Dr. Featley's Provise touch­ing the Protestants Evi­dence.

‘I Perswade my self, that S. B. makes not these men in each age cited, the onely Professors of the true Church; but that then the Roman Church was a true one, though sick and di­seased; and that these men [Page 2]and they were members of the same one Catholick Church; also, these stout­ly oppose those odde in­ventions which the prevail­ing and more populous side pinned and annexed to the Unity of Faith.’

The Answer of Dr. D. F.

SIr, i. it grieves me much to see Men of War of the same Fleet, and sailing under the fame Admiral, and with the same commission to fight against Antichrist, fall foul one of the other; although they have Sea room enough, and might safely hold on in their own course, and one need not crosse the others hawser; for Ithacus velit & [Page 3]magno mercentur Achivi: This sole consideration with­held me from interposing my judgement in the late unhap­py differences between the Champions of the Gospel, concerning the present state of the Roman Church: though I was required so to do by a worthy and reverend Prelate of this Kingdom. Yet because I know you love the truth in sincerity, and propose that among your o­ther doubts, not any way to entangle me, but expedite your self, or satisfie some of your friends: I will return a punctual answer to the cen­sure of your book:

And first, Whereas the reverend and learned Prelate would have your book read [Page 4]with this Proviso, ‘That you make not those men in every age cited by you, to be the onely Professors of the true Church:’ I con­ceive that caution to be need­less: for neither do you as­sume to your self, neither did the Adversary put the task upon you, to cite all the Pro­fessors of the true Religion in all ages; (which had been opus Iliae majus) but to pro­duce some eminent witnesses in each age; which you have done faithfully, and thereby procur'd you as many friends as you have alleaded testimo­nies. What the Orator spake of the State, is true in the Church, the Church hath a large field: many may run their races in it, & be crown'd [Page 5]with honor. Cic. Phil. 4. Magnus est in Ecclesia campus, multis patet apertus cursus ad laudem. You have run well, and out-stript many: it may be some here­after may outstrip you: I know you will account that no loss, because it will be the truths gain. The Evidence which you take out of good Records, and well sorted ac­cording to every age, is e­nough to convince the Ro­mish adversary: and fairer and clearer in any one Writter I have not seen. Yet I must confess, that our cause doth not depend onely upon those evidences: Neither doe I think any Protestant in the world, will undertake to pro­duce all Records and Testi­monies which may be found [Page 6]for the truth of our Religion in all Antiquity.

Secondly, ii. whereas he add­eth, ‘That even then the Roman Church was a true Church, though sick and di­seased; and that these men and they were members of the same true Catholick Church:’ I apprehend not sufficiently either the truth of his assertion, or the since­rity of his intention. For what have we to do with the Roman Church? I blush, that any Protestant should open his mouth for that Whore of Babylon, who hath dyed her garments scarlet red in the blood of the Noble fore­runners of our faith: [...]udg. 6.3.If Baal be a god, let him plead for himself; if the Pope of Rome [Page 7]hath any right, either to the Catholick Church, or any true & visible member there­of; let him plead his title by himself, or his learned Coun­cil. We are retained by the adverse part against him; but his intention and others, who of late times have set on foot this title of the Church of Rome, I leave to the searcher of all hearts. As for our as­sertion, I will make bold to demur upon it; and the ra­ther, because Protestants and Papists at this time stand up­on the same tearms as Brutus and Autonie did after Julius Caesars death: Cie. Phit. 4. Si consul An­tonius, Brutus hostis: si con­servator reipub. Brutus, hostis Autonius: If the Roman Church be the true Church, [Page 8]the Reformed Churches, which are condemned, and excommunicated, and per­secuted to death by her, must needs be false Churches: If Papists are Catholicks ac­cording to the common ac­ception of the word, Prote­stants, which are the mem­brum contradivisum, the op­posite number, must needs be Hereticks. And this the late Archbishop of Canterbu­ry, and the rest of his Maje­sties Commissioners, made a clear case in the censure of the Lady Wotton, who was fined 500 l. for an inscription on the Monument of her Hus­band, dying a Recusant, Il­lustrissim [...], &c. D. Wottono Catholico, ego catholica hoc posui: To the most renown­ed, [Page 9] &c. the Lord Wotton, a Catholick; I, his Widow, a Catholick also, have erected this Monument.

Catholique, if we have re­gard to the Greek Etymo­logie, fignifieth nothing but General and Universal; and according to the subject to which it is applied, is either taken in the good sense, or in the ill. For as we read in the Physicians of Catholick Re­medies, such as are good a­gainst all, or the greater part of diseases: so they tell us also of Catholique, or epide­mical Diseases, such as run through whole Countreys: And in such a sense, I will not eagerly contest with the Romanists, but that Popery may be called Catholick; [Page 10]because it cannot be denied, but that the greatest part of Spain and Italy are infected with this disease.

As for the sense of the word, as it is attributed to the Church, it is double: 1. Either it signifieth Univer­sal, or Oecumenical: and so it is taken in the Creed, and is opposed to the Synagogue of the Jews which was con­fined to a certain time, per­sons, and places: whereas the Catholick Christian Church, is absolutely illimitted, ad­mitting into it believers of all sorts, in all places, at all times. 2. Or it signifieth Or­thodoxal, in all points needful to salvation: and fo it is taken for the most part in the Wri­tings of ancient Fathers: by [Page 11]name by Saint Cyril, c. 8. cate­chis­mystag. who adviseth, When thou co­mest into any City to de­mand, Where is the Catholick Church? for that is the pro­per name of the Holy Church, which is the Mother of us all: and she is so termed, because she catholickly and perfectly teacheth all Doctrines which men are bound to know, &c. and Paciamus, Ep. ad Spin Pron.Christian is my name, and Catholick my sir­name: by the one I am known from Infidels, by the other from Hereticks and Schisma­ticks. And by S. Austine, Although every heresie would seem to be, L. Con Ep. fund. c 4. [...]exet po­stremo & ipsum Catholicae nemen, quod non sine causa inter tam multas baereses ista fola Ecclesia hoo nomen obti­nuitand affecteth to be called the Catholick Church: yet when Hereticks are asked [Page 12]of Pagans, Where is the place in which Catholickes meet? none of them dares point to his own house or church. And again, The very Title of the Catholick Church holdeth me, which name among so many heresies she alone retaineth. And by Theodosius the Em­peror, Sozomen [...] 7 c. 4. The­odosius de­crevit, ut illorum ce­clesia dun­taxat Ca­tholica di­ceretur, quae Trini­tatem ae­quali hono­re coleret. who made a decree that the Church of them should a­lone be called Catholick, which equally worshipped and glori­fied the three persons in the blessed Trinity. In neither of these senses can the Church of Rome, without either ab­surdity or impiety, be termed Catholick.

Not in the first sense: i. for the Roman Church is no more the Universal Church, then Rome, or the Roman Jurisdi­diction, [Page 13]is the whole world. This Grand imposture is so discovered by the Bishop of Durham, that I suppose, as the Roman South-sayers could not look one upon the other without smiling, so neither can any Papist tearm another Catholick in this sense, with­out laughing in his sleeve. Pacianus saith pertinently, That the name Catholick be­longeth to the stock of the Tree, which remaineth the same; & est quid totum, and is a kinde of whole and entire thing. The Roman Church at the best is but a great Branch, and such a one as we can prove is much withered; and St. Paul teacheth, Rom 11.21, 22. may be cut off: If God spared not the natural branches, take heed [Page 10]lest he spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but to­wards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; o­therwise thou shalt bee cut off.

Much less in the second sense can the church of Rome be tearmed Catholick: ii. for whereas other hereticks were so termed, because they held but some one error or other against the Catholick Faith: the Church of Rome main­taineth many, and those most grievous and pernicious: as in the Articles, Homilies, and Apology of the Church of England, and in the Har­mony of all Prorestants Con­fessions, is ocularly demon­strated. [Page 11]If any Protestant therefore tearm the Roman Church Catholick, Whitaker d [...] Eccles con [...] 2 q 5 Nos illos non atiter vocamus Catholicos, quam illi [...]os refor­m [...]tos & Eva [...]geli­ [...]▪ hoc est [...]ronice [...]ntum & [...]on ex ani­mo. it is but by an Ironie, or bitter Sar­casm: like to that of the La­cedemonians, whereby they styled Alexander a God; Quia Alexander vult esse Deus, sit Deus: Because A­lexander will be a God, let him be a God. Or that of St. Bernard, whereby he sty­leth certain hereticks Aposto­licks,In Cant. [...]er 66. [...] ctant se esse Apostolo rum suc­cessores & Apostolte [...]s nominant: nullum [...]a­men Apo­ctolatus sui signum va­lentes o­stendere.because they arrogantly challenged to themselves that title: These, forsooth, call themselves Apostolicks, and yet they are not able to shew any sign or token of their A­postleship: so may we say, and most truly, Papists call them­selves Catholicks; yet cannot shew any note or true mark [Page 16]of a Catholick in them.

Thus much for the first At­tribute, Catholick: the next to which he Entituleth the Roman Church, viz. True, is either ambiguous and frivo­lous, or false and scandalous.

