PROTESTANCY CONDEMNED BY THE EXPRESS VERDICT AND SENTENCE OF PROTESTANTS.  LUKE 19.22. 
By thine own mouth I judge thee.  
DOUAI. Printed in the Year 1654.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Cannot doubt, but that every Protestant, if he have not a mind to divest himself of common reason, and proclaim himself to be inexcusable, will confess Protestancy to be cast and condemned by Protestants, if by their own free and open Confession, these ensuing points be acknowledged for true; First, That the first Protestants, who, forsooth, undertook a Reformation of the Universal Catholic Church existent before Luther, after their pretended Reformation led so lewd lives, and held doctrines confessedly so absurd, that no man of sense or wisdom can judge them fit instruments for that supposed, strange, sublime, supernatural, and divine work. Secondly, That in opposition of the late and vicious Fathers of Protestants, those men who even by Protestants are styled Ancient and Holy Fathers, believed, taught, and practised the very same things, which we now believe, teach, and practise against Protestants. Thirdly, That not only the Ancient Fathers, but even the chiefest, and most learned Protestants, convinced by evidence of truth, stand with us against their Protestant Brethren in most of the chiefest points of Religion controverted between us. Fourthly, That our doctrine hath been approved by the Omnipotent hand of God, using for Instruments of working Miracles, those who were confessedly of our Religion, yea and in express confirmation of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants. Fifthly, That by the confession of Protestants we Catholics may be saved, though we live and die in the belief of all those Articles wherein Protestants disagree from us. Which last consideration, though it were alone, ought effectually to move every one who believes an Eternity of Joy, or Torment, speedily to join himself with that Church, wherein by the confession of all, both friends and foes, Catholics and Protestants, salvation may certainly be attained, if our life agree with our belief.  
Now for proof these Truths, most important to be known, I present not to the Reader any new Work or Invention of mine own, but in effect only transcribe, and publish, what I find in that excellent Book, entitled, The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church; the true Author whereof thought fit to conceal himself under the name of John Brereley Priest, though indeed he was neither Brereley, nor Priest, nor Clergyman; not John, but rather James. He dedicated his Book to King James, and writes with so great exactness, fidelity, temper, and moderation, that Protestants, though they must needs feel themselves deeply wounded by the substance of his discourse, yet cannot with any shadow of reason pretend to be justly offended with his manner of discoursing. In so much as Thomas Morton confesseth, that whatsoever strong argument in any place in Roman Authors is to be found in favour of that Religion, whatsoever hath by chance fallen from the pen of any learned Protestant but in outward appearance consonant to their doctrines, which may seem any way to promote the Roman cause; all that we see in this volume collected to be brought and presly urged against us, with so singular a choice of the things themselves, with such force of arguments, with such an elegant and exquisite stile, Lastly with so moderate a kind of expression, as their subtlety, judgement, wit, art and moderation could do. I wish the Book were in the hands of many, but it being of some bulk, and not easy to be had, and the points which here I offer being but few, and comprised in no very great compass, and of themselves very intelligible and clear to every man's understanding, they will come to the knowledge of more by being published thus apart, than if they were to be sought in the Book itself mixed with many other matters by the Author handled in different and distant places, and upon several occasions, and in a method not obvious to men who have no great mind to take much pains. If upon occasion I put in a word of mine own, the Reader will understand it to be mine by the word Publisher abbreviated by Pu.  
I make use of the Edition of An. 1608. It is clear that he is most exact in his Citations, citing not only the Book, but the year, Edition, place of Print, and sometimes even the page and line, as appears by the Table set down in the beginning of his Book, with this title, A Table of certain Protestant writers, and their particular writings, whose folio, or page (for more ready, and certain direction) are specially alleged in the subsequent Discourse; and of their several Editions or year of Print, according to which they be so alleged, unless it be otherwise noted in the margin. But yet notwithstanding all the care & exactness used by the Author, it was not in his power to exempt the Print from many Errors and Omissions, as also I cannot doubt, but he who Prints this publication of mine, will have his errors. The five Heads or Truths mentioned above, I will call so many Considerations. Neither have I any more to say in this place, than with my whole heart to beg of the Protestant Reader, even for the love he owes to the Redeemer of Mankind, and for the care he should have to save his own soul, that he will peruse these Considerations with a hearty desire to find, and an absolute resolution to embrace the truth; laying aside, prejudice, passion, sloth, and all humane and worldly respects, seriously meditating the words of our Blessed Saviour (Matth. 16. v. 26, 27.) What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own Soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his Soul? For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his Angels, and then will he render to every man according to his works. If the Reader come not with such a disposition, and resolution, every word he reads will rise against him in that dreadful day of Judgement, upon which all Eternity must depend. O ETERNITY! ETERNITY!   

THE FIRST CONSIDERATION  
Concerning the lives of the first Protestant pretended Reformers.  
OUR Saviour forewarning us (saith Brereley tracked 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subdivis. 1) That a good Tree yieldeth good fruit (Math. 7.17.) and, beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening Woolus, by their fruits you shall know them (Math. 7.15, 16.) omitting petty examples (saith Brereley tracked 2. chap. 3. sect 9 subdivis. 2.) we will entreat of Principals, namely of Luther, of Jacobus Andreas, the greatest enlarger of his Doctrine, and of Zuinglius, Calvin, and Beza; and of these also (for other respects) but with a gentle, sparing, and forbearing touch, as not undertaking to allege any thing of them, but that which is in itself evident, and for such confessed.  

Of Luther.  
1 COncerning Luther's Life and Manners (saith Brereley tracked 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 11.) for so much as he is strongly privileged with the opinion of the present time, we will in respect thereof but briefly touch the same, and that also not without great and respective observation, as forbearing purposely the credible Testimonies in that behalf, of Cochlaeus, Lyndanus, Staphylus and other our Catholic Writers, to whom his life and manners were well known, and choosing specially to speak thereof from no other testimony than of himself, and his own dearest Scholars. As touching his Life before his revolt from our Catholic Church it is confessed, that he as then 
[a] See Simon Voyon upon the Catalogue of the Doctors etc. Englished, page 180. And Luther ad Galatas c. 1. v. 14. fo. 35. a. after the English Translation.  lived in his Monastery, punishing his body with watching, fasting, and prayer; 
[b] See Luther's own words hereof in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galathians, in English, in c. 1. fol. 35. h.  Honoured the Pope of mere Conscience, 
[c] Luther ibid. fol. 35. b.  kept Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience; and 
[d] Luther ibid. fol. 35. a.  whatsoever (saith he) I did, I did it with a single heart, of good zeal, and for the Glory of God, fearing grievously the last Day, and desirous to be saved from the bottom of my heart. In so much also as for some small time after his revolt, there remained yet in him some Relics, or steps of former Sanctimony, whereof Erasmus (in epistola ad Thomam Cardinalem Eboracensem) affordeth him commendable testimony: whereas afterward, upon his further defection from our Church, he at last became quantum mutatus ab illo? and was so far transported with sensuality from his former course of intended Chastity, that he saith to the contrary, 
[e] Luther in Prov. 31. n. 10. addeth this amorous Rhyme for a morginal Gloss, Night liebers ist afferden, Ben frawn lieb, wems tan werden: being in English as is alleged here in the Text.  Nothing is more sweet or loving upon the Earth, than is the love of a woman if a man can obtain it. And again, 
[f] Luther tom. 7. in Ep. ad Wolfangum etc. fol. 505.  He that resolveth to be without a woman, let him lay aside from him the name of a man, making himself a plain Angel or Spirit. Yet further, 
[g] Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. serm. de Matrimo. nio fol. 119. a. vers. finem.  Quam non est in meis viribus ut vir non sim? etc. As it is not in my power that I should be no man; so is it not in my power that it should be either stayed or omitted, but is as necessary as that I should be a man, and more necessary than to eat, drink, purge, make clean the Nose, etc. Insomuch as he acknowledgeth himself to have been 
[h] Luther in Colloquiis mens. fol. 526. a. et vide fol. 400. a.  almost mad through the rage of Lust and desire of Women: And (
[i] Luther in Colloquiis Germanicis cap. de Marmonio saith, Ut nemo porest cibo vel potu career, sic fieri nequit, ut aliquis a muliere abstineat, etc. Causa haec est, quia in utero mulierum concept●, eo aliti, inde nati, lactati, et educati sumus, ita ut caro nostra majore ex parte mulieris caro sit, et sic plane fieri nequit, ut ab eiis separemur. And tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 328. b. post. med. He saith, Puella, in qua non est sublime hoc donum continentiae nihilo facilius carere potest marito, aut viro, quam cibo aut potu, somno, etc.  to omit his other like say) he yet further saith (tom. 1. Epistolarum latinarum fol. 334. ad Philippum) I am burned with the great flame of my untamed flesh, I, who ought to be fervent in Spirit, am fervent in the flesh, in lust, sloth etc. Eight days are now past, wherein I neither writ, pray, nor study, being vexed partly with the temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. But (saith he ubi supra foe 345) 
[k] O intolerable ingratitude, and blasphemy, to abuse to carnality the benefit of our Redemption!  it sufficeth that we have known the Riches of the Glory of God the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the World, from whom sin cannot draw us, although we should commit Fornication, or kill a thousand times in one day. And being in this case, he laboureth not to keep his former kept Chastity by his foresaid punishing his body with watching, fasting, and prayer, before time continued by him in his Monastery, when he was a Catholic, which course of resistance by Prayer, the blessed Apostle (2. Cor. 12.7.) being so assaulted, used, and thereby prevailed; but unmindful of his former Vow, and forbearing Prayer, sometimes even for eight days together, at the last (having 
[l] Osiander centur. 16. pag. 97. fine.  cast off his Religious habit Anno 1544) he did in speedy accomplishment of his longing desire 
[m] Melancton in epist. ad Joac. Camer. de D. Lutheri conjugio. It is extant in Melancton 's Consilia Evangelica par. 1. p. 37.  Marry even upon the sudden Katherine Bore the Nun, without any communication before had thereof with any of his friends, but having in the evening (so impatient was he of delay, as not to forbear, but that present Night, till the usual time of Marriage in the Daytime next ensuing) invited to Supper Pomerane, Luke the Painter, and Appelles the Lawyer, he then so finished the espousals, for which by the most ancient and Imperial Laws (made 
[n] See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. subdivis. 7. pag. 595) citing Zozomen hist. lib. 6. c. 3 affirming how that the Christian Emperor Jovian published an Edict, that who so alured a sacred Virgin to marriage, should be therefore punished with the loss of his head. This Jovian (saith Brereley) was in course the third Emperor after Constantine the Great. And the foresaid Law is yet extant, Cod. lib. 1. de Episcopis et Clericis, wherein it is said, Si quis non dicam rapere, sed attentare tantùm, jungendi causa Matrimonii Sacratissimas Virgines ausus fuerit, capitali poena feriatur.  not lately, but during the venerable times of the Primitive Church) He should have lost his head. A thing at that time holden so scandalous by report of 
[o] Sleydan in his Commentaries in English l. 5. Anno 25. f. 65. b. paulo post medium, says, In those days Luther married a Nun, whereby he gave occasion to his Adversaries to speak evil of him. And Mr. Fulk in his Answer to P. Frarines' Declamation pa. 32. ante medium, confesseth that many men misliked Luther's marriage with a Nun. Insomuch as Luther himself in Colloquiis latinis tom. 2. de conjugio, saith hereof; Nisi ego clam celebrassem Nuptias, omnes impedivissent, quia omnes amicissimi clamabant, non illam, sed aliam.  Sleydan, and others, that Luther himself afterwards became 
[p] Melancton ubi supra pag. 38. paulo ante med. saith, Quoniam Lutherum quodammodo tristiorem cerno & perturbatum ob vitae mutationem, omni studio ac benevolentia consolari eum conor.  grieved and ashamed thereat: And his dearest Melancton did therefore specially 
[q] Melancton his foresaid Epistle ad Joach. Camer. extant ubi supra.  and speedily 
[r] Melancton in the end of his foresaid Epistle pag. 39 ante med. Ista ad te exposui verbosius, ne eventus inopinatus te perturbaret & tristitia afficeret etc.  write to a friend of his in excuse thereof, wherein nevertheless he holdeth it 
[s]] Melancton ubi supra saith, Ac possit fortassis aliquis mirari illum hoc infelici tempore bonis & honestis viris ubique graviter laborantibus, non modo non affici simol dolore, sed videri propemodum nihil penitus curare ea mala quae ante oculos versantur.  Marvellous, that Luther should be so regardless and little touched with grief at the Calamity then present, as to undertake that marriage: Only he excuseth it with Luther 's sociable condition of 
[t] Melancton ubi supra saith, Atque ego rem hanc sic gest am esse arbitror: est vir iste nequaquam ex iis qui homines oderunt & congressus fugiunt, quotidianae autem vitae illius usum non ignoras, unde cogitare te caetera quam me scribere melius ut opinor ●uerit.  Life, and other 
[u] Melancton ubi supra: What daily use of Life and other good Matters were these which Melancton did thus forbear to write, leaving them rather to his friends thoughts  Matters? (thereupon depending, and not to be uttered) which (saith he) are fit for you to imagine than me to write; for 
[x] Melancton ibidem pag. 38. initio, saith, Ego naturam Lutherum arbitror coëgisse ut fieret maritus.  I am persuaded that Luther was a man enforced to marry by Nature. Hereunto we may add, that Luther lying thus open, acknowledged his 
[y] In Sleydan 's Commentaries in English l. 3. An. 21. fol. 29. b. initio.  Profession not to be of Life or Manners, but of Doctrine, 
[z] Sleydan ibidem fol. 22. a. circa medium.  wishing that he were removed from the Office of preaching, because his Manners and Life did not answer to his profession, wherein he was so censured even by Protestants themselves, that as appeareth by their own report, 
[a] Reported by the Protestant Writer, Benedict Morgenstern in tract. de Ecclesia pag. 221. circa med. who saith of the Calvinists, Si quando volunt indulgere genio● non verentur inter se dicere, hodie Lutheranicè vivimus.  If at any time they would give assent to the provocation of Nature, they blush not to say among themselves (hodie Lutheranicè vivimus) to day we will live Lutheran like. By which confessed premises it appears, that Luther together with his alteration of Religion made a like answerable alteration of his life. And yet (saith Brereley pag. 415) was this untoward course of life so peculiar (in their own confidence and opinion) to their profession of Doctrine, that as some of them affirmed, that to live thus, was to live Lutheran like; so others of them likewise doubted not to term it the Evangelical Instruction: affirming withal a serious and Christian Discipline, to be a new Papacy and Monachism, as witnesseth Jacobus Andraeas conc. 4. in cap. 21. Lucae, saying, Mandate serio Deus in Verbo suo, & à suis Christianis requirit seriam & Christianam disciplinam, haec vero apud nos novus Papatus novusque Monachismus existimantur: sic enim inquiunt, Dedicimus modo per solam sidem in Christum salvari etc. quamobrem sine & permit ut hujusmodi opera missa faciamus, cùm per Christum alioquin salvari possimus, & solum gratia Dei Christique meritis nitamur, atque ut totus Mundus agnoscat eos non esse Papistas, nec bonis operibus quic quam fidere, illorum etiam operum nullum penitus exercent; Jejunii loco comessationibus & perpotationibus nocte dieque vacant etc. precationes vertunt in juramenta etc. atque hoc universum vitae genus ab illis Evangelicum dicitur institutum etc.  
As concerning Marriage and Divorce 
[b] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 5.  Luther (in serm. de Matrimonio) says, Si non vult uxor, aut non possit, veniat ancilla, If the Wife will not, or cannot come, let the Maid come. And whereas Mr. Whitaker (who would make the best Gloss thereof) answereth hereunto (in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 8. pag. 150) that Luther hereby only meant first to divorce, and then after to marry the maid; Yet is this Divorce (though upon such foresaid occasion either of infirmity or wilfulness) utterly rejected even by Mr. Whitaker himself (in the same place, and contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 687. fine) And nevertheless Luther was so vehement against the wives froward refusal of her Husbands B●d, that he further said thereof, 
[c] Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. serm. de Matrimonio fol. 123. a. vers. sinem. See also Luher 's words cited in the Treatise against the defence of the Censure, pag. 219. post medium. And see Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg in 1. Cor. 7. fol. 113. a. initio. And Luther tom. 5. Wittemb. in 1. cor. 7. v. 11. fol. 111. b. ante medium, farther saith hereof, Quid si alter cum altero in gratiam redire nolit, said simplicter esse velit, & alter continere non valens, comparem habere conjugem ●●●atur, quid illi faciendum? poteritne cum alio contrahere? Respondeo, procul dubio poterit.  The Magistrate's duty is to bridle this Wife, yea and to put her to death: this if the Magistrate omit, the Husband must imagine that his wife is stolen away by Thiefs, and dead; and consider how to marry another; For (saith he yet further) 
[d] See the Treatise against the defence of the Censure, pag. 213. prope sinem.  we cannot stop St Paul's mouth, etc. His words are plain, that a Brother or Sister are free from the Law of Wedlock, if the one depart or do not consent to dwell with the other; neither doth he say, that this may be done once only, but leaveth it free, that so often as the case shall require he may either proceed or stay. In which case (as he signifies) 
[e] See the Treatise against the defence of the Censurer, pag. 213. paulo post medium. And see Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. fol. 112. b. fine.  a man may have ten or more Wives fled from him, and yet living. Nay he doubteth not in case of Adultery committed by a married man or married woman, to give liberty even to the offending Adulterer, 
[f] In aliam profugere terram maechus potest, ibique si continere nequeat, uxorem ducere rursum. Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. serm. de matrimonio, fol. 123. a. initio.  to fly into another Country and marry again: So dangerously doth he incline to Polygamy, the which himself elsewhere seemeth to defend, affirming that 
[g] Luther in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcoporum edit. An. 1528. pro. 62.65.66. & vide Luthe. in explicatione Geneseos edit. An. 1525. in Commentario, c. 16.  Polygamy is no more abrogated, than is the rest of Moses Law, and that it is free, as being neither commanded nor forbidden. In respect whereof he signifieth that 
[h] Luther in Genes. c. 16. edit. Anno 1525.  he will neither bring in Polygamy, nor condemn it. Insomuch that the Calvinists themselves do further say, Lutherus de conjugio quaedam, & alia haudquaquam probanda scripsit. See this in Hospinian in his Concord. Discord. printed 1607. fol. 99 b. ant med. etc.  
3 As concerning Magistracy (saith Brereley tracked 2. cap. 2. sect. 10 subdivis. 6.) how fully, plainly, and directly Luther impugned the same, especially before the Princes of Germany had undertaken the defence of his Doctrine, is by his own writings more than manifest, and in part from thence declared by Brereley tract. 3. sect. 5. where he citys Luther de seculari potestate tom. 6. Germanico, saying: Among Christians no man can or aught to be Magistrate, but each one to other equally subject etc. Among Christian men none is superior, save one and only Christ. And in serm. de ove perdita, and also in his Sermons englished by William Gage pag. 97. fine, and tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 327. b. Luther further saith, Therefore is Christ our Lord, that he may make us such as himself is: and as he cannot suffer himself to be tied and bound by Laws etc. so also ought not the conscience of a Christian to suffer them. And in his said Sermons pag. 261. circa med. He doth admonish, that we obey the Civil Magistrate, for (saith he) there cometh no loss of Christian Liberty or faith thereby. For, for somuch as they do not contend, that those things are necessary to salvation which they ordain etc. Howbeit if any should contend that those Commandments of the Civil Magistrate be necessary to salvation (as doubtless they be, in regard that they bind us in Conscience, and to break them were sin) then, as it is said of the Traditions of the Papists, the contrary rather were to be done. I will add (saith Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 6.) the base and invective Calumniations wherewith he charged (to omit sundry other Princes and 
[i] Of his like immoderate railing against sundry other Princes, as namely against Henry Duke of Brunswick, See his special Book thereof against the Duke, entitled, Wider Hanse worst etc. And of his like railing against the Archbishop of Mentz Prince Elector, See Luther in tom. 3. Germ. fol. 533. a. b & 32.6. & 360. & in Colloq. mensal. fol. 342. & 343. And against the Princes of Germany, See Luther tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190. b. & 200. & tom. 3. fol. 195. b. See all those more particularly and at large alleged out of Luther 's own writings by Gasper Ulemberg●us in his Book entitled, Graves & justae causae cur catholicis etc. printed 1589. causa 8. p. 234, 235, 237, & 238. And see also reported by Sleydan (Luther's own Scholar) after the English Edition l. 16. fol. 222. a. & b. the unworthy, base, scurrilous (and not to be repeated) Pictures devised by Luther against the Pope. A thing so evident, that the Protestant Landgrave in his published writing penned by his Divines, saith, Lutherus non tantum magnorum Regum, Principum & Dominorum, utriusque nostrum cognatorum, quemadmodum etiam privatorum quorundam hominum, ho●estam famam dicacitate quadam sua arrosit, & gravissimis qubusdam accusationi●us indecenter traduxit, quo, vel unonomine adducti, Lutheri scripta absque omni exceptione nullo plane modo probare volumus, nec sine tum nostri, tum laudatissimorum Majorum nost●orum famae & honoris laesione possumus: verum etiam etc. See this in Hospinian in Concord. Discord. fol. 99 b. ante medium, Printed 1607. And the Divines of the Count Palatine in their Admonitio Christiana etc. Printed 1581. pag. 233. fine, & 234. initio, do object to Luther his convitia praeter pietatem & modestiam confidenter & arroganter dicta, scurriles in rebus seriis lusus, quam multa acerbè & injuriosè scripta, non tantum in Christi insignes Ecclesias etc. sed etiam in magnos P●●cipes.  States) our late Sovereign King Henry the 8th. of famous memory, calling him (in libro contra Regem Ang. in Praefat.) An envious mad fool, babbling with much spittle in his mouth, more furious (in the same Book extant tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 333. 334. and 335. etc.) than madness. itself, more doltish than Folly itself, endued with an impudent and whorish Face, without any one vein of Princely blood in his Body, a lying Sophist, a damnable rotten worm, a Basilisk and progeny of an Adder, a lying scurrile covered with the title of a King, a clownish wit, a doltish head, most wicked foolish and impudent Henry; and saying further (ibid. fol. 338. a.) he doth not only lie like a most vain scurr, but passeth a most wicked knave; and (ibid. fol. 340. b. & vide 333. b. 335. a) thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious King. Whereunto might be added his exceeding many other more like espiteful and scurrilous words used against his Majesty, some of them being so immodestly base, a we a r●shamed to English them. In the place cited fol. 333. and 337. etc. He saith, Jus mihi erit pro meo Rege Majestatem tuam Anglicam stercore conspergere (and) sit ergo mea haec generalis responsio ad omnes sentinas infulsissimae hujus larvae etc. Haec sunt robora nostra adversus quae obmutescere coguntur Henrici, Thomistae, Papistae, & quicquid est faecis, sentinae, latrinae, impiorum & sacrilegorum ejusmodi. Sordes istae & labes hominum, Thomistae & Henrici, sacrilegus Henricorum & asinorum cultus, furor insulsissimorum asinorum & Thomisticorum porcorum, os Vestrae Dominationis impurum & sacrilegum: with infinite more such like. This intemperate railing was so evident in Luther, that himself, in loc. come. class. 4. fol. 35. b. acknowledgeth the World's Opinion herein had of him, saying there, Video ab omnibus in me peti modestiam, omnes ferè in me damnant mordacitatem, Insomuch as Mr. Fox Act. Monu. pag. 404. a. fine, reports, how that Luther's chiefest Patron, even Frederick Duke of Saxony, wrote grievously to Luther, exhorting him to temper the vehemency of his Style. To his scurrilous railing we will add what Brereley (in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers, cap 3. sect. 2. initio, pag. 60.) saith, concerning his contentious spirit; which was so abounding in him, that for fear of being idle, and to keep himself a-work in that kind, he contracted with Carolostadius, and giving him 
[k] Hospinian in hist. Sacrament. part 2. at Anno 1525. fol. 32. b. ant med. saith, Lutheru●● Carolostadium ut contra se publicè scribat aureum nummum extractum ex pera ipsi oftert, inquiens: En accipe, & quantum potes animose contra me dimica etc. cumque aureum nummum marsupio suo recondidisset Carolostadius, Luthero manum in sponsionem pactae & susceptae contentionis porrexit, pro cujus confirmatione Lutherus ipsi vicissim haustum vini propinavit, adhortans eum ne sibi parceret, sed quanto vehementius & animosius contra se ageret, tanto illum sibi chariorem futurum. See also Lavather hereof, in Histor. Sacrament. fol. 2. a. post med.  a piece of Gold to write against him, he upon Carolostadius his acceptance thereof, gave to Carolostadius his hand upon the bargain, and thereupon drunk to him in a cup of Wine, exhorting Carolostadius not to spare him, but to deal roundly and vehemently with him, whereupon ensued their most contentious and invective writings: This fact of Luther was so scandalous, that Hospinian though 
[l] See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 7. ●t o. ante fi●em.  favouring Luther yet signifieth from what 
[m] Hospinian in his Histor. Sacrament. par. 2. fol. 32. circa med. saith of Luther's foresaid bargain with Carolostadius, Haec Christiane lector, fuerunt, infelicissimi istius certaminis (quod ex pacto & sponsione susceptum tot jam annis Ecclesiam gravissime exercuit) infausta auspicia, quae si quis diligenter apud se animo sepositis affectibus expendat, ex quo spiritu fuerint profecta tanto rectius etc. est judicaturus etc. And Daniel Tossanus in lib. consolatorio, cap. 127. saith, that Luther did proceed contra Carolostadium instinctu maligui Spiritus.  Spirit the same proceeded.  
4 Concerning the Administration of the Word and Sacraments (saith Brereley tracked 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 7.) Luther maketh it common to Laymen with the Clergy, saying to this end 
[n] Luther tom. 2. lib. de Ministris Ecclesiae instituendis, fol. 368. a & b. 369. a. b. & vide ibid. l. de abroganda missa privata, tom. 2 fol. 249. a. b. & in lib. de captiv. Babylon. c. de Ordine. And see Hospinianus in Hist. Sacrament. part. 1. pag. 22. paulo post med. & part. 2. fol. 14. b. circa med.  The first Office of the Priest is to preach the Word etc. but this is common to all: next is to baptise, and this also may all do, even women etc. the third is to consecrate Bread and Wine, but this also is common to all no less than Priests, and this I avouch by the Authority of Christ himself, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; This Christ spoke to all there present, and to come afterwards; whosoever should eat of that Bread, and drink of that Wine etc. This also is witnessed by St. Paul, who 1. Cor 11. repeating this, applieth it to all the Corinthians, making them all as himself was, that is to say Consecrators, etc. If then that which is greater than all, be given indifferently to all men and women, I mean the Word and Baptism, then that which is less, I mean to consecrate the Supper, is also given to them. And the like Doctrine doth he affirm no less plainly in 
[o] Luther in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem decimum art. 13. saith, In Sacramento Paenitentiae ac remissione culpae non plus facit Papa vel Episcopus, quam insimus Sacerdos: immo ubi non est Sacerdos, aequè tantum quilibet Christianus etiamsi mulier aut puer esset etc. quod autem absente Sacerdote etiam puer aut mulier & quilibet Christianus absolvere potest, Mat. 18. Clareè patet, ubi Christus omnibus Christianis dicit: Quodcunque solveritis super terram, solutum erit in Coeli●: Hanc invictam authoritatem non mihi subverten●. And see further in loc. common. clas●. 2. pag. 136. & 138. But see his words more full than all this, alleged out of the Edition of Jena by Cnoglerus in his Symbola tria, pag. 157.  another of his Writings, being (as Dr. Covell affirmeth) 
[p] Mr. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker 's five Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, Art. 15. pag. 101. post med. And see Luther de Missa privata Edit. An. 1534. And see Hospinian. in Hist Sacramentar. pag. 22. paulo post med. And Hospinian in Hist. Sacramentar. parte altera, fol. 1●. b. circa med. saith of Luther in 1 b. de Missa privata An. 34. Eousque progreditur, ut diceret Sacramentum verum futurum, etiamsi à Diabolo conficeretur.  not afraid to affirm that Sacraments are effectual though administered by Satan himself. Thus did Luther in respect of want of calling in his Followers, writ against the Pope; though elsewhere to serve his own turn against the Anabaptists (who upon the same ground used the same weapons against him) he 
[q] See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 6. initio at u. & tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. sub. 2. at z.  presseth and chargeth them for their want of ordinary calling: So Variable, Inconstant, and Temporising, (as occasion required) was he in his Doctrine: whereof Zuinglius tom. 2. in responsione ad Confessionem Lutheri, fol. 458. circa med. saith, Lutherus nunc hoc, nunc illud deadem Re pronunciat, nec usquam sibi constat: haud dubiè eain constantia & levitate in Dei Ver boutendum esse existimat, qua effrictae frontis scurrae inter aleam uti consueverunt. Also Hospinianus, a learned Calvinist, in his Historia Sacramentaria, parte altera, in his Alphabetical table, set before the beginning of that Book, at the letter L. under the word Lutherus, setteth forth Luther's wonderful inconstancy in Doctrine with particular reference to his contrary say and Doctrines, there by him in that book at large alleged, in which course he chargeth Luther in the same table, saying; Lutherus sibi ipsi dissimili, in Doctrina de persona Christi 18. And under the word Lutheri, is set down Lutheri inconstantia in Doctrina 4. b. Lapsuum & inconstantiae causae 5. Ejus de coena sententia Prima 5. b. Secunda 7. b. Tertia 8. Quarta 12. Quinta ibidem, De ejus inconstantia in negotio Coenae, Sturmius 12. a. b. inconstantia de communione sub uno vel utraque specie 12. b. 13. inconstantia de manducatione impiorum 13. b. inconstantia de concommitantia 13. b. inconstantia de elevatione Sacramenti 13. b. 14. inconstantia de adoratione Sacramenti 14. with much more there set down in this kind. And in the Book exemplified at large from Luther's own inconstant and contrary writing, according to the figures of direction here as before mentioned. Also concerning the form of words requisite to a Sacrament, Luther affirmeth Baptism to be good with whatsoever words it be ministered, so the same be not in the name of Man but God. So Luther tom 2. Wittenberg. in lib de captivit. Babylon. cap. de Baptismo fol. 75. a. initio saith, Quocunque modo tradatur Baptismus, modo non in nomine Hominis, sed in nomine Domini tradatur, verè salvum facit; imô non dubitem, siquis in nomine Domini suscipiat, etiamsi impius Minister non det in nomine Domini, verè Baptizatum esse in Nomine Domini.  
5 Concerning the 
[r] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 8.  sufficiency of our Redemption by our Saviour's Passion in his humane nature upon the Cross, Luther taught thus far to the contrary, as that not only the Humane Nature of Christ suffered for us, for (saith he) in affirming but so much, Christ is a Saviour of vile and small account, and needeth himself also a Saviour. 
[s] Luther in confession majori de Coena Domini.  Cum credo quod sola humana natura pro me passa est; Christus ille vilis nec magni pretii Salvator est. Imo ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet: but also that the 
[t] Luther de Consiliis Part. 2. saith of the Zuingliand: Pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant, quod Divinitas Christi pati non posset.  Divinity of Christ did suffer, which is so intolerable and gross, that it is specially contradicted by divers learned Protestants, as Zuinglius, Hospinianus, D. Barnes, Beza, Czecanorius (in Brereley pag. 403, 404.) and affirmed to be an old condemned opinion in Apollinarius and Eutiches, and contrary to the Prophets, Apostles, and all true Believers. To this we may add Luther's wicked Doctrine concerning our Saviour's descending into Hell, there also for to suffer Torments in Soul after his death. Thus Luther (tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psalm. 16. fol. 279. a. post med.) saith, Christus sicut cum summo dolore mortuus est, ita videtur & dolores post mortem in inferno sustinuisse, ut nobis omnia superaret etc. And see this opinion confessed in Luther, by Fulke in his defence of the English translation of the Bible, cap. 7. pag. 204. See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect 10. sub. 8. at 16. pag. 205. (it should be 405)  
6 Conterning Luther's 
[u] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdi. 9  contempt of the ancient Fathers, and his own great undertaking knowledge, he saith, 
[x] Luther in libro ad Ducem Georgium. And see his like saying in Colloquiis Litinis cap. de consolation. And ad cap. 1. dd Galatas tom. 5. Wittenberg. fol. 290 b. He saith Esto, Ecclesia, Augustinus, & alii Doctores; item Petrus, Apollo, imo Angelus è Caelo diversum doceant, tamen mea Doctrina est ejusmodi, quae solius Dei gloriam illustrate etc. Petrus Apostolorum summus vivebat & docet extra Verbum Dei; And after the English Translation. fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio. and in libro de servo arbitrio contra Erasmum, in the first Edition thereof He saith, (if not most arrogantly judge) Deponite quicquid armaturae suppeditabunt Orthodoxi veteres, Theologorum Scholae, authoritas Conciliorum & Pontificum, consensus tot saeculorum, ac totius populi Christiani, nihil recipimus nisi Scripturas: sed sic, ut penes nos solos sit certa Authoritas interpretandi. Quod nos interpretamur hoc sensit Spiritus Sanctus, quod afferunt alii quamvis magni, quamvis multi, à Spiritu Satanae & ●lienata ment profectum est. See this Saying alleged in Nullus & Nemo G. 6. pag. 153. And in Cnoglerus his Symbola tria. pag. 152. And Luther tom. 2 Wittenberg. fol. 486. b. fine saith, Ego verò hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui, & assero, ac penes nullum volo esse judicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut praestent obsequium.  Since the Apostles times no Doctor or Writer hath so excellently and clearly confirmed, instructed, and comforted the Consciences of the Secular States, as I have done, by the singular grace of God. This certainly I know, that neither Austin, nor Ambrose, who yet are in this matter the best, are equal to me herein. And again (tom. 7. in serm. de eversione Jerusalem. fol. 271. a.) The Gospel is so copiously preached by us, that truly in the Apostles time, it was not so clear. And (apud Brereley trect 1. sect. 3. subd vis. 14. initio. in the Margin at the figure 4.) he affirms, (tom. 2. Wittenberg. Anno 1551. lib. de servo Arbitrio pag. 434.) the Fathers of so many Ages to have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to have erred all their life time, and that unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. See further Luther's Book de servio arbitrio printed in octavo 1603. pag. 72, 73, 276, and 337. Also in Colloquiis Mensalibus cap, de Patribus Ecclesiae, Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular, In the writings of Hierom, there is not a word of true Faith, Christ, and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. I have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostom I make no account. Bazil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not of a hair. Cyprian is a weak Divine etc. affirming there yet further, that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceeds even Augustin himself. 
[y] See Brereley Tract: 2. c. 2. sect: 10. subdivis. 9  How highly he esteemeth of such Doctrine as himself collecteth from the Scriptures, and how much he preferreth himself therein before the Fathers, himself signifieth saying (tom. 2. l. contra Regem Angliae fol. 344. b.) God's Word is above all, the Divine Majesty maketh for me, so as I pass not if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Harry Churches stood against me: Nay he doubteth not in plain terms to exempt his Doctrine from all judgement of Men and Angels, making himself thereby judge of both, saying, (Adversus falso nominatum Ecclesiasticum statum) Scire vos volo, quod in posterum non amplius hoc honore dignabor, ut sinam vel vos vel ipsos Angelos de Caelo, de mea doctrina judicare etc. nec volo meam doctrinam à quoquam judicari, atque adeone ab Angelis quidem: cum enim certus de ea sim, per eam & vester & Angelorum judex esse volo. And see these words, though somewhat altered in the late edition of Wittenberg tom. 2. fol. 306. a. fine. And (apud Brereley, tract. 3. sect. 7. pag. 681. marg. at e.) tom. 2. Wittenberg. lib. contra Regem Angliae fol. 333. a. fine. he saith, Certus enim sum dogmata mea habere me de Caelo etc. dogmata mea stabunt etc. And will our English Divines allow this in the Doctrine of Real presence, Images etc. wherewith they charge and reprove Luther? Luther also (apud Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2.) says (in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. after the English Translation fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio, & tom. 5. Wittenberg. of anno 1554. fol. 290. b.) Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Apollo, yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet is my Doctrine such as sets forth God's only Glory etc. Peter the chief of the Apostles, did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the Word of God. And in the same place fol. 290. a. fine, he further saith, Sive S. Cyprianus, Ambrose, Augustinus, sive S. Petrus, Paulus, immo Angelus è Caelo aliter doceat, tamen hoc certè scio, quod humana non suadeo, sed Divina. For this cause sundry Calvinists have not forborn to tax Luther with excessive Pride. Conradus Regius (in lib. Germanico contra Hessium de Caena Domini b. 2.) saith, God hath for the sin of Pride (wherewith Luther extolled himself, as many of his writings show) taken from him his true Spirit etc. and in place thereof hath given an angry, proud, and lying Spirit. And the Tigurine Divines in Confession Germanica, Printed Tiguri 1544. in octavo; say, Luther boasteth himself to be the Apostle and Prophet of the Germans, who hath learned of none, of whom all others have learned; no man hath known any thing, but what he learned of Luther; no man hath done any thing, Luther hath done all etc. And (apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2. at*) Zuinglius, in responsione ad confessionem Lutheri, chargeth Luther with magna Arrogantia, & cum arroganti verborum fastu, minis quoque plusquam turgidis. And Oecolampadius in responsione ad confessionem Lutheri, saith, that Luther was arrogantiae & superbiae affect●● inflatus. Also the Tigurine Divines in their answer to Luther's Book against Zuinglius, say, Prophetae & Apostoli Dei Gloriae, non privato honori, non suae pertinaciae & superbiae studebant; Lutherus autem sua quaerit, pertinax est, insolentia nimia effertur etc. And Simon Lythus responsione altera ad alteram Jacobi Gretzeri Apologiam, pag. 333. paulo ante med. saith, Lutherus plusquam debeat tribuit gloriolae partae, cujus particulam communicari cum aliis indignissime ferebat. And Thomas Naogeorgus (a learned Calvinist) alleged by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 131. a. post med. saith of Luther, Plurima scripsit per iram carnalem, & per aemulationem, ne succumbere cerneretur ulli, Doctorum veterum orbitam reliquit, indulgens stomacho suo ac honori. And Calvin alleged ibidem fol. 126, a. post med. Hanc intemperiem quâ ubique ebullit, utinam magis fraenare studuisset etc. Utinam recognoscendis vitiis plus operae dedisset etc. And Conradus Gesnerus in Universali Bibliotheca, saith, Illud non est dissimulandum, Lutherum virum esse vehementis ingenii, impatientem, & qui nisi per omnia sibi consentientes ferre nesciat &c. Dominus faxit, nequid contentione & impudentia oris obsit Ecclesiae, cujus olim crepundiatam feliciter promovit. Pride, even the confessed intolerable pride was the only true cause of his persisting in his revolt, and Apostasy (a point to be carefully considered by all Protestants, who have any care to save their Souls!) For (saith Fox, Acts and Monum. pag. 404. a. fine) It is apparent that Luther promised Cardinal Cajetan to keep silence (with this annexed condition of pride) provided also his Adversaries would do the like. And Osiander in epitome. etc. centur. 16. pag. 61. fine, & 62 initio, saith accordingly: Quod Lutherus in Pontificem quaedam durius scripserit, id condonari sibi petit, promittens posthac majorem modestiam, indulgentiarumque posthac nullam se facturum mentionem, modo adversariis etiam suis silentium imponatur. And Mr. Cowper, late Bishop of Winchester reporteth further (in his Chronicle fol. 278 a. paulo post initium) that Luther by his letter, submitted himself to the Pope, (with this other like condition) so that he might not be compelled to recant.  
7 As concerning Luther's 
[z] Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 12  impugning of the Mass, upon his confessed instruction from the Devil, by sensible conference had with him, we refer the same to his own Testimony hereof, hereafter alleged. 
[a] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2. In the Text and Margin at 17.  He did continue his accustomed saying of Mass, until that among the 
[b] Manlius, Luther 's Scholar testifieth this in loc. come. pag. 42. fine. And so also the Alphabetical Table of that Book, where it is set down Luthero saepe spectra apparuerunt. And Luther Tuton: ad Senator: Civit: German: speaking of other Sectaries, to wit the Swenkfeldians and Anabaptists who bragged of Apparitions, confesseth of himself saying, Ego quoque fui in Spiritu, atque etiam vidi spiritus, si omnino de propriis gloriandum est, forte plulquam ipsi intra annum videbunt.  several Apparitions happened unto him (not of 
[c] Luther in loc. come: class. 4. pag: 36. prope finem, saith, Nullas apparitiones Angelorum habeo. And ibidem page 40. ante med: He further saith, Pactum feci cum Domino Deo meo, nevel visiones, vel somnia, vel etiam Angelos mihi mittat, etc. vide ibidem post med.  Angels, for therein he disclaimeth, but of wicked Spirits, wherewith he was infested or haunted, whereof one was so terrible that 
[d] Manlius in loc. come: pag. 42. fine, & 43. initio saith, Cum Coburgi subsisteret Doctor Martinus Lutherus etc. accidit ut semper post apparitiones nocturnarum facium, ipse gravi capitis morbo agitaretur. Accidit autem ut cum praecedente nocte tres ejusmodi volantes faces vidisset, fere incidiffet in Syncopen, Praesentiens autem morbum, ministrum vocabat, is Amygdalinum oleum instillabat in aurem. etc. Luther tom: 7 Wittenberg: An: 1588. in lib. de Missa privata, & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 443. & tom: 6. Germ. Jenensi fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari. Also Luther's words hereof are acknowledged and set down in the treatise, against the defence of the censure, pag. 234, 235, 236. and in Luther tom: 7 Wittenberg: fol. 228. a. fine.  he was almost cast into a sound (in prevention whereof, Oil was distilled into his Ear, and his Feet rubbed with hot Clothes) It chanced that upon a certain time (as himself reporteth the matter) he suddenly awaked about midnight: then (saith he) Satan began this Disputation with me; saying, Hearken right learned Doctor Luther, thou hast celebrated Mass by the space of fiveteen years etc. And so the Devil with Arguments, which himself there at large setteth down, dissuaded him from further saying of Mass; whereat the Protestants are greatly ashamed, and strive in vain to answer to this our objecting of Luther's foresaid Disputation, had, as before, with the Devil. For first 
[e] Brereley in his conclus. to the Judges Sect. 9 initio at c.  Mr. Clarke (in his answer to the Censure given upon the Books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer, in the special tract there, had of this matter) and Mr. Fulke (in his Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 234 initio) answer, that by Luther's foresaid discourse of his Disputation had with the Devil, is meant only a spiritual fight in mind, and no bodily conference. What? no bodily conference? With what Face can they affirm this? Do not the many other precedent and confessed like fearful nightly Apparitions argue this also to be of the like kind? Doth not Ltuher himself, in his foresaid Treatise of this matter, report how the Devil 
[f] Luther describing there the sound of Satan's voice, speaking then to him, saith, Haec illo dicente etc. The Devil speaking thus to me, I burst forth all on sweat, and my heart began to tremble and leap (voce forti & gravi utitur) the Devil hath a base and strong voice etc. And then I learned how it came to pass that sometimes early in the morning, men were found dead in their beds: which words the rather to give colour to Mr. Clerks pretended only Spiritual temptation, and no bodily conference, are shamefully falsifyed, as being quite omitted by the Divines of wittemberg in their later edition of Luther's Works, but nevertheless are yet still and extant in the more ancient edition of Luther's Works tom: 6. Jen. Germ fol. 28. and to the eternal discredit of the said Divines of Wittenberg (who in many other things have likewise most shamefully falsifyed Luther) are yet also acknowledged and verbatim recited by the Protestant Writer Hospinianus in Hist: Sacra mentar. par. 2. fol. 131, a. post med. and by him alleged there out of Luther tom. 6. Jen. fol. 81.  then spoke to him in a base and great voice, so fearfully, as made Luther to sweat, and his heart to tremble? Doth he not also report (as before) that the Devil spoke to him, calling him (according to the humour of his Pride) Right learned Doctor Luther? Doth he not there also yet further affirm, how Oecolampadius, Empser, and others, were slain with such horrible encounters, saying, 
[g] Luther tom. 7. Wittsmberg: fol. 230. a. post med. See also these words confessed by Mr. Fulk against the defence of the Censure, pag. 237. circa medium:  Ego planè persuasus sum Empserum & Oecolampadium, & similes, his ictibus horribilibus & quassationibus subito extinctos esse? This answer being therefore without all probability, and though supposed for true, yet wholly impertinent; For in either case, the persuasions and arguments whereto Luther here yieldeth, came confessedly from the Devil, and what difference is there, whether the Devil made them to Luther by sensible conference, or by inward suggestion? A 
[h] Brereley in his conclusion to the Judges, Sect. 9 at 〈◊〉.  second answer of Mr. Sutcliffe is, that Luther in his foresaid discourse of this matter, only declared his Dream; for he in his Book de Vera Catholica Christi Ecclesia pa: 258. post med: saith, Per somnium tantùm Diabolum se colloqui visum dicit Lutherus, ut est in libro. what, but a dream Mr. Sutcliff? Is there in Luther's whole discourse hereof so much as but mention of any dream? Are not also Luther's foresaid words directly to the contrary, that he was first suddenly awaked, and that then after, Satan began the disputation with him? Again, doth not his foresaid affirming of Empser and Oecolampadius to have been slain with such horrible encounters, argue more than a dream? Are men I pray you slain by dreaming? or rather was not yourself deeply dreaming when you made an answer so plainly untrue? But in what book of Luther (Mr. Sutcliff) is this found? you should have done well to have alleged it. For Luther's words are, that he was then first suddenly awaked. And, ibidem pag. 299. paulo ante med: Mr. Sutcliff further saith hereof, Lutherus autem nihil aliud peccavit, quam quod ut homo Germanus, & non ita pridem Monachus, qui eas de Diabolorum apparitionibus Monasticas fabulas è ment adhuè non ejecerat, somnium narrat crasso filo & Monachis familiari: quare si nullum aliud habeant hujusmodi calumniae fundamentum praeter somnium, quod etiam ipsi malè detorquent, nihil est etc. But although we should suppose it for true, yet this Answer is no less plainly impertinent: for what difference is it whether the Devil seduced Luther sleeping or waking? In either case it confessedly proceeded from the Devil. These foresaid answers of Mr. Fulk, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Sutcliff, being so evidently untrue, 
[i] Brereley ibidem sect. 9  Mr. D. Morton (in Apolog: Catholica part: 1. l. 2. c. 21. pag: 351. ante med.) betaketh himself to a new evasion. And what is that? He taketh no exceptions to Satan's sensible conference had with Luther, nor to his persuading him against the Mass, but in steed of answer, objecteth 
[k] Where he saith: Apud Surium liquet Diabolum in specie Angelica appa●●isse, & statim Abbatem ut Missam celebratet hortabatur, alleging there in his margin, Delrius Jes●. 4. de Magia. cap. 1. q. 3.8.5.  Delrius (a Jesuit) affirming, that the Devil appeared to an Abbot in form of an Angel, and persuaded him to say Mass: Supposing this for the truth, and the whole truth of Delrius his report, how unapt yet is the example thereof? For here is no long and laboured disputation to prove the Mass good, nor did the party here assent to the Devil, nor did the Mass thereupon first begin to become public, as in the other example we charge the Devil with long framed disputation and arguments against the Mass, and Luther as overcome therewith, to have abandoned the Mass, then before generally received. And that in this manner now in this last age began the new appearing doctrine of Luther, and so many of his followers in impugning of Mass. Neither is this all, for Mr. Morton hath in his report hereof (besides his misnaming the Abbot for the Monk) committed as yet further negligence, if not fraud, in omitting both, which is there next precedent and following in his Author, as namely that 
[l] The words of Delri●● (in the place cited be Mr. Morton, uttered upon occasion to show how the Devil often goeth about to deceive us, or by persuading us to do things of themselves good, but in an evil manner, whereof he there giveth many examples,) ●e as followeth: Item si (Daemon) suadeat aliiqua contra Canon's, vel Constitutiones, vel regulas, vel alia praecepta Majorum: hoc indicio B. Simeon Monaclus Trevirensis eum deprehendit: narratur historia ab Cuerwino Abbate (apud Surium 1. Junii.) In verticem montis Sinai jussu Superiorum cum missus fivisset ibi habitaturus, nocturnis horis illi specie Angelcia Daemon apparuit, & ut Missam celebret hortatur: ipse nec planè dormiens, nec perfectè vigilans contradicrit, non debere fine praesbyterii ordine aliquem hoc ministerium implere: contra inimicus instat: etc. Whereby it appeareth that the Devil did not make this persuasion to the Abbott, (for the Abbot whom Surius allegeth is but the reporter thereof) but to Simeon a Monk, who, as there afterwards yet more fully appeareth, being not as yet Priest, but Deacon, refused to say Mass.  the Devil useth to persuade against the Canons, etc. and that accordingly that the party whom the Devil here so persuaded to say Mass, was not yet Priest: a persuasion I confess fitting for the Devil, and but answerable to Luther's doctrine, who teacheth (as is before said) that Laymen, and even Women, are Priests, and may consecrat the Sacrament, and preach. 
[m] Brereley in his con●●●sion to the judges. Sect 9 nex as●er n.  The last of whom I sinned any mention to offer help in relief of Luther from this so known scandal, is Baldwinus. And what saith he? First directly against Mr. Clark, Mr. Fulk, and Mr. Sutcliff, he acknowledgeth the conference between the Devil and Luther to have been not spiritual only, nor yet a dream, but that it was a real truth, written by Luther not hyperbolically but seriously and according to the truth of the history, for in his book the disputatione Lutheri cum Diabolo, Printed Islebii 1605. c 4. fine, & pag. 83. fine, he saith thereof: Quapropter non est cur Monachus miretur, me fateri disputationem illam esse veram, & neque joco neque hyperbolicè, sed serio & historicè, scriptam. And again there pag. 75. post med. he saith, Historiam illam tam prolixè, tam consideratè Lutherus conscripserit: quod enim eam scripserit & quidem serio & historicè, etiamnum & constanter fateor. Et vide ibidem pag: 76 fine. How then would he evade? The substance of his long answer is, that Luther had before, and then, quite abandonned the Mass: that therefore the Devil intended no disputation against Luther, but only by way of strong temptation, to put Luther in mind of his old errors, so thereby to drive him to despair, urging to such purpose, such only known truths and reasons against the Mass, as Luther then, and before knew to be most true, and wherein Luther was allerady satisfied: in regard whereof (saith he, ibidem pag: 127. fine) Semper in praeterito loquitur Satan etc. talis sacrificulus fuisti: the Devil speaketh always to Luther as in the time past, thou saidst Mass, thou hast done this, & that, etc. But how extremely false and impertinent is all this? First, for the matter of despair it is a false 
[n] Brer●ley in his Conclus. to the judges, Sect. 7. at q. in the margin.  supposal; for there is not in all the passage of that disputation so much as the least mention or signification of any persuasion to despair, whereas to the contrary in the same disputation there, fol. 228. b. paulo ante med. the Devil reproveth Luther and the Papists, for thinking Christ unmerciful, saying: Nos Spiritus rejecti non fidimus illius misericordiae, neque habemus eum pro Mediatore aut Salvatore, sed exhorrescimus ut saevum judicem: ejusmodi fidem, non aliam, & tu habebas, etc. & omnes alii etc. Ideo à Christo tanquam crudeli judice confugiebatis ad S. Mariam & Sanctos, & illi erant Mediatores inter vos & Christum, sic erepta est gloria Christo etc. Thus doth Satan quite against the pretence of despair, amplify the mercies of Christ, urging the same as a special argument against Prayer to Saints. And whereas Luther (which some urge) doth there afterwards, fol. 230. b. post medium, answer to the Catholics, who (as he foresaw would object to him that the Devil was a liar) labours to prevent the same, alleging there to that end the example of Judas, whom the Devil tempted with urging to him, that he had betrayed the innocent blood, and so brought him to despair; with like alleging also the example of Cain: yet is this no part of the Conference between the Devil and Luther, which is there before fully ended, but are only the words of Luther himself, used by him upon the occasion aforesaid many years after, at his writing of the said Conference. But though we should admit this supposal for true, yet it is also 
[o] Brereley ibid. Sect. 7. in the margin at r,  impertinent; for though he had withal persuaded Luther to despair, as having sinned in his saying of Mass, yet this proveth not (which is the only point now questionable) that he did not also then dispute with Luther to persuade him against the Mass: For this is evident throughout the whole passage of that his long disputation, against which the other pretence of despair (though admitted to be mentioned in the same disputation, as it is not) maketh for that nothing. Secondly 
[o] Brerele● ibidem Sect. 9 in the text, versus finem.  as concerning the Devils supposed speaking to Luther always in praeterito, as of the time past, it is egregiously false: for as in regard of his then former saying of Mass, the Devil sometimes speaketh to him as in the 
[q] Brereley in the conclus. to the judges, Sect. 8. in the margin at v and x.  time past; So likewise in regard of Luther's present custom then continued in saying Mass, he also speaketh very often as in the time present, as appeareth in Luther tom: 7. Wittenberg. An: 1558. fol. 229. a paulo post med. where the Devil saith, Tu solus in angulo tuo tacens & mutus comedis solus, et bibis solus. Et ibidem fol. 229. a. post med, the Devil speaking to Luther, as of his saying Mass in the time to come, saith, Ponam similitudinem: Si quis Baptismo uteretur ubi non est persona Baptizanda, etc. cujusmodi esset hic Baptismus? etc. deest enim persona quae Baptismum accipiat: Quid si idem tibi accideret in tua Missa? etc. Nam persona accipiens Ecclesia non esse ibi, etc. Hic for san dices, etiam sialiis in Ecclesia non porrigam Sacramentum, tamen ipse sumo, ipse mihi porrigo, etc. And ibidem fol: 229: b. Prope finem, the Devil further saith to Luther (as being then one with the Papists in this point,) En audaciam vestram! in tenebris geritis haec, & abutimini nomine Ecclesiae, ac deinde onmes abominationes vultis defensas n●mine Ecclesiae. And again, ibidem fol: 230. a. prope initium: Quare ergo in Missa privata blasphemè eontravenis claris verbis & Ordinationi Christi, & postea tuo mendacio, tuae impietati praetexis nomen & intentionem Ecclesiae, & misero hoc fuco tuum ornas commentnm? And ibidem fol: 229. b. ant med. going about to prove that Luther may not deliver the Sacrament to himself alone, he allegeth the example of the other Sacraments, which a man cannot use for himself, saying: Non est absolutio, si quis absolveret seipsum; non est inunctio, si quis inungeret seipsum; non est conjugium, si quis nuberet sibi ipsi etc. Haec enim sunt vestra septem Sacramenta, (so plainly yet was Luther in these points than Catholic) si nunc nullum ex Sacramentis vestris aliquis ipse pro se facere potest, aut tractare, qùi fit ut tibi soli hoc Summum Sacramentum facere velis? And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 737. saith, And ibid. fol. 229. a. circa med. The Devil yet further saith to Luther, Stas ibi solus, & putas (so evidently is Luther's then present opinion then signified) Christum propter te instituisse Sacramentum, & protinus in tua privata Missa te conficere Corpus & Sanguinem Domini. Thirdly 
[r] Brerely ibidem Sect. 9 in the text prope sinem.  as to the supposal of Luther's then having abandoned the Mass, it is likewise but supposed and false, as appeareth by the Devil's foresaid often speaking to him in the present 
[s] B●ercley in his Conclus. to the judge, ●●●ct 8 〈◊〉 and z in the margin.  tense, to whom Luther answers ibidem fol. 228 b. initio, as not disclaiming from the Mass, or that he had then or before given it over, but as yet standing in the defence thereof, justifieth to the Devil his saying of Mass, to that end alleging (saith he) that I was an anointed Priest, Cui respondi, sum unctus Sacerdos, accepi unctionem & consecrationem ab Episcopo, & haec omnia feci ex mandato & obedientia Majorum: and (in regard of such his then Catholic opinion in that point) using yet further (saith he ibidem fol. 229. b. post medium) those weapons whereto I was accoustomed in the Papacy, objecting the intention and faith of the Church, and that I celebrated Mass in the intention and faith of the Church, etc. And that the Church did righty believe, and think. In his angustiis & ago contra Diabolum, volebam retundere hostem armis, quibus assuetus eram sub Papatu, objiciebamque intentionem & fidem Ecclesiae scilicet quod Missas privatas in fide & intention Ecclesiae celebrassem: & si ego inquam non rectè credidi aut sensi; tamen in hoc rectè credidit & sensit Ecclesia. But (saith he) Satan replied more vehemently; verum Sathan è contrae fortius & vehementius instans, etc. Hereby, and other the premises, it appeareth, that Luther yet hitherto defended the Mass: in respect of which (his then opinion) the Devil 
[t] Brereley ibid. Sect. 9 in the text, fine.  beginneth his suggestion of doubt saying, What if such Masses were horrible Idolatry? Which had been improper, if so Luther had then before thought the Mass to be Idolary. 
