and I know not where they haue placed hir They can not assigne vnto me any persons time or place wherein their Synagogue had a resplendent face and a laudable dilatation §. 2. The SECOND Consideration touching a visible Church free from any damnable errour The Protestants loosenesse and confusion in their description of the Church 1. I Considered Secondly that this VISIBLE Church can neuer be taynted vniuersally with any errour and specially if it be such as either expressly or implicitely indangereth the principles of saluation for in matters of the necessity of saith she is freed from the possibility of errour 2. Hence it is that i Part. 4. de Vnit. Grac. Considerat 6. Iohn Gerson a man highly * See afterward c. 3. § 3. num 4. c. aduanced by D. Field prescribeth this ensuing obseruation as an infallible rule VVhatsoeuer is determined by the Pope of Rome together with his generall Councell of the Church in matters appertayning vnto faith that is vndoubtedly true and to be receiued of all the world For this consideration is founded in the articles of our faith VVe belieue that there is an HOLY CATHOLIQVE CHVRCH which is exempted from errour in hir faith c. 3. As this position was credible with me for the Authours sake and he vpon D. Fields singular commendation so I was induced farther and more strongly perswaded to intertayn it by the certayn warrant of him who is TRVTH it self and promised his Spirit vnto the holy Apostles with assurance Io. 16.13 that he should lead them into all Truth 4. In quality it is Truth without errour In quantity it is All truth necessary and expedient for them or vs in this peregrinant estate For as this promise belonged then particularly vnto each Apostle so it belongeth now generally vnto the whole Church which being taken either in hir latitude as she is diffused ouer the world or in hir representation as she is collected into a lawfull Synod is priuiledged from errour in hir doctrinall determinations 5. And this was clearely imported vnto me in a sentence of S. 1. Timoth. 3.15 Paull vnto his beloued Timothy whom he instructed how he should behaue himself in the house of God which is the ground and PILLAR OF TRVTH 6. For howsoeuer it pleaseth D. k Pag. 199. The church of Ephesus hath erred damnably in faith Field to elude the grauity and power of this Scripture by restrayning the Apostles sense therein particularly vnto the Church of Ephesus which was committed vnto the Episcopall care of Timothy yet as many reasons did preuayle with me to reiect his exposition so I preferred the authority of S. l Commentâ—r ibid Ambrose saying that VVhereas the whole world is Gods the Church is sayd to be his howse of which vniuersall Church Damasus the Pope is Rectour at this day This Vniuersall Church is the Pillar of truth sustayning the edifice of faith 7. Herevpon l Prascripe cap. 28. Tertullian deriding the hereticks of his time esteemeth it a base and grosse conceipt in any man to suppose that the holy Ghost who was asked of the Father and sent by the Sonne to be the Teacher of TRVTH should neglect that office vnto which he was designed and that he should permitt the Church to vnderstand the Scriptures otherwise then he spake by the mouth of the Apostles And farther Is it probable saieth he that so many and so great Churches if they did erre should erre thus conformably into the same faith VARIASSE debuerat ERROR doctrinae Ecclesiarum Caeterùm quod apud multos VNVM inuenitur non est erratum sed TRADITVM Errour bringeth variety but where vnity is there is the truth Thus the Churches are many in number but one in faith diuided in place but ioyned in opinion 8. Mine earnest meditation in this point taught me to lament the confusion of our Protestants admitting innumerable sectaries into our vast and incongruous Church Fox in Act. Mon. See the 3. Conuers of EnglaÌ„d which is a very Chimaera thrust together and fashioned in specificall disproportions But this was our necessity hard necessity and not our choyce to make such a pitifull delineation of our Church For whereas we had not any certayn succession to deriue hir descent and petigree from the Ancients we were compelled in this respect to deale liberally like good fellowes and take sondry hereticks with incompatible factions into our society least by the same reason for which we exclude others we should exclude our selues also from the communion of the Church pag. 137. 9. Hence it is that D. Field laying the fundation of his Babell feareth not to say that the Churches of Russia Armenia Syria AEthiopia Greece c. are and continue parts of the TRVE CATHOLICK CHVRCH A position manifestly repugnant vnto Reason and Authority Vnto reason for if truth of doctrine be a Note of the Church as we defend how is that a true Catholick Church which impugneth the truth and how is that one Church which is distracted into many faiths Vnto authority for S. * de haeres in perorat See the 3. conuers of England Part. 2. chap. 10. num 10.15.16.17 c. Augustine doth constantly affirme that whosoeuer maintayneth any heresy registred or omitted by him in his Treatise he is not a CATHOLIQVE Christian and consequently no member of that Church wherein alone we haue the promise of saluation For as our * Fides in Christum faith in Christ must be TRVSTFVLL liuely and actiue by a speciall application of his merits vnto our selues so our * Fides de Christo faith of Christ must be TRVE syncere and absolute by a iust conformity vnto the will of God reuealed by him and propounded by his Church And therefore D. Fields * Part. 4. de vnit Graecorum considerat 4. Gerson intreating of peace and VNITY in the Church laboureth to draw all men into a communion of faith and iudgeth it a great folly in any man to conceiue that we may be saued in our particular sects and errours 10. When I had discouered by an earnest prosecution of this point how naturally and powerfully our ProtestaÌ„ticall * The Church may erre Diuers Churches though erring grosly in faith make vp one Catholick Church c. doctrines conuaigh men into Laodiceanisme and a carelesse neglect of vndefiled Religion whence Atheisme must necessarily ensue I resolued with hearty affection to vnite my self vnto that Church which is pure and single in Religion wheresoeuer I should deprehend the same For though I saw that the Protestants religion was false in some things yet I had great hesitation and doubt whether the Papists were true in all as S. * Confess lib. 6. cap. 1. Augustine spake sometime vnto his louing Mother I am now no Manichee nor yet a Catholick Christian And so mine estate as well as his might be resembled vnto the case of that patient * S.
