantes sanct [...] Altari tuo, ut simus digni offerre tibi rationa­bile istud & absque sanguine sacrificium pro nostris peccatis & populi ignorantia, &c. suscipe servitutem nost [...]m sicut suscepist [...] Abel munera, Noe sacrificium, &c. And Chrysostom. Liturgy fol. 53. a. fine saith, Fac nos dignos offerendo tibi preces, & hostiam incruentam pro universo populo tuo. And ibid. fol. 59. b. Fac me dig­num sacerdotii gratia indutu [...] assist [...]re sanctae [...]uae mensae, ac consecrare sanctum corpus tuum, & pretiosum sanguinem. And agam fol. 60. b. Fac nos offerre tibi dona. & sacrificium spirituale pro nostris pecca [...]is, & ignoranti [...]s populi. And the Apostle, Hebr. 5.1.3. teacheth accordingly that every Priest is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and Sacrifices for sins, &c. as or the people, so also for himself. Oblation and Praiers for himself and the people, it is sufficient that God understandeth what is therein said and [Page 368]done by the Priest; as for the people, the Priests act of celebrating of publike service for them, de­pendeth not upon the correspondence of their par­ticular understanding, no more than doth his like confessedly practised oblation Apud Bre­reley in the Li­turgy &c. tract. 3. sect. 1. subd. 3. in the mar­gent at 4. See Bullinger's Testimony hereof in his Decades in English, pag. 1082. and Mr. Fulk against Purgato­ry, pag. 362. & 363. and Hospinian. hist. Sacram. (apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. tract. 3. sect. 2. subd 2. in the margent at g.) reproveth the Fathers &c. namely Ca [...]o­lus Magnus, Tharasius, Joannes Eleemosynarius, Damascen, and Isiodore, charg­ing them directly with Masse for the dead: For which he reciteth their particular Say­ings, l. 3. pag. 281. and see more hereof in Brereley ibid. sect. 1. subd. 3. in the mar­gent at b. ibidem at 5. Aug. l. 9. Conf. c. 11. saith, Cum offeretur pro ea sacrifici­um pret [...]i nostri; and ibidem c. 13. he further saith of his sick Mother, Non ista man­davit (Monica) nobis, sed tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri deside­ravit &c. unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis. Ibidem also at t. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 110. faith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur, Ibidem at u. Aug. de verbis Apost. serm. 34. saith, Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eiis qui in corpo­ris & sanguinis Christi communione desuncti sunt, cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id osterri commemoretur. Ibidem at x. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 110. The sacrifice of the Altar, or of Almes, which are offered for the dead, are thanksgiving for those that be very good, (or in Heaven) and propitiations for those that be not very evill, (or not in Hell) & vide Aug. de verbis Apost. serm. 17. and in Joan. tract. 84. Ibidem in Brereley at y. Cyprian. l. 1. Epist. 9. saith, Antecessores nostri &c. censuerunt ne quis frater excedens &c. Clericum nominaret, ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec pro dormiti­one ejus sacrificium celebraretur, Ibidem also at z. Chrysostomus hom. 69. ad pop. saith, Non temerè ab Apostolis haec suerunt sancita, ut in tremendis mysteriis de­functorum agatur commemoratio, sciunt enim illis inde multum contingere lu­crum, utilitatem multam: and the very same he affirmeth in hom. 3. in Epist. ad Philip. et vide Hom. 21. in Acta Apostolorum, & Hom. 41.1. Cor. Ibidem at a. Tertull, de corona militis, saith, Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis Annua facimus; and Cirill. Hierosolymit. cateches. 5. saith, Maximum esse credimus ani­marum juvamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi quod in Al­tari positum est sacrificii: See further hereof Eusebius de vita Constantini, l. 4. c. 17. and Ambrose l. 2. Epist. 8. ad Faustinum, & Concil. 2. Cabilonens. can. 39. and Concil. 1. Brach. can. 34. 35. 39. and see the Liturgies of St. James, fol. 28. a. of Ba­sil, fol. 44. initio, and of Chrysostom, fol. 62. b. fine: and Clemens l. 8. Apostol. Con­stitut. after the Antwerp print of 1564. c. 18. See also more hereof in Brereley in the Liturgy &c. ibidem at b. By all which it is sufficiently proved, that the Primitive Church held the Priests celebration absolute in it self without any necessity of the peoples particular understanding. for the dead, de­pend [Page 369]upon correspondence held with them, but is in it self accomplished and perfect, as was the Priests Sacrifice in the old law, for himself and the whole Congregation, whereat the people And there shall be no man in the Taber­nacle of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an altonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an attone­ment for him­self, and for his houshold, and for all the Congregation of Israel. Leviticus 16.17. might not be present. And so accordingly Apud Brereley in the Liturgy &c. tract. 5. sect. 3. fine at * in the margent, Beza in Epist. Theolog. ep. 8. pag. 73. saith, Plerique tamen ex vetustissimis illis (Patribus) Christianorum sacra non aliter quam Cereris mysteria quaedam occultanda censuerunt, adeo ut ne Catechumenos quidem ad spectandum admiserint, & totam illam actionem, in qua quicquid paucis & simplicibus symbolis figurabatur, verbo suo clarè & ea lingua quae ab omnibus intelligeretur explicato palam praedicari & promulgari voluit ac praecepit Domi­nus, sicut & ipsemet factitavit, in Aporreta quaedam & ne ipsis quidem mystis plerisque intellecta sacra transformarunt; and pag. 82. He taxeth herein both the an­tient and new Liturgies, aswell of the East, as of the West; and pag. 83. he saith, In­troducta sunt paulatim pro mensis Altaria &c. at qui primam hanc arripuit occasi­onem Satan, sacram istam actionem non dandi sed accipiendi Christi causa institu­tam in sacrificium ctiam ilasticon transformandi; non placuerunt vulgares & sim­plices Hymni &c. non placuit simplex & communis apparatus, idcirco conquiri marmora, inaurati parietes, vasa aurea & argentea comparari, pretiosae etiam & pontificales atque adeo imperatoriae vestes Ministris circundari caeperunt, hono­randi scilicet Sacramenti causa, rotundi panes singulis porrigi caepti & ritus à Do­mino institutus abrogatus; non placuit vel sedentibus vel stantibus panem in manum porrigi ut olim fiebat, sed attolli panem quasi venerandum &c. and pag. 79. he saith, Totum illum apparatum quo vetustissimi etiam illi Baptismum & Coenam Domini se exornare posse putarunt non satis mirari possum &c. Theodore Beza confesseth of the publike Liturgies celebration had in the times of the most antient Fathers. More­over, the inconvenience of the vulgar language seemeth great, as well in respect of the The change of the vul­gar languages appeareth by example of our own, so greatly altered from the first old Eng­lish, as that ours now used, is almost become another language, a thing so incident to o­ther Nations, that M. D. Morton in Apolog. Cath. part. 1. cap. 10. pag. 25. saith, Tu igitur tempus primum demonstra, quo vernacula Graeca, Romana, Hebraea, pri­mo caeperint à nativa sua integritate degenerate. change and degenerating, daily incident to those langua­ges; as also in regard of the Communion of dis­persed Churches in Forein Nations, which is pre­served by Latine Service, so as in what Country [Page 370]soever of the Latine Church any stranger sojour­neth, he is yet, in regard of the Church service and publike worship of God, as though he were at home; and so accordingly the Italian Priest may celebrate his publike Liturgy aswell in France, and Germany, as in Italie, and the like may be said of o­ther people and nations; the contrary whereof fal­leth out upon the variable and divers celebration of the publick Liturgy according to the diversity of rites and vulgar languages variably observed in several nations. Besides, the ancient presidents of publick Liturgies within the first 600. years, are worthy of observation herein, for the Liturgies in those antient times used by the Oriential Churches are either Greek or Caldee, as likewise all the like ancient Liturgies of the west Church are onely Latine, which argueth that upon the first conversion of nations, the publick Liturgy was not diversly first taught and celebrated according to the diversity of vulgar Languages.

And whereas our adversaries do no lesse vehe­mently than usually object to the contrary that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians, of 1. Cor. 14.15. prayer with understanding. To forbear that longer discourse had in explication thereof by our other See the An­notations of the Rhemish Testa­ment upon this place. writers, I briefly answer: first, that though we should suppose it were meant of our or­dinary prayers, (as indeed it is onely spoken of languages I would that you all spake strange languages, but rather that you prophesi­ed, for greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with Tongues, except he explained it, that the Church may receive edification. verse 5. Even so you, for so much as you covet spiritual gifts, seek that you may excell unto the edifying of the Church. v. 12. Whereby, and yet further by the 13.26.27. & 28. verses, is made e­vident that the Apostles discours is not of vulgar languages, but only of such Tongues as then were given by Miracle, before which he here preferreth the gift of interpretation: As also the prayer in a strange tongue here mentioned ver. 14. concerneth likewise the spiri­tual prayers then uttered in a strange tongue given by extraordinary and miraculous gift, and therefore is impertinent to the point now properly issuable. given in those first times by mira­cle) [Page 371]yet it is in such sort defective as against us, aswell for that our present question is only of Churches Liturgy celebrated by the Priest, who understandeth the same, and not concerning the primitive praiers of the Faithfull, whom to under­stand their prayers, we do not forbid: As also, for that concerning prayers though not understood, the Apostle doth not there forbid and condemn them, but to the contrary in the same place ex­presly If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my under­standing is without fruit. 1. Cor. 14.14. Wherein it is to be observed, that the Apostle here saith, that not the praier but the under­standing is un­fruitful, affirm­ing plainly that nevertheles the devotion or spi­rit of the party so praying is ac­ceptable, or (as the marginall Notes of the English Bible of 1576. upon this place at 1. are) doth his part. affirmeth that the spirit and affection of the party so praying, doth pray well towards God, al­though his understanding be not thereby instructed. Secondly though we should for the time yet further suppose with our Adversaries, that the Apostles saying did concern the prayers made in the publike Liturgy, yet so also it maketh nothing for them; for thus much, though supposed, at the most but proveth, that the Clergy celebrating this Liturgy, should understand the same: As for the other que­stion of the Lay peoples actual joyning with the Priest in the celebration thereof, that is nothing at all hereby inferred or proved, but at the most (the premisses, though supposed, notwithstanding) re­maineth in question still as before; Nay the Apo­stle himself (his saying being so understood) seem­eth rather to signify the contrary, in his affirming that not all the vulgar or unlearned, but If thou blesse in the Spirit, how hall he that supplyeth the place of the vulgar say Amen upon the blessng, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 1. Cor. 14.16.one spe­cially [Page 372]appointed to supply their place, must for them all answer Amen; so as the Lay peoples joynt action herein with the Priest, is by the Apostles words (according to this supposed understanding of the place) rather excluded than directly proved.

90 Thirdly, Mr. Chillingworth allegeth the pre­sent use of Indulgencies. But D. Potter (pag. 63.) whom Mr. Chillingworth undertook to defend, placeth this matter as a thing not belonging to points fundamental, and necessary to constitute a Church; so that although it were falsly and impi­ously supposed that the Church erred in this parti­cular (as it is impossible she should) yet the error were not exclusive of Salvation. Neverthelesse of the antiquity of Indulgences, see the confession of Protestants in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. pag. 62. and in the Tripple Cord Chap. 26. sect. 3. pag. 640. citing the Centurists, Field, and Napper.

91 Fourthly, he talks of the Popes Power in Tem­poralities over Princes; wherein he shews much ma­lice, and no discretion, considering what we have delivered in our first Consideration concerning the Doctrine of the greatest Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Zuinglius, Beza, Knox, and others in order to obedience of the civill Magistrate.

92 Fifthly, he objects the picturing of the Tri­nitie. It were strange if he did not know very well what may be answered to this point, but he was disposed to cavill. Bellarmine tom. 2. de Reliquiis Sanctorum lib. 2. cap. 5. saith, Non est tam certum in Ecclesia, an sint faciendae Imagines Dei, five Trini­tatis, quam Christi & Sanctorum: hoc enim confiten­tur omnes Catholici, & ad fidem pertinet, illud est in [Page 373]opinione; and accordingly he cites for that opini­on of not painting the Trinity, Abulensis, Duran­dus, and Perisius. Nevertheless Bellarmine doth answer clearly all that is objected against the said practice of painting the Trinity; and indeed there can be no doubt made but that it is very lawfull and secure. See what hath been said above out of Groti­us, in so much as D. Lawd in the Starr Chamber, to defend the practise, made a speach, which is ex­tant in print. But no man ought to wonder, that he excepts against picturing the Trinitie, seeing He and his Fellow-Socinians doe not believe that My­stery; and therefore in their wicked opinion, to picture the Trinity, were to paint a nothing, or an Idoll, as (de facto) they blasphemously affirm the Blessed Trinity to be triplicem Cerberum, &c. as hath been said in the first Consideration num: 44. and accordingly they would wickedly paint this sacred Mysterie, if they were to make a pi­cture thereof.

93. Sixthly, He specifies the worship of pictures. I answer; It hath been shewed, both that Prote­stants confess the worship of Images to be ancient, and also that some Protestants hold it: although in­deed there needs no other proof than the light of nature to make good, that respect and veneration is due to pictures, if once it be granted that veneration is due to the Prototypons, or those whom Images re­present; nor can there be any doubt but that superna­tural veneration is due to Saints for their supernatu­ral worth or Excellency, as natural or civill respect is due to Magistrates, and the like, in regard of their civill or natural perfection, dignity, or degree.

94. Seaventhly, he names Our Beads, Rosary, [Page 374]& our Ladies Psalter: and in a word our whole wor­ship of the B. Virgin. Answer. In the Beads, Rosa­rie, &c. We may either speak of praying to, and worshiping of Saints, (which we have proved here­tofore) or of repeating in the Beads the same pray­ers, wherein there can be no difficulty, if the for­mer supposition of praying to Saints be granted as lawfull. For it it be lawfull to doe it once, why not often? How often are the same words repeated in Scripture, and in particular Psalm. 135? and I won­der what crime had it been for Mr. Chillingworth to have said a hundred times, God give me his Holy Grace, first to know, and then to be constant in the true Faith and Religion. If it be lawfull to demand and beg often the same thing, what imports it, whether we use the same or different words signi­fying the same thing? or were it not superstition to put force in the meer difference, or Identity of words, the thing or matter being confessedly the same? We Catholicks put not any force in the precise number (which were superstitious, and heathenish) but in some mystery signifyed by that number. Is it not recorded in the holy Gospel, Matth. 26. v. 44. that our Blessed Saviour in the garden prayed thrice, saying the same words? A proof so pregnant in our behalf, that D. Preston Master of Emanuel College in Cambridge speak­ing against repeating the same prayer, when the said example of our Saviour was alleged, reply­ed, 'tis true, but he was in an Agonie, he knew not what he said. O blasphemy! and yet none ought to wonder that this man speaks in this manner, if he call to mind what we have related in the first Con­sideration, n. 46. concerning Calvin, & ibid. n. 5. [Page 375]concerning Luther, & ibid. n. 52. concerning Be­za. Besides we have shewed, Consideration 2. n. 23. at 79. that by the confession of Protestants, numbring prayers upon little stones (or beads) is very antient.

95. Eightly, He obtrudes, oblations by way of consumption, & therefore in the quality of Sacrifi­ces to the Virgin Mary and other Saints. My an­swer to this must be, that neither I, nor any o­ther, as I conceive, can riddle, what he meanes by oblations by way of consumption, and therefore in the quality of Sacrifies, &c. His conscience cannot but tell him, that he knows we offer Sacrifice on­ly to God. If he mean we use lights in the Church, and that sometimes we place them before the I­mages of our Blessed Lady, and Saints, he would do us a pleasure, if he could teach us to light can­dles or lamps without their being consumed, but like that vision represented to Moses of a bush burning & not consumed. So far are we from intending any ob­lation by way of consumption, or in the quality of Sacri­fice. I wonder he would make any such objection as this, at that time when Protestants did much affect the use of lights, Altars, & Pictures in their Chur­ches. In the meane time who would not (I know not whether to say) laugh, or conceive just indignation, to see so great a Champion as M. Chillingworth was esteemed, to object such matters as these, and, as causes sufficient to forsake Gods Church?

96. Ninthly, he specifyes our saying of Pater­nosters, and Creeds, to the hono [...] of Saints, and of Ave-Maries to the honor of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin. This is not unlike to the former, [Page 376]neither can I imagine what difficulty he can find that any good work, (as saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds is, even in the account of Protestants, and the saying of Ave-Maries must be sapposed to be in the opinion of these Protestants who allow prayers made to Saints) may be offered in honor of Saints. What will he say to the known doctrine of S. Augustine, that although Sacrifice be offered to God only, yet it may be offered in honor of Saints? And much more why may not Pater-nosters and Creeds, be offered in honour of Saints, and Ave-Maries in honor of other Saints, though the words be directed only to the Blessed Virgin? In the mean time I return to say; can such matters as these be alleged in the day of judgement, as sufficient to excuse Luther and his followers, from the grie­vous sin of Schism, in forsaking the Communion of all Churches then extant?

97. Tenthly, He names the infallibilitie of the Bishop or Church of Rome. Answer. It cannot be expected that Protestants or any other divided from the Church of Rome, will in expresse termes ac­knowledge her to be infallible under that word of Infallible; but it hath been shewed, that if they will speak with consequence to themselves, they cannot deny her to be infallible, while they give her such titles, and grant her such Prerogatives, as we have seen heretofore, and deny not but that the ancient Fathers yielded her a preheminence before all other Churches, and took her Doctrine and Practise for a Rule and proof of the Truth or fals­hood of what was believed or practised through all Christian Churches; Yea and we have heard [Page 377]Protestants confessing that the Popes Authority for conserving unity, and deciding Controversies in matters of faith, is altogether necessary, and that there cannot be expected any peace and union a­mong Christians, except by submitting to the Pope. Besides, Protestants commonly grant that the true Church is infallible in fundamental points, and we must either say that the Roman Church was the true Church, when Luther appeared, or that Christ had no true Church on earth at that time, nor hath any at this present, seeing even the chiefest Pro­testants agree with us in many of those very points, for which the first Protestants pretended to forsake all Churches extant when they appeared.

98. Eleaventhly, He objects our prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickely in the Church in such languages as all may understand. Of this we have spoken heretofore; Neither is it true, that there is any general prohibition to read any Scripture in the Church in such a language as all may under­stand; for some Preachers are wont to read in a vulgar language the Gospell of which they are to preach; but our doctrine is, that there is no Divine precept to use vulgar languages in the Liturgy or publick Offices recited in the name of the Church: But what would he say to the custome which I have understood to have been used in Ireland, of forcing people of that Nation, to be present even at Ser­mons made in English, of which they understand not one word? which is a case far different from the use of an unknown tongue in the Liturgie or publick Offices ordained to the publick worship of God by the Church, and not referred immediately [Page 378]for a Catechism or Instruction of the people, as Sermons are.

99. Twelfthly, He strangely mentions our do­ctrine of the Blessed Virgines immunity from actual sin; and our doctrine and worship of her immacu­late Conception. Answer. It is a sign you want better matter, while you object these points. Your conscience cannot but tell you, that you know we are so farr from making the immaculate Concep­tion a point of Faith, that there is a severe prohi­bition, that neither part censure the other of He­resie, Error, or the like, so that this Instance is manifestly impertinent. The reader may be pleas­ed to read Bellarmine tom. 4. de amissione Gratiae & statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 15. where he saith: Quod ad primum, (scilicet, non haberi apud Catholicos pro re certa & explorata, ac fide Catholica tenenda, bea­tam Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam) Joan­nes Pomeranus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis, in comment. cap. 1. & 44. Hierem. scribere ausus est, pro articulo fidei, apud Catholicos haberi B. Virgi­nem sine ullo peccato, immo etiam de Spiritu Sancto fuisse conceptam. Sed hoc impudentissimum menda­cium satis apertè refellunt duae Pontificum constituti­ones, & Concilii aecumenici decretum, quibus consti­tutionibus, ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obe­diunt. Sixtus IV. Pontifex Max. in ea Constitutione quae incipit, Gravè nimis, de reliquiis & venera­tione Sanctorum, desirtis verbis pronuntiat, nondum esse quaestionem istam, de Conceptione B. Virginis, ab Ecclesia Romana & Apostolica sede definitam, & ideò paenam excommunicationis statuit in eos, qui al­terutram sententiam ut haereticam damnare audent. [Page 379]Judicium Sixti Pontificis sequutum est Concilium TRIDENTINUM ses. 5. ac demum nostro tempore PIUS V. in constitutione quam edidit de conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae. Besides, Protestants themselves acknowledge this point to be a thing indifferent, excusable, and not defined; as may be seen in the fift Consideration num. 4. at † next after f. in the margent at Fifthly, and as Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. in the margent at † next after f. at Fifthly, & tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 2. at f. in the margent proves saying, Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin, and the worshipping of Images, Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to pacification sect. 17. pag. 104. paulo ante med. & pag. 105. saith, If any think it more honor a­ble for the Blessed Virgin (yea for Christ himself that took flesh of her) to have been without sin, and there­uppon for his part do rather think that by special praerogative she also was preserved from original corruption, &c. in these or such like, whosoever will condemn all those that are not perswaded, as we are, committeth an uncharitable part towards those his brethren. And D. Field ibid. apud Brereley pag. 499. in the margent at * expresly affirmes (lib. 3. of the Church, c. 42. pag. 174. post med.) the point concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady to be a controversie not Not defined saith M. D. Field cited in the text. And in his said Treatise of the Church l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. ante med. he affirm­eth of the con­tradictory opi­nions (for which saith he) some were named Tho­mists, other Scotists, that they consisted (to use his own words) in the contro­versies of religi­on not yet de­termined by consent of the vniversal Church.defined. Now if these Protestants speak thus of our B [...]essed Ladies im­munity from Original sin, much more will they hold that it is no damnable error (if it were an er­ror, as it is indeed a most certain Catholick truth) and so still we are safe for matter of Doctrine. But[Page 380]here Chillingworth doth much forget himself, not to consider that He, his brethren the Socinians, and some other Protestants deny all Original Sin, and consequently that our B. Lady neither was, or could be conceived therein. So farr is this doctrine from being an errour or heresie in the grounds of these men.

100. Thirteenthly, He exemplifies the necessity of Auricular Confession. But we have shewed that some learned Protestants hold the necessity of Con­fession, and confess that the Fathers taught the ne­cessity of confessing even thoughts. Yea Chemniti­us, than whom no Protestant was ever more fa­mous, 2. part. Exam. pag. 960. teacheth, perfect sorrow or contrition not to be sufficient without Absolution; as also I am informed by persons of worth and credit that Dr. Jeremie Tailor is so much for the necessity of Confession and Absolution, that he teaches Contrition without Absolution not to be sufficient for remission of sins, which he indeavours to prove in a Book written purposly to that end, though for ought I understand, it is not printed as yet. And M. Spar: a Cambridge Man printed a Sermon to prove the necessity of Confession: as also in this third Consideration, n. 82. fine, we have heard Dr. Andrews prove the same out of St. Au­stine.

101. Fourteenthly, He allegeth the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of the Sacraments. But this as we have seen out of Brereley in this third Consideration, n. 49. is taught also by learned Protestants, and the thing of it self is so reasonable, that no man can deny it, who un­derstands the termes.

102. Fifteenthly, He ends his enumeration with these words: And lastly, for this very doctrine of licentiousness, That though a man live and dye with­out the practise of Christian vertues, and with the habit of many damnable sins immortifyed, yet if he in the last moment of life, have any sorrow for his sins, and joyn Confession with it, certainly he shall be saved. In this accusation are invol­ved three points or propositions, First, that At­trition with Absolution is not sufficient for the abolition of sin. Secondly, that true Repentance re­quires the extirpation and mortification of all vici­ous habits. Thirdly, that we teach any sorrow with Absolution to be sufficient for pardon of sins. For the first we appose M. Chillingworth to himself, who pag. 32. n. 4. saith: God hath no where declar­ed himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleased to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For though he like best the bright Flaming holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not, the s [...]oaking flax of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear; which is more than we grant, who teach only, that not Attrition alone, but with Absolution is sufficient. The second is, for ought I know, a­gainst the common Tenet of Protestants, and all Christians, who believe that a sinner may be saved at the hour of his death, if he have true contrition for his sins past, with a firm purpose to amend for time to come, though at that instant he cannot ex­tirpate all vicious habits, which as M. Chillingworth pag. 391. n. 8. confesses, being a work of difficulty [Page 382]and time, cannot be performed in an instant: So that a poor sinner, though he be never so contrite for his sins, must despair of remission and salvation. The third point, that we believe any sorrow with Abso­lution to be sufficient for pardon of sins, is a meer calumny; as will appear to any that reads the sacred Councill of Trent, declaring what sorrow is re­quired to obtain pardon of our sins, or Catholick divines writing on this subject. For, if the sorrow be conceived upon any Reason meerly of tempo­rall Hope, or Fear, we teach that it is no wise suf­ficient to make men capable of Absolution, or for­giveness of sins; but it must proceed from some motive, known by supernatural Faith; for exam­ple, the fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven. Second­ly, it cannot be produced by the natural forces of men, or Angells, as being the gift of God, and requiring the special motion, inspiration, and grace of the holy Ghost: and contrarily all the wit, pains, and industrie of all men, that have been, are, or shall be, yea or are possible to be created, cannot arrive to it, by all the natural forces of them all, though they were assisted by the help of all Angels, crea­ted, or creable, or of all other natural Creatures, con­tained in the Omnipotency of Almightly God. Thirdly, Such sorrow must extend it self to all deadly sins, in order to which it is to be so effectu­al, that it must exclude all affection to them, and the Penitent must be resolved, rather to undergoe a thousand deaths, than once consent to the least mortal sin. And therefore, Fourthly, He must re­solve to avoid for time to come, all proximas occa­siones, or imminent danger of falling into any one [Page 383]mortal sin: As also, if he have injured any man, by taking away his good name, or goods, or limb, or life, he must effectually, and speedily, procure to give satisfaction, or make restitution, according as the case shall require: Yea and sometime, if it be justly feared, that dealy will cause a failing in his purpose, Absolution may prudently, or must, be deferred, till he hath actually satisfied all obligati­on, the neglect whereof would prove a deadly sin. And in a word, that sorrow which we call Attriti­on, differs from Contrition, in the motive only; be­cause Contrition is conceived for sin, as it is against the infinite goodness of God; Attrition as it is re­pugnant to our e [...]ernal salvation; and therefore Contrition is an act of the Theological Vertue of Charity, Attrition, of the Theological Vertue of Hope, which as it moves us to desire and hope e­verlasting happiness, so doth it incite us to fear the loss thereof, and out of that holy fear, not to fear any other temporal loss, with the prejudice of our Souls; according to those words of our blessed Saviour, doe you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him, who can punish with Hell fire, both the body and soul. Which words declare, that, as I said, a natural fear, meerly of temporal losse, though it be even of our life, is not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins, as is signifyed by (Doe you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul;) but it must be conceived, for some loss known by supernatu­ral Faith, as for the losse of heaven, or paines of Hell; as is signifyed by the second part of our Sa­viours speech, and the adversative particle, sed; but fear him who can &c.

103. Thus the Reader cannot but see, that upon examination, even this our Adversary is forced to grant, that in the chief differences between us and Protestants, many chief Protestants stand for us, and that all his Instances or Examples to the con­trary, are either manifestly untrue, or clearly im­pertinent. But to omit more Instances or proofs, I may in this occasion make use of that saying with which Chillingworth serves himself in his Book: Quid verba audiam cum facta videam? M. Chil­lingworth shewed himself in deeds so assured of our salvation, that whereas his Mother had been con­verted from Protestancy to our Catholick Religi­on, he, even after his fall from us, perswaded his Mother to remain constant in our faith, and I hope he had no meaning to perswade his Mother to her damnation.

104. Now for Conclusion I desire the Reader to consider the following Corollaries, or deducti­ons, which follow evidently out of the Premisses delivered and proved in this third Consideration.

105. First, that the Points wherein Protestants agree with us against their pretended Brethren, for number or quantity, are very many, and for quality, of highest moment and concernment; that they are taught not by a few, or unlearned, but by many of the most learned Protestants; that they hold them with us Catholicks, whom they reckon among professed enemies, and against them, whom they acknowledge to be their Brethren; and conse­quently, that this their agreement with us, must be against their inclination and will, against all hu­mane reason or policie, since they can gain nothing [Page 385]by joyning with us in opposition to other Prote­stants, but dislike, hatred, and contempt from those on whose good or bad opinions, their fortune de­pends. But no torture or rack is so powerfull to draw from the will and tongue a true confession, as evidence of Truth forces the understanding not to dissent from what is presented to it: for which and many other respects the judgment of those Pro­testants who agree with us, ought, in reason, to weigh much more in our favour, than the verdits either of these, or other Protestants, when they are a­gainst us.