[u] Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. Anno. 1558. in Libro de Missa privata & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. a. fine. & tom. 9 Germ. Jenensi fol. 28. in Libro de Missa Angulari, and see these words acknowledged and set down by Mr. Fulk in his defence of the Censure pag. 234. and 235. and 236.  Fourthly as concerning the main point, which is, that the Devil intended hereby no disputation against Luther, but only a temptation upon evident truths, by Luther then and before known and confessed, it is of all other most false, as appeareth by Luther himself, who expressly terms it a disputation. Also by the 
[x] Apud Brereley ibid. Sect. 7. at S.  Protestant like Arguments (as namely among other, the Priests not preaching, but receiving alone, against the institution of Christ; his not communicating to the people in both kinds; that of a Sacrament he made it a Sacrifice, and made gain thereof, sicut tu facis in Missa tua, as thou (saith the Devil to Luther) dost in thy Mass) at large there by the Devil begun and prosecuted, purposely to give colour against the Mass, and most evidently by example of the sundry other points, whereto the Devil in like sort then endeavoured to persuade Luther, but could not prevail: For first it appeareth by Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 229. a. that the Devil persuaded Luther, that he could not consecrate, because he was a wicked man, which error (peculiar to Wickliff and some others) Luther ever abhorred, as appeareth by the Protestant Treatise entitled, Orthodoxus consensus, etc. Printed in fol. 1578. in proleg. pag. 14 b. and in Brerely tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 7. at p. q. r. where Luther holdeth that even Lay-people, and the Devil himself, might Minister Sacraments, observing the words of institution. Also Satan persuaded Luther against the indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds, whereof see here in the Margin at 
[y] Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. An. 1558. fol. 229. b. initio. And fol. 228. b●circa med. the Devil further saith, Sacerdos enim ve●us, est Minister Ecclesiae constitutus ad praedicandum verbum, porrigenda Sacramenta, sicut hoc habent verba Christi in Coena, & sicut Paulus 1 Cor. 11. de Coena Dom●ni loquitur: unde & à veteribus Communio appellata est, quod non Solus Sacerdos debeat uti Sacramento, sed reliqui unà cum ipso. Nunc annos quindecim totos semper solus privatim pro te in Missa usus es Sacramento; & none communicast alias, ade●què interdictum tibi erat, ne porrigeres totum Sacramentum aliis, etc. coj●smod● es tu Sacerdos, qui non pro Ecclesia, sed pro te ipso ordinatus es? etc. Tu vero Missator privatus in omnibus Missis tuis, ne semel quidem praedicasti, etc. Haeccine institutio Christi? etc. Institutio Christi est, ut Sacramento communicent & alii Christiani, verum tu unctus es, non ad distribuendum Sacramentum, sed ad Sacrificandum, & contra institutionem Christi Missa usus es pro Sacrificio, etc. Et quod Christus instituit ad edendum &. bibendum pro tota Ecclesia, & porrigendum a Sacerdote unà communicantibus, etc. ex hoc tu facis Sacrificium propitiatorium. O abominatio super omnem abominationem, etc. And ibid. fol. 229. a. paulo post med. he saith, Solus bibis, etc. Nemini tecum communicas, & ut in more vobis positum fuit, tanquam bonum opus pro pecunia vend●s. And ibidem fol. 228. b. ant med. He further saith to Luther, Confugiebatis ad S. Mariam, & Sanctos, illi erant Mediatores inter vos & Christum, sic crepta est gloria Christo: Is not all this (with much more there objected by the Devil) very Protestant like?  which indifferency (notwithstanding the Devil's Arguments to the contrary) Luther afterwards held, as appeareth in Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 14. in the margin at 
[z] Luther ibidem fol. 229. b. pau●o post initium.  next after f. at Fourthly. Whereto divers other like examples might be added 
[a] Brereley in his Conclusion to the Judges Sect. 10. . Thus than the several and disagreeing answers of Protestant Writers to our objection of the Devil's disputation had with Luther against the Mass, being discovered for vain and idle, I will now conclude this point with the further evident testimony of Hospinianus a learned Calvinist, who though he acknowledge Luther 
[b] Hospinian: in Hist. Sacrament. part alter: in his Prolaegom: prope finem, saith of Zuinglius, Calvin & Luther: Hos enim tres viros nosco à Deo ornatos fuisse multis donis & virtutibus, ingenio, luce doctrinae Caelestis, etc. Zelo gloriae Dei etc. Divinitusque formatos & excitatos ad Ecclesiam Christi his postremis temporibus, tyrant nide ac tenebris Anti-Christi horribiliter oppressam, in libertatem & lucem Evangelii vindicandam, etc.  for a man adorned with excellent gifts, with the light of Heavenly knowledge, zeal of God's glory, and as raised up to restore the Gospel's light, etc. Yet, as enforced, he confesseth most plainly the thing in question in Hist. Sacrament. part. alter. fol. 131. a. where he reciteth out of Luther's works, a part of the disputation (written by Luther) between the Devil and him, and then in the end of that side of the leaf addeth, saying, De hac disputatione narrat Lutherus plura, quorum summa est, se à Diabol● edoctum esse, quod Missa privata imprimis sit res mala, & rationibus Diaboli convictum abolevisse eam, Luther being instructed by the Devil that the Mass was wicked, and being overcome with Satan's Arguments, did (thereupon) abandon the Mass. Insomuch as Hospinian doth yet further in his first Index or Alphabetical Table set before his Book, under the Letter C. and at the word Colloqium, among the many other Colloquies had among Protestants by him there set down, place, among other, this Colloquy between the Devil and Luther in these words: Colloquium Lutheri cum Diabolo in quo instituitur de erroribus Missae, 131. As also Joannes Regius (another prime Protestant) in his Book entitled, Liber Apologeticus, etc. under the title Consideratio censurae pag. 123. circa med. forbeareth not to defend and justify Luther's foresaid confessed instruction from the Devil, saying, Quid hoc ad Mysterium seu doctrinam verbi Divini per Lutherum restauratum evertendum, aut ad Missae etiam veritatem stabilendam? Et unde constat (Pu. constat by the testimony of Luther himself, tom. 7. Wittember. An. 1558. in lib. de Missa privata & unctione Sacerdotum fol. 228. a. fine, & tom. 9 Germ. Jenen. fol. 28. in lib. de Missa angulari) tibi malum ipsum fuisse Spiritum, qui (Luthero) hoc dixerit? Et posito licet malus Spiritus fuisset, non sequitur tamen mox eum mentitum fuisse, quia & vera interdum Diaboli loquuntur, quando dicunt id, cujus Scriptura testis est. So confessedly is that true, which we object against Luther.  
8. As concerning 
[c] Brereley in his Book a part of the Lives of the late pretended Reformers. Cap. 2. Sect. 1.  obedience to the Spiritual Pastors, in behalf of the people he saith, The Governors of Churches, and Pastors of Christ's Sheep, have power indeed to teach, but the Sheep ought to give judgement, etc. Whereof let the Pope, Bishops, and Counsels decree what they please, we will not hinder it, but we who are Christ's Sheep and hear his voice, are to judge whether those things be true which they propound or no, and they ought to give place and subscribe to our censure and judgement, etc. Qui volunt perhiberi rectores Ecclesiarum & pastors ovium Christi, habent quidem potestatem docendi, sed oves debent ferre judicium, utrum illi vocem Christi vel alienorum proponant; ordinent Papa, Episcopi, Concilia, etc. quicquid velint, non impediemus, sed penes nos qui oves Christi sumus, & vocem ejus audimus, erit judicium, utrum vera & consentanea voci pastoris nostri, proponant vel non, ac ipsi nobis cedere, nostrae censurae ac sententiae subscribere & obtemperare debent. Luther tom. 2. Wittemb. fol. 375. a. initio; and next before there, fol. 374. b. fine, he saith: Christus ademit Episcopis, Doctoribus & Conciliis, tum jus, tum potestatem judicandi de doctrina, ac tradit illa omnibus Christianis in genere. Is this the saying of a Sheep, or of a Wolf? Pu. Conformable to this Doctrine is that, which Bellarmine in praefat. de Conciliis & Ecclesia militante, saith of Luther. Igitur Martinus Lutherus, cum fama accepisset, indictum esse Concilium, continuè arrepto ●alamo, librum confecit, atque inscripsit, De Conciliis: credes, ut ageret Deo gratias, & Ecclesiae gratularetur, atque omnes ad Concilium invitaret. Nihil minus; summa enim libri est, nihil esse opus Conciliis, cum etiam vetera illa sanctissima & celeberrima erraverint, & quilibet Parochi & Ludi-Magistri non minus possint in Ecclesia, quàm quaevis maxima & numerosissima Concilia. Orditur à Concilio illo sine controversia antiquissimo & sanctissimo, quod Apostoli Hierosolymis celebraverunt: & quanquam in ●o Concilio Apostoli decreverunt abstinendum esse à sanguine & suffocato, ad has angustias nos redigit, ut vel ab his cibis nos abstineamus, vel apertè fateamur liberum esse Concilio summo ac primo non obedire. Deinde, graviter exponit quanta calamitas esset, non vesci deinceps capreiss, leporibus, cervis, cuniculis, anseribus, turdis, caeterisque aviculis, & quod miserius est abstinere lucanicis, aliisque farciminibus, & jusculis etiam quibusdam, quae non solum pipere condiuntur, sed etiam sanguine (ut ipse loquitur, qui ista benè norat) vel liquido tinguntur, vel crasso, & coagulato infarciuntur. Quia vero tam gravis jactura nullo modo subeunda Luthero esse videbatur, inde effecit, non esse Apostolico decreto obtemperandum. Ex quo rursum ita conclusis; Ergo liberum est nobis omnia concilia relinquere, & sic liberi sumus ab omnibus Concilliis. Praeclare omnino, quasi vero quia non tenemur ea Concilii lege, quae solum ad tempus data fuerat, jam nullis aliis Conciliorum legibus teneamur.  
9 As concerning the 
[d] 〈◊〉 in his Book a●●art of the lives of the late pretended Reformers etc. cap. 2. sect. 13. initio.  souls immortality, Luther was in the end so obstinately bend against Purgatory and Prayer to Saints, that to prevent them he affirmed 
[e] 
Luther tom. 4. Wittem. 1574. in Ecclesiasten c. 9 saith, Solomon sentire videtur mortuos sic dormire ut prorsus nihil sciant: & plane credo non esse in scriptura locum fortiorem pro mortuis dormientibus etc. contra sanctorum invocationem & purgatorii fictionem, fol. 36. b. c●rca med. And see Sleidan 's further report hereof concerning. Luther lib. 9 Anno 1534. fol. 116. a. initio, after the English Translation, but read the Latin.  
Luther tom 4. Wittemb. fol. 37. b. ant med. saith, Sensit ergo Solomon, mortuos omnino dormire, & nihil prorsus sentire, jacent ibi mortui non numerantes Dies vel Annos, etc. Anima abit in locum suum, ut intelligas infernum dici ubi continentur animae, & quasi quoddam sepulchrum animae extra hunc corporalem mundum, sicut terra est sepulchrum corporis.   the Soul to sleep, to this end saying, the dead sleep etc. they altogether sleep and feel nothing, they lie there dead, neither numbering Days, nor Years etc. with much more to this purpose.  
10 As concerning even the most 
[f] Brereley tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13.  blessed and holy Trinity, Luther taught thus far to the contrary, as that the Divinity is threefold, even as the three Persons be etc. And the same so grossly, as he is therein specially confuted by Zuinglius, tom. 2. in resp. ad confess. Lutheri fol. 474. b. fine. saying, Nec enim hunc Lutheri Sermonem immodestius vel ferocius exagitabo, quo, sic inquit, Hic de sola & unica Divinitate dicitur, quod illa triplex vel trium sit generum, quemadmodum & tres personae etc. In quibus verbis gravissimi errores latitant etc. mihi certè cum librum istum, Lutheri, lego, porcum quendam impurum in horto floribus consito fragrantis simis, hinc inde grunnire videre videor, tam impurè, tam parum theologicè, tam impropriè de Deo & sacris omnibus disputat Lutherus etc. And upon this ground perhaps it was, that where the Scripture saith 1 Joh. 5.7. There be three which give witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three be one, This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity, is nevertheless quite omitted by Luther in his Dutch 
[g] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 14.  Bibles. As also he likewise put forth of the 
[h] Vide Enchirid. prec: Anni 1543.  Litanies this verse, Holy Trinity one very God have mercy upon us, affirming that the word 
[i] Luther in postil: majore Basiliae apud Herruagium in enarrat: Evang: Dominicae Trinitatis. And see further Examples of this kind mentioned by Cnoglerus in his Symbola tria pag. 121 & 122. and by Ulembergius in his Graves & justae causae etc. Printed 1589. pag. 534. Where he allegeth Luther 's foresaid words at large, out of the second part of his Postil. printed Anno 1537. fol. 158. b.  Trinity is but a humane invention, and soundeth coldly, and concludeth that his Soul hateth the word Homoousion.  
11 As concerning the 
[k] Luther in lib. contra Jacobum La●omum tom. 2. Wittemb. latinè Edito An. 155●. saith, Anima mea odit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & optimè exegerunt Arriani, ne vocem illam prophanam, & novam regulis sidei statui liceret. We know [saith Brereley here] Luther 's late Editions to be herein altered and corrupted by his Scholars, whereof see the like in this present section 10. subdivis. 2. and more subdivis. 14. at z. a, b, therefore we so specially cite the first Edition.  Author of our Sins, Luther teacheth thus dangerously, saying, in assertionibus damnatis per Leonem Art. 36. 
[l] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2 sect. 10. subdiv. 14.  Quomodo potest sese ad bonum praeparare, cum nec in potestate sit suas vias malas facere. Name & mala opera in impiis Deus operatur, ut prov. 16. dicitur, omnia propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus, etiam impium, ad diem malum. How can Man prepare himself to good, seeing it is not (so much as) in his power to make his ways evil, for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked etc. Thus stand Luther's words in the ancient Editions of his works at Wittemburg and also at Basill 1521. and so recited by Roffensis in his Confutatio assertionis Lutheranae etc. printed at Antwerp 1523. Art. 36. fol. 204. a. fine Whereas in the latter corrupted editions of Wittenberg tom. 2. Anno 1592. fol. 112. a. fine, his Scholars have instead of the word operatur, thrust in regit. And again (ubi supra art. 36.) he saith, Nulli est in manu sua quippiam cogitare mali aut boni, sed omnia (ut Wyccleffi articulus Constantiae damnatus rectè docet) de necessitate absoluta eveniunt, quod & Poëta voluit, quando dixit, Certa stant omnia lege. It is in no man's power to think Good or Evil, but all things (as Wiccliffs article condemned at Constance doth rightly teach) proceed from absolute necessity etc. This saying thus extant in the Editions, and in Roffensis before alleged, are corrupted & altered in the foresaid last Edition of Wittenberg tom. 2, fol. 112. b. fine. Yet more (de servo arbitrio cap. 32) Luther saith, Christiani non libero arbitrio, sed spiritu Dei aguntur. Rom. 8. Agi verè non est agere, sed rapi, quemadmodum serra aut securis à fabro agitur: Et hic ne quis dubitet Lutherum tam absurda dicere, verba ejus recitat Diatribe, quae sane agnosco. Fateor enim articulum illum Wyccleffi (omnia necessitate fieri) esse falso damnatum in Constantiensi Conciliabulo etc. These words of Luther being extant in the Editions of Luther's life time, and so apparently his known words, that they are accordingly verbatim extant in this very Treatise of Luther de servo arbitrio, set forth by that prime Calvinist Jacobus Kimedoncius, and printed 1603 Neustadii in Palatinatu fol. 195. circa med. are yet neverthe less altered and corrupted in Luther's Editions of Wittenberg tom. 2. printed 1562. fol. 455. a. post med. And see Luther's like Doctrine in the foresaid Book de servo arbitrio set forth by Kimedoncius pag. 3●. Much more might be alleged from Luther and his Scholars in this behalf. Brereley in the Omissions of pag. 428. adds. Also Brentius, whom Mr. Jewel in his defence etc. pag. 473. termeth a grave and learned Father, in his Commentary upon Amos, printed Hagonae 1530. with Luther's Preface thereto, in cap. 3. saith of God's secret Will, Omnia à Deo potenti manu & efficaci fiunt, sive mala culpae, sive mala poenae. Deus enim est qui obduravit Pharaonem etc.  
And Luther himself de servo arbitrio saith, Deus indignos coronat, immeritos damnat, quomodo hoc justum sit incomprehensibile est modò, videbimus autem cum illic venerimus. See these words of Luther alleged by the Calvinist writer Mathias Martinius, in his doctrinae Christianae summa capita, etc. Printed 1603 pag. 288. post med. From whom and from their Principles of advancing only Faith, extenuating good works, and other like doctrines, have sprung, as from a Hydra, the late sect of the Libertines, who upon the very foresaid 
[m] It appears by Calvin 's report of their words in tract. Theolog. pag. 540. a. circa med, their chief Reason to be, Cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit, nullum jam boni & mali discrimen esse ha●●dum, sed quicquid agitu●● bonum esse.  grounds and colours (denying nevertheless verbally as Protestants do, God to be the Author of sin, and verbally also requiring integrity of life and manners) have set abroad to the world by their published writings (stored with testimonies of Scriptures) all Epicurism and impure liberty of life. Which point we shall repeat, and say somewhat more of it hereafter in the life of Calvin.  
12. 
[n] Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2 sect. 10. subdivis. 15.  Zuinglius tom. 2. in resp: ad conf: Lutheri, reproveth in Luther his wilful frowardness, or obstinacy, against that which himself conceived for true, or even though it be proved to be against holy Scripture, saying, Lutherus obstinato & devoto animo conceptam semel opinionem persequi & obtinere conatur; nec multum curare solet, quodcunque de re quavis pronunciet, etiamsi vel sibi ipsi, vel divini verbi oraculo contradicere deprehendatur. These words of Zuinglius are also in Schlusselburg in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 122. a. fine. Thus Luther of Communion under both kinds saith (de formula Missae) If the Council should in any case decree this, least of all than would we use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the Council and that Decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, and in no case both. See Luther tom. 3. Germ. fol. 274. And see this saying of Luther alleged and rejected by Hospinian in hist: Sacramentar: part: altera, fol. 13. a. post med. And whereas Mr. Jewel answereth hereunto in his reply against Mr. Harding, pag. 107. post med: that Luther only meant that God's truth should not hang upon the authority of man, to forbear that this is Mr. Jewels device or shift, and no words in all that passage of Luther to explain his meaning for only such; can yet this meaning, though admitted, enable Luther to teach that in despite of the Council we should use either but one kind or neither, which last were directly against Christ's institution? For which cause Hospinian as before, rejecteth this saying of Luther. Of like nature is it where he teacheth (tom. 2. Germ. fol. 214.) that if the Council should grant the Churchmen liberty to marry, he would think that man more in God's grace, who during his life kept three whores, than he who married according to the Counsels decree, and that he would command under pain of damnation, that no man should marry by the permission of such a Council, but should either live chaste, or if it were impossible, than not to despair, though he kept a whore. In like manner he saith in parva confession touching Elevation of the Sacrament, I did know the elevation of the Sarament to be Idolatricall (as making for Sacrifice) yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittenberg, to the end I might despite the devil Carolostadius: Elevationem Sacramenti sciebam esse idolatricam, sed tamen eam retinebam in Templo Wittemburgensi, ut aegrè facerem Diabolo Carolostadio. And see Luther tom. 3. Germ. fol. 55. and in Colloquiis Mensalibus Germ. fol. 210. A Saying and Practice so gross, that Amandus Polanus, Professor at Basill, specially mentioneth and reproveth the same (in Syllogethes. Theolog. pag. 464. ante medium) saying further, ibidem, I will not recite more of Luther 's absurd Say, which are many: Sed nolo plura absurde dicta Lutheri recensere, quae multa sunt, quae tegenda potius quam exagitanda etc. And Hospinian in Hist. Sacramentar. part. altera. fol. 14. a. initio, reciteth this Saying of Luther, terming it, minimè profecto conveniens oratio Christiano Theologo, & magna infirmitas in Luthero: A speech unworthy of a Christian Divine, and showing a great weakness in Luther. Pu. To this may be added, that Luther in his Book of abrogating the private Mass, exhorts the Augustine Friars of Wittenberg who first abrogated the Mass, that even against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he had 
[o] Vide Tanner tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108.  done the like. And Joannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith, Antonius 
[p] In orat. Germ. 12. de Luthero.  Musa the Parish Priest of Rocklitz, recounted to me, that on a time he hearty moaned himself to the Doctor he means Luther that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: and that D. Luther answered; Praise and thanks be to God, that this happens also unto others, for I had thought it had happened only to me 
[q] Pu. Who can believe him who believes not himself? .  
(Pu.) Pause here a little Protestant Reader, and if the salvation of thy Soul be dear to thee in any least measure, consider uprightly with fear and trembling, whether indeed it could be any scruple of conscience, which could move Luther to forsake the whole Church of Christ dispersed over the whole world, when he appeared, seeing he had a conscience large enough to swallow a sin confessed by him 
[r] To be Idolatry, and yet how in the mean time, I cannot say whether more prodigiously or hypocritically to, etc.  to forsake us Catholics even upon pretence of Idolatry. If he could against his conscience leave Carolostadius, one of his own Brethren, expressly and formerly, upon the motive of vexing and despising him, who can wonder if he forsook the Church and Pope of Rome upon passion, rage, and hatred, and not because he found any thing taught by them, which his conscience could not have digested, if his passions had not been stronger than his reason & conscience? So that his revolt was not upon judgement, but envy and passion that John Tecel a Dominican Friar, and not he or some of his Order was appointed to promulgate some Indulgences granted at that time, in so much that we have seen above, how he would have submitted to the Pope, if confessed pride had not hindered him 
[s] Confessing further that he began to Preach against Indulgencies, when (saith he as witnesseth Sleydan l. 16. fol. 232. b. fine) I scarcely understood what the name of Indulgence meant, which are Luther's words in Sleydan l. 13. fol. 177. b. paulò post medium Yea the Ar. etc. . Yea the Arguments in favour of us Catholics against his new course were so many, and of all kinds, and so evident and convincing, that notwithstanding his strong passions, hard heart, and large conscience, (of which we have spoken even now) they forced him to great trembling, perplexity, and remorse of conscience, and to say as himself confesseth (tom. 2. Germ. Gen. fol. 9 b. And tom. 2. Wittenberg: of Anno 1652. lib. de abroganda Missa privata fol. 244. b. ant med.) How often did my trembling heart beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that most strong Argument, Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds err? Were so many ages ignorant? What if thou errest and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? See his like sayings tom. 5 Wittenberg, in Galatas cap. 1. fol. 290 a. versus sinem. And he further saith in an other place tom. 5. Annotat. breviss. Dost thou O sole man, and of no account, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to err, why may he not permit thee to err? Hitherto appertain those Arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councils, the Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men: whom do not these hills of Arguments, these Clouds, yea these Seas of examples overwhelm? And now what trust can Protestants give to their own learned Writers, as well English, as of other Nations, who with shameful flattery, and inexcusable partiality call Luther, 
[t] See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15.  this very man (who was of so large, and yet so desperate and despairing a conscience) Holy Saint Luther (as Gabriel Powel saith of him in his consideration of the Papists supplication pag. 70. prope initium) 
[u] Jewel in his Apology of the Church of England part. 4. c. 4. sect. 2. and in his defence of the Apology Printed 1571● pag. 426. prope finem.  a man sent of God to lighten the world: 
[x] 
See Acts & Monum. pag. 416. a. initio.  
Christus haber primas, habeas tibi Paul, sicundas: At loca post illos proxima Luther habet.   the Helias, Conductor and Chariot of Israel: to be reverenced next after Christ, and Paul: 
[y] Andraeas' Musculus in praefat. ●n libellum Germ. de Diaboli ty●annide.  greater then whom lived not since the Apostles time; 
[z] Schlusselburg Catalogue. heretic. l. 13. & ult. pag. 314. 316. & 489. And Michael Leander in his Theologia Christiana, etc. saith, Lutherus vir Dei fuit, & verè ille A● gelus cum aeterno Evangelio volans per medium Cael, Apocal. 14.  the Angel and last trumpet of God. But woe be to them that call evil good, and good evil, exalting Schismatical and Heretical sinners, and despising true and Orthodox believers and Saints! Worthily therefore doth Brereley end his 15. subdivision in the place cited with this exclamation. O sin and most hateful sin of former Catholic times, which (in God's just Judgement) made the world (for the time) subject to such efficacy of error (2 Thessal. 2.) and gross illusion.  
14. We have seen above Luther's shameless words and works concerning Chastity. Let us now say something of his Charity. And (not to repeat that he would rather offend God most grievously even by Idolatry, than not to vex and despite Carolostadius, as 
[b] Brerely tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 10.  concerning the implacable contentions between him and the Zwinglians or Calvinists, to whom our English Divines adhere, and how they disclaimed each one an other, Luther expresseth, saying: (contra Articulos Lovanienses thes. 27. tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 503.) We censure in earnest the Zwinglians and all the Sacramentaries for Heretics, and alienated from the Church of God. And in Epistola ad Jacobum Presbyterum he saith, Beatus vir, qui non abiit in Concilio Sacramentariorum, nec stetit in via Zuinglianorum, nec sedit in Cathedra Tigurinorum. Habes quid sentiam. Blessed is the man, who hath not gone in the Council of Sacramentaries, nor stood in the way of Zwinglians, nor sat in the Chair of the Tigurines. And (tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 381. b. & 382. b.) I do protest before God and the world, that I do not agree with them, nor ever will while the world standeth, but will have my hands clear from the blood of those Sheep, which these Heretics do drive from Christ, deceive, and kill. And again in the same place, Cursed be the Charity and Concord of Sacramentaries for ever and ever to all Eternity. And a little before his death he protesteth saying: 
[c] Luther de Caena Domini tom. 2. Germ. fol. 174. And see this also reported by the Tigurine Divines in confess. Orthodox. Ecclesiae Tigur. tract. 3. fol. 108. And Luther come. 3. Germ. fol. 264. calleth them persons condemned in their own knowledge, with whom he will have no intercourse neither by letters, writings, or words.  I have now one of my feet in the Grave, I will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunal of God, that I will with all my heart condemn and eschew Carolostadius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and their Scholars, nor will have with any of them familiarity, neither by letters or writings, neither by words nor deeds, accordingly as the Lord hath commanded: with infinite much more to the same effect. To make this more evident as yet, by the like answerable testimonies of the Zwinglians and Calvinists, the Tigurine Divines say hereof; 
[d] Tigurini tract. 3. contra-supremam Luthe●i confessionem pag. 61. And the Author of the Treatise against the defence of the censure, doth hereupon charge Luther with breath of all Christian modesty, and immoderate zeal. pag. 155. circa med. even far beyond the bounds of Charity and modesty pag. 101. ante med.  Nos condemnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam, etc. Luther calleth us a damnable and execrable sect, but let him look that he do not declare himself an Arch-hereticke, seeing he will not, nor cannot have any society with those that confess Christ: But how marvellously doth Luther here bewray himself with his Devils? what filthy words doth he use, and such as are replenished with all the Devils in hell? For be saith, that the Devil dwelleth both now and ever in the Zwinglians, and that they have a blasphemous breast, insathanized, superthanized, and persathanized, and that they have besides a most vain mouth, over which Satan beareth rule, being infused, perfused, and transfused into the same. Did ever man hear such speeches as these pass from a furious Devil himself? In so much as Zuinglius (tom. 2. in resp. ad confessionem Lutheri fol. 478) saith, En ut totum istum hominem Satan occupare conetur! Behold how Satan doth endeavour wholly to possess this man. And Oecolampadius (in responsione ad confess: Lutheri) accordingly forewarneth Luther, lest that being puffed up by arrogancy and pride he be seduced by Satan. And the Tigurine Divines (in confession Germanica impressa Tiguri Anno 1544. in Octavo fol. 3.) say, Superioribus diebus edidit Martinus Lutherus librum, quem inscripsit (Brevis confessio de Sacr amento) in quo non obscurè pro Haereticis Sacramentariis & sceleratissimis hominibus, habet & condemnat Oecolampadium, Zuinglium, & omnes Tigurinos': liber plenus est daemoniis, plenus impudicis dicteriis, scatet iracundia & furore, etc.  
15. Concerning his 
[e] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subdivis. 2.  pride, wherewith he was so vainly conceited, that he imagined himself to be the only one of mortal men whom Satan foresaw to be hurtful to him, saying, (loc. come. class. 4. pag. 50. circa medium:) Videtur mihi Satanas à pueritia mea aliquid in me praevidisse eorum, quae nunc patitur, ideo ad perdendum, ad impediendumque me insanivit incredibilibus machinis, ut saepius fuerim admiratus, egone solus essem inter mortales quem peteret: as if Religion had been to begin and die with him, and accordingly he saith (in Epist. ad Argentinenses Anno 1525.) Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari, We dare glory Christ to have been first made known by us: and (in loc. come. class. 2. pag. 83. post med.) he saith, Nobis adhuc viventibus, etc. perpauci sunt etiam inter illos, qui pii videri volunt, & nobiscum profitentur Evangelium, qui ista reotè teneant. Quid futurum putatis nobis ablatis? And (class. 5. pag. 40. initio) he further saith, Timeo quod ista doctrina nobis extinctis iterum obscur abitur. And (ibidem class. 5. pag. 40. post med.) he further saith, Si nostra Ecclesia pulcherrimè instituta, etc. sic subverteretur, ut me amplius Doctorem suum agnoscere non vellet, id quod aliquando fiet, si non viventibus nobis, tamen sublatis nobis, etc. And ibidem pag. 43. paulo post med. Erit fortè tempus, ut & mihi liceat dicere, Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in ista nocte. And again a little after there, Quantum sectarnm excitavit Satan nobis viventibus, & c? quid futurum est nobis mortuis? And ibidem class. 2. pag. 53. post med. he saith, Legis usus, ut timeo, post tempora nostra iterum obscurabitur, & prorsùs obruetur. The Reader will sinned more of Luther's intolerable pride and testimonies thereof out of Protestants above in his contemning the holy Fathers, and all Antiquity; and in his impugning Magistracy, and railing against Princes and States.  
16. Concerning the 
[f] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 1.  success and preservation of Christian profession in general, he affirmed and taught (to the great danger thereof) that to War against the Turk was to resist God visiting our sins by them; (Luther tom. 2. Wittenberg. in assertionib. damnatis per Leonem decimum Art. 34. fol. 110. which was, Praeliari adversus Turcas est repugnare visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos.) And in explicat. Articuli 34. fol. 111. a. he saith among other defensions thereof, Sicut Michaeas qui & ipse odiosus erat, quia non prophetabat nisi malum, dicam & ipse meo Achab, ite, praeliamini contra Turcas, ut resistatis virgae Dei, & cadatis sicut & Achab cecidit; which saying of Luther argued so evidently the indisposition of his mind to the avail of Christians against the Turk, That M. Harvey in his Theological discourse, etc. p. 115. a. initio saith thereof, The Gospel is dispersed in most parts of the earth, as much and more than the Alcoran, howsoever Luther in a furious imitation of Michaeas, hath rapt out the contrary, as if he desired rather the name of a Prophet among Infidels, than of a friend to Christians. And further Luther in Epistola contra duo mandata Imperialia saith, Oro cunctos pios Christianos, nè ullo modo sequantur, vel in militiam ire velint, vel dare aliquid contra Turcas, quandoquidem Turca decies prudentior probiorque est, quàm Principes nostri. See also tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 419. b. And Luther in confut. determine. Doctorum Paris. impress. Noriberg. 1525. saith, ut liberè animum meum aperiam, hoc apertè de me praedico, quod tam invitus Turcam gladio impeterem, quàm Christianum fratrem: the which said opinion (that to War against the Turk was to resist God visiting our sins) he did also afterwards more at large defend, conclucluding and saying (in explicat. Art. 34. prope finem:) He that ears to hear let him hear, and abstain from the Turkish Wars whiles the Pope's name prevaileth under Heaven: I have said. And hereof see the Treatise against the defence of the censure pag. 230. ante med. & 231. initi●. And Luther in his Book de bello contra Turcas affirmeth, that the Devil by God's permission did govern and hinder the Counsels and Assemblies of the Princes of Germany, for no other cause, but that his Article of not warring against the Turk might remain in force and uncondemned. And whereas a Protestant Writer (in his Apology of the Professors of the Gospel, etc. against Peter Frareins pag. 31. initio) doth excuse all this as meant of those Christians which were under the Turks dominion: it is so directly against the scope and circumstance of Luther's words (his former mention of resisting Gods visiting us by the Turk, and likewise of the Princes of Germany, and the whole passage of his Treatise made thereof at large, avoiding this answer, in so much as the Author of the defence of the Censure pag. 231. laboureth to excuse Luther otherwise) which also are in some places as sounding to dissuade us from making fortifications against the Turk, that 
[g] Roffensis in confut. Assert. Luther. Printed 1523. art. 34.  Roffensis did therefore write specially against this his foresaid Doctrine, at large reciting and confuting his reasons. The words of Luther are, Impia et inanis fiducia est in munitionibus, vallis, bombardis, et si quande Deo ita fuerit visum, ut Turca grassetur in Germaniam, non tuebuntur nos aggeres isti, etc. quando genua flectimus et clamamus ad Creatorem nostrum, is poterit igneos muros nobis circundare: ego odi molem istam vallorum et munitionum, quia nihil aliud est quam perditio pecuniae, et ostentatio extremae stultitiae: id potius agendum est, ut firmiter statuamus, nos esse in manu Creatoris, et non tantum nos sed etiam hostes et Diabolos, etc. Thus adviseth he, that neglecting ordinary means, we should, with out respect thereto, depend immediately upon miraculous help from God: see these words in Luther, loc. come. class. 4. pag. 84. And ubi supra class. 5. pag. 142. circa med. it is said, Dissuadet (Lutherus) bellum Turcicum, nec in veteri nec in novo Testamento ullum gestum est bellum humanis viribus, nisi semper infelici eventu: si quid autem recte cessit, de coelo fuit bellatum, etc. Which foresaid Doctrine of Luther was also so known and 
[h] See hereof Belforest: in Cosmogra. l. 2. cap. 7. col. 579  grateful to the Turk, that (as Luther's own Scholar reporteth) 
[i] Manlius in loc. come. pag. 636. fine.  the Turkish Emperor (to the great shame of Luther) hearing hereof, demanded of our Christian Ambassador how old Luther was, and wished him younger, promising to be his very good Lord. And the Duke of Saxony (a Professor of Luther's Doctrine) was accordingly holden chargeable, as 
[k] Hereof see Sleydan l. 18. fol. 277. ante medium.  being confederate with the Turk. In so much as Erasmus (whom our adversaries think to have been 
[l] Acts Mon. pag. 404. a. fine.  indifferently affected towards Luther) saith hereof (in Epistola ad Fratres inferiores Germaniae pag. 39) Many of the Saxons following that first Doctrine of Luher, denied to Caesar and King Ferdinand aid against the Turks, etc. and said they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptised, then for a Turk Baptised, thereby meaning the Emperor. Whereunto might be added the further example of the Germane Protestants 
[m] See this in Sleydan l. 17. fol. 94. b. prope initium. and fol. 95 a. post mediunt. and in Osiander centur. 16 pag. 193. circa medium.  denying their Emperor to give aid against the Turk, unelss their own conditions were first agreed to.  
17. Concerning the 
[n] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2.  Canonical Scriptures, if it be true which M. Fulk saith (in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 214. circa med.) that whosoever denyeth the authority of holy Scriptures, thereby bewrayeth himself to be an Heretic, what is then to be thought of Luther, who denied sundry confessed parts thereof? Concerning the Apocalypse, Bullinger (upon the Apocalypse Englished c. 1. serm. 1 fol. 2. a. post med.) giveth testimony saying, Doctor Martin Luther hath as it were sticked this Book by a sharp Preface set before his Edition of the New Testament in Dutch, for which his judgement good and learned men were offended with him. And concerning the Epistle of St. James, Luther not in the latter edition of 
[n] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2.  Wittenberg corrupted by the Zwinglians and others, (of which alteration made in Luther's works the zealous Lutherans in a Synod holden at 
[o] For Theodosius Fabricius in his collections of Luther's say, entitled loci communes Doctoris Martini, etc. Printed 1594. in his Preface circa med. set before the book, professeth there to follow the Edition of Jena, saying there further: Cur ab iditione Wittembergensi discedam, causas habeo non comtemnendas. As in like manner Master Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline, pag. 225. chargeth the Puritans with like corruption of other Protestants works.  Altemburg and 
[p] Col●oqui Altemberg. in respon. ad excusa Cor. fol. 227. & vide 2. respons. ad Hypoth. ● fol. 284. add fol. 290. & fol. 353. & 355. & vide ibidem Hypotheses de libero ar●trio fol. 574. b. & 575. a. And Conradus Schlusseburg in his Theologia Calvi●istarum l. 2. fol. 56. b. chargeth the Calvinists with alteration of Luther's Works.  
[q] Of the great contentions is Germany between the rigid and soft Lutherans concerning the false and corrupt editions of Luther's works, See Walterus contra Aurifabrum de corrupta editione Operum Lutheri Anno 1566. And see further proof of Luther's works corrupted, in the defence of the censure pag. 55. And see Brereley in the conclusion to the Judge's sect. 9 and in the margin at d. Of this corrupting Luther's Works see also above.  elsewhere, do greatly complain: as also Joachim 
[r] Westphalus Apol. contra Calvinist. c. 46. pag. 458. And Luther himself in Epist. ad Jo. Harvagium Typographum Argentinensem ●hargeth Bucer with corrupting his works  Westphalus. a Lutheran doth in like manner charge Calvin with most foul mutations and corruptions made in certain of Luther's Works translated into French, and Printed at Geneva) but in the more ancient edition of Jena (a City in Religion Lutheran) uttereth these words, which some of our adversaries (to speak the least) have no less than over boldly 
[s] Overboldly denied in the Tower disputation with Edmund Campian the first days conference. c.iiii Luther praefat. in Epist. Jacobi in editione Jenensi fine.  denied: The Epistle of James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical Spirit. In so much as Illyricus (Luther's own Scholar) whom Mr. Thomas Bell termeth a 
[t] Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 28. See Pomeran. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 4. And Vitus Theodorus in Annot. in nov. Test. pag. ult. And the Century writers of Magdeburg cent. ●. l. 2. c. 4 & cent. 2. l. 3. c. 4. And Hafferefferus in loc. Theologic. l. 3. sta●. 3. loc. 7. pag. 292. And Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theol. pag. 488. saith, Apoc●aphi libri novi Testamenti, sunt Epistola ad Haebreos, Epistola Jacobi, secunda & tertia Joannis, posterior Petri, Epistola Judae & Apocalyp.  very famous Writer and most worthy defender of the Christian truth, expresseth and defendeth Luther's foresaid judgement, saying, Luther in his Preface upon St. James Epistle, giveth great reasons why this Epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of Apostolical authority; to which reasons I think every godly man ought to yield. Which foresaid judgement of Luther concerning this and other parts of the new Testament is yet to this day so continued and defended by Luther's other Scholars that (to omit sundry of them) Chemnitius (Luther's greatest Scholar) affirmeth that 
[u] Chem●itius in Enchyrid, etc. pag. 63. And see Chemnitius in his examen. Concil. Trident. part. 1. pag. 55.  the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Judas, and the Apocalypse of John are Apocryphal, 
[x] Chemnitius exam. part. 1. pag. 56. b. initio.  as not having sufficient testimony of their authority: and therefore 
[y] Chemnitius ibidem p. 57 a.  that nothing in controversy may be proved out of these Books. Moreover Luther lib de servo arbitrio contra Erasmum tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 471.) saith, The Jews place the Book of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be Judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon. Protestants, when they will exclude from the Canon Books received by Catholics, they allege, that they are not in Hebrew; and yet Luther likes not Esther, though he confesseth the Hebrews admit it. And of Ecclesiastes he saith (in latinis sermonibus convivalibus Francofurt. in Octavo impres. Anno 1571.) This Book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants Boots and Spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery. And much more is to be read in him: who (in Germ. Colloq. ab Aurifabro editis Francofurti tit. de libris veteris & Novi Test. fol. 379.) saith further, that the said Book was not written by Solomon, but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the Jews Bible) out of many Books heaped into one Work, perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus. And further he saith ibidem tit. de Patriarchis & Prophet. fol 28. that he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down. And teacheth tit. de lib. vet. & Novi Test. The Book of Job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Comedy) to set before us an example of Patience. And he (fol. 380.) delivers this general censure of the Prophet's Books: The Sermons of no Prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their Disciples, and Auditors, snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one Book, and by this means the Bible was conserved. If this were so, the Books of the Prophets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soon be called in question. Concerning now the other Books of Scripture, although Luther acknowledged many of them for Canonical, how far yet he was chargeable otherwise in mistranslating them, we will refer to the credit of Zuinglius his testimony, who (tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacrament. pag. 412. b. 413. a.) saith hereof to Luther: Thou dost corrupt (Luther) the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scriptures, how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man. And see the like testimony of Keckermannus in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. initio at b. saying (in System. S. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188. circa medium) Lutheri versio Germanic. in vet. Test. praesertim in Job & Prophetis, naevos suos habet non exiguos. Omitting many other particulars, we will here observe, that whereas it is said 1 Joan. 5.7. There are three which give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity, is omitted by Luther in his Dutch Bibles. In like manner where it is said Rom. 3.28. We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law, Luther, to colour his doctrine of only faith, translateth here justified by faith alone; and being admonished of his thus adding here to the text the word alone, he persisteth wilful, saying tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. & 144. Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas etc. Lutherus ita vult, & ait se esse Doctorem super omnes Doctores in toto Papatu. And concludeth lastly, Propterea debet (vox sola) in meo novo Testamento manere, etiamsi omnes Papismi ad insaniam reducantur, tamen non eam inde tollent: paenitet me quod non addiderim & illas duas voces, omnibus & omnium viz. Sine omnibus operibus omnium legum. (Pu. Mark his boldness to addo even to the text of holy Scripture.) In like manner Luther doubteth not to argue the Apostles themselves of error in doctrine, which is to the great prejudice and danger of their writings (for if they did or might err in Doctrine, how then can we be sure that they were the Scribes of the holy Ghost, and that their writings be Canonical and void of error? To this end Luther saith (in Epist. ad Galat. Cap. 1. after the English translation fol. 33. b. paulo post med. and 34. a. initio, & tom. 5. Wittenberg. of An. 1554. fol. 290. b.) Be it that the Church, Austin, and other Doctors, also Peter, Apollo, yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise, yet is my Doctrine such, as setteth forth God's only Glory, etc. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God. And in the same place fol. 290. a. fine, he further saith, Sive S. Cyprianus, Ambrose, Augustinus, five S. Petrus, Paulus, imò Angelus è Coelo aliter doceat, tamen hoc certè scio, quòd humana non suadeo, sed Divina. Yet further against St. James his mentioning of extreme Unction he saith de captivit. Babylon. (de extrema Unctione in tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 86. h. ant med.) Ego autemdico, si uspi am deliratum est, etc. tamen si etiam esses Epistola Jacobi dicerem non licere Apostolum sua authoritate Sacramentum instituere. etc. Hoc enim ad Christum solum pertinebat. I further say, that if in any place it be erred (Pu●or be done like a man doting or raving) in this place especially it is erred, etc. (or done like one doting or raving) but though this were the Epistle of James I would answer, that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority to institute a Sacrament. For this appertained to Christ alone. As though that blessed Apostle would publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ. In like manner concerning Moses he saith (tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psalmum 45 fol. 423. a. & vide ibidem fol. 422. and tom. 3. Germ. fol. 40.41. & in Colloq. Mens. Germ. fol. 152.153.) Habuit Moses labia, sed profunda, infacunda, impedita, irata, in quibus non est verbum gratiae sed irae, mortis & peccati: colligite omnes sapientias Moysis, Gentium & Philosophorum, & invenietis eas coram Deo esse vel dolatriam, vel sapientiam hypocriticam, vel si est politica sapientiam irae, etc. Ha●et enim Moyses labia diffusa fellè & ira, etc. Moses hath his lips unpleasant, stopped, and angry, etc. Do you collect together all the wisdoms of Moses and of the Heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God either idolatry, or hypocritical wisdom, or if it be politic (yet but) the wisdom of wrath, etc. Moses hath his lips full of Gall and anger, etc. away therefore with Moses, etc.  
18. As concerning 
[a] Brerely tract. 2 cap. 2. s●ct. 10. subdivis. 3.  faith, Luther reproveth as well such Protestants as say, 
[b] Luther upon the Galathians Englished, in cap. 2. fol. 67. u. post med.  Neither can faith be true faith without charity, as also those others who teach, 
[c] Luther ibidem fol. 67. circa med.  though my faith be never so perfect, yet if this faith be without charity, I am not justified, calling it 
[d] Luther ibid. fol. 68 b. prope finem, & fol. 126. b. And see Luther in his Sermons Englished, etc. pag. 204. circa. med.  impiety to affirm, that faith except it be adorned with charity, justifyeth not. Nay he proceeded so far, as he doubted not to say: 
[e] Luther tom. 1. prop. 3.  Fides nisi sit sine, etc. Faith unless it be without even the least good works, doth not justify, nay it is no faith. Which saying of his D. Covell specially acknowledgeth and reciteth, terming it 
[f] Covell in his defence of hooker's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 42. ante med.  harsh, and justly called in question by the Church of Rome. He also further taught, that 
[g] Luther tom. 2. Wittenberg. de captivit. Babylon. fol. 74. and see further hereof in the Treatise against the defence of the censure. p. 198.  a Christian or Baptised person is so rich, that although he would he cannot lose his salvation by any sin how great soever, unless he will not believe. Whereof he giveth this reason elsewhere, saying, As nothing justifyeth but faith, so nothing sinneth but unbelief. (Luther in loc. come. etc. class. 5. c. 27. pag. 68 initio, and in 2. part. Postill. Germ. Printed Argentorati Anno 1537. fol. 140. b.) he saith, No sin is so great which can condemn a man: for only infidelity condemneth all men that are condemned, and on the contrary only faith maketh all men blessed.  
19 As concerning 
[h] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 4.  good Works, Luther teacheth (in his Sermons Englished, etc. pag. 147. antemed.) that works take their goodness of the worker, and (pag. 278.) that no work is disallowed of God, unless the Author thereof be disallowed before, saying thereof further, such a one worketh nothing but good works, neither can it be but good, which he being good before shall do. And as concerning the necessity of good works affirmed against him by English Protestants, (as Willet, Whitaker, etc. whereof see Brereley pag. 392. 1.) it is so far disclaimed in by him and his followers, that they deny 
[i] Illyricus in praefat. ad Rom. & vide Schlusselburg in Catalogue. Haereticorum l. 13. & ult. pag: 819. circa med.  good works to be so much as (causa sine qua non) of salvation, affirming the controversy with the 
[k] Illyricus in praefat. ad Rom. And see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. b. and 231.324.382. and 352.  Papists to be (not only) whether good works do justify, but also whether they be in any respect necessary to salvation. Which last position, they call 
[l] Illyricus ubi supra.  a Papistical error, terming it the 
[m] Illyricus ibidem.  Doctrine of the new Papists, as pernicious as the old, to say (as English Protestants do) that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious and causes efficient. They will not in the point of our justification grant 
[n] Schlusselburg in Catalogue: H●ereticorum l. 13. in Epist. dedicatoria pag. 22. paulò post med.  good works to be necessary (necessitate praesentiae) so much as with necessity of presence, condemning their brethren's contrary Doctrine for 
[o] Illyricus de originali just tia ac injustitia in appendice pag. 163.  worse than is the Papists Doctrine: and they fortify themselves herein with the testimony of 
[o] See Luther's sayings alleged in Acts Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 8. circa. med and in Illyricus in praefat. ad Rom.  Luther, and have proceeded so far against all necessity of good works, that some of them (as namely Amsdorphius a Protestant Divine of great 
[q] Dresserus in Millenario Sexto Printed 1598. pag. 187. post med. saith, Nicholaus Amsdorphius Wittemb●rgae primum cum Luthero & Phil●ppo Theolog●ae stadia coluit, postea Episcopatui Numburgico à Frederico Electore praefectus est, & à Luthero inauguratus: (Pu. Consecrated Bishop by Luther who was no Bishop.) And Luther come. 2. Wittenberg: writeth to him, specially terming him, Optime Vir, fol. 487. initio. And in libro Concordiae bound in quatto, Lipsiae, 1581. pag. 72. ante med it is said, is inter caetera fecit mentionem Nicholai Amsdorphii, de quo Lutherus d●xisser Spiritus meus requiescet in Amsdorphio, & Wellerus, Nemo tantum hausit de Spiritu Lutheri ac Ams●orphius. And see yet the very same affirmed of Luther and Wellerus concerning Amsdorphius, by Chemnitius, alleged by Hospinian in his Concord. discor. Printed 1607. fol. 102. b. fine.  note, and by Luther much esteemed) doubt not to affirm, that 
[r] Hereof see Acta Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 120. Sect. 11. initio; & pag 443. paulo post initium, & pag. 293. paulo ante medium. And see Nicholaus Amsdorphius special Book of this argument, entitled: Quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem.  good works are not only not necessary to salvation, but also hurtful to it; 
[s] Vide Acta Colloq. Aldeburg: pag. 205. post med. fi●e.  alleging Luther in proof of this opinion, 
[t] Ibidem pag. 293. paulo ante med. it is said, Scripsit Amsdorphius, & post eum, vel per eum Flaccius, non solum non necessaria, sed & perniciosa esse opera ad salutem, & pag. 120. sect. 11 it is said: Hanc detestandam propositionem Amsdorphii, quam & Flaccius approbat, & editis scriptis propugnat, quod bona opera non solum non sunt necessaria, sed etiam perniciosa ad salutem, etc. Amsdorphius in suo libro ●. 4. Flaccius in Annotatione super repet. Major.  the which Illyricus (whom Mr. Bell in his Regiment of the Church pag. 25. fine termeth a very famous Writer, and most worthy defender of the Christian truth) doth allow and defend by public writing: And all this so grossly and intolerably, that sundry other Protestant Writers, who acknowledge Amsdorphius 
[u] Amsdorphius plae memoriae, so called ibidem pag. 206. circa medium.  for a man. (otherwise) of godly memory, do yet nevertheless in this profess 
[x] Ibid. pag. 205. fine, & 206. nitio, it is said hereof, Nos quidem ipsos (Lutherum & Amidorphium) inter se committimus, hanc proposit●onem non usurpaturi. And Osiander in Epitome. Hist. Eccles. centur. 16. pag. 609. saith, Nicholaus Amsdorphius, Theologus Lutheranus, dum falsam D. Maioris propositionem de necessitate bonorum operum ad salutem evertere conatur, in alterum extremum impegit, & defendere conatus est hanc absurdam propositionem; Bona opera ad salutem esse perniciosa.  to leave both him and Luther to themselves. Which foresaid extenuating of good works, is yet nevertheless so grateful to some of the Calvinists, that their blessed 
[y] So is he termed by D. Bulkley in his Apology for Religion, etc. pag. 46. initio.  man of God, and constant Martyr of Jesus Christ, Master tindal, so greatly by them yet otherwise 
[z] Commended Acts Mon. pag. 514. b. fine & 515. a. 519. initio & 521. b. initio.  commended, was so careful to prevent all merit of good works, that in his Book entitled the wicked 
[a] That Tindal was the Author of this Book; see Act. mon. pag. 573. b. prope finem, & 486. a. initio & b. post med  Mammon,. he doubteth not to affirm, that 
[b] Act. Mon: pag. 486. b. fine.  Christ with all his works did not deserve Heaven. Which sentence their Martyr John Teuxbury defendeth for 
[c] Act mon. ibidem.  plain enough and 
[d] Act Mon. pag. 487. b. pau●o post med.  true as it lieth to omit that Calvin himself condemneth this Doctrine of Christ's meriting to himself, though expressed in Scripture, 
[e] Calvin. Institut. l. 2. c. 17. sect. 6. saith, Quaerere an sibi meruerit Christus, non minus stulta est curiositas, quam teme●a● a definitio. And a little after: Quibus enim meritis affequi po●uit homo, ut j●dex esset ●●undi, caput Angelorum? And see further Calvin in Epistolas Pauli in Philip. 2 ver. 9 pag. 466. b & 467. a. in so much that in his Books of Institutions l. 2. c. 17. sect. 1. He saith against Christ's meriting for us: Equidem fateor, si quis simpliciter, & per se Christum apponere vellet judicio Dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperietur in human dignitas, quae possit Deum promereri.  for a foolish curiosity, and rash opinion) the said tindal was so much bend against all opinion of Good Works, that he affirmed and taught, that as concerning 
[f] Acts Monu. pag. 488. a. initio.  the preaching of the Work, and washing of dishes, there is no difference as touching to please God. Which saying (as their foresaid Martyr Teuxbury affirmeth) is a 
[g] Acts Mon. pag. 488. a. initio.  plain Text, as needing no further explication, and that as for pleasing God (saith he) all is one; for, saith tindal, 
[h] Acts Mon. pag. 1336. a. ant med.  there is no work better than other as touching to please God; to make water, to wash dishes, to be a souter or an Apostle, all is one to please God.  
20 Having at length written out what Brereley delivers concerning Luther's Doctrine and Manners, 
[i] Finally we may conclude the life of Luther with the words of Erasmus [a man highly esteemed by Protestants] writing to Luther Anno 1526 11. Aprilis in these words: Optarem tibi meliorem mentem, nisi tua tibi tam valde placeret. Mihi optabis quod voles, modo ne tuam mentem, nisi tibi Dominus istam mutaverit.  taking his proofs from witnesses above all exception, that is, from his own words, and the writings of Protestants themselves, as I could not without a deep sense of grief reflect how many have been, and are yet deceived in that unhappy man, whom they conceive to have been sent by God to the World, for Reformation thereof, so now in order to the help of persons so seduced, I must beg of them to ponder well these ensuing Reflections.  
First, as for his Doctrine, whether they can acknowledge him for their Father, or Brother, or a Protestant in any degree, who taught Doctrines so wicked, Carnal, Absurd, Temporising, Inconstant, Seditious and Blasphemous, as both Protestants and Catholics, and all Christians, yea and all men of common Reason and human Civility must abhor and detest; whether I say, this man can be said to have been of the Protestant Religion, and consequently that their Church remained without any being no less after than before Luther appeared.  