persons is in its nature spirituall diuine heauenly and as it were gold the state of single persons is secular earthly and as it were dirt he vouchsafeth to yeald this worthy answere in defence of our Great Reformer Lutheri verba mihi nunc legere non licuit I could not read the words of Luther now howbeit Bellarmine doth particularly designe the * Luth. in Epithalamio place 17. But M. DEANE aduanced vnto this honour for his rare dexterity against the Papists hath vnfortunately preuented this excuse For remembring the wise counsayle of an heathen * Horat. de arte Poëticaâ— Poet who prescribeth that in a thing of lesser importance then the controuersies of Religion are a writer should bring forth nothing into publick view which hath not bene discussed euen * Nonumque prematur in annum a In his ep vnto the Archbish of Cant. nine yeres space with great exactnesse he tooke very speciall deliberation to compose and divuldge this renowned Treatise I bestowed sayth a he * Quidque domuÌ„ fert is DECIMO nisi dedecus ANNOâ— Ouid. TEN YEARES paynes vpon this work with most ardent desire to find out the truth least some man perhapps might object vnto me either prejudice or temerity therein Moreouer the booke which I vsed was of a second impression and beautified with this aduertisement Editio castigatior a more exquisite edition then the former Wherefore now that little sparke of poore hope which remayned in me to find some shew or shaddow of probable satisfaction touching the heresy of Aërius so seuerely censured in him by the Fathers and so earnestly obiected vnto vs by the Papists became vtterly extinct §. 3. How vainely D. Field excuseth the folly of Protestants which sheweth it self in the diuersity of their censures touching the aforesaid heresy of Aërius The true reason of their difference herein is assigned Their peruerse dealing with Antiquity 1. VNto this wound very deepe and lardge b Pag. 139. D. Field hath thought it expedient for our security to apply a rare and soueraigne playster viz. If it be sayd that sondry of our Diuines seeme to acquitt Aërius herein they are to be conceiued as vnderstanding his reprehension to haue touched the errours and superstitions which euen then perhapps beganne in some places and amongst some men For otherwise his reprehension if it be vnderstood to extend to the generall practise and judgement of the Church it is not nor may not be justified 2. As Sir c In respons ad Epist Pomerani pag. 8. If Luther do coÌ„playn of Luther do say c. D. Field pag. 192. Th. More answered vnto Pomeranus extenuating the haynous crimes of our brethren euen in the hatching-time of our ghospell though you mince the matter with si qui and si quid and si alibi and si non Christianum c. yet it is well knowen that you do generally perpetrate diabolicall and barbarous attemps so though D. Field doth here limitt restrayn and obscure a most eminent truth with if perhapps some men some places seemed c. yet I saw most clearely let the precedents testify in my behalf that we do notoriously conspire with Aërius in this issue what he denied the very same thing do we deny what he affirmed the very same thing do we affirme Es nimium similis patri c. ô Luther thou art too like vnto Aërius thy whole lineaments descry him to be thy Father in this particular conceipt As his reprehension extended vnto the generall practise and judgement of the Church so doth thine likewise and we employ our best skill to justify and maintayn the very same reprehension against the faithfull relation of hir chiefest Doctours and the perpetuall succession of all ages 3. But forasmuch as I perceiued that the Doctour doth wisely conceale and prouidently dissemble the quality and reason of that difference which our Diuines are chardged with in this matter I entered into a serious consideration thereof and obserued that it doth arise and flow NOTA. not out of their diuers apprehension of the thing it self but out of a different opinion which they intertayn concerning the authority of the Church Hence it is that Luther Zwinglius and such passionate gentlemen neglecting the triall of their faith by the testimony of Fathers and plausibly reducing all things vnto the Scripture either simply by admitting no other proof at all or respectiuely by admitting the Fathers as farr as they agree with the Scripture and so farr they may admitt a triall by the Diuell himself and yeald as much respect vnto him as vnto them confesse plainely and syncerely that Aërius did not err in his reprehension but that the Church erred in hir practise On the contrary other men pretending to deale more fairely with the Church their mother and to defend themselues vnder hir protection will not forsooth seeke hir ruine by whom they would seeme to stand and therefore they are compelled to frame most improper vayn and friuolous interpretations of this and other things to maintayn the goodnesse of their cause according to the nature of their defence 4. Briefly therefore I noted a triple variety in our courses which consist generally either in the Rejection or Misallegation or Misconstruction of the ancient and venerable Fathers For in the beginning and entrance of our Ghospell nothing was more triuiall then to speake contemptuously of the Fathers and to disclayme their witnesse in the controuersies of this time Shall I name the persons Nulli nota magis domus est sua no man kenneth his owne house more familiarly then that Luther Zwinglius Musculus and our primitiue Fathers are principalls in this rank Or if you will ascend a little higher and come neerer vnto the dayes of VVickliff himself you shall find this article ascribed vnto Reginald Peacock whom for this and others of this kind d De Antichristo pag. â—7 M. Powell hath registred in the Catalogue of our Euangelicall Forefathers and M. Fox hath fauourably graÌ„ted him a place in the * Febr. 11. Calendar of his Saints viz. Veterum doctorum authoritati parum aut nihil tribuendum little or nothing is to be yealded vnto the authority of the Fathers 6. In the progresse of our ghospell others pretending a more wise moderation in this case but performing as little honesty here as some shewed humility before would not so intemperately reject the Fathers and therefore they excell in misalleadging their testimonies as e Analys Fidei pag. 18. Ego habeo testimoniae sanctorum PatruÌ„ ego defendo Patrum dogmata sayd Dioscorus the heretick See CoÌ„câ—l Chalcedon Act. 1. Gregor de Valentia doth complayn of many Protestants and more specially of Kemnitius that Examiner saith he of the Tridentine Councell If this collusion fayle then succedeth the third which is misconstruction of things by deriuing the testimonies of the Fathers to an other purpose then euer they did or could intend A for example
Scriptures yet there is no small authority of the VNIVERSALL CHVRCH which shineth in this custome for in the prayers of the Priest which he powreth forth to God at his Altar the COMMENDATION of the dead hath its place 4. Heere three things occurred vnto my ponderation FIRST that S. Augustine doth iustify prayer for the dead by the Canonicall Scripture for so the bookes of the Machabees are recognized by a †3. Carthag ca. 47. Councell wherein S. Augustine himself was present and * ca. 50. subscribed thereunto VVherefore in his ceÌ„sure the Sacrifice for the dead was firmely established by the testimony of sacred writ and this being so how can it be true that Augustine could not plead this authority in defence therof And if he did plead it why doth D. Humfrey pretend the contrary in this place 5. SECONDLY S. Augustine maketh mention here of the OLD Scripture wherby he intimateth that in the NEVV Testament some reliefe for the dead is either plainly expressed or sufficiently †see before pag. â— c. deduced from thence THIRDLY S. Augustine adioyneth the Church vnto the Scripture because there is impeachable soueraignty in the VNIVERSALL Church therfore he saith that if other proofes were wanting in this matter yet this alone may satisfie giue contentment vnto her obsequious Children Which plea seemed vnto me so full of equity that without insolency and madnesse both which must ineuitably fall vpon D. Humfrey and his Church I saw no possibility to decline the same §. 