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
was through extreme necessity brought to appeale from the Bishop of Rome See also Osiander in Epitom cent 16. c. 25. p. 63. [h] Belarm praefat de Consiliis [i] Luther tom 2. Wittemberg fol. 374. 375. The Governors and Pastors of Christs sheep have power to teach but the sheep must give judgment whether they propose the voice of Christ or of strangers c. Let the Pope Bishops Councells c ordain what they please we will not hinder it but the judgment shal remain with us who are Christs sheep and heare his voice whether they propose the truth and things agreable to our Pastor and they must yeeld subscribe and obey our censure and sentence [k] Luther in Colloq Mensal fol. 158. [l] Luther in praefat in tom Germ. [m] Luther tom Germ. fol. 9. And t. 2. WitteÌ„berg of an 1562. lib. de abroganda Missa privata fol. 244. [n] Luther tom 5. Wittenb in Galat. c. 1. fol. 290. in colloq Mensal fol. 273. [o] Luther tom 7. Wittenberg anno 1558. in l. de Missa privata fol. 443. 228. tom 6. Ger. fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari [p] Luther in lib. de servo arbitrio contra Erasm in the first edition faith Lay aside all the armes of Orthodox antiquity schooles of Diuinity authority of Councels and Popes the consent of so many ages and of all the Christian people we receiue nothing but Scripturs yet so that we alone haue the authority of interpreting them That which we interpret is the sence of the holy Ghost that which others bring though they be great though many proceeds from the spirit of Sathan and madness [q] Mr. Chark in his answer to Censure c. as also Mr. Fulk in his Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 234. [r] Sutcliff in his book de vera Cathol Christi Ecclesia pag. 299. when he saith Lutherus autem nihil aliud peccavit quam quod ut homo Germanus non ita pridem Monachus c. [s] Hospinian in Hist. Sacramentar part altera after that in his prolegomen had sayd that Luther was a man adorned vvith excellent gifts vvith the light of heavenly knowledg zeale of Gods glory and raised up to restore the Ghospells light c. affirmeth fol. 131. That Luther being instructed by the Devill that the Mass vvas vvicked and being overcom with Sathans arguments did therupon abandon the Mass. [t] Luther tom 7. Wittenberg an 1558. fol. 229. setteth down the Devills words saying to Luther as being then one vvith the Papists Behold your bouldness you do these things in darknes and abuse the name of the Church c. And fol. 230. why therfore in the privat Mass dost thou blasphemously goe against the cleer words and institution of Christ c. And fol 229. going about to prove that Luther may not in the Mass communicat alone he aleadgeth the example of the other Sacraments which a man can not vse for himself saying If a man absolues himself it is no Absolution If he anoints himself it is no Unction If one marries to himself it is no mariage c. Fo these are your seaven Sacraments so plainly yet was Luther a Roman Catholik If therfore a man can not Minister to himself any of your Sacraments how comâ— that thou canst Minister to thyself alone this greatest Sacrament c. Dost thou think that Christ did institute the Sacrament for thee alone and that in thy privat Mass thou dost consecrat the body and bloud of the Lord [v] Joannes Regius in his book intituled Liber Apologeticus c. under the Title Consideratio Censurae pa. 123. saith of Luthers instruction from the Devill What doth this availe to confute Luthers doctrin of the word of God And how doe you know that it vvas an evell spirit vvho told this to Luther We know it by Luthers own Confession or if he vvere an evell spirit it doth not follow that he told lyes because the Devills speak truth som tyms vvhen they speak that vvhich the Scripture vvittnesseth [w] D. r Morton in Apolog. Catholica part 1. l. 2. c. 21. pag. 351. saith Apud Surium liquet Diabolum in specie Angelica apparuisse statimque Abbatem ut Missam celebraret hortabatur alledging there in his margent Delrium Iâ—s lib. 4. de Magia cap. 1. quaest ◠§. 5. [x] Luther in lib. de captiv Babylon saith Whosoeuer is a Christian let him be most certain that wee are all equaly Priests that is we have the same power in ministring the word and Sacrament See more of this alledged out of the edition of Jeneua by Cnoglerus in his Symbula tria pag. 157. And in loc con clas 2. pag. 136. 138. See also Luther in assert damnatis per Leonem X. art 3. where he maintains that women can absolue from sins [y] S. Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum lib. 20. cap. 21. saith of the Mass celebrated on Saints days Although in memory of Martyrs yet not to Martyrs do we erect Altars Et lib. 22. de Civitate Dei cap 10. Vpon which Altars we offer Sacrifice not to Martyrs but to the God of Martyrs lib. cap. 27. de Civitate Dei contra Faustum Manichaeum libro 20. cap. 2â— For which of the faithfull hath at any tyme heard the Priests standing at the Altar which in the honor of God is erected upon the body of a Martyr to say in seruice tyme O Peter Paul or Cyprian I offer to thee Sacrifice The protestant writers Eusebius Altkircher us doe confess that the Arians seeing the whole Catholik Church by unanimous consent offer Sacrifice in the Mass to God the Father mistaking as Fulgentius says lib. 2. ad Monimum cap. 3. that the same was not also offered to the son argued against Catholicks that the Father was greater then the Son lib. de mystico incruento Sacrificio adversus abominandam Missae superstitionem pag. 241. And pag. 236. the same Protestant Author doth acknowledg and set down S. Irenaeus his Argument against Marcion the heretick deduced from the Churches receiued doctrin concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass and this was in the next age to the Apostles S. Augustin lib. 9. Confes. cap. 12. sayth that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica being dead And de verb. Apost serm 34. That the vniuersal Church doth obserue as deliuered from their Forefathers to pray for the faithfull deceased in the Sacrifice and also to offer the Sacrifice for them Conc. 1. Nicen. Can. 14. saith the holy Councel hath bin informed that in some places and Cities the Deacons distribute the Sacrament to Priests neither rule nor custom hath deliuered that they who haue not power to offer Sacrifice should distribut the body of Christ to them who offer Concil Bracarense 3. Can. 3. Concil 12. Tolet can 5. [1.] S. Augustinus de Civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 19. [2.] S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3.
