thou lyest in thy throat foolish and sacrilegious King And other so immodestly base expressions against his Majesty and all other Papists that we ar ashamed to English them By Luthers Language and way of defending his Protestant doctrin we might guess at his Master though him self had not told us his name was Sathan SUBSECT I. How weakly Protestants excuse Luthers Conference with the Devill and the embracing of Sathans doctrin THERE is not any one thing troubleth so much the learned Protestants as their Apostle Luthers acknowledged instruction in Protestancy received from the Devill and therfore some of them endeavor to maintain that this Disputation was only a spirituall fight in mind and no bodily conference but with the same probability of truth they may affirm that all other real apparitions and the effects therof were only spirituall conflicts Luther tells so many corporeal circumstances that it could not be a meere spiritual fight first he says that the Devill spoke to him voce forti gravi in a strong and grave voice 2. That then he learnt how men were found dead in their beds in the morning True it is that these words and circumstances are fraudulently omitted by the Divines of Wittenberg in their later editions of Luthers works and perhaps Mr. Chark and Mr. Fulk did never peruse the more ancient and sincere edition tom 6. Germ. Ien. fol. 28. where all these things are set down Yet grant this were no bodily conference and but only a spiritual conflict what matters it whether Luther was instructed and persuaded this or that way by sensible conference or inward suggestion into Protestancy if therin the Devill was his Master Other learned Protestants excuse Luthers conference saying it was only a dream to mistake which for a reality he was subject as being a German Monk giuing to understand that good drinck doth frequently turn German dreams into reall persuasions But vnless they prove that Luther was in a dream or in drink when he writ this conference they wil never persuade any man that reads it that this Disputation was not real Him self says he was awake tells the tyme of the night that it happened describs the Devills voice his owne feare learnt how people were slain by the Devill in their beds these reflections and impressions are far from dreams especialy when the party delivers them as real truths many years after and maks them the ground of his chang in so important a matter as Religion But suppose German Monks were as much given to drink and after drink as apt to mistake their dreams for real truths as Mr. Sutcliff insinuats and to maintain even when they are sober that their dreams ar not dreams as Luther doth his Conference of what credit can such an evasion or excuse be to Protestants for what difference is ther between a dreaming drunken and Diabolical Religion These answers not being any way probable other learned Protestants grant the Devill did realy conferr with Luther so Hospinian B. p Morton Joannes Regius Baldwin c. This last in a Book of this subject printed at Jsleb 1605. pag. 76.75.83 saith let none wonder that I confess the disputation to be real and not written in iest or hyperbolicaly but seriously and historicaly for Luther writ that history so consideratly and prolixly that I still acknowledg be writ it seriously and according to the truth of the histor But then he adds that Luther had bin a protestant before that Conference and that the Deuills drift was to make Luther despair for hauing said Mass prayed to saints c. But this is impertinent and fals impertinent because our dispute is not of the Deuills intention but of his instruction and whether Luther did well in embracing either before or after his revolt from vs the Devills doctrin fals because vntil that Disputation Luther sayd Mass almost every day as sathan objects to him speaking somtyms in the present and was then no protestant for the only point wherin he differed then from Catholiks was about Indulgences and euen that he maintained more out of a pick and pride then Judgment as appears by what hath bin sayd in the beginning of this section Wherfore Joannes Regius in his Apology against Belarmin saith that the Devills instruction is no argument to confute Luthers doctrin because though it was the Devill that instructed him he instructed him according to the word of God and the Devills speak truth somtyms especialy when they speak that which the Scripture witnesseth This in my opinion is the worst of all other evasions 1. Because the Devill seldom or never applies the words of Scripture to the right sence when he tempted our Savior though he quoted Scripture yet he was no true Interpreter therof Now what ground Protestants can have to believe that the Devill hath altered his ould custom or why they should prefer the Devills Scriptural interpretation before that of the visible Church Councells and Fathers is not intelligible 2. It is not credible that if all the visible Church of Christians did err in professing Popery and committed Idolatry by hearing Mass and adoring the Sacrament that the Devills would dissuade them from that Idolatrous Religion his design and desire is to seduce men not to reduce them to the way of saluation 3. It is not likely that God would compel the Devill to be chief instrument of reforming the Catholik Religion and Church in the ould law he never committed so great a charg unto him he employd holy men and Prophets to convert the Iews and Pagans 't is strang that in the law of grace the Devil should become an Apostle When Dives who was but the Devills Camerade desired leave to come into the world and preach to his Brethren God did not judg him a fit Messenger or Missioner it was answered that his brethren ought to believe Moyses and the Prophets that is the Church and the Ministers therof And though this be a parable it contains real doctrin wherby we are instructed that Gods Church would never be so low brought as to stand in need of Preachers from Hell Seing therfore we have so many reasons to conclude that God would not make the Devill an Apostle or a Reviver and Reformer of the Ghospell Protestants can have none to believe that the doctrin and Reformation which Luther received from him is true or agreable to Scripture Doctor Morton late Bishop of Duresme to proue ad hominem against us that the Deuill doth persuade men somtyms to piety and by consequence that Luthers reformation might be pious though the Deuill instructed him therin objected Delrius a Iesuit affirming that the Deuill appeared to an Abbot in the forme of an Angel and persuaded him to say Mass. Therfore if the Mass be good as Catholiks say the Deuill may and doth exhort men to vertuous actions To this I answer 1. That our question is not whether the Deuill may somtyms persuade men to
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
commission The Roman Church therfore being prudently taken for the Organ of God's voice it is as impossible we should be misledd by it's doctrin as it is that God should go against his infinit inclination to truth or should violat his own veracity Had God's veracity bin limited to his own personal or immediat speech and not extended to what-soever he delivers by the mouth and ministery of others and of his Church it had not bin infinit his credit would have ended with Christ's preaching to the Apostles and though they were bound to believe their Master non could be obliged to believe them But seing God's veracity is infinit and his words must continue for ever they can be as little confined to the persons or Pastors of any on certain age as infinit veracity to on particular truth or infinit excellency and goodness to any one degree of perfection Now seing that God's worth and veracity or his infinit inclination to speak truth cannot be greatet in on matter nor in on age then in an other and that according to on 's inclination to any thing must be the application of his power to effect it we must conclude that God is as much engaged by his worth and goodness and as much inclined by his veracity and as much applied by his omnipotency to speak truth by the mouth of the Church as by his own and in the least matter as much as in the greatest and in every succeeding age as in that of the Apostles and that vnless his worth wisdom veracity goodness and omnipotency faile that Church which beareth the miraculous marks of his authority and exerciseth his ministery must be infallible in proposing and declaring his will and word in all Controversies whatsoever So that they who grant the Church 〈◊〉 infallible only in fundamental articles of faith deny Godâ—â—oodness worth veracity and omnipotency and they who believe not the doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church as the word of God because forsooth they have not cleer evidence that it is the word of God do no more believe nor trust God in the other they assent vnto then he who says he believes and trusts a man whose word or writing he will not take for 100. pounds vnless he delivers to him at the same time that summe of money not only sealed but seen in a bag The reason of this last assertion is cleer because one of the differences between the word of God and the word of men is that you mistrust men for the truth though you heare their own voice and have evidence that they speak the imperfection of their nature making their speech subject to falshood and themselves to frailty therfore we may mistrust their veracity and doubt they be mistaken or deceive vs though they pretend and profess to speak nothing but truth It is not so with God whose nature being infinitly perfect and truth it self it is manifest by natural reason that he can neither be mistaken nor deceive vs by his words and by consequence if we knew evidently that him-self speaks or that the words or doctrin vttered by the Church are his we can no more mistrust or not believe him then mistrust his Deity or feare a flaw in his perfections and fraud in his proceedings So that Protestants resolving not to believe the doctrin of the Church of Rome made sufficiently credible by supernatural signes to be Divine vntill it be made cleerly evident to them that it is the word of God resolve their faith into heretical obstinacy because they resolve not to believe or trust God that evidence which they exact not being compatible with the merit trust obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian belief nor with the duty of rationall Creatures They may be compared to some Irish or Scotch Rebells refusing to obey the King's Lieu-tenant and Commissioners because for-sooth they have not clear evidence that the commissions and commands are signed by the King though they see his Majesty's hand and seale for the authority set over them which also is obeyd and acknowledged by the better sort and greater part of both Nations yet the Rebells will not submit to any Orders vnless the King leave England go in person to rule them and satisfie every particular fellow that he hath named such a Lieu-tenant or Commissioner or vnless his Majesty will immediatly by him-self exercise his royal Jurisdiction signe and seale his commissions in their sight c. Some will think there is a great disparity in the comparison for that God may without trouble or prejudice to him-self reveale his will and pleasure to every particular person which Kings can no more do then be in many places at one time Therfore what inconveniency can it be that God make evident to every particular person either by a clear signe of his presence or by an evident proof of his spirit which doctrin is Divine which not without obliging men to believe that the Roman Catholick or any other Church is infallible and can not propose falshood for God's word To this we answer that God might not only reveale his mysteries to every person but save us also without subordination to any Church or Pastors or dependency of Sacraments but all Christians agree that he hath bin pleased not to do so so that the question is not what he could have don but what he hath don But it appears by the light of reason that ther is a certain distance and decorum due to Majesty and superiority by virtue wherof God or even a Creature that is supreme in any government may command his inferiors and subjects by subordinat officers and warant these officer's authority by some outward signes and seales of his Soveraignty which signes though they may be possibly counterfeited yet oblige the People so governed to obey Ministers so qualified as submissively as if him-self had immediatly delivered his own commands Wherfore though it were possible that a King might without trouble write and deliver all his oâ—ders immediatly or without the assistance of Secretaries Ministers and Messengers yet it were not fit And why the Protestant Doctors that write of this subject should think fit that God ought to deprive him-self of a decency and decorum due even to human Majesty to humor their curiosity or to comply with their obstinacy J can not comprehended nor attribute to any other thing but to want of humility and excess of heresy the malice wherof consists in contemning God's authority and denying his veracity when sufficiently appearing in the Church and though not self evidently yet so convincingly as to make our obligation of submitting thervnto evident Jt is therfore agross absurdity to think or say that the reverence due to the Divine authority obligeth vs not to submit or not assent therunto vnless it be more then moraly evident and by consequence more them sufficiently evident vnto us that we can not be mistaken in our submission or assent For hence
all Papists in these words what shall J say here O ye principall posts of Religion and ye Arch-Governors of Christ's Church Is this your reverence which you giue to God's word to bid them avant away c. no mervaile if these men dispise us and all our doings which set so litle by God him-self and his infallible saying Thus they write and inveigh against Hosius and all the Roman Church even after they knew and had bin twice admonished that the whole ground was fals and forged by them-selves Hosius his own words are there is sprung vp a certain new kind of Prophets who have not bin afraid by the authority of Scripture to take away all authority from the Scripture Behould whither Satan at length hath brought this matter c. And after Nihil Scripturâ sanctius c. Nothing is more holy then Scripture nothing more noble or excellent there is nothing next to God himself more worthy of all veneration and reverence but what thing can there be so holy which the enemy of man-kind may not abuse to man's destruction c. Thus Hosius how hardly his words could be wrested or mistaken by Iewel and his Confederats all the world may see and ought to detest a Reformation that can not be otherwise maintain'd then by such palpable impostuâ—es SVBSECT IV. Falsificatïons and Frauds against the Bishop of Rome his supremacy JEwel and his Associats cyting a Constitution of the Emperour Iustinian against the Pope's supremacy say The Emperours words stand thus Sancimus c. Senioris Romae Papam primum esse omnium Sacerdotum Beatissimum autem Archi-Episcopum Constantinopolios novae Romae secundum habere locum which words Mr. Iewel Englisheth thus We ordain that the Pope of the elder Rome shall be the first of all Priests and that the most holy Arch-bishop of Constantinople which is named new Rome have the second place Of which Mr. Iewell and the English Church inferr that the Pope's Authority and preeminency in those days consisted only in sitting in the first place and that this dignity also was given him by the secular power of the Emperour First Iewell and his Camerades by â—n c. did hope to make the Emperour spiritual head of the Church and by consequence derive the same prerogative to all secular Princes in their own Dominions for they fraudulently omitted the words wherby the whole matter is cleered the words as they stand in the Constitution of Iustinian are these Sancimus secundum Canonum definitiones sanctissimum senioris Romae Papam primum esse omnium Sacerdotum c. we do ordain according to the determination of the Canons c. But had they not concealed these words they had discovered the weackness of their doctrin of the Queen's supremacy because those few words according to the definition of the Canons import that this ordination or declaration of the Emperour was grounded vpon the authority of the Canons of the Church which he did but confirm and command the execution of the Decrees and Declarations of Councells by his Imperial power The second fraud is that they translate primum esse omnium Sacerdotum thus that he shall be the first of all Priests wheras the Emperour vseth the present tense declaring that the Pope is the Chief of all Priests not shall be By Iewel 's falls Translation they intended to impose vpon such as vnderstand not Latin or at least are so careless as not to compare this Text with the English that Popes had not bin the first or chief of all Priests before that Decree of Iustinian and that spirituall supremacy came to them by vertue therof Not content with this fraud they add an other in the very next words of this Constitution which are these We ordain also that the most Holy Arch-Bishop of Justiniana the first which is our Country shall have for ever vnder his Iurisdiction the Bishops of the Provinces of Dacia Dania Dardania Mysia and Panonia and that they shall be invested by him and he only by his own Councell and that he in the Provinces subject vnto him shal have the place of the Apostolick sea of Rome c. Out of which words Mr. Iewel and his English Prelatick Clergy inferr thus Heere we see the Bishop of Iustiniana set in as high authority and power with in his own Iurisdiction as the Bishop of Rome with in his But had they bin as honest as the Protestant Layty take them to be all the world might have seen the Roman truth and their falshood for they deceitfully cut of the ensuing words that expound and declare the whole matter the words cut of are secundum ea quae sanctus Papa Vigilius constituit we ordain that these things shall be don and observed according to that which the Holy Pope Vigilius had constituted so that as in the former decree the Emperour professeth him-self to have ordained according to the definitions of the Canons so here in particular he professeth to have confirmed the Constitutions of the holy Pope Vigilius who had made the Arch-Bishop of Iustiniana to be his legat and to hould the place of the Apostolicâ— Sea of Rome in those Provinces not vnlike to that of St. Gregory who according to venerable Bede in his history gave the like Authority to St. Augustin our first Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by which Concession they have always bin called Legati nati sedis Apostolicae Not content to conceale the words and the truth of Imperial Decrees and Ecclesiastical Histories Iewel and the English Clergy were neither ashamed nor afraid to corrupt Scripture to the same purpose against the Pope's supremacy For pretending that the words of Christ to St. Peter Thou art a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church and again feed my Lambs feed my sheep were spoken as well to all the Apostles as to St. Peter in the Apology of the Church of England is quoted for profe hereof an other saying of our Saviour Quod vni dico omnibus dico that which I say to one I say to all which sentence is not found in Scripture but an otherlike it though to an other purpose to wit about the watchfulness which our Saviour would have all men vse for the day of Iudgment Quod vobis dico omnibus dico vigilate That which I say to you here present I speak to all both absent and to come be watchfull of this day wherof Mr. Iewel and his Collegues could not be ignorant and yet thus he insulted Mr. Harding affirmeth That to the rest of the Apostles it was not sayd at all feed ye c. to Peter and to non els was it sayd feed my Lambs feed my sheep yet Christ him-self saith quod vni dico omnibus dico that y say to one I say to all And quoted for it Marck the 13. SVBSECT V. Frauds and fond devices of the protestant Clergy of England to deny and discredit the Sacrifice of the Mass.