For first, i. if he speak of Metaphysical Truth (which is of as large extent as entity, or being) his Assertion, That the Roman Church is a True Church (that is no phantasm or chymaera) is, as the French use to speak, an extream ve­rity; a thing so evident and notorious, that no wise man would contend for it; be­cause no fool ever called it in question. Who knoweth not what we finde in Tertullian, that Wasps have their hives, as well as Bees? and that he­reticks [Page 17]have had their Con­gregations no less visible (nay sometimes more visible) then Catholtcks? Nay, not onely Hereticks, but Jews, Mahu­metans, and Heathen Idola­ters, have had for many ages multitudes of professours of their Impieties and Supersti­tions: and not onely visible, but celebrious and solemn Assemblies, in most parts of the Christian world. Truth of existence they have all, but existence of truth (especially all saving truth) they have not. ii. If by truth he under­stand Logical, or rather Theo­logical truth, opposed to Er­rors and Heresies in matters of Faith. i. Then he must ne­cessarily revoke his subscrip­tion to the Articles of the [Page 18]Church of England, which charge the Church of Rome by name, Art. 19 with blasphemous figments, pernicious impo­stures, and dangerous errours even in matter of faith.

He must condemn the apolo­gy of the church of England, ii. wherein it is alledged for our separation from Rome, Apoli y Church of England c 16 divis 1. part 6.that regard of our own salvation constrained us so to do: and that we are fallen from the Bishop of Rome, Part 6. divis. 2. c 20. because the case stood so, that unless we left him, we could not come to Christ: Part 5. cap 15. divis 3.and that we have re­nounced that Church wherein there was nothing able to stay a wise man, or one that hath consideration of his own safety

Thirdly, iii. he must take to task all Davids Worthies [Page 19]that have lifted up their spears against the Romane Antichrist, Whitaker Succliff Tract. dc Eccles. Downam de Antichristo. Willet Spnops. who convince that Church, some of scores, some of hundreds, some of five hundred Errors and Here­sies. All they who grace that Church with the title of a true Church, must needs in­tend her to be so either in the first sense, or in the latter.

If in the first sense, i. the church of Rome is nothing beholden to them: for they give her therein no prerogative above any heretical or schismatical church existent in the world: The truth of being is com­mon to them all.

If in the latter sense, ii. the refor­med Churches are less behol­den to them for by licking the blot of Heresie out of the Ro­man [Page 20]Church, they cast a foul blur of Schism upon all the Reformed Churches. There can be no medium given: ei­ther the Church of Rome is heretical, and hath departed from the Faith of the ancient Church; or we are schisma­tical who have forsaken her communion. Either the faith of the Church of Rome is not justifiable; or our separation from her is not justifiable: For no man ought to sepa­rate from the true Church of Christ, but hold good quar­ter and correspondence with her. As we believe our Creed, so we ought to embrace in our practise the communion of Saints. The true Church of Christ is his mystical bo­dy; from which whosoever i­divided, [Page 21]is divided from the Head, and consequently from all influence of his spirit: as the Author of the Sermons to the brethren in the desert, (supposed to be St. Austine) strongly inferreth, saying, Membrum amputatum non sequitur spiritus: cum in cor­pore erat, vivebat; precisum, amittit spiritum. The Life doth not runne in a member which is cut off: whilest it was a part of that body, it retained life; but being divi­ded from it, it hath lost its spirits. With whom St. Cy­prian agrees, Quisquis ab ec­clesia segregatur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur: nec perti­net ad Christi praemia, qui re­linquit ecclesiam Christi. Ali­enus est, prophanus est, host is [Page 22]est. Habere jam non potest De­um patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Whosoever is divided from the Church, he is separated from the promi­ses made to the Church: nor hath he any share in Christ's rewards, who leaves the Church of Christ. He is a stranger, he is profane, he is an enemy. He cannot call God his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. Were not Novatus, Reynold prelect. 1. p. 6. error chfirmatus in haeresem evasit. and af­ter him Donatus, deservedly branded with an indelible mark of Schism, for separa­ting themselves from the Ca­tholick Church? and did not their Schism improved, be­come in the end Heresie? I tremble to rehearse thedread­ful Sentence which St. Cy­prian [Page 23]pronounceth against all of the separation: Tales eti­amsi occisi in confessione no­minis Christi fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine abluitur. Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est. Occidi potest, coronari non potest. Such persons are no Martyrs, al­though they lose their lives for confessing the Name of Christ: this stain will not be scowred clean, no not with blood. Killed they may be, but crowned they shall never be. And do they then good service to the Protestant Churches, who pluck the thorn of Heresie out of the foot of the Roman Church, and put as sharp, and a sharp­er thorn of Schism into the foot of their own Mother?

Secondly, ii. the true Church is discerned by two notes e­specially, viz. the pure prea­ching of the word, and right administration of the Sacra­ments; as is expresly affir­med in the Doctrine of the Church of England, Art. 19. the Belgick Confession, Art. 20. the Augustan, Art. 7. the Saxon, Art. 11. Ecclesia vi­sibilis est caetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedi­catur, & sacramenta (quo ad ea quae necessario exiguntur) juxta Christi institutum recte administrantur. i.e. The visi­ble Church is the company of faithful Believers, among whom the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacra­ments (according to those things which are truly requi­site) [Page 25]are rightly administred according to Christs institu­tion. Belg His notis vera ec­clesia a falsa discernitur, si in illa pura evangelis praedicatio, ligitima{que} sacramentorum ex Christi praescripto administra­tio vigeat. The true Church is disowned from the false by these marks; if therein the Gospel be purely preached, and the Sacraments rightly administred, according to the institution of Christ. Aug. Habet Ecclesia proprie dicta signa sua scilicet puram & sa­num evangelii doctrinam & rectum usum sacramentorum. The Churrch, truly so cal­led, hath two proper marks; viz. The pure and saving do­ctrine of the Gospel, and the right use of the Sacraments. [Page 26]Sax. praecipue ex voce doctri­nae judicandum est quae & ubi sit vera ecclesia: quae voce ve rae doctrine, deinde & legiti­mo usu sacramentorum ab aliis discernitur. By the doctrine we may chiefly determine what, and where is the true church: w^ch is discerned from the false ones by the sound­ness of doctrine, and the law­ful use of the Sacraments.

And it is most strongly confirmed by Whitaker Prae­lec. q. 5. Field of the Church, l. 2. c. 2. M [...]rton Apol. Cathol. l. 2. c. 38. Willet, Controver­sies in Gen. de Notis Eccles. q. 4. Rivet, sum. controvers. tract. 2. q 7. Junius, Animad­vers. in Bel. l. 4 controvers. 4. c. 2. & deniceps Chemnis. ex­amen, concil. Trid. p 49. & [Page 27]part. 3. Locor. Theol p. 292. Mornaeus, tract. de Eccles c. 2. p. 15. But these marks are not to be found in the pre­tended church of Rome, but two contrary foul scars; viz. Impurity of doctrine, & ma­nifold corruption of the ho­ly Sacraments: see Hom. 16. in Penticost. Gallic. confes. art. 28. Papisticos conventos dam­namus quod pura Dei veritas ab illis exulet: in quibus eti­am sacramenta fidei corrupta sunt, adulterata, falsificata, vel poenitus etiam abolita: We condemn the Popish Syna­gogues, because they have not the pure truth of God in them; and by reason that the Sacraments of faith are ei­thercorrupted, adulterated, & falsified by them, or utterly [Page 28]abolished and rejected: For in the Roman Church, as it is at this day, the pure word of God is not preached, but partly Apochryphal Scri­ptures, partly unwritten tra­ditions, are mixed with it. As for that pure Word of God which they preach (namely, the canonical Scriptures, ac­knowledged by both of us) they preach it not purely, but manifestly detort and pervert it, either by false translations, or glosses and interpretations in all points in controversie between us: And as for the Sacraments, they administer more by five then Christ e­ver instituted for such, in the Gospel: And as for those that are instituted by him, they corruptly administer them; [Page 29]for they defile Baptism with cream and spittle, and divers superstitious rites: And they violate the Lords H. Supper, by taking away the cup from the Laity, and the substance of both elements, bread and wine, and quite overthrowing the nature thereof of a com­munion, making it a private mass; and of a Sacrament, a Sacrifice, properly so called.

Thirdly, iii. The church of Rome can in no true sense challenge to her self the title of a true Church: for questi­onless, that can be no true Church, which neither teach­eth nor practiseth the truth, which is sometimes taken in holy Scripture, pro veritate substantiae, for substantial truth: so called, in opposition [Page 30]to the types, figures, and sha­dows of the Law: ometimes pro veritate doctrinae, for do­ctrinal truth, opposite to all errors and heresies in matters of faith: Sometimes pro ve­ritate morali, for moral truth or honesty, opposite to fraud, dissimulation & lying. Speak we of any of these three, cer­tain it is, the Roman church either hath it not, or not en­tirely.

Not the first, i. Veritatem substantia, the truth of sub­stance: For the presence of the body necessarily exclu­deth the shadows: but the church of Rome at this day retaineth many legal shadows and figures, as the year of Jubile, consecration of Oyl, Altars, properly so called, and [Page 31]a material and sensible Sacri­fice, the Aronical Mitre and Vestments, and other the like Beggarly Rudiments of the Law, wherewith she endea­vou eth to p [...]tch the seamless coat of Christ.