106. Secondly, That in every one of the a­bove specifyed examples we challenge this great ad­vantage; That they increase the number of those who hold our doctrines by addition of our very Adversaries to us, for as much as concerns those particulars, and thereby add strength to our Do­ctrines and Arguments or Reasons, whereby we prove them against other Protestants, in a higher degree than they could have advantaged their pre­tended brethren by still agreeing with them, and not joyning with us in those points; in regard that the confession of an Adversary is a most convinc­ing proof. Apud Bre­rely in the pre­face to the Rea­der sect. 4. in the margent at * next after. 2. Irenaeus advers. Haereses lib. 4. c. 14. versus finem, saith to this purpose: Illa est enim ve­ra & sine contradictione probatio, quae etiam ab ad­versariis ipsis singula testificationis profert, &c. For as Tertull: in Apologetico saith: Nemo ad suum dede­cus mentitur, quin potius ad honorem: magis fides prona est in adversus semetipsos confitentes, quam pro semetipsis negantes. Whereto assenteth Tully in orat. P. Qu: saying: Testimonium tuum quod in [Page 839]alienare leve est, hoc contrate grave, &c. Apud Bre­reley tract. 3. sect. 6. in the text and mar­gent at x y. And our learned Adversaries do likewise affirm, that, it is a great peece of work to convince the Adversary from himself: Academia Nemansis respons. ad pro­fessorum Turnoriorum Societatis Jesu assertiones &c. pag. 84. saith, Magnae profecto industriae est, ex ipsi­us adver sarii verbis Adversarium convincere. And M. D. Field in his treatise of the Church, l. 3. c. 47. initio, pag. 182. circa med. saith: The next note whereby Bellarmine indeavoureth to prove the Ro­mish Synagogue to be the true Church of God, is our own confession; Surely if he can prove that we con­fess it to be the Church, he needeth not to use any o­ther arguments. And M. D. Whitaker saith accord­ingly (de Ecclesia controvers. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 14. initio pag. 366.) The argument must needs be strong, which is taken from the confession of the Adversaries; For the confession of the Adversaries against them­selves is effectual. And truely, (saith he) I do ac­knowledg, that the truth inforceth testimony from her enemies. Decimam tertiam notam statuit Bellarmi­nus adversariorum confessionem, firmum certè sit ne­cesse est argumentum illud, quod hinc sumitur, &c. Efficax enim erit Adversariorum ipsorum contra ipsos testimonium, &c. & quidem fateor veritatem etiam & suis inimicis testimonium extorquere, &c. And Peter Martyr in his common places part. 2. pag. 329. b. circa med. saith, Doubtlesse, among all te­stimonies, that testimonie is of greatest account, which is testified by the enemies.

107. Thirdly, I ask, whether those learned Pro­testant writers who agree with us against Protes­tants, are to be esteemed and called Protestants, or [Page 387]no? If not; seeing scarcely any one doth not agree with us in some point against the rest, the name of Protestant will come to nothing. If they may be esteemed Protestants notwithstanding their disa­greement from their brethren, the denomination of Protestants will grow to be over large, and em­brace what sects soever, yea even those whom they most abhorr, and by contempt call Papists, with whom they pretend a necessity not to communi­cate; seeing so many learned men may remain Protestants, and yet agree with us. In a word, by this occasion, it will be obvious for every one to expresse a desire to know, how far Protestancy ex­tends it self.

108. Fourthly, I demand, whether those Pro­testants who agree with us against their brethren, be hereticks in regard of such their doctrines, and, without repentance not capable of salvation. If they be hereticks, and cannot be saved without repentance, seeing it hath been proved, that scarcely any of them doth not agree in some points with us against their brethren, it follows, that scarcely, any Protestant can be judged free from Heresie, or capable of salvation. Or if they be not Hereticks, but capable of salvation, we Catholicks also (with whom they agree) by the confession of Protestants are no hereticks, nor excluded from salvation. And here I cannot omit this Reflexion; That whereas Protestants generally grant, that although our Forefathers might be saved by reason of their ignorance, yet it follows not that we also may be saved, because we may, forsooth, receive light from Luther and others, which our Ancients [Page 388]could not. This evasion is so patently insufficient, that directly it may be retorted, by saying, that al­though it were supposed (but in no wise granted) that they who were first acquainted with the argu­ments of Luther against us might be excused by ignorance, yet none can be excused at this time, seeing not only we Catholicks, but also the best learned Protestants, upon further advice, better Consideration, long, accurate, strict, and even par­tial, and passionate, examination of the doctrines and grounds of Luther and other pretended Re­formers, have finally forsaken them, and are come to us, and therefore they who at this day oppose themselves to all Christian Churches extant when Luther appeared, and to us of this time, and even to their own learned Protestant brethren, cannot pretend ignorance, or any other lawfull or proba­ble excuse.

109. Fifthly, The demand, which even now we made concerning Heresie, may be with proportion applyed to Schism, by asking whether the Com­munion of those Protestants who hold with us a­gainst their pretended brethren ought to be for­saken, or no, by those who intirely and constantly dissent from us in all points controverted at this day (if there can be imagined any one such, as it is not easy to believe there is, or morally speaking, can be any, considering the great liberty which Protestants, for want of an infallible visible guide, have to believe what they apprehend as true to day, with freedome to forsake it to morrow.) If their Communion must be forsaken, Protestants will be divided into nothing, by perpetually forsaking one [Page 389]another, yea the same man by forsaking himself, at different times. If they need not be forsaken for such doctrines, we inferr, that the first pretended Re­formers could not forsake our Communion for the very same doctrines which now chiefest Protestants hold, and yet are not forsaken by the rest; and there­fore Luther could not be excused from the grievous sin of Schism, in forsaking our Communion.

110. Sixthly, It is very carefully to be obser­ved, that all the different Sects of Protestants, and every single person of these Sects, whether they a­gree with us against other Protestants, or disagree one from an other, and also from us, or the same man at different times disagree from himself; It is I say to be observed, that in all these differences, and contrarieties against us, against their brethren, and against themselves, they still pretend evident Texts of Scripture in favour of their opinions for the then present time; wherein seeing it is clear they must be deceived (it being impossible that the word of God can deliver contradictions) we must evidently conclude, that Scripture alone can­not be to them a sufficient Rule of Faith, but that we must finally acknowledge a living judge of Controversies, namely, the Church of God, which therefore must be believed to be absolutely infal­lible in all her Definitions concerning matters of faith; Otherwise we can have no certainty in Ar­ticles of Religion.

111. Seaventhly, Considering what hath been said in the next precedent second Consideration; That many learned Protestants acknowledge the Ancient Fathers to stand with us against Protestants, [Page 390]we may by the confession of our Adversaries, with all truth and sincerity, use that exclamation and Pro­testation, which in M. Jewell was false & hypocriti­cal, & reprehended even by his greatest & earned'st Protestant friend (as we have seen heretofore.) O Gregory! O Austine! O Hierome! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O Dionyse! O Anacletus! O Calixtus! &c. If we be deceiv­ed, you have deceived us; this our Adversaries confess you taught us, &c. and further, considering what hath been proved in this third Consideration, That many of the most learned Protestants, in many of the most important points of faith, agree with us against o­ther Protestants, we may use an other more strange and unexpected exclamation, and truely say: O Luther! O Calvin! O you other most famous Protestants, if we were deceived, you are deceived, this you teach with us, and you teach with us those very points, which your brethren are wont to call Popish, and for which (a thing to be well conside­red) the first Reformers took a pretence to divide themselves from all Churches of Christ extant be­fore Luthers time.

112. Eightly, every one who hath care of his eter­nall salvation is deeply to consider, That this agree­ment of protestants with us, against their brethren, demonstrates that they are not the Church, of which unity in matters of Faith is a most inseparable, ne­cessary, and essentiall note. Whereof Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 5. subd. 1. saith, As concerning uni­ty (in doctrine) it is said, 1. Cor. 1.10. I beseech you, that you all speak one thing; be yee knit together in one mind and one judgement; Ephes. 4.3.endeavouring to keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace; Philip. 1.27. &. 1. Pet. 3.8.continue [Page 391]in one spirit, and one mind,Philip. 2.2.of one accord, and of one judgement. Thus in the first times Act. 4.32. & 1.14. were the multitude of them that believed of one heart and one soul. Thus our Saviour in his special prayer, Hebr. 5.7. heard (no doubt) for his reverence, instantly prayeth for the members of his Church Joan. 17.11. that they may be one. And thus the holy Ghost descri­beth the Church of Christ, saying, Cantic. 6.8 My Dove is one. As also on the contrary, it is said of dissention, 2 Cor. 1.10. I beseech you brethren that there be no dissentions among you, Hebr. 10.25.not for saking the fellowship that we have among our selves:Proverb. 6.16, 19.God hateth him that rai­seth up contentions among Brethren. This want of Unity is so improper to God, that he is therefore tearmed 1 Cor. 14 33. the God, not of dissention, but of Peace; and it is so certainly the means to dissolve continu­ance, that the holy Scriptures, which cannot lye, say thereof, Galat. 5.15. If you bite one another, take heed you be not consumed one of another; Luc. 11.17.Every King­dome divided in it self shall perish;Psalm. 55.9. & see Gen. 11.6, 7, 9.Destroy O Lord and divide their Tongues; Osee 10. [...].Their heart is divided, they shall now perish, &c. By this Brand or mark of want of Unity, did the antient Fathers Irenaus l. 1. c. 5. ini­tio saith: Vi­demus nunc & corum incon­stantem sen­tentiam, cum sint d [...]o veltres quen ad­modum de [...] ­dem cadem non dicant. And cap. 18. fine he saith, Cum autem discrepant ab invic [...], & doctrina & traditione, & qui recentiores [...] adnoscuntur, aff [...]ctant per singulos die [...] norum aliquid invenire, &c. Darum est enim omnium describere sententias Irenaeus, Tertul­lian. de Praescrip. advers. haerer. c. 42. saith: M [...]ntior si non etiam à regulis su [...] va­riant inter se, dum unusquisque proinde modulatur quae accep [...]t, qu [...]nadmodum de suo arbitrio composu [...]t, &c. denique inspectae haereses omnes, in multis cum authoribus su [...]s dissentientes deprehenduntur. And see cap. 37.Tertullian, Chrysost. opur. imperfect. in Matth. hom. 20. saith, Omnes infideles qui sub Diabolo sunt, non sunt uniti, n [...]c [...]unum sapiunt, sed sunt per diversas opiniones dispersi: alius quidem sic dicit, alius sic (&c.) comodo perfidia haereticorum qui nunquam sapiunt unum, sed quot sunt, tot sententias habent.Chrysostom, H [...]lar. l. 7. de Trinitate saith: Haeretici igitur omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt, s [...]d dum haeretici omnes se invicem vincut, nihil tamem sibi vincunt: victoria enim eorum Ecclesiae triumphus ex omnibus est, dum in eo haeresis contra alteram pugnat, &c.Hi­larie, [Page 392]and Athana­sius orat. 1. contra Aria­nos saith: Illud q [...]oque pror­ [...]us admira­bile, omnes quot sunt hae reses in fin­gendo diver­sa, pugnantia­que inter se adferre, nee a­lib, nisi in fal­sitate sibi in­vicem consen­tire, &c. And see in Decret's synod. N [...]cae­nae contra hae­resim Aria­nam. See sur­ther a notable example hereof in Socrates hist. l. 5. cap. 10. &c. 22. And see the sayings of Am­brose l. de [...]fi de ad Gratia­num c. 4. Hi­crom in Matth. 24. Austine contra Epist. Parmen. l. 3. c. 4. & de Baptismo contra Don. l. 11. c. 6. others, discover the Hereticks of their times. By the same mark also doth Luther himself make his like discovery saying, Luther tom. 3. Wittemberg. in Psalm. 5. fol. 166. b. fine. A King­dome divided in it self shall not stand, neither have any Hereticks at any time been overcome by Force or subtilty, but by mutual dissention; neither doth Christ fight with them otherwise than with a spirit of giddi­ness and disagreement. And again, Luther tom. 5. Wittemb. in Galat. cap. 5. fol. 416. a post medium. The Authors of Schisms are disagreeing among themselves &c. they bite and devour one another &c. till at last they perish. This (to omit Scriptures) the examples of all times do testifie: After that Africk was over­thrown by the Manichees, presently followed them the Donatists, who disagreeing among themselves, were divided into three Sects &c. In our time the Sacramentaries first, and then after the Anabap­tists divided themselves from us, neither of them are in Unity among themselves: so alwaies Sects bring forth Sects, and one condemneth another. And, the very same argument is yet further afforded a­gainst the Anabaptists by Se­bast. Francus Chronicorum part. 111. fol. 263. b. & seq. numbreth up Seaventy of the Anabaptists different opinions, and concludeth their further differences to be so great, as no m [...]n can either know or number them, affirming further, that scarce two of them are found to agree in all things. Sebastianus Francus, and the Divines of Theologi Heidelbergenses in protocoll. Frankentalensi in praefat. ad Anabaptistas say; Si vobis Ecclesiae titulum conce­dere vellemus, quaenam inter vos Secta pro Ecclesia Dei habenda offet, cum tam in multas sectas divisi sitis? Heidelberge: and also a­gainst [Page 393]the Sacramentaries by the Divines of Theolo­gi Mansfel­denses in con­fessione Mans­feldica latina fol. 120. say: Suspectam meritó habemus Sacramentariorum doctri­nam, (&c.) quod non definitè in eadem sententia concordes, sed inter seipsos di­visi sunt; ut alii sunt Caralostadiani, alii Zuingliani, Oecolampadiam, Cal­vinistae, &c. Mansfield.

113. But now although the Testimonie of our Adversaries against themselves be great and con­vincing, whether they confesse that the Fathers stand for us, and whether Protestants joyn with us, and thereby witness our Doctrines to be true; yet there remains a greater testimonie, that is, true Miracles, of which our Blessed Saviour saith (Joan. 5.36.) I have a greater testimonie than John, the very works which I doe give testimonie of me, that the Father hath sent me.

And that our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles, shall be demonstrated out of the very confession of Protestants in the next fourth Consi­deration.

THE FOURTH CONSIDERATION.
That the Doctrine of us Catholickes hath been appro­ved by the omnipotent hand of God, using for In­struments of working Miracles, those who were confessedly of our Relgion, yea and in express con­firmation of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants.

1 LIKE as in those Brereley tract. 1. sect. 5. firster times of the Churches infancy, our Savi­our did make manifest the truth of his Apostles doctrine, with un­doubted miracles, to serve as 2 Cor. 11.12. signs of their Apostleship, to that end Marc. 16.20. confirming the word with signs following: so likewise this ver­tue or power of Miracles not ceasing, but (as our Ad­versaries confess) Whereas our Saviour loan. 14.12. saith, He that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do, and greater. In the marginal Notes of the English B [...]ble printed 1576. it is thereupon said, This is referred to the whole Body of the Church, in whom this Vertue doth shine for ever. shining in the Church for e­ver, the necessity thereof being one and the same in all succeeding Ages, to the In Euseb. Hist. l. 5 c. 7. Irenaeus is alleged saying, Quidam Daemones pro certò & verè ejiciunt, &c. alii co qui gra­vibus morbis afflictantur per manuum impositionem curant, &c. lam verò ut dixi­mus mortui suscitati sunt & multos annos post apud nos commorati, quid plura? dona fanè ne dicendo quidem numerari poterunt, quae Deus Ecclesiae per univer­sum mundum diffusae donaverit, quibusque illa in nomine Jesu Christi sub Pontio Pilato Crucifixi, in dies singulos multa miracula ad Gentium utilitatem, effic [...]t, &c. And see Irenaeus l. 2. c. 58. versus finem. And S. Austine de civit: Dei l. 22. c. 8. initio saith: Cur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula quae praedicatis facta esse, non fi­unt? Possem quidem dicere, necessaria quidem fu [...]sse priusquam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus. And a little afterwards: Nam etiam nunc fiunt in ejus nomine, &c. And Luther tom. 7. Wittemberg. l. de Judaeis fol. 209. b. saith: Nunc autem per hos 1500. annos audierunt (Judaei) esse verbum De [...], viderunt max­ [...]a signa & mitabilia, & contra fremuerunt. And ibid. fol. 210. b. ante med. he further saith: A Deo did c [...]mus & accepimus, ut aeternum verbum & veritatem Dei hactenus mille quingentis ann [...]s miraculis & signis confessam ac confirmatam. Conversion of the [Page 396]heathens, who contemn the Scriptures, are nothing moved with the Miracles therein mentioned; our Saviour did in like manner confirm our now faith so then taught by Austine, with like manifestation of Miracles: not such only as Antichrist or the Devill can, by the power of nature, or secondarie causes, bring to pass, which may be Thess. 2.9. lying signs, against which we are forewarned: but with Mira­cles exceeding the power of nature, and done im­mediately by God: which by the Doctrine of learned Protestants Visinus in commen­tar: Catech. pag. 21. fine saith: Etsi Ethnicorum nonnulla mi­racula com­memorantur, ac de Anti­christo & Pseudo-prophetis dictum est edituros esse signa, &c. tamen ea, neque nu­mero, neque magnitudine paria sunt Miraculis Ecclesiae, &c. Primum enim ea mi­racula quae jactantur ab hostibus Ecclesiae, sunt e [...]usmodi, quae (ordine naturae non mutato) hominum vel diabolorum traudibus possunt effici, &c. miracula verò qui­bus Deus Ecclesiam ornavit, opera sunt praeter aut contra naturae & causarum se­cundarum ordinem, ac proinde non nisi divina potentia facta. And the like is affirm­ed by Zanchius in D. Pauli Epistolas, ad Philippenses, Coloss. & Thessal. pag. 241. & 242: By Danaeus in Isagoges Christianae part. 4. pag. 43. initio. 46. fine, & 47. initio. By Piscator in Annal. Epistolarum Pauli pag. 470. paulò ante med. and by many others. are evermore true and infallible. Of which kind though some be some times don (as the Scriptures Matth. 7.22. forewarn, and Danaeus in Isagoges Christianae part. 4. pag. 48. initio saith: Ad cos qui donum duntaxat miraculorum à Deo acceperunt, absque dono regenerationis, pertinet, quod ait Christus, Multi dicent mihi in die il­lo, Domine, nonne per nomen tuum prohetavimus, & daemonia ejecimus, &c. And see the same further affirmed by Sigwartus in 23. disputat. theolog. &c. pag. 164. sect. 12. & 13. Danaeus confesseth) by professors of wicked [Page 397]life, accordingly as our Saviour in like manner, Math. 10.1. gave power over unclean Spirits, Matth. 10.4. and to cure all maner of diseases, to his twelve Disciples (where­of even the wicked Judas was then one:) yet are the Miracles so wrought, though by such, never­thelesse certain and undoubted testimonies of Gods truth: and for such in general are Miracles throughout the whole course of Scriptures most fully both Acknow­ledged Exod. 8 19. & 3. Reg. 17.24. & 3. Reg. 18.39. & 4. Reg. 5.15. & Matth. 27.54. & Matth. 14.25.33. & Joh. 2.23. & 3.2. & 4.53. & 9.30. & 11.45. Act. 4.14.16. & 9.35. acknowledged and Urged Exod. 7.17. & 16.12. & Numb. 16.28. & Josue 3.10, 16. & 3. Regum 13.3, 5. & 18.24, 38. & 20.23, 28. & 4 Reg. 20.8, 9, 10. & Matth. 9.6. & Marc. 2.10. & Joan. 14.11. & 15.24. & 20.30, 31. urged, as be­ing even to our Saviour himself, Joan. 5.36. a greater testi­monie than John.

And hence it is that the credible Histories as well of all For for­mer times, Zozomen. Hist. l. 7. c. 26. post. med. saith: Nec solus Petrus Apostolus mortuum suscitavit, sed & Joan­nes Evangelista Ephesi, & Philippi filiae Hierapoli, & eadem à multis tum veteri­bus tum nostri temporis piis viris esse gesta reperies; and see Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 7. post med. alleged heretofore at *; And S. Austine de Civit: Dei l. 22. c. 8. reciteth in particular many like miracles of his time, & so likewise for their several times do the other Fathers of every age. former times, as also of this In the book intituled A report of the Kingdom of Congo a region of Africk Printed 1597. published by M. Abraham Hartwell servant to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and by him dedicated to his Lord, mention is made l. 1. c. 1. initio, of the discovery of that Kingdom Anno 1587. by Odoardo Lo­pez: and of the conversion thereof to the Christian faith l. 2. c. 2. and of the great and undoubted miracles shewed by God in the presence of a whole Army l. 2. c. 3. In so much that M. Abraham Hartwell in his Epistle there to the Reader post medium confesseth, that this conversion of Congo was accomplished (by massing Priests) and after the Ro­mish manner, and this action (saith he) which tendeth to the glory of God shall it be concealed and not committed to memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means? God forbid. In like manner M. John Pory lately of Gon­vill and Caius College in Cambridge, in his Geographical History of Africa by him published Anno 1600. pag. 410. versus finem, acknowledgeth and mentioneth the said Miracles, and pag. 413. imtio he commendeth M. Hartwell for publishing his foresaid treatise. Also where as it appeareth in the book intituled Rerum in Oriente gestarum commentarius, fol. 2. [...]hat Francis Xaverius fet forward in his journey from Lysbone to the East [...]nd a Anno 1541. to the Conversion of those nations: & pag. 36. that the King of Portugall hearing of the great M [...]racles as then there wrought, sent forth his Commission to his vice Roy there, dated in Aprill 1556. to take examination upon oath: upon execution whereof, and certificate thereupon being ac­cordingly made, it did appear (fol. 8. b.) that Xaverius, in testimony and proof of the Christian saith by him then preached and taught, cured miraculously the dumb, the same, the deaf, and with his word healed the sick; and (fol. 9. a.) raysed sundry dead persons to life: and after his death, which happened (fol. 14. a.) Anno 1552. the grave being opined, wherein his dead body for a [...] time had lain buried, to the end his naked bones might be carried from thence to Goa (fol. 14. b.) they found his body not only unconsumed, but also yielding forth fragrant smells: from whence they cur­ryed it to Goa, and placed it there in the Church of S. Paul, where yet to this day (saith the Commentary) it remaineth free from corruption: witness whereof (saith that treatise) are all the inhabitants of that City, and travailers that repair thither, and the truth hereof for matter of fact is so probable, that M. Whitaker lib. de Ecclesia con­tra Bellarminum pag. 353. dare not in his answer thereto altogether rest in deniall of the matter of fact, but saith: Ne putet (Bellarminus) me omninò haec miracula contemnere. Respondeo fieri posse ut in regno Pontificio fuerint hujusmodi miracu­la & nunc sint; and pag. 354. post med. he saith: potuit diabolus Xaverii corpus ad tempus servare incorruptum & suaviter olens. And so he not so much denieth those Miracles, as over boldry referreth them to the Devils works: Whereas yet to the contrary M. Richard Hacklu [...]te preacher in his book of principal navigations, &c. Printed 1599. in the 2. part of the 2. volume pag. 88. initio, doubteth not to offord commen­dable mention of that holy man (Xaverius) his particular vertues and wonderfull works in that Kegion. pre­sent age, are plentifull in like examples of true and undoubted miracles shewed by God at the Conver­sion [Page 398]of heathen nations. Among which our Coun­tries Bale in Ca­talog. Scrip­torum Illustri­um Majoris Britanniae cent. 14. pag. 117. saith of Augustine: Plebem per interpretes fi­dem Papisti­cam docuit. A­pud. Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. at e. in the margent. foresaid confessed conversion by Austine, to our now professed Catholick faith, holdeth not the least place, as being in like manner greatly then confirmed with undoubted miracles; not lately feigned, but so credibly testifyed by the faithfull writers of those times, that now sithence they are acknowledged for certain and true by learned Pro­testants themselves. To this end doth S. Bede and our Chronicles witnesse, how that Austine Bed. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. ante medium saith Allatus est quidem de genere Anglorum o [...]ulorum luce privatus, &c. tandem Au­gustinus justa necessitate compullus, flectit genua sua, deprecans, ut visum caeco quem amiserat restitueret, & per illuminationem unius hominis corporalem, in pl [...] ­rimorum cordibus fidelium spiritalis gratiae luccm accenderet: nec mora; illumi­natur c [...]cus, ac verus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus. Tum Britones confitentur intellex [...]sse se, veram esse viam Just [...]tìae quam praedicaret Au­gustinus. And see Holinsheads Chronicle, after the last edition vol. 1. l. 5 c. 21. pag. 102. b. line 51.to [Page 399]prove his opinion good, wrought a miracle in resto­ring sight to one that was blind. Which kind of Mi­racle, as Hemingius Hemingius in his expositi­on of the 84. Psalm. Eng­lished part. 1. c. 6. acknowledgeth for a true Miracle, so likewise the Christian Britans present thereat, were specially Beda ubi supra, and Holinshead ub [...] supra. moved therewith.

In like manner is testifyed by S. Bede and Pro­testant writers, that Austine perswaded the King to his Religion Beda Hist. l. 1. c. 26. cir­ca med. saith of the King: Miraculorum multorum of­tensione cre­dens baptiza­tus est. And Holinshead ubi supra pag. 100. b. line 60. and M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments Printed 1576. pag. 117. a. prop finem. by divers miracles shewed; which were at those times so certainly known, that (as S. Bede reporteth) it was Beda Hist: l. 2. c. 3. fine. And see Stowes Annalls dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Printed 1592. pag. 66. fine. written in the Epitaph upon his tomb, that he was suffultus à Deo miracu­lorum operatione. And Beda Hist. l. 2. c. 1. versus finem, saith: Quibus ver­bis Beatus Gregorius declarat, quod sanctus Augustinus & socii ejus caerestium os­tensione signorum, Gentem Anglorum ad cognitionem veritatis perducebant; and S. Gr gory himself l. 7. Epist. 30. indict: 1. reporteth hereof to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria, saying: Know then that whereas the English nation &c. remained hither to in infidelity, I did, by the help of your prayers, &c. send unto that Nation (Austine) a Monk of my Monastery, to preach to them, &c. and now letters are come to us, both of his health, and of his work that he hath in hand: and surely either he or they which were sent over with him work so many Miracles in that Nation, as they may seem therein to imitate the power and Miracles of the Apostles themselves. Gregory himself not onely affirmeth those miracles, but also by his Holinshead ubi supra pag. 192. a. line 25. letters dated Anno 602. did specially This letter of Gregory is extant in Bede Hist. l. 1. c. 31. and mentioned by Holinshead ubi supra pag. 102. a. l. in 10.11. &c. write to [Page 400]Austine touching the Miracles shewed by him, advi­sing him, not to glory therein; but rather to consider, that God gave him the gift for the weal of those to whom he was sent, &c. In so much that M. Fox and M. Godwin (both of them learned Protestants) do ac­cordingly mention and acknowledg M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments Printed 1576. pag. 117. a. prop. finem. And M. God­win in his Ca­talogue of the Bishops of Eng­land pag. 4. fine. the Mira­cles (then) wrought by Austine through Gods hand. As also S. Bede, M. Fox and Holinshead do in like manner specially mention the Beda Hist. l. [...]. c 12. post medium, and M. Fox in his Acts and Mo­numents prin­ted 1576. pag. 121. b. post. med. 122. a. and Holinshead in his great Chronicle the last edition volum. 1. pag. 108. b. initio. & 109. a. line 29.30. &c. miracu­lous conversion of Eawin King of the Northum­bers, which happened some 26. years after Augu­stines foresaid comming into England, M. Fox not doubting to place the same in his Catalogue of true M. Fox in the Alphabeticall table of his Acts and Monuments printed 1576. at the word Mi­racle.Miracles. Hereunto we could likewise adde the undoubted many and great Miracles As concerning the Miracles of Malachias, to omit particular mention of them, no meaner a witnes than S. Bernard (who lived in the same time with him, and was to him so familiarly known) saith of them in general in his book de vita Ma­lachiae, mentioned and acknowledged by the Centur [...]sts, Centur: 12. col. 1633. line 39. In what kind of old Miracles did not Malachias excell? he wanted not Prophe­cie, not revelation, not the gist of healing: and to conclude, not raysing of the dead. And see further the Centurists, cent. 12. col. 1597. line 43. And no lesse un­doubted Miracles are written of S. Bernard by his own Scholar Godfridus and others of that time, who wrot his life. And the same so certain, that Osiander in ep [...]tom. cent. 12. pag. 310. post. med. dare not rest in deniall of them, but saith: partim permissi­one Dei praestigiis Satanicis effecta existimo, non quod Sanctum Bernardum Ma­gum fu [...]sse putem, sed quod verisimile sit Satanam talia miracula effecisse, &c. ad confirmationem Idololatriae & falsorum cultuum: So good a Protestant he maketh S. Bernard. Of Malachias his miracles see also the Century-writers, cent. 12. col. 1594. line 30. And see S. Bernards Miracles further hereafter in this Consideration num. 4. at p. q. r. &c. wrought of later times (to omit sundry o­thers) by holy Malachias, and S. Bernard, both of them confessed and known As concerning Malachias his Religion, Osiander cent. 12. pag. 315. post. med. saith: Malachias Archiepiscopus in Hibernia ab ineunte aetate lite­ris & Religioni addictus, tandem invitus & diu admodum coactus, Archiepiscopa­tum Hiberniae assumpsit, S. Bernardo admodum familiaris fuit: ejus monachatum admiratus & imitatus est, superstitiones Pontificias amplexus, Romanum Pontifi­cem pro Deo coluit. Tribuuntur illi admodum plurima Miracula, &c. & vide ibid. pag. 256. post med. And S. Bernard in vita Malachiae affirmeth, that Malachias was Legate to the Pope. As concerning S. Bernards Religion of whom M. Whitaker (in praelect. de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum pag. 369. paulo post medium) saith: Ber­nardum verè sanctum suisse existimo. He was Abbot of Clairevaux (as testifieth Simon de Voyon upon the Catalogue, &c. pag. 126.) and ho acknowledged so plainly the Popes Primacy (whereof see S. Bernard l. 2. de consider. ad Eugenium, & l. 3. c. 8. and Epist. 125. & 131. & 190. ad Innocentium) that he is therefore reproved by D. Fulk (against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect. 11. fol. 133. b. post ini­tium) and by M. Whitaker (lib. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154. ante med.) and was so evidently a professed Catholick, that Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. versus fi­nem allegeth him to us saying: Bernardus Sanctus vester, and M. Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 7. pag. 105. ante med. saith: Bernardus quem Ecclesia vestra multis annis unum tulit pium virum, &c. And the Century-writers cont. 12. c. 10. say of S. Bernard, that coluit Deum Maozim ad novissimum vitae iuae articu­lum, acerrimus fuit propugnator Sedis Antichristi, &c. And the Lutherans in libro Germanico, quo causas recusati Concil [...]i Tridentini reddunt, sol. 257. do tearm S. Bernard an impudent writer, heaving the Pope up into an Idoll, a corrupter of Gods honour, and preacher of Antichrist. Lastly this point is made yet surther evident, both in Malachias and Bernard, that it is manifest, that they both lived Anno Domini 1140. When the profession of our new Catholick faith was most storishing. Which thing M. Jew­ell in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med. confesseth saying: S. Bernard lived in the midst of the Popes rout and Tyrannie. Whereupon it followeth, that for so much as neither of them is found to have been troubled for any one point of Doctrine disagreeing from those times, but were to the contrary both of them in high favour, as then with the Roman Sea, the one of them being the Popes Legate, the other an Abbot, that therefore they were agreeable in Religion to the professed Doctrine of those times; so improbably do our adversaries pretend S. Bernard to have been a mem­ber of their Church for his only then zealous reproving the corruption of life and manners in the Clergy of that age. members of our now professed Catholick faith.

