SECT: I. Hovv necessary a rational Religion is for a peaceable Government: What Religion ought to be judged rational? That the truth of mysteries of Faith is more credible then cleere; A digression concerning the No­tions and Natures of things, and in particular of a Body. Hovv unreasonable it is to judg of impossibilities, in order to Gods omni­potency, because they seeme so to our human understandings. How dangerous it is for a temporal Soueraign to pretend a spiritual iuris­diction ouer his subjects: and how the Catolick world ever acknow­ledged the Bishop of Rome his spiritual iurisdiction ouer all Chri­stians▪

AMongst our Adversaries discourses against the Roman Catholick Religion, the inconsistency therof with the soueraignty and safety of Prin­ces seemeth to be most applauded. The Prote­stant Ministers ceas not to proclaim from pulpit and press, that Kings are but Tenants at will to the Pope, and that his spiritual iurisdiction de­priues them of all temporall power. see herfter [...]ar: 3. sect▪ 9. We shall rid (I hope) prote­stant Princes of that iealousy (when we treat of this point) by ma­nifesting [Page 2] the calumny. In this part of our Treatise we confine our­selues to matters of fact, reserving to dispute of the right herafter. And indeed none can frame a true iudgment of this, or of any other Controuersy, before he be informed of the historical part therof. Therfore our method is to set down in the beginning of this work the state and belief of the visible Christian and Catholick Church untill the yea [...] 1517. wherin the world heard first of protestancy: af­terwards we shall proceed to examin whether the soul and state may be better gouerned by the principles of protestancy, then of Pope­ry. We doubt not (with Gods assistance) to retort against our ad­versaries their own arguments, and to proue, that as no Religion is a safe way to salvation, but ours, so likewise not any is so fauorable to the soueraignty of lawfull Magistracy, and to the peacebleness of human gouernment, as the same Roman Catholik. We need not inculcat to States-men (how euer so Irreligious) that the support of gouernment is Religion, and that th [...]ir own Masterpiece is, to keep the multitude in awe of the lawes, not so much by force of armes (an expedient more dangerous then durable) as by a religious fear of God, and a firm persuasion that Soueraigns are his Vice-ge­rents; and divine prouidence so concerned in the maintenance of their authority and prerogatives, that neither can be opposed with­out infallibility of eternall damnation to the opposers.

This persuasion must not be the sole work or word of the Soue­raigns themselves, or of their state Ministers; their testimony would be suspected by the subjects, as partial; it must be grounded upon authority, credibly reported to be divin, as (among Christians) the holy Scriptures explained by the ancient tradition and sense of Councels and Fathers, which by another name we call the Church, or Clergy; that is men to whom God hath committed the charg of soules, and commanded us to follow their directions in spirituall matters, as being Jnterpreters of the divin Law, which Soveraigns must observe.

There could not be an expedient more satisfactory, then the insti­tution of such a Church, Clergy, and spiritual Court of Iudicature, For, if interpretation of Scripture had bin left to the Soveraign, the [Page 3] subjects would mistrust his sincerity in explaining the same; if to the lay subjects, the Soveraign would be as diffident of their explicati­ons: Wherfore to avoid differences and disputes, God appointed the Clergy for spiritual Iudges, (as being by their institution less concerned in temporal affaires, and therfore presumed to be more conscientious, and less partial in their sentences then lay persons) and Tradition for the rule, wherby they must direct their judg­ments: to the end their doctrin be Apostolical, not arbitrary, or altered from the primitive; but rather all novelties and differences (concerning matters of Faith) be still suppressed; and therby all unlawfull pretensions (which both Soveraigns and subjects fre­quently claim under the pretext of Religion) be remedied or pre­vented; for that, souveraignty is as apt to degenerat into tyranny, as subjection into rebellion, if not regulated by a religion that ma­kes it as vnlawfull for lay men to intermeddle with the doctrin of the Church, as it is improper for Church men to intrude themsel­ves into matters of state.

But because neither Soueraigns nor subjects are bound to submit their judgments in matters of Faith to a doubtfull authori­ty, therfore vnless they who pretend to be the Clergy, can evi­dence by vndeniable miracles (either wrought by themselves, or by their knowen spiritual predecessours that professed the same Faith) their iurisdiction and doctrin, they can not rationaly pre­tend to have the charge of soules, or any divine authority for de­termining controversies of Religion. Because, seeing the principal part of Religion doth consist in a perfect submission of the vnder­standing to divi [...]e authority, (even against the appearence of sense, and the probability of reason) vnless the Church or Clergy wher­upon we rely doth make it evidently credible by supernatural signs, that their authority and doctrin is divine, their religion is not rational; and therfore no rational person is bound (without that supernatural evidence) to acknowledg in them a spiritual ju­risdiction, or to follow their dictamens, and forsake his own pri­vat dictamens, and principles of probability, or the seeming evi­dence of his senses.

[Page 4]Some men do require more then this, and are of opinion that a Religion can not be rational, vnless the truth therof be cleerly dis­cerned, or demonstrated by the light of natural reason; and judg it a great folly in men to believe what they do not comprehend. But this maxim is destructiue to Religion and reason; it doth ouer­throw the very foundation of both, which consists in acknowlegd­ing an incomprehensible Deity, whose perfections are infinit, his thoughts and revelations (and by consequence the mysteries of Religion) inscrutable, and therfore to be revered, not examined by so limited and imperfect creatures as we are; that can hardly diue into the bottom of ordinary difficulties, and discern the im­mortality of our own soules, or the nature and composition of any visible body.

Thomas Bo­nart in Con­cordia scien­tiae cum fide.And albeit an excellent wit of our age, in a late Treatise, hath endeavored to cleere by natural reason the mysteries of Christian Faith; and in order to facilitat the beliefe of Transubstantiation, doth teach that one body can not be in many places at one tyme, nor be penetrated with another body; and therfore is for'ct to say, that Christ hath as many bodys as there are consecrated pieces of bread: yet I think it more agreable not only to Catholik Religion, but to natural reason, to believe, that the very same body of Christ that was born of the blessed Uirgin, and is in heaven, is also under every consecrated species: otherwise it must be sayd that Christ our Sauiour is a monster, that hath not only as many heads, but as ma­ny bodies, as there are Consecrations

How fallacious are our philosophi­cal definitions and de­monstrati­ons concer­ning the na­ture and es­sence of any thing.But if this argument be thought more popular then philosophi­cal, I hope schollars themselves will judg it unrea [...]nable that Di­vines or Philosophers be too positive in defining the immutable essences of things, or (which is the same) in determining what is possible, or impossible for God to do, and in deducing conclusions from such notions as they call natures. If we consider that we owe all our human knowledg to the evidence of sence (which is often fallacious) and to reflections, of the mind (which are alwayes fal­lible) we must grant that we may be frequently mistaken in the ground of our demonstrations, and do sometimes take our own [Page 5] fancies and false conceits for true objects, which haue no real exi­stance in themselues, nor any other immutability in order to Gods power, besides that tenacity, or obstinacy wherwith men stick to their own opinions. This is sufficiently proved by the great discord and diuersity of opinion that is in the schooles, euen con­cerning the essence or nature almost of euery thing, and parti­cularly of a body or quantity. Wherfore it is more probable that M.r Bonart is as much mistaken in placing the nature or essence of a Body in actual extention, Jnstanced in the nature or essence of a Body. as he takes others to be in their con­trary opinions concerning the same subject; otherwise Christ hath non only as many Bodys as there are consecrated species, but also it followeth (if his Body can not be penetrated, or in the same place with another) that he united to his Diuine person a nature which he cannot command to be whersoeuer himselfe (as God) is pleased to be: I am no Vbiquist, and therfore I grant that the hypostatical vnion doth not make Christs body to be e­very where, or whersoeuer the Diuinity is; but I think all Chri­stians ought to belieue that it is possible for Christ (as man) to be in any particular place, and penetrated with any Body what­soeuer, where his person and Diuinity is.

And as for Mr. Bonart his way of defending how Christs Body did, and may penetrat other Bodys, Pag: 259▪ I see no difference between it and that of the heretiks which himselfe derides, and condemns [ Pag: 257.] but that the Heretiks say he did shew his body to the assembled Disciples through some chinck of the wall, or through the Key-hole of the doore; and M.r Bonart says Christ shot or thrust his Body in, through the indiscernable pores which are in euery body; and how the whole or the parts of a human body (such as that of Christ then was, and now is) can be conueyed entire through one or many such litle and distant pores, without loosing all human shape, (if a perfect penetration be not allowed) I do not understand. And I belieue M.r Bonart will hardly be able to declare how the substance of Christs Body is not lost, as well as the shape, by Christs passing through the pores; for that according to his principles [ pag. 243.] the substance of euery Body [Page 6] consists in such a greatness and figure of the parts, as compose that body; and upon this ground he proceeds when he sayes [ ibid.] that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Flesh and [...]loud of Christ, because the greatness and figure of the parts of bread and wine are changed, though al the rest doth remain. If therfore the greatness, figure, (and by consequence the shape) of Christs Body, and its parts, be changed, or proportioned to the pores of the penetrated body (as they must of necessity be before they can pass or be shot through them) Christs Body, and the parts therof, do loose the substance, as well as the shape of a hu­man body, according to M.r Bonartes doctrin. Hence we con­clude that actual extension doth not so cleerly (nor so catholickly) declare the essence of a Body, but that it must leaue or breed some doubts of Christs humanity, of Gods omnipotency, and of his Mothers virginity.

Besides; if the least particles or Atoms of a Body are of the same nature with the whole, and haue real extension, by the ad­dition wherof they make a body greater, as this Author holds; it can not be well comprehended, Bonart in concordia pag 301. & 304. & pas­sim. how the Atoms can be so litle as not to be capable of being lessend by Gods power; especially seeing M.r Bonart doth grant one side of an Atom may be toucht, and the other side not toucht. For, if so: How can any that belie­ves Gods omnipotency, imagin, that God can not separat or di­vide sides which may be seuerally wrought and wrought upon by a corporeal instrument? If an Atom be so thick that a corporeal instrument may touch one side therof, and not touch or reach the other side, there is ground and room enough for Gods po­wer to separat one side from the other; for if one side of a Body or Atom can be wrought upon independently of the other, it may exist also, or be moued, independently of the same, and by con­sequence is distinct and separable from it. And indeed, if to be toucht, and not to be toucht be not contradictions sufficient to pro­ve real distinction between the sides, or extremes so denominated, no kind of contradictions can inferre real distinction.

To say, [as Mr. Bonart doth pag: 301.303. & passim] that to be toucht [Page 7] and not toucht argues only a verbal (not a real) distinction in the Atom wherof one side is realy toucht, the other not realy toucht; and to pretend that this is cleerly deduced from the first notion or nature of a Body, or extense; because forsooth, the notion of Parts must suppose not only one extense but many, pag. 297. with a certain manner and measure of extension; and that therfore an Atom may be extended, and yet not partible: To maintain this discourse I say, seemeth to me a begging of the question, and as difficult as any other opinion in this matter. For 1. It is not easy to conceiue how any extension whatsoeuer, can include in its first notion or nature, an exclusion of division. 2. In M.r Bonart his own principles it seemeth in­intelligible how any Body or Atom that hath so much extension [that is so much length, bredth, and profundity] as to be capable of being toucht on the one side, with out being toucht on the o­ther, is not composed of parts distinct one from the other. For, [pag: 303.] he grants that if in the expansion or exten­sion of an Atom did appeare any little line or point, that line or point would conclude a real distinction of parts in the Atom. Now why the touch of any corporeal instrument [suppose of a Painters pencil framed and managed by Gods hand] may not leaue an im­pression of it selfe [which impression you may call a line or point] in that place or side of the Atom that is toucht, no reason can be giuen; and by consequence there can not be any for denying real distinction, and division of the parts in the Atom.

Lastly: It must be concluded that the Atoms are either par­tible, or penetrated: Because if they be not partible, they do touch each other wholy, and euery where, according to their dimension, and extensions; and if they touch in such a manner, they are pe­netrated, or in one and the same place: And if they be penetra­ted, or penetrable, impenetrability can not be the essence or pro­perty of the Body which they compose, and wherof it only con­sists. This is only sayd [by the way] to shew that the best wits may mistake the notion and nature not only of a spirit, but also of a Body; and that they are not the best Guides when they steere themselues and others more by their own privat discourses, then [Page 8] by the common sense of the faithfull, in mysteries of faith, wherof it is a property to be more credible then cleere.

But if the euidence of sense be fallacious, and the reflections of our mind fallible, what certain knowledg can we haue of any thing? Must we al turn Stoiks or Sceptiks? Shall we doubt of all Geometrical Demonstrations? No, we haue certain Knowledg of our own existence, and of some other euident truths. And as for the Demonstrations of Geometry, Euclid himself neuer pretended that his notions of a point, line, superficies, perfect circle, &c. did point at the real existence of any such objects, as indivi­sible points, lines, perfect cercles &c. he knew, and Mathematicians confess, there are no such things in rerum natura. And seing Ma­thematicians are so ingenuous as to acknowledg that their cleerest notions are not real natures, or immutable essences, I see no reason why Philosophers [whose demonstrations are not so cleere] should be so positiue in defining things, Bonart lib 5. passim. as if they were defy [...]ing Gods omnipotency to make them otherwise then they haue dictated in the Schooles, or published in their Bookes. And he that thinks to declare the reasonableness of Christian Religion by making the my­steries therof agree rather with his own Philosophical notions, then with the common sense of the Church, will involue himselfe into a labyrinth of errours.

Wherin con­sisteth the reasonable­ness of Re­ligion.The reasonableness therfore of Christian Religion must not be measured by any cleere euidence of truth that human reason discouers, either in the works of nature, or in the diuine myste­ries [for we shall proue herafter such euidence to be inconsistent with faith] but rather by the cleere euidence of an indispensable obligation [that euery man finds and feeles in himselfe] of sub­mitting his judgment to the Church, when he reflects upon the signs and sufficiency of its authority in order to propose diuine doctrin. To submit our reason to a Church or Clergy that hath no cleere and authentick signs of diuine authority, is simple and sinfull credulity: not to submit to its sufficient authority, that is, to authority signed with supernatural signs, is heretical obstinacy.

As for the meanes wherby euery one concerned in this spi­ritual [Page 9] subjection to the Church and Clergy, ought to be infor­med of their miracles, authority and jurisdiction, they are the same which all men practise and judg to be sufficient for know­ing and acknowledging the true and lawfull Heire of a Kingdom or estate. The right to temporal dominion is decerned by suc­cession, and that succession by Tradition; so also the right to gouern soules, and decide Controuersies of faith, must be acknowledged to reside in them that by a continual succession of Episcopall hands deriue their spiritual caracter or mission from the Apostles, and neuer varied from the Apostolical doctrin; of which succe­ssion of Caracter, and continuance of doctrin, the best proof is a neuer interrupted Tradition, or Testimony of honest and know­ing persons in euery age, against whose verdict there can be no Lawfull exceptions. That Church or Clergy whose doctrin, ca­racter, miracles, and jurisdiction is witnessed by this Tradition, ought to be obeyed, as hauing the spiritual superiority wherunto Christ our Saviour commanded both Soueraigns and subjects to submit their iudgments in the mysteries and Controversies of Re­ligion.

Though this expedient of a Church and Clergy so qualifi­ed, ought to be acceptable and satisfactory to lay Princes and people, yet modern Politicians stand upon such nyceties, that the greatest danger and difficulty which they apprehend in the go­vernment of a Christian Commonwealth is, to order so affaires, that the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction may not clash; they feare that by mistake, or ambition of the Clergy, the temporal may be too far intrenched upon, and made not only subordinat, but subject to the spiritual; and the spiritual at length become so absolute, and arbitrary, that the Clergy may [at least indi­rectly] spiritualize any thing for their temporal conveniency; at least that they may persuade such as [by an implicit faith] sub­mit to their authority and direction, to question [if not contemn] any ciuil Gouernment, wherof they mislike the Lawes or Mi­nisters, and by their Ecclesiastical Censures fright the illiterat mul­titude into rebellion upon the score of religion.

[Page 10]To prevent this [...]anger our English states-men think fit to continue that supremacy of spiritual Iurisdiction in our Kings, which K. Henry 8. assumed (how piously and politikly, shall be seen herafter.) At present we will only obserue, that it is thought to be the concern as well as the custom of Soueraigns, to em­ploy Clergy men in state affaires, for two reasons. 1. That they may be as much engaged in defending the temporal jurisdiction which they receiue from, and exercise by fauour of their Prin­ce, as in vphoulding the spirituall, so much recommended to them by the Pope. 2. That the Soueraigns may be cleered from all suspicions and aspersions of intermedling with the soules of their subjects, farther then the Church and the Pastors therof do allow.

This Christian policy is imitated by the Turck, he thinks it so necessary for the safety of a Prince, not to be suspected by his people of affecting a spiritual supremacy, that he consults with, and euen remits to his Mufty, matters of state depending of Religion. The Pagans giue the same respect to their Priests; and the wisest Heathen Princes who tooke vpon themselues the High Priesthood, pretended and persuaded their subjects (by so­me counterfait miracle) that they had bin inspired, or comman­ded by the Gods to assume the dignity; or that the same was due to them by descent from some Deity. And indeed nothing less then a miracle can make it prudently credible, that God doth trust temporal Soueraigns with a spiritual supremacy.

The grounds of peace, piety and policy.The ground therfore of policy as well as of piety and peace, consists in the choyce of a Clergy or Church for gouerning sou­les, whose doctrin, jurisdiction and caracter hath bin confirmed by supernatural miracles; The legal settlement of such a Religion and Clergy is so agreable to reason, and so acceptable to all sorts of people, that the non-conformity therunto will be prudently (and popularly) judged to proceed rather from the contumacy then from the conscience of the non-conformists: and the seue­rity of lawes against such Recusants, will sauor more of piety then cruelty, and moue more the generality of subjects to praise the [Page 11] Soueraign, then pitty the sufferers. In a word; such a Church and Religion will make the Prince powerfull and popular; the mul­titude peaceable and obedient; the Clergy respected; their riches and priuileges not enuied; it will take away conscientious preten­ces of rebellion, and remoue or reconcile all differences between the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. That the Roman Catho­lick Clergy and Religion hath all these properties; and the Pro­testant reformations not one of them, shall appeare after we haue finished the historicall part of this Treatise. Now to the mat­ter of fact.

For the space of almost 1500. yeares it was the general be­lief of Christendom, that the true Catholick Doctrin was pro­fessed only by such as held to the Roman faith, and that the ^† Su­premacy of spiritual jurisdiction was annexed to the Bishop of Ro­me, as St. Peters Successor, and Christs Vicar vpon earth; and that the Sea Apostolick changed not any one point of faith the first 600. yeares, is acknowledged by our learned ^[a] Ad­versaries; as also affirmed by the ^[b] Fathers, that the Roman faith or Church, and the Catholick faith or Church, are Synonima; and that he who is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome is profane, and not in the way of salvation.

[Page 12] [Page 13]And though some of the more modern Greecks attempted to make their Patriarch of Constantinople at least equal with the Bishop of Rome, yet their frequent submissions and recantations of that presumption, together with the cleere testimonies of their holy and ancient ^[d] Bishops and Councells in behalfe of the Po­pes supremacy ouer the Churches of the East as well as of the West, sufficiently demonstrat the error of the Greek Schismatiks. I say therfor that for the space of almost 1500. yeares, the Roman Do­ctrin was held to be the true Catholick and Apostolick, and the Roman Bishop to be S. Peters successor, and Christs Vicar vpon earth.

[Page 14] [Page 15]For, abbeit our learned Adversaries do not all agree in acknow­ledging that the Roman doctrin was pure for the first 600. Yeares (some of them saying that it began to be corruped after the Yeare 400. others before that tyme) yet they do not prove their assertions, but ground them upon this only reason, that the Church in those ages did censure as Heresies some points of Protestancy, and condemned the ^[e] Authors as heretiks; In par­ticular Henaias for opposing the worship of Images; Aerius for denying prayer and offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the Dead; Vigilantius for denying prayer to Saints, and their wor­ship; as also the Monastical Profession; the single and unmarried life of Priests denied not only by Vigilantius, but by Jovinian and others; as the Churches visibility, and continuance by the Donatists:

[Page 16] [Page 17]But the censuring these protestant doctrins as errors, cannot be an argument of corruption or chang of faith in the Church that did censure them, vnless it be made appeare that the opinions censured had bin formerly the ancient and generally receiued be­lief of the Catholick and visible Church, so that these and the like exceptions are grounded only vpon some vnlearned Protestants suppositions without proofe, and rather confirm then disproue what we say. Therfore we shall not argue against them, but in this particular of the Roman doctrins purity for the first 600. yeares, we will prefer the testimony of their more learned brethren, viz. their greatest Doctor Bishop. ^[g] Ieuell, Bishop ^[h] Godwin, D.r Humfrey, D.r Bell, Bishop Bale, and many o­thers of their best Diuines versed in Ecclesiasticall history; all of them positiuely affirming, that the Roman faith was pure for the first 600. years; and that S. Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome (with whom ended that terme of years) liued and dyed in the purity of the primitiue faith; and that all the Orthodox Christians of the whole world professed his belief, and commu­nicated with him, as appeareth also by his correspondence, and communion of faith with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Hierusalem, and with all the Orthodox Chur­ches of the world through out Asia, Africk, and Europe.

[Page 18] [Page 19]We do also agree with most protestant Writers in this, that the same Religion which S. Gregory the great held, was that which S. Austin the Monk and his Companions (sent by Gregory into England to conuert the Saxons) taught our Ancestors, and that God was pleased to confirm the faith which they preacht, with Miracles; as appeareth by the Confession of our ^[i] Ad­versaries, and by S. Gregories letters to Austin ^[k] himself an. 602. aduising him not to glory therin but rather to consider that God gaue him that gift for the weal of those to whom he was sent. As also by his letters to Eulogius Arch-bishop of Alex­andria ( lib. 7. epist. 30. indict. 1.) saying therin: ‘Know then that wher as the English Nation &c. remaining hitherto in Infide­lity; I did by the help of your prayers &c. send unto that Nation ( Austin) a Monck of my Monastery, to preach to them &c. and now letters are come to vs, both of his health and of his work, that he hath in hand; and surly either he or they that were sent over with him, work so many Miracles in that Nation, as they may seem to imitate the power and Miracles of the Apostles them-selves.’

[Page 20]That the particulars of the Religion professed by S. Gregory, and the visible Church of his tyme, and preacht by St. Austin the Monck and his Companions, sent by Gregory to convert the English Nation, were the same which we Roman Catholiks pro­fess at this present, is evident by all Histories, Both sacred and profane; and even by the Confession of all Protestant writers, who treat of this subject. Austin the great Monck (saith Doct. Humfrey) ^[l] sent by Gregory the great Pope, taught the Englis­men a burthen of Ceremonies &c. Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the Dead, Transubstantiation, Reliques, &c. And the ^[m] Centurywri­ters, ^[n] Carion, ^[o] Osiander, and other learned Protestants [Page 21] say, that the Religion preacht by St. Austin to the Saxons was, ‘Altars, Vestements, Images, Chalices, Crosses, Censors, Holy Vessells Holy water, the sprinkling therof, Reliques, Translation of Reli­ques, dedicating of Churches to the bones and ashes of Saints, Con­secration of Altars, Chalices, and Corporals, Consecration of the font of Baptism, Chrism, and Oyle, Celebration of Mass, the Archi-Episcopal Pall at Solemn Mass tyme, Romish Mass Books, also free will, merit, Iustification of works, Pe­nance, Satisfaction, Purgatory, the vnmarried life of Priests, the publik invocation of Saints, and their worship, the wor­ship of Images, Exorcism, Pardons, Vowes, Monachism, Transubstantiation, prayer for the Dead, offering of the health­full Host of Christs body and bloud for the Dead; the Roman Bishops claim and exercise of Iurisdiction and supre­macy over all Churches ( Reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis Chaos) even the whole Chaos of Popish superstition.’

Now that D.r Fulck should term this conversion our per­version; Fulck in his Confutation of Purgatory pag: 333. Mr Willet in his Te­ [...]rasticon pa­pismi pag: 122. Osiander in Epit [...]m. Cen­tur: 6. pag: 290. and that Mr. Willet should place St. Gregorie and St. Au­stin, among the Fathers of Superstition; and Osiander should say, they subjected England to the Yoke of Anti-Christ; and Mr. Ha­rison that they converted the Saxons from Paganism to no less hurt­full superstition then they did know before, making an exchang from open to secret Idolatry &c. we attribute to an excess of their pri­vat spirit, and zeale in their own Presbiterian, or Fanatik way, which doth not agree with the more sober and more Christianlike Protestants; nor indeed impugn our assertion, which is, that this Popery, now so much raild at, though professed by St. Gregorie and wherunto our Ancestors were converted by St. Austin ▪ the Monck, and our selves yet profess, was the Religion held by the visible Church as the only Catholik and Apostolik in the 6. age; and that vntil then no known chang of Christs Doctrin had bin made in the Roman Church. Whether the whole Church of the 6. age was deceived or no, in this their persuasion, and adhesion to the Roman Doctrin, is another question, and shall be discussed herafter.

SECT: II. Of the Author and begining of Protestancy, and of Luthers Disputation and familiarity with the Devill, serjously related by him self in his authentik Bookes.

THE first that preacht the Protestant Religion, or Reformation, was Martin Luther, a Ger­man, who (as himself ^[a[ confesseth in a letter to his Father) had bin fearfully hanted from his youth with Sathans apparitions, and (as o­thers testify) often in the forme ^[b] of firebrands; These frights together with the suddain death of his dearest Camerade slain by a thunderbolt, forced him (as he says, in the said Epistle) to enter into the Religious order of St. Augustin, wherin he lived some yeares (not without signs and suspition of being possessed) vntill that an 1517. one John Tecell a learned Dominican frier, was preferred before him in publishing and preaching of Indulgences, which Sermon in like occasions had bin formerly giuen to the Augustins.

This fancied injury don to his Order and Person, put Luther into such a passion, that notwithstanding he vnderstood not well (as he ingeniously ^[d] confesseth) what the name of Indulgen­ces meant, yet he preacht Sermons, and printed conclusions against them: his propositions being condemned in Germany, he appealed to Rome, and submitted his doctrin and himself to Pope Leo 10. Vt ^[e] reprobet, approbet, sicut placuerit, acknowledging his voice to be the voice of Christ. But loe (saith he) ^[f] whilst I look for a joyfull sentence from Rome, I am stri­ken with the thunderbolt of excommunication, and condem­ned [Page 23] for the most wicked man alive; then I began to defend my doings, setting forth many bookes & [...]. And seing it is so, let them impute the fault to them-selves, that have so excessively handled the matter.

Afther that Luther had lost his hopes of being favored in his opinions by the Pope, he ^[g] appeald from his Holyness [Page 24] sentence to a general Councel, assuring himself that none would be caled, or assembled in his own days. That this was his design, and not any desire of being directed by a Councel, is manifest by his procedings; for, as soon as he heard there was a Councel summoned, and perceived some likelihood that the Bishops would meet, he writ a ^[h] book against the necessity and authority of general Councels, and begins with the first at Jerusalem, condemning its Decrees; then, with the first Nicen, and concluds there is no obligation of submitting our Judgments to their Definitions; or of conforming our actions to their Ca­nons; and declars to his Germans, in what a sad condition they would all be, if they were bound to obey Councels, for then they must have abstained from strangled meat, foule, add (which is wors) from puddings, and sausages, according to the Apost­les Decree at Ierusalem; as if that Decree (intended but for a litle tyme) were still in force. Therfore he maintained that Christ ^[i] hath taken away from Bishops, Doctors, and Councels the right and power of judging of doctrin, and given it to all Christians in generall; and admitts of no other rule but Scripture, as every one will thinck fit to interpret the same.

Thus farr was Luther driven by his pride, and passion a­gainst the Dominican friars, with resolution not to recant what he had once writt, though he wished ^[k] he had never begun that business and that his writings ^[l] were burned and buried in eternal oblivion: he had not as yet precipitated himself into the parti­culars of Protestancy, but for some few years went no further then the dispute of Indulgences, and wore still his religious ha­bit (though he had left the Monastery) sayd Mass, and was much tormented in his Conscience for running so desperat a cours as to appeale from the authority of Popes, Fathers, Coun­cels, and Church, upon a punctilio of his mistaken honour. How often (saith he) did my trembling hart beat with in me, and repre­hending me▪ object against me that must strong argument; Art thou on­ly wise; do so many worlds err? were so many ages ignorant? what if thou errest and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? &c. ^[m]

[Page 25] And again. ^[n] Dost thou O sole man, and of no accounpt, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? Jf God permitt such so many, and all, to erre, why may he not permit thee to erre? ^[o] Hitherto apartaine those arguments, the Church, the Church the Fathers the Fathers, the Councels, the Cu­stoms, the Multituds, and greatness of wise men: whom do not these clouds and doutes, yea these seas of examples ouerwhelm?

[Page 26]Being thus tormented and tossed between his passion of pride, and a perplexity of mind, himself relates at larg ( tom. 7. Wit­temb. edit. an. 1558. lib. 1. de Missa. angu.) how vpon a certain tyme he was sudainly awaked about midnight, and how sathan began his disputation with him, saying; Harken right learned Doctor Lu­ther; ‘Thou knowest thou hast celebrated priuat Mass, by the space of 15. years, almost euery day; what if such Masses were horrible Idolaty? &c. The deuill speaking thus to me, I burst forth all into a sweat, and my heart began to tremble, and leap ( voce forti & gravi utitur) the deuill had a graue and strong voice &c. And then I learned how it came to pass that somtyms early in the morning men were found dead in their beds. To the Deuill I answered, I am an anoynted Priest, receaued consecration from a Bishop, and did all things by or­der of my Superiors. In these streights and agony I would fain vanquish the Devill with the armes of Popery, and did object the intention and faith of the Church &c. But Sathan with greater force and vehemency did pursue; Go to, shew where it is writen ( teaching Luther to appeale to Scripture alone) that a wicked and incredulous man can assist at the Al­tar of Christ, and consecrate in the Churches faith? &c. If men have taught it without the express word of God, it is altogether vntrue: But in this sort are you acustomed to do all things in the dark, under the name of the Church and so set to sale your owne abominations for Ecclesiastical doctrin. &c.’ After this disputation Luther was so well acquainted with the De­vill, that him self saith ( tom. 2. Germ. Jen. fol. 77. Believe me J know the Devill very weell, for now and then he walketh with me in my Chamber. When I am among company he doth not trouble me, but when he catcheth me alone, then he teacheth me my manners. And ( in Conc. Dom. Reminiscere fol. 19. apud Cochlaeum) J am troughly ac­quainted with the Deuill, for I haue eaten a bushell of salt in his com­pany. Yea confesseth ( in Colloq. Germ. fol. 275.281.) that the Devill was his Bed-fellow, and lay with him more frequently and [...]loser to him then his beloved Kate the Nun. And ( in litteris ad E­lectorem [Page 27] Saxoniae) he saith, The Devill doth so run to and fro trough my brain that J can neither write, nor read. And ( in Colloq. Germ. fol. 283.) brags thus, J have a couple of rare Devills, who at­tend and wait vpon me most diligently: they are no petty Fiends, but great Devills; yea great Doctors of Divinity among the rest of the Devills. One of these two great Doctors of Divinity continued his disputation thus against Luther.

‘Now I urge this, that thou didst not consecrat in thy Mass, but didst offer and adore only bread and wine, and proposedst the same to be adored by others &c. The institu­tion of Christ is, that other Christians may communicat in the Sacrament, but thou art anointed, not to distribute the Sacrament but to sacrifice; and against Christs institution thou hast vsed the Mass for a Sacrifice &c. And that which Christ did ordain for ea­ting and drinking for the whole Church, and to be given by the Priest to other Communicants &c. of this thou dost make a pro­pitiatory Sacrifice O! abomination aboue all abomination,’

And after that Zealous and learned Devill had thus exclai­med, and argued against the Sacrifice of the Mass, the autho­rity of the Church, Transubstantiation, and adoring of the B. Sacrament, he reasons also against the intercession and prayer to Saints; his words are set down by Luther in the same place thus. We Spirits being rejected, do not confide in Christs mercy; neither do we look upon him as a Mediator or Savior, but feare him as a cruell Judg; such was thine and all other Papists faith &c. Therfore ye did shun from Christ, as a cruell Judg to Mary, and the Saints; and they were Mediators betvveen you and Christ; so is Christ de­prived of that glory.

In this disputation the Devill had so good success, that Luther was convinced, and resolued to become a Protestant, and to preach and print, not only against the Mass, and the other particulars mentioned in his Disputation, but (upon these words of the Devill, ( So is Christ deprived of glory) did Luther ground his opinions against the necessity of good works (in favor of Iu­stification by only faith) against merit, satisfaction, Purgatory [Page 28] &c. and maintained these his Diabolical opinions with so great obstinacy, and so litle respect to ^[p] Scripture, Church, Coun­cells, Fathers, Princes, and Prelats, that such parts of Scripture as did not favor the Devills argument, he either rejected them as apocrijphal, or altered the words and sence in his Translations and Comments, against all exemplars and copies either in Greek▪ Hebrew, or Latin. And all Princes and Prelats that contra­dicted his errors, he vilified in so virulent and villanous terms, that none but a soule directed by the Devil could resolve to print them. His Bull against all Bishops is full of most vile stuffe: as also against the Duke of Brunzuick, the Elector of Mentz, &c. In so much that his owne Scholler Sleidan acknowledgeth his manner of writing to be unworthy, Base, Scurilous &c. In his Book, and answer against K. Henry 8. he calls him an en­vious mad foole, babling with much spittle in his mouth, more furi­ous then madness it self, more doltish then folly it self, indued with an impudent and vvhorish face, without any one veine of princely bloud in his body, a lying sophist, a damnable rotten vvorme, a Ba­silisk and progeny of an Adder, a lying scurill, couered with the title of a King, a clounish wit, a doltish head, most wicked foolish and impudent Henry. All this he says tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 333.334.335. & fol. 338.334. he saith: The King doth not only lye like a most vaine scurre, but passeth a most wicked knave: thou lyest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King; And other so immodestly base expressions against his Majesty and all other Papists, that we ar ashamed to English them. By Luthers Language, and way of defending his Protestant doctrin, we might guess at his Ma­ster, though him self had not told us his name was Sathan.

SECT: III. Of the principles and propagation of Protestancy.

LVther after his Conference with the Deuill, hauing resolued upon that Foundation of his Reformation, which hee had learnt from so godly a Master, endeauored to gaine as many Poets, Players, Painters, and Printers as he could, to discredit with Scoffing, Ballads, Pamphlets, Poems, and Pictures, the Roman Religion (which un­till then had bin caled and esteemed the only Catholick and A­postolick) and to divulge his n [...]w Doctrin amongst ignorant and vicious People. For encouragement of the dissolute Clergy to ioyn with him, he taught (against the doctrin and practise of the whole Church euer since the Apostles as shall be demonstrated), that Priests and professed Nuns might mary; and to giue them good example he took a professed Nun ^[a] for his owne wife: And prevailed with this doctrin more then Iouinian ^[b] the heretik.

[Page 40]For this liberty together with his principle of justification by only faith, drew from sundry parts of Europe, incontinent Cler­gymen, wherof the chief were Caro [...]stadius, Archdeacon of Wit­temberg, Iustus Ionas head of a College of Canon Regulars, Oe­colampadius a Monk of S. Brigits Order; Zuinglius a parish Priest; Martin Bucer a Dominican friar; Peter Martyr a Canon Regular. Bernardin Ochinus a Capuchin; and some Augustin Friars of Lu­thers own Order. Each of these hauing taken a wench, were en­gaged in Luthers quarrel against the whole Church.

But their course of life and the nouelty of their doctrin, being dislik't by all men that were not Libertins; and not coun­tenanced as yet by any Princes or Prelates; it was thought neces­sary for their own preseruation and propagation of their Ghospell, to make it plausible to the giddy multititude, whose ignorance they knew to be as capable of incredible impressions, as their na­ture is impatient of reasonable subjection. ^[c] Therfore besids many other works, in the yeare 1520. Luther writ a book called Praeludium captivitatis Babilonicae, wherin he maintayned, that Chri­stians are not subject to human Lawes (at least in foro Conscintiae) Christ hauing made them all equall by the Gospell; but that the Pope, Prelates, and Princes had tyranically usurped a Iurisdiction ouer them; and kept them for many years in gross ignorance [Page 41] and wors then in a Babylonian captivity; therfore that God had sent him to reforme these abuses, and restore vnto all oppressed people the Christian liberty which they had received in Baptis­me, and by his reformation they might enjoy so fully as to judg and govern all, omnia judicemus & regamus.

Then he published his doctrin of justification by only faith so resolutly, that he doubted not to preach, though mens words [Page 42] be the greatest blasphemies, and their works the most damnable vill [...]nies: If they haue as much confidence to belieue without doubt, as impudence to act without scruple, they may be sure that God hath receiued them into his fauor, and cannot be damned, un­less they doubt of their saluation.

This abominable presumption Luther ^[d] grounded, upon the infinitness of Christs merits, (as if forsooth, our Sauiour had suf­fered, to the end we might not only be happy in heauen, but by his passion hah waranted our wickedness upon earth) grossly mistaking, and confounding the sufficiency of Christs merits with the sufficiency of their application; none can deny but that the least drop of our Sauiours Bloud is sufficient to redeeme millions of worlds, because it is of infinite value; but all Catholicks euer held that though his Bloud and merits be infinitly sufficient, in them­selues, yet are they not sufficiently applyed to sinners, unless they concurr to their own reconciliation and justification, not only by faith, but by good works, Sacraments, and other meanes, which God hath appointed for that purpose. Yet Luther pretended that faith alone is a sufficient application of Christs me­rits, and that men needed not mortify their bodys nor endea­vour to secure their salvation by good works, thinking it a dimi­nution of our Redeemers glory, and a disrespect to his person, that with our free will we should cooperat with his passion, and help our selues; and vpon this ground do Protestants raise all their batteries against Indulgences, Purgatory, Pilgrimages, praying to Saints, Confession of sins, Penance, Satisfaction, Merit, austerity of Monastical life, Works of supererogation, &c.

[Page 43]A reformation so indulgent to liberty, and sensuality, could not want Proselits; and in a short tyme appeared the effects ther­of; the Peasants of Germany rebelled against their Princes and Lords in defence of that Euangelical liberty which Luther had preached, and in the space of one summer, were on both sides a hundred thousand men slain. Some Princes, to make themselues considerable (by heading the multituds which ran to Luther) pro­fessed his Religion, and protected his person, and he layd for the foundation of his reformation the ensuing principles.

SECT. IV. Of the Protestant Church of England.

IT was the misfortune of England to have had in that tyme when Reformation began to spread, a vicious King, and lewd Court, an ambitious Minister of state, a timorous Clergy, and con­temporising Parliament. Cardinal Wolsey who had bin raised from the meanest parentage to domi­neer over the English Peerage; not content with his good for­tune, and the Kings favour, would needs be Pope, and obtained from Charles V. the Emperour, a promise of his best endeavours to promote him to that dignity; but perceiving himself delu­ded when the occasion was offered of performance, and that Char­les had preferred to the Papacy one of his own subjects that had bin Instructor to him in his tender age, he resolved to be revenged vpon the Emperors relations, seeing hee could not reach his per­son. And observing that K. Henry 8. was weary of Q. Catharin the Emperors Aunt, and desired her death or divorce, to the end he might marry and have issue male to succeed him in the Crown, The Cardinal discoursed with his Majesty of the doubts which himself had raised, and many seemed to entertain concerning the validity of a mariage with one that had bin his brothers wife; and proposed the publick conveniency and privat satisfaction the [Page 54] King might receave by taking to wife some relation of the French King, with whom he persuaded Henry 8. to make a league in defence of the Sea Apostolick against Charles V▪ whose army at that tyme had sackt, Rome, and kept the Pope prisoner; not doubt­ing that his Holiness so oblidged by Henry, and injured by Char­les, would declare Q. Catharins mariage voyd.

An' Bullē's incest and le­audness was afterwards punished with her death, and that of her brothers of Brue [...]ton, Weston, Norris, and Sineton, all of the Kings privy Cham­ber. An­other escaped death because he advertised his Majesty of her immo­desty before the mariage.K. Henry applauded the motion, but lik't not so well the French Lady, as An Bullen one of his Queens Mayds of honour, of whom he was so desperatly enamoured, that though he was advertised of her amorous disposition, and lewd conversation by one of the Courtiers that sayd he had enjoyed her savours; yet she rejecting his Majesties courtship, he thought, she was not so cun­ning as chast, and persuading himself that a woman so sparing of favours to a King, would not be prodigal of them to others, he gave litle credit to the publick reports, and privat informations of her immodest behaviour, and now courted her not as his present Mistriss, but as his future wife; not questioning but that the Pope whom he had obliged, would declare null his mariage with Q. Catharin: but his Holiness, though much inclined to gratifie the King, and incensed against the Emperour for many indignitys, resolved neither to reward, or revenge by abusing his spiritual authority, which he knew could not be extended to dissolve a knot that God had tyed, and blessed with posterity: his Predeces­sors dispensation, after mature deliberation, was found to be va­lid, and no way contrary to Scripture, which is so far from pro­hibiting a mariage with a deceased brothers wife ( Levit. 18.) that it commands ( Deuter. 25.) the brother to marry his issu­less brothers widow. And when S. John Baptist told Herod, it was not lawfull for him to keepe his brothers wife, his brother was then living: so that these words could not be applyed to K. Henry 8. his case, nor occasion any scruple in his conscience.