2. An other of his vnfaithfull practises against S. Augustine SAint Augustine maketh mention in the former sentence of a COMMENDATION of the dead from which word the Doctour taketh an aduantage to shew Pag. 262. See before pag 38. that in your Colledges you now retayn this pious custome of the ancient Church But he deludeth you with ambguity of speach For the commendation whereof S. Augustine speaketh is referred vnto the SOVLES of the dead which in the sacred Mysteries were specially recommended vnto our Lord but the commendation of your Founders in your Colledges is a memory of their names which you celebrate with commemoration of their liberality whereby your studies are maintayned And this is not to conforme your selues vnto antiquity nor to execute the testaments of your honourable Founders 2. This noble figment in the Doctour is presently attended with a more eminent deprauation For though Paulinus firmely belieuing according to the instruction of the Catholick Church that great vtility ensueth vnto the dead by the prayers of the liuing desireth an explication of that scripture which sayeth 2. Cor. 5.10 VVe shall all stand before the Tribunall of Christ and euery man shall receiue according to that which he hath done in this life whether it be good or euill and though S. Augustine yealdeth this resolution viz. Ibid. according to the quality of this life men receiue helpe after their decease c. yet D. Humfrey supressing both theis poynts flourisheth in his vnprofitable rhetorick and handleth the matter artificially to make a credulous Reader belieue that S. Augustine himself doth conuell the vse of Prayer for the dead by the testimony of this Scripture 3. The detection of theis vnfaithfull courses which till this time mine ey saw not neither did my heart once suspect did conduct me occasionally vnto the truth Ita ille qui multis laqueus mortis extitit meum quo captus eram relaxare jam ceperat nec volens S. Aug. CoÌ„f. l. 5. c. 7. de FAVSTO nec sciens sayeth S. Augustine of a man happy in name but vnhappy in deed and the like I may justly pronounce in my successe thus he that was the snare of death vnto many beganne to lose the snare wherewith I was intangled and this he did though neither by his will nor knowledge FINIS The correction of the principall faults passed onely in some copies P signifieth the page L the line M the margent P. 5. l. 15. reade Beda p. 8. l. 19. leaue out scio and reade Veteres abusi sunt c. p. 10. l. 32. reade witt p. 17. 19. 21. 23. 25-27 in the title Chap. 2. p. 21. m. 116. in stead of 114. p. 26. l. 4. elswhere p. 32. l. 7. vnto p. 34. l. vlt. extended p. 45. m. § 5. num 8. in stead of § 3. n. 4. p. 51. l. 17 incomparable p. 52. m. from the infection c. p. 61. l. 20. sayeth p. â—5 m. Rainolds p. 72. l. 12. conuent p. 75. l. 27. after censure add theis words as a thing not to be exercised against any professour of the ghospell p. 76. l. 2. from l. 28. vnmatchable l. 32. Church p. 78. l. 9 taught that p. 82. l. 3. retreat p. 87. l. 26. are the Churches p. 90. l. 5. without l. 12. ghospell p. 91. 14. Wherefore p. 112. l. vlt. Church p. 120. l. 15. with p. 121. m. ad literam p. 122. l. 4. place the parenthesis after him p. 123. l. 16. exempt him from p. 125. l. 16. dishonourable p. 130. l. vlt. PRAYER p. 134. l. 21. construction p. 149. l. 21 Diuines p. 151. l. 10. testimonies l. 28. intercourse A BRIEF PLAYN AND effectuall instruction concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead COurteous Reader the intended breuity of my discourse did not permitt me so to inforce Booke 1. Part. 1. Cha. 2. §. 4. nuÌ„ 16. and to illustrate the testimony of S. AVGVSTINE in this matter as I had conceiued nor as the dignity thereof doth justly require and especially for their sake who either in regard of their weaknesse cannot or in regard of their negligence care not or in regard of their peruersenesse will not see the cleare and irrefragable truth VVherefore hauing a little remnant of vacant paper I haue thought good to employ it vnto this profitable end assuring my self that euery Reader may informe his vnderstanding and settle his conscience herein by the waight and euidence of theis THREE ensuing propositions The FIRST proposition 1 THere was alwayes and now is and euer shall be a CATHOLICK Church which is free from any The Protestants accompt this doctrine of Purgatory c. to be damnable damnable errour This assertion is very often deliuered by S. Augustine and the very same though not precisely in theis words is yealded by Pag. 203. D. Field in the name of his Church The SECOND proposition 2. THe instruction of this Church is the last and finall judgement wherein all men may and must rely as in the PROPOVNDER of truth This assertion is strengthened by sondry testimonies of the Fathers and In his ep dedic D. Field approoueth it saying that men desirous of satisfaction must diligently search out the true Church and Therefore it must be knowen therefore it must be visible rest in hir judgement c. In which respect he sayeth that Pag. 193. if the reprehension of Aërius touching PRAYER FOR THE DEAD be vnderstood to
and other hereticks 8. And here you may perceiue the singular falsehood of M. †in apolog Iewell pretending that they whom Papists do contumeliously call Lutherans and Zwinglians are truly FRIENDS and BRETHREN For as S. Luther himself would by no meanes permitt the name of BRETHREN vnto the Zwinglian but repelled them for hereticks as he testifieth in a certain * cited by Brentius in Recognit c. pag. 276. epistle so †ibid. pag. 282. Brentius and Melancthon resolued that they could not acknowledge them to be their brethren in regard of their impious and vayn opinions And though the judgement of Melancthon chandged as the moone whence his name is * See the examen of Fox his calendar chap. 16. num 72. 7â— c. odious vnto the truest disciples of Luther yet the Lutheran part of the Synod holden at Maulbrune 1564. make this declaration Whereas the Zwinglians haue deliuered abroad that we agnize them to be our BRETHREN this is fayned by them so impudently that we cannot sufficiently admire their impudency herein For as we grant them no place in the Church so we do not take them to be our brethren whom we haue found to be caried with the spiritt of lies and to be contumelious against the Sonne of man 9. Theis things are very playn and therefore I referr the decision of this whole matter vnto your self let your owne heart be the oracle whence you may assume a faithfull resolution And if your conscience shall assure you that the LIKE differences were not betwixt the ancients as are and were betwixt the primitiue fathers and brethren of your ghospell then iudge of your Doctours fidelity wherein you haue formerly had such a firme repose 10. I come vnto a SECOND pretense of your learned Doctour saying that the Papists themselues haue diuisions and differences pag. 168. c. and that therefore nothing can be concluded against the Protestants or for the Papists from the note of Vnity or from diuision which is opposite thereunto 11. But this poore recrimination can yeald you no defence For if the ey may be a iudge in this case we see a comfortable harmony in the Catholick Church the same doctrine preached the same Sacraments administred the same gouernment established But as your Ecclesiasticall gouerment in England in Scotland in Heluetia in Saxony is distinct so the doctrines betwixt your sayd Churches conspire not in some essentiall poynts In a word The Catholicks in Asia Africk Europe America haue a iust correspondency in faith but the Protestants in Europe for in it and some part of it alone are they confined haue great diuersity in faith and one faction doth prosecute the other with Vatinian hatred 12. Wherefore a THIRD pretense which your learned Doctour doth affect against the certainty of our experience will easily refute itself VVe want not a most certayn rule sayth * D. Field pag. 169. he whereby to