PROTESTANCY CONDEMNED BY THE EXPRESSE VERDICT AND SENTENCE OF PROTESTANTS LUKE 19.22 By thine own mouth I judge thee DOWAY Printed in the Year 1654. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Cannot doubt but that every Protestant if he have not a mind to divest himself of common reason and proclame himself to be inexcusable will confess Protestancy to be cast and condemned by Protestants if by their own free and open Confession these ensuing points be acknowledged for true First That the first Protestants who forsooth undertook a Reformation of the Universal Catholick Church existent before Luther after their pretended Reformation led so lewd lives and held doctrines confessedly so absurd that no man of sense or wisdom can judge them fit instruments for that supposed strange sublime supernatural and divine work Secondly That in opposition of the late and vitious Fathers of Protestants those men who even by Protestants are stiled Antient and Holy Fathers believed taught and practised the very same things which we now believe teach and practise against Protestants Thirdly That not only the Antient Fathers but even the chiefest and most learned Protestants convinced by evidence of truth stand with us against their Protestant Brethren in most of the chiefest points of Religion controverted between us Fourthly That our doctrine hath been approved by the Omnipotent hand of God using for Instruments of working Miracles those who were confessedly of our Religon yea and in express confirmation of points believed by us and rejected by Protestants Fifthly That by the confession of Protestants we Catholicks may be saved though we live and dye in the belief of all those Articles wherein Protestants disagree from us Which last consideration though it were alone ought effectually to move every one who believes an Eternity of Joy or Torment speedily to joyn himself with that Church wherein by the confession of all both friends and foes Catholicks and Protestants salvation may certainly be attained if our life agree with our belief Now for proof these Truths most important to be known I present not to the Reader any new VVork or Invention of mine own but in effect only transcribe and publish what I find in that excellent Book intituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church the true Author whereof thought fit to conceale himself under the name of John Brereley Priest though indeed he was neither Brereley nor Priest nor Clergy-man not John but rather James He dedicated his Book to King James and writes with so great exactness fidelity temper and moderation that Protestants though they must needs feel themselves deeply wounded by the substance of his discourse yet cannot with any shadow of reason pretend to be justly offended with his manner of discoursing In so much as Thomas Morton confesseth that whatsoever strong argument in any place in Roman Authors is to be found in favour of that Religion whatsoever hath by chance fallen from the pen of any learned Protestant but in outward appearance consonant to their doctrines which may seem any way to promote the Roman cause all that we see in this volume collected to be brought and presly urged against us with so singular a choice of the things themselves with such force of arguments with such an elegant and exquisite stile Lastly with so moderate a kind of expression as their subtilty judgement wit art and moderation could do I wish the Book were in the hands of many but it being of some bulk and not easy to be had and the points which here I offer being but few and comprised in no very great compass and of themselves very intelligible and clear to every mans understanding they will come to the knowledge of more by being published thus apart than if they were to be sought in the Book it self mixed with many other matters by the Author handled in different and distant places and upon several occasions and in a method not obvious to men who have no great mind to take much pains If upon occasion I put in a word of mine own the Reader will understand it to be mine by the word Publisher abbreviated by Pu. I make use of the Edition of An. 1608. It is clear that he is most exact in his Citations citing not only the Book but the year Edition place of Print and sometimes even the page and line as appears by the Table set down in the beginning of his Book with this title A Table of certain Protestant writers and their particular writings whose folio or page for more ready and certain direction are specially alleged in the subsequent Discourse and of their several Editions or year of Print according to which they be so alleged unless it be otherwise noted in the margent But yet notwithstanding all the care exactness used by the Author it was not in his power to exempt the Print from many Errors and Omissions as also I cannot doubt but he who Prints this publication of mine will have his errors The five Heads or Truths mentioned above I will call so many Considerations Neither have I any more to say in this place than with my whole heart to beg of the Protestant Reader even for the love he ows to the Redeemer of Mankind and for the care he should have to save his own soul that he will peruse these Considerations with a hearty desire to find and an absolute resolution to embrace the truth laying aside prejudice passion sloath and all humane and wordly respects seriously meditating the words of our Blessed Saviour Matth. 16. v. 26 27. What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and sustain the damage of his own Soul Or what exchange shall a man give for his Soul For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels and then will he render to every man according to his works If the Reader come not with such a disposition and resolution every word he reads will rise against him in that dreadful day of Judgement upon which all Eternity must depend O ETERNITIE ETERNITIE THE FIRST CONSIDERATION Concerning the lives of the first Protestant pretended Reformers OUR Saviour forewarning us saith Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 9. subdivis 1 That a good Tree yieldeth good fruit Math. 7.17 and beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly are ravening Woolvs by their fruits you shall know them Math. 7.15 16. omitting petty examples saith Brereley tract 2. chap. 3. sect 9. subdivis 2. we will intreat of Principals namely of Luther of Jacobus Andreas the greatest enlarger of his Doctrine and of Zuinglius Calvin and Beza and of these also for other respects but with a gentle sparing and forbearing touch as not undertaking to allege any thing of them but that which is in it self evident and for such confessed Of Luther 1 COncerning Luther's Life and Manners saith Brereley tract 2. cap. 2. sect 10. subdivis 11. for so much as he