charity towards Catholicks is but forc't and feigned Whatsoever is required that a Church be truly Catholick is visible in the Roman It may judge and censure all other dissenting congregations without note of partiality or illegality Protestants have no credible nor legal witnesses to testify that their doctrin is the same which Christ and his Apostles taught Roman Catholicks have If all sects of Christians were admitted to general Councells and therin Judges of themselves and of their faith greater illegality it would be and greater partiality then that only Roman Catholicks be Judges of their cause Since the Apostles time one part of the Christians judged the other and the part that judged the other was that which obeyed and stuck to the Bishops of Rome as St. Peters Successors proved in every age vntill this present SECT XII HOw Gods veracity is denyed by Protestancy as also by the prelatick doctrin of fundamental and not fundamental articles of faith The belief of Gods veracity consists not in acknowledging that whatsoever God sayd is true never any heretick denyed that and all hereticks deny Gods veracity but consists in believing that God will not color nor countenance falshood with supernatural and evident signes of truth Protestants give less credit and obedience to Gods Ministers and Orders declared by the Church though qualified with vndeniable signes of Gods truth then they do to a Constable Catchpol or any other the meanest officers of a Court or Commonwealth though their warrants or badges may be more easily counterfeited then the miracles or signes of the Roman Catholick Church They will not believe God speaks or commands by the Roman Catholick Church though it hath the supernatural signes of his trust and sheweth his great seal Miracles but they believe that the King speaks and commands by any Minister of state or inferiour Magistrat No Ministers of judicature or officers of war have so authentick marks of the Kings authority to command the subjects and to end Suits of law as the Roman Catholick Church hath of Gods authority to instruct mankind and determin controversies of faith As it is rebellion to contemn the Kings authority represented by the authentick badges therof in his Ministers so is it heresy to contemn Gods authority represented in the Roman Catholick Church by supernatural signes as miracles sanctity Conversion of nations c. Gods veracity might be lawfully questioned if it were lawfull to judge that he permits the Roman Catholick Church to err in any point of faith whatsoever Proved by a similitude of my Lord Chancelor delivering the Kings mind to the Parliament in his Majesties own hearing and presence Veracity is a vertue inclining to speak truth not only when the person speaks but when any other speaks by his commission for then the person that employes an other to speak is bound by virtue of his own veracity to endeavour to the vttermost of his power that his Minister or Messenger vtter nothing but truth and this is to be vnderstood not only in matters of great but also of small importance Protestants make their own conveniency not Gods veracity the motive of their faith and measure therby which articles are fundamental which not The most fundamental article or the foundation of faith is to believe that God can not permit his Church to err even in not fundamentals A Demonstration ad hominem against the Protestant doctrin of the Churches fallibility in not fundamentalls SECT XIII THe same further demonstrated as also that neither the Protestant faith nor that of the Sure footing in Christianity is christian belief Not the matter believed but the motive and manner of believing makes our belief Christian. Protestants and the Author of the Sure footing believe not any thing in matters of faith which they do not imagin to be evident in it self or evident to them that it is revealed They agree in making cleer or self evidence the rule of faith but vary in the application of that rule the Author of the Sure footing applies it to all or most of the Roman Catholick Tenets Protestants to few The doctrin of the Sure footing can not be excused by the opinion of some Schoolmen that say an act of faith is possible and consistent with evidence of the revelation Christian faith must have a mixture of obscurity Mr. Robert Boyles expression that faith and twilight agree in this property that a mixture of darknes is requisit to both for that with too refulgent light the one vanisheth into knowledge as the other into day is not only witty but agreable to the sense of the ancient Fathers and to Scripture Hebr. 11. To believe is to trust the person believed and take his word for the truth as you doe a mans word or bill for mony Gods worth and veracity being infinit we ought not to admit of any doubt in matters of faith our assurance of faith must not be grounded vpon evidence either of the object or of the revelation but vpon an impossibility that God should by evident signes oblige mankind to believe that he revealed the mysteries of Christianity and yet not reveale them or permit the Church to deceive us God were not omnipotent did he permit the Church to err in any matter of faith though not fundamental because according to the proportion of ones inclination to any thing is the application of his power to effect the same and Gods inclination to truth even in not fundamentalls being infinit he must be infinitly concerned and applied to preserve the Church from falshood in the least articles as well as in fundamentalls The different manner of believing God and men Wee could not believe God if it were evident to us he spoke what we assent vnto Wherin doth consist the guilt of heresy Declared by that of rebellion The absurdity of the privat spirit and of all other Protestant pretexts against the publick testimony and authority of the Roman Catholick Church SECT XIV PIety and policy mistaken in making prelatick Protestancy the legal Religion of the state and in continuing the Sanguinary and penal statuts against the Roman Catholick faith It was want of Christian piety in Q. Elizabeth to introduce the Protestant Religion but not want of human policy because she had no title to the Crown but by Protestancy The title of the Stevards is vnquestionable and therfore they need not the Support of Protestancy How dangerous and damnable a thing it is to make the temporal laws of the land the rule of faith the Protestant prelatick Religion hath no better The Principles and priviledges of Protestancy being inconsistent with Soveraignty and government every Protestant Commonwealth found it necessary to mold and moderat those principles and priviledges by human lawes according to the customs and constitutions of every Kingdom and therfore Episcopacy without which our Parliaments could not be legal was here in England continued with prelatick Protestancy though contrary to the Tenets of Protestancy and to
enjoying their temporal liberties and much more vpon the spritual prerogative of Protestancy which according to Luther the first Author and Apostle therof is omnia judicemus regamus Let us judg and govern all things and not only his German Scholler Brentius but our English Bishop Bilson and all Prelaticks grant that the people must be discerners and Judges of that which is taught And the Catholick doctrin of the Church of England explaining the 39. Articles therof saith Authority is given to the Church and to every member of sound judgment in the same to judg controversies of faith c. And this is not the privat opinion of our Church but also the judgment of our godly brethren in forain Nations And it is not only the Tenet of Calvin but of all Protestant Writers that temporal laws oblige not in conscience any Christians to obey It being therfore a principle and priviledg even of Prelatick Protestancy and agreable to the 39. Articles that every member of sound judgment in the Church hath authority to judg controversies of faith and by consequence all other differences that may be reduced thervnto how is it possible for any King to be a Soveraign among Protestants who are all supreme judges both of faith and state for that State-affairs are subordinat to Religion and must be managed according to the Protestant sense of Scripture that is according to the judgment and interpretation of every particular Protestant or of him that can form or foole the multitude into his own opinion Wherfore we ought not be astonished that men constituted supreme Iudges and Interpreters of Scripture by the legal authority and articles of the Church of England and by the Evangelical libertys of Protestancy should presume to make them-selves the King's Iudges For my part I shal thinck it a great providence of God and extraordinary prudence in the government to see any King of England during the profession and legality of such principles in his Kingdom escape the like daunger and do continualy pray that their good Angel may deliver them from the effects of their own Religion His Majesty that by miracle now Reigns long may he live and prosper hath bin forced to lurck for his life in one of those secret places wherunto Priests retire when they are search't for God giving him to vnderstand therby that the most powerfull Princes where Protestancy prevails even in their own Kingdoms are never secure and may be often reduced to as hard shifts and as great extremities as the Poorest Priests and meanest Subjects RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT THE SECOND PART Of the inconsistency of Protestant principles with Christian piety and peaceable Government SECT I. Proved by the very Foundation of the Protestant Reformation which is a supposition of the fallibility and fal of the visible Catholick Church from the pure and primitive doctrin of Christ into notorious superstition IN the beginning of the first Part it hath bin sayd that the groundworck as wel of Policy as of Peace and Piety consists in making that persuasion to be the Religion of the State which is most credible or most agreable to reason because no commands duties taxes or charges will seem intolerable to subjects for the preservation and propagation of such a Religion nor for the maintenance of the spirititual and temporal Ministers to whose charge is committed the government of such a Church and Common-wealth How far all kind of Protestancy even the Prelatick is from having this prerogative we shall demonstrat in this Part of our Treatise and in this Section prove the same by the absurdity of the fundamental Protestant principles Common as well to the Prelatick as to all other Reformations The foundation wherupon all Protestant Reformations are built is this incredible or rather impossible supposition Viz. That all the visible and known Christian Churches of the world â—ell from that purity and truth of doctrin which they had once professed into superstition and damnable errors vntil at length in the 15. age God sent the Protestant Reformers to revive the true faith and Religion whose separation from the Roman Catholick Church and all others then visible is pretended to be free from sin and Schism by reason of the falshood of the Roman Catholick doctrin not consistent with saluation But this supposition is incredible 1. Because Protestants confess the fall and change of Religion was not perceived vntil 1300. or vntil at least 1000. years after it happned and such an imperceptible change in Christian religion involues as plain contradictions as a silent thunder For either it must be granted that all the Pastors and Prelats who lived in the time that any alteration of doctrin began were so stupid as not to take notice of so important and remarcable an object or so wicked as to observe and yet not oppose novelties so destructive to the souls committed to their charges Both which are proved to be groundless calumnies by the acknowledged zeal learning and integrity wherwith many Prelats and Pastors were endued in every age since the Apostles as their works yet extant do testify The truth of this Protestant supposition is not only incredible but impossible because the supposed chang of Christian Religion into Popish superstition is not pretended to have bin only a chang of the inward persuasion but of the outward profession visible and observable in ceremonies and practises answerable to the Mysteries believed as the adoring of the B. Sacrament worship of Jmages Communion in one kind publick prayer in vnknown languages c. How then is it possible that any Christian man or Congregation could begin so discernable and damnable novelties as according to the opinion of our Adversaries The adoration of the Sacrament Transubstantiation worship of Jmages Communion of the layty vnder one kind the Sacrifice of the Mass and publick prayers in an vnknown language the Pop's supremacy the doctrin of Purgatory Jndulgences Praying to Saints the vnmarried life of Priests c. How is it possible I say that any one should begin to teach and practise any of these supposed damnable doctrins and yet never be noted or reprehended by any one Prelat Pastor or Preacher who ar according to Esay the watâ—chmen of te visible Church vntil Luther's times or at least vntil these supposed superstitions had bin so vniversally spread so deeply rooted and plausibly received as Catholick truths and as ancient Traditions of Christ and of the Apostles that they who censured and opposed any of them were for so doing immediatly cryed down and condemned by the then visible and Catholick Church and Counsels as notorious hereticks How come the Preachers and Professors of these pretended Popish errors to escape for so many ages as Protestants confess they had continued vncontroul'd from the censures of Christ's pure Protestant Congregation if there was any vpon earth during that time was there not one Bishop Priest or Preacher in all the world for so many ages
