Councells Fathers that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264. it is most notoriously evident that for the grossest points of popery as Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass worshiping of Images Iustification by works the supremacy of the Pope prohibition of Priests marriage they Papists have no shew of any evidence from Fathers within five hundred years after Christ. And yet this very man being pressed with St. Augustin and the Church in his time holding of popish doctrin doth grant it and says that can not prejudice protestancy for that the pure time of the primitive Church extended not much beyond the age of the Apostles So that he whom before you heard take God to witness that the Church was so pure for the first five or 6. hundred years that Papists had no colour for their Tenets in Fathers or Councells now doth confess not only that St. Austin but the whole Church was infected with popery not long after the age of the Apostles The honest Willet divideth his book of answer and satisfaction into foure several parts in the first he setteth down 13. vntruths objected by his adversary as notoriously wilfull in the second as many objected contradictions in the third the like number of falsifications of Authors and in the fourth thirteen corruptions of Scripture I will mention but two or three and leave my Reader to judge of the man's honesty by his answers pag. 29. his adversary doth object against him these words of his taken out of his Synopsis pag. 609. The Mass promiseth sufficient redemption to the wicked that have spent their life in drunkeness adultery c. if they come to the Church and hear Mass and take holy Bread and holy water c. though they never pray nor repent nor hear the word preached Which words being confessed by Mr. Willet to be his his adversary doth accuse him of willfull lying or intolerable ignorance for that in no Roman Catholick writer in the world shall he find this proposition or the parts therof Willet answers not to the particular charge but taketh occasion for more then a dozen pages together to prove that the Roman doctrin doth not favor virtue or good manners more then the Protestant nor yet so much alledging for his proof that to hold the Commandements to be impossible and that the first motions of concupiscence be sin without consent and that a man is sure of his predestination by faith and the like Protestant doctrins are causes of much virtue among them as the contrary doctrins held by Papists are causes of wicked life on their parts So he answereth to his accusation with so manifest an absurdity as to say that men are inclined to observe God's Commandments by holding it impossible to keep them wheras if they be not mad that principle must dissuade them from attempting any such observation seeing it is a madness to endeavor an impossibility and to believe that God doth command things impossible Of their assurance of predestination and justification we have proved heretofore how inconsistent it is with good works moral virtue the salvation of the soul and tranquillity of the state And as for their making the first motions of concupiscence a sin without consent it is the sink and source from whence Protestants suck most of their errors From hence they inferr that all the best actions of man are infected with mortal crime because they pass through the stinking Channell of human corruption hence they deny the merit of good works wrought by grace hence the impossibility of fulfilling God's Commandments for that every action of the just is of it 's own nature a transgression of his Laws Hence no inherent but a vain imputative Justice hence the justification by faith alone hence no freedom of will to perform any morall good no liberty in man to cooperat with God when he first moveth awaketh and calleth him out of the state of sin c. But let 's return from Willet's absurdities to his falsifications I let pass his falsifying S. Bernard to make him say that the Pope is Antichrist by applying the words of the Apocalyps The beast to which a mouth was given speaketh blasphemies doth sit in Peter's Chaire it being evident that Saint Bernard applyed those words not to any true Pope but to an Anti-Pope called Petrus Leonis because he entred by violence into that Sea I likewise pretermit his fraud and folly in saying your doctrin in prohibiting and restraining marriage to your Clergy how it helpeth to holiness 〈◊〉 Bernard wâ—ll 〈◊〉 saying Tolle de Ecclesia 〈…〉 c. Wheras S. Bernard speaks in defence of the 〈…〉 against 〈◊〉 Hereticks of his time 〈…〉 never dreamed 〈…〉 marry himself having bin a votary and vnto 〈◊〉 Monk Letting 〈◊〉 I say thâ—se I will only mention how he accuseth all Catholicks of heresy for defending the lawfulness of the vow of voluntary 〈…〉 against vs that it was the heresy of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to persuade men to cast away their riches S. Austin and all other Authors tell vs that the sayd Pelagians and Manicheâ—s were not condemned of 〈◊〉 for persuading men to give away their riches