and the Bishop of Romes dignity than by the word of God was given to either of them And as concerning particulars to forbear what is generally [k] That Boniface the third claimed to be Head of the Universal Church Anno 607. is confessed by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 160. ante med by M. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 36. initio by Mr. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. by Mr. Downham in his Book of Antichrist l. 1. pag. 4. post med And by Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum c. pag. 144. post med where he affirmeth this Boniface and all his Successors to be Antichrists And the very same is affirmed by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 27. circa med by M. Powel de Antichristo in Praesat pag. 1. fine confessed of the 1000. years last past the Century Writers of Magdeburg in their fifth Century the last part or end whereof was one hundred and the beginning thereof two hundred years within the compass of Mr. Jewels own challenge do confess and say concerning even those antient times that [l] Cent. 5. col 774. lin 31. in this fifth age the Roman Bishops applyed themselves to get and establish Dominion over other Churches that to this end [m] Cent. 5. col 777. lin 55. and in example thereof say further there Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino cui suas partes videlicet ut Synodo Ephesinae praesideret delegavit privilegium dedit usurpandi titulum Papae mitram they usurped to themselves right of granting privileges and ornaments to other Archbishops That also [n] Cent. 5. col 778 lin 16. and in example thereof say further there Nam Leo Max mum Ant ochenum confirmavit in Episcopaâ—u ac Proterâ—o Alexandrino Episcopo jura ant qua ejus Sedis juxta Canones Privilegia confirmasse â—nd â—atur Epist 68 Leonis 69. and ibid. lin 37. it is further said Vsurpabant sib pot starem mandandi alâ—is Episcopis ut quem spsi velient proponerent in dissitâ—s Ecclesiis Episcopum ordinarent aut quem ipsi nollent deponerent sic Câ—lâ—stinus in Epâ—stola ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum Joannem Antiochenum Rufum Thâ—ssalonicensem mandat 〈◊〉 ut Proclum Constantinopoli designarent Episcopum c. they confirmed Arch-Bishops in their Seas [o] See this next heretofore at 25. and see further cent 5 col 778. lin 46. and see next hereafter at 67. in the margent and of Anthimus of Constantinople deposed by Agapitus see cent 6. col 55. lin 20. and Liberatus in Bâ—eviar cap. 21. of Dioscorus in like manner deposed and see Gelasius in Epist ad Episcopos Dardaniae deposed [p] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 31. it is said Sumâ—bant sibi facultatem excommunicandi alios Archiepiscopos Ecclesias sic Leo excommunicavit Orientales Felix Ocaclum Gelasius damnavit Acatium Petrum miffis literis in Orientem excommunicatd and [q] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 38. And in example thereof say further there Nam Gelasius in tomo Anathematum Petrum Alexandrinum secundae Sedis Antistitem negat absolvi a quoquam pose se quam ab Episcopo primae sedis scilicet Romano absolved others [r] Cent. 5. col 779. lin 8. it is said Arrogant sibi potestatem citandi alios ad dicendam coram sese causam sic Constantinopolitanus Episcopus Romam citatur Maximum citaturum sese promittet Bonifacius arrogating also power to themselves of citing other Arch-Bishops to declare their cause before them and that [s] Centur. 5. col 778. lin 5â— it is said Constituerunt postularunt ut in Episcoporum causis liceat ad sese appellari ut patet ex Actis sextae Carthaginensis Synodi Epistola ad Bonifacium Sixtus Epist 3. ad Orientales cap. 5. decernit ut contra Episcopum ad sedem Apostol cam appellantem nihil aliud statuatur quam Romanus Episcopus censuerit Gelasius in Epistola ad Faustum Magistrum impudenter mentitur in Canon bus sancitum esse ut Appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad examen Romanae sedis deferantur abipsa nusquam appelletur against a Bishop appealing to the Apostolick Sea nothing should be determined but what the Bishop of Rome censured that also [t] Cent. 5. col 780. lin 8. it is said Conati sunt eam sibi super Archiepiscopos vendicare authoritatem ut si quid illi agerent ex authoritate Romani Episcopi eg sse viderentur quasi servi ejus mancipia essent sic Leo Epist 84. indicat Antiftites Thessalonicenses semper vicem Apostolicae sedis implevisse ac monet Anasta sium who was then Bishop of Thessalonica ut in longinquis Provinciis quodam modo praesentiam suâ— Visitationis impendat nihil decernat nisi quod fibi probari agnoscat Sic Gelasius in Epistola ad Dardanos dicit se curam Alexandrinae Ecclesiae delegasse Acacio Constantinopolitano ideoque cum debuisse ad ipsum referre omnia And see further col 778. lin 26. col 779. lin 17. example is given of Legates sent into remote Provinces as Constantinople Ephesus and Africk Cent. 5. col 779. lin 43. it is said Ausi sunt ab Archi-Episcopis postulare ut si quid suo judicio non possent determinare ad sese referrent sic Leo Ep. 84. c. 7. Thessalonicensi hanc legem dictitat c. And see col 1230. lin 26. col 780. lin 45. And see further hereof Stephanus Mauritaniae Episcopus in Epistola ad Damasum And Anastasius Hierosolymitanus in Epist ad Felicem they appointed their Legates in remote Provinces challenging Authority to hear and determine all uprising controversies especially [u] See their testimony and examples hereof given col 781. lin 9. in Questions of Faith that likewise [x] Col. 781. lin 20. Generalia Concilia indicendi potestatem sibâ— sumpserunt ut patet Epist 93. cap. 7. Leonis c. Ac Synodos sine sua authoritate convocatas ut illegitimas rejecerunt they took upon them power of appointing general Councils and [y] Col. 781. lin 36. Jus pâ—â—dendi Synodis universalibus sibi adscripserunt c. Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ephesina Synodo Praesidendi potestatem suo nomine concessisse videri vult Ac Leo Paschasinum Siciliae Episcopum ut Chalcedonensi praesideret misit And see the subscription of Paschasinus in Concil Chalcid act 3. to be Presidents in general Councils And when themselves were absent even by [z] Vt supra and see this heretofore in the margent at 24. and see Centur. 5. col 781. lin 52. And see Danaeus in resp ad Bellarm part 1. pag. 323. their Deputies which were oftentimes no meaner than some one or other Patriarch [a] See next before at 34. also col 781. lin 57. In Synodis perpâ—ram acta
appeareth most plainly 1. By their own most evident testimonies 2. By their like confessed examples thereof given And 3. By their undoubted answerable practice To give proof of every of these parts 1. And first concerning their testimonies in this kind M. D. Baro saith [e] M. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions dispâ—ted ad Clerum c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God And M. Hooker also saith [f] M. Hooker in his fist Book of Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 188. initio and Joannes Regius in his Libeâ— Apologeticus c. in considerat Censurae c. pag. 95. saith In Papatu autem cùm suerit Ecclesia vera c. The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ and [g] M. Hooker ubi supra pag. 130. ante med We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ M. Bunny likewise saith of Catholicks and Protestants [h] M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 109. circa med Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God [i] M. Bunny ubi supra pag. 113. post med we are no several Church from them nor they from us In like sort doth M. D. Some in defence thereof against Penry the Puritan say [k] M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry and refutation of many absurdities c. in M. Penry 's treatise pag. 164. ante med That the Papists are not altogether aliens from Gods covenant I have shewed before for [l] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 182. iâ—icio in the judgement of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministry a true Christ c. [m] M. D. Some ubi supra pag. 176. propè finem If you think that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you think absurdly and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants Also M. D. Field saith †M. D. Field Of the Church l. 3. cap. 46. fine pag. 182. initio We doubt not but the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself was notwithstanding the true Church of God that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ and by force thereof did convert many from errour c. In like sort doth M. Thomas Morton affirm in express words that †M. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel and of the Church pag. 94. fine Papists are to be accounted the Church of God because saith he they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Lastly to omit many * Peter Martyr as it appeareth by his Epistles annexed to his Common Places in English pag. 153. a fine desired at the Conference had at Poisy between the Catholicks Protestants that they should not for diversity of opinion break brotherly charity nor call one another Hereticks And see the same opinion yet further affirmed by the Protestant writer against Nicholas Machiavel printed at London 1602. pag. 80. post med 83. paulò post med 85. propè finem others M. D. Covel in his late Treatise published by authority and dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury defendeth this opinion at large and concludeth saying [n] M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker 's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy published by authority pag. 77. ante med We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ and that those that live and dye in that Church may notwithstanding be saved Insomuch as he doubteth not to charge the Puritans with [o] M. D. Covel ubi supra pag. 68. paulò post med ignorance for their contrary opinion Hitherto concerning their testimonies before undertaken 2. Secondly as concerning now their like confessed examples we will out of very many allege onely some few It will not we think be denied but that our late Soveraign King Henry the eighth did after his breach with Rome believe and maintain the whole frame and substance of our Catholick faith the Article of the Popes Primacy onely excepted To which end their own Author Sleydan saith of him [2] Sleydan in English l. 13. fol. 174. a. initio He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome but kept still his doctrine and M. Fox saith accordingly [3] Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1472. b. fine He set forth and by full consent of Parliament established the Book of six Articles containing the sum of Popish Religion And it is evident that he himself in person not onely as then disputed [4] Act. Mon. pag. 530. a. 