the Canon of the Iews as if the Jews might not doubt and omitt to put some books divinely inspired into the Canon as wel as the primitive Christians or as if the Apostles might not supply that defect and declare some books of the old Testament wherof the generality of the Jews doubted to be Canonical SVBSECT I. Doctor Cozins exceptions and falsifications against the Councel of Trent's authority answered The difference between new definitions and new articles of faith explained THe Protestant obstinacy is not excusable by the exceptions made against the number of Bishops that voted in the Councel of Trent or against the pretended novelty of the Canon which they decreed As to their number the authority of defining matters of faith in a general Councel is no more limited or diminished by the absence of members legaly summoned and long expected then the authority of a lawful Parliament by the absence of many Lords and commons especialy if there be a necessity of applying present remedies to the distempers of Church or Common-weal Doctor Cozins doth confess that the Catholick Church stood in need of a reformation and that the Councel was too much diferr'd and delay'd After they had met at Trent Seing the Bishops were not as many as the Pope and his Legats expected and wished for the greater solemnity of so important a decision as that of the Canon of Scripture whervpon they were to ground their further definitions they put of that session for 8. months and at the end of them hearing that besids those who were at Trent many Bishops were setting forth and others in their Journey they differred the definition of Canonical Scripture for three months more to the end as many as could possibly come might be present If through neglect contempt age infirmity or other accidents wherof the Pope was not in fault many Bishops were absent that could no more prejudice the authority of the Councel at Trent then the like circumstances disanull the authority or make voyd the Acts of our Parliaments But sure the learned Protestant Pastors cannot but smile at the simplicity of their illiterat flocks when they consider the zeale and earnestnes wherwith they except against the smal number of Bishops and their presumption forsooth in the Councel of Trent For the declaring the Canon of Scripture and other Divine truths and yet them-selves accept the Canon of Scripture and doctrin of their own Churches vpon the bare word of one Luther Zuinglius Calvin or vpon the sole authority of the 12. or seven men appointed by Parliament in the reign of Edward 6. Besids our Canon of Scripture was confirmed by the whole Councel of Trent afterwards together with the other points of faith therin defined And though Doctor Cozins pag. 208. tels how the Princes and reformed Churches in Germany England Denmark c. immediatly set forth their Protestations and exceptions against the Councel aleadging that the caling of this Councel by the Pop's authority alone was contrary to the Rights of Kings and the ancient Customs of the Church That he had summond no other persons thither nor intended to admitt any either to debate or give their voice there but such only as had first sworn obedience to him that he took vpon him most injustly to be Judg in his own cause c. Yet it is sufficiently manifested to the world by the very Acts of the Councel that the Pope did nothing but what his Predecessors had don and the Catholick Princes and Church had approved in the like occasions and that though Protestants were not admitted to vote at Trent yet they were not only permitted but invited in a most secure and civil manner by the Councel to reason dispute and debate their controversies and answer for them-selves and their doctrin and this way of proceeding is no more vnreasonable in a general Councel then it is in a Parliament not to permit any to vote therin before he taks an oath of alegiance not to say any thing of the oath of Supremacy and much less to admit of Lords or Commons accused of treason or rebellion to sit in the House vntil they prove their innocency or acknowledg their fault and obtain their pardon by a dutiful submission and profession of repentance And granted that nothing had bin resolved in the Councel of Trent by the Fathers therof but what first was canvass't at Rome by the Pope and Conclave which is false yet we conceive that to be no more against the constitution or freedom of a Councel then it is against the constitution or freedom of a Parliament that no Bill pass vnto an Act vnless it be first signed by the King and approved by his Councel and yet we know that to have bin the constant custom in one of his Majesties Kingdoms since the reign of King Henry 7. As for the Pope or Church of Rome being Judg in their own cause it is a prerogative so absolutly necessary for the authority and govermnent of Magistracy and the quiet and peace of the people governed that no Monarchy or Commonwealth can want it without falling into great inconveniences and confusion A subject t' is true may sue the King but the sentence must be given in the King's Courts and by his authority notwithstanding any objected dependency or parciality of the Judg explaining the laws and customs in favor of his Soveraign And he who would not acquiesce in such a sentence but would needs have the cause decided by a foreign Prince or People is a rebel If this be reasonable and just in temporal Courts and fallible sentences how much more in spiritual controversies and infallible definitions of the Church which definitions of the Church if not acknowledged to be infallible the Church can not have any jurisdiction or authority in matters of faith as not being able to satisfie doubts and setle the inward peace of Christian souls either perplexed in them-selves or in daunger of being perverted by others whether hereticks or pagans neither of which can be indifferent Judges or competent Arbitrators between the Catholick Church and her Children And seing doubts and differences are vnavoidable in both Church and Commonwealth and that there can be no appeale to Infidels or Foreigners without doubt it is more agreable to Scripture to the law of nature and light of reason that Parents and Pastors be Judges in any cause of their Children and inferiors then the contrary or that there be no Judg at all nor jurisdiction either spiritual or temporal But that which Doctor Cozins and all Protestants most press against the judicature of Popes and the councel of Trent is that they do not judg according to Scripture and to the right sense therof wheras Kings and their Judges are regulated by the laws of the land even when the suit is against the King or his pretended prerogative To this we answer that Popes and Councels are as much regulated by Scripture in their definitions
Aug. cit cap. 20. [3] Aug. cit 16. Concil Tolet. 1. Can. 5. Cyprian de Coena Dom. post med Origen in num hom 23. [4] Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Augustin de Civit. Dei lib. 16. cap. 22. passim Aug. [5] de Civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 18. Hieron lib. 3. contra Pelag. August tom 8. in Psalm 33. con 2. saith Ipse de Corpore et Sanguine suo instituit Sacrificium secundum Ordinem Melchisedech S. Chrisost. in lib. 1. cor hom 24. saith of Christ Ipsum mutavit Sacrificium et pro caede brutorum seipsum jussit offerri [6] Aug. in Enchirid. cap. 110. de cura pro mortuis cap. 18. [7] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. Cyprian de coena Dom. [8] S. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. August de gratia novi Testam cap. 18. [9] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. S. Clement the Apostles scholler in Apost Constit. edit Antverp 1564. lib. 6. cap. 22. fol. 123. [10] Tertulian ad Scapul cap. â— saith Sacrificamus pro salute Imperatoris [11] Chrysost. hom 27. in Acta Apost Pro infirmis etiam sacrificamus [12] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. saith one went and offered in the house infected the Sacrifice of Christs Body praying that the vexation might cease and by Gods mercy it ceased immediatly [13] Basil in Liturgia fol. 40. Chrisost. in Mart. Rom. 83. Cyprian de Coena Dom. prope initium Origen Athan. c. quoted by Crastonius cit [a] Osiander a Protestant writer epist. cent 16. pag. 90. saith Leonard Keppen on the 7. day of April 1523. brought to Wittemberg nine Nuns from the Monastery Nimptsen among which number one was Catharin Borenâ— whom afterwards Luther married Peter Martyr and Bucer married Nuns Luthers example of marriag was followed by all the Disciples though professed Monks not only in Germany but in euery other country Here with us these Protestant Bishops ensuing Hoopâ—r of Worcester Barlow of Chicester Dounham of Chester Scory of Herefort Barkley of Bath and Wells Couerdale of Excester all Monks Cranmer of Canterbury and Sandes of York Priests [b] S. Austin haeres 82. saith of Jouinian teaching the Lawfulness of Priests and Votaries mariage This heresy was quickly extinct neyther could it euer preuail to the deceiuing so much as of any one Priest And lib. 2 retrac cap. 22. that Jouinian with his heresy deceiued but only nonnullas Sanctimoniales some few Nuns But Luther deceiued Priests Monks and Nuns or rather they concurred with him to deceiue others [c] Luther de seculari potestate in tom 6. Germ. saith Among Christians no man can or ought to be Magistrat but each one is to other equaly subject c. Among Christian men none is superior save only Christ And in his Sermons englishd by William Gage pag. 97. and tom 7. Wittemberg fol. 327. he saith Therfore is Christ our Lord that he may make us such as himself is and as he cannot suffer himself to be tyed and bound by laws c. So also ought not the conscience of a Christian to suffer them Afterwards he taught to moderat this liberty by explaining that subjects ought to haue an obedience rather of policy then conscience which is as much to say as to dissemble and obey when they cannot help it but if euer they can rebell with probability of success they may do it with a safe conscience And therfore in the same Sermons pag. 261. he doth admonish we obey the ciuil Magistrat prouided it be not pretended that it is necessary for saluation to obey Most Protestants follow this obedience of policy not of conscience see Whitaker in resp at Rat. Camp rat 8. pag. 154. And Danaeus against Belarmin pag. 1127. [d] Luther in Comment ad cap. 2. ad Galat. saith When it is taught Faith in Christ doth indeed justify but with all its necessary to keep Gods commandments there Christ is denyed and faith is abolished because that which is proper of God alone is attributed to the commandements of God or to the Law See also Luther in Colloq Mensal Ger. fol. 152. 153. M. r Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 564. saith The Law remaineth stil impossible to be kept by vs through the weakness of our flesh neither doth God giue vs ability to keep it but Christ hath fulfilled it for vs. D. r Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 301. We say that if a man haue an aâ—t of faith sins do not hurt him this truly Luther affirming this we all say Hofman de Poenitentiâ edit 1540. lib. 2. fol. 113. saith according to the Protestant principles Whosoeuer truly belieueth suffereth God to work for him and dispose eternall life for him himself taking no labor nor working any thing for himself [a] Lutherus lib. de servo arbitrio contra Eras. edit 1. Cnoglerus symbola tria pag. 152. nullus nemo G. 6 pag. 153. [b] The Catholik Doctrin of the Church of England pag. 103. in the explanation of the 20. article of Religion saith Authority is given to the Church and to every member of sound judgment in the same to judg in controversies of faith and so in their places to embrase the truth and to avoyd and improve Antichristianity and errors and this is not the privat opinion of our Church but the straight commandment of God him-self particularly to all teachers and hearers of Gods word and generally unto the whole Church and also the Iudgment of our Godly Brethren in forreign Countreys [c] Mr. Bilson Bishop of Winchester in his true difference c. part 2. pag. 353. saith The people must be Discerners and Judg. of that which is taught The Catholik Doctrin of the Church of England art 19. Proposition 6. pag. 94. saith The visible Church may and from tyme to tyme hath errd both in Doctrin and conversation pag. 95 concludeth This with us the Churches in their Confessions do acknowledg Dr. Whitaker de Eccles pa. 301. We say that if a man have an art of faith sins do not hurt him this truly Luther affirmeth this we also say [d] Jrenaeus l. 1. c. 5. saith Videmus nunc eorum inconstantem Sententiam cum sint duo vel tres quemadmodum de iisdem eadem non dicunt And c. 18. Cum autem discrepant ad invicem doctrina traditione qui recentiores eorum adnoscuntur affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid invenire c. Durum est enim omnium describere sententias Tertullian de Praescrip adv haer cap. 42. saith Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis variant inter se dum vnusquisque proinde modulatur quae accepit quemadmodum de suo arbitrio composuit c. Denique inspect haereses omnes in multis cum authoribus suis dissentientes deprehunduntur And see cap. 37. Chrystom oper imperfect in
