That a man, who belieueth in the Trinity, the Incar­nation, the Passion &c. and yet beleeueth not all o­ther articles of Christian Faith, cannot be saued. And first of the definition of Heresy and an Heretike. CHAP. I.

BEFORE we come (Good Reader) to dispute particulerly of the subiect of this discourse, I hould it most conueni­ent, in place of a short Prologomenon, or Preface, to prefixe and set downe, the true de­finition of Heresy, or an Heretike; since this me­thod wil giue light to the whole ensuing Treatise, and wil best manifest, what opinions be Heresies, and what men Heretikes; and consequently (see­ing heresy is incompatible with saluation, & can­not [Page 10] stand with the purchase of heauen) will de­monstrate, that not any one Religion professinge the name of Christians, though it maintaineth but one heresy, can iustly promise to it selfe, the hope of saluation or eternall life. Well then He­resy, or Heresis (as we tearme it in latine) is a greek word, signifying as much as Electio, Election or choyce, comming of the greeke Verb aireo, in latin Eligo, to choose or make choice of. So as this word Haeresis, originally and primatiuely, signifyeth ele­ction or choice (as is sayd) in generall; yet becau­se they, who deuide themselues by maintayning false opinions from the Church of Christ, doe make choyce of these their new opinions, and so therby do separate themselues from the Church; therefore this word Haeresis (loosing its former ge­nerall signification) is restrained by the Apostles, and the ancient Fathers, through an Ecclesiasti­call vse and acceptance (which course we finde houlden in diuers other wordes, as the wordes Apostolus, Christus, Baptisma, and many other now taken by the Church in a secondary acceptiō) to signify any false and new opinion, or Religion, of which a man maketh choyce, and pertinaci­ously defendeth it against the Church of God; & the maintainours thereof, are commonly stilled [Page 11] Heretikes. Thus Heresy (in its true and Ecclesi­asticall definition) is any false opinion touchinge fayth and Religion, contumaciously defended a­gainst God, and his Church. This definition (I meane in taking the word Haeresis and Haereticus, in this restrained sense) is warranted by the Apo­stle, by the ancient Fathers. And lastly (to omit the like acknowledgement of the Catholikes) by the learned Protestants. By the Apostle; for thus we find him to say: There must be Heresies among you, that they which are approued among you, may be knowne 1. Cor. 11. As also: A man that is an Hereti­ke, after the first and second admonition, auoide. Tit. 3. And finally: Those which were of the heresy of the Sadduces, laid hands vpon the Apostles. Act. 5.

2. By the ancient Fathers. For S. Hierome in cap. 3. ad Tit. shewing the difference between heresy and schisme, thus defineth heresy: Haeresis est, quae peruersum dogma habet. Heresy is that which containeth a peruerse and froward opinion. And S. Augustine in like manner lib. de fide & simbolo cap. 10. defineth heresy in these wordes: Haeretici sunt, qui de Deo falsa sentiendo fidem violant: Heretikes are those, who do violate their fayth by houlding false o­pinions touching God. By the Protestants: for to name one or two among many, M. Ormerod (a [Page 12] most forward Protestant) thus defineth an Here­tike: He is an Heretike, who so swarueth from the wholesome doctrine, as contemning the iudgment of God and the Church, persisteth in his opinion, Dialog. 2. with whome conspireth D. Couell, saying: Hereti­kes are they, who directly gaine-say some article of our fayth. Exam. p. 199.

3. Now out of this former definition of he­resy, I am to premonish thee good Reader of two points. first, that euery heresy is maintained with obstinacy against the Church of God, and ther­fore the maintainours thereof are sayd by the A­postle, that they went out of vs, 1. Ioan. 2. that is, out of Gods Church; and for the same reason the Apostle pronounceth an Heretike to be condem­ned by his owne iudgment. Tit. 3. because he pre­ferreth his iudgment before the iudgment of the whole Church; from which consideration it fol­loweth, that what man soeuer houldeth any erro­neous opinion touching fayth, and being aduer­tised thereof by Gods Church, and not yealding his iudgment in all humility therto, is thereby become an Heretike. And such is the state of Catholikes and Protestants, since the one doth euer reciprocally charge and condemne the other with false doctrine, & therfore seeing the church [Page 13] of Christ must be with one of them, it followeth, that the other not submitting their iudgments to it, are proclaimed thereby Heretikes. And thus it may sometimes fall out, that the first inuentor of a false opinion may be no Heretike, as maintai­ning it before it be condemned by the church; whereas the Professors of it, after its condemna­tion, are become Heretikes, according to that of Vincentius Lyrinensis, in his worthy booke against the prophane innouation of the heresyes of his tyme. O admirable change of thinges, the authors of one and the same opinion are esteemed Catholikes; and their followers Heretikes! Thus we see that pertina­city of iudgment, doth consumate an Heresie.

4. The second is, that the aforesayd defini­tion of heresy (being the only true definition, and acknowledged for such by all sides) is not restray­ned, eyther in it selfe, or by the meaning of the Apostle (as by his wordes set downe in the next chapter following, may more easily appeare) on­ly to the most principall and (as they are called) fundamentall points of christian fayth, as of the Trinity, the Incarnacion of Christ, his Passion, the Decalogue and the articles of the creed, but it is extended in its owne Nature (considering to Logicke the definition, and the thing defined, [Page 14] ought to be of an equall latitude or lardgnes) to any erroneous opinion whatsoeuer, frowardly de­fended by a man, and gainsayed by the Church of God: So as, it is as perfit an Heresy (and the be­leeuers therof are as true Heretiks) to deny, that there is a Purgatory, or to deny Freewill, Prayer to Saints, the doctrine of Indulgences, the neces­sity of Baptisme, or any other article approued by the Catholike Church (granting the doctrine of the Catholikes in these articles to be true) as to deny the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, his Death or Passion &c. And a man shalbe aswell damned in hell for denying these former, as for these other; though the denyall of these later, do exceed the other in mallice; since the Heresies of them are more wicked & blasphemous. And thus much touching the definition of Heresie, or an Heretike, which being iustly premised, we will now come to the maine controuersie handled in this Treatise.

That euery Christian, though beleeuing in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion &c. cannot be saued in his owne Religion, proued from holy scripture. CHAP. II.

NOw then to begin to fortify & warrant this vndoubted truth, that euery Christian, though beleiuing in the Trinity &c. cannot be sa­ued in his owne Religion, I will drawe my first kinde of proofes, from the sacred wordes of holy scripture. And these testimonies shalbe of three sorts. One concerning Heretikes, which texts are not restrained to any particuler Heresies, but de­liuered of Heresie in generall. The second bran­che of authorityes shall touch Heretikes euen for certaine particuler Heresies, different from deny­ing the Trinity, the Incarnation of our Sauiour, the Passion, and other like principall and funda­mentall points & articles of Christian Religion. The third shall containe the necessity of faith, without any restriction, to the points or articles, which are to be beleiued.

2. And first to begin with the first, we reade theEpist. ad Tit. c. 3. Apostle thus to speake of an Heretik in ge­nerall: A man, that is an Heretike, after the first or [Page 16] second admonition auoyd, knowing that he, that is such, is subuerted, and sinneth, being condemned by his owne iudgment. Where the Apostle commaundeth vs to auoid an Heretik, which he would not haue done, if the sayd Heretike had beene in state of saluati­on: the Apostle further adding this reason, in that (saith he) such a man (as being a pertinatious & willfull Heretike) is condemned by his owne pro­per iudgment: that is, because he aduanceth his owne iudgement, aboue the iudgment of Gods Church, and because he needeth not that publike condemnation of the Church, which vpon other offenders by way of excōmunication is inflicted. The Apostle in 2. Thess. cap. 3. coniureth (as it were) in the name of Christ, that all should auoid all false belieuers, in these words: We denounce vnto you, Brethren, in the name of our Lord Iesus Chirst, that you withdraw your selues from euery Brother walking inordinately, and not according to the tradition, which they haue receaued of vs. This place concerneth faith and doctrine (as the whole chapter sheweth) but if these men here to be eschewed were in state of saluation, they ought not then to be eschewed: Againe this text cannot haue reference to those, who deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Pas­sion, seeing the deniers of these high articles, are [Page 17] not Brethren in Christ; and yet the Apostle sty­leth them Brethren, whome he here reprehen­deth.

3. Againe, the Apostle in another place thus forewarneth: The Epist. ad Gall. cap. 5. workes of the flesh be manifest, which are fornication, vncleanes, impurity or dissen­tions, sects &c. They which doe these things, shall not obtaine the kingdome of God: Where wee see is ex­presse mention made of Sects, and that maintai­nours of any sects in opinion of faith (much more of any Heresie, which is euer auerred with greater contumacy and frowardnes, and with ne­glect of the Churches authority shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen: from which Te­stimonies we may further conclude, that as one only act of fornication, barreth a man from the kingdome of God, so also one Heresie excludeth him from the same.

4. A fourth place is this: I desire Epist. ad Rom. cap. 16. you Brethren to marke them, that make dissentions and scandalls con­trary to the doctrine which you haue learned, and auoid them, for such do not serue Christ our Lord: But if such men be to be auoided, and doe not serue Christ, then no doubt they continuing in that state, can­not be saued. Againe 1. Tim. 1. the Apostle spea­keth of certaine men, and saith of them, that Qui­dam [Page 18] circa 1. Ti­moth. 2. fidem naufragauerunt: Certaine men made shipwracke about the faith. Where the Apostle vseth the metaphor of shipwracke, therby to ex­presse more fully, that Heretikes once falling out of the shippe of Christs churche, are cast into the sea of eternall damnation. To conclude, the E­uangelist Saint Iohn speaketh of all Heretikes in generall, not embracing the doctrine of Christ (within which all secondary questions of christian Religion are contained) in this sort: If any man come 2. Io­an. vnto you, and bring not the doctrine of Christ, receaue him not into your house, nor say, God saue you vnto him. But a man is bound in charity to suf­fer any one, who is in state of saluation, to come into his house, and to salute him, or say: God saue him.

5. Now what can be replyed against these former Texts? It cannot be sayd, that they are meant only of such Heretikes, as deny the myste­ryes of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, his Passion, and such like supreme and cardinall points of Christian Religion: this (I say) cannot be auerred for these reasons following. First, be­cause those, who in the Apostles tymes, denyed these principall points of Christianity, could not be truely tearmed Heretikes (seeing he is truely [Page 19] an Heretike, who was once a member of Christs church by fayth, but after ceaseth to be thereof) no more then all the Iewes or Gentils could not be accounted or styled Heretikes, because they neuer beleeued the foresayd mysteryes of christia­nity. Secondly by reason, that according to the former definition of Heresy or Heretikes aboue set downe, the former Texts haue a necessary re­ference, to all Heresy and heretikes whatsoeuer, whether the subiect of the sayd false opinion be small or great. Thirdly, because that in the for­mer Texts of Scripture, there is no restriction of the word Haereticus or Haeresis, to the chiefe or hi­ghest points of Christian Religion, but it is ex­tended to all kind of Heretikes or Heresies what­soeuer, euen by the Apostle without exception, who (no doubt) if he had vnderstood Heresyes, or Heretiks only in the greatest points (at least in some one Text or other, among so many) would accordingly haue restrayned his wordes, only to those kind of Heretikes; and the rather seeing the denyall of those great points only (not of others) do in our Libertines opinion, make the denyers thereof Heretikes. But not to leaue the least show of refuge or euasion, heerin I will produce some passages of holy Scripture, in which the mainte­nours [Page 20] of particuler errours, euen in lesser points, then the highest articles of Christianity, are cen­sured by Christs Apostles, to be depriued of eter­nall saluation.

6. And first we find S. Paul thus to prophe­sy. In 1 Tim. c. 4. the later times certaine shal depart from the fayth, attending to spirits of errour, and doctrine of Diuells, forbidding to mary, and to abstaine from mea­tes. Heere the Apostle prophesieth (according to the iudgment ofHom. 12. in Ti­mot. Saint Chrysostome,In hunc locū Am­brose,Lib. contra Io­uin. c. 7. Hierome, and S.Her. 25. & 40. Augustine) of the Heretikes, Eucratites, Marcionists, Ebionists, & such like, who denyed Matrimony, as a thing al­together vnlawfull, and prohibited absolutly at al tymes, and the eating of certaine meates, as crea­tures impure: Now these Heretikes belieued in the Trinity, and might in the Incarnation, &c. and yet euen for these two former Heresies tou­ching mariage, and eating of meates, and not for the Trinity, or Incarnation, they are sayd by the Apostle to departe from the fayth of Christ, and to attend to the doctrine of Diuels. But such, as leaue the fayth of Christ, and attend to the do­ctrine of Diuels, are not in state of saluation. In my iudgement this one authority alone is suffici­ent to ouerthrow this phantasy of our Newtra­lists; [Page 21] since the wordes are diuine scripture, the he­resies reprehended no fundamentall points of Re­ligion; but of as little or lesser consequence, then the Controuersies betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants; and yet the maintainers of them are accounted to depart from the faith of Christ, and to attend to the doctrine of Diuels.

7. A second place shalbe that of the former Apostle, who writing of certaine Heretiks erring touching the Resurrectiō of the body, sayth thus: Their 2. Ti­moth. 2. speach spreadeth like a Canker, of whome is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who haue erred from the truth, saying that the Resurrection is already past, and haue subuerted the fayth of some. These men belee­ued all the mysteryes of the Trinity, Incarnation &c. (seeing otherwise the Apostle would haue re­prehended them for want or beliefe therein, as for the article of the Resurrection) yet for erring on­ly touching the resurrection of the body, they are sayd to erre from the truth, to subuert the fayth of some: and that, as a Canker neuer leaueth the body, till by little and little it wasteth it away; so their speaches by degrees, poyson and kill the soules of the hearers. From which it euidently followeth, that these Heretikes continuing and dying in the foresayd heresy, could not be saued; [Page 22] since that fayth, which erreth from the truth, and which subuerteth the true fayth of others, and which in killing and destroying the soule, resem­bleth a Canker, cannot afford saluation to its Professors.

8. Another passage, which heere I will vrge, is that of S. Iohn, who calleth certaine Heretiks, Anti-Christs, saying: Now 1. Ioan. c. 2. there ate become many Anti-Christs, who went out of vs, but were not of vs; for if they had beene of vs, they had remayned with vs. These Heretikes belieued in the Trinity, in the Incarnation of Christ, that he dyed for the saluation of the whole world, only they erred tou­ching the person and natures of Christ, and yet they are figuratiuely styled Anti-Christs, and are sayd to departe out of the church of Christ. But no saluation is reserued for Anti-christs, & such as departe from the Church of God. And thus much out of Gods holy writ expresly touchinge Heretikes in general, and in particuler.

9. To these Texts I will adioyne (though not immediatly and directly ranged vnder the former head) a place in S. Peter in my iudgment most vnanswerable, and by necessary inference e­uicting the point heere vndertaken. The place is those wordes in the 2. epistle. of S. Peter, cap. 3. [Page 23] where he sayth thus: In the Epistles of Paul there are certaine thinges hard to be vnderstood, which the vn­learned and vnstable do peruert vnto their owne de­struction. Now here I thus argue. But these things hard to be vnderstood in S. Pauls epistle, do not concerne the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incar­nation, the Passion &c. and yet the misvnder­standing of them doth cause (as the Text sayth) the destruction, that is, the damnation of these, who misunderstand them; therefore farre lesser points, then the denyall of the Trinity, the In­carnation, the Passion &c. doe iustly threaten to the false belieuers of them, damnation; and con­sequently that a bare beliefe of those supreme points, are not only necessary to saluation.

10. That those difficulties in S. Pauls epist­les, intimated by Sainct Peter, doe not concerne the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion, &c. I proue seuerall wayes: first because S. Peter ma­keth no such mention, which no doubt he would haue done, if the subiect of them had touched on­ly those supreme mysteries, and were not to be ex­tended to other inferiour points.

11. Secondly it is acknowledged by the commentaries and writings of all the fathers (be­sides that the epistles themselues showe no lesse) [Page 24] that Saint Paul is most euident and cleare in all his epistles touching the Trinity, the Incarnatiō, the Passion &c. and therfore there is no reason, why the difficultyes in them should be applied to those articles, muchlesse restrained to them alone.

12. Thirdly, the Fathers do vnderstand those difficultyes in Saint Pauls epistles insinuated by Saint Peter, cheifly touching Iustification; as ap­peareth by the testimony euen of S. Augustine him­selfe in his booke: de fide & operibus lib. 12. who particulerly instanceth in that place 1. Cor. 3. If any man builde vpon this foundation, golde, siluer &c. Which Text treateth of Iustification, and works, and expressely saithLib. de fide & operibus, cap. 15, & 16. that this is one of the dif­ficult passages intended and meant by Saint Pe­ter. With whome Saint Hierome may seeme wel to agree, who in those worden, Epistola ad Roma­nos: Nimijs Epist. ad Algasi­ain quest. 8. & in epist. ad Rom. obscuritatibus inuoluta est. Intimateth no lesse; for it is found, that the epistle to the Ro­mans most intreateth of Iustification and of faith and workes. Fourthly and lastly, the Protestants themselues doe vnderstand the said obscurities of Saint Pauls epistles touching Iustification, as ap­peareth (to omit the testimonies of all others her­in) from the wordes and comment of M. Doctor Fulke against the Rhemists Testament vpon the [Page 25] foresaid place of S. Peter: and thus far of this text; where we find by an ineuitable deduction, that a false faith touching Iustification only cānot stand with saluation.

13. The same is proued from the definition and propriety of faith. In this place we will take into our consideration, the definition of fayth set down by S. Paul; secondly the dignity & worth of faith much celebrated by diuers of the Apostles; third­ly, the inseparable propriety of fayth, which is vnity; for so doth the Scripture delineate and des­cribe fayth: from all which it will ineuitably fol­low, that the fayth, which saueth man, is not to be restrayned only to the Trinity, the Incarnati­on, and other such sublime points of Christian Religion (though in other points it be erroneous) but is extended to all other pointes whatsoeuer, which the Church of God propoundeth to be be­lieued.

14. And to beginne with the definition of fayth giuen by the Apostle, he thē defineth fayth thus: Fayth Heb. cap. 11. is the substance of thinges to be hoped for, the argument of thinges not appearing: The sense whereof is this: first that fayth through an infal­lible certainty causeth those thinges to subsist, and haue a being in the mind of man, which thinges [Page 26] are yet to come, being but hoped and looked for: secondly, that fayth causeth the vnderstanding to giue assent to those points, which it vnderstandeth not, acknowledging them to be more certaine, then any thinges whatsoeuer, according to those wordes of S. Thomas: Multo magis [...] 2. q. 4. a. 8. homo certior est de eo, quod audiuit a Deo, qui falli non potest, quam de eo, quod videt propria ratione, quae falli potest. Now heere (I trust) no man will deny, but the Apostle defineth that fayth of a Christian, which saueth him. This being graunted (for to deny it, were both impious in the denyer, and most iniurious to the Apostle) we are to remember, the nature of euery true definition set downe by the Logitians, to wit (as is aboue mentioned) that the thing de­fined, and the definition, be of one and the same extent and latitude; so as whatsoeuer is compre­hended vnder the definition, the same is also con­tayned vnder the thing defined. This then being presupposed by force of all reason (for Logicke is but an artificiall and seruiceable handmayd vnto reason) we find that this definition of fayth com­priseth in it selfe, not only the doctrine of the In­carnation, the Trinity, and the like, and this not articulately, but only by way of deduction; but also it contayneth al secondary points of Religiō, [Page 27] seeing the former definition doth predicate, or may be sayd, of all the sayd secondary & lesse prin­cipall points of Religion, controuerted betweene Christians at any tyme.

15. Therfore the thing heere defined, which is the sauing fayth of a Christian, is in like sort to extend it selfe to all the sayd secondary pointes of Religion, how indifferent soeuer they seeme in mans iudgment. This inference is so demonstra­tiue (being taken from the former definition of fayth) as that the Apostle himselfe presently after the former wordes, beginning to instance in the seuerall obiects of fayth (among diuers other ex­amples) setteth downe, that to belieue Noas flood or the deluge of the world by water for sinne, is an article of fayth: for thus he sayth: By fayth Noah hauing receaued an answere concerning those thinges, which as yet were not seene, fearing, framed the Arke for the sauing of his house.

16. But to proceed further; if the articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the like, be the on­ly essentiall points of a true Christian fayth, it is more then wounderfull, that the Apostle vnder­taking to set downe the true definition of an auai­leable fayth, and exemplifying it, in seuerall ob­iects, should wholely and silently omit the sayd [Page 28] articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, &c. he in that chapter not expressely speaking one word of them. And thus much touching the defi­nition of fayth giuen by the Apostle: from which definition we conclude, that who seeketh to haue a true fayth necessary to saluation, (besides the mysteryes of the Trinity, the Incarnation &c.) must belieue diuers other dogmaticall articles of Christian Religion. And therefore answearably heerto, we assure our selues, that when our Saui­our sayd: He Marc 16. that beleeueth not, shalbe condemned. He did speak of the belieuing (at least implicitly) of the whole corps of Christian fayth and doctri­ne, and not only of any one part thereof; for so in this latter manner it would be both false & ab­surd. In like sort where our Blessed Sauiour in the same chapter sayth to his Apostles: Preache the Ghospell to all Creatures. He did vnderstand the whole Ghospell; which contayneth many other points besides the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, &c.

17. In this next place we will descend to those passages of holy Scripture, which do much mag­nify the efficacy and vertue of fayth. And accor­dingly hereunto we find it is sayd: He Mare vltimo. that be­leeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued, but he that belee­ueth [Page 29] not shalbe condemned. Againe our Sauiour sayd to the blind men, praying to receaue their sight: According Mat. 9. to your fayth, be it vnto you. And fur­ther: Without Heb. 11. fayth it is impossible to please God. And more: Our fayth is the victory, which ouercō ­meth the world. 1. Ioan. 1.5. Now in these & many other such texts, for breuity omitted, I demaund what fayth is vnderstood or meant? If it be answe­red a true, entyre, and perfect fayth, belieuing al points of Christian Religion proposed by Gods Church, it is true, and that which I seeke heere to proue: if an vnperfect and mungrill fayth, be­leeuing some point of Christian Religion, and re­iecting others; and so an erroneous fayth, being partly false and partly true, I say, it can neuer de­serue these prayses giuen by the Euangelists, and Apostles, neither can it produce such supernatural effects aboue specifyed, no more then darkenes can produce light; since Truth himselfe hath taught vs, that Luc. 6 [...] we cannot gather figges of thornes, nor grapes of bushes.