〈◊〉 b. initio but also [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med commanded [5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med sentence to be pronounced against Lambert as also the Lord Cromwel read and [6] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. pronounced that sentence and at his own death protested himself [7] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. circa med and see Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 591. to dye in the Catholick faith not doubting in any Article of faith or Sacrament of the Church though saith he many have slandered me to the contrary And yet he is commended by M. Fox to dye as [8] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. post med a valiant Souldier and Captain of Christ As also the Church under the reign of King Henry the eighth is by M. Fulk affirmed to be a true [9] M. Fulk against Hâ—â—kitâ—s Sanders c. pag. 564. sect 80 82. Church and the King himself acknowledged in like manner for [10] Fulk ubi supra sect 82. and se D. Humfrey in jesuitismi part 2. rat 3. pag. 304. circa med a member of the Catholick Church of Christ In like sort [11] Osiander cent 12. pag. 309. post med S. Bernard lived some 400 years since as M. Jewel confesseth even [12] Jewel in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med and see Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 2. pag. 154. ante med in the midst of the Popes rout and tyrannie And as we find he was not troubled or gainsaid so much as in any one Article different from the doctrine of the Roman Church at that time so we find confessed to the contrary that he acknowledged even the [13] Bernard l. 2. de considerat 2d Eugenium vide Epist 125. 131. epist 190. ad Innocentium and see this confessed by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect 11. fol. 133. b. post initium and by M. Whitaker l. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154 ante med Popes
in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians englished fol. 35. circa med kept chastity poverty and obedience was onely given to fasting watching praying saying of Mass and such like and (x) Luther ibid. fol. 35. a. circa med honoured the Pope of meer conscience c. and was so thereby most undoubtedly a professed member of our Catholick or as they tearm it Popish Church So likewise upon his pretended reformation or preaching afterward against the Pope he did not say they thereby (y) M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker Art 11. pag. 73. post med saith As it is strange for any man to deny them of Rome to be of the Church so I cannot but wonder that they of Rome will ask where our Church was before Luther as if any were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church c. And see the like saying in M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 3. pag. 129. post med erect a new Church then before not in being for that were most directly against themselves and therefore did not depart from the Church he was of before but continued still a member thereof Which thing both M. Hooker and M. D. Covel speaking thereof do very plainly (z) M. Hooker l. 3. pag. 130. M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker pag. 68. say We gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Jesus Christ therefore we hope that to reform our selves is not to sever our selves from the Church we were of before In the Church we were and are so still as also we say that they of Rome notwithstanding their manifold defects are to be held a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ acknowledge to the great (a) In the Christian Letter of certain English Protestants unto that Reverend man M. Hooker pag. 18 19. they reprove at large M. Hooker for this opinion of not severing themselves from the Church they were of before dislike of the Puritans as also M. Bunny prosecuteth the same more at large affirming therefore (b) M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 108. paulò post med that of departing from the Church there ought to be no question at all among us (c) Ibidem pag. 113. post med We are saith he no several Church from them nor they from us and therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church for any to depart from them to us nor from us to them all the difference between us is concerning the truer members whether we or they may be found more worthy of that account As for the other we allow no such question Insomuch as he doubteth not to say (d) Ibidem pag. 109. circa med It was evil done of them who first urged such a separation confessing further our great (e) Ibidem sect 15. pag. 92. circa med he saith of this separation Our Adversaries see themselves to have advantage if they can win us to acknowledge it advantage given thereby which our advantage he afterwards very plainly to this purpose expresseth to be (f) Ibid. pag. 96. circa med For that saith he it is great probability with them that so we make our selves answerable for to find out a distinct and several Church from them which continued from the Apostles age to this present else that needs we must acknowledge that our Church is sprung up of late or since theirs And hence perhaps it is that their learned writers to the better enabling of our Church to be howsoever according to their opinion in part erroneous yet withall a true Church doubt not to affirm of the sundry points of our Catholick faith in particular that they are though in their opinion errours yet not †To give some few and chief examples hereof First M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 402. saith A weakning errour is that the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation as the errour of Free will and sundry such like M. Cartwright in his reply pag. 14. sect 1 2 and in M. Whitgists defence pag. 82. post med affirmeth the like indifferency of the doctrines of Free-will Prayer for the dead and a number of other as necessary doctrines wherein saith he men being mis-led have notwithstanding been saved And a little there before he further saith If you mean by matters of faith and necessary to salvation those without which a man cannot be saved then the doctrine which teacheth there is no Free-will or Prayer for the Dead is not within your compass For I doubt not but divers Fathers of the Greek Church who were great Patrons of Free-will are saved And the like is yet further affirmed of Prayer for the Dead by John Frith Act. Mon. pag. 501. by M. Fulk in his Confut. of Purgatory pag. 336. ante med and by M. Penry in his Book entituled M. Some laid open in his colours pag. 99. Secondly M. Spark in his answer to M. John d'Abbines pag. 382. ante med discoursing