and reformations They began in Luthers owne days and still continue to increase and multiply having no rule of faith but an obscure text of Scripture nor no Church or Court of judging the controversies therof with an obligation to submit there-unto but every ons privat opinion which must needs breed diuision add confusion And so it happened in the very beginning to Luther For his Disciples observing that every one of them-selves might pretend to be sent by God by an extraordinary vocation as well as Luthers seing he proved not his Mission by Miracles or by any supernatural sign to reforme the Church divers of them separated from him and set up for them-selves as Zuinglius who invented the Sacramentarian Religion against Christs real presence in the Sacrament and Bernard Rotman Father of Anabaptists c. It were tedious to relate all their divisions and almost impossible We will only assure the Reader that in the space of 30. years after Luther began his Reformation it was divided and subdivided in Germany alone into 130. Sects For first his Disciples divided them-selves into four principal Reformations of plain Lutherans halfe Lutherans Antilutherans or Sacramentarians and Anabaptists These plain Lutherans into eleuen Sects and these againe into soft rigid and extravagant Lutherans the semilutherans or half Lutherans also into eleven Sects The Sacramentarians or Antilutherans into 56. and one of these into 9. The Anabaptists into 13. Sebastianus Traneus a Protestant numbreth 70. How all these have bin subdivided since we may guess at by the variety we see in England of Protestant Religions not with standing the severity of the Laws in favor of the Prelatik Not one of these Sects have subordination to another and agree only in some generall Notions of Christianity and in impugning the Roman Catholick Religion one of the marks wherby the Holy Fathers discerned Heresies Each of them pretend to be a true Church and condemn the rest as Schismatical and Heretical Congregations perpetualy quoting Scripture one against the other but understood according to every on s conveniency fancying or feigning that the Spirit of God inspires him to reform not only the Roman Doctrin but the Protestant reformations But when we call to them for their comission which must be signed by Miracles and desire to know by what authority they presume to take vpon them so high an employment they tell vs that Miracles are ceased in the Church and all ours either counterfeit or Diabolicall wrought by the Devill to confirm us in the Idolatry of the Mass Invocation of Saints c. But because our Miracles exceed the Devills power and can be wrought only by God rather then Protestants will embrace the truth by Miracles testified they teach a blasphemy saying that God doth give power of working true Miracles unto false teachers not to confirm their false and Popish opinions but to tempt those the Indians Iaponeses and Chineses unto whom they be sent By which Paradox they call in question Christianity it self for why might not God tempt the Iews and primitive Christians by Christs Miracles as well as the Indians and Iaponians by others of the same nature and as prodigious If the Indians be not bound to belieue the doctrin preach't to them though confirmed by our true miracles why should the Jews or any others be obliged in conscience to belieue Christ For if God may work true Miracles to make a falshood so plausibly credible as to oblige prudent men to belieue it no prudent man is bound to belieue the truth when it is euidently confirmed with true Miracles and by consequence none was or is bound to belieue in Christ which doctrin is impious and contrary to our Sauiours own words Ioan. 5.36 and against 2. Cor. 12. Hebr. 2.4 and Marc. 16.20 and Joan 15.24 Where our Sauiour declares that the reason why the incredulous Jews did sin in not believing his Diuinity was because he confirmed his doctrin with Miracles Jf I had not don among them the works which no other man did they had not sinned As for their authority of reforming the Roman Catholick faith they answered that they needed no other warrant but Scripture which did cleerly condemn the Popish Tenets Being desired to shew what parts or words of Scripture were Contrary to the Popish Tenets for that after comparing all places and Texts very godly and learned men could find no such opposition between Gods word and the Roman doctrin they replied that the reason why the Popish Diuins and Prelats did not see their own errors afterall their search and study was because they had not the spirit of God which had reuealed to Protestants the true meaning of holy writ though they could not deny but that their own interpretation was new and contrary to that which the visible Church of the 15. â—n age had receiued from the 14 th and the 14 th from the 13 th and so forth Therfore they all conspired in maintaining that the visible Church had erred in doctrin and that the mystery of iniquity began euen with the Apostles or immediatly after But because some parts of Scripture are so cleere against their new doctrin that they could not be wrested against the Roman Catholicks nor reach the Protestant thy framed a new Canon of Scripture and excluded as Apocryphall many Books and Chapters which spook cleerly against them and in their translations of the ould and new Testament into vulgar languages they added to and substracted from Gods word what they thought fit to make the illiterat people belieue that their new inuentions were agreable to Scripture and that Popery was quite contrary to the same And because none of the first Reformers was a Bishop and they knew Bishops only could consecrat other Bishops and Priests and that no Congregation could be esteemed a Church with out that caracter and calling according to the receiued maxim of S. Hieron Ecclesia non est quae non habet Sacerdotem Luther And the rest who pretended a Reformation judged it necessary to alter this doctrin and declare that all Christians both men and women are Priests by baptism yet that only such as are chosen by the Congregation or Magistrat ought to exercise the function for the auoyding of confusion Luther endeauors to proue it at large thus The first office of a Priest is to preach the word c. But this is common to all next is to baptyze and this also may do euen women c. The third is to consecrat bread and wyn but this also is common to all no less then Priests and this I avouch by the authority of Christ him-self saying Do this in remembrance of me this Christ spook to all there present and to come afterwards whosoever should eat of that bread and drink of that wine c. This also is wittnessed by S. Paul who 1. Cor. 11. repeating this applyeth it to all the Corinthians making them all as
so zealous as every Protestant is in ours If any Protestants lived then why did not they speack or write were they all Temporisers and Turn-coats or were they all so blind dumb deaf and dull that not one of them could see heare reprehend or observe practises and ceremonies so erronious obvious and offensive The Protestant evasion or answer to this evident Demonstration is both frivolous and fallacious Their chief Doctors acknowledg they can not tell by whom nor at what time the Popish errors were broacht and say that errors in Religion may creep as insensibly into the Church as a building may decay or white haires grow in man's head as if forsooth all and every Christian of the world and particularly the Pastors and Prelats of the Church were as much concern'd in the observation of every gray hair and head or in the preservation of every building from decay as they are in observing and preserving the purity and integrity of every article of faith and in opposing the least novelty contrary to the same Besids the outward profession and propagation of those points of Popery that Protestants suppose to have crept insensibly into the Church could neither be concealed nor confounded with the contradictory principles and practises of Protestancy as a white hair may be easily confounded and concealed with others that cover or come neer it in colour Moreover the chang from youth and stately buildings into gray hairs and ruinous edifices is wrought insensibly by the hand of time without any perceptible concurrence of any other cause Time wears out and consumeth structure strength youth and beauty whether men gaze or not gaze vpon such gay objects but the planting preaching or inculcating of new doctrin and new ceremonies of Religion are of a quite contrary nature they have not such dependency of time alone they must be effects of attention and observation of discourses and disputs of Sermons and Catechisms they must be also professed and practised in the view of the world Time without these and the like notorious practises and observations can not alter Christian Religion nor induce a contrary superstition Lastly Granted there were no fallacy in the similitude nor disparity in the Comparison the examples are better retorted against Protestancy then applied to Popery for though haires may begin to grow white and buildings to decay without any great notice taken of their chang yet when either coms to the height or even to the mediocrity of their chang that chang is observ'd by as many as have eyes to see and is not only observed but resented and remedied according to their power by them who are most concerned in such decays and defects If then a white head is so easily discern'd from black and a ruin'd edifice from a new Palace and a decay'd face from a beauty by all kind of people that make use of their senses and if so much industry is used by them who are most sensible of those imperfections to hinder their further progress or appearance how is it possible that all or any orthodox Christians being so greatly and particularly concern'd in the purity and truth of their Religion and in the observation of it's rites and Ceremonies could be for many ages so stupid as not to distinguish it's doctrin and profession from the quite contrary or so carless in applying remedies against the grouth and continuance of errors both damnable and discernable Is it not more probable and possible that Martin Luther a man so impious proud and passionat that him-self acknowledgeth he did retain Idolatry in the Church at Wittenbergh to vex his Scholler Carolostadius should to disgrace the Pope and Papists his enemies be seduc'd by his confessed disputation and submission in his diabolical doctrin then that the whole visible Church Fathers and Councels before Luther for at least 1000. years should not only forsake Christ's doctrin but mistake the true sence of Scripture now pretended to be so cleer and manifest to every Protestant That all the world did conspire and concurr to such an apostasy is not credible That they who did not concurr should sit quiet and conive is as vnlikly If no Pastor nor Prelat had the courage to oppose Idolatry and superstition sure some one or other would have had the curiosity to describe the occasion beginning and progress of so great and remarkable a change and would mention if not condemn the stupidity of the whole Church in not opposing doctrin so inconscionable and vnreasonable And yet ther is no Tradition therof nor a syllable in any history sacred or profane of this supposed change in any on point of Popery nor so much as the least sign therof in any monument of antiquity SECT II. The Protestants evasion of the cleerness of Scripture against our Roman doctrin as also of the invisibility of their own Church confuted and the incredibility of the supposed change and Apostasy proved by the difference of the Roman Catholick and Protestant principles THE second evasion of Protestant Writers is that they are not bound to inquire when or wher our Popish errors crept into the Church or became so vniversal but think it sufficient to prove by Scripture that Popery is not Christ's doctrin This shift is no less absurd then the former because they suppose for granted what is denyed and the subject to our disputes The controversy between Protestants and Catholicks is whether the Roman Tenets be contrary to Scripture Protestants say they are and prove it because forsooth Scripture is contrary to the Roman Tenets We deny it and they prove it only by pretending that the letter and sense of Scripture is evident for the Protestant doctrin and by consequence they must say that all Papists for the space of 1500. or at least 1000. years have bin either so witless as not to vnderstand what is evident or so wicked as to contradict evidence and the cleerness of God's written-word and meaning Let any Protestant who hath so much sense as to vnderstand that nothing but the obscurity of Scripture can make it the subject of disputs and occasion diversity of opinions among so honest and learned Christians be judg whether the controversies between us and Lutherans Presbiterians and Prelaticks c. be not a demonstration that the true sense of Scripture is not cleer and evident in the controverted Texts And if the dissent and dissentions amongst honest men and learned Scripturists be an vndeniable proof and evidence of Scriptur's obscurity whether it be not great obstinacy in Protestants to maintain that Popery is evidently condemned in Scripture and that so many thousands of honest and learned Papists could not or would not discover what is cleer to every illiterat Protestant or if they did would not embrace that truth to which their judgments and God's cleer word did direct them Until the year 1517. no man euer pretended the cleerness of Scripture for Protestancy at that time Martin Lather seeing all
their doctrin and of the sincerity of their Doctor And though it seemeth to me impossible for any man to know what parts of the new Testament the 6. Article and Canon of the Church of England declares Canonical it being so intricatly worded that either it must be non sense or els exclude from the Canon the Epistles of Iames the second of Peter the second and third of John the Epistle of Iude the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalips seing the authority of all and every one of these hath bin doubted of in the Church and the 6. Article of the Protestant Religion of the Church of England is that In the name of the holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament of whose authority was never any doubt of in the Church Though I say it 's impossible for me to comprehend how common sense and Christianity can meet in this Article but that if the words therof signify any thing out of the English Protestant new Testament must be excluded all the aforsaid Epistles and Apocalyps yet leaving this difficulty to the decision of that Church I wil suppose at the present with D. r Cosins that all these Epistles and Apocalyps are included in the English Canon and come to the examination of the Arguments wherby he pretends to defend it He therfor foreseing the impossibility of giving any reason why the parts of the New Testament hertofore doubted of should rather be received by Protestants into their Canon then the Books of the Old Testament no more questioned by the Church of Christ then the aforsaid epistles and the Apocalyps thought to avoyd the force of this pressing parity by flatly denying pag. 5. alibi That ever any intire Church or any National or Provincial Counsel or any multitude of men in their confessions and Catechisms or other such publick writings rejected or doubted of the sayd epistles c. In case so many solemnities had bin requisit for the questioning of Canonical authority which his Lp knows are not necessary It seems his lordship did not peruse Eusebius his works though he quotes them very often or at least did not thinck that the ancient Churches of Syria and Arabia deserve to be called Churches not that the Lutherans of Germany Denmark Suethland c. who stick to Luther's principles and Canon can make one or many Churches It s a gross mistake in the Doctor to say pag. 4. 5. that Luther or his Lutherans recalled or recanted their error concerning the Epistle of St. James he might see the contrary in the very book him-self cites of Chemnitius the famous Lutheran whose authority and words he placeth in his addition of certain Testimonies in the same rank with sentences of St. Augustin and St. Thomas of Aquin c. This Chemnitius in most of his works as in his Enchirid. pag. 63 and in his examin of the Councel of Trent p. 1. pag. 55. 