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
of the Councel of Nice and most vnconscionably cuts of the words immediatly following where Belarmin says the quite contrary of what Cozins imposed vpon his Readers to make good his English Canon of Scripture The words immediatly following are Excepto libro Iudith quem etiam Hieronimus postea recepit Except the booke of Iudith which also Hierom afterwards received as Canonical So that where Cozins says Belarmin confesseth that S. Hierom sayd the Councel of Nice declared not the book of Iudith Canonical Belarmin in that very place says the quite contrary And in the same page cap. 12. Belarmin proves by S. Hieroms testimony and words that the book of Iudith was declared Canonical in the highest degree by the Nicen Councel It were to be wished that Ecclesiastical promotions had bin better bestowed then upon 139 men whose labour and learning 〈◊〉 altogeather employed in seducing souls concealing the truth of Religion from their flocks and corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of the Church for no other reason but because they speak so cleerly against the Protestant Doctrine of these times wherby our Prelatick Ministers are maintained vsurping vast revenues from the Crown and come to the greatest preferments both of Church and State I have not seen any one Protestant Writer free from this fault 't is strange that after so manifest and manifould discoverys as have bin made of Mortons Andrews Fox Sutclif Jewell Barlow Whitaker Willet Vsher Lauds and others falsifications frauds and labyrinths there should be men yet found to follow their examples and much more to be wondred that they should thrive by a trade so base vnconscionable and distructive notwithstanding so manifest and frequent discoveries of their impostures As to this work of Doctor Cosins it may be properly called a Cosenage independently of an allusion to his name had not his book bin sufficiently confuted by the absurdity of his fundamental principles denying that the Apostles or Christian Church could declare any book of the old Testament Canonical which the Iews omitted or rejected and affirming that no parts of the New Testament were ever questioned by any Church ancient or modern I should set down many more of his willful falsifications and weake evasions but that labour being rendred superfluous by the incoherency of his own doctrin and by the inconsistency of his principles with including in that Canon of Scripture which he vndertakes to defend the epistles above mentioned of Peter Iohn Paul and Iude and the Apocalyps for it is evident by the quoted testimonies both of ancient Fathers and learned Protestants that these epistles of Iohn Iude Peter and Paul as also the Apocalyps were doubted of by many Christian Churches for three or foure ages I do not think fitt to trouble the Reader nor my self with a more particular confutation of this rather fantastical then Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture fantastical J say because he fancies to him-self that the authority and sayings of men who writ before this controversy had bin decided by a general Councel and at the same time professed a faith which obliged them so submit ther writings and judgments to the decrees of Councels can be of any force against that general Councel by which the contrary was decided and they would have bin guided by if they had bin now living as St. Austin saith of St. Cyprian in a point of doctrine which was determined by a general Councel against the holy Martyrs opinion long after his death Whosoever can take delight in seing the pittifull shifts and sleights wherby interested writers endeavour to blind mens eyes and vnderstandings let him peruse this book of Doctor Cozins and he will find more sport in observing how he tosses and turns the sayings of the Fathers against them-selves then could be wished in so serious a subject When the Fathers call the books of Macabees Tobie Judith c. sacred and Divine Scripture Canonical Scripture prophetical writings of Divine authority c. Holy inspirations revelations c. he tels you pag. 93. alibi passim all this must be understood in a large and popular sence though the contrary may appeare to any vnbyass'd judgment that will read the words by him cited pag. 92. alibi in the Authors themselves as for example let any one observe how Doctor Cozins mingles and mangles S. Austin's words concerning the controverted books of the Machabees and afterwards see what the St. him-self says he will â—â—rce believe the words are the same and may swear the sense is not For S. Austin lib. 2. de doctr Christ. cap. 8. sets down as his own sense the same Canon of Scripture which the Councel of Trent accepts and confirmeth and he subscribed unto in the third Councel of Carthage And because he knew that this Canon had not bin defined by a general Councel and therfore many Churches and Fathers doubted of some books which he and the 3. Councel of Carthage held for Canonical he gives some instructions how they who do not follow his Canon shall proceed vntill they be more fully informed or the matter decided and these instructions which he sets down for others who doubted and differ'd in opinion from him Doctor Cozins wilfully mistakes and misapplies to St. Austin him-self as if he could be ignorant of his own belief of the Canon He is also troubled that St. Austin doth favour so much the doctrine of Purgatory and the authority of the Catholick Church in declaring books of the Old Testament to be Canonical which were rejected by the Iews as to say lib. 