but for maintaining that all rich men were bound to forsake all their riches 〈◊〉 that otherwise they could not go to heaven But now 〈…〉 shew the sincerity of the English Protestant Clergy since the beginning of King Iames his reign vntill this present SECT VII Falsifications and frauds of the prelatick English Clergy to maintain protestancy since the begining of King Iames. SVBSECT I. Their corruptions of Scripture for maintaining their caracter continued in the Bible though commanded by King Iames it should be reviewed and corrected THe English Protestant Translations of Scripture had bin so cryed down as fals and corrupt by Catholicks and acknowledged such by many learned Protestants that King Iames commanded a review and reformation of those Translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward 6. and Qveen Elizabeths days the work was vndertaken by the Prelatick Clergy not so much for zeale of truth as for a shew of compliance with his Majesty who protested in the Conference at Hampton-Court he never had seen an English Bible truly translated And because the Catholicks insisted much vpon two main points in their former Controversies wherin they observed the illiterat sort of people had bin most abused by the English Translators of Scripture to wit by their translating Jmages for Idols and Ordination by Election for Ordination by imposition of hands by the first wherof the Roman Catholick Religion was generally held by the simple sort to be Idolatry and by thâ— second the Protestant Prelatick Clergy were mistaken for Priests and Bishops 〈…〉 never had received any Episcopal Ordination but what they challenged by the Queenes 〈…〉 election and by an act of Parliament 8. Eliz 1. because I say these two â—â—â—sifications were so palpably fraudulâ—nt and
Church he hath fallen into the Fundamental error and foundation of Protestancy but yet with this difference that albeit he agreeth with Protestants in making cleer evidence of the revelation the ground or rule of faith and by consequence in destroying all Christian belief yet he takes a contrary way from them Protestants by reducing their evidence to very few points reject most of the articles of the Roman Catholick Church as incredible but the Author of the sure footing by amplifying and applying his evidence to every article of our faith makes them all more then credible that is self evident He and Protestants agree in the rule but differr in the application Neither of them will believe any thing but what they fancy evident but on party fancies all is evident the other fancies litle or nothing is evident Jf they vnderstand on another they may soon come to an accord and the sequell of their principle will be to take away all Christian belief for Christian belief must of necessity involue some obscurity in that Act or at least formality wherby we assent vnto the mystery believed Otherwise if the essence or nature of Christian faith were consistent with cleer evidence and with the want of all obscurity why may it not be sayd that the blessed have faith in heaven nay why may it not be sayd that the second person of the Trinity hath â—aith ab 〈◊〉 if it be sufficient for faith that on assentâ— to truth for 〈…〉 and speaking of an other though 〈◊〉 evidently 〈…〉 and sees also that the other speaks The sure footing therfore doth faile and 〈…〉 â—eason of the Author 's confounding the evidence of our obligation to belieue the articles proposed by the Church with the evidenâ—e of God's revealing them by the 〈◊〉 proposal of the Church The testimony of the Church confirmed by so many supernatural signes makes it cleerly euident to vs that we are bound to believe God revealed all the doctrin delivered as his by the tradition and testimony of the Church but the tradition or signes of the Church do not make 〈◊〉 or self 〈◊〉 that God hath de facto revealed 〈…〉 which the Church proposeth as Divine It is moraly evident that God revealed it but not Metaphysicaly evident according to Schoolmens expression This moral evidence of God's revealing what the Church proposeth induceth a clâ—â—r and evident obligation vpon the will and soul of man to adheare as vnalterably to the doctrin of the Church as if we had metaphysical or cleer evidence that God revealed the same and the motiue of our faith and of this adhesion is God's veracity because it is manifest by the very light of Nature that we ought to believe God would not permit such a miraculous and moral evidence of his own revealing or speaking the mysteries of christianity by the mouth of our Church vnless he did realy speake by the same Church For want of this doctrin and distinction many vnderstand not how a man can possibly or at least prudently adheare or assent to an object with greater assurance then he sees cleer reason for If by cleer reason for an assent of Divine faith be meant that the truth of the mystery assented vnto must of necessity be cleer to the Assenter either in it self or in it's necessaire connection with the Revelation it is a gross mystake for that the difference between an