56. declareth his own sense and that of his Church in these words The second Epistle of St. Peter the second and third of John the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalyps of John are Apocryphal as not having sufficient testimony of their authority His lordship might also have bin better informed of Luther's sence and Church by the saying of Illiricus an other pillar and Writer therof whom Mr. Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 28. termeth a very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth his words are Luther in his preface vpon St. Iem's Epistle giveth great reasons why this epistle ought in no case to be accompted for a writing of an Apostolick authority vnto which reasons I think every godly man ought to yeeld Luther's reasons are to be seen in the ancient editions of Jene and are comprehended in these few words of his The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and vnworthy an Apostolick spirit And because these words and others were omitted in the later editions of Wittemberg by some Divins that would fain reform Luther's Canon Religion and Church the chief Lutheran Doctors mett in a Synod at Altembury complained of their Adversaries corrupting Luther's books and resolved to stick to the ancient editions and to the literal sence of his words So that in case it were true the Canon of Scripture could not be sayd to have bin questioned by any Protestant Congregation whithout declaring their doubt in a publick confession of faith we see the Lutheran doth so as also in their confession of Wittemberg quoted by Belarmin lib. 1. de verb. Dei cap. 7. init which is seconded by all hereticks of these tims saith Belarmin the Calvinist only excepted But the Doctor is so much mistaken in the necessity of such a formality that the Arians were condemned as hereticks notwithstanding that in their publick confessions of faith they endeavored rather to disguise then declare their errors It is wel known that Lutheran Churches in Germany not only do reject from their Canon the Epistles of S. Iames Iude the second of Peter and third of S. Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps but are so obstinat in denying them to be in any wise Canonical Scripture that they do not as much as print them in their Bibles And if my Lord of Duresme thinks that the rigid and moderat Lutherans half Lutherans and other Protestant Congregations wherin are many as learned Ministers and Writers as him-self deserve not the name of a Church he may expect that they wil censure his Church after the same manner and perhaps with as much reason But lett them agree as wel as they can it concerns not vs. Yet I hope he wil not pronounce so severe a Censure against the Greeck and Latin Churches and vn-church both Wherof S. Hierom in epist. ad Dordunum testifieth that the Greeks doubted as much of the Apocalyps against the common consent of the Latins as the Latins did of the Epistle to the Hebrews against the common consent of the Church Seing therfor it is evident by the confession both of ancient Fathers and modern Proâ—estants that in the primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once but in so great variety of pretended Scriptures great care and search was requisit to determin which Scriptures were Canonical and which not wherby it came to pass thaâ— sundry books and parts were for a long time misdoubted by some Churches and Fathers and by some Councels omitted or not received which yet afterward vpon greater search and consideration were generally acknowledged it must be very great obstinacy in Doctor Cozins and other Protestants to reject the Canon which the Councel of Trent proposeth and embraceth because forsooth some books therin contained were not as soon believed by all Catholicks to be Canonical as the others Or to deny the authority and authentikness of some books of the old Testament because they were not in
counterfeited must needs be the effect of prejudice and passion proceeding from want of christianity especialy when they see that others as learned cautious and conscientious as them-selves after weighing all objections and circumstances submit their judgments to the sufficiency of these signs for making the Roman Catholick authority authentickly Divine and that we believe what is proposed with out the least suspition or feare either of fraud or frailty in the Roman Catholick Councells which are the Proposers and Ministers of God's word Besids if Protestants did consider the nature of Veracity and God's Providence they would never doubt of the application of his power to preserve the Roman Catholick Church from error seing it hath so many signs of his truth and Ministery as the conversion of Nations succession and Sanctity of doctrin and Doctors miracles vnity of faith c. For Veracity as Aristotle and all Philosophers define it is a Virtue inclining to speak truth And he is not inclined to speak truth that countenanceth falshood in so particular a manner as God doth the doctrin and jurisdiction of the Roman Catholick Church A King that might if he would and yet doth not hinder his Ambassadors and Ministers or any other persons from abusing other Princes or his own Subjects by their speaking or commanding in his Majesties name or at least in speaking other-wise then he really intended they should and had prescribed by his commission or instructions such a King I say is not inclined to speak truth because he willingly permits his officers or others that pretend to speak in his name or really do speak by his Orders to vtter falshood and misinterpret his words and meaning notwithstanding that he may easily prevent that fraud and frailty and reapeth no benefit by either an evident argument that he is not avers to such false practises No Protestant doubts but that my Lord Chancellor speaks truly the King's mind and sense when he pursues his Majesties speech in Parliament in his Royal presence and hearing and to think other-wise would be not only to tax my Lord Chancellor with folly but the King with an inclination to falshood and a fault unbeseeming the dignity of a Prince the care and charge of the Country's Father as also the sincerity and veracity of an honest man Seing therfore God is as much inclined to speak truth as any thing can be to love it self for God is truth by essence if it be against the dignity of a Prince and against the nature of human veracity and honesty which is but a shadow of the Divine to permit falshood in Ministers of state or in servants sent but of ordinary errands when their Masters can easily prevent it how much more repugnant must it be to the nature of God and to his Divine veracity to permit the Roman Church in his own presence name and hearing tell lyes and disguise them and it self with so probable and plausible signes of his Divine truth and Commission as to seale it's doctrin with marks and miracles so vndeniably supernatural that the most learned Protestants acknowledg they are and can only bewrought by God's power light can as litle concurre to produce darkness as truth to favor falshood Even men that love truth hate to heare others tell lyes and do contradict vntruths if them-selves be present and quoted for Authors of the stories They will not entertain servants given to that vice nor permit them weare their livery much less employ them in matters of concern wherin they may abuse their Master's word and prejudice his friends or Tenants Can Protestants then imagin that God doth not only permit the Roman Catholick Church to weare his livery and his authority but that he doth promote the stories and lies of that Church in case it's doctrin be fals for the space of so many ages with so great signes and testimonies of his Divine approbation that the wisest and wairiest men of the world after much study and examination did and do still preferr it before all other Religions Do they think that God is not as much concern'd in preventing frauds faults and frailties in his Ministers and Messengers as temporal Princes are concern'd in the credit and truth of theirs Wherfore if Protestants judg it a breach of faith or want of truth and worth in a temporal Prince not to endeavor to the vtmost of his power that his Ministers and messengers deceive not his subjects and Allies by mistaking or misapplying his Commands or demands they can not but see the absurdity of believing that God doth permit Ministers and Messengers so supernaturaly qualified as those of the Roman Church are to err in proposing his revelations vnto all man kind his Veracity being as highly concern'd in the infallibility of the Proposers as his power makes him capable of preventing their human mistakes and of confounding the Devill 's malice But Protestants have found out a new device and defence of their distinction They grant it is against God's Veracity to permit the Roman Catholick Church to err in proposing the Fundamental articles of faith that is such articles as Protestants fancy absolutly necessary for saluation which are say they that Scripture is the word of God and JESUS Christ the son of God and Redeemer of the world some add the Mystery of the Trinity hitherto we could never obtain from them a more exact Cathalogue of their Protestant Fundamentals As for the other doctrines of the Roman Catholick Church 〈◊〉 and proposed as Divine Protestants think they may be denyed and questioned without any offence to God denyal or doubt of his veracity I could never heare any other reason or dispâ—rity for this their distinction but that the measure of the infallibility of the Church ought to be our salvation because it was the end proposed by God in the institution and constitution of his Church In such articles therfore say they as are absolutly necessary for salvation the Church cannot but be infallible in the proposal otherwise we could not believe them and consequently not be saved because we can not be sure that God revealed them But this their Fundamental distinction still destroys the foundation of Christian belief which is God's veracity They make their own conveniency and not God's veracity the motive of crediting the Mysteries of faith as if truth it self or God's inclination to speak truth could be greater in on matter then other or that the belief of any article could be more Fundamental or of greater importance and necessity for salvation then to believe that God is as much concerned and as necessarily inclined to speak truth as well by the mouth of his Church as if him-self spoke immediatly as well also in the least matter as in the greatest and by consequence he is as much engaged to preserve the Church from error in on as in the other So that to believe the testimony or proposal of the Church in a matter
DOctor Harding having proved out of the Testimony of Leontius Bishop of Cyprus that John the holy Patriarch of Alexandria sayd Mass and received alone Iewel and his Camerades answer thus A streight case for Mr. Harding to run to Alexandria a thousand miles beyond all Christendom so seck his Mass. As if at that time Alexandria were not almost in the midd'st of Christendom or though it had bin in the midd'st of Infidells as if that could be an argument of any force against the truth of Christian doctrin which was no less pure when it was preached and practised amongst Jdolaters then at this present among Christians Doctor Stapleton confuting some objections of the English Apology against Harding quotes both his words and Iewell 's thus St. Andrew the Apostle saith Mr. Harding touching the substance of the Mass worshiping God every day with the same service as Priests now do in celebrating the external Sacrifice of the Church Mr. Iewel thus answereth The 6. vntruth S. Andrew sayd the Communion not the Mass. Mr. Harding saith further They shall find the same most plainly treated of and a form of Mass much agreable to that which is vsed in these days set forth by St. Dyonise scholler to St. Paul Mr. Iewell The ninth vntruth It is the very form of the Communion and nothing like the privat Mass. Mr. Harding again I referr them insteed of many to the two Fathers Basil and Chrysostom whose Masses be lest to posterity in these times Mr. Iewell the 11. vntruth they contain the very order of the Communion Mr. Harding yet further Among all other Fathers Cyrillus Hierosolimitanus is not to be passed over lightly who at large expoundeth the whole Mass vsed in Hierusalem in his time the same which now we find in ould St. Clement long before him and others Mr. Iewell the 12. vntruth It is the very express order of the Communion And after this â—â—â—â—ulous manner of contradicting without confuting Doctor Harding's particular instances Iewell exclaims O Mr. Harding is it not possible your Religion may stand without lyes so many vntruths in so litle roome without the shame of the world without feare of God c. His fond fraud is detected and his vntruths returned vpon him-self by D. r Stapleton who tells Bishop Jewell that in the Catholick sense the Mass and Communion are the self same thing in substance the Communion being a principal part of the Mass without which there is no sacrificie for which cause the Priest always communicateth either alone or with others when company doth offer it self or are prepared for it and consequently it is a fraud saith he M. r Jewell to put a contradiction between Communion and privat Mass as though the one could not stand with the other saying that the forenamed Fathers which are cited to have sayd Mass sayd the Communion and no Mass where as we saith M. r Staâ—â—â—ton hould that they did both and sayd the one and the other that is they celebrated the dayly sacrificie and therwithall did communicat But if M. r Iewell mean of the English Communion wher in no external Sacrifice nor real presence of Christ's body is acknowledged or believed then proveth D. r Stapleton that the foresaid Fathers cannot possibly be vnderstood to speak of that Communion for that in their said Liturgies they do make express mention of the Real presence of Christ's flesh therin and of the offering vp as the express words of S. Andrew are of the Sacred body and bloud of Christ our Saviour in Sacrifice vnto God his Father And moreover in St. Dionise his Mass there is express mention of Oblation