iudge of all matters of controuersy and difference to witt the Scripture or written word of God expounded according to the rule of faith practise of the Saints and the due †Ad alium scripturae locum recurrendum est non expectanda hominis sententia ad liteÌ„ dirimendam sayth Zwingl tom 2. in responsâ—ad epist Eckij comparing of one part of it with an other in the publick confessions of faith published by the Churches of our confession In all which there is a full consent whatsoeuer our malicious aduersaries clamorously pretend to the contrary c. 13. If this rule be most certayn how commeth it to passe that the difference betwixt Lutherans and Caluinists standeth vncoÌ„posed at this day Why did * See loc coÌ„ Luth. part 5. pag. 52. Luther pronounce so seuerely that the Anabaptists and Sacramentaries contemne the WORD howsoeuer they make a shew of religion Why did Zwinglius so peremptorily affirme that Luther oppressed the Euangelicall truth Why did M. Cartwright so constantly protest that the Church of England is destitute of one moity of the word Finally why do all your sects as well the supreame of Lutherans and Caluinists as the subordinate factious in each cry out continually the word the word and yet no rule hath drawen them vnto a conformity of sense therein 14. Giue me leaue therefore to except against the pretended rule of D. Field for three respects FIRST because the Principle of your religion excludeth the meanes of reconciliation viz. the grauity of Councells the dignity of Fathers the authority of the Church For though D. Field in his epistle vnto the Archb. of Cant. doth iudiciously aduise all men to rest in the iudgement of the Church and sayth elswhere that you admitt a triall by the Fathers yet your ghospellers haue not accepted nor practised this direction It is not accepted by you for Clebitius to name one amongst many setting downe the lawes of a Synod betwixt the Lutherans and Zwinglians sayth precisely Solum Dei verbum sit iudex let the word of God be the onely iudge Likewise Zwinglius deliuereth this assertion against the Catholicks we will endure no other iudge but the word alone Now where is the meanes to define the questions of religion See F. Camâ— piaÌ„s fourth reason and compare it with the assertion of D. Field pag. 168. viz. the authority of a Councell is not the if the Church of God represented in a lawfull Councell hath not authority to iudge of the sense of Scripture and to oblige men to rest in hir decision But this prescription is not practised by you for you receiue the ancient Oecumenicall Councells with this restriction as farr as they agree with the scripture and so euery man is left vnto his owne choyce to determine whether this or that particular in the Councell be agreable vnto the scripture or not Notwithstanding this liberty is not permitted by your Bishopps vnto their owne inferiours for they know what inconuenience would follow by leauing the * Ministers vnto that vncertayn limitation and so they presume to require more duty of their children then they dare yeald vnto their Fathers but with what equity and indifferency your wisedome may easily conceiue as also how the vnity such as it is in your Church proceedeth onely from the vigour of law and not from the principles of Religion 15. My SECOND exception against D. Fields pretended rule is taken from a consideration of your persons which haue not that subordination which is requisite in this behalf For lib. 1. ep 3. whereas S. Cyprian doth excellently obserue that heresies arise from no other cause then that the Priest of God is not obayed and that men think not of one Priest and Iuge in stead of Christ it is most euident that heresies will increase daily in your Churches and no conclusion of peace can possibly ensue because there is not submission of judgement nor subjection of spirit nor vnion of members vnto their head Lutherans seeke
to predominate Caluinists will not obay where is the vmpire of their contention 16. It is a memorable history which Sturmius recordeth in his booke * fol. 33. de ratione concordiae ineundae complayning pathetically against the Lutherans who are so deepely exasperated against the Zwinglians that they will not endure any conference with them but reject them as damned hereticks anno 1560. vnworthy of any farther dispute Thus the Ienensian Lutherans made their supplication vnto the Princes that a lawfull Synod consisting onely of such as embrace the coÌ„fession of * SacrameÌ„taries deny to subscribe therevnto whatsoeuer D. Field pretendeth See Iosias Simlerus in vita Bulling Augusta might be assembled to condemne the Zwinglians and all other enimies of their religion Likewise the Flacians a particular sect of Luthers ghospell desired to haue a publick Synod but with this caueat that all Sacramentaries Swhenchfeldians Osiandrines should be excluded from the same Which vnequall courses stirred vp Bullinger to write that since the Lord hath freed vs from the seruitude of the Pope we will not suffer our selues to be oppressed by the new tyrany of such as vnder the pretense of the ghospell aspire vnto a primacy and dictature in the Church We wâ—ll not be shutt out from the company of Saints at their choyce and pleasure c. 17. But their mutuall fury is so augmented that Sturmius seing no submission on either side professeth vnlesse the Euangelicall kings and princes interpose their authority to take away theis contentions without doubt the Churches will be infected with many heresies and hence a great vastation of Christianity will ensue as it came to passe in Asia Greece and Africk for the like causes The fundations of our Religion are conuelled the chief articles are called in question a playne way is prepared for Turcisme and Atheisme to enter in vpon vs If I would proceed farther in this argument I might informe you how fatall and vnhappy the conuents of your Ghospellers haue bene at Marpurge at Swabach at Smalcald at Maulbrune where they treated about their owne Religion and at Ratisbone where they should haue entred into a conflict with the Catholicks but the precedents are sufficient to let you vnderstand that you haue not a due subordination of persons and consequently no rule of peace pag. 169. howsoeuer D. Field is pleased to affirme that with your Churches an end is made of all controuersies c. See the place and iudge of his exactnesse 18. My THIRD exception against D. Fields pretended rule is in respect of the matters wherein your dissension doth consist For they are many in number reall in euidence substantiall in waight as I could prooue abundantly out of the writings of Luther Hunnius Conradus c. of the one part Zwinglius Sturmius Clebitius c. of the other to the iust reproof of D. Field who sayth that your differences admitt an easy reconciliation and that this shall be iustified against the proudest Papist of them all 19. My counsayle vnto you is alwayes the same TRY BEFORE YOV TRVST you haue already seene an example of his reconciling art in one poynt and by that you may take an estimate as well of his syncerity as of his solidity in the rest If your excellent and heroicall Spirit will be so grossly abused and deluded by him or any other to the certayn perill of your soule you can neuer plead inuincible ignorance for a iust excuse 20. Now to conclude this chapter good Sir if I did not experimentally know the variety and vanity of opinions in your Church 2. Timoth. 