of the honouring of Saints Reliques and Prayer for the Dead saith thereof to his Adversary We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any for such errours for you know well enough that we make not these matters such as that either we think that all must be saved that hold the one way or all condemned that hold the other As touching invocation of Saints M. D. Goade and Fulk do in the disputation had in the Tower with Edm. Campian the 2. daies conference Arg. 8. R. 11. R. 111. affirm thereof that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church c. Thirdly concerning the Real Presence Jacobus Acontius in lib. 3. Stratagematum Satanae pag. 135. paulò ante med saith It is evident concerning as well those who hold the Real Presence of Christs body in the bread as those others which deny it that although of necessity the one part do erre yet both are in way of salvation if in other things they be obedient to God And M. D. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his Conference c. pag. 722. affirmeth the Real Presence to be as it were the grudging of a little ague if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith And John Frith Act. Mon. pag. 503. a. fine saith hereof The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation whether he believe it or not And see Luthers like judgement of Transubstantiation in magna Confessione cited by Amandus Polanus in his Sylog Thesium Theologicarum pag. 464. initio and in the Book entituled Orthodoxus consensus printed Tiguri 1578. in folio fol. 12. b. initio Fourthly as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds Luther in epistola ad Bohemos saith thereof Quamvis pulchrum quidem esset utraque specie in Eucharistia uti Christus hac
6. fine in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 14. circa med pag. 89. acknowledgeth a particular blessing of God in the Church of Rome and an evident work of the Holy Ghost saying That the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them c. and hath also in some manner preserved and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us which surely saith he is a very special blessing of God and an evident work of the Holy Ghost c. To make good saith Brereley ibidem in the margent at †M. Bunny's words of the evident work of the Holy Ghost in preservation of the Roman Sea the same hath appeared many waies extraordinary and admirable As first in that the other four Patriarchal Seas are noted and known to have been pestered every one of them with confessed Arch-hereticks or Inventers of new doctrines against some principal Article of our Christian faith As at Antioch Paulus Samosetanus at Hierusalem Joannes and Arsenius at Alexandria Dioscorus at Constantinople Macedonius and Nestorius onely the Sea of Rome hath been preserved free from all such known note or touch For howsoever our Adversaries do pretend some one or other Pope to have had his private errour yet to charge any Pope with being an Arch heretick as before-said they have not any colour Secondly in that the Cities of all the other Patriarchal Seas and the Bishops belonging to them now are and of long have been oppressed with Infidels and their succession is either none or but inglorious whereas God hath yet hitherto disposed otherwise of the City and Sea of Rome Thirdly in the example of so many great Christian Kingdomes and Countryes in Asia Africk and Europe which forsaking the Communion of this Sea became not long afterwards barbarous and subject to Infidels accordingly as it is foretold of the true Churches prerogative The Nation and Kingdome that will not serve thee shall perish and those Nations shall be utterly destroyed Esay 60.12 Fourthly in that this is the onely Sea or Church which is confessed by our Adversaries to have continued known and visible for these last thousand or 1300 years whereof see Brereley tract 1. sect 2. at k. l. sect 8. in the margent at c. tract 2. c. 2. sect 7. fine at 3 4 5 6 c. converting also to the Christian faith during all that time by its Legats and Preachers so many confessed Nations and Kingdomes of the Gentiles agreeable to the predictions of the Prophets in that behalf whereof see Brereley tract 2. c. 1. sect 4. initio in the margent at* Fifthly in that this Sea hath been persecuted by the contrary factions of so many Christian Princes by the very Citizens and Cardinals of Rome by the Schisms Factions and wicked lives of the Popes themselves by the implacable hatred and contradiction of so many confessed heresies and hereticks of every age conspiring all of them howsoever divided otherwise among themselves to malign and impugn this Sea as the principal object of their daily continued malice So Hell gates may be said to have assaulted her and yet not prevailed Matth. 16.18 Upon which consideration but duely had of all Hereticks though divided among themselves yet joyning so together in malice against the Roman Sea how can that out-faced opinion of our Adversaries be possibly true which M. D. Downham in his treatise concerning Antichrist l. 2. pag. 22. ante med delivereth saying We hold Antichrist to be the whole body of Hereticks in the last age of the world c. The head of which body is the Papacie The Pope to be their Head and yet he ever against them all and they all ever against him is it possible 6. Pu. Besides what hath been said out of Brereley of this point that Protestants confess that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation I will shew the same yet more at large D. Potter in his Answer to Charity mistaken pag. 