He therfore finding by experience that the Sea of Rome was not directed in deciding controversies of Religion by human respects, or interest, and that the Colledge of Cardinals could not be corrupted with bribes, to favour his sute, as some Doctors of [Page 55] forreign vniversities had bin; nor terified by his threats, as was most of the English Clergy; he resolved to renounce that spiritual ju­risdiction and supremacy, (the only lett against his lust) which all his Christian Ancestors had acknowledged, and himself defen­ded in an excellent Treatise against Luther, demonstrating as well by Scripture as by reason, S. Ambrose vseth this very argument to the same purpose. that the Bishop of Rom's supremacy and jurisdiction was de jure Divino; otherwise how could S. Peter be caled by the Evangelist, Chief of the Apostles, or Primus in dignity, seing his brother S. Andrew was the first Disciple, or primus in antiquity; and if there was a Chiefe among the Apost­les, how can it be imagined that their successors should be all e­qual, or that the successour of the Chief Apostle could be depri­ved of a prerogative so necessary for the peace, and government of the succeeding Church? Or if the Bishop of Rome had not this supremacy as S. Peters Successour, and by Christs appointment, how is it possible, that all the Christian Princes and Prelats of the world should conspire, or consent to submit themselves to one whose temporal power could not force that submission, and they had no cause to feare his spiritual more then that of other Pa­triarchs, or Bishops confined to their own Dioceses?

These were the Kings reasons in behalf of the Popes su­premacy against Luther; but now his passion made him contra­dict his pen; and love (though blind) gave him eyes to see more of Christs mind since he had seen Anne Bullen, then all the world had discerned in 1500. years before. He declared therfore by Act of Parliament that the Popes spiritual jurisdiction was a meer vsurpation, and that every temporal Soveraign was Pope, in his own Dominions and by vertue of this prerogative he de­clared his own mariage with Q. Catharin, voyd; married Anne Bullen, and seised vpon all the lands, and treasurs of the Mona­steries, and Abbies; dispensed with all the young Friers, and Monks vows of obedience and chastity (after that he had taken an or­der they should not break the vow of Poverty) and to that pur­pose framed an instrument (and forced the Religious to sign it) wherin they declared, that now at length (through Gods great [Page 56] mercy) they had bin inspired, and illuminated to see the incon­sistency of a [...] Monastical life with true Christianity, and the sal­vation of their souls, and therfore they humbly petitioned his Ma­jestie, by means of his Vicar General in spiritualibus Cromwell, (who was Earle of Essex, and a black-smiths son of Putney) to restore them to Christian liberty, and a secular life. And because the Abbots of Glastenbury, Reading, Glocester, and many others would not subscribe to this instrument, nor by their approba­tion therof declare that S. Austin the Monk and Apostle of Eng­land (who converted the Saxons to Christian Religion) professed a life inconsistent with Christianity, they were cruely tormented and put to death.

The same tyrany was executed vpon all sorts of people with­out distinction of age, sex or quality, and amongst them suffered also Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancelor of England, and Cardi­nal Fisher Bishop of Rochester, two of the greatest ornaments of that age, for refusing the oath of the Kings supremacy. And for that S. Thomas of Canterbury, alias Becket, had opposed K. Henry 2. Laws, made rather against the exercise, then the right of the Popes spiritual authority in England; and therfore was Kill'd by some officious Courtiers, and honoured as a Martyr by the Ca­tholick Church; and his Sanctity, and Martyrdom had bin con­firmed by most authentick Miracles (which also confirmed the Po­pes spiritual supremacy and jurisdiction and condemned King Henry 8. vanity) he without feare of God, or regard of the world, ci­ted a Saint reigning in heaven, to appeare and heare vpon earth his sentence; which was, to have his reliques burn't, the treasure of his Church, and shrine confiscated, and all those declared Tray­tors that would call him Saint, or celebrat his feast, or permit his name to remain in the Kalendars of theyr Books of Devotion. He also prohitited his subjects to call the Bishop of Rome Pope, and every one who had S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Au­stin, S. Leo or any of the Fathers works, was commanded to write in the first leafe therof, that they renounced those Saints doctrin of the Popes supremacy. Not content with these extravagancies [Page 57] at home, he sent Embassadours to solicit Princes abroad (and in the first place to Francis 1. of France) that they might follow his example in assuming the supremacy; and albeit the Pope was ei­ther agreed or engaged in a Treaty with Charles 5. to the preju­dice of France, Sand. lib. 1. yet that Christian King would not as much as hear Henry 8. Ambassadours speak of his imitating their Master in assuming to him-self the supremacy. Cochlaeus lib. contra Mori­son. And even the Protestant Princes of Germany, to whom the Ambassadours repaired after that their negotiation had bin rejected by the French King, told them they were sorry K. Henry 8. did not ground his reformation vp­on a more religious foundation, then his scandalous passion for Anne Bullen.

And the first protestant Reformers abroad (part of whose design was to get all spiritual jurisdiction rather into their own hands then into the hands of their temporal Soveraigns) were much troubled at K. Henry's supremacy, and Calvin writ a smart though short treatise against it, and no Protestants make a lay Prince spiritual head of a Church, but our English Prelaticks.

Notwithstanding that the lateness of the discovery together with K. Henry 8 motives of his supremacy made it so incredible that no Catholick Soveraign would assume to him-self that pre­rogative, nor any forraign Protestants approve therof, yet his cru­elty made most of his English subjects swear that, which neither themselves nor the world could believe; for had it bin any way probable by Scripture, History, or Tradition, that temporal So­veraigns (as such) are spiritual Superiours, how is it possible that all Christian Princes before Henry 8. should be so short-sighted, and stupid in their own interest, and in a matter of so great consequence, as not to see a thing so obvious, and aduantagious? How careless in their own concerns, were Charls 5. Francis 1. and many other Princes their Predecessours, who after having bin pro­voked, and exasperated by some Roman Bishops, so far as to think it necessary to invade their Teritories, sack Rome, and im­prison their persons, yet at the same tyme did acknowledg that spiritual supremacy which gave so much advantage, power, and [Page 58] credit to their enimy? Without doubt the same forces which had bin employed against the Popes person, and temporal power, would not have spared or favored his spiritual jurisdiction; he would have bin forc't to renounce his primacy had not the world, and they who subdued him, bin fully satisfied that it was no hu­man donation, but divin institution.

Though these reasons were convincing, and the example of Charls 5. spiritual subjection and submission to his subdued pri­soner Pope Clement 7. was fresh in King Henry 8. memory, and that he knew never any Catholick Princes pretended it was a pre­rogative of soveraignty, to share with the Pope in the Ecclesias­tical government of the soules of their subjects (though many clamed as a priviledg granted by the Roman Sea, the liberty to examin and approue the authentikness of Papal censures and in­junctions) and that his passion for Anne Bullen was turned into hatred, The Kings of France pretē ­ded to the Gallical li­berties: and the Kings of Spaine to their Sicilian Monarchy and other privileges. The kings of England also when they were Roman Catholiks pretended to the like priviled­ges, presenta­tions &c. for her proued incest, and adultery; yet his pride and wil­fulness was so excessiue, that rather then acknowledg his former error by a formal recantation, he continued to exercise his scan­dalous supremacy so violently, that he devised Articles of Reli­gion, made Cromwel his Vicar-general in spiritual affairs took upon him to define what was heresy, what Catholick faith; permitted the Scriptures to be translated by heretiks, and read in English, and (to vexe the Pope) countenanced, and connived at any novel­ties; though afterwards he burn't the novelists for heretiks, and prohibited (when it was too late) their Translations of Scriptu­re, and other Books which he had formerly permitted. But seing that notwithstanding his severity, the Sacramentarian heresy, which he most of all hated, did increase in his Kingdom, and that the spiritual sword in his lay hand did not work those effects which it, had don when it was managed by the Bishops of Rome (by whose sole authority all the heresies of the first 300. years were condemned and suppressed without the help of a general Coun­cel) and that the Keys which he had usurped served rather to open the doors of the English Church to all errors, Stat Henry 8 34. & 35. Be it enacted tha [...] all man­ner of books of the old and new Testa­ment in Eng­lish▪ being of the crafty, [...]alce, and [...]ntrue Tran­ [...]lation of William Tyndall, and all other books and writings in the english tongue, tea­ching or com­passing any matter of Christian Re­ligion contra­ry to that do­ctrin which since the year of our Lord 1540. is, hath or shall be set forth by his Ma­jesty is cleerly and vtterly abolished. then shut them out; and perceiving his end draw neer, he began to think of [Page 59] a reconciliation with Rome, but such a one as might sute with his humor, which he termed Honour. Therfore he sent his fa­vorit Bishop Gardener to the Jmperial Diet, with privat instruc­tions, to endeavour in such a manner his return to the unity and obedience of the Church (through the mediation of the Catho­lick Princes of Germany, and of the Pop's Legat) that on King Henrys side it might look more like a princely condescend [...]ncy then a penitent conversion; wherunto he seemed to incline at the solicitation rather of others, then moved by a detestation of his own errors? But God with whom none must dally, nor Prin­ces capitulat, summon'd him to an account sooner then was ima­gined. Whether he repented, or despaired at his death, is vncer­tain. Some say his last words were omnia perdidimus, all is lost. In his last will and Testament he named 16. Tutors for his Son, to govern, during his minority, with equall authority; charging them not to bring in the Sacramentarian Religion. But God per­mitted his will to be broken before his body was buried (who had changed the last wills of so many thousands deceased) and that, but three days after his death; for upon the 1. of February Seamor Earle of Hartford brother to Ed. 6. Mother, was made Protector of the King and Kingdom, by his own ambition, and privat authority of his faction (which prevailed amongst the 16. Executors) without expecting any Parliament, or consent to the Realm for so great a charge, or for the change of religion which immediatly followed. And because Wriothesly Earle of Southamp­ton Lord Chancelor, the Earle of Arundel, and Bishop Tonstall, and some others, would not betray their trust, and opposed the new reformation, they were disgraced and displaced.

SECT. V. Of the 39. Articles of the Church of England.

WHosoever consider [...] these 39. Articles of Re­ligion composed by Cranmer, and his Divi­nes, may easily perceive their drift was rather to humour factions at home, and dissenting Protestants abroad▪ to countenance sensuali­ty, and grant a liberty of not believing the particulars of Christianity, then to instruct men in the doctrin of Christ or to prescribe any certain rule of Faith. For, their method is, to word so the matter of the Arti­cles, that where Protestants disagree among themselves, every one of the dissenting parties may apply the Text to his own sense. In so much that the Presbiterians except not against the doctrins themsel-ves rightly explained (that is according to their explanation) but against the wording and expressions therof, Doctor Bru­ges in his post script to D. r Pearson edit. 1660. which (say they) are ambiguous, and capable of more senses then one, and so may be, and are wrested to patronise errors. In the mistery of the real presence they speak clearly against it, because it was resolved in Parliament, That England should be Zuinglian in that point, against the Ca­tholick faith of Transsubstantiation.

Wherfore after Cranmer and the other his Contemporisers had set down in five of their six first Articles, the belief of the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, wherof no Pro­testants then doubted; they dare not declare themselves (in the third, wheein they speak of Christ descent into Hell) whether it was to that of the damned, or to a third place; for that if they denyed the first, they would have offended Calvin; Jf they de­nyed the last, they were sure to disoblige some Lutherans that admitted of Lymbus, or a third place.

[Page 68]In the sixt Article they free all men from an obligation of believing any thing that is not read in Scripture, or proved ther­by, and make it their ownly rule of faith, and themselves the Judges therof: wherin they agree See the ancient Fathers affir­ming it was the constant practise and principle of Hereticks to appeale to Scripture a­lone. S. Aust [...]n l de vnit Eccl & lib. cont▪ a Maximinum S. Hilarius l. contra Con­stantium. S. Basi [...]ius l.de Spiritu S. c. 27. & 29. S Epiphani [...]s haer 69▪ 73. with the ancient Here­ticks, Arians, Donatists, Eunomians, Nestorians &c. But for that some Protestant doctrins are expresly reproved by many Parts of Scripture, they make those parts Apocrypha, because, forsooth, they were doubted of▪ by some Churches in the primitive ty­mes. And truly if a man will reflect vpon these words of th [...]ir sixt Article, We do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the ould and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, he may cleerly see that they believe many parts of the new Te­stament not to be Canonical Scripture, because many parts ther­of have bin doubted of in the Church before the Canon was de­termined. See after, part. 2.

In the 7. they only declare that Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial, but only the moral law of Moyses.

In the 8. they tel vs of foure Creeds (wherof S. Athana­sius his symbol is one) are to be believed; because they may be proved by Scripture; and yet S. Athanasius himself declared in [...]he Councel of Nice that the doctrin of his Symbol, that is, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, could not be proved by Scripture alone, S. Atha­nasius in l. 1▪ de decret Ni­cen. Synodi contra. Euseb. or without Tradition.

In the 9. and 10. Article they S. Epi­phanius haer. 64. Theodor [...] lib. de haeres. follow the heretick Pro­clus, the Messalians, Zuinglius, Luther, and Calvins doctrin con­cerning Original sin.

In the 11. Article they teach with some of the August de fide & oper c. 14 & de haer. c. 54. Pseu­do-Apostles, with Eunomius, and with the same Zuinglius, Luther and Calvin, that men are justified by faith alone. See herafter of the justification by only faith, how inconsistent with any so­licitude or care for good works.

And in the 12. would faine (but in vaine) free themselves and their Doctrin from the aspersion of neglecting good works though they maintain them not to be necessary for justifica­tion.

[Page 69]In the 13. Article they say all virtuous moral actions of men [...]hat are not in grace, have the nature of sin; And in the 14. they follow Eunomius, Vigilantius, Helvidius, Jovinian, Faustus, Mat▪ 19.27 1. Cor 7. v. 25.28.38. and Ebion hereticks, saying: that works of supererogation (that is, not commanded but councel'd by God) cannot be taught with­out arogancy and impiety; and yet Christ taught them, and S. Paul commends them.

In the three subsequent Articles they seeme to agree with all Christians: But in the 19. they differ from all Catholicks, And as the Arians did maintain the fallibility of the Nicen Coun­cel, and the Donatists the fal or invisibility of the whole Church, [...]o do Protestants; and therby open a wide gap for all heresies.

In the 20. they contradict themselves, and the former ar­ticles by saying that the Church hath power and authority to de­cree controversies of faith; for there can be no authority in a Church to decree or define matters of faith, without there be in the faithful an obligation of conscience to submit and conform their judgments to the said Decrees and definitions; and s [...]ure there can be no obligation of conscience in any man to submit or conform his judgment in points of faith to a Church that doth acknowledg it self may err therin, and lead men to heresy, ido­try and damnation. True it is that the Protestant Church of England can never remedy it's want of authority, vnless it pre­tends to infallibility; and that, now can hardly be don; seing in the 2 [...]. Article next ensuing, it denys that same prerogative to general Councels, which are of greater authority then our En­glish Convocations.

In the 22. Article Cranmer and his Associats (because all other Sects of Protestants do the same) speak cleerly against the Roman Catholick doctrin of Purgatory, Pardons, worshiping of Images, Reliques, and invocation of Saints; and are pleased to censure it a fond thing, invented and grounded vpon no waranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God: as if, forsooth, the Jews, Atheists, and Apostata Friars who composed these 39. Articles, knew better the right sense of the word of God, then [Page 70] the whole Catholick Church, and the general Councels which practised, and thaught the Roman doctrin, and the lawfulness of these things, and condemned the contrary as heresy.

These errors were rays'd by Aërius n. 342· Xenaias and o­ther hereticks: Aërius because he was refused a Bishoprick, taught that Episcopacy was not distinct from single Priesthood; He de­nyed Prayrs and masses for the Dead ought to be offerred, and by consequence the doctrin of Purgatory; as also that the Church could command men to fast, but that every man might fast when he thought fit Xenaias was the first who made war against Images· Vigilantius against Reliques, praying to Saints &c. S. Hierom. ad Ripar. & Desider. Presbiteros: Vigilantius orsus est su­bito, qui contra Christi spiritum, Martyrum n [...]gat sepulchra veneran­da, damnatqae Sanctorum Vigilias; ex quo fit vt Dormitantius po­tiùs quam Vigilantius vocari debeat. Haeretici assumunt sibi linguas suas, vt cordis venena ore pronuncient. O proescindendam itaque lin­guam, & in partes & frusta lacerandam? meam injuriam patienter tuli, impietatem contra Deum ferre non valui.

S. Hierom laughs at the folly of Vigilantius the heretick, and cals him Dormitantius, for being in these points a Protestant; and says that his tongue ought to be cut and carved into a thousand pieces for blaspheming against God in his Saints. And truly it is a hard case that Scripture should warrant our worship­ing of Prophets, or recommending our selves to the Prayers of Saints, when they convers with vs vpon earth; and yet that it should not be lawful for vs to do the same when they ar in heaven; as if their enjoying the presence and sight of God, did diminish their dignity, or charity. Or as if a Saint in Gods glory were not as fit an object and as capable of our Religious worship as a Prophet, Apostle or Bishop is in this world, to whom we kneel out of the religious respect we own to their spiri­tual caracter, or Ecclesiastical dignity, though their natural qua­lities deserve not such respect. My-Lord of Canterbury (they say) commends very The Protestant Bish­ops▪ are wel plea­sed to see themselves religiously worship't or respected, and yet exclaim against Ca­tholicks for shewing the like respest to Saints. much the religious piety of some Ladys for craving his benediction vpon their knees; which reverence [Page 71] is not exhibited by them, nor expected by him, as he is M·r Sheldon; but as he pretends to be Archbishop of Canterbury. And if it be not only lawful but comendable to kneel to his Grace, or at least to others who are true Bishops, and to shew a religious respect of the like nature to his picture or presence; and that all this may bee don without daunger of Idolatry, or of derogating from the Deity; I see no reason why men should condemn in vs, the like worship of Saints in their Images, or Reliques. It is not the outward action, but the inward intenti­on that maks the worship unlawful. So long as we do not adore Images as Gods, or Idols, we may bow and kneel to them with as much ceremony, as Protestants do to their Prelats, or Episco­pal pictures. The simplest Papist can hardly be so stupid by na­ture, or at least so destitut of instruction, as to believe a stock or stone, can be God; or that there is no difference between the worship due to Saints, (whom they know to be but Gods ser­vants) and the worship due to their Master and Creator.

The 23. Article is set down in such general and ambiguous terms that neither Presbiterian nor Prelatick Clergy is therby es­tablished; nor any caracter of Priesthood, or Episcopacy asser­ted, but according to the doctrin of all the first Reformers, a private ministery of preaching, and baptising insinuated to be common to all Christians. Be you most certain, saith Luther lib. de Captiv. Babylon. and let every-man (who is a Christian) know that we are all equaly Priests, that is, we have the same power to preach, and administer the Sacraments. The same doctrin tea­cheth Zuinglius and Caluin. Though (to avoyd confusion) it be not lawful for any man to take vpon him the office of publick prea­ching, or ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully caled, and sent to execute the same. And because in the 25. Article they declare it is not necessary that this caling or mi­nistery be ordination by imposition of Bishop's hands, or by A­postolical succession, and by consequence, may be extraordi­nary vocation, or election, they leave the authority of caling as doubeful as not determining whether the power be in the se­cular [Page 72] Magistrat, or in the ecclesiastical Congregation▪ albe [...] they seeme (by virtue of the English Supremacy) to place it in the King; their words are, And those we ought to judg lawfuly caled and sent, which be caled and chosen to this work by men who have publick authority given vnto them in (not by) the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lords vineyeard. So that they seem to place all spirtiual authority and jurisdiction in the Kings, and reserve only the application therof, and the choice of the persons authorised, to themselves. But they were loath to explain their meaning in this particular, for feare of scandalizing their brethren abroad, that admit of no such Supremacy in temporal Princes.

In the 24. Article they make it a point of the Protestant faith, that Scripture expresly commands the publick prayers and ministring of the Sacraments not to be in Greek, Latin, or He­brew (wherin the Scriptures were written) because the common people vnderstand not these languages, but vnder pain of dam­nation must be in English, Dutch, Irish, Welsh, &c. as if, for­sooth, it were not lawful for a Priest or publick Minister, to offer Sacrifice, or negotiat for a multitude of iliterat people in languages they do not vnderstand; or as if it were not sufficient for them to vnderstand, that in publick or privat prayers, they thank God for his benifits, and crave new favours. So that accor­ding to this Article, a Greek Priest cannot offer publick prayers for the Latins, or even his own Grecians, who vnderstand not the learned Greeck, nor a latin Priest for the Grecians, or any other nation that vnderstands not Latin; neither is it sufficient that God who alone is able to grant what is demanded, vnder­stand the petition, and heare the publick Minister, but it is ne­cessarily required that the demand be made in a barbarous lan­guage, because the common people vnderstand no other.

In the 25. Article they cut of five of the seaven Sacra­ments, as not being Sacraments of the Ghospel, or ordained by Christ; this extravagancy of doctrin was thought necessary for the disciplin of the protestant Churches, which despairing of [Page 73] a succession of true Bishops, excluded the Episcopal Caracter, and all Sacraments that had dependency therof.

In the 26. Article they endeavour to excuse their own lewd­ness and liberty (though by inculcating truth) to wit, that the effects of the Sacraments are not taken away, by the defects of the Ministers.

In the 27. they condemn (against their own principle in the 6. Article) their Brethren the Anabaptists, for not bapti­zing their children: which error cannot be confuted by Scripture without Tradition.

In the 28. they tel vs it is plain in Scripture that when Christ sayd This is my Body, he meant This is not my Body, and therfore that Transsubstantiation cannot be proved by holy Writ: if they can prove by Scripture that Christ means the contrary of what he speaks we shal confess that neither transsubstantiation nor any other thing can be proved by holy Writ, but only this, that Scripture cannot be vnderstood, nor be a rule of faith.

They add that the mean, wherby the Body of Christ is spi­ritualy received and taken in the supper, is faith. To receive, and eat spiritualy the Body of Christ (if it signifies any thing) must signifie that we ought to believe that the Body of Christ is re­ceived and eaten. And if this belief be true (as it must, if it be Divine) then Christ's Body is realy received and eaten, though in a spiritual manner, that is in a manner not perceptible by our sen­ses. The 29. Article is but a quotation of some words of S. Augustin.

The 30. Article seems to have bin altered (as also the 37. of the supremacy) in Q. Elizabeths reign; because as we find it now, it contradicts not only the doctrin of the chief Protestant ^[f] Reformers (who acknowledg that the Communion vnder both Kinds was always a thing indifferent) but also the statut made in Edwards 6. reign, and a little before this article was framed. The statut 1. Edward 6. cap. 1. ordains indeed that the B. Sa­crament [Page 74] be commonly delivered to the people vnder both kinds, but addeth, except necessity otherwise require. And certainly there can be no necessity, or possibility for any human power to dis­pense with Christ's ordinance and commandment, which this 30. Article says was, (contrary to what the statut supposed) that both kinds should be administred to all Christian men alike.

[Page 75]Besids, the statut doth in the end declare that by what it commands, it doth not condemn the vsage of any Church out of the King his Majesties Dominions; which limitation doth de­monstrat that the Parliament and English Protestants then be­lieved the communion of the layty vnder both kinds, not to be a precept or determination of Christ, but an indifferent thing left to the discretion of the Church: neither have our modern Protestants (who grant no other substance in the Sacrament but that of bread and wine, whervnto they add nothing but a re­menbrance of Christ's passion) any reason to vpraid vs with rob­ing them of half the communion, seing we exhort the layty to that remembrance, and offer them wine after receiving the species of bread.

In their 31. Article we are tould that the Sacrifices of Mas­ses (in the which it was commonly sayd that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt) are blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits And yet S. Cyprian lib. 2. & 3. versus finem, Et de Coena Domini post med. Concil 1. Toletan. can 8.5. Origen in numer. hom. 23. August. de Civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 19. & 20. & passim. S. Clement the Apostles scholler in Apost constit. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 113. edit. Antverp. 1564. Concil Nicen. 1. can. 14. Augustinus de cura pro mortuis cap. 14. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. &c. Tertul. ad Scapul. cap. 2. Chrisost. hom. 27. in act Apost. S. Clemens lib. 8. Const. Apost. cap. 18. fol. 173. & 174. edit. Antverp 1564. Augustin. de Civit. Dei lib 22. cap. 8. Ciprian. de Coena Dom. prope initium S. Ig­natius the Apostles Scholler in Epist. ad Smirn. S. Augustin. lib. 9. Confes. cap. 12. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. & de verb. Apost. serm 34. Saith that the sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mo­ther Monica, being dead; and that it is not to be doubted, but that the soules of the dead are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when for them is offered the sacrifice of the Mediator: and that the v­niversal Church doth observe, as delivered from our Forefathers, that for those who are dead in the Communion of Christ's Body and Bloud when in the tyme of sacrifice they be remembred in their place, prayer [Page 76] is made for them; and (besids this prayer) it is remembred the sacri­fice be offered▪ for them also &c. S. Ambrose maks express mention of the Mass lib. 5. epist. 33. Ego mansi in munere, Missam facere coepi &c. S. Leo epist. 81. ad Dioscor. Necesse autem est vt quaedam Populi pars sua devotione privetur, si vnius tantum Missae more ser­vato, &c. S. Augustin. serm. 91. de Temp. In lectione (quae nobis ad Missas legenda est) audituri sumas. &c.

Let any Christian be judg whether it be not more safe, and more rationa [...]l [...] to rely in matters of faith vpon the Tradition of the whole Catholick Church, and it's ancient Liturgies, and vpon the Testimony of all the holy Fathers, and Councels since the Apostles, then to take the bare word of Cranmer, a man who married and vnmarried K. Henry 8. to as many women as his Majestie lik't or dislik't, dissolving the holy Sacrament of Matrimony as often as the King seemed to be weary of a wife; a man, whose religion was nothing but his conveniency and in­continency; and therfore did alter his faith as often as the tyms changed, and factions prevailed, and sided with every Rebel a­gainst his Prince; and was so carnaly given that even in Henry 8. days, when Priests were not permitted to have wives, he kept a wench so constantly, that he carried her about in his Visita­tions: Let any Christian I say be judg whether this man toge­ther with Ochinus a Jew, Bucer an Atheist, Peter Martyr so indif­ferent for any doctrin, that he framed his faith at Oxfor [...], ac­cording to the news from London, and the Parliament Diur­nals; Hooper, Rogers, and Latimer, ambitious and discontented Presbiterians, B [...]le, and Coverdale, two lewd and runigad friars; whether I say, these men ought to be believed in this impor­tant point of salvation, rather then the holy Fathers, and Coun­cels, who (as hath bin [...] said hertofore) cal the Mass the visible Sacrifice, the true Sacrifice, the dayly Sacrifice, the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech; the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the Sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of the Church, and the Sacrifice of the new Testament, which succee­ded all the Sacrifices of the old Testament: Must the word of Cran­mer [Page 77] and his fellows be a sufficient ground for prudent men to believe as an Article of Religion, The 2. Coun­cel of Cartha­ge contradicts this article Can. 2. Om­nibus placet, that Bishops Priests, and Deacons, &c. abstaine from wives, that what the A­postles have taught, and hath bin ob­served by an­tiquity, we may keep. that the doctrin delivered as Catholick by the holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, are but fables, and themselves but a company of Cheats.

The 32. Article was made by Cranmer and his Camerades to excuse their lewdness, legitimat their bastards, and make their wenches wives. The second Parliament of King Edward 6. had bin so importuned by Apostata Priests and Friars, who had cou­pled themselves with women, that (their petition having bin re­jected by the first Parliament Edward 6.) at lengh against the inclination and judgment of both houses, they obtained now by meer importunity an Act to take away all positive Laws of man, made against the marriage of Priests statut an. 2. Edward 6. cap. 21. But then they are told in the very Act, that it were not only bet­ter for Priests to live chast sole and separat from the company of wo­men &c. but that it were most to be wished that they would willingly and of themselves endeavour to keep a perpetual chastity, and abstinen­ce from the vse of women. And 1400. years before that, See Clement l. 6. Constit. Ap. c. 17. & Consil. A [...]r­can. 10. & Concil. Neo­cesariense c. 1 & Cons [...]l Nic. can. 34. And Euseb. de de­monstrat. E­vangelica lib. 1▪ c 9. Epiph. haer. 59. ante med. Bas [...]l ep▪ 1. ad Am­philocium ca. 6 & epist. 17 ad Paragonū Presbiterum, and Cicil. Hierosolomy▪ Catech 12. Origen Hom. 23. & lib. 8. contra Celsum declared the doctrin even of the Greeck Church in these words. Jt is certain the dayly Sacri­fice is hindred in them who serve the necessities of mariage; therfore it seemeth to me that it appertaineth only to him to offer the dayly Sacri­fice, who hath vowed himselfe to dayly and perpetual chastity; with whom [...]agree the other Fathers; S. Jerom (in Apologia ad Pama­chium, cap. 3.) desires them who like not of this doctrin, not to be angry with him, (for telling them of it) but with the holy Scrip­tures, vvith all Bishops, Priests &c. vvho know they cannot offer Sa­crifice if they vse the Act of mariage; and said to Vigilantius (c. 1.) who in this point also was a Protestant, and seemed to confess his owne frailty. What do the Churches of the East, of Egipt, and of the Apostolick Sea, vvho receive none but unmarried or continent Priests, or if they have vviues, they must cease to be Husbands? And a­gainst Iovinian cap▪ 19. & 14. & ad Pamachium Apol. cap. 8. Truly thou dost acknowledg that he cannot be a Bishop vvho in that state getts children; if he be convicted therof he vvil not be taken for a Husband, but condemned as an Adulterer. But it seems out Pro­testant [Page 78] Bishops know the Scripture, and the doctrin and disci­plin of the primitive Church better then S. Hierom, Origen, and all the ancient Fathers and Councels both of the East and West. Since the King's most happy restauration they were not content to enjoy their wives, and see the legitimacy of their children ap­proved of, but in the first Parliament wherin they were permit­ted to vote (as I have bin credibly informed) they at [...]empted the house of Lords should declare their spiritual peerage did com­municat the same honours and privileges to their Ladys, that the law doth give to Baron's wives; but seing the house smile at the motion, and one of the first Peers begin to rally (according to his witty way) vpon a subject so proper for his genius, one of the Bishops not so much concerned in the suit, (because he was not married) in the name of all the rest, waved the pretention by saying, there had bin a mistake in the motion.

Jn the two following articles, they would fain prevent di­versity of opinions and schisms among the Protestants of the Church of England, and gain authority for the Prelats therof, and reverence for their ceremonies and censures. But this de­sign is frustrated by maintaining the lawfulness of their own re­volt, and separation from the Church of Rome, as also the Roman Catholick fallibility and fal from the true Apostolick Religion, without any farther proofe or evidence of so great a fault or frailty, then the fancy and privat interpretation of Scrip­ture of some discontented and dissolute persons pretending divi­ne inspirations, and illuminations for the same, and for their warant to depose their spiritual Superiours, and to reform the doctrin of the whole visible Church; which reformation they also introduced in so tumultuous and seditious a manner, that none who considers the principles, practises, and circumstances of the chang, can prudently commit his soule to the reformers charg, or condescend to any spiritual jurisdiction and authori­ty in their Successours. For, besids that they have nothing to shew for their presumption, and intrusion, but obscure texts of Scripture, interpreted by them selves in a sense contrary to that of [Page 79] the whole visible ancient Church, that hath bin confirmed by continual and vndeniable Miracles; they can give no assurance or probability of them selves being or continuing in the right way of saluation, because if all the Roman Catholick Churches did err in doctrin, how can their reformations pretend not to be subject to the same mis-fortun or mistake? And if the sup­posed frailty and fallibility of the Church of Rome be a suffi­cient cause to question and condemn it's authority, how can the Church of England, or any other Protestant congregation ex­act from their Sectaries, greater respect, and obedience, then the first reformers gave to their Roman Superiours? Presbite­rians, Independents, Quakers, Anabaptists &c. pretend to as pure doctrin, as Divine a Spirit, and as much Scripture against Prelaticks, as Prelaticks do against Papists, and thinck there is as much reason for them to be Iudges of the truth of their own Canon and sense of Scripture, and of the falshood of the Canon and sense of Scripture of the Church of England, as there is for the English Church to make it self judg of the falshood of the Canon and sense of the Church of Rome. As for the authori­ty which the Prelatick religion receives from the laws of the land, that gives but little advantage, seing the Roman Catho­lick doctrin hath bin confirmed by the temporal laws of every Kingdom, Country and Citty, besor, and at the tyme that Pro­testancy succeeded, and prevailed; and yet that legality was not valued by the Reformers.

The 35. Article is to authorise some Puritan homilies, as the 2. wherin the danger of idolatry in Popery is much insisted vpon, as if Christians could easily mistake Images for Idols, or Saints for Gods▪ Jews and Hereticks have often endeavoured to confound the one with the other▪ Catholicks never.

The ancient Fathers, as also the second Councel of Nice have long since declared the Protestant Doctrin against Images to be heresy, and the Councel of Trent confirms the same decree of Nice, and demonstrats how far that the Catholick doctrin of worshiping Images is from any danger of Idolatry. The words [Page 80] of the Councel sess. 25. are: ‘The Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints are to be had and retained, especialy in Churches; and that due honour is to be imparted vnto them, not for that any Divinity is to be be­lieved to be in them, or vertue, for which they are to be worshipt or that any thing is to be begg'd of them, or that hope is to be put in them, as in tyms past the Pagans did, who put their trust in Idols; but because the honour which is exhibited to them, is referr'd to the first pattern which they resemble. So that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we vncover our heads, and kneele, we adore Christ and his Saints, whose likness they beare; we reverence that which is ratified by the Decrees of Councels, especialy of the second of Nice, against the impugners of Images.’

In the 36. they make it an Article of Religion, that their new form of ordaining Priests and Bishops is valid, and contai­neth all things necessary; but since his Majesty's happy restaura­tion they have judged the contrary, and therfore thought ne­cessary to add thervnto the words Priest and Bishop. See the new Ritual of the Church of England pub­lished since his Majesties happy restau­ration. Yet this wil not serve their turn, for before they can have a true Clergy, they must change the Caracter of the Ordainers, as wel as the form of ordination: a valid form of ordination, pronounced by a Minister not validly ordained, gives no more caracter then if it had continued invalid, and never bin altered: The present Pro­testant Bishops, who changed the form of their own Ordination vpon their Adversaries objections of the invalidity therof, might as wel submit to be ordained by Catholick Bishops, as alow (by altering the from after so long a tyme, and dispute) that it was not sufficient to make themselves, and their Predecessours Priests or Bishops.

In their 37. Article they give a spiritual supremacy to the temporal Soveraign. But because the world laught at that vanity and at the statuts 1. & 8. Eliz. 1. Wherin is declared, that the English Soveraignty is so spiritual as that it may give to any per­son whatsoever (whether man or woman, lay or ecclesiastick) [Page 81] power and authority to exercise any spiritual function, and con­secrat Priests and Bishops) they would fain make vs now belie­ve that they did not attribut to the Queen, and her Successours any power of ministring God's word, or the Sacraments; not­withstanding that the aforesaid Statuts, yet in force, certify the contrary; And indeed if none can give what himself hath not, seing the Kings of England can give power and authority to any person watsoever to consecrat Priests and Bishops, and to ex­ercise all kind of spiritual ministery, and jurisdiction concer­ning God's word, and Sacraments, this power and ministery cannot be denyed to be inherant in themselves.

In the 38. and 39. articles they endeavour to supress so­me errors of the Anabaptists, which necessarily follow from the foundation and principles of Protestancy: for if it be lawfull to deprive men of a spiritual authority and jurisdiction, wherof they are in present possession, and which their Predecessours had peaceably enjoy'd, tyme out of memory, the consequence of the lawfulness to deprive men of their temporal jurisdiction, Dominions, riches, and goods, is evident by a parity of reason: for if peaceable and present possession, confirm'd by a prescrip­tion of many ages, be not sufficient to ground right for the Roman Bishop and Clergy to govern souls, and to enjoy the Church livings, ther is no temporal Prince, or person can be secure, or have a right to govern subjects or possess his Domi­nions. So that by the same warrant wherby Prelatick Prote­stants have taken from the Pope, and Roman Clergy their spi­ritual jurisdiction, and temporalities, the Anabaptists and all o­thers may evidently demonstrat, that all goods are common, and no one person can pretend right to Superiority, or any thing he doth possess.

SECT. VI. Of the effects which these 39. Articles of Prelatick Protestancy immediatly produced in England, and may produce at any tyme in every state wher such principles are made legal: and how the Ro­man Catholick Religion was restored by Act of Parliament of Queen Mary.

AFter that Prelatick Protestancy had not only bin permitted, but established by Parliament in England, ensued the destruction of many thousand innocent people, as also of the Pro­tector Seamor, and K. Eduard 6. togeather with the exclusion of Q. Mary, and others the lawful Heires of the Crown, and the in trusion of the Lady Jane Grey (and in her of Dudly's son and family) vnto the Royal throne. These were effects of Prote­stancy, not events of fortunc; they were designs driven and di­rected by the principles of the Reformation, the like wherof any politick and popular subject may compass as wel as Dudly: wit­ness our late long Parliament, and Oliver Cromwel's procee­dings. Though K. Edward 6. was but a Child, and his vncle the Protector no great Polititian, yet they had a grave and wise Councel; but against the liberty and latitude which men are allow'd by the principles of Protestancy, no conduct can pre­vail, nor government be safe, as appeareth in many examples, and in our late Soueraign's Reign, and death. Jt's in vain to make particular articles of Religion, or temporal Statuts, if there be a general principle admitted as if it were the word of God, [Page 83] wherby both are rendred vnsignificant. One of the general principles, and indeed the foundation of Prelatick Protestancy, is, that it is lawful for privat men and subjects (such were all the first Protestant Reformers) to despise and depose their spi­ritual Superiours by their own arbitrary interpretations, and ap­plications of Scripture, notwithstanding the peaceable possessi­on, immemorial prescription, legality, and exercise of their sayd Superiour's authority and jurisdiction. From hence it evidently followeth, that if it be lawful to deal thus with spiritual Su­periours, it must be as lawful ( a fortiori) to deal after the same manner, and vpon the same grounds of every privat man's interpretation of Scripture with temporal Superiours. To ima­gin therfore that by a particular article of Religion, or by an Act of Parliament against Presbiterians, Quakers, Anabaptists, &c. (in favour of the subject's property to temporal goods, or of the King's prerogatives, and soveraignty) such mens minds, or mouths wil be stopt from raising tumults, and runing into a rebellion so cleerly waranted by the fundamental principle of the Protestant Reformation, is but a fancy, not to be rely'd vpon by any discreet person.

Dudly Earl of Wa [...]vvick, and afterwards Duke of Nor­thumberland, observing that by this foundation of Protestancy the very ground of Alegiance, and Obedience not only to the spiritual, but also to the civil Magistrat, is vndermin'd; resol­ved to make his son King of England, and in order therunto marryed him to the Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant of the bloud royal, not doubting but that they who had renounc'd all sub­ordination unto their spiritual Superiours vnder the pretext of a reformation, would vpon the same score preferr the lady Jane to the Crown before the Princess Mary, a Constant Catholick. Therfore after that he had beheaded the Protector, and poy­son'd the King, he crown'd his son's wife, with the concurrence and applause of the Prelatick Clergy, Cranmer, Ridly &c. and with the consent of the Protestant Nobility, and Citty of Lon­don. But Protestancy not being at that tyme so deeply rooted, [Page 84] nor so largly spread in the nation, the Catholick Gentry and Commons togeather with Q. Maries great courage, and reso­lution, quash't this Polititian's design, and brought him to due punishment. Vpon the scaffold he declared that he never had bin a Protestant in his judgment, and only made use of it's pro­fession and principles for temporal ends, as to raise his family, &c. he advertiss't the people of the new Religion's inconsistency with peace and quiet; that it's Clergy were but Trumpets of sedition: The substance of his speech is set down by D.r Heylin in these words. D.r Heylin Eccles. restau. Q. Mary pag. 19. ‘He admonish'd the spectatours, to stand to the Religion of their Ancestors, rejecting that of later date, which had occasion'd all the misery of the foregoing thurty years; and that for prevention for the future, if they desir'd to present their souls vnspotted in the sight of God, and were truly affected to their Country, they should expel those tempests of sedition, the Preachers of the reform'd Religion; that for himself, what soever had otherwise bin pretended, he profess'd no other Religion then that of his Fathers; for testimony wherof, he appeal'd to his good freind, and ghostly Father the Lord Bishop of Worcester; and finaly, that being blinded with ambition, he had bin contented to make rack of his conscience by temporising, for which he profess'd himself sincerly repentant, and so acknowledg'd the justice of his death.’ A Declaration (saith D.r Heylin) very vnseasonable, whether true or false; as that which rendred him less pittied by the one side, and more scorn'd by the other. This is a more Politick then pious observation of D.r Heylin; would he not have men confess their faults, and profess their [...]aith when they are dying? and would he have them preferr the vanity of the pitty or scorn of the world, when they are to bid the whole world adieu, before the satisfaction and salva­tion of the soule? I feare too many of D.r Heylins principles not only deferr until the last houre the profession of the truth, but even then dissemble; thinking a Declaration and recantation of their errors at that tym [...] either vnseasonable, or vnpardonable; [Page 85] and preferr, the vanity of the world's opinion, before the ne­cessity of a conversion vnto the true faith.