2. This Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 7. per to­tam. gift of Miracles is so necessary to the Conversion of the Heathen in all ages, that the Apostles therefore made speciall Act. 4.29.30. prayer for this gift, and our Saviour saith accordingly, Joan. 15.24. If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned. In so much as S. Au­stine [Page 402]placeth the same among those Aug. tom. 6. contra Ep. Manich c. 4. and in his l. 22 de Civ. Dei c. 8. initio he os­s [...]met [...], that before the world believ­ed, M [...]racles w [...]e necessary to this end, that the world should believe. Pu: If miracles be necessary to convert Nati­ons, much more necessary must they be to re­verse what all Christ an Chur­ches have once embraced, and therefore it was inexcusable te­merity to follow the first pre­tended Resor­mers (who did not so much as pretend Mira cles) against the whole Church extant before their time. Even a­mongst men Possession is a string Plea. many things which most justly held me in the Churches bosome. Thus did this gift of Miracles accordingly continue (and that most wonderfully in the times of See this heretofore in the precedent num. at *. I­renaeus, and no less wonderfully afterwards for four hundred years after Christ, as appeareth by Zozom. hist. l. 7. c. 26. post med. see the words alleged in the precedent num. of this Consideration at [...] next after m. Zozomene, and also by St. Austine, who speak­ing of the Miracles of his time, telleth how Aug. l. 9. Confess. cap. 7. & S. Hierome in vita Hilarionis telleth, how the dead body of, Hilarion was after ten months found uncorrupted, yield­ing forth a fragrant smell. And see the like miracle testifyed by S. Bede of S. Cuthbert. l. 4. hist. c. 30. the dead Bodies of Gervasius and Protasius were after many years found uncorrupted, and that Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. inicio. at their dead Bodies a blind man received his sight: A Mira­cle (saith St. Austine) done at Milan, (where the said Bodies lay) when I was there, a great number of people being witness thereof. In like manner doth he make mention of sundry persons who being dead, were by God Aug. de Ci­vit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. post med. restored to life at the Mo­nument of St. Stephen: and mentioneth further Aug. ibidem versus finem. another Miracle done (saith he) with us, so known and manifest, as I think there is none in Hip­po (the City where it was done) who either had not seen or learned it. This miracle by his report made thereof more at large, was, that ten infirm persons were, in presence of himself and the whole people, miraculously cured at the said Monument of St. Stephen. These miracles were so evident in his time, and the number of them so many, that having already mentioned divers others, he yet saith Aug. ibi­dem post medium saith, Quid faciam? Vrget hujus operis implendi promissio, ut non hic possim omnia commemorare quae sc [...]ò, & proculdubio plaerique nostrum cum haec legent, dolebunt metam multa pretermisisse, quae utique mecum sciunt, ques jam nunc u [...] ignoscant rogo, &c. Quid faciam &c. What must I do, I am not [Page 403]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 as well as I, and concludeth, that it would require Aug. ibi­dem saith: Si enim miracu­la sa [...]itatum ut alia tace­am, modò ve­lim scribere, quae per liunc Martyrem, id est gloriosissi­mum Stepha­num facta sunt in colō ­nia Calamen­si, & in nostra, plurimi confi­ciendi sunt li­bri, nec tamen omnia colligi poterunt, sed tantum de quibus libelli dat [...] sunt qui recitarentur in populis, &c.many books to set down the miracles of healings (to omit others) done only at the memory (or mo­nument) of S. Stephen. Thus much briefly out of S. Austine only. And like mention of other mira­cles in this kind is further made by sundry other See Basil. orat. in Ma­mant. & Na­zianzen orat. in Cyprianum & Chrysostom. in lib. contra Gentiles fine; and Ambrose in serm. de S Gervas. & Protas. & Hierome contra Vigilantium, & in Epist. ad Eustoch [...]um de vita Paulae, and in vita Hilarionis, and Sulpitius in vita Martini. Fathers of that age, in so much as M. Whita­ker saith hereof to Duraeus, Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med.I doe not think those miracles vain which are reported to have been done at the Monuments of Saints. This continuance of mi­racles in the true Church since the Apostles times to this present, is so undoubted and certain, that our very adversaries the The Century Writers of M. gdeburge, make this their report in their 13. Chapter of every several Century. Century writers, do for thirteen hundred years next after Christ, accord­ingly report in particular, out of the credible wri­ters of those several times, many of the miracles done in every succeeding age, whereof a great number are reported by the antient Fathers to have been done by Of the wonderfull miracles done by Monks see Zozo­men hist. lib. 3. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 28. & Evagrius hist. l. 6. c. 22. & Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. fine, &c. 9. and Hierome in vita Hilarionis, and Palladius in his historia Lausaci throughout, and Theodoret in his Theophil. throughout; and Osiander cent. 4. pag. 369. & 370. and the Century writers cent. 4. col. 493. line 18. sundry of those miracles being many resuscitations or raisings up to life of the dead, curing of diseases by word, prayer, or touching: commanding of the Sea to return or stay its passage or course of inundations, and sundry other like, which could not but proceed from God. Monks whose confessed [Page 404] As con­cerning the great and al­most incredible a [...]sterity of sun­dry the Monks of those times, as namely in inclosing or muring up themselves in Cells or Pillars of stone: in loading and chastizing their bodies with weight of iron bands; their wearing privately of sackcloth: their lying on the ground: their going barefooted; their abstinence from flesh, fish, cheese, eggs, wine, &c. their cating of bread by weight, and drinking of water by measure, with much more of like nature, see testimonie thereof in general in Epiphanius haer. ult. fine, Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. & in Luc. Osiander in epitom, &c. cent. 4. pag. 368. & 506. and in the Century writers cent. 4. col. 471. line 23, & col. 473. & 474. and see particular examples hereof testifyed by Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. Zozomen. hist. l. 6. c. 29. & l. 3. c. 13. post med. Evagrius hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. but most specially by Theodoret in his Theoph. or historia Sanctorum Patium cap. 26. & cap. 4. and also cap. 2. Which is the life of James, and cap. 3. in the life of Julianus: his spe­ciall mention of both which last persons in this very Treatise, he remembreth with reference thereto in his other historie l. 1. c. 7. & l. 3. cap. 19. In like manner see the like particu­lar examples in Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 43. & 52. & 70. and thoughout, (of this Palladius and this his book, mention is made by Socrates hist. l. 4. cap. 18. fine,) See also further testimonie of like austere life, in Osiander in epitom. &c. centur. 4. pag. 99. & 100. & 101. & 103. and see heretofore in the 2 Consideration num. 23. at 49. & 50. austerity of life is by our adversaries condem­ned for Osiander in epitom. cent. 4. pag. 99. circa med. & 100. paulo post med. & pag. 103. superstitious, and many also are by the Fathers reported as directly done in confirmation of some one or other Brereley in his Omissions and Additions of pag. 527. ad­deth, directly against M. D. Field, who in his book of the Church pag. 185. saith: We peremptority deny, that ever any miracle was done to confirm any of the things controversed between the Papists and us. particular point of our Catholick faith, as namely, to omit many other par­ticulars, of Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. prop. finem, telleth how that in the presence of him and others, a devout woman called Palladia, who being before diseased, and repairing for health to the monument of S. Ste­phen, Ad sanctum Martyrem (saith S. Austine) orare perrexerat, quae mox ut cancellos attigit, collapsa similiter velut ad somnum, sana surrexit, &c. And see a little before in the same Chapter the like miraculous example of one Florentius of Hippo, and of Eucharius a Priest of Spain. Prayer to Saints, Nazianzen in Cyprianum saith: Om­nia potest pulvis Cypriani cum side, ut sciunt hi qui ipsi experti sunt, & miraculum usque ad nos transmiserunt. And Chrysostom. in libro contra Gentiles, speaking of the Reliques of the holy Martyr Babylas saith: Sententiae nostrae abundè fidem faciunt, quae quotidiana à Martyribus eduntur miracula. Insomuch as Mr. Fox, act. mon. printed 1576. pag. 61. b. ante med. reporteth (which thing Chrysostome also, ubi supra, and Theodoret, l. 3. c. 9. affirm) how that after the bringing of the (dead) body of (the said) Babylas into the Temple (of an Idol) the Idol ceased to give any more Oracles, saying, That for the body of Babylas he could give no more answers. Gee further examples of Miracles done at the Reliques of Saints in Palladius in his Historia Lausaica, cap. 62. in vita Philemonis, in S. Austin de Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. in Hierom contra Vigilantium, in Basil. in orat. in Mamant. in Gregorius Turo­nensis l. de gloria Martyrum throughout; and see what Mr. Whitaker confesseth next heretofore at * next after g.Reliques, [Page 405]Eusebius, hist. l. 7. c. 14. maketh men­tion of (the Image of Christ) erected by the woman whom he cured of her flux; and of an unusual herb growing at the bottom thereof, which after that growing up, it had touched the garment of the Image, it had power to cure all diseases. See further mention of Miracles in confirm [...]tion of Christs Image in Athanasius de pas­sione imaginis Christ [...] in Berito, alleged in 2. Concil. Nicen. act. 4. and in Gre­gorius Turonensis de gloria Martyrum, l. 1. c. 22. in both which is mentioned, that upon violence offered by the Jews upon Christs Image, blood did miraculously issue from thence.the Image of Christ, S. Chrysost. de sacerdotio, l. 6. c. 4. reporteth, that Acertain ve­nerable old man, to whom many mysteries were revealed by God, told that in time of Sa­crifice he once beheld a multitude of Angels, with shining garments, compassing the Altar with bowed heads, as Souldurs do in presence of their King. Which attendance of An­gels Chrysostom in the words next before affirmeth to have been performed, by Angels present (saith he) at that wonderfull Table, and compassing it about with reverence, in honour of him that lyeth thereon. And that it hath pleased God, in satisfaction of the incredulous, to have turned the outward Sacrament into visible flesh, is testified by St. Gregory, whereof see Paulus Diaconus in vita S. Gregorii, and [...]oannes Dia­conus in vita S. Gregori [...], l. 2. c. 4. and D. Humfrey in Jesuitismi, p. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. And of another like M [...]racle, Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus (who lived Anno 440.) in Epigram. in D. B [...]sil. saith: Intuitus panem & nigrum in cratere Lyaeum, Riserat Hebraeus sacra mystica Christicolarum; Haec ubi Basilius persensera [...], utraque edenda Porrigit, illa statim cruor & caro versa resultant. And see the Century Writers, cent. 4. col. 431. lin. 39. And of sundry other like mi­raculous appearances, see Paschasius de corp. & sangu. Christi, cap. 14. where he saith of the miracles before his time, Nemo, &c. None that read the examples and lives of the Saints, can be ignorant, that these mystical Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord, either in respect of those that were doubtfull (in faith) or of them that more ardently loved Christ, have often appeared in the visible form of a Lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood, &c. that what was latent in Mysterie, might to the doubtfull appear clear in Miracle.Real Presence, S. Austin de Civit. Der, l. 22. c. 8. circa medium, reporteth of his own time and Country, how that one Hesperius having his house in­fested with wicked spirits, to the affliction of his beasts and servants, desired (saith S. Austin) [...]n my absence, certain of our Priests, that some would go thither (&c.) one went and offered (saith he) there the Sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying what he might, that the vexation might cease, and God being thereupon mercifull, it ceased. In like manner doth S. Gregory, hom. 37. in Evang. and S. Bede, hist. l. 4. c. 22. ante m [...]d. tell of two several persons taken prisoners in the wars, for the pardon of whose souls, as supposing by their friends they had been slain, Mass was said, at which very time of Mass so said, their bands were loosed, and fell fròm them. S. Gregory also, and S. Bede, report these things as particularly known to be done in their own times. And in behalf of Sacrifice is also appertaining the foresaid other Miracle recited by Chrysostom here next before at p. Also S. Gregory, l. 4. D [...]iog. cap. 55. telleth of a Mon [...] called Justus, who (saith he) was obsequious to me, and watched with me in my daily sick­ness: this man being dead, I appointed (saith Gregory) the healthfull host to he of­fered for his absolution, thirty adies together, which done, the said Justus appeared to his brother by vision, and said, I have been hitherto evil, but now am well, &c. And the brethren in the Monastery counting the daies, found that to be the day on which the thir­tieth oblation was offered for him. See certain of these Miracles reported by the Century Writers, centur. 6. col. 819. lin. 51. & centur. 7. col. 577. lin. 37.Sacrifice of Christs body, Purgatory, and These foresaid Miracles alleged next before from Gregory and Beda are available also for Purgatory and prayer for the dead.prayer for the dead, the great The Miracles reported by the Fathers con­cerning the sign of the Cross are almost infinite. Insomuch as M. Covell in his answer to M. John Burges, pag. 138. paulò post medium, confess [...]th accordingly, saying, Noman can deny but that God after the death of his Son manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign (as) being the instrument of many miracles. He that would desire to see certain of those Miracles in particular, let him read Hierom in vita Hilarionis versus finem; Athanasius in vita Antonii; Pal­ladius in Historia, c. 1. in vita Isidori; Theodoret, in his Theoph. c. 2. ante med. in vita Juliani; & Lactantius, l. 4. c. [...]7. [...]vertue of the sign of the Cross, Epiphanius, haer. 30. ante med. maketh report of certain inchantments dissolved by Joseph his sprinkling of water signed with the sign of the Cross, &c. and Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 21. telleth, that Mar­cellus dissolved the like inchantments by sprinkling of holy water, which done (saith Theodoret) the Devil not enduring the vertue of the sprinkled water, fled away. Read the place. See also the like report made of Macharius by Palladius in Historia Lausaica, cap. 19. In like manner do the Fathers mention miraculous cures wrought by the means of holy water, whereof see S. Gregory, l. 1. Dialog. cap. 10. and S. Bede histor. l. 5. c. 4. and Palladius, cap. 9. & 20. and Theodorer in his Theoph. c. 13.Holy water, Of a memorable Miracle done concerning Church-lights, read Eusebius hist. l. 6. c. 8.Lights in the Church, Cyprian in sermone de lapsis, post med. reporteth concerning a cortain woman, who (saith he) when she would with un­worthy hands have opened her Coffer, wherein was (reserved) the holy thing of our Lord, fire did spring up, whereby she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it. And S. Ambrose in orat. Funebri de obitu fratris sui Satyri, cap. 7. reporteth how that his brother Satyrus being by shipwrack thrown into the Sea, and having tyed the divine Sacrament in a stole, and fastned the stole about his neck, was (thereby miraculously) saved from the water, &c. and being delivered, went to the Church, that he might give thanks, and acknowledge the eternal Mysteries. And see no less Miracles in Evagrius, hist. l. 4. c. 35. in Gregorius Turonensis de gloria Martyrum, l. 1. c. 14. and also next hereafter at y.reservation of the Sacrament, Optatus, l. 2. contra Donatistas, reporteth, how the Hereticks caused the (reserved) Eucharist to be thrown to Dogs, which Dogs there­upon all raging, rent in pieces their Masters, as guilty of the holy body; they also (saith Optatus) ihrew out of the Window (ampullam chrisma [...]is) a Vial (or little Bottle) of Chrism (or holy Gil) to the intent to break it, the w [...]ch being staid by an An­gels, hand, God preserving it, light safe among the siones. In like manner of latter times doth S. Bernard remember how Malachias cured a lunatick Child in confirming him (saith Bernard) with sacred Unction: A Miracle (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, (and thereupon) blown through the world. Hereof see Holinshead in his Chromcle of Ireland, the edition of 1577. in the historie thereof next after the description, pag. 13. a. lin. ult. & pag. 13. b. lin. 1. and after the last edition, pag. 55. a. lin. 56. and see also S. Bernard in vita Malachiae.Holy Chrism, See in Evagrius, l. 4. c. 25. a Miracle reported upon his own knowledge, and another like miracle in the Tripartite historie, l. 2. c. 19. post med.Adoration of the Cross, Of the sundry miracl [...]s shewed that confession of sins to the Priest should be made entire without concealment of any, see Joannes Climachus in libro qui dicitur, Climax, grad. 4. Petrus Damianus in epist. ad Desiderium, Petius Cluniacensis, l. 1. de mirac. c. 3, 4, 5, & 6. And concerning neglect of Confession, see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 14.Con­fession of sins to a Priest, andS. Bernard. in vita Malachiae, reporteth, that A Noble Man lived near the Monastery of Benohor, whose Wise being sick, Malachias was requested to aneyl her, which was duferred till morning: afterwards a sudden outcry being made that she was dead, Malachias came, and when he certainly found that she was dead, he was greatly troubled in mind, imputing the fault to himself, that she died defraud­ed of the grace of the Sacrament, and lifting up his hands to Heaven, said, I be­seech thee, O Lord (&c.) what more? she that was dead opened her eyes (&c.) and Malachias giving thanks, praised God, and aneyled her, knowing sins to be remitted in this Sacrament. Thus doth S. Bernard write of his known, familiar and dear friend Malachias.Extreme Un­ction. Whereto, were this place capable thereof, many others might be added.

3. The gift of Miracles being thus evidently proved not to cease (as is pretended) after those firster times of the Primitive Church, but in all ages to continue, though not as being common to all the Churches Pastors, as was the gift thereof made common to all And ha­ving called the twelve, he gave them power to cure all manner of diseases. Math. 10.1. the twelve, but onely as [Page 408]being now but peculiar to certain persons, and at certain times, according to the more special dispen­sation of Gods good pleasure in that behalf, (for as for any supposed necessity of the same to be or­dinary now as in the Apostles times, against which M. M. Mor­ton in Apolo­gia Catholica, part. 1. l. 2. c. 25. Morton urgeth certain needless testimo­nies, it is by us neither urged nor affirmed) we will now onely further examine, which Church it is, whether Catholick, or the said foresaid Protestant Church, to which the said gift hath for the last thousand years been confessedly appertaining or wanting. First, concerning the foresaid Protestant Church, it seemeth so evidently destitute of this gift, that our learned Adversaries confess to the contrary, the said Church to have been Apud Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. in the mar­gent at ¶ it is said, Joannes Regius being urged in this kind, doth (in his liber Apo­logeticus, &c. pag. 176. circa & post med.) answer thereto, saying, Negas Lutherum suae fidei coetum invenisse, (&c.) Dico fuisse ante Lutherum verae re­ligion [...]s, & qui cum Luthero per omnia consentiret coetum Ecclesiasticum. But coming to answer where this Congregation was then to be found, be hath no other refuge, but saith there, that it was à Pontificiis non agnitus, nec, propter tyrannidem Pon­tificiam visibiliter for tassis oftendi potuerit: ideoque quando urgent Jesuitae ut Lutherus verae religionis asseclam Ecclesiam ostendat, &c. volunt ut Lutherus op­positum in adjecto demonstret, & invisibile visibile probet, &c. Interim tamen ab­surdum est ita argumentari; Haec res ab aliis non agnoscitur, nec potest etiam videri aut demonstrarl, ideoque non est in rerum natura, &c. So plainly doth he (being urged to particulars) acknowledge his pretended Congregation at Luther's coming to have been then invisible, and not able to the shewed. Also Whitaker (apud Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subd. 1. in the margent at † next before t.) de Ec­clesia contra Bellarminum, controv. 2. quaeff. 5. pag. 262. ante med. reciteth Bel­larmine's argument, saying, Secundum Bellarmini argumentum est hujusmodi, &c. Ante Lutheri tempora non erat in mundo, &c. Whereto he there answereth, Nostra Ecclesia tum [...]suit. At non fuit visibilis (inquit Bellarminus.) Quid [...]um? Anideo non fuit? Nequaquam. Latebat enim tum in solitudine; and nameth not (though thus urged) so much as but any one man of his Church in being at Luther's first appearing. See more hereof here in Brereley, and in the place above cited, & tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 3. fine, at e. f. g. h. i. in­visible (at the least for almost) one thousand years last before Luther, which could not so be, had the same been made so gloriously known and apparent as with the testimony of miracles. And as for the [Page 409]said Protestants Church since Luther's time, where­as our learned Adversaries do affirm the calling of Luther, Calvin, and others, to have been Beza, (apud Brere­ley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. at ¶ next before g.) in Ep. Theo­log. ep. 5. Alemanno, paulò post initium, pag. 49. saith to Alemannus: Ordinariam certè vocationem praetexere non potes: Quis enim te elegit? ergo de extraordi­naria videamus. Hu [...]c verò tum demum locum esse dicimus, cùm vel nulla, vel paenè nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu, cùm expectari ordinaria vocatio, quae nusquam erat, nee debuit, nec potuit. See more hereof in Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15. fine, at q. r. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. versus finem, at f. & tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 4. at q. *. s. t. ex­traordinary, as being not by ordination from man, but immediatly from God, to which calling them­selves annex Apud Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2. at z in the margent, it is said, Amandus Polanus, in Partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 308. saith, Ministrorum extraordinariè vocatorum etiam dona extraordinaria fuere, nempe Prophetiae, donum edendi mi­racula, &c. And Musculus, loc. commun. pag. 394. saith, Vocatio quae immediatè est à Christo, jam in usu non est, ut erat olim, habebat sua signa, unde cognosci potuit, de quibus meminit Marcus Evangelista, cap. ult. dicens: Praedicaverunt, &c. sequen [...]bus signis, &c. And M. Henoch Clapham in his sovereign remedy against Schism, pag. 25. initio, doth upon this ground reprehend Brown, for that he did take upon him extraordinary calling, and wanted miracles. And Luther, in loc. commun. class. 4. c. 20. initio, pag. 38. post med. admonished to this end, saying, Hoc explo­res an vocationem suam possint probare: neque enim Deus unquam aliquem misit, nisivel per hominem vocatum, vel per signa declaratum, nè ipsum quidem fillum. And Luther, tom. 5. Jen. Germ. fol. 491. a. b. saith, Unde venis? Quis te misit? &c. Ubi sigilla quòd ab hominibus missus sis? Ubi sunt miracula quae te à Deo mis­sum esse testantur? Also Luther admonished the Senate of Milhouse against Munster the Anabaptist, saying, Si dicat se à Deo atque ipsius Spiritu missum esse quemadmo­dum Apostoli, probet hoc signis & miraculis editis, vel nolite ferre, ut concio­netur: nam ubicunque Deus ordinariam viam mutare vult, ibi semper miracula facit. Luther, tom. 3. Jen. Germ. fol. 455. b. & 456. a. and hereof see Sleydan, lib. 3. An. 25. Also Sigwartus in his 23. disputationes Theolog. &c. pag. 207. sect. 8. saith, Haec vocatio semper extraordinaria quaedam & divina dona comitantia habet, quae sunt tanquam sigilla doctrinae, &c. cu [...]usmodi suerunt miracula, &c. And D. Saravia in defens. tract. &c. contra respons. Bezae, c. 2. pag. 38. ante med. saith, Ea verò quae proximè à Deo est vocatio, nunquam sine aliquo externo & vi­sibili signo aut visione facta legitur. And see further hereof Saravia in his English book of the divers degrees of Ministers, c. 2. pag. 7. and M. Fenner in his Sacra Theo­logia, pag. 119. b. Also Bullinger, adversus Anabaptist. l. 3. c. 7. saith to the Ana­baptists, Quod si dicitis vos instar Apostolorum peculiarem vocationem habere, probate eam signis & miracul [...]s, &c. hoc autem nunquam facietis; ideoque vo­catio vestra nihili, imò pernitiosa est Ecciesiae Christi. See this saying alleged to this end by M. Thomas Bell in his Regiment of the Church, pag. 137. initio. miracles as necessary to prove that [Page 410]it is from God: yet is the gift of miracles (which is to them according to their own doctrine so need­full in proof of their said pretended extraordinary calling) so confessedly wanting and defective in their Church, that M. Fulk thereof saith, M. Fulk against the Rh [...]msh Testa­ment, in Apo­calyp. cap. 13. sect. 3. fol. 478. a. post med. It is known that Calvin and the rest, whom the Papists call Arch-hereticks, do work no miracles. And M. Sutcliff saith accordingly: M. Sut­cliff in his examination of Kellison's Survey, printed 1606. pag. 8. post med. Neither do we practice miracles, nor do we teach that the doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles. Insomuch as certain others (discerning the necessity of mira­cles, and themselves unable to afford any true ex­ample thereof in their Church) do lastly urge and name for miraculous, Fox act. mon. printed 1596. pag. 789. a. lin. 59. And Sigwar­tus in Disp. Theol. pag. 170. and Sut­cliff de vera Catholica Christi Ec­clesia, pag. 313. and Phi­lip Mornay in his Treatise of the Church englished Anno 1581. cap. 11. pag. 351. and Justus Molitor de Ecclesia militante, pag. 159. Luther's so large dis­persion of his Doctrine, maugre the malice of the Pope and all his Adherents: which as it is against the evident confession of their own brethren, who disclaim as before in all miracles shewed by Luther, Calvin, &c. and (as the learned Theologi Casm [...]riani in admonit. sua de libro Concordiae Bergensis, cap. 6. and after the edition of Neu­stadii, 1581. pag. 203. post med. say: Scimus istos Theologos (&c.) magnis clamo [...]ibus regerere, Lutherum esse Prophetam, quia & ipse immediatè & extra or­dinem à Deo excitatus, &c. quia miracula fuerint res ip [...]us gestae & successus, & multa futura praedixerit, &c. Whereto they answer among other things, saying, Miraculum quod ediderit, nullum audivimus. Nam fortunatio & defensio curriculi ipsius fuit beneficium Dei ordinarium secundum promissiones datas ipsum timentibus, &c. quod autem praedicit de paenis ingrati udinis pro luce Evangelii donata vel similia, non sunt nova oracula, sed veterum oraculorum Scripturae ad nostra tempora accom­modatio. Calvinists con­fess) is withall The learned Protestants d [...]sin [...] a miracle to be, signum supra naturae ordinem effectum. So doth Amandus Polanus in partition. Theolog. pag. 228. And see others hereafter in this Consideration, num. 7. at * next after k. no miracle in it self, as not being against or above the power of nature and secondary causes, so also by like instance might the proceed­ing of Arius and Mahomet be much more pro­bably [Page 411]said to be miraculous, for that their errours were from no less small beginning, More ge­nerally disper­sed: For whereas Lu­theranism hol­deth only in the Northern parts of the world, and also but in a corner of those said Northern parts, which are but a parcel of Europe, A [...]ianism was far more universal, as extending it self into sundry parts of Asia, Africk, and Europe. Hereof Daniel Camierus, in epist. Jesu [...]tic. part. altera pag. 49. paulò post initium, saith, Arianorum venenum non portiunculam quandam, sed paenè totum orbem contam [...]na verat. And see Joannes Pappus in epitom. histor. Eccles. pag. 412, & 413. And the like inlargement in short time of Mahometanism is evident and confessed by Melancthon, chronic. l. 3. a pag. 311. ad pag. 317. by Illyricus, in Apoc. c. 9. a versu 13. ad finem. more ge­nerally for the time dispersed, than ever was the doctrine of Luther. And thus much concerning the confessed want of miracles in our Adversaries Church.