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36. That the books of the Machabees are accompted Canonical by the Church although not by the Jews To weaken this testimony he brings an other that strengthens it and quotes St. Austin's words Ep. 61. ad Dulcitium wherin confuting the error of the Circomcellions who to cloake their self-homicides with text and examples of Scripture excused that doctrin with the examples of Eleazarus and Razias related in the Machabees which pretext St. Austin largly confutes not only in his epistle ad Dulcit but in his 2. book against the epistle of Gaudent cap. 23. not by deminishing the Canonical authority of the books of the Machabees as Doctor Cozins falsly imposeth vpon his Readers pag. 108. seq but by declaring how the Scripture doth indeed relate yet not commend the self-homicide of Eleazarus and Râ—zias nor canonize them Martyrs or propose their deaths to be imitated though it cannot be denyed but that they shew'd great worldly courage and contempt of life Did Doctor Cozins imagin that Dulcitius Gaudentius and other learned Circumcellions were such Coxcombs as to prove their Religion by Scripture and then to quote for Scripture a book which their Adversaries admitted not at least for so Canonical as that controversies of Religion could be therby decided or doth he think that St. Austin would not have put them in
number of Arius his faction because the Councell's testimony was confirmed by a Tradition and by the authority of St. Silvester Bishop of Rome whose legats presided in that Assembly· In the same Century was condemned the Heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Ghost by a Councell in Constantinople confirmed by the authority of St. Damasus Bishop of Rome Photius in lib. de septem Synodis In the fifth Century was condemned the heresy of Nestorius in the Ephesin Councell wherin presided Cyrillus in the name of Pope Celestin. Evagrius lib. 1. cap. 4. And a litle after was condemned the heresy of Eutiches in the Councell of Calcedon wherin also presided the Legats of Pope Leo. Evagrius lib. 2. cap. 4. And the whole Councell petitioned to the Bishop of Rome for his confirmation of their Acts. tom 2. Concil Breviarium Liberati In the same fifth age was condemned the heresy of the Pelagians by authority of the Bishops of Rome The Pelagian heresy saith St. Austin lib. 2. Retract c. 50. with it's authors was convicted and condemned by the Roman Bishops Jnnocent and Zozimus with concurrence or at the instance of the Councells of Africk And Prosper in Chronico an 420. A Councell being holden at Carthage of 217. Bishops the Synodal Decrees were sent to Pope Zozimus which being approved the Pelagian heresy was condemned in the whole world In the sixt Century many heresies were condemned in the 5. Synod In the 7. Century and sixt Synod were condemned the Monothelits wherin presided the Pop's Legats though the Emperor was present and subscribed but after all the Bishops not as a Judge but as on who consented and submitted to their judgment In the 8. Century and 7. Synod of 350. Bishops were declared and condemned as hereticks they who opposed the worship of Jmages wherin also presided the Pop's Legats wherof Photius saith This sacred and great Councell condemned a barbarous heresy newly invented by wicked and execrable men c. For they did terme the adorable Image of Christ wherby erronious idolatry is excluded an Idol c. In the 9. Century and 8. Synod many controversies were decided and the Pop's Legats presided The Emperor was present and subscrib'd but after the Legats and Patriarchs and plainly acknowledged that the judgment of Religious Controversies apertain'd not to him and that by subscribing he only testifyed his Consent In the 10. Century we read of no heresy but of the Greeks Schism In the 11. Century Pope Leo the 9. in a Councell at Vercelli and Pope Nicolas 2. in a Councell at Rome of 113. Bishops condemned the heresy of Berengarius against the real presence and Transsubstantiation Lanfrancus lib. 1. contra Bereng This Berengarius was no great scholler as Archbishop Guido says but very ambitious and thought to acquire fame by his new opinion After twice recanting and returning to his heresy in his last sickness perceiving his end to draw neer Iohn Gerson relates these his last words My God Thou wilt this day appeare to my salvation as J hope for my repentance or to my damnation as I feare for deceiving with pervers doctrin others whom afterwards I could not reduce to the truth of thy Sacrament In the 12. Century Jnnocent the second Bishop of Rome condemned the heresy of Peter Abaylard see S. Bernard epist 194. And Pope Eugenius 3. condemned the error of Gilbert Porretanus in the Councell of Rhems see S. Bern. serm 80. in Cantica In the 13. Century Pope Innocent 3. condemned the error of Ioachim the Abbot in the Lateran Councell And afterwards Pope Gregory 10. in the Generall Councell of Lions condemned the Greeks error In the 14. Century Pope Clement 5. condemned the errors of the Begards in the Councell of Vienna In the 15. Century the errors of Iohn Hus and Iohn Whicliff were condemned in the Councell of Constance by Pope Martin 5. And the errors of the Greeks in the Councell of Florence by Pope Eugenius 4. Now what reason can Protestants give why Pius 4. Bishop of Rome and the Councell of Trent though of his calling and party might not condemn the opinion of Protestants as lawfully and legaly as his Predecessors had don in every age the like opinions of other Reformers Both condemners and condemned were Christians for hereticks must be baptised otherwise they are rather Pagans then hereticks The condemned Christians were often Patriarchs and Bishops some-times as many as the Condemners and yet neither could their Plea of Christianity or pretence of Scripture or parity in dignity or equality in number exempt them from the validity and legality of the Roman Censures vnto which if they did not submit all the Catholick world held them for obstinat hereticks Therfore we may not without contradicting both reason and authority the common sense of the Church and the general custom of Christian antiquity allow the exceptions