Not the second: ii. for the Articles of the Church of England, to which we have all subscribed, and the Ho­milies confirmed in the Arti­cles, charge the church of Rome with errour in matter of faith. So we read Article 19. the church of Rome hath er­red, not only in their living, & and maner of ceremonies; but also in matter of faith. And in the Hom. for Whitsunday, second part, If it be possible the Spirit of Truth should be there where the true church [Page 32]is not, then is it at Rome. And again, The church of Rome, as it is at this present, is not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, re­taining the sound and pure do­ctrine of Jesus Christ. And Apologie of the Church of England, c. 16. Divis. [...] p 6. We are gone from that church, which Christ, who cannot err, told so long before should err. With whom accordeth the French church in her confes­sion, set down in the harmo­ny of Protestant churches, Article 28. Papisticos conven­tus damnamus, quoa pura Dei veritas ab illis exulet, &c. We condemn the Popish Sy­nagogue, because she shutteth her eyes against the pure truth of God, &c.

And as little can be said for her moral truth: iii. For (to speak nothing of the power which she maintaineth, in the Pope to dispence with the breach of Oathes and Vows, be they never so solemn and sacred) Navarrus, comment. in cap. human. aures: Farsons Mitigation, c. 7. Eudemon Jo­hannes, in his Apology for Garnet: Greg de Val. upon Thomas Southwell, and divers other Jesuits, have lately raked out of the ashes, or rather cin­dars of hell, the heresie of the Priscillianists, Qui dogmati­zabant mendacium: Who taught lies for sound Do­ctrine. For they teach, That a man may speak, nay swear, that which is false, in words, so he salve it with [Page 34]some mental reservation: for example, a Romish Priest may take his corporal Oath that he is no seminary Priest, reserving in his minde, viz. of Apollo: That the Pope is not head of the church, reserving in his minde, a head of brass, like that set over Brasen-nose colledge. Neither is this a proper scar of the Jesuits on­ly, but a foul mark of the whole Roman church also: For the secular Priests among them, as well as the Jesuits, are for this new art of lying, called equivocation: though they would not have it to be used hand overhead, but these their Reservations to be re­served for special use in some cases. There is no question to be made of it: such Watson [Page 35]in his Quodlibits, Quodl. 3. Art. 4. but that in some sense, and in some cases, doubtful answers & equivocations may be lawful: and the Treaties above cited of the Jesuits, were set forth with publique approbation: neither hath the Pope, nor the church of Rome by any publique brief, canon, or decree, branded this Je­suitical art as impious and re­pugnant to the Law of God, and light of nature.

Lastly, I cannot conceive how the malignant, and true militant church of Christ, can consist in one and the same Society, no more than Da­gon and the Ark, light and darkness, Christ and Belial: for they are not only diversae, but adversae, or opposite. But [Page 36]the church of Rome is the malignant church, and hath so been for many hundreds of years, having put to death (as appeareth in the Rubricks of Ecclesiastical calenders) many thousands of true pro­fessors, under the name of Dulcinests, Waldenses, Albi­genses, Wicklifests, Hussites, Hugonots, Calvinists, Luthe­rans, and Protestants. If all the water in Tybris cannot wash away the stains of blood wherewith the garment of the Whore of Babylon is spotted, they may wel blush for shame who stile this scarlet Strum­pet, the true Spouse of Christ: for whom yet they plead, though (like a Lawyer that hath taken a light fee) very weakly and coldly.

First, they argue thus, obj. 1 ‘Ens & verum convertuntur: i.e. being and true, are converti­ble terms one with the o­ther; and every thing which hath a being, is truly that being which it is, in truth of substance. A very Thief (say they) is a true man in the verity of his essence, as he is a reasonable creature; for this none can steal from him, nor he from himself, but death: But the church of Rome, be she never so corrupt in faith & manners, is confessed to be a visible Christian Church; sol. ergo a true Church.’

This is to overdo, and so far to over-reach themselves, that they lame their arm, and thereby lessen their own [Page 38]stroke. The more they seem to say, the less indeed they say for the Church of Rome. In flying to a Metaphysick-truth, they in effect acknow­ledge her to be destitute of Theological. If out of the la­titude of their charity, they will extend a true Church so far as verum & ens, i.e. true, and being, will go; all the Conventicles of Arians, Ne­storians, Socinians, Anabap­tists, & Familists, will come in for a share in the true Church: For they are all compa­nies of men and women, pro­fessing the Christian faith; they are all Churches, and (if this metaphysical string crack not) true Churches: Nay, by this reason, Pseudolus, the arrantest cheater in theworld, [Page 39]may be proved to be a true man: Messalina, the most notorious Strumpet that ever lay by Princes side, a true wife: Nero, that monster of men, a good man: The De­vil himself, both a true, and a good Angel: For as Ens & verum, i.e. being, and true, so Ens & bonum, i. e. being, and good, are convertible terms; and they may as soon prove by this argument, the Church of Rome to be a good Church, as to be a true; which palpable absurdities, & gross inconveniences, they can no otherwise avoid, then by ca­sting away the former argu­ment; which like an Egypti­an reed, if it be leaned upon, breaketh, and runneth into their own sides. The truth is, [Page 40]This Argument (how much soever it is made of by many) is no better then a meer fala­cy, or Syllogism, consisting of four terms. For truth, as it is applied to Ens, or being, in genere, or generally, in the major; or as it is applied to Ecclesia, or Church, which is a determinate species of Ens, or being, is not one and the self same tearm. Truth, as it is applied in the major, to the genus, signifieth no more then veritatem entis, or existen­tive, truth of being or exist­ence; but in the conclusion, as it is applied to the Church, it signifieth veritatem entis tales, the truth of such a be­ing: to which more is requi­red then to Ens in genere, i [...]e. being, in general. And as it [Page 41]will not follow, the Devil is a true creature; Ergo, a true Angel; or Messalina is a true woman, ergo, a true wife; so neither will it follow, the Church of Rome is verus cae­tus, or verum ens, i. e. a true company, or true being, er­go, Vera ecclesia, i. e. a true Church. The argument wil no way follow from truth in sensu metaphisico, i [...] e. in a metaphysical sense; to a truth in sensu thealogico, i. e. in a theological sense: no more then it will follow from truth in sensu physico, i.e. in physi­cal sense, to truth in sensu mo­rale, or, in a moral sense. As if a man should conclude, the great Thief Harpulus is a true man, in sensu physico, or in a physical sense: for he hath [Page 42]the essence of a man, therefore he is a true man in sensu mo­rale, that is, an honest man. This first argument of theirs therefore, is like a false string in an instrument, which can never be tuned to make any good musick.

The 2^d string is not much better: obj. 2 which they thus strain,

‘Where there is true bap­tism, there is a true church: But in the Church of Rome there is true baptism, confessed on all hands, for those which are baptized in that Church, we rebaptize not; ergo, the Church of Rome is a true Church.’

In this Argument, they scower up the old harness of the Donatists. August. l 1. de Bap. cont. Dona. c. 10. where­with [Page 43]they thus fought against the Catholick Church ‘How could we (say they) gene­rate & bring forth children to the Church (which you confess we do by our bap­tism) if we were not a mo­ther, and a true Church, &c.’

Austine answereth that, sol. They who separated them­selves from others, breaking the bond of unity and charity, if they retained nothing of all those things in the former so­ciety, in omnibus separatisunt, then they were utterly, and in each part, separated from the Church: But if they retained some things which were the same, non se in iis separave­runt, then in those things they did not sever themselves [Page 44]from the Church; & ex ea parte intexturae compage de­tinen [...]ur, in that part wherein they retained the same, they were fastned, and held to the Church in that joynt, though in others severed: and there­fore he whom they gathered to themselves, ex ea parte ne­ctitur Ecclesiae, in qua nec illi separati sunt, is joyned to the Church on that part wherein themselves are not disjoyned. And after this, applying it to the former question, he saith, That hereticks generate chil­dren to the Church, by that wherein they are joyned to the Church; not by that wherein they are severed from it They are severed from the band of charity and peace, but they are joyned in one baptism.

Yet, to hew, and further to batter in pieces this harness of the Donatists, I will an­swer particularly to each pro­position: And first to the ma­jor;

It is most certain, i. that true baptism cannor be severed from the true Church; yet is not baptism so proper to the true Church, but that it may be found in a false and here­tical Church: as S. Austine accutely observes, that the Rivers of Paradise ran out of Paradise. Wheresoever the true Church is, there is true baptism, but not vice versa. Wheresoever is true baptism, there is the true Church: for much more is required to the true Church, then true bap­tism onely: There must be in [Page 46]it the true preaching of the Word, at least, in all funda­mental points; and the right administration of both the Sacraments. Saint Austine makes no bones, totidem ver­bis, to deny the major, de bap­cont. Donat. l. 6 c. 23. Eccle­siam sicut habent eacholici non habent heretici, & tamen bap­tismum habent: Ita{que} sicut po­testbaptisma esse, & unde se au­ret spiritus sanctus. ita potest baptisma esse ubi non est eccle­sia. Heret cks have not the Church, as Catholicks have, and yet they have baptism. Therefore, as there may be a baptism from which the Ho­ly Ghost may withdraw him­self, so there may be a bap­tism where the Church is not. Et cap. 16. Non omnes [Page 47]qui tenent baptismum, tenent ecclesiam: sicut non omnes qui tenent ecclesiam, tenent & vi­tam eternam. All that hold with baptism, do not hold with the Church; as all do not hold eternal life, who hold baptism. Et c. 7 Baptis­mum legitimum habent, sed non legitime habent. They hold baptism lawful, but they use it not lawfully.

Secondly, ii. to the minor I answer, That though in the Church of Rome there is true baptism, quo ad legitimam formam verborum, according to the true prescribed form of words by Christ: and therefore is not to be reite­rated, because it hath all in it that is essentially required to baptism: yet is it not true [Page 48]baptism, quo ad purum ritum, according to the pure rite: much less quo ad salutarem effectum, according to the sa­ving effect.