Q. Marys daunger ended not with Dudlys death, D.r Heylin cit pag. 33.34▪ & 35. it lasted as long as ther was any man to head the Protestant party, and to put the people in mind of it's principles. First, the Duke of Suffolck, and others, plotted the setting up once more of the Lady Jane Grey, and began the execution therof by their Pro­clamations against Q. Marys intended mariage with Philip of Spain; this occasioned the Lady Jan's death. Other zealots of the Protestant Religion concluded a mariage between the Lord Courtny and the Lady Elizabeth; their plot was discover'd, as also Wyats Rebellion suppress'd; all these things were don by the ad­vice and assistance of the Protestant Clergy that remained in En­gland, and were commended by such of them as liv'd abroad. D.r John Poinet the last Bishop of Winchester was not only of Wyat's Councel, Heylin pag. 35▪ but continued in his camp vntil he perceiv'd the design would not take; then he departed telling the Rebels he would pray for their good success. Goodman, and Knox ray­led in their Books against the Queen; and Calvin in his Coment vpon Amos termeth her Proserpine. Cap. 14▪ ‘ Goodman hath this ex­pression. Wyat did but his duty, and it was but the duty of all others that profess the Ghospel, to have risen with him for the maintenance of the same. His cause was just, and they were all Traytors that took not part with him. O No­ble Wyat ▪ thou art now with God, and those worthy men that dyed in that happy enterprise. This was the primitive spirit, these the first effects of our English Protestancy.’

Not only the Queen out of a zeal to the Roman Catho­lick Religion, but the Privy Councel and Parliament moved with a desire of peace (seing it was moraly impossible to go­vern people protestantly principl'd) resolved to restore the an­cient doctrin wherwith their Ancestours had so long prosper'd; and to suppress the Protestant novelties by the rigour of the laws formerly made against heresies, which had bin repeal'd at the instance of the reform'd Preachers, and Prelats, in K. Edward [Page 86] 6. raign. And therfore (as D.r Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury confesseth in his book of dangerous positions pag. 63.) though Q. Mary was a Princess of nature and disposition very mild and inclined to pittie, yet she and her government is taxed with too much severity by them that consider not the nature and consequences of Protestancy. If Tinkers, Taylors, Tapsters, Tanners, and Spinsters, would needs run into the fier for de­fending the fond inventions of Cranmer, and of other known Temporisers, who could help it? neither patience nor pains was wanting in the Catholick Clergy to reduce them to the truth; but their obstinacy, and the vanity of dying Martyrs (forsooth) made them preferr their own privat sence of Scripture before that of the whole visible Church. So charitable were the Ca­tholicks, that they delay'd the penalties of such as they could not convert, and connived at them who endeavored to escape by absenting or concealing themselves. And as for Cranmer, Ridly, Latimer, and the other Ringleaders of Protestancy, they had liberty given them to maintain their cause in publick dis­putations, with the tyme, books, and notaries that themselves desired. How litle they could say for their Religion and Re­formation, and how they were convicted of frauds and falsifi­cations, in the planting and propagating therof, may be seen in the third part of this Treatise.

But that which most pleased and setled the Kingdom, was the Roman Clergy's resignation of the Church livings to the Crown, and to others that possess'd them. The whole Con­vocation petition'd to their Majestys, declaring the readyness they were in, to wave their claim, and interest; and thus con­clude.

‘ D. Heylin Eccles. resta. in the Histor. Q. Mary pag. 43.Wherfore preferring the publick good, and quiet of the Kingdom before our own privat commodities, and the salua­tion of so many souls redeem'd with the precious Bloud of Christ, before any earthly thing whatsoever, and not see­king our own, but the things of Iesus Christ, we do most earnestly and most humbly beseech your Majesties, that you [Page 87] would graciously vouchsaf to interceed in our behalf with the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole Legat a latere, from his Holiness, that he would please to setle and confirm the sayd goods of the Church either in whole, or in part, as he thinks most fit, one the present oc­culants therof, according to the power and faculties com­mitted to him, by the said most Serene Lord the Pope, &c. And for our parts we do both now, and for all tyms com­ming give consent to all and everything, which by the said Lord Legat shal, in this case, be finaly ordained, and con­cluded &c.’

As the Clergy shew'd much zeal and charity in resigning their temporal interest, so did the layty give an eminent proof of Christian humility in acknowledging their schism and heresy by an instrument deliver'd by the Lords and Commons assem­bled in Parliament, to Cardinal Pole, craving absolution for their sins and schism, mention'd in the Statut an. 1. & 2. Philip. & Mar. cap. 8. part of which Statut I thought fit to set down a part for an example worthy of imitation, it being credible that they who were Actors in the Changes of Religion, and had ex­perience both of the new and old faith, knew better how things were then carried, and vpon what motives, then any now li­ving. Thus then they petition to the Queen, and King.

Wheras since the 20. year of K. Henry 8. of famous me­mory, Stat. an. 1. &▪ 2. Pbil. & Mar▪ cap. 8. ‘Father vnto your Majesty our most natural Soveraign &c. much fals and erroneous doctrin hath bin taught, preacht and written, partly by divers the natural born subjects of this realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other foreign Countries, hath bin sow'n, and spread abroad within the same; by reason wherof as wel the spirituality, as the temporality of your Highness Realms and Dominions have swaru'd from the Obedience of the Sea Apostolick, and de­clin'd from the vnity of Christ's Church, and so have conti­nued vntil such tyme as your Majesty being first raised vp by God, and set in the seat Royal over vs &c. The Pop's Holi­ness [Page 88] and the Sea Apostolick sent hither vnto your Majesties (as vnto persons vndefil'd, and by God's goodness preseru'd, from the common infection aforesaid) and vnto the whole Realm, the most Reverend Father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legat a latere, to cal vs home again into the right way from whence we have all, this long while wandred and strayd abroad; and we after sundry long and grievous plagues, and calamities, seing by the goodness of God, our own errors, have acknowledg'd the same vnto the sayd most Reverend Father, and by him have bin received and embraced, into the vnity and bosom of Christ's Church: and vpon our humble sub­mission and promise made, for a Declaration of our repen­tance, to repeal and abrogat such Acts and Statuts as had bin made in Parliament since the sayd 20. year of the sayd King Henry 8. against the Supremacy of the Sea Apostolick &c.’

And because the first occasion and main Motive of our English Protestant Reformation was the pretended nullity of K. Henry 8. and Q. Catharins marriage; for satisfaction of the world and a discovery of the truth, the Parliament (wherin sat many both Lords and Commons particularly acquainted with the whole matter, and employ'd in that intrigue) declare their knowledg and discharg their conscience in the ensuing Act 1. Mariae.

SECT. VII. Other effects of Protestancy after it was revived in England by Q. Elizabeth, to exclude the Royal Family of the Stewards from the Crown; of the nulity of her Clergy's caracter and jurisdiction.

By King Henry 8. his revolt from the Church of Rome, not only the Religion but the realm of England was so embroyl'd, that very ma­ny who had no right, entertained hopes of ascending into the Royal Throne; some by fishing in troubled waters, others by mar­rying Q. Elizabeth, others by their descent from the younger daughter of King Henry 7. (all mention of the heires of the elder Sister having bin omitted, or blotted out of the last will and Testament of K. Henry 8.; and Q. Elizabeth having bin declared ilegitimat by three Acts of different Parliaments, which never yet were repealed) very few there were that did not hould their own title to be more legal then hers. This con­fusion also made the Queen of Scots known right to be ne­glected. But the French King who was concerned therin, com­manded her to be proclaimed Q. of England, and quarter'd the Arms of great Britanie with his lilies. Q. Elizabeth apprehen­ded some daunger from a title so cleere, seconded with the po­wer [Page 96] of France, and Scotland; and therfore by the advice of Secretary Cecil and others, resolved upon the chang of Religion and the destruction of the Catholick party and Clergy which favoured the Stewards claim. Act. 14. v. 23. & tom. 5.22. The Protestant Reformation (as being sutable both to her birth and interests) was revived, and a new caracter of Priesthood and Episcopacy devised; not imprinted in the soule by imposition of Episcopal hands, accor­ding to the Ghospel, but in wax, as if forsooth by the weight of the great seal, and the vertue of a shee supremacy, a woman or lay men might make Bishops. This superficial formality was declared a sufficient caracter, and ground of Episcopacy, by a Junta of her Majesties lawyers, and Divines as appeareth in their definitive sentence, and her Commission See thee nulity of the Prelatick Clergy of En­gland cap. 2. and D. Bram­hal in his vindication therof pa. 92. & pag. 10 [...]. Dr. Staple­ton in his re­turn of vn­truths a­gainst Jewel fol. 130. and in his Coun­terblast a­gainst Horn fo. 79 & 301 Dr. Harding Confut. Apol. fol. 57. & 60 & part 2. fol. 59. edit. 1563 & fol. 57. & 59 edi. 1566 to the Conse­craters of her first Bishops D.r Parker, and others, wherin she dispenseth with all the inhabilities, and incapasities even of their State and Condition; because the true Bishops refused to ordain her Clergy, and a Clergy she was resolved to have that would vote in Parliament, and instruct the People as should be thought fit for her Succession and security.

And because the Roman Catholick Writers of those tyms laught at the Protestant Bishops Episcopacy, and bid them shew the letters of their Orders, not the letters patens of the Queen; and tould them a secular Prince might give them the revenues of Bishopricks, but not the Caracter of Bishops; and that the same Catholick writers insisted much vpon their Adversaries not being able to name what Bishops did consecrat them; and be­sids pleaded in the publick Court, they were not realy nor legaly ordained; and that afterwards it appeared so to the Iury appointed for the examination therof; both the Queen and her Bishops found it absolutly necessary for her credit and their ca­racter, to ratify all Acts, and things had made, or don by any person, or persons in or about any consecration, Stat. 8. Eli­zabeth. 1. confirmation, or investing of any person, or Persons elected to the office, or dignity of Archbishops, or Bis­hops by vertue of the Queens letters patents, or Commission, since the beginning of her Reign. So that to know whether D.r Parker, [Page 97] and his Camerades were true Bishops, none must have examined whether they had bin consecrated by other Bishops, but only whether the person or persons that were the Consecrators (whe­ther lay men or Ecclesiastick it matter'd not) performed that ceremony by virtue of the Queens letters patents, or commissi­on? If they could shew her great seal, they might vse what matter and form they pleased; for, Stat. 8. Eliz. 8. by the Act 1. & 8. Eliz. there was given to the Queens Highness, her Heires &c. full power and authority, by letters patents vnder the great seal of England, from tyme to tyme, to assign, name, and authorise such person or persons as she and they shal thinck meet and convenient (any lay man or woman would serve turn) to exercise, use enioy and execute vn­der her Highness, all manner of jurisdictions, Priviledges, preheminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spi­ritual, or ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction within this Realm, or any other her Majesties Dominions, or Countrys. Now priesthood be­ing nothing but a spiritual power to Consecrat Christ's Body and Bloud, and forgive sins, and Episcopacy including besids the same, a spiritual power to consecrat, and ordain other Priests and Bishops; who can doubt but that by these words and Sta­tut, the Queen might, and her Successours may, by their sole letters patents and great seal, make any lay man, (whether Carter or Catchpole), a Protestant Bishop, or Priest; seing therby he receiveth ful power to exercise, vse, execute, &c. all manner of jurisdictions, preheminencies, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual, or ecclesiastical power &c.

And because ther might remain no ambiguity or scruple of Parker, and the first Protestant Bishops valid and legal Con­secration, the same Statut 8. Elizabeth 1. assures us, that the Queen in her letters patents for that purpose directed to any ‘Archbishop, Bishops, Or Others (mark the word Others) for the confirming, investing, and consecrating of any person elected to the Office or dignity of any Archbishop, or Bi­shop, hath not only vsed such words and sentences as were accustomed to be vsed by the late King Henry, and King [Page 98] Edward her Majesties Father and Brother, in their like letters patents, made for such causes; but also hath vsed divers other general words and sentences, wherby her Majestie by her su­preme power, and authority hath dispensed with all causes or doubts, of any inperfection or disability, that can, or may in any wise be objected against the same, as by her Maje­sties sayd letters patents (remaining on record) more plainly wil appeare.’ Now Mr. Bramhal, the late Primat, would fain make the Parliament so sensless, and his Readers so sim­ple, as to referr the words, mentioning and comparing the re­cords of the Queen and her Father and Brother's tyme in this Act, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Register, and not to their Majesties letters patents; wher as by the whole context and discourse it is evident, that the Parliament's drift is to shew no such ceremonious solemnity (as of late hath bin pretended and printed by Mr. Mason) was necessary. Had ther bin any such legal or formal Consecration at Lambeth, as 50. years after was forged, and foisted into the Archbishop's Register, the Par­liament 8. Eliz. 1. would have remitted us therunto, named Lambeth, and not insisted al-togeather vpon the Queen's dispen­sation for the validity, and legality of her first Bishops Conse­cration and caracter.

See the nulli­ty of the Clergy and Church of England edit. 1659.Many ar the reasons lately printed, and not like to be an­swered, that persuade all prudent men, who have not too great a passion for the Prelatick Clergy, to believe that Mr. Mason's new found Register of Lambeth is forged. 1. It was never produced, nor mentioned by the first Bishops, so much pressed by their Adversaries to shew some Register, or any evidence for their Consecration. 2. They were only desired to let the world know, wher, when, and by whom they had bin made Bishops? questions easily answered, had they bin consecrated at Lambeth, or any Register then extant when Dr. Harding, Sta­pleton and others, charged them with nulity and illegality of E­piscopal caracter. 3. It's no more credible that such knowing and conscientious men as Stapleton, Harding, Fitzherbert &c. [Page 99] then living in England, and probably at London, would que­stion so publick and solemn an action, then it is, that a sober man would now cal in doubt King Charl's 2. coronation at Westminster, or ask in print, who set the Crown vpon his head pretending he neuer had bin crown'd. And though Bishop Godwin and other Prelatick Writers abuse Dr. Harding, Holi­wood, Fitzsimons &c. for relating the meeting of the first Pro­testant Bishops with a design to be ordained at the Nagshead in Cheap-side, yet all the world knows that albeit there could be no design to feign that story, yet our Controversy with the Prelaticks, is not whether their first Prelats were ordained there, but whether they were ordained any wher? We know Bishops might be as validly consecrated in a Tavern, though not so de­cently, as in a Church. But t'is fit they also consider, Bramhal in his vindic [...] ­tion pag. 132. that if Dr. Parker and their first Bishops, were so narrowly watch't by Mr. Neal, and other Catholicks (whom Primat Bramhal doth cal Spies) that they could not be merry in a Tavern with­out their knowledg, they could hardly perform so serious, and solemn an Action in a Church, as the first Consecration of a Protestant Archbishop, without their observation; it being a matter then so much sought after, and controversed, of so great curiosity in it self, and of greatest concern to us, the total credit, and being of their new Reformation depending therup­on; And yet for aboue 50. years none of the Writers of either side Catholick, or Protestant (who mentioned all other parti­culars relating to the reformation) writ, or spoke a word of this solemnity at Lambeth. The Puritans indeed upraided the Pre­laticks with saying their Episcopal ordination in England, had it's beginning and progress in a corner, not in a Congregation, Demonstrat. Discipl. cap. 8. ¶. 1 & 2. pag. 43. but we can not imagin they could mistake the Archiepiscopal Chap­pel of Lambeth, for a corner, or deny that the great Assembly pretended to have had bin at Dr. Parker's Consecration, deser­ved not to be caled a Congregation.

Queen Elizabeths Clergy thus created by her patents, and Par­liaments, they endeavored to shew themselves gratful to her [Page 100] Majesty, by making the people believe that Popery (by the principles wherof she was vncapable of the Crown) was Idola­try, the Pope Antichrist &c. And to that end corrupted Scrip­tures in their English Translations, as shal be proved herafter. And because their frauds and follies were discoverd by Catho­lick Priests, 2. part. the sanguinary and penal laws were enacted and executed with great cruelty. But that which most troubled the Queen and her Clergy, was the life and right of the Queen of Scots; they found an expedient to rid themselves of both, that innocent Queen was murthered, and seing Queen Elizabeth was not inclined to marry, it was decreed in Parliament that in case there should be any natural issue of her body, it should en­joy the Crown after her death, See this Act of Parliamēt in the life of the Queen of Scots, Writ­ten by Mr. V. dal, and de­dicated to King James pag. 200. & 201. and so the line of the Stewards was excluded; and for that the doctrin of the Roman Catho­licks favored their Title, all persons of that profession were dis­countenanc'd, and persecuted. And albeit this setlement both of the Crow'n and Clergy of England, seem'd very absurd to all that reflected vpon the principles of Christianity, and the practise of God's Church, yet they who were guided only by Maxims of human policy, excused the Queens proceedings, and condemned not her Clergy for accepting of those revenues, and dignities which they could not acquire by honest and ordinary ways, their learning being but vulgar, and their birth obscure. Had not her Majesty exalted those mean persons from nothing, to be a legal, though not lawful Clergy, she could not have had any Clergy at all, for that no man of conscience, or ho­nour, would have gain'd his living by damning souls, and cor­rupting Scripture, nor received a spiritual caracter from a secu­lar seal, and she supremacy. And indeed even to this day very few or none of the Protestant Nobility, or prime gentry, vn­dergoe that cours of life; and the better sort of Trads-men take it for no great honour when any of their Relations becom, Ministers.

And becaus the foundation of the Queens legitimacy, and of her Clergys caracter and jurisdiction, was King Henry 8. and [Page 101] her own supremacy, an oath of the same was pressed vpon the subjects, and proposed in the Parliament. The temporal Lords who were wiser then to believe that Christ committed the go­vernment of souls, and of the Church to women or lay Princes (all of them one excepted) having bin for the three first Cen­turies, Idolaters; and many, for some succeding ages, notorious hereticks, (and for the future may prove no better,) refused to concurr with their votes for passing of the Oath, unless the Peerage were exempted from taking it: this being condescended vnto, they consented to make that Oath legal, which themsel­ves had rejected as vnlawful; and yet is this oath, even in our tims, made the distinctive sign not only of Prelatick Protestan­cy, but of Cavallier loyalty, and Christian honesty. But this po­licy of State neither then, nor now, could worck that vnity of faith, and vnion of hearts for which it was devised. It divi­ded Protestants into Puritans, and Prelaticks; and confirmed Papists in their own belief, as being scandalised to see others ma­ke a thing so incredible, the foundation of their faith. The Pu­ritans agreed with the Papists in denying the Queen's spiritual supremacy, but differ'd from them in the ground of the denial, and in the person wherunto they granted that prerogative. The Papists continued it in the Pope; the Puritans vsurped it to them­selves. The Papists grounded their belief concerning the Pop's supremacy vpon the common and continual consent of all Ca­tholicks, See 1▪ p. se [...] 1. acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to be de jure Di­vino S. Peter's, Successour;the Puritans rejected that consent and Tradition, relying vpon their own privat spirit, and fond interpretation of Scripture. And though it be more dan­gerous for Souveraigns to alow of this spiritual superiority in their own subjects, then in a stranger, whose parentage (gene­raly speaking) is not considerable, and whose power is not du­rable, as coming very late into his hands, and not surviving his person by descent to his posterity, or relations; yet Queen Elizabeth, was more jealous of the Pope, then of the Puritans; becaus the generality of the Irish, and a great part of the En­glish, [Page 102] were Papists; and according to their principles, the Ste­wards ought to have bin in possession of the British Empire, and the Pop's censures in behalf of the Queen of Scots, had wrought already vpon some of their consciences. But the Pu­ritans hated her Religion, person, and posterity, and were the chief instruments that Queen Elizabeth employ'd in embroy­ling Scotland, and sheading of her Royal bloud: and therfor they were not only tolerated, but many of them exalted to places of trust, honour and profit. On the contrary, the Ro­man Catholicks were persecuted, as a party that not only wish't, but wrought what was possible for the Queen of Scots liberty, relief, and the restitution of the Crown to her self, and to her line, wherof it had bin so vnjustly deprived by the principles and practises of Protestants: wherof some were so ignorant or impudent, as to give out then, and even now Dr. Heylin pag. 131. doth rashly maintain, that the Pope offered to confirm her English Liturgy, vpon condition she would acknowledg his supremacy. This was then, and is now reported, to the end illiterat Protestants may believe there is no great difference be­tween their Reformation, and the Catholick Religion; and that the Bishops of Rome, and the Councel of Trent proceeded rash­ly in their Censures, or at least may now, and would then, contradict former definitions, vpon more mature deliberation, or for some temporal respects: But they who know it is not in the Pop's power to legitimat a spurious brood, on begot and born in adultery, as Queen Elizabeth; and that he would be deposed from his Papal dignity, if he offered to confirm, or alow any of the many defin'd heresies contain'd in the English Litur­gy: They I say, will not believe the Bishop of Rome could be so fond of Queen Elizabeth, or forgetful of him-self, as to become a Protestant, and chang the revenues of his Popedom for the vncertainty of her pension, in case she would value his kindness so much as to bestow a pension vpon him. By such follies and frauds is Protestancy supported in the opinion of cre­dulous, and carless people, and their Clergy kept in possession of a vast revenue.

SECT. VIII. Reasons why Queen Elizabeth in her 44. years Reign could not make her Prelatick Clergy and Religion acceptable, neither is it possible for her Successours to gain credit and esteem for the same.

THe setlement of a Christian Religion or Cler­gy doth not consist in making them legal by Acts of Parliament, but in persuading the peo­ple that both the Religion and the Clergy is Apostolick; and by consequence that the Acts of Parliaments wherby they are confir­med, are lawful. Notwithstanding the great severity of Queen Elizabeths laws, and the litle sincerity of her Clergy, in pulpit, press, and privat conversations, against the Roman Catholick Religion, for the space of aboue 44. years of her Reign, though Popery was therby rendred odious, and ridiculous to simple men, silly women, children, and others, whose want of capa­city, and even of curiosity made them not reflect vpon the drift of Protestant Preachers, nor vpon the reasonableness of Catho­lick Tenets; yet their Prelatick Protestancy did and doth every day rather loose then gain ground, and the generality of these Nations can not be wrought vpon either by fair or foul means to thinck wel of that Religion, or to submit their Judgments, and consciences to the direction of the Bishops, and Prelatick ministery. The reasons are obvious to such as are not obsti­nat. 1. The incredibility of their pretented spiritual caracter and jurisdiction. 2. The incoherency of their doctrin with the fun­damental principles of Protestancy. Their Episcopal caracter [Page 104] and jurisdiction, is as incredible as King Henry 8. spiritual su­premacy, Queen Elizabeths legitimacy, and the validity and so­lemnity of their first Bishops consecrations. They have indeed of late endeavored to excuse the latness of their Masonian Re­gisters discovery, Primat Bramhal's succession and vindication of the Prelatick Clergy was answered by the Author of the nullity of the Church of England, and by an ot­her book after he had both these āswers by him; and durst not re­ply: but ra­ther cōcurred with his Bre­thren in ad­ding the words Priests and Bishop to their forms of ordination, as appeareth in their last edi­tion of the Commō pra­ier, rites &c. of the Church of England. and to cleere them from the suspitions of for­gery, but so faintly and fraudulently, that their vindication (though pen'd and published by on of the ablest Prelats of their Church) hath furnished their adversaries with so many new demonstrations against their Caracter, that in steed of a reply, the Protestant Bishops have resolued vpon a submission to the evidence of our arguments, and changed the controverted and essential part of their forms of Ordination.

As they endeavored of late to vindicat their Registers from forgery, so they, long since explained the Queens supremacy, but so contrary to the known laws of the land, and cleer words of their Oaths both of supremacy and Episcopal homage, that nei­ther can bear their fond interpretations; and if they could, the Bishops would have nothing to shew for their pretended spiri­tual function and jurisdiction, it being manifest they cannot de­duce either of them by succession from any Apostolick Church, or orthodox Councel; and therfor must content them-selves with what they can buy from a lay soveraign, and temporal Statuts, or acknowledg the truth, and confess ingeniously, they are but lay-men, and have no lawful authority to take vpon them a spiritual function, and jurisdiction, seing they have no Catholick Predecessours, and degenerat from the first Protestant Reformers, and are ashamed to claim (with Presbiterians and Fanaticks) the extravagancy of a privat spirit, and extraordi­nary vocation.

The incoherency also of the Prelatick doctrin maks these nations averse from the Prelatick Church and Clergy. [...]n the 39. Articles of Religion they declare with Luther, and the first Reformers, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by conse­quence no such thing as imposition of Episcopal hands) was in­stituted by Christ, or is the necessary matter of a Priest's and [Page 105] Bishop's ordination; and yet now of late, that visible sign and ceremony is held by them-selves to be so essential, that without the same, no caracter of Priesthood or Episcopacy is thought to be given to the party ordained; and therfor they reordain such Presbiterian Ministers as did neglect, or contemn imposition of Episcopal hands. 2. They maintain in the same 39. Articles, that the Roman Catholick Church hath falen into damnable er­rors, and acknowledg that only such a fal can justify the Pro­testants separation, or excuse them from sin and schism. And yet when they are pressed with a consequence that necessarily follows out of this supposition, to wit, that if the Roman and visible Church had so erred, Protestants can have no Christian faith, nor certainty of the Scriptur's being God's word, or of the Trinity and Incarnation &c. which they received and retain vpon the sole Testimony of the Roman Catholick Church, ha­ving in their own 39. Articles declared the Greeck Church, Here­tical (for the doctrin of the Holy Ghost's procession) and therfor it's testimony (even in other Articles) is invalid, and it's con­currence, in those other Articles, with the Roman Church, is vnsignificant. And yet they again contradict them-selves, and confess that the Roman Catholick Church is infalible in all ar­ticles necessary for saluation. 3. The same inconstancy and in­coherency they shew in denying, that doctrinal Traditions are the word of God, or that Tradition it self is a sufficient ground of Divine belief; and yet when they are demanded to shew a proof by cleer Scripture of the distinction between single Priest­hood, and Episcopacy (v.g.) then they maintain that traditional doctrin is God's word, and the testimony of the Roman visi­sible Church, a sufficient evidence therof. Their wavering and inconsequent way of proceeding, doth manifest to the world, that as wel in this, as in other particulars of Christian Religion, nay even in declaring which are necessary or not necessary points of faith, the Prelatick Clergy hath a greater regard to their own conveniency, then to God's veracity; and to the revenues of [...]he Church, then to the saluation of souls: Otherwise why [Page 106] should they take our Roman Catholick word for Episcopacy, and not for the Pop's supremacy; for the letter, but not for the sence of Scripture; for not rebaptising, or for receiving relaps'd pe­nitents, more then for Purgatory, or Transubstantiation; or for keeping Sonday, and not praying to Saints &c. Seeing all these do­ctrins are equaly proposed to them as Catholick truths by the sole credible testimony and tradition of our one and the same Roman Catholick Church; the testimony of the Greeck and all other Churches (as hath bin sayd) being rendred invalid by the he­reticks wherwhith Protestants confess they are infected:

Some are of opinion that if the more modern Prelaticks had not forsaken their ould way of being ordained Bishops by the Queens letters patents, or by some such publick testimony and superficial ceremony of their Congregations, without trou­bling them-selves with the doctrin of the inward caracter given by imposition of Episcopal hands, so contrary to the princi­ples of the reformation a broad, and to the 23. and 25. of their own 39. Articles at home; they had not bin so hard put to it by their Presbiterian Brethrens arguments, who stick to the Tenets and Rules of pure and primitive Protestancy, detesting those formalities and dregs of Popery, which Prelaticks of late have so much affected in ordaining of Ministers.

Mr. Hooker, Dr. Couel and some other Prelaticks in their writings towards the end of Queen Elizabeths reign, began to inculcat the doctrin of making Ordination a spiritual caracter imprinted in the soul by imposition of Episcopal hands, and not a bare formality, of the secular Magistrat's election, by some outward ceremony, or letters patents, as all English Protestants had believed and practised vntil Hooker and Couel broacht this among their other Popish novelties, and therfor were publickly blamed, and complained of by Prelatick Writers, and particu­larly by Dr. Willet in his worck vpon the 112. Psalm. printed 1603. and dedicated to the Queens Majesty page 91. he saith: From this fountain have sprung forth these and such other whirl­points, and bubles of new doctrine; and amongst others he sets [Page 107] down as a novelty in the Church of England this, That there is in ordination given an indelible caracter; and then addeth, Thus have some bin bould to teach and write, who, as some Schismaticks (the Puritans) have disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning disciplin; they have troubled the Church another way in opposing themselves by new quircks and devices to the soundness of doctrin among Protestants.

And truly, to pretend with all reformed Churches, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the man of sin, and at the same time pro­fess (as the learned Prelatick writers do in their books) that without his caracter of Priesthood there can be no orthodox Clergy or Christian Church; are things that do not hang wel togeather; neither is it credible that so zealous Protestants as were the first English reformers Cranmer, Coverdale, Bale, &c. who strained Scripture in their Translations (and made formal ab­jurations) against the caracters of Episcopacy and Priesthood, which they had received in the Church of Rome; or that Parker, Je­wel, Horn, &c. who received that same doctrin, and excluded those caracters by an express Article of their 39. of Religion from the Church of England, and from their form of ordination, it is not I say credible, that these and the like men did maintain in their convocations, the late Prelatick contrary doctrin, or that they exercised or recorded any such Popish formalities of con­secrating Priests and Bishops by imposition of Episcopal hands, as M.r Mason pretends he found in Parker's Register at Lambeth, as appeareth also to any that wil consider, the homely choyce, and caling of the primitive Pastors and Preachers of our Prela­tick Protestancy, objected to themselves in print when they were living, and yet could not deny the fact, neither did they go a­bout to excuse it, not taking it to be a fault.

D.r Kelison in his survey pag. 373. & 374. saith of the Pro­testant Clergy in Q. Elizab. time. Lay men were taken, of which, some were base artificers, and without any other conse­cration or ordination then the Prince's, or the superintendent's letters, made them Ministers and Bishops, with as few ceremo­nies [Page 108] and less solemnity then they make their Aldermen yea Con­stables and cryers of the market. D.r Stapleton in his Counter­blast lib. 4. num. 481, saith. And wherin I pray you resteth a great part of your new Clergy, but in Butchers, Cooks, Catch­pols, and Coblers, Diers, and Dawbers, fellows carrying their mark in their hand insteed of a shaven Crown, &c.

Seing therfor our Catholick Arguments convince all dis­interest'd persons (that weigh them) of the absurdity and no­velty of Protestancy in general; and such as do not take them to be of any weight (because themselves are byassed, and bent against vs by education or interest) must needs take notice (if they think seriously of any Religion or of their own Protestant principles) that the Prelatick Reformation is but a politick ap­pendix or addition of Q. Elizabeth in pursuance of her Father's passion, and by her self resolved vpon, more for securing a Crown then saving the soule; See in the epistle Dedi­catory, and our Preface, the Act of Parliament preferring a­ny natural issue of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown before the royal family of the Ste­wards. and therfor containing more mysteries of state then of faith, and more regarding conveniencies then conscience, as appeareth by the layty of her Clergy, by her She-supremacy, by the anticipated Royalty of her vnlawful issue, in case she would be pleased to own any; these things I say being no calumnies of malignant pens or persons, but most ma­nifest by her own Articles of Religion, and Acts of Parliament, can hardly be digested by honest subjects, (much less settled as Divine truths in Christian souls) or carry the face of a pious and plausible Religion, even amongst the most silly sort of peo­ple. Yet far be it from our thoughts to censure with folly or impiety such as suck't with their Nurses milk the poyson of this Prelatick Protestancy; no, we know they want neither piety nor policy according to their own principles; but I hope they wil not be offended, if, according to ours, we do pitty their condi­tion, and pray for their conversion; we believe their zeale against our catholick Religion proceeds not from malice, but mistaks; and desire they may likewise believe our intention is only to ex­pel by this antidot, the poyson which others have infused into their brains. This humble apology and explanation doth not relate to [Page 109] them that made the chang of Religion for preferring Q. Eli­zabeth, and any natural issue of her body to the Crown, befor the lawful heires, who (by God's providence) since her death, and at this present enioy right, nor to any that wil obstinatly maintain such proceedings: It is intended for all wel meaning Protestants that believe themselves to be Catholicks, and if they be not, wish they were; and that the true Religion were setled in these Nations. But what mervaile is it that privat persons be mistaken in Protestancy, when the Royal family of the Stewards (against whose title and succession it was introduced and esta­blished, both in England, and Scotland; in England by Q. Eli­zabeth, in Scotland by the Bastard Murry) are so much in love with that Religion; devised for their own ruine? So bewitching a thing is education, engrafted in good dispositions, and so dan­gerous, if not cultivated, and corrected, by our own more ma­ture reflections, when we arrive to years of discretion.

SECT. IX. How injurious Protestancy hath bin to the Royal family of the Stewards, and how zealous they have bin, and are in promoting the same▪

AFter that King Henry 8. had vsurped the Pop's Supremacy, See Udal (a Protestāt) in his history of the Queen of Scots, wher he pro­ves how the bastard M [...]rry, by the means of John Knox and others that he em­ployed; chan­ged the an­cient Religion in Scotland to the end him self might be made King by the Prote­stants; and how after­wards by the same way he murthered King James his Father, and persecu­ted King Ja­mes, and his mother, all vnder the pretext of a Protestant Reformation. and divised certain Arti­cles of Religion, he desired his Nephew K. James 5. of Scotland, to follow his exam­ple, which that Catholick Prince refus'd to do, King Henry in his last will and Te­stament (confirmed by his Protestant Par­liament) excluded the Royal family of Scotland from their right [Page 110] and succession to the Crown of England, preferring before the Stewards not only his illegitimat daughter Elizabeth, but the Grays, and all others that descended of the yonger sister Queen Dow­ager of France, and Dutchess of Suffolk. King James 5. decea­sed, his wife the Queen Regent of Scotland, and his young daugh­ter Queen Mary, were so persecuted by the Scotch and English Protestants, that the Queen Regent was deposed, and Queen Mary was forc't to fly for refuge into France. After her return into Scotland, the King her Husband was murthered by the Pro­testants, his subjects, and the innocent Queen trepan'd by her protestant Bastard Brother to marry Borthvel one of the mur­therers; with a design to diffame and depose herself from the government, which the Bastard had vsurped; and had murthered likewise King James 6. an infant, but that God prevented his wicked designs by permitting him to be killed by the hand of a Hamilton.

Other Protestants succeeded the Bastard Murry in the go­vernment; and though King Iames escaped the dangers, and de­signs they had layd for his life, yet they perverted his soule, and when he was but 13. months ould, Protestancy was set vp in his name; his Mother (being driven out of her own Kingdom by those Protestants that deposed herself, and abused her Son's minority) was (contrary to the publick faith and privat promi­ses of Queen Elizabeth) imprisoned in England, her Rebels coun­tenanced, and her self at length most vnworthily murthered by the joynt consent of a Protestant Queen and Parliament: and her son and Family excluded from the British Empire, in case Queen Elizabeth should have, or at least own, any natural issue: which many suppose was the true cause, why she or the Parli­ament would never declare her Successour.

King James having bin brought vp in this schoole of af­fliction, attained to more then ordinary wisdom, dissembled with his enemies in England, and strengthned him-self with as many friends and Allies as he could in foreign Nations, to the end he might recouer his right after Queen Elizabeths death, [Page 111] which he and the best part of the world every day long'd son▪ He kept faire with France, Spain, and even with the Pope. He succord Tyrone Tirconel, and the Jrish Scots in Irland against Queen Elizabeth but vnder hand. He corresponded with the Catholick party in England, and was civil even to that party that contrived and pressed his Mothers murther. By his mar­riage he obtained the confederacy of Denmarck and the Prote­stant Princes of Germany for recovering of England. Cecil and others of the English Councel, observing how prudently this young King had ordered his affairs, and prepared him-self for being their Master, courted him, and vnknown to the Queen, gave him dayly intelligence, and thought it their best course to fix vpon him for her Successour; seing they could hardly keep him out, they invited him to the Throne after his enemie's death; and he finding that very Protestancy by which his mo­ther and him-self had bin so long excluded from their right (and would have bin for ever, if Queen Elizabeth had bin as capable as t'is sayd she was desirous of Posterity) was deeply rooted in the hearts of most of his English subjects (who ei­ther did not see he chang, or not observe the motives and My­steries therof) King James J say, reflecting vpon this inclina­tion of the people to Protestancy, conformed him-self vnto that Reformation which had bin setled by law in England; discoun­tenanced the Puritans, by whose doctrin he had bin persecuted in Scotland; and would have tolerated the Catholick, if the gun powder Treason (wherunto some few discontented and desperat Papists were cunningly drawn by Cecil, to make their Religion odious) had not blasted our hopes, and blotted out of his Ma­jestie's memory what we had suffered for his Mother, and how not only our persons, but our principles had bin persecuted for supporting the title of his Family to the British Empire.

By King James his learned works, and discourses, it is ma­nifest he had a design to reform the principles of Protestancy, and reduce them to some rules of reason, and confine that dan­gerous liberty which they give to every privat Protestant, of [Page 112] being supreme Judg in all spiritual Controversies to one cer­tain interpretation of Scripture that might be less prejudicial to Monarchy, Monarchs, peace and all civil Government, then the Protestant arbitrary interpretations have proved hitherto. To that purpose he commanded the Bible to be truly translated, and those fraudulent and foolish corruptions to be corrected, which had bin imposed vpon the people for God's word by Queen Elizabeths Clergy, for maintaining her title, and securing the re­venues of the Church to them selves. But his command was not obey'd, some falcifications in the ould and new Testament were corrected, but very few, in respect of what remain and pass now current for true Scripture. He declared that Catholicks and their Religion had no hand in the gunpowder treason, those few per­sons excepted, which had bin executed. He was not, afraid to acknowledg that the Pope was the first Bishop of Christendom, and Rome the mother Church; he suspended the rigor of the sanguinary and penal Statuts; commended not apostatised Priests, that became Protestants, as he said, to get wenches, and bene­fices. These things he did, not out of any inclination to Pope­ry, but out of his zeal to Protestancy, which he perceived would in a short time become as infamous, as it is intolerable to Monarchs, in case it's principles were not corrected and brought neerer vnto Catholick Tenets.

After King Iames his death, his son King Charles 1. pur­sued the Father's design; but found by sad experience that the Protestant liberty of interpreting Scripture, cannot be restrained to reason by any human industry of the wisest Princes; espe­cialy so long as they are guided by a fallible Church that con­fesseth it's own vncertainty of doctrin.

King Charles the 1. was persuaded by his Councel and Cler­gy that the Laws which had bin enacted in favour of the Pre­latick fallible Church, and doubtful jurisdiction, were of suffi­cient force and authority to contain Protestant subjects in awe, and obedience, and to stop the cours and consequences of those fundamental, and violent principles of their reformation against [Page 113] superiority, at the Church of Rom's doore; and keep them from passing further, or entrenching vpon the Church of Eng­land. But the mistake soon appeared; they who are allowed by the Prelatick principles to rebell against their Roman Supe­riours, vnder the pretence of a Religious interpretation of Scrip­ture, and evangelical Reformation, could not then, nor cannot for the future, be contain'd, or deterr'd by any authority from rebelling against their Protestant Kings, and Bishops vpon the same score, whose superiority could not be more authentick, then the Roman Catholick. And therfor because the King, had engaged in the Bishops quarel, he drew vpon himself the odium of all Protestants that with the spirit and zeal of Reformation stuck to the fundamental principles of Protestancy, which is, to contemn all authority both spiritual and temporal, which any pri­vat person judges contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture; and seeng the Prelatick Church of England doth grant this do­ctrin was lawful in Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Parker, and other particular persons, Churches, and States against the Pope, and others their then acknowledged spiritual and temporal superiours, it will be very difficult to shew why now a Presbiterian or Fa­natick Congregation may not as rationally pretend, and as law­fully practise the same doctrin as their primitive Protestant Pre­decessours had don. And so in vertue of this fundamental prin­ciple of Protestancy, was the sacred person of a good King jud­ged and murthered, by a rude and wicked multitude, without regard to innocency, or respect to Soveraignty: And by a re­markable revolution of tyms, and interests, the grandson came to loose his head for vpholding that same Prelatick Religion and Clergy which by Q. Elizabeth had bin rays'd for the destruction of his Grand-mother, and the exclusion of his family from the crown.

Since Christian Soveraigns have reign'd, the like Tragedy hath not bin acted; many Princes have bin murthered by their Subjects, but never by any such formality of Law, and a pu­blick Court of Judicature, pretending superiority in themsel­ves, and Scripture for their rule and warrant. Wherfore they [Page 114] that looke into the principles and privileges for the future in so zealous and resolute a people as the English, who stand much vpon enjoying their temporal liberties, and much more vpon the spritual prerogative of Protestancy, which according to Luther (the first Author, Luther in epist. ad Ar­gentinenses, anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatumau demus glori­ari. See part 2 sect 5. n. 5. See M.r Bel­son Bishop of Winchester, in his true di­fference &c. part. 2. pag. 353. See M.r Ro­gers in the Catholick do­ctrin of the Church of England, pag. 103. pervsed ād published by the Law­ful authority of the Church of England, an. 1633. Calvin in Dan c. 6. v. 22. & 23. Abdicant se potestate terreni Principes dū insurgunt cō ­tra Deum &c potius ergo cō spicere oportet in illorum ca­pita, quam [...]l­lis parere &c. and Apostle therof is) omnia judice­mus & regamus. Let us judg and govern all things; and not on­ly his German Scholler Brentius but our English Bishop Bilson, and all Prelaticks grant, that the people must be discerners and Jud­ges of that which is taught. And the Catholick doctrin of the Church of England explaining the 39. Articles therof saith, Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgment in the same, to judg controversies of faith, &c. And this is not the privat opinion of our Church, but also the judgment of our godly brethren in forain Nations. And it is not only the Tenet of Calvin, but of all Protestant Writers, that temporal laws oblige not in conscience any Christians to obey.

It being therfore a principle and priviledg, even of Pre­latick Protestancy, and agreable to the 39. Articles, that every member of sound judgment in the Church, hath authority, to judg controversies of faith (and by consequence) all other differences that may be reduced thervnto, how is it possible for any King to be a Soveraign among Protestants, who are all supreme judges both of faith and state? for that State-affairs are subordinat to Religion, and must be managed according to the Protestant sense of Scripture, that is, according to the judgment and interpretation of every particular Protestant or of him that can form or foole the multitude into his own opinion. Wher­fore we ought not be astonished, that men constituted supreme Iudges and Interpreters of Scripture by the legal authority and articles of the Church of England, and by the Evangelical li­bertys of Protestancy, should presume to make them-selves the King's Iudges. For my part, I shal thinck it a great providence of God, and extraordinary prudence in the government, to see any King of England (during the profession and legality of such principles in his Kingdom) escape the like daunger; and [Page 115] do continualy pray, that their good Angel may deliver them from the effects of their own Religion.