which Protestants plead against the Pope and the Councell of his Bishops that forsooth they are but a part of the Catholick Church and therfore as party concerned incompetent Judges and witnesses in controversies of Christian Religion We have seen the weakness and ill success of the protestant design in this distinction of fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of faith and how they are rejected as hereticks by the Greeck Schismaticks and other sectaries whom they courted to be admitted as a part of their Church we have also proved the vnreasonableness of their exceptions against the testimony and censures of the Roman Bishops and Councells Now we will view the distinction it self and prove that by the protestant doctrin of fundamentalls the very foundation of Christian Religion is destroyed and nothing believed with Divine faith SECT XII God's veracity is denyed by Protestancy and by the Prelatick distinction and doctrin of fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of faith THe foundation of Christian Religion is the belief of God's veracity The belief of God's veracity consists not only in acknowledging that whatsoever God saith is true that was never denyed by any heretick and yet all hereticks deny his veracity but consists in acknowledging also that whatsoever doctrin is sufficiently proposed as spoken or revealed by God is infallibly true and that God is the Author of the same To avoyd all disputes concerning the sufficiency of the proposal of God's revelations we will condescend so far to our Protestants Adversaries as to make themselves Judges therof provided they will be so Religious and rational as to grant that to Divine Majesty ought not be denyed a prerogative which by the dictamen of reason the laws of nature and the practise of themselves and of all Nations is due and exhibited to Majesty and Magistracy and to all temporal Soveraigns Viz. To speak and declare their mind by the mouth of others their inferiour Officers and Ministers wherfore as subjects do judge it a sufficient proposal of the regal authority and confess them-selves are obliged to believe that their Soveraign speaks and commands
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
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.
Councells Fathers that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264. it is most notoriously evident that for the grossest points of popery as Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass worshiping of Images Iustification by works the supremacy of the Pope prohibition of Priests marriage they Papists have no shew of any evidence from Fathers within five hundred years after Christ. And yet this very man being pressed with St. Augustin and the Church in his time holding of popish doctrin doth grant it and says that can not prejudice protestancy for that the pure time of the primitive Church extended not much beyond the age of the Apostles So that he whom before you heard take God to witness that the Church was so pure for the first five or 6. hundred years that Papists had no colour for their Tenets in Fathers or Councells now doth confess not only that St. Austin but the whole Church was infected with popery not long after the age of the Apostles The honest Willet divideth his book of answer and satisfaction into foure several parts in the first he setteth down 13. vntruths objected by his adversary as notoriously wilfull in the second as many objected contradictions in the third the like number of falsifications of Authors and in the fourth thirteen corruptions of Scripture I will mention but two or three and leave my Reader to judge of the man's honesty by his answers pag. 29. his adversary doth object against him these words of his taken out of his Synopsis pag. 609. The Mass promiseth sufficient redemption to the wicked that have spent their life in drunkeness adultery c. if they come to the Church and hear Mass and take holy Bread and holy water c. though they never pray nor repent nor hear the word preached Which words being confessed by Mr. Willet to be his his adversary doth accuse him of willfull lying or intolerable ignorance for that in no Roman Catholick writer in the world shall he find this proposition or the parts therof Willet answers not to the particular charge but taketh occasion for more then a dozen pages together to prove that the Roman doctrin doth not favor virtue or good manners more then the Protestant nor yet so much alledging for his proof that to hold the Commandements to be impossible and that the first motions of concupiscence be sin without consent and that a man is sure of his predestination by faith and the like Protestant doctrins are causes of much virtue among them as the contrary doctrins held by Papists are causes of wicked life on their parts So he answereth to his accusation with so manifest an absurdity as to say that men are inclined to observe God's Commandments by holding it impossible to keep them wheras if they be not mad that principle must dissuade them from attempting any such observation seeing it is a madness to endeavor an impossibility and to believe that God doth command things impossible Of their assurance of predestination and justification we have proved heretofore how inconsistent it is with good works moral virtue the salvation of the soul and tranquillity of the state And as for their making the first motions of concupiscence a sin without consent it is the sink and source from whence Protestants suck most of their errors From hence they inferr that all the best actions of man are infected with mortal crime because they pass through the stinking Channell of human corruption hence they deny the merit of good works wrought by grace hence the impossibility of fulfilling God's Commandments for that every action of the just is of it 's own nature a transgression of his