18. Now in this third place, we will touch that inseparable attribute of true Christian fayth, which is vnity in fayth and doctrine. This marke is so indissolubly annexed to the true fayth of Christ, as that we find his Apostles euer ready [Page 30] most seriously, to inculcate the same to their dis­ciples. Thus accordingly the Apostle exhorteth the Ephesians, saying: Be you Ephe 4. careful to keep the vnity of the spirit, in the bond of peace. And imme­diately againe: There (^z) is one Lord, one fayth, one Baptisme. Where we see that vnity in fayth is ex­pressely set downe. As also in another place: I beseech 1. Cor. [...]. you, that you all speake one thing: bee you knit togeather in one mind, and one iudgment: and as this was the exhortatiō of the Apostle, so we read that the first belieuers followed the same, of whō S. Luke. Acts c. 4. thus sayth: The multitude, that beleued, were of one hart & one soule. And hēce it pro­ceedeth, that the Church of Christ (which com­prehendeth the professours of this vnanimous fayth) is styled by Gods holy writ to be, one Rom. 12. Cant. 6. Ioan. 10. bo­dy, one spouse, and one flocke of sheep, a truth so e­uident, as that (besides the frequent testimonyes ofAtha. orat. 1. con. Aria. Chrys. op. imperf. in Mat. ho. 20. Tert. de praescript. Irenaeus d. 1. c. 5. confirming the same) euen the Protestants do subscribe in iudgment hereunto. For thus Lu­ther himselfe (to omit others) writteth. A Tom. 3. Wittē. in psal. 5. fol. 166. kingdome deuided in it selfe, shall not stand, neyther haue any Heretikes at any tyme beene ouercome by force or subtilty, but by mutuall dissention; neyther doth Christ fight with them otherwayes, then with a spirit of giddi­nes and disagreement.

[Page 31]19. Now then this vnity of fayth is so to be vnderstood, as that it is not repugnant therto, that one and the same point should at one tyme not be houlden, as necessarily to be beleeued, the which, after it hath vndergone a definitiue and sententionall decree of Gods Church, is necessa­rily to be belieued: As for example, it was not necessary in the beginning of Christianity to be­leeue, that the booke of the Machabees, the Epi­stle of S. Iames, S. Iude, the second epistle of S. Peter, the 2. and 3. of S. Iohn, to be Canonicall Scripture, till they were defined so to be by the third Councell of Carthage, Can. 47. at which S. Augustine was present. But after this Councell had by the assistance of the holy Ghost, defined them to be Canonicall, then it was, and is heresy to de­ny them to be Cononical. And the reason of this disparity is, because it is Gods good pleasure and wisedome, not to reueale to his Church al articles of fayth in the beginning and at one tyme, but at seuerall tymes, and vpon seuerall occasions, as to his diuine maiesty best seemeth expedient. Thus the fayth of a Christian is capable of dilatation, and of a more lardge vnfoulding or exposition, but not of any contrariety in beliefe, change, or alteration. And thus (to insist in the former ex­ample) [Page 32] it may well stand with Christian fayth in the beginning, not to accept the former bookes for canonicall, till the authority of the Churche had pronounced them for such; but it standeth not with true fayth, that one man should positi­uely beleeue as an articie of fayth, that the Ma­chabees and the rest of the bookes aboue specify­ed are not canonical Scripture, but the prophane writtinges of man. And another man should at the same tyme beleeue, as an article of fayth, that they are canonicall Scripture; since the one of these contrary beliefes, must be Heretical.

20. This verity then of the vnity of fayth, being warranted by the word, both of God, and man, as is aboue sayd, we will take into our consi­deration, the Catholike, and Protestants Religi­ons, all who ioyntly do professe to beleeue in ge­nerall, in the Trinity, in Christ his Incarnation, his Passion, and the creed of the Apostles; and so we shall discerne, whether the fayth of all these seuerall professors, doth inioy the foresayd marke of vnity in doctrine or no. But seeing this subiect is most ample and lardge, I will therefore sepose this ensuing Chapter, for the more full and exact discouery of the many and great disagreements betweene Catholikes and the Protestants in their [Page 33] fayth and Religion.

The same proued from want of vnity in Fayth between Catholikes and Protestants, touching the Articles of the Creed: and from that, that the Catholike & Protestant do agree in the beliefe of diuers ar­ticles necessarily to be beleeued, and yet not expressed in the Creede. CHAP. IIII.

VNdertaking in this place to set downe, the multiplicity of doctrines betweene Catho­likes and Protestants, though they all ioyntly be­leeue in the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, his Passion, and the like; & consequently to show, that this their generall beliefe, wanteth that true vnity of fayth, which out of the holy Scriptures, Fathers, & the Protestants I haue aboue showed, to be most necessary to saluation. I will first exa­mine, how the Catholikes and the Protestants, do differ touching their beliefe of the creed, made by the Apostles. Next I will demonstrate, that supposing all Professors of both Religions, should agree in the true sence and meaning of the creed; yet there are diuers other dogmaticall points, ne­cessarily to be beleeued, (& are at this instant be­leeued [Page 34] both by Protestants and Catholiks) which are not expressed or mentioned in the Creed at al; or by any immediate inference to be drawne from thence. Lastly I will set downe the great differen­ce betweene Catholikes and Protestants in other points of fayth, of which the Creed maketh no in­timation or mention at all, and yet the beliefe of them is houlden necessary to saluation, both by Catholike and Protestant: from all which it shall appeare, how far distant the Catholike and Prote­stant Religion are from that vnity in doctrine, so necessarily required to that fayth, whereby a Christian is to be saued.

2. I do heere begin with the Apostles creed, first because the articles of the Trinity, the Incar­tion, the Passion &c. are included in the creede; Secondly, by reason there are many Adiaphorists in Religion (as I may tearme them) who seeme to deale more lardgly and liberally heerein, seeinge they are content to extend the necessary obiect of fayth, not only to the articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Passion, but to all pointes set downe in the creed, who assure themselues, that God exacteth not at our hands the beliefe of any other articles, then what are contained in the creed. Now heere aforehand we are to conceaue, [Page 35] that true fayth resteth in that true sense and mea­ning of the wordes of the Creed, which was inten­ded by the Apostles, and not in the wordes them­selues, seeing both in the iudgment of all learned Catholikes and Protestants, to beleeue the words of the creed, in a sense different from the intended sense of the Apostles (and consequently in a false sense) is no better, then not to beleeue at all: And the reason heereof is, because a false construction drawne from the creede (no lesse then from the Scripture) is not the word of God, but the word of man, and consequently the sayd letter of the creed, so interpreted, is subiect to the same censu­re, whereunto the word of man is lyable; from whence it followeth, that whosoeuer belieueth the wordes of the creed in another sense, then was in­tended by the holy Ghost, and the Apostles, doth not beleeue the creed at all, but only beleeueth the worde of man, which euer standeth subiect to errour and mistaking. So as the sentence of Saint Hierome deliuered only of the Scripture, may iustly be applyed of the creed: Scripturae In ep. ad Pauli­num. non in legendo, sed in intelligendo consistunt. The Scripture (or Creed) doth not consist in the letter, but in the sense, and true vnderstanding of the letter.

3. This then being truly presupposed, let [Page 36] vs begin to examine the articles of the creed, and see how we Catholiks and Protestants do differ in the construction and vnderstanding thereof. And first touching the first article of our Beliefe in God, obserue how different it is. The Catholiks do be­leeue, that their God no way cooperateth or wil­leth sinne in man; that he hath but one simple & expressed will touching sinne, & this in detesting and hating of it; that he will not punish vs for not keeping of such precepts, the which is not in our power to keepe; that he imputeth sinnes to euery man, that committeth sinne; briefly that he gi­ueth to all men, ordinary and sufficient grace to saue their soules, and desireth, that all men may be saued; whereas the Protestants beleeue the meere cōtrary to al these points: for they beleeue that their GodBeza in his dis­play of popish pra­ctise pag. 202. saith: God exciteth the wic­ked will of one thiefe to kill ano­ther. See Zuingli­us tom. 2 de proui. c. 6. fol. 365. Caluin instit. l. 2. c. 18. sect. 1. cooperateth, forceth, and wil­leth a man to sinne; that he hath a doubleLuther tom. 2. Wittemburg. de cap. Babil. fol. 74. D. VVhitakerus de Eccles. cont. Bell. controuersia 2. quest. 5. pag. 301. wil, (and therefore a dissembling will) the one expres­sed in Scripture, according to which he forbideth man to sinne; the other concealed to himselfe, by the which he impelleth man to sinne; that he will punishReynolds in his 2. conclusion annexed to his conference. pag. 697. vs transgressing the ten commandmēts, it not being in our power to keepe the sayd com­mandements; [Page 37] that to theLuth. tomo 2. Wittemb de capt. Babyl. fol 74. & Whitak. vt supra. faythfull sinning ne­uer so wickedly no sinne shalbe imputed. Finally, that to certaineCal. instit. l. 3. c. 23. saith, God doth or­daine cō ­silio nutu­que, by his Coun­cell & pleasure, that a­mong mē some be borne to certaine damnatiō from their mothers wombe. See D. Willets synopsi p. 554. af­firming the same. men, he giueth not sufficient meanes of saluation, but purposeth and decreeth from all eternity, that some men (lyuing in the eye of the world, and in their owne conscience neuer so vertuously) shalbe damned and cast into sempiternall perdition. Thus we see how great a difference there is betweene the Catholikes and Protestants, in beleeuing the first article of the creede, and how ineuitably it followeth, that ey­ther the Catholiks or protestants, do stand subiect and obnoxious to that saying of S. Augustine quest. 29. sup. Iosue. who imagineth God such, as God is not, he carryeth euery where another God, to wit a false God in his mind.

4. Touching the 2. article, which is, And in Iesus Christ his only Sonne: weeCon. Trident. Catholikes be­lieue in Christ, who is God of God, and equall with his Father; a Sauiour, who suffred death (quoad sufficentiam) for all mankind, and who ac­complished the functiō of his Sauiourship, only according to his humanity; a Sauiour who dyed only in body, and not in soule; finally a Sauiour, who from his first conception was endued with all knowledge, wisedome, & prouidence, and exempt [Page 38] from all ignorance, passion and perturbation: wheras the Protestants doe belieue in Christ, as their Sauiour, who according to their fayth, is God ofD. Whitak. approueth this opini­on, alleadging Cal­uin in proofe thereof, cont. Cāp p. 121. himselfe andMelā. in loc. com. edit. 1561. p. 41. inferiour to the Father, who dyed only for theD. Willet in his synops printed 1600. p. 780. as also Cal­uin and Beza in whole treatises. elect; who performed his mediation not only according to his humani­ty, but also according to hisMelā. supra & D Fulk. diuinity (though in the iudgment of all learned men, true diuinity is impassible) who in the time of his Passion, be­sides the death of the body (as insufficient for our saluation) suffred in soule theCal. instit. l. 2. c. 16 sect 10. & D. Whi­tak. cont. Duraeum l. 8. p. 556. Beza in respon. ad acta Colloquij Montisb. part. 1. pag. 147. D. Willet in his synopsis p. 599. & 600. D. Sutliffe in his reueu of D. Kellisons suruay printed 1606. p. 55. torments of hel: briefly, who laboured with (ⁿ) ignorance, passion, and euen desperation it selfe.

5. Touching the article of Christs descending into hell, the Catholikes doe belieue hereby, that Christ descended in soule after his passion, into that part of hell, which is called lymbus Patrum, to deliuer from thence the soules of the iust there detayned, till his comming: of which iudgement are also some learnedD. Bilson in his suruay of Christs sufferings and descent to hell p. 650. 651. 652. and the Lutherans are generally of the same opinion. Protestāts; but the greatest part of Protestants doe interpret this article, of Christ descending into hisD. Willet in lymbomastix. D. Fulke so alleadged by VVillet in synopsi pag. 605. 606. graue, soe by the [Page 39] worde hell: vnderstanding the graue: butLib. 2. instit. cap. 16. §. 20. Cal­uin teacheth, that by Christs descending into hell is vnderstoode, that Christ apprehended God to be most angry and offended with him for our sa­kes, and that thervpon Christ suffred great anxie­ty and griefe of soule; and which is more, most blasphemously Caluin teacheth, that Christ vtte­red words of desperation in saying: my God, why hast thou forsakē me? Touching the article of Christs ascending into heauen, we Catholikes and the Cal­uinists doe belieue hereby, that Christ truly in body ascended vp into heauen; wherasLuth: l. de sacr. Coenae Domini tom. 2. f. 112. saying: credimus quod Christus iuxta hu­manitatē est vbi (que) presens. Brentius in Apolog. pro cons. VVittem. Illyricus l. de ascē. Domini. and final­ly by all Lutherās Luthe­rans doe teach, that Christs body is in all places, with the diuinity; and that therefore it did not really after his passion, ascend vp into heauen, it being there both before & after his passion; thus the Lutherans both in ours and the Protestants iudgments doe destroy by this their construction, the whole creede, and particulerly Christs incar­nation, natiuity, passion, death, ascending into heauen, and his comming to iudgment; seeing, supposing Christs body to be in all places, all these articles were but apparantly or phantastical­ly, and not truly or really performed.

6. Touching the article of Christs iudging the quicke and dead: wee Catholikes doe beleeue, that [Page 40] Christ at his comming to iudgment, will so iudge man, as that his good workes, receauing all their force from our Sauiours passion, shalbe rewarded; whereas the Protestants, denying allCal. l. 3. instit; c. 5. §. 2. Bucer. in actis collo quij Ra­tisb. Beza Zuingli. and most other Pro­testants. merit of workes (as iniurious and derogatory to his death and passion) do hould, that Christ shall then re­ward only a bare andCalu. in Antid. Concil. Trident. Kemniti­us in ex­am. Con. Trid. and most o­ther Pro­testants. speciall fayth.

7. Concerning the Article: I belieue in the Holy Ghost. Whereas all Catholikes and many Protestants do beleeue, that the Holy Ghost is the third person in the most Blessed Trinity. Caluin (howsoeuer he was persuaded of the truth or fal­shood therof) much lamenteth notwithstanding, to auoyd the force of arguments drawne from the chiefest places of Scripture, and vsually alleadged by all Antiquity in proofe of the holy Ghost, be­ing the third person in the Trinity. Thus we find thatIust. l. 1. c. 13. §. 15. Caluin will not haue (contrary to all An­tiquity) that passage of Scripture Psalm. 33. By the word of the Lord, the heauens were made, and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth, to be vnder­stood of the diuinity of the holy Ghost. In like sort he reiecteth the argumentSee of this subiect a­gainst the Trinity, Iluumus a Prote­stant in l. Caluin. Iudaizās drawne from that other most remarkable Text, 1. Ioan. 5. There be three, that giue testimony in Heauen, the Father, the VVord, and the holy Ghost, and these three be one. [Page 41] Caluin vpon this place thus saying (therby to take away from thence the proofe of the Holy Ghost) Quod dicit tres esse vnum, ad essentiam non refertur, Luth. in l. contra Iacobum Latomū [...]omo 2. Wittem, [...] di [...] anno 1552. sed ad consensum potius. Finally, Luther was so farre from acknowledging the Holy Ghost, to be the third person in the Trinity, or to acknowledge the Trinity it selfe, that thus he writteth: Anima mea odit hoc verbum, homousion, vel consubstantialis. My very soule doth hate the worde, homousion, or con­substantial.

8. Concerning the article: I beleeue the holy Catholike Church. The Catholikes do beleeue this to be a visible company of mē professing the pre­sent Roman Catholike fayth, of which some are predestinated, others reprobated. The Protestāts do belieue this Church to consist only of the elect andCon­fess. Aug. act. 5. Luther l. de Conci­lijs & ec­cles. Cal. l. 4. inst. c. 1. §. 2. predestinated.

9. Touching the article: The Communion of Saints. The Catholikes do heereby beleeue, such a communion to be betweene the Saints in Hea­uen, the soules in Purgatory, & men vpon earth, that the one part doth helpe the other with their most auaileable prayers, and intercessions. The Protestants deny all such intercourse of benefites betweene these seuerall partes of the Church of Christ, accountingCal­uin l. 3. inst. c. 5. § 6. Con­turiato­re [...] Ce [...]. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col. 460. Brentius in conses. Witten­berg. c. de Purga­torio. the Catholike doctrine [Page 42] heerein superstitious and sacrilegious.

10. Lastly touching the article of, Forgiuenes of sinnes, we Catholikes do beleeue, that this remis­sion of sinnes is performed, when the soule by a true and inherent iustice, and by infused guifts of God, enioyeth a renouation of her selfe, and ther­by becommeth truly iust in the sight of God: the Protestants disallowing all inherent iustice, doe only acknowledge an imputatiueKem­nitius in exam. Concil. trid. Cal­uin l. 3. instit. c. 11. iustice or righteousnes, which consisteth in that the ius­tice of Christ is (as they teach) only imputed vnto sinners; so as wee remaine still sinners, though sinnes be not imputed vnto vs through the iu­stice of Christ: a doctrine most iniurious to the most meritorious passion and death of Christ. Thus haue wee runne ouer the articles of the creede, from whence wee collect, that seeing (as is aboue intimated) he only belieueth auaileably & truly the creede, who belieueth it in that sence, in which the Apostles did wryte it, & seeing there are meere different or rather contrary constructi­ons of each article giuen by the Catholikes and Protestants, so that if that construction of the Ca­tholiks be true, it followeth necessarily that the o­ther of the Protestants befalse, or contrarywise; We may therefore ineuitably conclude, that it is [Page 34] not sufficient to saluation for any one to say, that he belieueth the creede, who belieueth the words of it in generall, without restrayning them to any peculier construction giuen eyther by the Catho­likes or Protestants, except he belieue it in that one particuler sence (and none other) which was intended by the holy Ghost, when it was first fra­med by the Apostles.

11. Now in this next place, we are to demon­strate, that graunting for a tyme, by an Hypotesis or supposall, that a man did beleeue the articles of the creed in their true sense or construction, yet followeth it not, that this beliefe (though it be necessary) were sufficient alone for a man to ob­taine his saluation thereby; and the reason heerof is, because it is most certaine, that there are diuers points of Christian Religion, houlden necessarily to be beleeued in the iudgment both of Catholi­kes and Protestants (& accordingly are beleeued ioyntly both by Catholikes and Protestants) and yet the sayd points are not contayned or expressed in the Creed. Among others, I will insist in these following.

12. First, That there are certaine diuine wry­tinges of infallible authority, penned by the holy Ghost, which we commonly call, the Scriptures of the oulde & [Page 44] new Testament, of which Testament we find no mentiō in the Creed, and yet all men are bound vnder payne of damnation to beleeue, that such wrytinges there are: since otherwayes (abstracting from the authority of the Church) there were not sufficient meanes left to beleeue, that it were a sinne to breake any of the ten Commande­ments, or (which is more) that Christ Iesus was the true Sauiour of the world.

13. Secondly, That there are spirituall substan­ces, which we call, Angels, which now enioy the most happy sight of God, and that many thousands of them, did fall presently after their creation, and are become those malignant spirits, which vsually are tearmed Di­uells.

14. Thirdly, That there is any materiall place of Hell, where the wicked are tormented, of which wee find nothing in the Creed in the iudgment of Protestants; for although the word, Hell, be mentioned in that ar­ticle: He descended into Hell: yet by the worde Hell, the Graue is vnderstood by most of the Prote­stants.

15. Fourthly, That the paines of the damned, shalbe for all eternity, and not for a certaine tyme only.

16. Fifthly, That Adam did presently vpon his creation fall from the grace of God, and thereby trans­ferred Originall sinne vpon all mankind: So as by [Page 45] reason of his fall, all men are borne in Originall sinne.

17. Sixthly, That the world was once drowned for sinne, which innundation is commonly called, Noës floode.

18. Seueanthly, That our Sauiour whilest he conuersed heere vpon earth, did many miracles.

19. Eightly, That S. Iohn Baptist was our Sa­uiours Precursor or forerunner, and that our Sauiour did chose to him certaine men for his Apostles, which did first preach and plante the Christian fayth, through out the whole world.

20. Ninthly, That Circomcision is now forbid­den, as a thing most vnlawfull and vngodly.

21. Tenthly, That there are any sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ, for the spiritu­all good of mans soule.

22. Eleuenthly, That before the ending of the world, Antichrist shall come, who shallbe a designed en­nemy of Christ, so as he shall labour to subuert, and o­uerthrow all Christian Religion.

23. These points (besides some others) all Christians (aswell Protestants as Catholikes) do beleeue, and doe hould that the beliefe of these points is necessary to saluation, and yet not any one of all these articles, is expressed or set downe in the Apostles Creed; whence I conclude, that [Page 46] the Apostles Creed, cannot be a sufficient boun­dary to containe and limit an auaileable fayth. For what hope can that man haue of his saluatiō, who beleeueth, that there are neither any diuine Scripture, nor any Decalogue commonly called the ten Commandements, nor that Christ did worke any miracles, nor that he instituted any Sa­craments, nor that there is any place of hell for the damned, nor finally (to omit the rest) that there is any eternity of punishment?

24. And heere I am to premonish the Rea­der, that it is no sufficient answere to reply, that most of al the foresayd points are expressed in the Scripture, and therefore are to be beleeued; this I say, auaileth not, seeing heere I dispute against those, who maintaine with wounderfull pertina­city of iudgment, that it is sufficient to saluation, to beleeue only the articles (& nothing els) which are contayned in the Creed; but not any of the former articles are contayned therein. Againe, seeing to beleeue, that there are any diuine Scrip­tures, is not expressed in the Creed, it conduceth nothing to the answering of this our argument, to say that the forementioned articles are proued out of Scripture, and therfore are to be beleeued.

25. Neither secondly, can the force of our [Page 47] sayd argument be auoyded, in replying that al the former articles are implicitly comprehended in that article: I beleeue the holy Church: because the Church teacheth, that all these articles are to be beleeued: this is no warrantable answere, by rea­son, that as these may be reduced to this article of the Creed, so also may al other points controuer­ted betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants, be in like manner reduced to the sayd article, see­ing the Church of God setteth downe, what is the truth, & what is to be beleeued in the sayd Con­trouersyes, binding her children vnder payne of damnation, aswell to beleeue the truth in the Cō ­trouersyes of our dayes, as to beleeue the former articles mentioned, which are not expressed in the Creed. And yet these our Newtralists in Religiō, who make the creed, the sole square of their faith, do not thinke, that those questions of Religion insisted vpon betweene Catholikes and the Prote­stants, are in beleeuing or not beleeuing of them, any way hurtefull to their saluation.

CHAP. V. The same proued from the want of vnity in fayth be­tweene Catholikes and Protestants, in articles neces­sary to be beleeued, and yet not expressed in the Creede.

IN this third and last place we will insist in cer­taine controuersyes of Religion, so differently maintayned by Catholikes and Protestants, as that graunting the maintaynours of the one side, to hould the truth, it followeth, that the other party vphouldeth falsehood and heresy. Now for the more dangerous wounding of our Newtrali­zing Protestants heerein, I will omit here to speak of the Controuersies, touching Purgatory, Pray­ing to Saints, Free-will, Monachisme, and diuers others such like; and will restraine my selfe, only to these Controuersies, the subiect of which Cō ­trouersyes, are taught by the one side, to be (vn­der Christ) the immediate meanes, of our grace & saluation; and denyed by the other party, to be of any such force and efficacy, for the soules euerla­sting good: and consequently in regard of their subiect, are one way necessarily to be beleeued. So as if it be showed, that the Protestants and the [Page 49] Catholiks do mainly dissent in the meanes of ob­tayning grace, & purchasing of saluation; it must of necessity be inferred, that both the Protestants and the Catholikes continuing in such their state, cannot obtaine grace and saluation: since not on­ly Philosophy, but euen naturall reason teacheth vs, that he neuer shall attaine the end, who vseth eyther not the same meanes, which are only and necessarily instituted to the gayning of the sayd end.