assent grounded vpon cleer evidence of the truth or of reason and an assent grounded vpon Divine authority is that the first is a cleer intellectual sight of the truth itself the second is not so but a cleer sight of our own obligation of assenting to the truth revealed or related because wee see cleer and convincing signs of the sincerity and veracity of the Author or relator Now our obligation of believing God to be the Author of the doctrin of the Church being evident to ourselves we are bound to assent to the same Doctrin according to the evidence of our obligation that is with greather assurance then appearance of the truth The evidence of our obligation to assent is a sufficient ground for our assurance of the truth assented vnto Wherfore albeit some Catholick Divines have pretended to maintain in their schoole disputations that God by the infinitness of his supernatural power may concurr to an Act of faith though the existence of the revelation itself were evident to the believer yet besides that most of them speak irresolutly and incoherently in that point they all grant that our Christian faith must always involve obscurity in it's assent and that that faith which would have evidence both of the existence of the revelation and of the revealers veracity would be an other kind of faith much differring from our Christian and Catholick Besides we ought to consider that it is one thing to dispute in schooles of what God may do and an other thing to believe in the Church what he hath don In the schooles they dispute even of impossibilities because they make it their business to exercise witt in speculations but in the Catholick Church our chief business consists in believing and practising The reason why Faith doth require a mixture of obscurity or want of cleer evidence is because to believe is to trust him whom you believe for the truth signified by his words and if you did see the truth in it self or know that it cannot be separated from the words spoken you can no more trust the speaker for the truth so connected with his words then trust him for the money you know to be contained in a purse which he delivers vnto your hands for though you do not see the money you see the purse wherin you have cleer evidence the money is contained To believe therfore is to take on 's word for the truth as you do his bond or bill for money for which you have no other security but his worth and veracity and the greater on s worth and veracity is the more you ought to rely vpon it and doubt the less of his performance and therfore if you require any greater assurance or evidence of the truth then his supposed inclination to the same or his veracity you do him a great injury and resolve not to trust or believe him Wherfore God's worth veracity or inclination to truth being infinit we ought not to exact a cleer sight of the truth it self nor of any things evidently connected therwith if we do we neither trust nor believe him his inclination therfore to truth being infinit we ought not to retain the least suspition or feare of being deceived either by himself or by the Church whervnto he gives the charge and signes of declaring and proposing his word to vs because he who is infinitly inclined to speak truth is inclined to do it not only when himself speaks but every way that truth can be spoken or by every person and Organ that may be prudently taken to speak by his
what they say in Controversies of Religion Had Luther Calvin Beza Kemnitius Melancton and Jewell bin as sincere in their writings against Catholicks as Canisius Coccius Bellarmin Gualterus Peron and Baronius are against Protestants we could not have discovered so many palpable falsifications in the later Protestant writers as our Books manifest to the world wherof I have sayd more J fear then my Readers will have patience to peruse Yet I shall entreat them for the Conclusion of this matter to permit me to mention somewhat of Luther's and Calvin's sincerity the two chief Apostles of the Protestant Reformation and of two others the most eminent Prelats and writers of the Church of England Usher and Laud one called the Irish Saint the other the English Martyr When such Primats are proved Falsifiers we need not examin further the writings of the Inferior Clergy and petty Ministers but remit the â—ealous defenders of their sincerity to such Books as discover their frauds and are easily found wherof we have given heretofore a Catalogue SECT XI Calumnies and Falsifications of Luther Calvin Archbishop Laud and Primat Vsher to discredit Catholick Religion against their own knowledge and conscience LUther in postilla ad Evang. Dominicoe Annuntiationis saith Among the Papists every one maketh recourse vnto Mary expecting from her more favour and grace then from Christ himself Calvin saith every Papist hath chosen peculiar Saints to whom he hath devoted himself as to so many helping Gods 〈◊〉 are their Gods now according to the number of their Cittyes as the Prophet vpbraided the Jsraelits but according to the number of their very persons This our Popish