His Majesty that (by miracle) now Reigns (long may he live and prosper) hath bin forced to lurck for his life in one of those secret places wherunto Priests retire, when they are search't for; God giving him to vnderstand therby, that the most powerfull Princes (where Protestancy prevails) even in their own Kingdoms, are never secure; and may be often re­duced to as hard shifts, and as great extremities as the Poorest Priests, and meanest Subjects.

SECT. I. Proved by the very Foundation of the Protestant Reformation, which is, a supposition of the fallibility and fal of the visible Catholick Church from the pure and primitive doctrin of Christ, into notorious superstition.

IN the beginning of the first Part, it hath bin sayd that the groundworck as wel of Policy, as of Peace and Piety, consists in making that persuasion to be the Reli­gion of the State, which is most credi­ble, or most agreable to reason; because no commands, duties, taxes, or charges will seem intolerable to subjects, for the preservation, and propagation of such a Religion, nor for the maintenance of the spirititual and tem­poral Ministers, to whose charge is committed the government of such a Church and Common-wealth. How far all kind of [Page 117] Protestancy (even the Prelatick) is from having this preroga­tive, we shall demonstrat in this Part of our Treatise; and in this Section prove the same by the absurdity of the fundamen­tal Protestant principles, Common as well to the Prelatick as to all other Reformations.

The foundation wherupon all Protestant Reformations are built, is this incredible or rather impossible supposition, Viz. That all the visible and known Christian Churches of the world [...]ell from that purity and truth of doctrin, which they had once professed, into superstition, and damnable errors; vntil at length in the 15. age, God sent the Protestant Reformers to revive the true faith and Religion; whose separation from the Roman Catholick Church and all others then visible, is pretended to be free from sin and Schism, by reason of the falshood of the Roman Catholick doctrin, not consistent with saluation. But this supposition is incredible. 1. Because Protestants confess the fall and change of Religion was not perceived vntil 1300. or vntil at least 1000. years Perkins in his exposi­tion vpon the Creed p. 400. vve say that befor the days of Luther, for the space of many hun­dred years an vniversal A­postacy over­spread the vvhole face of the earth, and that our Church vvas not then visi­ble to the world. Mr. Nap­per upon the revelations, dedicated to King Jams pag. 143. saith, from Constantin's time vntill these our days even 1260; years the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the out ward vi­sible Church of christianity. after it happned, and such an impercep­tible change in Christian religion, involues as plain contradicti­ons as a silent thunder.

For, either it must be granted that all the Pastors, and Prelats who lived in the time that any alteration of doctrin began, were so stupid as not to take notice of so important and remarcable an object; or so wicked as to observe, and yet not oppose no­velties so destructive to the souls committed to their charges. Both which are proved to be groundless calumnies by the ac­knowledged zeal learning, and integrity wherwith many Pre­lats and Pastors were endued in every age since the Apostles, as their works yet extant do testify.

The truth of this Protestant supposition is not only incre­dible, but impossible; because the supposed chang of Christian Religion into Popish superstition is not pretended to have bin only a chang of the inward persuasion, but of the outward pro­fession, visible and observable in ceremonies and practises, ans­werable to the Mysteries believed; as the adoring of the B. Sa­crament, [Page 118] worship of Jmages, Communion in one kind, publick prayer in vnknown languages &c. How then is it possible that any Christian man, or Congregation could begin so discernable and damnable novelties, as (according to the opinion of our Adversaries) The adoration of the Sacrament, Transubstantiation, worship of Jmages, Communion of the layty vnder one kind, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and publick prayers in an vnknown language, the Pop's supremacy, the doctrin of Purgatory, Jndulgences, Praying to Saints, the vnmarried life of Priests &c. How is it possible I say, that any one should begin to teach, and practise any of these supposed damnable doctrins, and yet never be noted, or reprehended by any one Prelat, Pastor, or Preacher (who ar (according to Esay) the wat [...]chmen vpon thy vvalls ö Jerusalem have I set vvatchmen all the day, and all the night for e­ver, they shal not be silent Esay 62.6. see Ephes. 4.11. of te visible Church) vntil Luther's times, or at least vntil these supposed superstitions had bin so vniversally spread, so deeply rooted and plausibly re­ceived as Catholick truths, and as ancient Traditions of Christ, and of the Apostles, that they who censured and opposed any of them, were (for so doing) immediatly cryed down and condemned by the then visible and Catholick Church and Coun­sels, as notorious hereticks; How come the Preachers and Pro­fessors of these pretended Popish errors to escape for so many ages, as Protestants confess they had continued, vncontroul'd from the censures of Christ's pure Protestant Congregation, if there was any vpon earth during that time? was there not one Bis­hop, Priest, or Preacher in all the world for so many ages, so zealous as every Protestant is in ours! If any Protestants lived then, why did not they speack or write? were they all Tem­porisers, and Turn-coats? or were they all so blind, dumb, deaf, and dull, that not one of them could see, heare, repre­hend, or observe practises and ceremonies so erronious, obvi­ous, and offensive?

The Protestant evasion or answer to this evident Demonstra­tion, is both frivolous and fallacious. Their chief Doctors ^(c) acknowledg they can not tell by whom, nor at what time the Popish errors were broacht, and say that errors in Religi­on [Page 119] may creep as insensibly into the Church, as a building may decay, or white haires grow in man's head: as if, forsooth, all and every Christian of the world, and particularly the Pa­stors and Prelats of the Church, were as much concern'd in the observation of every gray hair and head, or in the preservation of every building from decay, as they are in observing and pre­serving the purity and integrity of every article of faith, and in opposing the least novelty contrary to the same. Besids, the outward profession and propagation of those points of Popery that Protestants suppose to have crept insensibly into the Church, could neither be concealed, nor confounded with the contra­dictory principles and practises of Protestancy, as a white hair may be easily confounded and concealed with others that co­ver, or come neer it in colour. Moreover, the chang from youth, and stately buildings, into gray hairs, and ruinous edi­fices, is wrought insensibly by the hand of time without any perceptible concurrence of any other cause; Time wears out and consumeth structure, strength, youth, and beauty, whether men gaze or not gaze vpon such gay objects; but the planting, preaching, or inculcating of new doctrin, and new ceremonies of Religion, are of a quite contrary nature; they have not such dependency of time alone, they must be effects of attention and observation of discourses and disputs, of Sermons and Cate­chisms; they must be also professed and practised in the view of the world. Time without these and the like notorious pra­ctises and observations, can not alter Christian Religion, nor in­duce a contrary superstition.

[Page 120]Lastly. Granted there were no fallacy in the similitude, nor disparity in the Comparison; the examples are better retor­ted against Protestancy, then applied to Popery; for, though haires may begin to grow white, and buildings to decay, with­out any great notice taken of their chang, yet when either coms to the height, or even to the mediocrity of their chang, that chang is observ'd by as many as have eyes to see; and is not only observed, but resented, and remedied (according to their power) by them who are most concerned in such decays and defects. If then a white head is so easily discern'd from black, and a ruin'd edifice from a new Palace, and a decay'd fa­ce from a beauty, by all kind of people that make use of their senses, and if so much industry is used by them who are most sensible of those imperfections, to hinder their further progress or appearance; how is it possible that all or any orthodox Chri­stians (being so greatly and particularly concern'd in the purity and truth of their Religion, and in the observation of it's rites and Ceremonies) could be for many ages so stupid, as not to distinguish it's doctrin and profession from the quite contrary? or so carless in applying remedies against the grouth, and con­tinuance of errors both damnable and discernable? Is it not more probable and possible that Martin Luther (a man so impious, proud, and passionat, that him-self acknowledgeth he did re­tain Idolatry in the Church at Wittenbergh, to vex his Scholler Carolostadius; should (to disgrace the Pope and Papists his ene­mies) be seduc'd (by his confessed disputation and submission) in his diabolical doctrin, then that the whole visible Church, Fa­thers and Councels before Luther for at least 1000. years, should not only forsake Christ's doctrin, but mistake the true sence of [Page 121] Scripture now pretended to be so cleer and manifest to every Pro­testant? That all the world did conspire and concurr to such an apostasy, is not credible: That they who did not concurr, should sit quiet and conive, is as vnlikly.

If no Pastor nor Prelat had the courage to oppose Idola­try and superstition, sure some one or other would have had the curiosity to describe the occasion, beginning, and progress of so great and remarkable a change; and would mention, (if not con­demn) the stupidity of the whole Church, in not opposing do­ctrin so inconscionable, and vnreasonable. And yet ther is no Tradition therof, nor a syllable in any history sacred or profa­ne, of this supposed change in any on point of Popery, nor so much as the least sign therof in any monument of antiquity.

SECT. II. The Protestants evasion of the cleerness of Scrip­ture against our Roman doctrin, as also of the invisibility of their own Church, confuted: and the incredibility of the supposed change and Apo­stasy, proved by the difference of the Roman Ca­tholick, and Protestant principles.

THE second evasion of Protestant Writers is, that they are not bound to inquire when or wher our Popish errors crept into the Church, or became so vniversal, but think it sufficient to prove by Scripture, that Popery is not Christ's doctrin. This shift is no less absurd then the former, because they suppose for granted what is de­nyed, and the subject to our disputes.

[Page 122]The controversy between Protestants and Catholicks is, whe­ther the Roman Tenets be contrary to Scripture? Protestants say they are, and prove it, because, forsooth, Scripture is con­trary to the Roman Tenets; We deny it, and they prove it on­ly by pretending that the letter and sense of Scripture is evident for the Protestant doctrin, and by consequence they must say that all Papists for the space of 1500. or at least 1000. years, have bin either so witless as not to vnderstand what is evident, or so wicked as to contradict evidence, and the cleerness of God's written-word and meaning. Let any Protestant (who hath so much sense as to vnderstand that nothing but the obscurity of Scripture can make it the subject of disputs, and occasion di­versity of opinions among so honest and learned Christians), be judg, whether the controversies between us, and Lutherans, Pres­biterians, and Prelaticks., &c. be not a demonstration that the true sense of Scripture is not cleer and evident in the controverted Texts. And if the dissent and dissentions amongst honest men and learned Scripturists be an vndeniable proof, and evidence of Scrip­tur's obscurity, whether it be not great obstinacy in Protestants to maintain that Popery is evidently condemned in Scripture, and that so many thousands of honest and learned Papists could not or would not discover what is cleer to every illiterat Protestant; or if they did, would not embrace that truth to which their judg­ments and God's cleer word did direct them?

Until the year 1517. no man euer pretended the cleerness of Scripture for Protestancy; at that time Martin Lather (seeing all the Fathers contradicted his protestant doctrin) bouldly affir­med Luther tom. 2. Wit­temb. anno 1551. lib. de se. arbit. pag. 434 the ancient Doctors and Fathers of all former ages to have bin blind and most ignorant in the Scripturs, and to have erred all their life time.

And in Colloq. cap. de Patribus Ecclesioe Luther saith of sun­dry Fathers in particular thus. Jn the writings of Jerome there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. J have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chry­sostom I make no accompt. Basil is of no worth, he is wholy a monk, [Page 123] I way him not a haire. Cyprian is a weak Divine, &c. Adding fur­ther that the Church did degenerat in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of his scholler Philip Melancton doth far exceed all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin him self. And in his Treatise de formulâ Missae, & in tom. 3. Germ. folio 274. Jf the Councel should in any case decree this (the Communion vnder both kinds) least of all then would we vse both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Councel, and that decree, we would vse either but one kind or neither (notwithstanding Christ's precept and the nece­ssity of that spiritual refection) and in no case both.

But this man's bare word ought not to weigh more then the Testimony of all the Fathers and Councels that went before him, or be preferred before the constant Tradition of 15. ages, especialy if we reflect vpon the pride, and passion which he de­clares in all his writings, not only against the Doctors of the Roman Church, but against his own Disciples: and (as hath bin said) how in the begining of his reformation (when his spi­rit was in it's primitive fervor) he doth plainly confess that he did favour Idolatry, to contradict Carolstadius for anticipating his commands in a point of the reformation, viz. for abolishing of the adoration and elevation of the B. Sacrament in his absence: Luther in par [...]a Confess. & to. 3. Germ fol. 55. in Colloq. mons. Germ. fol. 210. I did know (saith he) the elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall, yet nevertheless J did retain it in the Church at Witten­berg to the end J might despite the Devill Carolstadius. And yet this wicked friar's authority is the first foundation of protestan­cy: Therfore notwithstanding his known impiety he is termed by their writers Mr. Ga­briel Povvel in his conside­ration of the Papists sup­plication pag. 70. Holy saint Luther, a man sent of God to ligh­ten the world: Fox act. and Mon. pa. 40 Jewel in his Apology p. 4. c. 4.5▪ 2. and in his de­fence of the Apology edi. 1571. p. 426 the Helias, Conductor, and Chariot of Israel: to be reverenced next after Christ and Paul: Andreas Muse [...]lus in praef. in libel­lum Germ. de Diaboli Ty­ranide. Nico­laus Andro­phius Conc. [...] de Luthero. greater then whom, lived not since the Apostles tims: Conrad. Schlusletbur. Catal. haeret. l. 13. pa. 314 & seqq. The Angel and last trumpet of God, whose caling was M. Cartwright in M. whit gifts defence pag. 17. immediat and extraor­dinary &c. Let the most peevish Protestant, I say once more be judg, whether it be not more probable and possible that one pri­vat proud and ^[l] passionat man did mistake the true sence of Scripture, and misapply the words therof to humour his passion [Page 124] of pride and revenge, then that all the primitive Fathers and Christians of the world did conspire to forsake the known true letter and cleer meaning of God's word; or if all did not con­spire in the Apotasy, that there should be no monument left, or mention made in record, history, or tradition, of the fideli­ty of the party that resisted.

Secondly, this supposed change is proved incredible not on­ly by the impossibility of an insensible change in a thing so re­markable and important as the doctrin and Profession of Chri­stian Religion, but also by the impossibility that a change and corruption of Christ's doctrin should be made to the detriment of the wary layties temporal interest, and to the disadvantage both of the layty and Clergie's liberty; For when men resolve to go out of the narrow way which leads to heaven, they are not so foolishly wicked as to retire from the wide world into deserts, or Monasteries, and to impose vpon themselves or their followers an obligation or principles of a more ^[m] strict course of life then that which they had forsaken, as dayly experience doth cleerly demonstrat.

[Page 125]If protestancy therfor was the primitive and pure Christi­an Religion, the fall from it to Popery, must have bin rather condessending then contrary to sensuality and liberty: And yet if the doctrin of the reformation, and it's exceptions against Popery be considered, we shal find that in every particular wher­in they differ, Protestancy doth favour liberty and vice; Popery doth favour temperance, and virtue.

We shal declare herafter to what great crimes and carles­ness of life men are encouraged by the Protestant doctrine of predestination, and justification by faith alone. Christ's suffe­rings and satisfaction for our sins they apply not to themselves by imitation of his virtues, and mortification of the flesh, but think it a diminution of his glory, and a disrespect to his per­son, that men endeavour by God's grace to help themselves, and to cooperat with Christ's passion; and vpon thi [...] ground they rayse their batteries against Indulgences, Purgat [...]y▪ [...]lgrimages, Prayer to Saints, Confession of sins, Pennance, the three Vows, and the austerity of a Religious life, Works of Supererogation &c. [Page 126] and censure Catholicks as guilty of superstition and folly for believing, that though Christ's passion be infinitly sufficient to redeem vs from the guilt and penalties of sin, yet is it not suf­ficiently and actualy applied to actual sinners without their own concurrence, good works, and the Sacraments of the Church. As for their pretence that Christ hath satisfied for all, they may as wel say, that he hath prayed, fasted, and given almes for all, and so discharge men of all such Christian-duties and devotions.

And as to other particulars, we desire to know, what can the Protestant Clergy's design be in allowing Priests mariages, and a liberty to dissolve mariages, change wives ^[n] and hus­bands in case of adultery, departure, infirmity by child-birth, or otherwise, but lust and sensual liberty contrary to the insti­tion of matrimony, and to the purity and practise of Christia­nity, which Roman Catholicks observe? From whence procee­deth their allowing of eating of flesh and fish promiscuously on all days of the year, but from gluttony? Their Clergy's deny­all of the Pop's superiority (which their betters in virtue, birth and learning acknowledg) but from want of humility? And their placing it in the temporal Soveraign, but from excess of flattery? Their dulness in confounding the substance with the appearance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, but from sensu­ality? Their denial of the Church's infallibility (and yet assert in themselves an vncontroul'd authority) but from pride and obstinacy? Their fond expressions of their own prelatick re­formation and doctrin, but from want of Christian modesty, and from their for-fathers the ancient hereticks, whose presump­tion and obstinacy was neuer more manifestly absurd, nor mo­re legaly condemned at Nice, Ephesius, Calcedon, or Constantinople, then the Protestant Tenets have bin at Trent, as wil appeare to any that wil read the history of those Councels, and compare the objections and exceptions made by Arians, Nestorians, and E [...]tychians, &e. against the Authority and decrees wherby they were censured in these four first Councels, with the Protestant exceptions and objections against the Councel of Trent; especi­ly [Page 127] if they wil pervse but the very first leaves of Cardinal Pala­vicino his confutation of Fr. Paulo Suarez, or Servita, his histo­ry, wherin they wil find above tree hundred lyes and calum­nies of that Apostata Friar in matter of fact, so notorious and vndeniable, that our English Prelatick Clergy wil (or ought to be) ashamed of the Preface they have set before it, and of abu­sing King Iames and his Subjects with such impostures, by their extolling so improbable and infamous a Libel.

[Page 128]Seing therfore the supposed change and fall from primiti­ve Protestancy to popery, hath bin from presumption and pri­de of a privat and censorious ^[o] judgment against the publick testimony and sense of the visible Church, to submission and humility of an obsequious and prudent belief; from notori­ous rebellion against spiritual and temporal superiours, to religi­ous and dutifull obedience; from gluttony to abstinence; from incontinency to chastity; from sincerity to flattery; from Cloysters and austerity to Sacrilege and liberty; from a pretence of faith alone to the Christianity of faith and good works &c. [Page 129] It must be concluded, that either Protestancy was not the pure and primitive Religion, or if it was, that the change therof in­to popery, hath bin for the better, and by consequence that the first Papist, introduced into the world a more sacred and sin­cere profession, then had bin taught by Christ and his Apostles. But this being impious and as impossible, as it is that men aban­doned by God, should exceed God's servants in piety, or that they should establish and practice more Godly principles and more zealously promote virtue when they fel from God, and the way of salvation, then when they were in the same; it must be granted, that Popery is the pure and primitive Religion taught by Christ; and his Apostles; and that only weak brains, or such tender plants as in their infancy received strong impressi­ons of the possibility, and existence of an invisible Christian Church vpon earth, can fancy an insensible change of it's doctrin, profes­sion, and ceremonies, into so remarkable and different a wor­ship of God as Popery is, compared with Protestancy.

Congregations of Protestants living in the same Provinces, Citties, and Parishes with Papists, and dissenting from them in the outward and oral profession of faith (if they did not pro­fess [Page 130] protestancy, (which they suppose was Christ's faith) with the mouth, they were dissemblers, and could be no part of the true Church) in the Canon and sense of Scripture, in the admi­nistration and number of Sacraments, in Rites and Ceremonies, in the substance and language of the Liturgy, in adoring the B. Sacrament, in worshiping of Images, in receiving of the Com­munion &c. such Protestant Congregations, I say, to be invisible and never heard of in 1500. or 1000. years, nor observed, nor persecuted by the prevailing Papists among whom they lived, is not a thing possible, or intelligible, much less prudently cre­dible. We see by experience in these Kingdoms, how impos­sible it is for a Recusant not to be discerned, and discovered; Papists are known though not convicted. Many of them through the mildn'ss and prudence of the government, escape the pe­nalties and rigour of the Law; but none the observation of their neighbours, and very few the menaces of both ecclesiastical and civil Courts. The invisibility therfor of the Protestant Church and the insensibility of it's change to Popery, is a fitter subject to ground ther-vpon a ridiculous Romance, then a religious re­formation. Perhaps it wil be sayd that Protestants were vntil the last age among the ten tribes as the Jews, of whose appea­rance ther hath bin of late so much talk; but we heare not of Protestants among them; neither did Luther, Zuinglius, Cranmer, or Calvin pretend that they came from those Israelits, or from Terra australis incognita; they were born and bred neerer, and they brag'd that them-selves were the first Reformers. Now to their Scripture.

SECT. III. Protestants mistaken in the Canon of Scripture maintained by the Church of England, and by Doctor Cousins Bishop of Duresme.

OUr second Argument against the probability, or possibility of Protestancy being the word or work of God, is taken from the Protestants mistake of Scripture, and their altering of the Canon. And wheras ^[a] our learned Ad­versaries do agree with vs in saying that nei­ther the Scripture it-self, nor the privat spirit can determin which parts of Scripture are Canonical, or holy, but confess that this controversy must be decided by the Testimony and autho­rity of the Church; and that above 300. years after the Apost­les, some of their writings were not held by all orthodox Ca­tholicks to be Canonical, which now are comprehended in the Canon, and admitted as the word of God by many Protestants; it foloweth.

[Page 132]1. That the Canon of Scripture was not so sufficiently proposed to the whole Church for the three first ages, as to make the denial or doubt therof, Heresy 2. That the 6. Article of the Prelatick-Religion of England, which admitted only such books of Scripture for Canonical, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, is false, and the ground therof fallible.

For as all men vers'd in the Ecclesiastical History wel know, and learned Bilson the Protestant Bishop of Winchester doth acknowledg (in his survey of Christ's sufferings &c. printed 1604. pag. 664.) The Scripturs were not fully received in all places; no not in Eusebius his time (which was above 300. years after the Apostles) he saith the Epistles of Iames, Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles; the Epistle to the Hebrews was for ‘ [Page 133] a while contradicted, &c. The Churches of Siria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the se­cond and third of Iohn, nor the Epistle of Iude, nor the A­pocalips, &c. The like might be sayd for the Churches of Arabia. Wil you hence inferr that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of?’

This Argument of Bishop Bilson we apply to the Macha­bees, and to the other books declared by the Church of Eng­land to be Apocryphal.

Doctor Cousins writ a book caled a Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture (for which him-self and his friends think he wel deserved the Bishoprick of Duresme that he now enjoys) in defence of the Prelatick Protestant Canon, and of the 6. ar­ticle of the Church of England. And because he tels us in his Preface, that men of knowledg pressed him to publish it as a pie­ce that would give more ample satisfaction, and cleere the passages in antiquity from the objections that some late Authors in the Roman side bring against Protestants, then those other writings of home, or for­eign Divines have don that are extant in this kind. I thought fit to give Protestants a proof of the soundness of their doctrin, and of the sincerity of their Doctor. And though it seemeth to me impossible for any man to know what parts of the new Testa­ment the 6. Article and Canon of the Church of England, de­clares Canonical, it being so intricatly worded, that either it must be non sense, or els exclude from the Canon the Epistles of Iames, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the E­pistle of Iude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalips, seing the authority of all and every one of these hath bin doub­ted of in the Church, and the 6. Article of the Protestant Re­ligion of the Church of England is, that In the name of the holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt of, in the Church, Though I say, it's impossible for me to comprehend how com­mon sense and Christianity can meet in this Article, but that if [Page 134] the words therof signify any thing, out of the English Protes­tant new Testament, must be excluded all the aforsaid Epistles and Apocalyps; yet leaving this difficulty to the decision of that Church, I wil suppose at the present with D.r Cosins that all these Epistles and Apocalyps are included in the English Canon, and come to the examination of the Arguments wherby he pre­tends to defend it.

He therfor foreseing the impossibility of giving any rea­son why the parts of the New Testament hertofore doubted of should rather be received by Protestants into their Canon, then the Books of the Old Testament, no more questioned by the Church of Christ then the aforsaid epistles and the Apocalyps; thought to avoyd the force of this pressing parity, by flatly de­nying ( pag. 5. & alibi) That ever any intire Church, or any Na­tional or Provincial Counsel or any multitude of men in their confes­sions and Catechisms, or other such publick writings, rejected or doubted of the sayd epistles &c. In case so many solemnities had bin requisit for the questioning of Canonical authority, (which his Lp: knows, are not necessary) It seems his lord­ship did not peruse Eusebius his works, though he quotes them very often; or at least did not thinck that the ancient Churches of Syria and Arabia deserve to be called Churches, not that the Lutherans of Germany, Denmark, Suethland &c. who stick to Luther's principles and Canon, can make one, or many Churches, Its a gross mistake in the Doctor to say ( pag. 4. & 5.) that Luther or his Lutherans recalled or recanted their error concerning the Epistle of St. James; he might see the con­trary in the very book him-self cites of Chemnitius the famous Lutheran, whose authority and words he placeth ( in his addi­tion of certain Testimonies) in the same rank with sentences of St. Augustin, and St. Thomas of Aquin &c. This Chemnitius in most of his works (as in his Enchirid. pag. 63, and in his exa­min of the Councel of Trent. p. 1. pag. 55. & 56.) declareth his own sense, and that of his Church in these words, The se­cond Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle [Page 135] of Jude, and the Apocalyps of John, are Apocryphal, as not ha­ving sufficient testimony of their authority.

His lordship might also have bin better informed of Lu­ther's sence and Church by the saying of Illiricus an other pillar and Writer therof, (whom Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church ( pag. 28.) termeth a very famous Writer, and most worthy defender of the Christian truth) his words are, Luther in his preface vpon St. Iem's Epistle giveth great reasons why this epistle ought in no case to be accompted for a writing of an Apostolick au­thority, vnto which reasons I think every godly man ought to yeeld▪ Luther's reasons are to be seen in the ancient editions of Jene, and are comprehended in these few words of his, The Epistle of Iames is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and vnworthy an Apo­stolick spirit. And because these words and others were omitted in the later editions of Wittemberg by some Divins that would fain reform Luther's Canon, Religion, and Church, the chief Lutheran Doctors mett in a Synod at Altembury, complained of their Adversaries corrupting Luther's books, and resolved to stick to the ancient editions, and to the literal sence of his words. So that in case it were true the Canon of Scripture could not be sayd to have bin questioned by any Protestant Congregati­on, whithout declaring their doubt in a publick confession of faith, we see the Lutheran doth so; as also in their confession of Wittemberg quoted by Belarmin (lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 7. init.) which is seconded by all hereticks of these tims, (saith Belarmin.) the Calvinist only excepted.

But the Doctor is so much mistaken in the necessity of such a formality, that the Arians were condemned as hereticks, notwithstanding that in their publick confessions of faith they endeavored rather to disguise then declare their errors.

It is wel known that Lutheran Churches in Germany not only do reject from their Canon the Epistles of S. Iames, Iude, the second of Peter, and third of S. Iohn, the Epistle to the He­brews, and the Apocalyps, but are so obstinat in denying them to be in any wise Canonical Scripture, that they do not as much [Page 136] as print them in their Bibles. And if my Lord of Duresme thin­ks that the rigid and moderat Lutherans, half Lutherans, and other Protestant Congregations wherin are many as learned Mi­nisters and ^[*] Writers as him-self, deserve not the name of a Church, he may expect that they wil censure his Church after the same manner, and perhaps with as much reason. But lett them agree as wel as they can, it concerns not vs. Yet I hope he wil not pronounce so severe a Censure against the Greeck and La­tin Churches, and vn-church both; Wherof S. Hierom (in epist. ad Dordunum) testifieth, that the Greeks doubted as much of the Apocalyps against the common consent of the Latins, as the La­tins did of the Epistle to the Hebrews against the common consent of the Church.

Seing therfor it is evident by the confession both of ancient [Page 137] Fathers and modern Pro [...]estants, that in the primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in so great variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and search was requisit to determin which Scriptures were Canoni­cal, and which not; wherby it came to pass tha [...] sundry books and parts were for a long time misdoubted by some Churches and Fathers, and by some Councels omitted, or not received, which yet afterward vpon greater search and consideration, were generally acknowledged; it must be very great obstinacy in Doctor Cozins and other Protestants, to reject the Canon which the Councel of Trent proposeth, and embraceth, because forsooth some books therin contained, were not as soon be­lieved by all Catholicks to be Canonical, as the others. Or to deny the authority, and authentikness of some books of the old Testament, because they were not in the Canon of the Iews; as if the Jews might not doubt and omitt to put some books divinely inspired into the Canon, as wel as the primitive Chri­stians; or as if the Apostles might not supply that defect, and de­clare some books of the old Testament (wherof the generality of the Jews doubted) to be Canonical.

SECT. IV. Protestants so grossly mistaken in their letter and Translations of the Scriptures that they can not have any certainty of faith; and are forc't at length (by their principles) to question the truth of Scriptures, and of them who writ the Cano­nical books therof.

THe holy Scriptures were writen by the Pro­phets, Apostles, and Evangelists, either in Hebrew, Greeck, or Latin; the old Testa­ment (excepting some few parts writen in Chaldaick, and Syriack) was writen in Hebrew, the new Testament, for the greatest part, in Greeck, S. Mathew's Ghospel in Hebrew, S. Marck's in Latin. We have not the original writings of these Prophets and Apo­stles, nor of the 70. Interpreters who translated the old Testa­ment into Greek some 300. years before the comming of Christ; we have only Copies; for the truth and exactness wherof, we must rely vpon the testimony, and tradition of the Church, which in so important a point, God would never permit to err; at least it must have bin so infallible therin, as that the Copy be sufficiently authentick to be a rule of deciding controversies of faith, and of directing men to holiness of life; though per­haps no copy is so exact but therin may remain some erratas [Page 150] of the press and pen; yet easily discoverable by it's coherency or incoherency with other parts of the Text.

Notwithstanding the necessity of admitting some true and authentick copy of Scripture [for what can it availe a Christi­an to believe that Scripture is the word of God, if he be vn­certain which copy or Translation is true and authentick Scrip­ture] Protestants pretend there is no authentick copy of Scrip­ture in the world, as may be seen in the preface of the Tigurin edition of the Bible, and in all their books of Controversy, seing therin they condemn the Councel of Trent for declaring that the old Latin Translation is authentick; and yet them­selves name no other for authentick: and therfore though the Lutherans fancy Luther's Translation; the Calvinists that of Ge­neva; the Zuinglians that of Zuinglius; the English some times one, somtimes an other; yet because they do not hold any o­ne to be infallibly authentick, it followeth (from their excep­tions against the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church in declaring or decreeing a true and authentick copy of Scrip­ture, and their confession of the vncertainty of their own trans­lations) that they have no certainty of Scripture, nor even of faith, which they ground vpon Scripture alone.

Most of the old Testament as it is in the vulgar Latin Trans­lation, which the Councel of Trent declares to be authentick, was S. Hie­rom. in lib. de [...] illustr. extremo, & in Praefat libro­rum quos la­tin [...]s [...]ecit. [...]ranslated out of Hebrew by St. Hierom; and the new Testament had bin before his time translated out of Greek, but was by him Hierom. epist. 89. ad Aug. quaest 11. inter ep. August. S. Hierom. in his Preface before the new Testa­ment dedica­ted to Pope Damasus, Novum opus &c. revewed, and such faults as had crept in through negligence of the Transcribers, were corrected. You constraine, me sayth he, to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of the Scripture dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain Iudg, and determin which of them agree with the true Greek and in this Cathalogue he saith, Novum Testamentum graecae fi­dei reddidi; vetus juxta haebraicum transtuli.

The antiquity and sincerity of the first Interpreter, and the great Commendations therof to be seene in St. Austin de Civit. Dei lib. 18. c. 43. Non defuit temporibus nostris Presbiter [Page 151] Hieronymus homo doctissimus, & omnium trium linguarum peritissi­mus, qui non è Graeco sed ex: Haebraeo in Latinum eloquium eas­dem Scripturas converterit. Cujus tamen litterarum laborem Judaei fatentur esse veracem. And ( lib. 2. doct. Christi. cap. 15.) togea­ther with the eminent Sanctity and learning of S. Hierom, for­ceth our Adversarie ( B [...]eza, to confess, Annotationibus in caput 1. Luc.) That the old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy books with marveilous sincerity and Religion; and [in praefat. novi Testam.] The vulgar edition I do for the most part embrace and preferr before all others. Carolus Molinaeus [in nov. Testam. part. 30.] I can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which [in Luc. 17.] he professeth to preferr before Eras­mus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurin Translation, and e­ven before Iohn Calvins, and all others. Doctor Humfrey [de ra­tione interpret. l. 1. pag. 74.] The old Interpreter seemeth to be much addicted to the propriety of the words, and truly with too much an­xiety, which I attribute more to Religion then ignorance. See also Pelicanus (a learned Protestant writer) his great prayses of the Translation of the Psalmes in the vulgar Latin edition in praef. in Psalterium an. 1584. See also Doctor Covell acknowledging in his answer to Burges pag. 94. The antiquity of the vulgar trans­lation to be so great, that it was used in the Church a thousand three hundred years agone: and concluding pag. 91. That the most approved Translation authorised by the Church of England, is that which cometh neerest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bis­hops Bible. And Doctor Whitaker (in his answer to Mr. Rey­nolds (pag. 141.) was pleased to moderat his former rayling a­gainst our vulgar Translation revewed by St. Hierom at the re­quest of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome, saying, St. Hierom J reverence, Damasus I commend, and the work I confess to be Godly and profitable to the Church.

The reason that moved the Protestants not to accept, or acquiesce in our vulgar Latin Translation so much commended by them-selves, and the ancient Fathers, is, because they would have as much liberty to reject the true letter as the true sence [Page 152] of Scripture their new doctrins being condemned by both. For had they granted that any one ancient Translation is authentik, how could Luther have had the impudence to thrust into the Text the word ^[c] alone, to assert his justification by only faith, [Rom. 3.28.] or how could he omitt 2. Petr. 1. (where it is sayd) wherfore brethren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, this particle by good works? How could Zuinglius have translated for this is my body, this signifies my Body, to maintain his figurative signification of the words, and cry down Christ's real presence in the B. Sacrament? And so of all other Protestants Translations, wherof every one hath words added, and omitted in the Text, which cannot be justi­fied or excused by any ancient copy of Scripture, extant in a­ny language whatsoever.

No mervaile therfore if the Lutherans reject the Calvinists Translation and the Calvinists that of Lutherans; the Trans­Translation [Page 153] Translation of the Divines of Basile is reproved by Beza, who says ( respon. ad defens. Cast.) that it is in many places wicked, and altogeather differing from the mind of the holy Ghost. And Moli­naeus [in Testam. part. 20.30. &c.] saith of Beza, that in his Translation he actualy changed the Text: and of Calvin [in Trans­lation. Testam. nov. fol. 110.] That he maketh the Text of the Ghospel to leap up and down, and that he vseth violence to the letter of the Ghospel, and besids this, addeth to the Text.

As for the English Translation we have King James his true censure in the sume of the conference before his Majesty ( pag. 46.) that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. His Royall judgment is confirmed by Mr. Carlile of Christ's des­sent into Hell [pag. 116.] where he says of the English Tran­slators, that they have depraved the sence, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scrip­turs from the right sence &c. The Ministers of Lincoln Diocess in their abridgment of a book delivered to his Majesty the first of December, pag. 11. & seq. say, that the English Translation taketh away from the Text, addeth to the text, and that, som­tyms to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Also Mr. Burg [...]s in his Apology ( sect. 6.) sai [...]h how shal I ap­prove vnder my hand a translation which hath many omissions, ma­ny additions, being somtyms sensless, somtyms contrary.

Other precise and learned Protestants in a Treatise intituled A petition directed to his most excellent Majesty &c. [pag. 76.] say, Our Translation of the Psalmes comprised in our book of com­mon prayer▪ doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in 200. places at least, And make this the ground of their scruple to make vse of the common prayer. And these corruptions are so vndenyable, that Dr. Whitaker hath nothing to answer to Dr. Reynolds (pag. 255.) who obje­cted them against the Church of England, but these words, What Mr. Carlile with some others, hath writen against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to the purpose, I have not sayd otherwise but that some things may be amended.

[Page 154]These corruptions in the English Protestant Bibles are so many and so notorious, that Doctor Gregory Martin com­posed a whole book of them, and therin discovers the frauds wherby the Translators pretend to excuse them; somtyms they recurred to the Hebrew Text: and when that spoke ag­ainst their new doctrin and translation, then to the Greeck; when that favoured them not, to some copy acknowledged by them-selves to be corrupted, and of no credit; and when that no copy at all could be found out, to cloke their corruptions, the book or Chapter of Scripture that contradicts them, is de­clared Apocryphal; and when that cannot be made probable, they fall down right upon the Prophets and Apostles that writ them, and say they might, and did err, even after the com­ming of the holy Ghost. This is not only Luther's shift, all Protestants follow their first reformer in this point, having the same necessity imposed vpon them by their own reformations and translations, so contrary to the known letter of Scripture. Luther being told by Zuinglius [tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. pag. 412. & seq.] Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scrip­tures, how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto estee­med thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? Luther knowing all this to be true, had no way left to defend his impiety but by impudency, preferring him-self and his own Spirit, before that of them who writ the holy Scriptures, ther­fore ( tom. 5. Wittemberg. an. 1554. fol. 290. & in ep. ad Galat. cap. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. & 34) he saith, Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Paul, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, yet is my doctrin such as setteth forth God's only glory &c. Peter the chief of the A­postles did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God; and against St. James his mentioning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction ( de Capti. Babyl. cap. de extrem. vnct. in tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 86.) But though this were the epistle of James I would answer that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority [Page 155] to institute a Sacrament; this apertaineth to Christ alone: As though thas blessed Apostle would publish a Sacrament without warant from Christ. See also what he says of Moyses his writings ( tom. 3. Wittemberg. in Psalm. 45. fol. 432. & 422. & tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40.41. & in Colloq. mensal. Germ. fol. 152. & 153.) The Century Writers of Magdeburg follow this doctrin of Luther [Centur. 1. l. 2. cap. 10. col. 580.] and particularly accuse St. Paul of error by the persuasion of St. Iames. Brentius also, (whom Bishop Ievel in his defence of the Church of England ( pag. 473.) termeth a grave and learned Father, affirmeth [ in Apol. Confess. cap. de Concil. pag. 900.] that St. Peter chief of the Apostles, and also Barnabas after the holy Ghost received, togeather with the Church of Ierusalem, erred.

Though Lutherans and Calvinists differ extreamly in many points of doctrin, yet in this of fallibility of the Apostles in faith and manners even after the receiving of the holy Ghost, they fully agree. Calvin him-self in his Comentary in omnes Pauli epistolas in Gallat. c. 2. vers. 14. pag. 612. reprehendeth Pe­ter, Barnabas, and others; and pag. 150. says, that Peter added to the schism of the Church, the indangering of Christian liberty, and the ouer-throw of the grace of Christ ▪ See him also in Act. c. 21. Cle­bitius a learned Calvinist (in his Victoria veritatis argum. 5.) im­pugneth St. Lukes report in the history of our Sauiours passi­on, saying, Matthew and Mark deliver the contrary, therfore Mathaeo & Marco duobus testibus plus adhiberi debet quam uni Lucae, qui Synaxi non interfuit, quemadmodum Mathaeus. To Ma­thew and Mark being two witnesses, more credit is to be given, then to one Luke. And Gualter (in Act. 21.) reproveth St. Paul's sha­ving of his head. And other Calvinists mentioned in Zanchius his epistle ad misc. sayd. If Paul should come to Geneva and preach the same houre that Calvin did, I would leave Paul and heare Calvin. And Lavaterus in his historia Sacramentaria (pag. 18.) af­firmeth, that some of Luther's followers, not the meanest among their Doctors, sayd they had rather doubt of St. Paul's doctrin, the [...] of the doctrin of Luther, or of the confession of Augusta.

[Page 156]This desperat shift being so necessary for waranting their corruptions of Scripture, and maintaining the fallibility of the Church in succeeding ages (for the same reasons which conclude it infallible in the Apostles time, are applicable to ours, and to every former century; other-wise it must be sayd that God's providence and promises were limited to few years, and him-self so partial that he regardeth not the necessities of his Church, nor the saluation of any person that lived after his Disciples, this impiety could not be rejected by the Prela­tick Church of England without contradicting their brethren abroad, and their own principles at home. Therfore B. Iewel in his defence of the Apology for the Prelatick Church of En­gland ( pag. 361.) doth affirm, that St. Mark mistook Abracher for Abimelech, and St. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharias; And Mr. Fulck against the Remish Testament in Galat. 2. fol. 322. chargeth Peter with error of ignorance, and against the Ghos­pell; and Doctor Goade in his Tower disputation with Campion (the second days conference arg. 6.) affirmeth that St. Peter did err in faith, and that, after the sending down of the holy Ghost vpon them. And Whitaker [de Eccl. cont. Belarmin. Controv. 2. q. 4. pag. 223.] saith: ‘Jt is evident that even af­ter Christ's Ascension, and the Holy Ghost's descending vp­on the Apostles, the whole Church not only the common [...]ort of Christians, but also even the Apostles them-selves er­red in the vocation of the Gentills &c. yea Peter also erred: he further more also erred in manners &c. And these were great errors, and yet we see these to have bin in the Apostles e­ven after the Holy Ghost descending vpon them.’ And truly if the Apostles were not only fallible, but did teach errors in manners and matters of faith, after the holy Ghost descen­ding vpon them, their writings can be no infallible Rule to direct men to saluation; which conclusion is so immediatly and cleerly deduced from this Protestant doctrin, that the supposal and premises once granted, their can be no certainty in Scripture; and indeed this all the Reformers aymed at, [Page 157] though durst not say it, yet they did as well, and sufficiently declare what litle esteem they have for Scripture, though they make their ignorant flocks believe they teach them noth­ing but true Scripture, and the infallible word of God.