Secondly, For his Life and Manners, by his own Confession, and the Testimony of Protestants (after he undertook to reform the whole Church of God) they grew to be so abominable and shameless, as we may well judge that God Almighty out of his Wildome, Goodness, and Justice, permitted him to fall so openly and shamefully, that whosover did follow his Doctrine should become inexcusable, it being a thing very evident, that men chosen by the Holy Ghost to enlighten and reform others, are first to be freed from intolerable Errors in their Understanding, and Viciousness in their Will, and not to fail notoriously in both, even upon their very beginning that pretended great work, having before led a commendable life as Luther did, which cannot but manifest to the World, that his pretended Reformation could not proceed from God, but from that Enemy, who perpetually seeks whom he may devour. And although all the followers of Luther were inexcusable in adhering to such a man, against the whole Church of God united in Peace and Union, for as much as concerned Faith and Religion; yet they who persevere still to embrace and pursue such a Reformation are less excusable, than they who followed him in the beginning, when men came to the knowledge of his Vices and abominable Errors in Faith, not all at once but by degrees, as he day by day profited to the worse; whereas now every one may at one view see his Vices and Heresies put together, published and acknowledged by his own confession, and the confession of Protestants themselves. When the Holy Ghost moves us to some work, he doth it suaviter & fortiter, with Sweetness and Efficacy, inspiring Constancy, Perseverance, Meekness, Humility, and Satisfaction to the Soul, according to that of the Apostle, The Gifts of God are without Repentance; Whereas we have seen that Luther confessed himself to have opposed Indulgences, when he knew not what the name meant, and would have renounced his reforming the World, if for sooth he might have done it with his credit, and wished that he never had begun that business (in Coll. mensal.) affirming further, that he fell Into those troubles casually, and against his will; Casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi Deum ipsum testor; not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change, which might happen. Act. Mon. pag. 404. whereby it appears that Luther was moved by Ambition, Pride, Lust and Envy, and not led by any true desire of Reformation, which if he judged to be aecessary, what a huge wickedness was it in him to promise silence if his Adversaries would do the like? or to submit himself to the Pope, so that he might not be compelled to Recant? or if the Reformation were not necessary (as certainly the Church can never need Reformation for matters of Faith) how can he, and they who follow him, be excused from damnable Schism and Heresy? And accordingly it is no wonder if he fell into that deep sense of remorse and perplexity of Soul, so far as to wish his Books were all abolished, as we have seen above. It is also reported, Oecolampadium à Landgravio privatim admonitum de perspicuitate ac certitudine verborum Christi, cum gemitu respondisse, optare se dextram sibi fuisse praecisam, antequam de hac Controversia scribere quicquam ordiretur. But let us now with Brereley go on to other chief Protestants.   

Of Jacobus Andreas.  
21 AS concerning 
[k] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 sudivis. 2.  Jacobus Andrea's (the prime Lutheran of this age, and the greatest enlarger of Luther's Doctrine, and Chancellor of the University of jubinge) no less honoured and famous in Germany, than ever was Calvin or Beza at Geneva, The Protestant writer Hospinianus discoursing briefly of his life from testimony of the learned Lutherans, allegeth them charging him, that he had no God except Mammon and Bacchus; that he never prayed neither going to Bed nor rising from thence; that in the residue of his life he shown no spark of Godliness, but great lightness in his words, deeds and Counsels. Thus Hospinian in Hist. Sacrament. part. 2. fol. 389. b. initio, saith, Nicolaus Seluecerus de ipso saepe coram multis bonis sideque dignis viris dixisse fertur, quod nullum omninò habeat Deum, si Mammonem & Bacchum excipias. Nam se nunquam audivisse vel conjectura aliqua saltem animadvertere potuisse (toto illo tempore quo venalem ubiquitatem circumvexerunt) quod vel cubitum iturus, vel de lectu surrecturus, aut or ationem Dominicam recitaverit, aut ullum Dei mentionem fecerit, In reliqua vero vita, dictis, factis, Consiliis, nullam pietatis scintillam, summam vero levitatem semper deprehendisse. And Hospinian, ibidem fol. 389. b. versus finem, allegeth further Sturmius a Calvinist, charging him with the crim of Covetousness, Adultery, robbing of the Poor, and Sacrilege. For he allegeth the words of Sturmius to be of Jacobus Andreas as followeth. Virgae furibus inventae sunt contra avaritiae crimen, & lapidationes adulteris, si ab his duobus criminibus Jacobus Andreas solutus est, non est quod metuat: ego facilè fero quod celatum est occultum esse, neque ipsum scrutor etc. quid secum divitiarum è Saxonia & Misnia abstulit, scio id pauperum esse debere, & ad pauperum fiscum redigi, & illorum esse debitam mercedem, quos è suis muneribus una cum uxoribus ejecit, & tam magnum esse ipsius Sacrilegium etc. And ibidem fol. 389. b. paulo post initium, he allegeth Seluecerus and the other Lutheran Writer Andrea's Musculus, terming him, erronem, levissimum scurram, qui ut ex dictis & factis ejus cognoscatur, neque Religionem, neque Conscientiam ullam habeat etc. And yet further there fol. 389. a. 
[l] Apud Bre●eley in his book a part of the late pretended Reformers cap. 3. sect. 7. fine.  Insomuch as Lavather, a learned Adversary, confesseth and writeth for news unto Zanchius, how that this 
[m] In Zanchius his Epistles printed: 609. lib. 2. pag. 340. Lavather writeth to Zanchius saying, Schmidelinum (alias Jacobum Andream) fertur apud nos in adulterio cum Ancilla deprehensum, magnum odium etc. incur●isse etc.  Andreas was taken in public Adultery, reciting withal, 
[n] Ibidem paulo post.  certain Verses thereupon then made thereof, by the Calvinists.   

Of Zuinglius.  
22 NOt to repeat what we said above of Luther's opinion concerning 
[o] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subdivis. 3.  Zuinglius; To give some taste both of his carnal Disposition and Doctrine, and the same from no other testimony than taken from his own alleged writings, it is thereby manifest, that 
[o] The direction or title of this writing is, Pietate & Prudentia insigni Helvetiorum Reipub: Huldericus Zuinglius aliique Evangelicae doctrinae Ministri gratiam & pacem à Deo etc. in tom. 1. fol. 110. a. in itio.  Zuinglius and certain other Ministers of the Evangelicall Doctrine, who joined with him in the Admonition to the Helvetian Commonwealth, after some undertaking, 
[q] Zuinglius ibidem fol. 113. post med.  to impart to it the Evangelical Doctrine, for which they take it grievously to be called 
[r] Cum od●osis & penes omnes invisis nominibus, eos infames reddunt, qui Evan●elicam veritatem bona fide praedicant, Lutheranos, Hussitas & Hereticos illos nominando. Zuinglius ibidem fol. 113. b. initio.  Lutherans and Heretics, do first make petition for wives, saying, We earnestly request that the use of Marriage be not denied to us, who feeling the infirmity of our Flesh, perceive that the love of Chastity is not given us by God: For if we consider the words of Paul, we shall find with him no other cause of marriage, a carnal saying, than for, to satisfy, the lustful desires of the Flesh, which to burn in us we may not deny, seeing that by means thereof we are made infamous before the Congregations. Their words are, Hoc vero summis precibus contendimus, ne Matrimonii usus nobis denegetur, qui carnis nostrae infirmitatem experti, castitatis studium nobis à Deo non concessum esse sentimus: si enim Pauli verba consideremus, non aliam apud hunc Matrimoniorum causam, quam carnis ad libidinem calentem aestum reperire licet, quem in nobis fervere negare non possumus, cum hujus ipsius opera nos coram Ecclesiis infames rediderunt. tom. 1. fol. 115. a. ante med. And to set forth his carnality as yet more plainly, by his own explaining that wherewith he as before professeth himself, and his said Brethren, to have been so greatly troubled; he expresseth the same in these plain words there next after, saying, By the burning desires of the flesh, we understand those desires of the flesh, wherewith a man being almost inflamed, tosseth in his mind the studies of the lustful flesh; in these only he spendeth all his thoughts, upon these he meditateth, and is wholly busied in this, that he may satisfy the fury of his flesh. Aestum vero libidinis eas carnis cupiditates & affectus intelligimus, quibus homo tantum non accensus carnis libidinosae studia animo suo versat, ut carnis furori satisfaciat. Zuinglius ibidem. This being then the confessed carnal disposition of Zuinglius and his foresaid brethren, he signifieth yet further, their answerable forepast behaviour during their remaining so unmarried, saying, If we respected the liberty of the flesh, who seethe not how much more commodious it were for us, that we should forbear the laws of marriage, as hitherto we have done, etc. For we have known how easily in this free and lose state, being glutted with satiety (of one) we might change. Wherefore for the love, not of lust, but of Chastity, and the Souls to us committed, we desire Marriage; lest that the Souls committed to our charge by example of our lust should be any longer offended. Si carnis licentiam quaerere animus esset, quis non videt, quam commodius foret, si ut hactenus, à Matrimoniorum legibus abstineremus? etc. Novimus quam facilis in hoc statu nostro soluto & libero, mulierum quarum cum nos capit satietas, permutatio fieri possit. Quare non carnis libidine, sed chastitatis et animarum nobis commissarum amore permoti, hoc petimus, nè hoc exemplo nostrae libidinis diutius offendantur. Zuinglius ibidem fol. 119. a. ante medium. And, We have proved that the weakness of our flesh hath been (o for grief!) cause of our often shameful falling. Quare cum carnis insirmitatem nobis non semel (proh dolour) pudendi lapsus causam fuisse experti simus, etc. (Zuinglius ibidem fol. 119. a. panlo post med.) And in another Epistle to the Bishop of Constance written and 
[s] Subscribed tom. 1. fol. 123. b.  subscribed unto by Zuinglius, Leo, Judas, Erasmus, Fabricius, and eight other Ministers there named, who all cry out for Wives, after some intimation made of the 
[t] Tom. 1. fol. 120. post medium.  heavenly Doctrine so long (before) hidden, and then (lately) restored he further confesseth and saith: 
[u] Hactenus experti hoc donum nobis esse negatum. fol. 121. a. fine.  Hitherto we have tried that this gift of Chastity hath been denied to us, etc. We have 
[x] Arsimus (proh pudor!) tantopere, ut multa indecorè gefferimus. fol. 122. a. prope finem.  burned (O for shame!) so greatly, that we have committed many things unseemingly. To speak freely without boasting, we are not otherwise of such uncivil manners, that we should be ill spoken of among the people to us committed, for any wickedness, this one point only excepted. Non usque adeo incivilibus moribus sumus, ut ullum ob flagitium malè audiamus apud gregem nobis creditum, hoc uno excepto. Was this the Spirit of the Apostles and ancient Fathers? Or was this Doctrine fit or safe to be by him thus divulged to the modest thoughts of innocent young men and damsels, who wanting means of marriage, were in danger hence to suck poison?  
23. Having thus laid down this foresaid groundwork of liberty, thereupon withal he undertook to impugn the Mass by instruction (as his own Brethren report) from a Spirit, whether black or white he remembreth not, as appeareth by Zuinglius his words set down by him tom. 2. in libro de subsid. Euchar fol. 294. a. And also in Mr. Fulks Treatise against the defence of the Censure pag. 249, 250. that 
[y] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2. fine. in the margin at 1.  Zuiuglius having laboured the abolishing of the Mass at Zurick against a certain Scribe that had opposed himself (in argument) against Zuinglius, Zuinglius was in that disputation provoked to bring forth examples which were joined with no parable; Therefore we began (saith he) to think of all that we could, but yet no other example came to mind, etc. but when the 13. day of April drew near (I tell the truth, and my conscience compelleth me to utter what the Lord bestowed upon me) me thought (as I was a sleep● that I was again disputing with the Scribe, and my mouth so stopped, that I was not able to speak, etc. and suddenly there seemed an admonisher to be present with me (after fuerit an albus nihil memini) whether he were black or white I remember not, etc. which said, why dost thou not answer him that which is written Exodus 12. For it is the Paschal which is the 
[z] See Bellarmin. tom. 3. de Eucharistia l. 1. c. 11. Quaedam citantur, where he answers this weak objection.  Passover of the Lord, etc. Whereupon (saith he) I (afterwards) considered the place, and thereof before the whole Congregation Preached, which Sermon, when it was heard, drove away all mist. Thus were Zuinglius his foresaid proceed against the Mass furthered with nightly instruction in his dream, by an admonisher, whether black or white he remembreth not, whereof though he made serious and great account, affirming it to be no light matter which (saith he) I learned by this dream, thanks be to God, etc. In so much as Hospinianus in Hist. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 26. ante medium termed it a Divine Revelation, yet is the same derided as a mere illusion by his other Brothers, as namely by Jacobus Andraeas in confut. disput. Joan. Jacobi Grinaei pag. 120.254. fine, & 304. and by Schlusselburg (in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. in prooem. fol. 3. a.b.) and by Gerardus Giesekenius de veritate Corporis Christi in S. Coena pag. 64. By Benedict Morgensterne in tract. de Ecclesia pag. 68 and by Jacobus Heilbrunerus in Swenkfeldio-Calvinismo, etc. in praefat. ant med. And this kind of persuasion or apparition reported by Protestants themselves as happening likewise to 
[a] In the Book intiuled Conspiracy for the pretended Reformation pag. 83. initio it is said, Among others, Carolostadius a Preacher professing the Gospel, etc. attributed much to Cabinet teachers in private conventicles, and unto visions, and pretended conference with God. And see O siander Epitome. Centur. 16. pag 86. and Chemnitius in repetit. de Euchar. Art. 31. and Sleudan Hist. l. 5. fol. 65 a. post. med.  Carolostadius, 
[b] Luther alleged ubi supra, says concerning these apparitions: Planè p●rsuasus sum Empserum & Oecolampadium, etc. his ●ctibus horribilibus subito extinctos fuisse. So plainly was he persuaded, that Oecolampadius was in one of these apparitions slain by the Devil.  and Oecolampadius, was confessedly the first that dissuaded Luther from further saying Mass. In like manner Mr. Fox in Apocalyp. pag. 364 fine, & 365. initio, and in his Acts and Mon. Printed 1596. pag. 90. b. circa med. reports the very like pretended wonderful revelation happened to him (as it did to Zuinglius) whereby he was instructed, that by the 42. months, mentioned in the Apocalys, was understood the 294. years of the Primitive Churches first persecution. And yet is this understanding of them since rejected, and in steed thereof is thereby understood the last 1260. years before Luther by Mr. Napier upon the Revelations proposition 15. pag. 22, 23, 24. by Mr. Brocard upon the Revelations fol. 110. a. and by Mr. Gifford upon the Revelations pag. 890. post med.  
24. Zuinglius 
[c] Brerely tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subdivis. 3.  after this impugning the Mass, proceeded withal after a strange confessed course of temporising liberty, whereof he himself tom. 2. de vera & falsa religione fol. 202. b. initio saith, Retractamus igitur hic quae illic diximus, tali lege, ut quae hic damus anno atatis nostrae quadragesimo secundo, propendeant eye, quae quadragesimo dederamus quando ut diximus tempori potiùs scripsimus quàm rei (we had regard rather of the times, than of the matter) sic jubente Domino, 
[d] Pu. O blasphemy! as if in matter of Christian Doctrine our Saviour did command men to temporize, dissemble, and utter falsehood by delivering contradictories. Luther as we have seen above is taxed by Zuinglius for his temporising and contradicting himself, and now Zuinglius confesseth of himself the same salt; who then can believe either of them, and what goodly guides have Protestants?  ut tali ratione aedificemus, nè inter initia canes & porci nos rumpant. Insomuch as in the Alphabetical Table there under the Letter Z. it is said: (Zuinglius docendo servivit tempori;) and this even in the great point concerning the Sacrament (whereof see Bellarm. de Eucharist. l. 1. c. 1. §. Decimus patronus:) he proceeded, I say, further to deliver Paradoxes strange and before unheardof, all tending to liberty of life or Doctrine. As first, the discouragement which his Doctrine affordeth against all good works in general, saying tom. 1. de Providentia Dei fol. 371. a. versus finem: Sed contra, ista sunt hyperochae atque hyperbolae, Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata, etc. & quaecunque alia promissa nostris operibus facta sunt. What can more discourage us to good works, than thus to affirm with Zuinglius, that the promise of reward made to us, is but hyperbolical?  
25. Secondly concerning Original sin, he taught that it is but a 
[e] Zuing. tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 89. b. circa med. saying, Peccatum ergo originale damnationem non meretur, si modo quis Parentes fideles nactus fuerit. And 90. a. post med. he saith of Original sin: Qui enim fieri potest, ut quod morbus & contagio est, peccati nomen mereatur, vel peccatum revera sit, etc. Morbus enim hic damnationem nobis afferre n●quit. And pag. 90. b. ant med. Ea quoque Pauli verba considerabimus, quibus Theologi nostri abusi Originalem illum morbum peccatum esse dixerunt, etc. sed toto caelo errand. And tom. 2. fol. 115. a. paulo post med. & in Epist. Zuinglii, & Occolampadii l. 1. pag. 252. paulo ante med. he saith, Quid enim brevius dici potuit, quam Originale peccatum non esse peccatum, sed morbum, & c?  disease which of itself is not culpable, neither can bring the pain of damnation, that, 
[f] Zuing. tom. 2. de peccato orig. declare. fol. 116. a. post med. saith, Hoc ipsum volo, culpam Originalem non vere, sed metonimice à primi Parentis admisso culpam vocari. And in Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii l. 1. pag. 258. fine, he saith, Est ergo ista ad peccandum amore sui propensio peccatum originale, quae quidem propensio non est propriè peccatum, sed fons, etc. And tom. a. ad Cardum Imp. fidei rat. fol. 539. b. initio, he saith, Patrem igitur nostrum (Adam) peccavisse fateor peccatum, quod verè peccatum est, etc. At qui ex isto prognati sunt, hoc morbo non peccaverunt, etc. Velimus igitur nolimus admittere cogimur peccatum originale, ut est in filiis Adae, non propriè peccatum esse, quomodo jam exposuimus. Non enim est facinus contra legem, morbus est propriè, etc.  it is not truly called sin (sed metonimice) but figuratively: concluding, 
[g] See Zuinglius his words hereof alleged by Schlusselburg in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine & b. initio.  the offence and fault of Adam cannot condemn Infants and young Children, thinking 
[h] Tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 90. a. post med. he saith, Ubi legis cognitio nulla est, ibi nec peccati cognitio esse potest: ubi verò p●ccati cognitio non est, ibi nec praevaricatio est, adeoque nec damnatio, etc. sic igitur jacet Theologorum sententia, & omnibus constat, fidelium liberos propter originalem illum & haereditarium morbum damnationem subire nullam, quoad legem & legis sententiam ignorant. De iis autem loquor, qui per aetatem legis cognitionem habere non possunt, non de iis, qui vel scire nolunt, vel etiam scientes nesciunt. And see the l●ke tom. 2. fol. 118. a. paulo post med. & tom. 1. fol 372. b. initio. In so much as (in Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii pag 505. paulo ante med.) he thinketh that the Children of the Gentiles and Infidels are free from all guilt hereof, because (saith he) lex nulla eos damnat, etc. And see him there pag. 969. circa med. & tom. 2. fol. 540. ante med. where he saith, Verum quomodocunque de Gentilium infantibus statuendum sit, hoc certè adseveramus, propter virtutem salutis per Christum praestitae, praeter rem pronuntiare qui eos aeternae maledictioni addicunt, etc. non debent igitur temere à nobis damnari qui fidem per aetatem non habent, etc.  original sin only damnable in those that be of years and discretion, when in them it bursteth forth into action. And all this so grossly, as his own Brethren do. therefore 
[i] Reprehended by Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 65. a. fine, & b. initio, and by Hunnius in Papism. Calvinistarum, etc. Papism. 21. sect. 132.133. And Zuinglius tom. 2. de peccat. or●g. declare. initio, & fol. 115. b. paulo post initium saith thereof to Urbanus Regius, Nec enim solus insolitè nos putas de humanae generationis contagione tum sentire tum scribere: sunt enim & alia magna nomina qui idem existimant, etc.  reprehend him, 
[k] Amicis cavent ne in ruinam se à. nobis trahi patiantur. Ibidem fol. 115. circa med.  giving warning to their friends, lest they suffer themselves to be drawn into ruin by this his damnable opinion.  
26. Thirdly, concerning salvation, and the way to Heaven, he maketh it so easy and open, that he affirmeth even the salvation of the 
[l] Zuinglius in Epist Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, l. 1. pag. 39 a. circa med. saith, Ethnicus si piam mentem domi foveat, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret. And see Zuinglius tom. 2. de pec. orig. fol. 118. a. circa med. Also tom. 2. in exposit. fidei Christianae fol. 159. b. circa med. he affirmeth the being in Heaven of Adam, Abel, Enoch, etc. Hercules, Theseus, Aristides, etc.  Heathen who never believed in Christ, (as) Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, 
[m] See next heretofore k.  attributing also salvation to the young dying Children of the Heathen, etc. In which his opinion (defended nevertheless by 
[n] Gualther in Apologia pro Zuinglio, & operibus ejus praesix. tom. operum Zuinglii fol. 27. a. b. & fol. 28, 29. a. b.  Gualther, and 
[o] See Simlerus in vita Bullingeri: and see Bullingers' allowance of Zuinglius his foresaid Treatise in Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 550. b. initio.  Bullinger) he is so unworthy, that sundry other Protestant Writers do therefore 
[o] Reproved by Hunnius in Papismis Calvinianorum part. 1. Papism. 18. number. 115, 117. and by Benedict Morgensterne tract. de Ecclesia p. 72. And by Lobechius Indisput. Theolog. pag. 163. initio. And by Luther, who tom. 6. in Cap. 47. Genes fol. 633. a. fine, termeth it a most pernicious error.  reprove him.  
27. Fourthly, concerning the Apostles assured authority in their writings, let his judgement of them all appear in the only examples of St. Paul, of whom he affirmeth, that though he for his part would not but that St. Paul's writings should be now holden for Canonical, yet we ought not to think that Paul did then attribute so much to his Epistles, that whatsoever was contained in them, was sacred, lest that in thinking so, we should saith he) impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostles. His words are (tom. 2. contra Catabaptistas' fol 10. b. circa med.) Ignorantia vestra est, quod putatis cum Paulus haec scriberet, Evangelistarum commentarios, & Apostolorum Epistolas, jam in manibus Apostolorum atque authoritate fuisse: quasi vero Paulus Epistolis suis jam tum tribuerit, ut quicquid in iis contineretur, sacrosanctum esset, non quod ipse velim non esse sacrosancta, quae illius sunt, sed quod nolim Apostolis imputari immoderatam arrogantiam. In so much that where the Evangelists say, This is my Body, Zuinglius to supply their supposed defect, altereth the text with incredible boldness, translating and saying instead thereof, This signifieth my Body. Whereof Schlusselburg a learned Protestant in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. art. 6. fol. 33. b. fine saith, Nec potest hoc scelus Zuinglii ullo colore excusari, res est manifestissima, in graeco textu non habetur significat, sed, est, etc. And fol. 44. a. he speaketh to the Zwinglians saying, Nec potestis rem inficiari aut occultare, quia exemplaria Francisco Regi Galliarum à Zuinglio dedicata sunt in plurimorum hominum manibus, excusa Tiguri Anno 1525. in mense Martio, in octavo, etc. And yet more of the Dutch Bible of the Zwinglians, he saith there, Ego in Saxoniae oppido Mundera An. 60. apud Scholae Rectorem Humbertum, vidi exemplar Germanicorum Bibliorum quae Tiguri erant impressa, ubi non sine admiratione & animi perturbatione, verba Filii Dei ad imitationem Zuinglii somniatoris depravata esse deprehend. Name in omnibus illis quatuor locis Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. & 1. Cor. 11. ubi verba institutionis Testamenti Filii recensentur, Hoc est Corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus, inhunc modum textus erat falsatus, hoc significat Corpus meum, hoc significat sanguinem meum. And see further Zuinglius himself tom. 2. l. de vera & falsa Religione fol. 210. a. ante med. where he saith, Sic ergo habet Lucas, & accepto pane gratias egit, fregit, & dedit eis dicens: Hoc significat Corpus meum.  
28. (Pu.) Be pleased Reader to reflect here, that as above we heard Zuinglius deeply taxing Luther, saying to him, Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures; so here we see, how the Lutherans cry shame on Zwinglians for the same crime of falsifying the word of God, by turning This is, into, This signifies my Body, etc. teaching every one who desires not to betray his own Soul, not to trust either of these two, or any other Protestant in their Translations, seeing there is not a Translation among them, which is not condemned by other Protestants, as we shall declare after I have noted some very particular corruptions of our English Protestants. Zuinglius is condemned by other Protestants for changing [This is] into (this signifies.) But was he alone guilty of this impiety? No. The Communion Book of the Church of England, together with the Articles and Book of Ordination were composed Anno 1547. by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Rochester, Ely, Hereford, Worcester, Linclon, Chichester, Dr. Redman, Dr. Robinson, Dr. Cox, the Deans of Paul's, of Exeter, and of Lincoln, who at the King's charges, partly at Windsor, partly elsewhere, contrived them: all which were ratified and confirmed by the Parliament in the year 1548. In this Common Book (to say these few things by the way) there was Invocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead (which are the Doctrines commonly objected by modern Protestants against Catholics) as is yet to be seen, many Copies being yet extant. And in the Statute of King Edward the sixth it is resolved, that those that are abstemious (that is, cannot drink Wine) may receive under one kind only. Afterward the then Lord Protector, at Calvin's instigation, as appeareth by his Epistles to the Duke of Summerset, put out the Invocation of Saints, and Prayer for the dead; so variable is the Religion of Protestants! But to come to our purpose of proving that not Zuinglius alone was guilty of that foul falsification of the Scripture by translating (signifies) for (is:) In the first Edition of the said Communion Book, the words cited out of Scripture were rendered thus, This is my Body, etc. A year after, it was altered thus, This signifieth my Body, etc. A little after (is) and (signifieth) were both expunged, and a blank Paper put in the place of the Verb, thus, this my Body, etc. which without the Verb signifieth nothing, or rather may be applied to any thing, as it may please the Painter or changeable Protestant; And lastly (is) was put in again. Of this incertainty in Protestant Religion (in a matter of greatest moment) Nicholas Heath Archbishop of York, and Lord Chancellor of England minded the Kingdom, 1. Elizabethae, in his Speech against the bringing in of the uncertain, and unsettled new Religions, which Speech (saith a man of great learning and credit, under whose hand I received it) I have read, and have seen divers of King Edward the sixth Service Books, some with (is) some with (signifieth) and some with a blank in the place. Now, Reader, look above and apply to English Protestants, that which Lutherans justly object to Zuinglius for his translating (signified,) for (is.)  
29. Moreover, it is to be observed, that the Bible in King Edward the sixth days, was translated into English by the Bishops of St. David's, Hereford, Ely, Norwich and Rochester, and therefore it is called the Bishop's Bible. In it the whole Book of the Canticles, (which they profanely why may not I say blasphemously translate the Ballad of Ballads) and many other Chapters and verses in the Bible, were particularly noted as not fit to be read to the common people, or by them. But in the latter Bibles all things are equally permitted to all, from which liberty what could be expected, then (that which we find by lamentable experience) an endless multiplication of new Heresies, without any possible means of remedy, as long as men are resolved not to acknowledge an infallible Judge of Controversies, but to leave every man to read Scripture, which they must interpret according to their own mind or fancy, not having any other infallible Rule or Guide to follow? I know that a learned Catholic in a familiar discourse with Dr. Collins, chief Reader of Divinity in Cambridge, told him, that Protestants themselves were the true cause of so many Heresies, by permitting the promiscuous reading of Scripture to every Body, and the Doctor answered plainly, That for his part he did not approve such liberty: and this is the thing which the Church dislikes; but it is a mere calumny to say, that she universally forbids the reading of Scripture to all sorts of persons.  
30. The new Translation which King James caused to be made, was over-seen, corrected, and altered by the Archbishop Abbats, and Smith of Gloucester, as Sir Henry Savill told Mr. Richard Montague, afterward Bishop of Chichester, and then of Norwich. For Mr. Montague wondering that Sir Henry (to whose care was committed the translating of S. Peter's Epistles) would pervert the sense of the Apostle 1 Pet. 3.18, 19 about Christ's descent into Hell, reading it; Quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and Preached unto the Spirits in prison, etc. When the Greek is, Quickened or alive in his Spirit or Soul, in which Spirit or Soul, he coming, Preached to them also that were in Prison. And it is to be observed, that this last Translation of the v. 18. is not only against Catholics, but also against former Translations of Protestants, which says not (quickened by the Spirit) but quickened in the Spirit. Sir Henry I say being thus questioned, answered as above, that the forenamed Bishops corrupted and altered the said Translation made by K. James his order; whereby it appears of how small authority or account it ought to be. Again, in this same Translation they have translated Gal. 5.17. the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, so that ye cannot do the things yea would; whereas the Greek and Latin is, yea do not (de facto) the things ye would.  
31. Not unlike to the said salsification of Zuinglius concerning the Eucharist, is that of Protestant English Bibles touching the same Sacrament, to prove their Heresy, that there is a Divine precept for all persons to receive both kinds, saying 1 Cor. 11. v. 27. Whosoever shall eat this Bread, (and) drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, etc. Whereas in the Greek it is, Whosoever shall eat this Bread, (or) drink this Chalice, etc. which disjunctive (or) cannot infer the necessity of both kinds, as the Conjunctive (and) might seem to do, and for which end they falsify this Text, strangely standing for both species of Bread and Wine, while indeed they deprive men of the real substance of our Saviour's Body and Blood for both species, by bringing all to a mere sign, or some fantastical presence by Faith, or some such imaginary way.  
32. What I am now to say, though it may seem to deserve only laughter, yet it shows in good earnest the inconvenience of translating the holy Scripture into vulgar languages, with a promiscuous freedom of all sorts of persons to read them. Thus then Gen. 3. v. 7. Divers Protestant English Bibles say thus: They (Adam and Eve) sewed figtree leaves together, and made themselves Breeches. How ridiculously doth this sound to an English ear, that the woman should were Breeches? And yet this is the Translation of the Bible Printed at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queens most excellent Majesty Anno 1593. Cum Privilegio, And Anno 1596. by the same Printer (of which I have two Copies) it is translated in the same manner; As also Anno 1586. 
[q] Printed by the same Printer, and likewise Anno 1602.  by Robert Barker Printer to the Queen. All which Editions I have at hand ready to be exhibited. If I did take pleasure to jest in serious matters, I could say, That a Protestant whom I could name, being much troubled with this Translation, a Catholic (from whose mouth I received this story) bid the Protestant be not troubled at those Editions, seeing they were published under Queen Elizabeth, who being held by English Protestant's for Head of their Church, no wonder it was, that under a Womanhood, women did were the Breeches: which conceit, though it did not much comfort that Protestant, yet we may in good earnest by this occasion detest those parasites and flattering Ministers, who were not ashamed to make any temporal Prince, merely in virtue of his temporal power, Head of God's Church, and of all Clergymen, even in spiritual matters; and we are to adore Gods just judgements, in permitting the temporising Protestant Clergy of England to be degraded by Temporal Power, in just punishment of their absurd Heresy that temporal Princes are upon earth Supreme Heads of God's Church: neither ought we to wonder, that they come to suffer in their temporal power, who would needs, against all reason and principles of Christian Religion, usurp that Supreme spiritual Authority, which by our Saviour Christ was granted only to St. Peter and his Successors: Where I cannot omit what one of the most learned among the Protestant English Bishops (we discoursing of the Universal Wars of these times) said, (and he spoke a certain and evident truth) that these Wars and troubles of Christendom began upon the year 1517. when Luther first revolted from the obedience of all Churches before his time.  
33. But, why do I specify some few particular mistranslations of the Protestant Bibles, seeing they themselves do mutually reprove, impugn, and condemn their own translations? As appears out of Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. joined with tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2. To omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinite, and to touch this point but generally only, the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander, Keckermannus, and Zuinglius, who saith hereof to Luther, thou dost corrupt the word of God; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zwinglians, terming them in matter of Divinity fools, Asses, Antichrists, Deceivers, and of Asslike understanding. Insomuch that when Proscheverus the Zuinglian Printer of Zurick sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there, Luther would not receive the same, but sending it back rejected it, as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus & Lavatherus witness. The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the Divines of Basil, is reproved by Beza, who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost. The Translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza, as being 
[r] Beza resp. ad def. & respon. Castal.  sacrilegious, wicked, and Ethnical. As concerning calvin's Translation, that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof, 
[s] Moli. in sua transl. Testa. Novi part. 12. fol. 110.  Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down; he useth violence to the Letter of the Gospel, and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's Translation (to omit the dislike had thereof by Seluecerus the German Protestant of the University of Jena) the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him, 
[t] Molin. in Testa. part. 20.30, etc.  de facto mutat textum, he actually changeth the text; and giveth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also 
[u] Castalio in defen. trans. pag. 170.  Castalio that learned Calvinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errors in Translation, would require a great volume. And Mr. Parkes saith 
[x] Parks in his Apology for three testimonies of Scripture, &c  As for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margin, or else utterly prohibited. All which confirmeth King James his grave and learned Censure, in his 
[y] In the Conference before his Majesty pag. 46.  thinking the Geneva Translation to be worst of all; and that 
[z] Ibid. fol. 47.  in the marginal notes annexed to the Geneva Translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, etc. Lastly concerning the English Translations, the Puritans say, 
[a] Master Christopher Carlisle in his Book that Christ descended not into Hell pag. 116. a. 117, etc.  Our Translation of the Psalms comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction and alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least. In so much as 
[b] Purita. Petiti: to his Majesty pag. 76. initio.  they do therefore profess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto. And Master Carlisle saith of the English Translators, that they have 
[c] Carlisle pag. 118.  depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from their right sense; And that, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. And the Miinisters of Lincoln, 
[d] In their Book delivered to King James 16. of Decem. pag. 11.  Diocese give their public testimony, terming the English Translation, a Translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that, sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Not without cause therefore did his Majesty affirm, 
[e] In the confer. before his Majesty fol. 46.  that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus far Brereley.  
34. Pu. Now let Protestants consider duly these points First, Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith; Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone; Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations; Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidence of truth, than that it is evident, that some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible, and uncertain ground? How many poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from Preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of texts of Divine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men? Let them therefore, if they will be assured of true Scriptures, fly to the always visible, infallible 
[f] St. Aug. l. 4. de Trinit. c. 6. saith, Contra rationem nemo sobrius, Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus, Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.  Catholic Church, against which the gates of Hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures, Translations, or Interpretations; wherein there is a main and clear difference between us Catholics, who rely upon an infallible and living Guide (the Church,) and Protestants, who believe not only every private man, but the whole Catholic Church to be fallible, and subject to error; and if it were but for this cause alone we ought to believe the Catholic Church to be infallible, without the belief whereof we can have no absolute certainty what Books be Canonical, nor what is the certain interpretation of them, and the end of all will be, that we cannot believe Christian Faith to be infallible, and certainly true: in so much as Luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confess thus much, saying, 
[g] In lib. cont. Zuingl. de ver ta: Corporis Christi in Eucha.  If the world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Counsels, and to have recourse to them; by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture, which now reign. On the contrary side, 
[h] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. pag. 259.  as our learned adversaries do thus agree to disagree in their own translations, mutually condemning (as before) each other; so also have they upon a second and more advised consideration, afforded honourable testimony of our vulgar Latin translation had from Rome, (which Master Witaker otherwise in spleen and spirit of contradiction termeth 
[i] Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds Preface pag. 2. fine & 26. initio.  an old rotten translation, etc. full of faults, errors, and corruptions of all sorts, 
[k] Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura quaest. 5. c. 11. pag. 543. initio.  than which nothing can be more faulty or desteined; and 
[l] Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds pag. 223. fine, & vide pag. 218. fine.  of all others most corrupt.) To this purpose Beza saith, 
[m] Beza. Annot. in Cap. 1. Lucae ver. 1.  The old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy Books with mervyllous sincerity and Religion, Vetus Interpres videtur summa Religione sacros Libros interpretatus; which Religious observation of the old Interpreter is acknowledged in like sort by D. Humphrey de ratione interpret. l. 1. pag. 74. where he saith, Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus Interpres, & quidem nimis anxiè, quod tamen interpretor Religione quadam fecisse, non ignorantia. Also Beza further saith in praefat. novi Testam. Anni 1556. Vulgatam editionem maxima ex parte amplector, & caeteris omnibus antepono, the vulgar Edition I do for the most part embrace, and prefer before all others. Carolus Molinaeus in nov. Testam. part. 30. signifieth his no less answerable liking thereof, saying, aegerrimè à vulgari consuetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere soleo, I can very hardly departed from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend: In so much as he professeth 
[n] See Molinaeus in Luc. 17.  to prefer the vulgar Edition, before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine translation, also before John Calvin (etiam Joannis Calvini, & omnibus aliis) and all others. Whereto might be added the like further answerable commendation thereof given by that famous Protestant Writer Conradus Pelicanus, who (in praefat. in Psalterium Anni 1534.) saith, Tanta dexteritate, erudition, & fide, Hebraica quoad sensum, concordare deprehendimus vulgatam editionem Psalterii, ut eruditissimum pariterque piissimum, & verè Prophetali Spiritu fuisse interpretem Graecum & Latinum non dubitem. And whereas we affirm that St. Hierom 
[o] St. Hierom. in his Preface before the new Testament dedicated to Pope Damasus saith hereof, Novum opus me f●cere cogis ex veteri, etc. You constrain me to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of Scriptures dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain Judge, and determine which of them agree with the true Greek. Also H●erom. in Catal. fine, saith, Novum Testamentum Graecae fidei reddidi, vetus juxta Haebraicum transtuli. And see further hereof Bellarmine de Verbo Dei l. 3. c. 9  at the request of Pope Damasus was Author or reviewer of our common Edition, which the Fathers 
[o] St. Hierom. in praefat. Psalterii ad Sophronian, quae est Epistola 134. saith, Certè confidenter dicam & multos hujus operis testes citabo, me nihil duntaxat sententiae de Hebraica veritate mutasse, etc. interroga quemlibet Hebraeorum, & liquidò perfidebis, etc. and see him further in prologo in libros Regum. And St. Austin de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 43. initio saith, Non defuit nostris temporibus Praesbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus, & omnium trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebaero in Latinum eloquium easdem Scripturas converterit. Cujus tamen literatum laborem Judaei fatentur esse veracem. And see St. Austin Epist. ad Hieronym. c. 3. And see Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 2. Institut. c. 12. & 21. & Gregorius Magnus l. 20. Moral. c. 23. and Isidor. l. 6. Etymol. c. 5. & 7. & de divinis Officiis l. 1. c. 12. and Beda in Martyrologio.  do so greatly commend, Master Whitaker answering thereto, doth (upon a more sober and stayed judgement) altar the former vehemency of his stile, saying, (in his answer to M. Reynolds pag. 241. paulo ante med.) St. Hierom I reverence, Damasus I commend, and the work I confess to be godly and profitable to the Church. As also D. Covell in his answer unto Master John Burges, etc. pag. 94. ante medium acknowledgeth the antiquity of the vulgar translation, saying, It was used in the Church a thousand three hundred years ago, not doubting (ibidem) to prefer that translation before others. Insomuch as that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing, he concludeth (ibidem pag. 91. prope finem,) that of all those, the approved translation authorized by the Church of England, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar; and is commonly called the Bishop's Bible. O truth, most strong, sacred, and inviolable! more forcible (as St. Austin contra Donatistas' post collat. cap. 24. observeth) to wring out Confession, than is any rack or torment. Pu. Since the truth of that Translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles; they are obliged to maintain our vulgar Translation, if it were but for their own sake; yea D. Done (saith Brereley here pag. 257.) in his persuasion to English Recusants, etc. pag. 16. circa med. saith likewise of the vulgar Translation, We grant it fit, that for uniformity in quotation of places in Schools and Pulpits one Latin text should be used: And we can be contented for the antiquity thereof to prefer that before all other Latin Books. But let us proceed with our former discourse of Zuinglius.  
35. Fifthly, 
[q] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subd. 3. at fifthly.  concerning our committing of sin, Zuinglius layeth the same upon God as the Author thereof, affirming of God, that he moveth the thief to kill, (Zuinglius de Providentia Dei fol. 366. a. ante med. movet ergo (Deus) Latronem ad occidendum) that the thief killeth, God procuring him, (Deo impulsore occidit. ibid. paulo post) that God moveth and enforceth till the party be slain (Movet & impellit Deus usque dum ille occisus est. ibid. fol. 366. a. circa med. and a little after there, impulit Deus ut occideret) that the thief is enforced to sin, (At inquies, coactus est ad peccandum: permitto, inquam, coactum esse. fol. 366. paulo ante medium.) In so much that in our sinning against the Law we are not (saith he) Authors (of the sin) but as (Gods) instruments: In legem enim peccarunt, non quasi authores, sed quasi instrumenta quibus Deus liberiùs pro sua voluntate uti potest. Ibidem fol. 366. a. initi●.) That even one and the same fact, which hath God for the Author and impulsor, is in God honourable, and in man sin, (Ergo factum quod Deo authore & impulsore fit, illi honorificum est, ●t homini crimen acnefas,) that David's adultery pertained to God as author thereof, (Adulterium David ad Deum authorem pertinet, etc. ibid. fol. 365. b. fine) that though adultery and murder be not sin in God, because he is bound by no Law, yet saith he, they be, the works of God (as) the author, the mover, and inforcer. (Unum igitur atque idem facinus, puta adulterium, aut homicidium, quantum Dei est authoris, motoris, ac impulsoris opus est, crimen non est: quantum autem hominis est, crimen ac scelus est: ille enim lege non tenetur, hic autem lege damnatur.) So evidently doth he make God the Author, though not of sin in himself, because he is subject to no Law; yet of sin in us. An opinion most dreadful, odious, and execrable.  
36. Sixthly, concerning our obedience to the Civil Magistrate, in case he impugn Zuinglius his Religion, his Doctrine was, that in such case even Kings are to be deposed. 
[r] See Brereley tract. 3. sect. 2. ante med. at. g.  Zuinglius l. 4. Epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, Epist. Conhardo, Somio, & Simperto, etc. pag. 868. post med. & pag. 869. saith, Promittendum est Caesari officium debitum, si modò fidem nobis permittat illibatam, etc. Romanum Imperium, imò quodcunque Imperium, ubi Religionem sinceram opprimere caeperit, & nos illud negligentes patimur, jam negatae aut contemptae Religionis, non minùs rei erimus, quam illi ipsi oppressores. Exemplnm est apud Hierem. 15. ubi exterminium comminatur Deus Israeli, quod Manassem permisissent impunè esse pessimum. Due loyalty is to be promised to Caesar, if so that he permit to us our Religion inviolable, etc. If the Roman Empire, or what other Sovereign soever should oppress the sincere Religion, and we negligently suffer the same, we shall be charged with contempt, no less than the oppressors thereof themselves: whereof (saith he abusing therein the Scriptures most grossly) we have an example in the 15. of Jeremy, where the destruction of the people is prophesied, for that they suffered their King Manasses, being ungodly, to be unpunished. And see Zuinglius his words, tom. 1. in explanatione articuli 42. fol. 84. a. where he teacheth that Quando perfidè & extra regulam Christi egerint, possunt cum Deo deponi. And ibid. fol. 84. b. he allegeth to this the foresaid example of Manasses. And upon his reported disorderly proceed in this kind (saith Brereley tracked 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subdivis. 3. at sixthly) it was, that certain Protestants, who acknowledge of Zuinglius, that he taught some things well, and that he repurged the Church of Christ from the excess and filth of Popish superstition, do yet withal say, that he performed the same, not by just and lawful Preaching of the word, but rashly, making havoc of all things by a tumultuary and fanatical Spirit, etc. Violently assuming arms and the sword prohibited by Christ, that so he might by force compel his adversaries to his opinion. Gualther in his Apologia pro Zuinglio & operibus ejus, placed in the beginning of the first tome of Zuinglius his works, Printed Tiguri 1581. fol. 18. a. ante med. allegeth them saying, Zuinglius licet quaedam benè docuerit, in multis tamen aliis erravisse contendunt. And on the b. side of that folio prope initium, it is further alleged, Christi (inquiunt) dilectam Sponsam Ecclesiam à Pontificiae superstitionis luxu & sordibus, non justa & legitima verbi praedicatione repurgavit, sed tumultuario & fanatico Spiritu per omnia temerè grassatus est, etc. Violenter & arma, & à Christo prohibitum gladium corripuit, nimirum in suam sententiam sibi contradicentes compulsurus. In so much as he is charged to have stirred up his Countrymen the Switzers to Civil Wars, by reason whereof those of Tigure and Berna, who followed his Doctrine, are reported to have made War upon their Neighbours, the other five Towns, exacting of them upon proffered conditions of peace, 
[s] O siander in Epitome. Hist. Eccles. centur. 16. pag. 203. initio.  that they should receive again those whom they had banished for the (other) Religion, and should not forbid the reading of the Scriptures, 
[t] Pu. Of promiscuous reading Scripture see heretofore.  etc. To which the said five Towns disdaining to be so compelled, and being also thereupon 
[u] Osiander ibid. & in Gualther, Apol. fol. 30. a. circa●med it appeareth that they termed Zuinglius, Iniquissimum belli authorem, qui superb●a & crudelitate impulsus, Tigurinis novi & exquissti facinoris contra socios audendi author fuit, ut victus inopia, & famis necessitate, eos in suas partes concedere cogeret.  brought to so great famine, as being forestalled of victuals, by those of Tigure and Berna, the War was renewed, and Zuinglius himself was thereupon 
[x] O siander ibid.  slain, not as a Preacher, but as a Warrior, 
[y] Gualther in Apologia, etc. fol. 31. b. fine, saith, Obiit in bello Zuinglius, & armatus obiit.  armed in the field. Whereupon those foresaid 
[z] Gualther ibid. fol. 31. b. prope finem, termeth them, Nostri illi perquam egregii Censores ipsum (Zuinglium) in peccatis mortuum, & proinde Gehennae filium esse, pronuntiare non verentur.  Censurers mentioned by Gualther, who as before liked Zuinglius his pretended repurging of the Popish Superstition, but misliked his means thereof, and whom Gualther termeth 
[a] Gualther in Apologia fol. 30. a. prope finem, saith hereof: Non ignoro contra quos & quantos viros, hic nobis quaedam dicenda sunt, etc. sunt quidam inter hos magni nominis Theologi, qui in hac re animi sui impotentiam produnt.  Divines of great esteem, were not afraid to pronounce him dead in sin, and so consequently to have been the Son of Hell. Carion himself (as Gualther confesseth) hereupon not forbearing to 
[b] Gualther in Apolog. fol. 30. a. fine.  charge the Tigurines (as) seditious (herein) against Rodulph King of the Romans.  
Hitherto briefly and modestly concerning both Luther and Zuinglius, humbly withal referring to the equity the reader's learned judgement, whether that in regard of so plain and confessed premises, we may safely join with the Apology of the Church of England in acknowledging them two for 
[c] Hereof see Mr. Jewels defence of the Apology Printed 1571. pag. 426. prope finem; and see the apology of the Church of England part. 4. c. 4. divisione 2.  most excellent men, even sent of God, to give light to the whole world in the midst of darkness, when the truth was unknown and unheard of?   

Of Calvin.  
37. AS 
[d] Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers cap. 6. sect. 1. initio.  concerning John Calvin Born 
[e] In the answer for the time to the defence of the Censure, Printed 1583. fol. 85. a. prope finem.  at Noyon in Picardy. Anno 1509. against whom is objected (how truly or untruly, I do now for some reasons purposely forbear hereby to affirm) that he forged Letters under the names of Galasius and others, as by them written in his praise, and his then sending them to Petrus Viretus Minister of Lausanna to be dispersed: his reported further 
[f] See this in Bolseke in vita Calvini cap. 13. Where he reporteth that Calvin attempted to restore to life this Brule (comitatus magna caterva amicorum) in the presence of a great number of his friends; see also in Dialog. Alani Copi l. 6. c. 29. like report of a Protestant Preacher in Poland, who Anno 1558. practised the like upon one Matthew publicly in the open Church at Biethage a Town near Cracovia, at what time the said Matthew being found dead indeed, the Confederacy was thereupon there openly discovered by his wife. In like manner doth Gregorius Turonensis in Hist. l. 2. c. 3. report how that Cirola an Arian Heretic practised in like fort with one to counterfeit blindness, and to request miraculous help from this Cirola, which being accordingly so done, the party was indeed strucken blind, whereupon he exclaimed and revealed the practice: in which like respect Tertullian, in libro de prescript, not unhappily saith of Heretick●, Agnosco maximam virtutem eorum, qua Apostolos in perversum aemulantur: illi enim de mortuis suscitabant, isti de vivis mortuos faciunt.  practise with one called Brule and his Wife, that he should feign himself dead, whereupon Calvin should in Confirmation of his Doctrine, undertake in the presence of many to revive him, which when Calvin did, Brule was in God's judgement found dead indeed, whereupon his wife exclaimed publicly against Calvin, and discovered the practice; his like reported incontinency with the Gentlewoman of Mongis, who stealing from her Husband at Lausanna, made abode at Geneva with Calvin; his like reported adulterous attempting at Geneva of the Lady Jollande of Bredrode, wife to a sickly Noble man called James Borgongue Lord of Fallaise, in so much as she persuaded her Husband to leave Geneva, and go to Lausanna, where she revealed the whole matter 
[g] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9 subd. 4. ; also his extraordinary curious and exquisite diet, such, and so publicly, and precisely observed, saith 
[h] Bolseke in his Book of the life of Calvin, reporteth how that Calvin's wine was choice, and carried abroad with him in a silver pot, when he dined abroad; that also special bread was made purposely for Calvin only, and the same made of fine flower wet in rose-water, mingled with Sugar, Cinnamon and Anizeseeds, besides a singular kind of biscuit made for Calvin alone; and be affirmeth this as a matter known all Geneva over.  Bolseke, as the Lords of Berna were thereat greatly offended. In report of all which, though Bolseke make solemn and great 
[i] In the beginning of his said book dedicated to Monsieur of Epinac Archbishop and Earl of Lions, he hath this Protestation, I am here for the love of the truth to refute Theodore Beza his false and shameless lies in the praise of Calvin, protesting before God and all the holy Court of Heaven, before all the world, and the Holy Ghost itself, that neither anger, nor envy, nor evil will hath made me speak or write any one thing against the truth, and my conscience.  protestation of his truth; for so much yet as being scandalised with calvin's life, he afterwards became Catholic, and so was at the writing hereof, we will therefore in regard of our former undertaken method, be sparing to urge the same. Only we cannot forbear the public testimony of that learned Lutheran Conradus Schlusselburg, a man of principal estimation in the Protestants Church, being as appears by the title of his Book Dioceseos Raceburgensis Superintendens, & conjunctarum Megapolensium Ecclesiarum Generalis Inspector, and no less learned, and enemy to the Pope, than was Calvin himself, who 
[k] See this apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 11. fine, at 3.  in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 72. a. circa & post med. reported of Calvin, saying, God in the rod of his fury visiting Calvin, did horribly punish him before the fearful hour of his unhappy Death: For he strake this Heretic (so he termeth him in regard of his conceived Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, and Gods being the Author of sin) with his mighty hand, that being in despair, and calling upon the Devil, he gave up his wicked Soul, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming, he died upon the disease of louse and worms (a kind of death wherewith God often striketh the wicked, with which God did strike Antiochus 2 Machab. 9.5.9.10. and Herod Act. 12.23.) increasing in a most louthsome ulter about his privy parts, so as none could endure the stench. These things are objected to Calvin by public writing, in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasciviousness, his sundry abominable vices and sodomitical lusts, for which (last) he was by the Magistrate (at Noyon) under whom he lived branded on the shoulder with a hot burning iron, unto which I yet see not any sound and clear refutation made, etc. Deus man● sua potenti adeò hunc haereticum percussit, ut desperata salute, daemonibus invocatis, jurans, execrans, & blasphemans miserrimè animam malignam exhalârit, obiit autem Calvinus morbo pediculari, vermibus circa pudenda in apostemate seu ulcere faetentissimo crescentibus, ita ut nullus assistentium faetorem amplius far posset. Haec publicis Scriptis Calvino objiciuntur (in quibus etiam de ipsius Aselgia, variis flagitiis, & sodomiticis libidinibus ob quas stigma ferro candenti dor so Calvini impressum fuerit à Magistratu, sub quo vixit, horrenda narrantur) ad quae non video solidam & luculentam aliquam refutationem, etc. scio & lego Bezam aliter de vita, moribus, & obitu Calvini scribere: cùm verò Beza eadem haeresi & eodem ferme peccato nobilitatus sit, ut Historia de Candida ejus meritricuba testatur, nemo ipsi in hac parte fidem habere potest. And see further there concerning Beza l. 1. in prooemio pag. 4. b. & ibid. pag. 92. a. post med. & b. & 93. a. initio. Hierom Bolseke further affirms in his said Book, that the City of Noyon in Picardy in which Calvin lived, and from which (saith Bolseke) Calvin upon his foresaid punishment of branding fled, did testify this foresaid offence and punishment of Calvin, unto Monsieur Bertelier Secretary of the Counsel of Geneva, under the hand of a public and sworn Notary, which testimony (saith Bolseke) is yet extant, and hath been seen to himself and many others. Now whether this Author would lie so egregiously, and with setting down in Print such pretended known circumstances, wherein he was so notably disproveable, and to be discredited even in the knowledge of the whole City of Noyon (a place not remote, but in the same Kingdom) we will not affirm, nor determine, but leave to all indifferency of judgement. Only we add, that whereas F. Campian (in rat. 3.) doth object this against Calvin, as a matter known and public, terming him therefore (stigmaticus perfuga) a branded fugitive, M. Whitaker in his answer thereto pag. 50. initio saith, Si stigmaticus fuit (Calvinus) fuit etiam Paulus, fuerunt alii. And being told by Duraeus contra Whitakerum Printed 1582. fol. 73. b. that he was profane in so comparing Calvins brands for wickedness, with Paul's brands for Christ, he doth (in respons. contra Duraeum pag. 280. answering to that very fol. 73. of Duraeus) pass over all this matter in silence, forbearing so thereby all further mention or defence thereof. 
[l] Apud Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers cap. 6. sect. 1. fine.  To the former testimonies affirming Calvins filthy despairing death, (upon the disease of Lice and Worms increasing in an Ulcer about his privy parts) assenteth the Protestant Writer Johannes Herennius, who being himself an earnest Calvinist Preacher, and then continuing student at Geneva, affirmeth (in his published Book de vita Calvini) himself to have been present and eye-witness thereof, saying, Calvinus in desperatione finiens vitam, obiit turpissimo & foetidissimo morbo, quem Deus rebellibus & maledictis comminatus est, prius excruciatus & consumptus, quod ego verissime attestari audeo, qui funest●m & tragicum illius exitum, his meis oculis praesens aspexi.  
38. He 
[m] Brereley in the Prefac. to the Reader n. 11. & tract. 3. sect. 2. paulo post med. at. f. & n.  teaches (in Dan. c. 6. v. 22.25.) that earthly Princes do bereave themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God, yea that they are unworthy to be accounted in the number of men, and we must rather spit upon their faces, than obey them, etc. Abdicant se potestate terreni Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum, imò indigni sunt, qui censeantur in hominum numero; potius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita, quàm illis parere, etc. And see further this saying specially mentioned and objected to the Puritans for seditious by D. Wilts in his odedience or Ecclesiastical union pag. 6. prope initium. And Knox alleged in proof of his own seditious opinion, Calvin and certain other Ministers then residing at Geneva, teaching, that it is lawful for Subjects to reform Religion, when Princes will not, yea rather than fail, even by force of Arms: and accordingly our adversaries themselves acknowledge, thatthe Protestants of Geneva did depose their liege Lord and Prince, from his temporal right there, from which yet to this present he is kept, by strong force debarred: albeit he was by right of Succession, the temporal Lord and owner of that City and territory.  
39 His intolerable contempt of the Ancient Holy Fathers will appear many ways, when we shall come to prove, that Protestants confess the Fathers to stand for us, and for that cause they reject them. Here we will only set down his taxing the Fathers for believing and teaching the Sacrifice of the Mass 
[n] Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. under the Letter t.  (a point most opposed by Protestants, and most dear to us Catholics) in these words, lib. de vera Ecclesiae reformatione (extant in tract. Theologic. Calvini, etc. pag. 389. a. fine & b. initio) Solemn est nebulonibus istis (meaning us Catholics) quiequid vitiosum in Patribus legitur, corradere, etc. cùm ergo objiciunt locum Malachiae de Missae sacrificio ab Irenao exponi, oblationem Melchisedech, sic tractari ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, Arnobio, breviter responsum sit, eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari Corpus Christi, sed ita ridiculè, ut dissentire nos cogat ratio & veritas, etc. And in his Book of Institutions Printed Argentorati 1539. pag. 350. ante medium, and after the other Edition lib. 4. Instit. cap. 18. sect. 11. he saith, Veteres quoque illos video hanc memoriam aliò detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat, quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae imolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferehat, etc. Imitati sunt enim propius Judaicum sacrificandi morem, quam aut ordinaverat Christus, aut Evangelii ratio ferebat. And see Brereley (tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 3. post. 12.) where he expressly chargeth the Fathers with forging a Sacrifice in the Lord's Supper without his Commandment, and adulterating the Supper with adding of Sacrifice. Thus Calvin in omnes Pauli Epist. in Hebr. c. 7. ver. 9 pag. 924. saith, Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Doctores hac opinione occupatos fuisse miror, etc. certè ut error errorem trahere solet, cum ipsi Sacrificium in Christi coena, nullo ejus mandato finxissent, adeoque coenam adulterassent, addito Sacrificio, colores postea hinc inde accersere conatisunt, quibus errorem suum fucarent. And in his Book de vera Ecclesiae reformatione (extant in tract. theologic. Calvini) pag. 389. b. fine, he further saith, Veteres excusandi non sunt, quatenus scilicet ipsos apparet à puro & gennino Christi instituto deflexisse; nam cum in hunc finem celebranda sit coena, ut Sacrificio Christi communicemus, eo non contenti, oblationem quoque addiderunt: hoc auctarium vitiosum esse dico, etc.  