It is not true baptism, according to the pure rite and manner of Admini­stration thereof (for they mingle water with cream, salt and spittle: and thereby, as much as in them lieth, de­file this most holy Laver; and according to their own Tenets, they set this seal to a blank. For whereas bap­tism is the seal of the righte­ousness of faith, and the Co­venant of grace, they deny­ing this righteousness of faith, consequently set this seal to a blank.

ii. Neither is their baptism [Page 49]true, quo ad salutarem ef­fectum, i. e. according to the saving effect. For so St. Au­stine expresly teacheth con­cerning the Baptism of all Hereticks, l. de Vinco. Bapt. cont. Petil. c. 6. Nihil prodest hereticis ad salutem, quod ex­tra ecclesiam verum baptis­mum pignorantium & tra­dunt & tenent. It is no way advantagious to the salvati­on of Hereticks, that though they are out of the Church, yet they hold Baptism, and make use thereof. Et l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 1. Ecclesia Paradiso comparata indicat nobis, posse quidem ejus bap­tismum homines etiam fores accipere; sed salutem beati­tudines extra eam neminem vel percipere, vel tenere. Ita [Page 50]fit ut cum Paradisi aqua sit extra Paradisum; beatitudo tamen non sit nisi intra Pa­radisum: Sic ergo Baptismus ecclesia potest esse extra ec­clesiam munus autem beatae vitae, non nisi intra ecclesiam reperitur. The Church be­ing compared to Paradise, teacheth us, that even men that are out of the Church may retain the Baptism of the Church; but none out of the Church can partake of the blessed Salvation. Hence it cometh to pass, that although the streams of wa­ter do run out of Paradise, yet Salvation is to be had onely in Paradise. So also the Baptism of the Church may be administred out of the Church, but the blessing [Page 51]of eternal Life is no where to be found but within the church.

They also lay great stress upon this Argument, obj. 3 which is as weak as the former, viz.

‘The church of Rome is no worse then the church of Israel, under the revolted kingdom of Jeroboam, and his Successors, who erected Calves in Dan and Bethel, which they went a whoring after; Yet notwithstanding this defection from the true Worship of God, because they continued a profession of God, and of the Law, and retained the holy Seals of his Covenant, they were even then a part of the true visible church of God, and [Page 52]tearmed Gods people, and his children. Therefore the church of Rome, though ve­ry corrupt in faith and man­ners, must be accounted a true church of God.’

Hereunto I answer, sol. 1 That the case of the Roman church is worse then that of the ten Tribes: For they committed Idolatry but in one kinde, the church of Rome in many: the corruption and idolatry in them was practised de facto, but not solemnly ratified by any Decree or Canon of their whole Church, as the super­stition and idolatry of the Romish church are.

Secondly, ii. Those who wor­shipped Jeroboams Calves, without repentance could not be saved; for no Idolater shall [Page 53]enter into the Kingdom of God, saith the Apostle. 1 Cor 6.9, 10. The Prophets which were sent to the ten Tribes, style that Common-wealth a Harlot, and her children bastard chil­dren: and as a Harlot before she be divorced, is a wife, but not a true and loyal wife; so was the church of Israel in those days: and so now we grant the church of Rome to be, a church, but not a true church.

Thirdly, iii. If any of the an­cient or later Divines say, there was the true church of God among the ten Tribes, because they had true Pro­phets among them, and the true Word of God, and the Sacraments appointed by him; their words are to be [Page 54]understood, not of the out­ward face of that church, and prevalent part in it which ad­hered to Jeroboam and the Calves, as they were wor­shipped, the Calves he set up; but of those many thousands which God reserved to him­self within those Dominions, who never bowed the knee to Baal, neither lift up their hands to the golden calves: these we grant were members of the true church, as are all such who even in Rome it self and other parts, subject to the Pope, live among Papists, and communicate with them in common Acts and Duties of Christianity, but partake not with them in their here­tical Tenents, or idolatrous and superstitious Rites. We [Page 55]owe a clearer manifestation of the truth in this point, to the candor of B. Whitgift, who in the Defence of his Answer to the Admonition, p. 625. thus paralelleth the Papists and Israelites: ‘The Papist (saith he) are like the Israelites under Jeroboam; for as those Israelites, so Papists pretend the Law of God, use the Sacraments, profess Christianity, and are not in all points straying from Christian Faith; but yet have corrupted the same with idolatrous worship­ping, and divers other kinde of superstitions and errors.’ Therefore Beza said very well. Ecclesia est velut im­mersa in papatu. The church is as it were covered, or [Page 56]drowned in Papisme.

Fourthly, obj. 4 They seem also much to triumph in this Ar­gument, viz.

‘Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of God. 2 Thes. 2.4. shewing himself that he is God. By the Temple of God is here meant the true church: But the Pope is Antichrist: Ergo the church of Rome in which he sits, as in the Temple of God, is a true church.’

With this weapon they do but flourish, i. See An­swer to the Gagg. they fight not in good earnest; for they who thus argue, believe not the Pope to be Antichrist. They finde seven hills at Constanti­nople, and Antichrist at the Seraglia: Yet, if as the mo­ther of Gratian and Peter Lumbard, chose rather to be [Page 57]accounted a strumpet; then not to be held the true mo­ther of those great Clerks; so in sober sadness they will rather yield Rome to be Ba­bylon, and the Pope to be Antichrist, then not have the church of Rome to be ac­knowledged a true church.

I further answer, ii. That al­though it seems to me most probable, that by the Tem­ple of God the Apostle mea­neth not the Temple at Je­rusalem, which was soon after he wrote this Epistle destroy­ed, and is likely never to be built again, but the church of God, as Austine, and Je­rome, and St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and Primasius, and Calvin himself, and Beza re­solve on this Text: yet this [Page 58]Interpretation will little, or nothing at all help the cause. I subscribe fully to St. Au­stine l. 20. De Civitat. Dei, c. 19. and St. Jerome in his q. 11. ad Algasiam, That An­tichrist shall fit in the church of God: and to Severianus alledged by Orcumenius, that the Apostle speaks not of the temple of Jerusalem, but the church of God: or rather to St. Chrysostom, That Anti­christ shall command himself to be worshipped in the stead of God, not onely at Jerusa­lem, but also in the churches: And to Theodoret, He calleth the temple of God the church in which Antichrist shall arro­gate unto himself the chief Seat, endeavouring to shew himself as God: And to Theo­phylact, [Page 59]He sitteth not in the temple, which is Jerusalem, especially; but simply in the churches, and in every temple of God: And to Calvin, comment. in Ep. ad Thessal. That the Apostle calleth the Den of so many superstitions, (viz. the Roman church) the temple of God, because there is a residium, a remainder still of the Proprieties of the church among them, in regard whereof it is the temple of God, though profaned: And to Beza, Predicit Apostolus Antichristum, id est quisquis sedem illam Apostolicam oc­cupavit, non regnaturum ex­tra ecclesiam, sed in ecclesiae sinu: i. e. That by the Tem­ple is understood the church of God, in which the man of [Page 60]sin sitteth, usurping the Do­minion thereof. Appellatione Templi Dei significatur ipsa ecclesia, in qua homo ille per­ditus etiam nunc sedet, impe­riam fibi usurpans. And I hold, from this very Text it may be demonstrated, that the great Antichrist whom the Apostle here sets out in his colours, shall not be a Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, but a professed Christian, re­siding in the bosome of the church. And yet I deny the Rhemists consequence here­upon, That therefore the church of Rome must be ac­knowledged the true church, and the Pope a member thereof. For though the wild Bore break into the Lords vineyard, and be in the midst [Page 61]of it, rooting up the choicest plants; yet he is no part of the vineyard: and though the wolf get into the flock, wor­rying Christs Lambs, and de­vouring his fattest sheep, yet he is not any part of the flock. To rebate therefore the edge, and turn the point of the former Argument upon the adversary, I say:

First, i. That the Apostle calleth the Seat of Antichrist the temple or church of God, because it was so: as our Sa­viour calleth the temple of Jerusalem the holy place, Math. 24.15. because it had been so, although at that time wherein that abominable desolation should stand there, (which he prophesied of) it was a most detestable place; [Page 62]namely, when the Romans came to destroy it: A [...] we often call the dead Corpses of a man, by his name whose sometimes it was before it fell to be a carcase. So is the Popes See called the Temple of God, in regard of what it was before he set his seat there. For after he fixed his throne there, it became Ca­thedra pestilentia, Babylon, and spiritual Sodom, and an habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, Apoc. 18.2.

Secondly, ii. That the place where Antichrist sitteth as God, boasting himself that he is God, may be taken for the true Church of God, and yet the present Roman church [Page 63]never the nearer. For it is certain, that the Pope hath his seat in the very heart of the Catholicke Christian Church; and that he chal­lengeth a kinde of Divine Sovereignty over the whole church; and most of all exer­ciseth his tyranny upon the sincere Professors of the Go­spel, who are the found mem­bers of the true Church.