4. and that as some men heape vp a multitude of teachers vnto them selues so others confine all things vnto their owne sense and spirit I could easily belieue that you would admitt a triall by the Fathers and that you would rest in the iudgement of the Church But forasmuch as I know that neither all nor the greatest part of ghospellers in England will submitt themselues dutifully and humbly vnto this rule though I may and do challendge it at their hands therefore I will lay downe three considerations whereby you may see the equity yea the necessity of the sayd rule and how you are bound in Christian simplicity to accept it with true and hearty obedience 21. FIRST it is impossible without extraordinary reuelation to distinguish Canonicall Scripture from Apocryphall otherwise then by the testimony of the Church SECONDLY when by the testimony of the Church you can thus distinguish the Scripture yet you must giue credit vnto some translatours since you vnderstand not the originall text and if they render the Scripture vnfaithfully how can you buyld your faith vpon it with infallible euidence THIRDLY when by the authority and warrant of the Catholick Church you haue the Scripture faithfully translated the principall poynt is yet behind Tantum obstrepit veritati adulter sensus quantuÌ„ corruptor stylus Tertull. in praescript c. 17. to witt the sense which is the very soule thereof If pure necessity compell you to fly vnto the Church for your assurance in the first and second poynts will you rely vpon your owne discretion and wisedome in the third If you obiect your Spirit I also obiect mine If inward testification I haue the same You compare Scriptures so do I. You pray I do the like You are sure my certainty is as great You haue reason mine is as strong You haue faith mine is not inferiour Thus our contention is earnest and our successe is none 22. What remayneth but that we both should try our Spirits and examine our priuate thoughts according to the perpetuall and generall doctrine of that Catholique Church from which we receiued the Scriptures and which by singular notes of Antiquity Vniuersality Consent Succession c. is most eminently approoued vnto vs For which cause †cap. 15. Tertullian doth excellently prescribe and if I be not much deceyued * in his epist to the Archb. of Cant. D. Field doth condescend vnto him that Whereas Hereticks pretend the holy Scriptures and as they mooue some men with their boldnesse before hand so in the congresse of disputation they tire the strong and insnare the weake and dismisse the middle sort with scruples we must preuent them in their course and not admitt them vnto any disputes concerning the Scripture and if this be their strength we must consider first of all to whom the possession of Scriptures doth agree least he be admitted vnto them who hath no right therein c. The residue I commend vnto your owne perusall and so I referr the euent of all vnto the blessed disposition of our onely Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ CHAP. 3. The falsehood and inciuility of D. Field traducing Card. Bellarmine §. 1. Three criminations deuised against the worthy Cardinall by D. Field 1. Your learned Doctour hath sprinkled many vntruths in his discourse to the personall disgrace of Bellarmine and then
THE FIRST MOTIVE OF T. H. MAISTER OF ARTS AND LATELY MINISTER TO SVSPECT THE INTEGRITY OF HIS Religion Which was DETECTION OF FALSEHOOD in D. Humfrey D. Field other learned Protestants touching the question of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead VVith his PARTICVLAR CONSIDERATIONS perswading him to embrace the Catholick doctrine in theis and other points * ⎠* An Appendix intituled TRY BEFORE YOV TRVST Wherein Some notable vntruths of D. Field and D. Morton are discouered Printed 1609. S. AVGVSTIN de vtilit credendi contra Manichaeos cap. 14. NVllis me video credidisse nisi populorum atque gentium confirmatae opinioni ac famae admodum celeberrimae hos autem populos Ecclesiae CATHOLICAE mysteria vsquequaque occupásse Cur non igitur apud cos potissimum diligentissimè requiram quid Christus praeceperit quorum authoritate commotus Christum aliquid vtile praecepisse iam credidi Túne mihi melius expositurus es quid ille dixerit Quem suisse aut esse non putarem si abs te mihi hoc commendaretur esse credendum Hoc ergo credidi vt dixi famae celebritate consensione vetustate roboratae Vos autem tam pauci tam turbulenti tam noui nemini dubium est quám nihil dignum authoritate praeferatis Quae igitur ista tantae dementia est Illis crede Christo esse credendum à no bis disce quid dixerit Cur obsecrote Nam si illi Catholici deficerent nec me quicquam docere possent multò faciliùs mihi persuaderem Christo non esse credendum quà m de illo cuiquam nisi ab jis per quos ei credidissem discendum TO THE PROTESTANT READER IT was my purpose to be silent vntill I was inforced to speake for the publick proceedinge against me hath drawen me vnto this publick defence and specially because it was by those persons whom I haue reuerenced from my heart and in that place which must alwayes challendge an interest in my poore vnworthy self Wherefore being inuited and compelled vnto this coursey I present vnto thee louing contreyman one MOTIVE of my chandge the first in order and with me very effectuall in waight Expect not any curious or ample discourse for I do here intend to deliuer onely such peculiar things as preuayled with me in the beginning rowsing me out of my lethargy in schisme and heresy prouoked me vnto a diligent inuestigation of the truth My other * Tâ—â— motiues shall remayn prisoners in my custody vnlesse the importunity of friends or malignity of aduersaries may perhapps extort their enlardgement from me against the proper inclination of my will Meane while accept this little schedule is it not a little one and thy soule shall liue Gen. 19 20 with kind affection And though I may require it as justice yet I will desire it as a fauour let not prejudice forestall thy judgement nor passion supplant thy reason Peruse diligently compare exactly and giue thy verdict vprightly in presence of the all-seing eye Then I doubt not but seeking thou shalt find and finding wilt confesse God was here Gen. 28.16 and I knew it not Thy deuoted contreyman Theophilus Hyggons THE GENERALL CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE DIVIDED INTO 2. BOOKES 1. In the First booke are expressed tvvo Reasons the one DOCTRINALL the other MORALL vvhich svvayed my vnderstanding povverfully to yeald firme assent vnto the Catholick faith touching Purgatory and Prayer for the dead 2. In the Second booke are layed forth certayn egregious falsehoods of D. Field D. Humfrey M. Rogers and others in their exceptions against the same THE PARTICVLAR CONTENTS IN EACH BOOKE IN THE FIRST BOOKE AND FIRST PART CONTAYNING THE DOCTRINALL REASON CHAP. 1. § 1. Purgatory prooued by the cleare authority of Scripture Matth. 12.32 § 2. The Fathers iudgements touching the sayd parcell of holy Scripture § 3. Three reasons which mooued me to follow the doctrinall expositions of the Fathers rather then of Caluin Luth. c. CHAP. 2. § 1. Of a triall by the Fathers Protestants in England condescend thereunto § 2. Prayer for the dead is an Apostolicall TraditioÌ„ by the testimony of the Fathers The same appeareth by the rules assigned by Protestants to know what is an Apostolicall Tradition § 3. Prayer for the dead Purgatory do mutually prooue each other § 4. The ancient Catholick Church vnto which the Protestants in England appeale did intend in hir Prayers and Oblations to relieue some soules departed and afflicted with temporall payn § 5. The collusion of D. Field in deliuering the purpose of the ancient Catholick Church in hir Prayers and Oblations for the dead § 6. Reasons perswading me rather to follow S. August the ancient Church then D. Field and his reformed Congregations IN THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST BOOKE CONTAYNING THE MORALL REASON CHAP. 1. § 1. The PROVIDENCE of God preseruing a visible Church in all ages § 2. This visible Church is free from damnable errour The Protestants loosenesse and confusion in their delineation of the Church § 3. Protestants condemne Purgatory and Prayer for the dead as hereticall and blasphemous § 4. This doctrine was embraced by the vniuersall Church consequently is approoued by the singular PROVIDENCE of almighty God CHAP. 2. § 1. The base and impious condition of Aërius and Henricus who first impugned this doctrine § 2. The VVISEDOME of God appoynting fitt messengers to be Reformers of his Church doth excellently confirme this doctrine CHAP. 3. § 1. The nature and vse of Miracles by which God doth beare witnesse vnto some TRVTH A triple consideration of Miracles according to the triple