4. As concerning now our Catholick Church, the M.D. Down­ham in his Treatise of An­tichrist, l. 1. c. 7. pag. 111. propè initi­um, saith, Neither Turks, nor Jews, nor any other Church­es of Chri­stians, but only the Pope and Church of Rome, do vaunt of mi­racles. which onely confessedly challengeth the gift of miracles, the known examples of her true and un­doubted Miracles are plentifully testified. As first, for the thousand years last past, it is confessed that we Englishmen were so long since See Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 1. converted to our now professed Catholick Faith: Insomuch as they charge Austin with his then converting us to See Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 1. at 9. Popery, and to See ibid. at e. the Papistical faith; for which, say they, See ibid. at 6. he went undoubtedly to Hell after his death. And yet are the undoubted miracles which God wrought by the same Austin in proof of his doctrine sufficiently confirmed with the credible See heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. at r. s. t. testimony of those very times, with like See heretofore, ibid. at n. q. *. testimony also of S. Bede, who lived in the age next after, and are thereupon reported and [Page 412] See ibid. at u. and see M. Fox act. mon. printed Anno 1576. pag. 117. a. prope finem, where he saith of Austin and those that came with him to the Conversion of England: The King was mo­ved with the miracles wrought through Gods hand by them. acknowledged as true & undoubted by our very Adversaries themselves. In the same age also lived Holy Oswald King of Northumberland, whose un­doubted miracles are by like credible Concern­ing Oswald, Beda, hist. l. 3. c. 2. affirmeth, that the place where he with religious prayer obtained victory, was after called Heavens field, in regard of the innumerable miracles there done. That also, usque hodie, &c. even till Bede's time diseased persons were thereby restored to health. Among whom was (saith Beda) one Bothelmus yet living restored miraculously to health, ante paucos annos, but some sew years (then) since. To omit St. Bede's further mention of Oswald's other miracles, reported l. 3. c. 9, 10, & 12. done even in his own time; he relateth also yet further, l. 3 c. 11. initio, that after Oswald's death, a heavenly miracle was shewed when his bones were found and translated to the Church in which they are (saith he) now remaining; namely, that from the Cha­riot in which his Reliques were carried, a Pillar of Light was continued up to­wards Heaven, conspicuous almost to all the places of that Province; and that, saith he, Edilhild an Abbess yet living saw the same: insomuch as Holinshead (in his Chronicle of his last edition, volum. 1. pag. 115. a. lin. 27. and after the first edition, pag. 170. 2. lin. 38. saith of Oswald, that He was the first of the English Nation that approved his vertue by miracles after his life. testi­mony made to us known and confessed. In the age next after (which was the seven hundreth year after Christ) lived St. Bede himself, who affirmeth Bed [...] hist. l. 5. c. 2. initio. many miracles to have been (then) done by Bishop John, reported by divers that familiarly knew him, and specially by his Deacon, a most Reverend and true man, now Abbot (saith Bede) of the Mo­nastery called Inderwood: sundry of which said miracles he there specially Bed. ibid. mentioneth the miraculous curing of one born dumb, that was never able to speak one word: he reporteth this (ut ferunt qui praesentes fuere) from the re­port of them that were present thereat. And l. 5. c. 3. he reporteth from the words of one Berectus, who was present at the miracle, the said Bishops wonderfull curing a young Virgin, named Coenburg, of an ulcerous painfull tumor in her arm, by his praying over her, and blessing her. And l. 5. c. 4. he reporteth from the same eye-witness the said Bishops curing of a diseased woman with holy water. And see his greate [...] curing of one almost dead, ibid. c. 5. and of another like, c. 6. See these miracles mentioned by the Centurists, cent. 7. c. 10. col. 533. and by Osiander, in epit. cent. 7. p. 328. post med. where his chief answer thereto is, that inter Antichristiana miracula sunt reverenda. mentioneth. In like manner doth he particularly mention the sun­dry great miracles of holy Cuthbert, and namely [Page 413]his miraculous Beda hist. l. 4. c. 29. foretelling the time of his own death, and obtaining of God by prayer, that his faith­full Companion, Herebert, might depart this life to­gether with him:Ibidem.the finding of his body eleven years after its burial, whole and sound, as it were li­ving, with limbs, joynts, and sinews, soft and pliae­ble, more like a body sleeping than dead, and the cloaths about him without blemish, fresh and fair, as when they were first made. Besides sundry other miracles of healths done at his Ibidem, cap. 31. the title thereof be­ing, Ut qui­dam ad tum­bam ejus sit à paralysi cura­tus. And cap. 32. the title thereof being, Ut quidam ad reliquias ejus nuper fuerit ab oculi lan­guore curatus. S. Bede saith there, That this Miracle was some three years past done at his Reliques, and told to him by the same man on whom it was done. Monument, so many and so known, that even S. Bede himself did therefore write a special Of this Treatise Beda maketh special mention, ibidem 30. fine, &c. 31. fine. Treatise thereof. In like sort doth he mention Beda in hist. lib. 5. cap. 11. saith, Nec martyrio eorum coelestia de sucre miracula, nam cum, &c. the heavenly mi­racles testifying the martyrdome of (the two English brethren named) Edwaldi, who were so confessed­ly of our Catholick Religion, that John Bale saith of them, Bale in Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae Catalog. cent. 14. pag. 145. saith of them, Passi sunt pro Papismo Papistici martyres, Anno 693. And Osiander in epitom. &c. cent. 7. pag. 331. post med. saith, Hi vero Edualdi inter veros martyres numerandi non sunt. They were Popish Martyrs, and dyed for Popery, Anno 693. And thus much briefly concerning the undoubted miracles, specially done in proof of that faith whereto we Englishmen were so many ages since converted, and in which we have accordingly ever since persisted. Now con­cerning the other succeeding ages; the miracles of the eighth age, or hundred years after Christ, are mentioned by See Osiander in epit. &c. cent. 8. pag. 47. & 92. post med. & pag. 24. ante med. & pag. 25. post med. Osiander and the See the Centurists, cent. 8. c. 13. Centurists in their special Tracts of that Century, and so likewise are the miracles of the ninth age, Osiander [Page 414]in his answer thereto referring them to See the Centurists, cent. 9. cap. 13. And Osi­ander in his epitom. &c. cent. 9. pag. 63. imtio, saith, Miracu­la quae a su­perstitiosis scriptoribus in hac nona cen­turia recitan­tur, vel ab ho­minibus ot [...]osis conficta, vel à Satanae praestigiis estecta, ad Antichristi miracula, (&c.) referenda sunt. Ad manifestam enim Idololatriam confirmandam, vel con­ficta, vel à Satana edita sunt, videlicet ad statuendum imaginum impium cultum, ad venerationem rel quiarum, ad invocationem & cultum Sanctorum, ad Miss [...]rum sacrificia continuanda pro vivis & mortuis. Anti­christ. And like further mention is by them and other credible Writers made of the undoubted miracles done in the Concerning the tenth age, see the Centurists, cent. 10. c. 13. and Osiander in opitom. cent. 10. pag. 125. And see the wonderfull minacles of holy Dunstan reported by Osbertus in vita ojus, whereof see also Holinsheads great Chronicle, the last edition, part. 7. in the Historie of England, pag. 165. b. lin. 7. and see also Petrus Damianus reporting the mirdeles of holy Rom­wald. tenth and Concerning the eleventh [...]ge, Osiander in epitom. cent. 9, 10, 11, &c. pag. 213. initio, saith, Hoc saeculum undecimum plenum est Antichristianis mira­culis, quorum alia ab otiofis Monachis excogitata, aliqua Satanae praestigiis effecta sunt, ad confirmationem Idololatriae Pontificiae circa Missam, invocationem San­ctorum, &c. And see the miracles of holy Anseln [...] mentioned by Edinerus in vita ejus. And of Odilo Abbas Cluniacensis, reported by Petrus Damianus in vita ejus. eleventh ages. In the twelfth age flourished holy Malachias and S. Bernard, both of them being Of their confessed Religion, see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. fine, in the margent at 3. confes­sed Roman Catholicks. Concerning Malachias, his known miracles are reported by no meaner a witness that by S. Bernard himself, who having known Malachias most Of their familiarity, Osiander in epitom. cent. 12. pag. 315. post med. saith, Malachias Sancto Bernardo admodum familiaris fuit. And see M. Holinsheads Chronicle, part. [...]. after the last edition, in the sundry invasions of Ireland, next after the description, and next before the Chronicle [...] of Ireland, pag. 55. a. lin. 43. Here Brereley in his Omissions and Additions of page 535. addeth. See also S. Bernard in praefat. in vita Malachiae, where he signifieth his familiarity and presence at the death of Malachias, saying, Me inter speciales amicos Sanctus ille habebat, &c. Accurri ego, ut benedictio morituri super me veniret, &c. elevatis sanctis manibus super caput meum, benedixit mihi, & benedictionem haereditate possideo; affirming (after many other stupendious miracles reported there in the end of that Treatise) that after Malachias was newly dead, Stabat eminùs puer cui emortuum pendebat è latere brachium, magis ille impedimento quàm usui, apprehensam manum aridam, applicui ad ma­num Episcopi, vivificavit eam: nempe vivebat in mortuo gratia sanitatum, &c. So present, and witness, was S. Bernard at this miracle. And concerning the certainty of his report of Malachias his other miracles, he saith there, in praefat. fine, Narrationis ve­ritas apud me secura est. familiarly, saith of [Page 415]him, Bernard. in vita Mala­chiae. In what kind of old miracles did not Malachias excell? He wanted not prophecy, not revelations, not the gift of healing, and, to con­clude, not the raising of the dead. Among which his so many undoubted miracles, there is none more known and memorable, than his Bernard. in vita Mala­chiae. And Ho­linshead, ubi supra, pag. 55. a. lin. 56. curing of a lunatick Child in his confirming (or Bishoping) him: Holin­shead ubi su­pra.A miracle (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, and (there­upon) blown through the world. In like manner con­cerning S. Bernards miracles, they be specially written by his own Scholar Godefri­dus in vita Bernardi. And Wilhelmus Abbas S. Ni­codorici Rhe­mensis, l. 1. c. 10. in vita Bernardi. And Bernard the Abbot of Bone­vallis (who li­ved in the same time with S. Bernard) in vita Ber­nardi, l. 2. c. 2, & 3. Godefridus, and others of that time who wrote his life: among which his so many miracles, we cannot pass over in silence that great dogmatical miracle by him wrought against the Henricians, or Apostolici, who then did (as Protestants now do) That the Henricians or Apostolici joyned with Protestants in denial of [...]hese several arti­cles, see in Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. in the margent at n. deny the real presence, Sacrifice of the Mass, Chrism, Pur­gatory, prayer for the Dead, prayer to Saints, &c. In­somuch as sundry Protestants See this in Catal. Testium veritatis, printed 1597. tom. 2. pag. 561, & 562. and in M. Symonds upon the Reve­lations, pag. 142, & 143. claim them to have been brethren or members of their Church. These reigned as then most in the Country of Tholosa in France: Into which Country S. Bernard came to preach against them, whereof his Scholar Gode­fridus writeth thus: Est locus in regione, &c. ThereGodefridus in vita Bernardi, l. 3. c. 5. is (saith he) a place in the Country of Tholosa, called Sarlatum, where after the Sermon was done, they offered to the Servant of God (as every where the use was) many loaves to bless, which he by lifting up his hand, and making the [Page 416]sign of the Cross, in Gods name blessing, said thus; In this you shall know that these things are true, which we, and that those other are false, which the Hereticks labour to perswade you, &c. and whosoever they be (of your diseased per­sons) that tast the loaves, they shall be healed, that you may know us to be the true Minister of God: And so huge a multitude of diseased per­sons recovered by tasting the same bread, that over all the Country this was divulged, &c. Thus reporteth Godefridus, who lived in the same time with S. Bernard, was his Scholar, and could not without known discovery and discredit have as then set down a matter of this importance, and with such variety of other particular As among other circum­stances he af­firmeth in the same place the number of per­sons healed, was so divul­ged, that (saith be) the holy man return­ing over the places near thereto, was glad to go out of his way, for intollerable concourse of people.circumstances as are set down in the report hereof at large, had the same been as then but feigned and untrue. From suspicion whereof S. Bernard himself doth also further free it, Like as the Apostle insinuateth to the Thessalonians his miracles wrought among them, together with his preaching, saying, Evangelium no­strum non fuit ad vos in fermone tantùm, sed in virtute. 1 Thess. 1.5. So S. Ber­nard, in imitation thereof, upon the like occasion, saith in his 241 Epistle to the Tho­losians, We thank God for that our coming to you was not in vain, our tarriance in­deed was short with you, but not unfruitfull, the truth being by us made manifest, (non solum in sermone, sed etiam in virtute) not onely by preaching, but also by power (of working miracles) the Wolves are deprehended (or convinced, &c.) And S. Bernard himself is alleged, as giving further testimony of his miracles, by the Centurists, cent. 12. col. 1634. lin. 60. & col. 1635. lin. 1. & col. 1649. lin. 40. insinuating in his Epistle to the same Tholosians, their remembrance thereof, with imitation of such like modesty in speech, as did the Apostle in the like case in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. To conclude this point, the miracles of S. Bernard were so many and certain, that Osi­ander not daring to deny the same, is not ashamed [Page 417]in answer thereof to affirm them to Osiander in epitom. cent. 12. l. 4. c. 6. pag. 310. post med. saith of S. Be [...]nard, Miracula ci propè infinita à Pontificiis Scriptoribus affinguntur, quae ego partim ab otiosis Monachis excogitata puto, part [...]m perm [...]ssione Dei prae­stigiis Satanicis effecta existimo, non quod Sanctum Bernardum magum fuisse pu­tem, sed quòd verisimile sit Satanam talia miracula effecisse, &c. tales suisse puto Sancti Bernardi visiones, & post mortem suam apparitiones, praestigias videlicet Diabolicas, quibus Satan & ipsi S. Bernardo (dum viveret) & aliis illusit. have been done by the Devil. Hitherto concerning the miracles of St. Bernard, whom our Adversaries acknowledge to have been a See this proved and confessed heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. fine, in the margent at 3. Popish Catho­lick, and yet withall Whitaker de Ecclesia, pag. 369. paulò post med. saith, Ego quidem Bernardum verè fuisse Sanctum existimo. a true Saint, Osiander, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med. saith, S. Bernardus Clarevallensis Abbas valdè pius vir fuit, &c.a very good man, See this in Pasquils return into England, pag. 8, & 13.a good Father, (and) one of the Lamps of the Church of God.

5. In the thirteenth age (to omit many Many o­thers, as namely, holy Peter, Tho­mas, Antony, and Bonaven­ture, whereof see Antoninus, 3. part. hist. tit. 23, & 24.others that were famous for miracles) lived S. Francis, and S. Dominick, preaching as then earnestly See Act. Mon. pag. 70. at An. 1215. against the Albigenses, who See this in Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. under n. denying Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Confession, extreme Unction, the Popes Authority, Images, Pardons, Ce­remonies, Traditions, are therefore by our Adver­saries See this in Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 2. in the margent at q. And tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. in the margent at 3. challenged for brethren and members of their Church. Among the many miracles cre­dibly reported of them, we will, to avoyd tedious­ness, onely allege that great miracle which it pleased God so publickly and openly to shew in the last sickness of S. Francis, and the same com­mended to us, not upon the onely credit of any obscure or fabulous Legend, but upon the constant [Page 418]and credible report of Matthew Paris in his Historie, published by our very Printed by them at T [...] ­gure, 1589. with title of Matthae [...] Pa­tis. &c. histo­ria major, &c. Adversaries them­selves, who in respect thereof do commend him (to use their own words) for In their Preface to the Reader (set before the be­ginning of the Book) initio. the great study, faithfull diligence, and simple narration of truth, which the Author thereof (say they) Matthew Paris used, affirming further his said Book to be Opus laudatissimum, wherein, say they, he doth Ibidem it is said, that he doth tam saepè, tam manife­stè, tam vehe­menter, & in­trepidè notare & simul de­testari arro­gantem super­biam, Tyran­nidem, & in­justum impe­rium Romani Pontificis.so often, so manifestly, so vehemently, and so boldly note and de­test the great arrogant pride, Tyrannie, and unjust government of the Roman Bishop, Ibidem, in praefat. ad Lectorem. that Illyricus doth therefore place him in his In Catal. test. pag. 593. & 625. Catalogue of Witnesses of the Truth, &c. And other Protestant Writers So challen­ged by Mr. Welsh in his reply against M. Gilbert Brown, Priest. pag. 181. fine. And by M. Gifford upon the Revelations, pag. 194. paulò ante med. challenge him as a member of their Church. Thus then doth this so true, credible, and indif­ferent reporter (who Matthew Paris lived Anno Domini 1250. and S. Francis begua his Order, as M. Fox re­porteth, Anno 1215. Act. Mon. pag. 70. at Anno 1215. lived in the same age with S. Francis) report of this matter in his so greatly commended Book before mentioned, say­ing, Matthew Paris in his foresaid Historie, pag. 329. initio. And see S. Bonaventure in vita Francisci. Quinta decima die, &c. The fifteenth day before his death, there appeared out of his body wounds in his hands & feet freshly bleeding, such as appeared in the Saviour of the world, hanging upon the Cross, when he was crucified by the Jews. Also, his right side appeared so open and bloudy, that the inward parts of his heart were to be discerned; whereupon there repaired to him great concourse of people, wondring at so strange a thing, among whom the Cardinals themselves demanded of him what this sight [Page 419]meant, to whom he said, This sight in me is therefore shewed, to whom I preached the my­sterie of the Cross, that you may believe in him, who for the salvation of the world suffered upon the Cross these wounds which you see, and that you may know me to be the Servant of him whom I preached, &c. And to the end that without doubt you may persevere in this con­stancy of faith, these wounds which you see in me so open and bloody, shall immediatly after I am dead be whole and coherent like to my other flesh. Afterwards he yielded up his soul to his Creator, without all anguish or pain of his body, and being dead, there remained no marks of his foresaid wounds. Thus much reporteth Matthew Paris of S. Francis, a confessed M. Whi­taker de Ec­clesia, pag. 369. post med. saith, Francis­cus verò & Dominicus homines su­perstitiosi fue­runt (&c.) de religione ve­rò, quod sci­am, idem illi senserunt quod nunc vulgus Papi­starum sencit. And see M. Fulk in his Retentive against Bristow, pag. 101. ante med. Popish Ca­tholick, whose wonderfull holy and austere life is Pantaleon in Chron. pag. 95. fine, saith, S. Franciscus sanctitate & eruditione illustris, in Italia claret. And Fox Act. Mon. pag. 70. next after Anno 1216. going about to disgrace him all he can, saith of him, This Francis was superstitious in casting all things from him, even also his girdle, gi [...]ding a cord about him, and in outward chastisings of himself, was so strait to his flesh, that in winter season he covered his body with ice and snow: he called Poverty his Lady. So desirous he was of Martyrdome, that he went into Syria to the Souldan, &c. And Melancthon in his Apologia Confessionis Au­gustanae, printed at Wittemberg, 1573. fol. 221. b. ante med. saith, Obedientia, Paupertas, & Caelibatus exercitia sunt [...], ideoque Sancti uti eis sine impie­tate passunt, sicut usi sunt Bernardus, Franciscus, & alii Sancti Viri. And Tindall in his Treatise entituled, The revelation of Antichrist, saith, I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, Dominick, and many other holy men erred, as concerning Mass. Act. Mon. pag. 1338. a. prope initium. That Tindall was Author of this Treatise, see Act. Mon. pag. 573. b. fine. And see the religious austerity of S. Francis yet further at large reported and confessed by the centurists, cent. 13. col. 1158. lin. 20. & 1162. lin. 33. & lin. 60. And especially col. 1164. l. 10, 11, &c. And in the Book entituted Corpus Doctrinae, written by Melancthon, and printed Lipsiae, 1561. and subscribect unto by many learned Protestant Divines, ibid. pag. 300, & 301. it is said, ibid. p. 95. fine, Antonius, Bernardus, Dominicus, Franciscus, & alii Sanct [...] Patres, elegerunt certum vitae genus, vel propter studium, vel propter alia utilia exercit [...]a; &c. acknowledged by our very Adversaries. [Page 420]Whereto might be added further report of the same Author concerning many undoubted As for example, pag. 128, & 129. Matthew Paris telleth how that in those times the Martyr Al­ban appeared to one Robert with great brightness, and shewed to him the sepulcher and reliques of the blessed Martyr Am­phibalus, the which he o­pened, and thereupon great splendor and brightness thence issued, and that upon notice had thereof, great concourse was had thereto of people, quos fervor devo­tionis adduxe­rat. And ibid. Pag. 130. he setteth down in particular sundry infirm persons miraculously cured thereat. And pag. 131. he further saith, In praesentia Sanctarum Reliquiarum ipsius, nec non in loco sepulturae ejus, ad laudem Dei & gloriam Martyris, a diversis infirmitatibus sanantur aegroti, membra paralytica solidantur, multorum ora ad lo­quendum laxantur, coecis tribuitur visus, surdis auditus, claudis firmatur gressus, & quod magis magnificum est, arrepti à daemonio liberantur (&c.) & ad vitam mortui revocantur. And see many other undoubted miracles by him reported, pag. 195. post med. & pag. 203. circa med. 207, 208, & 283. ante med. & 315. post med. & 389. fine, & 390. initio, & 397. fine, & 398. initio, & 536. circa med. & 572. post med. mi­racles of those times. To overpass now the four­teenth age, in which are famous the known and re­ported Of these, see Antoninus, 3. part. hist. tit. 23, 24. where he reporteth certain Re­fuscitations of the dead. And see also Raymundus Capuanus in vita Catharinae Se­nensis. And Petrus Rauz in vita Vincentii. And Joannes Capistranus in vita Ber­nardini. miracles of holy Bernardine, of Vin­centius, and of S. Katherine of Sienna; and to con­clude this point with some known examples of the fifteenth and last expired age, we have already here­tofore alleged the known and confessed wonderfull miracles of holy Xaverius in his conversion of the East-Indians, and the like confessed miracles shew­ed in this age by God in the conversion of the Kingdome of Congo in Africk; and the same so credible, as are published to the world by Pro­testants themselves. Whereunto might be added the example of Joannes à S. Francisco, who in Conversion of the Mexican Nation, came to the Hereof see Bozius, de sig. Eccles. lib. 12. cap. 21. knowledge of the Mexican Language by onely prayer, without study. As also of Aloysius Bertrandus, who (not unlike to that which is men­tioned in the Act. 2.6, 7. Acts) preaching to the In­dians in Spanish, was by them Bozius, l. 6. c. 2. & l. 7. c. 1. understood as See heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. in the margent at *. next after m. See ibidem. [Page 421]in their own language, besides sundry other Read the Book entituled Rerum in O­riente gesta­rum Com­mentarius, throughout. And the Book entituled, Avis­del Giapone, de gli Anni 1582, 1583, & 1584 prin­ted 1586. And the other Book entituled, H [...] ­stor a dell [...] Indie Orien­tali (printed) in Venetia, 1777. lib. 2. cap. 53, 57, & 63. & l. 3. c. 3. mi­racles shewed by God in the late conversion of sundry Nations. And the same so evident, as the Protestant writer, See this of Philippus Ni­colai in Brere­ley, tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 6. subd. 2. versus finem, after n. in the margent at 10, & 11. Dr. Philippus Nicolai, is enfor­ced to acknowledge them: Forbearing all which, I cannot but remember that memorable miracle, and not to be denyed, which happened See Ni­colaus Basilius additione ad Chronicon Naucleri. in February, Anno 1510. in a Town called Knobloch; (Whereas) one Paul Form, a sacrilegious person, went secretly into the Church by night, brake the pix, and stole from thence two consecrated hosts, one of which he sold to a Jew, who, blinded with malice, said, If thou be the God of Christians, manifest thy self, and that said, he pierced the Sacrament with his Dagger, whereupon Blood did miraculously issue forth, &c. This miracle was not private, but so known and evident, that Vide ibi­dem, and see next hereafter at b. thirty eight Jews assenting thereto, were therefore apprehended, and publickly burned the 19. of July, 1510. in the Mar­chy of Brandeburg, and all (other) Jews were also thereupon (by publick decree) banished out of the said Territories. This being so certainly set down, with such foresaid known particularity of circum­stances, as the certainty of time and place, the known execution of so many Offenders, the so­lemn banishment by publick decree thereupon en­suing of all Jews out of that Country, with many other particulars mentioned in the story at large, is accordingly reported for credible, not onely by For Ca­tholick writers read hereof Surius in Chronic. and Pontanus, l. 5. rerum memorabilium, and Lintur [...]us Ap­pendice ad sasciculum temporum. Catholick Authors, but also by Joannes Manlius (Luthers Scholar) in loc. commun. pag. 87. saith hereof, Anno post natum Christum, 1510. die 19. Julii, combusti sunt in Marchia Brandeburgensi 38. Judaei, qui sacramentalem hostiam à sacrilego quodam emptam pugionibus & cultellis in ipsius Christi & Ecclesiae Chri­stianae ignominiam impiè confoderant, adjectis blasphem is quòd Christianorum Deus nullum haberet sang [...]unem, qui tamen miraculosè promanavit, adeo ut celari nullo modo potuerit: Quare comprehensi scelerati omnes vivi sunt exusti, &c. That Manlius who published this, is but the Collector of Melancthons report, appeareth by the verses in the beginning of the Book, and in the Book, pag. 89. the Reporter men­tioneth his being at Ratisbone, and disputing there with Eckius, which was meant of Melancthon. Me­lancthon, and sundry other The Protestant writer, Michael Beuther, in his Ephemeris Hi­storica, printed at Basil, pag. 226. maketh the very same report hereof; And so likewise doth Osiander, in epitom. &c. cent. 16. c. 14. fine, pag. 28. Protestant writers.