Thirdly, As a Temple, iii. though it be profaned and polluted, and in part ruined, is yet a Temple in respect of the Dedication to Gods ho­nor, and divers parts of Gods Worship truly performed in it: so even the Roman church it self, as it consisteth of the Pope and his adherents, who bear all the sway in it, may [Page 64]truely bee said to bee a church of Christ, in regard of the profession of Chri­stianity in it, though not a true and Orthodox church: As neither can we tearm a Temple after it is de [...]led, or in decay, a pure and a per­fect Temple before it be re­purged and repaired. And upon these tearmes all the learned Protestants, who have wrote upon this point, will come in, and easily be reconciled. Those who deny her to be a Church, exclude her not simply from being at all of the church; but from being in Orthodoxei, and en­tire profession of the Catho­lick Faith, a true church. Those who style her a true church, mean no more then a [Page 65]truly visible company, pro­fessing the Christian Faith. When (saith Calvin, Institut. l. 4. c. 2.) we refuse abso­lutely to grant the title of the Church unto Papists, we do not therefore deny that there are churches among them, but we strive for the true and lawful constitution of the church, whose communion in prayer and doctrine is to be kept. And a little after, See­ing the See of Antichrist, or of the Pope, is placed in the temple of God, it is thereby signified, that his reign shall be such as doth neither abo­lish, nor take from the name of Christians, or the church. Wherefore it is manifest that we do not deny but that chur­ches remain under the Popes [Page 66]tyranny, though prophaned with sacrilegious Impiety.

Peter Martyr in 1 Kings c. 12. propoundeth this que­stion to himself, Whether since the Papacy erected, there be a church among Pa­pists? And he answereth, That the church was then sha­ken, and dayly is more and more ruinated; so that there remains no more then rudera & frustra parietum, certain broken pieces, and rubbish of the wall. Wherefore we ac­knowledge their Baptism, we reverence and read the same sacred books as they do; and thus we understand Antichrist to sit in the temple of God, because it was once so, and as yet retaineth quaedam eccle­siae vestigia, certain points of the church.

Reynolds and Hooker, very eminent men both in their kinde, dealing against adver­saries most differently affect­ed, the one sort arrogating too much, the other yielding too little to the Church of Rome, against them both concur in this truth, That though it be neither the Ca­tholick church, nor a sound member thereof, yet it is a member. Reynold Thes 5. Romana ecclesia nec est catho­lica, nec sanum membrum ca­tholicae ecclesiae; yet that it is a part of the visible church, though maimed; and a mem­ber, though unsound. Hoo­ker Ecclesiast. Pol. l. 5. c. 68. l. 3. c. 1. For apparent it is (saith Hooker) that all men are of necessity either chri­stians, [Page 68]or not christians. If by external profession they be christians (as all Papists are) they are of the visible church of Christ.

‘A Church (saith Philip Morney) may be so far in­fected with heresies, that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there may be nothing sound and whole, and yet so long as they are heretical, they do not cease to be the churches of Christ, no more then a man ceaseth to be a man by reason of some great sick­ness. Nay, even hereby it may be proved that they are still churches, because they are heretical in the doctrine of Christ; no otherwise then we know by the Diseases [Page 69]wherewith one is effected or pained, that he is a live man, and not a dead corpse. But if any fall from heresie to infidelity, and a total de­nial of the Faith, then in­deed they cease to be chur­ches.’ And afterwards ap­plying this, which generally concerns all impure and cor­rupt churches, to the church of Rome, he truly calleth it Omnium impurissimam, & per aliis omnibus quae ad huc fuerunt hereticam: Of all most impure, placed in a more eminent degree of er­ror then all the rest; and he­retical above all that ever yet were: yea such as is univer­sally distempered, and hath so heaped heresies upon he­resies, that it may seem ra­ther [Page 70]to be a Disease it self, then fallen into diseases. Yet of this Romane he saith, Quamdiu vel tenue illud filum reliquum manet ecclesiae no­men, non denegamus, &c. We deny not unto it the name of a church, so long as it holds by this slender threed; as we deny not him the name of a man, who lives, though in a languishing consumption.

Lastly, Doctor Craken­thorp in his most learned and accurate Defence of the church of England, against the revolted Archbishop of Spallatta, cap. 16. This your Roman Church (saith he) must be accounted both to be in the church, and to be a church, not simply, nor according to the integrity of the faith, nor [Page 71]according to any inward ver­tue; nor so effectually, that it should avail to salvation for a man to be in it: but yet a church it is in some respects, according to the external pro­fession of faith, and of the word of God, and according to the administration of the Sacraments, and according to some doctrines of true belief; by which, as by so many out­ward ligaments, she is yet knit to the Orthodox and Cathelick Church

Fifthly, They dispute thus: obj. 5

• Out of the true church there is no salvation:
• But in the Roman church there is salvation:
  • Ergo, the Roman church is the true church.

That out of the true church there is no salvation, they confirm by the testimony of St. Cyprian: Non potest ha­bere Deum patrem, qui Ec­clesiam non habet matrem: He cannot have God to his Father, who acknowledgeth not the Church for his Mo­ther. And by an Argument rather typick then topick,

• The Ark was a type of the church:
• But out of the Ark none were saved from the De­luge:
• Ergo, out of the church none are saved from the gulph of destruction, but are cer­tainly drowned in perdi­tion.

The assumption they make good out of the confession [Page 73]of many learned Protestants: Of Luther, l. de Serm. arbit. Of Morney, tract de Eccles. c. 9. George Abbot. Answer to Hull. Reason 1. Sect. 30. Hooker l. 3. Ecclesias. Polit. Sect. 1. & concio. in Abba­cuck 1. Field, of the church. l. 3. c. 47. Morton, Catho­lick Appeal. lib. 4. cap. 1. & Grand Impost. cap. 15. And if any rest not satisfied with these concurrent Judgements of learned Protestants, they put weak consciences to the rack with these, or the like Interrogatories, viz. ‘What think you? Were all the Founders of Colledges and Halls, all the Kings and Princes of these Realmes, nay all your Grand-fathers, and Great Grand-fathers, [Page 74]who lived before the Re­formation in Luthers time, damned, and now fry in the flames of Hell?’

Because with this kinde of reasoning they prevail much with men of a tender consci­ence, sol. and charitable disposi­tion; of whom we may truly say, as Paterculus doth of Cato, Optimo animo nocuit Reipublicae: Out of a pious minde and good nature, they so resolve the former doubt, that they some way wrong and prejudice the Protestant Cause. I will put this fair Piece of Coyn, currant a­mong very many, to the Test of a more particular Exami­nation, then hath yet been done by any to my know­ledge.

First therefore, i. I retort the Argument upon the Adver­sary, that he may thereby ei­ther feel the strength of it against himself, or see the weakness thereof as it is ur­ged against us.

• 'Out of the true church 'there is no salvation:
• 'But out of the Roman church there is salvation:
• 'Ergo, the Roman church is 'not the true church.

In this Syllogism the major is theirs. The assumption they will not deny, unless they will confess either that they are within the Roman church, or are out of the state of salvation. To say nothing of the Greek Churches un­der the Patriarch of Constan­tinople, [Page 76]and the Egyptians under the Patriarch of Alex­andria, and infinite other Christian churches in Afri­ca and Asia, which (as The­vetus a Popish Cosmogra­pher confesseth) are so far from subjection to the Ro­man church, that they know not whether there be any such or no; and (yet I am sure these men will not cast the Dy upon their salvation) let them look to it, how they can keep off the conclusion, viz. The Roman church is not the true church.

Secondly, ii. I answer by way of distinction of the tearms, of which this Argument con­sisteth; of which are, 1. Out of the true church. 2. Salva­tion. 3. The Roman church.

[Page 77]1. i. A man may be said to be out of the church in a dou­ble sense:

1. Either because he is out of the communion of the Church.

2. Or because he is out of the pale, confines, or jurisdi­ction of any church.

A church may be said to be true. 1. ii. Either simply and universally, namely such a church as holdeth no error at all in any point that tren­cheth upon salvation, or is necessary to be required to be believed by any Christian implicitè, or explicitè; but maintaineth entirely all Ca­tholick truths in this nature. 2. Secundum quid, or in part; namely such a church as hol­deth no error in such points [Page 78]as are absolutely necessary to salvation; and all men are bound explicitely to believe, under pain of Damnation: such as are the first principles of Divinity, and fundamen­tal Articles of our Christian Belief.

1. iii. When there is a que­stion of Salvation, the mean­ing may be,

• 1. Either of the possibility, viz. whether in such a church salvation by any means may possibly be had?
• 2. Or of the certainty of Salvation; whether by the holding of the Do­ctrine of that church, and living conformable there­unto, a man shall certainly & undoubtedly be saved?

The Roman church may be, iv.

• 1. Either taken for all chur­ches professing the Chri­stian Faith in Rome and Italy, and other countreys subject to the Popes Ju­risdiction:
• 2. Or for the outward face of the Roman church, holding Pope Pius his Creed, affixed to the Council of Trent; and maintaining and practi­sing all the idolatrous and superstitious Rites enjoy­ned by the Pope and his Cardinals.

According to these Distin­ctions, in full satisfaction of the former Argument, I set down these Assertions fol­lowing, which weaken all the [Page 80]sinews, and loosen the joynts thereof, viz.

First, i. A man may be saved who is out of the confines or jurisdiction of any Church. For a true Believer in the wil­derness, or under the Pole, or in Japan, or China, or in any part out of the Christian world, among the Pagans and Infidels may be saved: yet no man can be saved out of the communion of the true church of Christ, either actu­al and in profession, or at least virtual, or in desire: For all that are saved, must believe the communion of Saints, and be members of Christs mystical body, and have some fellowship both with the Head, and other members. And this is the meaning of [Page 81]Saint Cyprian, That such he­reticks or schismaticks who renounce all communion with the church their mother, so long as they continue in that minde, cannot have God to be their father.