40. The Doctrines and say of Calvin, and Calvinists, whereby he avoidable makes God the Author of sin in us, are so known, and so strongly impugned by Protestants themselves, as I need not be long in alleging them particularly and at large, but refer the Reader to Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 14. Where he will find exactly cited these, (and other like) Doctrines: 
[o] Calvin Instit. l. 3, cap. 23. sect. 6.  That God doth ordain by his Counsel and Decree, that among men some be born destined to certain damnation from their Mother's womb, and that the decree of God in this behalf, is only because it so pleaseth him, without any respect had to their works either good or ill. That, God exciteth the wicked will of one thief to kill another, guideth his hand and weapon, justly enforcing the will of the thief. That God not only permitmitteth, but leadeth into temptation, even with an active power, and not permissive only; and doth truly, and by his determinate purpose harden, make blind, and incline the heart to evil: that God hardened Pharaoh, not speaking hyperbolically but truly, and hardened him that so he might resist: that God would that Pharaoh should not obey his Commandment, yea he wrought in him, that he should resist it, nor could he do otherwise. That God worketh effectally in our sins, that the falling of the ten tribes he calleth his work; that David's adultery was the proper work of God, as was the conversion of Paul; that God pronounceth Absalon's incestuous pollution of his Father's Bed to be his own work; and that in our sinning, neither Satan nor we are Authors, but as the instruments of God. That whatsoever thing God doth foresee (and he forseeth all sins) the same he doth will, decree, and ordain to be done, that therefore he is the Author of all those things which the (Popish) Censurers think that he idly permitteth. Which Doctrines are so absurd, that even Calvin confesseth it for 
[p] Calvin. Instit. l. 1. cap. 18. sect. 3.  inexplicable how God may be said to will sin, which he himself forbiddeth to be done, and sundry Protestants of great estimation do thereupon reject and condemn them, expressly also for that cause charging their Authors with teaching that God is the Author of Sin. From whence and from their other foresaid principle of advancing of only Faith, extenuating good works, and their other like Doctrines, have sprung, as from a hydra, the sect of the Libertines: who upon the very foresaid grounds, and colours 
[q] Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. b. paulo ante med. saith of their said principal man, contestatur sibi longe aliam esse mentem, seque D●um m●li authorem facere nolle affirmat.  (denying nevertheless verbally, as Calvin doth God to be Author of sin, and verbally also requiring 
[r] Calvin ibid. pag 548. a. prope finem, saith of their contesting in this case (as Catholics say of Calvin himself) Contestetur quantum vol. t, se licentiam peccand, praebere nolle, hoc enim nihil al ud est, quàm inane nimisque ridiculum simolationis velum obtendere, quoniam ipsi nihil est, cùm Deus omnia facere putatur. Might not th●se very words of Calvin against them, be returned aptly against Calvin himself.  integrity of life and manners) have set abroad to the world by their published 
[s] Concerning their sundry published writings, See Calvin tract. Theologic. pag. 510. a. ant med. & pag. 532. a. fine.  writings (stored 
[t] See their frequent allegation of Scripture in Calvin ubi supra. 533, 534, 535, 536, etc. And see in Calvin their allegation of these very Scriptures, which Calvin and other Protestants usually allege in defence of their foresaid Doctrine. For they allege Amos 3.6. and Esay 45.7. (apud Calvinum ubi supra, pag. 542. b. ant med.) 1 Reg. 22.21. (p. 346. a. ante med.) and Hieremie 10.32. (apud Calvinum ubi supra pag. 541. b. post med) add Epist. ad Rom. c 7. (ubi supra pag. 542. a. initio) & 1 Joan. 3.9. (ubi) supra pag. 547. b. post med.)  with testimonies of Scriptures) all 
[u] Calvin ubi supra pag. 527. b. post med. & pag 543. a. ante med.  Epicurism, and impure liberty of life. I said (upon the very foresaid grounds.) For it appeareth by calvin's report of their words in tract. Theologic. pag. 540. a. circa med. their chief reason to be (cùm Deus rerum omnium author sit, nullum jam boni & mali discrimen esse habendum, sed quicquid agitur bonum esse: because whatsoever God doth is good. And Calvin ibidem pag. 518. a. ant med. saith of the same Libertines: Temulenti isti à Deo fieri omnia perstrepentes, eum mali Authorem constituunt. Deinde quasi immutetur mali natura, cùm sub hoc nominis velo tegitur, bonum esse affirmant, etc. And Calvin also ubi supra pag. 542. b. paulo post medium, saith furthermore of one of their chief men: Persuadet nihil esse mali in stupris & adulteriis, cùm à Deo fieri omnia cognoscimus. And again ibidem pag. 543. a. paulo ante medium, he saith yet further of him. In summa huc tantùm spectat ut discrimen tollat boni & mali, ut nemini quidvis facere aut perpetrare Religio sit, cùm omnia Deo tribuat. And like as Calvin excuseth the absurdity of his like Doctrine, pretending it to be inexplicable, and above understanding, requiring therefore our humble belief thereto, saying, Instit. l. 1. c. 18 sect. 3. Ubi non capimus quomodo fieri velit Deus, quod facere vetat, veniat nobis in memoriam nostra imbecillitas, & simul reputemus lucem quam inhabitat non frustra vo ari inaccessam, quia caligine obducta est: so they in like excuse of their Doctrine, say as Calvin ubi supra pag. 540. a. prope finem reporteth their words) Omnes nostri sensus Deo subjiciendi sunt, nec quicquam de sapientia nostra persuasum habere debemus: mens nostra subigenda, ut veluti captiva Christo morem gerat. So agreeable verbatim almost are they with the foresaid reason delivered by Calvin, that Calvin immediately upon his foresaid recital of their said words, addeth, saying thereof: Quod & ipsi fatemur, imò nullo utitur apparatu hic impostor, quem ex Doctrina nostra furatus non sit. So confessedly doth their Doctrine jump and agree with Calvin in the very first grounds and reasons thereof.  
41. Although 
[x] See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13. initio.  the Nycene Council, and Athanasius his received Creed be, that Christ is very God of very God, Yet saith Whitaker (contra Camp. 208. pag. 121. circa med.) of calvin's opinion to the contrary, which condemneth this for barbarous: Howsoever the Fathers of the Nycene Council affirm Christ to be God of God, Calvin nevertheless affirmeth that we are strongly to believe, that Christ is God himself. Utcunque Patres illi (Niceni) Christum esse dixerint Deum de Deo, tamen firmissimè tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus Christum ex se habere ut Deus sit, nisi volumus Christum sua Divinitate spoliare. And Danaeus contra Bellarminum part. 1. ad Controvers. 2. & cap. 19 pag. 121. saith, Hanc phrasin, Deus de Deo, verè sensit & scripsit Calvinus impropriam esse, ac barbariem redolere. And which is most fearful, that, if the Father have his essence of himself, the Son his of the Father, and the Spirit from them both, do not then three Essences hereupon arise? Si Pater (saith Calvin in admonitione ad Polonos extant in tract. Theologic. pag. 793. b. fine) suum esse habet à seipso, Filius suum esse à Patre, Spiritus ab utroque, anon tres Essentiae emergent?) All which (to forbear the Fathers) is contrary to the testimony both of Scripture, (Christ, saying, as the Father hath life in himself, so likewise hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John. 5.26. And again, As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father. John. 6.57.) and to the other more sober learned Protestants. For Szegedinus (in loc. come. pag. 634. paulo post med.) saith directly, Dicendum est Filium eam ipsam Deitatem quae est Patris habere, non ex sese, sed ex Patre. Also Mr. Hooker (in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. pag. 113. initio) saith, The Father alone is originally that Deity, which Christ is not. And see him further pag. 106. fine, & 113. aunt medium. Which his assertion D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 16.17. specially defendeth, affirming further pag. 17. initio, that Christ hath received his substance by the gift of eternal generation, & pag. 18. ante med. that Christ is God by being of God, light by issuing out of light, and more plainly yet ibid. pag. 121. Also Mr. Fox Apoc. pag. 474. initio, saith, Christus Deus ex Deo. And Lobecius in disput. 30. Theolog. pag. 49. saith, Filius non solum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre, verum etiam suam Essentiam. Solus enim Pater vitam seu Essentiam habet à seipso. And D. Dove in his Confutation of Atheism pag. 37. fine, saith, God the Father from everlasting understanding himself, begat his Son, coeternal with himself, etc. And the confession of Belgia in the Harmony, etc. pag. 34. initio saith, We believe that Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is the only Son of God. And Melancthon (in loc. come. of An. 1561. pag. 24. fine) saith, Pater aeternus sese intuens, gignit cogitationem sui, quae est imago ipsius, dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quia cogitatione generatur, and ibid. pag. 25. initio) he saith, Secunda Persona filius dicitur, quia de substantia Patris natus est: Moreover Calvin (Epist. 2. ad Polonos, extant in his tract. Theolog. etc. pag. 396. a. paulo ante medium) saith, Precatio vulgo trita est; Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus miserere nostri, mihi non placet, ac omninò barbariem sapit. Calvin also affirms, that the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father (in Act. Serveti pag. 872. and passim.) Hereof see also Cnoglerus in his tria symbola pag. 34. and he (Calvin) also saith, that according to his Divinity he maketh intercession to God the Father (in Ep. ad Polones) and see also his words in respons. ad Polonos, extant in tract. Theolog. etc. pag. 791. b. fine, and that the name of God is properly attributed to the Father by way of excellency (in tract. Theolog. etc. in explicat. perfid. Gentilis pag. 784. a. initio) Ingenuè tradimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dei nomen, Patri propriè ascribi, insinuating so thereby, that the name of God is attributed to the Son and the Holy Ghost, but improperly, and as it were after a secondary respect. And ibid. pag. 773. b. post med. Absurdum negamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dei nomen, interdum Patri ascribi, quia ut alibi dictum est, fons est, ac principium Divinitatis. In like manner he forbeareth not to call Christ the Vicar of God, occupying the second degree of honour, saying in Harmon. in Matth. 26. v. 64.) Dicitur autem Christus sedere ad dextram Patris, quia summus Rex constitutus, quasi secundam ab eo honour is & imperii sedèm obtinet, sedet ergo ad Patris dexteram, quia ejus est vicarius, etc. And in admonit. ad Polenos (extant in tract. Theolog. etc. pag. 794. b. initio) he saith, Sententia Christi, Pater major me est, restricta fuit ad humanam ejus naturam; ego verò non dubito ad totum complexum extendere. And see there pag. 792, a. initio. And in Matth. 22. v. 44. and in 1 Cor. 15. v. 27. As also Amlungus (a prime Calvinist did let fall, that Christ was inferior to his Father according to his Divinity. Osiander in Epitome. etc. cent. 16. pag. 965. initio, reporting the conference at Hertzburg Anno 1585. between the Divines of Saxony, and the Calvinists of Hennalt (and in his praecipuus An●l●●ngus) of whom Amlungus (saith he) was the chief, saith, Inter caetera Amlungo haec impia vox excidit, Christum etiam secundum Divinitatem esse minorem Patre. There are also other say of our Adversaries which seem to sound dangerously against the equality and consubstantiality with God the Father. Master Jewel and Master Fulk affirm, that 
[y] Of this confessed opinion of Mr. Jewel and Mr. Fulks retentive pag. 89. paulo ante med. and see his confutation of the Papists quarrels Printed 1583. pag. 64, 65.  Christ was according to his Deity his Father's Priest, and 
[z] See Fulk against the Remish Testament in Hebr. 5. in sexto, sect. 4. fol. 399. b. paulo post m●d.  offered Sacrifice, (not only) according to his Manhood, but (also) according to his Godhead. An error confuted by St. Austin in Psalm 109. saying, According to that he is born of God the Father, God with God, etc. all with him who begetteth him, he is not a Priest, but a Priest for his flesh assumpted. And Theodoret in Psalm 109. saith accordingly, Christ exerciseth Priesthood as man, and receiveth Sacrifice as God. In respect of sundry which premises, Stancarus, in most other things a Calvinist, doubted not to affirm (contra Ministros Genevenses & Tigurinos' fol. 94.95. and fol. 118.123.) that the reformed Churches professing the Faith of Geneva, and Tigure, be Arian. And he further saith, Conclusum est o Calvine, Doctrinam tuam de Filio Dei esse planè Arianam, à quâ resilias quàm primùm te oro atque obtestor. It is concluded o Calvin, that thy Doctrine concerning the Son of God, is wholly Arian, which I earnestly beseech thee to abandon with all speed.  
42. To which further purpose is no less apt and memorable the further confessed testimony of Adam Neuserus (a learned Calvinist, and 
[a] The Protestant Writer Osiander in Epitome. etc. centur. 16. pag. 818. fine saith, Adam Neuserus Pastor Heydelbergensis ex Calvinismo prolapsus est in Arianismum. And Conradus Schlusselburg Theolog. Calvinist. l: 1. art. 2. fol. 9 b. termeth him, Adam Neuseru● olim Heydelbergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor. etc.  chief pastor at Heydelberg) who after his revolt unto Arianism, and from thence again unto Mahometism, 
[b] See this thus reported by Osiander in Epitome, etc. cent. 16. pag. 208. fine, and Osiander there pag. 209. initio, affirmeth, that D. Gerlachius hath at Tubinga the original writing (or letter itself) so written to him by Neuserus.  did write to Doctor Gerlachius (a Protestant Preacher) from Constantinople 2. Junii Anno 1574. saying, None is known in our time to be made an Atian, who was not first a Calvinist (as) Servetus, Blandrata, Paulus, Alciatus, Franciscus David, Gentilis, Grebaldus, Silvanus, and others (all of them Calvinists revolted to Arianism) Therefore who so feareth to fall into Arianism, let him take heed of Calvinism. Thus far Neuserus. Neither may it suffice here for our adversaries to answer, that Calvin, and the fore-alleged Protestant Writers do, notwithstanding their foresaid say, all of them acknowledge the Doctrine of the three Persons, and one God; for in vain, or, at least not well but coldly is that acknowledged in general, which is either reputed for matter of 
[c] Fulk in answer to a countersect Catholic pag. 15. prope finem affirmeth, that the true Church under the Emperor's Constantine, Constans, and Valens, was greatly infected with the Heresy of the Arians, as though the Church with Arianism could be a true Church, What else is this, but to repute Arianism for a matter of indifferency? Also Mr. Thomas Morton in his treatise of the kingdom of Israel, and of the Church, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, pag. 94. fine, affirmeth, that the Churches of Arians are to be accounted the Churches of God, because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is, faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. And ibid. p. 91. ante med. be further saith, Whensoever a company of men do jointly and publicly by worshipping the true God in Christ profess the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world (which, as before, in his opinion the Arians do) that there is a true Church, notwithstanding any corruption whatsoever, etc. So evidently doth he affirm the Arians Church to be the Church of God, and a true Church.  indifferency, or else again impugned by other contrary inferring particulars, which are as before so many and divers in the forenamed Protestants, that sundry of their own 
[d] The learned Lutheran Pelragus in admonitione de Arianis, having pag. 41.42.43. excused in what be can Melancthons' dangerous sayings, doth yet pag 45. say, Non hic Calvinianos in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laboriosè ostendam, non Adami Neuseri, non Blandratae, non Pauli Alciati, Francisci Davidis, Gentilis, Grebaldi, Silvani & aliorum facilem è Calvini Schola ad Arianos lapsum & progressum commemorabo. And Jacobus Andraeas in praefat. refutationis Apologiae Danaei pag. 54. saith, Minimè mirandum est ex Calvinianis in Polonia, Transilvania, & Hungaria, aliisque in locis quam plurimos ad Arianismum, quosdam etiam ad Mahometismum accessisse, quorum impietati haec Calviniana doctrina iter parat. And see the like affirmed by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. Art. 2. fol. 9.2. post med. And Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 97. initio, saith, Tot celebres Antitrinitarii ex Calvinianorum Scholis & Ecclesiis prodierunt.  Writers do therefore affirm them to have been the true and next occasion of these so late new uprising and many daily increasing Arians in 
[e] Beza in Epist. Theolog. Ep. 81. pag. 303. paulo post med. saith hereof, Hinc illud incendium, quod tota jam vastata Polonia, in Transilvaniam quoque pervasit. And Ep. 16. pag. 122. post med. be saith hereof, Poloniam totam & Transilvaniam in hunc miserrimum statum redactam vides.  Polonia, Hungary, and Transilvania; A thing as yet more probable, in that the principal Heads or beginners of these late Arians were, as Neuserus confesseth, all of them at first Calvinists, and so to this present in most other points do these Arian Churches yet continue, thinking themselves hereby more reform than others, of whom Mr. Hooker therefore saith in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 4. pag. 183. fine, The Arians in the Reformed Churches of Poland, think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption, and that the Pope's triple Crown is a sensible mark, whereby the world might know him to be that mystical Beast spoken of in the Revelation, in no respect so much as in his Doctrine of the Trinity.  
43. And the Protestant Writer Luc. Osiander in Epitome. etc. centur. 16. pag. 269. fine, saith of these Reformed Arians, Asserunt Deum unum in Essentia, trinum in Personis, esse commentum Antichristi, esse triplicem Cerberum, esse Deum Baal, Moloch, etc. Symbolum Athanasii vocant fidem & doctrinam Satanasii, vanissimè insuper jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babylonicae turris detexisse, se verò ex imis fundamentis eam exscindere; thinking the vulgar Protestant to be over Popish, and as far short of Reformation in respect of the Trinity, as do the Puritans think him to be in regard of Bishops and Ceremonies. In defence of which their horrible Heresy they do daily Print and publish their many 
[f] Gratianus Prosper a principal Arian published in defence of Arianism a Book of this title, Instrumentum doctrinarum Aristo elicum in usum Christianarum Scholarum, exemplis Theologicis illustratum per Gratianum Prosperum, Losci Anno 86. Wherein are reduced into form of argument all or most of the Scriptures usually alleged in proof of Christ's Divinity, and by him undertaken there to be answered, As also he propoundeth very many other Scriptures and reasons reduced into like form of argument against the Divinity of Christ. As also Socinus another Arian published lately his Book thereof against Volanus. And the other published writings of Gentilis, Servetus, Blandrata, and many other late Arians, are known and many.  Books, taking advantage to follow Calvin's example in their like perverting of the Scriptures, etc. proudly 
[g] See this in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subd. 2. at i k. And whereas the Calvinists in Polonia did dispute against the Antitrinitaries there, and charged them with arguments taken out of the Fathers, the Antitrinitaries answered the Calvinists from themselves saying, Hi sunt vetusti panni, quos●vos ipsi primi lacerastis in aliis fidei articulis, etc. & lacerata jamdudum calceamenta. See this in Nullus & nemo H. 9  rejecting the produced testimonies of the Fathers, and in 
[h] Symlerus de aeterno Dei Filio l. 1. c. 2. saith of the Arians, Hienim nos ad Scripturas provocant, & quia omnem antiquitatem sibi adversari non ignorant, omnes sine exceptione rejiciunt. And see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis 2. at i k. the like appeal of other Arians to only Scripture, expressly pretending the same by like examples of the Calvinists.  appealing from them, with show of great confidence, to only Scripture. In their allegations whereof, they are, as were the old Arians, 
[i] St. Austin (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. at●g.) contra Maximinum Ar●a●um Episc. l. 1. initio, induceth the Heretics saying then to Catholics (as Protestants do now:) Si quid de Divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus: Hae vero voces quae extra Scripturam sunt, nullo casu à nobis susc piuntur: Cum ipse Dominus moneat nos & dicat, Sine causa colunt me, docentes mandata & praecepta hominum. And again ibid. versus finem libri, the Heretic further saith, Oro & opto Discipulus esse Divinarum Scripturarum, etc. Si affirmaveris de Divinis Scriptures, si alicubi Scripti lectionem protuleris, nos Divinarum Scripturarum optamus inveniri Discipuli. See the very many Scriptures alleged only by the Arian Gratianus Prosper in his Book entitled, Instrumentum doctrinarum, etc.  very frequent and plentiful; as also no less prompt in making answer, as Calvin doth, and by imitation of his example, unto sundry those very texts of greatest importance which were heretofore by the Fathers, and are now by us urged in proof of Christ's Divinity. In so much as many (and some of them very learned Protestants) and of great reputation in their Churches, (quite contrary to M. D. 
[k] M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. initio, pag. 138. ante med. saith, The tenth imputation is of Arianism, which Heresy we accurse to the pit of Hell, with all the vile calumniations of damned slanderers that charge us with it. Neither did any of our men incline to it.  Fields untrue and bold denial) are fully persuaded that Arianism (or further infidelity) is as it were the Materia prima, or very last end or centre, whereto the poise or Bias, in this behalf, of Calvinism, is by the proper direction of its genius, daily more and more moving and inclining. In most other points the Antitrinitarians and Arians continue yet Protestants, as appeareth by Gratianus Prosper the Arian, in his Book entitled, Instrumentum Doctrinarum, etc. Printed Losci Anno 86. wherein he setteth down their several opinions to be, The inequality of Christ with God the Father; That Children are not to be Baptised, till they be of discretion to answer for themselves (which Zuinglius and Oecolampadius think to be but a matter of indifferency, as is declared in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subd. 3. at e. f. And that the Roman Church may not (in any sense) be called the Church of Christ.  
44. Pu. Mark here who be they, who are most opposite to the Roman Church, namely they, who deny the Blessed Trinity and our Saviour's Divinity, in respect whereof they term themselves the Reformed Church, condemning the other Protestants for Popish and superstitious. And as to Puritans common Protestants were esteemed Popish, so Puritan who believe the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of our Saviour with his Father, are also termed Popish, and now even they who deny the Trinity, etc. will be judged Popish by other Sects, who will pretend to be more Reformed, for example, by Independents, Anti-Presbyterians, etc. So that indeed Protestants are nothing but an heterogeneous Body, consisting of persons, whereof every part or member must think themselves obliged not to communicate with the rest, that is their Community must be an aggregate of Schisms and Schismatics.  
45. Concerning the known Texts of Scripture usually alleged in proof of the Trinity, and misapplyed otherwise by Calvin; to allege some few examples instead of many; First, concerning this known text, I and the Father are (unum) one (thing Joan. 10.30. Calvin avoideth it saying, Abusi 
[l] Pu. Mark how Calvin contemns Antiquity in a matter of greatest moment, and in favour of wicked Arianism.  sunt hoc loco veteres, ut probarent Christum esse Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neque enim Christus de unitate substantiae disputat, sed de consensu. Calvin in Joan. c. 10. v. 30. Which exposition of Calvin being the old condemned answer of Arius is defended by Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 123. fine. Secondly concerning the word Eloim Gen. 1. v. 1. Mr. Willet upon Gen. in cap. 1. pag. 19 fine, & 20. initio, confesseth and urgeth saying, Against the Jews that deny the Trinity we have evident proof in this Chapter ver. 1. Where the word Eloim, etc. And in like manner it is thus urged by Zanchius in Hunnius his Antiparaeus, etc. pag. 16.17. And by Peter Martyr ibidem pag. 14. and by very many other Protestant Writers alleged in that tract. Yet is this so common and known place avoided by Calvin in Gen. c. 1. saying, Ex verbo Eloim colligere solent hic notari in Deo tres Personas, sed quia mihi parum solida videtur tantae rei probatio, ego in voce non insistam, quin potius monendi sunt lectores, ut sibi à violentis hujusmodi glossis caveant. Thirdly, concerning Gen. c. 19 v. 24. it is said, The Lord reigned upon Sodom fire from the Lord, etc. Upon which place Mr. Willet upon Genes. c. 19 v. 24. pag. 214. paulo ante med. saith, This place is well urged by the Fathers to prove the Eternity of Christ. Yet Calvin in Gen. c. 19 saith to the contrary, and against the Fathers, quod veteres Christi Divinitatem hoc testimonio probare conati sunt, minimè firmum est, etc. And see Calvin in tract. theolog. etc. pag. 793. b. ante medium. Fourthly, concerning Psalm 2. v. 7. where it is said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: although not only the Fathers, but the Apostle also Hebrae. 1.5. do allege this in proof of Christ's Divinity, yet Calvin in Psalm 2. saith to the contrary thereof, Scio hunc locum de aeterna Christi generatione à multis fuisse expositum, qui & in verbo (hodie) argutè Philosophati sunt, sed, etc. And again Hebr. c. 1. v. 5. he further saith, 
[m] Pu. See what respect Calvin bears to St. Austin, whom even Protestants do so much esteem.  frivola enim Augustini argutia est, qui (hodie) aeternum & continuum fingit. Christus certè aeternusest, etc. Sed hoc nihil ad praesentem locum, etc. Fifthly, concerning Psalm 33. v. 6. where it is said, By the word of the Lord, the Heavens were made, and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth, Calvin rejected the exposition herein of the Fathers in behalf of the Trinity, saying (Instit. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 15.) Sciens & volens supersedeo à multis testimoniis, quibus usi sunt Veteres. Plausibile illis visum est citare ex Davidis Psalm 33. etc. ut probarent Spiritus Sancti Divinitatem, sed illa ratio infirma fuit. See further concerning this place Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 59.60. etc. Sixtly, concerning that known place 1 Joan. 5.7. where it is said, There be three that give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost, and these three be one, Calvin upon this place saith, Quod dicit tres esse unum ad Essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum potius. Thereof see further Hunnius in his Antiparaeus pag. 112.113. etc. The further examples of calvin's expositions in this kind are so exceeding many, as would grow to a great volume, and are for such accordingly collected and digested into special volumes, not by us, but by that famous and learned Protestant Preacher Aegidius Hunnius in his three special volumes of this argument, one of them entitled, Calvinus Judaizans, hoc est judaicae glossoe & corruptelae, quibus Joannes Calvinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate, etc. detestandum in modum corrumpere non exhorruit, etc. per Aegidium Hunnium S. Theol. Doctorem & professorem in Academia Wittembergensi Anno 1595. Another of them entitled, Antiparaeus, etc. Printed Wittembergae 1603. And the third entitled, Antiparaeus altar, Printed ut supra. And see like observation and collection made of sundry Scriptures (depraved as before by Calvin) in sundry other Protestant Writers of great note, as in Conradus Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 38.39.40.41. & 42. a. And in the Book (there alleged) of D. Joannis Matthaeus l. de Cavendo Calvinistarū fermento. And in Pelargus his admonitio de Arianis p. 50.51. etc. And if our adversaries hereto answer, that Calvin, all this notwithstanding, professed to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity; yet seemeth this but verbal, seeing he really evadeth so very many of those chiefest places usually alleged in behalf of the Trinity, and by such his evasion directed the Arians how to avoid the rest: For the very same kind of evasion or answer is as strong against the other, as against these. To forbear as over-infinite the particular examples of those very same evasions or answers made by sundry Arians, which Calvin maketh to the alleged Scriptures, concerning the Trinity, and to speak thereof only but in general; Hunnius in his Calvinus Judaizans pag. 44. saith hereof: Hanc glossam, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excipiunt, amplexantur, & exosculantur Franciscus Davidis, Blandrata, caeterique juratissimi, perfidissimique hostes adorandae Trinitatis. And Pelargus an other Protestant Writer of great note, in his admonitio de Arianis, etc. pag. 45. ante med. saith, Non hic Calvinum in plurimis Scripturae expositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non Calvinianos' in praecipuis de Divinitate Christi locis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, laboriosè estendam, etc. ex ipsis Arianorum libris ubi sua posuerint latibula, ubi parata sibi cognoscunt receptacula, paucis referam. And see there pag. 50. the Arians words avoiding under the express alleged authority of calvin's name and exposition, certain of the fore-alleged Scriptures. And see there further pag. 51. & 52.  
46. 
[m] See Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 8.  Concerning calvin's Doctrine concerning our Saviour Christ, he teacheth, that Christ at and before his Passion, suffered in soul the horrible torments of a damned and wicked man; Diros in anima cruciatus damnati ac perditi hominis pertulit (Calvinus l. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sect. 10.) that he not only offered his body in price, but also suffered in soul the pains due to us: (Calvinus ubi supra; in Harmonia in Matth. 27. v. 46.) Even that death which is inflicted upon the wicked by God in his anger (Calvinus institut. l. 2. cap. 16. sect. 10.) eam mortem pertulit, quae sceleratis ab irato Deo infligitur. And, all the pains for which the damned stand answerable, only excepted, that he could not be detained therein (Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10. qui dependeret ac persolveret omnes, quae ab illis sceleratis expectendae erunt, paenas, hoc uno duntaxat excepto, quod doloribus mortis non poterat detineri.) From whence also followeth the sequel of that despair, wherewith God inflicteth the damned. To which purpose certain Calvinists affirm accordingly of our Saviour, 
[n] See M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 556. cir●a medium; and Master Nowel's Catechism Greek and Latin pag. 281. And see Mr. bilson's survey, etc. pag. 377. fine & 445. post med. and Calvin in Harmonia in Mat. c. 26. ver. 39 versus finem, and Marloret in Mat. 26.  that he was in great horror with the feeling of eternal damnation: that 
[o] Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10.  he did strive with the horror of eternal damnation, 
[p] Calvin in Harmonia in Matth. 27. ver. 37. & 39 And see in M. bilson's survey pag. 387. ante med.  feared more than his bodily death, even 
[q] See in M. bilson's survey pag. 392. prope initium.  the other death far more dreadful, namely 
[r] See in M. bilson's survey pag. 503. circa & post med.  the death of the soul, or second death, and was for the time in despair. Brentius in Luc. part. 2. hom 65. & in Joan. hom. 54. & Marloret in Matth. 26. & Calvin in Matth. cap. 27. v. 46. saith, Sed absurdum videtur, Christo elapsam desperationis vocem. Respondeo, facilem esse solutionem, hanc desperationem ex sensu carnis profectam. And ibidem in ver. 47. Sic videmus omni ex parte fuisse vexatum, ut desperatione obrutus, ab invocando Deo obsisteret, quod erat saluti renuntiare. And Beza ad Haebr. 5. v. 7. affirmeth, that, Christo divinae maledictionis horrore percusso, elapsa est vox desperationis. In so much, as they affirm him to have been thereupon distempered or unadvised in his prayer; Calvin in Harmonia in Matth. 26. v. 39 sayeth, Haec ratio est, cur mortem deprecatus mox sibi fraenum injiciat, Patrisque imperio se subjiciens, votum illud subitò elapsum castiget & revocet. And after, Non fuit igitur haec meditata Christi oratio, sed vis & impetus doloris subitam ei vocem extorsit, cui statim addita fuit correctio, eadem veheme●tia praesentem caelestis decreti memoriam illi abstulit, ut non reputaret in ipso momento se hac lege missum esse, etc. Certè in primo voto Christi non apparet placida illa moderatio quam dixi, quia Mediatoris officio defungi quantum in se est, renuit, ac detrectat. Pu. O blasphemies of Calvin! If Christ did despair, and did refuse to redeem mankind (as his Father had decreed and commanded he should be our Redeemer) how can he be a Redeemer of sinners if he himself did commit so great and grievous sins as Despair and Disobedience are?  
47. Pu. As we concluded the life of Luther with a saying of Erasmus, so now we may well end the life of Calvin with the words of Hugo Grotius esteemed one of the most learned, and eloquent, and moderate Protestants of this age, who in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica ad Articulum pag. 17. saith thus of Calvin, Qua vero humanitate solitus fuerit Calvinus excipere à se dissentientes, ex scriptis liquet. Castalionem, quia illam, quam Calvinus docebat, praedestinationem oppugnabat, nebulonem & Satanam vocat: Cornhertium & nebulonem & canem: Scriptorem de officio pii viri in hoc Religionis dissidio, qui erat Cassander, ipsi autem putabatur esse Balduinus, appellat frontis ferreae hominem, pietatis expertem, prophanum, impudentem, impostorem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, petulantiae deditum. Ei Scripto cum se opposuisset Balduinus, vocat eum hominem nihili, obscaenum canem, improbum falsarium, multa scelestè ac nequiter cogitantem, & conspirantem cum improbis nebulonibus, Cynicum, scurram, perfidum, fatuum, belluinâ rabie, Satanae addictum. Cassandrum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, m●rosum, lamiam, larvam, serpentem, pestem, carnificem. Quid quod Bucerum ita vexavit, ut virum mitem coegerit haec scribere longè verissima: Judicas prout amas, vel odisti: amas autem vel odisti prout libet. Imo & ob atrocia dicta Bucerus ei nomen dedit fratricidae.   

Of Beza.  
48. NOw 
[s] Apud Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended Reformers cap. 7. sect. 1.  as concerning Theodore Beza, whose life was in like manner written by Hierom Bolseck, and by him published, Anno 1582. wherein he objecteth against Beza many great and heinous imputations set down in particular, with special naming of times, places and persons, as for example (among other) the selling of his Priory for ready money in hand, and further letting it to others in farm for five years upon money before hand received, whereupon the abused parties (upon his secret stealing away) fell at public suit, which depended of record in the Court at Paris; Also his then stealing away (at the time of his said flight) the Tailor's wife dwelling in Calendar street at Paris; furthermore the getting of his maid with Child at Geneva, and his then feigning both himself and the Maid to be sick of the Plague, whereby none should dare to come to them, whereupon he requested that they might be lodged in two Chambers of Petrus Viretus in an outer Gardin; which obtained, he caused a Barber Surgeon to let the woman blood, and to give a strong Purgation, after which she was delivered of a dead Child, which they Buried in that Garden, as the said Barber after confessed to Bolseck himself; during which mean time Beza (to cover the matter) composed certain spiritual Songs of the great pains he suffered by vehemency of the Plague, and Printed them at Geneva; whereto are further added, his Printed seditious Books for stirring up of Civil Wars in France, whereof one was entitled, the French furies, an other Truth, an other the Watch, an other the waking Bell, with others. Besides many other like grievous imputations, and the same delivered as being so particular and public, that the untruth of them (if any were,) could not but become discoverable to all men's knowledge: Although that all these were in Beza's life time published by Hierom Bolseck, and with 
[t] With great sh●w of confidence, for it is by 〈◊〉 dedicated even to the honourable, Magistrates, Counsellors, and other Governors of Geneva, for that (saith he) they could best tell whether most of those reports were true or not, and of such as they knew not, could best learn and inquire; And he professeth to have written Beza's life purposely in Beza 's time, to the end Beza then living might answer for himself.  great show of confidence, by him dedicated to the Governors of Geneva, and not without earnest Protestation of his truth and fidelity therein, yet in regard of my 
[u] See heretofore in this Consideration num. 24. prope initium.  former alleged reason concerning Bolseck, and the other method, whereto I have restrained myself, I will purposely forbear, either to affirm, and make good, or otherwise to disable Bolsecks foresaid report of them, as contenting myself with such only other testimony, as is delivered by learned Protestants themselves. In which course is not unworthy of observation, how much Beza differed from the Apostolical zeal and Spirit, in his uncharitable and profane disclaim of all care of 
[x] Beza in his words extant in Saravia, defensio tract. de diversis Ministrorum gradibus, Printed Londini M. D. XCIII. cap. 1●. pag. 309. circa med. saith, N●que verò nobis hic curiosè inquirendum puto num ad omnes gentes pervenerint A postoli, nec etiam magnopere nobis de legatione ad remotissimas aliquas gentes laborandum, quum nobis domi & in propinquo sit satis superque, quod nos & posteros exerceat, has igitur potius tam longinquas peregrinationes locustis illis, etc. Jesus nomen ementientibus relinquamus, etc.  converting Heathen Nations to the faith of Christ, leaving that (professedly) to the Jesuits: a resolution in him so unchristian, that D. Saravia (a learned Calvin●st) for such 
[y] Saravia ibid. pag. 309. post med.  condemneth it, saying, Responsionem hujusmodi à Domino Beza non expectabam, nec à quoquam Theologo, cui Evangelii praedicatio cordi sit ut esse debet, etc. adserere judico impium, & ab omni Christiana charitate alienum. 
[z] Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap 3. sect. 9 subd. 5.  First then among 
[a] Antony Faius l. de vita & obitu Clarissimi Viri D. Theodori Beza (Printed) Genevae 1606. pag. 9 paulo post med. confesseth and mentioneth, Poemata illa quae (Wolmario) preceptors suo inscripsit; in quibus non mores, sed stylum Catulli & Nasonis ad imitandum sibi proponens, Epigrammata quaedam licentiosiùs quàm postea voluisset, Scripta effudit.  those (confessed many) licentious Poems of Beza, wherein he imitated the stile of (the most wanton) Catullns and Naso, occurreth that known scandalous Epigram, made of his inordinate liking to his Ganymede, in which he debateth whether sin he may prefer; and in the end he concludeth with preferring the Boy, before his Candida. Beza's Epigrams Printed at Paris 1548. is extant among other his Epigrams of Andebertus and Candida, beginning thus: 
Abest Candida, Beza quid moraris?  
Andebertus abest, quid hic moraris?  
Tenent Parisii tuos amores,  
Habent Aurelii tuos lepores.  
Et tu Vezeliis manere pergis,  
Procul Candidula amoribusque:  
Immo Vezelii procul valete,  
Et vale Pater, & valete fratres:  
Nam Vezeliis carere possum,  
Et career Parent, & his & illis,  
Ac non Candidula, Andebertoque, etc.   
Next there followeth; 
Sed utrum, rogo, praeferam duorum?  
Utrum invisere me decet priorem?  
An quenquam tibi Candida anteponan?  
An quenquam anteferā tibi Andeberte?  
Quid si me in geminas secē ipse parts?  
Harum ut altera Candidam revisat,  
Currat altera versus Andebertum.  
At est Candida sic avara novi,  
Ut totum cupiat tenere Bezam:  
Sic Bezae est cupidus sui Andebertus,  
Beza ut gestiat integro potiri,  
Amplector quoque sic hunc, & illam,  
Ut totus cupiam videre utrumque  
Integris frui integer duobus.   
Then next after followeth, 
Praeferre attamen alterum necesse est,  
O duram nimium necessitatem!  
Sed postquam tamen alterum necesse est,  
Priores tibi defero Andeberte,  
Quod si Candida forte conqueratur,  
Quid tum? basiolo tacebit uno.   
We confess that Master Fulk in his Treatise against the Defence of the Censure doth in his there answer hereto wholly rest in denial thereof; for whereas the Defence of the Censure pag. 86. doth in particular charge Beza with this matter of Andebertus and Candida, Master Fulk in his foresaid Treatise against the Defence, etc. Printed at Cambridge by Thomas Thomas, pag. 246. coming to answer these particulars, taketh no notice of them in particular, but only answereth with a denial in general of all imputations objected against Beza. But in vain. For the matter is not only affirmed by the foresaid Protestant Writer Conradus Schlusselburg in his Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 72. a. circa med. & post med. saying, 
[b] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 11. fine in the margin at 3.  Scio & lego Bezam aliter de vita, moribus, & obitu Calvini scribere: cum verò Beza eadem haeresi & eodem f●rmè peccato nobilitatus sit, ut historia de Candida ejus meretricula testatur, nemo ipsi in hac parte fidem habere potest. And see further there concerning Beza l. 1. in prooemio pag. 4. b. & ibid. pag. 92. a. post med. & b. & 93. a. initio. And Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 93. a. initio, saying, 
[c] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subd. 5.  Constat & hoc, Bezam obscaenissimos versus scripsisse ad Germanum Andebertum, Aureliae electum, & ●undem tanquam Adonidem à Beza factum esse: as also affirmed by Tilmanus Heshusius another Protestant Writer of great fame and reputation, in his Book entitled, Verae & sanae confessionis, etc. saying, 
[d] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 11.  Spurcissimis suis moribus dedecori fuit ipsius Disciplinis honestis, quique nefandos amores, illicitos conc●bitus, scortationes, faeda adulteria sacrilego carmine decantavit orbi, non contentus eo quod ipse more porci in coeno flagitiosarum libidinum sese volutaret, nisi etiam aures studiosae inventutis sua illuvie contaminaret: 
[e] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9 subd. 5.  further in the same Book affirming, that Beza was accustomed to sing to the instrument his sacrilegious rythms: but also it is yet further confessed by our English Writers, Mr. D. Spark, and Mr. D. Morton, who both do, for their best answer thereto, affirm that Beza indeed did this, but before his calling to the Gospel, even when he was Popish: Mr. D. Spark in his answer to Mr. John d' Albines (this foresaid matter being there objected pag. 397. he in his answer thereto pag. 400.) saith thereof: All this was before he was of our Religion, even whiles he was one of yours, and he was yours when he made them. And Mr. D. Morton in his Apologia Catholica part. 1. l. 2. c. 21 pag. 355. circa med. reciteth the objection, Orbi notum est, quàm salax fuit Beza, qui publicatis poematibm paidastrias suas celebrare non erubuit, Galliae probrum, Symoniacus, Sodomita, omnibus vitiis coopertus; whereto, he in his words there, and next, and immediately following, answereth, confessing and saying, Erat, erat, sed dum in volutabro vestro miser haeserat, etc. Ille Beza igitur dum Papista, hircus fuit. Which their answer, is impertinent; for though we deny not, but many grievous sinners have repent and become afterwards very holy men; yet that any one ever since Christ's time, offending so inhumanely and unnaturally (as is here confessed of Beza) should be called extraordinarily by God to restore and publish to the world true Religion then formerly decayed (as Beza in the conference had at Ratisbone affirmed his calling to be extraordinary: whereof see Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. fine at the margin at f.) is the point now only urged, and whereof we affirm all example to be wanting. For as to that which Master Morton (in Apolog. Catholica pag. 355.) allegeth of Saul made Paul, is unapt (if not injurious to the Apostle) seeing his error was only his persecuting of the Church grounded upon preposterous zeal towards God (Acts 22.3, 4.) and not in other wickedness of life, to the contrary whereof himself saith, As touching my life from my Childhood, and what it was, all the Jews know, that after the most straight sect of our Religion I lived a Pharisy. But besides that this their answer is impertinent, it appeareth also to be most untrue, even by the testimony of Antony Faius (Beza's dearest 
[f] Antony Faius l. de ob●u & vita Bezae pag. 46. fine.  Colleague and Successor at Geneva) who affirmeth that Beza being but 
[g] Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 8. fine & 9 aunt med. and see pag. 11. ante med.  twelve years old was brought up in learning under Wolmarius, and by him then instructed out of the pure fountain of God's word, in the ready knowledge of true Christian piety: In so much also as Beza himself doth in his last Will and Testament give (special) thanks to the immortal God, for that at the ●6. year of his age, he was enlightened with the knowledge of true Christian Religion, as witnesseth Antony Faius in his Book de obitu & vita Bezae, pag. 73. initio, where he maketh recital of Beza's will, in which (saith he) Beza gratias agit Deo immortali, quod anno aetatis suae 16. verae Christianae Religionis cognitione ac luce donatus sit. Which time of his supposed enlightening (computation being had of his Birth 
[h] Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 8. post med.  24. Junii anno 1519. and of his foresaid Epigrams Printed at Paris under his name, by Robertus Stephanus anno 1548.) appeareth evidently to have been many years before his publishing of the foresaid Epigrams, the which also as may seem by Antony Faius (before cited at a.) he dedicated even to his foresaid Mr. Wolmarius, by whom he was (as before) first instructed in Religion. Hitherto of Beza's unchaste Epigrams: In further proof whereof much more as yet is affirmed by Schlusselburg (in his Theologia Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 92. a. post med. & b.) from recital out of Beza's other writings. Only we add hereto a remembrance of that Poetical vein, which Beza afterwards waxing old continued and used, when turning the Psalms of David into Latin verse (a work greatly commended by Antony Faius l. de vita & obitu Bezae pag. 80. saying, that Psalmos vario Latinorum carminum genere elegantissimè & suavissimè expressos orbi Christiano dedit: And see this Treatise of Beza further mentioned pag. 78. fine) he did among other Paraphrase the 50. Psalms, which being wholly penitential, and comprehending in it nothing but matter of grief and tears, let it be indifferently weighed, upon perusal but of part thereof here alleged (we will not say how lasciviously, but) how unanswerable to David's contrition the same is by Beza penned. He therefore saith of David, 
— Rex David amore  
Correptus, vertit Bersabae ad limina vultus;  
Bersabae, quâ non formosior altera cunctas  
Isacidum populos inter numerata puellas.  
Sed conjuncta viro, & mater jam digna videri  
Et mox tam raras mortali in corpore dotes  
Miratus, patulae radiantem frontis honorem,  
Purpureasque genas, pulchri & discrimina nasi,  
Os roseun, & flavos per eburnea colla capillos,  
Marmoreumq, sinum, porrectaque brachia longè,  
Et teretes digitos, me vero ludere in istis  
Fas oculis, inquit, etc.—   
And a little after he describeth Bersabe. 
Omnibus arridet pulchrae sibi conscia formae,  
Nunc sinit extrema crispantes frōte capillos  
Ludere, nunc varia discriminat arte vagantes:  
jam caelare sinum simulat, mammasque coërcet,  
Et super objectat tenuit velamina tele:  
jam cunct as ostentat opes, colloque superba  
Nudato, pulchra mentitur imagine Divam;  
Interdum excultis illi qui stabat in hortis  
Marmor●o insignis labro atque perennibus undis  
Fonte lavat, celeresque oculis jaculatur amores:   
Was this the Spirit of David's repentance, or rather of Beza's yet hitherto continued vein of Naso and Catullus, whom he is mentioned to have imitated heretofore? These wanton verses were such an open scandal, that now in the other late Editions they are for very shame quite omitted, and left forth, but yet still extant, and to be seen in Beza's tractat. Theologic. Printed Genevae in fol. anno 1570. pag. 661. a. circa med. But to proceed on with Beza's life, that learned Lutheran Conradus Schlusselburg (in Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 92. b. fine) reporteth further saying, This also is manifest, that Beza espoused his Candida, without her Parents assent, and for four years' space before he married her, kept her as is Concubine. Constat & hoc Bezam sibi despondisse suam Candidam insciis Parentibus, & cum ea quatuor annos consuevisse, ea concubina utendo antequam Candidam uxorem duxerit. And whereas it is also reported, that his secret flight in Company of the said Woman, for preventing of troubles hereupon to him intended, was the first occasion which brought him with her to Geneva, where (saith the reporter) he was forced to marry her in prevention of open scandal of their then conceived incontinency; it is not altogether without scruple, that Antony Faius' not ignorant of this so common report, and undertaking to make mention of Beza's marriage, doth no better prevent or clear it, but rather (as some conceive) give colour thereto, telling how that Beza being entangled with the enticement of voluptuousness, ambitious sweetness of glory gotten upon the Edition of his Epigrams, and with hope of preferment, did (lest he should be overcome by those youthful desires) promise himself in marriage, but (yet) secretly, one or two of his godly friends made privy thereto. (Faius de vita & obitu Bezae fol. 11. initio.) Name & voluptatum illecebris & ambitiosula gloriae dulcedine quam ex Epigrammatum suorum editione erat adeptus, honorumque amplissimorum spe irretitus, aliquandiu detinebatur, etc. ac primùm, nè à juvenilibus illis desideriis superaretur, uxorem sibi despondit, sed clam, conscio uno & altero ex piis amicis. And that continuing with the party in this state a long time together, at last (saith Faius ibidem pag. 12. fine) betaking himself into voluntary exile, he with his (foresaid) Spouse came to Geneva, and there first openly in the Church celebrated the marriage according to the solemn rite of Christians: Seque in voluntarium exilium cum sua conjuge recipit Genevam, Anno 1548. ibi primùm palàm in Ecclesia solemni inter Christianos ritu matrimonium celebravit. If Beza did not at first marry her, and yet as is confessed accompany with her, for the overcoming of his youthful desires, then is he upon the matter guilty of the accusation; and if he did then marry her though but secretly, and did also afterwards (as is here confessed) marry her over again openly in the Church at Geneva, how is he then free from Sacrilege? And how this may be thought but to colour the matter of his foresaid accusation, or (as some perhaps will urge) rather to agree with every circumstance thereof, we will not determine, but refer to indifferency of judgement, as also we commend to like judgement, what sign of mortification beseeming Beza's pretended 
[h] See this in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 6. fine in the margin at f  extraordinary vocation, was by him showed, when after 
[i] Antony Faius de vita & obitu Bezae pag. 54. ante med. saith, Anno 1588. mense Aprili è vivis excessit Claud a de Nossa Bezae conjux, cum qua conjunctissime vixerat annos quadringinta.  the death of his said wife called indeed Claudia, though in the foresaid Epigrams veiled under the name of Candida, himself being then sole without Children, 
[k] Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 74. ante med. saith of Beza, Liberos nullos unquam habuit.  and at the time of her said death 
[l] Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 8. fine, affirming Beza to be born 24. Junii Anno 1519. which compared to her foresaid death in April 1588. it followeth by computation, that he was then aged 69. years wanting but one Month.  aged threescore nine years, he yet afterwards in more than ordinary haste, even within the compass but of some few 
[m] It appeareth by Antony Faius ubi supra pag. 96. fine, & 67. initio, that Beza died 13. Octo. 160●. aged 86. years, 3. Months, And it appeareth further pag. 74. ante med. that his second wife had been then married to him during the space of 17. years, which number of 17. years, being deducted from the foresaid years of 1588. in which his first Wife as before died. And this perhaps was the cause why Antony Faius being c●rious in setting down precisely the very year and certain time of Beza 's other proceed, as nom lie of his Birth (pag. 8.) his death (pag 66.) his first marriage at Geneva (pag. 12.) the death of his first Wife, and many other like; forbeareth yet to observe this course in like setting down the certain time of his second marriage, though yet nevertheless the observant Reader may otherwise collect the same from him, in that upon his foresaid mention of Beza 's first wife's death, set down pag. 54. he doth say pag. 55. that Beza made his second marriage, aliquanto post tempore, a small time after, and the same there set down as in order precedent to Beza 's actions of anno 1589. mentioned pag. 56. initio:  Months 
[n] Antony Faius ibidem pag. 55. paulo post medium.  married, not without great note thereof, both at home and abroad, Katherine, the (young) Widow of Franciscus Taruffus. As likewise (forbearing his confessed) 
[o] See his insolency noted by Master Bancroft (now since Lord Archbishop of Canterbury) in his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline pag. 54. initio.  insolency, 
[o] Master Bancroft ibidem.  pride, 
[q] Ibidem pag. 59 post med.  lewd saying, and 
[r] Ibidem pag. 219. fine, & 220. initio.  discrediting himself in being crank with the ancient Fathers; we commend to all equity of Judgement, the many 
[s] See Master bancroft's Survey of the pretended holy Discipline pag. 42. post med. where it is said, He that shall read Master calvin's, and Master Beza 's Epistles, and the Commentaries of France, with divers other discourses, and some of them known Protestants, would certainly marvel to understand, into what actions they thrust themselves, of war, of Peace, of subjection, how far it extendeth, of Reformation without staying for the Magistrates, of ●eagues, of Impositions, and what not? They writ their Letters to this State and that State, etc. And D. Bolseke in his Book of Beza 's life, and the defence of the Censure pag. 88 & 89. charge Beza with many odious Conspiracies, and with publishing of many seditious Books there named in particular. And Master Bancroft in his Survey pag 48. maketh mention of divers Books of deposing Princes Printed at Geneva.  accusations of those sundry complotted seditions and conspiracies, wherewith he is, (how truly or untruly we will not say) charged to have troubled foreign Nations, together also with those his confessed unworthy 
[t] Master Barcroft in his Survey, etc. pag. 127. post med.  disordered writings, wherein he is by our English Protestant's said to 
[u] See this in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 2. subd. 2. at k.  arm the Subjects against the Prince, and to 
[x] See ibidem at l.  overthrow in effect all the authority of Christian Kings and Magistrates.  
49. To 
[y] Brereley in the Preface to the Read● sect. 13 pag. 21.  allege briefly some few particulars of Beza's seditious practices: doth not he allow and highly commend the Wars in France for Religion against the Laws and lawful King of that Country, saying (in his Epistle Dedicatory of his new Testament to the Queen of England, in Edition Anno 1564.) That the Nobility of France (under the noble Prince of Condy) laid the foundation of restoring true Christian Religion in France, by consecrating most happily their blood to God in the battle of Dreux? Did he not write a seditious Book of this Argument, entitled de jure Magistratuum in subditos? so known and evident, that Master Sutcliff in his answer to a certain Libel supplicatory pag. 75. paulo post med. (and see pag. 71. paulo post medium) saith thereof, their Doctrine doth wholly tend unto trouble and rebellion: Beza in his Book of the power of Magistrates, doth arm the subjects against the Prince in these causes. A Book (saith he yet further ibid. pag. 192. post med.) which overthroweth in effect all the authority of Christian Kings and Magistrates. And again (ubi supra pag. 98. initio) he allegeth Beza his judgement concerning excommunicated Princes, saying, Beza roundly teacheth, what reason have Christians to obey him that is Satan's slave? And the like is yet further confessed in this kind against Beza by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey of the holy pretended Discipline pag. 48. prope initium. And in his Book entitled dangerous Positions. pag. 21. & 18.  
As also that temperate Protestant Writer D. Saravia argueth sufficiently Beza his seditious Doctrine in this his over-modest or rather excusing reprehension and answer thereto, saying, Quid his verbis, etc. Some rest doubtful what Mr. Beza intendeth by these words, where he thinketh it not right, that the godly should stay till the Wolves be expelled by public authority, and that he may seem secretly to insinuate that those Wolves may be expelled by private authority, as was done in the Low-Countries, and other places, etc. (Saravia in defence. tract. de diversis gradibus Ministrorum, contra responsionem Clarissimi viri D. Theodori Bezae c. 2. pag. 74. paulo ante med.) And see Beza's own words there. And see him also in his Epist. Theolog. Epist. 68 pag. 318. ante med. where he saith, Habeo alia nonnulla majoris momenti, quae tamen per litter as satis commodè significare non possum, perplacet autem mihi quod de conventu absque ulla Principum aut civitatem authoritate privatim instituendo scribis. And then thrusteth in this Bodge: Quamvis nullis prorsus conselis Principibus id fieri minimè velim. And so likewise in the words reprehended as before by Saravia, he saith expressly, Si piis semper expectandum putas, dum lupi ultro cedant, vel publica authoritate expulsi, tibi minime assentior. But yet saith he with a like Bodge, Nihil seditiose movendum extra controversiam est, sed piè & constanter amplectendas affirmo omnes Divinitus oblatas veri cultûs Divini restituendi occasiones, etc. Et ni ita factum esset, quas tandem Ecclesias bodie haberemus? What hypocrisic is this, to teach Reformation against the Magistrate's mind? And yet forsooth not seditiously, as though it could be so performed without sedition. These are in words smooth pretences, but indeed no other than plain seditions and treasons, whereby himself in his foresaid words signifieth his Church to have enlarged herself.  