6. To forbear certain other Pontanus, l. 5. rer. mem. and Surius in Comm. rer. in orbe gestarū, do report the like miraculous appearance of blood upon like violent sacri­lege done by Jews to the Blessed Sacra­ment, Anno 1556. in Po­lonia: where­upon the Of­fenders, one Bisphem a Jew, and Do­rothy his woman-servant, were upon Friday after the Ascension day publickly burned. And Jansonius in his Mercurio Gallobelg. l. 4. Anni 1591. maketh mention of the like violence and miracle thereupon ensuing at Presburg in Hungary, Anno 1591. where three Jews being the Offenders, were publickly executed. examples in in the same kind, we will remember that which is known and evident, concerning Margaret Jesop, an Born at Long­wick Parish in Buckinghamshire. See the report thereof in Dr. Bristows Motives, the fifth motive. English woman, who serving in London in the Old Baily one Samuel Rogers a Dutchman, Anno 1568. She went to seek after one John Masten a Dutchman, her affianced Husband, who leaving her with Child in London, did, in regard of her poverty, unkindly forsake her, returning into his own Country, and there marrying another. went to Bruxels, 1569. and there fell grievously She became upon her delivery so lame, that she kept her bed for half a year, a deep hole re­maining on her right side, as if some of her ribs had been sunk far within her body. lame, the one leg being shorter than the other by half a foot, being known to con­tinue in that estate of lameness, and to live upon common alms three years and four months, at the end of which time, with help of her Crutch, she went to the Church of S. Gudila, vulgarly called S. Trigules in Bruxels, to hear the solemn Mass of the blessed miraculous Anno 1369. certain Jews at Bruxels having with their knives transfixed the blessed Sacrament, blood miraculously issued, (which being discovered) the Jews confes­sing the same, were thereupon publickly condemned, and burned upon the Ascensiun Eve, Anno 1370. and the foresaid sacred host was religiously placed in the Church of S. Gu­dila in Bruxels, where it is yet, (most miraculously without all corruption) reserved. See the historie hereof more particularly and at large reported by Theodoricus Loer, in his Book hereof taken from the Notaries publick Records. See also a summary report thereof in Tilman Bredenbachius, collat. sacr. l. 9. c. 25. Sacrament, in which [Page 423]place many cures had been wrought, where (in the presence of hundreds of eye-witnesses) she was miraculously Of the many miracu­lous cures there before time done, see Theodoricus Loer de mira­culis Bruxel­lis editis circa Venerabilem Eucharistiam. And see a col­lection of them taken from the said Author, and extant in Tilman Bredenbachius, l. 9. collat. sacr. cap. 25. and see there in the end of that 9. book the subscription of the publick Notaries testifying the same. restored to health, in memory whereof her Crutch was there left in the place near to the blessed Sacrament, where it is yet to this day remaining, and the foresaid miracle was proclaim­ed in Pulpits of the Cities round about, and the woman her self, together with many eye­witnesses of her then cure, are yet living to testifie the same. And no less memorable is that which of late times happened to Justus Lipsius in his book, entituled, Diva Sichamiensis five Aspricollis, printed Antwerpiae, 1605. cap. 45. saith hereof, Erat Bruxellae Joannes Clemens fil [...]us Jacobi (&c.) à nativitate claudus, debilis, imò monstrosa quadam facie corporis suit, tib [...]ae & pedes contracti antrorsum, versi in pectus sic ut genua in­jungerentur & adhaerescerent, nec esset digitum aut aliud immittere tanquam na­tiva concretione: Imò verò cavitas & velu [...] putei apparuerunt sub pectore, cum sanatus ille fuit, idem in utroque femore & ventri imo jungebantur: globosum ali­quod corpus diceres, nec stare, jacere, ambulare idoncum: sedere tantùm & se­dendo proserpere, manuumal quo nixu, quae sulcris etiam [...]uvabantur; Haec de­formitas patri dolor, matri etiam exitio fuerat, quae in partu obiit ventre exsecto, caeso hic p [...]ociietristi fato. And afterwards: B [...]uxellam rediit, paternam pecunio­lam consumpsit [...], benignita [...]e aliena deinceps sustentatus, &c. crebra fama motus capitu [...] ad Divam nostram veni [...]e, si forte & ipse opem ac solatium referret: vectus est cu [...]u, in sacellum repsit, culpas confessione & paenitentia expiavit, sacram ho­stiam sumpfi [...], & paulò post angi visus & animo collabi, item dolores in omni cor­pore sentire, & dum conatur egredi atqu [...] aëre refici, magis increvit mo [...]bus, man­sitque volens nolens to [...]um diem in vesperam. Tunc solemnes Divae laudes cane­bantur, & ipse ante Aram, sentitque palam à terra se attolli, & pedes ante con­tortos & ligatos laxari, dejici, idque thorace qui velabat per vim disrupto: & sta­tim directus pedibus suis stetit: ipse attonitus, quid alii? &c. haec turbis ibi visa. haec Lovanii cum rediit, haec Bruxellae, & quis non occurrit? Audivi medicos pri­marios, & talium haud temerè credulos exclamantes, verè hanc vim & manum Dei esse. Hereunto Brereley in his omissions and additions of page 543. addeth, saying, If any curious Adversary will deny this miracle to have been done by God, because it was not done in instants, let that man remember, that upon our Saviours curing of the blind man at Bethsaida, he did not at the first instant perfectly cure him, for it is said that at first he (but) saw men walking like trees, Marc. 8.24. and S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. mentioning the like miraculous cures done in his own time, and knowledge, at the Monument of S. Stephen, of Paulus and Palladia, he declareth them both to have been cured not at the first instant, but saith of Paulus, Repen [...]è prostratus est, & dormienti simillimus jacuit. And afterwards of Palladia, Collapsa sim [...]lit [...]r velut ad somnum sana su [...]rexit. And of an other there before mentioned, he likew [...]se saith, Ecce dormitum est, & ecce ante diluculum, &c. and yet more plainly and at large of an other young man brought to the Memory (or Reliques) of Gervasius and Por­tasius at Millan, whose cure of his eyes were discerned post septein dies. John Clement, whose [Page 424]mother being at her delivery of him cut, there­upon dyed, leaving behind her (this) her son lame from his nativity, and of a monstrous composition of body, his thighs and feet were contracted and turned towards the forepart of his breast, so as his knees did grow and stick thereto, his body was round (or sphe­rical) unfit to stand, lye, or walk. Having from his birth continued in this estate for 20. years, and so known to the Inhabitants of Bruxels, and other places adjoyning, he was moved in his mind to go to our Ladies Chapel, in or near the Town in Brabant called Sichemium, where he had heard of many miraculous Of the many miracu­lous cures there done, the foresaid Treatise of Justus Lipsius consisting wholly thereof.cures credibly Concerning the undoubted credit of these, Justus Lipsius, a neighbour to the place, in his Preface of the said Book to the Reader, initio, saith thereof, Quid enim de ho­minibus dicam, si quis non abnuit, sed ambigit in tam illustribus, nec homines esse, aut certè sponte oculos claudere nè solem hunc admittant tam clarae veritatis. Sunt enim in sensibus nostris plera (que) gesta. Quid etiam? Ne fraus & sucus imponant; pub­lico mandato Mechliniensis Antistitis explorata inquisita (&c.) lege igitur & cr. de. And in the beginning of his first Chapter, he further saith, Ecce in oculis atque auribus omnium nostrum gesta, ecce concursu, plausu, fructu gentium celebrata. Quae fides potest esse in rebus humanis, si haec non est? &c. And Brereley in his Omissions (&c.) of pag. 544. adds. See also this reported of John Clements cure done in July, Anno 1604. more particularly reported in the Historie of Miracles at Mont-a [...]gue near unto Sichem, printed 1606. pag. 244, 245, &c. And see also there, pag. 260, 261, 262, 263, &c. the sundry witnesses there particularly named, together with their particular testimonies of this matter solemnly taken by oath: and there pag. 267. initio, men­tioned to be recorded by Publick Writings both of the City of Bruxels, subsigned (by) P. Numan, Secretary: as also of Lovam, subsigned (by) R. de Prince, Secretary, dated respectively 29. Jul [...]i, and 2. Augusti, 1604. and sealed with the Scals of the said Cities. published to [Page 425]have been there done: Being carried thither in a Wagon, and having confessed his sins, and received the blessed Sacrament, he did (in the end) feel his contracted and bound feet to be loosed, and stretched forth, so as presently he stood on his feet, himself and the beholders being amazed thereat. Will our Ad­versaries deny this? It is thus reported by that ex­cellent learned man, Justus Lipsius (dwelling there­by) as lately done in July, Anno 1603. in the pre­sence of many eye-witnesses, and thereupon pub­lished both in Print and Pulpit, sundry of the Gen­tlemen attending upon our late Embassador the Earl of Hereford, having received answerable sa­tisfaction in that behalf, as well by seeing and con­ferring with the party, as by other publick and credible testimony thereof given. Will they yet take exceptions to this John Clement himself, as being but a counterfeit? His known foresaid more than ordinary lameness continued till then, even from his own nativity and mothers death, pro­claimeth the contrary. What therefore remaineth, but that honouring our Blessed Saviour in due ac­knowledgement to his holy Mother, they should so with all herein acknowledge Exod. 8.19. & Luc. 11.10. the finger of God, Esay 59.1. & 5.2. & Num. 11.23.whose hand is not yet shortned. Here­unto might be added the many other miracles there done in these times, and mentioned by Justus Lip­sius in his foresaid Treatise. The many more mi­racles likewise by him reported in his other Book, [Page 426]entituled, Printed Antuerpiae, 1604. Virgo Hallensis, together also with the miraculous cures confessed by the Protestant writer Joannes Manlius from Melancthons report, as done at the Memorials of the blessed Virgin at Manlius in his Book en­tituled, Loco­rum commu­nium collecta­nea (mention­ed before at b. and of whom it is said in the verses before the Book, Haec partim scripsit magno dictan­te Philippo.) undertaking, pag. 184. to set down ex­amples of Ido­latry, confesseth the matter of fact, saying there, pag. 187. paulo post medium, of infirm persons, Ad Sanctam Miriam Ratisbonensem homines ultra viginti milliaria, nec bibentes nec comedentes currebant: quò cùm venissent, jacebant prostrati quatuor horas, posteaque liberabantur. And the Protestant writer, Osiander, confesseth the same ac­cordingly, centur. 16. pag. 69. circa med. saying, Viri & Mulieres, Juvenes & Vir­gines, Ratisbonam currebant, ad Idolum beatae Virginis Mariae: ibi enim cre­debantur miracula stupenda fieri, & quidem edita su [...]s [...]e quaedam Antichristiana mi­racula praestigiis Satanicis credib [...]le est. Ratisbone and Manlius, ubi supra, pag. 185. ante med. saith, Novimus homines cueurrisse ad Grimenthall qui amentes suerunt, & acuerunt ante Civitatem per a liquot horas, postea redierunt ad se, haec dixerunt esse miracula Sanctae Mariae. So clear and confessed herein is the matter of fact, that this Author is not ashamed to allege these as examples of Idolatry. Greementhall: the latter whereof is set down upon the Authors own know­ledge. Which foresaid course of these and many other miracles hath been so assuredly accomplished in this last age, that Martin Luther (not unlike herein to the unclean Marc. 1.24. & Luc. 4.34. spirit, who confessed Christ to be the Holy One of God, was in respect of so evident truth inforced likewise to confess and say, Luther in purgatione quorundam articulorum. Quis enim potest contradicere his, &c. Who can gainsay the things, which God to this day worketh mi­raculously and visibly (ad Divorum sepulchra) at the Monuments of the Saints? In regard of which our foresatd so plentifull alleged testimony from miracles, which are (as the Scriptures tearm them) God testifying by signs and miracles (Hebr. 2.4.) I have a greater testimony and witness than John, the works that I do give testimony, &c. (John 5.36.) the testimonies of God, we may not unaptly say in behalf of our Catholick Church, with a holy writer, Rich. de S. Victore, l. 1. de Trinit. c. 2. Domine, si error est quod credimus, [Page 427]à te decepti sumus, &c. O Lord, if it be errour which we believe, we are deceived by thee, for thou hast confirmed these things to us with signs and wonders, which could not be done but by thee. Or rather as said that blessed man Nicodemus of our Saviour, Joan. 2.23. We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles thou dost, except God were with him.

7. And let it not (most gratious Lord) seem tedious if here we do but touch those idle tergi­versations wherewith our Adversaries seek to ob­scure so great a light. As first, under pretence or example of divers dispersed fabulous Legends, of things meerly feigned, but never done, as also of sundry counterfeit miracles, done indeed, but by confederacy and practice of Impostors, to reject all other as being likewise untrue, or at least coun­terfeit. But with how small equity is this? To touch the first, Must all historical faith be abolish­ed, because of some abuse or errour in historie? To these it shall suffice onely to oppose the grave answer of S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 18. initio, saith, An dicit ali­quis ista falsa esse miracula, nec su [...]sse fa­cta, sed men­daciter scri­pta, quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omninò ullis literis esse credendum: potest etiam dicere nec &c. Austin in like case of his time. As concerning the other part wherein they give example of the blood of Hales, the aversion or moving of the Images face by device of secret wyers, and such like; whereto (supposing them for true) we may match the late sleeping Preacher, discovered by your Majestie. M. See at large the Book entituled, A discourse of the frau­dulent practices of John Dorrel in his proceedings concerning the pretended pos­session and dispossession of William Summers at Nottingham, of Thomas Darling the Boy of Burton, of Caldwall, and of Katherine Wright at Mansfield, and of his deal­ings with one Mary Cowper at Nottingham, written by M. Harsnet, and printed by John Wolf, 1599. And see another Treatise entituled, A summary answer to all the material points in any of M. Dorrel's Books, more specially to that one Book of his, entituled, The doctrine of the possession and disposs [...]ssion of Demoniacks, out of the Word of God (written by John Deacon and John Walker, Preachers) printed 1601. Dorrel's [Page 428]like discovered confederacy with Will Summers, and others, and their other confessed See this in Stow's An­nals, printed 1592. pag. 1058. post. med. coun­terfeit spirit in the wall practiced against Queen Mary, with such like. To omit, that deceits of this kind See example hereof in our Church report­ed by our Ad­versary Osian­der in epitom. &c. centur. 16. pag. 222. ante med. & 770, & 771, And see the Treatise entituled, Two Treatises, the first of the lives of Popes, &c. the second of Mass, &c. also of false miracles wherewith Marie de la Visitation, Prioress de la Annunciada of Lisbone deceived very many, and was discovered and condemned: Englished and printed 1600. Of our Churches Inquisitors, severe in­quiry, discovery and punishment of that hypocritical woman, see there pag. 362. initio, & pag. 424, 425, & 427. And see there in the addition, after the end of the Book, another like discovery and punishment in Sevil of one Father Lyon. And see the like discovery of false miracles in Sir Thomas Moor's dialogue of veneration of Images, Reliques, &c. lib. 1. c. 14. And see Osiander, epitom. &c. centur. 16. pag. 32. initio, an example of a woman counterfeiting of her self to live without mea [...] and sleep, &c. discovered and punished by our Church. are by our Church carefully enquired of, may the particular blemish of certain such forged examples, suffice to discredit a general received truth? then much more by this reason away with the true Scriptures of the New Testament, because there were many more writings Of the very many wri­tings forged under the Apostles names, see Eusebius hist. l. 3. c. 19. & l. 6. c. 10. and S. Austin contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. l. 1 c. 20. and Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis, and Zozomen. hist. l. 7. c. 19. post med. and see also the Protestant writer Hamelmannus de traditionibus Apostol [...]cis, &c. primae partis, l. 1. col. 251. & part. 3. l. 3 col. 841. lin. 15, & 22. In which places mention is made of sundry writings forged under the name of Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Thomas, Matthew, An­drew, John, and divers others; and S. Paul, 2 Thess. [...].2. insinuateth the then for­ging of Epistles in his name.counterfeited under the Apostles names, than are now remaining true and undoubted: many also of those foresaid true writings now remaining, having been, as the learned Protestants In the Tower disp. Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian, the first daies conference, D. 1. the Deans of Pauls and Windsor do thus report of themselves: for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom. in Catal. where he thus writeth: The Epistle of James is said to be published by some other under his name, and of the second of Peter he saith, that it is denied of many to be his: we also allege Eusebius writing thus; Those books that be gain said, though they be known to many, be these, the Epistle attributed to James, the Epistle of Jude, the latter of Peter, the second and third of John. And in the fourth daies conference, fol. 2. b. M.D. Walker saith, Hierom saith concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews, many have doubted of it. And also concerning the second of Peter, he saith it was doubted of by many, and so with some were the two Epi­stles of John, &c. affirm, greatly suspected and doubted of, even in the times of the Primitive [Page 429]Church. This pretence therefore being most un­reasonable to impugn the matter of fact in our mi­racles, which is so evident, as is often times This ap­peareth in sun­dry of the ex­amples before mentioned and alleged from Protestant writers. confessed by learned Protestants themselves. Their next or second refuge is confessing the mat­ter of fact, withall to affirm the same to be in many cases but by the Devils counterfeiting, as in our antiently continued Catholick Exorcist being one of the inferiour Orders leading to Priesthood, is mentioned as one of them by Ignatius in epist. ad Antiochenos, by Cornelius apud Eusebium, l. 6. c. 35. and by Cyprian, l. 4. epist. 7. post med. where he saith, Quod hodie etiam ge­ritur, ut per Exorcistas voce humana & potestate divina flagelletur, & uratur, ut torqueatur Diabolus. And see further hereof the Protestant writer Zepperus, l. de Sa­cramentis, printed 1606. pag. 362. initio. And whereas Protestants usually answer, that this was not any peculiar Order, but a miraculous gift, such as was the gift of heal­ing, peculiar to those beginning times of the Primitive Church, for planting and enlarge­ment of the Christian faith, and that it is now ceased; this answer appears many waies frivolous, as first, in that the foresaid antient Fathers placed and numbred it with the other Ecclesiastical Orders conferred by the Church, among which they forbear to mention or number any such peculiar Order of healing. Secondly, it is in like sort numbred among the Ecclesiastical Orders long afterwards, even when and where the Christian faith was already greatly enlarged, as appeareth in Concil. Laodicen. can. 26. & in Concil. Antioch. can. 10. Also in the fourth Council of Carthage, can. 7. the Exorcist is spe­cially named as one of the Ecclesiastical Orders, together with the special rite of his or­dination. And in Sulpitius, in l. de vita Martini, cap. 4. it is most plainly mentioned as a peculiar Order. Thirdly, whereas the possessing of men by unclean spirits was likewise during the old Law (whereof see Josephus, l. 8. antiq. c. 2. paulò post initium, in re­medy whereof there were Judaical Exorcists, at 19.13.) it is strange that our Ad­versaries can affirm either the thing it self, or the cure thereof, to be now ceased: but the reason is evident, in that they discern the daily dispossessing powerfully practiced in our Catholick Church, whereof see next hereafter at f. and the known defect or want thereof in theirs: for as for their onely example of M. Dorrel and Will Summers, their de­ceitfull confederacy is now at last by our Adversaries themselves discovered, and for such published in print, as appeareth next heretofore in the margent at Z. exorcisms, or[Page 430]casting forth of unclean spirits in persons possessed, whereof many To forbear the known suc­cessfull daily examples here­of in our Ca­tholick Church, which impu­dency it self dare not deny, we rem [...]t the Protestant Rea­der to the report of D. Boord the Physician, a report so indifferent, that in his extravagantes annexed to his breviary of health, printed 1575. at the 11. chapter, of a Demoniack, he maketh mention of his travel to Rome, with exceeding Protestantlike invectives against the Pope, City and Clergy there, and yet with all d [...]th in the same chapter report himself to have been an eye­witness of a Gentleman possessed with Devils brought from Germany to Rome, to be made whole there, the course whereof was, saith he, stupendious and above all rea­son, if I should write it; and the cure so evident, as he there attributeth the same to the vertue of the holy words that the Priest did speak. And see in Sir Thomas Moor's Dialogue of Images and Reliques, l. 1. c. 16. his constant and credible report of the stu­pendious dispossessing of M. Wentworth's young Daughter, the circumstances whereof clear it from fiction. examples are known and re­maining, and in terrifying the Devil with the sign of the Cross, and holy Reliques: these, and such like, they They are not ab [...]shed to affirm this of the approved exam­ples in the Primitive Church: let the example of Osiander serve for many, who in his fourth Century, pag. 326. speaking of the Devils flying away at Julianus his signing his forehead with the Cross, m [...]ntioned next hereafter at g. saith hereof, Diaboli simulata sua suga voluerunt valgi superstitionem confirmare, &c. And in the same Century, pag. 377. post med. mentioning the memorable example of the buried corps of Babylas, and the Devils enforced confession, that he could not give answer (in his Idol or Oracle) by reason of Babylas his being so near, they say hereof (against Chrysostom and all an­tiquity mentioning the same) that this was responsum hand dubiē a Satana ideo da­tum, ut paulatim cultum idololatricum reliquia [...]um in Ecclesiam inveheret. And the same answer thereto give the Centurists, cent. 4. col. 1446. lin. 18. affirm to be not truly exercised upon the Devil, but by his own assent, either apparently voluntary, or otherwise dissembled, wherein they do overboldly imitate the like unworthy evasion which was in like case heretofore of old So Ambrose, serm. 93. de inventione corporum SS. Gervasii & Protasii, saith of the Arians, Dicunt Daemones martyribus, venistis perdere nos, Ariani dicunt non sunt Daemonum vera tormenta, sed ficta & composita Iudibria. So Hierom. contra Vi­gilan. cap. 4. saith to Vigilantius, In morem gentilium impiorumque Porphyrii & Eunomii has praestigias Daemonum esse confingas, & non verè clamare Daemones, sed sua simulare tormenta, &c. So in Theodoret, hist. l. 3. c 3. initio, it is said, Daemonibus specie qua solent apparentibus metus coegit Julianum signo cruc [...] ­frontem suam signare, Daemones igitur dominici trophaei conspicati figuram, con­festim evanuerunt, &c. Julianus se virtutem crucis vehementer admirari dixit, & Daemones quoniam ejus figuram ferre non poterant, aufugisse, cui praestigiator, nec (inqu t) amabò sic existimes, siquidem non ob eam cau sam quam tu afters for­midabant, sed tuum fastum detestati, se ab o [...]ulis nost [...]is removerunt: where­upon suth Theodoret, Ita miser, &c. And s [...]e Zozomen. hist. l. 5. c. 2. paulò post initium. And A nobius, l. 10. contra Gentes, doth in like manner reprove the Gentiles saying of Christ, Whose name but heard, driveth away wicked spirits (&c.) frustra­teth the actions of the arrogant Magicians, not as you say upon horror (or hatred) of the name, but by grant of greater power. And yet O siander, cent. 4. pag. 326. is not ashamed to justifie this foresaid speech of the Magician to Julianus, affirming of this example, Diaboli simulata sua suga voluerunt vulgi superstitionem confirmare, quasi crucis signo Daemones abigantur. con­demned. A third kind of their refuge, from those [Page 431]other miracles which implying in them apparent power of producing some miraculous external ef­fect, cannot stand with this foresaid answer, as cu­ring of the diseased, and such like, wherein the matter of fact is evident, and by themselves con­fessed, is to affirm such miracles to be See examples hereof in Osi­ander, cent. 10, 11, 12, &c. pag. 63, & 213. initio, & 298. fine, & 310. Anti­christian, and done by power of the Devil: so to our Saviour the Pharisees also said, Mat. 12.24. & Luc. 11.15. This fellow casteth not out Devils, but by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils: so to the miraculous cures done at the Monument of holy Hilarion, the Centurists say, Centur. 4. col. 1445. lin. 8. And see the like answer given to the miracles which Theodoret re­porteth to have been done at the Reliques of h [...] ­ly Simeon, by Junius in his Animadversiones ad controver. quintam, &c. de membris Ecclesiae, &c. printed 1602. pag. 612. circa & post med. & 614. ante med. These are lying signs whereby the Superstition and Idolatry of Antichrist were to be confirmed: and the same answer do they give to the other confessed miracles done in our Church, both of See the Centurists, cent. 5. col. 1489. lin. 57. & col. 1486. lin. 54. & col. 1587. lin. 14. & cent. 6. col. 806. is a special tract from thence continued, till col. 821. the title whereof is, De miraculis su­perstitionem & idololatriam redolentibus, which he referreth to the Devil, saying, col. 807. lin. 47. Haec absque dubio Deo permittente à Diabolo sunt facta, ut invocatio mortuorum constabiliretur: And see the like, col. 809. lin. 39. & 47. And col. 817. lin. 12. they say of S. Gregory, Gregorius magnus plurima recenset miracula in li­bris suis, praesertim vero in dialogis, quae palàm confirmant superstitionem, fiduci­am in sanctos, idololatriam, invocationem mortuorum, Miss [...]m impiam, &c. of all which they conclude, col. 821. that they were praestigiae hominibus objectae à malis spi­ritibus. antient and latter See Osiander, cent. 16. pag. 69, &c. times. But when, as [Page 432]forbearing in this plenty of matter, we tell them, that though the Pope were Antichrist (wherein they do but beg the thing in question) yet the mi­racles done at Hilarion's Monument, and at Babylas Reliques, and many other before alleged, being done in the Primitive Church, before their sup­posed time of Antichrists coming, cannot therefore be said to be Antichristian: we do otherwise reply to them even from their Ursinus, and sundry their other most learned writers, that See Ursinus his words al­leged at large in Latin before in this Conside­ration, num. 1. initio, in the margent at [...]. and Hemingi­us in his expo­fition of the 84 Psal. part. 1. c. 6. pag. 68, 69, 70. saith, that miracles which exceed the power of nature, have God for their Author. Also Beza and the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in the University of Geneva, pag. 28. num. 12. say, We call those miracles which are done against all order of nature; and the Devils can work none such: the miracles wrought by Devils are wrought by the secret operation of nature. Likewise Piscator in his Ana­lysis Epistolarum Pauli in 2 Thess. 2. pag. 470. ante med. saith, Miraculorum quae­dam divina sunt, alia Satanica: divina sunt quae per potentiam Dei ita fiunt, ut omnem facultatem creatae naturae superent, ut excitatio mortuorum, sanatio aegro­torum subita, &c. Diabolica sunt quae à diabolo per vires naturae occultas efficiun­tur, &c. And Danaeus in Isag. Christ. part. 4. l. 2. c. 8. pag. 46. saith, Vera miracula sunt & fiunt à Deo, & quidem solo; & ad ejusdem solius laudem (&c.) solus enim Deus id potest propriè quod est supra naturam creatam. &c. 6. pag. 43. Miracu­lum Christianum est opus Dei ipsius totius naturae creatae vires & facultates supe­rans, quod invocato Dei nomine ad verae fidei confirmationem fit. And see the like affirmed by Amandus Polanus, in Partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 228, & 229. And by Hierom Zanchius in D. Pauli Epistolas ad Philip. Colloss. & Thessal. pag. 241, & 242. And by Zegedinus in loc. commun. pag. 188. Antichrists mi­racles are (but) such as the order of nature ob­served, may be brought to pass by the deceit of Men or Devils, &c. whereas the miracles wherewith God garnished his Church, are works besides or against the order of nature and secondary causes, and there­fore done onely by the Divine power: of which kind are to cure diseases without means of physick, and many other such like, whereof we have heretofore given plentifull examples. All this being to them [Page 433]evident, and not to be denyed, to what refuge now do they lastly betake themselves? To name one prime man instead of many, M. Whitaker, (the matter being reduced or straitned to this issue) rather than he will acknowledge our Catholick Church (in which such true miracles are as be­fore most plentifully evident) doubteth not to betake himself to this extreamest despair, rather than hopefull refuge, as seriously to affirm, that although it be indeed certain, that Whita­ker, de Eccle­sia, pag. 348. circa med. saith, Respon­deo, me mini­mè ignorare, vera miracula nulla vi, nisi divina fieri posse. true miracles cannot be done but by the Divine power, which to Antichrist or Satan were to acknowledge them for God: yet (as it were to supply in this want the Devils confessed defect or unableness to work such miracles) he is not abashed against the Sigwartus in disput. Theologic. pag. 172. initio, saith, Pseudo-doctores, vel etiam ipsum Satanam ad stabiliendas haereses, prodigia verè divina designare pos [...]e, pernegamu [...]. And that false Prophets can do no true miracles, see further heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. initio, in the margent at e. And next heretofore in the margent at *▪ next be­fore l. To which Brereley in his Omissions (&c.) of pag. 551. lin. 25. addeth: Also M. Anthony Wotton in his trial of the Romish Clergies title, (&c.) pag. 115. ante med. accordingly saith, For my own part, under correction I speak it, I am not perswaded that ever any true miracle was, or shall be wrought for confirma­tion of false doctrine, &c. I see no sufficient cause to imagine that God will em­ploy his infinite power to the countenancing of any untruth. doctrine of other Protestants to conclude and say (observe we beseech your Majestie, for it is a Monster) that Whitaker, ubi supra, pag. 349. further saith, that true miracles are not of force to demon­strate true doctrine; whereof be giveth this reason, saying, Nam possunt vera mira­racula etiam à falsis Doctoribus & Pseudoprophetis fieri; sed tamen Dei, non il­lorum virtute, &c. Constat enim Deum non modo veris, sed & falsis Doctori­bus vim tribuere hujusmodi faciendi miracula, non tamen quò confirmet illorum falsa dogmata, sed quò tentet eos ad quos mittantur. And see the like in Danaeus in his respons. ad Bella [...]mini disput. &c. part. 1. pag. 784. God (himself) doth [Page 434]give power of working such (true) miracles unto false teachers, not to confirm their false opini­ons, but to tempt those, unto whom they be sent. In colour of which paradox he forbeareth not to Mis­apply. For Deut. 13.1, 2. by him there al­leged doth not speak of Gods enabling false Prophets, but of permitting them in trial of his people; neither doth it concern their foretelling of things simply future, by im­mediate revelation from God, but only of such other future effects as are depending upon their precedent known causes, and are also in them foreseen, or else of such other future things, as depend but upon probability of conjecture, coll [...]cted from circumstances of persons, time, and place, which do, though not ever certainly, yet often times casually happen, and so accordingly it is but said with condition: If there arise a Prophet, and give thee a sign, and the sign which he hath told thee come to pass, it is not said, shall come to pass, but, if it do come to pass: and withall he saith, Let us go after other Gods, thou shalt not hearken to his words. Secondly, though some of those who have true Revelations from God, or of those who cast out Devils, or work true miracles, be reprobates, whereof see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. initio, at f. g. h. yet have they those gifts, not as false teachers, nor to the confirmation of any false doctrine, but of Gods truth, themselves being otherwise reprobates in regard of their wicked life. Which premises observed, sufficeth to explain and prevent many impertinent objections commonly urged in this behalf. mis-apply the Scriptures, inferring there­upon, that Whitaker, ubi supra, pag. 349. ante med. having divided miracles into true and false, saith, Dico ex neutro genere miraculorum posse sufficiens testimonium sumi, aut certum argumentum coll [...]gi, pro vera doctrina, &c. no sufficient testimony can be taken, or certain argument collected for true doctrine, from neither kind of miracles (true or false:) directly against the Scriptures them­selves, which affirm of true miracles, that they Our Lord confirming the Word with signs fol­lowing, Marc. 16.20. do confirm and God withall testifying by signs and miracles, Hebr. 2.4. witness the truth, tearming them also therefore The signs of my Apostleship have been done among you in signs and wonders, 2 Cor. 12.12. signs and I have a greater testimony than John, the very works which I do give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me, Joan. 5.36. testimonies thereof. And thus much but briefly (respecting the length of the matter) [Page 435]concerning miracles, and to whether Church, Ca­tholick, or the foresaid Protestant Church; the same have been confessedly appertaining or want­ing; and consequently that our Church, (whose doctrines have been confirmed by perpetual, great, and manifest miracles, before any Protestant ap­peared in the world: and therefore could not be feigned, or recorded upon any particular design against them, and their Heresies) cannot be false, but the onely true Church of Christ.