distinction of the Church § 2. A miracle wrought by S. Bernard to the confusion of Henricus and his doctrines § 3. There is no exception against the sayd Miracle § 4. The sayd Miracle doth euidently conuince the Protestants in this and other poynts § 5 An exception of D. Field pretending that no particular defended by the Papists against Protestants vvas euer confirmed by Miracle is refelled by our Conuersion from Paganisme to Popery as it is termed and by the authority of Gerson whom D. Field hath magnified as one that desired the same Reformation long since which Protestants haue lately effected CHAP. 4. § 1. The grounds which I followed in the precedents are invincible § 2. The particulars therein are very cleare A direction for the Reader to iudge orderly substantially concerning the same A conclusion of the first Part with a Protestation vnto the Reader IN THE SECOND BOOKE AND FIRST PART CONTAYNING THE VNTRVTHS OF D. FIELD CHAP. 1. § 1. S. Gregory the 4. glorious Doctours of the Latine Church abused by D. Field in this doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the dead § 2. S. Augustin the 4. glorious Doctours of the Latine Church abused by D. Field in this doctrine of Purgatory Prayer for the dead § 3. S. Hierome the 4. glorious Doctours of the Latine
* See S. August epist. 48. and say Nesciebamus hîc esse veritatem nec eam discere volebamus c. We knew not that the truth was here neither would we learne it But thankes be vnto God who hath taken away our feare and taught vs by experience how vayn and empty those suggestions are which lying fame hath cast out against his Church c. The end of the first Part. THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST BOOKE CONTAYNING A MORALL REASON which perswaded me to intertayn the Catholick doctrine of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead CHAP. I. The PROVIDENCE of God in preseruing a visible Church free from any damnable errour doth confirme the doctrine of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead §. 1. The FIRST Consideration touching a visible Church I Considered First that God hath promised vnto vs a perpetuity of his Church both by his Sonne and Seruants For thus saieth his onely begotten Matth. 2◠20 I am with you alwayes vnto the end of the world 2. A comfortable saying ô Sauiour Iesus I not in body but in Spirit AM yea I will be also but * Before Abraham I am Ioh. 8.58 thus I expresse my self because I am eternall and immutable WITH YOV not in your persons onely but in your succession for euer and not inuisibly by grace alone but visibly also in a syncere profession of the truth ALWAYES VNTO THE END OF THE WORLD my Church shall endure throughout all generations Thus the promise of God made vnto Dauid historically concerning his seed Psal 88. c. is referred mystically vnto Christ in whose seed to witt his Church it is must be absolutely performed 3. I had yet a farther assurance from God by his Seruants Ephes 4.11 For thus saieth S. Paule He Christ hath giuen vs Apostles Prophets Euangelists men of extraordinary vocation in the beginning Pastours and Doctours men of ordinary vocation to the end for the consummation of the Saints for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ VNTILL we all meete in the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ 4. This Text of holy Scripture I knew to be diuersly and preposterously sensed as well by the * M. Cartwright against D. Whitgift Presbyterians against the Formalists as by the * D. Soteliffe against D. Kellisō Protestants against Cath. The first exclude Archbish. the second by the same reasō exclude the Pope But I secured my self in the true and genuine interpretation thereof which did infallibly and clearely demonstrate vnto me theis two poynts First that the Church of Christ must perpetually subsist without decay Secondly that it must be visibly extant without obscurity and concealement For how can Pastours preach the ghospell and administer the holy Sacraments where people are not assembled to that purpose and gathered into a society of faith 5. As for the example of Eliah I alwayes esteemed it a lamentable suggestion in this case For his complaint * 3. Reg. 19. I am left alone extendeth onely vnto the kingdome of ISRAELL wherein he then conuersed and wherein he with many others was persecuted by Iezabell vnder Ahab hir infortunate husband But at the same time the law was read the Sacrifice was offered pure Religion was professed and protected in the kingdome of IVDAH vnder Iosaphat a blessed Prince * 3. Reg. 22.43 walking in the good wayes of Asa his father This Iosaphat suruiued vnto the * 4. Reg. 3.2 coronation of Ioram the yonger sonne of Ahab and so the example of Eliah can not be of any force to defend the opinion of many Protestants concerning the inuisibility of the Church 6. Wherefore seing how D. Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. c. 14. Morton doth still reinforce this poynt though cleared sufficiently by sondry Catholicks euen in the confession of a learned Protestant in England from whose mouth I receiued this instruction many yeares ago as though the aforesaid complaint of Eliah pertayned likewise vnto the kingdome of Iudah I did often and greatly wonder that such a man against his owne conscience should deale so fraudulently in this behalf For first he saieth that Lombard doth giue this exposition viz. When the daughter of Ahab was married vnto * The sonne of Iosaphat The yōger sonne of Ahab was called lord likewise Ioram the king of Iudah then all the Iewes seemed to be Idolaters so that Eliah thought himself to be left alone and vpon this authority of Lombard the Doctour buildeth his exception against the former answere Now is this I beseech you an ingenious and honest deportment in the Doctour thus to presse the authority of Lombard whom he knew to be singularly mistaken herein and to err most playnely against the historical euidence of sacred Scripture Secondly the Doctour is pleased to colour and cloake the said exposition of Lombard with the name of S. Ambrose and for this purpose he frameth his quotation in the margent thus Lombard in Rom. cap. 11. EX AMBROSIO But I found that as S. Ambrose hath not one syllable to iustify this exposition in the least degree so Peter Lombard himself doth not assume it frō him nor once vse his name therein howbeit both before and after he gleaneth vp some sentences from that excellent Father Is this a faithfull course in a Minister of simple truth 7. Renouncing the opinion of our Inuisibilists as an impious and contemptible fancy I embraced a position of h pag. 19. c. D. Field which though it be mingled with some corruptions and vntruths in his discourse yet in it self it is very effectuall syncere The Church can not be inuisible in respect of Profession and this Profession is knowen euen vnto the profane and wicked of the world Agayn It can not be but that they Apply this rule to the Protestanticall Churches who are of the TRVE Church must by profession of the TRVTH make themselues knowen in such sort that by their profession and practise they may be discerned from other men 8. For this cause S. Augustine saieth in a playn and familiar kind of speach See the 3. Conuersiōs of Englād Part. 2. chap. 1. throughout digito ostendimus Ecclesiam we shew forth the Church with our fingers in this place and in that here she is conspicuous and thus she hath descended vnto vs by a fayr and spectable succession 9. Non sic Protestantes non sic as for the Protestants it is not so with them their Church was hatched in corners and inclosed long in Cymmerian darcknesse Wherefore as the good sinfull woman complayned mournfully saying Ioh. 20.13 They haue taken away my Lord and I know not where they haue layed him so I was inforced to take vp a iust complaynt against all nouelizing hereticks and say They haue taken away the Church of my Lord