Secondly, ii. Out of the true church in the first sense (that is, a church which holdeth en­tirely all doctrines of Faith, implicitely or explicitely, to be believed, as principles or conclusions deducted from them) there may be had sal­vation: but out of a true church in the second sense there can be ordinarily no salvation. For a sound be­lief in all such fundamental Points, is absolutely necessa­ry to the very essence of a church: and where there is [Page 82]absolutely no church, there is no calling by the Word and Sacraments: and where no such calling, no ordinary meanes of Salvation. But where these Doctrines are taught (though many perni­cious errors by consequence overthrowing the very foun­dation, are held) there may be Salvation. For it is very possible that those who live in such a corrupt church, may (with the Bereans) examine the Doctrine of their Teach­ers by the Scriptures, and embrace such Doctrines as their Teachers propound un­to them agreeable thereunto, and reject those that are con­trary, as many thousands did in the Arian churches, Hilar. cont. [...]ent. whose eares were purer then the [Page 83]mouthes of their Teachers.

Thirdly, iii. In a very corrupt church there must be acknow­ledged a possibility of salva­tion, but no certainty and in­fallibility our of a pure and orthodox church. A possi­bility of salvation cannot be denied the ignorant especial­ly, because they hold the foundation, and survey not the Building: and the foun­dation can deceive no man that rests upon it. But a se­cure way they cannot goe where they meet with such corruptions.

‘Now wisdom there can be none, in such a point as salvation is, to forsake a church in which there is cer­tainty of salvation, to fol­low a church in which there [Page 84]is a bare possibility.’ Nay St. Austine (l. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 3. Graviter peccarent in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus eo solo quod certa in certis prepone­rent: i. e. they should grie­vously sin in matters concer­ning the salvation of their souls, if they prefer things doubtful before things cer­tain) chargeth them with a great sin, who in point of sal­vation preferre uncertainties and naked possibilities, be­fore an evident and certain course.

Fourthly, iv. There may be cer­tainty of salvation to many thousands of christians, who live within the circuit of the Popes Jurisdiction, and have communion with the Roman [Page 85]church in common points of Christianity, so they joyn not with her in her errors and su­perstitions. And farther we cannot deny a possibility of salvation to those who held many of her errours, (as no doubt many of our Ancest­ors did) so long as they held the main foundation of Pro­testant Doctrine, to wit, sal­vation onely by the merits of Christ (which all generally did before the Council of Trent, as appears by the Or­do visitandi infirmos, allowed till then by the church of Rome) and asked God for­giveness at their death, of all their errours known or un­known. But there can be rea­sonably granted neither cer­tainty, nor possibility of sal­vation, [Page 86]to such as in the light of the Gospel (where they have means better to inform themselves) hold all the er­rors and corruptions of the Roman church, and die in the explicite maintenance thereof. For the rule of the Apostle is most certain, no Idolater (remaining such, that is without repentance) shall inherit the kingdom of God. And (besides Heresies) the present church of Rome (that is, the prevalent faction there­in) is justly charged by the Reformed churches with ma­nifold Idolatry.

Lastly, obj. 6 They go about to obscure the matter with a cloud of Allegations and Te­stimonies; which yet is not so thick, but that the truth [Page 87]pierceth it, and breaketh through with her bright beams.

In the first place they set Luther against us, Ep. Pleb. & Anabat affirming in one of his Epistles, That there is in the Papacy true Scripture, true Baptism, the true Sacraments, much chri­stian good; nay all christian good: nay moreover, that under the Papacy is true Chri­stianity; imo verus nucluus christianitatis, the very kernel of christianity.

Next, Calvin Instit. lib 4. ii. cap. 2. Sect. 12. Hinc patet, nos minime negare quia sub Romani ontificis tryanide ec­clesia maneant, we deny not but that there remain chur­ches under the tyranny of the Pope; whose seat is placed [Page 88]in the temple of God: where­by it is intimated, that his kingdome shall be such, quod nec Christi, ne [...] ecclesia no­men aboleat, as doth neither abolish, or take from the name of Christ, or of the Church.

Junius, iii. lib singular de ec­cles. Ecclesia Romana, qua id habet in se quod ad ecclesiae definitionem pertinet, est ec­clesiae, i. e. the Church of Rome, as it hath in it that which belongs to the defini­tion of a church, is a church.

Field, iv. the church of Rome is truly a Church

Zanchius, v. Pref. l. de Nat. Dei. Satan could not in the very Roman church do what he listed, as he had done in the Eastern; to bring all [Page 89]things to such a pass, as that it should have no more the form of a christian church: And a little after, I do not assent to them which would have the church of Rome to have no less ceased to be the church of Christ, than those Eastern churches, which af­terwards turned Mahumetan. What church was ever more corrupt then the church of the ten Tribes? yet we learn from the Scriptures, that it was still the church of God. And how doth St. Paul call that church wherein Anti­christ shall sit, the temple of God? Neither is it any Bap­tism at all that is administred out of the church of Christ. The wife that is an adulteress, doth not cease to be a wife, [Page 90]unless being despoiled of her Marriage-ring, she be mani­festly divorced. The church of Rome therefore is yet the church of Christ.

Doctor Crathenthorp, vi. tract. M. S. The church of Rome is a true, but unsound, visible church: for wheresoever the outward profession of Faith, and of the Word of God is found, among such as be uni­ted by the Sacraments of Christ, and with that mu­tual duty which is betweene Pastours and their Flocks, the same cannot but be acknow­ledged for a visible church, or coetus vocatorum, such a society of men as are outward­ly called to the participation of grace and glory.

The Lord Bishop of Exon, vii. [Page 91]in his Treatise called, The old Religion, cap. 1. Fundamen­tal truth is like that Maro­nean Wine, which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water, holds his strength The Sepulchre of Christ was overwhelmed by the Pagans without earth and rubbish, and more then so: over it they built a temple to their im­pure Venus, yet still in spite of malice, there was the Se­pulchre of Christ. And it is a ruled case of Papinian, That a sacred place looseth not the holiness with the demolished walls, no more doth the Ro­man loose the claim of a true visible church, by her mani­fold and deplorable corrup­tions.

And this testimony of his [Page 92]is backed with the Approba­tions of two right Reverend, and most Learned Fathers in our Church, the Bishops of Duresm and Salisbury; and two Eminent Doctors, the Kings Professor at Oxford; and Doctor Primerose Prea­cher to the French Church in London.

To answer unto, sol. or rather interpret the above-alledged testimonies in order:

To the first, i. which is Lu­thers, I say, That though Luther in writing against the Anabaptists (who denied Baptism in the Church of Rome, wherein Luther him­self was christianed) had rea­son to make the best he could of that church; yet he attri­buteth no more to it than [Page 93]Saint Austine, and other Fa­thers do to the Donatists and other Hereticks, whom they acknowledge to have among them the Word and Sacra­ments; which yet they held to be no way beneficial to their salvation, if they per­sisted in their Schismes and Heresies; but would be then available unto them, when they should repent and return to the bosome of the true church. Neither doth Lu­ther say, that papatus est omne bonum christianum, or nucle­us christianitatis; that the Papacy is all Christian good, or the kernel of Christianity: but, in, or sub papatu; in, or under the Papacy, is the true Creed, the true Decalogue, the true Lords Prayer, which [Page 94]he tearmeth the Kernel of Christianity. Wherein he ac­cords with other Protestants, that by reason of these Re­mains in the Roman church, God may have, and hath, his true church, even where An­tichrist hath his seat: or that there are many true Belie­vers throughout all the Popes jurisdiction; or (to use their own words) the Papacy is in the church and the church is in the papacy: yet the papacy is not the church, but a botch, or blain, or plague-sore in it, under which there is sound flesh; yet the plague sore is not the sound flesh For otherways, if we understand by the Roman church not the true Believers (which se­cretly in it worship God in [Page 95]spirit and truth, and mourn for those abuses which it is not in their power to reform) but the predominant Faction which adhereth to the Pope, and maintaineth all the Er­rors and Corruptions of that Church. Luther held the Roman church in that sense to be the whore of Babylon, and Synagogue of Antichrist, as he who lists may read in his Book, Entituled, Capti­vitas Babylonica, and in his Answer to the Pop [...]s Bull, which he tearmeth, The exe­crable Bull of Antichrist.

To the second, ii. which is Calvins, I say, That if his testimony had been alledged entirely, it would have sha­med the Alledgers. For though he deny not the title [Page 96]of a Church to Papists, yet in the same place he flatly denieth them the title of a true Church, which is the car­do questionis. His words are, Cum ergo Ecclesiae titulum non simpliciter volumus con­cedere Papistis, nonideo ec­clesias apud eos esse inficia­mur, sed tantum litigamus de vera & legitima ecclesiae con­stitutione, &c. i. e. When as we refuse absolutely to grant the Title of Church unto Papists, we do not there­fore deny that there are chur­ches among them; but we strive for the true and lawful constitution of the church, which is required as well in the participation of the Sa­craments, as especially the Doctrine.

Churches he grants to be, to remain under the Popes tyranny; but impiously pro­faned, miserably afflicted and corrupted with pernicious er­rors: In quibus semisepultus latet Christus, obrutum Evan­gelium, profligata pietas, cul­tus Dei ferè abolitus; in qui­bus danique omnia sic sunt conturbata, ut Babylonis po­tius quam civitatis sanctae fu­cies apareat. Wherein Christ lieth buried, the Gospel over­whelmed, Piety banished, and the Worship of God almost abolished: Lastly, where all things are so confused, that it appeareth rather to be Baby­lon, then to have so much as a shew of the holy City.