THE FIFTH CONSIDERATION.
By the Confession of Protestants, We Catholicks may be saved, though we live and dye in the belief and profession of those Articles, wherein Pro­testants disagree from us.

ALL Brereley, tract. 1. sect: 6. paulò post initium. the learned Protestants of sober judgement have afforded us Catholicks the promises of hope­full salvation, as appeareth most plainly, 1. By their own most e­vident testimonies; 2. By their like confessed examples thereof given; And 3. By their undoubted answerable practice. To give proof of every of these parts.

1. And first, concerning their testimonies in this kind, M. D. Baro saith, M. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Que­stions disp [...]ted, ad Clerum, &c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine. I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God. And M. Hooker [Page 438]also saith, M. Hoo­ker in his fist Book of Eccle­siastical Policy, pag. 188. ini­tio, and Joan­nes Regius in his Libe [...] Apo­logeticus, &c. in considerat. Censurae, &c. pag. 95. saith, In Papatu au­tem cùm sue­rit Ecclesia vera, &c. The Church of Rome is to be re­puted a part of the House of God, a limb of the vi­sible Church of Christ; and M. Hoo­ker, ubi supra, pag. 130. ante med. We gladly ac­knowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ. M. Bunny likewise saith of Catholicks and Pro­testants, M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pa­cification, sect. 18. pag. 109. circa med. Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God; M. Bunny ubi supra, pag. 113. post med. we are no several Church from them, nor they from us. In like sort doth M. D. Some, in defence thereof, (against Penry the Puritan) say, M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry, and refutation of many absurdi­ties, &c. in M. Penry's treatise, pag. 164. ante med. That the Papists are not altogether aliens from Gods cove­nant, I have shewed before: forM. D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 182. i [...]icio.in the judge­ment of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church, a Ministry, a true Christ, &c.M. D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 176. propè finem.If you think that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned, you think ab­surdly, and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants. Also M. D. Field saith, M. D. Field, Of the Church, l. 3. cap. 46. fine, & pag. 182. initio. We doubt not but the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ, and by force thereof did convert many from errour, &c. In like sort doth M. Thomas Morton affirm in ex­press words, that M. Mor­ton in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel, and of the Church, pag. 94. fine. Papists are to be accounted the Church of God, because (saith he) they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. Lastly, to omit many Peter Martyr (as it appeareth by his Epistles annexed to his Common Places in En­glish, pag. 153. a fine) desired at the Conference had at Poisy between the Catholicks Protestants, that they should not for diversity of opinion break brotherly charity, nor call one another Hereticks. And see the same opinion yet further affirmed by the Protestant writer against Nicholas Machiavel, printed at London, 1602. pag. 80. post med. & 83. paulò post med. & 85. propè finem. others, M. D. Covel in his [Page 439]late Treatise published by authority, and dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, defendeth this opinion at large, and concludeth, saying, M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy publish­ed by authority▪ pag. 77. ante med. We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and dye in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved: Insomuch as he doubteth not to charge the Puritans with M. D. Covel, ubi supra, pag. 68. paulò post med. ignorance for their con­trary opinion. Hitherto concerning their testimo­nies before undertaken.

2. Secondly, as concerning now their like con­fessed examples, we will out of very many allege onely some few. It will not (we think) be de­nied, but that our late Soveraign King Henry the eighth did, after his breach with Rome, believe and maintain the whole frame and substance of our Ca­tholick faith, the Article of the Popes Primacy onely excepted. To which end their own Author, Sleydan, saith of him, Sleydan in English, l. 13. fol. 174. a. initio. He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome, but kept still his doctrine: and M. Fox saith accordingly, Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1472. b. fine. He set forth, and by full consent of Parliament established the Book of six Articles, containing the sum of Popish Religion. And it is evident that he himself in person, not onely as then disputed, Act. Mon. pag. 530. a. [...] b. initio. but also Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med. com­manded Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med. sentence to be pronounced against Lambert: as also the Lord Cromwel read and Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. pronounced that sentence, and at his own death protested himself Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. circa med. and see Holin­sheads Chro­nicle, pag. 591. to dye in the Catholick [Page 440]faith, not doubting in any Article of faith, or Sa­crament of the Church, though (saith he) many have slandered me to the contrary. And yet he is com­mended by M. Fox to dye as Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. post med. a valiant Soul­dier and Captain of Christ. As also the Church under the reign of King Henry the eighth, is by M. Fulk affirmed to be a true M. Fulk against H [...] ­kit [...]s, Sanders, &c. pag. 564. sect. 80, & 82.Church, and the King himself acknowledged in like manner for Fulk ubi supra, sect. 82. and se D. Hum­frey in jesui­tismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 304. circa med. a member of the Catholick Church of Christ. In like sort Osian­der, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med. S. Bernard lived (some 400 years since) as M. Jewel confesseth, even Jewel in his defence of the Apology, printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med. and see Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 2. pag. 154. ante med. in the midst of the Popes rout and tyrannie; And as we find he was not troubled or gainsaid so much as in any one Article different from the doctrine of the Roman Church at that time: so we find confessed to the contrary, that he acknowledged even the Bernard. l. 2. de considerat. 2d Eugenium, & vide Epist. 125. & 131. & epist. 190. ad Innocentium; and see this confessed by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect. 11. fol. 133. b. post initium; and by M. Whitaker, l. 2. contra Duraeum, pag. 154 ante med. Popes Supremacy, and was so conformable to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, that he was made Osiander in epitom. &c. cent. 12. pag. 309. & Simon de Voyon in his Ca­talog. &c. Abbot of Clairevaux, being also Ofiander, abi supra, pag. 309. fine, saith, Centum & quadra­draginta monafteriorum Author fulsse creditur: and Danaeus in primae partis altera parte contra Bellarminum, pag. 940. saith, Hieronymus & Bernardus suerunt mo­nachi, & istius erroris Authores & Fautores. Author of many Monasteries both in France and Flanders. Insomuch as our Adversaries al­leging him to us, do call him Sanctus vester, Gomarus in speculo Ec­clesiae, pag. 23. fine.our Saint, and Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Campiani [...], [...]at. 7. pag. 105. ante med. saith, Bernardus quem Ecclesia ves [...]ia multis annis unum tu­lit piuni virum. a man brought forth by our Church, who in regard of Christian [Page 441]communion, was dearly Osian­der, [...]bid. See his words heretofore in the fourth Con­sideration, num. 1. sine, in the marg [...]nt at the figure 3. initio. familiar to Mu­iachias, whom our Adversaries reject for a con­fessed Catholick, or Papist; As also the The C [...]rtu­rists, c [...]rt. 12. col. 1637. l n. 45. [...]o say therefore of S. Bernard, Co [...]u [...]t Deum M [...]ozim, ad novissimum vitae suae ar­ticulum; & col. 1638. lin. 16. they say farther of him, Acerri­mus propug­nator Sedis Antichristi suir, &c. Cen­turists do for such in most plain tearms reject S. Bernard: and yet this his known Religion not­withstanding, our Adversaries do acknowledge him for Whi­taker de Ec­clesia, pag. 369. paulò post med. saith, Ego qui­dem Bernardum verè fuisse Sanctum ex stimo. And see the like in Whitaker against M. William Reynolds, pag. 125, & 126. a true Saint, Osiander, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med.a very good man, See this in Pasquds return into England, pag. 8. & 13.a good Father, and one of the Lamps of the Church of God. In like manner S. Bede (who lived about 900 years since) was so evidently of our Religion, that our Adversary, Osiander, there­fore saith of him, Osi­ander in epitom. &c. cent. 8. l. 2. c. 3. pag. 58. initio. Beda was wrapped in all the Popish errours, wherein we at this day dissent from the Pope: for he admired and embraced the worship of Images, the Popish Mass, invocation of Saints, &c. Which thing appeareth also yet more un­doubtedly (to omit his evident writings) by his See M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128, & 129. confessed credit and estimation had with the Popes of that age, whom M. Fulk tearmeth M. Fulk in his retentive against Bristow, &c. pag. 278. post med. reciteth Bede's authority, saying, The last testimony out of Beda, who lived under the tyrannie of Antichrist, I will not stand upon, M. Sanders may have great store of such, &c. An­tichrists, and yet is he (all this notwithstanding) acknowledged by our Adversaries to have been Osiander, cent. 8. pag. 58. ante med. a good man, M. Cow­per in his Chronicle at the year of our Lord 734. fol. 171. b.renowned in all the world for his learning and godly life: for which he was also privileged with the sirname of Of this title see Holinshead's Chronicle at the year 735. and M. Cowper in his Chronicle at the year 724. fol. 168. b. and M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128. b. & vide 129. a. & Oecolampadius in libro Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, pag. 654. post med. Reve­rend, [Page 442]and by D. Humfrey specially registred among Hum fredus, in Je­suitismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 326. initio. the godly men raised up by the Holy Ghost. Hitherto also appertaineth the like examples of Gregory and Austin, both of them acknowledged for Hereof see Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 2. a [...]d. 2. 3. e. confessed Popish Catholicks, and yet is one of them called by our Adversaries, M. God­win in his Ca­talogue of Bi­shops, pag. 3. ante med. that blessed and holy Fatner S. Gregory, and the other, M. God­win, ubi su­pra, pag. 7. initio, & ante med. S. Austin our Apostle. Whereunto (to omit o­thers) might be added the fore-mentioned example of your Highness dearest Mother, whose undoubted Salvation (her known Religion notwithstanding) was (even in that opposition of time) by the learned Adversary, as before, See Brereley in the beginning of this 6. section of tract. 1. at z. publickly acknowledged. What now can our Adversaries answer unto these confessed examples? Is there James 1.17.with God variableness? or Ephes. 6.9. & Deut. 10.17. & Ro. 2.11. & 1 Pet. 1.17. any ac­ception of persons? or is he Num. 23.19. as the Son of man that he should change; so as one and the same Religion, which was before in them holy, should now be in us damnable? And thus much briefly concerning certain undoubted examples of this kind.

3. Thirdly, to make this point more evident as yet by the like confessed answerable practice of almost all the Protestant reformed Churches. Whereas they hold that In the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva, pag. 166. 25. the Sacraments are onely to be administred to those that are taken for known members of the Church, which no man can be without faith, because that Hebr. 11.6. without faith it is impossible to please God: for which cause they teach concerning Infants, who in their opinion have not That Children have not faith, is affirmed by M. Cartwright in M. Whitgifts defence, pag. 611. and by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 2. pag. 124. initio; and in the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva, pag. 178. sect. 4. and by Jacobus Kimedoncius in his redemption of mankind, l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine, and by M. Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 8. pag. 682. initio. faith, (which, as the Scriptures [Page 443]witness, R [...]m. 10.17. cometh by hearing, which Infants cannot accomplish) that So say the Divines of Geneva in the foresaid Pro­positions and Principles dis­puted, pag. 178. sect. 4. Also Oeco­lampadius in libro Episto­larum O [...]co­lampadii & Zuinglii, l. 2. pag. 301. circa med. saith hereof, Paren­tum & com­patrum fides pueros sancti­ficat. And Praetorius l. de Sacramentis, pag. 108. saith, Respectu fidelium paren­tum infantes fideles habentur, &c. credunt igitur infantes sed in parentibus. they are comprehend­ed within the Covenant of eternal life, by means of the faith of their Parents, and In the Propositions, &c. pag. 178. & Luther, l. de praeparatione cordis pro suscipiendo Sacramento Eucharistiae, saith, Parvulus alienae fidei merito baptizatur & salvatur; and see him further, tom. 2. de captiv. Babyl. fol. 77. a. fine. And M. Perkins in his works printed 1605. fol. 585. o. post med. affirmeth, that Parents believe for them­selves and their Children, (and that) the Child by the Parents faith hath title to the Covenant: and fol. 585. b. initio, it is said, that Infants are Gods children, not by vertue of their birth, but by means of their Parents faith. are for that cause to be baptized: and that therefore the Chil­dren of Jews, Turks, and such like professed In­fidels, In the Propositions and Principles, &c. ubi supra, sect. 8. pag. 179. and M. Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 8. pag. 679. fine, saith, Infidelium liberos (ut Turcarum, Ju­daeorum, Ethnicorum) Calvinus meritò & verè negat esse baptizandos; and the like is taught by Kimedoncius in his redemption of mankind, l. 2. cap. 15. pag. 167. fine, and see M. D. Some in his defence against Penry, and resutation, &c. pag. 150. are not to be baptized, as not being comprehended within the Covenant, by reason that their Parents do not believe. All this yet notwithstanding they profess Taught by M. Whitgift in his defence, &c. pag. 623. ante med. by M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 131. by D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 149, & 150. and in the foresaid Propositions and Principles, &c. pag. 179. sect. 9. it is said by the Divines of Geneva, We are of mind that the Children of Papists may be received into Baptism. to teach and practice their baptizing of Infants born of Ca­tholick (or as they tearm) Popish Parents, not (saith M. Hooker) in regard of M. Hooker, ubi supra. Gods promise, which reacheth unto a thousand generations, for by this reason the Children of Turks, and (as [Page 444]M. Hooker saith) M. Hoo­ker, ibidem. all the world may be bapti­zed, insomuch as no man is a thousand descents from Adam: but their said baptizing of them is (ac­cording to the other premisses of their Doctrine) by themselves practised and holden good; though (as M. D. Some affirmeth to M. Some in his foresaid defence, &c. cap. 22. pag. 165, & 167. Penry) they were the Children of Popish West Indians, whose other former Ancestors never knew the Christian faith. And though (saith he) those West-Indians M. Some, ibid. pag. 167were baptized by Popish Shavelings, yet they received true Baptism, and were ingrafted into Christ, and for this reason, because there is a Church in Popery; For (saith he) M. Some, ibid. pag. 149. post med. And Amandus Po­lanus in par­tit. Theolog. pag. 305. post med. saith, Hodierna Ec­clesia Romana est adhuc Ec­clesia Christi, sed omnium impurissima, &c. alicquin ii qui in Pa­patu sunt Baptizati, extra Ecclesi­am Christi, ac proinde nec baptismo Christi fuis­sent baptizati, &c. if there were no Church at all in Popery, (then) the Infants of Pa­pists were not to be baptized in any reformed Church. By which premisses of their confessed practice, it appeareth, First, that the Children of Catholick (or Popish) Parents, are to be baptized; Secondly, as being comprehended within the Covenant of eternal life; Lastly, and that by reason of their Parents faith: So evidently in their Doctrine and practice, is the faith of the Catholick (or Popish) Parent holden for available to his Child. And shall it then be thought damnable to himself? or holden worthy to be yet further persecuted by our so implacable and unrelenting Adversa­ries?

4. This foresaid Truth is further proved by Brereley (tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 14.) saying, That the more sober and learned Protestants, whom headstrong and inconsiderate zeal hath not altogether blinded, for the preservation of Christs [Page 445]Church in Being (which according to M. Whi­taker against M. Reynolds in his answer to the Preface, pag. 33. saith, We believe to the comfort of our souls, that Christs Church hath continued, and never shall fail, so long as the world en­dureth: And we account it a prophane he­resie to teach otherwise. And the same is yet further af­firmed by Fulk in the Tower disput. with Edm. Camp. the 2. daies conference. And also by the Confessions of Belgia, in the Harmony of Confessions, pag. 321. and by the Confession of Helvetia, ibid. pag. 306. by the Confession of Saxony, ibid. pag. 324, 325. & 473. Insomuch as the Divines of Wittemberg, in Colloquio Badensi apud Osiandrum in epitom. &c. cent. 16. pag. 1064. ante med. say, Ecclesiam inde ab ascensione, usque ad haec tempora, nunquam interruptam, sed perpetua successione in terris permansisse firmiter credimus. And ibid. pag. 1065. post med. it is said, Contra omnes furores Satanae, Ecclesia vera in terris usque adventum Christi ad extremum judicium est mansura. all opinions must evermore continue without failing or ceasing to be, not so much as for any one moment of time) do acknowledge as well that their own Succession, Calling, and Ministry, is, and hath been for former times Apud Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. post med. in the margent at * next before d. M. Bridges in his defence of the government, &c. pag. 1276. post med. resteth so wholly upon the calling conferred to their Protestant Ministers from and under our Catholick Church, that saith he of our Catholick Bishops, and their calling, If our Brethren will make them but meer Laymen, then are neither they nor we any Ministers at all, but meer Laymen also. For who ordained us Ministers, but such Ministers as were either themselves of their Ministry, or at least were made Ministers of those Ministers? except they will say the people can make Ministers, &c. See hereof further in Brereley, ibid. at g. h. preserved in, and by the onely succession and calling continued in our Catholick Church: as also that the true Church, immediatly before Luthers time, had its Luc. Osi­ander, in epitom. hist. Eccl. cent. 16. part. altera, pag. 1073. in fine, saith, Ec­clesia quae sub Papatu fuit eo tempore quo Lutherus natus est, suit Ecclesia Christi, &c. Ideoque qui sub Papatu ad ministerium Ecclesiasticum fuerunt ordinati, ut Lutherus & multi alii Evangelici Doctores, revera habuerunt legitimam ordinatio­nem. being in our Ca­tholick Church. To this end M. D. Field saith, M. D. Field in his Treatise of the Church, l. 3. c. 6. pag. 72. ante med. Where some demand of us where our Church was before Luther began? We say it was where now it is: if they ask us which Church? we answer, it was the known and apparent Church in the world, where­in all our Ancestors lived and dyed, wherein Luther and the rest were baptized, received their Ordinance [Page 446]and power of Ministry. And our other learned Adversaries do accordingly teach, that like as Lu­ther himself before his preaching against the Pope, was an Sleydan, l. 1. initio. Augustine Friar, and (as himself saith) Luther in his Commenta­ry upon the E­pistle to the Ga­latians english­ed, fol. 35. circa med. kept chastity, poverty, and obedience, was onely given to fasting, watching praying, say­ing of Mass, and such like, and Luther, ibid. fol. 35. a. circa med. honoured the Pope of meer conscience, &c. and was so thereby most undoubtedly a professed member of our Ca­tholick (or as they tearm it, Popish) Church: So likewise upon his pretended reformation or preach­ing afterward against the Pope, he did not (say they) thereby M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, Art. 11. pag. 73. post med, saith, As it is strange for a­ny man to de­ny them of Rome to be of the Church, so I cannot but wonder, that they (of Rome) will ask where our Church was before Luther? as if any were of opinion, that Luther did erect a new Church, &c. And see the like saying in M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 3. pag. 129. post med. erect a new Church, then be­fore not in being (for that were most directly a­gainst themselves) and therefore did not depart from the Church he was of before, but continued still a member thereof. Which thing both M. Hooker and M. D. Covel (speaking thereof) do very plainly M. Hooker, l. 3. pag. 130. & M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68. say, We gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Fa­mily of Jesus Christ, therefore we hope that to reform our selves, is not to sever our selves from the Church we were of before: In the Church we were, and are so still: as also we say that they of Rome (notwithstanding their manifold defects) are to be held a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ. acknowledge, to the great In the Christian Letter of certain English Protestants unto that Reverend man M. Hooker, pag. 18, & 19. they reprove at large M. Hooker for this opinion of not severing themselves from the Church they were of before. dislike of the Puritans: as also M. Bunny prosecuteth the same more at large, affirming therefore, M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 18. pag. 108. paulò post med. that of departing from the Church there ought to be no que­stion at all among us.Ibidem, pag. 113. post med.We are (saith he) no se­veral [Page 447]Church from them, nor they from us, and there­fore there is no departing at all out of the Church, for any to depart from them to us, nor from us to them: all the difference between us is concerning the truer members, whether we or they may be found more worthy of that account: As for the other we allow no such question. Insomuch as he doubteth not to say, Ibidem, pag. 109. circa med. It was evil done of them who first urged such a separation; confessing further our great Ibidem, sect. 15. pag. 92. circa med. he saith of this separation, Our Adversa­ries see them­selves to have advantage, if they can win us to acknow­ledge (it.) advantage given thereby: which our advantage he afterwards very plainly to this pur­pose expresseth to be, Ibid. pag. 96. circa med. For that (saith he) it is great probability with them, that so we make our selves answerable for to find out a distinct and se­veral Church from them, which continued from the Apostles age to this present, else, that needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung up of late, or since theirs. And hence perhaps it is, that their learned writers (to the better enabling of our Church to be, howsoever, according to their opi­nion, in part erroneous, yet withall a true Church) doubt not to affirm of the sundry points of our Catholick faith in particular, that they are, though (in their opinion) errours, yet not To give some few and chief examples here­of. First, M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed, pag. 402. saith, A weakning errour is that, the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation; as the errour of Free will, and sundry such like. M. Cartwright in his reply, pag. 14. sect. 1, 2, and in M. Whitgists defence, pag. 82. post med. affirmeth the like indifferency of the doctrines of Free-will, Prayer for the dead, and a number of other, as necessary doctrines, wherein (saith he) men being mis-led, have notwithstanding been saved. And a little there before he further saith, If you mean by matters of faith and necessary to salvation, those with­out which a man cannot be saved, then the doctrine which teacheth there is no Free-will, or Prayer for the Dead, is not within your compass. For I doubt not but divers Fathers of the Greek Church, who were great Patrons of Free-will, are saved. And the like is yet further affirmed of Prayer for the Dead, by John Frith, Act. Mon. pag. 501. by M. Fulk in his Confut. of Purgatory, pag. 336. ante med. and by M. Penry in his Book entituled, M. Some laid open in his colours, pag. 99. Secondly, M. Spark in his answer to M. John d'Abbines, pag. 382. ante med. dis­coursing of the honouring of Saints Reliques, and Prayer for the Dead, saith thereof to his Adversary, We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any for such errours: for you know well enough, that we make not these matters such, as that either we think that all must be saved that hold the one way, or all con­demned that hold the other. As touching invocation of Saints, M. D. Goade and Fulk do in the disputation had in the Tower with Edm. Campian, the 2. daies con­ference, Arg. 8. R. 11. & R. 111. affirm thereof, that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church, &c. Thirdly, concerning the Real Presence, Jacobus Acon­tius in lib. 3. Stratagematum Satanae, pag. 135. paulò ante med. saith, It is evi­dent concerning as well those, who hold the Real Presence of Christs body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that although of necessity the one part do erre, yet both are in way of salvation, if in other things they be obedient to God. And M. D. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his Conference, &c. pag. 722. af­firmeth the Real Presence to be as it were the grudging of a little ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith. And John Frith, Act. Mon. pag. 503. a. fine, saith hereof, The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation, whether he believe it or not. And see Lu­thers like judgement of Transubstantiation, in magna Confessione, cited by Amandus Polanus in his Sylog. Thesium Theologicarum, pag. 464. initio, and in the Book en­tituled, Orthodoxus consensus, printed Tiguri 1578. in folio, fol. 12. b. initio. Fourthly, as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds, Luther in epistola ad Bohemos, saith thereof, Quamvis pulchrum quidem esset utraque specie in Eu­charistia uti, & Christus hac in re nihil tanquam neceslarium praecepit, praestaret tamen pacem (&c.) sectari, quàm de speciebus contendere. And Luther de utraque specie Sacramenti, saith, Si veneris ad locum ubi tantùm una species ministratur, cum aliis una tantùm specie utere (&c.) And the like indifferency hereof is yet further affirmed by Melancthon and others cited heretofore in the third Consideration, num. 32. fine. Fifthly, touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original Sin, and the worshiping of Images, M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 17. pag. 104. paulò ante med. and pag. 105. saith in like manner of them: In these therefore, or such like, whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully perswaded herein, as we are (&c.) committeth an uncharitable part towards those his Brethren. Sixthly, concerning Primacy, M. Anthony Wotton in his answer to a Popish Pamphlet, &c. pag. 68. fine, denyeth that Protestants hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essential point of faith. And Luther in assertionibus, art. 36. versus finem, speaking of the Popes Primacy, doth expressy number it among (saith he) those unnecessary trifles wherein the Popes levity and foolishness is to be born withall. And Melancthon in his Epistle extant in the Book entituled, Centuria Epistolarum Theologicarum, ep. 74. pag. 245. fine, saith, The Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end, that consent may be retained: wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon. Seventhly, as concerning Satisfaction and Merit of Works, affirmed by the antient Fathers no less than now by us (whereof see heretofore in the second Consideration, num. 6. at q. & num. 7. at r. s. & num. 9. at 13, 14. & num. 23. at k. l.) M. Whitaker contra rat. Campiani, pag. 78. and in his answer to M. William Reynolds, c. 6. pag. 135. initio, & 136. fine, saith, The Fathers thought by their external discipline of life to pay the pains due for sin, wherein they derogated not a little from Christs death, &c. which though it be an errour, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers. Eighthly, as concerning Mass, Luther in Colloquiis Germanicis, c. de Missa, saith, Private Mass hath deceived many Saints, and carried them away into errour, from the time of Gregory, for 800 years. And Tindall, Act. Mon. pag. 1338. a propè initium, saith accordingly, I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and many other holy men erred as concerning Mass: So little did the Mass impugn Holiness. Lastly, as touching Mass, and sundry other points of faith, M. Francis Johnson in M. Jacobs defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, &c. pag. 13. ante med. saith, Did not John Huss that wor­thy Champion of Christ, and other also of the Martyrs of fore-times say and hear Mass, even to their dying day? &c. did not (also) divers of them acknowledge, some the Popes calling and Supremacy, some seven Sacraments, some auricular Confession? &c. And Benedict Morgenstern, in tract. de Ecclesia, &c. pag. 41. circa med. saith, that in former times, Condonanda erant piis, &c. These things were pardonable in the godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the Church, the Papacy for the Church, Saints for Mediators, and the Mass for the Supper of our Lord. Aad see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 2. throughout, sundry examples of acknowledged salvation in many confessed Catholicks. such as are against the foundation or hope of salvation, but rather in respect thereof, as onely matters of in­differency. And hence it also cometh, that in ge­neral [Page 448] [Page 449]M. Hooker and M. Covel do acknowledge M. Hoo­ker in his Ec­clesiastical Po­licy, l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 130. ante med. & l. 5. pag. 188. initio, aud M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68. the Church of Rome to be of the Family of Jesus Christ, a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ: that M. Barrow saith, In his four Sermons, and two Que­stions, &c. ser. 3. pag. 448. fine. The learneder Writers acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God: that M. D. Some saith, M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry (&c.) c. 23. fine, pag. 182. initio. In the judgement of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church: that another late English Protestant writer saith, See the discourse upon the means of well governing (&c.) against Nicholas Machiavel, printed at London, 1602. pag. 80. post med. The Catholick and Reformed make not two, but one same Religion, Ibidem, pag. 83. paulò post med. & 85. propè finem.agreeing in all principal points of Religion necessary for salvation: That also George [Page 450]Cassander, though disliking Cassan­der in libro de officio pii viri, &c. pag. 14. ante med. & 15. initio, & pag. 27. post med.the Pope, and acknowledged for David Pa­reus in his book de Symbolis Sacramentali­bus, &c. in praefat. ante med. saith, Cassander e­ruditus Scri­ptor, &c. And M. Morton in his full satis­faction con­cerning a dou­ble Romish En­quiry, &c. pag. 55. circa med. tearmeth him, that most grave and learned Cassander, of singular learning and piety. a most grave and learned wri­ter, saith, Cassander, ibidem, pag. 14. post med. and in defence of his opinion, he allegeth Luther, ibidem, pag. 14. fine, & pag. 21, & 22. The Church of Rome is to be re­verenced, as being the true Church and Temple of God: and that a late disguised French Protestant writer affirmeth Examen pacifique de la doctrine des Hu­gonotes, &c. imprimè à Caen, 1590. en argum. du liure, pag. 2. Catholicks and Hugonots to be of one faith and religion: with whom agreeth another like writer, tearming them in like manner, Apo­logie Catholique, &c. part. 2. pag. 26. 203, & 204. Domesticks of one faith, and Branches of one and the same Vine. And hence also it cometh, that the learned Protestants (as we before Heretofore in this Con­sideration, num. 1, & 2. have shewed) do afford to our Catholick Professors the hopefull promises of salvation, affirming this to be M. Doctor Some in his defence against Penry, pag. 176. propè finem. the judgement of all learned Protestants, and made M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 15. pag. 93. circa med. clear by the whole course of their writings. Insomuch as they doubt not to charge such of their other headstrong Brethren, as affirm the contrary, even with M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68. paulò post med. ignorant zeal.