1. But to procced to these points First, Con­cerning the sacraments in generall; the Catholikes doe beleeue, that all of them (where no iust impediment is) do conferre grace into the soule of man, by the helpe and continuance of which grace, the soule in the end, obtay­neth its saluation. The Protestants do not ascribe a­ny such supernaturall effect or operation of grace to them.

2. And to come more particulerly to the Sa­craments. Touching Baptisme: the Catholikes beleeue, That children being borne in Originall sinne, cannot be saued, except they be baptized with water, according to those wordes of S. Iohn. 3. Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water, and the spirit, he cannot en­ter into the kingdome of God. The ProtestantsWil­let in his meditat, in Psal. 122. & Calu. & Beza fre­quently. be­leeue, that infāts dying vnbaptised, may be saued.

[Page 50]3. Touching the Sacrament of Pennance or Confession, the Catholikes beleeue, That after a Christian hath committed any one mortall sinne, that sinne cannot be forgiuen him, but (at least in voto) by meanes of confessing the sayd sinne to a Priest, of the new Testament, and receauing absolution thereof from him: answerably to that of S. Iohn. 20. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them: and whose sinnes you shall retayne, they are retayned. The Protestants beleeue, that neyther the confession of sinnes to man, nor the absolution of man, is necessary for the remitting of them; but that it is sufficient to confesse them only to God. And thus according to the diuersity of doctrine, either the Protestant for want of this sacrament (after he hath mortally sinned) cannot be saued, or Catholiks for wrong­fully imposing this yoak vpon Christiās, do loose their saluation.

4. Touching the most Blessed Eucharist, the Catholikes beleeue, That the very body and bloode doth lye ineffably and latently, vnder the formes of bread and wine, according to that: This is my body, This is my blood. Math. 26. That vnlesse we eate his body, and drinke his blood, we shall not haue life euer­lasting. Iohn. 6. Lastly, That we are to adore Christ his body, being accompanyed with his diuinity in the [Page 51] sayd Sacraments. The Protestants do beleeue, that Christs true body, as neuer leauing heauen, can­not possibly be truly and really vnder the forme of Bread and Wine; and consequently they be­leeue, that the eating of his body, and drinkinge of his blood, is not necessary to saluation. Finally they hould our adoration of the Sacrament to be open Idolatry; and tearme Catholikes Idolaters, for adoring of it. And thus eyther the Protestāts, as not feeding vpon this celestiall food, shall not haue life euerlasting, if the Catholikes doctrine heerein be true; or els Catholikes (suppose (which God forbid) they should erre) for teaching and practising idolatry heerein, should incurre dam­nation.

5. Touching the meanes of our Iustificati­on. The Catholikes beleeue, That not only fayth, but workes also do iustify. The Protestants reiect al workes from Iustification; teachinge that only fayth doth iustify man: yea they further proceed, affirming that who once hath true fayth, is most assured and certaineCalu. in instit. passim. Kemnit. in exam: Conc. Tri of his saluation, whereas the Catholikes reputing this as a meere presump­tion, are willing according to the Apostle, Phil. 2. To worke their saluation with feare and tremblinge. To be short the Protestants do teach, that a man [Page 52] by thinking himselfe to be iust, is by this meanes become iust; whereas the Catholikes do hould this doctrine not only to be phantasticall, but also Bella. l. 3. de Iustifica­tione. in rea­son most absurd.

6. Touching Grace, without which a man cannot be saued, the catholiks beleeue, That God out of the Abysse and deapth of his infinite mercy, offe­reth to euery Christian sufficient grace, whereby he may be saued, and therefore they do encourage euery one to endeauour to seeke their saluation. TheCalu. & Beza in whole treatises. D. Willet sinopsi 1600. p. 789. Protestāts teach, that God giueth not this sufficiency of gra­ce, to euery one, but to certaine men only; & that diuers there are, who notwithstanding al their en­deauour to beleeue truly, and liue vertuously, yet they cannot, nor shall not be saued.

7. Touching the Decalogue, or ten Comman­dements, the Catholiks beleeue, That except a Chri­stian do keepe them, he cannot be saued, according to our Sauiour: If thou wilt enter into lyfe, keepe the Commandements. Math. 19. TheThe impossibi­lity of the comman­dements is taught by D. Rey­nolds 2. conclus. annexed to his con­ference p. 697. D. Willet in synopsi p. 564. Protestants do absolutly teach an impossibility of keeping them. And thereupon Luther thus affirmeth: The ten Commandements Ser. de Moyse. appertaine not vnto vs.

8. Lastly, touching the Pope or Bishop of Rome, the Catholikes do beleeue, That he is vnder Christ, the supreme Pastour vpon earth; that who doth not [Page 53] communicate with him, in sacraments and doctrine, not yeelding him all true obedience, in subiecting their iudg­ments in matters of fayth to his iudgment and sentential definitions, cannot be saued. The Protestants doe teach, that the Bishop of Rome is that Antichrist which is deciphred by the2 Thess. 2. Apoc. 13 & 17. Apostle, and which is the designed ennemy of Christ, and that who­soeuer embraceth his doctrine, or enthralleth (as they write) their assents to his cathedrall decrees, in points of Religion, cannot obtayne saluation.

9. Thus farre of these pointes, of which I haue made particuler choise to insist vpon (omit­ting some others of like nature) because wee see, that most or all of them, do immediatly and prin­cipally (as is aboue sayd) touch the meanes of pur­chasing of grace, of remission of our sinnes, and obtayning of saluatiō, being maintayned for such by the Catholikes, but vtterly denyed & reiected by Protestants. And here I now vrge two things. First, if these former doctrines, as they are belee­ued by the Catholikes, do immediatly concerne saluation, and become necessary meanes thereof, then cannot the Protestants (as reiecting all such doctrines, and such meanes both in beliefe & pra­ctise) be saued. But if (by a supposall) they be not of that nature, but false in themselues, and the [Page 54] contrary doctrines true, then cannot the Catho­likes (as beleeuing false doctrines immediatly tou­ching mans saluation, and accordingly practising them) be saued. From which forked argument, it may most demonstratiuely be inferred, that it is impossible, that both the Catholiks and the Pro­testants (the one part beleeuing, the other part not beleeuing the foresayd doctrines) should both be saued; for who neglecteth necessary meanes, shall neuer attayne to the designed end of the sayd meanes. Secondly, I vrge, that a false beliefe, not only in these articles, but also in any other Controuersyes, betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants, is plaine Heresy. And this, because euery false beliefe, is comprehended within the definition of heresy, as being in it selfe an electiō & choise of a new or false doctrine, wilfully main­tayned against the Church of God; and therefore it followeth, that eyther the Catholikes or Prote­stants for their persisting in this false beliefe, or heresy, shalbe damned.

10. But heere I will stay my selfe; wading no further in the disquisition and search of the great dissentions betweene Catholikes and Prote­stants, touching Fayth and beliefe; only I will reflect a little vpon the premises of the two last [Page 55] Chapters. And heere, since it is made most eui­dent, first, that the Protestants and Catholikes, do mainly differ in the sense and construction of the articles of the Creed, and consequently (see­ing the sense and not the wordes make the creed) that they both do not beleeue one and the same Creed, but haue to themselues seuerall Creedes. From whence sufficiently is discouered, that want of vnity in fayth, among them both; which vnity is so necessarily required to mans saluation, as in the precedent Chapter is demonstrated. Second­ly, that though by supposition, they did beleeue the Creed, & the sense therof with an vnanimous consent, yet it is proued, that there are diuers o­ther articles not contayned in the Creed, which are indifferently beleeued (as necessary to saluati­on) both by Catholike and Protestant. Thirdly, seeing also there are sundry Controuersies in Re­ligion (as is aboue exemplifyed) which immedi­atly concerne saluation, being houlden as neces­sary meanes thereof, by the catholikes, but dis­claymed from and abandoned by Protestants, as mayne errours and false doctrines, that therefore it is a manifest errour to make the Creed, the sole rule of fayth.

11. Therefore from all the former premises, [Page 56] I do auerre, that he, who maintayneth, that both Catholikes & Protestants, and consequently men of any Religion (notwithstāding that the one side doth necessarily beleeue and maintaine Heresy, can be saued, or that euery Christian can obtaine heauen, is wholy depriued of all true iudgement, reason and discourse, and for want thereof, may deseruedly be ranged among them, of whome the Psalmist speaketh: Nolite fieri sicut equus & mulus, quibus non est intellectus. Do not become as Horse and Mule, which haue no vnderstanding.

CHAP. VI. The same proued from the authority and priuiledges of the Church, in not erring in her definitions, and con­demnation of Heresies; and first by Councells.

FROM the inuiolable vnity of Fayth, we wil next descend to the priuiledges of Gods true church, of which priuiledges, I will at this tyme take only one into my consideration; which, is that the church of God is indued with a supreme prerogatiue, in not erring in her definitiō of faith or condemnation of heresy. This point is war­ranted by innumerable texts of holy Scripture, as where it is sayd: Vpon thy wales, O Hierusalem, I [Page 57] haue set watchmen, all the day, and all the night they shal not be silēt. Isai. 72. But God did not set watch­men ouer his Church to teach errours. And a­gaine, the1. Tim. 3. Church of God, is the pillar and foū ­dation of truth; what more perspicuous? And fur­ther, whereas each man is commaunded to re­paire in difficulties, euen of lesser consequences, to the Church, it is threatned by Christ himselfe, that who will not heare the Church, shalbe ac­counted, as an heathen or publican, according to that his condemnation: Si Ecclesiam non audie­rit, Matt. 18. sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus: where we find no restriction, but that in all things wee are to heare the Church. Againe Christ himselfe spea­keth to his Apostles, and in them to the whole Church:Luc. 10. He that heareth you, heareth me. But if the Church, could erre, neyther would Christ referre vs to the Church (especially vnder so great a penalty) neyther by hearing the Church, could we be iustly sayd to heare Christ. Finally, the Church is so gouerned by Christ, as its head, or spouse, and by the holy Ghost as its soule, as ther­fore we find the Apostle thus to writeEphes. [...]. therof. God hath made him head. (speaking of Christ) ouer all the Church, which is his body: And againe one Ephes. 4. body, and one spirit, and yet more: The Ephes. 5. man is the [Page 58] head of the Church. From which Texts it followeth, that if the Church should erre in its definition, or resolution of Fayth, and condemnation of He­resy, this erring must iustly be ascribed to Christ and to the holy Ghost: and consequently it fol­loweth, that the Apostles in making the Creede, would haue omitted that Article. I belieue the holy Catholike Church. For why should we be bound to belieue the Church, if the Church could erre?

2. This truth, (I meane that the Church of Christ cannot erre in her sententionall decrees) is so illustrious and euident, that Tertullian spea­king of certaine Heretikes of his time, obiecting the erring of the whole church, thus figuratiuely or Ironically writeth: Age Lib. de preser. omnes errauerunt, nul­lam respexit Spiritus sanctus: that is, goe to, belike, all the Churches haue erred; & the holy Ghost hath res­pected or looked vpon no one Church. And S. Augu­stine. Disputare Epist. 118. contra id quod Ecclesia vniuersa sentit, insolentissimae insaniae est: To dispute against a­ny point, maintained by the whole Church, is extreme madnes. To whose iudgement herein most of the more sober and learned Protestants doe indispu­tably subscribe; since diuers ofD. Bā ­croft in ser. 1588 Fox. act. Mon. 464 h. art. 4. the deui­nes of Ge­neua in their pro­positions and prin­ciples, dis­puted pag. 141. & diuers others. them doe with all seruour and earnestnes maintaine, that the church of Christ cannot erre, and that, what [Page 59] she defineth, for truth, is most true, or what for Heresy or falsehood, is hereticall, and to be con­demned.

3. This basis or foundation of the Churches not erring, being thus firmely layd, we are here­vpon to conclude, that what points of Religion, the Catholike Church of Christ hath condemned for heresies, the same are by vs to be reputed for heresies (since the Churches cōdemnation or ap­probation is most infallible) & the maintainours of the sayd heresies, for heretikes; and consequēt­ly that such heretikes, as departing out of the Church of God, by their houlding of the sayd he­reticall opinions, cannot be saued. Now because the iudgmēt of the Church in matters of fayth is (by the aknowledgment of all sides) discouered two wayes; first by the sentence of generall Coun­cells; secondly by the frequent attestations of the chiefe doctors of the Church in euery age, in their particuler writings, they not being contradicted therein, by any other orthodoxall Fathers, or doctors of the same age; I will therefore distribu­tiuely handle both these wayes, shewing that both by generall Councels, and also by the particuler iudgment of the learned Fathers, many opinions, though not touching the Trinity, the Incarnatiō, [Page 60] the Passion, or the expresse articles of the Apost­les Creed, haue bine condemned for plaine here­sies, and the belieuers of them anathematized for Heretikes.

4. And first, to begin with Councells, the infallible authority of which, euen Christ himself, hath by his own words often ratifyed: as where he sayth: VVhere Math. 18. two or three (much more when many hūdred venerable Bishops) are gathered toge­ther in my name, I am in the midst of thē. And againe, speaking to his Church, and in it to the assembled Doctours and Pastours thereof: I am Math. 28. with you all dayes, euen to the consumation of the world. Which councels are euer directed, and gouerned by the holy Ghost: according to those wordes in the Acts: Visum est c. 15 Spiritui sancto & nobis. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. And therefore are worthily receaued & admitted, for the supre­mest sentence of Gods Church, not only by the ancientAtha. epist ad Epictetū. Aug. epi. 162. Na­zianz oratione in Atha­nasium. Cyrill l. de Trini­tate &c. Fathers, but euen by the more learned Protestants; since to omit others, one of the most remarkable of them thus writeth: Synods D. Bil­son in his perpetual gouermēt pag. 370. are an externall iudiciall meanes to discerne errour; & the supremest meanes to decyde doubts. But to proceede. The Councell of Nice was celebrated (though principally for the repressing of the heresy of Ar­rius, [Page 61] denying the diuinity of Christ) yet withall touching the Controuersy of keeping the feast of Easter, as is apparent out ofD. Bil­son supra pag. 374. Eusebius, Lib. 3. de vita Constan­tini. Atha­nasius, andDe sy­nodis Ari­minis & Seleuciae. Epiphanius. Now this Councel pro­nounceth Anathema, to al those, who (besides their denying of the diuinity of Christ) shall deny that the feast of Easter, was not to be kept according to the custome of the church, but according to the custome of the Iewes. And these heretikes were called Quartodecimani, Heres. 70. An­dianorū. of whom see Tertul. l. de prescrip. Augustine heresis 29. And here we are to vnderstand, that the worde: Anathema, vsed and pronounced by this Councell (which word is also almost euery where vsed in all their general Coū ­cells) signifyeth asmuch, as accursed, and in this sense we find this word, Anathema, to be vsed by the Apostle, in seueralEpist. ad Rom. 9.1. Cor. 12. &c. places, so as when a Councel pronounceth Anathema, to any for belieuing such and such heresies, or not belieuing such and such true doctrines, it intendeth to say, that those men so doing, are to be accursed and abandoned from God, But no man is to be accursed or abandoned from God, for belieuing, or not belieuing points of indifferency, but for belieuing of such errours, as cannot stand with his soules saluation.

5. Also you shall reade Act. 15. of the Coun­cell [Page 62] assembled in the Apostles time, the occa­sion and reason thereof was, for that certaine contentious men, maintaining that the Gentiles, cōuerted to the Christian fayth, might eate meats offered vp to Idols, & blood and strangled beasts, contrary to the custome of the Iewes; the Apost­les being assembled, & bearing with the weaknes of the Iewes, in the infancy of the Church, de­creed the prohibition of eating blood and stran­gled meates. After, which decree once established, it is certaine, that it had bine a mortall sinne im­mediatly to haue eaten of blood, and strangled meates; so as before it being a point of indifferen­cy, is now made necessary. This appeareth from the text: first from those wordes; Certaine going forth from vs, haue troubled you with wordes, subuer­ting your soules. But men do neyther depart out of the Church, by maintaintng certaine opinions, nor by their example therein can they subuert o­ther mens soules, if their doctrine and practise thereof, do stil remaine, about things indifferent; Secondly from that other passage. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs, to lay, no further bur­then vpon you, then these necessary thinges: where we find, that the prohibition of such meates, is ran­ged by the Apostles, in regard of those tymes, a­moung [Page 63] those things, which are necessary; Againe neyther would the Apostles haue gathered them­selues so solemly, neither would they haue ascri­bed, the decreeing of it to the worke of the holy Ghost, if the subiect of the question, and diffi­culty then discussed of by them, had concerned matters only of indifferency.

6. Now from the example of this Councell, I do gather, that if a Councell by its owne autho­rity may decree, that the eating of certaine meates (being otherwayes of their owne nature indiffe­rently to be eaten without sinne) shalbe vnlawful, and shall repute and hould the impugners there­of for men departed from out of the Church of Christ; then a fortiori, what doctrine soeuer a Councell shall condemne of its owne nature for heresy, the same is to be reputed, by all good Christians for heresy, and the defendours thereof for Heretikes.

7. The third Councell ofCau. 47. Carthage (wherat S. Augustine was present) decreed, that the booke of the Maccabees with some other bookes, should be acknowledged as canonicall; and pronounceth an Anathema, and condemnation to all those, who should not belieue them, as canonicall scripture: from whence it may be concluded, that seeing the [Page 64] booke of the Machabees, teacheth prayer for the dead, that therefore this Councell alloweth this doctrine, and condemneth the contrary do­ctrine for heresy.

8. The doctrine of the Nouatians (who taught, that there was not power in the Church, to reconcile men to God, but only by Baptisme; excluding and denying thereby the sacrament of Pennance) was condemned with the thunderbolt of Anathema. In the Councell of Rome houlden vnder Pope Cornelius, aslib. 6. hist. c. 33. Eusebius reporteth, was condemned for heresy, the errour of Anabap­tisme, as the samel. 7. hist. c. 2. 1. Eusebius relateth.

9. The Councell of Chalcedon condemned the heresy of Eutiches, who taught, that there was but onevt patet in act. 1. Conc. Nature in Christ, after the Incarnati­on. In like sort the first Councell of Ephesus, con­demned the heresy of Nestorius, teaching two per­sons to be in Christ, as appeareth out ofIn Chronico. Pros­per, andLib. 7. c. 3 [...]. Socrates. Now touching both these last heresyes, we are to vnderstand, that both Nesto­rius, and Eutiches, did beleeue in Christ Iesus our Sauiour, as the Redeemer of the world, yet they were registred & brāded for heretiks only for their pertinacious erring, touching the Person & Na­tures of Christ; as now the Protestants may be [Page 65] reputed Heretikes, for their ascribing of igno­rance, Passion, and desperation to Christ.

10. The Councel of Chalcedon also decreed, that vowed virgins and monks could not marry, condemning those with an Anathema, & for here­tiks, that should hould & maintaine the contra­ry, as is to be seene out of the Councell it selfe. The fourth Councell of Carthage (whereat S. Augustine was present) pronounced, that theCan. 79. doctrine of prayer and Sacrifice for the dead, was according to the true fayth of Christs Church; and condemned the contrary opinion for heresy and the maintainers of them for Heretikes. The Councell of Constantinople, vnder Pope Vigi­lius, condemned Origen for his heresy, in which he taught that the deuils should in the ende be sa­ued; asIn ri­ta Iusti­niani. Zonaras andLib. 17. c. 27. Nichephorus relate. Finally the seuenth synod or 2. councell of Nice, condemned all them for Heretikes, who taught, that the Images of Christ, & of his Saints, were to be depriued of all due respect and reuerence, and to be condemned and broaken: of this point, see PaulusLib. 23. reri [...] Roman. Diaconus andIn compēdiu historius. Cedrenus.

11. Thus farre concerning Councells, con­demning for heresy false opinions touching fayth and Religion, where I haue restrayned my selfe, [Page 66] only to those Councels (this last only excepted) which were within the first fiue hundred yeares, or little more, because those tymes are more prized, & esteemed, then the now later tymes. The like course was continued by Councells, for condem­ning and resisting of Innouations, and false do­ctrines (though not concerning the Trinity, the Incarnatiō, or the Apostles Creed) in the succee­ding Ages; which I purposely omit.

12. But now I heere demand, first how can it stand with the infallible authority of Gods Churche, in not erring in matters of fayth (of which priuiledge I haue intreated in the begin­ning of this Chapter) if so she shall define the former errours, for condemned heresyes, and A­nathematize, and curse the maintaynors of them, for branded Heretikes, if the doctrines are but ō ­ly, matters of indifferency; & such as may stand with saluation? Secondly, I aske, how both the deffendours & impugners of the sayd doctrines, can be freed from the brand of Heresy? Seeinge the true definition of Heresy, necessarily agreeth to the doctrines, maintayned by the one side; for it is certaine, that eyther the Catholikes, or the Protestants, do make choise of new opinions her­in, & do stubbornely maintayne these their Inno­uations [Page 67] against the Church of God.

The same proued from the authority of the Church, condemning heresies, manifested by the writinges of particuler Fathers. CHAP. VII.

NOW to come to the second way, of disco­uering the Churches sentence, in the fore­sayd point, which is by the particuler iudgment, of the ancient learned Fathers, which were in their seueral ages, the shyning lamps of Gods Church, whose authorityes that all succeeding ages, are to reuerence, is easily euicted from Gods holy writ; for answearably heerto we read in Deutronom. 32. Remember the ould dayes, thinke vpon euery generati­on, aske thy father, and he will declare vnto thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee. And the Protestant confession of Bohemia conspireth therunto, saying: The Har­monia confess. p. 400. ancient Church, is the true and best mistresse of posterity, and going before leadeth vs the way. Com­ming then to the Fathers, I will first insist in the particuler errours (not touching eyther the Tri­nity, the Incarnation, & Passion of our Sauiour, or the articles of the Creed, but points seeming of more indifferency) condemned by them, for open [Page 68] and damnable heresyes. And heere I haue purpo­sely made particuler choice of diuers Controuer­sies of this tyme, handled betweene the Catholi­kes & the Protestants, to the end that our Adia­phorists (who maintayne, that both Protestants & Catholikes may be saued) may see, that the deny­all of those very articles of fayth, were reputed by the Fathers of the primitiue Church, for heresies, & the denyers of them for Heretikes, and conse­quently in the Fathers iudgment, not capable of saluation. Next I will set downe, diuers of the Fa­thers sayinges, & sentences, pronounced of here­sy, and Heretikes in generall.

2. But before we come to the condemnatiō of particuler heresyes, we must conceaue, that rea­son it selfe, & reuerence due to the chiefe Doctors & Fathers of the primatiue Church, must presup­pose, that in those tymes, all those opinions, were generally acknowledged for damnable heresyes, which are placed in the Catalogue of heresyes, by Irenaeus, Hierome, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, Theodoret, and other approued Authors, of those dayes. This by drift of reason is to be acknow­ledged, for two respects: First, because we cannot find any Doctor, or Writer of the same ages, who contradicted the foresayd Fathers, for planting in [Page 69] their Catalogues, any opinion as heresy, which was not heresy. Secondly, in that the forenamed Fathers, and Authours of the Catalogues of here­sies, were godly and learned men, and therefore neyther would, nor durst, brand any opinion with the note and marke of heresy, which the whole Church of God did not then take as heresy. All this then iustly & truely presupposed; let vs pro­ceed to the particuler heresyes, so registred for such, by some of the foresayd Fathers, where (for the fuller conuincing of our Newtralists in Reli­gion) my greatest choise (some few only excep­ted) shalbe of the Controuersies, remayning still at this day, betweene the Catholikes and Prote­stants.