To the third, iii. As Calvin before, so Junius is cited to [Page 98]halfs. The full passage stan­deth thus in him: The church of Rome (as it hath that in it which belongs to the defini­tion of a church) is a church: qua vero habet in se adna­tum malum, quod Papalita­tem dicimus, eo respectu ec­clesia non est: as it hath a disease, or evil growing in it, which we call Papacy, in that respect it is not a church. In this place he fitly compares the church to a body or sub­ject, capable both of health and sickness: the sincere and Catholick Profession he re­sembles to Health; the Pa­pacy, or Papal Hierarchy, and other corrupt Doctrines of the Church, he rightly and very significantly calleth a Disease or Sickness; a plague [Page 99]or canker, a consumption or poyson in this body: and then concludes, That the Roman Synagogue is a church, but a corrupt church: a church tain­ted with so strong a poyson, as unless it purge out the same, cunnot be saved: and still as more or less Papality is in it, the more weak or strong it groweth: and if God shall (which we earnestly desire he may) administer a strong an­tidote, it may recover the health which once it had; but if the poyson still continue in it, it cannot chuse but at length all the vital spirits and passages of breath and life, which now it draweth in a fainting and languishing ma­ner, will be utterly stifled and stopped.

To the fourth, iv. which is Fields, I need not answer at all: for I grant his Assertion in terminis; especially with his Addition in the same place, not a true church. The Romish Synagogue is truely a church, thut is, a company of men prosessing the Christian Faith: not a true church, that is, an Orthodox or right be­lieving church, but very er­ronious and heretieal.

To the fifth, v. which is Zan­chius, He (as Field, and the rest before) should have ra­ther been produced as a wit­ness on our side, and not a­gainst us: for he saith in the very place alledged by the Adversary, That if we bring the Roman church to the touch, she will be cast for a meer coun­terfeit: [Page 101]she is as far from truth, as truth from falshood. Yet a church she is; but (as he there addeth) so corrupted and depraved, and with so great tyranny oppressed, that you can neither with a good conscience partake with her in holy things, nor safely dwell by her. She is (to use his si­militude) like an adultercss wife, not divorced by her hus­band; but yet not onely defa­med, but openly convinced of whoredom. Such a woman, so long as her husband is plea­sed not to sue out a Bill of Divorce against her, is a wife, but no true or loyall wife.

To the sixth, vi. which is Do­ctor Crakenthorps, I answer: Though in my Copy, in the [Page 102]title of his Treatise I finde the church of Rome a true vi­sible church, yet all that is proved in the Argument al­ledged above out of him, or in that whole Treatise, is but, That the Roman Synagogue is a church; to which the out­ward preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sa­craments, is sufficient. But to prove her to be a true church he must have demonstrated the marks of a true church in her, which are pura verbi predicatio, & legitima sacra­mentorum administratio; pure preaching of the word, and right administration of the sacraments. These marks he proveth not to be in her most truly and solidly; and there­fore his meaning must needs [Page 103]be onely this, That she is tru­ly a church, but not a true or right believing church: a church wherein there is pos­sibility of salvation, not a true church wherein there is certainty.

To the seventh, vii. which is Doctor Halls Bishop of Ex­on, I answer: That he, as Doctor Crakenthorp before, referreth true to visible, not to church; and his meaning is, That the Roman is a true visible, but not a true church. Fundamental truth, I grant, is like that Maronean Wine (as I said before) which if it be mixt with twenty times so much water, holds it strength: but the Romish Doctrine is rather like that Wine in the chalice given to Pope Victor, [Page 104]which was mingled with poy­son. As the earth and rub­bish wherewith the Pagans overwhelmed the Sepulchre of Christ, was not the Se­pulchre of Christ; and much less was the temple of impure Venus which they built over it, his sepulchre; yet his fe­pulchre was truly under it: So the Papacy is not the church, though under it the church be. And that this was the meaning of that most learned and judicious Bishop, appeares in his Reconciler, page 60. where he thus inter­preteth his owne meaning, viz. ‘I say, that she is a true church, but I say withal that she is a false church: true in existence, but false in belief. Trueness of being, and out­ward [Page 105]visibility, are no praise to her; yea, they are ag­gravations to her falshood. And as a cheater is a true, though false, man; so we may & must say, the church of Rome is a true, though false, church. Certainely there hath been a true error and mistaking of the sense, that is guilty of this quar­rel: And again, that face, that profession, those avowed principles which the church of Rome alloweth, are e­nough to give it claim to a true outward visibility of a Christian Church; while those damnable inferences which it maketh from them are enough to feoffe it in the true style of Heresie and Antichristianism.’

As for the renowned Se­conds of this Bishop, they rather purge him from any ill meaning, than justifie that speech of his. For by name the Bishop of Sarum writeth, that this Proposition of the Bishop of Exons, to wit, that the Roman church remains a true visible church, is an ill sounding Proposition in the ears of Protestants, especially such as are not throughly ac­quainted with School distin­ctions. For though men skil­led in Metaphysicks hold it for a Maxime, Ens verum & bonum convertuntur; that which is true, is good: and that which is good, is true: yet with us he that shall af­firm such a one is a true chri­stian, a true Gentleman, a [Page 107] true Scholar, or the like, is conceived not only to ascribe trueness of being to all these, but those due qualities, or re­quisite actions, whereby they are made commendable, or praise-worthy in their several kindes. In this sense the Ro­man church is not more a true Church in respect of Christ, or those due qualities or proper Actions which Christ requires, than an ar­rant whore is a true and loy­al Wife to her Husband. I durst upon my Oath be one or your Compurgators, that you never intended to adorn that strumpet with the title of a trne Church in this mea­ning, &c.

Thus we see the Testimo­nies for the truth of the Ro­man [Page 108]man church are but few; and these neither direct, nor ex­press: whereas the contrary Testimonies are far more, and more express, and of more credit. Therefore if the Suf­frages on both sides are truly numbred, or indifferently weighed, we shall surely carry it. For if we adde to the Greek, and Affrican, and A­siatick, and Ethiopian, and Abyssen, and Indian, and Muscovite Churches, the Re­formed in England, France, the Low-countreys, and Ger­many; we shall finde that the whole world in a maner con­spireth in this truth, That the church of Rome is not the true church. As the Testimonies on this side are infinitely more in number, so much [Page 109]more direct and expresse. They that say the Roman is a true church, do but speak it lispingly, in some sense, and with divers restrictions and limitations: but those who deny it, and disprove it to be a true church, speak plainly and roundly, without any am­biguity at all. In the Homily for Whit-sunday, page 213. We may well conclude accord­ing to the rule of St. Austine, That the Bishop of Rome and their adherents, are not the true church: and if we com­pare the definition of the true church, with the church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is pre­sently; then shall we perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the [Page 110]true church, as nothing can be more.

Doctor Whitaker (that gol­den Taper of Cambridge) cont. 2. q. 6. cap. 1. propoun­ding this question in termi­nis, An ecclesia Romana sit vera ecclesia Christi visibilis, i. e. Whether the Roman Church be a true visible church of Christ? thus de­termineth it: We say it is not onely not the onely catholick, but not at all catholick: not onely not catholick, to wit, universal, but we contend it is not a true church of Christ.

And Willet in his second Controversie concerning the Church, quest. 4. page 115. undertaketh to prove this Conclusion terminis termi­nantibus, as the Schooles [Page 111]speak, i. e. in concluding tearms, That the Roman is not a true visible church.

Lastly, as the Testimonies on our side are more direct and express, so they are much more to be credited then those which are brought for the adverse part: For one man that sealeth a Truth with his blood, is of more worth then ten who signed it onely with Ink: one Marryr pre­ponderateth ten Confessors. Now whereas those on the contrary opinion cannot pro­duce one true Martyr who died for maintaining this As­sertion, That the Roman church is a true church, we can produce divers holy Mar­tyrs, as namely, Fox Acts and Monu­ments. Master San­ders, Thomas Osmond, Wil­liam [Page 112]Bamford, Nicholas Chamberlain, Robert Glover, Thomas Man, and others; who have sealed this Truth with their last Breath, and illustrated it by the fire of their Martyrdom, That the Popish Church is not the true church of Christ. These are now arrayed with long white robes; and God forbid that any true Professor of the Gos­pel should go about to stain them with this foul aspersion, That they died like fools, and suffered for errour, or obstinacy, or uncharitably censuring of the church of Rome. I conclude therefore, That though the Romish Sy­nagogue may be truely and rightly styled a church, both opposite (in opposition to [Page 113]Jews, Turks, Pagans, and Infidels, which are apparant­ly out of the church) and positive) positively also in re­spect of Gods right to her, and tolerating her, (though she deserve to be divorced) and his calling some to the knowledge of the Truth by the Word preached in her, though corruptly; and in re­spect of her profession of such fundamental Truths as are absolutely requisite to the be­ing of a church: yet that she cannot be called a true church, neither in the ordinary ac­ception of the word in the English tongue: nor in sensu Theologico, in the sense of all the reformed Divines, who have professedly handled the great Question between us, [Page 114]and the church of Rome, de notis verae ecclesiae, of the notes of the true church.

Doctor Featley's Manifesto and Challenge.