5. Hence lastly it is that M. Bunny (apud Brere­ley, tract. 1. sect. 9. subd. 6. fine) in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 14. circa med. pag. 89. acknowledgeth a particular blessing of God in the Church of Rome, and an evident work of the Holy Ghost, saying, That the Church of Rome [Page 451] hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was de­livered to them, &c. and hath also in some manner preserved and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us; which surely (saith he) is a very special blessing of God, and an evident work of the Holy Ghost, &c. To make good (saith Brereley, ibidem, in the margent at †) M. Bunny's words of the evident work of the Holy Ghost in preservation of the Roman Sea, the same hath appeared many waies extraordinary and admirable. As first, in that the other four Pa­triarchal Seas are noted and known to have been pestered every one of them with confessed Arch­hereticks, or Inventers of new doctrines, against some principal Article of our Christian faith: As at Antioch, Paulus Samosetanus: at Hierusalem, Joannes and Arsenius: at Alexandria, Dioscorus: at Constantinople, Macedonius and Nestorius: onely the Sea of Rome hath been preserved free from all such known note or touch. For howsoever our Ad­versaries do pretend some one or other Pope to have had his private errour, yet to charge any Pope with being an Arch heretick, as before-said, they have not any colour. Secondly, in that the Cities of all the other Patriarchal Seas, and the Bishops belonging to them, now are, and of long have been oppressed with Infidels, and their succession is either none, or but inglorious; whereas God hath yet hitherto disposed otherwise of the City and Sea of Rome. Thirdly, in the example of so many great Christian Kingdomes and Countryes in Asia, Africk, and Europe, which forsaking the [Page 452]Communion of this Sea, became not long after­wards barbarous, and subject to Infidels, accor­dingly as it is foretold of the true Churches pre­rogative, The Nation and Kingdome that will not serve thee shall perish, and those Nations shall be ut­terly destroyed, Esay 60.12. Fourthly, in that this is the onely Sea or Church which is confessed by our Adversaries to have continued known and vi­sible for these last thousand or 1300 years: whereof see Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 2. at k. l. & sect. 8. in the margent at c. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 7. fine, at 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. converting also to the Christian faith du­ring all that time, by its Legats and Preachers, so many confessed Nations and Kingdomes of the Gentiles, agreeable to the predictions of the Pro­phets in that behalf (whereof see Brereley, tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 4. initio, in the margent at*.) Fifthly, in that this Sea hath been persecuted by the con­trary factions of so many Christian Princes, by the very Citizens and Cardinals of Rome, by the Schisms, Factions, and wicked lives of the Popes themselves, by the implacable hatred and contra­diction of so many confessed heresies and hereticks of every age, conspiring all of them (howsoever divided otherwise among themselves) to malign and impugn this Sea, as the principal object of their daily continued malice: So Hell gates may be said to have assaulted her, and yet not prevailed, Matth. 16.18. Upon which consideration but duely had of all Hereticks, though divided among themselves, yet joyning so together in malice a­gainst the Roman Sea, how can that out-faced opinion of our Adversaries be possibly true, [Page 453]which M. D. Downham in his treatise concerning Antichrist, l. 2. pag. 22. ante med. delivereth, say­ing: We hold Antichrist to be the whole body of He­reticks in the last age of the world, &c. The head of which body is the Papacie. The Pope to be their Head, and yet he ever against them all, and they all ever against him; is it possible?

6. Pu. Besides what hath been said out of Brere­ley of this point, that Protestants confess that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to sal­vation, I will shew the same yet more at large. D. Potter in his Answer to Charity mistaken, pag. 63. saith; The most necessary and fundamentall Truths, which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned: And for that reason, learned Pro­testants yield them (Romanists, as he calls us) the name and substance of a Christian Church. Where we see, that he saith in generall, learned Protestants yield them, &c. In proof whereof, he cites in his margent, Iunius, D. Reinolds, and sayes: See the judgement of many other writers, in the advertise­ment annexed to the old Religion, by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter; and adds, The very Anabaptists grant it. Fr. Johnson in his Christian Plea, pag. 123. So that with this one Testimonie of Potter, we have many other, even of our greatest Adver­saries. And pag. 62. he saith: To those twelve Ar­ticles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine, they (Catholicks) have added many more. Such are for instance, their Apocryphall Scriptures, and un­written dogmaticall Traditions, their Transubstan­tiation, and dry Communion, their Purgatory, In­vocation [Page 454]of Saints, Worship of the Images, Latine service, trafficke of Indulgences; and shortly, the other new doctrines and decrees canonized in their late Synod of Trent. Upon these and the like new Articles, is all the contestation between the Roma­nists and Protestants. And then he adds the words which we have cited; The most necessary and Fun­damentall truths which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned; and for that, &c. Where we see he grants, we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, which he teaches at large, to contain all Fundamentall Points of Faith; and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamen­tall truths which constitute a Church. Therefore, those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance, are no Fundamentall errors, nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths; and yet he names all the chiefest Points controverted between us and Protestants; even Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, and Latine Service, which are the things they are wont most to oppose; Yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councill of Trent. Therefore we are free from Fundamentall er­rors, by the confession of our Adversaries. pag. 59. he further saith, The Protestants never inten­ded to erect a new Church, but to purge the old. The reformation did not change the substance of Re­ligion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure qualities. If the Protestants erected not a new Church, then ours is still the old Church; and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities, with­out change of the substance, the substance must be [Page 455]still the same it was; and that which was, must be still the same with that which is. pag. 61. The things which the Protestants believe on their part, and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized, are most, if not all of them, so evi­dently and indisputably true, that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them as well as they. Therefore we Catholicks have the life and sub­stance of Religion. pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles, of Christian Religion, we have not for­saken the Church of Rome. Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds, or Fundamentall Ar­ticles of Religion. pag. 11. For those Catholick verities which she (the Roman Church) retains, we yield her a member of the Catholick, though one of the most unsound and corrupt members. In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholicks. Be­hold, we are members of the Catholick Church, which could not be, if we erred in any one Fun­damentall Point. By the way; If the Romanists may be called Catholicks, why may not the Ro­man Church be termed Catholick? And yet this is that Argument, which Protestants are wont to urge against us; and Potter in particular, in this very place, not considering that he impugns himself, whiles he speaks against us, not distin­guishing between universall, as Logicians speak of it, (which signifies, one common thing, ab­stracting, or abstracted, from all particulars) and Catholick, as it is taken in true Divinity, for the Church spread over the whole world, that is, all Churches which agree with the Roman; and upon that vain conceit, telling his unlearned Reader, [Page 456]that universall and particular, are tearms repug­nant, and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other; that is, say I; Catholick cannot be affirmed of D. Potter, nor D. Potter said to be a Catholick, because a particular cannot be said to be universall, or an universall. pag. 75. To depart from the Church of Rome, in some doctrines and Practises, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessa­ry to salvation. pag. 70. They (the Roman Doctors) confesse, that setting aside all matters controverted, the main positive truths wherein all agree, are a­bundantly sufficient to every good Christian, both for his knowledge, and for his practise, teaching him what to believe, and how to live, so as he may be saved. His saying, that the Roman Doctors confess, that setting aside all matters controverted, &c. is very untrue: it being manifest, that Catho­licks believe Protestants to erre damnably, both in matters of faith, and practise; yet his words convince ad hominem, that we have all that is ne­cessary, yea and abundantly sufficient, both for knowledge, and practise for us to be saved. And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants, saith, pag. 74. If the Mista­ker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties, he shall find in that which remains, little difference of importance between us. Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe. After these words, without any interruption he goes forward, and sayes, pag. 75. But by this discourse, the Mistaker happily may [Page 457]believe his cause to be advantaged, and may reply; If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion, or to a Church, how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church, or free themselves from damnable Schisme? Doth not this discourse prove, and the Objection, which he raises from it, suppose, that we want nothing essentiall to Re­ligion? Otherwise, this Objection which he makes to himself, were clearly impertinent, and foolish, if he could have dispatched all, by saying we erre in essentiall points, which had been an evident, and more then a just cause, to justify their separa­tion: which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection: That to depart from a particu­lar Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and practises, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church, of Rome wanted nothing necessary, to salvation. And after­ward in the next, pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome, he saith expresly; Her Communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ, where­of we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a mem­ber, though corrupted. And this clears us from the im­putation of Schism, whose propertie it is to cut off from the Body of Christ, & the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point, by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ, and should be cut off from the hope of salvation; there­fore she doth not erre in any Fundamental point. p. 83. We were never disjoyned from her (the Church of Rome) in those main essentiall truths, which give her the name and essence of a Church. You must then say, [Page 458]that she errs not in any Fundamental Point. For, the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such er­ror. And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed, Catholicks & Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion, he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited; Whereof if the mistaker doubt, he may be bet­ter informed by some late Roman Catholick writers. One of France, who hath purposely in a large Trea­tise proved (as he believes) the Hugonots and Ca­tholicks of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion, because of truths agreed upon by both. And another of our Country (as it is said) who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Au­thors, both Papists and Protestants, who are all of the same mind. Thus you see, he ransacks all kind of proofs, to shew that Catholicks and Protestants differ not in the substance, and essence of Faith, and to that end cites for Catholick writers, those two who can be no Catholicks; as Charity Main­tained, part. 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shews the for­mer in particular to be a plain Heretick, or rather Atheist, Lucian-like, jesting at all Religion. Pag. 78. he saith: We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls, which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome. Nay, our Charity reaches further to all those at this day, who in sim­plicity of heart believe the Roman Religion, and pro­fesse it. To these words of the Doctor, if we sub­sume; But it were impossible, that any can be sa­ved, even by Ignorance, or any simplicitie of heart, if he erre in a Fundamentall point (because as by every such error, a Church ceases to be a Church, [Page 459]so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church) the Conclusion will be, that we doe not erre in any Fundamentall point. Nay, pag. 79. he saith further, We believe it (the Ro­man Religion) safe, that is, by Gods great Mercy, not damnable to some, such as believe what they professe: But we believe it not safe, but very dange­rous, if not certainly damnable, to such as professe it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright, and not perversly obstinate, might believe) the con­trary. Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved; we are even safe, upon condition, we believe that Faith to be true which we professe, and for which we have suffered so long, so great, and so many losses, in all kinds; which if we did undergoe, for externall profession of that Faith, which we doe not inwardly believe to be true, we should deserve rather to be begged for fools, then persecuted for our Religion. In the mean time, every Catholick hath this comfort, that he is safe, (even by the confession of an Adversary) if he be not a foolish dissembler, which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant, or any other. Even the profession of a truth, believed to be false, is a sin. But I return to say; it were impossible for any Roman Catholick to be safe, upon what con­dition soever, if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith.

7. With D. Potter agreeth M. William Chil­lingworth in his book intituled; The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation. For whereas Cha­rity Mantained, part. 1. pag. 15. n. 13. saith; Since D. Potter will be forced to grant that there [Page 460]can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her, when Luther first appeared, I desire him to declare, whether it doth not follow, that she hath not erred Fundamentally; because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church, and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visibly Church on earth. To these words (which he thought fit to set down very im­perfectly) he answers, pag. 16. n. 20. in this manner; I say, in our sense of the word Fundamen­tall, it does follow. For, if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, then it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny; or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was part of the whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the Church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvati­on, and held no errours which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a mem­ber of the Church Catholick. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall, I hope she erred not Fun­damentally: But in your sense of the word, I fear she did. That is, she held some thing to be Divine Reve­lation, which was not; something not to be, which was. He hath spoken so clearly and fully in fa­vour of the Roman Church, and not only affir­med, but proved that she did not erre in any Funda­mentall Point, that I need not say one word to ponder his words, or declare the force of them. Pag. 7. n. 3. He expresly approves the saying of [Page 461] D. Potter. That both sides by the confession of both sides, agree in more Points than are simply and in­dispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary. Therefore, doe we inferr, Catholicks believe all that is pre­cisely necessary to salvation, and more. But we never yield so much to you Protestants. Pag. 85. n. 89. He confesseth the Roman Church to be a part of the Catholick Church; and pag. 16. n. 20. he saith, If she were a true part of the Church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errours which were unevi­tably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church, a member of the Church Catholick. Pag. 163. n. 56. He saith, From Scripture we collect our hope, that the Truths she (The Roman Church) retains, and the practise of them, may prove an Antidote to her against the errours which she main­taines in such persons as in simplicity of heart fol­low this Absalon. These points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poyson of all sins and errours, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she erreth not Fundamentally, but still remaines a part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: Seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she erres not Fundamentally, (mark how he professeth to learn out of Scripture, that we erre not Fundamentally) assures us, that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And these errors though to them that believe them, [Page 462]we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against Conscience, could not but bring us certain damnation! Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants, being acknowledged not to be Fundamental, and in other Points pro­fessing nothing against our conscience, we are safe by his own confession. If we did not believe as we professe, we were no Roman Catholicks. In the same place he saith expresly, De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Funda­mentalls; Yea he saith, line 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably, the contrary whereof he af­firmes so often. His example of Absalon, was ve­ry ill applied to the Roman Church, which did not rebell from Protestants, but they against the whole Church (the Mother of all Christians) more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved him­self wickedly toward his Father. Pag. 404. n. 29. He approves Dr. Potters saying (pag. 79) which I cited above, that the Roman Religion is safe, that is, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess. And in the same place he saith, Wee may hope that she retains those Truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to Sal­vation. Pag. 401. n. 7. VVe approve those funda­mental and simply necessary Truths which you retain, by which, some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and Heresies. The Truths you retain, are good, and, as we hope, suffici­ent to bring good ignorant souls among you, to salva­tion, yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists. If any Soul may be saved in our Reli­gion; It is clear we hold not any fundamental Er­ror, [Page 463]with which no soul can be saved. Pag. 277. n. 61. he saith, The simple defect of some Truths profitable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation. Seeing therefore he hath so often confessed that we erre not in fundamental points, our Errors in some Truths profitable only, and not fundamental, may consist with salvation. How then doth he say to Catholicks pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie, and yielding you salvation, neither he (Dr. Potter) nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? Pag. 219. n. 50. Speaking of Protestants, he saith, They do not differ at all in matters of Faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and meanby matters of Faith, such Doctrines as are necessary to salvation, to be believed or not to be believed. Now you know well that in points of greatest moment, which Catholicks believe against some Protestants, other Protestants stand for us, against their pretended Brethren: And there­fore he must either say that we believe all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to sal­vation; or that many learned Protestants do not be­lieve all such Doctrines, and consequently are not capable of Salvation. Pag. 269. n. 45. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himself and others, and conti­nue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of a Church consists. For this cause he saith, That although Protestants leave the external Communion of the Church, yet they left not the Church, because they left her not in any thing essen­tial to a Church, as Fundamental points are: Ther­fore [Page 464]he supposeth the Church before Luther, did not erre in any Fundamental Article: Otherwise Protestants had left her, that is, they had disagreed from her in a Fundamental point. P. 272. n. 52 and pag. 283. n. 73. He denies that Protestants divided themselves from the Church, absolutely and simply in all things, that is, ceased to be a member of it; which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essential and fundamental Points, which Protestants also pretend to hold, and for that cause say, they left not the Church. Pag. 272. n. 52. He saith, In the reason of our separati­on from the external Communion of your Church, you are mistaken: For it was not so much because she, your Church, as because your Churches external Com­munion was corrupted, and needed Reformation. But if we erred in Fundamental points, Protestants must have forsaken us chiefly for that reason, that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental er­rours of Faith. Therefore he grants, that we er­red not in any such necessary Points. Pag. 401. n. 26. He confesseth, that D. Potter saith indeed, that our not cutting off your Church from the Body of Christ, and hope of salvation, frees us from the im­putation of Schism. Pag. 133. n. 12. He saith ex­presly, By confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. It is well he makes so open a confession, that we believe much more than is simply neces­sary to salvation. But as I said before, we will not, because we cannot, yield so much to Prote­stants. And here I must ask again, how he could say, Pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie, and yielding you salvation, nei­ther [Page 465]D. Potter, nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? Seeing he saith, that by the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and in­dispensably necessary to salvation. If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation, by what Logick will he deduce, that we believe not as much as is necessary?

8. These so many and so clear words of D. Pot­ter and M. Chillingworth, may justly make any man wonder, with what pretence of truth, or mo­desty, he could say, Pag. 280. n. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamental, it is an affected mistake, as I have of­ten told you. And Pag. 308. 108. As for your ob­truding upon us, that we believe the Points of dif­ference not Fundamental or necessary, you have been often told it is a calumny. The oftner the worse; it being a Saying void of all truth, and a shamefull calumny in him.

9. To these testimonies of Potter and Chilling­worth, many other might be alleged, out of o­ther Protestants, as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter. D. Laud in his book against Fisher Pag. 299. saith, I doe acknowledge a possibi­lity of salvation in the Roman Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself. Behold, not only a possibility of salvation, but also the reason thereof, because we believe the Creed, &c. which is the ve­ry reason for which Protestants hold, that they themselves may be saved, though they differ in [Page 466]many points from one another. This, I say, is the reason of D. Laud, which other Protestants must approve; though in true Divinity it be of no force at all; for, though one believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself, that is, that he is God, and Saviour of the world, yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture, or otherwise sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, he cannot be saved, even according to Protestants, who therefore doe in this, as in many other things speak inconsequently, and contra­dict themselves. Pag. 376. he saith: The Religi­on of the Protestants, and the Romanists Religion, is the same: nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants, set up a different Religion (for the Christian Religion is the same to both) but they dif­fer in the same Religion. Therefore, say I, we hold no Fundamental errors, wherein whosoever dif­fer, cannot be of the same, but must be of a diffe­rent Religion. And Pag. 129. The Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence, not in the things which constitute a Church. And Pag. 282. he saith: The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, I think cannot be denyed: and in proof hereof Pag. 281. he alleges Luther, Field, Joseph Hall, Geor: Abbot, Hooker, Mornaeus, Prideaux, Calvin. And D. Jeremie Taylor in his liberty of Prophecying Pag. 251. sect. 20. teaches, that we keep the foundation, and believe many more truths, than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation. And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party, allowed to them possibility of Salvation, whilst their errors are not [Page 467]faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding, (which as I said, may easily be believed of us Catholicks, who suffer so much for our Religion,) so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith, that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted: The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome su­perstructures. And in particular he shews that Prayer for the dead, and the doctrine of Transub­stantiation, are not Fundamental errours; and also saith, these two be in stead of the rest. Yea he affirmes Pag. 258, that there is implyed as great difficulty in the mystery of the B. Trinity, as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by Idola­trie, in adoring the Sacrament.

10. Thus, good Reader, having proved out of the Confession of Protestants, That the first Pro­testants, who pretended to reform all Churches extant when they appeared, led such lives, and taught such Doctrines as no man of judgement can think them to have been fit Instruments for that Work; That Protestants confesse the Ancient Holy Fathers to stand for us; That the chiefest Protestant Writers joyn with Catholicks against other Protestants in the most principal Articles of Religion, Yea even in those very points, for which Luther and his followers opposed our Do­ctrine, and forsook our Communion; (which de­serves well to be considered;) That our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles; and finally That all Protestants of note and learning acknow­ledge that we may be saved: These points, I say, [Page 468]having been evidently proved out of the confession of Protestants, no man of conscience, or even of common judgement and reason, can deny, but that we are safe; and seeing eternal Salvation de­pends upon making choise of the true Religion, whosoever hath a care of his soul, must either em­brace the Catholick Roman Religion, or else ac­knowledge himself to be inexcusable in that last day or moment, upon which eternitie and that se­cond death will depend, from which there can be no reprive, or hope to amend by a second triall. I conclude as I began, O ETERNITIE! ETER­NITIE.

FINIS

A TABLE Of the CONSIDERATIONS.

Consideration 1.
Concerning the Lives of the first Pro­testant pretended Reformers Pag. 1.
  • Of LUTHER pag. 2.
  • Of IACOBUS ANDREAS pag. 72.
  • Of ZUINGLIUS pag. 74.
  • Of CALVIN pag. 105.
  • Of BEZA pag. 134.
  • Of MELANCTHON pag. 156.
  • Of BUCER pag. 159.
  • Of KNOX pag. 165.
Consideration II.
By the confession of Protestants, the antient holy Fathers believed and practi­sed [Page]the same things, which we believe and practise against Protestants. pag. 171.
Consideration III.
Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion, against their protestant Brethren. pag. 301.
Consideration IV.
That the Doctrine of us Catholikes, hath been approved by the omnipotent hand of God, using for instruments of working Miracles, those, who were confessedly of our Religion, yea, and in express confirma­tion of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants. pag. 395.
Consideration V.
By the confession of Protestants, we Catholikes may be saved, though we live and die in the belief and profession of those Articles, wherein Protestants disagree from us. pag. 437.

An Alphabetical Index of the chiefe things contained in this Treatise; in which c: signifies the Consideration, n, the Number, p, the Page, t, the Text, m, the Margent, If neither of the two last letters be put, the thing is onely in the Text