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanists as he calls us the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learned Protestants yield them c. In proof whereof he cites in his margent Iunius D. Reinolds and sayes See the judgement of many other writers in the advertisement annexed to the old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaptists grant it Fr. Johnson in his Christian Plea pag. 123. So that with this one Testimonie of Potter we have many other even of our greatest Adversaries And pag. 62. he saith To those twelve Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholicks have added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and unwritten dogmaticall Traditions their Transubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of the Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new doctrines and decrees canonized in their late Synod of Trent Upon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we have cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to contain all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therefore those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance are no Fundamentall errors nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the chiefest Points controverted between us and Protestants even Transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose Yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councill of Trent Therefore we are free from Fundamentall errors by the confession of our Adversaries pag. 59. he further saith The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old The reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the old Church and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities without change of the substance the substance must be still the same it was and that which was must be still the same with that which is pag. 61. The things which the Protestants believe on their part and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them
as well as they Therefore we Catholicks have the life and substance of Religion pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles of Christian Religion we have not forsaken the Church of Rome Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion pag. 11. For those Catholick verities which she the Roman Church retains we yield her a member of the Catholick though one of the most unsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholicks Behold we are members of the Catholick Church which could not be if we erred in any one Fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholicks why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholick And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to urge against us and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugns himself whiles he speaks against us not distinguishing between universall as Logicians speak of it which signifies one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholick as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spread over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and upon that vain conceit telling his unlearned Reader that universall and particular are tearms repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholick cannot be affirmed of D. Potter nor D. Potter said to be a Catholick because a particular cannot be said to be universall or an universall pag. 75. To depart from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation pag. 70. They the Roman Doctors confesse that setting aside all matters controverted the main positive truths wherein all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to believe and how to live so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctors confess that setting aside all matters controverted c. is very untrue it being manifest that Catholicks believe Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we have all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledge and practise for us to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants saith pag. 74. If the Mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties he shall find in that which remains little difference of importance between us Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes pag. 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse prove and the Objection which he raises from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise this Objection which he makes to himself were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could have dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more then a just cause to justify their separation which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation And afterward in the next pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expresly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this clears us from the imputation of Schism whose propertie it is to cut off from the Body of Christ the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut off from the hope of salvation therefore she doth not erre in any Fundamental point p. 83. We were never disjoyned from her the Church of Rome in those main essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she errs not in any Fundamental Point For the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such error And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholicks Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited Whereof if the mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholick writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as he believes the Hugonots and Catholicks of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion because of truths agreed upon by both And another of our Country as it is said who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mind Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofs to shew that Catholicks and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholick writers those two who can be no Catholicks as Charity Maintained part 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shews the former in particular to be a plain Heretick or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion Pag. 78. he saith We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctor if we subsume But it were impossible that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicitie of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such error a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church the Conclusion will be that we doe not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay pag. 79. he saith further We believe it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe upon condition we believe that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we have suffered so long so great and so many