Hereto may be added Mr. bancroft's saying (in his Survey of the pretended holy Discipline pag. 42. circa med.) He that shall read Mr. calvin's and Mr. Beza 's two Books of Epistles, and likewise the Commentaries of France, with divers other discourses about those affairs, & should withal give any credit, either to Heshusius, Balduinus, Carpentarins, or others, men learned all of them, and some of them known Protestaents, would certainly marvel to understand, into what actions and deal they thrust themselves, of War, of Peace, of subjection, how far is enter ded, of Reformation without staying for the Magistrates, etc. Besides 
[z] Br●●●ky in the Presage 〈…〉 〈…〉 pag. ●4.  See a was present in the Batta●● of Dre●● defended by him present. as 〈◊〉 Fasus de vita & ob●●● Be●● pag. 45. prope 〈◊〉 saith. Post mense● 〈◊〉 conten●●sun● 〈…〉 〈…〉. etc. side 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Chr●st● 〈…〉 〈…〉 bor are 〈◊〉. etc. And the Protestants of Mea●● (as is recorded in the general inventory of the History of France, pag. 593.) transported with indiscreet zeal grounded upon their numbers, did ●ly to the Churches, be at down Images, and make the Priests retire: Whereto is but agreeable their like confessed insolency at Grevoble, Charti●●s, and Orle●nce, ●e●● Preaching there●● with his Sword and Pistol, and exhorted the people to show their manhood, rather in killing the Papists, than in breaking Images. Re●● 
[a] Apud li●●ley in his 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 of the late 〈…〉 cap. 〈◊〉. sect 4 〈…〉 pag. 18●, 184.  is also charged with Pultr●●s known murder of the old Duke of Guise, who being thereupon 
[b] 〈◊〉 Pul●●● ●● 〈…〉 〈…〉 all might 〈…〉 hi● Pistol 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉, and of his 〈◊〉 being sound and taken 〈◊〉 th● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after, at the 〈…〉 be did the deed: the Protestant Author of se●und●● 〈…〉, etc. saith, 〈…〉 pesta no●● in eum prope locum unde 〈◊〉 etc. 〈…〉 〈…〉. pag. 345. 〈◊〉.  very strangely (if not miraculously) apprehended, did at the time of his execution, publicly 
[c] The Protestant Author of the Treatise intiuled Secundae partis Commentariorum de statu Religionis & reip. in Regno Galliae libri tres, Carolo nono Rege, Printed 1571. pag. 357. post med. saith of Poltrots' execution, illud interfecti Guisii supplicium ded●●, quaestionis habitae edito quodam se ipto, Pol●rot us Amiral●um facinoris illius authorem & hortatorem appellabat, & Theodo 'em Bezam cum alio mimmè nominato Ministro illi accusation● involvebat ut ad eam rem impulsorem, etc. Also Pultrots confession at his death yet extant in P●int, chargeth Beza as persuader and procurer thereof, in answer whereto Mr. Whitaker in his answer to F. Camp an (rat. 8. and after the English Edition pag. 223.) doth surmise that Pultrot was induced to accuse noble and innocent men, through hope of impunity, or sear of punishment: By which pretext all accusations made by the confessions of offenders at their deaths, are most improbably taken away.  charge Beza, as being the first Author, and persuader thereof.  
50. As 
[d] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 14. in the text and margin at 15.  concerning his unworthy opinion of the Apostolical times he doubted not (if not most arrogantly read and judge) to prefer in knowledge of the truth, the now Protestant Writers, even before those other that flourished immediately, and next after the Apostles times. For in Epist. Theolog. Epist. 1. pag. 5. initio, he saith, Itaque dicere nec immeritò quidem, ut opinor, consuevi, dum illa tempora, Apostolicis etiam proxima, cum nostris comparo, plus illos conscientiae, scientiae minus habuisse: nos contra, scientiae plus, conscientiae minus habere, haec mea sententia est.  
51. Whereas 
[e] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15. sect. 2.  the Catholic Faith holdeth one substance or unity of Essence in three Persons, Beza saith to the contrary, (in his Confession in English Printed 1585. pag. 1. and see Confess. Genev. c. 1.) the word of God teacheth plainly that the Divine substance is (not wholly in three Persons, but) distinct really and truly from everlasting into three Persons.  
52. Concerning 
[f] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 8. at 15.  our Blessed Saviour, Beza (ad Haebr. 5. ver. 7.) affirmeth, that he was for time in despair: Christo Divinae maledictionis horrore percusso, elapsae est vox desperationis.  
53. As 
[g] Brereley in his Book a part of the lives of the late pretended R●formers, etc. cap. 7. sect. 3.  concerning Beza's notable dissembling and temporizing in matter of Religion, I will only allege one example thereof mentioned by the Protestant Writer Osiander, who reporteth 
[h] See this in Osiander centur. 16. l. 3. cap. 28. pag. 657. post med.  that certain Protestants being cast into Prison at Paris, the French Calvinists sent, as Legates into Germany, Beza and Farellus, that they might obtain from the Protestant Princes, their intercession to the French King for the (foresaid) Captives. These Legates, Beza and Farellus going first to Worms unto the Lutheran Divines, Melancthon, Brentius, Marpachius, and Jacobus Andreas, offered unto them a Confession of their Faith, in which they did profess (among other things,) the very substance of Christ's flesh to be exhibited in the Sacred Supper, and that the difference among the (Protestant Divines, was not of the thing itself, but only of the manner of the presence, which was known only to God: 
[i] Pleraque in illa confessione sic posita erant, ut videre●ur non Calvinistica sed Lutherana: hujus Confessionis autographon ego vidi, & legi manu Theodori Bezae & Farelli subsignatum etc. Tigurini Theologi hanc Bezae & Farelli confessionem ut nimis Lutheranam reprehenderunt, quibus responderant Beza & Farellus; opus sibi fuisse bono dolo ad liberandos fratres: ●tem se in illa confessione clam apud se in scrinio pectoris sui, duas voces (per fidem & spiritualiter) retinuisse. Osianderabidem pag. 65. ante med. Also the Lutheran writer Holderus in his Book inti●●eled. Asinus, Printed Tubingae. 1587. cap. 29. pag. 49. circa med. saith hereof. Tigurini ubi de re tota certiores ●unt, tanta hominis impostura acriter dolent, & eam contessionem magna contentione impugnant, Bezamque falsi reum peragunt: quid verò interim Beza, num se deserit? minimè: Audi artem tali artifice dignam: vult persuadere Tigurinis, dolum aliquando bonum esse, & aliud agere, aliudque simulare, etc.  and many things were so put in that Confession, as they seemed not Calvinistical, but Lutheran: the original Copy of this confession I myself (saith Osiander) both saw and read, it being subscribed with the hand writing of Beza, and Farellus: hereupon they had recourse to the Duke of Witemberg, by whom they also obtained from other Prince's intercession to the French King: (at their return) the Tigurine Divines reprehended this Confession of Beza and Farellus as over Lutheran; to whom Beza and Farellus answered, that they stood in need of some good deceit, whereby to deliver their Brethren. Also that in the foresaid Confession, they privately retained with themselves in the secret of their breast, these two words, viz. by Faith, and spiritually; thus far the Protestant writer Ofiander concerning the said Confession, which (as himself saith) he both saw and read over, with his own eyes: And is it now so hateful and reprovable in some Catholics to equivocate though verbally, and in case of safety of their own or brethren's lives, and yet lawful for Beza to equivocate, not verbally, but by subscribed writing, neither as in case of safety of life, but of profession of Faith? A course so peculiar in Osiander's opinion to the Calvinists, that he doubteth not to say of them, 
[k] Osiander centur. 16. lib. 3. c. 61. pag. 796. paulo post med. saith, Hanc enim Maximam seu regulam habent Calvinistae, licere pro gloria Christi mentiri.  They hold this for a ground or principle, that it is lawful to lie for the glory of Christ.  
54. Let us end the life of Beza with the words of Hugo Grotius (in Voto Pacis, etc. pag. 18.) saying, Beza fatetur per quindecim annorum spatium, quo alios docuit justitiae viam, nec sobrium se factum, nec liberalem, nec veracem, sed haerere in luto.  
To the foresaid lives I have thought it not amiss to add somewhat of Melancthon, Luther's dearest friend, and one of the most famous Protestants in those beginnings, of whom Luther (apud Brereley tract. 2. sect. 3. subd. 14.) in the margin at 4.) saith, that the Apology of Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceeds even Austin himself: as also of Bucer, a famous Protestant, and called into England to teach Divinity in the University of Cambridge; and lastly I will say a word of that furious Heretic John Knox, a seditious botifeu and incendiary, and pestilent Preacher of Heresy in Scotland.   

Of Melancthon.  
55 COncerning 
[l] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13. sect. 2. 〈…〉  Melanthon; First he is charged to affirm, that there be three Divinities, as there be three persons. Melancthon. in locis Communibus Anno 1545. cap. de Christo. Insomuch as he is for this Doctrine reprehended by Stancharus l. 4. de Trinitate. See his words alleged in the Treatise entitled Nullus & nemo fol. 3. b. And by Cnoglerus in his Tria Simbola pag. 34. & 124.  
56 Moreover 
[m] Brereley in his Omissions pag. 396.  Melancthon in Consil. Theolog. pag. 134. prope initium, adviseth in behalf of King Henry the 8th. (whose Divorce from his first wife he thought unlawful) saying, Respondeo si vult Rex successione prospicere, quanto satius est id facere sine infamia prioris conjugii. Ac potest id fieri fine ullo periculo Conscientiae cujusquam aut famae per. Poligamian etc. Quia Poligamia non est res omnino inusitata: Habuerunt multas conjuges Abraham, David, & allii Sancti viri, unde apparet poligamiam non esse contra Jus Divinum. This advice was thus given by Melancthon Anno 1531. as appeareth there pag. 128. paulo post med. And, apud Brerely tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 5. marg. e. Melancthon Consil. Theolog. part 1. pag. 648. affirmeth, that in case of divorce and dismission upon Adultery; the offending party, whether Man or Woman may marry again. Affirming there further this to be the Doctrine of Luther and Pomerane. And see also there further pag. 550.  
57 Concerning 
[n] Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7 in the margin at †.  Melancthon's inconstancy touching the Real Presence, see in l. Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii l. 3. pag. 603. post med. where Melancthon in his Epistle there to Oecolampadius saith most confidently in behalf of the Real Presence: Non modo cogitavi ipse quid in utram partem dici possit, sed inquisivi etiam veterum ea de re sententias etc. Cum omnia quae in utraque parte firmissima videntur, expendi, dicam pace tua, non tamen eo in sententiam tuam: nullam enim firmam rationem invenio, quae conscientiae discedenti à proprietate verborum (Christi) satisfaciat etc. And see Melancthon's words more vehement, full and at large, ibidem in his Epistle to Fredericus Miconius alleged there pag. 618. & 644. post med. & 645. And see Hospinian in historia Sacramentar. part. altera fol. 68 b. And yet of Melancthon's change afterwards unto Calvinisme, see the same confessed by Hospinian in Hist. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 115. a. initio. & circa med. & fol. 141. b. initio. And by Osiander in Epitome. etc. Centur. 16. pag. 615. initio, where Osiander doth expressly charge Melancthon with inconstantia Viro Theologo indigna. And see no less there pag. 667. Hence it is that though the Protestants in Colloq. Attembergensi printed in quarto Jenae ad Salam. 1570. fol. 510. b. paulo post medium do there commend and term Melancthon to be optimum & Sanctissimum Virum etc. Yet in regard of such his noted and known inconstancy in Doctrine, it is also there fol. 337. b. circa medium said of him illud saltem de locis Phillippi paucis et modeste addimus. Primum constare Philippum toties fere eos mutasse, & rebus & verbis, ut quibus sit fides adhibenda, in dubio est. Lutherum istam crebram mutationem improbasse, ex fide dignis accepimus. And see further of Melancthon's inconstancy, the Protestant Writer Schlusselburg. in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 91. a. post med. & b. & fol. 92 a, b. & fol. 94 & 95. And see Osiander in Epitome etc. Centur. 16, pag. 809. circa & post medium. & pag. 703. paulo post medium where it is said of him: Hujus viri eruditioni si constantia in vera religione respondisset, plane incomparabilis vir extitisset etc. Wherefore I may conclude with the words of Gasper Ulenbergius, in libro cui titulus, Grains & just cause cur Catholicis in communione veteris, ejusque veri Christianismi permanendum sit etc. Causa 15 c. 15. pag. 315. Edit. Collon. 1589 in octavo. Where he saith, Quamobrem non est usque adco a veritate alienum, quod Melancthonem nobili cuidam Johanni Bartholomeo a Velberg, consuluisse aiunt, ut a Catholico communicandi atque orandi ritu non discederet, ac inter cetera, hoc ejus quoque verba, ad eundem nobilem dicta referunt. Nullum habeo digitum (inquit) in manu mea, cujus jactur a non optarim, me nunquam ad scribendum de rebus Theologicis accessisse, sed vocasse Philosophiae meae quemadmodum feci a principio, verum longius nunc progressus sum quam ut regredi passim, hactenus Melancthon, ex cujus verbis promptum est Estimare quomodo ipsius Conscientia, propter grave hoc in Religione dissidium, cui suscitando ipse quoque manum admovit, constituta fuerit, Scribit hoc Wolfangus, Agricola, Becanus & Pastor Paltensis in Concione de Matrimonio.   

Of Bucer.  
58 COncerning Bucer's 
[o] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 5.  Doctrine, among his many other gross absurdities, wherewith Mr. Cartwright allegeth in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 522. prope initium. Chargeth him (apud Brerely hic at l.) he was so inclining to the Libel of Divorce permitted by Moses, that he doubted not to teach, that as there is at this day, like hardness of Hearts, so the distressed Wives ought to be relieved no less now than in time past; For (saith he) the Magistrate now, hath no less Authority in this matter than Moses had, and at this day ought to use the same. Bucer, in sacra quatuor Evangel. etc. In Mat. 19 fol. 147. paulo post med. And see the Index or table to that book under the letter R. at the word Repudium. And see the other Edition of his Book Anno 1536. pag. 390 prope finem, & 391 aunt med. In Matth. c. 19 he saith (apud Brereley hic at d. in the margin) Sieve just sive injusté repudiata aliqua fuerit, si nulla ei sit spes ad primum virum redeundi, cupiat autem piè vivere, maritoque opus habeat, ducens eam nequaqam peccabit. And in further proof of the continuance thereof to this time, he yet further saith, Neither is it to be believed that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded, but he commanded to the hard of heart, that if they would not entreat their wives with Nuptial equity, they should then procure liberty by a Libel of divorce to marry again. Bucer ibidem paulo post. (apud Brereley hic at 5.) And Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana de Regno Christi l. 2. c. 26 & 27. pag. 99 & 100 affirmeth further most plainly the same Doctrine, & ibidem c. 28. pag. 101. in which places he doubteth not to teach, that Quicunque nolit etc. Whosoever will not induce his mind to love his Wife, and to entreat her with all conjugal Charity, that man is commanded by God to put her away and marry another: And that this being commanded in the old Law, pertaineth also to Christians. See this ibidem pag. 100 In like sort also doth he allow and defend liberty of Divorce and Marriage again, in case of the ones departure from the other (Bucer in script. Anglican. de Regno Christi, l. 2. c. 26. pag. 114. &. c. 41. pag. 122) In case also of Homicide (ibidem, l. 2. c. 37. post med &. c. 40 initio) or but repairing to the company or banquet, of immodest persons (ibidem, l. 2. c. 37. pag 115. ante med. &. c. 40. pag. 120 post med.) likewise in case of incurable infirmity of the Woman by Childbirth, or of the man by Lunacy or otherwise, whereby either party is become unable to render marriage right (Bucer ibidem, c. 42. pag. 123 prope finem & 124 circa med) In these and many other such like cases, he yet further generally concludeth the lawfulness of Divorce and Marriage again. ibidem. pag. 124 prope finem, and see also the marginal note there, where is set down, Conclusio, quod aliis de causis quam fornicationis concedenda sint legitima divortia novaque inire connubia. And in the Text there, it is said: Haec adferenda putavi ad eam explicandam questionem, num concedi a Christianis Principibus & Rerumpub. moderatoribus possit divertium facere & ad alteras transire nuptias, aliis quam fornicationis et stupri de causis. Ex quibus, siomnia rite et ex verbo Dei ponderentur, satis liquebit neminem, nec virum, nec mulierum, cui opus sit ad bene casteque vivendum conjuge, ac conjuge cohabitate, aut conjugii necessaria officia faciente, prohibere debere, quin vir talem quaer at uxorem et habeat, et mulier talem virum, si depreheasum & evictum sit, vel virum cui pia mulier nupta fuit, vel mulierem quam vir pius uxorem duxit, praestare necessaria conjugii officia, aut abstinatè nolle, aut hujusmodi comisisse scelera, ut propter turpitudinem suam non possit: aut denique incurabili impediri impotentia, quo minus per corporis vires illa valeat conjugii officia persolvere. Moreover Bucer concludeth the lawfulness of Divorce and marriage again to be Verbo Dei consentienter, Agreeable to the word of God: ibidem pag. 124. versus finem, and see pag. 120 prope finem. And all this in that very book of his de Regno Christi, which is by our learned Adversaries highly magnifyed: of which book Nicholas Car (in epist. de obitu Buceri ad Joannem Checum, extant in Bucer's Scripta Anglicana pag. 873. fine) saith, Liber Buceri de Regno Christi editus continebat absolutissimam & perfectissimam totius Doctrinae Christianae effigiem. In like manner also in case of the Husbands one years voluntary absence, the Opinion of Bucer (in Script. Anglic. pag. 122 ante medium) is, that it is lawful for the Wife to marry again. An Error so manifest and confessed, that it being objected to Mr. Whittaker by Dureus (contra Whittakerum printed at Paris 1581. fol. 287. b. fine) Mr. Whittaker in his Reply to that Book and very folio, forbeareth all mention and defence thereof.  
59 As concerning divers 
[p] Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7. in the margin at †.  notable Inconstancies (for which Luther in Ep. ad Joan. Har. Typ. Arg. calleth Bucer a very Monster, charging him further with Perfidia, in Lutheri Locis Comm. quinta Class. fol. 50. antemed.) See further Osiander in Epitome. etc. Centur. 16. pag. 249 initio. That after his first Apostasy from our Religion, he defended with Luther the Reall-Presence, is in itself evident and confessed by Peter Martyr in his Treatise of the Lords Supper, annexed to his Common Places in English 138. ae. fine. after which he became a Zuinglian, as appeareth by Bucer himself in Epist. ad Norimb. & ad esseingenses. After which he revoked that Opinion, and joined again with Luther, as appeareth by the Acts of the Synod holden at Luther's House in Wittenberg Anno 1536. And is further confessed by Osiander in Epit. etc. Centur. 16. pag. 246 post med. and by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvanist. l. 2. fol. 17. b. ant med. and by Lavaterus in Hist. Sacrament. pag. 31. alleged also by Schlusselburg ubi supra. Insomuch as Lavaterus in Hist. Sacrament. allegeth by Schlusselburg l. 2. fol. 129. a. post medium saith of Bucer, non parum abalienatus a Tigurinis esse visus est, quos ante & amârat plurimum, & singular quâdam pietate coluerat. And see there also fol. 129. b. circa med., where it is further said, Bucerus a Tygurinis Zuinglianis omnino abalienatus est. And see Bucer's first Edition of his Commentaries upon the sixth of John and the 26 of Matthew, where he asketh Pardon of God and the Church, for that he deceived so many with the Error of Zuinglius. And see further also Functius in Chronic. And for his fourth change after all this into Zuinglianism again, at his coming to Cambridge, it is to all men evident, and he therefore noted by the Protestant Writer Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvin. l. 2. fol. 70. b. fine, where he saith, Idem tamen Bucerus Anno 1551 Cantabrigiae in Anglia, iterum ad Zuinglianorum haeresim deficit. And ibidem fol. 17. b. circa med. it is further said, Bucerus Anno 1551 Cantabrigiae in Anglia rursus parva cum honestate ad Calvanistas defecit. So evidently he did change his Doctrine, First to Lutheranism, and from thence afterwards to Calvinism, from thence back again to Lutheranism, and from thence lasty again to Calvinism. And all this thus done both by Melancthon and Bucer, with solemn Profession and show, at every such change, of all full confidence and resolution of opinion, and the same with great vehemency pretended evermore, as plain and evident from the Scriptures. Pu. Which shows that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith, but that we must have recourse to a living infallible Judge of Controversies.   

Of Knox.  
60 THE most turbulent and seditious Doctrines and Deeds of John Knox, the pretended Reformer of Religion in Scotland, are so notorious and known and exorbitant, that I have no mind to set them down in particular, nor can any man of a quiet spirit take pleasure in recital of them. Yet if any desire to be further informed, he may read Brerely in his Preface to the Reader, particularly (besides other places) sect. 14. Here therefore I will only set down that which a person of honour, of worth, and truth relates; namely, that when King James came first into England, being received and entertained by a person of eminent rank at that time, took occasion one day at dinner (where at least a hundred persons attended to see and serve him) to inveigh in earnest manner against some kind of disobedient, seditious, and mutinous persons, upon which subject he was large: and as for Knox in particular, I remember well (saith the foresaid most worthy person, the Relator hereof, who then was present) and so well that I am able to depose it, that the King said in particular of him, that God thought fit to set a visible mark of Reprobation upon him even in this life before he went to the Devil; which was, that being sick in his Bed with a good fire of coals by him & a candle light upon the table, a woman or maid of his sitting by him, he told her that he was extremely thirsty, and therefore willed her to fetch him some drink. She went, and returned quickly, but found the Room all in darkness; For not only the Candle, but the Cole-fire also was utterly extinct, and she by that light which herself brought in immediately after, saw the body of Knox lying dead in the middle of the floor, and with a most ghastly & horrid countenance, as if his body were to show the condition of his Soul.  
61 Pu. Holy Scripture saying, Prov. 17. v. 6 The Glory of Children their Fathers; I beseech the Protestant Reader to weigh unpartially what Fathers the Protestant pretend Religion hath by reflecting upon what we have demonstrated, even out of learned Protestants concerning the Doctrines and Lives of their first Reformers; and if they find them to be such as indeed they were, they ought to resolve speedily to forsake such infamous Fathers, and return to that Religion from which those Sectaries departed: to which end these ensuing Reflections may help, if they be pondered, not cursarily, nor with prejudice, or a Resolution to find out some kind of answer to all that may be objected; but uprightly and with a hearty desire to find the Truth, for attaining the salvation of their Souls. Consider then and collect from what we have said  
First, that as I said heretofore, seeing they taught Doctrines which Protestant's themselves do not only reject, but detest and abhor, they cannot be said to have been of the Protestant Religion, and so Protestants must find some other beginning or beginners of Protestancy, than those whom hitherto they have taken for their glorious Fathers, and persons qualified with such gifts and endowments as make them fit to reform the whole Christian world: and these being once removed from the rank of their Forefathers, how will they answer this question: Who in particular were the first beginners of their Protestant Church? at what time and in what place did they live? To which demand, I am sure they cannot answer with satisfaction, but perforce they must be content to be like the Donatists of whom St. Optatus said, that they were Filii sine Patre, Sons without Father; and every one must be to himself a beginning of his Faith and Religion. A dreadful point in the business of an Eternity, and necessary subject to that weighty saying of St. Bernard; Qui se sibi magistrum constituit, stulto se discipulum subdit. He who will be his own Master, shall be Scholar to a Fool.  
Secondly, For Manners, who can imagine that God being Truth, Purity, and Peace itself; would choose for Reformation of the World) such men, as confessedly have shamefully erred against Truth for Doctrine, and against not only Purity, but common honesty and morality: and against Peace by being, both for their Doctrines and Practices, Authors of Tumults, Seditions, and Rebellions.  
Thirdly, it ought to be considered with deepest grief and Tears, what a lamentable thing it was, that people should have been seduced from that ancient Religion which the World professed, with the specious names of Dr. Luther etc. and with a fair but false and lying title of Reformation, by men, who indeed were such as hath been declared and proved from their own Writings, and the express and direct Assertions of their own brethren.  
Fourthly, since we have found them to be most inconstant in their Doctrine, in matters of highest concernment, expressly professing to have temporised, & accommodated themselves to the times, and not to that which even themselves judged true, who can rely on them, unless he first resolve not to be settled in any truth, but to be ranked among those who circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae? which in effect is no better than to have no true Faith at all.  
Fiftly, seeing they cannot, nor ever could agree with those whom they style Brethren; and (which is the main point) have no possble means of agreement; no men in wisdom can join themselves to the common general name of Protestants, not knowing which of them in particular hold the Truth; nor who are or are not Protestants; nor why they should believe one sect of them more than another; neither is it possible to join with them all, they believing and professing to believe contradictory Tenants, some of which must needs be false.  
Sixtly,  those first Reformers are confessed to hold Doctrines in themselves damnable, and detested even by Protestants, how can they be excused from Heresy? And seeing they left the whole Catholic Church extant before Luther, upon pretence of Errors in Doctrine of less moment than those wherein they thus differ among themselves, and yet forsake not one another, but will needs be Brethren and of one Communion, how can they be excused from Schism by their division from the Communion of all Churches?  
But now having declared what kind of men the Progenitots of Protestants were, let us in the next place examine of what Fathers we Catholics may deservedly glory, even by the Confession of our Adversaries, who by evidence of Truth are forced to confess, that the Ancient Holy Fathers taught the same Doctrines, and practised the same things, which Protestants disprove in us, and for the Reformation whereof they pretend to have forsaken our Church. This then, according to the order prescribed in the Preface, must be the subject of the next Consideration.    

THE SECOND. CONSIDERATION  
By the Confession of Protestants, the Ancient Holy Fathers believed and practised the same things which we believe and practise against Protestants.  
1. FIrst (saith Brereley tracked 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 1.) concerning Vows, it is confessed, that the Fathers did allow Vows of perpetual Chastity, affirming them to be obligatory. Non ignoramus (saith Chemnitius exam. part. 3. pag. 14. ante med.) quod Patres vota perpetui caelibatûs probent, quodque illa obligatoria etiam agnoscant. In so much as he (Chemnitius) doth thereupon specially recite and reject in this behalf, the several say of Basil, 
[q] Chemnitius ibid. pag. 40. a. ant med.  Ambrose, and Chrysostom. Also of 
[r] Ibid. pag. 42. a.  Epiphanins, Austin, and 
[s] Ibid. pag. 42. b. ant med.  Innocentius. And it is likewise yet further affirmed, that the 
[t] Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 490. saith, Erant ergo Clementis aetate professiones & vota, fateor. I am tune incaeperant homines deflectere à Verbo Dei, etc. With whom agreeth Mr. Parkins in Problem, etc. pag. 191. initio, saying, In antedictis saeculis, stipulationes de continentia publice in Ecclesia fieri solebant: nam Anno Christi 170. Clemens Alex. l. 3▪ stromat. ait, etc.  profession and Vows of Chastity were extant among Christians in the time of Clement Bishop of Alexandria, who by 
[u] Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 11. paul●ante med. saith, Clemens de se ipso loquitur, quod prope ad Apostolorum tempo●a successerit.  his own testimony lived near to the Apostles times: that 
[x] Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 524 fine saith, Scio Epiphanium cum multis aliis ex Patribus in eo errare, quod peccatum esse dicunt votum hujusmodi violare, cum onufuerit, & malè illum id refer in traditiones Apostolicas.  Epiphanius and many other Fathers erred therein: that 
[y] Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 140. linea 27. & cent. 3. c. 7. col. 176. l●ea 39  Tertullian and Cyprian taught Vows of Chastity: that the famous ancient 
[z] justus Molitor de Ecclesia militante, etc. pag. 80. fine saith, Chalcedonense Concilium contra Spiritus Sancti oracula, Monachis, & Virginibus monialibus usum conjugii interdixit.  Council of Chalcedon did (hereupon) forbidden Marriage to Monks and Nuns: that St. Augustine and all the Fathers assembled with him in the Carthage Council 
[a] So saith Danaeus contra Bellarm. primae partis altera parte pag. 1011. initio. And see Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 104. and 1 Tim. 5.9, 10, 11, 12.  abused manifestly the word of God, saying upon the Apostles words: If any Widow how young soever, etc. hath vowed herself to God, left her secular habit, and under the testimony of the Bishop and Church appeared in a religious weed, if afterward she go to secular Marriage, she shall according to the Apostle have damnation, because she dared to make void the vow of Chastity, which she made to God: that 
[b] Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 5. fol. 381. b. sect. 10. initio. And see Danaeus contra Belar. 1. partis altera parte pag. 1011. To make good what here is granted by Mr. Fulk and Danaeus, see the first Faith mentioned by the Apostle, expounded in like manner of the Vow of Chastity by the Greek Fathers, namely Epiphanius haer. 48. Basil. lib. de Virginitate parum ultra medium. And by Theodoret, Chrysostom, Occomenius, and Theophilact, in their several commentaries in 1 Tim. 5. and also by the Fathers of the Latin Church, namely by Augustine de Sancta Virginitate cap. 23. & de bono viduitatis cap. 8. & 9 and in Psa. 75. by Innocentius Epist. 2. ad Vict. cap. 13. by Gelasius Epist. 1. cap. 23. by Tertul. de Monogamia. By Hierom. l. 1. contra Jovin. c. 7. & in Ezech. c. 24. prope finem. By Fulgentius Epist. 3. and by Ambrose, Primasius, Sedulius, and Beda in their several commentaries in 1 Tim. c. 5.  likewise by the first Faith (mentioned in the Apostles foresaid saying, 1 Tim. 5.11.12.) most of the ancient Fathers do expound the vow or promise of continency: that also vows of Chastity have been used 
[c] Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sect. 17. saith, Hoc inquiunt ab ultima memoria fuit observatum, ut se alligarent continentiae voto, qui totos se Domino dicare vellent: fateor certè antiquitus quoque receptum fuisse hunc morem, sed eam aetatem sic ab omni vitio liberam fuisse non concedo. And Master Wotton in defence of Master Parkins, etc. pag. 491. paulo post med. confesseth the general received doctrine of the Fathers in this matter, saying thereof, But the Fathers are not for us, what then? Is nothing true which cannot be confirmed by their testimony, etc. Indeed it is one of the blemishes of the ancient Writers, that they were so highly conceited of single life, etc. Therefore it is not to be looked for that antiquity should afford us any testimony herein, against the practice and judgement of those days.  ab ultima memoria, and antiquitus receptum; that 
[d] Peter Martyr de Caelibatu & Votis pag. 477. ante med. saith, Statim ab Apostolorum temporibus nimium tribui caeptum est caelibatui, etc. And Hermannus Hamelmannus l. de Traditionibus Apostolicis, etc. col. 460. linea 58. saith, Post mortem ●oannis Apostoli statim caeperunt defectiones à fide, etc. prohibitiones nuptiarum, & ciborum, vota, caelibatus, etc. And see also there col. 254. linea 30. And seë Johannes Bugchagius in Jonam cap. 3. edit. Wittembergae Anno 1550.  immediately after the Apostles times too much was attributed to vows: that Ignatius himself (though their Scholar) signifieth in his Epistles his too 
[e] Centur. 2. c. 3. col. 64. fine l. 40. it is said, Ex Epistolis Ignatii apparet, h●mines jam tum paulò impensiùs caepisse amare & venerari Virginitatis studium. Name in Epist. ad Antioch. ait, Virgins videant, cui se consecrarint. And see Ignatius his like phrase of professed widows in Epist. ad Tarsenses, prope finem, where he saith, eas quae in Virginitate sunt honorate, sicut sacras Christi, viduas pudicas ut Sacrarium Dei veneremini. And Polycarpus the Apostles Scholar in his Epistle ad Philippenses (specially mentioned and alleged by Eusebius l. 4. c. 13. fine, & l. 3. c. 30. fine, and by Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. fine) saith in like manner, Viduae verò pudicae circa fidem Dei interpellent incessanter pro omnibus, etc. cognoscentes seipsas quia sunt sacrarium Dei.  much liking of the profession of Virginity: and 
[f] Centur. 2. c. 10. col. 167. linea 24. de virginitate minus commodè loquitur.  speaketh incommodiously of Virginity, 
[g] Abraham Schultetus in his Medulla Theologiae Patrum pag. 450. circa med. allegeth Ignatius saying ad Philip. Saluto Collegium Virginum. Whereupon he immediately inferreth: Ergone in illo Ecclesiae flore fuerunt, quae castitatem & continentiam perpetuam profiterentur Virgins? Fuerunt omnino, etc. In like manner the Century Writers cent. 4. c. 6. col. 467. linea 28.36. & col. 476. ●in. 32. And Osiander in his Epitome, etc. cent. 4. l. 4. c. 20. pag. 507. initio, and 503. fine do affirm, and allege Monasteries of professed Virgins in that Century or age in which Constantine lived.  saluting, and affirming Colleges of Virgins: and so plainly, that certain of our learned Adversaries, even those who will not acknowledge the evidently-mentioned Vows of those times, are yet nevertheless enforced to confess, even of that first age, how that 
[h] Schuletus ut supra.  in that flower of the Church there were Virgins, that professed perpetual Chastity. That lastly St. Ambrose and Epiphanius derive 
[i] Peter Martyr de caelibatu & Votis pag. 543. paulo post med. & pag. 525. initio. And St. Augustine tom. 6. contra Faustum Manich. l. 30. c. 4. answereth accordingly to Faustus the Manichee, who objected St. Paul to prove (with our adversaries) vowed Chastity to be the Doctrine of Devils, saying to him, Ipsi jam timeo Apostolo, ne daemonio●um doctrinam intulisse tunc lconio videatur, cum Theclam oppignoratam jam thalamo, in amorem, sermone suo, perpetuae Virginitatis incendit.  professed chastity from the institution of St. Paul.  
In like manner concerning the marriage of Priests, to omit all other testimony thereof hereafter alleged (see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. examp. 3. at f. g. h. i. & tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 3. at o. and 98. sundry, and yet more ancient examples alleged against Priest's marriage) it is confessed that even 
[k] So saith Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 330. circa med.  that notable and famous Council of Nyce (which saith Mr. Whitgift 
[l] Whitgift ibid.  is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves) did (as Mr. Cartwright acknowledgeth) affirm and teach, 
[m] Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 485. circa med. and see this yet further confessed by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended holy discipline pag. 486. And by the Century Writers cent. 4. col. 656. lin. 44. And by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 8. sect. 3. fol. 14. a. post med. And see also Socrates hist. l. 1. c. 8. ante med. and Zozom. hist. l. 1. c. 22.  that unto those that were chosen unto the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any Wife afterwards: only being married before entrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that (precedent) marriage? And Paphnutius, one of the Council, showeth concerning Priests unlawfulness to marry after Priesthood undertaken, that not only this was before that Council, but was also yet further an ancient tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested. Thus far Mr. Cartwright. In so much as the Council of Carthage (whereat St. Austin was present) doubted not to refer this to the 
[n] Concil. 2. Carthag. can. 2. saith, Omnibus placet, ut Episcopi, Presbyteri, & Diaconi, etc. ab uxoribus se abstineant, ut, quod Apostoli docuerant, & ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos custodiamus.  Apostles doctrine. And Mr. Jewel accordingly confesseth concerning the Father's opinion against marriage of Priests, saying thereof: 
[o] Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 164. and after the Edition of Anno 1571. pag. 195. f. fine. To make further good Mr. jewels confession, the studious Reader may yet further read the prohibition of Priest's marriage, for the Greek Church in Origen (in Num. homil. 23.) in Epiphanius (haer. 59 ante med.) in Eusebius (de demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 9) Nyssenus (de virginitate c. ult.) Basil (ad Amphilochium can. 3. & 6. & in cap. 3. Esaiae) Chrysostom (hom. 2. in job) justinian (c. l. 1. tit. 3. de Episcopis & Clericis n. 45. & in Nomocanon. tit. 9 c. 29. & authent. col. 1. Quomodo Episcopos, etc. tit. 6. c. 1. & 5. & Novella 123. de Episcopis & Clericis c. 14. & 29.) & in Concilio Neocaesariensi can. 1. & Synod. Trullana can. 6. & 12. & 48. And for the Latin Church in Innocentius Ep. 1. c. 9 Leo Ep. 84. ad Anastasium Thessaly. & 92. add Rusticum, & Hierom. contra Vigilantium cap. 1. & in Ep. ad Titum. c. 1. & Ambrose Ep. 82. & in 1 Tim. c. 3. And to omit many particular Fathers in Concil. 2. Arelatensi can. 2. & 3. & in Concilio Elibertino can. 33. & Concil. Roman. can. 8. & Concil. 5. Carthag. can. 3. & Concil. 1. Toletan. can. 1. & Concil. 1. Arausican. can. 22. & 23. & Concil. 1. Turonensi can. 1. & 2. & Concil. Agathense can. 9 A doctrine so evident in the ancient Fathers, that our learned adversaries do accordingly confess the same. See to this end the doctrine hereof acknowledged by Hospinianus (hist. Sacramentar. part. 1. pag. 132.) in Syricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, the 2. Council of Arles, the Council of Neocaesaria, etc. acknowledged in like manner by Chemnitius (in his examen. etc. part. 3. pag. 50. a. b. & 52. a. & 62. a.) in Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Innocentius, Syricius, and Epiphanius, acknowledged likewise by Osiander in his Epitome. etc. centur. 4. in the Council of Neocaesarea (pag. 46. in can. 1.) in the 2. Council of Arles (ibid. pag. 195. in can. 2.) in the council of Eliberis (ibid. pag. 167. in can. 33.) in the first Toletan Council (centuria 5. pag. 45. in can. 1.) in the Council of Ag●tha (ibid. ●●ntur. 5. pag. 122. in can. 9) in Syricius (ibid. pag. 176. in can. 9) in the fift Council of Carthage (ibid. pag. 156. in can. 3.) in the first Arausican Council (ibid. pag. 298. in can. 22. & 23.) in the Council called Turonense (ibid. pag. 395. in can. 1. & 2.) and in the Synod called Venetica (ibid. pag. 406. in can. 11.) And see yet further the ancient Fathers confessed, and thereupon reproved herein by the Century Writers of Magdeburg in centur. 3. col. 148. line 48. & centur. 4. col. 303. throughout.  Here I grant Mr. Harding is like to find some good advantage, as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. In like manner concerning Monks, it is confessed, that the more ancient Fathers, namely 
[o] Mr. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 344. post med.  Ruffian, Theodoret, Zozomen, Socrates, etc. do mention Monks almost in every page. And that in the same Century or age in which Constantine our first Christian Emperor lived, 
[q] Centur. 4. c. 10. col. 1294. line 50.51.  there were Monks throughout Syria, Palestine, Bythinia, and other places of Asia. Also throughout 
[r] Centur. 4. col. 1306. line 19.20.  Africa and 
[s] Ibi col. 1331. lin. 53. Ibid. c. 6. col. 471. lin. 24. & col. 474. lin. 14. & col. 475. lin. 42. & col. 476. lin. 17. See further mention of their wonderful austere life in Epiphanius haer. ultim. versus finem, & in Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. prope initium. & in Zozom. hist. l. 3. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 29. paulo post initium, & in Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. and see throughout in Palladius his Historia Lausaica, & in Theodoret's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and see hereafter in this considerate. num. 23. at 50.  Europe; with like further confessed mention, as well of their 
[t] Ibid. col. 472. lin. 21.22.50. and of their peculiar habit, see Ambrose serm. 94 and Zozom. l. 3. c. 13. paulo post initium, and Hierom. Ep. 4. ad Rusticum Monachum, & Greg. l. 3. dial. c. 1. and Cassianus l. 1. de institut. caenob. And see hereafter in this Consideration Num. 23. at 51, 52, 53.  austere life and Religious 
[u] See the Century Writers centur. 4. c. 6. col. 464. lin. 56. & col. 466. lin. 31. & col. 474. lin. 38.  habit; as also of their 
[x] Centur. 4. c. 6. col. 464. 464. lin. 59  monasteries, their voluntary professed 
[y] Concil. Chalcedonense can. 15. decreed that, Si qua Virgo se dedicaverit Deo, similiter Monachus, non licet eis nupt●is jungi: for which it is reprehended by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp rat. 4. pag. 62. fine, and by Osiander in Epitome. cent. 5. l. 3. c. 13. pag. 356. in can. 7. & pag. 359. in can. 15. & 16. and by justus Molitor de Eccles. militante pag. 80. fine. And of the vowed Chastity of Monks, See further Chrysost. Ep. 6. ad Theodorum Monachum ante med. & Concil. Chalcedonense can. 16▪ & Concil. 6. Constantinop. can. 41, & 44. & Basil regula 14. & & serm. 1. de institutione Monachorum, & in Ep. priori ad Monachum lapsu●, & Concil. Antisiodorense can 24, & in Dionysius Areopagita de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia c. 6. Thus much of the Greek Church. And for the Latin Church in Europe, see Leo Ep. 92. ad Rusticum Narbonensem Episcopum c. 13. & Syricius Ep. l. c. 6. & Concil. 2. Turonense can. 11. & 16. & Concil. 4. Tolet. can. 51. And for the Church of afric, See St. Austin in Psalm 75. & Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. initio.  poverty and [z] chastity. In so much as Mr. Cartwright affirmeth, that 
[a] Mr. Cartwright in his first Reply part. 1. pag. 502. circa med.  Monks are Antichristian, notwithstanding their antiency: and that 
[b] Mr. Cartwright ibid. pag. 510. ante med.  Hieroms Monks, Hermits and Anchorets were at that time very gross. As also Calvin professeth himself to dislike 
[c] Calvin institut. l. 4. c. 13. sect. 16. saith, Interim non dissimulo, vel in illa, quam Augustinus commendat, prisca forma (Monachisimi) esse nonnihil quod mihi parum placeat.  the Monachism which Austin commendeth, and yet are the undoubted miracles of the Monks of those said times, as namely of Austin, Antony, Paul, Hilarion, the Monks of Egypt and others, undoubtedly reported for certain, by the ancient 
[*] See Brereley tract. 〈◊〉. cap. 3. sect. 7. at 1.  Fathers, and confessed for true by the 
[d] See hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. at 54.  Protestant Divines of Magdeburg.  
2. Secondly, concerning the Blessed Sacrament, as namely concerning the form thereof, the Consecration thereof, the Real Presence, the reservation thereof, the great reserved care (had more thereof, than of the water of Baptism) lest any part thereof should fall down to the ground; the mixture of water with Wine in the Chalice, and the receiving thereof fasting and chaste. As concerning the form thereof, it is confessed upon the testimony of 
[e] Epiphanius in Anchorat. ant med. saith, Accepit hoc & ubi gratias egisset, dixit: Hoc meum est, hoc & hoc, & videmus, quod non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, etc. hoc enim est rotundae formae, etc.  Epiphanius, that the Sacrament was (as the Lord Bishop of Winchester translateth his words) 
[f] Mr. Bilson in his true difference, etc. part. 4. pag. 566. Also Gesnerus in his compendium doctrinae caelestis, Printed Wittemb●●g 1606. loc. 33. pag. 263. circa med. saith, Quod ●utem panem rotunda forma usurpamus, nun è Papistic●s superstitionibus reliqu●um est? Minime, quandoqu● dem Epiphanius antiquissimus Scriptor, suo tempore illas rotulas usitatas fulsse in Anchorat. commemorat, etc.  round in figure; or as Master Cartwright confesseth a round 
[g] Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitg●fts defence, etc. pag. 593. post med. and see Pretorius de Sacramentis pag. 287. ante med.  Wafer cake brought in by Pope Alexander, who lived 
[h] Osiander centur. 2. pag. 10. circa med. and Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 594 initio, say he lived An. 111.  about 1500. years since. An usage so further ancient, that, as our Adversaries confess, 
[i] Hospinion in hist. Sa cramentar, etc. l. 4. pag. 370. post med. saith hereof, Quando primùm caeperint, vel domi vel in Templis parare, ex farinae spuma, vel panis minutas & rotundas, instar denariorum, host olas & buccellas, cert● sciri non potest, etc. mentionem faci● Epiphanius panis rotundi in Caenae, etc.  the beginning thereof cannot be found. As touching the consecration thereof, whereas our learned Adversaries hold, that 
[k] Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Mat, 26. sect. 7. fol. 53. b. paulo ante med, & in 1 Cor. 10. §. 4. fol. 227. b. paulo ante med. & M. Willet in his Synopsis p. 464.  consecration doth consist not (only) in the words (pronounced) but in the whole action, etc. Whereto are required the taking, eating, drinking, etc. The Fathers to the contrary refer this consecration, not to our taking, drinking, eating, etc. but to the words of Christ, not 
[l] Greg. Nyssen in serm, Cate, de divino Sacramento.  because it is eaten (saith St. Gregory Nyssene) doth it become the body of the Word, but forthwith by the word it is changed into the body, as it is said by the word, This is my body. A testimony so plain with us, that the Centurists do therefore recite, and place it under their title of the 
[m] Cen. 4. c. 4. col. 287, lin. 18. & col. 295. lin. 27. & 40.  hurtful opinions and errors of the Doctors. This point being made yet further plain by the Fathers confessed practise of 
[n] See this next hereafter.  reserving the Sacrament unreceived (which had been vain and defective, had not consecration been perfect without receiving:) and not less plain by the many other like 
[o] Chrysostom in homil, de proditione Judae versus finem saith, Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur, & Dei virtute consecrantur. Hoc est, ait, corpus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecrantu●: and ad Pop. hom. 60. post med. he saith, Qui namque dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, & verbum facto confirmavit. St. Ambrose de Sacramentis l. 4. c. 4. saith, Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini jesus, etc. ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum, etc. vides ergo quam operatorius est sermo Christi. And again l. 4. c. 5. he further saith, Ante verba Christi, calix est vini & aquae plenus, ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur, qui redemit plebem. And Eusebius Emissenus, hom. 5. Pasch. versus finem saith, Antequam invocatione summi nominis consecrentur, substantia illi● est panis & vini, post verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis est Christi. In respect hereof St. Hierom saith of Priests, that, Corpus Christi sacro ore conficiunt (Hierom in Epist. 1. ad Heliodorum c. 7.) And see the Centurists cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 184. lin. 33. Where holy Pontianus is by them reproved for his like saying. And St. Cyprian de caena Domini paulo post initium, saith of the Sacrament: Omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. And before them all Holy Irenaeus l. 5. c. 1. post initium saith, Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percepit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia, etc.  say of the Fathers, concerning consecration, whereof some do also further concern the Priests 
[o] St. Austin serm. 19 de sanctis saith, Crucis charactere, etc. altaris Sacramenta cum interpositione Dominicorum verborum conficiuntur: & serm. 181. de tempore he further saith, Ho enim signo Crucis, consecratur corpus Dominicum. And in Evang. joan. tract. 118. he saith, Quod signum (Crucis) nisi adhibeatur, five frontibus credentium, five ipsi aquae qua regenerantur, five oleo quo chrismate unguntur, five sacrificio quo aluntur, nihil eorum rite perficitur. And see the very like saying in Chrysostom in homil. quod Christus sit Deus, circa med. And in Matth. hom. 55. circa med. And see what is confessed hereof by the Centurists centur. 3. c. 6. col. 141. lin. 34. and by Mr. Burges hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. at 82.  signing of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross: We will now next speak of the Real Presence, concerning which it is confessed, that Gregory the Great 
[q] Humfred jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626, post medium.  taught transubstantiation;. that 
[r] The Century writers cent. 5. col. 517. l. 23. say, Chrysostomus transubstantiationem videtur confirmare: nam ita scribit, etc. And see Musculus in loc. come. pag. 336. circa med. reciting and reproving a saying of Chrysostom concerning the Sacrament.  Chrysostom is thought to confirm Transubstantiation; that 
[s] Centur. 4. c. 10. col. 985. lin. 30.  Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation; that 
[t] Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass fol. 221. a. fine, and see as much confessed by the Century Writers cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. lin. 3. And by Oecolampadius in libro Ep●stolarum Oecolampadii & Zuingli● lib. 3. pag. 756. and by Vidian. de Eucharist. Aphorism. l. 5. pag. 150. & 151.  the Books of Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, affirm the opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament. Wherein Peter Martyr likewise professeth to 
[u] Peter Martyr in defence. object. Gardlner. part. 4. pag. 724. And see also Peter Martyrs further dislike of Cyrils' say in his Epistles, annexed to his common places in English, in his Epistle there to Beza pag. 106. b. ant med. Where he saith, I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmed such a communion, as thereby even the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, first is joined to the blessing (for so he calleth the holy bread) etc. In so much as in his second Alphabetical table (there) of the additions under the letter H. at the word Heresy, is set down there, Heresy of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ 106. b. And in his Epistle to Calvin ibid. pag. 98. a. ant med. he reproveth further for this opinion Cyril and some other Fathers.  dislike the judgement of Cyril: that 
[x] In the treatise attributed to Vrsinus, entitled Commonefactio cujusdem Theologi de S. Caena, & ejusdem commonefactionis consideratio. pag. 211. & 218.  in Cyprian are many say, which seem to affirm Transubstantiation; In so much as they do 
[y] Unworthily, For the Book of Sermons entitled, de operibus Cardinalibus Christi, commonly attributed to Cyprian, (wherein among others are contained the several Sermons de Baptismo Christi, de Caena Dom. de ablutione pedum, etc. which Sermon de Caena Dom. containeth the say now intended) is dedicated to Cornelius, who was Bishop of Rome when Cyprian lived, and to whom Cyprian himself l. 1. Epist. 1. & Epist. 3. did write, in so much that Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in 1 Cor. c. 11. fol. 282. a. circa med. allegeth testimony from thence, affirming, that the Author de Caena Domini was not in time much inferior to Cyprian. And Erasmus in his Annotations annexed to Cyprians works, Printed at Basil 1558. upon the folio 287. affirmeth it to be the work of some learned man of that age.  unworthily affirm, that Sermon of his in which those say are extant to be counterfeit. That lastly Ignatius 
[z] Mr. Whitgift in his defence against Cartwrights reply pag. 408. ante med.  who was St. John's Scholar, and lived in Christ's time, did (as Theodoret 1200. years since, and themselves now do 
[a] Theodoret. dial. 3. & Hamelmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis, etc. col. 746. lin. 18.19.22.23. etc. allegeth not only Theodoret, but also one Wydefortus, alleging Anno 1396. this saying of Ignatius out of an ancient copy of that time. And so likewise doth Chemnitius in his examen part. 1. pag. 94. a. fine.  affirm, and as the Lutherans do object in 
[b] Vide Recitationes de Concilio scripti libri Concordiae, etc. (Printed at Lipsia 1581.) nona recitat. pag. 177. ante med.  proof of their real presence) say of the Heretics in his time, they do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins. And one of our Adversaries 
[c] Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 256. saith, Commentum Papistarum de transubstantiatione matu●e in Ecclesiam irrepsit.  confesseth accordingly, that Transubstantiation entered early into the Church. And another 
[d] Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the Mass pag. 236. a. ant med.  saith, I have not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. As concerning reservation of the Sacrament whereas according to our Adversaries Doctrine, 
[e] Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 460. ante med.  it is no Sacrament unless it be received; The contrary was so plainly taught and practised even in the more ancient times of 
[f] Chrysostom. in Ep. 1. ad Innocentium.  St. Chrysostom, 
[g] Cypr. in serm. de lapsis post med.  Cyprian, 
[h] Irenaeus apud Eusebium hist. l. 5. c. 24.  Irenaeus, 
[i] justine in Apolog. 2. prope finem. This testimony of justin is so plain, that Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 77. circa med. saith thereof, justine (his saying) of the Deacons carrying the Bread of the holy Supper of the Lord to those which were not present at the action of the Supper, is contrary to the institution. And see M●. Cartwrights like judgement in Mr. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 585. paulo post med.  Justin, etc. that Mr. Fulk confesseth hereof saying, 
[k] Fulk against Heskines, Sanders, etc. pag. 77. prop● finem.  that the Sacrament (of some) was reserved in the elder days of the Church, is not so great a Controversy, as whether it ought to be reserved: and Calvin acknowledgeth 
[l] Calvin instit. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 39  the reservation of the Sacrament (to be) veteris Ecclesiae exemplum, 
[m] See Peter Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum, object. 88  the example of the ancient Church. And (to omit others) Chemnitius doth likewise acknowledge, that 
[n] Chemnitius examen part. 2. pag. 102. a. paulo post medium.  witnesses of this custom of private reservation of the Eucharist are Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierom, Basil, etc. And that 
[o] Chemnitius ibidem.  certain of the ancient Fathers greatly commended the same, as Nazianzen, Ambrose, etc. And that it was 
[p] Chemnitius ibid.  antiqua consuetudo latè patens, & diu propagata. In so much as 
[q] See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 19 in the margin at k.  Peter Martyr cannot but acknowledge, that (by the testimony of St. Cyril) the Anthropomorphites were specially condemned for their impugning of the Sacraments reservation. As concerning the great observed care had more of this Sacrament, than of the water of Baptism, that no part thereof should fall to the ground, to avoid tedious repetitions, we refer to that which is (in Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 3. in the margin at 16.) alleged in that behalf, from the known and evident testimonies, of St. Austin, and Cyril (who lived above 1200. years since) and of Tertullian and Origen who lived almost fourteen hundred years since.  
As concerning the necessity of mingling water with Wine in the Chalice, before consecration of the Sacrament, it is so abundantly testified by the Fathers 
[r] justin Apolog. 2. fine, and Irenaeus l. 5. c. 1. Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3. Ambrose l. 5. de Sacramentis c. 1. & l. 4. c. 5. Hierom. in Marc. c. 14. Augustim. tract. 120. in joan. & de Eccles. dogmat. c. 75. & de doctrina Christiana l. 4. c. 21. Euseb. Emissen. Sermo 5. de Paschate. Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 24. & Concil. Arausican can 17. & Concil. 3. Brach. can. 1. & Concil. Trib. can. 21. & Concil. African. can. 4. & ex capitulis Graec. Syn. c. 55. & Concil. 6. Constantinop. can. 32.  of all ages, and Countries, that Mr. Whitgift saith 
[s] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 473. prope initium.  Cyprian was greatly overseen in making it a matter so necessary in Celebration of the Lords Supper, to have water mingled with wine, which was at that time, no doubt, common to more than to him. Mr. Cartwright likewise acknowledgeth, that 
[t] Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. whitgift's foresaid defence pag. 525. fine.  in the mingling of water with Wine, a necessity and great mystery was placed, as may appear (saith he) both by Justin Martyr and Cyprian. And Mr. Jewel speaking of this mixture, confesseth in like manner, saying, 
[u] Mr. jewel. in his reply pag. 34. paulo ante med.  indeed St. Cyprian and certain old Fathers spoke of it, and force it much. Add but now hereto, that the Armenians, being the first we read of that denied this mixture, affirming (with our Adversaries) that only Wine was to be used, were therefore specially condemned of error, as witness 
[x] Theoph lact in joan. cap. 19 mentioning the water and blood which issued from Christ's side, saith, Confundantur Armeni qui non admiscent in mysterris aquam vino; non enim credunt, ut videtur, quod aqua ex latere egressa sit.  Theophilact, and the Fathers of the sixth Council 
[y] Concil. 6. Constantinop. can. 32. saith, Novimus quod in Armenianorum Regione, vinum tantum in sacra mensa offerunt, aquam illi non miscentes, qui Sacrificium incruentum peragunt, which their usage that Council there condemneth, saying there further against it, Nam & jacobus Domini nostri jesu Christi frater, etc. & Basilius Coesariae Archiepiscopus, etc. mystico, nobis in scripto tradito, Sacrificio, ita peragendum, in Sacro Mysterio, ex aqua & vino, sacrum poculum, ediderunt  of.,, Constantinople, who about a thousand years since alleged against them, 
[z] Ibid. ut supra.  St. James his Liturgy in proof of the soresaid mixture. As concerning the receiving of the Sacrament fasting, St. Austin saith, 
[a] Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. & vide Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 29. & 48. And Brereley in his omissions of pag. 85. saith, See this confessed by Hospinian in hist. Sacram. part. 1. l. 2. pag. 48. ante med. where having alleged this saying of Austin he saith thereof, Non obscurè innuit Augustinus jejunium hoc traditionem Apostolicam esse.  It pleased the Holy Ghost, and was universally observed, that our Lord's Body should enter into the mouth of a Christian, before other meats, as Tertullian saith thereof, 
[b] Tertul. l. 2. ad Vx●rem and see this in the Centurists cent. 3. col. 132. line 10.  ante omnem cibum, before all meat, the reason whereof St. Austin affirmeth to be 
[c] Aug. in Ep. 118. c. 6. & see Hospinian in hist. Sacram. part. 1. pag. 48. & 25.  (in honorem tanti Sacramenti) in honour of so great a Sacrament.  
As concerning enjoined Chastity upon receiving of the Sacrament, the words of St. 