3. First then, That God was the author of sinne, was maintayned by Florinus, and condem­ned for heresy, or rather blasphemy byEuseb l. 5. hist. cap. 20. Irenieus, andIn cō ­monitorio Vincentius Lyrinensis.

4. The opinion touching the impossibility of the Commandments, was maintayned by cer­taine Nouelists of those tymes, & condemned for heresy byIn ex­plan. sim­bol. ad Damas. S. Hierome in these words: Execramus &c. VVe doe execrate, and abhorre the blasphemy of those, who say that any impossible thing is commanded by God, to be kept and obserued by man. See also the [Page 70] like condemnation heereof giuen bySerm. de temp. cap. 101 S. Augu­stine.

5. That man had not Free-will, is auerred by the Manichees, and condemned for a manifest heresy byIn praesat. dial. cont. Pelagia. Hierome in these wordes: Manichaeorū est hominis damnare Naturam, & liberum auferre ar­bitrium. The Manichees do condemne mans nature, & do take away Free-will. As also by S. Augustine Lib. de haeres. c. 46. saying: Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. The Manichees doth not ascribe the beginning of sinne to Freewill.

6. That fayth doth only iustify, was con­demned for an heresy in the Eunomians byLib. de haeres. c. 54. S. Augustine, who furtherLib. de fide & operib. c. 14. sayth, that it first pro­ceeded from the false vnderstanding of S. Paul in his epistles.

7. That prayer or sacrifice, could not be of­fered vp for the dead, is maintained by Aerius, & his followers, who also taught, that set fasting-dayes are not to be appointed by the Church: yet were these two opinions condemned for heresyes byHa­res. 75. Epiphanius, andLib. de heres. cap 33. S. Austine, who thus writ­teth: Aeriani haeretici docent, non oportere orare, aut offerre sacrificium pro mortuis, nec statuta solemniter celebranda esse ieiunia, sed cum quisque voluerit ieiunā ­dum, ne videatis esse sub lege. The Heretike Aerians [Page 71] do teach, that we ought not to pray or offer sacrifice for the dead: that solemne fasting dayes are not to be cele­brated, but that every one is to fast, when it pleaseth himselfe, least otherwise he might seeme to liue vnder the law. Thus farre S. Augustine.

8. That Virgins might marry, was condem­ned in Vigilantius for heresy by S. Hierome, who a­gainst the same Vigilantius, thus writeth: Quid fa­ciunt Orientis Ecclesiae? &c. VVhat do the Churches of the East in this point? VVhat the Church of Egipt? And the Apostolicall Sea? They admit for Priests, men, who are eyther Virgins, or continent, or if they haue wiues, do cease to become husbands.

9. That marriage and virginity was of equal dignity, was defended by Iouinian, who also abso­lutly denyed, all diuersity of merits, yet was this his errour cōdemned for heresy byLib. 1. aduer. Iouin. c. 2 S. Hierome, andDe tē ­pore ser. 191. S. Augustine thus writing thereof: Iouinia­ni damnamus errorem, qui dicit nullam in futuro meri­torum distantiam. VVe condemne the errour of Iouiniā, who teacheth, that there is no disparity, or difference of merits in tyme to come.

10. That the Church was not euer visible, was taught by the Donatists, but condemned for a most wicked heresy, by S. Augustine, who thus dis­courseth therof: Donatistae Lib. de vnit. Ecc. c. 12. & epist. 170 ad Seue­rum. detorquent scripturas, [Page 72] in Ecclesiam Dei, vt tanquam defecisse, & perijsse de toto orbe videatis. The Donatists do detort the Scrip­ture, and apply it against the Church of God, that the Church thereby may seeme to haue suffered defect, or perished out of the whole world.

11. That Baptisme of children was not ne­cessary, was taught by the Pelagians, but condē ­ned for a manifest heresy byIn rescripto ad Mile­uitanum Concil. Innocentius, byHae­res. 88. S. Augustine, andIn ep. 86. ad E­piscopum Aquetle­tensem. S. Leo.

12. The Religious vse of the images of Christ & his Saints, was sacrilegiously denyed be Zenaias Persa, as Nicephorus (^s) witnesseth, thus writing: Zenaias iste primus (o audacem animam & os impudens) vocē illam euomuit, Christi, & eorum qui illi placuerūt, imagines venerandas non esse, that is. This Zenayas was the first, that vomited forth this word (to bould soule, and impudent mouth) that the Images of Christ, and his Saints, were not to be worshipped.

12. That we ought not to pray to Saints, or to worshippe their Relikes, was maintained by Vigilantius, but condemned for heresy byLib. cont. Vi­gilant. c. [...]. & 3. Saint Hierome, and byLib. de Eccles. [...]og. c. [...]3 S. Augustine, who of this later branche thus writeth. Sanctorum corporum, & prae­cipue Beatorum veliquias, a [...]si Christi membra, sinceris­sime honoranda credimus; si quis contra sententiam ve­nerit, non Christianus, sed Eunomianus aut Vigilātianus [Page 73] creditur. VVe beleeue that the Reliques of holy bodyes (but especially of Martyrs) as the members of Christ, are to be honoured most sincerely: and who shall come to impugne this doctrine, is to be accounted no Christian, but eyther an Eunomian or a Vigilantian.

13. The ouerthrowing of Altars, & casting away of holy Chrisme, was taught & practised by the Donatists, yet was this their sacrilegious pro­ceedings condemned, & themselues branded for Heretikes byLib. 2. contra Petilianū c. 52. & l. 3. c. 40 & epist. 163. S. Augustine, and by Optatus, who speaking to the Donatists, discourseth therof in this manner: Quid Lib. 6. contra Donatist. est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei, in quibus & vos aliquando obtulistis, frangere, radere, remouere? Quid enim est altare, nisi sedes cor­poris & sanguinis Christi? Quid vos offenderit Chri­stus, cuius illic per certa momenta, corpus & sanguis ha­bitabant? VVhat is so sacrilegious (O you Donatists) as to breake, deface, cast downe the altars of God, wher­vpon your selues haue sometymes offered vp sacrifice? VVhat other thing is an Altar, then the seat of the body and blood of Christ? In what hath Christ so offended you, whose body and blood, for certaine moments or short tymes, did dwell and remayne vpon the Altars?

14. To be short, I passe ouer (as lesse perti­nent to the Controuersies of these tymes) how the errour of Origen touching the saluation of Diuells [Page 74] was condemned for heresy, byHaer. 43. & de ciuit. Dei l. 21. cap. 17. S. Augustine; the error of Tertullian denying second marriages, was in like sort mightily reprehended & condem­ned byHaer. 86. S. Augustine, though both these Doctors (I meane Tertullian, and Origen) had otherwise by their learned writinges, deserued well of the Church of God.

15. Thus farre touchnig the foresaid con­trouersies condemned for heresies, by the Fathers of the primatiue Church; though the subiect of the said heresies, was neither touching the Tri­nity, the Incarnation, the passion of our Sauiour, or the articles of the Creede; a-point so euident, & confessed euen by the Protestants, as that ma­ny of the foresayd examples, are collected out of the Fathers, and confessed so to be condemned, by learned Protestants, as by the Centurists in their first chapter of euery seuerall Century, by O­siander, in his seuerall centuries, as also by Panta­leon in his Chronology. Besides which condem­nation of the Church, eyther these doctrines, or the contrary to them, are necessarily proued to be heresyes, euen from the very definition of heresy aboue set downe; and therefore it followeth, that both the Catholikes and Protestants (the one be­leiuing them, the other not) cannot be saued, see­ing [Page 75] Heretikes, dying Heretikes, cannot be sa­ued.

16. Now to come to the sentences of the Fa­thers powred out in great heate, and feruour of zeale against Heretikes & Heresies in generall. And to beginne with S. Ihon the Euangelist. S. Irenaeus Lib. [...] c. 3. & apud Eu­seb. l. 4. c. 13. relateth (to set downe Irenaeus own wor­des) that Policarpus the martyr (who was scholler to the Apostles) was wont to tell, how that Saint Iohn the Apostle of our Sauiour, being at a cer­taine tyme in Ephesus, and going into a publicke bath, & finding Cerinthus the Heretike to be with­in the bath, ranne presently out of the bath, say­ing to them who were with him: Let vs flee from hence, for feare least the bath fal vpon vs, and kil vs, in which the ennemy of God Cerinthus abideth.

17. The sayd authourVbi supra. Irenaeus, in like sort relateth in these wordes following, how that the foresayd Policarpus meeting at Rome by chance, Marcion the Heretike, and being demanded of Po­licarpus, whether he knew him or not? answered: Yea, I know thee for the chiefe child of Sathan. To conclude with the testimony of this Father, the sayd Irenaeus, writing to Florinus an heretike, who once was scholler to S. Policarpe with him, thus sayth: These opinions Iren. in epist. ad Flori. of thyne (O Florinus) to [Page 76] speake friendly, are not true nor holsome. These opinions are repugnāt to the Church &c. I may trulie protest, that if the holy & Apostolicall Priest Policarpus, had heard of such opinions, as thou defendest, be would haue stopped his eares, & cryed out (according to his fashiō) O good God, vnto what miserable tymes, hast thou re­serued me, to heare these thinges? And presently would haue runne out of the place, where he had beene standing or sitting, where such doctrine had beene vttered. But now to reflect a little vpon the premises: Ce­rinthus, Marcion, and Florinus, did all belieue in the Trinity, the Incarnation of our Sauiour, and receaued the Apostles Creede; and erred only in lesser points, and yet wee see what sharpe repre­hensions, were vsed towards them, by S. Iohn, & S. Policarpe his scholler, As to fly out of their compa­ny, to acknowledge one of them to be the child of the Di­uell, to stoppe their owne eares, for not hearing of their errours &c. All which speaches had beene ouer much, aggrauated, and transcended the boundes of Charity, if their errours had rested vpon mat­ters only of indifferency, and had beene compati­ble with mans saluation.

18. But to proceed to the sentences of other Fathers in this point. Athanasius sayth in his creed (to vse his wordes) VVhosoeuer doth not hould the [Page 77] Catholike faith, whole and inuiolable, he shall perishe for euer. And S. Hierome expressely thus writteth. For Lib. 3 Apol. cōt. Ruffinū. one worde or two, contrary to the fayth, many haue beene cast out of the Church. Yea he proceedeth further thus writting: Haeretici Dial. contra Lucif. c. 1 quicumque, Chri­stiani non sunt. VVhosoeuer are Heretikes, these men are not Christians. S. Basil was wount to say, as Theodoret recordeth: Those Lib. 4. hist. c. 17. who are truly in­structed in the diuine doctrine, will not suffer any sylla­ble of the diuine decrees to be corrupted, but for the de­fence therof (if necessity forceth them) will vndergoe any kind of death. TertullianLib. de preser- that ancient Fa­ther hath a sentēce, not much different from that of the former Father. S. Augustine sayth: Imagine a Lib. 4. contra Donatist. c. 8. man to be chast, continent, not couetous, not seruing Idols, ministring hospitality to the poore, ennemy to none, malicing no body, sober, frugall &c. but yet if he be an Heretike, certainly no man doubteth, but for this alone, that he is an heretike, he shall not possesse the kingdome of God. A dreadfull saying of so learned and godly a Father. The Donatists for disagreeing from S. Augustine in some traditions, not specify­ed in the Scripture (much lesse in the creed) are thus reprehended by him. In In explicat. Psal. 54. these points those Heretikes were with me, and yet not altogeather with me, in schisme not with me, in heresy not with me, in [Page 78] many thinges with me, in few not with me. These few in which they were not with me, the many could not help them, in which they were with me. And yet these Do­natists beleeued with S. Augustine, the Trinity, the Incarnation, & recyted with him the Apostles Creed. Briefly S. Augustine in quest. 11. in Matth. thus defineth an Heretike: Haereticus est, qui de ali­qua parte doctrinae falsum credit. He is an heretike, who beleeueth any false thing touching any point of Christian fayth. Within which definition, it necessarily fol­loweth, that eyther the Protestants for not belee­uing Purgatory, Prayers to Saints, Freewill, Me­rit of workes, or the Catholike for beleeuing of them are to be included. S. Gregory Nazianzen in Oratione 37. Vnum vni cohoeret &c. One point of fayth agreeth with another, so as of them altogether there is made a certaine golden and wholesome chaine; therefore if but one opinion or article be taken away, or made doubtfull, the whole chaine of fayth will be come broken. And S. Cyprian: Cum Lib. 1 epi. 6. ad Magnū. Dominus noster Iesus Chri­stus &c. VVhen our Lord Iesus Christ, did testify in the Ghospell, that those were his ennemyes, who were not with him, he noted not any one heresy, but manife­stly showeth, that all Heretikes whosoeuer, are his enne­myes; saying: He that is not with me, is against me, and he that doth not gather with me, disperseth. Luc. [Page 79] 11. And S. Chrysostom: Quemadmodū In ep ad Gal. c. 10. in mone­ [...]a regia &c. Euen as who pareth away a little of the Kings siluer, maketh the whole peece therof, to be adulte­rate; Euen so, who ouerthroweth, the least part or brā ­che of true fayth, may be sayd, to corrupt the whole; he proceeding from this small beginning to worser courses.

19. To come to an end of the Fathers iudg­ment in this point, S. Ambrose Lib. 6 in Luc. c. 9. shall conclude all, who thus plainely writeth thereof: Si vnum horum retraxeris &c. If thou shalt recall or deny any of these points, thou hast retracted thy owne saluation; for euen Heretiks seeme to challenge Christ to them, for no man will deny the name of Christ; neuertheles, he indeed denyeth Christ, who doth not confesse all pointes of fayth, instituted by Christ. Thus farre of the Fa­thers iudgment in this matter, where I am to ad­uertise the Reader. First (as aboue I haue touched in the Councels) that if all false doctrines whatso­euer pertinaciously defended against the Church of God, be heresyes, as the definition of heresy a­boue explicated, proueth them to be, and as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and in them the whole Church of God, haue maintained, then ei­ther the Protestants or Catholikes for their disen­tions & houlding of cōtrary doctrines, touching freewill, Purgatory, Prayer to Saints, sacrifice [Page 80] &c. are to be accounted heretiks; and consequēt­ly both cānot be saued in their Religon. For that Heretikes, continuing Heretiks, cannot be saued, is demonstrated; first, from those fearefull threats & comminations of the Apostles thundred out a­gainst Heretikes (of which point I haue discour­sed aboue) Secondly, from the authority of Christs church, which excludeth all Heretiks (as I haue showed) from all hope of saluation: And lastly (to omit many other reasons) from that principle, That Heretikes are no members of Christs church, of which point we are to dispute in the next place. Now if the sayd false doctrines, be not heresyes, then haue the Fathers of the primi­tiue church, generally erred in defyning them for heresyes, and consequently the whole Church of God represented in the Fathers, as in her Pastors and Doctors, hath also therein erred, which is re­pugnant to the holyMath 18. Ioan. 16. 3. Ephes. 1. Scripture, and our Saui­ours promise.

20. The second thing to be aduertised is, that of the former authorityes of the Fathers a­gainst heresy, not any of them are restrayned by them to be heresies, touching the Trinity, the In­carnation of Christ, his Passion, the Articles of the creede (for of these heere is made no mention [Page 81] or intimation in their authorityes) within which compasse our Formalists in Religion, seeke to cō ­taine their fayth; but they are implicitly by the Fathers extended, to all heresies whatsoeuer, whe­ther they concerne the supreme and fundamental points of Christian Religion, or any other secon­dary, and lesse principall point of the same Reli­gion.

The same proued from that principle, that neither He­retikes nor Schismatikes, are members of Christs Church. CHAP. VIII.

IN this last place concerning the Church, we will set downe, another principle of Christian fayth, and after will deduce from thence by way of most necessary inference, our conclusion heere handled. The principle is this: That Heretikes houlding any heresyes whatsoeuer, are no members of the church of Christ. The deduction is, that Here­tikes therefore cannot be saued; since none can be saued, but such as are members of Christes church. This principle is proued (as aboue is in­timated) out of Gods holy word, as where it it1. Tim. 1. sayd: Certaine men made shipwracke touching fayth, [Page 82] that is, they fell out of the ship of the Church by forging of Heresies. And againe: They 1. Io. 2. went out of vs, that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth, out of the Church, of which we are. The expositions of which texts are warranted, euen by force of rea­son: for seeing the Church is an vnited multitude (for it is one Spouse, Cant. 6. one Kingdome, and one Body) & this vnion chiefly consisteth in the profession of one fayth; it is repugnant to reason, that they should be reputed as members of the body of the Church, who haue no coniunction at all, in the chiefest matters with the sayd body.

2. If we proceed to the testimonyes of the ancient Fathers, we shall find them of an vnani­mous iudgment herein, to wit, That Heretikes are no members of the Church, and therfore cannot be saued. And first, occurreth S. Irenaeus Lib. 3 Cap. 3. who sayth, that Policarpe did conuert many Heretikes vnto the Church; therefore it may be concluded, that those Heretikes before their conuersion, were out of the Church. S. Cyprian Epist. ad Iubai­num. sayth: Heretikes, though they be out of the Church, do challenge to them­selues the authority of the Church, after the manner of Apes, who not being men, yet would be accounted to be men. The same Father thus plainly writeth in another place. Cum lib. de vnitate Eccles. Deo manere non possunt, qui [Page 83] in Ecclesia Dei vnanimes esse noluerunt. They cannot remaine with God, who dissent in iudgment from the church of God. And yet more fully in the same pla­ce: Non peruenit ad Christi praemia &c. He arriueth not to the rewards of Christ, who leaueth the church of Christ, he is an alien, he is prophane, he is an ennemy; for he cannot haue God to his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. And S. Hierome sayth: Quê non In di­alog. con. Lucifer. à Domino Iesu Christo, sed ab alio &c. VVho take their denomination or name not from our Lord Ie­sus Christ, but from some other (as the Marcionists, Va­lentinians, Montenses, &c.) are not the Church of God, but the synagogue of Antichrist. Finally S. Augustine (for I haue already dwelled ouerlong, in the au­thority of the Fathers) pronounceth that: Nihil sic Trae. 27. in Ioann. formidare debet &c. A Christian ought to feare nothing so much, as to be separated, from the body of Christ, which is his Church, and which is one and Ca­tholike; for if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ; if no member of Christ, then is he not strengthned with his spirit. But who hath not this spirit of God, the same mā is not of God. Thus farre S. Augustin; with whome euen the Prote­stants do ioyne heere in iudgment; for D. Doue in his booke of persuasions thus sayth: This propositi­on, that Heretikes are not to be communicated withal, is [Page 84] vndoubtedly true. And D. Sutcliffe in his Examen of petitions, pag. 9. alleadgeth the Laodicean Coun­cell can 31. 32. 33. in proofe thereof, thus conclu­ding: The Laodicean Councell doth directly condemne, communion with Heretiks, eyther in marriage or prayer.

3. This already alleadged may serue to proue that Heretikes, are no members of the Church of Christ, & consequently cannot attaine saluation; since it is agreed among all learned men, that on­ly the members of the church of Christ can find saluation in Christ, we will in this place descend to Schismatikes, who if they be neyther of the Church of God, nor can iustly expect any saluati­on (during such their state) then à fortiori, no He­retike, can expect any saluation; since a Schisma­tike beleeuing all articles of Christian fayth, doth only diuide himselfe by disobediēce, in not com­municating with the Church in prayer & Sacra­ments. Whereas an Heretike (as is aboue sayd) willfully & contumaciously maintayneth errours, & false opinions cōdemned by the Church. Now that a Schismatike is not a member of Christs Church, is first proued from the Texts of Scripture (aboue in part touched) where the Church is called one fould of sheep Ioan. 10. One body. Rome 12. One spou­se, and one Doue Cant. 6. But now Schisme accor­ding [Page 85] to its Etimology, deuideth that, which was one, into parts; for Schisma, being a greeke word, commeth of the verbe Schizo, which is scindere, therefore as a member being cut off from the bo­dy, is no longer a part of the body; so a Schisma­tike diuiding himselfe by his owne disobedience, from the communion of the Church, is no longer a member of the sayd Church.

4. This verity, to wit, That Schismaticks are not members of the Church of Christ, is (besides the former proofes) warranted with the authorityes; & sentences of the ancient Fathers. And first S. Cyprian thus purposely writeth of Schismatikes: Qui Lib. 4. ep 9. ad Florē. cum Episcopo non sunt, in Ecclesia non sunt. Those, who agree not with the Bishop (meaning the su­preme Bishop of Gods Church) are not in the Church. And againe, the saydLib. de vnitate Ecclesiae. Father most elegantly cō ­pareth Schismatikes, to Beames diuided from the sunne, to Boughs cut off from the tree, & to Ri­uers wholy separated from their springes. Saint Chrysostome discoursing of Schismatikes thus sayth: Schismatis Hom 3. in ep. 1 ad Cor. significantia satis eos arguit &c. The very signification of this word schisme, is a suf­ficient and vehement condemnatiō of them &c. Which Father in anotherHom. 13. in ep. ad Ephes. place, compareth a schisma­tike, to the hand cut off from the body, which [Page 86] thereupon ceaseth to be a member; and expressely affirmeth, that Schismatiks, though they consent with the Church of Christ, in doctrine, yet are not in the Church of Christ, but in altera Ecclesia, meaning in a Church different from the Church of Christ. S. Hierome distinguishing schisme from heresy thus discourseth: Inter In c. 3. ad Tit. heresim & schisma hoc interesse arbitramur &c. VVe take this to be the difference betweene heresy & schisme; that heresy main­tayneth a peruerse and false doctrine, whereas schisme ab Ecclesia pariter separat, in like manner separateth a man from the Church in regard of dissention and diso­bedience towardes our Bishop. S. Augustine thus woū ­deth a Schismatike: Haeretici lib. de side & simbol. c. [...]0. & Schismatici congregationes suas Ecclesias vocant &c. Heretiks and Schismatikes, do call their congregations the churches. But Heretikes doe violate their fayth, in beleeuing fal­sely touching God, whereas Schismatikes, though they beleeue the same points, which we beleeue, yet through their dissentions, they do not keep fraternall charity, wherefore we conclude, that neyther an Heretike, belon­geth to the Catholike church, because he loueth not God, nor a Schismatike, because he loueth not his Neighbour. To conclude, Fulgentius lib. de fide ad Petrum cap. 38. & 39. agreeth with the for­mer Reuer. Father in this point, saying: Firmissi­me tene &c. Beleeue for certaine, and doubt not that [Page 87] only Pagans, but also Iewes, Heretikes, and Schisma­tikes, who dye out of the Catholike church, are to go to euerlasting fire.