After the Doctor had made publick this his Manifesto and Challenge (or howsoever owned it, as it is printed in The Gentle Lash) I could ne­ver hear that any confident Pen durst answer his Chal­lenge; or ever (otherwise than by some impudent lying Mercuries, or such scurrilous pamphlets) cast any further Aspersions of Popery upon him.

To draw near to a Conclu­sion: Notwithstanding the great service which the Do­ctor [Page 71]had done for the Church of England, at the request of the Parliament, by his An­swer to that Popish Challenge in his Roma ruens; yet they suffered him to continue in Limbo, in his old prison. But when (after his long and mi­serable durance) through the closeness and corruption of the air, the noisom stenches of the prison, his bad dyet and ill lodging, the want of exer­cise, and many other incon­veniencies, he fell into a Dropsie, and other diseases: he became an humble Petiti­oner to the Parliament, that he might have leave to re­move to Chelsey-Colledge, where the air was fresh and wholesom: and his Physicians Certificate was annexed to [Page 72]his Petition, declaring that he could not possibly live, with­out the benefit of better air. Full sixteen Weekes did his friends and servants bestow upon a daily and wearisome Attendance on the House, in pursuance of his request: for some Members would, but durst not move for him; some durst, but would not. His friends were fearful; but his enemies bold, and violent. At length (when his Adver­saries were assured that his death approached; so that now there could be no fear of his further writing, or prea­ching either against the Co­venant, or any Anabaptisti­cal Tenets) they granted him an Order to remove to Chel­sey-Colledge for six weekes: [Page 73]for (although they proved prophets, yet) they suspected that if he should be in any hope of recovery, he would fall again to his old game of Opposing the Heresies of [...]he times:) provided always, [...]hat he should first give good Bayl for his return to prison at the six weeks end. By ver [...]ue of this long looked-for Order he was removed to Chelsey-Colledge about the b [...]ginning of March, in the year 1644, but neither physick, nor air, nor dyet, nor better lodging nor company, nor cordials, nor any thing else could remove his diseases, or give him hope of recovery. There he spun out a short time in much pie­ty, and holy exercises; al­though wearied with pains, [Page 74]and worn out with afflicti­ons; whereof none were so grievous to him, as the pre­sen [...] distractions in the Church and State. On the fourteenth day of the next moneth (be­ing April, in the year 1645.) the harbingers of death as­suring him of his near-ap­proaching dissolution, he set his house in order, and made his last Will and Testament; which began thus:

A Model of an in [...]ended Will to be Confirmed and Executed, if ever Peace return upon Israel.

‘FIrst for my Soul, I com­mend it to him whose due it is by a three-fold right; My Creator, who in­fused it into me; My Redee­mer, [Page 75]who freely ransomed it with his dearest blood; My Sanctifier, who assist­eth me now in the greatest and latest assaults of temp­tation. As for humane me­rits, I renounce them all; accounting nothing in this kinde more truly honorable and meritorious, than the contempt of all me [...]ts: ac­cording to that of St. Ber­nard, Sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiunt me­rita, &c.’

The next day he made a Confession of his Faith to Doctor Loe, and the Dutch Embassador's Chaplains; say­ing moreover, ‘That the do­ctrine which he had alwayes preached, and the Bookes [Page 76]which he had printed against-A­nabaptists, and other Sectaries, were agreeable to Gods word: and that he would S [...]al the Pro­testa [...]t Religion, as it was esta­blished by the Acts of three pious Princes, with his blood. As for the Solemn League and Cove­nant, he said it was a damnable and execrable Oath▪ made pur­posely to ensnare poor souls; and and full of malice and treason a­gainst our Gracious Sovereign. As for the Church Government then controverted, he said, I dare boldly affirm, That the Hierarchy of Bishops is most a­greeable to the Word of God, as being of Apostolical Institution; the taking away whereof is dam­nable: and that by consequence both the Presbyterian and Inde­pendent Governments are absurd, and erroneous; neither of them being ever heard of in the Church of God, till of late at [Page 77]Geneva: nor is there so much as any colour for them in Holy Writ. It is evident (said he) that as the Priests in the Old Te­ment were above the Levites; so in the New, the Apostles were above the disciples: and that the seven Angels of the seven Chur­ches in the Apocalips, were se­ven Bishops: and that Polycar­pus was Bishop of Smyrna, and Timotheus of Ephesus. And for the Laity, no pregnant proof can be produced that they ever med­led with the Priests Function; or had any power to ordain Mini­sters. And these things (said he) I intended to have published to the world, if God had spared me longer life: which I might tho­row his goodness have enjoyed, had I not been unjustly impri­soned.’

On the next day, being April 17. 1645. (which was [Page 78]the very last day of those six weeks which the tender mer­cies (that yet are cruel) of his enemies had alotted him for his continuance in Chelsey-Colledge) his spirit waxed faint; and (drawing neer to the gates of the grave) he prayed as followeth:

‘Lord, strike through the reins of them that rise a­gainst the Church, and King; and let them be as chaff be­fore the wind, and as stubble before the fire. Let them be scattered as Partridges up­on the mountains, and let the breath of the Lord con­sume them: but upon our Gracious Sovereign, and his Posterity, let the Crown flou­rish. This (said he) is the hearty and earnest prayer of [Page 79]a poor sick creature.’ With which words, and many hea­venly Ejaculations, commen­ding his soul into the hands of his faithful Creator, he fell asleep. So soon as he seemed to be departed, his Nephew, my dear Brother Mr. H. F. (not knowing what had happened) came thither to see him: but was enter­tained with the sad news of his Uncles decease. This struck him into such a grief, and astonishment; that (im­patient of delay) he present­ly caused a small dose of the Doctor's rare and precious Cordial Spirits to be admini­stred unto him; which made him once more to open his eyes: and looking about him, and both seeing the tears of [Page 80]his mourning Kinsman, and hearing his passionate request to speak unto him; he said, Ah Cousin H. the poor Church of God is torn in pieces More he said not; but sweetly and gently groaned out his wea­ried and fainting spirit; and resigned his Soul into the extended arms of his merci­ful Redeemer.

And now (being above the further malice and blood­thirsty cruelty of his salvage enemies) provision was made for his honorable Interment: and in Lambeth-Chancel (ac­cording to his desire) he was solemnly buried; a very great multitude of persons of ho­nor and quality attending the Funeral Rites; and Doctor Loc entertaining them with a [Page 81]learned and pious Sermon, which was afterward printed: to which I refer the Reader for such further satisfaction concerning those rare Ac­complishments of the Decea­sed, which modesty, and the feared suspicion of partiality, makes me forbear. All that I shall further write of him, shall be but a short Character of his Person and Graces. He was low of stature; yet of a lovely graceful countenance; and of a convenient strength and health of body. He was of a most sweet disposition, being affable and courteous to all; without the least com­mixture of that sullen morosi­ty which some men miss-take for gravity. He was gene­rally free from all signs and [Page 82]shews both of pride and an­ger: onely when he disputed with Hereticks or Schisma­ticks in defence of the sacred Truth, his Zeal and dexterity made them unjustly suspect that he had been cholerick. He was such a Compendium of the learned Tongues, and all the Liberal Arts and Sci­ences; that you would have thought him Learning it self bound up in a little and small Volume. He was most seri­ously and soundly pious and devout; freely charitable both in giving, and forgiving; and a faithful and true son of the Church of England. He was very temperate and sober in his dyet: yet such a lover of hospitality, that he requently and freely entertained stran­gers [Page 83]at his plentiful (yet not prodigal) Table; seasoning his Discourse with ingenuous, fa­cetious, and harmless mirth; yet never forgetting the gra­vity of a Divine. He dyed in the sixty fifth year of his age: yet truly if his unjust and bar­barous imprisonment had not shuffled those diseases upon him which hastened his end, in humane probability he might have attained to the yeares of his aged Father, which were reckoned above an hundred.

Thus lived, and thus died the dearest to me of all my ablest friends; who very of­ten professed, That all his earthly care was for me, and mine. Yet as he was rendred unable to perform what he [Page 84]seriously intended me; so was I made uncapable of his in­tended favors, by being then in mine exile. Little did I think that a Gentleman so healthful and temperate, was designed for so short a life, or (in some kinde) an untimely death. Oh my grief is re­newed by this imposed duty, and I am compelled to write in the anguish of my spirit. Yet some comfort I receive from the words of Saint Au­gustine, Vocantur ante tem­pus boni, ne diutius vexentur a noxiis: mali vero & impii tolluntur, ne diutius bonos persequantur, i. e. The good are taken away, even before their time, that their persecu­tions may have a period: and the bad are hurried away, that [Page 85]they may persecute no more. My private and particular loss of him in this world, I can better bewayl than com­pute: and truely how much our Church in general will miss him, nothing so much as bad times (I suppose) will dis­cover. Peradventure one day that may be said of him, which that eloquent and fa­mous Orator of Oxford said of Zanchie, Beza, Reignolds, Junius, &c. Cum nondum per aetatem aestimare potui­mus, (proh dolor!) amisimus. i. e. Whom we prized not whilest he lived, we lament now he is dead. In brief, he lived and dyed a Confessour, and a holy Martyr for God and the King: and he left behinde him such Monuments [Page 86]of both; that peradventure future Ages will alter the name in the Poet, to honor him with the verse, ‘Marmora Featlaei vincunt monumenta libelli:’

Reader, I have done; and thanking thee for thy pati­ence, and begging thy chari­table pardon of what thou findest amiss; I rest