[d] Hierom. adv. jovin. Apol. saith, I appeal to their conscience, who the same day after carnal copulation do communicate, and as Persius saith, purge the night with water, why dare they not go to the Martyrs. & vide Concil. Elibertinum, apud Osiandium in Epitome. cent. 4. pag. 181. fine.  Hierom do so plainly testify observed Chastity by the Laity before the time of their Communion, that Mr. Fulk in this case acknowledgeth 
[e] Mr. Fulk against Heskines, Sanders, etc. pag. 458. paulo post med.  Hieroms admonition given to married Persons, to abstain from company with their wives, etc. which he there termeth 
[f] Mr. Fulk. ibid. paulo post.  unworthy, and 
[g] Mr. Fulk ibid.  Popish Divinity. Which said Popishness, was yet by the other Fathers religiously observed, as is confessed further by 
[h] Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria l. 2. pag. 46. circa med. saith, In primitiva Ecclesia Eucharistia sumpta fuerat castè. And he doth there demonstrate this particulary in sundry ancient Fathers.  Hospinianus. And as the Laity at their certain times of receiving, were thus enjoined; so likewise to Priests, in regard of their daily celebration, was the observation of their chastity daily enjoined. 
[i] Brereley tract. 1. s●ct. 7. subd. 3.  And whereas Mr. Whitaker giveth example in Pope Siricius saying, 
[k] Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480. ante med. And whereas Mr. Morton in Apolog. Cathol. c. 73. pag. 219. allegeth testimony to prove that Siricius did make the first decree thereof: this (though admitted) only argueth some then late precedent negligence in not observing the then before observed rule of Chastity: but it argueth no more the Doctrine thereof, to be then first begun, than did the Fathers of the Nycene Council in their Decree of homoousion argue thereby the Doctrine thereof to be first as then begun.  Siricius was the first that annexed perpetual chastity to the Ministers of the word; whereto we answer, first, that Mr. Whitaker allegeth no proof that Siricius was the first: neither doth he, or can he name any one Catholic writer of that time so reporting. Secondly we allege most plainly to the contrary, how that Optatus, who lived in the same time with Siricius, affirmeth, that 
[l] Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas' saith, Cum Siricio totus Orbis in una communionis societate concordat.  all the world joined in Communion with Sircius, so far was he from being then reputed an Innovator. St. Hierom also, who lived in the time of Damasus Predecessor to Siricius, saith of the very point now in question, 
[m] Hieron. in Apolog. ad Pamach. c. 3. and the same Doctrine doth he affirm in cap. 1. ad Titum, & l. 1. c. 19 adversus lovin.  if married men like not this, let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice, if they use the act of marriage. And this opinion was then not first begun, but (to the contrary) so universal, that St. Hierom affirmeth it to be the general Doctrine and practice of the Churches in Asia, afric, Europe. As namely of 
[n] Hieron. contra Vigilantium c. 1. saith, Quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae? quid Egypti & sedis Apostolicae? quae aut Virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desinunt.  the Churches in the East, of Egypt, and the Sea Apostolic. And in like manner was the marriage of Priests long before these times so plainly impugned for unlawful, even in the Greek Church by 
[o] Epiphanius haer. 59 after other plain words had hereof, saith, At dices mihi, in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere Praesbyteros, Diaconos & Hypodiaconos: at haec non est juxta Canonem, etc. So plainly doth he acknowledge thereby a former canon.  Epiphanius, the most ancient 
[p] Origen. in Num. hom. 23. saith, Certum est, quia impeditur Sacrificium indesinens iis qui conjugalibus necessitatibus serviunt, unde videtur mihi quòd illius est solius offerre Sacrificium indesinens, qui indesinenti & perpetuae se devoverit castiati. See this saying of Origen confessed and rejected, as being against Priest's marriage, by Chemnit us in his examen. part. 3. pag. 50. a. initio. & vide ibid. pag. 58. b. post med. & vide Origen in Levit. hom. 4. & l. 8. contra Celsum.  Origen, and also even by that 
[q] Misapplyed, For that many learned Protestants do urge it in proof of Priest's marriage, whereas it proveth the contrary.  misapplyed if not untrue example of Paphnutius, whereof many probabilities are appearing. As first, there is not so much as any mention made of this matter by any who wrote of the Nycene Council before Socrates' time, as neither by Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, nor yet so much as by Ruffinus, who hist. l. 1. wrote many things of Paphnutius, and of the Nycene Council: and could then all these be silent of so great a matter, & so earnestly debated in the Nycene Council? Secondly, it seemeth to be against the 3. Canon of the Nycene Council, which altogether forbiddeth Priests to have dwelling with them any woman, other than their Mother, Sister, their Father's Sister, their Mother's Sister, etc. Whereas if as Socrates reporteth in the example of Paphnutius, the Council had left liberty for married lay-men afterwards made Priests to have kept still their former wives, why then was not the wife first placed here in the exception, but altogether omitted? If answer be made, that there was no such cause of suspicion with the wife; it is replied thereto, that if the Council had retained any such employed consideration, why yet was there not exception also for the wife's woman-servants, as well, or rather than for the other? or indeed why was there any such exception at all of Mother, Sister, or Aunt? Can there be conceived any such danger of suspicion with these against him that might lawfully keep his wife? This Canon therefore of the Nycene Council is so direct therein, that our learned adversary Osiander in his Epitome, etc. cent. 4. pag. 123. in can. 3. hath no other evasion, but to answer, that this prohibition was made to such of the Clergy, as did voluntarily live chaste. And what else is this, but implicatio in adjecto? for if this chastity was in them but voluntary, how then were they according to the words of this Council altogether prohibited? It is no less than plain contradiction. For which cause Martin Luther tom. 2. Germ. Jenae fol. 97. saith hereof, I do not acknowledge the holy Ghost in this Nycene Council, because it forbiddeth him, who hath gelded himself, to be made Priest, and also commandeth the Clergy to have none dwelling with them, but their Mother, Sister, etc. Had the holy Ghost no other thing to do in Councils, but to bind his Ministers to such imposed, dangerous, and not necessary Laws? Thirdly, the 2. Council of Arles celebrated soon after the Nycene Council, giving mention and allowance thereof can. 10. and making most of its Canons in imitation of the Nycene Council, decreeth can. 2. & 3. most plainly against such Priests accompanying of their wives (as is acknowledged by Osiander in Epitome. etc. centur. 4. pag. 195. in can. 3.) which it would never have done, if so the Nycene Council, but so lately before had left the matter at liberty. And the like may be said of the no less ancient Council called Elibertinum. can. 27. & 33. and of Concilium Telense can. 9 and Concilium 2. Carthaginense, can. 2. & Council. 5. Carthag. can. 3. & Council. 1. Tolet. can. 1. Also of Epiphanius who as before at h. affirmeth it to be against the Canon. And St. Hierom who advers. vigilant. c. 1. affirmeth the practices of the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and the Sea Apostolic (to be) that if their Priests were before their Priesthood formerly married (mariti esse desinunt) they give over their wives: affirming as before, that all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, know they may not offer Sacrifice, if they use the act of Marriage. Upon all which premises it is now referred to the judgement of the indifferent Reader, whether it be more reasonable to think that so many Fathers and Councils living before Socrates (the first Author of this report concerning Paphnutius) and varying from him in this point, erred; or rather that Socrates living after them all, should err in his singular and contrary report hereof, especially considering aswell that the foresaid 3. Canon of the Nycene Council itself, directly as before, confuteth his said report, as also for that he is as yet otherwise discovered for a suspected Writer, and of no credit in his report of those matters, wherein he is found dissenting from the other more ancient Writers, and is in such respect holden chargeable by the ancient Father Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 5. And more fully by Mr. Whitgift late Lord Archbishop in his defence, etc. pag. 350. post med. And is also yet further (by Nicephorus l. 6. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 37. and by Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 350. post med.) noted to have been a Novatian, whose error (as appeareth by Socrates' himself l. 5. c. 20.) was that the obser vation of Easter was but a matter of indifferency: in behalf whereof Socrates l. 5. c. 21. affirmed that there was no Law of the Church to force men otherwise, most falsely and directly against Concil. Antiochen. can. 1. and many other no less ancient testimonies of the Nycene Council, and of Epiphanius, Austin, and Theodoret, confessed by Mr. D. Covel in his Examination, etc. against the plea of the Innocent pag. 65. ante med. As also in like untrue manner, and to give colour to his supposed indifferency of things, he in the same place affirmeth the like indifferency of fasting-days, abstinence from certain meats, and sundry other points, most clearly against the confessed testimonies of all Antiquity. Among which this his report of like pretended indifferency Fathered by him upon Paphnutius in the case of married Priests accompanying their wives, is thought most probably to be one. As for Zozomenus like report of Paphnutius, he living after Socrates, and (as the Protestant Writer Gauvinus in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. affirmeth) but following Socrates in his report hereof (being also a Writer otherwise reproved by St. Gregory, quoniam multa mentitur, l. 6. Ep. 31.) his testimony is sufficiently confuted by that which is said in answer to the testimony of Socrates. For this cause 
[r] It doth appear by Socrates hist. l. 1. c. 8. ante med. & Zozo, hist. l. 1. c. 22. and by the Century Writers cent. 4. c. 9 col. 656. lin. 44 and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 8. sect. 3. fol. 14. a. post med. that Paphnutius, though he thought that Priesthood did not dissolve marriage contracted before Orders given, yet he affirmed to the Nycene Council, that those who were made Priests before they were married, should not afterwards marry: alleging for this (veterem Ecclesiae traditionem) the ancient tradition of the Church. So plainly doth Paphnutius hereby acknowledge, that this Doctrine was then holden for the Churches ancient Doctrine.  our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to 
[s] So Chemnitius in his examen Concil. Trid. part. 3. reprehendeth Hierom, Ambrose and Origen, pag. 50. a. ant med. And Epiphanius pag. 62. a. initio. and Trigivillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 103. reprehendeth Socrates and Zozomene for their report of Paphnutius, saying thereof, Socrates hoc à ●o temerè adjecit, etc. Socrates' added this report rashly of his own devising, etc. with like falsehood did he wrest the saying of Paphnutius in the Nycene Council, etc. And Z●zomen following after Socrates, followeth his explication in maintenance of the Doctrine of D●●●●s condemned by Paul 1 Tim. 4.  reprehend the said Fathers. And as Epiphanius and Paphnutius in their cited testimonies hereof, do in plain terms rest upon the Church's Doctrine before their times: so likewise the Fathers of the 
[t] Concil. 2. Carthag. can. 2. saith, Om●●bus placet, ut Episcopi, Prae●byteri, & Diaconi, etc. ab uxoribus se abstin●●. (●nd for this reason there set down) ut quod Apostoli docuerant & ipsa servav tantiquitas, nos custodiamus.  Carthage Council, whereat St. Austin was present, doubt not in like manner to ground this point upon antiquity, and the Apostles Doctrine. So evident thereby it is, that Siricius in his foresaid Doctrine hereof brought in no innovation or change.  
3. Thirdly, 
[u] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 3.  as concerning Anti-christ, and also Altars, and Sacrifices, which he is foretold to 
[x] Daniel 12.11.  take away, Mr. Whitaker confesseth touching Anti-christ saying: 
[y] Whitaker l. de Antichristo pag. 21. And M. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 508. post med. saith, Divers of the ancient and the chiefest of them imagined fond of Antichrist, as of one singular person.  The Fathers for the most part thought that Anti-christ should be but one man, but in that, as in many other things they erred. Concerning the short time of his persecution or reign gathered from the Scriptures, Mr. Fox confesseth, that 
[z] Fox in Apocal. c. 12. pag. 345. fine post med.  almost all the holy and learned Interpreters, do by a time, times, and half a time, understand only three years and a half, affirming further this to be 
[a] Fox in Apocal. c. 13. pag. 392. fine.  the consent and opinion of almost all the holy Fathers. As concerning Altras and Sacrifice, which (as Dr. Reynolds granteth) are 
[b] Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart. pag. 552. fine.  linked by nature in relation and mutual dependence one of other, so as the one being proved, the other is thereby established; and first concerning Altars (in respect whereof the other was termed 
[c] See hereafter in this consideration num. 23. in the margin at * next before 13. See also the Sacrament termed the Sacrifice of the Altar, by St. Austin in Enchirid. cap. 110. & de cura pro mortu●s cap. 18. and by Greg. in Lucam hom. 37. and by Hierom Ep. 59 ad Paulinum in solut. 5. quaestionis. And by Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, in his words alleged hereafter in this Consideration num. 17. in the margin under t. at Anno 320.  the Sacrifice of the Altar) Peter Martyr reproveth the ancient Fathers, saying, 
[d] Peter Martyr in his Common places in English part. 4. pag. 225. b. post med.  Petrus Alexandrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar, than to the lively Temples of Christ. And yet further against 
[e] Peter martyr ibid. pag. 226. a initio.  Optatus: Optatus l. 6. against Permenianus saith, What is the Altar? even the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ; 
[f] Ibid.  such say as these (saith Peter Martyr) edified not the people, etc. And in no less plain manner is Optatus foresaid saying mentioned and reproved 
[g] Centur. 4. cap. 6. col. 409. l. 25.  by the Century Writers. As also Peter Martyr reproveth the Fathers in general, saying, 
[h] Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 4. pag. 225. b. ant med. And Mr. Cartwright in his second Reply, the last part pag. 264. circa med. saith, The ancient Writers abuse herein may easily appear, in that, in this too great liberty of speech, they used to call the holy Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice, and the Communion table an Altar. And see Praetorius de Sacramentis pag. 287. post med. where he saith, Anno 262. Sixtus secundus abrogavit mensas hactenus usitatas, & constituit Altaria, quae magis repraesentant Judaismum quam Christianismum.  The Fathers should not with so much liberty have seemed here and there to have abused the name Altar: A word nevertheless so frequent with the ancient Fathers, that Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar is by Master Cartwright and Mr. Jacob 
[i] Mr. Cartwright in his 2. Reply part. 1. pag. 517. prope finem saith, Ignatius calleth the Communion Table unproperly an Altar; Mr. Cartwright placing in his margin there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And see the like mention of this word in Ignatius confessed by Mr. Jacob in his reasons taken out of God's word, etc. pag. 58. post med. And see the same word accordingly used by Ignatius in Epist. ad Philadelph.  confessed to have used the same accordingly.  
Now as concerning Sacrifice (in respect whereof the Ecclesiastical Minister, was by the Fathers 
[k] See hereafter in this Consideration num. 17. initio at 5.  called properly a Priest) it is affirmed by our learned Adversaries, that the more ancient Fathers, namely 
[l] See this affirmed by Calvin hereafter in this Consideration numb 17. in the margin under the letter t. And M. D. Field l. 3. of the Church, c. 19 pag. 107. post med. saith in excuse of Calvin, The reason doubtless that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical Sacrifice of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, was, for that they lived in the midst of Jews and Gentiles, both whose Religion consisted principally in Sacrifice, the Fathers therefore to show that Christian Keligion is not without Sacrifice, and that of a more excellent nature than theirs were, did much urge, that Christ once offered for the sins of the world upon the Altar of the Cross, is daily in mystery offered, stain, and his blood poured out on the holy Table, and that this Sacrifice of Christ, stain for the sins of the world, thus continually represented, and living in our memories, is the Sacrifice of Christians. Thus confesseth he the plain Doctrine of the Fathers, pretending only them to have thus urged Sacrifice against the Jews and Gentiles: whereas it is evident that their frequent assertions of Sacrifice are in their Commentaries upon the Scripture, and such other their writings, as concern nothing at all, either Jew or Gentil, but merely and only the instruction of Christians. In respect whereof Mr. Fulk affirmeth, that the Fathers received their confessed Doctrine of Sacrifice from the Jews and Gentiles, saying in his rejoinder to bristol reply, etc. pag. 28. ante med. The name of Sacrifice, which the Fathers used commonly for celebration of the Lords Supper, they took of the Gentiles, and Jews: but how prove you they had it from the Scriptures?  Athanasius, Ambrose, Austin, Arnobius, etc. erred herein; and so fully, that their Supper (is therefore said to have) carried the face of a renewed oblation, imitating over verily the Jewish manner of Sacrificing, etc. and that they 
[m] Calvin in omnes Pauli Epist. in Haebr. c. 7. ver. 9 pag. 924. b. saith, Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Doctores hac opinione occupatos fuisse miror, etc. certè ut error errorem trahere solet, cum ipsi Sacrificium in Christi caena nullo ejus mandato finxissent, adeoque caenam adulterassent, addito Sacrificio, colores postea hinc inde accersere conati sunt, quibus errorem suum fucassent. And in his Book de vera Ecclesiae reformat (extant in tract. Theologic. Calvini) pag. 389. b. fine, he further saith, Veteres excusandi non sunt, quatenus scilicet ipsos apparet a puro & genuino Christi instituto deflexisse: nam cum in hunc finem celebranda fit caena, ut Sacrificio Christi communicemus, eo non contenti, oblationem quoque addiderunt: hoc auctarium vitiosum fuisse dico, etc.  forged a Sacrifice in the Lord's Supper, without his Commandment, and so adulterated the Supper, with adding of Sacrifice. That Cyprians judgement (herein) is 
[n] The Century Writers in their third Century col. 83. lin. 34. reprove Cyprian saying, Sacerdotem inquit (Cyprianus) vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri Sacrificium offerri. And in their Alphabetical Table of that Century, at the Letter S. they say hereof, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Caena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus, 83.34.  superstitious. That also the writings of Irenaeus and Ignatius (who are most ancient) are herein 
[o] The Centurists cent. 2. c. 4. coll. 55. lin. 43. undertaking to set down the declining, peculiar incommodious opinions, and errors of the Doctors of those times, do in their said tract of this matter col. 63. prope initium say, Et si Doctores hujus saeculi de Sacrificio incruento in Eucharistia Deo faciendo, nihil habeant: tamen quaedam ambiguè & incommodè dicta in quibusdam occurrunt, ut in Epist. Ignatii ad Smyrnenses: Non licet (inquit Ignatius) sine Episcopo, neque offer, neque Sacrificium immolare, neque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words they do afterwards col. 167. lin. 17. affirm to he periculosa & quasi errorum semina, And col. 63. lin. 20. they say in like manner of Irenaeus, De oblatione porrò, & Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. etc. satis videtur loqui incommodè, cum ait, Novi Testamenti novam docuit (Christus) oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo. In so much as they have no other colour to excuse Irenaeus foresaid saying, but to think that he hereby only meant the oblation of bread offered by the people to the use of the Lords Supper, and afterwards the remainder thereof to the use of the Priests and the poor, as though Christ, in his oblation made in his institution of the Sacrament, whereof Irenaeus expressly here professeth for to speak, did (to use Irenaeus his words) teach or prescribe this foresaid offering to the use of the poor to be the new oblation of the new Testament: this being no less than open violence to Irenaeus word, and meaning; the Centurists do therefore (col. 113. lin. 23.) plainly charge him to have been neghigent and improper in his speaking, etc. often calling the Eucharist an oblation. Lastly these foresaid say of Ignatius and Irenaeus are so plain in the Centurists, that although they be accordingly extant in all Copies and Libraries, the Centurists yet blush not to say of Ignatius his saying, that they do partly suspect it, as inserted (col. 113. lin. 9) and of Irenaeus his foresaid saying, they say, Si tamen locus fraud & mendo vacat. col. 63. lin. 22. Which extremest shift, they would never have thus undergone, had not the said say appeared plain and manifest with us, and against them, in this question of Sacrifice. For which cause they do, as before, place them in their foresaid special tract or recital of the Doctor's errors, of those times; affirming withal, as before, Ignatius his foresaid words to be incommodè dicta, & periculosa, & quasi errorum semina. And of Irenaeus, that, satis videtur loqui incommodè, etc. Which said reprehension made by the Centurists, is in them so evident and not to be excused, that Mr. Sutcliff doth accordingly confess the same, in his subversion of the three conversions pag. 32. circa med.  incommodious and dangerous, and that 
[p] Sebastianus Francus in his Epist. de abrogandis, in universum, omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis.  presently after the Apostles times, the Supper of our Lord was turned into a Sacrifice. In so much as some of our Adversaries doubt not to charge the most ancient Fathers, even with 
[q] Andraeas' Chrastonius ●. de Opificio. Missae, pag. 167. initio, reciting the Father's opinion hereof saith, Dicta autem Patrum non solum impetrationem, sed etiam intrinsecam quandam vim placandi innuunt. Origines hom. 13. in Leviticum ait: Ista est Commemoratio sola, quae propitium facit Deum hominibus. Athana sius in sermone de defunctis apud Damascenum, ait: Incruentae host●ae oblatio propitiatio est. To which end he allegeth likewise further the particular say of Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory, Bede, and of the third Council of Brach. And concerning the Father's further testimonies for Mass, see more hereafter in this consideration num. 17. in the margin at the Letter t.  propitiatory Sacrifice, and Sacrifice for the dead. And with further acknowledgement that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles: which point of Sacrifice is so confessedly ancient, that our learned Adversary Mr. Ascham is enforced to acknowledge that 
[r] Ascham in Apolog. pro Caena Domini, etc. pag. 31. post med. saith, Quibus temporibus, & per quos homines, Caena Dominica de possessione sua per Missam deturbata sit, verissimè sciri non potest, etc. puto tamen originem Missae partim ex Sacrificils illis dimanasse, quae impii Sacerdotes Iudaei supra modum auxerunt, etc. existimo etiam magnam partem Missae, ex Gentibus, in nostram Religionem profluxisse, etc. Thus wandreth he upon surmise without all proof.  no first beginning thereof (since the Apostles times) can be showed. So chargeable were the Fathers, no less than we now are, in that great question of 
[s] See Bullingers' Decades in English pag. 1082. a post med.  Sacrifice.  
4. Fourthly, concerning prayer for the dead, it is affirmed that 
[t] Mr. Fulk in his retentive, and pag. 106. initio, and see Bucer in sacra quatuor Evangelia of 1536. pag. 31●. ant med.  it prevailed within three hundred years after Christ: that 
[v] Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 78. fine, and 320. aunt med. and 326. initio.  Ambrose allowed prayer for the dead, and that it was the common error of his time: that 
[x] Mr. Fulk ibid. pag. 194. ante med.  Chrysostom and Hierom allowed prayer for the dead: that 
[y] See Mr. Fulk ibid. pag. 349. post med.  Austin blindly defended it: that it was likewise taught by 
[z] Chemnitius examen. part. 3. pag. 93. b. 94. a.b.  Origen, Ambrose, Prudentius, and Hierom, also by 
[a] Chemnitius ibid. pag. 107. b. ant med.  Austin, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom: that 
[b] Mr. George Gifford in his demonstration that our Brownists be full Donatists, pag. 38. and see hereafter in this consideration num. 18.  it was general in the Church long before the days of St. Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian and Tertullian: that also Mr. Fulk acknowledgeth 
[c] Mr. Fulk in confutation of Purgatory, pag. 362. ante med. & vide ibid. pag. 303. circa med. & 393. paulo ante med. And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 90. saith, And see Calvin de vera Ecclesiae reformat. rat. extant in Calvin. tract. Theolog. pag. 394. b. ant med.  Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles: that 
[d] And Bucer in his enarrat: in sacra quatuor Evangelia Printed Basiliae 1537. in Matth. c. 12. pag. 311. paulo ante med. saith, Ex eo quidem quod ab initio prope Ecclesiae, preces & Eleemosynae fiunt pro desunctis, sensim irrepsit ea sententia, quam D. Augustinus ponit in Euchiridio cap. 110. n●que negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari cum pro illis Sacrificium mediatoris offertur, etc. Hinc itaque non dubitarim exortum hoc in defunctos officium pro illis orandi & sacrificandi, etc.  prayer and alms were made for the dead almost from the very beginning of the Church. That likewise prayer for the dead is taught in the writings 
[e] Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 353. And Chemnitius in his examen. part. 3. pag. 110. a. circa med. saith, Apud Dionysium oratio pro defuncto fit in Templo; And see further there pag. 100 b. post med. and 101. a. initio, & vide Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarchi. c. 7. part. 3.  now extant under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, who is mentioned in the 
[f] Act. 17.14.  Acts, and those writings, as well 
[g] Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in 2. Thess. 2. sect. 19 fol. 361. b. paulo ante med. thinketh that Dionysius lived in the time of Origen. And Hermannus Pacificus in his Theses etc. pag. 139. fine, maketh this Dionysius much ancient to Chrysostom saying, Quae mysteriorum explicatio consentit cum iis quae multo ante (Chrysostomum) Dionysius de hac re scripsit, cum ait in lib. de Eccles. Hierarchia, etc. And Mr. D. Bridges Lord Bishop of Oxford, in his defence of the Government, etc. pag. 917. prope finem, saith, I take this Dionysius to have been before Basil.  acknowledged by Mr. Fulk to have been written above 1300. years since (which was long before the objected 
[h] Whereas it is usually objected against this Book, that if it had been the writing of Dionysius, than Eusebius or Hierom would have mentioned it, this confessed antiquity thereof before their times avoideth that objection, which is also no less plainly avoided by Eusebius hist. l. 5. c. 26. and H●erom (in Catal. prope initium) who signify that the Books of sundry Writers were unknown to them.  times to the contrary of Eusebius and Hierom) as also alleged specially by Mr. Sutcliff, as being 
[i] Sutcliff de Praesbyterio c. 13. pag. 91. prope finem saith, Dionysius antiquitatis optimus sane testis: videtur enim esse antiquissimus, etc. And Mr. Oliver Ormerode in his picture of a Puritan Printed 1605. fol. G. 3. a. ant med, saith, I refer you to Tertullian, justin Martyr, Cyprian, etc. but what do I cite these Fathers? Dionysius Areopagita, who lived in the Apostles time, maketh mention of the Cross in Baptism, de Ecclesiast. Hierarchia cap. de Baptismo, And see further there fol. G. 2. b. fine. Also the Protestant treatise, entitled Consensus Orthodoxus Printed in folio Tiguri Anno 1578. fol. 198. b. initio, allegeth, and affirmeth Dionysius, who wrote de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia to have lived Anno Christi. 96. And the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to the admonition pag. 105. sect. ult. allegeth Dionysius saying, Dionysius Areopagita in his Book de Caelesti Hierarchia, and 7. chapter speaketh thus, etc. And see Mr. Cooper in his Dictionarium historicum, etc. annexed to ●is Thesaurus, etc. Printed 1578. at the word Dionysius Areopagita. And Humfred. in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 513. fine, & 514. initio saith, Hunc Areopagitam, Suidas, Michael Singelus, Gregorius Turonensis, & alii, Pauli Auditorem credunt fuisse illum Scriptorem Ca●estis & Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae.  most ancient, and the best witness of antiquity.  
In like manner concerning Lymbus Patrum, whereas Bellarmine allegeth in proof thereof the plain testimonies of the Greek Fathers, as namely of 
[k] Bellarm. tom. 1. lib. 4. de Christi anima cap. 14.  Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, etc. And of the Latin Fathers, 
[l] Bellarm. ibid.  Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Hilary, Gaudentius, Prudentius, Ambrose, Hierom, Ruffinus, Austin, Leo, Fulgentius, etc. our Adversary Danaeus answereth to their testimonies saying, 
[m] Danaeus ad Roberti Bellarmini disput. part. 1. pag. 176. paulo post med.  As concerning them, they were not instructed out of God's Word, neither do they confirm their opinion from it, but only from their own conjectures, etc. In like plain manner doth Mr. Jacob make his acknowledgement saying, 
[n] See this in Mr. bilson's Book of the full redemption of mankind pag. 188. fine. And see Mr. jacob further in his defence of the treatise of Christ's sufferings pag. 199. paulo post med. and 100 aunt med. And see Mr. bilson's like acknowledgement in his Book of the full redemption, etc. pag. 189. post med. and in his survey, etc. pag. 656. post med. . All the Fathers with one consent affirm, that Christ delivered the souls of the Patriarches and Prophets out of Hell at his coming thither, and so spoilt Satan of those that were in his present possession. Whereunto might be added the like liberal and plain 
[o] M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 567. fine, answereth to Duraeus his testimonies from the Fathers, concerning Lymbus Patrum, saying, Quod Scripturis evincere minùs potuisti, id Patrum testimoniis proculdubio conficies; de quibus, ut tibi, quod sentio, liberè, breviterque respondeam, apud me una Scripturae vocula plus habet ponderis, quam mille Patrum, sine Scriptures, pronuntiata: itaque non expectabis, dum singulatim hos Patrum errores diluo: And see further Mr. Whitaker ibid. pag. 773. initio, And D. Barlow in his defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion pag. 173. post med. saith hereof, This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking Inferi for Abraham's bosom, expound it, that christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to convey the Father's deceased, before his resurrection, into the place, where now they are.  confession of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. D. Barlow. In so much as Joannes Lascicius a learned Protestant of Polonia, doubteth not to affirm 
[p] Joannes Lascicius in his Book entitled, De Ruscorum, Muscovitarum, & Tartarorum Religione pag. 122. initio, & 123.  and derive the Doctrine thereof from manifest 
[q] See the testimony of Ignatius in his Epistle ad Trallianos paulo post med. It is acknowledged by Mr. D. Hill in his defence of the Article, That Christ descended into Hell, fol. 22. a. circa med. and by Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christ's sufferings, etc. pag. 657. & 658. And see the like testimony of Thaddaeus apud Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. ult. It is also alleged and defended by Mr. Bilson in his Survey, etc. pag. 657. & 658. & 660.  testimonies of Ignatius, 
[r] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 408. ante med.  who was Scholar to St. John, as also of Thaddaeus, who was one of the 
[s] Matth. 10.3  twelve.. The authority and credit of which last testimony, 
[t] Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 74. post. med.  Frigevillaeus Gauvius (an other Protestant Writer) undertaketh specally to defend.  
5. Fiftly as concerning Freewill, it is affirmed, that the most ancient 
[u] Centur. 2. c. 10. col. 221. lin. 51. & vide ibid. col. 58. lin. 49. and col. 43. lin. 58. and see D. Humphrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. ●at. 5. pag. 527. fine, and Osiander Centur. 2. l. 4. c. 4. pag. 84. fine.  Irenaeus admitteth Freewill (even) in spiritual actions; that Justin 
[x] Osiander centur. 2. pag. 56. paulo post med. and the Century Writers centur. 2. col. 207. lin. 49.  extolled too much the liberty of man's will in observing the Commandments of God. And yet further of Freewill, that Protestants 
[y] So say the Puritans in their brief discovery of untruths, etc. contained in D. Bancrosts Sermon pag. 203. fine. And the Contury Writers cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. lin. 30. speaking of the times next after the Apostles, say, Nullus ferè doctrinae locus est, qui tam citò obscurari caeperit, atque hic de libero arbitrio: & ibid. col. 59 lin. 11. they further say of those times. Eodem modo Clemens liberum arbitrium ubique asserit, ut appareat in ejusmodi tenebris non tantum fuisse omnes ejus seculi Doctores verùm etiam in posterioribus cas subinde crevisse, etc.  know that ever since the Apostles time, in a manner, it flourished every where, until Martin Luther took the sword in hand against it. And that accordingly the most ancient Fathers, namely 
[z] Hereof see Abraham Schultetus in medulla Theologiae Patrum pag. 39 post med. & 304. post med. & 466. fine, & 151. paulo ante med. & 105. circa med. & 98. circa med. & 48. prope initium & fine, & 66. fine, & 73. initio, & 40. aunt med. And see the Century Writers cent. 2. c. 4. col. 58. lin. 30. & col. 59 lin. 11. & cent. 3. c. 4. col. 77. & 78. & col. 48. lin. 15.  Cyprian, Theophilus, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin, Irenaeus, Athenagor as, Tatianus, etc. erred therein.  
6. Sixtly, as concerning freewill and merit of works, 
[a] Humfred. jesuitismi part. 2. pag. 530. ante med. And concerning the confessed Doctrine of merit of works in Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophilus, Cyprian, justin Martyr, etc. See Abraham Schultetus ubi supra pag. 48. ante med. & 132. post med. & 151. post med. and the Century Writers cent. 2. c. 4. & cent. 3. c. 4.  M. D. Humphrey saith, It may not be denied, but that Irenaeus, Clement and others (quos vocant Apostolicos) called Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they lived) have in their writings the opinions of Freewill, and merit of works. And in like manner do our learned Adversaries affirm, that Austin taught 
[b] See Brentius in confess. Wittenberg. And Osiander cent. 4. pag. 520. post med. and the Divines of Wittenberg in the English Harmony of Confessions pag. 509. post med, and the Century Vriters cent. 5. col. 507. lin. 40. & col. 1133. lin. 26. and Melancthon l. 1. Epist. pag. 290. a. initio & b. initio.  affiance in man's merits towards remission of sins; 
[c] The Centurists cent. 3. col. 265. lin. 54. and col. 266. initio.  that Origen made good works the cause of justification; that 
[d] Cent. 5. col. 1178.  Chrysostom handleth impurely the Doctrine of justification, and attributeth merit to works; that not 
[e] Mr. Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. and see him in Mr. Fulks defence of the English translations pag. 368. ante med.  Cyprian only, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error, as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin, and to satisfy God's Justice. In so much as Luther doth therefore call 
[f] Luther in Gal. c. 4. and after the English translation fol. 220. a. post. med. & b. ante & post med. Where for the Latin word justitiarios the English translateth Merit-mongers.  Hierom, Ambrose, Austin and others, Justice-workers of the old Papacy. And Bullinger doth also acknowledge, that 
[g] Bullinger upon the Apoc. serm. 87. fol. 217. b. prope initium.  the Doctrine of merits, satisfaction and justification of works did incontinently after the Astles' time lay their first foundations. And Mr. Wotton forbeareth not to tax for this very point 
[h] See Ignatius his saying concerning merit, extant in his Epistle to the Romans, alleged in Mr. Wotton's defence of Perkins, etc. pag. 339. fine.  of merit 
[i] Irenaeus who lived almost 1500. years since, doth l. 5. adv. haer. versus finem, & apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 30. versus finem, allege a saying of Ignatius yet to be found in his said Epistle to the Romans, And Hierom in C●tal. and Euseb●us l. 3. c. 30. do mention Ignatius his Epistle to the Romans, alleging likewise a great part thereof, answerably found in the said Epistle, now extant. And like mention and recital do they make of sundry his other Epistles.  the undoubted 
[k] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 408. circa med. acknowledgeth and urgeth these Epistles of Ignatius, alleging in proof of them Hierom and Eusebius. And Mr. Cartwright in his answer thereto, doth not so much as deny the said Epistles.  and confessed writings of Ignatius the Apostles known Scholar, answering 
[l] Mr. Whitgift ubi supra, saith Ignatius was St. John's Scholar, and lived in Christ's time, and see pag. 343, prope finem.  to his objected testimony, 
[m] Mr. Wotton in his defence of Mr. Perkins pag. 340. And whereas Mr. Wotto● in the same place to prove these Epistles counterfeit allegeth this saying of Ignatius: whosoever doth not fast every Lord's Day or Sabbath, except Easter day only, is a murderer of Christ, which saith M. Wotton is absurd: to forbear Mr. Wotton's misalleging of Ignatius his words, woich are directly to the contrary of that be allegeth, condemning indeed fasting upon the Lord's Day: whereof see M. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 99 fine, who allegeth this intended sentence as the undoubted saying of Ignatius. As concerning the matter, the Lords Day being the Day of our Saviour's Resurrection, and so to us a day of joy, it was ever in regard thereof, prohibited to fast thereupon. As concerning the phrase of kill Christ, it is to be taken, as spoken of murdering or killing only by way of signification, or in a like sober sense, as when the Apostle affirmeth us to be buried with Christ in Baptism. Rom. 6.4. & Coloss. 2.12. Or as when he affirmeth of sinners, that they crucify again to themselves the Son of God. Hebr. 6.6. In so much as Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 102. ante med. and Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. circa med. do both of them specially mention, and answer this very objection urged by Mr. Wotton. And Brereley in his Omissions, etc. of pag. 94. saith. And so likewise doth Mr. Buddle in his discourse of Evangelical Fasts, pag. 13. post med.  I say plainly this man's testimony is nothing worth, because he was of little judgement in Divinity.  
7. Seaventhly concerning , merit of works, invocation of Saints, and such other like, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, discoursing of 
[n] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. fine, & 473. initio.  Doctrine taught in any age since the Apostles time, affirmeth without any other exception, of age or Father, that (to use his own words) 
[o] Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 473. paulo post initium, and see Mr. D. Covel, in his examination, etc. pag. 120. post med. affirming in like manner, and saying, Divers both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with errors about freewill, Merits, invocation of Saints, etc.  almost all the Bishops and writers of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with Doctrines of Freewill, of Merit, of invocation of Saints and such like. And so accordingly, concerning invocacation of Saints, Mr. Fulk saith, 
[p] Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol pag. 5. fine.  I confess that Ambrose, Austin and Hierom held invocation of Saints to be lawful. And it is in like manner yet further confessed and affirmed of the Fathers in particular, that 
[q] Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 2 Pet. c. 1. sect. 3. fol. 443. paulo post med.  in Nazianzen, Basil and Chrysostom is mention of invocation of Saints: that 
[r] Ibid paulo post med.  Theodoret also speaketh of prayers unto Martyrs; that 
[s] Ibid paulo ante med.  Leo ascribeth much to the prayers of St. Peter for him; that 
[t] Ibid. paulo ante med.  many of the ancient Fathers held, that the Saints departed pray for us.  
And to omit like further confession concerning 
[u] Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 310.  Ambrose, 
[x] Chemnitius examen. part. 3. pag. 200. a. fine, saith, Invocatio Sanctorum tandem circa Annum Domini 370. per Basilium, Nyssenum & Naz anzenum in publicos Ecclesiae conventus invehi caepit.  Basil, Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, 
[y] Chemnitius ibid. pag. 211. a. ant med. And see further concerning Hierom, Bullinger in Apoc. Serm. 87. fol. 270. b. ant med.  Theodoret, Hierom, and concerning also even 
[z] Chemnitius ibid. pag. 211. a. initio allegeth St. Austin invocating St. Cyprian, and concludeth saying thereof, Haec Augustious: sine Scriptura, temporibus & consuetudim cedens.  St. Augustin himself; St. Cyprian who was much their ancient, is charged 
[a] The Centurists cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 23. say, Certè in fine prioris Epistolae libri primi non obscurè sentit Cyprianus, Martyrs & Sanctos desuncto● pro viventibus orare.  to affirm, that Martyrs, and dead Saints did pray for the living. And the Centurists charge Origen (who was ancient to Cyprian) with 
[b] Centur. 3. col. 83. lin. 49. they allege Origen saying, O beat Job, ora pro nobis miseris.  prayer for himself to holy Job, and 
[c] Cent. 3. col. 75. lin. 29. it is said, Angelos etiam Origine invocandos putavit, hom. 1. in Ezek.  invocation of Angels, affirming further, that 
[d] Centur. 3. c. 4. col. 83. lin. 47. it is said, Videas in Doctorum hujus seculi scriptis non obscura vestigia invocationis Sanctorum.  there are manifest steps of Invocation of Saints in the Doctors of that ancient age.  
8. Eightly concerning Baptism, and grace conferred by it, and other Sacraments; it is confessed that the most ancient Fathers (who succeeded next to the Apostles Scholars) namely Justin, Clement, etc. 
[e] Centur. 2. c. 4. col. 47. lin. 43. and in cent. 3. c. 4. col. 82. lin. 55. it is said, Affirmare audet Cyprianus quod persona Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum conferat, & Baptizatum intus sanctificet, etc.  thought regeneration (not to be signified but) wrought by Baptism and the word, unto which (two) joined together, they attribute efficacy, that is to say, remission of sins; that 
[f] Zuinglius tom. 2. de Baptismo fol. 70.  it was a great error of the old Doctors, in that they supposed the external water of Baptism, to be of any value, towards the purging of sin; that 
[g] Musculus loc. come. pag. 299. post med. saith thereof, Inconsideratè dictum est ab Augustino, etc.  Austin did inconsiderately affirm the Sacraments of the New Testament to give salvation; that also 
[h] Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 125. lin. 16.  Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian mention how that the Baptised persons were accustomed to be signed with the sign of the Cross. That there were likewise then used in Baptism, sundry other Ceremonies▪ 
[i] Cent. 3. col. 82. lin. 50. & col. 148. l. 4. And see Cyprian l. 1. Epist. ult. ant med. where he saith, Oportet verò mundari & sanctificari aquam priùs à Sacerdote. And see Cent. 4. col. 415. lin. 44.  as the Priest's consecration of the water of Baptism, 
[k] Cent. 3. col. 124. lin. 53. & col. 126. lin. 20.  Abrenuntiation, 
[l] Cent. 3. col. 125. lin. 1. & 124. lin. 57  triple immersion, 
[m] Centur. 3. col. 125. lin. 9  unction, etc. that (by Beza's judgement) such 
[n] Beza in Epist. Theolog. Epist. 8. saith, Totum illum apparatum quo vetustistimi etiam illi Baptismum & Caenam Domini se exornare posse putarunt, non satis mirari possum, etc. pag. 79. initio. And having recited sundry of those Ceremonics he calleth them, histrionicas ineptias pag. 80. prope initium, saying there further, Certè qui Apostolos faciunt istarum ineptiarum authores, nè refutatione quidem digni sunt, quantumeunque sunt verusti Scriptores, etc. And a little afterwards, Plerique tamen ex vertastistimis illis Christianorum Sacra non aliter quam Cereris mysteria quaedam occultanda censuerunt, etc. Et totam illam actionem, etc. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaedam, & nè ipsis quidem mystis plerisque intellecta, Sacra transforma●unt  Fathers.,,,, (as were) most ancient adorned their Sacraments with excess of Ceremonies; 
[o] Su● saith Cartwright in Mr. Wh●tgifts defence, etc. pag. 522. fine, he chargeth Austin with absicedity herein, and ibid., pag. 516. And Bullinger in his Decades in English, decad. 5. serm. 8. pag. 1049. a. circa med.  that Austin was of mind, that Children could not be saved without Baptism: that 
[p] Musculus loc. come. de Baptismo pag. 308. post med.  Austin and many Fathers were of the same opinion. In so much, that as Calvin confesseth, the Fathers have hereupon doubted not, 
[q] Calvin. instit. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 20.  almost from the very beginning of the Church, to use the Baptism of lay persons in danger of death. In like manner concerning Chrism or Confirmation, to omit the plain say of 
[r] Aug. contra lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. tom. 7. saith, Sacramentum Chrismatis in genere visibilium signorum, Sacrosanctum est, sicut ipse Baptismus. And tom. 9 in Epist. joan. tract. 3. he saith, Vnctio Spiritalis ipse spiritus sanctus est, cujus Sacramentum est in unctione visibili. And ibid. tract. 6. he preventeth an objection saying, Numquid modo qu bus imponitur manus, ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum, hoc expectatur, ut linguis loquantur? aur quando imposumus manus istis infantibus, attendit unusqu sque vestiù●, utrum linguis loquerentur, & cum videret eos linguis non loqui, ita perverso corde aliquis vestrum suit, ut diceret, non acceperunt Spiritum Sauctum? And a little after. Si vis nosse quia accepisti Spiritum sanctum, interroga cor tuum, nè fortè cum Sacramentum habes, virtutem Sacramenti non habeas.  St. Austin and other Fathers, as also the like evident confession of 
[s] Calvin. institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 43. saith, Si quis vetustate tueri hujusmodi inventiones velit, nec ipse ignoro, quam verustus sit Chrismatis & exufflationes in Baptismo usus, quam non longè ab Apostolorum aeta te Caena Domini tacta rubigine fuerit.  Calvin, Chemnitius reprehendeth herein sundry of the most ancient Fathers, namely St. Cyprian, the Laodicene Council, Melchiades, Cornelius and Tertullian. And the Ministers of Lincoln-Diocess charge 
[u] The Ministers of Lincoln- Diocese in their abridgement, etc. pag. 42. ante med.  Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with error of using the Cross, in confirming those that were Baptised, etc.  
9 Ninthly, concerning Confession, Absolution, Penance and satisfaction, it is confessed, that even 
[x] Centur. 3. c. 6. col. 127. lin. 28. where the Century Writers say, Absolutionem deinde à peccatis i●a confercbant, si qui poenitentiam agebant, peccatum priùs confessi essent. Sic enim confessionem magnopere Tertullianus urget in libro de poenitentia; & usit atam fuisse privatam confessionem, qua delicta & cog●tata quoque parva confessi sunt, ex allquot Cypriani loc●s apparet, ut ex S●●mone quinto de lapsis, & l. 3. Epistolarum Epistola 14. & 16. ubi desertè a●t, In minoribus etiam peccatis, quae quidem non in Deum committuntur, necesse est ad exomoleg sin venire, inque frequenter fieri jubet, l. 1. Epist. 3. etc.  in those (former) times of Cyprian and Tertullian was used private confession (even) of thoughts and lesser sins; and that the same was 
[y] Vide ibid.  then commanded and thought necessary; that also as then 
[z] Centur. 3. col. 127. sin. 40.  Penance (or) satisfaction was enjoined according to the offence; that the same Father's 
[a] Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. And see him also alleged in Mr. Fulks defence of the English Translations cap. 13. pag. 368. ante med.  thought by (such) their external Discipline of life, to pay the pains due 
[t] Vide Chemnitium examen. part. 2. pag. 58. a. post med. and 64. b. ant med. and 65. a. post med.  for sins, and to satisfy God's justice. That 
[b] Whitaker in resp. ad Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. paulo ante med. And see Calvin institut. l. 3. c. 4. sect. 38. initio.  not Cyprian only, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error: and that the Priest when confession was (as before) made, and penance enjoined, 
[c] Centur. 3. col. 127. lin. 44.  did afterwards absolve the penitent (even) 
[d] Vide ibid. and see this Ceremony of imposing the Priest's hand in absolution, mentioned by Cyprian in serm. de lapsis, paulo ante med. & l. 3. Epist. 17. & 18. & in Concil. 4. Carthag. Can. 76. & 78. & Chrysost. in john 20. hom. 85. fine.  with the now like used Ceremony of imposing his hand.  
10. Tenthly concerning the Primacy of Peter above the other Apostles (acknowledged by 
[e] Calvin alleged in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 173. saith, The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest: and see further pag. 496. ante med.  Calvin, 
[f] Musculus alleged there pag. 66. post med. saith, The Celestial Spirits are not equal; the Apostles themselves were not equal; Peter is found in many places to have been chief among the rest, which we deny not  Musculus,.; and sundry other 
[g] M. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 375 initio saith, Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief etc. that had chief authoraty over the rest, etc. that Schisms might be compounded; & vide ibid. post med. And see him further there pag. 395. In so much as he doubteth not to answer there pag. 62, 63, 65, 68, 70. certain places of Scripture sbjected by our other Adversaries against Peter's Primacy.  learned Protestants) the anriquity of this opinion is fully confessed by Mr. Fulk, who speaking of Leo and Gregory Bishops of Rome, the first of them about Anno Domini 440. and the other about 59●. saith, 
[h] Mr. Fulk in his Retentive against Bristows mo●tives, etc. pag. 248. fine.  the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat (of Rome) near five or six hundred years before them (so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal) and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow-Apostles than the holy Scriptures of God do allow. So confessedly ancient, and of long continuance was this opinion of Peter's Primacy, even in those elder times of Leo and Gregory. A thing so evident, that our other learned Adversaries reprehend sundry of the other much more ancient Fathers, for their affirming the Church to be built upon Peter, namely 
[i] Conturists cent. 4. col. 1250. l. 2.  Hierom, 
[k] Cent. 4. col. 555. lin. 30.  Hilary, 
[l] Cent. 4. col. 558. l. 54.  Nazianzen, 
[m] Cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 73. it is said, Tertullianus non sine errore sentire videtur, Claves soli Petro commissas, & Ecclesiam super ipsum extructam esse.  Tertullian, 
[n] Centur. 3. col. 84. lin. 59 saith, Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse: ut l. 1. Epist. 3. l. 4. Ep. 9 etc.  Cyprian, 
[o] Cent. 3. col. 85. lin. 3. it is said, Origines tract. 5. in Matth. dicit, Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum. Idem hom. 17. in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem.  Origen, and in general 
[p] Calvin. institut. l. 4. c. 6. sect. 6. saith, In Petro fundatam esse Ecclesiam, quia dictum sit, super hanc Petram, etc. At nonnulli ex Patribus sic exposuerunt, sed reclamat tota Scriptura, etc. And Danaeus in respons. ad Bellarmin. disput. part. 1. pag. 277. post med. saith of the Fathers, Dictum en in Christi Matth. 16. Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. pessimè de persona Petri sunt interpretati, etc.  many Fathers: reproving also others for their entituling Peter the 
[q] Cent. 4. col. 556. lin. 17. they allege Optatus calling Peter, Apostolorum Caput, unde & Cephas appellatur, and see next heretofore at 10. where they allege Origen calling Peter Apostorum Principem. And Mr. Fulk in his Retentive, etc. pag. 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity, for saying of Peter, praeferri omnibus Apostolis moruit, etc. he deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven, to be communicated to the rest, & vide ibid. fine; in like manner is Peter called Prince of the Apostles by Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 2. Prince and Head of the rest, by Cyril of Alexandria l. 12. in joan. c. 64. The Pastor and Head of the Church, placed by Christ over the whole earth, by Chrysostom in Matth. hom. 55. ante med. and Apostolorum vertex in the same homily circa med. The Master of the whole world, by Chrysostom in joan. hom. 87. paulo ante med. & add Pop. hom. 80. ante med. The rock and top of the Catholic Church (in the Council of Chalcedonact. 3)  Head of the Apostles, and 
[r] Cent. 4. col. 554. lin. 32. & col. 1074. lin. 13. Arnobius is reprehended for terming him Episcoporum Episcopus: in respect whereof the Centurists do there further say, de Petro minus commodè loquitur.  the Bishop of Bishops. In so much that whereas the Fathers doubted not publicly to celebrate a yearly 
[s] Concil. 2. Turonense can. 16. saith, Sunt etiam qui in festivitate Cathedrae Domini Petri Apostoli, etc. See this confessed Centur. 6. col. 580. lin. 2. And S. Austin serm. 15. de Sanctis, saith, Institutio solemnitatis hodiernae a Senioribus nostris Cathedrae nomen accepit, etc. rectè ergo Ecclesiae natalem illius sedis colunt, quam Apostolus pro Ecclesiarum salute suscepit, dicente Domino, Tu es Petrus, etc. ideo dignè fundamentum hoc Ecclesia coli●. And see further mention hereof in Beda in Martyrologio.  festival day in honour of Peter's Sea (which respect had thereto is more than we find had to any other Sea of any other Apostle) Danaeus answering hereunto, affirmeth the Father's assertion hereof to be, 
[t] Danaeus in resp. ad Bellar. disput. part. 1. pag. 275. fine & 276. initio.  the judgements and testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched, or made blind with this error. And thus much concerning Peter's Primacy confessedly, as before, taught by the Fathers, and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift, and sundry other Protestants, Mr. D. Covel not only further 
[u] Mr. Covel in his examination, etc. against the plea of the innocent, Printed 1604. having spoken pag. 106. post med. of one above the rest to suppress the seeds of dissension, saith further thereof pag. 107. prope initium: If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and dissensions in the Primitive Church, when the graces of God were far more abundant and eminent than now they are: Nay if the twelve were not like to agree, except there had been one chief among them; for saith Hierom, among the twelve, one was therefore chosen, that a chief being appointed, occasion of dissension might be prevented, etc.  affirming it in particular, but also as laying down the general received reason thereof, saith to the Puritans: 
[x] Ibid in the words there next following.  How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity etc. for in all Societies, authority (which cannot be where all are equal) must procure unity and obedience. And that this authority of Church-Government by him affirmed in the Apostles times, was not then so personally tied to any one as to die with him, but was to survive, and continue to the Churches good, himself further signifieth, saying expressly of the Apostolic Church-Government in general, That it was not to 
[y] Mr. Covel. ibid. pag. 106. circa med. saith, If it concern all persons and ages in the Church of Christ (as surely it doth) the Government must not cease with the Apostles; but so much of that authority must remain to them, who from time to time are to supply that charge.  cease with the Apostles: most evidently so by these premises implying an eminent authority continued in the Church of God, and residing in one, whereby to prove unity and obedience, and to keep all the (obedient) Pastors of the world in peace: whereto also 
[z] See Martin Luther's saying most pertinent to this purpose, and alleged next hereafter in the margin under * and next before 18.  Martin Luther agreeth: for otherwise saith, M. D. Covel 
[a] 
Mr. Covel ubi supra pag. 107. paulo post med.  
By what course of authority enforcing obedience can the Churches divided members, dispersed in other several Kingdoms and Nations, be governed, unless according to these principles laid down by Mr. Covel, some one have authority over them all? If it rest in the several other Princes of those other several Kingdoms, who then shall have authority to command those Princes severally absolute in Government, disagreeing also perhaps in Religion, and some of them (as in the times of the Primitive Church) not yet Christian? And if not assured means be in this case left, how then is that avoided, which Mr. Covel here saith of the Church being in far worse case than the meanest Commonwealth? For howsever the said several Kingdoms of such said several Princes, make each of them on absolute and several Commonwealth, yet the several Congregations, dispersed throughout those several Kingdoms, do all of them make but one spiritual Commonwealth and Church so Christ, obliged in duty to the belief and profession of one and the same faith. See further hereof in the next Consideration num. 68 and in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 7. after o. at the figure 7.   the Church (which though dispersed in several Kingdoms under several Christian Magistrates maketh yet but one Church) should be in a far worse case than the meanest Commonwealth, nay almost than a den of Thiefs, if it were left destitute of means, either to convince Heresies or suppress them: yea (saith he further, which is much to be noted) though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian Magistrate, etc. Hitherto of Peter's Primacy.  
Now as concerning that only pre-eminence or Primacy which Jacobus Andraeas thought necessary 
[b] Hospinianus in his Historia Sacramentaria, parte altera, fol. 389. a. circa med. reporteth of jacobus Andraeas a prime Lutheran, Demonstrare conatur Ecclesiarum tranquillum statum tueri difficile esse, nisi ad aliquem tanquam ad summum Administratorem & Pontificem rerum summa deferatur.  to establish the Church quiet, which also our learned and so greatly 
[c] See Melancthon greatly commended for a man raised up of God, by Luther in praefat. primi tomis, oper. Melancth. And also in Act. Colloquii Altembergensis pag. 94. paulo ante med. and pag. 230. paulo post med.  commended Adversary Melancthon, 
[d] Melancthon in the Book entitled, Centuria Epistolatum Theologicarum, etc. Epist. 74. quae est Melancthonis pag. 244. paulo post med. saith from the opinion of himself and other his Brethren, Quemadmodum sunt aliqui Episcopi qui praesunt pluribus Ecciesiis, etc. As certain Bishops are precedent over many Churches: (so) the Bishop of Rome is Precedent over all Bishops, and this Canonical Policy no wise man, as I think doth, or aught to disallow, etc. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my opinion profitable to this end, that consent of Doctrine may be retained: wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this article of the Pope's Primacy, if other articles could be agreed upon. And see Melancthons' other like saying set down by Conradus Schlusselburg in Catalogue. Haereticorum l. 13. & ult. pag. 633.  acknowledged as due, and appertaining to the Roman Sea, and which (as the learned Puritans freely confess) doth by way of proportion necessarily arise and follow upon the Protestants acknowledgement, either of a Catholic visible 
[e] Mr. jacob in his reasons taken out of God's word, etc. pag. 24. saith, By acknowledging a Catholic visible Church, it followeth necessarily, that there is and aught to be on earth an universal Government Ecclesiastical, etc. for if there be properly one visible Church, and Government Ecclesiastical throughout the world, than this must be in some one place eminently, for some whither must we go, when Christ biddeth us tell the Church: now there is no place in all the world so likely as Rome is to be the visible and springhead of universal Government of the Catholic Church. And see more evidently in subdivis. 13. at 2.3. Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. Also Martin Luther in loc. come. class. 1. cap. 37. pag. 107. post med. saith, Cum Deus voluerit habere unam Ecclesiam Catholicam per totum Orbem, necesse fu●t unum aliquem populum, imo unum aliquem Patrem istius unius populi eligi, and quem & su●s posteros, spectaret totus Orbis, & fieret unum ovile: & sic ex omnibus gentibus in infinitum variatis moribus; tamen unica fieret Ecclesia.  Church, or else but of Bishop's 
[f] M. Cartwright in M. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 380. ante med. saith, if it be necessary for keeping of unity in the Church that one Archbishop should be Primate over all; why not as meet, that for the keeping of the whole universal Church, there should be one Archbishop over all? And in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 582. paulo post med. he further saith, This point of keeping peace in the Church, is one of those which requireth as well a Pope over all Arch-Bishops, as one Archbishop over all Bishops in a Realm. And the very same is more fully as yet affirmed by Beza: see his words at large in Sarav a de diversis Ministrorum gradibus, etc. pag. 491. fine & 492. initio  Government,., confessedly 
[g] Of the confessed Government of Bishops and Arch-Bishops in all ages since the Apostles, see Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 470, 471.  testified and practised in all succeeding ages, since the Apostles, and without which foresaid Papal Primacy, as is inferred by Mr. Cartwright and others, 
[h] Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 582. med. saith, If an Archbishop be necessary for calling a Provincial council, when the Bishops are divided; it is necessary there be also a Pope, which may call the general Council when division is between the Arch-Bishops, for when the Churches of one Province be divided from other, as you ask me, so I ask you who shall assemble them together? Who shall admonish them of their duties when they are assembled? If you can find a way how this may be done, without a Pope, the way is also found whereby the Church is disburdened of the Archbishop. See also this point more plainly confessed by Conradus Schlusselburg. Sir Edwin Sands, and others alleged hereafter in the third Consideration.  cannot be assembled any general Council, which is yet nevertheless the confessed, only hope remaining ever to assuage Protestants contentions. In respect whereof Melancthon did as before, assent to acknowledge the Pope's foresaid Primacy.  