SECT. V. The Protestant interpretation is not the true sense of Scripture.

THE principal part, and as it were the soule of Scripture, is the sence, which was delivered to the Church togeather with the letter. For as St. Hierom [in ep. ad Galat.] sayth, the Ghospel is not in the word, but in the sence, not in the bark, but in the sapp, not in the leaves of the words but in the root of the meaning; So that though we should grant the Protestant Translations to be true, yet if we prove their interpretation false, we demonstrat they have no Scripture, nor the least pretext or colour for their Reformations.

And first, that the Church received togeather with the letter the true sense of Scripture, is as evident as it is, that God would not speak words without sense, or leave the interpreta­tion of them to men whose capacities reach not the mysteries of Religion, contained in the words. Therfore our learned Adversaries are obliged to confess, that no man doubteth, Chemnit. in examin. part 2. fol. 74. Saravia in defens. tra. diversis mini. [...]r. gradibus pag 3. Jewel in his defence of the Apology 157. pa. 35. but that the primitive Church received from the Apostles and Apostoli­cal men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and nati­ve sense therof.

The dispute therfore between Catholicks and Protestants [Page 164] is not, whether the Church ever received the true sense of Scriptures, but whether that sense continued as well as the letter in the Church; and whether the interpretations of Luther, Cal­vin, Cranmer, Hamond, &c. or of the Prelaticks of England, ought to be preferr'd before that of the Roman Catholick Church; because the true sense of Scripture, is supposed by all Protestants, to have bin lost for many ages, and that the who­le visible Church of God was either so careless as to forget the ancient sense, or so wicked, as to forge a new sense of Scrip­ture.

And first it seems against reason, to believe that any Chri­stian Congregation could be less carefull of the sense of Scrip­ture, then of the letter, because the sense is that which im­porteth most for preservation of the faith. Therfore if the Prelats and Pastors of the Church have bin so watchfull and diligent in all ages, as to find out and correct all heretical cor­ruptions of the letter of Scripture, how is it possible they would neglect the same industry for preservation of the sense which is the principal part of God's word? And if Protestants think the letter was safe in the custody of the Roman Chatholick Church, from which they received it, how can they suspect the purity of that sense which was kept and delivered to them by the same Church and authority? And if God's providence (as they confess) was engaged in keeping the leaves, and letter of Scripture from corruption, surely it could not be so vncon­cern'd for the integrity of the sence, and substance, as to per­mit it to perish. Besides, it is much easier to keep the sense of Scripture incorrupt and pure, then the letter: The letter was writ only in paper or parchment, the sense in the heads and hearts of the Bishops, Doctors, and People of the Church: a dash of a pen may alter the letter, but cannot have access to the sence, which lodgeth in the hearts and heads of the faith­full.

The precept of receiving the sense of Scripture from the Church, is not only agreable to reason, but prescrib'd in Scrip­ture, [Page 165] as the only way of saluation. Go not from the doctrin of the elders, for they have learned it from their Fathers, and of them thou shalt learn vnderstanding, and to answer in the time of need. Eccles. 8.8. The first Protestant Reformers observed not this, they went to no precedent Church, nor Fathers for their in­terpretation of Scripture; and therfore the words of Ieremy 18.15. may be literally applyed to them. They have stumbled from the ancient ways to walk in ways not troden. The Protestant Cler­gy ought to say and confess ingeniously that of holy Iob 8.8. Jnquire therfore I pray thee of the ancient generation and prepare thy self to search of their Fathers, for we are but yesterday, and ought not intrude their own Imaginations as the true explanation of God's word. They do not imitat St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil who as Eusebius relates [ Hist. l. 11. cap. 9.] did seek the vnder­standing of the Scriptures not from their own presumption, but from the writings and authority of their Ancestors. They do not fol­low the rule of Origen saying [ tract. in Math. 29.] That in our vnderstanding of the Scripture we must not d [...]part from the first Ecclesiasticall tradition, nor believe other-wise, but as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us. Nor that of Tertulian [l. 1. de prescrip. c. 6.] ‘What the Apostles preach'd, what Christ reveal'd to them, ought not be otherwise proved then by the Churches which they planted. Tertullian in lib de praescr. Qui estis vos. vnde & quā ­do venistis? vbi tam diu latuistis S. Hilarius l. 6 de Trinit. ante med. Tarde mihi hos piissimos doct [...]res aetas nunc [...]ujus [...]culi protu­lit &c. S. Hierom in epist ad Pa­ma [...] & [...]ce an [...] p [...]st quadring [...] (now 1600) annos docere nos [...] qu [...]d an [...]a neseivimus? Vsque in hāc diem sine isra doctrina mundus chri­stianus fuit Luther in [...]p. ad Irgenti­neneses au [...] 1525. Christiana nola [...] primo vulga tun. audemu. gloriari.’

Protestants contemn all these rules, and because there was never any Church in the world which professed the same faith that any of their Reformers preach't, or them-selves now pro­fess, they are necessitated to except against all Testimonies of ancient Fathers and Councels, and against the continual and common consent of all Christian Churches concerning the pro­per sense of Scripture, delivered to the primitive Christians: and will be judg'd therin by none but by them-selves, and by their own fancy of Scripture. They all follow this rule of Lu­ther the first Reformer, which he layd as the foundation of all Protestant Reformations: ‘The Governours of Churches, and Pastors of Christ's sheep have indeed power to teach, [Page 166] but the sheep must judg whether they propose the voice of Christ, or of strangers, &c. Whefore let Popes, Bishops, Councels &c. decree, order, enact, what they please, we shall not hinder, but we who are Christ's sheep, and heare his voice, will judg, whether they propose things true and agreable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yeeld to us, and subscribe and obey to our sentence, and censure. Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. cap. de Sacra Script. fol. 375.’

And because B.p Jewel in his challenge (thinking that no­ne durst answer or accept it) appeal'd to the holy Fathers of the first ages, and was thervpon immediatly convicted of hy­pocrisy, and impostures, he was grievously reprehended by his own Prelatick brethren as injurious to him-self, and as one who had given the Papists too large a scope, and after a man­ner spoyl'd him-self and the Church, see Doctor Hum­frey in Iewel's life edit. Londin pag. 212. and the same also in Fulk's retentive against Bristow pag. 55. Ever since that foile, the Prela­tiks have bin more wary, and one of their greatest Champi­ons Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his true difference between Christian subjection &c. part. 2. pag. 353. saith in plain termes The people must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught.

How contrary to Luther's Reformation was the doctrin of the primitive Church and Fathers, we may judg by these words of Gregory Nazianzen in the oration, wherin he excu­seth him-self for having bin long absent from his flock and not exercised his function. Vos Oves, nolite pascere Pastores, neque super terminos eorum elevamini, satis enim est vobis, si recte pascimini, nolite judicare iudices, nec legem feratis legis-latoribus &c.

Now let any man who hath common sense be Judg, whe­ther it be in the least degree probable that not only the illite­rat Protestants, but even their greatest Doctors, and their first Apostles, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. should know better the true sense of Scripture that was delivered to the first age, then they to whom those of that age told what they were taught by Christ and his Apostles, or then the second which told the [Page 167] third what they were taught by the first? and so from gene­ration vntill Luther and Calvins tyme. That every age gave this favorable testimony to the subsequent, of the sense of Scripture which it delivered, can not be denyed; otherwise none would have received their sense of Scripture, or their doctrin, as Di­vine; whether they were sincere in delivering their testimony is the question; And because none questions it but Luther, Calvin &c. and their followers, vntill we see be ter evidence and a more cleere cause of their reformed principle and know­ledg of the visible Churches apostasy, then their privat spirit, or Luther and Calvins new and extravagant interpretations of Scripture, we dare not condemn the whole ancient visible and Catholick Church, nor concurr with it's declared enemies in so rash a judgment, as to affirm, that the Church betrayed it's trust, and posterity▪ which rash judgment is the ground of the Protestant Reformations.

S. Athanasius in lib. de Decretis Nicen. Synod. contra Euseb. Ecce nos quidem ex Patribus ad Patres, per manus traditam fu­isse hanc sententiam demonstravimus; vos autem O novi Judaei, Caiphae filii, quos tandem nominum vestrorum potestis ostendere pro­genitores. S. Gregor. Nazian. ep. 2. ab Chelid. Absconditam post Christum sapientiam nobis annunciant, rem lacrymis dignam, si enim triginta his annis fides originem habuit, cum quadringenti (now 1600.) fere anni ab eo tempore fluxerint quo Christus palam conspectus est, inane tanto tempore fuit Evangelium, inanis etiam fi­des nostra; & Martyres quidem frustra martyrium subierunt, frustra etiam tales tantique Antistites populo praefuerunt.

St. August. de vtilit. credendi cap. 14. saith, to the Mani­chees, what we may to the Protestant Reformers. Vos autem & tam pauci estis, & tam turbulenti, & tam novi, nemini dubi­um est, quoniam nihil dignum autoritate proferetis.

Seing therfore the Roman Catholick sense of Scripture hath for the space of 1600. years bin delivered by the visible Christian Church from age to age, as the true meaning of God's word; and that the Protestant sense of Scripture was [Page 168] never accepted of by any but condemned Hereticks, and even in this last age was delivered but by a few turbulent and dis­agreeing persons, and obnoxious [...]o many exceptions much di­minishing the credibility of their testimony; it is at least 16. to one, not only in the number, but also in the quality of the witnesses, that the Roman Catholick sense of Scripture is true, and the Protestant false; and by consequence the Prote­stants have no Scripture to maintain the doctrin wherin they differ from Roman Catholicks.

SECT VI. Protestants mistaken in the Ministery and Mission of their Clergy, in the Miracles of their Church, in the holiness and honesty of their Reformers.

ALbeit God was able to call, justify, and con­firm the elect without any mediat means, yet (as Protestants confess) he was pleased, not to accomplish the same otherwise then in, and by the ministery of his Church. Ther­fore S. Paul tells vs [ Ephes. 4.11.12.13.] that Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to con­tinue to the consummation of Saints till we all meet in the vnity of faith. The chief of these Pastors and Doctors are the Bishops, vnto whom (as the same Apostle testifieth) it belongeth to go­vern God's Church [ Act. c. 2 [...].] These Bishops must succeed not only in Doctrin, but in caracter to the Apostles; which carac­ter is the ordinary ministery or vocation, discern'd and recei­ved by imposition of Episcopal hands [1. Tim. 4.] But because Luther was only a single Priest, and Calvin (as most say) not [Page 169] so much as a Priest, and that both despaired of Episcopal and Priestly succession, they resolv'd to remedy that want, by say­ing that the caracter of Priests and Bishops was not distinct from that of Baptism; and wheras, Luther's ordination or ordinary vocation in the Roman Catholick Church, was, to preach the doctrin which he had receiv'd from that Church, and not his new doctrinal Reformation, Georgius Milius in Au­gust. Confes. explic. art. 7. de ecclesia pag. 137. he and all Reformers after him, pretended an extraordinary and immediat vocation and mission from God, to teach an other faith contrary to that which the then visible Church professed, and could not be proved that any precedent Congregation ever held. ‘If there had been right beleevers saith Georgius Milius pag. 138. that went before Luther in his office there had then bin no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therfore we say that Luther was rai­sed vp ( divinitus & extra ordinem) by God's special apoint­ment and extraordinarily.’ See Luther in loc. Com. class. 4. pag. 51. Bucer in epist. ad Episcop. Hereford. calls Luther the first A­postle of the reformed doctrin. Beza in epist. Theolog. ep. 5. Ergo de extraordinaria vocatione videamus Huic vero tum demum lo­cum esse dicimus, cum vel nulla, vel penè nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu, cum expectari extraordinaria vocatio, quae nusquam erit, nec debuit, nec potuit. Bishop Iewell in his Apology for the Church of England part. 4. cap. 4. divis. 2. And in his defence of the Apology pag. 426. ‘The truth was vnknown at that time when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuin­glius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Ghospel.’

Mr. Parkins in his exposition vpon the Creed, pag· 400. and in his works printed 1605. fol. 365. And in his reformed Catholick, pag. 329. ‘We say that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an vniversal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our Church was not then visible to the world.’

Calvin in Institut. lib. 4. cap. 3. sect. 4. Quod Dominus nobis iniunxit, &c. Lascicius in proof of his extraordinary vocation, [Page 170] lib. de Russorum Relig. pag. 23. alledgeth Calvin saying. ‘Because the succession or Series of ordination hath bin interrupted by the Pop's tyranny, there is need of a new subsidy, &c. And this guift was altogeather extraordinary.’

Mr. Fulk against Stapleton, pag. 2. The Protestants that first preacht in these last days had likwise extraordinary calling. Mr. Perkens saith the same in his works printed 1605. fol. 916. Mr. Symonds, pag. 123. vpon the Revelations, affirmeth a calling to preach by the civil Magistrat, a holy and sufficient calling (saith he) in the time of these confusions.

But this pretext and presumption of theirs is groundless 1. Because the ordinary Ministery of Christ's Church being to continue (as S. Paul says) to the consummation of Saints, and end of the world, there could be no necessity of an extraordi­nary contrary mission or ministery; but rather it must be con­cluded that there is an impossibility therof, seing it is impossi­ble that God should send men to contradict him-self or that doctrin, which he promised should continue vntill he day of judgment by the Ministery and means of the ordinary Pastors and Doctors of the Church. 2. Whensoever God sent any ex­traordinary Ministers or Reformers, he confirm'd their mission and Ministery with vndoubted miracles, as is manifest by the example of Moyses, and the Prophets of the old Testament, and of the Apostles in the new. But no such thing appeared in Lu­ther or any Protestant.

Their ordinary excuse that Miracles are ceased in the Church, is confuted by their Dr. Feeld in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3 cap. 46 Mr. Abr▪ Hart­well in his report of the Kingdom of Congo, prin­ted 1597. in his epistle to the reader. own acknowledging that in the In­dies, God, by means of the Jesuits and other Catholick Preachers, worketh Miracles for the conversion of Pagans.

And Philippus Nicolai confesseth that the Jesuits and other Spanish and Portugal Preachers, converted both Indies, Iapon, Cataia, &c. And wrought many true Miracles in those parts, and in our age, but Withall addeth lib. 1. of his Comentaries de Regno Christi, pag. 91. 312. & 313. 314. 318. & 219. That such Miracles wrought by the Jesuits and other professed Papists, pro­ceed [Page 171] not from their faith as it was Roman Catholick, Symon Ly­thus in res­pons altera ad alteram Gretseri A­pol. pag. 331 Danaeus con­tra Belarmin pag. 781. but as it was Lutheran. See him pag. 91. & 53. & pag. 91. he sets down some mysteries of Christianity, wherin Lutherans agree with Roman Catholick, and attributs the Miracles to them only; concluding. Hucvsque enim Lutheranisant. Wheras it is well known that the Jesuits inculcat to their Pr [...]selits in all parts of the world the Romnn Catechisms, and in the Indies, Iapon, China, &c. bid them beware of the English, Holanders, and other Protes­tants doctrin, as of heresy: And many of their Miracles are wrought at [...]he intercession of our B. Lady S. Jgnatius, S. Fran­cis Xaverius, &c. and by application of their Reliques.

Mr. Hartwell is more reasonable; he confesseth loc. cit. that the conversion of Congo was accomplished by massing Priests, and after the Romish manner, and this action (saith he) which tendeth to the Glory of God, shall it be concealed, and not committed to memory, because it was perform'd by Popish Priests, and Popish means? God forbid.

Now if God works miracles for the Conversion of Pagans to our Catholick Religion, it must be confessed, that either ours is the true Religion, or that God deceives those poore soules which by our Ministery, and his miracles are thervnto converted. Besid's; if what Protestants say, and that wher­vpon they ground their Reforma [...]ions, be true viz, that for above 1000. years the true Church hath bin invisible, or sup­press'd, and the world abused by Popish Impostors, and coun­terfeited miracles, &c. the innocent and illiterat Papists (who are supposed to have bin seduced) seeme as fit an object for Divine mercy, and miracles, as the Indian Idolaters: But seing not one vndoubted miracle hath ever bin wrought to convert them from Popery to Protestancy, it must necessarily follow, that either God doth not approve of Protestancy, or hath altered the vsual Stile of his providence, which never fai­led to work miracles for the conversion of the Israelits, and Hereticks when most guilty of heresy and idolatry. T'is strang he should not observe the same custom with Popish Christi­ans, [Page 172] and convert them by the means and miracles of holy Pro­testants, if these be his chosen people, and sent by him to preach the Ghospel.

Not on Protestant Preacher could hitherto be prudently taken for an ordinary Prophet, or for a person of extraordi­nary piety; even the first Protestant Reformers are convicted of dishonest dealing, and scandalous conversation, and are farr from that degree, J do not say, of sanctity, but of morality, requir'd in men pretending to reform others. We grant that a true Re­ligion may be abused by the wickedness of it's Professors, yet never was the truth of Religion planted, or revived by the mi­nistery of wicked persons. Let us run over all Christendom, and we shall find every Province therof converted to the Ro­man Catholick Religion by men not only Apostolical in their lives, and conversation, but also in Miracles. We shall find (not to leave our own Ilands) an Austin in England, a Patrik in Ireland; a Columban in Scotland, and almost in every county of these Kingdoms a miraculous Saint that converted our Ances­tors to Popery. How incredible therfore is it, that Protestancy can be the true Religion, seing that in all the world they can­not name one Protestant eminent for Sanctity, Miracles, or mo­rality. Cranmer carried his wench with him in his Episcopal vi­sitations; Bale says him-self was inspired to take a sweet-heart called Dol; Bishop Poynet went to law with a Butcher for his wife; Peter Martyr, and Bucer came to preach into England, each of them having a Nun for a wife; Calvin kept a Gentle­man of Lausanna his wife; Beza run away with the wife of a Taylor; And as for the Protopatriarch, and first Apostle of all the Protestant Reformations Luther, himself confesseth ( loc. com. class. 4. pag 50.) that from his infancy he was haunted by the Devill, and to be rid of him entred the Religious Order of St. Austin; but afterwards the Devil prevail'd in a reall, not imaginary dispu [...]ation against him, concerning the abrogation of the Mass, adoration of the Sacrament, and invocation of our B. Lady and other Saints; and he resolved (having bin [Page 173] convicted by the Devill's argument to for-sake his Order, and set vp Protestancy, which never had bin heard of before. And wheras during the time he lived amongst his friars, he acknow­ledgeth that he lived chastly, and virtuously, yet after his re­volt from the Roman Catholick Religion, he professeth in sundry places of his writings, that he could not live without a woman, and none could serve his turn but a Nun, whom he debauched out of her Monastery. Luther tom. 1. epist. fol. 334. & Colloq. Germ. cap. de Matri. ‘Eight days were now past wherin I neither did write, pray, nor study, being vexed with the temptation of the flesh, &c. As none can abstain from meat or drink, so he cannot from a woman &c. But it suffiseth that we have known the riches of the glory of God, the lamb which taketh away the sins of the world, can not draw us from him although we should commit for­nication, or kill a thousand times in one day.’

His pride was so excessive that his Disciples are ashamed of him, and have endeavored (by altering many things in the later editions of his works) to conceale the impiety of his Te­nets, and the imperfections of his person; He was a better Drol then Doctor; sociable, but scandalous. Melanchton excusing Lu­ther's scandalous mariage in epistol. ad Ioan. Camer pag. 39. saith, Est vir iste nequaquam ex iis qui homines oderunt, & congressus fu­giunt, quotidianae autem vitae illius vsum non ignoras, vnde cogitare te caetera, quam me scribere, melius ut opinor fuerit.

He wanted not wit to se the meakness of his Zealous Pro­selits, and was so facetiously wicked as to laugh at them for relying vpon one Luther in a matter of so great importance as the chang of Christian Religion, against the testimony of the whole visible Church, and the sense of all ancient Fathers and Councels; and therfore was vsed to say when he was merry amongst his confidents, and Camerades in the Alehouses of Wittemberg, Bibentibus nobis cervisiam Wittembergensem crescit E­vangelium: That the Ghospel was zealously preached (by fooles) while he made good cheer with friends. He spent [Page 174] his life in good fellowship; and Sleydan his deer Schollar ( lib. 3. edit. 1521. fol. 29.) reporteth, how that Luther him-self ack­nowledged his profession not to be of life or manners, but of do­ctrin, wishing ( l. 2. ed. 1520. fol. 22.) that he were removed from the office of preaching, because his manners and life did not answer to his profession: wherfore it was vsual with such Protestants as knew his life and conversation to say when they resolved to give them-selves to pleasure, and debauche: bodie Lutheranice vi­vemus, to day we will live Lutheranlike: see Benedict Morgensterne in tract. de Ecclesia. pag. 221. His death was answerable to his life, in the morning he was found dead, having bin very merry and feasting him-self the night before. He attempted in vain two miracles, at the importunity of his Schollers; the one was to revive a dead man; the other was, to dispossess one of his own Disciples, according to his new form of Exorcisms; But Staphylus, who was present, says, Luther was so fouly fright­ed, that in steed of chasing the Devil, him-self run away, and was in danger of being killed; The want of success in these two attemps, made him say that miracles were ceased in the Church, and that all ours are but impostures, or don by com­pact with Sathan.

Zuinglius Author of the Sacramentarian Religion, having bin tyed by Luther to no other rule of faith besides the letter of Scripture (for he had bin Luther's scholler) but differing from his Master in the point of the real presence, invented a new re­formation, which he planted among the Suitzers; and before he would impart it to them, he made The title of Zwingitu, his writing is Pietate & Prudentia in signi Helveti orum Reipu­blicae, Hulde ricus Zwin­glius aliique Evangelicae doctrinae Mi­nistri gratia & pacem a Deo &c. ton: 1. fol. 110 See all these words and much more related by him-self 1. sq ad fol. 123. his conditions by way of petition (yet extant in his works) that if the Cantons would permit him and his Ministers who ioyned with him, to take wives, he would reveale to them the Evangelical doctrin, so long hidden. An other Epistle to the same purpose he writ to the Bishop of Constance: and the reason he gives for his demand is, least the soules committed [...]o his own and his fellow's charge, should be any longer offended by the example of their sensua­lity. ‘We have proved (saith he) that the weakness of our flesh [Page 175] hath bin (O for grief) cause of our often falling, &c. we have burned (O for schame) so greatly that we have com­mitted many things vnseemingly, &c. To speake freely with­out boasting, we are not otherwise of such vncivil manners that we should be ill spoken of among the people to vs com­mitted for any wickedness ( hoc vno exc [...]pto) this one point only excepted. And confesseth tom. 1. fol. 115. that he and his fellow Ministers by means of their lustfull desires were made infamous before their Congregations.’

Himself and his Camerades having taken wives, or wen­ches, he began to reveale his Ghospel, and impugn the Mass by instruction from a spirit that appeared to him, Zwingl. tom. 3 in lib. de subid. Ec­clesiae fo. 249 Whether black or white, he remembreth not. Having by this Diabolical dream or apparition, resolved to abolish the Mass, and change the do­ctrin of Transubstantiation by altering the Text of Scripture in his Translation (dedicated to Francis King of France edit. Tigur. an. 1525.) saying, This signifieth my Body, for This is my Body. Zuinglius tom. 2. de vera & falsa Religione. fol. 202. & fol. 210. He quotes his own Text of Scripture thus, Sic ergo habet Lucas, & accepto pane, gratias egit, &c. dicens, Hoc significat Corpus me­um. He proceeded after a very strange manner in his design: for he confesseth that his doctrin was more accomodated to tem­porising liberty, then to sincerity or truth; and that God com­manded him to proceed in that manner, least his design should be quasht in the very beginning by his Adversaries, whom he termes Dogs and Swine. Retractamus igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, vt quae hic damus anno aetatis nostrae quadragesimo secundo, propendeant eis quae quadragesimo dederamus: quando ut diximus, tempori potius scripsimus quam rei, sic jubente Domino, vt tali ratione aedificemus, ne inter initia Canes & Porci nos rumpant.

He had no great opinion of the Apostles writings, as is proved by his altering the very Text of Scripture contrary to all copies both Greek and Latin, and by his saying, that S. Paul did not attribut so much to his own Epistles as to think that all therin contained was sacred; for, that were to impute im­moderat [Page 176] arrogancy to the Apostle ( tom. 2. Elench. contra Cata­baptistas, fol. 10.) And because the other Cantons of the Suit­zers would not accept of this Reformation; he sticking to the principles therof, endeavored by force of arms to bring them vnder subjection, and to his own Ghospel, and in this attempt Zuinglius was killed, sealing with his bloud what he had writ, ( tom. 1. in explanat. art, 42. fol. 84.) that Kings and Magistrats may be deposed when they resist the Ghospel, The Refor­mers of the English Church. that is any pri­vat Protestant interpretation of Scripture.

As for the Reformers of the Protestant Church of Eng­land, they were King Henry 8. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter Martyr, Hooper, Rogers, Ridley, Bucer, Okin; The Revivers were Jewel, Parker, Horn, &c. of whose lives and conversations we have sayd somthing, and enough to pro­ve they were not fit men to reform christian Religion; their doctrin they borrowed from Luther and Zwinglius (the supre­macy only excepted, which King Henry 8. invented) and ther­fore Bishop Iewel the chief maintainer both of the Protestant doctrin and Prelatick caracter of the Church of England, in his defence of the Apology ( edit. 1571. pag. 426. as also in the A­pology part. 4. c. 4.) thought it necessary for the credit of the 39. Articles of the English Religion, which had bin compiled out of Luther and Zwinglius writings, to commend those two Pillars of Protestancy as most excellent men, even sent by God to give light to the whole world in the midst of darkness, when the truth was vnknown and vnheard of. As for B.p Iewel him-self, we remit the reader to Doctor Hardings Confutation of the Apology, wherin he may cleerly discern the false lustre of this counterfeit Jewel, and the value which men ought to set vp­on this pretious stone, layd for a foundation of the Prelatick Church; and vpon the rotten stuff which he and his Succes­sours have sould for Divine truth to English Protestants ever since he vndertook, Jn Queen Elizabeth. to maintaine their cause; for as Doctor Heylin ingeniously acknowledgeth in his Ecclesia restaurata, all the learned English Protestant Writers have borrowed from [Page 177] B.p Jewel what they have sayd in defense of the Protestant Re­ligion, and that is one reason why their works are so full of manifest vntruths, and them-selves so frequently convicted of gross mistakes; they rely too much vpon this reviver of their faith; or at least would make the world believe that he may be relyed vpon in matters of faith.

But because Doctor Heylin makes it his busines to persuade the world, that Ievel then did make good the caracter and or­dinary vocation of the Church of England against Harding; and that Doctor Bramhall, late Protestant Primat of Ireland, triumph'd over the supposed Jesuits who renewed Harding's quarrel, I jud­ged it necessary to cleer both these mistaks in few words; As for Bishop Iewel, we have sayd in the 1. part sect. 7. of this Trea­tise how easily he might have stop't Harding's mouth by only naming the Bishop who consecrated Parker and his Camerades; for, Harding vsed no other Argument against the nullity of the English Protestant Clergy, but this, A Bishop must be ordained by an other Bishop; but Parker and his Camerades were not ordained Bis­hops by any other Bishop. Ergo. His proof that they were not or­dain'd by any Bishop was this, name the Bishop that ordained them, name the place where they were consecrated. This was a demand soon satisfied if ever Parker or his fellows had bin ordained Bishops; especially with so much ceremony and solemnity as the new re­cords of Lambeth report that matter. Yet Jewel could never name Parker's and the first Protestant Bishops Consecrators; he named indeed Parker for his own Consecrator, but being press'd by Harding to name Parkers, insteed of answering Harding's que­stion, whervpon depended the whole controversy, the credit of his Clergy, and the satisfaction of the Reader, he maks an im­pertinent digression and long discours of the obligation which some pretended to have bin in ancient times, of consulting the Bishop of Rome before they proceeded to the election and consecration of Bishops, but never returned to the point of na­ming the first Protestant Bishop's Consecrator, whom he would have named to Harding, if ever they had bin consecrated. And [Page 178] this is one part of the great victory, which Doctor Heylin so much brags of.

The other part concerns Bramhall and the supposed Iesuits. The true relation wherof is as followeth.

After that his Majesty and the Royal Family had bin dri­ven out of England and France by the late vsurped powers: and all Christian Princes thought it their conveniency to court the Rebells, and not entertain in their Dominions the Person of our King, much less embrace his quarrell; it happen'd on day at Bruges, that Doctor Crouder Chaplain to his Royal High­ness the Duke of York, in his Master's Chamber and presence, without any provocation, or occasion given by any of the Ro­man profession, vtter'd very intemperat words against Doctor Goff Almoner to the Queen Mother, for having taken orders in the Church of Rome, after that he had received them in the Church of England▪ To which a Catholick Gentleman answered, he had don no more then what all other Protestant Ministers who became Roman Priests, had continually practi­sed, and (as he believed) vpon good grounds. Whervpon the Doctor (notwithstanding the King was come to his Brother's chamber) reassum'd his Argument, and continued to dispute with such vehemency, that being caled to read morning pray­ers, he mistook the time of the day, and in the morning read evening prayers to the congregation. The cause of his mistake being known, and many believing that his excess of choler ar­gu'd a weakness in his cause, Doctor Bramhall late Primat of Ireland, Writ a Treatise in vindication of the English Clergys caracter, which is the book so much applauded by the Prela­ticks, and by Doctor Heylin, as vnanswerable; wheras it was sudainly and so substantially answered, that Primat Bramhall never durst reply, notwithstanding the general concern of his Clergy, and his own particular engagement; and the Church of England perceiving the evidence of our arguments against the validity of their forms of ordination, See the nulli­ty of the En­glish Church and Clergy. thought their best answer was to confess the force of our reasons, and correct the errors [Page 179] of their Bishops, by changing the forms they had composed of Priesthood and Episcopacy: and by in serting into those forms, See this in the new Edition of the Com­mon prayr book, rit [...]s &c. of the Church of England. words that might beare the signification of the caracters which their Predecessours had excluded from or omitted in the ordi­nation of Protestant Ministers, as superfluous, and superstiti­ous. This manner of answering is of great satisfaction to Ca­tholicks, but how safe it is for the Protestant layty to rely v­pon the validity of a Ministery that now after 100. years con­fess the insufficiency of their own forms of ordination, and by consequence of their Priesthood, Episcopacy, and Sacraments, we leave to their consideration, and pass to speak a word of Cal­vin the chief Author of the Presbiterian sect, and faction.

John Calvin (whom the Magistrat of Noyon condemned for infamous Sodomy) was by his freind Beza canonized for extraordinary Sanctity; but Sclusselburg a man of so great esteem among Protestants that he was made Superintendent and general Inspector of many Churches in Germany, after relating Cal­vin's Sodomy and vices, saith; ‘I know Beza writ otherwise of Calvin's life, manners, and death; but seing him-self no­ted with the same Heresy, and almost with the same sin as the history of Candida &c. witnesseth, none can credit him.’ Therfore I am induced to believe Bolseck the Phisiti­an of Geneva, who begins his book of the life and death of Calvin with this protestation. ‘I am heer, for the love of the truth to refute Theodor Beza his fals, and shamless lyes in the praise of Calvin, protesting before God and all the holy Court of heaven, before all the world, and the Holy Ghost it self, that neither anger nor envy, nor evill will hath made me speake or write any one thing against the truth and my conscience.’ Then he relates how Calvin was branded for Sodomy with a burning iron on the shoulder, and therfore retired from his Country ( Noyon in Picardy) and how this punishment was testified by that Citty vnder the hand of a publick and sworn Notary to Mons.r Bertelier Secretary to the Councell of Geneva, which testimony (sayth Bolseck) is yet [Page 180] extant. Then he describeth Calvin's delicat dyet, how his wine was choyce, and carried with him in a silver pot, when he di­ned abroad; that also special bread was made for Calvin only, and the same made of fine flower, wet in rosewater, mingl'd with sugar, Synamond, Aniz-seeds, besides a singular kind of bisket; and this he affirmeth as a matter known to all Geneva: This delicasy of dyet was not prescribed to preserve his health, but prepared to foment his lust and lewd conversation with a Gentleman of Lausann's wife, and others; his ambition was so great, that he aym'd at being Lord of Geneva, approving of their notorious rebellion and deposition of their lawfull Prince from his temporal right and jurisdiction.

His death is described by the aforsaid Schlusselburg (lib. 2. fol. 72.) in these words. ‘God in the rod of his fury visi­ting Calvin did horibly punish him before the fearfull houre of his death; for he so stroke this Heretick (so he term'd him in regard of his doctrin concerning the Sacrament and of God being the Author of sin) with his mighty hand, that being in despaire, and calling vpon the Devil, he gave vp his wicked soule swearing, cursing, and blaspheming; he dyed of the disease of lyce and worms (a kind of death wher with God often striketh the wiked as Antiochus, Herod &c.) increasing in a most lothsom vlcer about his privy parts, so as none present could endure the stench.’

His Miracle (for he never attempted to work more then one, or two) is recorded not only by Bolseck, but also by Nin­guerda Lindanus, Copus, and others, and it was thus. Calvin pretending extraordinary vocation, thought necessary, for the confirmation therof, and his own credit, to cheat the world with a feign'd miracle; to that purpose he agreed with a poore man caled Bruleus to feign him-self dead, promising him great rewards if in this Trage-comedy he would be secret, and act his part hansomly; non knew of the plot but Bruleus, and his wife, who vpon the day and howr appointed, sart in her house lamenting her husband's death; Calvin passing by with a great [Page 181] number of his freinds [as it were by chance] and hearing the lamentations of the poore woman, seemed to pitty her sad con­dition, and moved, forsooth, with charity and compassion, fell down vpon his knees with the rest of the company; praying in a loud voice; and beg'd of God that for the manifestation of his glory, and confirmation of his servant Calzin's doctrin and mission, he would vouchsafe to revive the dead Carcass, which he took by the hand, and bid him rise in the name of the Lord. The wife seing her husband did not move nor rise, as he had promised, drew neer, and perceiving he who had bin well but half an houre before, was now dead, lamented in good earnest the loss of her husband, reviled Calvin as a Mur­therer, Cheat, Hypocrit, Heretick &c. and related to the whole company what had past between them; Calvin seing Bruleus had acted his part more naturaly then he wished, retired with hast and confusion to his lodging. I leave it to the judgment of any disinteress'd person whether Bolseck and other grave Au­thors, would report such remarkable lyes (as Calvinists will pretend, this and other passages of Calvin's life and death to be) and set down in print so many circumstances, in a time wher­in they were so notably disprovable. This kind of miracles, as Tertulian sayth, is proper to men who teach new doctrin contrary to that of the Apostles; as their doctrin is contrary, so ought their miracles to be; the Apostles raysed men from death by miracles, their Antagonists by miracle make men dead. Jsti (Apostoli) de mortuis suscitabant, ipsi de vivis mor­tuos faciunt. Tertulian. in lib. de preter. Beza (an other Prote­stant Saint) was in love with a boy and a girle at the same ti­me; in his amourous and lascivious Epigram's printed at Paris 1548. he called the boy Andebertus, the girle Candida, in these Epigram's is express'd his passion for both, and his perplexity in the choice of on before the other. At last he resolves, to preferr the boy before the girle, and if his Candida should com­plain, to content her with a kiss: his words are. Preferre ta­men alterum necesse est, O duram nimium necessitatem! sed post­quam [Page 182] tamen alterum necesse est, Priores tibi defer [...] Andeberte, Quod si Candida forte conqueratur, Quid tum? basiolo [...]acebit vno.

I will not trouble the Reader with relating the known vi­ces of other Protestant sectaries; these three are the chief, all other Sects being but branches of theirs. If any English Protestant will pretend that the Church of England is neither Lutheran Zuinglian nor Calvinist, let him fix vpon his Reformers; Jf he rejects Henry 8. Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer Martyr, Ochin, La­timer, &c. And will needs have the whole Parliament which au­thorised them in Edward 6. reign to reform Religion, or the Parliament of Queen Elizabeth that received the English ex­tinct Protestancy, to have the honor of being Authors, or Re­formers, let him be pleased to read the Cronicles of this Nati­on, and compare the integrity of them that pretended to reform Popery, and revive Protestancy, with as many more Members of precedent English Parliaments, and he wil find there was ne­ver found in this Kingdom, or in any other, such a number of men, or a Parliament that deserved less credit in matters of Re­ligion, then they, who admitted and setled Protestancy. He may observe how in King Henry 8. days (to humor his lewd­ness and couetousness) they cryed down the Pope, and flatte­red a temporal Soveraign with a spiritual Supremacy, and yet persecuted as heresies all other points of the Protestant Refor­mation. In Edward 6. days he may see how the same men (to comply with Seamors folly and Dudleys ambition) declared the doctrin which them-selves had profess'd as Catholick in King Henry 8. reign, to be notorious heresy. In Queen Maries time he may read in the statuts, and in this Treatise (1. part. sect. 6.) how they recanted and condemned them-selves, and censured the King's Supremacy (togeather with all points of Protestancy) as heresy; and with in six years after see them pass the same cen­sure against the Roman Catholick doctrin, to which they had bin so solemnly reconciled again; and revive the Supremacy to­geather with other points of Protestancy. So that in the space of less then 16. years they changed their Religion, by publick Acts [Page 183] of Parliament, five of six tyms, to humor the factions which then prevailed. Wherfore it cannot be denyed but that these Parliaments and persons deserve as little credit in matters of Re­ligion, as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, or any other privat sectary.

SECT VII. Protestants mistaken in the application of the Pro­phecies of Scripture, concerning the conversion of the Kings, and Nations of the Gentils from Paganism to Christianity, foretould as an infallible marke of the true Church, and wherof the Protestant is deprived.

SAint Augustin saith: In psal. 30. con. 2. Obscurius dixerunt Pro­ph [...]tae de Christo, quam de Ecclesia; puto prop­terea quod videbant in Spiritu contra Ecclesiam homines facturos esse particulares, & de Chri­sto non tantam litem habituros, de Ecclesia magnas contentiones excitaturos, ideo illud vn­de majores lites futurae erant, planiùs praedic­tum est. The Prophets did speak more cleerly of the true Church then of Christ him-self, and giveth this reason, because they did forsee in spirit that there would arise greater doubts, and heresies against the Church then against our Saviour; Therfore to stop the mouths of hereticks it was fit that God should de­scribe the Church in Scripture by so remarkable and obvious signes, that neither ignorance nor obstinacy might be excusable by pretending want of knowledg of the truth, or means of re­pairing [Page 184] to that Guide of faith wherby the illiterat ought to be instructed, and the learned directed in all doubts, and contro­versies of Christian Religion. Amongst all the marks of God's Church mentioned in Scripture, not any is more discernable and less subject to mistakes, then the conversion of Kings and Na­tions from Paganism to Christianity; Miracles may admit of dis­putes whether they be true or false? But the conversion of Na­tions from Paganism to Christian Religion, cannot be counter­feited, nor concealed. If therfore the Protestant Congregations never converted any Kings or Nations of the Gentils to the Chri­stian faith, not any nor all of them can be the true Church of God. For

The Prophet Esay foretelleth of the true Church, tha [...] all ^[b] Nations shall flow to it. And concerning the Gentills co­ming to the Church in abundance, Thou ^[c] shalt see and shi­ne, they heart shall be astonished and enlarged, because the multitude of the Sea shall be converted to thee, the Iles ^[d] shall waite for thee, their ^[e] Kings shall minister to thee, and thy gates shall be continually open, neither day nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentills. And that their Kings may bee brought, thou ^[f] shalt suck the milk of the Gentills, and the brest of Kings. Kings ^[g] shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers. I will ^[h] give thee the earth for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy possession. Thou must prophesy again vnto Nations, Peoples, Tongues, and many Kings: Apocal. 20.11. All ^[i] Protestants as well as Catholicks apply these prophecies to the conversion of the Gentills.