and Consecration of the Misteries of prayer for the Dead of Altars Censing Communion and memory of Saints all which things are not in the English Liturgy or Communion and much more He sheweth the same in the Mass or Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom where after the Oblation made of the Sacrifice commemoration is made also of the blessed Saints in heaven and namely of our B. Lady and St. John Baptist and of the Saint of the day and of prayer for the Dead which last clause St. Cyrill doth explicat more particularly saying when we offer vp this Sacrifice after the Oblation we make mention of those which have departed this life before vs And first of the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles and Martyrs that by their prayers and intercessions Almighty God may receive our prayers And then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops departed and lastly we pray for all men which among us have deceased believing it to be a great relief of soules for whom the intercession of that Holy and dreadfull Sacrifice which is layd vpon the Altar is offered These are the words of St. Cyrill whervpon Mr. Stapleton demandeth Is this the express order of your Communion Here you see saith he is Oblation Sacrifice Altar prayer to Saints prayer for the Dead and is all this don in your English Communion And now I hope we may with more reason exclaim against Iewell and the Church of England then they did against 〈◊〉 is it not possible your Religion may stand without lâ—es SVBSECT VI. Prelatick Falsifications and Corruptions of Scripture to make the Pope Antichrist and Succession of Bishops a mark of the Beast ONe of the things which most troubled Bishop Iewell and the first Protestant Prelats of Queen Elizabeth was there notorious want of Episcopal Caracter and succession derived from the Apostles all the true Bishops of England refusing to ordain them after that them-selves had bin violently deprived of their Seas by the Queen's Command for not conforming to her she supremacy and new doctrin Mr. Jewell therfore and his Camerades observing how much their cause was prejudiced by this want of Succession published and preached many things to discredit the same and to that purpose in the defence of the Apology of the Church of England thâ—â— write thus By succession Christ saith that desolation shall 〈…〉 the Holy place and Anti-Christ shall press into the room 〈…〉 and for proof they note in the margent Mat. 24. And in the same defence pag. 127. they say of Succession St. Paul saith to the faithfull at Ephesus I know that after my departure hence ravening wolves shall enter and succeed me and 〈◊〉 of your selves there shall by succession spring vp men speaking perversly Wheras St. Paul hath never a word of succession 〈◊〉 succeeding neither is there any mention of succession in Matthew 24. But the quite contrary is evident by the nature of the thing it self for that Antichrist entring by violence shall 〈◊〉 dissolue all lawfull succession of Priests and Bishops continued from the Apostles time to his time then enter himself by succession which point seemeth to have bin foretould by St. Paul to the Thessalonians when he saith that except defection or Apostacy go before which is an open breach from orderly succession and
the Protestant Clergy abuse the layty and illiterat people making 〈◊〉 believe that in all ages there hath bin a Church teaching and professing the Protestant doctrin and because some of the hereticks to 〈◊〉 â—â—ckleffians Hussits 〈◊〉 Lollards whom he names Martyrs and witnesses of his Evangelical truth were condemned not 〈◊〉 by the Church but by Acts of Parliaâ—â—nt he tellâ—â—h you that though the statuâ—s 〈…〉 persons preaching divers sermons 〈◊〉 herelies 〈◊〉 doctrin and 〈◊〉 errors to the blemish of Christian faith c yet notwithstanding whosoever readeth histories and the 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 see these to be no false teachers 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 c. and to have taught no other 〈…〉 then now 〈…〉 their own preachers in 〈…〉 And 〈…〉 Sr John 〈…〉 is produced by Fox as a witness for the Protestant 〈◊〉 and a chief member of that Church and he in his professiâ—◠〈◊〉 faith said 〈…〉 Church I believe to be divided into three sorts or companâ—â—◠〈…〉 now in heaven c. the second sort are in 〈…〉 of God and a full deliveraâ—â—e of paine The 〈…〉 earth c. Iohn Fox to this speech of Purgatory addeth 〈◊〉 parenthesis of his own as if it had bin part of Oldcastles profession of faith if any such 〈…〉 Scriptures fearing his Reader might take notice how Sr. 〈…〉 was no Protestant And such frauds he vseth in most other occasions as you may see in the three Converâ—â—â—ns of England writ to confute his acts and Monuments and from whence we have borrowed most of what hath bin sayd concerning Fox and his Martyrs Now we will treat of others no less fals and deceitfull in maintaining the Protestant Religion SVBSECT III. Doctor Chark's falsification of St. Austin and how he excuseth Luther's doctrin of the lawfulness of adultery and incest DOctor Chark was so great a pillar of protestancy in Q. Elizabeths days that he was thought the fittest man to dispute against learned Campian in the Tower but 〈◊〉 behaved himself in that occasion very insolently ignoâ—â—â—â— and vncharitably he writ a â—ook in answer to the 〈◊〉 which was published of himself Luther Calvin Beza 〈◊〉 â—any other falsifications of Mr. Chark to defend 〈◊〉 Protesâ—â—nt doctrin his adversary objects pag. 122 â— that 〈…〉 St. Augustin's Text about the doctrin of conâ—â—â—scence where the Censure had alleadged besides the Testiâ—â—ny of many other Fathers one most plain out of that great 〈◊〉 saying concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate if consent 〈◊〉 yeelded vnto her for accomplishment of vnlawfull works Mr. 〈◊〉 alleadgeth another authority out of St. Austin in the same 〈◊〉 that doth as he says expound his meaning for thus 〈◊〉 writeth Augustin's place is expounded by himself afterward saying concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism that it is not sin 〈◊〉 that it is not imputed as sin where the word sin in the first place is put in by Mr. Chark for that St. Austin's words are Dâ—â—itti Concupiscentiam carnis in Baptismo non ut non sit sed ut in peccatum non imputetur quamvis reatu suo jam soluto manet 〈◊〉 Concupiscence is forgiven in Baptisme not so that it is not or remain not in the regenerat but that it be not imputed as SVBSECT IV. Falsifications of Cranmer and Peter Martyr against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass c. AFter that Cranmer had bin publikly convinced both by Scripture and Fathers 〈◊〉 his disputation at Oxford â—s will appeare to any that will read even his friend 〈◊〉 concerning that subject the Catholick disputants objeâ—â—ed falsifications and corruptions of his in the Books which 〈◊〉 had composed against the real presence one was that wheras 〈◊〉 Martyr who flourished in the beginning of the second 〈◊〉 answering to them who sayd the Christians adored bread 〈◊〉 we do not take this for common bread and drink but like as â—â—sus Christ our Saviour Incarnat by the word of God had flesh and 〈…〉 Salvation even so we be taught the food where-with our 〈◊〉 and blood is nourished by alteration when it is consecrated by the 〈◊〉 of his prayer instituted by him to be the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Incarnat Cranmer thus translated the words of that ancient Father Bread water and wine are not to be taken as other 〈◊〉 and drinks be but they be ordained purposly to give thanks to 〈◊〉 and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called the Body and blood of Christ and that it is lawfull for none to eat and drink of them but that profess Christ and live according to the same and yet that meat and drink is changed into our flesh and Blood and nourisheth our bodys After Cranmer's confessing that the former Catholicks Translation was the right he excuseth his villany saying he did not translate Justin word by word wheras he set down all as Justin's words but only gave the meaning let any Protestant be Iudge whether he gave Iustin's meaning You have corrupted Emissenus saith Doctor Weston to Cranmer for insteed of cibis satiâ—ndus that is to be filled hath pro omni paena for all pain your Book omitteth many things there Thus you see Brethren saith Doctor Weston the truth stedfast and invincible you see also the craft and deceit of hereticks And thus concludeth Fox himself the disputation with Cranmer Doctor Chedley did also object to Cranmer his corruption of St. Hillaries words putting in vero sub Mysterio for verè sub mysterio by which the whole sense was altered because verè sub mysterio sheweth that we do truly receive in the mystery of the Sacrament Christ's flesh and blood and vero sub mysterio proves only the reality or verity of a Sacrament or a mystery not of the body and blood of Christ. To this after many excuses Cranmer answered that the change of one letter for an other was but â— small matter But Weston told that Pastor was a Bishop and â—â—stor a Baker and yet there was but one letters change As for Peter Martyr's falsifications they appear sufficiently 〈◊〉 the places themselâ—â—â— which Fox alleadgeth for him out of 〈◊〉 or twelve Fathers in his disputations at Oxford an 1549. wherof the reader will scarce find one truly cited in all respects but that either the words next going before or immediatly following making wholy against Protestants are purâ—â—sely left out and others put in or mistranslated as hath bin evidently demonstrated part 3. c. 19. 20. 21. of the â—â—eatise of the three conversions of England and therfore we â—â—â—â—eare what every one may see in a Book no less obvious then profitable SECT VI. How some Protestant 〈◊〉 in Q. Elizabeths time seing their fellowes were proved Falsifiers waved the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers and 〈◊〉 the others continued their former course of falsifying both Fathers and Councells THE discovery of Iewell 's 〈◊〉 other mens falsificatiâ—â—â— made some Protestant writers more wary and take an other course for defence
Mr. Walsingham nothing but a colerick Jnvective against the Author of the defence telling him first and facing him down that the cause why there was no publick disputation was in him and his fellowes as being afraid to come to that tryal Which kind of answer contented me not for that I expected he would have sayd that disputation should be procured and that he and all the rest of our Clergy would ioyn in that suit to her Majesty that then was Secondly to all the ways set down by the defence for trying of a Catholick and heretical spirit he sayd only that he and his would be tryed by Scriptures wheras the Controversies would be about the sense and Jnterpretation of Scripture Thirdly to that of Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza their lives and doctrines which principaly I desired to see discussed he seemed to me to answer scarce any thing to the purpose but ran into a great exclamation of popish slanderers and against the absurdities of Indulgences c. which were not now in question he ought to have examined the place out of Luther's own writings about himself and others both for life and doctrin but this was not don only in general he would seem to excuse matters or rather to divert the reader from attention vnto them with this florish of words As for Berengariâ—s saith Chark Huss Wicleff Luther c. we measure them according to those times wherin the Lord stirred them vp and according to that measure of grace and light he bestowed vpon them and whatsoever were their Jmperfections therin we do not justifie them but give God the praise of his work and leave them to their place as men yet we may and will thus far defend them against that doggish tooth of yourâ—â— that in the principal points of faith wherupon dependeth salvation they were found with Athanasius and all other holy men of God These words J say may be as well applyed as an Apology to Turks Iewes and all hereticks as to Luther Calvin Beza Cranmer for Turks Iewes and all hereticks agree with Catholicks and Athanasius in some points of faith though in their imperfections as blasphemies Iudaisme Turcisme heresy c. They do not agree with Athanasius and therin we do not justifie them Were not this a good excuse thought J with my self And is it not a goodly Church that admits of such companions and fraternity saith VValsingham What he meant â—â—en he sayd in the principal points of faith wherupon dependeth salvation I could not tell seeing he giveth no certain rule to know them And besides I considered that Luther and 〈◊〉 Lutherans do affirm in their Books even to this day that we â—scanâ—ants of England are damned hereticks for denying the real pre 〈…〉 And on the contrary side we say that they are good protestants 〈◊〉 holy men and our Brethren though they hold the real presence which we deny and condemn for Idolatry To all the rest of my difficulties J found in effect no substantial answer at all Mr. VValsinghams last appearance before my Lord of Canterbury and his Doctors THe prefixed time of my appearance drawing neere I repaired to London and vpon the last day of Easter term I went to Lambeth to present my self to my Lord who was not yet come from Westminster though in 〈◊〉 absence there sate as I vnderstood divers Doctors and Prâ—lats about matters of Religion in his house at Lambeth At length my Lord came home and a great train with him coming out of his garden he cast his eye vpon me and presently said vnto me with a friendly countenanee and somewhat a low voice now Mr. VValsingham how do you are you satisfied To whom I answered no truly my Lord I am not yet satisfied wherunto he replyed nothing but went and sate down at his table in the parlor together with his Doctors and Prelats about him whither after a litle time I was called and then my Lord began to explain my case vnto them how I desired to be satisfied in matters of fact conteined in the defence what paines his Lordship had taken with me and others at his appointment and finaly that he had delivered vnto me two books of Mr. Bell's written against the Papists to satisfie me withall and then he called me closs vnto him at the tables end and asked me very seriously whether J had read them and what I thought of them To this I answered that I had read them over with diligence and that my Iudgment