5. And thus farre touching Schismatikes, who because they be not of the Church of Christ, cannot obtaine saluatiō; which point being made euident, by so many authorityes both diuine and human, then much more strongely may we con­clude, that Heretikes (as exceeding the Schisma­tikes in prauity and malice, and being excluded in like sort with thē out of the Church of Christ) cannot he saued. But before I end this Chapter, giue me leaue, good Reader, to expatiate a little, beyonde my designed limits: O then you Schis­matikes heere in our owne country, whose soules are so wholy absorpt in earthy & muddy conside­rations, cast your eyes vpon your owne states, & vse some small introuersies vpon your selues. You see what a dangerous censure the ancient Church of Christ, by the mouthes of its chiefe Pastors & Doctors, hath thundred against you. It sayth: You are not of Christs church, you are aliens and strangers therto. It further pronounceth, That dying in such your state, you are all depriued of all hope of saluation. Good God, what stupor & dulnes of yours is this? Are you Christians? Preferre then Christ before [Page 88] the world. Feare your God more then man. Giue then to God, what is Gods, & to Caesar, what is Caesars. Reflect vpon these ensuing principles of the Catholike, & therefore your owne Religion.

6. The one that God ordinarily deriueth his grace vnto mans soule, by the conduicts of his sacraments, and giueth absolution of ones sinnes, particulerly by the sacrament of Pennance, and confession: you wilfully depriue your selues, of the participation of the Sacraments, and therby of grace & of the remission of your sinnes, & are you not then as dryed branches, void of that hea­uenly grace, which giueth life to the soule? You wāt the grace & forgiuenes of your sinne, s where then is your hope of eternall life? Remember the Apostles wordes, & be afraid: Gratia Dei vita ae­eterna, & do not disioyne those asunder, which S. Paul hath so inseparably vnited.

7. The second, the vncertainty of any parti­culer mans saluation, which point is able to strike you dead through feare; & the rather, since it is noe small signe of mans future damnation, deli­beratly and willfully, yeare after yeare, to diuide himselfe from the Church of Christ, and from al the spirituall influences streaming from thence.

8. The third, that there is a Purgatory, the [Page 89] paines wherof, though terminable, yet are insup­portable. Suppose then the best, that is, that you finally dye with true repentance, and reconciled to Gods Church (which yet is not in your power, but out of the maine Ocean of Gods mercy) ne­uertheles your owne fayth assureth you, that you must suffer in that place euen insufferable tormēts for your former dissimulation, & that your con­tinuance, in thus dissembling with God, serue but as bellowes the more to blowe that dreadfull fire. Oh how great interest then, are you to pay in the end, for the enioying of this your mispēt time? If you be Catholikes (though but in hart) you be­leiue all here said, and therfore may the more as­suredly presage of your owne future misery. If you doe not beleiue these three former points of Catholik Religion, then are you lesse damned for want of true faith, then otherwayes by your vn­chaungeable schismatical liues, for want of due conformity to the Church of Christ; therefore I wishe you to awake, out of that schismaticall letargy of the soule, and dayly meditate of that of the Apostle Rom. 10. Corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore fit confessio ad salutem. With the hart we be­leeue vnto iustice: but with the mouth confession is made to saluation. But I will stay heere my [Page 90] penne, remembring my vndertaken subiect, and will proceed to the next head.

The same proued by arguments drawne from reason. CHAP. VIIII.

TO passe from the authority of Gods sacred word, his holy Church, & the ancient Fa­thers the pillars therof, touching the nature of he­resy, and of Heretikes, as also touching the vnity and infalibility of the same Church, and the per­sons disincorporated and separated from it; from all which heades it hath beene euidently euicted, that a man obstinatly defending, any one errour in fayth and Religion, cannot expect saluation. It now remayneth, that the same be made euident by force of reason, that therby all men, enioying the faculty of reason, may the more easily subscri­be to so vndeniable a verity, & say with the Psal­mist heerein:Psal. 92. Testimonia tua credebilia sunt nimis. Well then, the first and chiefest reason, is taken from the causes of true fayth, where for the better conceauing thereof, we are to vnderstand, that fayth is a supernaturall habite, not obtayned by the force of Nature; and that who resteth doubt­full or staggering of any one article, is charged by [Page 91] the Canon-law, with flat infidelity, according to that: Dubius Iure Canon. c. 10. de Haeretic. in fide, infidelis est. Therfore to the beliefe of any one article of fayth, two things doe concurre: the one, is the first reuealing verity (as the schoolemen speake) which is God himselfe: the second is the Church, propounding the arti­cle to be beleeued. Now when we beleeue any point of fayth, God, who is the first reuealing veri­ty (as is sayd) reuealeth it to the Church, and the Church propoundeth it so reuealed, to vs to be­leeue; and thus we beleeue a point of fayth, tho­rough the authority of God reuealing, and the Churche propounding. And this is most conso­nant, and agreeing, with that most admirable and infallible rule of fayth, set downe by the most an­cient Vincentius Lyrinensis, in the beginning of his Commonitorium, deseruing to be stamped in chara­cters of gold: I Initio commoni­torij. haue demanded (sayth this Au­thour) very many thinges, of many men, excelling & renowned for learning, and sanctity of life, how, and by what way, I might fortify my fayth, in tyme of he­resyes arysing: and I euer receaued this answere of all, or in manner of all, that whether I, or any other, desi­rous to auoyd the snares of Heretikes, and to continue sound in the Catholike fayth, he must by Gods assistance, Fidem munire duplici ratione: fense his fayth with [Page 92] a double reason; Sacrosancti Canonis authoritate; deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione. First by au­thority of Gods word: secondly, by tradition of the Catholike Church. Thus farre Vincentius. Thus we see, where we beleeue any thing, though it be materially true, and not through this former au­thority, this is not supernaturall beliefe in vs, but only an opinion grounded vpon other reasons & inducements. Euen as the Turke beleeueth, that there is one God, Creatour of the world, yet this his beleefe is no true fayth, but only an opinion of a thing, which is true; since this his beliefe, is grounded only vpon his Alcoran, being otherwise a fabulous booke, though of the being of one God, it speaketh truly.

2. Now to apply this to my purpose. This first reuealing verity, which is God (through whose authority wee ought to beleeue euery article of fayth) doth with one and the like authority, re­ueale all articles of Christian Religion; so as it is as forcibly to be beleeued, that there is (for ex­ample) a Purgatory, or that we may pray to to Saints (suppose these articles to be true) as that there is a Trinity, or that Christ was incarnated. From whēce it ineuitably followeth, that who be­leeueth in the Trinity, and yet doth not beleeue [Page 93] that there is a Purgatory, or that we may pray to Saints, hath no true and supernaturall beliefe of the Trinity; but only beleeueth that there is a Trinity, because he is persuaded thereto, only by his owne reason, or through some other hu­mane authority. For if he did beleeue, that there is a Trinity, or that Christ was incarnate through the authority of God so reuealing this truth, so to be beleeued, by the same authority he would haue beleeued, that there is a Purgatory, and that we ought to pray to Saints, seeing both the arti­cles of the Trinity, and of Purgatory, or pray­ing to Saints, are equally, and indifferently alike propounded by God, and by his Church to be beleeued.

3. And seeing to the same authority, euer the same reuerence, affiance, and credit is to be giuen, thus we may demonstratiuely conclude, that what Protestant doth beleeue in the Trini­ty, and yet doth not beleeue, that there is Pur­gatory, Praying to Saints, Freewill, the Reall presence (admitting them once to be true) or any other points controuerted, betweene the Catho­likes and the Protestants, the same man hath no true fayth of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and consequently for want of a true, and super­naturall [Page 94] fayth cannot be saued, since we reade: Qui non Marc 16. credit, condemnabitur. VVho beleeueth not, shalbe condemned. And from this former ground it it proceedeth, that S. Thomas, 2. 2. q 5. art. 3. and all learned schoolemen teach, that who beleiueth not only for Gods authority, so reuealing any point what­soeuer, great, or small, fundamental or not funda­mental, the same man belieueth not any other ar­ticle at all, with a true and supernaturall faithe: And hereto accordeth those words ofLib. de prescr. Tertulliā, against Valentinus an Heretike: Some thinges of the law and Prophets Valentinus approueth, some thinge he disaloweth, that is, he disallowech all, whilest he dis­proueth some. Which sentence of Tertullian, must of necessity be true, since who reiecteth the au­thority of God, in not beleeuing any one article, propounded by God to be beleeued, the same man begetteth a suspition or doubt of Gods authority, for the beleeuing of any other article how funda­mentall soeuer.

4. Another reason may be taken from a di­stinction of fayth vsed by the learned, which faith is of two sorts: the one they call Explicite fayth, the other Implicite. Explicite fayth is that, which all men vnder paine of damnation, are bound ex­pressely to beleeue, as the Trinity, the Incarnati­on [Page 95] of our Sauiour, his passion, the Decalogue, or ten Commandements &c. Implicite fayth is that which comprehendeth all those pointes, which a man is not bound expressely and distinctly to be­leeue in particuler (though he be expressely boūd not to beleeue any thing contrary therto) but is to rest in the iudgment of the Church, cōcerning all such points, and what the Church of Christ houldeth therein, implicitly to beleeue. This di­stinction is warranted, not only in the iudgment of all Catholike schoole men, but also in the iud­gement of the most learnedD. Baro. l. de fide & e­ius ortu p. 40. Hooker in Eccles. politia. in praefat. p. 28. by Maelanct. l. 1. epist. epist. ad Regem Angliae. Protestāts (though they forbeare the phrases, of Explicite and Implicite fayth) and particulerly of D. Field, who in these wordes following giueth the reason therof, saying: For seeing In his Treatise of the Church in his epist. dedicato­ry to the Archbi­shoppe. the Controuersies of Religion in our tyme, are growne in number so many, and in nature so intri­cate, that few haue tyme, and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them, what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequēce, but diligently to search out, which among all the socie­tyes of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that househould of fayth, that spouse of Christ, & Church of the liuing God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may imbrace her communion, fol­low her directions, and rest in her iudgments. Thus [Page 96] Doctor Field.

5. Now this distinction being presupposed, I thus argue, both these kinds of faith, are necessa­ry to saluation. Explicite faith, because it com­prehendeth, all those fundamental and supreme points of Christian Religiō, without the expresse and articulate knowledge of which a man cannot be saued. And these be those only, which Newtra­lists in Religion hould necessary to be belieued: Implicite faith, of other points also is necessary to saluation, because otherwyse then beleiuing im­plicitely & inuoluedly what the Church teacheth therin, we cannot (according to the former Do­ctours wordes) find out that blessed company of holy ones, the househould of fayth, the spouse of Christ, & Church of the liuing God. And seeing Implicite fayth, is necessary to saluation, we must graunt, that this Implicite fayth hath some obiect; the ob­iect is not the article of the Trinity, the Incarna­tiō, the Decalogue &c. since these are the obiects of Explicite fayth (as is aboue intimated) therfore articles seeming of lesser importance, are the ob­iect of implicite fayth; the which as a man is bound implicitly to beleeue in the fayth of the Church, so is he bound not to beleeue any thing contrary to the sayd articles. Seeing then diuers controuer­sies [Page 97] betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants, are included vnder this implicite faith, and that the Church of God, houldeth but one way of them: it followeth that one side of the cōtrary beleiuers of those points doth erre in their beliefe, and con­sequently through want of this true & necessary implicite fayth, cannot be saued.

6. A third reason, may be this. It is proper, & peculier to vertues infused (& such be Fayth, Ho­pe, & Charity) that euery such vertue is wholely extinguished by any one act contrary to the sayd vertue. Thus for exāple, one mortal sinne, taketh away al charity & grace, according that: He Iacob. cap. 2. that offendeth in one, is made guilty of all. One act of des­paire, destroyeth the whole vertue of Hope; then by the same reason, one heresy wholely corrupteth & extinguisheth all true fayth. Therefore seeing Fayth is a Theologicall, and infused vertue, this fayth is destroyed with one act of heresy, whether it be about Purgatory, Prayer to Saints, Freewil, or any other cōtrouersy between the Catholiks & the Protestants; therfore whoseuer denyeth Pur­gatory, or any of the rest (granting their doctrins to be true) is depriued of all infused fayth tou­ching any article of Christian Religion, whe­ther they concerne the Trinity, or the Incarna­tion, [Page 98] or any other fundamentall point, which he may seeme to beleeue: but without fayth (that is, without true, infused, and Theological faith) it is impossible to please God, as theHeb. 11. Apostle assureth vs.

4. Another reason may be this; These New­tralists in Religion, doe not agree euen in the ge­neral grounds of Christian faith, to wit, in the Ar­ticles of one God, of the Trinity, of Christ &c. with any other Christiās. This is proued, because as all other Christians, do beleeue in these gene­ral heads; so doth each of them particulerly agree, that these generall principles are to be limited & bounded to euery ones particuler secte, as the Protestant (for example) beleeueth otherwayes in God, the Trinity, and Christ, then the Catholi­kes doe (as is els where demonstrated) But now these our Newtralists, doe not limit the foresayde principles, to any particuler sect, or in any parti­culer manner; therefore it euidently followeth, that they haue no true beliefe, euen of those gene­rall and fundamentall articles.

5. A fift reason shalbe this. It is most certaine, that what generall propension, Nature (or rather God himselfe, by nature as his instrument) hath ingrafted in all men, the same is in it selfe, most [Page 99] true, certaine, and warrantable. As for example, Nature hath implanted in ech mans soule, a secret remorse of Conscience for sinnes and transgressi­ons committed, as also a feare of future punishe­ment, to be inflicted for the sayd sinnes perpetra­ted: therefore from hence it may infallibly be cō ­cluded, that sinne it selfe is to be auoyded, & that after this life there is a retribution of punishment, for our offenses done in this world; since other­wayes it would follow, that God should insert in the soule of man (idly, vainly and as directed to no end) certaine naturall impressions & instincts, which to affirme were most derogatory to his di­uine maiesty and wisedome, & repugnant to that anciently receaued Axiome: God, & Nature wor­keth nothing in vaine. Now to apply this, we find both by history, and by experience, that diuers zealous and feruent Professours of all Religions whatsoeuer (both true and false) haue beene most ready to expose their liues in defence of any im­pugned part, or branch of their Religion, from which vndaunted resolution of theirs, we certain­ly collect, that this their constant determination of defending the least point of their Religiō, pro­ceedeth partly from a generall instinct of God, impressed in mans soule, teaching each man, that [Page 100] death it selfe is rather to be suffered, then we are to deny any part of fayth and Religion in generall. And thus according hereto, we find that the Athe­nians, who were Heathens (though they did erre touching the particuler obiect herein, as worship­ping false Gods) were most cautelous, that no one point should be infringed or violated touching the worshiping of their Gods. The like religious seuerity was practised by the Iewes, as Iosephus Cont. Apion. witnesseth. And God himselfe euen in his owne writtē word threatneth, that, VVho Apo. 22. shall eyther adde or diminish to the booke of the Apocalips, written by the Euangelist, from him he will take away his part out of the booke of life. Now if such dāger be threat­ned for adding to, or taking frō more or lesse, thē was set downe by the Euangelist in this one booke, how can then both the Catholiks and Protestants haue their names writtē in the booke of life? Since it is certaine and granted on all sides, that eyther the Catholike addeth more to the fayth of Christ, then was by him instituted, or the Protestant ta­keth from the sayd fayth diuers articles, which Christ & his Apostles did teach. But to returne to our former reason: From al this, we deduce, that no points of true Religion, are of such cold indif­ferēcy, as that they are not much to be regarded, [Page 101] or that they may be maintayned cōtrarywayes by contrary spirits, without any danger to mans sal­uation; but that they are of that nature, worth, & dignity, as a man is to vndergo all torments, yea death it selfe, before he yeald, or suffer the least relapse in denying any of the sayd verityes.

6. The sixt and last reason, to proue that the maintayning of false doctrins now questioned be­twene the Christians of these tymes, are most pre­iudicial & hurtful to the obtaining of our heauēly blisse, wherin at this tyme I wil insist, may be takē frō the consideration of the differēt effects, which the contrary doctrines betweene the Catholiks & the Protestants produce in mans soule, touching the exercising of vertue or vice: since most vn­doubted it is, that the beleeuing of such opinions which of their owne nature do impel, & as it were violētly draw the soule to vice, loosenes, & impu­rity of manners & conuersation, cānot stand with the hope of eternal happines. And the chief reasō hereof (besids others) is this, in that the wil, which is the seate of vertue or vice, doth necessarily and irresistably worke, as the vnderstanding (in which reside fayth & all false doctrines) doth dictate to the wil: now then the vnderstāding being infected with heresies, tēding directly to the plāting of vice [Page 102] eradicating of all vertue in the soule, it of necessi­ty follweth, that the will must worke and exercise it selfe according to those false principles, which the vnderstanding suggesteth to the will for true, and that with the greater facility, in regard of the prones of mans nature (through our first Parents fall) inclined to liberty, pleasure, and sensuality. But because the subiect of this reason is a lardge field wherin to walke, & the truth therof is to ap­peare by seuerall instances, drawne from diuers particuler doctrines, maintained at this present by the Protestants, and all breathing nothing, but vice, dissolution, and all turpitude in manners; therfore I will reserue the next ensuing chapter, for the fuller manifestation of the truth in this point.

The same proued from the different effects of vertue, and vice, which Catholike and Protestant Reli­gion do cause in their Professors. CHAP. X.

THE first doctrine of this nature, wherein we will insist, maintayned by the Prote­stants, and denyed by the Catholikes, is the im­possibility of keeping Gods commandments. According [Page 103] heereto Luther sayth: The Ser. de Moise. ten commandements ap­pertaine not to Christians. With whome Fox conspi­reth in these wordes: The Act. mon. pag. 1335. ten Commandements were giuen not to do them, but to know our damnation, and to call for mercy to God. As also D. Willet, say­ing: The In si­nops. Pa­pism. pag 564. law remayneth still impossible to be kept by vs, through the weaknes of our flesh; neyther doth God giue vs ability to keep it, but Christ hath fullfilled it for vs. And finally D. VVhitaker in that sentence of his: Qui Cont. Camp. cat. 8. p. 153. credunt, ij non sunt sub lege, sed sub gratia; Quid plura? Christiani execratione legis liberantur. They, who beleeue, are not vnder the law, but vnder grace. VVhat more in this point is to be sayd? Christi­ans are freed from the curse of the law. Now then if Christians be freed from the curse of keeping the law (wherin the ten commandements are contai­ned) how can the breach of them be any way hurtefull to the violatours of them? And if the comandments were neither giuen vs to keep, nor we haue power to keepe them, why should the theife forbeare to steale, or the homicide to com­mit murther? Who seeth not how this doctrine discourageth a mā from liuing vertuously, by bri­deling his vnruly and sensuall desires?

2. Secondly touching Chastity, the Protestants teach that Chastity is not in our power. And hen­ce [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104] it is, that Luther thus writeth: It is Tom. 5. Wittē. serm. de matrim. not in our power to be without a woman &c. It is not in our power, that it should be stayed or omitted, but it is as necessary, as to eate, drinke, purge, make cleane the nose &c. To whome (omitting all others for greater breuity) M. Perkins subscribeth saying: The vow In his reformed Catholik pag. 161. of con­tinency, is not in the power of him, that voweth. Now this doctrine being imbraced for true, how forci­bly doth it inuite (or rather impell) all people vnmaried (either men or women) to satisfy their lust by their owne incontinent liues? In like sort, what great encouragement doth it giue to maried persons to violate the band of matrimony, when either of the persons through absence, or longe sicknes, or some other suddaine and accidentall impotency, cannot render the debt of matrimo­ny? And the parties thus sinning, either maried or vnmaried being expostulated & chardged with their offence therin, may they not iustly reply in excuse of them selues, that they are not to be bla­med or rebuked for their incontinency, seeing by their owne doctrine & Religion they are exprese­ly taught that they haue not the guift of Chastity, and that it is not in their power, to liue chastly & continently.

3. Thirdly, the Protestants doctrine of ve­niall [Page 105] and mortall sinne doth wounderfully extenuate and lessen the atrocity and malice of sinne in the beleeuers of that doctrine. For the Protestants do teach, that there is no such difference of sinnes in themselues, but that the most grieuous sinnes whatsoeuer, being committed by any one, that hath true fayth, are but veniall; and their reason therfore is, because in their doctrine, no sinnes are imputed to such, who haue true fayth.De eccl. cōtra Bellarm. contro. 2. q. 5. pag. 301. Thus ac­cordingly D. VVhitakers teacheth: Si quis actum fidei habet, ei peccata non nocent. Sinne is not hurte­full to him, who actually beleeueth: who did lear­ne this of his graund Maister Luther, who wryting of this point, sayth: No Luth. in his ser. englished & prin­ted anno 1578. p. 176. worke is disallowed of God, vnles the author thereof be disallowed before. All which being grāted as true doctrine, it must needs follow, that who so shall take himselfe to be one of these faythfull (as euery Protestant is bound by his owne Religion to beleeue of himselfe) shall make small accompt of omitting any sinne; con­sidering he is taught by the former doctrine to beleeue, that (to vse the wordes of one of their owne Maisters:) Sinne VVot­ton in his answere to the late popish ar­ticles pag. 92. is pardoned him, as soone as it is committed.

4. The Protestants doctrine of Reprobation, and deniall of Freewill, mightily disanimateth and [Page 106] discourageth the beleeuers thereof, from em­bracing of vertue, and eschewing of sinne; for if it be true (as this their doctrine suggesteth) that some men are borne, euen from their mo­thers wombe, without any reference to their workes, reprobates, or thrall to eternall damna­tion, and cannot be saued, to what end should they seeke their owne saluation, by a true fayth, auoyding of sinne, and the practising of a peni­tentiall, and vertuous life? Or if we haue not Freewill, with the concurrency of Gods grace to doe well (as the former doctrine instructeth vs) why should we bend our best endeauours, to embrace vertue and to flye all vice; since it is not in our power (accordinge to the Prote­stants fayth) to exercise the one, and to fly the other?

5. To this may be adioyned the Protestants like doctrine of Predestination, and their suppo­sed certainty of saluation: for admit, that men be predestinated to heauen without any respect or reference to their workes, or liues, and that doe what wickednes they can imagine, yet certaine it is, that they shalbe saued; is not this doctrine most potent and forcible, to dissuade all the be­leeuers therof, from exercising an austere pious, [Page 107] and Religious life, and to engulfe themselues in all kindes of enormityes and sinnes; and the ra­ther, considering how precipitious and headlong mans nature is to sinne, and to decline all rigo­rous and exemplar courses of vertue; especially if so the case stands, that man can neyther aduan­tage or hurt himselfe by any such different man­ners of life. Now that by the Protestants do­ctrine, no sinne can endanger the predestinate, in regard of their certainty of saluation, appea­reth. Answearably heereto wee finde Doctour Fulke to say of Dauids Adultery: Dauid In his tower dispute with Ed­mund Cāp. the 2. dayes conferēce. when he committed adultery, was, and remayned the childe of God. And Beza himselfe to the like purpose, thus writteth thereof: Dauid In res­pons. ad colloq. Mon [...]. parte a [...] ­tera pag. 73. by his Adultery and murther, did not loose the Holy Ghost. So power­fully doe these their positions incline men, to sa­tisfy their desires, in all vice, impiety, and sensu­ality.