In like manner do ^[k] Protestants and Catholicks agree, that these prophecies of God have bin accomplish'd; but not in the first 300. years, because as Barlow saith (in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 34. ( Jn the primi­tive Nonage of the Church, the promise of Kings alleigance ther­vnto was not so fully accomplish'd, because in those day's that pro­phecy of our Saviour was rather verefied, you shall be brought before Kings for my nam's sake, by them to be persecuted even to death. [Page 185] From the time of Constantin the Great vntill the time of Gre­gory the great, or Boniface the third, Bishops of Rome (which was 200. and od years) few Kings professed the Christian faith, the Emperours of the East and West only excepted; and even of those, some revolted, as Julian the Apostat, and sundry others were Arians, as Constans, Constantius, Valens &c. And in case any illiterat Protestant should pretend that the Religion pro­fess'd by Constantin, and propagated in those 200. and do years was not the Roman Catholick, but the Protestant, we remit him to his own learned Writers, and to Eusebius de vita Con­stantine, and particularly to the Centurists in their fowrth Cen­tury dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, in which they vndertake to deliver to her Majesty the state of the Church which in Constantin's time illustrated the whole world, and yet do charge the Fathers and Doctors of that and th'ensuing ages with the Popish doctrines of ^[l] Iustification, and merit by works; ^(m) Confession of sins to a Priest, ⁽ⁿ⁾ Invocation of Saints, ^(o) Pur­gatory, the real ^(p) presence and Transubstantiation, worshiping ^(q) of the Sacrament confirmed by miracles, offering ^(r) it in Sacrifice to God, as being propitiatory for the living and dead, with ^(s) solemn translating of Saints Reliques, and their [t] worship, with ^(v) pilgrimage to them, with ^(x) Images in the Churches, with numbring prayers vpon litle stones or beades, worshiping ^(z) of the Cross, and by it's vertue driving ⁽¹⁾ away Devills, single life ⁽²⁾ of Priests, the Bishop of Rome his Supremacy ⁽³⁾ Iure Divino, &c. So that in those 200. and od years▪ Protestants cannot pretend that any Kings or Nations were converted to their Religion. ^(y)

[Page 186] [Page 187] [Page 188]Therfore they desire the decision of this controversy con­cerning the Conversion [...] Pagan Kings and nations to Chri­stianity, may be reduced [...] these last thousand and od years, from St. Gregory the great his time to ours which point being open matter of fact▪ and so cleerly mentioned in all Histories, and confess'd by Protestants, to have bin don by Roman Ca­tholicks, and to the [...]oman Catholick Religion, no demon­stration can be more convincing then this is, against the Pro­testant Church and Reform [...]. In so much that Whitaker (lib. de Eccles. contra Belarm. pag. 336.) hath nothing to say to this our objection of all the converted Kings and Nations since Gregory the great to this present, to have bin performed by Pa­pists, and to Popery, but, I answer that those conversions of so many nations after the time [...], mentioned by Belarmin, were not pure, but corrupt. The like answer and no other▪ is given by Danaeus, Symon de V [...]yon, and others. But Mr. Barlow in his defence of the articles &c. pag. 35. saith, The promise by Esay prophecied ( [...] the Church) was accomplished, and the num­ber so increased, though still invisibly that as her love sayd in the Canticles, there [...] therefore Queen &c. so that there were thre­score invisible Queens, Princes, or Kingdoms converted to Protestancy; and that performed by Protestants as invisible as they. What greater evidence can there be of heretical obsti­nacy, then to maintain the real existence of an impossibility, [Page 189] by it's invisibility? what is more impossible then that so re­markable things as the conversion of great princes and Nati­ons from Idolatry to the outward profession of Christianity, could be invisible or conceal'd? I must confess though Mr. Barlow's answer be very absurd, yet is it very consequent to the principles of Protestancy; for why should not threescore Queens, Kings, and Kingdoms be invisible, as well as the whole Protestant Church wherof they were but a part? And if all the Christian world could be insensibly and invisibly changed from pure and primitive Protestancy to superstitious Popery, why might not the same world, Kings, and Queens be invi­sibly and insensibly changed from Paganism to Protestancy?

We Catholicks are not forc't to admit of such absurdities; our grea [...]est Adversaries name the Kings and Nations by us converted to Christianity. Any Protestant may see the parti­culars confess'd and alledg'd by Iohn Pappus (in his Epitom. histor. Eccl. cap. de conversionibus Gentium pag. 89.91.92.93.94.100.106.107. &c.) also the Century Writers of Mag­deburg mention the conversion of sundry nations wrought by vs since Gregory the first, as Germany ( centur. 8. c. 2. col. 20.) of the Wandals ( centur. 9. c. 2. col. 15.) of the Bulgarians, Sclavonians, Polonians, the Danes and Moravians ( cent. 9. c. 2. col. 18.) And of sundry Kings and Kingdoms ( cent. 10. c. 2. col. 18. & 19.) And of a great part of Hungary ( cent. 11. c. 2. col. 27.) And of the Norwegians ( cent. 12.) See the Protestant Writer Osiander (in his Epitom. histor. Eccles. centur. 9.10.11.12.13.14. & 15.) mentioning the conversion of ma­ny Nations performed by Roman Catholiks, as of the Danes, the Moravians, the Polonians, the Sclavonians, the Bulgars, the Hunns, the Normans, the Bohemians, the Suecians, and Norwegians, Livonians, and the Saxons, The Ungarians, the Rugij, and Thuscans, of Candia, Majorca, of Tunes in Africa &c. wherunto may be added not only the like known con­version of our Ancestors the English Saxons, Scots, and Jrish in more ancient times, but in this last age of many Kings and [Page 190] Kingdoms in the East and West-Jndies, Africa, Iapon, and China, confessed by our Adversary Symon Lythus (in respons. altera ad alteram Gretseri Apologiam pag. 931.) where he says: The Jesuists &c. in the space of few years not content with the li­mits of Europe, have filled Azia, Afrik, and America, with their Idols: And Philippus Nicolai who writing of the accomplish­ment of the prophecies concerning the conversion of the Gen­tils (as he professeth in his Preface to the Duke of Saxony pag. 12.) is inforced wholy to insist and rely vpon our Popish Pre­achers, and Iesuists in all parts of the world. See lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 2. & 3. & lib. 1. pag. 15. & pag. 52.

There is not any history profane, or sacred, ancient, or modern, which mentioneth as much as one King or Kingdom converted from Paganism to Protestancy; vnless they will pre­tend that their histories, and Records are as invisible as their Church had bin before Luther and their Registers of Lambeth before Mason, I cannot say that all Protestants wanted [...]ale to attempt such conversions; but the [...] zeale wanted success in all their attempts, and that proves the prophecies of Scripture poin­ted not at their Church or Doctrin.

Calvin sent some Ministers, and amongst them Richerus (whom Beza termeth a man of tryed godliness and learning) into Gallia Antartica to convert the heathens there; and he writ to Calvin a letter (extant in Calvin's epist. & respons. pag 438. his words are. Latet eos an▪ Deus [...], tantum abest ut legem ejus observent, vel potentiam & bonitat [...]m ejus mirentur, ut prorsus sit nobis adempta spes lucrifaciend [...] eos Christo, quod ut omnium est gravissimum ita inter caetera maximè aegre feremus.

He saith more over that nothing could be don untill the children which Mr. Villegaignon delivered to the Barbarians to learn their language, had bin perfect therin; but while the children were learning the heathens tongue, Richerus, Villagaig­non and the other Ministers disagreed so in their doctrin, that the whole design fell to the ground; and Villagaignon insteed of conventing the heathens, forsook his own Religion, moved [Page 191] thervnto by the dissentions, and inordinat accomplished lusts (not to be named) of the Protestant Preachers, wherof see Launoy [...] la Republicque Christi [...]ne &c. l. 2. c. 16. fol. 281. and Villegaignon adversus articulos Richeri l. 1. c. 90. Franciscus Go­marus a Protestant Writer ackowledgeth the like want of suc­cess in other places, and persons: se his Speculum verae Ecclesiae pag. 161. & 168. And Mr. Hacluits book of voyages and dis­coveries of the English Nation, and their frustrated labours in conversion of the remote northen Nations; wherof the Au­thor saith ( pag. 680.) The events do shew that either God's cause hath not bin chiefly preferred by them, or ells God hath not permitted so abundant grace as the light of his word, and knowledg of him, to be yet revealed to those Infidells before the apointed time.

No mervaile therfore if Beza cit. apud Sa [...]i­ [...]am in defen Tract. de di­v [...]sis gradi­b [...] Ministro­rum &c. pag. 309. Beza despairing of any suc­cess in the Protestant Church of converting Pagans, disclay­meth therin, and doth advise his brethren to leave that labour to the Jesuists, and so employ them-selves at home among Christians, thinking perhaps that to make Papists Protestants is a sufficient accomplishing of Esay's prophecies. Nec enim nunc magnopere nobis de legatione ad remotissimas aliquas. Gentes laboran­dum, cum nobis domi, & in propinquo satis suporque sit quod nos & posteros nostros exerceat: Has igitur potius tam [...] pe [...]gri­nationes locustis illis JESU nomen ementientibus, relinquamus. But as the converting of Gentills to Christianity is an infalli­ble mark of the true Church, so is the drawing of Catholicks to Protestancy, an infallible mark of a false Church, and of Hereticks, whose endeavor, saith Tertullian Tertull. lib. de praescr. c. 42. Is not to convert Pagans, but to pervert Christians. Negotium est illis (Haereticis) non Ethnicos convertendi sed nostros evertendi.

Their success in that particular is no argument, that God approves of their Religion, but is only a sign of our human frailty, and perverse inclinations to vice and liberty. And they who say that the Protestant Reformation needs no other mi­racle to prove that it is Divine, but it's propagations, mistake [Page 192] and misapply the argument; the miracle consists not in that many embra [...] Protestancy, but rather in that any at all reject or forsake a Religion so favorable to sensuality of li [...], and singularity of judgment. Is it not an argument and a miracle of God's special and super-natural grace; that any one temporal Catholick Soveraign reject so absolut and advantagious a juris­diction over these Subjects, as the spiritual supremacy? That Bishops preferr the Catholick subordination to the Pope before the Protestant equality? That Catholick Priests contemn the conveniences, and co [...]nt which Protestant Ministers find in a married life [...] [...]hat the Catholick layt [...], change not their wives or husbands according to the principles and practises [...] Protes [...]cy▪ and not only contradict their senses in the [...] ▪ Transubstantiation, but dis-own the Protestant pretended right of every privat person to judg (according to his own sense of [...] all controversies of Christian Re­ligion? A Reformation so indulgent and obliging to every man and woman of what [...]ate and condition soever, could as litle want Proselies as the [...] neither is the multitude of be­lievers more a miracle [...] P [...]estant, then in the Maho­metan, or any other popular [...] pleasing Religion.

SECT. VIII. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of their ju­stifying faith with justice, or civil Government. Demonstrated in the new setlement of Irland, and in the persecution against Catholicks in England: and yet the King and his government vindicated from the note of Tyrany, or the breach of publick faith; because his Ministers are compell'd, by a necessity of state, to run with the spirit and prin­ciples of Protestancy: Notwithstanding all which the Irish, and English Roman Catholicks are bound in conscience not to attempt the recovery of their right or Religion by arms, but rather to submit them-selves to his Majesty, and suffer their crosses with Christian patience.

All Protestants agree in the doctrin of Iu­stification by only faith, but seem to differ in that of good works. And though all ne­cessity of good works be in very deed ex­cluded by the pretended sufficiency and efficacy of the Protestant justifying faith; for in what need can a man stand of good [Page 194] works, if he be sure of his justification (and by consequence of his salvation) by only faith. But the scandal of the world at their dispensing with the observation of the ten Comman­dments as things not required by Christians, and cleerly in­ferred from their Iustification by only faith, was so general, that they disguised (but never disown'd) the doctrin; and do yet stick to their principle though they dare not openly allow the consequences. They speak so sparingly in favour of good and gracious works, that no one Protestant Church will attribute to them any merit, congruity, or influence vpon eith­er justification, or salvation. In so much that our Prelaticks (who are more mod [...]at then any other Protestants in this par­ticular) will not grant that good works are commanded by God as if they were depending of our liberty, or relating to our endeavors, but only are commanded as vnavoydable effects flowing necessarily from a Protestant and justifying faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree.

[Page 195]The Prelatick Church of England in the 11. Article of it's Religion, saith: ‘We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherfore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholsom do­ctrin, and very full of comfort.’

And in the 12. Article declares ‘All beit that good works which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; in so much that by them a lively faith may be as evi­dently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.’

This explanation concerning the necessity of good works, mak [...] men as carless of them, as if they had bin impossible, or not at all requisit; Because we are not solicitous of what we are sure of; he who is well clad, and sits by a good fire, fears not to be starv'd with could, neither doth he think it necessary to vse any other exercise, or diligence for keeping him-self warm. If therfore good works do spring out as ne­cessarily of a true and lively faith, as heat from fire, or fruit from the tree, any Protestant that supposeth, him-self hath that [Page 196] faith, needs not be solicitous of good works; they will spring as a necessary consequent from his faith.

But because experience doth shew that the Protestant who pretends to a justifying faith, hath not always good works, and many who are not Protestants, exercise moral virtues, it is further declared by the Church of England in the 13. Article (for the comfort of Protestants, and confusion of Papists) That even the best moral works and virtues when they spring not of faith in JESUS Christ, are no way pleasing to God, but rather have the nature of sin; Hence it is, our English as well as ot­her Protestants hould expressly with Luther, That good ^[a] works take their goodness of the worker, and that no work is dis­allowed of God, vnless the Author be dis-allowed before; that sin is not hurtfull to him that actually believeth; and therfore when the faithfull do sin, they ^[b] diminish not the glory of God, all the danger of sin being the evell example to our neighbour; That David when he ^[c] committed adultery, was and remained the Child of God; that sin is ^[d] pardoned as soon as committed▪ the believing Protestant having received forgivness of all his sins past and to come. And that ^[e] there is no work better then other: to make water, to wash dishes, to be a Sower, or an Apostle, all is one to please God. That he who ^[f] doth once truly believe, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of God, or loose his faith by any sins; and ther­fore faith is either ^[g] perpetual, or no faith.

[Page 197]What a wide gap is opened by this wicked doctrin to all kind of vice, libertinism, and rebellion, is more visible in it self, then considered by well meaning Protestants, who may tax the most dissolut of their brethren with being evill Christi­stians, but must withall confess them to be good Protestants, as not violating the principles of their Religion, by which they are encouraged to justify the most wicked actions, by their sole belief in Christ, without any regard to the morality of good works, or to the alleigance and obedience due to Maje­sty or Magistrasy. That which makes most men carefull in God's service, is the vncertainty of their saluation, and feare of his displeasure by their dayly sins; but Protestants are rid of all those perplexities and troubles by their assurance of being justified and saved by only faith, which makes adulteries, Mur­thers, rebellions &c. either no sins at all in them, or so venial that they are no sooner committed then pardoned, by a more plenary Jndulgence and Jubilee, then ever the Pope pretended to have power to grant, and without obligation of any satisfacti­on, almes, fasting, or prayer for past offences, or any purpose of future amendment, that purpose being rendred not only su­perfluous by their faith, but ridiculous by their doctrin, either of the impossibility of keeping God's Commandments, or by their Tenet of the necessary springing of good works from faith. And because this their Evangelical liberty, and indem­nity [Page 198] is not consistent with the words of St. Peter 2. Pet. 1. Bre­thren labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation, They either make that Epistle apocryphall, or leave out of the Text in their Translations those two words, good works.

It is commonly sayd that though many stats-men be Atheists, yet they will never permit Atheism to be made the legal Re­ligion of the state, because they know that men who do not believe there is a God, or providence, cannot be kept in awe of the government, or brought to observe any other laws but their own appetits, seing they neither feare punishment nor ex­pect rewad in an other life for vice or virtue, and without this feare and hopes, the multitude cannot be govern'd in this world. The same reason concludeth that Protestant Politians ought not to make Protestancy the Religion of the state, civil government being rendred as difficult and contemptible by an indulgent and over-confident belief, as by non at all; He who persuads him­self that faith alone is sufficient assurance of his saluation, and that such a faith once possess'd, can not be lost, will not a­voyd the occasion, or resist the temptation of finning for his pleasure or profit; nor omit the oportunity of rebelling when­soever it is offered with probability of success: so he be cauti­ous in his vices and villanies, his justifying saith makes all his designs and devices conscientious; and if he can save him-self from being hang'd, his Protestant belief will secure him from being damn'd, or droun'd in Hell. How impossible it is to go­vern a multitude where this is the Religion not only permitted but promoted, The Prote­stant doctrin of justifying faith most dāgerous and damnable is evident by our late distempers. Could Tan­ners, Tinkers, Taylors, Coblers, and Bruers, domineer, and possess peacebly these tree Kingdoms, and murther our lawfull and innocent King by a formality of Religion, laws, and justi­ce, had not their wicked practises bin countenanced by the Protestant principles, and look't vpon as a restauration of Pro­testancy vnto it's primitive purity? It is credibly reported of their Ring-leader and Regicide Cromwell, that he dyed without [Page 199] remors of conscience, or signs of repentance for his monstruous villanies, because (sayd he to his Protestant Divine that assisted him in his last sickness) I am sure to be saved, seing I had once justifying faith, and could never loose it. Every resolut Rogue may attempt the most horrid crimes with hopes of prevailing amongst men whose principles are so presuming vpon mercy, and so applyable to mis-chief.

I know it will be answered by them in whom education hath created zeale for the protestant religion, or interest hath rendred obstinat in maintaining the same, that the principles and articles of protestancy are mistaken, and misapplyed not only by vs Catholiks, but even by those protestant Authors last quoted in the margents. To which we reply. 1. That no­thing is more preiudiciall to the soule, and good government, then a religion subiect to so many mistakes, and so generally, and plausibly mistaken by it's own greatest Doctors. 2. We say that our being mistaken, is but their privat opinion which opinion though it were back't by a publick Act of their Church can pretend (at most,) but to probability; and so much they must also grant to our contrary censure, and Judgment of their justifying faith: and seing that of two probable opinions the generality of men follow that which favors most their particu­lar inclinations, and interests, very few protestants will vary from the most favorable explanation, of iustifying faith, or will wave the comfort that the 11. Article of the Church of England affords to them in that particular, calling or canonising it a most wholsom doctrin, and very full of comfort.

K. James was a wise, and fore-seing Prince, and in the conference at Hampton-Court did countenance the Dean of Pauls, and the Bishop of London disputing against Doctor Rey­nolds and others, that maintained the assurance of salvation (or predestination) by the protestant justifying faith; and yet not withstanding the King's dislike (noless politik then religious) of a principle so damnable to the soule, and dangerous to the state, it would not be condemned, nor censured, unless the 39. [Page 200] Articles of religion, and the whole frame of English protestan­cy were overthrown, as Doctor Reynolds made appeare; And indeed Mr. Perkins doth demonstrat (in his reformed Catholick (pag. 39.) the necessary connexion and continuance of the as­surance of salvation with the protestant doctrin of justifying faith, in these words. ‘If vpon every aboad in sin the party be again vncertain of his salvation, then was the former certainty no certainty at all. For (his sin notwithstanding) he yet remembreth his former supposed certainty, and therfore if he was once truly assured, he can not during every his aboad in sin forget, how that he was so assured, which his only re­membrance therof suffiseth to continue, and preserve his for­mer supposed certainty even during his aboad in sin.’ So that if Cromwel by his justifying faith was once sure of his salvation, or predestination, Protestants must believe he could never loose that assurance, and must grant that he went to heaven without any punishment (even in Purgatory) for his murthers, periury, hypocrysy, adulteries &c. Such a belief must needs raise other Cromwells; for who will not venture his life for a Crown, by the most vnjust means, when he is sure to be cron'd in God's glory, though, he miss of his ayme in this world, and perish in the attempt?

As it cannot be denyed but that these, and the like dan­gerous consequences do naturally flow from this principle of Protestancy, so we must acknowledg and admire the extraordi­nary skill and constancy of them▪ who sit at the helme, and steer the ship of this great Common-wealth so stedily in so tur­bulent a sea, and stormy weather, against the most violent cur­rents of perverse inclinations and principles: long may they con­tinue their prosperous course; but surely them-selves do appre­hend that at long running, no human industry will be able to escape the rocks and shelves wher vpon this great ship must be driven, If our Pilots, and Parliaments will be overruled by the loud and rude outcrys of the Scumme of the people, against Toleration, or liberty of conscience; and will think it sound [Page 201] policy to condescend to their zeale, and raise protestancy to the height of it's principles, in particular to the purity of their justifying faith ▪ which is of so great virtue, that it hath made Regicides and Rebells Saints in England, and Lords in Ireland; working in that miserable Kingdom stranger miracles, then are read of, in the Ghospel. It hath changed the very essence or nature of things, and defined Innocency and nocency by such new notions, that Adam before his fall (had he bin an Irish Catholik) would have bin declared nocent; wheras every Pro­testant, however so guilty of rebellion and murther, is a Child of grace, and favour: no sin or crime must be imputed to him, his justifying faith saves and salves all▪ It hath turn'd a Con­vention of Cromwell's officers into a Cavaleer House of Com­mons: And though it hath not remov'd mountains, yet it hath [...]mov'd the [...] nobility and gentry that had bin active in the King's service, unto mountains; and deprived most of them (since the King's restauration) of that smale pittance which had bin allowed to them by Cromwell, in Conaght. It hath made the rebellious and the Royal interest, on and the same thing, because forsoo [...]h, both are called an English and Protestant interests; and for as much as Oliver and Henry Cromwell were En­glish Protestants, it's declared to be the King's interest that not only Cromwell's Officers, but that him-self, his son, and their Trusties and Assignes, ought to possess and enjoy Irish Cavaleers estates.

In England also this justifying faith hath wrought wonders; for though it hath not restored no one the [...]ares he lost, and loft on the Pillory for his sedition, yet hath it restored him to such credit, that his word against Protestant Bishops and Catholik Cavaleers, is like to be made the vote of the House of Commons: and an other Presbiterian that formerly headed the table of London against the King, hath kindled such a fire in [...]arliament that can hardly be quenched without the bloud of Innocents. And truly I should admire that such a Ca­valeer Parliament as this is, doth not punish Presbiterian Per­secutors as french Pensioners (for that by their persecution [Page 202] [...] [Page 203] slow in a Treaty of Confederacy with England, seing non can have greater security of performance of articles then was gi­ven to the then Confederats of Irland, which signified nothing but a breach of the publick faith.

We shall not presume to discourse further of this subject then our Alleigance and affection lead vs to vindicat the Go­vernment. How it agreeth with the Rules of Policy to make Ireland Protestant, many Protestants dispute, most resolve that Irish Popery would be a surer support to our King's soveraig­nity in Irland then English and Scotsh Presbitery, or a forc't and feign'd conversion of Cromwell's Creatures to Prelacy and Monarchy. The great Earle of Strafford's opinion was, that it is the King of England's Interest, to make Irland a counter­poyse against all rebellious attempts of his Protestant subjects; and to that [...] that the Irish ought to be countenanc'd even in their Religion, it's principles being so favorable to Monarchy, and irreconciliable to Presbitery; and by consequence therby all combinations and Covenants between Scotsh and English Sectaries may be prevented or suppressed, and the King with­out any charge or care (only by [...]ot persecuting Papists for their conscience) may secure the Irish to him-self; who if tre­ated like other Subjects, would never think of domestick con­spiracies, or seek foreign protections.

And as for England, we hope it shal never feele again the effects of Presbiterian policy, and piety, nor be govern'd by another long Parliament; yet he who best vnderstands the af­faires and constitution of the Kingdoms, thinks it part of his trust and duty, to bid the Royalists be vigilant in their stati­ons, and charges, not only for preventing and suppressing plots and insurrections, but much more to beware of Godly Par­liaments composed of the purer sort of Protestants; My Lord Chancellor in his speech to the Parlia­ment at Ox­ford. such as her tofore by reforming and reducing Protestancy to it's primiti­ve purity, and coherency with it's fundamental principles, ha­ve in these Kingdoms destroyed both Monarchy, and morality. It seems (by the caution of this great Minister) these men [Page 204] [...] [Page 205] and Jacobus Andreas ad cap. 21. Lucae. Luther in po­stilla super E­vang. Dom. 1. Advemus. Dominica 26 post Trinit. ‘And Luther him-self acknowledg the world groweth dayly worse, men are now more revengfull, covetous, licentious then they were ever before in the Papacy: And before, when we were seduced by the Pope, every man did willingly follow good works and now every man neither saith, nor knoweth any thing but how to get all to him-self by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury &c. And in his Colloq. Mensal. Germ. fol. 55. It is a wonderfull thing and full of scandal, that from the time in which the true doctrin of the Ghospel was first re­called to light, the world should dayly grow wors.’ ‘ Mr. Stubbes in his motives to good works, printend an. 1596. in his epi­stle to the Lord Major of London, saith, that after his travaile in compassing all England round about, I found the people in most parts dissolut, proud, envious malisious covetous, ambiti­ous, carless of good works &c.’

Mr. Richard Jeffery in his Sermon at Paul's Cross 7. Octo­ber printed 1604. pag. 31. saith. ‘I may freely speak what J have plainly seen in the cours of some travailes, and obser­vation of some courses, that in Flanders was never more drunkness, in Italy more wantoness, in Iury more hypo­cricy, in Turky more impiety, in Tartary more iniquity, then is practised generally in England, particularly in London; all this is seen in on of the worst ages wherin these Roman Catholick Religion was professed, see our Adversaries the Centurists Cent. 7. c. 7. col. 181. who say:’ ‘Although in this age the wor­ship of God was darkn'd with man's traditions, and super­stisions, yet the study to serve God and to live Godly and justly, was not wanting to the miserable common people &c. They were so attentive to their prayers as they bestowed al­most the whole day there in &c. They did exhibit to the Magistrat due obedience, they were most studious of amity, concord, and Society, so as they would easily remit injuries, all of them were carefull to spend their time in honest va­cation, [Page 206] and labour, to the poore and strangers they were most courteous, and liberal, and in their judgments and contracts most true.’

And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 24. saith ‘The greatest part of the Reformed Ghospelers seemed to look after nothing by the Ghospel, but to be rid of that yoke of disci­plin which was remaining in the Papacy, and to do all things according, to the lust of their flesh:’ It was not then vn­pleasing to them to heare that we are Iustified by faith in Christ, not by good works, which they in no wise did affect. We Ca­tholicks do not pretend to have no evill-livers in our Church; but this we may say with truth, and (I hope) without offen­ce, that the difference between Protestant and Catholick [...]ll-livers is, that when Protestants sin, they do nothing but what they are encouraged vnto by their justifying faith, and the ot­her principles of their Religion; but when Catholicks sin, they go against the known Tenets of their faith and profession. Even our Pardons, and Jndulgences, how-ever so plenary, are so far from encouraging vs to a continuance or relapse of sin­ning, that they involue as a precedent and necessary condition, a serious and sincere repentance of our former offences, and a­firm purpose and resolution of never returning to the like cri­mes; and after all is don, we pretend to no such vndoubted certainty of being pardon'd either by confession or Indulgen­ces (because we are not certain whether we do al as we ought) as Protestants presume to have of their justification and salua­tion by only faith.

The nature of this justifying faith▪ and of other Prote­stant principles considered▪ We Catholicks have reason to thanck God▪ that the prudence [...]f the Prince, and moderation of his Ministers is so extraordinary, that it keeps the indiscreed zeal of a multitude so strangly principl'd, if not as much with in the limits of Christianity, and civility towards their fellow sub­jects, as were to be wished, yet so that the execution of the sanguinary and penal statuts is not altogeather so distructive, [Page 207] as the Presbiterians and others endeavor. Untill the genera­lity of these Nations reflect vpon the impiety of the first Re­formers, and vpon their own mistakes in preferring the mad fancies of a few dissolute Friars (concerning the nature of Chri­stian faith) before the constant Testimony and doctrin of the whole visible Church, we cannot expect that they who govern so mistaken a multitude, can make justice the rule of the pu­blick Decrees, which depend of the concurrence and acceptan­ce of men, whose greatest care is to promote Protestancy and persecute Popery.

SECT. IX. Protestants mistaken in the consistency of Christian faith, humility, Charity, peace either in Church or state, with their making Scripture as in­terpreted by privat persons, or fallible Synods, or fancied general Councells (composed of all discen­ting Christian Churches) the rule of faith, and Iudg of Controversies in Religion. How every Protestant is a Pope; and how much also they are overseen in making the 39. Articles or the oath of Supremacy a distinctive sign of Loyalty to our Protestant Kings.

LVther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer and all others that pretended to reform the doctrin of the Church of Rome, seing they could not prove their new Religi­ons, or Reformations by testimonies from antiqui­ty, or by probability of Reason, were inforc't to imitat the example of all Heretiks, who (as S. Austin says [Page 208] l. 1. de Trin. c. 3.) endeavour to defend their falls and deceitfull opi­nions out of the Scriptures. If on shall ask any Heretick (saith that ancient Father Vincentius lyr: l. 1. cons. Haer. c. 35.) from whence, do you prove, from whence do you teach, that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith of the Catholik Church? Pre­sently he answereth, scriptum est, It is written; and forthwith he prepareth a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, from the law, from the Apostles, from the Prophets. This shift is so ordinary and notorious, that Luther him-self ( postill. Wittemberg. in 2. con. 8. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118. Dom. post Trin. fol. 118.) affirmeth, ‘the sacred Scripture is the book of Heretiks, because Heretiks are accustomed to appeale to that book, neither did there arise at any time any he­resy so pestiferous, and so foolish, which did not endeavor to hide it self under the vaile, of Scripture.’

And yet Luther, Calvin, Cranmer &c. finding nothing to say for them-selves, either in History, or Fathers: and seing Tradition so cleerly bent against them, that they could not name as much as on Parish or person which ever professed their pro­testant doctrines, they appeal'd from the word of God (pro­posed by the visible and Catholick Church and Coun [...]ls) to their own Canon and Translations of Scripture; and from that sense of Scripture which the Church and Councells had fol­low'd for 1500. years, to that which their own privat spirit, temporal interest, or fallacious reason di [...]ted to them-selves; and so did others that followed their examples, making every privat Protestant, or at least every refor [...]d Congregation Judg of Scripture, Church, Councells, and Fathers; In so much that Luther (tom. 2. Wittemberg. cap. de Sacram. fol. 375. setteth down this rule for all Protestants to be directed [...] ▪ ‘The Governors of Churches and Pastors of Christ's sheep [...] indeed power to teach, but the sheep must judge wh [...]er they propose the voice of Christ, [...] of strangers &c. Wherfore let Popes, Bishops, Councells, &c. decree, order, enact what they please, we shal not hinder, but we who are Christ's [Page 209] sheep and heare his voice, will judge whether they propose things true and agreable to the voice of our Pastor; and they must yeeld to us, and subscribe and obey our sentence, and censure.’ Calvin, though contrary to Luth [...] in many other things, yet in this doth agree, as being the ground wherupon all protestant Reformations must rely; in his lib. 4. Institut. cap. 9. §. 8. he says, ‘The definitions of Councels must be examined by Scripture, and Scripture interpreted by his rules and Spirit. The same is maintained by the Church of England as appears in the defence of the 39. Articles prin­ted by authority 1633. wherin it is sayd pag. 103. Autho­rity is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgment in the same, to judg controversies of faith &c. And this is not the privat opinion of our Church, but also the judgment of our godly brethren in foreign Nations.’ And by Mr. Bilson Bishop of Winchester (in his true difference &c. part. 2. pag. 353.) The people must be Discerners, and Judges of that which is taught.

How inconsistent this doctrin is with Christian faith, is evident by the pretended fallibility and fall of the visible Church which all Protestants do suppose, and must maintain, to make good the necessity and lawfullness of their own interpreta­tions, and Reformations. For if the Roman Catholik, and ever Visible Church may, and from time to time hath erred (as the Church of England declares in the 39. Articles) no reformed Congregations, whether Lutheran, Presbiterian, or Prelatick can have infallible certainty but that them-selves have fallen into as great errors, as those which they have pretended to reform in the Roman Church: And if they have not infal­lible certainty of the truth of their reformed doctrin, they can not pretend to Christianity of faith, that involves an assurance of truth▪ which assurance is impossible, if that the Church can be mistaken in it's proposall. So that Christianity of faith, in­cluding as an essential requisit the vndoubted assurance of the truth of what is proposed by the Church▪ as revealed by God, [Page 210] and Protestancy necessarily supposing fallibility, or possibility of error in that same Church and proposal; Christian faith is ther by rendred impossible, and the Protestant Doctrin demon­strated [...] be inconsistent with the nature of Catholick Religi­on, with the certainty of Divine faith, and with the Autho­rity of Christ's Church.

Neither is the Protestant doctrin in this particular less con­sistent with Christian charity, and humility, then with Ca­tholick faith. For, what judgment can be more rash, injuri­ous, and contrary to Christian charity, then to assert, that so many holy and learned Doctors as have bin, and are confessed Papists (and even the whole visible Church for the space at least of 1000. years) could either ignorantly mistake, or would wilfully forsake the true sence of God's word, so cleerly shin­ing in Scripture as every petty Protestant doth pretend? or what is more repugnant [...] Christian modesty and humility, then that homely Doctors, and half witted wits should preferr their own privat opinions in matters of faith, before the com­mon consent and belief of [...] Fathers of the Church, the De­finitions of general Councels, the Tradition and testimony of so many ages? Jt is both a ridiculous and sad spectacle to see, how every student of the University that hath learn' [...] to con­ster [...] and [...], or to quibble or scribble some-what in Greek, English or Latin, takes vpon him to talk of Reli­gion, and to censure St. [...], St. Austin, St. Christom &c. and contemn both ancient and modern Catholick Avthors, pre­ferring before the whole Church, him-self, and his Po [...]antick Tutors, or Fellows▪ of Oxford, and Cambrige Coll [...]g [...]s. Nay the illiterat people, even the women are grown to that height of spiritual pride (an infallible [...] of Heresy) that they pitty our Popish ignorance, and fancy they can [...] ▪ with the Text of their English Bibles (falsly translated, and fondly interpreted) the greatest Roman Divines. So true is the saying of St. Hierom (in Epist. ad Paulinum) Scripture is the only art which all people teach before they have learn't. The pratling woman, [Page 211] the old doting man &c. And therfore (advers. Lucifer.) bids men not flatter them-selves with quoting Scripture to confirm their opini­ons, seing the Devill him-self made vse of God's word; which con­sists more in the sense then in the letter.

How impossible is it to govern peaceably so pratling and presuming a Protestant multitude either in Church or state, is too manifest by the last experiences in England, wher the en­deavours of reducing this Protestant arrogancy to some kind of reason, was the occasion, and object of the Rebellion. King Charles I. and his Councel for attempting to make the inferiors subordinat to their superiors, in doctrin and disciplin, and the subjects obedient to the laws of the land, were aspers'd as Pa­pists, and destroy'd as enemies to the Evangelical liberty of Protestancy, and as subverters of the fundamental principles of the Reformation. Popish rebellions happen because the Pro­motors therof fall from that fervor of their faith, and devotion which they ought to practise; but the English Protestant Re­bellion was raised and continued by the most devout, pure, fervent, and zealous sort of Protestants, in persuance and main­tenance of their Religion. Other rebellions are commonly vn­expected chances, springing from a sudain fury or feare of des­perat people, but the late Rebellion was, and is to this day, pre­tended by many to have bin a pious, and sober proceeding (the King's murther only excepted) of the prudent and Re­ligious men of the Nation, assembl'd in Parliament; and is so justifiable by the principles of Protestancy, that he must be thought not only a wise but a fortunat King of England that can prevent or suppress the like revolution in his Reign, so long as Protestancy doth reign with him.

The reason is as manifest as the experience, and the cause as the effect. For, if a Common-wealth were so instituted that every privat person might pretend (by his birth-right or Privi­lege) to admit of no other Iudg or Interpreter of the laws, but him-self, or at least might lawfully and legaly appeale from all Courts of Judicature (even from the highest which is the [Page 112] Parliament) to his own privat Judgment, what intollerable confusion would it breed? what justice, subordination, peace, propriety, or prosperity, could be expected in such a govern­ment? The same laws and authority which ought to decide all differences, would be the subject and occasion of perpetual quarrells. This is the condition and constitution of Protestant Churches and States. Every privat person is a supreme Iudg of Religion, and sole Interpreter of Scripture; he may appeale both from Soveraigns; and Bishops; from their temporal and Ecclesiastical laws to his own privat judgment, or spirit; and him-self must determin the difference and conclude whether the Decrees of Church and State be agreable to God's word that is, to his own Interpretation therof, which commonly is byassed by privat interest, or some singular fancy of his own. And though the Governors and Clergy of his Church and Country tell him, he ought to suspend his judgment, and sub­mit the same to [...] Parliament, or to a general Councel, not like that of Trent, but to one composed of all Nations and Christian Congregations, called by the joynt author [...]y of all temporal Princes (but in the mean time he must [...] to the Decrees of the Church and state, wherof he is a member) when they inculcat this lesson vnto a zealous Protestant [...] [...] not so simple as to believe that they who read this [...], speak as they think or that they believe any such general Coun­cel is possible; for that every [...] knows, temporal Princes will never agree about the President, time, place, and other circumstances of such a Counce [...] and though they should, (and the Turck and other Infidels give way to such a s [...]spiti­ous Assembly of Christians) yet when they m [...]t [...], nothing could be resolu'd [...]or want of their agrement in a [...] of judging of controversies; every sect [...]icking to it's own principles and pro­per sence of Scripture. So tha [...] every Protestant vnderstands the design of this doctrin to be but a fetch of their own Cler­gy, to make it-self in the mean time sol [...] Judg of Religion, contrary to the principles and privileges of Protestancy, and [Page 213] therfore laugh at the folly of such a proposal, and pretext. We Roman Catholicks need no such Devices, nor delays: we are content to submit to such general Councels, as may be had; our Popes and Councels define according to the tradition and sense of Scripture of the true Church; our Censures must sup­pose known causes, and crimes; and if with all these cautions the Pop's spiritual jurisdiction is thought to be so dangerous to the soveraignty of Kings, and peace of subjects (least forsooth, it might be indirectly applyed to temporal matters) that all Protestants vpon that score renounce the Papal authority; with how much more reason ought every one to renounce his own judicature of Religion and Scripture tyed to no rules, but to his own discretion, and to an indiscernable and privat spirit. There is greater danger that Protestants may abuse this spiritual Soveraignty, by an indirect application therof to temporal af­faires, then the Pope his; who being a stranger, and at such a distance, can not (if he would) have the conveniencies, o­portunities, and occasions of plotting rebellion, which Natives and subjects may lay hold on, with less danger of a discovery, and greater hopes of success.

It is sayd that in time of a Parliament wherin many of the lower House stood vpon higher termes then was thought convenient for the state, though warranted by the purest Pro­testancy, a Gentleman presented a petition to King James, who seemed to admire that any would sue to him, in a time ther were (as his Majesty said) three hundred Kings sitting in the House of Commons, and therfore bid the Gentleman repaire thither for relief. We see in the late long Parliament how so­me few membres of the House of Commons prevail'd against K. Charles I. in his own Court and Citty, by making them-selves popular, vpon the score of the Protestant Religion, and Scrip­ture. How afterwards these and their faction were supplanted by Cromwell's sense of Scripture, and how that he wanted on­ly the name of King. How after his death every Commander had hopes to succeed him in this power and Protectorship, and [Page 214] without question some might, had not the Duke of Albermal [...] bin so honest. We have grounds therfore to say that every Protestant that hath wit, and valor, and will take hould of the advantages of his Religion, may hope to be a King, or Pro­tector; and we cannot but admire that any states-man doth ex­cept against the Roman Catholick Tenets, for admitting of one Pope, wheras according to the ground and principles of all Protestant Reformations, there are as many Popes as Pro [...]stants, and every one of them much more absolute then the Bishops of Rome, and their supremacy less consistent whith the security of Princes, and peace of the people, then his spiritual juris­diction.

Besids; the stay and security of a state consists in a dis­creet distribution of publick charges and employments; and this, in the choyce of persons qualified with such signs of con­science, and loyalty, as can hardly be counterfeited, or mis­applied; wherof the principal is the profession of the Religion of the state; therfore we see non trusted in weighty affaires of the Common-wealth, but such as are of the Prince his Reli­gion. But if that Religion have no certain rule, or only such a rule that maks men of no certain Religion, it can be no more a sign of conscience and loyalty, or fit to direct [...]he King and Councell in their choyce of persons for their purpose and [...]ust, then a plume of feathers, or a garniture of ribands fancied for it's colours. The reason is obvious and concluding▪ because the security of a King, and the prosperity of his Kingdoms, is grounded vpon the loyalty of his subjects, and servants, who are intrusted with secret designs, and publick employments, both in the civill and military list; their loyalty is directed by their conscience; their conscience by their Religion; their Re­ligion by their rule of faith: If therfore their rule of faith be but their own fancy of Scripture, or Scripture as it is inter­preted by every man's privat judgment, without any obligati­on of conscience to submit to the contrary interpretation of their national Syn [...] or Church (because neither of them pre­tend [Page 215] to be infallible) then loyalty, conscience, religion, go­vernment, and King, are as subject to the changes of fortune, and animosities of faction, as the fickle fancy of every privat person is apt to vary according to his weackness of Iudgment, or strength of passion, and to declare for that party which will be most for his interest.

This inconstancy of the reformed Religions is acknowled­ged by them-selves. Duditius a learned and zealous protestant, quoted and highly commended by Beza for his piety and ele­gant witt ( ep. 1. ad Andraeam Duditium pag. 13.) lamenteth the condition of his reformed Brethren, in these words. ‘They are carryed about with every wind of doctrin, now to this part, now to that; whose Religion what it is to day you may perhaps know, but what it will be to morrow, neither you nor they can certainly tell. & pag. 5. ep. Bezae cit. In what head of Religion do they agree that impugn the Roman Bishop? If you examin all from the head to the foot you shal almost find nothing affirmed by on, which another will not averr to be wicked. And, their Divines do dayly differ from them-selves, Menstruam fidem habentes, coyning a monthly faith.’

"Now what smale hopes there are of remedying, this mis-fortune, Sands ingeniously confesseth in his relation ( fol. 82.)) ‘The Papists have the Pope as a common Father, Adviser, and Conductor, to reconcile their jarrs, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Coun­cels vnto vnity &c. wheras on the contrary side Protestants are as severed or rather scattered troups, each drawing a­diverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrels: no Patriarch; one or more, to have a common superintendance or care of their Churches for correspondency and vnity; no ordinary way to assemble a generall Councel of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their contention.’ To this we may add the saying of Melancton, as remarkable as true, Quos fugiamus habemus, sed quos sequamur non intelli­gimus, we know who we should avoyd (meaning the Papists) [Page 216] [...] [Page 217] Religions is, to believe what you think fit according to your best vnderstanding of a writing you can not vnderstand by any human and privat industry of your own, and will not learn from any publik authority of the Church, because by follow­ing the interpretation of the Church you fancy that you may be mistaken) so that for feare of being mistaken in, or by pu­blick authority, the protestant either falls into obstinacy in his own privat opinion, or into an indifferency for all opinions, and so becoms to be an Heretick, or of no Religion.