Laws Hence no inherent but a vain imputative Justice hence the justification by faith alone hence no freedom of will to perform any morall good no liberty in man to cooperat with God when he first moveth awaketh and calleth him out of the state of sin c. But let 's return from Willet's absurdities to his falsifications I let pass his falsifying S. Bernard to make him say that the Pope is Antichrist by applying the words of the Apocalyps The beast to which a mouth was given speaketh blasphemies doth sit in Peter's Chaire it being evident that Saint Bernard applyed those words not to any true Pope but to an Anti-Pope called Petrus Leonis because he entred by violence into that Sea I likewise pretermit his fraud and folly in saying your doctrin in prohibiting and restraining marriage to your Clergy how it helpeth to holiness 〈◊〉 Bernard wâ—ll 〈◊〉 saying Tolle de Ecclesia 〈…〉 c. Wheras S. Bernard speaks in defence of the 〈…〉 against 〈◊〉 Hereticks of his time 〈…〉 never dreamed 〈…〉 marry himself having bin a votary and vnto 〈◊〉 Monk Letting 〈◊〉 I say thâ—se I will only mention how he accuseth all Catholicks of heresy for defending the lawfulness of the vow of voluntary 〈…〉 against vs that it was the heresy of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 to persuade men to cast away their riches S. Austin and all other Authors tell vs that the sayd Pelagians and Manicheâ—s were not condemned of 〈◊〉 for persuading men to give away their riches but for maintaining that all rich men were bound to forsake all their riches 〈◊〉 that otherwise they could not go to heaven But now 〈…〉 shew the sincerity of the English Protestant Clergy since the beginning of King Iames his reign vntill this present SECT VII Falsifications and frauds of the prelatick English Clergy to maintain protestancy since the begining of King Iames. SVBSECT I. Their corruptions of Scripture for maintaining their caracter continued in the Bible though commanded by King Iames it should be reviewed and corrected THe English Protestant Translations of Scripture had bin so cryed down as fals and corrupt by Catholicks and acknowledged such by many learned Protestants that King Iames commanded a review and reformation of those Translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward 6. and Qveen Elizabeths days the work was vndertaken by the Prelatick Clergy not so much for zeale of truth as for a shew of compliance with his Majesty who protested in the Conference at Hampton-Court he never had seen an English Bible truly translated And because the Catholicks insisted much vpon two main points in their former Controversies wherin they observed the illiterat sort of people had bin most abused by the English Translators of Scripture to wit by their translating Jmages for Idols and Ordination by Election for Ordination by imposition of hands by the first wherof the Roman Catholick Religion was generally held by the simple sort to be Idolatry and by thâ— second the Protestant Prelatick Clergy were mistaken for Priests and Bishops 〈…〉 never had received any Episcopal Ordination but what they challenged by the Queenes 〈…〉 election and by an act of Parliament 8. Eliz 1. because I say these two â—â—â—sifications were so palpably fraudulâ—nt and
confess a fault in the maintenance wherof their fortunes are concerned and by consequence how accomptable the protestant layty is to God for not mistrusting and examining the truth and sincerity of their own Clergy being so indigent and so interessed persons and so confidently charged and so frequently caught with falshoods what fraud can be more visible then to make men believe that so infamous and dissolute persons as Luther Zuinglius Calvin Cranmer and Beza c. were Saints sent by God to restore his Church vnto it's primitive doctrin and spirit or that they and all protestants do agree in all matters of faith against Papists Their dissentions vices and wickedness are so manifest that they can not be denyed without impudency and without giving the lye to the whole world and contradicting their own writings And yet the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and his Junta of Divines would face down Mr. Walsingham that there was no such matter and because the poore man humbly petitioned to have the matter decided by comparing their own books which were in the next roome with his notes he was censured and called a foolish bold Knave impudent fellow sâ—â—cy Companion c. and threatned with prison and pillary And for that they durst not betray the weakness of their cause by so publick and violent proceedings against a known protestant who desired to continue one of themselves if protestancy did not prove to be a mistake of Christianity the Arch-bishop to be shut of him sent him to the Commissary of St. Albans to be resolved forsooth whether Luther acknowledged in his Books that he began the protestant Reformation and impugned the Mass adoration of the Sacrament Invocation of Saints c. moved therunto by the devill 's arguments in a real conference between himself and sathan as if this passage and others of Luther's and Calvin's works were not to be found in London or in his Graces Library at Lambeth as well as at St. Albans And after that by his own importunity Mr. Walsingham had obtained of Doctor Covell to shew him Luther's book wherin he acknowledged this conference and conviction of the Devill 's arguments that the Doctor should interrupt him and divert the whole discourse with a rush you see I have this book and many such like 3. Reflexion By what particular indirect means cavills and Calumnies the Arch-bishop himself endeavored to maintain the protestant Religion and discredit the Catholick delivering to Mr. Walsingham Mr. Bell's libell against the Iesuits as an invincible fortress against the Roman faith and his other book full of corruptions and falsifications as a very sincere