A
  • PErpetual Abstinence from certain meats was never commanded by the Church. Co. 2. n. 11. p. 230. 1.
  • Alms for the dead, is an antieut use, n. 3. p. 198
  • Altars, of great and acknowledged antiquity. p. 192. 3. t. m.
  • St. Amphibalus his body revealed by St. Albania, and ma­ny miracles wroughtat it. c. 4. n. 5. p. 420.
  • Amsdorphius (in whom Luther said, Spiritus meus re­quiescit) affirm'd good Works hurtfull to salvation, c. 1. n. 19. p. 66. 7. t. m.
  • Anabaptists infinitely divided, c. 3. n. 112. p. 392.
  • Andreas, Luther's famous Scholar, qualified by Protestant Writers, c. 1. n. 21. p. 72. 3.
  • Dr Andrews no Protestant. c. 3. n. 83. p. 356, 7, 8, 9.
  • His judgement of Spalata. p. 359.
  • Antichrist one single person. c. 2. n. 3. p, 192.
  • Arianism, the center of Calvinism. c. 3. n. 43. p. 123, 4, 5. t. m
  • Armenians condemned, for denying the mixture of water with the wine in consecrating the Chalice. c. 2. n. 2. p. 183
  • [Page]St Augustine the Monk, brought Cerimonies into England c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6.
  • St Austine the Dr. most clear for Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 402. 3. t. m. Also for Purgatory c. 2. n. 18. p. 265. &c.
B
  • BAldwins interpretation of Luther's Conference with the Devill concerning Masse refuted, c. 1. n. 7. p. 27. &c.
  • Baptism (saith Luther) in whatsoever words, if taken, though not given in nomine Domine, truly saves m. 4. p. 15.
  • Beads lawfully used c, 3. n. 94. p. 174.
  • St. Bernard refuted by miracle, points then held by the Henricians or Apostolicks, and now by Protestants, who ascribe the Miracles to the Devill, yet hold St. Bernard for a St. c. 4. n. 4. p. 414.15, 16, 17. and most conforma­ble to the Church of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 440. 1. t. m. He was an eye witnes of St. Malachias his miracles, and be­ing present at his death, received his blessing c. 4. n. 4. p. 414. t. m
  • Of Beza, c. 1. from the n. 48. to 54. from p. 134. to 155. inclusivè. An abridgment of his wicked life out of Hic. Bolseck n. 48. p. 134, 5, 6. His lascivious Poems with Apologies for them of Dr. Morton, Mr. Spark and others, refuted p. 137. to 144. Candida was his Con­cubine four years before he married her at Geneva p. 144.5. She dying when he was 69 years old, he, to the scandall of his friends, within few moneths, married a young Widow p. 147. He is charged with many odious Conspiracies, and to have strook deadly at all Christian su­periority with his seditious spirit and writings p. 147.8.9. t. m. He confesseth that had it not been by these means, [Page]they had had no Church p. 150. His hypocrisie, ibid. His encouraging Rebells to fight, kill, and commit sacri­leges at the battail of Dren. p. 151. He perswaded Pol­trot to kill the Duke of Guise p. 152. t. m. He prefers in knowledge these times to those of the Apostles ibid. t. He avers three divine substances p. 153. That our Saviour was for a time in despair ibid. His mentall reservation in matter of Faith p. 153. 4. t. m. His confession, that whilst he taught others Goodness, himselfe was wicked, ibid. t.
  • Of Bucer, c. 1. n. 58.9. p. 159. to 65. inclusivè. By his Do­ctrine any man or woman may take occasion of Divorce, and marry another, p. 160.1, 2, 3. He four times chang­ed his Religion, and for every change vehemently pre­tended evidence of Scripture p. 163.4.5.
C
  • OF Calvin, c. 1. from n. 37. to 47. from p. 105. to 134. inclusivè. He was excessively dainty in his di­et n. 37. p. 106. t. m. An Adulterer, ibid. t. Burnt on the shoulder at Noion, for a Sodomite, and fled for shame p. 108, 9. He is said to have forged Letters in his own praise. p. 105. He agreed with Braule to fain himselfe dead, who, when he should have risen at his call was dead indeed. ibid. t. m. His seditious Doctrine caused the Prince of Geneva to be deprived of his Inheritance by Arms, n. 38. p. 110, 11. It laies open the way to all liberty, teaching that God is the author of sin, and predestinates meerly upon his pleasure, some determinatly to Heaven, others to Hell, n. 40. p. 113, 14. yet he would seem to be against this Doctrine p. 114, 15, 16. t. m. It leads to Mahometism, and hath much increased Arianism in Po­lony, Hungary, and Transilvania. n. 42. p. 121, 2, 3. [Page]And hath it or infidelity, for its Center, n. 43. p. 125. It hath hatched the reformed Arrians, who allow onely Scripture interpreted by themselves, and hideously blas­pheme the blessed Trinity, n. 43. p. 123, 4. t. m. He uses the Arrians shifts, & teaches them new, to avoid the testimo­nies for the blessed Trinity, & is by divers Protestants ac­cused of Judaism, and Arrianism, n. 45. p. 126, 7, 8, 9, 30. He tearms it Barbarism to say Christ is God of God, or Sancta Trinitas unus Deus. He affirms three Substances in the Trinity, and Christ to be improperly God, who makes intercession to his Father, both according to his Humanity and Divinity, n. 41. p. 117, 18, 19, 20, 1. That Christ suffered all the torments due to the damned, and despaired for fear they should be eternal, yea, refused to be obey his Father in Redeeming Man, n. 46. p. 131, 2, 3. He calls it a foolish curiosity, to question whether Christ merited for himself; and a timer arious definition to me­rit, n. 19. p. 67. t. m. He furiously railed (saith Grotius) at the opposer of his Doctrine, n. 47. p. 133, 4. He con­temptibly condemns the antient Fathers for averring the sacrifice of the Masse, n. 39. p. 111, 12, 13. He died calling desperately upon the Devill; eaten up with Lice, and other Vermin, n. 37. p. 107.110.
  • Calvinists held it lawfull to lie for the Glory of God, n. 53. p. 155. t. m.
  • Of Canonicall Scriptures, the sense of the holy Fathers, and the Protestants reprehending them for it, c. 2. n. 12. p. 234, to 242. inclusivè t. m. Canonicall Scripture onely determined by the Church, p. 240. t. m. &c.
  • Carolostadius pretended Visions and Conference with God for his Doctrine, c, 1. n. 23. p. 79. t. m.
  • Of Catholike Religion, as Protestants confesse, no begin­ning can be assigned after the Apostles times, c. 2. n. 15. [Page]p. 255. t. m. It is by them judged safe, c. 5. per totam. shewed by their clear Testimonies, n. 1. p. 437.8, 9.
  • Ceremonies practised by the Fathers, c. 2 n. 8. p. 205, 6. t. m. and n. 12. p. 234. Most of the now used, acknowledged by Protestants to have been then used, n. 13. p. 247. t. m.
  • The Chancel prohibited to the Laity, c. 3. n. 89. p. 366.
  • Chillingworth confutes himself, n. 87. p. 363. With rea­son he excepts against painting the Irinity, for he denies the Trinity, n. 92. p. 377. His ridiculous objection of an Oblation by way of Consumption, n. 95. p. 375. Divers other of his impertinent objections, in the Numbers and pages precedent, and following particulars about the im­maculate conception of our blessed Lady, n. 99. p. 378.9. His many testimonies that the Catholike Church is sa­ving; and his contradicting himself, c. 5. n. 7, 8. p. 459, 60, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  • Chrisme, or Confirmation gives grace, c. 2. n. 8. p. 205.6.
  • Clement vide John Clement.
  • Confession as now used, avowed by the antient Fathers, n. 9. p. 206, 7. and n. 19. p. 269. &c. Confirmed by Mi­racles, c. 4. n. 2. p. 407.
  • Consecrating of Creatures, c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6. t. m. &c.
  • Constantine the great, allwaies had with him a portable consecrated Tabernacle or Church, with Priests and Dea­cons, not to be forced, against the then practice of the Church, to celebrate Divine Mysteries in prophane, pla­ces, n. 23. p. 292. t. m.
  • The Lord Cromwell professed at his death, to believe in all with the Church of Rome, c. 5. n. 2. p. 439, 40.
  • Use of the Cross, c. 2. n. 8. p. 205, 6. m. In practise with the holy Fathers, reprehended by Protestants, n. 12. [Page]p. 243. t. m. The vertue of it confirmed by Miracles, c. 4. n. 2. p. 406.
  • St. Cutbert's Miracles, and miraculous integrity after his death, n. 4. p. 412, 13.
D
  • Almes, Prayer, Sacrifice for the Dead, c. 2. n. 3, 4. p. 196.7.8. t. m.
  • Delrius cleared from Morton's falsification, c. n. 7. p. 26. 7. t. m.
E
  • Equivocation beyond all limits held and taught by Prote­stants, c. 3. n. 72. p. 348, 9, 50, 1, 2.
  • English, inconstant in Doctrine, c. 1. n. 28. p. 85, 6, 7.
  • Errors affirmed by Protestants to have crept into the Catho­like Church, but no beginning of them can be assigned since the Apostles time, c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. &c. t. m. wherefore they impute them to the Apostles time, n. 14. p. 251. &c. t. m.
  • Eucharist consecrated by vertue of the words, n. 2. p. 179. t. m. In round Wafers, of which use no beginning can be shewed, p. 178. t. m. Transubstantiation held by the anti­ent Fathers, p. 179, 80, 1, 2. t. m. 'twas carefully conser­ved in the Church, p. 181, 2. in one kind onely: so also carried in long journies, c. 3. n. 83. p. 356. Water ming­led with the Wine in consecration, c. 2. n. 2. p. 182, 3. It must be received fasting, p. 183, 4. And Chastly: wherefore Priests are not to marry, p. 184. &c. t. m.
F
  • In the antient Fathers, the now Catholike Doctrines ac­knowledged, and reprehended by Protestants. Vide Pro­testants.
  • The Faith of Catholikes judged saving by Protestants, c. 5. per totam. Their clear testimonies of it, n. 1. p. 447, 8, 9.
  • Fasts obligatory, c. 2. n. 12. p. 229, 30, 31. t. m. Held an Heresie by many Fathers to fast on Sunday. ibid.
  • Fathers so evident for all Catholike Tenets, that Protestants rebuke one another for citing of them, and cry out that if their Authority be acknowledged, the Protestant Church is undone, n. 14. p. 249. &c. t. m.
  • Fox's Revelation concerning the 42 Moneths in the Apoca­lyps rejected, c. 1. n. 23. p. 80. His fraud to cover Dr. Barnes his acknowledgment of Transubstantiation, c. 3. n. 37. p. 320.
  • St. Francis his Miracles, Wounds, and austere life, c. 4. n. 5. p. 418, 19. t. m.
  • Freewill, and merit of Good Works, frequent in the holy Fathers, c. 2, n. 5, 6. p. 200. &c.
  • Fulke held Christ, according to his Deity, to be his fathers Priest, c. 1. n. 41. p. 120. and the Arrians to be a true Church of God, n. 42. p. 122. t. m.
G
  • GRegory the great, introduced by St. Austine, Rites and Ceremonies in England, c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6.
  • Grotius his censure of Calvin's furious railing against the Opposers of his Doctrine, c. 1. n. 47. p. 133, 4. He stands [Page]in most points for Catholikes, c. 3. n. 85. p. 359, 60, 1, 2.
H
  • KIng Henry the Eigth, kept to his death the Doctrine of Rome, c. 5. n. 2. p. 439.
  • Heretikes fraud in citing Authors, c. 2. n. 18. p. 267. They moulter away by Divisions amongst themselves, c. 3. n. 112. p. 391, 2. t. m.
  • Holy-Water confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 417.
  • Hus no Protestant, c. 3. n. 80. p. 355.
I
  • JAcobus Andreas, vide Andreas.
  • King James his censure of John Knox, c. 1. n. 60. p. 166. And of the English translations of the Bible, n, 33. p. 95.
  • Jewell affirms Christ, according to his Deity, to be his Fa­thers Priest, n. 41. p. 120. His impudent imposture upon Fathers, Apostles, and Christ himself, c, 2. n, 22. p. 281 2, 3.
  • Thirty eight Jewes burnt in the Marchy of Brandenburgh, and all the rest banished for stabbing the B. Sacrament, c. 4. n, 5. p. 421, t, m, 422, m.
  • John Clement's miraculous cure at our B. Ladies of Si­chem, p, 423, 4, 5.
  • Images used by the antient holy Fathers, c, 2. n, 12. p, 243. Confirmed by miracle, c, 4. n, 2. p. 404, 5. t. m.
  • Innocentius the third, falsly taxed to have first brought up Transubstantiation, c, 2. n, 16. p, 257. t. m.
  • The Invisibility of the Protestant Church before Luther, c, 4. n, 3. p, 408. t. m.
  • [Page] [...]ish forced to hear English Sermons, which they under­stood not, c, 3. n, 98. p, 377.
K
  • OF John Knox, c, 1. n, 60, 1. from p, 165. to 170. inclusivè. Why many particulars of his turbulent se­ditious spirit are omitted, p, 165. King James his cen­sure of him, p, 166. His dreadfull death, ibidem.
L
  • Dr. Laud acknowledges Catholike Faith to be saving, c, 5. n, 9. p, 465, 6.
  • Lent, held of obligation by the Fathers, c, 2. n, 12. p, 211, 12, 13.
  • Limbus Patrum, held by antient Fathers, n, 3. p, 198, 9. t. m.
  • Lyturgy in an unknown tongue, c, 3. n, 87. p, 364. &c.
  • Of Luther, c, 1. from n, 1. to 20. from p, 1. to 71. inclusivè His own testimonie of his pious and penitent life before his Apostacy, n, 1. p, 2. His raging Lust, described by himself, p, 2, 3, 4, t. m. His blasphemy, that no Sin, Lust, or other, can separate from Christ, p, 4. Whence he gave scope to all villany, ibid. He secretly, to the disgust of his friends, married Katherine Bore a Nun, and i [...] such heat, that he could not expect untill next morning when the forbidden time for marriage expired, p, 4, 5. t. m. This shamelesly excused by Melancthon, Luther himsel [...] acknowledging that he did not professe good life, but Do­ctrine, p, 5. t. m. Hence Protestants, when they will be li­centious, say, This day we will live Luther-like, p, 6. t. m. His inclination to Poligamy, n, 2. p, 7, 8. t. m. His [Page]contempt of superiority. His hideous railing against K. Henry the Eigth and other Princes; forced the Prote­stant Lansgrave to disallow his Writings by a publike Manifest, p, 9, 10, 11. t. m. He hired Corolostadius to rail against him, n, 3. p, 12. t: m: He gives as much pow­er to Lay-men, yea, to Women, concerning the Sacra­ments, as to Priests, n, 4. p, 12, 13: t: m: and n, 7: p, 27: He saies, that the Divell can truly consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, n, 4. p, 13. m. and n, 7. p, 34. For his opinion of Baptism, vide Baptism. He held, that had not Christs Divinity suffered, we had had but a base Redeemer, n, 5. p, 15. That Christ's Soul suf­fered in Hell after death, p, 16. He boasted of more truth in his Doctrin than in the Fathers, or Apostles, n, 6, p, 16, 17. t. m. His contempt of the Fathers, p, 18. His Do­ctrine, as certainly divine, must judge Angells, not be judged by them, ibid. and p, 19. Chief Protestants do sharply reprove this his pride, p. 19, 20, 1, 2, 3. His in­constancy in Doctrine, n, 4. p, 14, 15. He was taught by the Devill to impugn the Mass, n, 7. p, 23. t. m. and that by bodily conference, not by spiritual fight, as Fulke would have it, nor by dream as Sutcliff saies, both a­gainst Luther's expresse words, p. 22. to 36. inclusivè. he was grievously haunted & frighted by an evill spirit, p. 23, 22. He affirms, the Emp. Oecolampadius and others, were slain by evill spirits appearing to them, p. 24, 25. He denies obedience to spirituall Pastors, and G. Councills, and right to judge of Doctrine, and grants it Lay-people, n. 8. p. 37.8. He teaches, that whatsoever a Generall Councill commands, the contrary is to be done, n. 12. p. 44, 5. He affirms, that when one dies, the Soul sleeps as Insensibly as the Body, and denies Purgatory and prayer to Saints, n, 9. p, 39. t. m. He puts three: Divinities as [Page]three persons; and praises the Arrians for rejecting [...] n, 10. p, 39, 40. t.m. His wicked Doctrine concerning the Author of sin, n, 11. p, 40, 1, 2. His Blasphemy that God crowns and damns without desert, p, 42. By these Doctrines he opened the way to all lewdness, p, 43. To have his will he stuck not to contradict himself and Scripture, n, 12. p, 43. He acknowledgeth that he be­lieved not what he preached, p, 46. He acknowledgeth his fall to have been Pride and wilfullness, and speaks of it with great perplexity and terror of Conscience, p, 47, 8. Yet false Flatterers will call him Saint, ibid. He is deeply taxed by Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and all Cal­vinists, for his unchristian bitterness against them, n, 14. p, 49, 50, 1. He most arrogantly conceived himself the onely man opposed by Satan, as the first teacher of Christianity, and sole right understander of the Gospell, n, 15. p, 51, 2. His wicked Doctrine in favour of the Turke, and disesteem of Christianity, n, 16. p, 53, 55, 54, 56. His Schollars ashamed of divers things in his Works, corrupted them in the edition at Wittenburg, n, 17. p, 57, 58. t. m. & alibi ipse. His wilfull corruptions and impudent censures of Scriptures and holy Writers, makes them of no credit, p, 57, to 64. t. m. inclusivè. He ac­knowledges that the manifold translations of Scripture, will force to receive Councills, n, 34. p, 97. He teacheth that onely Infidelity condemns, and onely Faith (which cannot be without Good works) justifies, n, 18, 19. p, 64, 5. That, who is good, can do nothing but good: that good works neither justifie, nor are any way necessary to sal­vation, p. 65. but hurtfull to it, p. 66, 7. t. m. Erasmus his saying of him, n. 20. p, 68. m. He cannot be held a Protestant. p, 68, 9. His vild Doctrine and Manners are now so notorious, as none can be excusable in following[Page]him, p, 69. He preferrs Melancthon to all the Doctors of the Church, n, 54. p, 155. His Blasphemies against the Holy Ghost, c, 1. n, 2. p, 187, 8. By his Life and Do­ctrine many Protestants held Lewdnes to be an Evange­licall Institution, and serious Christian Discipline, a new Popery, c, 1. n, 1. p, 6.
M
  • St. Malacias his Miracles, c, 4. n, 1. p, 400. i. t. m. and n, 4. p, 414, 15. Calumniated as wrought by the Divel, n, 1. p, 400. m. Dying he gave his Blessing to St. Bernard n, 4. p, 414. m.
  • Marriage forbidden to Priests from the Apostles time, c, 2. n, 7. p, 166, 7. t. m. Like for Monks, p, 167. t. m.
  • Masse, and the sacrifice of it, most antient, n, 17, p, 267. t. m.
  • Of Melancthon, c, 1. n, 55, 6. p, 156, 7, 8, 9. He held three Divinities. He perswaded Polygamy to King Hen­ry the eight: n, 56. p, 156. He taught, that in case of Divorce the offending partie might marry another: p, 157. He changed from Lutheranisme to Calvinisme, n, 57. p, 157. Yet he perswaded others to remain Catho­likes, and wished he had rather lost a Finger, than wrote of Divinity, p: 159.
  • Melchisedeck and his sacrifice presigured Christ and his sacrifice: c, 2. n, 17. p, 260. &c.
  • Merit of Good Workes: n, 5, 6. p, 200. &c.
  • Of Miracles, c, 4. per totam: wrought in confirmation of points believed by Catholicks Protestants, and are testimonies of true Faith, although wrought by wicked men, they be­ing of that kind, which cannot naturally be done: n, 1 p. [Page]396, 7. t. m. The gift of Miracles, necessary to the con­version of the World, m, 2. p, 401, 2. Much more neces­sary to reverse, what by infinite miracles the whole world had imbraced, p. 402. m. No miracles wrought by Lu­ther, Calvin &c. n. 3. p. 408. t. m. Yet they pretend an extraordinary calling, which they confesse must be pro­ved by Miracles p. 409, 10. t. m. No miracle that Lu­ther's sensuall Doctrine should suddainly spread, p. 410. t. m. Many miracles acknowledged by Protestants wrought by Catholike Priests for the conversion of Con. n. 1. p. 397, 8. By St. Xaverius in the Indies. The mi­raculous incorruption of his body, ibid. Wrought by St. Austin at the conversion of England, p. 398, 9, 400. t. m. and, n. 4. p. 411, 12, 13. t. m. Many, of which St. Austin the Dr. was an eye-witnes, n. 2. p. 402, 3. t. m. Undoubted miracles recounted by the Centurists to have been done in each of the thirteen ages next after Christ, p. 404. t. m. &c. Many of them by Monks of most austeer life. Many in confirmation of points now controverted, ibid. One, of the B. Sacrament stabbed by the Jewes, n. 5. p. 421, 2. t. m. Another also of the B. Sacrament, n. 2. p. 405, 6. t. m. True miracles defended against the shifts and impostures of Protestants, n, 7. p. 427. &c. to the end of the fourth Con.
  • Monasteries of professed Virgins in St. Ignatius the Mar­tyrs time, c. 2. n. 1. p. 173, 4. t. m.
  • Montanus, falsly said to be the first Author of Fasts, n. 11. p. 230, 1.
  • Mortons shameles falsifying of Delrius, to cloake Luther's Conference with the Divell, c. 1. n. 7. p. 26, 7. t. m. He accounts the Arrians a true Church, n. 48. p. 140, 1.
  • Mo [...]ives to convince Protestants of the safety of the Catho­like Religion, c. 3. n. 105. p. 383, &c.
N
  • NIcene Councill censured by Luther, c. 2. n. 2. p. 187, 8. It gave no liberty for married men to keep their Wives after Priesthood, p. 186. &c.
O
  • OEcolampadius. wished his right hand cut off, on con­dition he had never wrote of Controversies, c. 2. n. 20. p. 7. He pretended Visions, and was, in one slain by the Devill, n. 23. p. 79. t. m. He was the first that disswa­cted Luther from saying Masse, p. 80.
  • Holy Oyle, confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 407
  • Osiander's Nonsence, c. 2. n. 2. p. 187.
  • King Oswald's miracles, c. 4. n. 4. p. 412. t. m.
P
  • PAphnutius defended against Socrates, c. 2. n. 2. p. 186. &c.
  • Dr. Potters large verdict, that Catholike Faith is saving, c. 5. n. 6. p. 453, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
  • Prayer in an unknown tongue, as now used, not gainsayed, 1 Cor. 14. c. 3. n. 89. p. 370, 1, 2. t. m. Prayer directed by the words to one party, may be offered to another, n. 96. p. 375, 6. Prayer to Saints, and for the dead, confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 405, 6. t. m.
  • Reflexions for Protestants to ponder, c. 1. n. 61. p. 167, to 170. inclusivè. Protestants are Children without a Fa­ther, p. 167, 8. They acknowledge the antient holy Fa­thers [Page]to hold with us against them, c. 2. per totam, For Vows of perpetual Chastity, n. 1. p. 171, 2, 3, 4. t. m. Priests forbidden to marry, p. 174, 5. t. m. Or to have any woman living with them, except their Mothers, Si­ster, Fathers fister, Mothers sister, n. 2, p. 186. And that if they had been married before Priest hood, they must not after accompany or live in the house with their Wife, p. 186, 7. &c. Religious Vows, n. 1. p. 176. t. m. Prayer to Saints, n. 2. p. 202, 3, 4. Purgatory, n. 18. p. 265, 6, 7, 8, 9. t. m. Saint Peter's Primacy, of which Pro­testants finding no beginning, nor of the Popes exercising all that now he does, they ascribe it to St. Peter's Ambi­tion, n. 10. p. 207. t. m. &c. They acknowledge the name and office of a Priest as most antient, n. 17. p. 261. t. m. &c. The uniform Doctrine of the Roman Church, and division of their own, n. 20. p. 271. 2, 3. Many of their Tenets to have been condemned for Heresies, and the A­betters of them for Heriticks, within the first six hun­dred years, n. 21. p. 273. &c. Had those that now are, lived then, they would likewise have been condemned, n. 26. p. 318. Yet they impudently challenge the holy Fa­thers for theirs, and falsify all sorts of Writers, old and new; yea, of their own Brethren, n, 22. p. 281. t. m. &c. They must confesse the present Doctrine of Catholikes not repugnant to salvation, or damne the antient Fa­thers, whom they hold to be Saints, n. 24. p. 317. see ma­ny other points noted in their Alphabeticall Order.
  • Protestants confuted, and the now Catholike Religion pro­ved by the practise, in the great Constantin's time, n. 23. p. 291. t. m. &c.
  • Chief Protestants, in the following most important points stand for us against their brethren c. 3. p. 301. per totam. [Page]The reall presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and not onely inefficacy n, 1, 2. p. 301, 2. Sacraments do not onely signify, but conferre Grace, n. 2. p. 303. The Church must be continually visible, p. 303, &c. Good works necessary for salvation, n. 5. p. 307, 8. Christ died for, and gives grace to all, n. 7. p. 308. God onely per­mits sinn, n. 8. p. 309. Men uncertain of their Election, and may finally fall from the state of Grace n. 9. p. 309, 19. In divorce, the innocent party cannot marry again, n. 10. p. 310. No salvation promised to the Children of the Faithfull, dying unbaptised, n. 12. p. 310, 11. Free­will, n. 12. p. 312. Good works with Faith, meritory, n. 13. ibid. Temporall punishment for sinremitted, n. 14. p. 311, 12. No Civill Magistrate, head of the Church uni­versall, or particular, n. 16. p. 312, 13. Invocation of Saints, their, and Angells intercession, n. 17, 18, 19. p. 313. Vows of Chastitie, n. 28. p. 313, 14. Of Poverty, n. 21. p. 314. Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, n. 22, 3, 4. p. 315, 16. Images in the Church, worship of them, bowing at the name of Jesus, Good works of one may help another, n. 25, 6, 7, 8. p. 316, 17. Priests truly give remission of sinnes, Confession to Priests, Di­stinction of Mortall and veniall Sinn, n. 29, 30, 1. p. 317, 18. Communion under one or both kinds: Sacrifice of the New Testament, according to the order of Melchisedeck n. 32, 3. p. 319. The first motions of Concupisence not consented to, are no sin, n. 34. p. 319, 20. The Commande­ments not impossible, n. 35. p. 220. No Widdow bigama professed, n. 36. Transubstantiation, n. 37. p. 321. Christ Consubstantiall to his Father, n. 38. p. 321, 2, 3. As man full of knowledge from his Nativity. He descen­ded with his Soul into Hell, but suffered nothing there, n. 39, 40, 1. p. 323, 4, 5. The Sacraments of the old Te­stament, [Page]inferiour in operation to the New. Grace con­ferred by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of Con­firmation. Also in the sacrament of Order, Deaconship, a distinct order from Priesthood, and a step unto it, n. 41, 2, 3, 4, 5, p. 325. Extraordinary calling is ceased, n. 46. p. 327. An indelibel Character imprinted by some sa­craments, n. 47. p. 328. Baptism by Lay persons and wo­men in case of necessity, n. 48. p. 328. The known inten­tion of the Church, needfull to administer Sacraments, n. 49. p. 328, 9. Seven Sacraments, n. 50. p. 329. Im­plicit Faith, n. 51. p. 329, 30. Usury unlawfull, n. 52. p. 330. Antichrist not yet come, n. 53. p. 331, Distinct degrees of Angells. Angells Protectors of several Coun­tries. By Michael the Arch-Angell, is not meant Christ, n. 54, 5, 6. p. 331, 2, 3. Sunday for our Sabboth is unalte­rable, and an Apostollicall Tradition, n. 57, 8. p. 333, 4. Get Fasts and Abstinence from certain meats for spirituall motives, n. 59. p. 334, 5. Vows not obrogated, n. 60. p. 335, 6. Fasting, Chastity, giving ones Goods for pious uses, and Vlountary poverty, are more pleasing to God than their contraries, n 61. p. 336, 7. Who hath the gift of Continency, may lawflly marry or refrain, n. 62. p. 337, 8. The sin against the Holy Ghost, is onely final im­penitence, n. 63. p 338. One Text of Scripture may have divers under standings, n. 64. p. 339. Ecclesiasti­call persons equal in Order, unequal in Jurisdiction, n. 65. p. 339, 40. The whole truc Church cannot erre, n. 66. p. 340, 1. Scripture without external judgement, cannot end Controversies, n. 67. p. 341, 2. The Church Govern­ment is monarchical, n. 68. p. 342, 3. Children have not vertual Faith, n. 69. p. 343, 4. Sacred Books onely determined by the Churches Tradition, n. 70. p. 344. The Church of Rome is part of the Church of God, n. 71. [Page]p. 344, 5, 6. One Primate over the Church in all Nati­ons, n. 72. p. 346. Unwritten Tradition must be obser­ved, n. 73. p. 146 7, 8. Equivocation, n. 74. p. 348, 9, 50, 1, 2. Use of the sign of the Cross, n. 75. p. 352, 3. Many other added, n. 76. p. 353. Most points in which we disagree from them, held by some or other of their chiefe men, indifferent matters, n. 77. p. 3 [...]3, 4.
  • Protestants to continue a Succession, alledge such as hold a­gainst them n. 78. p. 354. &c. They cannot with conse­quence deny the Roman Church to be infallible, n. 97. p. 376, 7. They judge the Faith of Catholikes saving, c. 5, p. 437. per totam,
  • Protestants clear testimonies, that the Catholike Faith is saving, c. 5. n. 1. Many confessed by them to be true Saints, yet rigid Roman Catholikes, n. 2. t. m. They allow that Infants baptised are saved by the Faith of their Ca­tholike parents, which then must needs be saving in the Parents themselves, n. 3. t. m. That our Church is a true Church, one with theirs, not differing in Fundamentalls, both good and saving, and onely controverted which is the better, n. 4. Divers Protestants, drew from Lu­ther's Life and Doctrine, that Lewdnes was an Evan­gelicall Institution; and serious Christian Discipline, a new Popery, c. 1. n. 1.
  • Pultrot strangely taken, after he had by Beza's counsell and encouragement, murdered the Duke of Guise, n. 49.
R
  • THE Reall Presence in the blessed Sacrament confirmed by Miracle, c. 4. n. 1.
  • Reliques acknowledged by the holy Fathers, c. 2. n. 12. Con­firmed by Miracles, c. 4. n. 2.
  • [Page]Rome acknowledged by Protestants to be the Seat of, and fittest for, the Primate of the Church, c. 2. n. 10. t. m. And the Bishop of it to have exercised what now he doth for the first 500 years, p. 213, 14, &c. And the Church to be uniform and constant in its Doctrine, n. 20. They cannot fancy it to be infallible, c. 3. n. 97, It is evi­dently shewed to be sigularly protected by the Holy Ghost c. 5. p. 450, 1, 2, 3.
S
  • WHat is confessed by Protestants concerning Sacra­ments, vide Protestants, and c. 2. n. 13.
  • Of the sacrifice of the Altar, c. 2. n. 3. t. m. The Antiquity of it, p. 196. t. m. see more n. 17. and c. 3. n. 89. t. m. It is offered for the dead, p. 368, t. m.
  • Prayer to Saints, impugned by the Divell, c. 1. n. 7. Held by the holy Fathers, and they reproached for it by the Pro­testants, c. 2. n. 7.
  • Scriptures manifold and corrupted translations, c. 1. n. 28. to 33. inclusivè, which forced Luther to confesse that the Conncills must be received again, n. 34. The vulgar Translation preferred by Protestants, before all other, n. 34. What Scriptures are Canonicall, must be learnt from the Church, c. 2. n. 12. t. m. Liberty of reading Scriptures confessed by Protestants to be the cause of so many Heresies, c. 1. n. 29.
  • Siricius Pope, was not the first that made the Decrees of Priests Chastity, c. 2. n. 2.
  • Socrates his false relation of Paphnutius, His hereticall writing of the celebration of Easter, and of other things p. 189, 90.
  • Sorrow necessary for remission of sins, c. 3. n. 102.
  • [Page]Mr. Sparkes excuse of Beza's liconciousness refuted, c. 1. n. 48.
  • Sutcliffs impertinent and false interpretation of Luther's Conferrence with the Divell, c. 1. n. 7. He falsly sayd that Innocentius the third, was the first that brought in Transubstantiation, c. 2. n. 16.
T
  • ONes testimonie against himself is most strong, c. 3. n. 106.
  • Tindall, and Teuxbury, Fox's Martyrs, held Good Works hurtfull to salvation. That all Christs works did not deserve Heaven. That God is no more pleased with one work than with another, c. 1. n. 19. t. m.
  • Traditions, c. 2. from n. 12. to 16. inclufivè. whence it is concluded, that those, of which no certain beginning is known, were introduced by the Apostles.
  • Transubstantiation, not first brought in by Innocentius the third n. 16. But held, (as Protestants confesse) by most antient Fathers, n. 2. t. m. The Antiquity of it, n. 16. t. m.
V
  • VOws acknowledged by Protestants, to be held by anti­ent holy Fathers, lawfull and obligatory, c. 2. n. 1. By the first Faith 1 Tim 4. is understood by holy Fathers, the Vow of continency, p. 172, 3.
W
  • WAldo and Waldenses no Protestants. They pretended an Order of begging Friars, but could get no confirma­tion. [Page]Some of their Tenets, c. 3. n. 79.
  • Water to be mingled with Wine in the Consecration of the Eucharist. c. 2. n. 2. t. m.
  • Wicliff no Protestant: his, and his Disciples habit, c. 3. n. 80.
  • Whitaker's impudent justification of Calvin's branding, c. 1. n. 37. His false imputation upon Pope Siricius, c. 1. n. 2. t. m. He condemns the antient Fathers, for holding that Antichrist is one single person, n. 3. t. m. He falsly saies, that Innocencius the third began Transubstantia­tion, n. 16. His impudent provocation to the first 600. years, n. 22.
  • Continent Widdows the Sanctuary of God, n. 1.
  • Mr. Wotton falsifies St. Ignatius, n. 6. m.
X
  • ST. Xaverius his miracles in the Indies, and the incorrup­tion of his body acknowledged by Protestants, c. 4. n. 3. Xenaias the first opposer of Images, c. 2. n. 12. t. m.
Z
  • ZOzomenus followed Socrates in his false report of Paphnutius, and is affirmed by St. Gregory to have lyed much in his Writings, c. 2. n. 2.
  • Of Zuinglius, c. 1. from n. 22. to n. 39. To cloak his ac­knowledged incontinency, he affirms that St. Paul found no other cause of Marriage, but to sattisfie Lust, n. 22. He was taught in a dream, which Hospinian calls a Re­velation, to impugne the Masse, n. 23. t. m. He taxes Lu­ther for contradicting himself, to temporise, n. 24. m. Himself did shamfully the same, but (saies he) Invenite Domino, p. 80, 1. He calls Gods promise of reward [Page]Hyperbolicall, p. 81. Original sinn no sinn, but a Dis­ease, which deserves not Damnation, n. 25. t. m. and is reproved for it by his Brethren, p. 82. t. m. He teacheth that Heathens, never beleiving in Christ, are saved, if they have a pious mind. For this also his Brethren re­prove him, n. 26. t. m. That neither St. Paul, or any of the Apostles thought their own Writings Canonicall, or. could think so, but with extream Arrogancy, n. 27 Wheresoever be finds in Scripture, This is my Body, This is my Blood; for is he puts signifies, for which Schlusselburg reprehends him, p. 84, 5. He saies, that to God, who is bound by no Law, 'tis an honor to move to sinn; but in man, who is bound by Law, it is a sinn, n. 35. That Civill Magistrates, opposing his Doctrine, must be resisted by the Sword, and deposed, n. 36. Armed in this quarrell he was killed: and died, as Protestants af­firm, a Child of Hell. n. 36. t. m.
FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAg. 22. Line 18. in the text, read Charke. p. 25. l. ult. t. r. Charke. p. 30. l. 28. t. r. est. p. 72. l. 26. t. r. lecto. p. 94. l. 18. t. r. Parker. p. 158. l. 31. t. r. gra­ves. p. 159. l. 13. t. r. vocasse. p. 162. l. 9. t. r. mulierem. p. 102. l. 11. t. r. coha­bitante. p. 200. l. 26. t. r. Apostolos. p. 221. l. 31. m. r. Archiepiscope. p. 222. l. 36. m. r. latere. p, 231. l. 2. m. r. Eusebius. p. 257. l. 16. m. r. constat. p. 273. l. 29. t. r. to. p. 276. l. 29. m. r. negare. p. 346. l. 21. t. r. a divers. p. 349. l. 26. t. r. nomine. p. 350. l. 24. t. dele not. p. 352. l. 24. t. r. cubitum. p. 360. l. 6. t. r. no. p. 375. l. 24. t. r. is. p. 367. l. ult. m. r. for. p. 368. l. 35. m. Annuas. p. 389. l. 31. t. adde next to the word error (to free her from actuall sinn, if &c.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.