Babylon saith Luther hath so far extinguished faith in this Sacrament of Pennance as with a shamless forehead she denyeth faith to be necessary nay further she hath with an Anti-christian impiety defended that it is an heresy if any man affirme faith to be necessary His Scholler Philip Melancton saith the same The School-Doctors have foolishly and wickedly taught that sins are forgiven without faith Without doubt the illiterat Protestants who all take Luther to be a Saint at least do not believe him to be an Jmpostor question not but that Roman Catholicks are such men as Luther Calvin c. describe them and will not so much as turn to the Councell of Trent or to any other Book where our Tenets are to be found there they might see that we hold faith to be the beginning and foundation of man's saluation and the root of all Justification without which it is impossible to please God c. And in him that doth repent it is of necessity that faith go before pennance Concerning the necessity of Grace Luther saith The Papists do teach that a man may keep the Commandements of God with the proper forces of nature without God's grace Concerning the immortality of the soul he saith The Papists at this day do not believe at all the Immortality of the soul. And again in the Lateran Councell that was celebrated in the year 1515. in time of Pope Julius it was first of all known and decreed that the resurrection of the Dead was to be believed Of this wicked Friars corruptions of Scripture see Zuinglius tom 2. ad Luth. de sâ—c fol. 412. and many more Authors As for Fathers and Councells he did not value them so much as to trouble himself with falsifying or corrupting their writings though sometimes to impose vpon illiterat people that the holy Fathers were hereticks or ignorant he endeavors in his writings to discredit their persons and condemn their doctrin See what he sayes of them hertofore part 1. 2. SVBSECT II. Of Calvin's calumnies against Catholicks and their Doctrin MR. Walsingham in his search pag. 152. acknowledgeth he had such an opinion of Calvin's Sanctity and sincerity that having read in his Institutions cap. 11. lib. 1. That in the first 500. years after Christ there were never any Images in Christian Churches both himself and other Ministers did often alledge the same as a certain truth to such as knew less then themselves but perceiving that the Papists laughed at them for it he began to doubt and after examination of twenty Authors or witnesses within the first 500. years which Coccius citeth against Calvin he found them truly cited and Calvin a Lyar. How litle Calvin valued the practise or doctrin of the ancient Church he declareth lib. 3. Instit. c. 5. § 10. where he saith when the adversaries object against me that prayer for the Dead hath bin vsed above 1300. years I ask them again by what word of God revelation or example it 〈◊〉 bin so vsed c. But the very old Fathers themselves that prayed for the dead did see that herein they wanted both Commandment of God and lawfull example So as 〈◊〉 accuseth all the holy Fathers because they were Papists of superstition In all the Hymns and Litanies of the Papists saith Calâ—â—â— there is never any mention of Christ but wheras always they pray to dead Saints the name of Christ never occurreth And yet this Impostor could not be ignorant that our Litanies begin Kyrie eleison Christe eleison Lord have mercy â—pon us Christ have mercy vpon us Christe audi nos Christe exaudi 〈◊〉 c. And our hymns he knew were made by St. Ambrose St. Gregory Prudentius Sedulius and other ancient Fathers and conclude Gloria tibi Domine qui natus es de Virgine c. In the very same Book and Chapter Calvin affirmeth that is the third Councell of Carthage wherin St. Austin was present it was forbiden that we should say Sancte Petre ora pro nobis which is fals it was indeed decreed Quod cum Altari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio That when the Priest did assist at the Altar he should offer his prayer and sacrifice to God the Father The Papists do shamefully and impiously define saith Calvin that dayly pennance must only be don for venial sin As though we taught that for mortal sin pennance was not necessary Jn the same place he saith the Papists speak not at all when they treat of pennance of the internal renovation of mind which bringeth true amendment of life and again ibid. 29. they hold that they are reconciled once only by the grace of God when they are Baptised post Baptismum resurgendum esse per satisfactiones but after baptism a man must rise again from sin by satisfactions Wheras this impudent fellow knew well enough that we hold all rising from sin or reconciliation vnto God whether before or after baptism must be by Grace and that satisfactions only are for temporal punishments after the guilt of sin is remitted by Reconciliation In his institutions l. 4. c. 7. he saith that Pope Iohn 2â— affirmed mens souls to be mortal and to perish together with the Body vntill the day of resurrection which calumny we have confuted hertofore In the same