As touching this only Primacy we allege, that Mr. Fulk affirmeth in general, that not some few, but 
[i] Mr. Fulk in confirmation of Papists quarrels, etc. Printed Anno 1583. pag. 4. initio.  many of the ancient Fathers were deceived to think something more of Peter's Prerogative, and the Bishop of Rome's dignity, than by the word of God was given to either of them. And as concerning particulars (to forbear what is generally 
[k] That Boniface the third claimed to be Head of the Universal Church Anno 607. is confessed by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi pag. 160. ante med. by M. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 36. initio, by Mr. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. by Mr. Downham in his Book of Antichrist l. 1. pag. 4. post med. And by Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia, contra Bellarminum, etc. pag. 144. post med. where he affirmeth, this Boniface and all his Successors to be Antichrists. And the very same is affirmed by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 27. circa med. by M. Powel de Antichristo in Praesat. pag. 1. fine.  confessed of the 1000 years' last passed) the Century Writers of Magdeburg in their fifth Century (the last part or end whereof was one hundred, and the beginning thereof two hundred years, within the compass of Mr. Jewels own challenge) do confess and say concerning even those ancient times, that 
[l] Cent. 5. col. 774. lin. 31.  in this fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselves to get and establish Dominion over other Churches: that to this end 
[m] Cent. 5. col. 777. lin. 55. and in example thereof say further there, Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino (cui suas parts, videlicet, ut Synodo Ephesinae praesideret, delegavit) privilegium dedit usurpandi titulum Papae, & mitram.  they usurped to themselves right of granting privileges and ornaments to other Archbishops. That also 
[n] Cent. 5. col 778 lin. 16. and in example thereof say further there, Nam Leo Max mum Ant ochenum confirmavit in Episcopa●u; ac Proter●o Alexandrino Episcopo jura ant qua ejus Sedis juxta Canon's & Privilegia confirmasse, ●nd ●atur Epist. 68 Leonis, & 69. and ibid. lin. 37. it is further said, Vsurpabant sib pot starem mandandi al●is Episcopis, ut quem spsi velient & proponerent in dissit●s Ecclesiis, Episcopum ordinarent, aut quem ipsi nollent, deponerent: sic C●l●stinus in Ep●stola ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, & Joannem Antiochenum, & Rufum Th●ssalonicensem, mandat 〈◊〉 ut Proclum Constantinopoli designarent Episcopum, etc.  they confirmed Arch-Bishops in their Seas, 
[o] See this next heretofore at 25. and see further cent 5 col. 778. lin. 46. and see next hereafter at 67. in the margin: and of Anthimus of Constantinople deposed by Agapitus, see cent. 6. col. 55. lin. 20. and Liberatus in B●eviar. cap. 21. of Dioscorus in like manner deposed, and see Gelasius in Epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae.  deposed, 
[p] Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 31. it is said, Sum●bant sibi facultatem excommunicandi alios Archiepiscopos, & Ecclesias, sic Leo excommunicavit Orientales, & Felix Ocaclum, Gelasius damnavit Acatium & Petrum, miffis literis in Orientem.  excommunicatd, and 
[q] Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 38. And in example thereof say further there. Nam Gelasius in tomo Anathematum, Petrum Alexandrinum secundae Sedis Antistitem negat absolvi a quoquam pose se, quam ab Episcopo primae sedis, scilicet Romano.  absolved others; 
[r] Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 8. it is said, Arrogant sibi potestatem citandi alios ad dicendam coram sese causam: sic Constantinopolitanus (Episcopus) Romam citatur, & Maximum citaturum sese promittet Bonifacius.  arrogating (also) power to themselves of citing other (Arch-Bishops) to declare their cause before them: and that 
[s] Centur. 5. col. 778. lin. 5●. it is said, Constituerunt & postularunt, ut in Episcoporum causis liceat ad sese appellari, ut patet ex Actis sextae Carthaginensis Synodi, & Epistola ad Bonifacium, & Sixtus Epist. 3. ad Orientales cap. 5. decernit, ut contra Episcopum ad sedem Apostol cam appellantem nihil aliud statuatur quam Romanus Episcopus censuerit. Gelasius in Epistola ad Faustum Magistrum, impudenter mentitur, in Canon bus sancitum esse, ut Appellationes totius Ecclesiae ad examen Romanae sedis deferantur, & abipsa nusquam appelletur.  against a Bishop appealing to the Apostolic Sea, nothing should be determined, but what the Bishop of Rome censured: that also 
[t] Cent. 5. col. 780. lin. 8. it is said, Conati sunt eam sibi super Archiepiscopos vendicare authoritatem, ut si quid illi agerent, ex authoritate Romani Episcopi eg sse viderentur, quasi servi ejus & mancipia essent: sic Leo Epist. 84. indicat Antiftites Thessalonicenses semper vicem Apostolicae sedis implevisse, ac monet Anasta sium (who was then Bishop of Thessalonica) ut in longinquis Provinciis, quodam modo, praesentiam su● Visitationis impendat, & nihil decernat, nisi quod sibi probari agnoscat. Sic Gelasius in Epistola ad Dardanos, dicit, se curam Alexandrinae Ecclesiae delegasse Acacio Constantinopolitano, ideoque cum debuisse ad ipsum referre omnia. And see further col. 778. lin. 26. & col. 779. lin. 17. example is given of Legates sent into remote Provinces (as) Constantinople, Ephesus, and afric. Cent. 5. col. 779. lin. 43. it is said: Ausi sunt ab Archi-Episcopis postulare, ut si quid suo judicio non possent determinare, ad sese referrent: sic Leo Ep. 84. c. 7. Thessalonicensi hanc legem dictitat, etc. And see col. 1230. lin. 26. & col. 780. lin. 45. And see further hereof Stephanus Mauritaniae Episcopus in Epistola ad Damasum. And Anastasius Hierosolymitanus in Epist. ad Felicem.  they appointed their Legates in remote Provinces, challenging Authority to hear and determine all uprising controversies, especially 
[u] See their testimony and examples hereof given col. 781. lin. 9  in Questions of Faith: that likewise, 
[x] Col. 781. lin. 20. Generalia Concilia indicendi potestatem sib● sumpserunt, ut patet Epist. 93. cap. 7. Leonis, etc. Ac Synodos sine sua authoritate convocatas, ut illegitimas rejecerunt.  they took upon them power of appointing general Councils, and 
[y] Col. 781. lin. 36. Jus p●●dendi Synodis universalibus sibi adscripserunt, etc. Sic Celestinus Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ephesina Synodo Praesidendi potestatem suo nomine concessisse videri vult. Ac Leo Paschasinum Siciliae Episcopum, ut Chalcedonensi praesideret, misit. And see the subscription of Paschasinus in Concil. Chalcid. act. 3.  to be Precedents in general Councils. And when themselves were absent, even by 
[z]  supra: and see this heretofore in the margin at 24. and see Centur. 5. col. 781. lin. 52. And see Danaeus in resp. ad Bellarm, part. 1. pag. 323.  their Deputies: which were oftentimes no meaner than some one or other Patriarch, 
[a] See next before at 34. also col. 781. lin. 57 In Synodis perp●ram acta retractarunt, Apostolicam jactantes authoritatem, etc. Postea ex eo sibi jus de Synodis judicandi arrog●runt, & Decreta retractandi, etc. And see Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. where it was said, Synodum ausus est facere sine authoritate sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam licuit, nunquam factum est.  rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their authority. And as these are confessed to be the known practice of those ancient Roman Bishops; so also is the like answerable respect and acknowledgement than had to that Sea, by other Fathers of those times, no less plainly testified by the said Century writers.  
To this like end they say concerning the Roman Bishops, 
[b] Centur. 5. col. 744. lin. 53.  that they had flatterers (in those times) who affirmed, that without permission of the Roman Bishop, none might undertake the person of a Judge, who then likewise 
[c] Cent. 5. col. 775. 16. Ex errore quodam affirmant, antiquitatem ei super omnes, Principatum Sacerdotii contuliss●. Concerning this assertion of antiquity, etc. see further Anastasius Hierosolymitanus in Epist. ad Felicem, and Innocentius Epist. 2. ad Vict. And see him in Epist. ad Concil. Milevitanum cited cent. 5. col. 781. lin. 4. & 5. and Leo Epist. 88 ad Anastalium Thessalonicensem cap 1. & Epist. 93. ad Episcopos per Viennam cap. 2.  averred that antiquity (therefore it was not then first begun had attributed the principality of Priesthood to the Roman Bishop above all: that accordingly 
[d] Cent. 5. col. 774. lin. 57  Victor called the Roman Church, the Head of all Churches: that 
[e] Col. 775. lin. 4.  Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowleged his Superiority: that 
[f] Col. 778. lin. 51. and Leo Epist. 24. & 25. saith of his Legates in the Ephesme Council, Nostri fideliter reclamârunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus obtulit: and hereof see further the letter of Valentinian to Theodosius in Praeamb. Con. Chal. where it is said, Constantinopolitanus Episcopus (Flavianus) Episcopum Romanae Civitatis per libellos appellavit. And again, Libellum ad Apostolicam sedem miss●rit. And Liberatus cap. cap. 18. saith of john Talida (Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno, and Petrus Moggus intruded into his place) Romanum Pontificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut & beatus fecit Athanasius.  sometimes Bishops condemned in Synods appealed to the Sea of Rome, as did (say they) Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Council of Ephesus, and that Councils 
[g] Col. 782. lin. 36. Patres saepe honoris ergo pretebant ab iis Decreta confirmari. Sic Chalcedonensis Synodus ad Leonem scribit: Rogamus in tuis D●creris nostrum honora judicium, & sicut nos cupidi in bonis, adjecimus consonantiam: sic & summitas tua, filiis quod decet, adimpleat: And the Council of Carthage Epist. ad Innocentium desireth Innocentius in like terms;  Statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur authoritas; alleged cent. 5. col. 823. And see the Council of Ephesus in Epist. ad Celestinum Papam.  requested to have their Acts confirmed by the Bishop of; Rome: In so much as they conclude and say of St. Leo (who was one of those Fathers of this fift age, to whom Mr. Jewel did namely appeal) 
[h] Centur. 5. col. 1262. lin. 30. And that Peter's Primacy was thought to descend or come to the Bishop of Rome, is likewise affirmed by Vigilius in Epist. ad Euterium cap. 7. by Anastasius in Epist. ad Anastasium Augustum: by the Emperor justinian in his Epistle to john the second cod. de sum. Trinitate & fide Cathol. tit. 1. by the said john in his Epistle to the said Emperor, cited ibid. by Pelagius the second in Epist. ad omnes Episcopos: by Gelasius in Epist. ad Faustum, & in Epist. ad Episcopos per Lucaniam, etc. c. 11. And see Decret. Gelasii cum 70. Episcopis initio. And by Innocentius the first in Epist. 1. ad Decentium, & in Epist. ad Victoricum initio, etc. Thirdly and most especially, in Rescrip. ad Conc. Carth. which Rescript. is acknowledged and commended by St. Austin (one of the Fathers of that Council) in Epist. 106. where he saith thereof, Pope Innocentius did write answer to the Bishops in all things as became the Bishop of the Apostolic Sea. And see more hereof hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. at 104. in the margin.  Leo very painfully goeth about to prove, that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles; and that thence risen the Primacy of the Roman Church. To allege other writers, Beza further saith, 
[i] Confess. Genev. cap. 7. sect. 12. and Mr. Whitaker de Conciliis contra Bellarminum pag. 37. paulo ante med. saith, de Leone prime parum laboro, magnus ille fuit Antichristiani Regni Architectus. And yet bid. pag. 34. circa med. he saith of Leo, Fuit ille quidem doctus & pius Episcopus, sed fuit tamen magis ambitiosus, etc.  It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth clearly breathe forth the arrogancy of the Anti christian Roman Sea. In like manner saith the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury of these times: 
[k] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 342. post med.  It is certain that then, (viz. in the time of the Carthage and African Councils) the Bishop of Rome began at least to claim Superiority over all Churches. And it is in like sort confessed of Celestinus (who is termed by Mr. Whitgift 
[l] So doth Mr. Whitgift term him in his defence pag. 588. fine.  a godly Bishop, and by the ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis 
[m] Vicentius Lyr. in libro adver. haer. prope finem.  Pope Celestine of blessed memory) 
[n] See this confessed in M. Cartwrights second reply part. 1. pag. 500 paulo post med. and see M. Cartwrights defence pag. 342. post med.  that he claimed the hearing of matters in the African Churches, and 
[o] See this in Mr. Cartwrights second reply part. 1. pag. 512. ante med.  claimed Superiority over all Churches, taking upon him as it were the name of universal Bishop. That also 
[p] Centur. 5. col. 1274. lin. 38. & 47. and Mr. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 58. fine.  Gelasius held, that Councils are subject to the Pope, and that all should appeal to him, but none from him: with the like whereof Pope 
[q] Mr. Symonds ibid. pag. 57 circa med.  Xistus is also charged: that likewise the Council of Chalcedon, whose Authority is to our Adversaries established by special 
[r] Anno 1. Elizabeth c. 1. versus finem is established the authority of the four first general Councils.  Act of Parliament, 
[s] See this in Mr. Cartwrights second reply part. 1. pag. 510. circa med. And see Mr. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 344. initio. And see Saravia de diversis gradibus Ministrorum pag. 403. post med.  did offer the name of universal Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome.  
Hitherto concerning those only Fathers, that lived in the age or Century next ensuing the four hundred years after Christ, and their not doubtful, but confessed testimomonies of the Jurisdiction, really executed and extended by the Popes of those times, not only over their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italy, but over remote Provinces, and the other greatest Arch-Bishops, and Patriarches of the world; as namely, of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople, etc. And by them then accordingly acknowledged.  
As concerning now the like testimony from the more ancient Fathers that lived in the age next precedent, which is the time wherein Constantine the great lived, although the Church began as then, but as it were, to take breath from her former long endured persecutions, whereby neither, her writers were so many, nor her face of outward Government so known as in the times succeeding: yet is there not wanting even for that time sufficient testimony in this kind. In regard whereof the Centurists affirm, that 
[t] Centur. 4. col. 549. lin. 42.  In this age the mystery of iniquity was not idle. To this end they further allege, that 
[u] Centur. 4. col. 550. lin. 28.  the Bishops of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon, the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent. And Mr. Cartwright saith accordingly of Damasus (whom St. Hierom and Protestants themselves term 
[x] Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3. at 106. pag. 296. Hieron. Ep. 57 to Pope Damasus saith, Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior: super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est, (etc.) Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit. And Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas' saith, Negar●non potest scire te in urbe Roma, Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem collatam esse, in qua sederit omn um Apostolorum caput Petrus, unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisqu defende●ent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret, ergo Cathedra unica est, etc. And again; De dotibus suprad●ct● Cathedra est prima, quam probavimus per Petrum nostram esse. And St. Austin Epist. 102. prope initium saith, In Ecclesia Romana semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus. And (apud Brereley pag. 106.107. at 5●. margin) in Bullingers' decades in English on the page next before the first decade, is set down the Creed of Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome, etc. and in the end of that page is also set down the Imperial Decree of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to embrace the Religion taught by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria, whereof see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subd. 1. fine in the margin at 6.  blessed) that 
[y] Mr. Cartwright in his reply part. 1. pag. 502. paulo post initium. And in proof thereof he allegeth there in his margin Zozomen hist. lib. 6. c. 23. post med.  he spoke in the Dragon's voice, when he shameth not to write, that the bishops of Rome's sentence was alove all other to be attended for in a Synod. And Mr. Whitaker confesseth the Ecclesiastical 
[z] Whitaker de Conciliis, etc. q. 2. pag. 42. fine 43. initio.  Canon (of those times, whereby it was decreed,) That no Council should be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome: And that 
[a] Ibid. pag. 44. pavio ante med. saith bereof, Fatemur Julium sibi talem authoritatem vendicasse. And Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 510. paulo post med. saith, Julius Bishop of Rome saith, it was decreed by the Laws of the Church, and immediately after the Nicene Council, that the Bishop of Rome must be called to the Synod, and that, that was void which was done there besides his sentence. And see part. 2. pag. 110. circa med. This appeareth more plainly in Socrates and the Tripartite History. For whereas the Arians had affembled a Council at Antioch whereat Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, and Julius Bishop of Rome were both of them absent. Yet is the only absence of julius specially fet down, as the only cause of disannulling the said Council. And so accordingly it is said, Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem was absent from thence, etc. Neither was julius' Bishop of the greatest Rome present thereat, neither did he appoint any in his place; whereas yet the Eccelesiastical Canon doth command, that no Council ought to be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Hist. Tripartit. l. 4. c 9 & Socrates l. 2. c. 5. & see Histor. Tripart. l. 4. c. 19 and see l. 5. c. 29. also in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Julius doth accordingly allege this Canon.  Julius made challenge thereby: For which 
[b] And whereas Bellarmine doth object this example of julius, and other Bishops of Rome, alleging this Canon: Danaeus his only answer is, That this objection, nullius est momenti: nam ab ipsius Romani Pontificis, id est, partis in sua causa testimonio profertur (in resp. ad Bellarm. part. 1. p. 595. circa med. at quarta ratio, etc.)  Danaeus reproveth him and certain other Bishops of Rome. Also it is confessed, that 
[c] M. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 45. post med. See also Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 32. And Innocentius Epist. ad Victoricum cap. 2.  Damasus wrote to the Councils of afric, that the judgement of the causes of Bishops, and all other matters of great importance, may not be determined, but by the authority of the Apostolic Sea. And that accordingly 
[d] See this in Mr. Cartwrights 2. reply part. 1. pag. 501. initio. And the Conturists cent. 4. col. 529. lin. 19 say, Romani Episcopi regulam fecerunt, ut ad se omnia praescribi primum mandarent, ut patet ex Epistola lulii apud Athanasium Apologia secunda. Inquit enim (julius) an ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur? etc.  Julius Bishop of Rome at the Council of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes, that appertained not to him. In like manner concerning appeals made to Rome, it is testified, that 
[e] Mr. Symonds upon the Revelations cap. 5. pag. 53. fine. And see the like in Damasus Epist. 2. ad Stephanum & ad Concilia Africa.  Julius decreed, that whosoever suspected his Judge, might appeal to the Sea of Rome. That also Theodoret (a Greek Father who lived in the latter end of this Century, and was deposed by the second Council of Eph●sus) 
[f] See Cent. 5. col. 1013, lin. 12. it is said of Theodoret: Appellat ad judicium leonis, eique supplicat, etc. And Theodoret himself, in his Epistle to Leo placed before his Commentaries upon Paul's Epistle saith, Behold after all this travail and sweat, I am condemned, being not so much as accused: But I look for the sentence of your Apostolic Sea, and I humbly beseech and require your Holiness in this case to aid me (justum vestrum & rectum appellanti judicium) appealing to your right and just judgement, and command me to come before you, etc. And in his Epistle ad Renatum Praesbyterum he further saith. Nudarunt me Sacerdotio, etc. D●p●ecor teut sanctissimo Archiepiscopi (Leoni) sundeas, ut Apostolica authoritate utatur, jubeatque ad vestrum adire Council 'em: tenet enim sancta ista sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti Orbis Ecclesiarum, etc.  did accordingly make his appeal to Pope Leo, and was thereupon by him 
[g] Cent. 5. col. 1013. lin. 26. it is said, Restituit Theodoreto Episcopatum▪ Sanctissimus Leo. And see the same in Concilio Chalcedonensi act. 1.  restored to his Bishopric: that 
[h] Chrysostom in Ep. ad Innocentium saith, I beseech you write that these things so wrongfully done in my absence, and I not refusing judgement, may not be of force, as of their own nature, they are not, and that those who have done wrong may be subject to the penalty of the Ecclestastical Laws, etc. and command us to be restored to our Church, etc. See this in Palladius in vita Chrysostomi, extat in Aloysio Lipomanno tom. 2. l. 3. part. 2. And Chrysostom. Ep. 2. ad Innocentium desireth that (his enemies) if they will repent, may not be excommunicated.  Chrysostom did the like to Innocentius, who thereupon 
[i] See in Cent. 5. col. 663. lin. 36. Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperor and his wife, who were adverse to Chrysostom, and took part with Theophilus, where he saith, I the least of all and a sinner, having yet the Throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separate and remove thee and her, from receiving the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God: and every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to Minister or give to you those holy mysteries, after the time that you have read the present letters of my bond, I pronounce them void of their dignity, etc. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishoplicke Throne in Chrysostoms' room, though he be dead, we depose, and command that his name be not written in theroll of Bishops. In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed advice have communicated with him, etc. To the deposing of Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) we add excommunication, etc.  decreed Chrysostomus adversary, Theophilus, to be excommunicated and deposed: that lastly, the famous and 
[k] So it is termed by Mr. Thomas Bell in his regiment of the Church pag. 158. initio.  ancient Council of Sardis consisting of 
[l] See Socrates history l. 2. cap. 16. initio, & Zozomen l. 2. cap. 11.  300. Bishops and above, assembled from 
[m] See Cent. 4. col. 747. lin. 50. and Theodoret hist. l. 2. cap. 8.  Spain, France, Italy, Sardinia, Greece, Egypt, Thebais, Libya, Palestine, Arabia, etc. and most other parts of the Christian world, and whereat sundry Fathers of the Nicene Council were 
[n] Of this presence thereat, see Theodoret hist. l. 2. cap. 7. & Socrates hist. l. 2. cap. 16. and Carion in Chro ni. pag. 282. post med.  present, 
[o] The seventh Canon of this Council acknowledged and recited by the Centurists Cent. 4. col. 764. l. 6. And by Osiander in epitome, etc. pag. 294. is, Placuit, ut si Episcopus, etc. It hath seemed good to us, that if a Bishop be accused, if the Bishops of the Province assembled together have judged the matter, and have deprived him, if the party deprived do appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome, etc. If the party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again do, entreat the Bishop of Rome, (ut è Latera suo Praesbyteros mittat) to send Legates from his side; it shall be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shall think good, etc. And see also in those Authors the 4. and 5. Canons of the said Council.  decreed appeals to the Bishop of Rome. And so confessedly, that the same is accordingly granted, and the said Council therefore reproved, by 
[p] Osiander in Epitome. etc. pag. 294. circa med. (a pud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3. at 104. margin) speaking of the Council of Sa●dis decreeing appeals to Rome, professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof saying, Inveteratus communis, & de manu traditus fuit error, quod Petrus fuerit Romae primus Episcopus, ideo hunc honorem habendum censuit successori Petri, juxta communionem opinionem, etc.  Osiander, Calvin, 
[q] Of Calvin and Peter Martyr see in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. in the mrgent at d. subd. or exemple 2.  Peter Martyr, 
[r] Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 30. & 122. & 124. circa med.  Trigevillaus Gauvius, and 
[s] The Centurists do confess and recite this Canon ut supra at 70.  the Century Writers. In so much that whereas the Arians had expelled Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and divers other Catholic Bishops of the East Church, it is testified that Julius (Bishop of Rome) upon the Arians first accusation made to him against Athanasius, 
[t] Nicephorus l. 9 c. 6. and H●st. Tripartit. l. 4. c. 6. it is said, Ipsis Romam v●nire praecepit, & venerab●lem Athanasium ad judic●um regulariter evocav●t, ille continuo, evocatione suscepta, venit, etc. And see Theo●oret hist. l. 2. c. 4.  summoned, Athanasius the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons. And afterwards upon relation had from Athanasius of the truth of the matter, 
[u] Hist. Tripart●t. l. 4. c. 15. and see Zozom●n hist. l. 3. c. 7.  Julius hearing the accusations and complaint of each one, etc. Commanded certain of the Bishops of the East to appear before him, at a certain day, etc. And as the Centurists confess 
[x] Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 20. and see this further in Socrates hist. l. 2. c. 11. prope initium. And Zozomen hist. l. 3. c. 7. initio saith of Julius, Accum propter sedis d●gnitatem cura omnium ad ipsum spectaret, singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit.  restored every one of those (foresaid other wronged) Bishops to their own place (or Bishopric) and that not by entreaty or arbitrably: but (as the Centurists say) fretus Ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa, 
[y] Cent. 4. col. 550. lin. 15. and Zozomen ut supra and see Socrates l. 2. c. 11. and Hist. Tripartit. l. 4. c. 15. Also D. Philippus Nicolai d● Regno Christi l. 2. pag. 149. circa med. saith of this matter, Julius Pontifex, referent bus Socrate & Zozomeno literas ad Orientales d●dit, in quibus, ut ipsae literae contestantur, non semel indicat, sibi soli, qui sit primae sedis; ut ait, Praesul, singulari quodam privilegio, ut ex praescripto divino, jus competere, Synodos generales convocandi, nee minùs ad se quoque solum, ejus Vrbis Antistitem pertinere dicit, ut de causis Episcoporum, & id genus aliis gravioribus negotiis cognoscat: Ad eundem modum & pari ambitione Damasus, etc. & postea Innocentius, etc.  by Prerogative of the Roman Sea. Which premises are made as yet much more evident, by Julius his undoubted Epistle extant in Athanasius his second Apology, and alleged by the 
[z] This Epistle is alleged cent. 4. col. 735. in which is mentioned their citation col. 737. lin. 10. & 742. lin. 26. unto judgement col. 737. lin. 58. & col. 742. lin. 23. & col. 745. lin. 9 at a certain day (col. 739. lin. 19 & col. 740. lin. 11.) & col. 746. lin. 31. Julius saith to them, a ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est definiri posset? etc. Quae enim accepimus à beato Petro Apostolo, ca vobis significo. See this saying reprehended cent. 4. col. 529. lin. 22.  Centurists.  
As concerning the other precedent age or Century next ensuing the second hundred years after Christ, in which, persecution so raged, as the Church's Government was thereby the more obscured, as also of the written Monuments of that time, little is at this day remaining; St. Cyprian moveth Pope Stephen 
[a] Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 13. ante med. saith, Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad plebem Arelarae consistentem à te literae, quibus, abstento Martiano, alius in locum ejus substituatur. And afterwards in the same Epistle fine, he further saith, Significa planè nobis, quis in locum Martiani Arelatae suerit substitutus, ut sciamus ad quem fratres nostros dirigere, & ●ui scribere debeamus.  by his Letters to depose Martianus (from his Bishopric) and to appoint an other in his place. And he also maketh mention of Basilides, who 
[b] Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 4. circa med. saith of Basilides: Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longè positum, & gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret reponi se injustè in Episcopatum de quo fuerat justè depositus.  going to Rome thought to deceive (Pope) Stephen then ignorant of the matter, so to procure himself injustly restored to the Bishopric, from whence he was justly deposed. Which very examples, together with sundry other like before mentioned, concerning the confirming, deposing, and restoring of Bishops, being objected by Bellarmin, are in themselves furthermore so plain and confessed; that Danaeus in his answer thereto cannot deny the same; but only answereth and saith, 
[c] Danaeus in resp▪ ad Bellarm. part. 1. pag. 317. post med.  It doth not follow, that because the Bishop of Rome used this right, therefore he had that right, certainly he had no right to do this, but only Tyranny and Usurpation. So confessedly ancient is this supposed Tyranny and usurpation. In like manner the Centurists do reprehend Pope Stephen for undertaking, 
[d] Centur. 3. col. 168. lin. 31.  in this age to threaten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus, and all (others) throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, for rebaptising Heretics. And in a special several Tract of their fourth Chapter, entitled 
[e] Cent. 34, col. 71. lin. 31.  Inclinatio Doctrinae, complectens peculiares & incommodas opiniones & errores Doctorum, and in the same Tract under the title there 
[f] Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 84. lin. 35.  de Ecclesia & Primatu Romano, they do immediately next after, reprove Tertullian, for that, say they, 
[g] Col. 84. lin. 37.  he did erroneously think the Keys to be committed to Peter alone, and the Church to be built on him. In like manner is St. Cyprian there charged for his affirming, 
[h] Col. 84. lin. 60.  the Church to have been built upon Peter, and 
[i] Col. 84. lin. 44.  one Chair founded by our Lord's voice upon the rock, and that 
[k] Col. 84. lin. 49.  there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church, and for his calling Peter's 
[l] Col. 84. lin. 56.  Chair the principal Church, from whence Priestly unity ariseth; And lastly for his (say they) 
[m] Col. 84. lin. 51.  teaching without any foundation of Scripture, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the Mother & root of the Catholic Church.  
Lastly, as touching the very then precedent age or Century, which was next after the Apostles, whereof as Mr. Hutton 
[n] Mr. Hutton in his answer to the second part of reasons of refusal to subscription pag. 195. post med.  observeth, few monuments are but now remaining: Victor (as Mr. Whitgift affirmeth) was 
[o] Mr. Whitgist in his Defence, etc. pag. 510. prope sinem.  a godly Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time in great purity, (as) not being long after the Apostles times: yet is he charged by Amandus Polanus Professor at Basil 
[p] Amandus Polonus in sil. Thesium Theolog. pag. 165.  to have showed a Papal mind and arrogancy: and by Mr. Spark 
[q] Mr. Spark against Mr. John d'Albines in his answer to the Preface ant med. And see Osiander in Epitome. etc. cent. 2. pag. 87. & 96.  somewhat Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds, when he took upon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East. Mr. Whitaker also not forbearing to charge him with 
[r] Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag 480. initio.  exercising jurisdiction upon other Churches. In like manner holy Irenaeus, who lived next after the Apostles, and (as is said of him) 
[s] The Protestant writer Hamelmannus l. de Traditionibus, col. 528. lin. 17. saith, Sciendum est Polycarpum, Irenaeum, ac alios qui his conteniporanei sure, memoria adhuc tenere potuisse vivae vocis praedicationem Apostolorum. And see Mr. Bridges in his defence, etc. pag. 309, initio.  might yet remember the Apostles own lively Preaching, is disliked for his affirming, that 
[t] The saying of Irenaeus is l. 3. c. 3. where he saith, Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam (Romanam) propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, etc. These words (necesse est) and (omnem convenire Ecclesiam) and (propter potentiorem principalitatem) seem so forcible, that the Centurists cent. 2. col. 64. lin. 10. do say thereof, Novitatem quandam resipere quibusdam videri posset quod in examplaribus Irenaei, qualia nunc habemus, extat, etc. So fortheir best answer, insinuating (without any proof, and against all Copies new and old) that the place is forged.  all the Churches ought to accord to the Roman Church in regard of a more powerable principality: wherein the Centurists charge him with a 
[u] See this in the Alphabetical Table of the second Century at the word Irenaeus.  corrupt saying, concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church. Which foresaid gradation thus continued up to the Apostles age, is confessed so evident, that the Protestant writer D. Philippus Nicolai referreth the beginning hereof 
[x] Philippus N●colai in Comment. de regno Christi pag. 221. circa med. undertaking to speak de origine & incremento Pontificiae dignitatis, affirmeth, that Primatus affectatio, communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum, ac etiam primorum urbis Episcopo●ū, etc. (And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 112. saith,) In so much as the learned Protestants in their Catalogus Testium Veritatis tom. 1. Printed 1597. doubt not to derive from St. Peter himself (as being the prognosticon or type thereof) the confessed (in their opinion ambitious) claim of his Successors the Bishops of Rome, saying to this purpose there, pag. 27. fine. Ambitione ac cupiditate potentiae labor●sse aliquoties Petrum negari non potest, etc. quia Petri imbecillitate proculdubio significatum est, eos Episcopos qui de Petri successione gloriantur, consimili, imò vero infinitis part bus majore ambitione laboraturos, etc. Quare haec tam perversa Petri ambitio, & rerum divinatum ignorantia, tum negligentia, (etc.) haud dubiè significavit Romanum Episcopum, quòd primus, ac Privilegiorum Petrihae●es ●ss●volet, mox futurum rerum Caelestium ignarum ac contemptorem, humanatumque opum, potentiae ac voluptatum studiosum, etc.  to the infirmity of the Apostles, and of the first (next) succeeding Bishops of Rome. In like further testimony whereof the other Protestant Writers 
[y] Mr. Middleton in his Papistomastix Printed 1606. pag. 200, circa med. saith, Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions and Peter's Primacy, or Romish Episcopality. This Pap as (as appeareth by testimony of Irenaeus alleged by the C●nturists c●ntur. 4, col. 172. lin. 27.) lived in the Apostles time, and was Scholar to St. John, as witnesseth Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 35. paulo post med. And Mr. Middleton maketh no other exception to his authority, but that be was a Chiliast, whose error (as the Centurists cent. 3. col. 231. lin. 54. do report) was, that after the Resurrection, Christ would a well with us here upon earth for a thousand years, whereto Cerinthus the Heretic in the Apostles time added an expectation of all helly cheer and fleshly lust to be then accomplished (whereof see St. Aug. hae●. 8.) from which Papias was free, as but only mistaking literally that which St. John saith mystically of our reigning with Christ for a thousand years. Apoc. 20.6. Into which mistking also did holy Irenaeus and Justinus Martyr both of them fall (as is noted by the Centurists Centur. 2. col. 227. lin. 32. and col. 212. lin. 57) and yet their testimony in other matters not contradicted, is, and ever was of great authority in the Church of God. Also Bullinger de Scriptu●ae authoritate, etc. Printed T●guri Anno 1538. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166. a. post med. saith, Q●anquam dominandi cupido ab ipsis statim Apostolorum temporibus, potissimum vero à Constantim M●gni imperio (sub quo non●ulli a●unt primum venenum effusum esse in Ecclesiam) non semel se exercuerit in quibusdam Romanis Episcopis, etc. And Mr. D. Downham in his treasise concerning Antichrist l. 2. c. 8. pag. 79. paulo post initium seemeth likewise to acknowledge, though not the then open exercise of (the Popes) universal Dominion: yet the private Doctrine thereof, saying, The (very same) Antichrist, which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, was come even in the Apostles time, although he was not revealed by exercising openly a Sovereign and universal Dominion. In like respect whereof Mr. Middleton in his foresaid Papistomastix pag. 193. post med. saith, We are sure that the mystery of iniquity did work in Paul's time, and fell not asleep so soon as Paul was dead, waking again 600. years after, when this mystery was disclosed, etc. and therefore no marvel though perusing Councils, Fathers and stories from the Apostles forward, we find the Print of the Pope's feet, etc. And see Mr. Fulks like full acknowledgement in his saying alleged heretofore in this number at 40.  are plentiful.  
11. Eleventhly, as concerning the special forbearance or restraint to fast upon Sunday; it is confessed that the contrary undertaken liberty to fast upon that day 
[z] Brereley in his Omissions, etc. of pag. 113. saith, Mr. Welsh in his reply against Gilbert Brown pag. 156. circa med: saith, we think it no heresy to fast on the Lord's Day, more than other days, etc.  (renewed now by the Puritans) was reproved by the Apostles own 
[a] Clemens l. 5. Apostolic. Constitut. cap. ult. fine, saith, Obnoxius peccato est qui die dominico jejunat. And the like is affiemed by Ignatius in Epist. ad Philippens. See this confessed by Mr. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 99 prope finem.  Scholars, and other 
[b] Tertul. de Corona militis c. 3. saith, Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. And see this confessed by Mr. Cartwright ubi supra. Also St. Austin Epist. 86. ad Casulanum, circa med. saith, Quis non Deum offendet, si velit cum scandalo totius, quae ub●que dilatata est, Ecclesiae, die dominico jejunare? And Conc. 4. Carthag. can. 64. saith, Qui dominico die studiosè jejunat, non credatur Catholicus.  Fathers, in so much as some of them doubted not specially to condemn the same in Aerius 
[c] Epiphan. haer. 75. ante med. reporteth and condemneth the error of the Aerians, saying of them, Apud ipsos stud●um est, ut pot ùs in die dominica jejunent, quarta verò & prosabbato edant.  and the 
[d] Aug. Ep. 86. ad Casulanu 〈◊〉 post med. saith, To fast on the Lord's Day is a great offence, especially since the detestable heresy of the Manichees, etc. who appoint unto their hearers this day as lawful to be fasted upon. And see this alleged by Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 102. circa med.  Manichees. As concerning the appointed fast of Lent, St. Ambrose saith, 
[e] Ambrose serm. 25.34. & 36.  It is sin not to fast in Lent, For which Mr. Cartwright 
[f] Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 100 initio.  reproveth him: and yet no less is affirmed by 
[g] Aug. de tempore, serm. 62. & 77.  St. Austin, 
[h] Chrysostom. ad pop. hom. 6. prope finem  Chrysostom. and other 
[i] Concil. 8. Tolet. can. 9  Fathers. In so much as Chemnitius confesseth that 
[k] Chemnitius examen Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 89. b. ant med. saith, Quadragesimam enim Ambrose, Maximus Taurinensis, Theophilus, Hieronymus, & alii affirmant esse traditionem Apostolicam.  Ambrose, Maximus Taurinensis, Theophilus, Hierom, and others do affirm, the fast of Lent to be an Apostolical tradition. In more undoubted proof whereof, other Protestant Writers do not only affirm 
[l] See this in Abraham Scultetus in Medul. Theologiae Patrum, pag. 440. initio.  the superstition of Lent and fasting to have been allowed and commanded by Ignatius 
[m] Mr. Whitgist in his defence, etc. pag. 408. circa med.  who was Scholar to St. John; but do also defend 
[n] See Abraham Scultetus ubi supra: and the same Epistle of Ignatius (being ad Philippens●s) is in like manner cited and acknowledged by Mr. Whitgift in his defence pag. 102. ante med. and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibid. pag. 99 prope finem. And Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. circa mod. answereth our Adversaries usual objection made against it. And so likewise doth Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 102.  that very Epistle of Ignatius, in which this Doctrine is extant, to be his true Epistle and not counterfeit. Add but now hereunto, that our learned adversaries do acknowledge how that in the Primitive Church 
[o] Whereas Epiphanius haer. 75. ante med. reporting the errors of Aerius, affirmeth of him that he said, Neither shall fasting be appointed; for these things be Judaical and under the law of bondage. If at all I will fast, I will choose any day of myself, and I will fast for liberty. And see the like in St. Augustin haer. 53. and confessed by Mr. Fulk and Pantaleon (hereafter in this Consideration numb 21. in the margin at c.) This opinion of Aerius, though thus condemned, was yet so agreeable, and the very same with the new doctrine of Protestants, that Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 9 pag. 830. initio saith, De jejunio nihil a fide Catholica alienum docuit Aerius. And see this condemned opinion of Aerius yet further defended by Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 45. initio. And by Danaeus de haeresibus cap. 53. fol. 175. b. & 177. a. b. though yet others, who distike our adversaries over-plain novelism herein, do specially condemn Acrius and his foresaid defended doctrine, as doth namely Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 210. paulo post med. And the Protestant Author of the book entitled Querimonia Ecclesiae, Printed Londini 1592. pag. 31. fine, & 94. aunt med. & 103. fine. Hereof see (hereafter in this Consideration in the place before cited) Aug. haer 53. and Epiphamus haer. 75. ante med. And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 44. fine and 45. initio confesseth this, saying, I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter, Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an error. Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed. And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith, The eleventh is the heresy of Aerius: He condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of thanksgiving for them. He disliked set fasts, and would not admit any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, etc. He was justly condemned, etc. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantalcon in Chronographia pag. 28. initio. And Osiander in Epitome. etc. cent. 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying, Item non oporrere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem, Jejunia ordinata non esse obiervanda, etc. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem.  Aerius was specially condemned for his then impugning of our Doctrine, concerning the Churches appointed Fasts: and that also they themselves do in our behalf give true and full answer to our other adversaries common and misapplyed objecting of the mistaken example of 
[o] Whereas Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. c. 15. fol. 28. a. versus finem, & in Act. Apost. c. 13. sect. 5. fol. 208. a. fine, Arerius in loc. common. pag. 272. versus finem, and many others do commonly object, that Montanus the Heretic was the first that appointed laws of fasting: Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastieal Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. fine, & 210. initio, answereth with us, that the Montanists were reprehended only, for that they brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting, continued their fasts a great deal longer, and made them more rigorous, etc. Whereupon Tertullian maintaining Montanism wrote a book in defence of the new fast, etc. And the foresaid Protestant Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 110. initio, answereth in like manner saying, Euseb●um (inquiunt) Montanum primas de jejuniis tuliffe leges, manifestò docet: sed falluntur graviter in hac re ut in aliis, etc. Abrogatis Ecclesiae jejuniis novum inducit (Montanus) jejunandi morem, etc. See this answer more at large in the book itself.  Montanus, and wrested saying of 
[q] Whereas Mr. Fulk against the Rhem. Test. in 1 Tim. 4.3. and commonly most Protestants do object the saying of St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3. against our Catholic Doctrine of fasting from certain meats; Mr. H●oker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. sect. 72. pag. 209. post med. saith with us hereof, Against those Heretics which have urged perpetual abstinence from certain meats, as being in their very nature unclean; the Church hath still b●nt herself as an enemy, St. Paul giving charge to take heed of them, etc. And the foresaid Author of Querimonia Ecclesiae pag. 106. & 107. giveth the same answer to the said saying of St. Paul (as likewise doth St. Austin contra Faustum Manich. l. 30. cap. 4. & c. 6. & contra Adimant. Manic. c. 14.) An answer so evidently true, that Mr. Jacob (the Puritan) in his defence of the Church and Ministry of England pag. 59 initio, acknowledgeth, that the place of Paul (1 Tim. 4.3.) is understood of Martion and Tatianus, who did absolutely condemn Marriage and certain meats; and so (saith he) are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing else.  St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3.  
12. Twelfly concerning unwritten traditions, and Ceremonies, the Canonical Scriptures, Images, Relics, and consecration or hallowing of Creatures. And first concerning unwritten Traditions, it is confessed as followeth. Whereas St. Chrysostom saith, 
[r] Chrysost. in 2. Thess. hom. 4.  The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, and these be as worthy of credit as the other; Master Whitaker in answer thereof saith, 
[s] Whitaker de sacra Scriptura pag. 678. paulo post med.  I answer, that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. And whereas Epiphanius saith, 
[t] Epiphanius haer. 61. circa med.  We must use Traditions, for the Scripture hath not all things, and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing, and certain by Tradition; with whom agreeth St. Basil saying, 
[u] Basil de Spir. Sanct. c. 27.  Some things we have from Scripture, other things from the Apostles Tradition, etc. both which have like force unto godliness. Mr. Doctor Reynolds answering to these foresaid say of Basil and Epiphanius saith, 
[x] D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference, the 1. Conclusion. pag. 689.  I take not upon me to control them; but let the Church judge, if they considered with advice enough, etc. Whereunto might be added the like further confessed 
[y] Where Eusebius l. 1. Demonstr. Evang. cap. 8. is objected to say, That the Apostles published their Doctrine, partly by writing, partly without writing, as it were by a certain unwritten Law; Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 668. fine saith thereto, I answer, that this testimony is plain enough, but in no force to be received, because it is against the Scriptures. And whereas D●onysius de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 1. versus finem saith, That the Apostles d●d deliver (their Doctrine) partly by writing, partly without writing, etc. Mr. Whitaker (hereafter alleged in this Consideration num. 13. a● t.) de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med. saith, I do acknowledge that D●onysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions.  testimony from Eusebius and from Dyonysius Areopagita the Apostles Scholar.  
And thus much briefly concerning the Fathers of the Greek Church. Now as concerning the like confessed Doctrine in the Fathers of the Latin Church, to avoid tediousness, St. Austin only (as being most 
[z] Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae, etc. pag. 96. ante med. saith, August●us Patrum omnium communi sentent●a purissimus habetur. Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 170. fine, termeth Austin the greatest of all the Fathers, & worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times.  approved by our Adversaries) shall serve for all: who labouring to prove that those who are Baptised by Heretics should not be rebaptized, saith, 
[a] Aug. de Bap. contra Don. l. 5. c. 23.  The Apostles commanded nothing hereof, but that custom which was opposed herein against Cyprian, is to be believed to proceed from their tradition, as many things be, which the whole Church holdeth, and are therefore well believed to be commanded of the Apostles, although they be not written. Wherein, and 
[b] See the like saying in St. Austin Epist. 118. ad Januarium.  other his like say, his meaning is so evident and confessed, that M. Cartwright speaking thereof saith, 
[c] See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 103. ante med.  To allow St. Augustine's saying is to bring in Popery again. And that, 
[d] See Mr. Cartwrights words alleged ubi supra. And see his further assertion hereof in his 2. Reply against Master Whitgift part 1. pag. 84. fine, & 85. & 86.  If St. Augustine's judgement be a good judgement, than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no sufficient Doctrine contained in the Scriptures: Add but now hereunto, that 
[e] See Chemnitius examen part. 1. pag. 87. 89 90.  Chemnitius reproveth for their like testimony of unwritten traditions, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierom, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil, Damascene, etc. That Mr. Fulk 
[f] See Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 362. ante med. & 303. & 397. and against Martial pag. 170 178. and against Bristows Motives pag. 35. & 36.  also confesseth as much of Chrysostom, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Hierom, etc. That lastly M. Whit. 
[g] See Mr. Wh●taker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668.  acknowledgeth the like of Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius, Damascen, etc. Now as concerning Ceremonies Mr. Calfehil (to omit others) affirmeth that 
[h] See this saying of Master Calfchil in Mr. Fulks rejoinder to Marshals R●ply Printed 1580. pag. 131. fine, & 132. initio.  the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies. In like manner concerning the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Toby and other the Books of the old Testament 
[i] Unworthily so secluded by Mr. Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds refutation pag. 22. & 23. for it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the ●ongue, wherein they are written, as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only Language. The known vanity of which said assertion is sufficiently further disproved by example of Daniel, a great part whereof (viz. from cap. 2. ver. 4 u que ad finem cap. 7.) though not written in Hebrew, is yet by our adversaries themselves acknowledged for Canonical. Neither is it approved that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their writings, but such as were known, and also further declared by certain testimony, to be Prophets. For our adversaries cannot yet tell who were Authors of the several Books of Judges; the third and fourth of Kings, the two of Chron cles, and the Books of Ruth, and Job; even Mr. Wh●taker himself in disput. de Sacra Scriptura pag. 603. post med. saith hereof; Multo●um l●brorum authores ignorantur, ut ●osuae, Ruth, Paral●ppomenon, Hester, etc. And Mr. Will●t in his Synopsis pag. 4. post med. saith, We receive many Books ●n the old Testament, the Author's whereof are not perfectly known. Also Calv●n, B●za, and the publishers of the English Bible's of Anno 1584. & 1579. in the Preface or Argument upon the Epistle to the H●brews, do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof, Calvin and Beza there affirming, that it is not written by Paul; whereof see also Calvin further in cap. 2. Hebr. ver. 3. fine.  unworthily secluded by Mr. Whitaker, from the Canon, for tha●, saith he, they were written in Greek or some other foreign language, (and not in Hebrew) nor had for their known Authors, those whom God had declared to be his Prophets; that these Books were nevertheless holden for Sacred and Canonical by St. Austin, the third Council of Carthage, and other Fathers, is made evident by their manifest 
[k] St. Austin de doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 8. saith, Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris contin●tur: Q●nque Moylcos', &c. Job, Tobias, Hester, Judith, & Machabaeo●um l●b●i duo, & Esdrae duo, etc. Illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, & alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam fimilitudine, Salomonis esse dicuntur: Nam Jesus filius Syracheos conscripsisse constantissimè perhibetur, qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter Propheticos numerandi sunt: reliqui sunt, etc. Also the third Council of Carthage can. 47. saith, Placuit, ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis, E●odus, Levit●cus, etc. Salomonis libriquinque, etc. Tobias, Judith, Hester, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo, etc. And see the like account made by Innocent us in Epist. ad Exuperium cap. 7. By Gelasius tom. 1. Concil. decret. cum 70. Episcopis. By Isidor. l. 6. Etymolog. cap. 1. By Rabanus l. 2. Instit. Cler●corum; and by Cassiodorus l. 2. divin. lectionum.  say had thereof. And howsoever certain of our learned Adversaries were not abashed in the Tower disputation publicly and seriously to evade and answer, that St. Anstin in his say hereof used the word Canonical 
[l] In the Tower disputation with F. Campian Anno 1581. the first days conference.  improperly, the very contrary thereof is so evident, not only in St. Austin and the third Council of Carthage (whereat St. Austin was present and 
[m] In Concil. 3. Carthag. fine it is said, Augustinus Ep●scopus plebis Hipponae subscripsi.  subscribed) but also in sundry other Fathers, that the same is plainly confessed in divers of the same Fathers, by 
[n] Mr. Reynolds in his Conclusions annexed to his conference, the second Conclusion pag. 699. post med. & 700. initio, reproveth herein the third Council of Carthage.  D. Reynolds, 
[o] Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura pag. 32. & 33. acknowledgeth the foresaid like Judgement of the Carthage Council, Innocentius, and Gelasius.  Zanchius, 
[p] Hospinianus in Hist. Sacramentar. part. 1. pag. 160. paulo ante med. rejecteth herein the Judgement of the Carthage Council. And ibid. post med. & pag. 161. ante med. he likewise rejecteth Innocentius & Gelasius: & pag. 161. post med. he reproveth St. Austin.  Hospinianus, 
[q] Lubbertus d● principiis Christian. dogm. l. 1. cap. 4. pag. 8. prope finem says, Concedo quosdam ex his libris à Carthaginen●ibus admissos, s●d nego eos propterea esse verbum Dei. Nulla enim Cono lia habent istam author●●atem.  Lubbertus, 
[r] Hiperius in Method. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. fine saith, In Concilio Carthag●ensi tertio adduntur ad Canonem, etc. Sapientia & Ecclesiasticus, libri duo Machabaeorum, Tobias, Judith, etc. quos libros omnes eodem ordine numerat Augustinus, Innocentius & Gelasius. And then afterwards more at large reciteth their Judgement.  Hipertus, 
[s] D. Field of the Church, l. 4. c. 23. pag. 246. circa med. & 247. circa med. acknowledgeth the like judgement herein of St. Austin, Innocentius, and the third Council of Carthage.  D. Field, and 
[t] See D. Covel against Burges, pag. 76. fine, & 77. most plainly confessing St. Augustine's like judgement had of the Book of Wisdom; and ibid. pag. 87. ante med. he further saith of all these Books: If Ruffinus be not deceived, they were approved as parts of the old Testament by the Apostles.  D. Covel. And whereas our Adversaries do object, that 
[u] Origen in Psalm. 1. apud Eusebium Hist. l. 6. c. 19  Origen and 
[x] Epiphanius de pond. & mensur. and also Haer. 8. Epicureorum circa med.  Epiphanius do in their mentioning the Scriptures of the old Testament, seclude these from the Canon; and that 
[y] Hieron. praefat. in lib. Regum.  St. Hierom affirmeth them to be Apocryphal; it is answered thereto: First, that the Fathers in those places do not speak of their own opinion, but do only report what was the opinion of the Hebrews, and what Books they thought Canonical. From which now defended opinion of the Hebrews, 
[z] Origen was so far from the Hebrews opinion hereof, that he doubted not to defend for sacred against Julius Africanus (who doubted thereof) the History of Susanna, which the Hebrews and Protestans reject; hereof see Origen in Epist. ad Julium Africanum, and hom. 1. in Leviticum. He doth likewise (in Epist. ad Julium Africanum) affirm that part of Hester to be sacred and Canonical, which the Protestants refuse, as not being in the Hebrews Canon.  Origen, 
[a] Epiphanius haer. 76. ante med. numbereth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the divine Scriptures: and in libro de pond. & niensur. paulo post init. he referreth Sapientia unto Solomon as Author thereof.  Epiphanius, Hierom 
[b] As concerning Hierom, whereas he (in praefat. Daniel.) unto an unwary Reader may seem to seclude certain Chapters of Daniel rejected by Protestants, as not being in the Hebrews Canon; In so much that Ruffinus mistaking herein (as the Protestants do) Hieroms meaning, doth reprehend and charge Hierom, with refusal of these foresaid parts of Daniel (accordingly also as doth Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 1. pag. 18. circa med. allege the foresaid place of Hierom against those Chapters of Daniel) St. Hierom. Apol. 2. adv. Ruffinum circa finem answereth and explaineth himself saying, Non enim quid ipse sentirem, etc. Truly I did not set down what myself thought, but what the Hebrews are accustomed to say against us herein, calling there fierther Ruffinus stultum Sycophantem, a foolish Sycophant, for mistaking and charging him with the Hebrews opinion. See yet this point of St. Hierom thus explaining himself confessed by Mr. D. Covel in his answer to Master John Burges, etc. pag. 87. circa med. And see the conference of Hampton Court pag. 60. Also St. Hierom●n prolog. in Machab. most expressly placeth the Books of Maccabees (rejected by the Hebrews) among the stories of divine Scripture. And Hier. in praefat. in Judith saith of that Book. Apud Haebraeos liber Judith inter Agiographa legitur, cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt (to will with the Jews) minùs idonea judicatur, etc. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse, acquievi, etc. , and sundry other 
[c] St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 36. saith, Among which are the Books of Maccabees, which not the Jews, but the Church accounteth for Canonical. And St. Isidore l. 6. Etymolog. c. 1. saith of the Maccabees: Though the Hebrews do not receive them into their Canon, yet the Church of Christ doth honour them among the divine Books. So clearly did the ancient Fathers disclaim from the Hebrews Catalogue which our adversaries profess to maintain and follow.  Fathers were most clearly dissenting, many of them to the contrary, usually alleging and citing these Books, and (to prevent all evasion and Cavil) not under the naked and only name of Scripture in general, but with such further circumstance or Epithets 
[d] So is the Book of Wisdom alleged by Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 1. & de habitu Virginum ante med. & de exhort. Martyrii cap. 12. initio, & de mortalitate prope finem. By Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem l. 1. c. 5. & l. 2. c. 9 & ad Feram Diaconum resp. ad quaest. 1. prope initium. by Cyril. l. 2. in Julianum ultra med. By Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Strom. By D●onysius de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. By Egesippus apud Eusebium l. 4. c. 22. By Mel to apud Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 26. fine. By St. Austin de praedest. Sanctorum l. ●. c. 14. and see Synod. Alexandrin. in Epist. ad omnes ubique Ecclesias. And it is yet further referred to Solomon, as Author thereof, by Epiphanius haer. 76. Ambrose serm. 8. in Psalm. 118. H●lary in Psalm. 127. Tertul. de prescript. Melito apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 26. So likewise is the Book of Ecclesiasticus alleged by Fulgentius, de remiss. pec. l. 1. c. 12. & 29. & l. 2. c. 4. and de fide ad Petrum c. 3. and de Incarn. & Gra. Christi cap. 28. Cyprian de mortalitate post initium, and serm. de Eleemosyna initio, & l. 3. Epist. 9 Austin de Doctrina Christiana l. 22. c. 8. and de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 20. Ambros. l. 4. de fide cap. 4. & serm. 30. & l. de Nabath Jezraelita cap. 12. fine, & lib. de Tobia c. 1. Hier. Ep. 33. Maximus Taurinensis hom. 1. de Eleemosyna. Epiphanius haer. 76. ante med. Junilius de part. divin. leg. c. 3. 5. 6. and (which further proveth they thought it Canonical) it it referred to Solomon as Author thereof, by Hilary in Matth. can. 7. Cyprian. l. 3. Epist. 9 & ad Guirinum c. 35.61.69. & Serm. de Eleemof. prope initium: Basil. l. 4. contra Eunomium; Ambr. in 1 Cor. c. 7. Chrysost. de decollat. Joannis Baptistae initio. & hom. 3. imperfect. in Matth. Innoc. Ep. ad Exuperium: Gregor. l. 10. Moral. c. 14. Clemens Alex. l. 7. Strom. and Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 47. So also is the Book of To by alleged by Cyprian Serm. 1. de Eleemosyna, ●n●t●o, & de orat. dom. prope finem. Ambr. l. de Tob●a c. 1. & l. 6. exam. c. 4. & l. 10. Ep. 82. Aust●n Ep. 120. c. 29. & Ep. 121. c. 9 & de diligendo Deo, c. 3. H●lary in Psalm. 129. circa med. And Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 34. numbereth Toby among the other Prophets, of whom the Heretics called Gnostioi did feign certain soolish devices. The like might be further alleged of the other controverted Books, but this place is not capable thereof.  of divine Scripture, wherein the Holy Ghost speaketh, or such other like, as are peculiar only to those Scriptures that be Canonical. Secondly though we should suppose that these Fathers had omitted or denied all or some of these Books in their Catalogue of the Scriptures, accordingly as the Protestants object that the 
[e] Concil. Laodicen. can. ult.  Laodicen Council doth in its Catalogue of the Scriptures omit all those Books, as indeed the same Council doth also there likewise omit the Apocalypse: yet is the objection hereof (though supposed for true) of no force, because it is evident that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once, but in so great variety 
[f] Of the great variety of pretended Scriptures see in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 6. in the margin under the letter b. where he saith: Of the very many writings forged under the Apostles names, see Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 19 & l. 6. c. 10. & St. Austin contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. l. 1. c. 20. & Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis, & Zozomen. hist. l. 7. c. 19 post med. and see also the Protestant Writer Ham●lmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis, etc. primae partis l. 1. col. 251. & part. 3. l. 3. col. 841. lin. 15. & 22. In which places mention is severally made of sundry writings forged under the names of Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Thomas, Matthew, Andrew, John, and divers others, and St. Paul 2 Thess. 2.2. insinuateth the then forging of Epistles in his name.  of pretended Scriptures, great care and search was requisite, whereby to determine which Scriptures were Canonical and which not, whereby it came to pass that sundry Books were for the time misdoubted, or by some Fathers or Councils omitted or not received, which yet afterwards upon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged. A thing so evident, that our learned Adversasaries themselves do accordingly confess and illustrate the same by many confessed and known 
[g] In the Tower disp. 1581. the first days conference, D. 1. The Deans of Paul's and Windsor say, Euscbius affirmeth plainly the Epistle of St. James to be a counterfeit or bas●ard Eorstle. Also Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christ's sufferings, etc. Printed 1604. pag. 664. paulo post initium saith, The Scriptures were not fully received in all places, no not in Eusebius time. He saith the Epistles of James, Judas, the second of Peter, the second and third of John are contradicted, as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted, etc. the Churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter, nor the second and third of John, nor the Epistle of Jud●, nor the Apocalys, etc. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia: will ●ou hence conclude that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolic, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of? So fully doth Mr. B●lson answer our Adversaries like usual objection had against the Machab●es, and the other B●nks of the old Testament now in question. More confessed examples her of alleged by Protestants Brereley reciteth, tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 6. in the margin at the Letter c. sa●ing, In the Tower d. sp. Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian the first days conference, D. 1. the Deans of Paul's and Wind●or do thus report of themselves: for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth: The Epistle of James is said to be published by some other under his name, and of the 2. of Peter he saith, that it is denied of many to he ●●s: we also alleged Eusebius writing thus; thes Books that be gainsaid, though they be known to many, he these, the Epistle attributed to James, the Epistle of judas, the later of Peter, the second and third of John. And in the fourth days conference fol. 2. b. M. D. Walker saith, Hierom saith concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews, many have doubted of it. And also concerning the 2. of Peter, he saith it was doubted of by many, and so with some were the two last Epistles of John, etc.  examples; Mr. Bilson thereupon 
[h] Mr. Bilson in his saying alleged next heretofore in the margin under g.  concluding, that this denial or omission made by certain Fathers of certain Scriptures, is no argument against the said Scriptures. Whereupon it necessarily followeth, as well by Master bilson's foresaid conclusion, as by unavoidable sequel of the other premises, that the Canonical Scriptures are to us at this day discerned and made known, not by that which certain Fathers do omit, deny, or doubt of; for so should we upon this ground deny also with the Lutherans, the 
[i] Osiander a prime Lutheran speaking of the last Canon of the Laodicen Council (commonly objected by our Adversaries) wherein are omitted the Books now in question, and the Apocalypse, saith (in his Epitome, etc. cent. 4. pag. 299. fine) Non recitantur libri Machabaeorum, & rectè quidem: In eo autem erratum est, quod Epistolam Jacobi & Judae, & posteriores duas Joannis, inter Canonica Scripta numerant: quae Scripta non longè post Apostolorum tempora, non pro Scriptis Canonicis habita sunt, etc. Rectè autem omissa est Apocalypsis, ea enim non est Joannis Apostoli, etc. And see this point more fully in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subdivis. 3. fine at a. and tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2. initio, in the text and margin there at o. p. q. r. s t. u. And see at large in the Protestant Authors themselves the places there cited, wherein they reject these Scriptures, under colour, and pretence, that they were denied or doubted of in the Primitive Church,  Epistles of James, Judas, the second of Peter, the 2. and 3. of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, no less than the other Books now in question: but by that which many of the Fathers do constantly affirm. And seeing the Church's assertion, as being in the judgement of our very 
[k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 5. initio saith, the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this judgement she hath of the Holy Ghost. And Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. and after the other Edition of 1571. pag. 242. circa med. saith, The Church of God hath the spirit of Wisdom, whereby to discern true Scripture from false. The Protestant Author of the Scripture and the Church (which Bullinger so greatly commendeth in his Preface thereof to the Reader) doth (cap. 15. fol. 71.72. & cap. 16. fol. 74.75.) affirm, that The Church is endued with the Spirit of God: (and that) the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein, which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings, and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy: And afterwards he further saith, We could not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed, that this doctrine was delivered by the Apostles. To this end Mr. Hooker in his first Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect. 14. pag. 86. ante med. saith (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 10. subd. 3.) Of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach, whereof he giveth a very sensible demonstration (ibid. l. 2. sect. 4. pag. 102. fine) saying, It is not the word of God, which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his word; for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it; Neither could we come to any pause wherein to rest, unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us, etc. Which he acknowledgeth to be the authority of God's Church l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 146. fine, & l. 2. sect. 7. pag. 116. ante med. And Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect, 11. subd. 1. at s. allegeth further the like judgement of Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. hooker's five Books art. 4. etc. pag. 31. ante med. saying, Doubtless it is a tolerable opinion of the Church of Rome, if they go no further (as some of them do not) to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves: but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the Church. And after in the same page, It is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the word of God: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God's Church, which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospel who was not an Apostle, and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle, and to retain Luke's Gospel, who saw not Christ, and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus that saw him.  Adversaries, an infallible and sure direction to us in this question of the Canonical Scriptures, is as heretofore positively delivered and made plain to us by no less testimony than of St. Isido●e, Innocentius, Gelasius, the Fathers of the Carthage Council, (and to omit others) of St. Austin himself, who in our Adversaries confessed judgement, was 
[l] M. D. Covel in his answer to John Burges pag. 3. fine saith, Saint Austin, a man far beyond all that ever were before him, or shall in likelihood follow after him, both for humane and divine learning, those being excepted that were inspired. Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. fine saith, Austin, the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times: And Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae, etc. pag. 96. ante med. saith, Augustinus Patrum omnium communi sententia purissimus habetur.  chief and best of all the Fathers; what can be more clear and convincing herein for us and against our Adversaries, than that which is, as heretofore, though but briefly, yet plainly thus delivered, from the not doubtful, but confessed judgement of St. Austin and those other many ancient Fathers? Mr. D. 