that many learned Protestants do not believe all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag. 269. n. 45. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himself and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of a Church consists For this cause he saith That although Protestants leave the external Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essential to a Church as Fundamental points are Therfore he supposeth the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamental Article Otherwise Protestants had left her that is they had disagreed from her in a Fundamental point P. 272. n. 52 and pag. 283. n. 73. He denies that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essential and fundamental Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag. 272. n. 52. He saith In the reason of our separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamental points Protestants must have forsaken us chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental errours of Faith Therefore he grants that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag. 401. n. 26. He confesseth that D. Potter saith indeed that our not cutting off your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees us from the imputation of Schism Pag. 133. n. 12. He saith expresly By confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well he makes so open a confession that we believe much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I said before we will not because we cannot yield so much to Protestants And here I must ask again how he could say Pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresie and yielding you salvation neither D. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seeing he saith that by the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation by what Logick will he deduce that we believe not as much as is necessary 8. These so many and so clear words of D. Potter and M. Chillingworth may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty he could say Pag. 280. n. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamental it is an affected mistake as I have often told you And Pag. 308. 108. As for your obtruding upon us that we believe the Points of difference not Fundamental or necessary you have been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a Saying void of all truth and a shamefull calumny in him 9. To these testimonies of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be alleged out of other Protestants as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter D. Laud in his book against Fisher Pag. 299. saith I doe acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself Behold not only a possibility of salvation but also the reason thereof because we believe the Creed c. which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselves may be saved though they differ in many points from one another This I say is the reason of D. Laud which other Protestants must approve though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one believe the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therefore doe in this as in many other things speak inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag. 376. he saith The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor doe the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therefore say I we hold no Fundamental errors wherein whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And Pag. 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I think cannot be denyed and in proof hereof Pag. 281. he alleges Luther Field Joseph Hall Geor Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And D. Jeremie Taylor in his liberty of Prophecying Pag. 251. sect 20. teaches that we keep the foundation and believe many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errors are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding which as I said may easily be believed of us Catholicks who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures And in particular he shews that Prayer for the dead and the doctrine of Transubstantiation are not Fundamental errours and also saith these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag. 258 that there is implyed as great difficulty in the mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by Idolatrie in adoring the Sacrament 10. Thus good Reader having proved out of the Confession of Protestants That the first Protestants who pretended to reform all Churches extant when they appeared led such lives and taught such Doctrines as no man of judgement can think them to have been fit Instruments for that Work That Protestants confesse the Ancient Holy Fathers to stand for us That the chiefest Protestant Writers joyn with Catholicks against other Protestants in the most principal Articles of Religion Yea even in those very points for which Luther and his followers opposed our Doctrine and forsook our Communion which deserves well to be considered That our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles and finally That all