was that the Author was a golden Bell but his sound like as of a brazen Candlestick which I sayd in respect of the many golden advices inferences Corollaries and the golden sentences which he mentioned so often in his books but that his sound was no better then of brass according to the Apostle's similitude for that he seemed not only to have no charity in his writings but neither truth nor sincerity in his Allegations The Arch-bishop hearing me call him a golden Bell in the first part of my answer seemed much contented saying that is well but hearing the second demanded why so And Doctor Barlow Dean of Chester afterwards Bishop of Lincoln looking back vpon me with more displeasure as it seemed then the rest sayd why what say you to Mr. Bell and all the other Doctors in like manner cast their eyes vpon me But I gave the reason 〈◊〉 mentioned And then my Lord answering and willing me to shew wherin I had made that observation J layd forth vpon the table before them the two books that I had perused turning to the places of St. Chrysostom St. Augustin and other Fathers which I pretended to have bin vntruly alledged by him presupposing that my Lord would presently hâ—â—e commanded the said Fathers works to have bin brought forth out of his study and the places quoted to be examined in all their presence but no such matter ensued for my Lord having slightly looked over the places in Bell as he citeth them he layed them down again and the Doctors took them vp to peruse in which mean space his Lorship began to talk somewhat privatly and mildly with me concerning things objected by the defence of the Censure against Luther c. My Lord began to talk vnto Doctor Barlow who this while with the rest was looking on Bell's Books and began to speak somwhat concerning them seeming to maintain somewhat a good opinion of Bell's fidelity which yet appeared not to be great with my Lord himself as by some conjectures I gathered But none of them as I said so much as once offered to call for the Fathers works themselves to examin the places which was my desire But after some few words to and fro among themselves my Lord commanded me to stand a side whilst they talked Wherupon I retired my self by litle and litle down to the lower end of the parlour that they might confer more freely they talked together of this and other matters and after
the citations which we do accuse of falshood be so indeed in the Authors as Plessis hath alledged in his Book And yet of the overthrow of these so many Falsifications gathered together ensueth the overthrow and dishonor of the cause which is defended by such weapons And consequently we are much bound to the holy providence of of Almighty God that he hath permitted in this last assault of Hereticks the Ministers of France to have layd all the heads of their fals Impostures and deceitfull dealings vpon one Body to the end they may be all cut off at one blow and that the simple people by them abused seeing discovered the false and vnfaithfull dealings of those vpon whose fidelity they grounded their faith may forsake them hereafter and return to that faith which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth This is an excellent Method and Peron's words may be very well applied to B. Taylor 's Dissuasive from Popery But to our relation The Iudges of the conference were besides the Chancellor of France who was Moderator the president de Tou a neere Kinsman to Plessis Monsieur Pitheu his great friend and Monsieur le Fevre Master of the Prince of Conde all Catholicks On the other side for the Protestants were named the president Calignon Chancellor of Navarre and Monsieur de Fresne Conaye president and Monsieur Causabon Reader to his Majesty in Paris all earnest and learned Protestants The day before the tryal Peron to deale more plainly and like a friend sent vnto Plessis 60. places taken out of his book vpon which he meant to press him and as his words are to begin the play of which 60. Plessis choose out 19. that seemed to him most defensible But the next day the tryal being begun after Peron had declared there were foure thousand places falsified in Plessis his Book only 9. of the 19. could be examined though they sate 6. houres and all Iudged against Plessis by common consent wherupon Plessis fell sick that night vomiting blood c. and could be never got to proceed in the tryal and went from Paris to Samur without taking leave of the King or seeing the Lord Chancellor This proof of wilfull Falsifications wherby alone it seems protestancy can be maintained every where els as well as in England occasioned the conversion of very many in France as the King's Lieutenant in Limoge and his wife with divers of the nobility and no few Ministers wherof one was Tirius a Scotchman master of a Colledge in Nismes and an other who was Nephew to John Calvin The Coppy of a letter written by a person of quality about this conference SIR Heere hath bin some foure dayes past a great Conference at Fontainbleau between Monsieur Peron Bishop of Eureux and Monsieur Plessis Mornay Governor of Samur The King with many Princes were present and Iudges chosen and appointed for both parties In the end Plessis Mornay was vtterly disproved and confounded by a general consent of both sides and shamed in so much as the King rose vp from his place and swore Ventre Gry he had heard and seen enough of Plessis falsities and that by Act of Parliament he would cause his books to be burned saying that himself had all his youth time bin abused and carried away with their corruptions c. The Hugonots are struck more dead with this accident then if they had lost a battle of 40. thousand men and Plessis Mornay himself is faln sick vpon it vomits blood and looks like himself c. Paris 10. May. 1600. King Henry 4. letter to the Duke of Espernon vpon the same subject MY friend The Diocess of Eureux hath overcom Samur and the sweet manner of proceeding that hath bin vsed hath taken away all occasion to say that any force hath bin vsed beside the only force of truth The Bearer hereof was present at the combat who will inform you what mervailes J have don therin Certainly it is one of the greatest blows that hath bin given for the Church of God this long time for the manifestation of this error By this means we shall reduce more in one year of them that are separated from the Church then by any other way in fifty years There were a large discourse to be made of each their actions but the same were too long to write The Beareâ— will tell you the manner which J would have all my servants to observe for reaping fruit of this holy work Good night my friend And for that I know what pleasure you will take hereof you are the only man to whom J have written it This â— of May 1600. HENRY The Authors falsified and the sentence given against Plessis THe 〈◊〉 places or Authors corrupted by Plessis and his Ministâ—â—â— went 〈◊〉 about the real presence Durandus against Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom against prayer to 〈◊〉 twice 〈…〉 against prayer to Saints St. Cyril against worshiping the holy Cross. The Code or Imperial 〈◊〉 to the same 〈…〉 against honoring our B. Lady 〈◊〉 against worshiping of Images The particulars wherof may be seen in the printed Acts of this Conference and in the three Conversions part 3. translated into English But to satisfie the curiosity of many J will copy the abridgment of the Judges sentence which was delivered immediatly after Conference by the Secretaries to divers persons of quality Vpon the first two places of Scotus and Duranduâ— the sentence was that Monsieur Plessis had taken the objection for the resolution Vpon the places of St. Chrysostom That he had left out that which he should have put in Vpon the fifth place of St. Hierom That he ought to have alledged the passage entire 〈◊〉 it was in the Author vpon the six place of St. Cyril that 〈◊〉 passage alledged out of St. Cyril was not to be found in him The seaventh place out of the Emperors Theodorus and Valens 〈◊〉 Plessiâ— had alledged truly Crinitus but that Crinitus was abuâ—â—â— Vpon the eight place out of St. Bernard That it had bin 〈◊〉 Plessis had cited the place distinctly as it lay in the Author with 〈…〉 of any thing in the midst And finaly vpon the ninth 〈◊〉 out of Theodoret against Images That the passage alledged 〈◊〉 not to be vnderstood of Images but of Idols and that this 〈◊〉 by the words which Plessis had omitted in his allegation 〈◊〉 this suffice for French falsifications let vs return to the English wherof there is such abundance and so great variety â—hat J can hardly resolve which to 〈◊〉 vpon SECT VIII Protestant falsifications to persuade that the Roman Catholick doctrin is inconsistent with the Soveraignty and safety of Kings and with civil Society between Catholicks and Protestants THe Protestant Clergy seeing their frauds and falsifications of Scripture Fathers and Councells cleerly discouered and that after Queen Elizabeths death they had no reason to make Catholik Religion odious to the line of the Stewards our Tenets favoring their
Hampton 〈◊〉 sayd that he vnderstood by the Bishops yea and 〈◊〉 it himself to be true that the papists themselves did never 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism Is it possible that lay people can be so ignorantly deâ—â—t and dull as to let a Clergy enjoy millions of reveâ—â—â—â—pon such notoriously fals and forged evidences The protestant Falsification to persuade that the Canon law doth warrant deposition of Kings by the Pope MAster Morton in his discovery pag. 34. hath these words Except saith the Romish pretence there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes God had not provided sufficiently for his Church And for this he citeth the Constitution extravagant of Pope Bonifacius and saith this objection is in your extravagants and so it may be called because it rangeth extra that is without the bounds of God's ordinance c. Heere first this sentence is not in the Popes extravagant at all but only in a certain addition to the ordinary Gloss or Commentary of Iohn Picard which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer Secondly this Commentary sayes nothing of deposing Apostata princes but only affirming the foresaid opinion of Canonists to be true that Christ was Lord absolutely in his life over all not only in spiritual authority but in temporal also he inferreth therby Christ should not have sufficiently provided for the Government of his Church and Kingdom vpon earth nisi vnicum post se talâ—â— Vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset except he had left some such one Vicar after him as should be able to perform al these things according as necessity shall require which later clause Mr. Morton cut of as he added the other abouâ— Apostata Princes Bishop Morton in his preamble pag. 110. doth answer thus For citing the extravagant of the Pope an ingenious reader would have vnderstood a figure called Synecdoche where the part is put for the whole as when we say this man shall not come vnder my roof meaning by roof which is but a part of my house the whole house it self so here by extravagants might have bin meant the whole body of their Constitutions which contain both extravagants and Glosses c. This is the first part of his answer that we must vnderstand him by a figure pars pro toto as if a man should say in divinity the Scripture hath this or that because Tyndales Glosses or some Commentaries or annotations vpon it have But indeed here is no Synecdoche but only the figure of plain lying for neither are the extravagant Constitutions of Popes parts of the Glosses nor are the Glosses parts of the Constitutions and much less may additions or annotations be accompted any part at all of the same The second part of his answer is no less fraudulent Pope Gregory 13. saith Morton hath ratified the foresaid Glosses and annotations with priviledge and authority equivalent and answerable to the authority of the Decretals and extravagants themselves wherof he inferreth that whether a man do cite â—â—cretals Extravagants Glosses and annotations all is one for that all have equivalent authority Pope Gregory 13. being demanded licence to print the Canon law a new prefixed an epistle before the decretals of 〈◊〉 with this title ad futuram rei memoriam wherin he 〈◊〉 licence to Paulus Constabilis to review the same and to 〈◊〉 printer to print it exactly according to the Roman exemâ—â—â— saying among other things therupon Vt hoc Iuris Caâ—â—â—ci corpus fideliter incorrupté juxta exemplar Romae impresâ—â—â—â—mprunâ— possit That the Canon law may be faithfully 〈◊〉 without corruption printed according to the Copy set 〈◊〉 at Rome So that Mr. Morton will needs have this 〈◊〉 of printing an equalling the credit and authority of all 〈◊〉 things printed As for his adding the words Apostata princes 〈◊〉 â—yes though they be not in the text of the Glosses yet 〈◊〉 matter handled in that Gloss may be extended to them Protestant Falsification to persuade that Catholiks may cheat any excommunicated persons of their lawfull debts WIll you heare a case or two more saith Parsons out of the Canon law how dexterous Sir Thomaâ— is in corrupting that which he loveth not You 〈◊〉 read in the fourth page of his pamphlet or preamble an ancient decree for so he calleth it alledged by him out of Gratian in the Gloss determining that though a man hath sworn to pay money to one that is excommunicated yet is he not bound to pay the same and he citeth the latin text thus Si juravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam qui excommunioâ—tur non teneor ei solvere If I have sworn to pay money to any man that is excommunicated I am not bound to pay it adding this reason quia qualitercunque possâ—mus debemus â—exare maloâ— vt cessâ—nt a mâ—â—o because we ought to vex evil men by what means soever we may to the end they may cease from doing evil The truth of this matter is that these words be not found in any text of law or decision of any pope or Councell but words of the Gloss that contein only a certain objection vpon a Clause of a Canon concerning promise to be observed to one that is excommunicated after the promise was made and the objection 〈◊〉 doubt is made in these wordâ— by the Author of the Gloss or Commentary 〈…〉 quid 〈◊〉 si juravi c. But what will you say if J have 〈…〉 to any person or have promised the same vnder 〈…〉 and in the mean space be to whom I made the 〈…〉 excommunicated am I bound to pay the same or not 〈…〉 question and then he argueth on both sides and 〈◊〉 for the negative videtur quod non it seems J am not 〈◊〉 the Canon law saith causa 25. q. 6. that we ought 〈…〉 wicked men c. But afterwards coming to give his 〈…〉 solution he saith thus veriuâ— credo quod licet ille non habeat 〈◊〉 petendi tamen debet ei solui I do believe the truer opinion to be that albeit be that is so excommunicated have no right to demand his money yet is the other bound to pay him so that Morton imposeth vpon his 〈◊〉 the objection for the resolution cutting of deceitfully the first words sed quid diciâ— si juraâ—â— c. and alledging the reason of the objection quia qualitercunque possumus c. for the reason of the solution Morton answereth the truth is I took these allegations vpon credit c. of one Stock a learned preacher saith he of London And Stock beginneth his recognisance thus I Richard Stock brought this allegation with some others to the Author of the discovery c. So like honest fellows they divide the same between them Stock for his fraudulent lending and Morton for his beggarly borrowing and without doubt improving of the fraud it being incredible 〈◊〉 Stock would deliver it as Morton sets is