Negandum non est c. It is not to be denied that the soules of some men deceased haue relief by the piety of their liuing friends c. 24. Now what an absurdity were it in S. Augustine to affirme with great confidence that some soules are relieued by the piety of their friends and yet to be in doubt whether there be any distinct estate of soules afflicted with a temporall payn But whether it be more probable that S. Augustine was thus caried into a braynelesse conceipt or that the Protestants deriue his words against his cleare purpose I remitt me vnto your ingenious and wise determination 25. Meane while I shall intreat D. Field to take notice of one question which I desired long since to propose vnto him and to craue his playn resolution therein without ambiguous or perplexed speach Forasmuch as S. AVGVSTINE doth often and constantly deliuer vnto vs not onely by the knowen instruction of the Catholick Church but by the certayn euidence of holy scripture that there is a temporall payn inflicted vpon some soules in a future estate why doth D. FIELD conceale this poynt from his Readers and why doth he * Pag 7â— muster vp such sentenes onely as beare a shew of doubt and then make a pretense that Augustine did DOVBTINGLY runne into Purgatory and that he DOVBTFVLLY broached an opinion which gaue occasion to the Papists heresy in this matter Besides if the Papists were as greatly proud as * Pag. 71. 170. 1â—9 in epist dediâ— c. D. Field doth earnestly object this crime vnto them yet were they so foolish and obtuse also that they would rather assume this doctrine from S. Augustines DOVBTFVLL sentences then from his perspicuous and irrefragable authorities in this behalf 26. To conclude this second branch of D. Fields accusation it may please you to consider with me that as piety doth oblige vs to reconcile all places of sacred Scripture which seeme to imply any contradiction in such manner that the truth of each may be inuiolably preserued according to the intendment of the holy Ghost See Zanch. de Redemp in quaest de Inuocat Sanct. what rules he prescribeth in this case so wisedome doth prescribe vnto vs that no doubtfull sentence in the Fathers should be expounded or admitted against their certayn doctrine in other places and specially when it is strengthened by the publick approbation of the Church For as it is a singular impiety in Luther and in his truest disciples to reiect the Epistle of S. Iames vpon a supposed or seeming * We are iustified by faith without the works of the law Rom. 3.28 We are iustified by works and not by faith onely Iames 2.24 contradiction therein against S. Paull whence * See Duraeus in respons ad Whitaâ—â—ruÌ„ pag. 9. Pomeranus in his Lutheranicall violence sayth that the Author of S. Iames his epistle bringing an impious argument and making a ridiculous collection alleadgeth Scripture contrary vnto Scripture and thus he renounceth a part of holy writt with extreame defiance so it is a remarqueable folly in any man to inforce conclusions out of some obscure or dubious places in the Fathers sensed against their euident and perpetuall doctrine elswhere a course which the chief Protestants despise and contemne in the Puritans at this day 27. In the THIRD branch of this accusation D. Field is very iniurious vnto the dignity of this blessed and renowned Father For he knoweth that S. Augustine doth not fearfully impugne this errour viz. all rightly belieuing Christians shall find mercy in the end whatsoeuer their wickednesse were c. inasmuch as many testimonies are extant in his * Enchiâ—id ad Lauâ— c. 67. De fide opeâ— c. 15. De Ciuit Dei l. 21. c. 26. workes whereby it doth appeare that he disclaymed it absolutely and disprooued it fully howbeit he is modest and temperate in his disputes and not of that rusticity as our brethren in Luthers and Caluins ghospell who like Cadmaean vpstarts conuulnerate themselues with mutuall reproach whereby they are exposed vnto a publick and iust contempt 28. But now ô * This honour may be as duly giuen by me vnto S. Augustine as it is giueÌ„ by M. Rogers in his Cathol doctr epist dedicat nuÌ„ 4 vnto M. Latimer sacred and reuerend Augustine I will turne my speach vnto thy religious learned and excellent self Diddest thou so feare to oppugne an errour that thou diddest not feare to violate the truth Couldest thou not reprooue a falsehood in some men without giuing occasion of heresy vnto others Wouldest thou so peremptorily affirme and yet immediately doubt in the same thing and specially the matter being such as in extension did belong vnto the whole Church for so thou hast informed me and in consequence doth euacuate Christs meritts for so we pretend and impart his office vnto our proper satisfactions 29. If this be so then a Contra Henâ—ic 8. S. Luther had a good reason for his contemptuous demand Quis est Augustinus quis nos coget illi credere Who is Augustine and who shall compell vs to belieue him If this be not so why then do we traduce thy glorious name to destroy the ancient faith and why do we depresse thy incomparable worth to sustayn our ruinous cause § 3. S. HIEROME abused by D. Field 1. I Come vnto the third Doctour of the Latin Church S. Hierome whom our Great Reformer doth not onely b Luth. in Gen. 22. trample vnder his feete but also c Luth. in colloq conuiual in cap. de Scholast Theol. expelleth out of the number of Doctours and pronounceth him to be an Heretick for thus he honoureth and reuerenceth the Fathers much more then the Romanists do 2. Though D. Field hath moderated his stile toward S. Hierome and vsing the testimonies of this Saint at his pleasure dismisseth him whith a more gentle imputation saying that d Pag. 166. Hierome was a man of a violent spirit yet as the abuse which he offereth vnto him in the question of Purgatory is subtile in the manner and hatefull in the matter thereof so he doth plainely discouer his affection toward the Truth and the Fathers to be such that he neither respecteth how vainely he doth elude the first nor how vnconscionably he doth intreate the second Marke therefore e Pag. 79. This opinioÌ„ he putteth vpon S. Hierome as you shall see presently his artificiall passadge which here ensueth 3. It was an errour of sondry of the Ancient that all Catholick Christians how wickedly so euer they liue yet holding the fundation of true Christian profession shall in the end after great tormens endured in world to come be saued as it were by fire They durst not say as Origen that the ANGELLS who fell Note theis 4. opinioÌ„s shall be restored in the end nor as some others that all MEN whether Christians or Infidells nor as a third fort that all
an HERETICK and no member of hir communion For which consideration I am as tenderly affected in this article as in any other of my Creed esteeming my self obliged thereunto for two respects FIRST because the essentiall truth thereof is clearely reuealed vnto me by God both in his word written and by Apostolicall Tradition In his word written for what can be more perspicuous then this saying * Act. 2.27 Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell c. By Apostolicall Tradition for what can be more playn then this article He descended into hell That the common Creed is an Apostolicall Tradition your chiefest writer H. †de PedeÌ„pt Zanch us doth confesse and as I conceiue * pag. 238. D. Field dissenteth not from his iudgement therein What †de Antichr pag. 48. M. Powell or his proud Peacock or some precipitate Spiritts imagine to the contrary I am not to regard But if this Creed be an Apostolicall Tradition then it is * See D. Fields rule which I haue cited before Booke 1. part 1. c. 2. §. 