any such objection as this at that time when Protestants did much affect the use of lights Altars Pictures in their Churches In the meane time who would not I know not whether to say laugh or conceive just indignation to see so great a Champion as M. Chillingworth was esteemed to object such matters as these and as causes sufficient to forsake Gods Church 96. Ninthly he specifyes our saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds to the hono◠of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honor of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin This is not unlike to the former neither can I imagine what difficulty he can find that any good work as saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds is even in the account of Protestants and the saying of Ave-Maries must be sapposed to be in the opinion of these Protestants who allow prayers made to Saints may be offered in honor of Saints What will he say to the known doctrine of S. Augustine that although Sacrifice be offered to God only yet it may be offered in honor of Saints And much more why may not Pater-nosters and Creeds be offered in honour of Saints and Ave-Maries in honor of other Saints though the words be directed only to the Blessed Virgin In the mean time I return to say can such matters as these be alleged in the day of judgement as sufficient to excuse Luther and his followers from the grievous sin of Schism in forsaking the Communion of all Churches then extant 97. Tenthly He names the infallibilitie of the Bishop or Church of Rome Answer It cannot be expected that Protestants or any other divided from the Church of Rome will in expresse termes acknowledge her to be infallible under that word of Infallible but it hath been shewed that if they will speak with consequence to themselves they cannot deny her to be infallible while they give her such titles and grant her such Prerogatives as we have seen heretofore and deny not but that the ancient Fathers yielded her a preheminence before all other Churches and took her Doctrine and Practise for a Rule and proof of the Truth or falshood of what was believed or practised through all Christian Churches Yea and we have heard Protestants confessing that the Popes Authority for conserving unity and deciding Controversies in matters of faith is altogether necessary and that there cannot be expected any peace and union among Christians except by submitting to the Pope Besides Protestants commonly grant that the true Church is infallible in fundamental points and we must either say that the Roman Church was the true Church when Luther appeared or that Christ had no true Church on earth at that time nor hath any at this present seeing even the chiefest Protestants agree with us in many of those very points for which the first Protestants pretended to forsake all Churches extant when they appeared 98. Eleaventhly He objects our prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickely in the Church in such languages as all may understand Of this we have spoken heretofore Neither is it true that there is any general prohibition to read any Scripture in the Church in such a language as all may understand for some Preachers are wont to read in a vulgar language the Gospell of which they are to preach but our doctrine is that there is no Divine precept to use vulgar languages in the Liturgy or publick Offices recited in the name of the Church But what would he say to the custome which I have understood to have been used in Ireland of forcing people of that Nation to be present even at Sermons made in English of which they understand not one word which is a case far different from the use of an unknown tongue in the Liturgie or publick Offices ordained to the publick worship of God by the Church and not referred immediately for a Catechism or Instruction of the people as Sermons are 99. Twelfthly He strangely mentions our doctrine of the Blessed Virgines immunity from actual sin and our doctrine and worship of her immaculate Conception Answer It is a sign you want better matter while you object these points Your conscience cannot but tell you that you know we are so farr from making the immaculate Conception a point of Faith that there is a severe prohibition that neither part censure the other of Heresie Error or the like so that this Instance is manifestly impertinent The reader may be pleased to read Bellarmine tom 4. de amissione Gratiae statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 15. where he saith Quod ad primum scilicet non haberi apud Catholicos pro re certa explorata ac fide Catholica tenenda beatam Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam Joannes Pomeranus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis in comment cap. 1. 44. Hierem. scribere ausus est pro articulo fidei apud Catholicos haberi B. Virginem sine ullo peccato immo etiam de Spiritu Sancto fuisse conceptam Sed hoc impudentissimum mendacium satis apertè refellunt duae Pontificum constitutiones Concilii aecumenici decretum quibus constitutionibus ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obediunt Sixtus IV. Pontifex Max. in ea Constitutione quae incipit Gravè nimis de reliquiis veneratione Sanctorum desirtis verbis pronuntiat nondum esse quaestionem istam de Conceptione B. Virginis ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolica sede definitam ideò paenam excommunicationis statuit in eos qui alterutram sententiam ut haereticam damnare audent Judicium Sixti Pontificis sequutum est Concilium TRIDENTINUM ses 5. ac demum nostro tempore PIUS V. in constitutione quam edidit de conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae Besides Protestants themselves acknowledge this point to be a thing indifferent excusable and not defined as may be seen in the fift Consideration num 4. at †next after f. in the margent at Fifthly and as Brereley tract 2. c. 2. sect 14. in the margent at †next after f. at Fifthly tract 2. c. 3. sect 5. subd 2. at f. in the margent proves saying Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin and the worshipping of Images Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to pacification sect 17. pag. 104. paulo ante med pag. 105. saith If any think it more honor able for the Blessed Virgin yea for Christ himself that took flesh of her to have been without sin and thereuppon for his part do rather think that by special praerogative she also was preserved from original corruption c. in these or such like whosoever will condemn all those that are not perswaded as we are committeth an uncharitable part towards those his brethren And D. Field ibid. apud Brereley pag. 499. in the margent at * expresly affirmes lib. 3. of the Church c. 42. pag. 174. post med the point concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady to be a controversie not [ſ] Not defined saith M.