these are his words and concealed by the Bishop who also striks out of Vincentius Lirin other words wherby it did appear what a kind of keeper the Church is of the truths deposited with her and how litle danger there is of corrupting the old or admitting of new doctrin The Bishop pag. 38. sets down the sentence thus Ecclesia depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos c. Denique quid vnquam Conciliorum Decretis enisa est nisi vt quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur c. But in Vincentius Lirinensis It is thus Christi vero Eoclesia sedula cauta depositorum apud se dogmatum Custos here first he skips over these two words sedula cauta diligent and wary because they spoiled his plot of persuading us that the Church might by negligence of its Pastors be insensibly changed and corrupted To the same intent he conceales with an c. the rest that followes which would have cleered all and left no room for the Bishops fraud for Vincentius Lirin his words are But the Church of Christ is a diligent Depositary or Keeper of the truths committed to her never changes any thing at all in them lessens nothing adds nothing nether cuts away things necessary nor adjoyns things superfluous neither looseth what is hers nor vsurpes what belongs to others Let any Christian or honest Pagan Iudge whether these words be not Diametrically contrary to what the Bishop pretends vnto in this passage viz. suspition and possibility of the Churches adding novitia veteribus novelties to the old doctrin of making a change of that faith she first received from Christ and his Apostles and of becoming Lupanar errorum which this good man and holy Martyr sayes he is loath to english and yet leaves out cuts and corrupts the Latin text of set purpose to fix vpon Christs Espouse the greatest infamy How Bp. Laud falsifies Occham to infringe St. Austins authority concerning the infallibility of the Church in succeeding ages as well as in that of the Apostles and is forced by his error to resolve his prelatick faith into the light of Scripture and the privat Spirit of Fanaticks which he palliates vnder the name of grace and therby warrants all rebellions against Church and state AN act of divine faith must be prudent that is men are not bound to believe any article therof v. g. that Scripture is the word of God vnless there evidently appear prudent and sufficient motives to exclude all moral possibility that any but God is the Author of the doctrin proposed to be believed These motives of credibility we call the signs of the Church and are the miracles of Christ and his Disciples sanctity and succession of his doctrin and Doctors Conversion of Kings and nations to christianity c. These signs or motives of credibility though they do not evidence demonstratively that our faith is true or that the Church or Congregation of men wherin they be found is the Catholick yet they demonstrat an obligation in us of believing it as we have proved elsewhere in so much that if no such signs or motives of credibility had bin none would be bound to believe any point of Christian Religion with certainty of faith and therfore St. Austin sayd he would not believe the Scripture had he not bin moved therunto by the authority of the Church because Scripture of it self hath no sufficient arguments and signs to ground a prudent and undoubted belief of its being the word of God but the signs and motives of credibility invest the Church with sufficient authority to declare both that and all other mysteries of faith and to make our Ecclesiastical Ministery and Mission more authentikly divin then any Regal Commissions or human Badges can set forth the truth and dignity of Ministers of state and officers of war Therfore as not to believe or to contemn men so qualified when they command in the Kings name is by the light of reason and consent of all nations judged obstinacy and rebellion not to be excused by pretending ignorance or want of greater evidence then those vsual signs of their employments afford so must it be obstinat heresy not to believe that what is proposed by the Church qualified with the aforesaid signs is revealed by God This supposed the main Controversy between Protestants and Catholicks is about the resolution of Christian faith for though both parties pretend that they believe because God revealed to the Prophets and Apostles the Mysteries of faith yet we say that Protestants can not shew how it may be prudently believed that Christ preached or revealed any such doctrin as is pretended vnless it be acknowledged that the Church of every succeeding age was and this present is as truly and realy though perhaps not so highly quoad modum infallible in delivering the Apostles doctrin as the Apostles were in delivering that of Christ. We do not say that Tradition or the Testimony of the Church confirmed by the foresaid signs is the prime motive and last resolution of faith but that the Tradition and Testimony of the present Church is infallible to the end it may infallibly apply the prime motive which is Gods veracity to vs and we prudently assent thervnto But the Bishop denying this is driven with Presbyterians and Fanaticks to an inbredâ—light of Scripture and to the privat Fanatick spirit with this only difference that where they say they are infallibly resolved that Scripture is the word of God by the Testimony of the Spirit within them his Lordship pag. 83.84 averrs he hath the same assurance by grace And because we object and admire that no Catholick could ever perceive this inward and inbred light of Scripture wherby all Protestants pretend they are assured it is the word of God he concurrs pag. 86 with Fanatitks in telling vs that blind eyes can not and pervers eyes will not see it It s strange his Lordship did not foresee the sad effects which this Protestant principle and presumption wrought against himself and his Prelatick Church within a very short time after he writ this doctrin and applyed the same against the Roman Catholicks He might be sure it would be retorted against the Church of England for why may not every Protestant Sectary pretend that the Prelatick Church of England is as blind and pervers in not seing the light of Scripture as Luther and Laud pretend the Roman Catholick is It is but every particular mans fancy and word no other proof is required by Protestants nor indeed can any better be produced to make good that so many honest and learned searchers of Scripture as have bin and are in the Roman Catholick Church can not or will not see the pretended light of Scripture so largely diffused among Protestants and distributed to every Fanatick Presbyterian and Prelatick whose faith can not be maintained without this rash judgment and most dangerous
had bin members of Christ if any contradicts this sentence he is belieued not to be a Christian but an Eunomian or a Vigilantian S. Aug lib 3. c. 4. contra lit Petil chargeth and reproueth Petilian with his foul mouth he proceedeth to the dispraysing of Monks of Monasteries He also chargeth the Donatists Circumcellions with the same crime saying they use to say what meaneth the name of Monks shew where it is to be found in Scripture Aug. in Psalm 132. S. Hierom contra Vigillan c. 1. saith What do the Churches of the East What those of Egypt and of the Apostolick Sea Which receaue Priests either Virgins or Continent or if they haue wiues they cease to be husbands S. Epiphanius haer 59. But you will tell me that in some places Priests Deacons and Subdeacons haue children But that is not according to the Canon but according to mens minds c. S. Aust. de vnit Eccl. c. 12. reporteth the Donatists as heretiks for saith he they vsed to collect certaine places of Scripture ea detorquere in Ecclesiam Dei that it might seem to haue perished in the whol world And in Psalm 101. conc 2. relateth their words the Church hath apostatised and perished in all nations this they say who are not in the Church O impudentem vocem [g] Bishop Ieuell in his sermon at Pauls Cross and iterated challeng appeales for the truth and purity of the Protestant Religion to S. Gregory the great Bishop of Rome And so also doth Whitaker in respons ad Campian rat 5. pag. 50. in behalf of all the English Clergy his words are O Campian the speech of Jeuell was most true and constant when provoking you to the 600. yeares he offered you c. It is the offer of us all the same we do all promise and will be as good as our vvords which was to be Catholicks if any Father of the first 600. yeares wherof S. Gregory the Pope was named had any sentence in fauour of Popery Bishop Godvvin [h] in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England pag. 3. saith that blessed and holy Father S. Gregory was the occasion of replanting the Christian Faith in our Country The same in substance saith Whitaker c. contra Duraeum lib. 5. pag. 394. D. r Humfrey in Iesuitismi part 2. rat 5. pag. 624 Gregorius nomine quidem magnus re vera magnus Vir magnis multis divinae gratiae dotibus c. M. r Thomas Bell in his suruey of Popery pag. 187. termeth him S. Gregory surnamed the Great the holy and learned Bishop of Rome S. Damascen a Father of the Greck Church in Orat. de Defunctis saith Gregory Bishop of the more ancient Rome as all haue known as well for Holiness of life as learning excelent and famous Isidore de Scriptor Eccles. c. 27. saith Gregory Bishop of the Apostolick Sea of Rome c. was by the grace of the holy Ghost so greatly endued with light of knowledg as no Doctor of this present age or in tyms past was equal to him S. Gregories communion with the Bishops of Greece may be seene l. 4. epist. 56. vniversis Episcopis per Hollodiam c. l. 1. epist. 43. l. 4. epist. 7. Vniversis Episcopis per Illyricum d. l. 4. epist. 53. Episcopo Corinthiorum For the Patriarchs of Constantinople see l. 7. ep 64. Ioanni Episcopo Syracusano ep 65. For Africk see in l. 7. ep 30. l. 5. ep 60. His Epistles to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria and see l. 4. ep 3. l. 6. ep 32. Dominico Episcopo Cartaginensi item l. 6. ep 2. Columbo Episcopo Numidiae For Asia see his Epis. to Isicius Bishop of Hierusalem l. 9. ep 40. see further l. 9. ep 27. Maximiano Episcopo Arabiae In his epistle to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch l. 6. ep 24.32 ep 24. [i] See Holinsheads Chronicle vol. 1. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. acknowledging how St. Austin Monck restored sight to one that was blind as Bede recounts it hist. l. 2 c. 2. whervpon the Britans present ther at acknowledged that his doctrin was true See Holinshead also pag. 100. and Mr. Fox Act. and mon. printed 1576. pag. 117. and Bishop Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops pag. 4. see Holinshead also in his great Chronicle volum 2. pag. 108. 109. and Fox cit pag. 120. 121. [k] This letter of St. Gregor is extant in Bede hist. l. 1. c. 31. and mentioned by Holinshead pag. 102. [l] Dr. Humfrey in Jesuitismi part 2. rat 5. 627. [m] The Century writers of Magdeburg in their 6. Century cap. 10. col 748. and collecting elswher in the same Booke out of St. Gregories own writings by them cited his Popish Tenets They do in the Index of that 6. Century after the first edition therof at the word Gregory specially set down his supposed Popish errors as Mass Purgatory c. and particularly with his claim and exercise of Iurisdiction and Supremacy over all Churches col 425. usque ad 432. Concerning his other Popish doctrin see them c. 10. col 748.369.376.381.384.364 seqs 693. seq col 425. usque ad 432. [n] Carion in Chron. l. 4. pag. 567. seq [o] Luke Osiander in his Epitome Hist. Eccl. Centur. 6. pag. 288. seq 289. John Bale in Act. Rom. Pontif. edit Basil. 1558. pag. 44.45.46.47 Centur. 1. fol. 3. Fulck in his Confutation of Purgatory pag 333. Mr Willet in his Teâ—rasticon papismi pag 122. Osiander in Epitâ—m Centur 6. pag 290. [a[ Luther in his epist. to his father extant to 2. Wittemberg fol. 269. saith It seemeth that Sathan did forsee somthing in me of what he now suffers and therfore endeavoured to destroy me by incredible stratagems [b] Mallius Luthers own Scholler in loc commun pag. 42. 43. saith that always after the apparitions of firebrands in the night to Luther his head did ake grieuously And at Coburg one of these apparitions of three flying firebrands was so terrible that he was almost cast into a sound in prevention wherof oyle was distilled into his eare and his feet rubb'd with hott Cloaths c. [d] See Luthers words in Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177. [e] Luther in appellatione prima ad Leonem X. tom 1. Wittemberg fol. 219. [f] Luther apud Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177.178 [c] Cochleus a vertuous and learned man who lived with Luther many years and writ his life very exactly from year to year sets down therin as a known truth how that one day when the Ghospell Matthew 9. of Christs casting out a dumb and deaf Devill was read in the quire Luther fell down to the ground and cryed non sum non sum I am not and without doubt if Luther was possessed it was not by a dumb Devill [g] Sleidan l. 1. fol. 10. saith Martin Luthers Appellation from the Pope being contemned his offers despised looking for no more help nor health at the Popes hands