and solid piece which falsifications being shewed to them all sitting in their Junta and Iudgment about that affaire the Arch-bishop durst not send into his study for the Fathers works that were affirmed by Mr. Walsingham to have bin corrupted by Bell and Calvin c. His Lordship 's confessed practise also of burning Catholick Books argues the weaknes of the protestant cause and proves how much they are afraid their own false dealing and the impiety of their principles should be discovered 4. Reflexion That Mr. Walsingham's case hath bin and is revived and practised now every day when any conscientious protestant begins to doubt of the safety and sincerity of his Religion The protestant Clergy tells him that he is in a sure way of salvation and yet this assertion is against one of their articles of faith to wit that which acknowledgeth their Church is fallible in proposing Christ's doctrin and the true sense of Scripture and by consequence for all they know themselves may be in damnable errors Then they tell him the Papists are Jdolaters worship Anti-Christ c. that our Books of Controversyes are full of lyes and fables and to make good these their impostures they not only corrupt our Authors but translate into English all infamous libells though they treat not of controversies as the Jansenists Letters Palafox his relations and for the renegat Fr. Paulo his history of the Councell of Trent they swear it is the most exact and sincere work of this age wheras Cardinal Palavicino in his answer to the same and in the very begining hath set down 300. of Fr Paulo's vntruths in matter of fact so palpable that they seem inexcusable in him and render others guilty of vnpardonable rashness and obstinacy who credit so mistaken or malicious an Author and preferr his bare word before the vnanimous Testimony of all Christendom that hath accepted the definitions of the Councell as Catholick truths which they would never have don had they bin such as Fr Paulâ— describes Js it likely that the Bishops Embassadors and Prelats of so different nations and subjects to Princes of so contrary Interests who were present at the Councill and recommended to their flocks and friends the decrees of Trent as sacred would conspire to cheat and damne their Souveraigns relations and neighbors Or that they knew not better how matters went in the Councill or were not more impartial in relating them then one Apostâ—ta Friar or those persons from whom he pretends to have received his papers and intelligence with such pittifull frauds and fashoods are many poor protestant soules deluded and seduced into eternal damnation which they deserve for believing their own Clergy without any further examination of the scruples and doubts which common sense and natural reason doth raise in every one of them that converseth with Roman Catholicks or observeth the incoherency and inconstancy of protestancy together with it's singularity and pride of Spirit contemning the primitive true sense of Scripture declared by vniversal Tradition and the vnanimous consent of all orthodox Fathers and Councills Perditio tua ex te Jsrael 5. Reflexion One of my Lord of Canterburyes reasons to Mr. Walsingham against crediting the Popish book was do you not know when two men go to law together one will speak the worst he can by the other And though this ought not to be practised in law suites much less in controversies of Religion yet seeing my Lord would have protestants read our books with that prejudice reason doth dictat that theirs ought not to be read without caution especially Seeing every protestant â—eader makes himself supreme Judge of Controversies of Religion and no Judge ought to give sentence before both sides be heard Suppose therfore that the protestant and Catholick Clergy are engaged not only in a dispute of Religion but in a suit of Law to wit whether the revenues of the Church of the three Kingdoms belong of right rather to the present possessors then to the ancient proprietors neither party say you ought to be Iudge in his own cause who then must decide the business The Layty Content let my Lord Chancellor of England notwithstanding his known Jnclination to favor and promote protesâ—â—â—cy be named head of a Committee for examining and deciding the question Let it be tryed in publik Court which
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
down Bp Morton's Falsification to persuade that Cathotholiks hold it lawfull to murther and massacre Protestants IN the 6. page of Morton's discovery he hath this grievous 〈…〉 out of the Canon law against Catholiks 〈◊〉 felij vel consanguinei non dicuntur sed juxta legem sit 〈◊〉 super 〈◊〉 vt fundas sanguinem ipsorum And then he 〈◊〉 thus Apud Grat. Gloss. in decret lib. 5. ex decret Greg. 9. 〈…〉 cap. legi Which words he englisheth thus 〈…〉 termed either Children or kindred but according 〈…〉 thy hand must be against them to spill their blood 〈…〉 in the Margent he setteth down this special prinâ—â—â— note The professed bloody Massacre against the Protestants withâ—â—â— distinction of sex or Kindred First of all is to be considered that this Gloss or 〈◊〉 of the Canon law which here is both vntruly cited 〈◊〉 malitiously applied is vpon a Canon begining si quis Episcopus which Canon is taken out of the third Councell of Carthâ—ge wherin the famous Doctor St. Austin was present and 〈◊〉 device of the Canon is that if any Bishop should institute hereticks or pagans for his heires whether they were Kinsmen or 〈◊〉 ei Anathema dicatur let him be accursed c. now the 〈◊〉 yeilding a reason of this severity saith Quia isti haeretâ—â—â—am non dicuntur filij vel consanguinei vnde dicitur in lege si 〈◊〉 tuus amicus tuus vxor tua depravare voluerit veritatem sit manus tua super illos For that these hereticks are not nâ—w called Children or Kinsfolks therfore as such they cannot be made Inheritors by ecclesâ—astical