6. Touching the Protestants doctrine of Iustification by Fayth only, which potentially includes diuers of the other pointes heere set downe, and which position of its owne nature, excludeth from Iustification all workes, how ver­tuous, meritorious and pious soeuer, we find the Protestants thus to say; Luther speaking heereof, [Page 108] bursteth forth with wounderfull rashnes, saying: Fides Con­cione 4. in ca. 21. Luc. nisi sit sine &c. Vnlesse fayth be without the least good workes, it doth not iustify; nay it is no fayth. That iustification by fayth only extinguisheth al exercise of vertue, is iustifyed not only by experi­ence of these dayes, but also by the acknowledge­ment euen of some learnedst Protestants; for thus Iacobus Andreas (a famous Protestant) complay­ning and disliking of this doctrine, writeth: A se­rious and Christian discipline is censured with vs as a new Papacy, and a new Monachisme: they say we haue now learned to be saued, by only fayth in Christ &c. VVe cannot satisfy by our fasting, prayer, &c. there­fore permit, that we may giue ouer these, seeing we may be saued otherwise, by the only grace of God. And to the end (sayth this Author further) that all the world may know they be no Papists, nor trust in good workes, they take a course to put none in practice. With whose true iudgment heerein M. Stubbs an english Pro­testant seemeth to conspire, saying: The In his motiue to good wor­kes prin­ted 1566 pag. 42. Prote­stant trusteth to be saued by a bare & naked fayth (de­ceauing himselfe) without good workes, and therefore eyther careth not for them, or at least setteth little by them. And thus farre touching good works, who­lely exiled and banished by the doctrine of Iusti­fication by fayth only. Now that this doctrine of [Page 109] Iustification by fayth only doth incorporate (as it were) within it selfe, and admit all kind of sinnes, appeareth no lesse from the frequent acknowled­gement of the learned Protestants. And first Lu­ther thus writeth heereof: A Tom. 2. Wittē. de capt. babil. fol. 74. Christian baptised is so rich, that Vbi supra. although he would, he cannot loose his saluation, by any sinne, how great soeuer, vnles he will not beleeue. And further in another place: As no­thing Luth. in loc. comm. class. 5. c. 27. iustifyeth, but beleefe; so nothing sinneth but vnbeliefe. To which doctrine D. VVhitaker (as a­boue is showed) accordeth saying. Sinnes Vbi supra. are not hurtfull to him, that beleeueth. And thus much now touching the doctrine of Iustficatiō by faith, wher we see euen by the confession of the Protestants, that this doctrine preuayleth in the Professours of it, no lesse for committing of all sinne and iniqui­ty; then for the expelling and banishing away of all good workes, vertue and deuotion.

7. Touching the Protestants particuler do­ctrines of Fasting, Voluntary pouerty, and Chastity or Virginity. And first of Fasting. M. Perkins teacheth thus: Fasting In his reformed Catholik pag. 220 in it selfe, is but a thing indifferent, as is eating or drinking. With whome conspireth D. VVillet in more full tearmes, saying: Neyther In sy­nops. p. 243. is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating.

8. Voluntary pouerty is so debased by the Pro­testantes [Page 110] doctrine, as that the foresayd Doctour VVillet thus teacheth heereof: He In sy­nops. pag. 245. is an ennemy to the glory of God, who chaungeth his riche estate, wherein he may serue God, for a poore: so contrary is he to the iudgement of our Sauiour, Matth, 10. saying: If (x) thou wilt be perfect, go sell thy sub­stance, and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue trea­sure in heauen.

9. Lastly, touching single life in comparison with marriage, Maister Luther thus sayth: VVe Tom. 5. Wittē. in exeg. ad cap. 7. 1. Cor. f. 107. conclude, that mariage is as gould, and spirituall, or single life as dunge. And Doctour VVhitaker like­wise teacheth thereof in this manner, saying: Virginity is not simply good, but after a certaine man­ner; it is neuer better then Cōt. Campia. rat. 8. marriage, but in regard of the circumstance, that is, of the troubles accompa­nying mariadge. Now I heere demand with what encouragment can any man goe about to practise these foresayd vertues of fasting, voluntary po­uerty, and perpetuall virginity, if he be firmely and inwardely perswaded, that the Protestantes former positions, and doctrines touching the sayd vertues, be true, and agreeable to Christes sacred institutions? But to hasten to an end in this matter, I will conclude with the Protestants doctrine touchinge Purgatory, and Confession of [Page 109] sinnes.

10. Concerning Confession of sinnes, it is found by experience, that (besides the first in­stitution therof by Christ, Matth. 18. Ioan. 20.) a man is much deterred from sinning, through the shame that he is to endure, by confessing his most secret sinnes to a Priest; as on the con­trary, it much enboldeneth one to sinne, if he be fully perswaded by his owne Religion, that confession of them vnto God alone, is suffici­ent.

11. Touching the doctrine of Purgatory, how doth the denyal of this doctrine open the sluce to all libertye? And concerninge Iustice, it taketh away all restitution of things wrongfully detay­ned; since by the Protestants doctrine teaching, that no temporall punishement remayneth for sinne once remitted, all satisfaction for wrongs, and for committing of former sinnes, and al mor­tification of body and soule, are needles; and fi­nally, this doctrine freeth a man from all feare of suffering any punishment after this life; and this vnder couler, that Christ hath satisfyed for the sins of the whole world: by which reason, we may as well say, that we neede not to pray at all, since Christ in the tyme of his passiō, prayed for al. But [Page 112] now to cast our eyes backe vpon the foresayd do­ctrines, if all the different opinions of fayth in Controuersies, betweene the Catholikes & the Protestants, were meerely speculatiue, without a­ny reference to the vertuous or vicious working & operation of the will, deriued from them, then with some show of reason, in a vulgar iudgement, it might be auerred, that (supposing they touch not the Christian fayth) they might eyther affir­matiuely or negatiuely be houlden without all dā ­ger of saluation: such were the heresyes ofSee heerafter S. Austin heres. 43. Ori­gen, teaching that the Diuells in the end of the world should be saued, of S. Cyprian touching re­baptization, and diuers such like; for the main­taining of which points eyther way, the wil (in res­pect of any externall working or operation drawn from thence) can sucke no poyson. But the case is farre different in the former doctrines set downe, for we find, that the said doctrines, which breath nothing but dissolution and all turpitude of man­ners euen in speculation, must forcibly and imme­diately touch the pulse of the wil; the will neces­sarily beating and indeede breaking out into out­ward actions of vice & liberty, according as it re­maynes infected with the contagion and poyson of the former doctrinall speculations; Well then, [Page 113] this vpon necessary inference being granted, so as forcible working, effect, force, and operation of the said doctrines are in the wil, nothing but liber­ty, disolution of manners, improbity, sensuality, and sinne, I referre to the iudgment of any man, whether the said doctrines be but pointes of indi­ferency, or no, and may be defended and beleiued either way, without preiudice to the beleiuers true faith, and danger to his Saluation, as our forma­lists doe auerre. For can it possibly be conceaued, that these doctrines should be reputed indifferēt to mans saluation, or in themselues true, which (as is proued) forcibly impell the will to all kind of vice, against which, God hath thundered out such dreadfull threats, as where it is said: Psal. 91. All they that worke iniquity shalbe confounded. And againe Ecclesiast. 40 Death, bloude, contention, edge of sworde, oppression, hunger, contrition, which, are created for sinners. And further Psal. 9.10. God shall raigne snares of fire vpon sinners, brimstone, with tempestuous windes, shalbe the portion of their cuppe. And heereto I adioyne euen the acknowledgemēt of Protestants themselues, who confesse that the liues of the Catholikes, are commonly of a more vertuous and better edification, then the liues of Protestants, who by their owne confessions lye [Page 114] groueling in all sensuality; for euen Luther thus sayth heerof: When Domi­nica 26. post Tri­nitatem. we were seduced by the Pope, euery man did willingly follow good workes, and now euery man neyther sayth, nor knoweth any thinge, but how to get all to himselfe, by exaction, pillage, theft, lying, vsury &c. To which Confession (to omit diuers others) Musculus a forward Protestant sub­scribeth saying: Vt In loc. com. cap. de Decal. in expla. [...]e [...]tij pre­cepti. verum est fateor &c. That I may confesse the truth herein, they are become so vnlike vnto themselues, that whereas in the Papacy they were Religious in their errours and superstition, now in the light of the knowne truth, they are more prophane &c. then the very sonnes of the world. Which disparity of liues and conuersation, cannot be iustly ascri­bed to any other cause, then in that the Protestāts were ready to put in practise, what afore they haue learned by speculation of their owne doctrines: Which point then being thus, I meane that the doctrines of the Protestants doe depresse vertue, and blandish, countenance, & elate vice, & that therupon the liues of the Protestants (by confes­sion of themselues) and to the disedifying of their followers, are become actually farre worse and lesse vertuous, then the liues of the Catholikes, I heere demand, how it can be warranted with any show of reason, that these doctrines of the [Page 115] Protestants begetting so great a change from ver­tue to vice in their professours, can be reputed, but as points of indifferency? Or that men belie­uing them, practising them in their conuersation, and finally dying in them, can be saued? so con­trary it is to our Sauiours precept:Mat. 1 [...]. If thou wilt en­ter into life, keepe the Commandements.

The same proued from the fearefull deaths of the first preachers of Protestancy. CHAP. XI.

IN this next place we wil briefly take a suruay of the particuler deathes of some few of the chiefest Protestants, who haue beene the first stā ­pers & broachers of the Controuersyes betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants; and then we will leaue to the iudgmēt of others, whether those kindes of deaths do befall (in Gods accustomed proceeding) to men, who first did set on foot, and maintayned such points & positions of Religion, as that eyther the beleeuing, or not beleeuing of them, may well comport & stand togeather with mans saluation.

2. To beginne then with Luther, omitting to speake eyther of his vitious life, or of the liues [Page 116] of others hereafter set downe, though confessed, & displayed for such by many of their owne bre­thren.Coch­laeus in vita Lu­theri. It is certaine, that Luther Gual­terus in Apologia pro Zu­inglio. dyed very so­dainly; for when at supper being in good health, he had daintily fed vpon great variety of meates, and entertained his guests then with him, with witty (but dissolute) discourses, the very same night he dyed. Zuinglius was slaine in the warres in Germany vndertaken for Religion only against the Catholikes, in which Carres he dyed not as a preacher, but as a warriour, & dyed in the field; and yet in such sort, that Gualterus an earnest Pro­testant sayth thus of him: Nostri Gual­terus in Apologia pro Zu­inglio. illi &c. Diuers of vs are not ashamed to pronounce Zuinglius to haue dyed in sinne, and therefore to haue dyed the sonne of hell. Oecolampadius Coch­laeus in actis Lu­theri. (reputed Bishop of Basill, where he lyeth buryed) and a man most forward in spreading the points of Protestancy, wēt helth­full to bedde, but was found by his wife in the morning dead in his bedde. Andreas Corolstadius, anIn ep. de morte Carolsta­dij. eminent Protestant, and a great aduancer of the supposed Ghospel, was killed by the Diuel, as certaine Ministers euen of Basill do iustify: Ia­cobus Andreas a famous Lutherā, & in other points an earnest Protestant, liued and dyed (as Hospini­an Hosp. in histor. sacram. part. 2. fol. 389. the Protestant writeth) As if he had had no [Page 117] God, but Mammon, and Bacchus; he neuer praying, neyther going to bedde, nor rysing from thence. And further sayth, that in the residue of his life, he shewed no godlines. To conclude Caluin (the re­fyner of all Protestancy, and chiefe supporter of all controuerted points against Catholikes) dyed being consumed with lice & wormes, extremely blaspheming against God, of whose death, Conra­dus Schlussenburge (a famous Protestant) thus writ­teth. Deus In Theolog. Caluinis. l. 1. f. 72. manu sua potenti &c. God with his mighty hand, did visit Caluin, for he despaired of his saluation, called vpon the Diuels, and gaue vp his soule swearing and blaspheming: Caluin dyed being eaten away with lice; for they so bred about his priuy mem­bers, that none about him could endure the stench, and smell. Thus farre the foresayd Protestant.

3. Now then, seeing all these men beleeued all the fundamentall points of Christian Religion as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion &c. seeing also they were the most principal men, that first introduced and after disseminated Protestan­cy throughout the world, spending their whole liues in spreading & defending the same by their writings. Finally seeing God did cut them off by such most miserable, calamitous, and prodigious deaths (which is to be feared were but presages of [Page 118] the eternall deaths of their soules) who can other­waies be persuaded, but that all this was wrought by the iust hand of God? Not so much for their personall sinnes proceeding of humane frailty, (for there were, many others, as great sinners as they, who haue escaped such dreadfull ends) but for their first inuēting maintaining, & preaching of the Protestant faith and Religion; & infecting all countreyes with such their false and sensuall doctrines: which being granted, how then can it with any touche of reason be supposed, that the positions of Protestancy, impugned by the Ca­tholikes, should containe nothing but matters of indifferency? Or that a man, whether he beleeue them, or not beleeue them, may alike and indif­ferently be saued?

The same proued from the doctrine of Recusancy, taught by Catholikes and Protestants. CHAP. XII.

I Haue thought good to draw another argumēt from the common taught and approued do­ctrine of Recusancy in euery Religion, though this head may seeme to haue a speciall reference, to the reason aboue touched, & in part be therin [Page 119] implicitely included, wherein is shewed, that na­ture her selfe hath imprinted, in the professours of all Religions, a religious care punctually to keep & preserue euery article of their Religion both in beliefe & practise. Now here we are to premonish, that if in the iudgment of all learned men (both Catholikes and Protestants) it is thought an acti­on most wicked and vnlawfull, and not to be per­formed, but (without finall repentance) vnder paine of eternall damnation, that a man should communicate only in going to the Church & to heare but a sermon, contrary to that Religion, which himselfe beleiueth to be true; though this may seeme to be coloured vnder pretence of ob­seruing the Princes commandements, and for feare of loosing our temporall estates; I say, if this action be thought vnlawfull, wherein neuer­thelesse the performers therof doe punctually vn­dertake, not to maintaine or to beleeue any one hereticall or erroneous position; how then can it be reputed, as consonant to reason, that men be­leiuing different opinions of faith and promiscu­ously communicating in prayer, with a contrary Religion to their owne, should neuerthesse all be saued? since the first fault consisteth (as some would interpret though falsely) only in an exter­nall [Page 120] and materiall (as the schoolemen speake) go­ing to the Church of a different Religion, wheras the others do directly and openly sinne in defen­ding articles of Religion, contrary to the truth of Christian Religion; for such is the case herein, either of Catholiks or protestants.

2. Now that this kind of going to Church of a different Religion is wholely condemned, as most vnlawfull and wicked, I first proue from the iudgments of the Protestants; secondly from the resolutions of the Catholikes. And to begin with the Protestants, we find this kind of Recusancy (I meane to be present at the sermons or prayers of a different Religion) is taught byDe vi­tandis su­perstitio. extant in tract. Theolog. p. 584. Caluin, by theAllea­ged by Sleydan in com. englished l. 7. f. 87. Deuines of Germany, byIn cō ­cil. Theol. p. 628. Melancthon, byIn his discourse hereof re­cited in Melanct. treatise de concil. Theolog. pa. 934. & 635. Peter Martyr, and finally (to omit others) by D. Willet, In synops. printed 1600. p. 612. & 613. &c. who for the better fortifying and warranting of the sayd opinion, produceth his testimonyes from the authorityes of Latimer, Bradford, Philpot, Ridley, and others, diuers, of which according to this their doctrine, suffered death in Queene Maries tyme, as appeareth out of Foxes acts and Monuments. And thus much for the Protestants. That the Catholikes do with the like or greater feruour, teach, & practise this recusancy, is cleare by the example in our owne [Page 121] Countrey, where since Protestancy was first plan­ted, many stores of venerable and learned Priests haue chosen rather to suffer death, then they would change their Religion, or goe once to the Protestants Church; their liues being commonly proferred them, if so they would conforme them­selues, and leaue their recusancy. In like sorte, many hundred of the laity pay yearely great som­mes of money for their recusancy; diuers of them enduring further oppressions, disgraces, and im­prisonement only for the same cause, through the rigour, malice, and couetousnes of subordinat Magistrates; his maiesty (whose clemency is most remarkeable, & whome God long preserue in his gouernement ouer vs) being herein mightily wronged, through the false and most iniurious informations of their aduersaryes.

3. Now that the doctrine of learned Catho­likes is answearable to the practise heerein, ap­peareth from the frequent testimonies of diuers learned men of the Catholike Church of this tyme: yet for greater breuity I will insist in the authorityes only of three, to wit, Cardinall Baro­nius, Cardinall Bellarmine (the two late lampes of Gods Church) and of Mutius Vitellescus, then but Prouinciall, now Generall and head of the order [Page 122] of the Iesuits dispersed throughout all Christen­dome. For some yeares past their iudgments be­ing demanded, whether the Catholiks of Englād, for the sauing of their goods, liuings, and liberty, might goe to the Protestant Church, or not to heare a sermon, though otherwayes they did not communicate in prayers and sacraments with the Protestants, these three learned & holy men (be­sides diuers others most eminent Doctours and writers, whome I heere omit) did giue their nega­tiue sentence therein, whose particuler wordes in latine, I haue thought good heere to set downe.

4. And thus farre touching the sentences of these three learned men, deliuered in warranting the doctrine of recusancy in Catholikes. Now to turne our eye vpon the premises; if the going to the Church of another Religion, only for auoy­ding of temporall losses, & but to heare a sermon of the said Religion, be to be accounted a sinne, not to be done vnder paine of damnation, as be­ing presumed to be an externall conformity to a false Religion (as by all the former testimonyes aboue alleadged is plentifully proued) though the party so offending, may perhaps beleeue al points truly of Christian Religion; with what reason thē can it be warranted, that both Catholikes & Pro­testants conspiring only in the fundamētal points of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion &c. but dif­fering mainly in all other points of Religion, yet neuerthelesse promiscuously communicating one with another in prayers and the Sacraments, can all ioyntly be saued? And the rather, seeing that [Page 126] both sides teaching contrary and irreconciliable doctrines, touching Freewil, Purgatory, Praying to Saints &c. It must needes follow, that the one part defendeth not matters of indifferency (as is commonly supposed) but iniustifiable errours, or rather (to speake as the truth is) manifest and grosse heresie.

The same proued from the writings of Catholikes and Protestants, wherin they reciprocally charge one an­other with heresy. As also from the Insurrecti­ons, warres, and Rebellions originally vn­dertaken only for Religion. CHAP. XIII.

IF there were no other reason to be alleadged in disprouffe and confutation of this plurality of Religions (so to tearme it) then this following, it might seeme fully preuayling in all cleare iud­gments, not wholely darkened with the mist of earthly and temporal respects: First the wonder­full and ireconcileable booke-warrs betwene Ca­tholikes and Protestants, wholely vndertaken in defence of their seuerall Religions: Secondly the pressures and calamities, with which diuers stats & Countreys do afflict other states, as also the In­surrection [Page 127] of subiects against their naturall Prin­ces, only for difference of Religion, not contay­ning themselues, till they burst out into open ho­stility and armes, for defending their owne Reli­gion, and subuerting of the others.

2. Touching the first (good God) how ma­ny learned men on all sides, since the first Apo­stasy of Luther, haue spent their whole time and al their seruiceable yeares in wryting, disputing, & preaching in defence of their owne Religion, & impugning of the aduersaries; accounting the maintainers and beleiuers therof as heretikes, and pronouncing eternal damnation against their Re­ligion? Witnesses hereof are the libraries of al the famous Vniuersities of Christendome, the Stati­oners shoppes in all great Citties, and lastly the yearely Mart of books returned these many years from Franckefort. And is it possible, that so much paines, trauaile, and labour of writing, & other­wayes accompanied with so great charges of prin­ting, should be vndertaken for questions only of indifferency, and such as it importeth nothing at all, touching the gayning of Heauen & auoiding of Hell, what a man beleiueth therin, or of what side he relyeth.

3. Concermig that second point, which is the [Page 128] afflictiōs, & warrs with which one state, Coūtrey, or kingdome do persecute their neighbours, and al originally and primatiuely for matters of Reli­gion, as also touching the open Rebellion of the subiects against their lawful Soueraignes, only for the said occasion. The last threescore years, as also these very times, do giue ouer lamentable exam­ples heerof. Witnesses of this matter (purposely to forbeare the presidents of our owne Country) is Scotland, into which Countrey Knox, Good­man, and Bocanan with other their Agents and confederats, first introduced Protestancy by force and armes; a point so acknowledged, that Do­ctor Bancroft, the late pretended Archbishop of Canterbury, as wholely inueighing against such violent courses, made a booke entituling it: Of the proceeding of the Scottishe Ministres according to the Geneuian rules of reformation.

4. Touching France, who knoweth not, that for this last fifty yeares, there haue beene al­wayes almost open warres betweene the Kinges of France & the Huguenots (till the last King of France became Catholike) vndertaken by the Huguenots only for Religion? And do not the Cittyes of Rochell, Mont-albons, Montpelliers with diuers others at this very day, stand out a­gainst [Page 129] their King vnder pretext of the defence of their Religion and Ghospell? The occuren­ces of this nature of the low Countreyes, and the Hollanders are no lesse remarkable; of whose first taking of armes against their lawfull King only for Religion, Osiander an earnest Protestant thus confesseth: They Osian. n Epito. cent. 16. pag. 94. of the low Countreys by publick writings, renounced all subiection and obedience to Phi­lippe their Lord and King. And againe: VVhen Osian. vhi supra pag. 81. foure hundred of them of good respect haue sued for li­berty of Religion, and could not preuaile, the impatient people stirred vp with fury at Antwerpe, and other places of Holland, Zeland, and Flandres, did throw & breake downe Images. But of the proceedings and rebellions of the low Countrey men against their King, only for cause of Religion, it is needles to speake further, seeing it is to well knowne to all men of vnderstanding, & that most worthy soul­dier, Spinola (another Iudas Machabaeus of these tymes) by his heroicall exploits & endeauours e­uen at this very day, seeking to reduce the lowe Countreyes to their former allegiance, doth suf­ficiently proclayme to the world the truth heer­of.

5. I passe ouer Geneua, which citty (as the whole world knoweth) did first withdraw it selfe [Page 130] from the allegeance of their Leideg Lord the Duke of Sauoy, only by reason that against his will and pleasure, they would professe the Prote­stant Religion, and so accordingly to this daye, they haue made themselues a state or common­wealth, wholely independent of Sauoy, of which citty Doctor Sutcliffe confessedly writeth:in his answere to a cer­taine libe supplicatory p. 194. They of Geneua did depose their catholike leidge Lord, and Prince from his temporall right; albeit he was by right of succession, the temporall Lord and owner of that cit­ty and Territory. In like sort, I pretermit the many like examples of the commons arysing a­gainst their lawfull Princes and Magistrats inChi­traeus in chron. 1593. & 1594. Sueueland,See heerof Fulke his acknow­ledgment in his an­swere to Farnius declama­tiō p. 35. Denmarke,Osian. in epito. centur. 16. p. 115 Poland,Tou­ching Heluetia or Swi­therland, changing their Re­ligion by warre, see D. Bancroft in his suruay of the holy pretended discipline p. 13. and Chrispinus of the state of the Church p. 509. Ger­many, andSee the acknowledgement of D. Bilson in his true difference part. 3. p. 270. & 273. Bohemia, & of this last Country, the late and fresh reuolt of the subiects from the Emperours obedience. All which risings, Insur­rections, and Rebellions were originally vnderta­ken only for Religion, and haue no doubt since the first breach of Luther, cost the liues in all pla­ces of a million of men, at least, and haue actual­ly deposed and disthroned diuers Kings & Prin­ces of their estates and territoryes.