Among the protestant Confessions of faith, the 39. Ar­ticles of the prelatick Church of England is estem'd an excel­lent piece; and yet the same Articles acknowledg that the visible Church of God hath erred, and may err from time to time; and by consequence the prelatick may have erred in this very as­sertion, as in most of the 39. Articles. How this acknowled­ged vncertainty of truth can agree with the certainty or Chri­stianity of faith, or with any hopes of salvation, I can not comprehend. But albeit these articles seem as insufficient for salvation, as men are vncertain of their truth, yet are they thought usefull to the government; for, though they want the substance, (that is, the certainty) of faith, yet they have the face of religion, and formality of law; because they talk of God, Christ, Trinity &c. And are confirmed by acts of Parlia­ment. But that which makes them to be so much insisted vpon, is, that they are so indifferent, and appliable to all Protestant Religions, that with much reason he is censured a very wilfull Presbiterian, and fanatick, who will not submit, and subscri­be to articles so indulgent, and indifferent. Therfore not on­ly now but formerly in the beginning of all distempers groun­ded vpon Diversitie of Protestant opinions, it was thought good policy to commit the 39. Articles to the press, therby to plea­se all dissenting parties; and this hath bin practised not only in Queen Elizabeth, and King Iames Reigns, but also in King Charles I. an 1640. when the rebellion began to break forth, and was cloak't with the authority of a legall Parliament, as [Page 218] well as with the zeal of the Protestant Religion against the Church of England. And an. 1633. when the Symptoms of that rebellion were first discerned, there was printed, by special Com­mand, a Book setting forth, the agreement of the 39. Articles with the doctrin of other reformed, but rebellious Churches of France, Germany, Netherlands, Basil, Bohemia, Swethland, Suitzerland &c. The Title of the book is, the Faith, Doctrin, and Religion, professed and protected in the realm of England and Dominions of the same, expressed in the Articles &c. The sayd Articles analized into propositions; and the propositions proved to be agreable both to the writen word of God, and to the extant confessions of all the neighbour Churches Chri­stianly reformed. Perused, and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England, allowed to be publick, London. printed by John Legatt. 1633.

So that no mervaile if the 39. Articles have not proved to be a better antidot against Rebellion, then we have seen by experience, they being so agreable to the doctrin of Churches raised and maintained by rebellious people and principles against their vndoubted lawfull Soveraigns.

The French Hugonot Ministers in their assembly at Bema 1572. decree that in every citty all should sweare not to lay down arms as long as they should see them persecute the do­ctrin of salvation &c. In the mean time to govern them-selves by their own protestants rules. See Sutcliff in his answer to a li­bel supplicatory. pag. 194.

See the Catholick doctrin of the Church of England art. 19. pag. 94. agreeing here in with Confes. Helvet. 2. Saxon. art. 11. Wittemberg. art. 32. Sueu. art. 15. all quoted ibid. pag. 95. Dresterus the Protestant writer in part. 2. Nullenarii sexti pag. 661. acknowledgeth that all the warrs of Germany against the Emperour and lawfull Soveraigns happned ex mutatione Religio­nis Pontificiae in Lutheranam. See Crispinus of the Churches estate pag. 509. how the reformed Church of Basil was founded by the rebellion of some Burgesses against the Catholick Sena­tors [Page 219] whom they ejected &c. The Rebellion of Holland and the other Protestant Provinces, is well known, as also of Geneva, Zuitzers, or Helvetians. See Chitreus in Cron. an. 1593. & 1594. pag. 74. & seq. How the King of Swethland being a Catholick, was by his Subjects the Lutherans forc't so content him-self with Mass in his in his privat Chapell, and to assent, that no Ca­tholick should beare office in that Kingdom, and at length an other made King.

We may say without either vanity or flattery, that were it possible to maintain the Soveraignty of a King, the peace and prosperity of a people togeather with the principles of Prote­stancy, the English Nation would have don it, wanting nei­ther witt or judgment to find out the expedients after long experience (of 100. years) since the pulling down of Popery; and yet we see that nothwithstanding the wisedom of them who govern, the learning of the Clergy, the worth of the gentry, the sincerity of the common sort, and the natural inclination to loyalty of the whole Nation, since Protestancy came among vs we have violated the laws of nature and Nations, we have by publick acts of State don many things, wherof but one perpetrated by a privat person (whithout any countenance from the governement) were sufficient to make not only him-self, but his whole family, and Country infamous; Murthers of Soveraigns by a formality of justice, breach of publick faith for the Protestant interest, were never heard of in England, nor acted by English men vntil they were Protestants: Therfore the infamy, and reproach therof must be left at the doores of the English Protestant Church, without blaming our English Nation, or nature. It is the nature of an arbitrary Religion to pervert good natures; It confounds the state more then any arbitrary government. The worst of arbitrary governments have some regard to the honour, and word of the Prince, and to the publick faith. An arbitrary religion dispenseth with all▪ An arbitrary government is reduced to one supreme; an arbi­trary government doth pretend reason for the Prince his Com­Commands, [Page 220] an arbitrary Religion by pretending to be above reason, commands against reason.

How arbitrary and applicable all Protestant Religions are to every particular interest, and fancy, notwithstanding their publick professions and confessions of faith, is visible by the 39. Articles of the Church of England, that hitherto could neither setle the judgments of subjects in any on certain belief, nor tye them to their duty and alleigance to the lawfull Prin­ce, though the sayd articles wanted no countenance of law to gain for them authority; And yet the profession of the 39. Articles togeather with the oath of supremacy, is made the distinctive sign of truth and loyalty in our English Monarchy. But the Articles being applicable to contrary religions and in­terests, and an oath asserting a thin [...] so incredible as the spiri­tual supremacy of a lay Soveraign, must needs expose the go­vernment to continual dangers that flow from a plausible and popular tenderness of conscience, and from the contempt of so indifferent and improbable a Religion; and therfore though ma­ny do abhorr, yet few do admire, our late King's mis-fortune, his Majesty having grounded his Soveraignty, and security vp­on Councellors, servants, and souldiers (of whose fidelity he had no other evidence but the profession of 39. Articles so vn­certain, that they signified nothing, and dispensed with every thing) and an oath of a jurisdiction so incredible, that they who took it either vnderstood not what they swore, or if they did (by swearing a known vntruth) disposed them-selves to violat all oaths of alleigance, and learn't in all other promises to preferr profit before performance, conveniency before con­science▪ Were not this true, and were the prelatik Religion (with all it's laws, and oath's) capable of establishing Mo­narchs, or of making subjects loyal, and servants faithfull, how were it possible that so just and innocent a King as Charles 1. (The ancientest by succession and inheritance of all Christen­dom) should be so generally and vnworthyly betray'd by them that profess'd the 39. Articles, and took the oaths of suprema­cy [Page 221] and alleigance? By the laws of the land it is enacted, (and accordingly practised,) that non be permitted to vote in Par­liament, or trusted with any employment in the state, who professeth not the prelatick Protestant Religion, and swears not the Supremacy and Alleigance: And yet we see how litle this Religion and oaths wrought vpon the generality of these King­doms, or availed the late King. None that vnderstands the genius of the English Nation will believe, that by nature they are so base, and treacherous, as of late the world hath obser­ved. Therfore what they have don amiss, so contrary to the generosity, and honesty of their dispositions, and to the rules of Christianity, must be attributed to their Religion. Wher­fore it must be concluded, that any outward sign, though it be but a red scarf, or garniture of ribands of the King's co­lours, doth engage and confirm more the subjects and souldiers in their duty, and loyalty, then the 39. Prelatick Articles, and the oath of supremacy. A Rebell, or Roundhead, may, t'is true, weare the King's colours, but not with so great dan­ger to his Majesty, or dommage to the publick, as when he professeth the King's Religion. Very few Englishmen will fly from the King's colours they once weare and profess to esteem, but many that profess the 39. Articles will fight against the Prelatick interpretation therof, for their own privat sense, and against that of the King and Church of England: So appli­cable are the 39. Articles to all dissenting Reformations, and so pliable to every Rebellion that is grounded vpon any pre­tence of Scripture.

SECT. X. How the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformations maturely examined, and strictly fol­lowed, have led the most learned Protestants of the world, to Iudaisme, Atheisme, Arianisme, Mahometanisme &c. and their best modern wits and writers to admit of no other Rule of Reli­gion but Natural Reason; and the Protestants Churches of Poland, Hungary, and Transilva­nia, to deny the Mystery of the Trinity.

SEbastian Castalio, termed by Osiander (in epitom. pag. 753.) Vir apprimè doctus, linguarum peritissi­mus. Ranked by Doctor Humfrey (In vita Ivelli pag. 265.) with Luther and Zuinglius; and pla­ced by Pantaleon (in Chronographia pag. 123.) amongst the Fathers and lights of the Church; this great and learned Protestant, having considered the Prophecies mentioned in Scripture, of the conversion of Kings and Nations by the Christian Church, and of it's happy state, splendor, and continuance, and compared all with the very foundation and first principle of protestancy, to wit, with the protestant supposition of a generall apostacy, and fall of the visible Church from the true faith, and their remaining in superstition and idolatry for so many centuries of years, together with the invisibility of the Protestant Church vntill Luther, and (by consequence) it's not [Page 223] converting any visible Kings or nations from Paganisme to Christianity; having I say, maturely considered these things, was so perplex'd, and doubtfull in point of God's providence and veracity, that he came at length to believe nothing, as may be seen in his Preface of the great latin Bible dedicated to K. Edward 6. where he saith: ‘verily we must confess, eyther that these things shall be performed herafter, or have bin already, or that God is to be accused of lying: If any may answer that they have bin performed; I will demand of him, when? If he sayd in the Apostles time; I will demand how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledg of God was altogether perfect, and after in so short space vanished away, which was promised to be eternall, and more abundant then the flouds of the sea? And concludeth; the more I peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same performed, howsoever you vnderstand the same prophecies.’

Martin Bucer one of the primitive and prime Protestants, And an Apostle of the English reformation, of whom Sir Iohn Cheek K. Edward 6. Master, says, the world scarce had his fellow, and whom Arch-bishop Whitgift (in his defence &c. pag. 522.) termeth a Reverend, learned, painfull, sound Father &c. this great Bucer after his first Apostasy from his Dominican order, and Catholik Religion, became a Lutheran; afterwards a Zvinglian; as appaereth in his epistle [...] Norimb. & ad Ess [...]ingenses; Then he returned again to be a Lutheran, as may be seen in the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's house in Wittemberg. an. 1539. and in Bucer's own Comentaries vpon the 6. John. and 26. Ma­thew, where he asketh pardon of God and the Church, for that he deceived so many with the error of Zuinglius, and the Sa­cramentarians; And notwithstanding this open repentance, he returned again to the same Zuinglianism in England, and ther­fore is reprehended by Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calv. lib. 2. fol. 70.) At length seeing the incertainty of Christianity wherunto by protestancy he had driven him-self, and others that stuck to it's principles, at the houre of his death he embraced Judaisme, [Page 224] as they who were present therat, testify, saith Prateolus (pag. 107.) He declared long before to Dudley Earle of Warwick, that he doubted whether all was true that the Evangelists relate of Christ. wherof see hertofore. part. 1.

David George who for many years had bin a pious and publik Professor of Protestancy at Basil, and Osiander in epitom. Centur. 16. part 2. pag. 647 saith of David Geor­ge, vtebatur enim publico vir Dei ministerio Basi­liensi, egenti­bus elëemosy nam submi­nistrebat, aegrotos con­solabatur &c. called a man of God, for his notorious charity to the poore and sick, consi­dering and comparing the aforesaid doctrin of protestancy with the prophecies of Scripture concerning the visible Church, be­came a blasphemous Apostata; and affirming our Saviour to have bin a seducer, drew many Protestants to his opinion, convin­cing them by their own principles, and this argument. Historia Georgij Da­vidis publis­hed by the Divines of Basil and printed of Antwerp. 1568 si Christi & A­postolorum doctrina vera & perfecta fuisset &c. Jf the doctrin of Christ and his Apostles had bin true and perfect, the Church which they planted should have continued, &c. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted the doctrin of the Apostles and the Church by them begun; as is evident in the Papacy: therfore the doctrin of the Apostles was falls and imperfect.

Bernardin Ochin one of them whose opinions were Oracles to the Composers of the 39. Articles of Religion, and the li­turgy of the Church of England, so much celebrated for his learning and piety, that the Protector Seamor and Arch-bishop Cranmer called him out of Germany, to help them in their Protestant reformation; termed by Bishop Bale a light of the Church, and England happy whilst it had him, miserable when it lost him, highly commended for learning and virtue by Simlerus, and Sleydan l. 9. fol. 297. and by Calvin l. de scandalis, &c. This Ochin whom as Calvin writ, all Italy could not match, this light whose presence made England happy, and whose absence made it miserable; this very Ochin, considering well the principles of protestancy, became a Jew; concluding that Christ never had a Church vpon earth. When I did (saith he in praefat. Dialo­gorum) consider how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness had founded and established his Church, washed it with his bloud, and enriched it with his spirit; and again discerned how the same was (funditus eversa) vtterly over thrown, I could not but wonder, [Page 225] and being desirous to know the cause, J found there had bin Popes. And proceeding from this conceipt of the Popes prevailing a­gainst Christ in vtter overthrow of the whole visible Church, he concludeth that he who founded and purchased the Church with such pains, and at so deere a rate, could not be Christ, because he wanted power or providence to preserve it, and ther­fore Ochin tourned Iew and taught circumsion and Polygamy.

Upon the same motives ^[c] Adam Neuserus a most lear­ned Protestant, and chief Pastor of Heydelbergh, turned Turk, and was circumsised at Constantinople, persuading many of his flock to become Mahometans. ^[d] Allemanus esteemed, and beloved by Beza for his learning, seing that the predictions of the Prophets were not fulfilled in the Protestant Churches, and being resolved not to be a Papist, held that the Messias was not come, and so renouncing Christianity became a blasphe­mous Iew.

[Page 226] Calvin, the Oracle of Protestant learning, and the most plausible Reformer of Popery, is not only by Catholicks but by sundry Protestants charged with Judaism, in so much that the famous Protestant Writer Egidius Hunnius Doctor and pu­blick Professor in the University of Wittembergh, and chief Dis­putant in the conference of Ratisbone against the Catholicks, writ a Book intituled Calvinus Judaizans: And another Pro­testant book was printed 1586▪ and reprinted 1592. the Au­thor wherof is the learned Ioannes Modestinus, and it's Title, A Demonstration out of God's word, that the Calvinists are not Christians, but only baptized Jews and Mahometans: and an ot­her very learned Protestant John Scutz (in lib. 50. causarum cap. 48.) affirmeth, Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinis­m, to be brothers and Sisters, and three pair of hose made of one cloath.

The Calvinists do, and may say the same of the Lutherans, and of every other Sect of Protestants; they are all made of one cloath, and differ only in the fashion, according to the diver­sity of their fancies. They all agree in cloathing and cover­ing their errors with Scripture, but some like one mode, some an other. Calvin and his faction seem to approve most of the Arian, to which also most Protestants incline, by reason of difficulty they find in the Mystery of the Trinity, explained after the Catholick manner; But non of them will tye him­self to an others fashion, seing their Rule of faith is their own fancy. Wherfore notwithstanding the Confessions of faith of their sundry Churches, they do not hold them-selves obliged to Profess that, or any faith longer then it agreeth with every on's privat sense of Scripture, which he changes as often as fur­ther [Page 227] study, information, or seeming reason moves him to the contrary. So that not only Mahometism, Arianism, and Calvinism, are three paire of hose made of one Cloath, accor­ding to Scutz expression, but his Lutheranism, and all other Protestant Reformations are remnants of the same piece, with different trimmings and patches; and though they be hose this day, to morrow they would perhaps be Turbants, or Jews garments, had not those formes and fashions bin so generally cry'd down, as ridiculous in these parts of the world, that the learned Protestants, who think them more Religious then their own, despaire of ever making them the mode. So true it is, that the bare letter of Scripture without Tradition (the rule of faith) makes men Hereticks, Turcks, Jews, and the worst of Infidells.

The learned Protestants who are not Iews, Turks, or A­rians, become Atheists, or meer Rationalists; Because there is not any thing moves learned men so much either to A­theism, or to have no Religion but naturall reason, as the di­versity of Religions, and the confessed vncertainty of such as are professed. The interpretation of Scripture and Fathers be­ing left by their principles of the Reformation to every par­ticular person's discretion, maks Protestants differ as much in Christian belief as in human opinions, concerning any ordinary, and obscure matter; and their supposition of the fall of the vi­sible Church into errors of doctrin, togeather with the ac­knowledged fallibility, and vncertainty of their own Congrega­tions, takes away (as we proved in the last Section) all cer­tainty, and Christianity of belief. What doubt therfore can be made but that such learned Protestants as turn not Jews, Mahometans, or Arians, will either become Atheists, Socinians, or meer Rationalists? such as observe that the Prophecies sett-down in Scripture concerning the spendor, extent, and propa­gation of Christ's Church vpon Earth, are not accomplished in their own petty Reformations, and withall are so peevish, and maliciously bent against the Roman Catholick faith, as not to [Page 228] examin it's truth, turn Jews, Mahometans, or Atheists; But such as are ashamed or afraid to renounce the name of Chri­stians, and yet are as obstinat against the Roman Catholick do­ctrin, as the aforsaid Protestants, fall from on reformed sect to an other; and at length perceiving there is no reason to pre­ferr on before an other, renounce all, and rely only vpon their own reason; most of them follow Chillingworth, Fauck­land, Stilling-fleet, and become Socinians, denying or doubting of Christ's Divinity, and are driven to that impiety, partly by the incoherency of the Protestant Tenets, and partly by their contempt of Tradition; but most of all by the foolish pre­sumption of their own wit and judgment, and by that secret pride so manifest in Protestants, and proper to Hereticks.

There is not any one Protestant Writer, in whose works you may not find this heretical Strain. Neither is it to be ad­mired that men whose Religion is occasioned by pride, and grounded vpon singularity of judgment, do betray and de­clare those passions in their discourses, they being the chief in­gredients of their Symbols and the Conclusions most cleerly deduced from their principles. I will omit all others at pre­sent, and only mention a passage of Socinus against Volanus (pa. 2.) wherin you may see to what a pass Protestants are brought by their own proud and privat spirit, and by their contempt of Catholick Tradition. Thus therfore he saith. ‘To what pur­pose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists &c. especially where thou opposest to vs the perpe­tuall consent of the Church? very excellently doubtless in this behalf hath Hosius (a Papist) discours'd against you, wounding you with your own sword. And therfore you are no less fals in urging against us, the Churches perpetual consent (for the Divinity of Christ) then are the Papists in their vrging therof against you and vs. And ibid. pag. 222. We propose to vs in this question (concerning the Divinity of Christ) non for Master or Interpreter, but only the holy Ghost &c. we do not think that we are to stand to the judgment [Page 229] of any men though never so learned, of any Councels though in shew never so holy, and lawfully assembled, of any visi­ble Church, though never so perfect and vniversall.’ Even Uolanus himself disputing against the Iesuits, is inforced to reject the examples, sayings, and deeds, of Athanasius, Hierom, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authority he now oppo­seth against vs, as sacred. Thus much have I thought good to remember, that Volanus may receive answer from himself, when he so often inforceth against vs the authority of learned men, and the consent of the Church, &c. And truly Socinus doth defend his error concerning Christ, with as many and as cleer texts of Scripture (not vnderstood in the sense of the Roman Catholick Church) as any point of Protestancy is maintained by other Protestants.

The Puritans (now called Presbiterians) vse the same way of arguing against the Prelatiks, and with no less success, then socinus against Volanus, as may be seen in Cartwright in his se­cond reply against episcopacy ( p. 1. pag. 484.) And that it may appear (saith he) how justly we call this Canon of the Councell (the first generall of Nice, in the Canon touching the Metro­politan which the Prelatiks vrged in favor of Episcopacy) vnto the tuch stone of the word of God, let it be considered &c. In the same Councell appeareth that to those chosen of the ministery vnmar­ried, it was not lawfull to take any wife afterwards &c. Paphnu­tius sheweth, that not only this was before that Councell, but was an ancient Tradition of the Church, in which both him-felf and the whole Councell rested &c. If the ancient Tradition of the Church can not authorise this, neither can ancient custome authorise the other.

The Prelatick Clergy would fain hould Episcopacy by virtue of Tradition, and of the authority of the Nicen Coun­cell, and yet would have Priests marry, contrary to the same tradition, and authority. In like manner, as the same Mr. Cart­wright well observeth ( ibid. pag. 582.) the Bishops of the Church of England would needs have the Nicen Councell be of sufficient authority to maintain Arch-Bishops, but not the [Page 230] Pope, wheras the on is as cleerly expressed as the other, and no less necessary for the government of the Church. ‘If (saith he) an Arch-Bishop be necessary for calling a Provincial Councell, when the Bishops are divided; it is necessary there be also a Pope, which may call a generall Councell when di­vision is among the Arch-Bishops; for when the Churches of one Province be divided from other (as you ask me, so I ask you) who shall assemble them togeather? who shall ad­monish them of their duties, when they are assembled? If you can find a way how this may be don without a Pope, the way is also found, wherby the Church is disburdned of the Archbishop.’

When Prelaticks dispute with Presbiterians about Episco­pacy and ceremonies &c. they extoll the four first general Coun­cells; but when they dispute with Roman Catholicks, about the vnmarried life of Priests, the Pop's supremacy, or any other point of Popery, then they extenuate the authority of the same Councells, and will admitt of no other rule of faith but Scripture. So that a Prelatick Protestant against Presbiterians is a Papist, and against Papists is a Presbiterian: what he is, or would be if both did argue against him at the same time, is not well known to me (nor as I suppose to him-self;) but if he admits of the two main pillars wherby protestancy is supported, which are the pre­tended fall and fallibility of the visible Church, and the arbi­trary interpretation of Scripture, he may be any thing he plea­ses; and (to speak more modestly of him then Modestinus of Calvinists) he is in a faire way to be a baptised Iew, Mahome­tan, or Arian, and can not miss that way, if he will be gui­ded by the Protestant principles, and follow the track of the most learned of the reformation. Both Luther The word Trinity is but a humā inventiō and soundeth couldly Luther in Postil ma­jore Basileae apud Herna­gium in enar- Evangel. Dom. Trinit. Calvin. ep. 2. ad Polonos in tract. Theo­log. & pag. 796 saith, Precatio vul­go trita est, sancta Trini­tas vnus Deus misere­re nostri, mihi non placet, ac omnino barbariem sapit. and Calvin dislik't the word Trinity, on sayd it sounded couldly, the other barbarously; and Luther by omitting in his Translation of the new Testament this Text of Scripture. There-be three which give witness in heaven, the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, and these three be one, sheweth how little inclined he was to be­lieve [Page 231] that sacred Mystery; and by saying that his soule hated Homusion and that the Arians did very well Luther in lib. contr [...] Jacobū La­tomum [...]. 2. W [...]tte [...]b. latine edito anno. 1551. The later edi­tions are alte­red and cor­rupted herin, as in many other things. to reject that new and profane word from the rules of faith, he declareth how his Protestant rule and reformation doth direct men to heresy and to all kind of infidelity; for, there is not a more refined heresy then Scripture mis-interpreted, and mis-applyed; and Scripture may be as easily mis-interpreted and mis applyed ag­ainst the Trinity, or the second Person's equality, and consubstan­tiality, as applied to any on point of Protestancy. The Anti-Trinitarians of Poland, Transilvania and Hungary think them­selves as good Calvinists as any French Hugonots, and better Protestants then English Prelaticks, or German Lutherans; becau­se they not only agree with all reformed Churches in the Fun­damentalls of Protestancy (that is, in supposing the Apostacy of the Catholick Church, and in reforming it by privat autho­rity, and their own interpretation of Scripture) but go a step further in the Reformation, by denying the Trinity. By the principles of Protestancy, and the practise of the first Protestant Reformers, it is left to the choyce and discretion of every par­ticular Church and person, what articles of Popery are fitt to be rejected by their privat interpretation of Scripture: and in­deed it is impossible for men not tyed to any rule but to their own fancies of Scripture, to agree in the points of Popery what to reject or retain. They who confine with the Turk's Dominions, venture to deny the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, and laugh at their brethrens arguments (against their impiety) as deduced only from Tradition, Councells, and Fathers and call them old Roman raggs long since torn in pieces (by the Protestants them-selves) in other points of Protestancy &c. Hi sunt vetusti panni quos vos laceratis in aliis fidei articulis &c. & lacerata jamdudum calceamenta. (Nullus & Nemo H. 9.) They are (say they) patcht showes worn out long agon, but heer in England, France &c. where no neighboring Nations deny the Trinity, or Incarnation, Protestants make those Mi­steries fundamental articles of faith; but in Transilvania, and [Page 232] Hungary, The principles of Protestancy are not kept in such awe as heer, they make bold there to apply Scripture against any mysteries of Christianity.

Wherfore we must not admire that they (as Mr. Hooker tells vs Eccles. Pol [...]. l. 4. pag. 183.) Of the reformed Churches of Poland, Osiander in Epitom. cent. 16. pag. 169 Symbolum Athanasiivo­cant doctrinā & fidem Sa­tanasii; va­nissime insu­per jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babilonicae turris detex isse, se vero ex imis fun­damentis eam ex scindere. think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Anti-Christian corruption, and that the Pop's triple Crown is a sensible mark wherby the world might know him to be that misticall Beast spoken of in the Revelation, in no respect so much as in his doctrin of the Trinity: Nor when they say that St. Athanasius his Symbol is the Symbol of Sathan; and brag that Luther did scarce vntile the Babilonian Jower (of Rome) but that they do vtterly demolish it, and dig vp its very foundation. By which words they give cleerly to vnderstand, that the Protestants of Germany, England, Denmark &c. are but superficial Protestants and are as yet far short of that substantial, and fundamental Reformation wher­vnto the principles of Protestancy, and the Protestant rule of faith, or an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, doth direct, and incline all Churches of the Reformation. As for our En­glish Presbiterians and Fanaticks, they agree with the Polonian, Hungarian, and Transilvanian protestant Arrians, and Anti-Trinitarians, in believing the Protestant Reformations can not be pious, and perfect, so long as they retain any on point of Popery; and indeed there is as much reason and ground in Scripture to reject all, as any on; and the Protestant princi­ples warant the deniall of the Trinity, and Incarnation, as well as of the Mass and Transubstantiation. The prelaticks percei­ve this to be true, and therfore in the 39. Articles (to avoyd scandal and discredit) profess the belief of many mysteries, that according to the very foundation of their Reformation they ought to deny; and though they seem not to be guilty of impiety in their resolution of retaining some, yet are they con­victed of incoherency in not rejecting all, as we shall now ma­nifestly prove.

SECT. XI. How the indifferency, or rather inclination, of Pro­testancy to all kind of infidelity, is further de­monstrated by the Prelatick doctrin, and distin­ction of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith. The design of their fundamental distin­ction layd open. The Roman Catholick, the sole Catholick Church; and how it hath the authority of iudging all controversies of Religion.

VNity of doctrin being a confessed mark of the true Church, which is called One in relation to one and the same faith; and Protestants perceiving they want this vni­ty, and the means to bring them to it, (eve­ry particular Church and person challenging a right to interpret Scripture after his own manner, as well as Luther and Calvin &c. who could not as­sume to them-selves that liberty without granting it to others) and that not only their sundry Churches and confessions differ extreamly in doctrin, but even the members of one and the same Congregation agree not among them-selves in the expla­nation of their Articles, nor in the Authority of their Church, to command and determin, what articles ought to be belie­ved; this I say considered by Protestants, some of their chief writers (and particularly the English Prelaticks) have invented a distinction wherby they hope to foole their flocks, and make [Page 234] them believe, that there is not only an vnity, but an vniver­sality of faith amongst all dissenting Protestants, and by con­sequence that they are true Catholicks. They divide therfore the articles of Christian Religion into fundamentall, and not fundamentall. Fundamentall they call those, wherin all Christi­ans do agree: not fundamentall they make every article wherof them-selves, or any other Christians doubt, how ever so fun­damentall it may be held by the rest. By which doctrin they make Arians, N [...]torians, and all ancient Hereticks, good Ca­tholicks, and their errors not fundamentall, or destructive to salvation, because forsooth they are Christians, though deny the consubstantiality of Christ. This is no wrested conse­quence of ours, but their own confessed Tenet.

The great prelatick writer Doctor Morton late Bishop of Duresme, in his approved and applauded book, of the King­dom of Jsrael, and of the Church, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (pag. 94) sayth, The Churches of Arians are to be accounted the Church of God, because they do hould the foundation of the Ghospell which is faith in JESUS Christ the son of God and Saviour of the world. And pag. 91. He giveth this general rule. Wher­soever a company of men do joyntly and publickly by worshipping the true God in Christ, profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in JESUS Christ the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, ther is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption what soever &c. Thus they plead for the Arrians declaring in their favour that consubstantiality of the son, or his being the na­tural son of God, is not the substance of Christian belief. A man would think that the real presence of Christ in the Sacra­ment, is a substantial point of faith, seing ther of dependeth the reality of our Sacrifice, the feeding or famishing of our soules, and the verifying or falsifying of Christ's plain and express words; and yet Bishop Iewel the greatest piller of the Church of Eng­land, in his Apology for the same ( pag. 101. edit. 1600.) ob­ [...]erving that Protestants were divided in the belief of that my­stery, tells vs it is but a matter of indifferency; The Lutherans and [Page 235] Zuinglians, saith he, are both sides Christians, good friends, and Bre­thren; they vary not between them-selves vpon the principles and foun­dations of our Religions, &c. But vpon one only question (the real presence) neither weighty, nor great. Doctor Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his conference ( pag 722.) affirmeth the real presence to be but as it were the grudging of a litle ague, if o­therwise the party hould the Christian faith. And all Protestants conspire in this heretical shift, because their change and choyce of articles of faith can not be maintained by any other way, but by denying that therby they touch the foundation of Chri­stian Religion. So Luther defended his Consubstantiation, as may be seen in Amandus Polanus in his Synop. pag. 446. And Iaco­bus Acontius (lib. 3. Stratagematum Sathanae pag. 135.) saith: It's evident concerning as well those who hould the real presence of Christ's Body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that al­though of necessity one part do err, yet both are in way of saluation, if in other things they be obedient to God.

Jn this Protestant distinction we must distinguish two things. 1. The design. 2. The doctrin wherupon Protestants ground their design. In this Section J will discover the design, and declare the weakness therof. In the next I will demonstrat the falshood of the doctrin wherby they intended to carry on their design. Protestants proceed in this affair as weak Ministers of state; when they find by experience they have bin mi­staken in taking their measures, and in the management of pu­blick concerns, they would fain be reconciled, and make strict leagues with such Potentats as formerly they had disobliged, and them-selves now stand in need of their friendship, and fan­cy they can effect all by inculcating vnto them general notions of a common danger, grounded vpon the power and pride of some neighbouring and emulous Prince. So Prelaticks reflec­ting vpon the weackness of their cause occasion'd through the dissentions of the Reformed Religions, and vpon the incohe­rency of their own 39. Articles with the foundation and liber­ty of Protestancy, would fain (by a generall notion of Christianity) [Page 236] vnite all heretical Churches to them-selves against the Roman Catholicks pretended pride and power. In which proceedings they commit two great indiscretions. 1. They do not consi­der how they have disobliged the Greek, and most of the Eastern Churches, by declaring in their 39. Articles the doctrin of the Holy Ghost's procession from the Father, and not from the son to be heresy; though now (too late) they would fain moderat the censure, as also be reconciled to all Sects of Protestants in Europe. 2. At the same time they endeavour to make this league offensive and defensive against the Roman Catholick Church; ^[a] their chief writers profess there is no cause to qua­rell with that Church, because it is also a Christian Congrega­tion, and differs from Protestants only in things indifferent, a­mong which they place even the Worship of Images, the Sacri­fice of the Mass, the communion under one kind, the Pop's supre­macy &c. Whe [...]ce it must needs follow that their Protestant separation from the Roman Church can not be justifyed, as confessedly not having sufficient ground to break the commu­nion of the Church vpon the score of doctrin acknowledged by them-selves to be lawful, and therfore their Protestant Refor­mations must be concluded schismatical.

[Page 237]This their Prelatick moderation towards our Roman Ca­tholick doctrin is the effect of a necessary compliance with our Adversaries, condemned hereticks; not of any Christian charity that they bear to our principles, or persons, as appeareth by their quite contrary expressions in other occasions, and by the seve­rity of their statutes against Priests, and Papists. They can hard­ly excuse the errors of Arrians, Nestorians, &c. And yet accuse [Page 238] vs of heresy; nor can they maintain the Greek worshipping of Images, to be lawfull, and yet condemn the same in vs as idolatry.

But that which they most press against the Roman Catho­lick Church, and wherin all sectaries dissenting from it, are con­cerned to ioyn with Protestants, is, that we say, ourselves are the sole Catholicks, and the Pope and general Councels supre­me Judges of hereticks. Rather then admit our Church to be the Catholick, they cantonize God's Church into dissenting con­gregations, and canonize for Orthodox all sects of hereticks, though they have no subordination, connexion, or communi­cation among themselves, much less that care of the common good, that is among the Suitzers, whose Commonwealth they would fain make a patern of Christ's Church. To this end they sent their Agents to Ieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, and in their printed books make honorable mention of Nestorius, Di­oscorus, Eutiches, and other hereticks brood, and branches, that are dispers'd in Egypt, Ethiopia, and East Jndies, as if they had bin their Brethren (wheras they do not know their Tenets) and brag of their numbers in comparison wherof they say the Romanists are but few, and, at the best, but a part of the vni­versal Church; and if a part, they ought not to judg of the whole, if they do, their sentence must be slighted as invalid and par­tiall.

And though the Schismaticks, and Hereticks of the Greek Church whom the Protestants so much courted, have by a par­ticular definitive sentence of I [...]mias their Patriarch, disown'd the doctrin, and refused the communion of all Protestants, yet are the so deserted and despised reformed Churches, compell'd to maintain the indifferency of the eastern heresies, even of those which the Greeks them-selves twelue times recanted (having bin so many times reconciled to the Church of Rome) though now again revolted, and returned to some of their former er­rors, but not without a visible marke of God's indignation and justice. Protestants therfore are content to excuse the errors [Page 239] of the Greeks, and of all other Christians, though Hereticks, hoping therby to obtain for them-selves the name of Catholiks; and are so kind as not to exclude any that professeth Christ (even after the Arrian manner) from their Protestant commu­nion; not doubting but that for a return of civility, them-selves will by virtue of that general appellation of Christians, be countenanced by the enemies of the Church of Rome, and protected from it's severity. But the Greek Patriarch smelt their design; and though a Rebell against the sea of Rome, yet he condemned the Protestant doctrin, and contemned their flattery; giving them to vnderstand, that the truth of Religion is never annexed to many dissenting Churches, and that their agre­ment in Protestant fundamentalls can not be an argument of Ca­tholick vnity or vniversality. And to be rid of future impor­tunities, condemned their opinions as heresies, declaring how different they are from those of the Greek Church, as appea­reth by his Sententia definitiva.

As for the Protestant Doctors and Prelats exceptions against the Roman Church and Councells not being Catholick or Universall, they can be of no force; because their own Logici­ans may cleer the mistake [...]y putting them in mind of the de­finition of Catholick or Universal, which is, vnum in multis, one in many; for [...]n [...]rsality requireth two, and but two conditi­ons vnity, or ide [...]ity of form, and multitude of Subjects. That a Church therfore be Universal or Catholick, it is necessary and sufficient there be an vnity or identity of form (which is faith) and multitude of subjects, which are the Professors of that faith. Whether the subject of the form which is called universall, be more or less (so they be many) is not material as to the natu­re and denomination of Universal, or Catholick, though there were but 200. men living, homo (say Logicians) would be as much Universal as now it is, with so many millions of men: In like man [...]er we say, though there were but 200. men in the world professing the true faith, that faith would be still Universal or Catholick, because it would be still one and the sa­me in many; and 200. are as properly many, though not so many, as 200. millions. We grant that it hath bin prophecied the multitude of believers should be very numerous, and spread over the whole world, and accordingly it hath bin fulfill'd, and now Roman Catholicks are every where multiplied; yet there hath bin a time when the Catholicks were but few, and in the later days they will not be many in respect of Heretiks, [Page 241] but still it was and will be the Catholick Church. Therfore it can not be an argument that a Church in not Catholick or Universal, because ther ar more Pagans, and Professors of Here­sies, then of the true Religion.. Their being more hereticks in number, is consistent with the being of many faithfull houl­ding the Apostolick faith, and no more is requisit for a Ca­tholick or Universal Church.

But sure Protestants forget the invisibility of their own, when they except against the Universality of ours. If theirs was Catholick or Universal when they were so few, that for the space at least of 1000. years not one Protestant could be found in the whole world, they have no reason to deny the deno­mination of Catholick to the Roman, which always hath bin so conspicuous and numerous. If they will proceed coherent­ly, and say that for those 1000. years before Luther, ther was no Catholick Church, then they must not only reform, but al­ter and cut short the Apostles Creed, and blot out (at least for those 1000. years) that article, J believe in the Catholick Church.

And as Protestants have no reason to believe that the vni­versality or Catholicism of the Church consists not so much in the number of persons, as in the antiquity and identity of faith of the Professors with that of the Apostles, so have they not any reason to object partiality, and illegality against the testimony and judicature of the Roman Church and Councells when they censure Protestant opinions. Not partiality, because when a Iudg or wittness giveth sentence or evidence against his own natural inclination and interest, The Roman Catholick Church is a competent and vnparti­al Judg of Controversies of Religion. there can be no suspition of partiality, nor lawfull exception against his sentence or testi­mony, as too much favoring himself, or his relations; And truly if Roman Catholicks did judge of controversies of faith accor­ding to their own natural inclination and interest, and had not in their definitions and testimonies a greater regard to conscien­ce then conveniency, they would never witness or define that Priests ought not to marry, or that Kings and Bishops ought [Page 242] to be subject to the Pope in spirituall affaires, or that men ought to abstain from flesh so many days in the week, or that ther is no bread or wine in the Sacrament notwithstanding the ap­pearance of both; neither would they part with their lands and mony vpon the score of Purgatory; or maintain that privat men or Churches must not take the liberty to themselves of de­ciding controversies of Religion, but on the contrary beleeve that generall Councells are infallible even when they define mat­ters contrary to our sense and inclinations. Roman Catholicks are made of flesh and bloud, they are naturally as averse from these thoughts, and submissions, and find as great difficulty in conforming their judgments and testimonies thervnto as Pro­testants. Therfore they cannot be partial in condemning Pro­testants, for not believing these things, vnless they be also par­tial against themselves; and nothing but the evidence of their own obligation [...]o believe these things, strengthned by the gra­ce of God, could prevaile with so many learned and sober men as have bin and are known to be among Roman Catholicks, to be partial against themselves, or to judg and wittness (contrary to their own natural inclinations and temporal interest) for Pope­ry against Protestancy.

SECT. XII. God's veracity is denyed by Protestancy, and by the Prelatick distinction and doctrin of fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of faith.

THe foundation of Christian Religion is, the be­lief of God's veracity. The belief of God's ve­racity consists not only in acknowledging that whatsoever God saith, is true; (that was ne­ver denyed by any heretick, and yet all here­ticks deny his veracity) but consists in acknow­ledging also that whatsoever doctrin is sufficiently proposed as spoken or revealed by God, is infallibly true, and that God is the Author of the same. To avoyd all disputes concerning the sufficiency of the proposal of God's revelations, we will condes­cend so far to our Protestants Adversaries, as to make them­selves Judges therof, provided they will be so Religious and ra­tional, as to grant, that to Divine Majesty ought not be deny­ed a prerogative which by the dictamen of reason, the laws of nature, and the practise of themselves, and of all Nations, is due and exhibited to Majesty, and Magistracy, and to all temporal Soveraigns; Viz. To speak and declare their mind by the mouth of others, their inferiour Officers and Ministers; wherfore as sub­jects do judge it a sufficient proposal of the regal authority, and confess them-selves are obliged to believe that their Sove­raign speaks and commands, when certain officers (known by the [Page 252] vsual marks and badges of their Master's Soveraignty, and their own military, or civil charges) propose his orders, either by pro­clamation, letters patents, or otherwise: so Protestants will acknow­ledg that all Christians are bound to believe it i [...] a sufficient propo­sal of the [...] existence of Divine Revelation, and that God speaks or commands, whensoever his mind is declared to them by that Church, and Ministers, who beare (at least) as authentick mar­ks and badges of God's authority, and of their own ministe­ry, to evidence their trust and jurisdiction, as the Officers of sta­te and Justice do in a Republick or [...] Government: In a word, all that we desire of Protestants is, that they will give as much credit and respect to God, as to Princes, and no less to the Ministers of God's Church, then to Senators, or to the Officers of a King's Court.

But their fundamental distinction dispenseth with all such duties, and leads them a quite contrary way; [...] not obliged to believe the mysteries of faith as they are proposed by the Roman Catholick Church (though the sayd Church be more authentickly waranted thervnto by God then any Ministers or Magistra [...] are waranted to [...] of state by their Prince) vnless it be clearly evident [...] (evi­dently credible will not serve their turn) that God revealed what the Church proposeth as his word and command. Such Doctri­nes of the Roman Church as they fancy cleer, or self evident, either by their owne privat spirit and discourse, or by the vna­nimous and general acknowledgment of all Christians, such and only such do Protestants believe as points of faith, and call them fundamental articles, or articles necessary for salvation; all others either they hould only as probable opinions, and things of indif­ferency, or reject as superfluous and superstitious. And because the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are generally profes­sed in these parts of Europe by all Christians (though not by all in the Catholick sense, but with certain interpretations,) Ther­fore the learned Prelatick Protestant Writers, both ancient and modern, reduce all the articles, and the total summe of Catho­lick [Page 253] faith, and of the foure first generall Councells, to a belief of the Trinity and Incarnation; that is to some Kind of faith (though it be but the Arian) in JESUS Christ the Son of God, See Bishop Morton cit. and Bishop Taylor in his Dissuasive pag. 8. edit. Dubl. and Sa­viour of the world, as Doctor Morton Bishop of Duresme, and others teach, who vpon this score maintain that the Arian Chur­ches (and by consequence all ancient hereticks) are to be ac­counpted members of the Church of God: We have quoted their words num. 3. of the precedent section.