2. num 3. equall vnto the written word of God euen for that cause For it proceedeth from diuine inspiration and so it hath sufficient authority of it self Wherefore it was not respectiuely decreed by your †Artic. Relig 8. Bishopps that this Creed ought throughly to be receiued BECAVSE it may be prooued by most certayn warrants of holy Scripture 3. SECONDLY I am mooued by the authority of the Church For who sayth * epist 99. S. Augustine denieth that Christ descended into hell vnlesse he be an INFIDELL And for the sense of this article †Tract 78. in Ioh. he hath this cleare resolution Who is he that was not left in hell Christ Iesus but in his SOVLE onely Who is he that lay in the graue Christ Iesus but in his FLESH onely For the NATVRALL vnion of his body and soule was dissolued but not the HYPOSTATICALL vnion of either with his Person 4. This truth being so potent and perspicuous I aske you now what reason haue you for any part of your faith if you haue not assurance in this And if you fall from this See Luthers saying before pag. 40. what certainty haue you in any other poynt Therefore it importeth your Church to shew a due conformity in this article of the Creed Finally you may remember that S. Athanasius in his Creed which your †Artic. Relig 8. Church pretendeth to admitt throughly c. hauing premised this denunciatioÌ„ Whosoeuer keepeth not the Catholick faith entire and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly doth afterward subnect this article of Christ his descent into hell as parcell of that CATHOLICK faith §. 2. D. Mortons pretense of his Churches vnity in this poynt is clearely refuted 1. NOw see your Doctours syncerity who may call God to reuendge it vpon his soule if he deceyue any man with his knowledge First he citeth the opinion of * l. 4. de Christo cap. 15. Bellarmine in theis wordes Opinio Catholica haec est CHRISTVM VERE SECVNDVM ESSENTIAM FVISSE IN INFERNO As much as to say Christ in his soule substaÌ„tially did descend into hell Then he addeth Hanc vestram sententiam NOS quoque iuxià cum Augustana confessione libentissimè profitemur non tamen quatenus vestram sed quatenus veram WE also together with the Augustane confession do most willingly professe this opinion c. 2. It is well that he left out the Scottish French Belgian and Heluetian confessions for he knoweth that the true Caluinists are hereticks in this behalf And this is an incuitable conclusion because they do obstinately and wilfully reiect the true and Catholick opinion and so defending an opinion CONTRARY vnto CATHOLICK verity they can not be exempted from the crime of heresy which casteth them into a damnable estate But I beseech you do YOV that is to say your Church of England most willingly professe this Catholick opinion Alas that your Apologist hath so iustly called God to reuendge this falsehood vpon his soule let him intreate our Lord to pardon that prouocation of his iudgement and in the meane time I will demonstrate his falsehood by foure euidences FIRST if YOV be of this opinion as he pretendeth why are your Bibles infected with this absurd Translation Act. 2.27 some say life or person some body or carrasse Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue Is this to submitt your sense vnto the Scripture or is it not rather to draw it vnto your preiudicate opinion This is to measure the yard by the cloth and thus while you should be faithfull Translatours you become corrupt Interpreters of the Scripture SECONDLY why was your Church so distracted in this matter vpon the Sermon and Treatise of D. Bilson How came it to passe that D. Rainolds his Caluinian resolution in this matter was confuted by M Perks and why did M. VVillet the Synopticall Theologue as he is phrased by †in his epist prefixed before the booke of ConfereÌ„ce at Hampton Court D. Barlow oppose himself against M. Perks his answere Why do your Ministers publiquely in Sermons and in print impugne this true and Catholick opinion THIRDLY Why is no Minister punished for his repugnancy vnto this truth which is of greater consequence then crosse cap surplice or any ceremonious thing or whatsoeuer institution of your Church for which many haue suffered depriuation of their liuings FOVRTHLY the testimony of M. Rogers whose booke hath a speciall approbation as you may see * pag. 160. before will conuince D. Morton of notorious falsehood For though his purpose was to deliuer the †that is the title of all his pages Catholick doctrine of YOVR Church yet when * pag. 16. he commeth vnto this article he sayth that in the interpretation of it there is not that consent which were to be wished some holding one opinion thereof and some an other Wherefore yealding no certayn doctrine but leauing men vnto their choyce he addeth TILL we know the natiue and vndoubted * Faith coÌ„sisteth not in the words but in the sense sense of this article c. 3. If this be not a sensible conuiction of M. Doctours singular vntruth I must confesse that I haue done him iniury and will be ready to make any satisfaction that he can reasonably demand Meane while he must giue me leaue to detect an other of his excellent sleights and then I will referr him vnto his best thoughts As it was a notable vanity in him to affirme that YOV do willingly embrace the Catholick opinion in this article so that is a delicate collusion which ensueth within the compasse of three lines viz. à VOBIS c. WE in England differ from YOV Papists concerning the place vnto which Christ descended For WE say that he descended vnto the hell of the damned but YOV say that he descended onely ad limbum Patrum the region of the Fathers 4. The authour cited by him is * Theomach l. 7. c. 1. Feuardentius whose opinion he imputeth here as generally vnto the Papists as he applied the other vnto your English Church But forasmuch as M. Doctour doth continually deale with BELLARMINE and in the words immediately precedent alleadged him particularly also in this matter as you †num 1. see why did he now pretermitt him and select an other I will shew you the reason for Bellarmine himself in the very next chapter is of a contrary opinion vnto that which M. Doctour deriueth generally vpon the Papists What piety then or humanity was in this preposterous deuise 5. Know you therefore FIRST that the opinion which he here imputeth vnto VS without exception is as falsely attributed vnto all Catholicks as the other vnto YOVR English Church SECONDLY that your difference is in the substantiall sense and meaning of this article but our difference is a scholasticall disceptation in a matter of greater or lesser probability which being a doubt not resolued by the Church may be indifferently accepted by hir children without breach of charity or violation of faith 6. Thus I haue giuen you a little signification of those many vntruths which I haue obserued in this Doctour If it consist not with his credit or profitt to yeald yet it concerneth you to beware of his Sirenicall incantations Your benefitt shall be my reward if not so yet this schedule may be a token of my loue and be you well assured that either by following my counsayle TRY BEFORE YOV TRVST you shall preuent an heauy doome or by neglecting it you shall increase your iudgement FINIS A TABLE OF THE GENERALL CONTENTS IN THE FIRST PART CHAP. 1. § 1. GERSONS testimony alleadged by D. Field to iustify the pretensed REFORMATION § 2. It is impossible that GERSON could wish or tolerate this REFORMATION § 3. A detection of D. Fields vntruths in citing the testimonyes of GERSON § 4. The name and authority of GROSTHEAD abused by D. Field to the same effect CHAP. 2. § 1. D. Fields vntrue suggestion concerning the vnity of Lutherans and Caluinists is refuted Their difference touching Vbiquity the Sacrament § 2. D. Fields excuse of their litigation is refelled They neither haue nor can haue any conclusion of peace CHAP. 3. § 1. D. Field deuiseth criminations against Bellarmine § 2. His inciuility toward the CARDINALL whose excellent parts are briefly noted IN THE SECOND PART CHAP. 1. § 1. D. Mortons vntruth in defence of Luther § 2. His vntruth in protection of Caluin CHAP. 2. § 1. Of the article concerning Christ his descent into hell § 2. D. Morton doth vntruly pretend the vnity of his English Church in the sense thereof The PARTICVLAR contents are many which I referr vnto the diligence of the courteous Reader THE CORRECTION OF FAVLTES PASSED IN SOME COPIES P. signifieth page I line M. mâ—â—gent p. 10. l. 40. reade the same p. 12. â—â— num 15. p. 22. l â— proceed p. 26. l. 6. brimtione p. 60. l. 27 â—â—dery p. 44 l. 15. 〈◊〉 p. â—5 l 4. improbation 12. l. â—â—ist 17. 〈◊〉 p. 48. l. 1â— Iudes p. 5â—â—â— with any p. â—â— l. 8. his stile and sayd pag. 58. l. 15 what 〈◊〉 p. 59. l. 22. your p. 64. l. 26. â—â—clâ—sastiâ—