6. These thinges then for their euidency [Page 131] being acknowledged for true and vndeniable, many of which remaine as yet fresh in our owne memory, of the nature of which Actions, I will not heere dispute. Only I heere vrge, that it is more then incredible, that such rebellious deua­station of Countreyes, beseiging of cittyes, de­posing of Princes, slaughter of many hundred thousandes of men, should be practised almost throughout al christendom within this last three score yeares, only for admitting, or not admit­ting the differences betweene the Protestant and Catholike religion, if both the contrary partyes were not persuaded, that vpon the true or false beleefe of these controuersies in Religion, their soules saluation or damnation for all eternity did depend. For it is certaine, that these contrary partyes did agree and conspire, in the generall beliefe of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, death of our Sauiour, and verbally reciting of the Apostles Creed.

The same proued from the Protestants mutually con­demning one another of heresy & for Heretikes. CHAP. XIIII.

IF Protestants doe maintaine, that their dif­ferent [Page 132] opinions seuerally houlden among them­selues be heresyes, and that the beleeuers of them are for such their false beliefe (if so they dy there­in) not capable of saluation; then à fortiori may we be bould to pronounce, that the Controuer­sies of fayth, betweene the Catholiks & the Pro­testants, are not of that middle nature; but that the opinions and sentences of the one side, are to be reputed for manifest heresyes, & such as can­not stand with mans saluation. This inference is most necessary, since on all sides it is acknowled­ged, that there is a farre greater disparity in Reli­gion betweene the Catholiks and the Protestāts, then there is betweene the Protestants among themselues.

2. Now that the Protestants do hould one another for Heretikes, it cannot be denyed. For to insist first in the Controuersies touching the reall presence, maintayned in their sense by the Lutherans, but denyed by the Sacramentaries, we find that Luther thus writeth of the Sacramen­taries: VVe Luth. contr. ar­ticulos Louanie­ses thes. 27. tom. 2. censure in earnest the Zuinglians, and all the Sacramentaryes for Heretikes, and alienated from the Church of God. And againe the same Lu­ther thus writteth: I doe Tom. 7. VVitē. fol. 381. protest before God and the world, that I do not agree with the Zuinglians, nor [Page 133] euer will whilest tht world standeth, but will haue my handes cleane from the blood of those sheep, which these Heretikes (marke his wordes) do driue from Christ, deceaue and kill. And againe in the former place: Cursed Vbi supra. be the charity and concord of the Sacramen­taryes, for euer and euer to all eternity. But Hereti­kes, and men alienated from the Church of God, and which doe kill the sheepe of Christ (during such their condition) are not in state of saluation.

3. Now of Luthers doctrine we find this bitter recriminatiō vsed by the Tigurine Diuines, who were Zuinglians or Caluinists: Nos Tigu­rini tract. 3. contra supremā Lutheri confessio­nem. con­demnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam &c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and execrable sect, but let him looke, that he doth not declare himselfe an Archeretike, seeing he will not, nor cannot haue society with those, that confesse Christ. And Zuinglius thus writteth: Behould Tom. 2. ad res­pons. Lu­theri. how Satan endeauoureth to possesse this mā, meaning Luther. But to proceed to other points. Nicolaus Gallus (an eminent Protestant and super­intendent at Ratisbone) thus writeth of the con­tentions betweene the Protestants themselues: Non In thesibus & Hypo­thesibus. sunt leues &c. The dissentions, that are among vs, are not light, nor of light matters, but of the grea­test articles of Christian doctrine, of the law and the ghospell, of Iustification and good workes, of the Sa­crament [Page 134] and vse of Ceremonyes. Conradus Slussenburg (another famous Protestant) alleadgeth Pappus a Protestant, thus complaining against the Calui­nists: Etsi initio In theologia Caluinist l. 1. art. 28. de vno tantum articulo &c. Al­though in the beginning one only article was called into doubt, notwithstanding the Caluinists are now so farre gone, as they call in doubt, neither few, neither the least articles of Christian doctrine: for now we dissent from them, touching the omnipotency of God, the personal v­nion of two natures in Christs &c.

4. But to come nearer home; theIn their mild defence of the silen­ced mini­sters sup­plication to the court of parlamēt. Puri­tans here of England thus complaine of the Protestants: Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay rather many of them do much more swarue from the same &c And thus answerably we find, that the Puritans hould the Bishops of En­gland for Antichristian, whereas the Protestants do teach, that of necessity Bishops ought to be in the Church of God. Doctor VVillet speaking of diuers opinions taught by the more moderate Protestant, as M. Hooker, D. Couell and others, thus writeth: From In medit. in psal. 122 this fountaine hath spronge forth these and other such whirle pooles and bubbles of new doctrine, as that Christ is not originally God &c. And then after he thus cōcludeth: Thus haue some byn bould to teach and write, who as some Schismatiks [Page 135] (mening herby the Puritās) haue disturbed the peace of the Church, one way in externall matters, concer­ning discipline, they haue troubled the Church, another way in opposing themselues by new quirkes and deuises, to the soundnes of doctrine among Protestants. M. Parkes in his booke dedicated to the then preten­ded Archbishop D. Bancroft, thus writeth of the proceedings of some Puritans heere in England: They Epist dedic. are headstronge and hardened in errour, they stricke at the maine points of Faith, shaking the very foundation it selfe, Heauen and Hell, the diuinity and humanity, yea the very soule and saluation of our Sa­uiour himselfe. And againe more plainly in the former place he sayth thus: They haue pestilent he­resies. And yet more: They are hereticall and sacri­legious.

5. To conclude this point of their particu­ler sayings and redargutions heerin, D. Couell re­peating and registring the positions of the Puri­tans here in England,In his de­fense of Hooker [...] 65. & 74. & 75 among other of their posi­tions setteth downe these following: The statute Congregations of England, are no true Church, And againe: The Protestant church of England hath no forme of a Church. Now that all these dissentions among English Protestants, cannot be interpre­ted only about ceremonies, or about gouerne­ment, [Page 136] as some Protestants doe answeare,Vbi supra. when they are chardged herewith by the Catholikes) the foresaid M. Parkes plainly and truly confes­seth the cōtrary, saying: The Protestants deceaue the world, and make men beleeue, there is agreement in all substantiall points; They affirme that there is no que­stions among them of the truth. Now the former point is furthermore made euident by the reci­procall deportment and demeanour of Prote­stants among themselues. For first (besides the chardging one another with flatt heresy, as is a­boue shewed) they doe not only prohibite the readingSo Hospiniā a Prote­stant wit­nesseth in histor. sa­crament. parte al­tera fol. 693. of ech others books; but they also set downe articles of visitation for the inquiryHos­piniā vbi supra. & apprehending of such their aduersaries, and being apprehended do imprisonHosp. vbi supra them; yea further they proceede, not allowing the trauailersso re­lateth O­siander in Epitom. of either party, common entertainement, due in al Nations to strangers. Finally their dissentions are so implacable among them (though all be Protestants) as that in defence of their seuerall doctrine, they haue with great hostility takenThis is showed & exem­plifyed by Hospiniā vbi supra fol 395. & 397. In like sort by O­siander in epitom. cent. 16. pag. 735. armes, one against another, as appeareth by the late memorable example in Holland of the Ar­minians and Gomarists, who only for some diffe­rence touching Freewill and Predestination be­tweene [Page 137] them, did rise in hostile manner against their aduersaryes, and ceased not that course till Barnauille the chiefe of one side & faction, was beheaded. All which violences and extremityes, would neuer haue beene vndertaken, if their di­uersity of doctrine (which is the cause of such and so great exhorbitancies) did consist only in arti­cles indifferent of themselues, and such as did not concerne the necessity of saluation.

6. The foresayd point touching the Protestāts dissentions in essentiall points of fayth, is most clearely manifested, by taking a view of their bookes, written one against another (though this method is partly inuolued in the displaying of their particuler sentences and writings aboue al­leadged). The number heerof, amounteth to di­uers hundreds; yet as desirous to be short and compendious, I will set downe the titles only of twenty of them, euen from which titles the indif­ferent Reader may iudge, whether the authours of them (being al eminent Protestants) did main­taine the subiects of the sayd books to be matters of indifferency, and such as may be either way houlden without breach of that true fayth, which is necessary to mans saluation. And heere I will forbeare to reckon within this number, any book [Page 138] written only eyther for, or against the reall pre­sence, maintained by the Lutherans, because heerein they conspire partly with vs Catholikes, and consequently the controuersy heerin resteth, not only betweene the Protestants themselues, but also betweene them and vs.

7. First then may be reckoned that booke intituled: Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei, contra im­pios & blasphemos errores Zuinglianorum & Caluini­starum: printed Tubingae, Anno Domini 1586.

Secondly, Alberti Graueri bellum Ioannis Calui­ni & Iesu Christi, Brapiae 1598.

Thirdly, Antipeus, hoc est, refutatio venenati scripti a Dauide Pareo editi, in defensionem Stropha­rum & corruptelarum, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustri­ssima scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis, nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit. Francofurti 1598.

Fourth. Aegidij Hunnij, Caluinus Iudaizans, hoc est, Iudaicae glossae & corruptelae, quibus Ioannes Calui­nus illustrissima scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate, deitate Christi, & Spiritus Sancti, cum primis autem vaticinia Prophetarum de aduentu Messiae, & natiuitate eius, Passione, Resurrectione, A­scensione ad caelos, & sessione ad dexteram Dei, dete­standum in modum corrumpere non abhorruerit. VVit­tenbergae. [Page 139] 1593

Fift, Conradi Schlussenburgij Theologiae Caluini­sticae libri tres, in quibus, seu in tabula quadam, quasi ad oculum, plusquam ex ducentis viginti tribus sacra­mentariorum publicis scriptis, pagellis, verbis proprijs, & authorum nominibus indicatis demonstratur, eos de nullo fere Christianae fidei articulo recte sentire &c. Francofurtae 1594.

Sixt, Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini, Petri Boquini, Theodori Bezae, VVillelmi Clebitij &c. & similium calumnias; Item Refutatio Pelagiani seu, A­nabaptistici, Caluinistarum erroris de baptismo & pec­cato originali. Adduntur collectanea plurimorum Cal­uini contra Deum, eius (que) prouidentiam & praedestina­tionem. Effordiae 1583.

Seauenth, Demonstratio imposturarum ac fraudū, quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit. Bremae 1592.

Eight, Argumentorum & obiectorum, de preci­puis articulis doctrinae christianae cum responsionibus, quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis, ad­ditis scholijs illustrantibus vsum singularum responsio­num, partes septem. Neapoli 1578.

Ninth, Gulielmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesia Pastoris institutio, de tribus Religionis summis capiti­bus, quae inter Euangelicos in Controuersiam vocantur. [Page 140] Hannoniae. 1596.

Tenth, Responsio triplex ad fratres Tubingenses, & triplex eorum scriptum, de tribus grauissimis questi­onibus, de coena Domini, de maiestate hominis Christi, & de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei, nec auditis nec vo­catis: Geneuae. 1582.

Eleuenth, Ad Ioannis Brentij argumenta, & Iacobi Andreae theses, quibus carnis Christi omnipresen­tiam nituntur confirmare; id est aduersum renouatos Nestorij & Eutichetis errores responsum. Geneuae. 1570.

Twelueth, Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Zuingliani & Caluiniani nominis inuidiae vim & iniuriam patiuntur, Tiguri 1578

Thirteene, Christophori Pezelij Apologia verae doctrinae de definitione Euangelij, apposita thrasonicis praestigijs Ioannis VVigandi, VVittenbergae. 1572.

Fourteene, Colloquij Montisbelgartensis inter Ia­cobum Andreae & Theodorum Bezam, Acta Tubingae 1584.

Fifteene, Veritatis victoria, & ruina papatus Saxonici. Losannae 1563.

Sixteene, Hamelmannia, siue Aries Theologizans dialogus oppositus duabus narrationibus historicis. Her­mani Hamelmanni, Neostadij 1582,

Seauenteene, Christiani Kittelmani decem gra­ues [Page 141] & perniciosi errores Zuinglianorum in doctrina de peccatis, & Baptismo, ex proprijs ipsorum libris colle­cti & refutati, Madelburg. 1592.

Eighteene, Ioannis Mosellani praeseruatiua con­tra venenum Zuinglianorum, Tubingae 1586.

Ninteene, Responsio ad scriptum, quod Theologi Bremenses aduersus collectores Apologiae formulae con­cordiae publicarunt. Lipsiae 1585.

Twenty, Hieremiae Victoris vera & dilucida demonstratio, quod Zuingliani & Caluinistae, numquā se subiecerunt confessioni Augustanae, exhibitae Carolo quinto, anno 1530. Germ. Francofurti 1591. And thus much of the titles of Protestants bookes, written one against another.

8. Now from al the former premises aboue set downe, I heere conclude, that if the seuerall opinions and doctrines among the Protestants themselues be not in their owne iudgmēts, mat­ters of Indifferency; but are by themselues truely reputed for Heresies, and the maintayners of them not houlden to be in state of Saluation, but accounted branded Heretikes; then with much more reason may the same sentence be pronoun­ced, touching the maine irreconcitiable Con­trouersies, differently beleiued and houlden by the Catholikes & Protestants; & the rather since [Page 142] (as it is aboue said) there is a farre greater diffe­rence of doctrine betweene the Catholike & the Protestant, then betweene the Protestant & the Protestant.

The truth of the former doctrine proued from the ma­ny absurdityes, necessarily accompanying the con­trary doctrine. CHAP. XV.

SVCH is the sweet prouidence of the diuine maiesty in the disposall of things, as that he euer causeth truth to be warranted with many irrefragable reasons, & falsehood to be attended on with diuers grosse absurdities; that so the iud­gement of men may the better be secured, for the imbracing of truth, and remaine the lesse excusa­ble, if in place of truth it entertaineth falsehood and errour. Of the reasons conuincing the infal­lible truth of our doctrine maintained in this treatise, I haue already discussed aboue in the ninth chapter: now heere I will a little insist, in displaying the many and palpable absurdities ac­companying the contrary doctrine, which point will chiefely rest (besides some other short inser­tions) in a recapitulation of most of the former [Page 143] heades or branches, aboue handled. For if this doctrine were true, that euery one might be sa­ued in his owne Religion, or that the beleife only of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Creede, were sufficient therto, notwithstan­ding the beleife of other erroneous opinions and heresies; then would it follow: first, that the ho­ly scriptures of Christ & his Apostles, were most false, which haue inueighed so much against he­resies, and hath denounced the heauy iudgment of damnation against the professors of them, as aboue is showed, which comminations and threats the scripture in some places, not only ex­tendeth to all heresie and Heretikes in generall without anyEpist. ad Titū. cap 3. Galat [...]. 5. Rom. c. 16.1. ad Tim. 1. limitation; but also in some other texts, they are particulerly restrayned, euen to certaine heresies of farre smaller importance, then the denyal of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the passion, the Creed are, as is euident, touching the denying of1. Tim c. 4. 2. ad Tim. c. 2. 1. Ioan. cap. 2 mariadge, of eating certaine meats, and touching the nature of Christ. Now that the denyall of other inferiour articls of faith then of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c. is plaine Heresie, is demonstrated aboue, both from the definition of Heresie, and from the iudgment of the primitiue Church.

[Page 144]2. Secondly, the foresaide doctrine of our Newtralists, impugnethvt su­pra. the definition of faith giuen by the Apostle, which definition of faith, comprehendeth a general beleife of all articles of Christian Religion,Heb. cap. 11. and is not therefore to be re­strained to any one kind of them.

3. In like sort it destroyeth the priuiledges, and dignityes of fayth, set downe by the foresayd Apostles, whoMatt. vltim. & Hebr. 11. promiseth saluation to him, who hath faith, as also affirmeth, That without fayth, we cannot please Eph. 4. Act. 4. Rom. 12. God; but such excellencyes cā ­not be ascribed to a mungrill fayth, which belee­ueth somethings true, other false: they are ther­fore to be giuen, to a true, intire, & perfect faith in all points, or els the Apostle grossely erred in assigning to faith the foresayd priuiledges; seeing a false fayth is no better then no faith at all.

4. Againe it depriueth Christian faith of its true marke or Character of Vnity, so much celebrated by the Apostle. Now then if vnity of faith be necessary to Saluation, how can both Catholikes and Protestants, expect saluation? Seeing there is no greater distance betweene the opposite parts of a Diameter, then there is repu­gnancy betweene both their beleifes. And thus if both them (though wanting this vnity) can be [Page 145] saued, then hath the Apostle falsely and errone­ously described and delineated the fayth of a Christian. But to reflect vpon the former passa­ges; is any man so stupid, as to dreame, that that doctrine should be true, which giueth so o­pen a lye to so many vnanswerable texts of Gods holy writ, touching the condemning of Heretiks in generall, as also touching the definition, ex­cellency, and propriety of true faith? It is impos­sible, it is not to be imagined; Gods word is like himselfe, most true, sacred, and inuiolable, and therefore it iustly witnesseth of it selfe, that Srip­tura Matt. 24. non potest solui. And againe: Coelum & ter­ra transibunt, verba autem mea non transibunt. Math. 24 Heauē and earth shall passe away, but my wordes shall not passe.

5. But to proceede further touching the foresaid want of vnity & disagreements; if euery Christian might be saued in his owne Religion, then might those be saued, which beleiue the arti­cles of the Creed in a most differēt sence & man­ner, then which, what can be more rashly & ex­orbitātly spoken? For seeing there is but one true intended sence by the Apostles of the Creede, which if we attaine not, then doe we beleiue, that which is false; but to beleeue the Creede in a false [Page 146] sence is no better, then not to beleiue it at all, as is aboue said, and therefore it would followe by way of inference, that he might be saued, who be­leiued not any one article of the Creede at all. Now that the Catholikes & Protestants do be­leiue the articles of the Creede in different (or ra­ther contrary) senses, (and consequently that the one side beleiueth it in a false and erroneous sen­se) is aboue proued in the fourth chapter.

6. If it be here replyed, that the maintainers of this doctrine do so farre yeald, that they only are to be saued, which in a true sence beleeue the Creed; yet by this their restrainct they condem­ne all those others, which beleeue it in any other sense different from that, intended by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles; and consequently, they condemne in their iudgment and depriue of sal­uation, either the Catholikes or the Protestants; since of necessity, the one of these do beleeue the Creed, not in its true sense, but in a false and he­reticall sence and construction, different from that of the Apostles.

7. But granting that the Catholikes and Protestants beleeue the Creed, in one true sence intended by the holy Ghost; yet if our Newtra­lists would haue the Creed the square or rule, [Page 147] thereby to measure our fayth, then marke the absurdityes following: For by this doctrine one might be saued, who beleeued 1. Not that there were any Scriptures at all written by the Prophets & Apostles (since the Creed maketh no mention of any such diuine writinges.) 2. In like sort he might be saued, who did not beleeue, there were any Angells or Diuels. 3. Or that there is a materiall place of Hell. 4. Or that the paynes thereof are eter­nall. 5. Or that Adam did presently vpon his cre­ation fall from grace, and therby transported original sinne vpon all his posterity. 6. Or that our Sauiour whilest he conuersed heere vpon earth, wrought any miracles. 7. Or made choice of certaine men to be his Apostles, to preach the Christian fayth throughout the whole worlde. 8. Or that Circumsicion is now forbidden and antiquated. 9. Or that there are a­ny Sacraments of the new testament, as Baptisme, the Eucharist &c. 10. Or that finally before the disso­lution of the world, a designed ennemy of Christ shall come, who is tearmed Antichrist. I say by our New­tralists Religion, he should be saued, who belee­ued none of the foresayd articles, seeing not any one of them is expressed or set downe in the A­postles creed; and yet the beliefe of the sayd ar­ticles, is necessarily exacted & required to salua­tion [Page 148] both in the iudgments of the Catholikes & the Protestants, both which partyes do with an vnanimous consent, teach the necessity of belee­uing the sayd articles.

8. But to proceed further, & to come to the different articles of fayth, differently beleeued by the Catholikes & Protestants; and yet not expressed in the Creed, & articles of such nature, as that they are houlden by the Catholikes to be instituted by our Sauiour, as subordinate (yet necessary) meanes of the grace of God, and of saluation; whereas the Protestants, as not belee­uing at all the sayd articles, do wholely disclayme from acknowledging all such meanes. These ar­ticles I haue recited aboue, to wit, 1. That Sacraments in generall do conferre grace. 2. That a childe dying without baptisme, cannot be saued. 3. That mortall sinne is not remitted without the sacra­ment of Pennance and confession. 4. That we are to adore with supreme honour the Blessed Sacrament. 5. That not only fayth, but also workes do iustify man. 6. That a Christian, by thinking himselfe to be iust, is not thereby become iust. 7. That euery Christian hath sufficient grace offered by God to saue his soule, & that therefore God on his part would haue all men saued. 8. That without keeping the tenne [Page 149] commandements a man cannot be saued. 9. Final­ly, that all Christians, ought vpon payne of eternall damnation to communicate in sacraments and doctrine with the church of Rome, and to submit themselues in al due obedience to the supreme pastour of Gods church. In al which points the Protestants do beleeue di­rectly the contrary, condemning vs of heresy, superstition, yea idolatry, for our belieuing the foresayd points. Now I say, seeing the former articles do immediatly touch & concerne either remission of our sinnes, or grace of our soule, or our iustification, or our due honour adoration to our Sauiours body being accompanied with his diuinity, or lastly our communion with Christ his church, and the head therof, in any of which (as concerning so nearely our eternall happines) who erreth, cannot possibly be saued.

9. And seeing the Protestants (as is sayd) do in all the sayd points maintaine the iust contrary to the Catholikes, and thereby do abandone the Catholikes acknowledged meanes of their salua­tion; I heare aske in all sobernes of iudgment, what can be reputed for a greater absurdity, then to affirme with our Newtralists, that the Catho­likes and Protestants (notwithstanding their so different and contrary beliefe, and answearble [Page 150] practise in the former articles, so neerely tou­ching mans saluation) may both be saued? See­ing it must needs be, that either the Catholikes shalbe damned for setting downe certaine means of our saluation, contrary to Christs mind and institution (supposing the sayd means to be false) or that the Protestants shalbe damned for reie­cting the former meanes of Saluation instituted by Christ, admitting them to be true.

10. But to passe forward: If euery Christian might be saued in his Religion, in beleuing only the fundamentall points of the Trinity, the In­carnation, &c. then hath the Church of Christ euen in her primitiue dayes (at what time the Protestants themseluesSee of this ac­knowled­gement the defen­ce of the Apology of Englād written by Doctor Iewel, Kemnit. in exam. Concil. Trid. par. 1. p. 74. the cōfess. of Bohe­mia in the harmony of confess. pag. 400. besides di­uers o­thers. doe exempt her from errour) most fondly & intollerably erred in con­demning certaine opinions (which are not fun­damentall) for Heresies, and the maintayners for Heretikes; and consequently the scripture, and Christ himselfe haue deceaued vs, by ascribing vnto the Church, an infallibilityMath. 18. Luc. 10.2. Tim. 3. of erring in her definitions of Faith, and cōdemnation of he­resies, and by commanding vs to obey the chur­ches authority and sentence, in all thinges, as stiling her the pillar, and foundation of truth. And further it should follow, that the Church [Page 151] should thus insufferably erre, both in generall Councells, as also in the priuate authorities and sentences of all the learned Fathers in the firste times.