men Wherupon it is sayd in the law of Deuteronomy if thy Brother or friend or wife will go about to deprave the truth let thy hand be vpon them And presently he citeth to the same effect the authority of St. Hierom in an other Canon and volume of the law where the holy Doctor excusing to his friend Riparius a Priest his earnest desire and zeal to have Vigilantius the heretik punished by his Bishops alledgeth divers examples of severity in like cases out of the Scriptures as of Phinees Elias Symon Chananaeus St. Peter St. Paul and lastly citeth also the aforesaid words of God's ordinance in Deuteronomy If thy Brother thy friend thy wife c. shall go about to pervert thee from God's true worship c. heare him not nor conceal him but bring him 〈◊〉 Judgmeâ—â— and let thy hand be vpon him first and then after the hand of all the people c. which is to be vnderstood accordiâ—◠〈◊〉 the form of Law appointed afterwards in the 17. Chapâ—â—â— that he be orderly brought forth to Iudgment and 〈…〉 sentence is past against him he which heard or 〈…〉 commit the sin and is a witness against him must 〈◊〉 the first stone at him and the rest must follow And this also doth the ordinary Gloss of Lyranus and others vpon those texts of Scripture declare And now let the Judicious Readeâ— consiâ—â—â— how many corruptions this Protestant Bishop hath vsed to 〈◊〉 forth to his purpose this one litle distracted Text for proof of professed bloody massacres in ended by Catholicks against Protestants For first he corrupteth the words of the Gloss leaving out the beginning Quia isti Haeretici which 〈◊〉 to the vnderstanding of the Author's meaning as also he lest out the reasoâ—â—â—ledged by the Gloss out of God's own words in Deuteronomy to wit the wilfull corruption of his truth Then he corrupteth the meaning both of the Gloss and Canon depraving that to a wicked sense of bloody massacring without distinction of sex or Kindred which the Canon and Councell of Carthage with St. Austin meant only of civil punishment against heretiks to wit that they should not be made heires to Ecclesiastical men He perverteth in like manner St. Hieriom's intent which was that heretiks and namely Vigilantius for denying the lawfulness of praying to Saints worshipping thâ—ir Reliques c. should be punished but by order and form of Law and not that any one shall Kill an other and much less by bloody massacres Lastly he presumeth to reâ—ort the very words of God himself in the Law by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum 〈◊〉 their blood in steed of shed their blood for that to spill 〈◊〉 is always in Scripture taken in the worst sense for murthâ—â—â—ng or killing vnjustly The good Bishop remits vs for an answer to the allegaâ—â—â—â— of this place of Gratian to his friend Stock once more 〈◊〉 Stock doth not take vpon him to justifie any thing therin 〈◊〉 then the citation to be true which notwithstanding is 〈◊〉 as every one may see in the Text. Morton in his preamble denyeth the foresaid Canon to have bin decreed in the 〈◊〉 Councel of Carthage therfore saith he must his 〈◊〉 own terms of falshood fraud treachery 〈◊〉 vpon himself But let any one peruse the said Councell 〈◊〉 he will find decreed in the 13. Canon Vt Episcopi vel Clericâ— c. That neither Bishops nor Clergy men shall bestow any of their goods vpon any that be not Catholikly Christians though they be their Kinsfolks And the Councell of Hippo where St. Austin was Bishop which Councell professeth to mâ—ke Abbreviationes Concilij Carthaginensis tertii an abridgment of the third Carthage Councell hath this Canon That Bishops and Clergy men shall bestow nothing of their goods vpon any but such as are Catholiks Bp. Morton's Falsification to assert the King's supremacy POpe Leo writing to a true Catholik Emperor saith Morton hath these words You may not be ignorant that your princely power is given vnto you not only extinguished The oblation of Sacrifice the Mass is intermitted the hollowing of Chrysm is ceased and all 〈◊〉 Mysteries of our Religion have withdrawn themselves from the parricidial hands of those heretiks that have murâ—hered their own Fatherâ— and Patriarch Proterius burned his 〈◊〉 and cast the ashes into the ayre This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy 〈◊〉 Leo did implore the help and secular arm of Leo the 〈◊〉 for chastising these turbulent heretiks for the 〈◊〉 of the Church And is this all that is exacted of 〈◊〉 by the Supremacy Is this the substance of the 〈◊〉 we know the English Prelatik Clergy are now ashaâ—â—â— to acknowledg that their own spiritual caracter and jurisâ—â—â—tion is dâ—â—ived from Queen Elizabeth's shee supremacy but 〈…〉 they did own 8. Eliz. what now they 〈◊〉 every man may see how vngratfully and confidently 〈◊〉 contradict what is extant in the Act of Parliament 8. 〈◊〉 and in their Episcopal Oath of homage wherin it is 〈◊〉 that all spiritual Jurisdiction supreme power order 〈◊〉 and authority over all the state Ecclesiastical of their 〈…〉 is in the Kings of England and that in 〈◊〉 of the prerogative they may by their Letters patents 〈◊〉 only authorise Arch-Bishops and Bishops to consecrat 〈…〉 Caracter but that they may authorise any 〈…〉 not Bishops