That no King's Ministers, or Magistrats, have so authen­tick marks and badges to evidence in them-selves their Master's authority for exercising their respective charges, and jurisdictions, as the Roman Catholick Church hath of being entrusted and apointed by God to deliver his Divine doctrin, declare his sense of Scripture, and decide Religious controversies, is ma­nifest by the signs and marks of God's Church, compared with the marks, and badges of Princes Officiers. Omitting many other marks of the true Church, J will touch but three, which are Conversion of Kings and Nations from paganism to Christianity; Succession of Pastors, and doctrin, from the Apostles, to this present; and miracles. All these are visible only in the Roman Ca­tholick Church, and are more authentick (because they can­not be easily counterfeited) then any human euidences, even the most esteemed, which is the King's hand and Seale. To say because some pretended miracles have bin impostures, no mi­racles at all are true, or none ought to be credited, is no less vnreasonable, then to cry down all current money, becau­se there is some fals coyne, and is as ridiculous and rebellious, as to disobey and reject all royall commissions and orders of Councell, because some may, or have bin counterfeited, and subreptitiously obtained. But suppose (as Protestants pretend) that miracles were ceased; I hope the Conversion of so many Nations and Kings of the Gentils to Christianity, and a conti­nuall succession of the Roman doctrin and Pastors, are neither ceased, not counterfeited; no other Church but the Roman Catholick hath these signes of God's providence; and as non [Page 254] can deny but that they are more convincing arguments, and greater evidences of the super-natural Ministery and jurisdic­tion which the Roman Church doth claim, then any human signes, badges, or commissions can be of the Royal authority, exercised by King's officiers either civil or military, so like­wise it must be acknowledged that there is a cleerer and greater obligation vpon men to submit their judgments and wills to the definitions and Decrees of the Roman Catholick Church and Councells, proposing or declaring God's revelations and com­mands, then there can be vpon subjects to obey the orders of temporal Souveraigns, published, or proclaimed by their chief Ministers, and subordinat officers.

Protestancy is Heresy.Therfore as it is notorious Rebellion in subjects against their King's authority, to contemn his commands when they are pro­posed by Ministers that shew his commissions, so is it manifest heresy, and a denial of God's veracity, to contemn or doubt of the doctrin proposed as Divine by the Roman Catholick Church, so authentickly qualified with the aforesaid supernatural marks: And as it is want of duty and alleigance in subjects, and a ridiculous excuse for not obeying Orders, to pretend they have not cleer evidence that the King signed them▪ or (for all they know) that his Minister, or Officer may be an Impostor, and his commission or warrant counterfeit, so must it be con­cluded want of christian belief, and excess of hereticall obsti­nacy in Protestants, to excuse their contempt of the Roman Catholick doctrin, and authority, by pretending a possibility of mistake in the same Church, because forsooth, they are not convinced of it's infallibility, and authority by a Demon­stration, or revelation so evident, that though they would, they cannot deny it. Such evidences are not necessary nor e­ven compatible with Christian belief, as shall be proved heraf­ter: less are sufficient to convince them-selves and all rational men of a strickt obligation to believe and obey a temporal Prince, and Magistrat; and sure they are vnreasonable if they imagin God deserves, less belief, duty, and subjection, then Princes. [Page 255] That Protestants believe not their own Churches, or Congre­gations, with out doubts and feares of being mistaken in the reformed doctrin, and authority of proposing the same, we do not admire, because not any on of their churches doth pretend to infallibility, nor could hitherto, or can yet shew any sign or seale of God for their sense of Scripture, or reformations; but that they should think them-selves obliged to take a Herald or Trompeters Coat, and a Constable or Cathpol's staffe, and o­ther such badges (so easily counterfeited) for sufficient eviden­ces of the King's authority, and yet except against the authen­tickness of the conversion of Kings and Nations, the Succession and sanctity of Pastors, and doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church. Which are things that cannot be counterfeited, must needs be the effect of prejudice and passion, proceeding from want of christianity, especialy when they see that others as learned, cau­tious, and conscientious, as them-selves, after weighing all ob­jections and circumstances, submit their judgments to the suf­ficiency of these signs, for making the Roman Catholick au­thority authentickly Divine, and that we believe what is pro­posed, with out the least suspition or feare either of fraud or frailty in the Roman Catholick Councells, which are the Pro­posers and Ministers of God's word.

Besids; if Protestants did consider the nature of Veracity,and God's Providence, Protestancy contradicts God's vera­city. they would never doubt of the applica­tion of his power to preserve the Roman Catholick Church from error, seing it hath so many signs of his truth and Mini­stery, as the conversion of Nations, succession and Sanctity of doctrin and Doctors, miracles, vnity of faith, &c. For, Ve­racity (as Aristotle and all Philosophers define it) is a Virtue in­clining to speak truth: And he is not inclined to speak truth that countenanceth falshood in so particular a manner as God doth the doctrin and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholick Church. A King that might, if he would and yet doth not hinder his Ambassadors, and Ministers, or any other persons, from abu­sing other Princes, or his own Subjects by their speaking or [Page 256] commanding in his Majesties name, or at least in speaking other-wise then he really intended they should, and had prescribed by his commission or instructions; such a King I say, is not inclined to speak truth, because he willingly permits his officers, or others that pretend to speak in his name (or really do speak by his Orders) to vtter falshood, and misinterpret his words and meaning, notwithstanding that he may easily pre­vent that fraud and frailty, and reapeth no benefit by either, an evident argument that he is not avers to such false practises. No Protestant doubts but that my Lord Chancellor speaks truly the King's mind and sense when he pursues his Majesties speech in Parliament in his Royal presence, and hearing; and to think other-wise, would be not only to tax my Lord Chancellor with folly, but the King with an inclination to falshood, and a fault unbeseeming the dignity of a Prince, the care and charge of the Country's Father, as also the sincerity and veracity of an honest man.

The infalli­bility of the Roman Ca­tholick Church in matters of faith, proved against Pro­testants.Seing therfore God is as much inclined to speak truth as any thing can be to love it self (for God is truth by essence) if it be against the dignity of a Prince, and against the nature of human veracity and honesty, (which is but a shadow of the Divine) to permit falshood in Ministers of state or in ser­vants sent but of ordinary errands, when their Masters can ea­sily prevent it; how much more repugnant must it be to the nature of God, and to his Divine veracity, to permit the Ro­man Church, in his own presence, name, and hearing, tell lyes, and disguise them and it self, with so probable and plausible signes of his Divine truth, and Commission, as to seale it's do­ctrin with marks, and miracles so vndeniably supernatural, that the most learned Protestants acknowledg they are, and can only bewrought by God's power? light can as litle concurre to pro­duce darkness, as truth to favor falshood. Even men that love truth, hate to heare others tell lyes, and do contradict vntru­ths, if them-selves be present, and quoted for Authors of the stories; They will not entertain servants given to that vice, nor [Page 257] permit them weare their livery, much less employ them in matters of concern, wherin they may abuse their Master's word and prejudice his friends, or Tenants.

Can Protestants then imagin that God doth not only per­mit the Roman Catholick Church to weare his livery, and his authority, but that he doth promote the stories, and lies of that Church (in case it's doctrin be fals,) for the space of so many ages with so great signes and testimonies of his Divine approbation, that the wisest and wairiest men of the world (af­ter much study and examination) did, and do still preferr it before all other Religions? Do they think that God is not as much concern'd in preventing frauds, faults, and frailties in his Ministers, and Messengers, as temporal Princes are concern'd in the credit, and truth of theirs? Wherfore if Protestants judg it a breach of faith, or want of truth and worth in a temporal Prince not to endeavor (to the vtmost of his power) that his Mini­sters and messengers deceive not his subjects, and Allies, by mistaking, or misapplying his Commands, or demands; they can not but see the absurdity of believing that God doth per­mit Ministers, and Messengers so supernaturaly qualified as tho­se of the Roman Church are, to err in proposing his revela­tions vnto all man kind; his Veracity being as highly concern'd in the infallibility of the Proposers, as his power makes him capable of preventing their human mistakes, and of confoun­ding the Devill's malice.

But Protestants have found out a new device, The Prote­stant doctrin of fundamen­talls confuted and de­fence of their distinction. They grant it is against God's Ve­racity to permit the Roman Catholick Church to err in proposing the Fundamental articles of faith, that is, such articles as Pro­testants fancy absolutly necessary for saluation; which are (say they) that Scripture is the word of God, and JESUS Christ the son of God, and Redeemer of the world, some add the Mystery of the Trinity: (hitherto we could never obtain from them a more exact Cathalogue of their Protestant Fundamentals) As for the other doctrines of the Roman Catholick Church [Page 258] [...] and proposed as Divine, Protestants think they may be denyed and questioned, without any offence to God, deny­al or doubt of his veracity. I could never heare any other rea­son, or disp [...]rity for this their distinction, but that the measure of the infallibility of the Church ought to be our salvation, be­cause it was the end proposed by God in the institution and constitution of his Church.

In such articles therfore (say they) as are absolutly nece­ssary for salvation, the Church cannot but be infallible in the proposal; otherwise we could not believe them (and consequent­ly not be saved) because we can not be sure that God revea­led them.

But this their Fundamental distinction still destroys the foun­dation of Christian belief, which is God's veracity. They ma­ke their own conveniency, and not God's veracity, the mo­tive of crediting the Mysteries of faith; as if truth it self, or God's inclination to speak truth, could be greater in on matter then other; or that the belief of any article could be more Fundamental, or of greater importance, and necessity for salvation, then to believe that God is as much concerned and as neces­sarily inclined to speak truth as well by the mouth of his Church, as if him-self spoke immediatly, as well also in the least matter, as in the greatest; and by consequence he is as much engaged to preserve the Church from error in on, as in the other. So that to believe the testimony or proposal of the Church in a matter absolutly necessary for salvation, and not to believe it in a matter not absolutly necessary (when equaly proposed by the same testimony, and authority) is as much as to say, that God can speak by his Church, litle vntruths, but not great vntruths, or that he may permit his veracity to be violated, or vitiated in litle, but not in great matters; as if forsooth, the authority and infallibility of the Church were to be measured by the matter it proposeth, and not by the manner and supernatural marks of the proposal and by the dig­nity of the speaker.

[Page 259]More over; their pretence of the Churches fallibility in not Fundamental articles, hath no solid ground; for the Pro­testant Church is either fallible or infallible in saying so, and in it's doctrin of Fundamentals; if fallible, non can prudently rely thervpon, either in this, or in any other matters of faith; if infallible, then the Protestant distinction of Fundamentals must be a fundamental article of faith, because they admit not any Church to be infallible in articles that are not fundamental. And yet the same Protestants say the Roman Catholick Church is also infallible in fundamentals; but the Roman Catholick, and Protestant Church contradict on the other in this doctrin of fundamentals, Therfore one of both must erre; and that on must be the Protestant, because it maintains that two Chur­ches teaching contradictory doctrins, may both be infallible therin. Add hervnto, that if the Roman Catholick Church be infallible in fundamentals, or in all articles necessary for salvation, how can Protestants excuse their reformation and se­paration, from the guilt of a grievous sin, and schism? so vn­charitable a breach is not justifiable by less then damnable or dangerous doctrin in the Church that is forsaken; And what damnable doctrin or danger of damnation could, or can be in adhearing to the Roman Church, it being confessedly infalli­ble in Fundamentals; that is, in all things necessary for salvation?

If therfore God's veracity is denyed (even according to the Protestants doctrin and distinction) by saying that the Church is fallible in fundamentals, it can be for no other reason, but because the fundamental articles are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God; and seing the not fundamen­tal articles are proposed by the same Church and testimony, and (by consequence) as sufficiently as the fundamental, Pro­testants must grant that God's veracity is no less denyed by main­taining the fallibility of the Church in not Fundamentals, then in Fundamentals. So that they must either acknowledg the in­fallibility of the Church in all articles and matters of faith, whether absolutly necessary, or not necessary for salvation; or [Page 260] deny God's veracity, and the foundation of all Christian belief.

SECT. XIII. The same further demonstrated, and proved, that neither the Protestant faith, nor the faith lately asserted in a book called sure footing in Christia­nity, is Christian belief: where also is treated of the resolution of faith.

NOt the ma [...]er believed, but the Motive and manner of believing, makes a belief Chri­stian. There may be an historical, or imagi­nary faith of Christ, as well as Divine and real; that is, men may believe the mysteries of Christianity, [...] they believe the roman history, and fancy that such a belief is not human, but Di­vine. This we maintain to be the Protestants case and faith, which is not grounded vpon Divine revelation, but vpon hu­man persuasion and vpon an imaginary evidence of God's re­velation. They assent not to the mystery of the Trinity, or to any other, because God revealed it, but because they think it vndeniably evident (either by the publick confession of all Chri­stians, or by the privat suggestion of their own spirit, or by the principles of natural reason, or by their pretended cleerness of Scripture) that God revealed such mysteries as they are plea­sed to make choyce of, for the Articles or fundamentals of their Reformations. And therfore according to the diversity of the evidences wherupon they build their faith, the Protestant sects are framed, and divided, into Prelaticks, whose Motive and evi­dence [Page 261] is the concurrence of all Christians in their fundamentals of Christianity; and into Fanatiks (amongst whom we inclu­de Presbiterians &c.) who rely vpon the evidence of their spi­rit, and the cleerness of Scripture; and into Socinians, who make evident reason the rule of their Religion &c.

That these Protestant persuasions are not grounded vpon Divine revelation, or vpon God's Authority, and veracity, we proove, because it is impossible to make an authority the motive of our belief, vnless we believe all things that are equaly pro­posed and delivered to vs as depending of, and asserted by that authority. St. Austin says non can believe that the Ghospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, vnless he doth likewise believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the word of God; be­cause they are both delivered as God's word by the same autho­rity. The same testimony, and the same visible Church which delivered to the first Protestants the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation, as revealed by God, delivered also to them Transubstantiation, Purgatory &c. as revealed by God; and they or their followers can not pretend to have any other testi­mony for the engagement of God's veracity, in certifying them of the truth, and revelation of the articles they retain, but the same testimony which delivered to them the articles they re­ject. Therfore the reality and Divinity of the revelation be­ing equally testified and applicable by on and the same testimo­ny to both articles, aswell to the retained as to the rejected, it is impossible that Protestants can believe those they reta [...], moved thervnto by God's veracity, or for being revealed by God; seing the same veracity, and revelation is equally and as cleerly applyed by the testimony of the Catholick visible Church to the other articles which they reject as not revealed.

If you ask a learned Protestant why doth he believe the mystery of the Trinity, or Incarnation? He will answer (as all Hereticks ever did aswell as Catholicks) because God reve­aled it? But if you inquire further, why doth he believe that God revealed it? He will tell you, because it is manifest in [Page 262] [...]

SECT. XIV. Reasons for liberty of Conscience; and how much both Piety and Policy is mistaken in making Prelatick Protestancy the Religion of the state by continuing and pressing the sanguinary and pe­nal statutes against the Roman Catholick faith, and the Act of vniformity against sectaries.

THere is not any thing more damnable to sou­les, or more dangerous to states, then to ma­ke the laws of the land, the rule of faith, and temporal statuts the ground of spiritual jurisdiction. It is endeed Christian piety to fence and favour Religion with Imperial e­dicts, and Royal Decrees; and therfore it was prophecied of the Church, Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Mothers; Esay. 49.28. but to found the belief of eternal verities and of Christian Religion vpon temporal statuts, and to frame the doctrin of the Church, and the Caracter of the Clergy accor­ding to Acts of Parliament, and to the interest of the Prince [Page 272] is neither piety nor policy in lawfull, and vndoubted Soveraigns. What Queen Elizabeth did to salue the sore of her illegitimacy was as great a prejudice (and ought as litle be made a presi­dent) to the royall family of the Stewards, as Oliver Cromwel's Tyrany; the laws and Religion of both, equaly tending to it's total ruin, and exclusion from the Crown, with this only difference, that Queen Elizabeth destroy'd the Stewards, by reforming the Old Religion, whervpon their right was groun­ded, but Cromwell destroy'd them by reforming the New Re­ligion, whervnto they had conformed, and wherby they en­deavored to setle their Throne.

And indeed Souveraigns can expect no greater security, or better success then the Royal family of the Stewards hath had, whilst the Religion which their Subjects profess, hath no other certainty, or setlement, but what is received from an arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, confirmed by temporal statuts. That the Protestant prelatick Religion hath no other rule but this, and the laws of the Lands, is manifest by so many chan­ges of it's articles, liturgy, caracter, and Translations of Scrip­ture, by publick and Parliamentory authority; That it hath no certainty from it's own principle [...] ▪ is manifest by the ack­nowledged fallibility of that Church, and by the liberty of interpreting God's word, and by the prerogative of judging controversies of faith which the Tenets of all the Reforma­tions and example of the first Reformers allow to any par­ticular person, that will claim the privilege of a reformed Christian, or the spirit of a godly or guifted Protestant.

This liberty of professing, and the vncertainty of prote­stancy, having proved in all places and persons wherunto it had access, a seed of rebellion, destructive not only of the sub­stance of Religion, but of the tye of alleigance; it was thought necessary for the preservation of Princes, and the peace of their subjects, to reduce the variety (and regulat the extravagancy) of the dissenting reformed doctrines, into publick professions of protestancy, as sutable to the interest of the souveraigns, [Page 273] and inclinations of the subjects, and customs of their Coun­tries, as could be devised. And because the government of England continued Monarchical, and that Episcopacy doth favor Monarchy, and is essential to Parliaments, the prote­stancy of the Church of England was made prelatick, notwith­standing, the incoherency of Episcopacy with the very foun­dation of the first and pure pretended reformations. And seing ther is such antipathy between the caracter of Episcopacy, and the principles of protestancy, that the Church of England in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reign durst not claim that cara­cter, or any spiritual jurisdiction, by succession from the Apo­stles, and their successors the ensuing Catholick Bishops, it was content to receive both, as also the confirmation of it's prelatick doctrin, from an vnheard-of spiritual supremacy of a lay Prince, and from Acts of Parliament; and so was it made the legal Re­ligion of the state, contrary to the principles both of the an­cient Catholick faith and of the new protestant reformations.

How contrary this setlement of prelatick protestancy by a persecution of Popery, is to Christian piety, may easily ap­peare to them who will remember what hath bin sayd herto­fore of the sanctity, antiquity, and continuall succession of the Roman Catholick Religion from the Apostles to this present, and reflect vpon the principles, begining, and progress, of protestancy in general, and of the prelatick in particular. How inconsistent with policy it is, to press by the severity of laws a profession so generally dislik't, as the prelatick (it being con­trary to the ancient Religion, and not agreeing with the new Reformations) experience hath demonstrated, when not only all foreign Roman Catholick Princes and people stood neuters, (not much concerned whether Protestant Prelacy, or Presbytery should prevaile in England; they pittied indeed the Royal family, and wish'd them good success against their rebellious subjects, but this they wish'd to them as Princes, not as Prela­tiks) not only, Isay, foreign Catholicks were neuters, but all the Protestant Churches abroad were more inclined to favor [Page 274] the Presbiterian and fanatick English and Scotch Congregations, then the King's Religion; for that they come neerer to them and to the primitive and fundamental principles of Protestancy.

The reason why the Prelatick persuasion is so odious to the reformed Churches abroad, and so opposed by Presbiterians and other Protestant Congregations at home, is, because the forma­lity of it's ceremonies, and the legality of it's discipline are in­compatible with the primitive spirit, liberty, and principles of protestancy. The protestant Bishops would fain Lord it over their brethren, not content with the name and power of Pro­testant superintendents, they strive to imitat the authory and se­verity of the Catholick Episcopal jurisdiction, in their Courts, and do what they can to retain a ceremonious decency in there Churches, but neither is agreable with the nature and spirit of the Protestant Reformations, which consist in an indepen­dency and exemption from all spiritual superiority and ceremo­nie of a particular person being supreme Judge and Inter­preter of Scripture. This spiritual judicature is the spiritual birth-right of every Protestant, and the ground wherupon Luther and his followers raised their reformations, and their new sense of the Ghospel. Wherfore the res [...]rai [...] of this Protestant evan­gelical liberty, and birth-right, by the rigor of our lawes in favor of the prelatick jurisdiction, and disciplin, must needs make the law-makers and their religion as odious to all zealous Protestants, as liberty of opinion and fancied Scripture are deere to a stubborn and humor [...]om peop [...] ▪

Let it then be maturely considered whether any thing can be more daungerous to the safety of the Soveraign, or to the tranquillity of the state, then to enact lawes in a protestant Commonweale, or Kingdom, wherby the very foundation and birth-right of Protestancy is made penal, and the most Reli­gious observers of the protestant rule of faith are rendred in­capable of all employments both in Church and state? And that all this violence is practised to support a Creed, the 39. ar­ticles of a doubtful sense, and a Clergy of a doubtful ca­racter, [Page 275] even according to their own prelatick principles, and according to the primitive principles of protestancy, and to vphould a Church that professeth it's own fall and fal­libility, and therfore (for all it self knows) is no true Church, but may be mistaken in it's doctrin, and lead all that rely vpon it's ministery, and instruction, into eternal damnation, and can give no satisfaction, or security to such as are of their com­munion, nor produce any thing for justifying the severity of these proceedings, but a Parliaments Act of vniformity, and other temporal statuts. To which every Presbiterian and fanatick doth answer, that lawes enacted in favor of Religion, do suppose, not make, the Religion reasonable; for, though reason be the ground of all human lawes, yet no human lawes can be the ground of Religion.

When all this is maturely considered, it will doubtless appeare to be a sad case, that a poore man who desires to be saved, and informed of the true Church, and of Christ's do­ctrin, and conform himself therunto, shall be compell'd by for­feitures imprisonment and banishment &c. to the prelatick do­ [...]trin and Church of England, and shall have no other reason [...] redress given him for this violence, and punishments, but that he doth not conform to the Religion established by the lawes of the Land. So much was alleadged for the Idolls, and Religion of the Pagan Emperous, and vpon the same ground (of law) did they persecute the primitive Christians; Doubt­less all Quakers, Presbiterians, and non Conformists think them­seves as glorious sufferers, as the holy primitive Martyrs and Confessors; which persuasion in so great and zealous a multi­tude, can not be voyd of daunger, and ought to be remedyed more by reason then rigor; for though from Roman Catho­licks (whose principles are peaceable, and incline them to suf­fer persecution with patience) no great prejudice may be fea­red (if they will be directed by their profession) yet expe­rience hath taught, that all Protestant sectaries have inherited from their first Patriarchs Luther, Calvin, Crammer &c. the spi­rit [Page 276] of sedition and rebellion, which is involved in the very foun­dation of protestancy; Luther openly declared so much at the Diet of Worms in presence of the Emperour Charles 5. (Who had objected against him tumults and disorders as vndeniable effects of his doctrin) misapplying the words of our saviour, Non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium, as if dissention, and rebel­lion had bin a mark of the true Ghospel. On the other side, the Presbiterians do imitate the bloudy proceedings and prin­ciples of their [...] Fathers Zuinglius and Calvin, in deposing of Kings, Suinglius lib. 4. Epist. and Magistrats, and make good the saying of Zuin­glius, Evangelium vult sanguinem, the Reformation must be main­tained by bloud. So that the sanguinary statuts in favor of pre­latick protestancy, and the bloudy principles of Presbitery in in pursuance of their seditious spirit, clashing togeather, will make fine work among Christians and the prelatick Clergy, which ought by their admonitions and censures, to compose these dis­orders, and be Authors of peace, are despised as no Clergy, and their caracter is made the subject of discord, and dispute. And the Protestant Bishops, which ought to exercise the authority whervnto they pretend, retire, and recurr to the [...] Courts for the spirituality, as well as for the legality of their jurisdic­tion and function, and confess in plain termes their Churches frailty and fallibility in doctrin, and leave the state to shift for it self, deprived of th [...] helps which Catholick Princes receive from the Roman Church and Clergys censures, wherwith re­bellious subjects are terrified, and [...], or return to their duty.

SECT. I. That either the learned Protestant, or Roman Catho­lick Clergy are Cheats, and how every illiterat pro­testant may easily discern by wich of the two Cler­gie [...] he is cheated: and therfore is obliged vnder pain of damnation to examin so neer a concern, and to renounce the doctrin and communion of that Church wherin he is cheated.

[Page] [...] [Page] of the true Church being so conspicuous and manifest by such eminent and visible marks, Christ might well forbid the faithfull to communicat with Hereticks and Schismaticks, for that their conventicles [...] never be mistaken for the whole, or even a part of the Catholick Church, vnless men [...]ill be so simple as to take their [...]are word when they say, Hic est Christus, aut illic: wheras if it were possible for learned men to be innocently mistaken, Christ's command had not bin obli­gatory; for, in such [...] case we were not bound to believe that Christ is rather in one Church then other, seing each Church had reason sufficient to excuse learned parties from schism, and [...]resy? But it being impossible that God should command vs to believe on Congregation of Christians, and not believe o­thers, that pretend also to be the true Church of Christ, with­out confirming the testimony and doctrin of that one Con­gregation, which he bids vs believe and preferr before the rest with such cleer signes of the truth, and so evident marks of Divine authority, that the others, compared therwith, can have no probability; two things must be granted. 1. (that the Ca­tholi [...] Church of Christ cannot be composed of all, or any dissenting Congregations. 2. That the one only Congregation which is the true and Catholick Church, can never be so eclip­sed, but that it must appeare much more eminent in sanctity, miracles, conversion of Nations, and much more credible in it's testimonies, then any other. Wherfore we conclude that either the learned protestant clergy or the catholick must be cheats; seing that notwithstanding the evident and eminent signes and marks of God's Church can not be found in both, or in any two Congrega­tions dissenting in their doctrin and rule of faith, yet each of them make their illiterat flocks believe, that their own is the true Church of God, whervpon the signes and seales of his au­thority, and veracity do cleerly shine.

No human art, or industry, if not born-out with more then ordinary and notorious impudencie, can pretend to dis­credit, or darken the spendor of true Miracles, Sanctity, Succes­si [...] [Page] [...] [Page 291] become Masters of the Comerce, as shall be proved. I hope these considerations will invite and incite them to examin which of both the Clergies, (the Roman Catholick that petitions for, [...]r the Prelatick Protestant that opposeth liberty of conscience) are the cheats? And▪ that they may find it out withou [...] much trouble, I have thought sit to lett them know, there is not any one controversy between them and vs, which hath not bin handled in English, and argued to the full on both sides: now the summe of our disputes being this, whether the primitive Church was Roman Catholick, or rather Protestant, in the con­troverted points, as Praying to Saints, Transsubstantiation, Pur­gatory, worship of Images, the Canonicall letter, and sense of Scrip­tur [...], &c. To decide the Controversy, each side quotes the words of Scripture, Councells and Fathers, because the true do­ctrine hath bin preserved, and recorded in these writings. Let him therfore that doubts of the sense of the Text, and of the sincerity of him that quotes it, compare the Authors words with the [...] he will infallibly find out who is the Cheat. For he that doth corrupt the words, or change the sense of Scrip [...]re, Councells, and Fathers, doth not stick to the doctrin of the primitive Church▪

And because I have spent some time (both before and after my conversion to the Catholick faith) in examining the falsifications, and frauds of Protestants, and their objections a­gainst Papists in the same kind, I may speak with more assu­rance then others who have not so much experience; and do protest that I never thought it possible (before I found it was so de facto) that men pretending not only to the name of re­formed Christianity, but to the Reality and Sanctity of an E­piscopal caracter, and charge of soules, could be so vnconside­rable, vnworthy and vncharitable in matters of eternity, as I have [...]ound the Protestant writers, and in particular the prelaticks of the Church of England. Let any who desires to satisfie his conscience or curiosity, pervse and compare either the books of Jevel and Harding; or of Bishop Morton, and Father Pesons ▪ [Page 292] [...] [Page 293] the nature or essence of a body? Or whether quantity be a thing distinct from that which we call a corporeal substance.

SECT. II. That there can be no reason to suspect the sincerity of the Roman Catholick Clergy in matters of Re­ligion; and that Protestancy can not be maintained otherwise then by impostures; wherof there are such evidences, that to give the Protestant Clergy any credit in matters of their Religion, is a suf­ficient cause of damnation.

SECT: III. Of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Maries Reign, the same that afterwards founde [...] Qeeen Eliza­beths Church. The [...] frauds, Factions, Cheats, and changes of the English Protestant Religion during their Exile in Germany.

AS many of the English Protestant Clergy of King Eduard 6. as escaped the severity of the ancient lawes made against Hereticks, which were revived by Queen Mary, retired them­selves to Germany and Zuitzerland, but found not that pitty and welcom they expected from their Brethren of the Reformation; The English had ma­de [Page 327] a Religion of their own, which was neither fully Luthe­ran Zwinglian, nor Calvinian; their Liturgy was dislick't by all; See Dr. Hey­lins Ecclesia resta [...] Queen Mary pag. 80. only their doctrin against the Real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament was approved by some Zuinglians, but so condemned by the Lutherans, that their Martyrs who suffe­red in England vpon that score, were called the Devill's martyrs by other Protestants; and they who harbour'd any of their banished Clergy in Germany, Melancton in epitom 8. vbi vocife­rantur qui­dam, Marty­res Anglicos, esse Marty­res diaboli. Jbid. pa. 80 were hated by their reformed-neighbors. For stopping the course (saith Heylin) of these vn­charitable Censures, it was thought fit to translate from English in­to Latin, Cranmers Book of the Sacrament, and forthwith see it printed; but he doth not tell us which of Cranmer's Books; that of Henry 8. or that of King Edward 6.? We may be su­re if he means Cranmer's Book of King Henry 8. time his book and words were altered, that they might agree with the Lu­theran Consubstantiation in Germany, which Cranmer durst not defend in his Book of Henry ▪ 8. date; and his Book of Edward 6. was wholy Zuinglian or Sacramentarian, which could not please Lutherans. So that the good English Church and Cler­gy in Germany, made them-selves and Cranmer Lutherans, to avoyd persecution, and obtain favour in their sufferings, after having maintained the quite contrary doctrin in their own Countrey, and exhorted their flocks to dye for that Religion which them-selves now disowned.

This is not all, the like course was taken also at Geneva (saith Heylin) by the English exiles, Jbidem by publishing in the La­tin tongue a discours writ by Bishop Ridley on the self same argument (the Sacrament of the Altar) to the end it might appear vnto all the world how much their Brethren had bin wronged in these odious calumnies. So that the English Pro­testant Clergy in Germany, among the Lutherans printed a Book, and in Geneva a Calvinian discours concerning the real presence, and owned both as the doctrin of the Church of En­gland; for Ridley (as you may observe in his disputation at Oxford set down at large by Fox in his Acts and Monuments) [Page 328] was a Calvinist in that [...]oint. Was not this a Holy Church that taught contrary [...] at least doctrin so vncertain that it might be applyed [...] contrary Tenets? was it not a sin­cere and sacred Clergy, that could fra [...] them-selves and the profession of their [...] to all [...] how ever so disagree­ing? But let us proceed.

The greatest number of the [...]e exiled Confessors were re­ceived in Franckford vpon condition th [...]y should conform them-selves vnto the French Hugenots in doctrin and ceremonies, Heylin. Ec­clesia restau­rata in Queen Mary pa 39 & seqq. which the holy men did so readily, that Doctor Heylin (who relates all these passages) doubts whether the conditions were imposed vpon them by the Magistrats, or [...]ought by them-selves. The chief heads of this English Congregation at Franc­ford were Wittingham, Williams, Goodman, Wood, and Sutton, to whom afterward [...] came Knox and White [...]ead. The first thing they did was, to alter and dis-figure (saith Heyl [...]) the En­glish Liturgy, which proceeding was not approved of by Grin­dall, Horn, Sandys, Chambers, and Pakhurst: Calvin therfore was consulted as their common Father, his answer was, that in the English Liturgy, he had observed many [...] fooleries: that being, therwas not manifest impiety in it, it had bin to­lerated for a reason, because at first it could not otherwise be admitted: but however though it was lawfull to begin with such beggarly rudiments, yet it behooved the learned, grave, and godly Ministers of Christ, to endeavour farther, and set forth somthing more refi [...]ed from filth and vncleaness.

How great a Cheat Calvin was, had bin partly sayd he­retofore, but whosoever desires to be fully informed of his particular villanies, and hypocrisy, let him read his life writen by Ierom Bolseck Anno 1577. There he will find how Calvin continued to practise his execrable Sodomy, adul­tery &c. How he compassed the Heretick Servetus his death vnder the pretence of Heresy, though Calvin him-self wrot a book a litle before to prove that no Heretick ought to be put to death for his Religion; but the true cause o [...] his quarell to [Page 329] Servetus was the frauds and falsifications that Servetus had dis­covered in Calvin's Institutions, and published them. How he banished from Geneva divers Ministers, and Gentlemen that did not favour his way, and how he forged letters, and suborned an Italian, to make Peter Wald [...], and the Bal [...]asars, Traytors; but they cleered them-selves, and the Lords of Bern gave publick Testimony of their innocency, and of Calvin's knavery. How this Cheat (to make him-self famous) de­vised divers letters and other works in praise of him-self, and published them vnder the name of one Galatius, and others. But Peter Veretus Minister of Lausa [...]a found out the truth, and threatned to discredit Calvin, who (to pacify Veretus) writ to him that it was expedient by such means to get in credit for their cause, and that he meant shortly to do as much in the commendation of him, and Farellus also, and so stopt his mouth. How Calvin after that he had broken and defaced the Jmages of Christ, and Saints in Geneva, caused his own picture to be set vp in divers places, and vsed also to give litle pictures and Images of him-self to Gentle-women and Gentle-men to carry about their necks. And when on tould him that some thought much of this, he answered, he that cannot abide it, let him burst for enuy. And twenty more the like. But from their Apostle Calvin, let us return to his flock the En­glish exiled Clergy.

This Sentence of Calvin (saith Heylin) was of such pre­valency with all the rest of that party, Heylin cit. pag. 61. that such who formerly did approve, did afterwards as much dislike the English Li­turgy; and those who at first had conceived only a dislike, grew afterwards into an open detestation of it. But in the end, to give content to such as remained affected to the former Li­turgy, it was agreed vpon that a mixt form, consisting partly of the order of Geneva, and partly of the Book of England, should be digested, and received till the first of April, consi­deration in the mean time to be had of some other cours which should be permanent, and oblidging for the time to come.

[Page 330]Here the Reader may observe the hipocrisy, and impie­ty of this Protestant Cler [...] ▪ In England they imposed this Liturgy vpon the whole Kingdom, as agreable to the word of God, and the work was pretended to have bin composed by the assistence of the Holy Ghost (words of the Statut wherby it was made legal) and thousands of Catholicks were slain in many shires of England by the Protector's forces, be­cause they would no [...] accept of it in steed of the Mass; and now they who preach'd, and press'd this violence against Re­cusants, contemn and reject their own doctrin and disciplin. But as soon as Queen Elizabeth was in possession of the Crown these very men who in Germany had so often changed, and condemned their English Liturgy and Religion, now (to be­come Bishops) turned again in England with the times, and were the chief [...] of that Church. Pag. 60. Queen Mary. Horn was named to the Sea of Winchester, Grindal to that of London, Sandys to Worcester, Parkhurst to Norwich; and Whitehead was offered (if you believe Heylin) the Archbishoprick of Canterbury &c. And being thus exalted, were never contented, vntil they had penal and sanguinary Statuts enacted against Priest [...] and Popish Recusants, for not conforming to that doctrin and Liturgy these godly Prelats had so much sleighted and altered in Ger­many, and postpon'd to [...]lvin's disciplin: and were ready to do the same or wors again in England, if occasion had bin offered.

After that the English Liturgy had bin thus forsaken and despised in Germany, D.r K [...]x, who had bin Schoolmaster and Almon [...]er to King Edward 6. arrived at Franckford▪ and could with no patience (saith Heylin) endure the rejection of that Liturgy, in the drawing vp wherof him-self had a principal hand, and therfore disturbes the new disciplin; Wittingham and Knox procured an Order from the Magistrat against Kox his des [...]ign; but Kox accuseth Knox for treason against the Em­perour, and therfore Knox is commanded by the Senat to de­part from Franckford▪ Kox procures Whitehead to be chosen for [Page 331] the principal Pastor, appoints two Ministers for Elders, and foure Deacons for Assistants; then gives an account to Calvin, excusing him-self that he had proceeded so far without his consent. By the way you may see that Kox was then a good Calvinist in disciplin, though afterwards he became a Prelatick 1. Eliz. when he got the Bishoprick of Ely. Whitehead not able to rule such a contentious Congregation, resign'd his pla­ce to Horn, between whom and on Ashley were such facti­ons and divisions, that Horn with his Elders were forc't to for­sake their Offices; and Ashleys party got the better, Heylin cit. pag. 63. and com­posed a Book of disciplin, according to the rules wherof the Congregation was govern'd. The Magistrat not able to agree the difference, sends for Cox and Sandys to compose it, but to no purpose: They who stood for Ashley's new disciplin, got the power into their hands, whervpon Horn and Chambers de­part to Strazburg. ‘Such were the troubles and disorders (saith Heylin) in the Church of Franckford, occasioned first by a dislike of their publick Liturgy, before which they prefer­red the nakedness and simplicity of the French and Gene­vian Churches, and afterwards continued by the opposition made by the general Body of the Congregation against such as were appointed to be Pastors and Rulers over them.’

An other argument of the sincerity, and Religion of this Clergy is, that during the Reign of Queen Mary in England they taught and printed that the Government of women is against the Law of nature, and not to be endured by Christi­ans; but as soon as she dyed, they writ and preached the quite contrary in favour of Queen Elizabeth, whom they were not content to make temporal head of the common-wealth, but supreme Governess of the Church in all Spiritual affaires; we have seen their proceedings in Queen Maries days, now to Queen Elizabeths.

SECT: IV. Abominable Frauds, and willful Falsifications of the Protestant Clergy in Queen Elizabeths reign, to maintain their doctrin, set forth vnder the name of an Apology, and defence of the Church of England.

AFter that Queen Elizabeth (by giving ho­pes to the Earl of Arundell that she would marry him, Schism Angl. pag. 107. and by promising▪ other fa­vours to the Duke of Norfolck) had by their solicitations gained most of the no­bility, Dr Heylin 1. Eliz. pag. 107. and the Lords and Gentlemen who had the managing of elections in their se­veral Counties, had retained such men for [...] of the House of Commons, as they conceived mo [...] likely to com­ply with the Queens new design in reviving that Religion, which but five years before, them-selves and the whole King­dom had rejected as damnable heresy and groundless novelty, devised by some l [...]w'd revolted Friars▪ and Priests▪ and had observed how all sober and conscien [...]ious men we [...] troubled to see so shamefull a change, introduced only for maintaining the weakness of a title against the cleer right of the Stewards; and fearing least this scruple might spread, and work vpon the consciences of the illiterat multitude, D.r Heylin Eccl: restaur. Q. Elizabeth pag. 103. it was thought fit to command Bishop Iewell (the fittest man for so impudent an vndertaking) to assert the antiquity of the particular Tenets of the New Church of England; and so in forme of a Chal­lenge against all Roman Catholicks he published at Paules Cross [Page 333] that the Religion which the Queen and Parliament had then established by Law, was no novelty, nor new invented sense of Scripture, but the same which our Saviour and his Apostles delivered to the Church, and all Orthodox Christians held for the first 600. years; which thing he vndertook to demon­strat by vndeniable Testimonies of the Holy Fathers that lived in those six first Centuries.

The words of this Challenge we have set down heretofore, part. 3. Sect. 1. as also the confutation therof. One Rastal having writ against this challenge, Iewell togeather with the rest of the Bishops, and learned Protestant Clergy, composed that famous Apolo­gy for the Church of England both in Latin and English; it came out first in the name of their whole Church, though I believe Iewell had the wording of it, because afterwards his name was set to it, and to the defence therof; but without doubt all the able men of the English Clergy had their hands and heads in the work. Against it divers appeared in print, Stapleton, Sanders, and Harding: whervpon (saith Dean Wal­singham in his search of Religion pag. 166.) Mr. Iewel within few years after set forth the reply to D.r Harding, which was esteemed to have bin made by joynt labours of the most lear­ned men in England, both in London, and the Vniversities.

But in these their labours they were convicted of a thou­sand and odd falsifications, Harding in his rejoind er­to Mr. Iewel's reply 1556. in his epistle to the Reader. and yet (saith Harding) of 26. ar­ticles, only five have passed our examination: Imagin then what number is like to rise of the whole work; I will mention but one or two of every controversy, I hope that is sufficient to prove, that no one point wherin Protestants differ from Ro­man Catholicks, can be maintained, even by the most learned Protestants, without frauds, falshoods, and impostures, And do choose to instance particulars out of this Apology, and de­fence of the Church of England, because it is not only the work of their first Bishops and Clergy, Dr. Heylin in his Eccles. restaurata hist. Q Eliz. p. 130. & 131 and the very bulwork of their Church, but (as D.r Heylin truly says) the Magazin from whence all the Protestant Controversies since that [Page 334] time have furnished them-selves with arguments and authorities. We will omit most of their corruptions of Scripture in the A­pology because we have convicted them el [...]where of that cri­me; but that they may not imagin we what matter even in this work of theirs, let the curious read [...] Epistle to M.r Jewell, set before his return [...] vntruth [...], where he tells him, you have falsifyed and mangled the very Text of Holy Scrip­ture, namely of Saint Paule, in one Chapter nine times; as the rea­der may see in the third article of his Book fol. 107.