11. And thus for example, the Councell of the Apostles should haue erred,Act. 15. in decreeing it vnlawfull to eate in those times blood and stran­gled meates. In like sort the first Councell of NiceEuseb. l. 6 hist. c. 33. should haue erred, in condemning the Quartodecimani for heretikes, because they would not keepe Easter day, according to the custome of the church. The councell of Rome vnder Cornelius for condemning the heresie of the Nouatians; who reiected the Sacrament of Pennance, as also for condemning the errour of Anabaptisme. The councellVt patet in act. 2. of Calche­don, for condemning the Heresie of Eutiches, and for prohibiting the mariages of Monkes, and Virgins; and the first Councell of Ephesus Socra. l. 7. c. 34. for condemning the heresy of Nestorius; both which Heretikes beleiued in the most holy Tri­nity, and acknowledged Christ for their Redee­mer. The fourth councell of Carthage Can. 79. for sen­tentionally decreeing, that prayer and sacrifice for the dead, was according to the true faith of Chirst, and for pronouncing the denyers therof [Page 152] for Heretikes. And finally (to omitt other Coū ­cels) the councell of Constantinople Zona­ras in vi­ta Con­stantini & Nice­phorus l. 17. c. 27 should haue erred, for condemning the Heresie of Origen, who taught that the Diuels in the end should be saued. And thus farre of councels condemning points of seeming indifferency, for open & wic­ked heresyes.

12. But now graunting that the sayd points as they were houlden by the maintainers of thē) were not Heresies, & that the beleiuers of them might be saued, then two maine absurdityes doe ineuitably follow. The first is, the erring of the whole Church of God in condemning them for heresies, they being not Heresies, but true do­ctrines, as is said. The second, the inconsiderate carriadge of the church in these matters: For to what purpose or end, were all these councells (consisting of many hundreds of the most graue and Reuerend men of all christendome) celebra­ted with such labour and trauaile out of all coun­tries, and infinite chardges, if the doctrines (for the impugning, resisting, & condemning wher­of they were gathered) might be indifferently maintayned and defended on all sides, without breach of true faith, or danger of saluation? The erring of the Church is no lesse manifested [Page 153] in the sentences and condemnation giuen by many of the most ancient, famous, & learned Fa­thers in the primitiue Church (not any one or­thodoxall Father contradicting them therein) a­gainst diuers, maintayning opinions, that seeme, in (regard or the Trinity, the Incarnation &c) of small importance; if so these opinions be not heresies, nor the beleiuers of them Heretikes, but men in state of saluation.

13. And thus according hereto Florinus, though he taught God to be the authour of sinne, might be saued. In like sort the Heretikes, who in S. Hieromes dayes, denyed the possibility of the Cō ­mandements, the Manichees, who denyed Free­will, the Eunomians, who taught that only faith did iustify. The Aerians, who denyed prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and tooke away all fasting-dayes. Vigilantius, who taught that Priests might marry, & that we ought not pray to Saints. Io­uinian, who helde mariadge to be better then virginity; The Donatists, who taught the inuisi­bility of the Church. And finally (to omit ma­ny others for breuity sake). The Pelagians, who denyed the necessity of Baptisme in Children. All these men (I say) might be saued, notwith­standing the former doctrines, if so euery one [Page 154] might expect saluation in their Religion. And yet we finde, that the foresaid men, were branded for wicked Heretikes, & their doctrines for damna­ble Heresies (as in the seauenth chapter aboue is showed) by S. Irenaeus, S. Hierome, S. Epipha­nius, Philastrius, S. Augustine, Theodoret, and o­thers; diuers of these holy Fathers wryting Ca­talogues of Heresies, did place the foresaid do­ctrines and their authours within the said Cata­logues, and this they did without any reluctation or gainesaying of any other ancient and learned Father of their tymes.

14. From which consideration I do gather, that if those opinions were not iustly condemned for heresies, and their authours for Heretikes; then not only the Church did fondly erre in so great a matter, but also the aforesayd alleadged Fathers (to wit) S. Irenaeus, S. Hierome, Epiphani­us, S. Augustine with many such others, should deseruedly be reputed for Heretikes, for their condemning of true doctrines for heresies, and the beleeuers of them for heretikes; and on the contrary side Florinus, the Maniches, the Euno­mians, Vigilantius, Iouinian, the Donatists, Pe­lagius, and many other such, should be accoun­ted for their teaching of true doctrins, orthodo­xall [Page 155] Fathers and authours, and might haue iustly complayned of their insupportable wronges, and indignityes proceeding from the pennes of the foresayd Fathers: an absurdity, which I thinke no man, enioying the benefit of his fiue senses, will allow: And yet the admittance of our New­tralists paradox, inauoydably draweth on this in­ference.

15. Another absurdity accompanying the for­mer doctrine, is, that Heretikes should be true members of Christs church. This I deduce. For seeing by the consent of all learned men, none can be saued, but such as be members of Christs Church (for otherwayes Turks and Iewes dying in that state might be saued) and seeing the fore­sayd registred doctrines, and the authours are condemned for heresies and Heretikes, both by the authority of Gods Church, and according to the true definitiō of heresy aboue set downe (for the foresayd Heretikes made choyce of those their heresies, and did maintaine them most fro­wardly against the whole Church of God, not submitting their iudgments to it) it must of ne­cessity follow, that if those men could be saued, then Heretikes continuing Heretikes, are mem­bers of Christ his Church; then which, what pa­radox [Page 156] in it selfe can be accounted more absurde, or in the iudgment of learned men more incre­dible? Considering with what acerbity of com­portement, the Apostles & all the orthodoxall, learned, & pious Fathers, both in their writings & otherwise, haue in all ages entertained Here­tikes, as aboue I haue manifested in the sixth Chapter.

16. Againe, supposing the truth of the do­ctrine of the Omnifidians (as I may tearme thē) yet obserue how repugnant it is to all reason, & otherwise absurd euen in its owne nature. I will heere passe ouer diuers reasons alleadged in the precedent chapter, and insist a little in some few of them. The first: It is certaine, that that faith which belieueth some articls, & yet belieueth not others, which are no lesse true (& such is the faith of our Newtralists) is no true supernatural fayth; seeing it beleeueth nothing thorough the au­thority of God & his Church, both which re­ueale and propound all articles alike & indiffe­rently to al men to be beleeued. Now what more crosse to reason, then that a bare opinion (not re­lying vpon any supernaturall grounds, as hauing neither God for its Reuealer, nor the Church for its propounder) conceaued only through moral in­ducements [Page 157] (& therefore euer standing obnoxi­ous to errour and mistaking) should be able to purchase eternall saluation to mans soule?

17. Againe how aduerse is it to all true iudg­ment, to auerre, that it is no preiudice or hinde­rance to mans saluation, to beleeue those princi­ple of Religion, which teach & aduance all li­berty & sensuality in conuersation and manners, & do depresse and disparadge all chastity, fasting voluntary pouerty, keeping of the commande­ments, all rigorous and painefull workes, and la­bours of vertue, piety, and mortification? For it is most contradictory in the very tearmes, and no lesse repugnāt to Gods sacred word, that that doctrine, which transferreth Iud [...] vers. 4. the grace of God into wantonnes, should be accounted the Mat. 7. Luc. 13. strict way, which leadeth vnto life.

18. Furthermore, can it be conceaued, as sorting to Gods most mercifull proceeding with man, that he should cut off the liues of those mē with most feareful, sodaine, & prodigious deaths, who first broached the doctrines of Protestancy, if the sayd doctrines had eyther bene true in thē ­selues, or at least of that coldnes or indifferency, as that they might stand with the soules salua­tion? No, God is iust, and withall mercifull; & [Page 158] therefore neuer extraordinarily punisheth, but for extraordinary sinnes; poore men that these were, who compare (as it should seeme) both in the diuulging of their mendacious and lyinge doctrines, as also in their vnexpected and sodai­ne death, with the false Prophets of3. Regum. Achab.

9. But to hasten to an end in the ennumera­tion of the Absurdities, following the foresaid pa­radox of saluation in euery Religion, and to come to that which within its owne lardgnes inuolueth many improbabilities. For if Catholikes and Protestants (notwithstanding the disparity of their fayth) can both attaine to Heauen, in vaine then is the doctrine of recusancy taught ioyntly on both sides, and in vaine haue so many sortes of Reuerend and learned Preists & others of the laity in our owne Country (whose blessed soules, I beseech to pray to God dayly for the remissi­on of my many sinnes) suffred cruell deaths in the late Queenes raigne, only because they refu­sed to present themselues to the sermons of the Protestants; but they are gone, & most happely gone, since: Clauis Tert. de prescr. Paradisi, sanguis Martyrum. In vaine likewyse, these later yeares haue diuers lay persons endured (contrary to his Maiesties naturall inclination, most prone to mercy and [Page 159] commiseration) great losses, disgraces, and im­prisonements, only for the same cause. But who can thinke, that learned men should be so prodi­gall of their liues, and blood; and English Ca­tholikes, so insensible of their temporall states, children, and posterity, as that they would will­fully precipitate, and cast themselues into those miseries, only for not beleeuing and exercising points of indifferency, & such as may stand with their soules eternall happines? In vaine also then haue the learned men on both sides, spent out their whole liues, in defending (each man his owne Religion) in their most paineful and volu­minous bookes & writtings, if so they dissented one from another in matters of such supposed small importance. Finally in vaine and without iust cause (& therefore most cruelly) haue many forren states in Christendome, imposed proscrip­tions, bannishments, and other insupportable disgraces, to such of their owne subiects, as will not imbrace their owne doctrine and Religion, though both sides did conspire and agree in the fundamentall points of faith. In vaine also both in former times, and at this present haue there beene & are such Insurrection of subiects against their Princes; such bloody & implacable warres [Page 160] betweene absolute Princes themselues; such de­uastation & depopulation of whole Countries, such mayne battells & feilds fought with losse of diuers hundred thousands liues; and lastly such incessant & vninterrupted beseiging & takinge of great Citties and townes with effusion (for the most part) of much innocent blood of weomen and children; and all this originally and princi­pally for matter of Religion; I say in vaine & most iniuriously haue all these attempts and acti­ons beene vndertaken, if the disagreement in Religiō (for which they are vndertaken between Catholikes & Protestants) were of that reconci­leable nature, as that the professours on both sides (notwithstanding their diuersity of faith) might ioyntly be saued.

20. What can we now reply hereto in behalfe of our Newtralists? Shall we say, that the most learned men of all Religions, the Kings, Princes, States, and all their subiects of all Christendome, were and still are actually madd, and out of their senses, in managing these their deplorable at­temptes for Religion; and that our all reconci­ling and peaceable Newtralists (who through his pliable sterne of disposition in these spirituall matters, is become in kindred, as aboue is tou­ched, [Page 161] of the halfe blood with the Atheist, and who is commonly deprehended to want learning grace, and vertue) is peculiarly enlightened by God in setting downe what articles of fayth are only necessary to mans saluation, and what are to be reputed, but as accessary, and of smaller importance? To such straites (we see) is the de­fence of the former doctrine driuen vnto. Seeing therefore this doctrine of our Omnifidians, or Nullifidians (for indeed while they seeme to allow all Religions, they take away all Religion) is en­compassed on all sides with so many notorious absurdityes (as are displayed in this Chapter) & seeing it cannot be true, except there be a retro­gradation of all matters heere on earth, and a turning of the world (as they say) vpside downe, that is, except the most learned become most madd, and the most ignorant, most wise. And except truth in doctrine be necessarily to be ac­companyed with infinite grosse absurdityes, and errour and falsehood fortifyed and countenaun­ced with store of proofes both diuine & humane, as if God did purposely lay trappes to ensnare mans iudgment. Therefore, since such compor­tement and carriage of things, is not sutable and correspondent to Gods prouidence and charity [Page 162] towardes mankind, let euery man (who thinketh he hath a soule to saue or loose) vndoubtedly as­sure himselfe, that there is but one true fayth or religion, wherein he may auayleably expect sal­uation, and that this fayth of Christ, (wherewith the soule is clothed) is like to the inconsutible garment of Christ, both being incapable of di­uision, renting, or partition.

21. Now for the greater illustration of this point, by way of similitude, and as tending to­wards the closure of this treatise. Imagine that a man pretendeth right and title to certaine lands, and taketh aduise of all the learned Lawyers and Counsailours of the whole Realme, to whome he showeth all his euidences, of which some do cary a title only in grosse and in general; others proue a more particuler and more restrayned right to the sayd lands; Imagine further, that vpon the diligent perusall of the euidences, the ioynt con­sent & iudgments of all the sayd Lawyers, should after their longe and serious demurs, conspire in this one point, to wit, that for the recouering and obtayning of the sayd lands, the foreshewed euidences in generall are not only sufficient; see­ing diuers other mē not hauing any true interest in the lands, may neuerthelesse insist and vrge [Page 163] their like general clayme; but that with the help of the sayd common euidences, he must more punctually rely (for the gayning of his presumed inheritance) vpon other more particuler and personall euidences, and assignements. Now all these learned Counsailours agreeing in this sen­tence, and fortifying their iudgments heerein with their owne experience in the like case; with the new Reports warranting the same; with the authorityes of all the ancient, learned, and reue­rend Iudges before them; and lastly with the cō ­formity of reason confirming no lesse. If here now some one Emperick Atturney, or other (skil­full only by a little experience, in making a No­uerint vniuersi &c. should steppe forth (armed ō ­ly with impudency and ignorance) and should pronounce the foresayd sentence of all these lear­ned sages to be false, and that the party preten­ding right to the sayd landes, were sure by his generall title and euidences only to obtaine the same; all other his more particuler euidences, being but vnnecessary & needlesse therto, who might not iustly contemne, & reiect the censure of such a fellow? Or could not the party clayming the foresayd inheritance, be worthily reprehen­ded, if by abandoning the graue counsaile of the [Page 164] learned Lawyers, & following the aduise of this ignorant man, he should finally loose all clayme, title, and possibility to his sayd inheritance?

22. Our case is heere the same. We all pre­tend right to the inheritance of the Kingdome of heauen (for we read: Coronam vitae preparauit Dominus diligentibus se) Our title in generall ther­to, is our beliefe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion &c. (the beliefe wherof is necessary, but not sufficient) All eminent men for learning (both Catholiks and Protestants) do proue from the Scriptures; from the authority of Godes Church; from the nature of heresy; from the de­finition of true fayth, and from diuers other rea­sons and principles aboue expressed, that no man can attaine to this heauenly inheritance, by be­lieuing only the former fundamentall pointes of Christianity, if so he haue not (at least implicit­ly) a true and particuler fayth of all other lesse principall points of Christian Religion. Now commeth heere a dissolute, gamnelesse, and left-handed fellow, not practised in any kind of good literature (for it is obserued, that al our most for­ward Newtralists are men for the most part voyd of learning, vertue, & conscience) who peremp­torily out of his Pithagorian chayre (that is, with­out [Page 165] proofe) teacheth, that a beliefe in generall of the articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, &c. doth only necessarily conduce to mans salua­tion, and that the doctrines of Purgatory, Free­will, Reall presence, and other contouersies be­tweene the Catholikes and Protestants, are not in any sort necessary to the purchasing of our e­ternall inheritance and wel fare; but are to be re­puted (with reference to that end) points indif­ferent, vnauayleable, needelesse, and as the greek phrase is: Pareria, or by-matters. Who would not heere commiserate the folly & ignorance of such a man, but especially pitty the poore soules seduced by soe blind a guide?

THE CONCLVSION. CHAP. XVI.

HITHERTO, good Reader it is sufficient­ly, I hope, demonstrated, that euery Reli­gion, though professing the name of Christ, and beleeuing in the Trinity, the Incarnation, & the like fundamentall points of Christian Fayth, if their beliefe in other secondary and lesse princi­pall pointes be erroneous, cannot promise to it selfe any security of saluation; and consequently [Page 166] that the controuerted articles at this day between Catholikes and Protestants touching Purgatory, Freewill, Praying to Saints, Sacrifice &c. are of that great importance, as that the professours of both sides (to vse the phrase of a Blessed Martyr in the same case) Vnum caelum capere non potest. One heauen cannot containe. It now remayneth to show, that seeing at this day there are originally, but two different religions among Christians, to wit, the Catholike Religion and the Protestant, (within which is included all its branches & des­cendents) whether the Catholike or Protestant Religion is that wherin a man may be saued: But seeing this subiect is most learnedly and paine­fully entreated of by many Catholike wryters, who from all authorityes both diuine and hu­mane, haue irrefragably euicted the truth of their owne religion, and falsehood of the Protestants profession; and consequently that in the Catho­like, not in the Protestant faith, the soules eter­nall saluation is to be purchased: therfore I do remit the Reader for his greater satisfactiō ther­in, to the perusall of the said books, and particu­lerly to the studying (rather then to the reading) of that most elaborate, learned, vnanswereable, and gauling worke of the protestants Apolo­gie [Page 167] of the Roman Churche.

2. Only before I heere end, I must make bould to put him in remembrance, with what the Protestant Religion in this treatise (though but casually and incidently) is most truly chard­ged; to wit, first with particuler condemnations passed vpon diuers of its cheifest articles, euen by the seuerall sentences and iudgments of the pri­mitiue Church, and that therfore those doctri­nes so condemned, and yet after defended with all froward pertinacity against the Church of God, are not only therby discouered for plaine, and manifest heresies, but furthermore both im­plicitely by the testimony of holy scripture, as also by the definition of Heresy aboue expressed. Secondly, that the doctrinall speculations & po­sitions of the Protestants faith doe forceibly im­pell the willes of such as beleiue them, to all vice, liberty and sensuality. Thirdly, that God out of the infinite abysse of his Iustice, hath punished euen in this worlde, (as earnest giuen of far gre­ater punishmēt in the world to come) with most fearefull, vnnaturall and prodigions deathes, the first inuentours in our age and promulgatours of the said doctrines; and such deaths, as his diuine maiesty is accustomed to send to his professed [Page 168] ennemies. Fourthly, that Protestancy is torne a sunder with intestine diuisiōs, diuers professors of it, chardging their brethren professours with Heresie, and dispayring of their future saluati­on.

25. From all which we may infalliby conclu­de, that except Heresy, dissolution of manners, most infamous & miserable deaths and disagree­ments in doctrine between one & the same sect, be good dispsitions and meanes to purchase hea­uen, the Protestant Religion can neuer bring her beleiuers therto. What then remaineth, but that, who will expect saluation, should seeke it only in the Catholike Church? It being that Arke, ere­cted by our second Noe within which who vertu­ously liue, are exempted from that vniuersall de­luge of eternall damnation. For only in this Church is professed and taught that faith, to which by longe prescription & a continued hand of time, is peculierly ascribed the name Catholike: Catholicum Paci­anus epis. ad Sym­pronianū, quae est de nomine catholico. istud nec Marcionem, nec Apellem, nec Montanum sumit anthores. That fayth is, which was prophecyed to be of that dilating and spreading nature, as that, to it all Isa. 2. & expoū ­ded in the English bibles āno 1576 of the v­niuersa­lity of the Church, or fayth of Christ. Nations shall flow, and which shall haue the Psal. 2. & ex­pounded of the Churches vniuersa­lity by the foresayd English Bibles. 1576. end of the earth for its possessi­on from sea Psal. 72. to sea; beginning Luc. 24. at Hierusalem a­mong [Page 169] al Nations. That fayth, the Professors wher­of shalbe aDan. 2. in which is included the conti­nuance of the chur­che with­out inter­ruption. Kingdome, that shall neuer be destroy­ed, but shall stand for euer, contrary to the short cur­rents of all heresies. Of which S. Augustine thus writteth: Many heresies are allready dead, they haue continued their streame, as longe as they were able; Now they are runne out, and their riuers are dryed vp; The memory of them, that euer they were, is scarce extant: That faith, the members whereof in re­gard of their euer visible eminency, are stiled by the holy Ghost, A Psal. 57. mountaine prepared in the top of mountaines, and exalted aboue all Hilles; with re­ference wherto (to wit, in respect of the Chur­ches continuallIsa. 2. whereby is proued the chur­ches euer visibility. visibility) the aforesaide S. Augustine cōpareth it to a tabernacle placed in the sunne. Tom. 9. in ep. Ioan. tra. 2. That faith, whose vnion in doctrine both among the members therof, and with their head, is euen celebrated by Gods holy writte; since the Church of God is therefore called, One Rom. 17. Cant 6. Ioan. 10. which places [...]o [...] proue the Churches vnity. body, one spouse, and one sheepe-fould: which preuiledge S. Hierome acknowledgeth by his owne submis­sion in these wordes: I Epist. ad Damae sum. do consotiate or vnite my selfe in communion with the chayre of Peter; I know the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke; whosoeuer doth eate the lambe out of this house, is become prophane: That faith for the greater confirmation wherof, [Page 170] God hath vouchsafed to disioint the setled course of nature, by working of diuers stupendious and astonishing miracles; according to those wordes of our Sauiour: Goe Mat. 10. in which words our Sauiour maketh miracls a marke of true faith or the Churche. preach you, cure the sicke, raise the dead, cleanse the leapers, cast out Diuels. A prerogatiue so powerfull & efficacious with S. Augustine, that he expressely thus confesseth of himselfe: Miracles Tom. 6. contra epist. Ma­nich c. 4. are amongst those other things, which most iustly haue houlden me in the Churches bo­some. To conclude (omitting diuers other cha­racters (as I may tearme them) or signes of the true fayth) that fayth, which is of that force, as to extort testimony and warrant for it selfe, euen from its capitall and designed ennemyes, answe­rably to that: Our Deut. 32. which words in­clude the confession of the ad­uersary to be a note of truth. God is not as their Gods are, our ennemyes an euen witnesses. Whereunto the Protestants heerein seeme to yeald, since no lesse from their owneThis is proued in that Pro­testants do not rebaptize infants or children of Catholike Parents afore baptized. Now these Infants are baptized, in the fayth of their parents (as all children are by the doctrine of all learned Protestants) But if this fayth of Catholike parents be suf­ficient, for the saluation of their children dying baptized therein; then much more is it sufficient for the saluation of the Parents themselues, since it is most absurd to say, that the Catholike fayth of parents, should be auaileable for their children or infants dying baptized therein, and yet not auayleable for the Parents. practise, then from their acknowledgementSee thereof D. Some in his defence against Penry pag. 182. and D. Couell in his defence of M. Hookers fiue bookes of Ecclesiasticall pollicy pag. 77. in wordes, they ascribe to our Roman fayth, the hope of saluation. To [Page 171] this faith then, good Reader, with an indubious assent, adhere thou both liuing and dying. Flye Newtralisme in doctrine, as the bane of all Re­ligion; Flye Protestancy, as the bane of Christs true Religion, and say withEpist. ad Sym­phronia­num. Pacianus: Christia­nus mihi nomen est, Catholicus vero cognomen: Illud me nuncupat, istud me ostendit. A Christian is my name, a Catholike my surname: that doth denominate me, this doth demonstrate me.