be 〈◊〉 with in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm 〈◊〉 authority of the Church there error is to be born with but 〈◊〉 not to go so farr that it should labour to shake the very 〈◊〉 of the Church The Bishop sayes this can not be 〈◊〉 of the definition of the Church though St. Austin 〈◊〉 expressly of the authority therof but of Scripture But 〈◊〉 afterwards the words might be vnderstood of the 〈◊〉 of the Church or general Councells to the end that 〈◊〉 might not imagin St. Austin thought such definitions were 〈◊〉 or vnquestionable he adds But plain Scripture with 〈◊〉 sense or a full demonstrative argument must have room 〈◊〉 a wrangling and erring disputer may not be allowed it And 〈◊〉 neither of these but may convince the definition of the 〈◊〉 if it be ill founded And to shew that this is no fancy of 〈◊〉 but the doctrin of St. Austin he quotes his words 〈◊〉 see them in the margent with an F. referring the word 〈◊〉 to Scripture So that if you believe the Bishop and rely 〈◊〉 his quotations St. Austin doubted not but that the 〈◊〉 of the Church in general Councells may be contrary to 〈◊〉 and confuted by full demonstrative arguments I confess that when I read this page and part of Bp. Laud's 〈◊〉 with Fisher I found my self much troubled vntill 〈◊〉 the matter and then I resolved never more to 〈◊〉 him or any Protestant writer however so Saint-like or 〈◊〉 by report or in appearance The truth is St. Austin 〈◊〉 place cited by the Bishop hath nothing at all either 〈◊〉 Scripture or evident sense or demonstrative arguâ—â—â—ts but addressing his speech to the Manicheans he writes 〈◊〉 Apud vos autem vbi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac 〈◊〉 sola personat veritatis pollicitatio and then follow the words 〈◊〉 by the Bishop quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. 〈◊〉 truth so bragd of and promised by the Manicheans to 〈◊〉 demonstrated in that epistle called Fundamentum saith St. Austin if it be demonstrated to be so cleer c. is to be preferred where you see St. Austin's quae referred not to Scripture but to that fictitious truth which the Manichees pretended to be in their doctrin Nay St. Austin is so far from doubting of the infallibility of the Church and general Councells in that very place quoted by the Bishop that he disputes ex professo against the possibility of its erring or of its definitions being contrary to Scripture and sayes that if the doctrin of the Catholick Church could be contrary to Scripture he should not be able to believe rationaly and infallibly either the one or the other not the Scriptures because he receives them only vpon the authority of the Church Not the Church whose authority is infringed by Scripture which is suposed to be brought against her Si ad Evangelium me tenes ego ad eos me teneam quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam Quod si forte in Evangelio aliquid in apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris infirmabis mihi Catholicorum authoritatem qui jubent vt tibi non credam qua infirmata jam nec Evangelio credere poterâ— quia per eos illi credideram ita nihil apud me valebit quicquid inde protulâ—ris Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei Apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur Catholicis potius credam quam tibi si aâ—tem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris nec illis nec tibi illis quiÌ„a de te mihi mentiti sunt Tibi autem qui eam scripturam mihi profers cui per illos credideram qui mihi mentiti sunt Aug. cont Epist. Fundament cap. 4. Wherfore St. Austin doth not suppose as the Bishop pretends that Scripture or reason can be contrary to the definitions of the Church he professedly teaches the contrary in the very place cited and vses the alledged words quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur c. only ex suppositione impossibili in the same manner as St. Paul speaketh Gal. 1. Jf an Angell from heaven teach otherwise then we have taught you let him be accursed St. Paul well knew it was impossible that an Angell from heaven should teach contrary to the Ghospel and so did St. Austin that the definitions of a general Councel should be contrary to Scripture or reason as appeareth by his own discours against the Manichees Vincentius Liâ—inensis abused by Mr. Laud to prove the fallibility of the Church pretending that learned Father supposed and sayd she might change into Lupanar errorum à strumpet or stewes of errors BUt A. C. tells us further saith Mr. Laud that if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any determination of the Church then may he also against an other and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine revelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church which being weakned in any one can not be firm in another First A. C. borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis and as that learned Father vses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applyes it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maxims c. which are properly fundamental but here the Bishop is mistaken for Vincentius speaks also of not fundamentals as of the celebrating of Easter according to St. Victor's decree the not rebaptizing of those who had bin baptized by hereticks c. now in this sense saith the Bishop give way to every cavilling disputer to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian Religion c. And why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examin her own decrees and to see that she keep the principles of her faith vnblemished and vncorrupted for if she do not so but novitia veteribus new doctrins be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis may be changed in Lupanar errorum I am loath to english it Hitherto the modest Bishop who quotes Vincent Lirin in his Margent for his lupanar errorum c. and for the whole discours Vincentius Lirinensis is so far from expressing any fear or suspition of danger that the Church should be changed into lupanar errorum a stews of errors by addition of novelties or falling from the primitive doctrin that as if he had foreseen this corruption of his meaning and cutting short his words practised by Mr. Laud he declares in that very place by him quoted that only hereticks and vngodly men can entertain any such thoughts of Christs spouse sed avertat hoc a suorum mentibus divina pietas sitque hoc potius impiorum furor
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
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
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