[m] M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. John Burges pag. 85. fine saith of the untruths or repugnances supposed to be in these Books now in question: We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures, and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true. And pag. 87. fine & 88, 89, 90. ●e maketh special answer to certain such objected repugnances.  Covel (a prime man among our Adversaries) not forbearing in this case, to undertake special defence and answer against such weak seeming repugnances or contradictions (occurring 
[n] Concerning the like seeming repugnancy of other Scriptures Mr. Jewel in his defence, etc. pag. 361. fine, affirmeth, that St. Mark alleged Abiathar for Abimelech: and that St. Matthew nameth Hieremias for Zacharias: and in St. Matthew 27.9. are words alleged under the name of Hieremy, which are not found in Hieremy but in Zachary 11.13. Also in Mark 15.25. our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour, whereas in John 19.14. Pilate sat in judgement upon him, about the sixth hour. In like manner Luke 3.35, 36. affirmeth Sale to be the son of Caynan, and Caynan the son of Arphaxad, and so Arphaxad was Grandfather to Sale: whereas in Genesis 11.12. it is said that Arphaxad lived 35. years, and begat Sale: upon which said last appearing difficulty, though, Beza in Nou. Test. in his several Editions of An. 1556. & 1587. to reconcile Luke with Genesis, do in the said third Chapter of Luke ver. 36. leave out these words, Who was the son of Caynan; and is therein defended by Mr. Fulk in his defence of the English Translations against Mr. Martin in the Preface sect. 18. pag. 41. yet the English translation of An. 1576. dare not follow Beza therein. To these few examples sundry other like might be added, all which notwithstanding we are bound to acknowledge the said Scriptures for true and sacred (and so likewise the other Books now in question) though the occurring difficulties were greater than yet is urged.  likewise in the other confessed Canonical Scriptures) as are vulgarily objected against the Books now in question.  
As concerning Images, it is affirmed that 
[o] Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, etc. pag. 672. initio 47. & 675. circa med.  Paulinus caused images to be Painted on Church Walls: that 
[p] Cent. 4. Magdeburg. c. 10. col. 1080. lin. 50.  Lactantius affirmeth many superstitious things concerning the efficacy of Christ's image; that 
[q] Centur. 8. c. 10. col. 850.  St. Bede erred in the worshipping of Images; that St. 
[r] Bale in his pageant of Pope's fol. 33.  Gregory by his Indulgences 
[s] Osiander in Epit. cent. 6. pag. 288. fine, and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 2. pag. 343. fine, & Chemnitius in his examen, part. 4. pag. 32. b. fine.  established Pilgrimage to Images, and defended worshipping of Images; that St. Leo 
[t] See Bale in his pageant of Popes pag. 24. & 27. and Mr. Symonds on the Revelations pag. 57 fine saith, Leo decreed that reverence should be given to Images, etc.  allowed the worshipping of Images; that 
[u] Functius a Protestant Writer (apud Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subdivis. 2. at * before) in libro 7. commentariorum in praecedent. chronologiam, at Anno Christi 494. confesseth saying, Porro is Xenayas primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excita vit. And Nicephorus in hist. Eccles. l. 16. c. 27. saith, Xenayas iste primus (O audacem animam & os impudens!) vocem illam evomuit, Christi & eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse. And see also hereof Cedrenus in compendio histor.  Xenayas was specially noted or condemned for being the first that stirred up War against Images.  
And in no less plain (if not more full) manner, are the Fathers likewise charged with affirming the great 
[x] See this hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. ante med. at u x. y. & ibid. post med. at 80, & 81, & 82.  virtue of the sign of the Cross, with 
[y] Ibid. and see Mr. Perkins problem, pag. 83  their worshipping of it: and also with confessed testimonies of undoubted 
[z] See hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. initio at u. & post med. at 83.  miracles showed by God in it.  
As concerning Reliqus of Saints, it is affirmed that the ancient Fathers erred 
[a] See hereafter in this Consideration num. 23. prope initium at m. & * and after at 35.  both in Translation, and 
[b] Chemnit. in his exam. part. 4. pag. 10. a. post med. saith hereof, Ex Translationibus mox factae fuerunt circumgestationes reliquiarum, ut apud Hieronymum & apud Augustinum, etc.  Circumgestation, or carrying about of Relics. Also in 
[c] Chemnitius examen part. 4. pag. 10. b. ant med.  Pilgrimage to Relics: that 
[d] Osiander in Epit. cent. 4. pag. 506. ante med. and see the other Century Writers of Magdeburg cent. 4. col. 1250. lin. 45.  St. Hierom did foolishly contend that the Relics of Saints were to be worshipped: that 
[e] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 46. alleged hereafter in this Consideration num. 21▪ at d.  Vigilantius was specially condemned for his contrary doctrine, and that many great 
[f] Hereof M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med. saith, I do not think those miracles vain, which are reported to have been done at the Monuments of Saints. And Luther in purgatione quorundam Articulorum, saith, Who can gainsay those things which God to this day worketh miraculously and visibly (ad Divorum Sepulchra) at the Monuments of the Saints. And see Mr. Fox act. mon. Printed 1576. pag. 61. b. ant med. where he saith, The Idol ceased to give any more Oracles, saying, that for the Body of Babylas (the Martyr) he could give no more answers. And see Mr. Fox in the margin there, and Chrysostom contra Gentiles post med. And of many other miracles read only St. Austin de civet. Dei l. 22. c. 8. and see what is further confessed by Chemnitius in his examen part. 4. pag. 10. ante med, as reported by the ancient Fathers.  miracles are confessed to have been undoubtedly done at the Relics of Saints.  
As concerning the consecration of Creatures, it is confessed that the Fathers give testimony of Consecration 
[g] See hereafter in this Consideration, num. 21. initio at 1, and ibid. post med. at 100 And Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. at d. further saith, In proof that our then Conversion was to every particular point of our now professed Catholic Faith M. D. Humphrey in Jesutismi part 2. rat. 5. pag. 5. & 627. saith, In Ecclesiam vero quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Onus Ceremomoniarum, etc. intulerunt pallium Archiepiscopale ad sola. Mistarum solemnia, Purgatorium, etc. Oblationem salutaris hostiae, & preces pro demortuis, etc. Rel quias, etc. Transubstantiationem, etc. novas Templorum consecrationes, etc. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est, quam ut Indulgentiae, Monachatus, Papatus, reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis chaos exstruatur? Haec autem Augustinus magnus Monachus, à Gregorio Monacho edoctus, importavit Anglis, etc. And see the like description of Gregory's doctrine made by Charion. in Chronic. lib. 4. pag. 567. ante med. & pag. 568. ante med. saying, Gregorius publicum ritum Invocationis Divorum instituit, & ossibus ac pulveribus Sanctorum templa dedicari jussit: Auxit plurimum salsam persuasionem de Monachatu, & de operibus sine mandato Dei excogitatis, de satisfactionibus, de votis, de caelibatu; opinionem etiam de oblatione corporis & sanguinis faciendâ pro mortuis comprobavit, etc. cum tragicè declamitet se abhorrere ab Vniversalis Episcopi apellatione, id se tamen quod titulus profitetur, vehementer cupivisse, reipsa declaravit, cum imperium in alienas sibi Ecclesias sumpserit. And John Bale in Act. Romanorum Pontificum Printed at Basile 1558. pag. 44. & 45, & 46, 47. saith, Gregorius Magnus omnium Patriarcharum Romanorum, vita & doctrina praestantissimus, etc. parentum domus in Monasteria vertit (&c.) super Apostolorum mortua cadavera Missas celebrari mandavit, etc. Imaginem Divae Virginis circumferri permisit (&c.) peregrinationes ad statuas pro plebis devotione per indulgentias confirmavit: Purificationis Mariae festum cereis illustratum, & Palmarum diem solemnem processionibus bonoravit. Initium Quadragesimalis jejunii cinerum aspergine sacravit: usum carnis, lactis, casei, butyri atque ovorum jejunantibus interdixit, etc. Templis lumina dedit, sex Monasteria condidit, mulieres Monachorum caenobia subire vetuit, & Monachos Monialium tecta, etc. Ne bigamus fiat Presbyter prohibuit, etc. Indulgentias certis diebus & templa visitantibus primus concessit, etc. Dialogorum libros quatuor pro sulciendo Purgatorio fecit, cinerum consecrationes (&c.) crucis adorationes, ac Missas pro mortuis admisit (&c.) haec omnia ut Patriarcha Romanus fecit. And elsewhere, namely centur. 1. fol. 3. he further affirmeth, that Augustin was sent from Gregory to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith: and that King Ethelbert died one and twenty years, post susceptum Baptismum, after he had received Popery. Also Luke Osiander in his Epitome. Historiae Ecclesiasticae, cent. 6. pag. 289. fine, & 290. initio, describeth it yet more particularly saying, Augustinus Romanos ritus, & consuetudines Anglicanis Ecclesiis obtrusit, nimirum Altaria, Vestes, Imagines, Missas, Calices, Cruces, Candelabra, Thuribula, Vexilla, sacra Vasa, Lustrales aquas, Romanarum Ceremoniarum Codices, etc. And ibidem pag. 288. prope finem, he saith of Gregory, In pluribus articulis turpiter & Pontificiè hallucinatus est: nam & libero arbitrio, & bonis operibus nimiùm tribuit, de paenitentia non rectè docet, caelibatum ministrorum Ecclesiae acriter ursit, Invocationem Sanctorum, eorumque eultum, sed & imaginum idolatricam venerationem approbavit, palliavit, & defend it. Also the Century Writers of Magdeburg, in their sixth Century cap. 10. col. 748. circa med. make no less plain report as yet of Augustine's like doctrine to us English men, and collecting (elsewhere in the same Book) out of Gregory's own writings by them cited, certain his opinions, which they hold for erroneous, as being Popish, they do in their Index or Alphabetical table of that six Century after the first Edition thereof, at the word Gregory, specially set down (with figures of particular reference, where every such said opinion is to be found) as followeth: Ejusdem error de bon●s operibus, de confession, de conjugio, de Ecclesia, de Sanctorum invocatione, de Inferno, de Justificatione, de libero arbitrio, de Purgatorio, de P●nitentia, de satisfactione. Also they charge him yet further out of his own writings with Consecration of 〈◊〉 Chailces, and Corporals col. 369. fine, with Oblation of Sacrifice for the dead. col. 373. post med. with exorcism col. 376. circa med. with translation of Reliqus col. 381. fine & 382. with Monachism col. 383. initio & 384. with Pilgrimage col. 384. initio, with Consecration of Churches, with Mass, R●liqus, and sprinkling of holy-water col. 364. 365. with Consic●ation of the fo●t of Baptism, of Chrism, and Oil, col. 367. prope initium: with celebration of Mass col. 369. fine & 370. initio & 693. post med. & 694. and with claim and exercise of Jurisdiction and Primacy over all Churches col. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. etc. With which last point concerning Primacy, he is in like manner charged and reproved by Mr. D. Fulk in his consutation of Purgatory pag. 310. ante med. and by Peter Martyr in cap. 8. Judicum, and by Carrion in Chron. lib. 4. pag. 568. ante med. and by Luke Osiander in his Epitome. centur. 6. pag. 242. and Mr. Powel de Antichristo in praefat. pag. 1. fine, & 2. initio, signifieth his opinion to be, that the Pope hath been Antichrist, semper post Greg. Magni tempora, at all times since Gregory the great.  of Churches, 
[h] See the Centurists cent. 5. col. 744. lin. 24. And Dionysius de Eccles. Hierarchia c. 3. mentioneth the Consecration of Altars with infusion of sacred Oil. And see Concil. Agathense can. 14.  Altars, 
[i] Osiander in Epitome. cent. 4. l. 3. c. 38. pag. 391. initio. And see Concil. Laodicen. can. 21. & Concil. Agathense can. 66.  Church-vessels, of Consecration of 
[k] See next hereafter numb 13. at x.  Monks, and 
[l] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 874. lin. 2●. And see Ambrose l. 3. de Virginibus, and Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 11. & 104. & Concil. Agathense can. 19 & Concil. 2. Carth. can. 3.  Virgins, of hallowed 
[m] The Centurists Centur. 3. col. 143. lin. 48. Chemnitius part. 2. pag. 58. b. post med. And Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 12. circa med. saith, Oleum in Altari sanctificatur: and see Concil. Laodicen. can. 48. & Concil. 2. Carth. can. 3. Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. Aug. l. 5. con. Don. c. 19 & 20.  Chrysm, 
[n] See heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at sect. next before 4. And see Mr. Perkins problem. pag. 136. And Mr. Fulk against the Remish Testament in 1. Ti. 4. sect. 13. fol: 378. a. prope initium. And see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 4. post med. and Ambrose de myster. init. cap. 3. ad Basil. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 27. And see Epiphanius haer. 30. ante med. And Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 3. c. 13.  water, 
[o] Holy Bread is affirmed so plainly by St. Austin de pec. mer. & remiss. l. 2. c. 26. that Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, etc. pag. 377. circa med. doth therefore term it a superstitious bread given in St. Augustine's time to those that were Catechumen, instead of the Sacrament. And Sir Philip Mornay in his Book of the Mass pag. 51. initio, chargeth Basils' Liturgy with holy bread distributed after service to such as had not communicated. And St. Hier. in vita Hilarionis post. med. saith, Concurrebant Episcopi, Praesbyteri, Clericorum & Monachorum greges, etc. Et hinc inde ex urbibus & agris vulgus ignobile, sed & potentes viri & Judices, ut benedictum ab eo panem vel oleum acciperent.  bread, 
[p] Centur. 5. col. 744. lin. 22. & see Concil. 4. Tolet. can. 8. and Gregory l. 9 Ep. 28. and Prudentius in Benedict. Cerei Pasch.  Candles, etc.  
13. Thirteenthly it is confessed yet further in general concerning Dionysius Areopagita and Hermes, who are holden most ancient and 
[q] Of Dionysius mention is made Act. 17.34. and of Hermes Rom. 16.14.  Apostolic: namely, that Dionysius in his foresaid writings which were above a thousand years since (as D. Humphrey 
[r] Humfred in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 513. fine & 514. initio saith, Hunc Areopagitam, Suidas, Michael Singelus, Gregorius Turonensis, & alii, Pauli auditorem credunt fuisse illum Scriptorem caelestis & Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae.  confesseth) publicly extant and alleged under his name, (doth casually and obiter among other things) make mention (over and besides the foresaid doctrine of prayer for the dead) of 
[s] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus Apostolicis col. 707. lin. 27. & col. 736. lin. 56. And Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med. saith, I do acknowledge that Dionysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions.  Apostolic unwritten Traditions of 
[t] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 707. l. 4. & col. 737. l. 51.  Chrysm 
[u] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 707. l. 49. & col. 743. l. 4. And D. Reynolds in his conference pag. 488. post med. , Consecration of Monks: of 
[x] Mr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 488. post med.  Chancels severed with sanctification from the rest of the Church, of 
[y] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus col. 741. post med.  Altars, places sanctified, and sundry Ceremoni●●: of the people's 
[z] Hamelmannus ibid. col. 742. circa med.  mutual salutation upon the Pax pronounced: of 
[a] Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum pag. 484. circa med. saith, In libro de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia multa scribit de Templis, de Altaribus, de locis Sacris, de choro, de consecratione Monachorun, de Tonsura & rasione capitum.  the tonsure and rasure of Priests heads; of perfuming or 
[b] Hospinianus in hist. Sacramentaria lib. 1. pag. 104. post. med.  burning Incense at the Altar, and of 
[c] Humfred. Jesuitismi part. 2. pag. 519. circa med. and Luther tom. 2. Wittenberg. Anno 1562. de captiv. Babyl. fol. 84. b. ant med. saith, At dices, Quid ad-Dionysium dices, qui sex enumerat Sacramenta? etc. Respondeo, scio hunc solum haberi ex antiquis pro septenario Sacramentorum, licet Matrimonio omisso senarium tantum dederit. As concerning the number of Sacraments mentioned by the Fathers, it is to be noted, that the Fathers do speak of them but casually, and as occasion is ministered; So sometimes they do in some places but mention one Sacrament, in other places two, in others three, in some place Baptism only, in an other Order, in a third Confirmation. In this sort St. Austin contra literas Petil. l. 2. c. 104. affirmeth, The Sacrament of Chrism (or Confirmation) to be in the kind of visible sings, and sacred even as Baptism itself. And in Epist. Joan. tract. 6. he mentioneth not only the Sacrament thereof, (but) also the virtue of the Sacrament. In an other place, namely tom. 7. l. 2. contra Epist. Parmen. c. 13. he mentioneth Baptism and Order. And to prove that Orders once received cannot be lost, no more than Baptism, he saith, S● en●m utrumque Sacramentum est, quod nemo dubitat, cur illud non amittitur, & illud amittitur? Neutri Sacramento injuria facienda est. And again, Vtru●que enim Sacramentum. est, etc. In like manner St. Cyprian inserm. de ablut. pedum initio saith, Docetur quae sit Baptismi & asiorum Sacramentorum stabil●tas, mentioning therewith all sundry of them. And so plainly, that Chemnitius speaking thereof, in examen. part. 2. pag. 7. b. post med. confesseth, that quinque numerat, he there reckoneth up five Sacraments; Only answering thereto for his refuge, that Cyprian was not Author of that Treatise. The vanity of which his answer against that Treatise of Sermons extant under Cyrians name is sufficiently refelled heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 7. In like manner doth Innocentius the first-mention extreme Unction; in so much as Bale in his Pageant of Pope's fol. 26. and Szegedine in speculo Pontificum pag. 33. ante med. reprehend Innocentius, for that he affirmed, Annoyling of the sick to be a Sacrament.  Six of our Sacraments: that the Book of Hermes entitled Pastor, affordeth in▪ like manner testimony or groundwork of 
[d] Abraham Scultetus in medulla Theolog. etc. pag. 467. post med.  , and Monastical solitude, of 
[e] Hamelmannus de trad. Apost. col. 252. fine & col. 253. initio & col. 254. lin. 38. & Abraham Scultetus ubi supra pag. 467. post med.  Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, of 
[f] Hamelmanus ubi supra col. 253. l. 54. & col. 254. lin. 49. Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 251. lin. 48. & col. 254. lin. 30.  merit and justification of works, of professed chastity in Ministers, of fasting 
[g] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 254. lin. 36.  from certain meats, of 
[h] Ibidem col. 253. lin. 46.  the Innocent parties remaining unmarried in case of adultery, of 
[i] Chemnitius examen. Concil. Trid. part. 4. pag. 127. prope finem.  works of Supererogation, and of 
[k] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 254. lin. 53. saith, Fuit igitur borum Papismi ●nitium impurus ille liber Pastoris, vel Hermetis.  Popery. And though in the Primitive Church some question 
[l] Vide Eusebium hist. lib. 3. c. 3. prope finem.  was made of this Book, as whether it were Canonical Scripture or not (many Father's 
[m] It was thought to be sacred, and for such alleged by Origen l. 10. in Epist. ad Rom. Tertul. l. de oratione. Clemens Alex. l. 6. Strom. Athanasius in libro de Decretis Nicen. Synod. Cassianus Collat. 13. etc. 12. by Iraeneus l. 4. c. 37.  thinking it was:) yet is it confessed to have been received at the least for 
[n] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 254. lin. 24. saith, illum pro Ecclesiastico habuerunt quidem Patres: and col. 730. lin. 25. he saith, Hermetis libellus qui dicitur Pastor, est olim aliquando in numerum Ecclesiasticorun● librorum relatus. And see the same yet further confessed by Mr. Hooker l. 3. pag. 34. prope initium. In so much as Eusebius hist. l. 5. c. 3. Rufinus in Symbolum, & Hieron. in Catal. do commend this book for profitable, and so Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 93. fine confesseth of Hierom.  Ecclesiastical. And the authority thereof to have been by so many since specially alleged, by 
[o] Hamelmannus ubi supra col. 253. lin 10. saith, Liber Pastoris videtur receptus esse ab Irenaeo & Clement. And col. 255. lin 42. he saith, Ostendit Euseblus à quibusdam librum Pastoris receptum esse, & imprimis ab Irenaeo, sic & Origines l. 1. de Principiis c. 3. citat quaedam ex libro Pastoris, ejusque libri lectionem commendat hom. 13. in Ezech.  Origen, Clement, and Irenaeus, who lived next to those Apostolic times.  
14. Fourteen, this confessed continued current of Testimonies from the Fathers, is so certain and evident, that sundry of our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to make general disclaim in the ancient Fathers. Hence it is that Mr. Whitaker affirmeth, 
[1.] Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 243. fine saith, Ex Patrum erroribus vester ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est.  The Popish Religion to be a patched Coverlet of the Father's errors sewed together. And that also M. D. Humphrey did grievously reprehend Mr. Jewel for his so bold appealing to the Fathers, affirming therefore of Mr. Jewel that herein 
[2.] Humfredus in libel. de vita Jewel Printed Londini pag. 212. And see the same also in Mr. Fulks retentive against Bristol pag. 55. circa med.  he gave the Papists too large a scope, was injurious to himself, (and) after a manner spoilt himself and the Church; which like disclaim in the ancient Fathers is no less plainly professed by Jacobus Acontius (in his treatise 
[3.] Jacobus Acontius in Stratagematum Satanae l. 6. pag. 296. saith of the Protestants allegation of the Fathers, Quidam eo redierunt, ut Patrum authoritatibus omnia denuò replerent, quod utinam tam secundo fecissent successu, quam bona spe aggressi sunt, etc. Equidem perniciosissimam omninoque fugiendam hanc offe abitror consuetudinem. And see the like in Peter Martyr de Votis pag. 462. circa med.  dedicated to her late Majesty) and by sundry 
[4.] Lutherus tom. 2. Wittenberg. Anno 1551. lib. de servo arbitrio pag. 434. affirmeth the Fathers of so many ages to have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; to have erred all their life time, and that unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. And see further Luther's Book de servo arbitrio Printed in Octavo 1603. pag. 72.73, & 337. Also in Colloquiis Mensalibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae, Luther saith of sundry Fathers in particular, In the writings of Hierom, there is not a word of true faith in Christ and sound Religion. Tertullian is very superstitious. I have holden Origen long since accursed. Of Chrysostom I make no account. Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not of a hair. Cyprian is a weak Divine, etc. affirming there yet further that the Church did degenerate in the Apostles age, and that the Apology of Philip Melancthon doth far excel all the Doctors of the Church, and exceed even Austin himself; And Pomerane in Joannam. saith, Nostri Patres sive sancti, sive non sancti, nihil moror, excaecati sunt Montanico Spiritu, per traditiones humanas & doctrinas Daemoniorum, etc. non purè docent de Justicatione, etc. Nec solliciti quidem sunt ut Jesum Christum per Evangelium suum verè doceant. And Beza in his Preface upon the new Testament dedicated to the Prince of Condy Anno 1587. affirmeth, that, Even in the best times, the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of Bishops was such, that the very blind may easily perceive how that Satan was Precedent in their assemblies or Councils.  other Protestant Writers, many of them not doubting specially to reprove even those Fathers that lived next to the Apostles times; Mr. Whitaker and others to such purpose 
[5.] Abusing: for where as Euseb. l. 3. c. 26. fine allegeth Egesippus saying, Till those times the Church remained a pure Virgin, and incorrupt: for if any than were willing to deprave or corrupt the sincere rule of healthful doctrine, they lay hid in the obscure corners of darkness; But after the Apostles death, etc. then certainly the false and subtle conspiracy of wicked errors took beginning through the fraud and craft of those who laboured to disperse false doctrine, etc. Mr. Whitaker in resp. ad rationes Campian. rat. 7. pag. 102. and contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 490. & 491. urgeth this to prove that presently after the Apostles times the true Church was no longer a chaste Virgin, but became adulterous and corrupt: An inference many ways most absurd. For first Egesippus only meaneth, that during the Apostles times the Church remained a Virgin, that is, not so much as assaulted openly by Heretics, who then lay secret and lurking, where as after the Apostles times they stepped forth, and gave open and violent assaults, invading sometimes and usurping even upon Bishop's Seas, and corrupting or altering with their damnable heresies many of the Church's revolted Children: which yet, no more made the visible true Church to be as then heretical; or unchaste, than Luther's like late dispersion of his doctrine, and infecting therewith of many, who were formerly Catholics, maketh our now Church to be Lutheran. Secondly if otherwise the Church so presently after the Apostles times, ceased to be a Virgin, and so became adulterous and corrupt, who seethe not then the blasphemy thence ensuing? For in what one age since the Apostles times to this present, may the Church then be thought to be preserved chaste? Thirdly it is against manifest Scripture, as where it is said of the Church, I will marry thee to me for ever, etc. I will marry thee to me in saithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. Osee. 2.19, 20. and I will make this my Covenant, saith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for evermore. Isa. 59.21. Very pertinenently therefore saith St. Cyprian to the contrary, Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est & pudica, etc. l. de unitate Ecclesiae post initium.  abusing the mistaken testimony of Egesippus. To this end also doth M. Napper in his discourse hereof to his late Majesty not only condemn all the Fathers that lived for 
[6.] Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 4. at q. r. s. t. saith Mr. John Napper in his treatise upon the Revelations pag. 43. versus finem affirmeth, that the Pope's Kingdom hath bad power over all Christians from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperor Constantine, for these thousand two hundred and sixty years, and that (ibid. pag. 145. col. 3. fine) from the time of Constantine until these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. That also (ibid. pag. 68 versus finem) between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction 1260. years, Gods true Church most certainly abiding so long latent, and invisible. Ibid. pag. 191. initio, & pag. 161. col. 3. circa med. & pag. 156. ante med. & 237. paulo post med. & 23. fine, & pag. 188. ante med.  1260. years' last before Luther, but doth also proceed yet further, affirming that 
[7.] Mr. Napper upon the Revelations pag. 191. initio, and see the Century Writers cent. 2. cap. ● col 125. lin. 49.  During even the second and third ages (next after Christ) the trne temple of God, and light of the Gospel was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. In like manner doth M. Fulk aver, 
[8.] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 35. prope finem.  the true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times; and that 
[*] Mr. Fulk ubi supra prope initium.  immediately after the Apostles times, errors and abuses crept into the true Church. With whom agreeth Mr. Downham, affirming, that 
[9.] Mr. Downham in his treatise of Antichrist. l. 2. c. 2. pag. 25. prope finem. This mystery of iniquity, which St. Paul 2 Thess. 2. ver. 7. affirmeth to be working in his times, is more than boldly perverted by Mr. Downham, and our other Adversaries to be as then working in the Church of Christ, directly against St. Paul himself, who termeth the Church, the pillar and stay of Truth. 1 Tim. 3.15. The working therefore of this mystery of iniquity in the Apostles times, was not in the Church, but in the Churches than persecutors and sundry heresies of those first times: As also it is yet working in the heresies of this time, the same being (as some Divines hold) the very next and ultima, or at lest penultima mist call working before the Revelation of Antichrist himself.  the general defection of the visible Church, (foretold 2. Thess. 2.) began to work in the Apostles times. And Melancthon saith accordingly, that 
[10.] Melancthon in 2 Cor. cap. 3. & Hamelmannus de traditionibus col. 460. saith, Post mortem Joannis Apostoli caeperunt defectiones a fide, doctrinae daemoniorum sub specie verbi Dei, prohibitiones nuptiarum & ciboruth, vota, caelibatus, etc.  presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine, concerning the justice of faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships. As also Peter Martyr affirmeth in like manner, that in the Church 
[11.] Martyr de Votis pag. 477.  errors did begin immediately after the Apostles times; And that 
[12.] Martyr de Votis pag. 490. fine.  presently after their Age, men began to decline from the word of God? and that therefore 
[13.] Martyr de Votis pag. 476. paulo post med. saith, Quamd●● consist muss in Conciliis & Patribus, versabimur semper in iisdem orroribus.  so long as we do insist upon Councils and Fathers, we shall be always conversant in the same errors. In so much as Beza and others doubted not (if not most arrogantly read and judge) to prefer in 
[14.] Beza in Epist. Theol. Ep. 1. pag. 5. initio saith, Itaque dicere nee immerito quidem, ut opinor, consuevi, dum illa tempo●a, Apostolicis etian●, pro●ima cum nostris, comparo, plus illos conscientiae, scientiae min●s h●buiffe: nos contra, scientiae plus, conscientiae minus habere, haec mea sententia est, etc. And Mr. Whitgift in his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. fine, & pag. 473. ante med. saith to Mr. Cartwright, The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder than it commonly was in any age after the Apostles, etc. how greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church, and Latins also for the most part, spotted with Doctrines of Freewill, of Merits, of invocation of Saints, and such like (other points of Popery?) surely you are not able to reekon in any age, since the Apostles times, any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points, as the Bishops of England do at this day  knowledge.,, of the truth, their now Protestant Writers, even before those other that flourished immediately, and next after the Apostles times. Caelius Secundus Curio (a principal Protestant writer) expressing further to that end 
[15.] Caelius Secundus Curio in his Book de amplitudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 43. circa med. (which said Book is greatly commended by Beza in Epist. Theolog. pag. 232.) saith, An ignoramus quantis in tenebris, quantaque caecitate & ignorantia versatus sit mundus, ab Apostolorum fere aetate, usque ad haec tempora, in quibus Dominus, praeter omnem expectationem, se ipse caepit apetire?  in how great darkness, blindess and ignorance the world hath continued almost from the Apostles age to these very times, in which above all expectation our Lord began to manifest himself; And an other learned Protestant writer, affirmeth accordingly, that 
[16.] The Author of the Book entitled. Antichristus, sive Prognostica finis mundi, (apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 6. subd. 1. at g.) pag. 12. fine saith, Spiritus qui annunciat futura, non operatur nisi eunte Evangelio, quod sub finem ex confesso Lutherus primus invexit. And pag. 13. post med. he further saith, Non manifestatur autem Psuedo propherarum surrectio, nisi Evangelio, quod inde primitivo Apostolorum Evangel●o ante Lutherum, ut diximus, nunquam ivit. Ne quis autem Hussiticu● Evangelium pertinere hu● put●t, id prohibet, quoth Christus illud Evangelium edicit, quod sub finem per universum forbem esse● itu●um. Porro H●●●ticum Evangelium ●ohemis tantum venit: signo orgo esse non potest. Na● common Orbis Evangelium signo esse voluit, non illud unius gentis, Lutheri Evangelium per Orbem volat, tam voce quam prelo.  from the Apostles times, till Luther, the Gospel had never open passage, not (so much as) in Huss his time. In respect of which their so common received opinion, Sebastianus Francus concluded for certain, that 
[17.] S●bastianus Francus in Epistola de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis. If our Adversaries do hereunto answer, that this Sebastianus Francus denied the Baptism of Infants, and being so an Anabaptist, his testimony is not to be regarded; it is replied thereto; First, that being otherwise a learned writer, and no less enemy to us than our Adversaries, his testimony as against himself and them, is therewith of no less force than theirs. Secondly, that the denial of children's Baptism, till they be of years of belief, is osspecially by our adversaries (who deny the necessity of Baptism to infants) excepted against unworthily, in comparison of their own far greater differences, concerning Real presence, Christ's descent into Hell, his suffering in soul the pains of Hell, Reprobation, and many more of like consequence, notwithstanding which, they yet profess to be Brethren of one Church. Thirdly, that accordingly Zuinglius and Oecolampadius do affirm the Baptism of Infants to be but a matter of indifferency, and such at the Church may worthily omit, and rightly take away. For Zuinglius (apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 9 subd. 3. at e. f.) tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 96. a circa med. saith, Num enim tanti momenti res haec est, ut tantas turbas & diffidia propter hane excit●re conveniat, etiamsi parvulorum Baptismus nullis omnino Scripturarum testimoniis inniteretur? Externum quiddam est & ceremonale, quo ut aliis rebus externis Ecclesia dignè & honestè uti potest, vel idem hoc omittere, & rite tollere, etc. And in Zuinglii & Oecolampadii Epistolarum libro secundo pag. 363. post med. Oecolampadius saith of Baptism of Infants, Cogitare illos decebat rem externam effe quae charitatis lege dispensabilis est ad aedificationem proximi: fatemur non esse legem Baptizandi pueros, sed etiam non est lex quae arceat pueros. And see him further pag. 301. prope finem. And so accordingly Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places in English Ep. 34. to Robert Cooch pag. 133. b. circa med. termeth him his dear friend in the Lord, his dear friend in Christ. Ibid. pag. 115. a. initio, and yet did the said Robert, as appeareth there pag. 114. b. circa med. deny Baptism to Infants, as likewise Oecolampadius (in libro Epistolarum Oecolampadii & Zuinglii pag. 300. prope finem) writeth of this very point to Baltazar Pacimontanus terming him there, Charissime Frater, and yet was he a chief Anabaptist. Fourthly this Sebastianus Franeus was so far enemy to the other barbarous Anabaptists, that be specially reprehendeth them (apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 5. subd. 1. at x.) Chron. part. 111. fol. 236. b. & seq.) where also he numbereth up seventy of the Anabaptists different opinions, and concludeth their further differences to be so great, as no man can either know or number them, affirming further, that scarce two of them are found to agree in all things.  Statim post Apostolos, omnia inversa sunt, etc. Presently after the Apostles times, all things were turned upside down, etc. And that for certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure: and that for these 1400. years, the Church hath been no where external and visible.  
15. Fifteenthly, to seal up (as it were) the premises, whereas Master Whitgift doth against Mr. Cartwright learnedly and truly urge, this general rule or proof of Apostolic Doctrine, saying, 
[m] Mr. Whitgift in his defence, pag. 351. post med. And see also further hereof D. Field of the Church l. 4. cap. 21. pag. 242. the title of that Chapter being, Of the Rules, whereby true traditions may be known from counterfeit.  For so much as the Original and beginning of these names, Metropolitan, Archbishop, etc. such is their antiquity, cannot be found so far as I have read, is to be supposed they have their Original from the Apostles themselves, for as I remember St. Austin hath this rule in his 118. Epistle. In so much as he yet further saith in proof of this rule, 
[n] Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 352. ante med. and sce Zuinglius his words hereof tom. 2. fol. 94. b. circa med.  it is of credit with the writers of our time, namely with Master Zuinglius, Master Calvin, and Master Gualther, and surely I think no learned man doth descent from them.  
It is now by the premises and by manifest 
[*.] Mr. Whitaker in resp. ad Camp. rat. 7. pag. 101. initio confesseth, that the time of the Roman churches change cannot easily be told. And Master Gabriel Powel in his consideration of the Papists supplication pag. 43. circa & post med. being provoked, that if our (Catholic) Doctrine be error, then to tell us when it came in, who was the Author of it? etc. answereth thereto, acknowledging and saying, We cannot tell by whom, or at what time the enemy did sow it, etc. Neither indeed do we know who was the first Author of every one of your blasphemous opinions, etc.  confession of sundry learned Protestants made more than evident, that the several Doctrines of our Faith, are according to this rule no less free from all noted and known beginning, since the Apostles times, then are the other foresaid Doctrines of Metropolitans and Bishops; a thing so manifest, that Master Cartwright (though our adversary) doubteth not yet further to acknowledge the same, saying therefore of this very rule in plain words: 
[o] Mr. Cartwright his words in Mr. whitgift's foresaid Defence, etc. pag. 352. initio.  that thereby a window is open to bring in all Popery. And 
[o] Mr. Cartwri●ht alleged ibid. pag. 103. paulo ante med.  I appeal (saith he) to the judgement of all men, if this be not to bring in Popery again, to allow of St. Augustine's saying, etc. So evidently do our learned adversaries, and the 
[2.] Apparent probability; For seeing Pastors and Doctors must be in the Church till the end of the world (Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. and Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Ephes. 4. fol. 335. a. initio) and that they shall not be silent (Esay 62.6. and the marginal notes of the English Bible in Esay 62.6.) but shall always resist all false opinions with open reprehension (Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 11. initio and 92. aunt med.) And that the Religion being of God, no fear of man shall keep them back (Mr. Dearing in his Reading upon the Epistle to the Hebrews in c. 2. ver. 12. lect. 10. cirea med.) and seeing also, that all new and strange Doctrine is at its first beginning, against and contrary to the other then before general received opinion, as being for the time but private and singular, in the first teacher thereof: Yet it doth therefore upon these premises most evidently follow, as well, that all such new doctrine was ever at its first beginning resisted and openly withstood; as also that by reason of such open and known resistance, such said beginning is discovered and left known to posterity. Which point as it is abundantly verified in the many examples of all such confessed heresies, as are out of question between our adversaries and us, whose resistance and secondary beginning since the Apostles times is yet to us discovered and left known: So again to think that it should hold in all other, and fail only in these matters, now in controversy between our adversaries and us, may be thought no less than very partial, strange, and enforced. Upon all which is necessarily deduced, that according to Master whitgift's foresaid rule and assertion, whatsoever opinion is not known to have begun since the Apostles times, the same is not new or secondary, but received its Original from the Apostles themselves.  apparent probability of this foresaid rule in itself, confirm and prove our foresaid Catholic Religion, whereto we were so many ages since converted, to be not new or secondary to the Apostles times, but only Primitive and undoubtedly Apostolic.  
16. As 
[*.] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 4.  concerning Transubstantiation, Master Whitaker giveth example in Innocentius the third saying, 
[o] Whitaker l. 7. contra Duraeum pag. 480. circa ined. saith, Qui transubstantiationem primus excogitavit, is fuit Innocentius tertius in Lateranesi Concilio. And Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 183. saith, And Mr. Sutcliff de M●ssa Papistica l. 2. c. 5. fol. 196. b. circa med. saith, Transubstantiationis nomen Incentius. 3. primùm publicè recipendum decrevit, nec rem, nec nomen ante illud tempus notum fuisse conseat.  He that first invented Transubstantiation was Innocent the third in the Lateran Council; whereto we answer, first, that Mr. Whitaker barely affirmeth, but proveth not this assertion, neither doth he allege so much as one Author of those times, charging this Pope Innocent or that Council with any Innovation or change of Doctrine in this matter. And we further say that Mr. Whitaker urgeth this example, howsoever against his knowledge and learning: yet most clearly against all evidence of truth. For this Council of Laterane was holden Anno 1215. and as appeareth by the said Council and further testimony of 
[*.] Crespinus in his Book of the Estate of the Church: pag. 345. fine.  Protestants there were present thereat, the Patriarches of Jerusalem and Constantinople, 70. Metropolitans, 400. Bishops, and 800. Conventual Priors. Now that so many learned men of so many several remote Nations of the Christian world, as were here assembled, should all of them agree to decree Transubstantiation, and yet the same to be an Innovation (as Mr. Whitaker saith) then first invented, is more than improbable. The truth hereof therefore was most plainly to the contrary, that in the age before that Council, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, was public and general, only Berengarius as then impugned the same, and was therein publicly contradicted and specially written against, by divers 
[o] There did in that age writ purposely in proof of the Real presence Anselmus, Lanfrancus, Guitmundus, Adelmannus, Algerus, Hugo Lingonensis, and others. In so much that Papyr Masson. Annal. Francorum l. 3. in Henrico Rege testifieth, saying, Berengario, omnes illius temporis Theologi bellum indixere. And Oecolampadius in lib. Epist. Oecolampadii & Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 712. fine saith, Vivo Berengario multi contra ipsum scripserunt.  Fathers of several Nations in that age. In so much as the foresaid Council of Lateran was at length then afterwards assembled against that this new seeming opinion. A thing so evident, that Master 
[q] Fox act. mon. Printed 1576. pag. 1121. b. circa med. And Joachim Camerarius in his Historiae narratio, etc. pag. 161. paulo post med. saith, Transubstationis dogma de evanescentia panis, post annum Christi 850. tanquam in quieta possessione mansit, usque ad Berengarii tempora, & annum Christi circiter 150. Nam etsi antea privatis scriptis quorundam notata res fuit; publica tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, à Berengario prima extitit.  Fox confesseth and saith thereof, About the year of our Lord 1660. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy, and in that number was first one Berengarius who lived about Anno 1060. So far was Transubstantiation from being (as Mr. Whitaker pretendeth) first affirmed, or invented afterwards in the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. Secondly we say, that also the many say (over tedious here to recite) of the other much more ancient Fathers, who lived long before the Lateran Council, are so plain and pregnant for Transubstantiation, that the learned Protestants themselves do in plain terms accordingly acknowledge the same, and therefore reprehend the said Fathers. To omit the plain testimony 
[*] Osiander in Epitome. Hist. Eccles. cent. 9, 10, 11. & pag. 95. fine saith, Anno. 950. exorta est in Clero Cantuariensi acris contentio de pane Eucharistico. Alii en●m asseverabant priorem panis substantiam remanere, & nihilominus simul ibi verum Christi corpus porrigi. Alii verò pugnabant, recitatis verbis Domini, priorem substantiam elementorum prorsus evanescere, atque transire in corpus Domim, etc. And Crispinus in his Book of the estate of the Church pag. 286. circa med. & pag. 289. initio & 323. post med. confesseth that Paschasius (who lived Anno Dom. 880.) taught Transubstantiation.  herein of Osiander and some others, in this sort, it is confessed and affirmed, that 
[r] Affirmed by Mr. Carlisle in his book, that Christ descended not into Hell fol. 58. and by Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Oecolampadii & Zuinglii l. 3. pag. 661. And see Mr. Fulk against Heskins pag. 217. post med. & 204. aunt med. & 296. fine. And by Carrion in Chronic. pag. 451. initio.  Damascen taught Transubstantiation: that both 
[s] See Vrsinus his treatise●ntituled: Commonefact. cujusdam Theologi de Sacra Domini Coena, & ejusdam commonefactionis consideratio pag. 211. post med. where it is said, Theophilactus & Damascenus planè inclinant ad Transubstantiationem, & vide Chemnicium examen. part. 2, pag. 83. a. paulo post med. & pag. 90. b. circa med.  Damascen and Theophilact do evidently incline to Transubstantiation: that 
[t] Humfredus in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. saith, In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Intulerunt, etc. Transubstantiationem, etc.  Gregory the Great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation: that 
[u] The Century Writers, cent. 4. c. 10. col. 985. lin. 30. say of Eu●●bius Emissenus, that parùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit, etc.  Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation: that 
[x] The Century Writers undertaking in their fift Century c. 4. col. 496. lin. 4. to set down, Errores Doctorum hujus Saeculi, do therein col. 517. lin. 23. say, Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare: ●am ita scribit in sermone de Eucharistia. Num vides panem? num vinum●num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? Absit, ne sic cogites. Quemadmodum enim si●cera, igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit, sic & hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia.  Chrysostom doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation; whereto sundry other like examples might be added. A thing so evident that Adamus Francisci (a Protestant Writer) doth therefore acknowledge how that 
[y] Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 256. post med. saith, Commentum Papistarum de Transubstantiatione maturè in Ecclesiam irrepsit.  Transubstantiation entered early into the Church.  
17. The 
[*] Brereley tracked 1. sect. 4. subd. 11. in the text and margin at 2. & 3.  ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church are likewise by our learned adversaries confessed to have believed Melchisedeches offering of Bread and Wine in Sacrifice to have been a prefiguration of our new Sacrifice of the new Testament. For Mr. Fulk against Heskins, etc. pag. 99 post med. saith, I confess that divers of the old Fathers were of opinion, that the Bread and Wine which Melchisedech brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the Sacrament, which they improperly call a Sacrifice. And see the Fathers further reproved herein by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Haebr. c. 7. sect. 8. fol. 405. b. fine, and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 818. and 819. and Master Fulk against Heskins pag. 100 circa med. confesseth, how the Father's thought that Melchisedech herein resembled the Priesthood of Christ. And Calvin in omnes Pauli Epistolas in Haebr. c. 7. v. 9 pag. 924. b. circa med. confesseth likewise saying, Quo magis tot veteres Ecclesiae Doctores hac opinione occupatos fuise miror, ut in oblatione panis & vini insisterent, sic autem loquuntur: Christus Sacerdos est secundum ordinem Melchisedech; atqui panem & vinum Melchisedech obtulit, ergo panis & vini sacrificium Christi Sacerdotio convenit. And Andraeas Chrastovius de opificio Missae contra Bellar. l. 1. pag. 28. sect. 66. doubteth not, upon the authority of the ancient Fathers in this point, with us to affirm and defend the said sacrifice against his other Protestant Brethren, saying thereof, Consensum & interpretationis harmoniam Christianis Pastoribus abjicere non licet, idque cum propter Apostolici saeculi vicinitatem, tum propter singularem omnium concordiam, quae in omnibus locis habetur, etc. omnium veluti conspiratione oblatio Melchisedech Sacra proponitur, ut non tantum Abrahae militibus, sed etiam Deo incruentum Sacrificium oblatum videatur, etc. Hence it is that our 
[*] Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. at s. 2.3, 4, 5. t.  Spiritual Pastors by reason of their Catholic 
[*] St. Chrysostm wrote a special Book of this Priesthood.  Priesthood, are (as Saint Austin saith) now (not improperly, but) 
[s] Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 10. post. med. saith, Non utique de solis Episcopis & Presbyteris dictum est, qui jam propriè vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes. And the most ancient Father Irenaeus l. 4. c. 20. affirmeth besides the spiritual Priestly Order of all the just, an other peculiar Priesthood of the Apostles, who are in respect thereof by him said to attend daily upon God and the Altar.  properly called Priests in the Church, to whom therefore, the words Presbyter and Sacerdos are indifferently 
[2] St. Austin ut supra. And the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth Sacerdos, is used and referred to Christian Priests by Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 5. & Epist. 8. ad Demophilum Monachum. And Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle ad Smyrnenses, now extant, whereof divers sentences are verbatim alleged under the name of Ignatius, and title of this Epistle, by Hierom lib. de Viris Illustribus, and by Eusebius l. 3. c. 32. as is more at large urged and proved by Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 408. circa med. and he (not so much as therein gainsaid by Mr. Cartwright) affirmeth the Bishop to be as the high Priest and Christ's Image, in respect of his Priesthood: affirming further, that in the Church nothing is greater than the Bishop, who sacrificeth to God for the safety of the whole world. And Nazianzen in Epist. 8. ad Simplicium haeret. affirmeth, the Priest to be the mediator between God and man, and sacrificing together with Christ. This point is so evident and common in the Greek and Latin Fathers, that Mr. Whitaker l. 9 contra Duraeum pag. 813. initio acknowledgeth the same, and answereth only, that the said Fathers used the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sacerdos, non propriè sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not properly (directly against St. Augustine's foresaid testimony) but by abuse of speech: and yet (as Mr. Whitgift in his said defence, etc. pag. 411. versus finem, confesseth and saith,) this name Priest is usually applied to the Minister of the Gospel in all histories, Fathers, and writers of Antiquity.  referred, in respect of the blessed Sacrament, which is by them offered up to God, 
[3.] Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 17. cap. 17. circa med.  under Christ the (high) Priest, and 
[4] Ambr. in 1 Tim. cap. 4. ver. 14.  in his stead, or 
[5.] Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 3. post medium.  place, as the Churches external and acceptable oblation, and acknowledged by 
[t] For these last thousand years Mr. Beacon (whom the Ministers of Lincoinshire in their abridgement, etc. pag. 65. ante med. affirm to be a Divine of chief note in their Church) in his works set forth 1560. the third part in his Treatise entitled, The Relics of Rome, fol. 344. a. post med. saith, The Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about Anno Domini 600. etc. And from Charles the great unto Charles the fifth, the Mass reigned as a most mighty Queen in all the Churches of the West part of the world. See the like confessed by Danaeus de Antichristo pag. 101. initio. And Melancthon l. 4. Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186. & 187. saith of Gregory, He allowed by public authority the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, not only for the living, but also for the dead. And the like is affirmed of Gregory by Carion in Chronic. pag. 567. paulo ante med. Also Musculus loc. common. de Coena Dom. pag. 339. fine saith of Pelagius Predecessor to Gregory, Pelagius commemorationem mortuorum in secreta Canonis Missatici retulit, (etc.) ut mortuis virtus & efficacia Missae communicaretur. And see this Pelagius directly further charged with the opinion of Mass helping the dead by Master Symonds, upon the Revelations pag. 81. ante med. Also Symmachus was Bishop of Rome (Anno 501.) of whom the century writers cent. 6. cap. 10. col. 664. lin. 30. say, Notas Antichristi & hic habuit, Missam enim in formam redegit. Before him was Saint Leo (Anno 440.) of whom Mr. Bale in his Pageant of Pope's fol. 27. saith, Leo the first allowed the Sacrifice of the Mass, not without great blasphemy to God. And see this in Bale in Act. Roman. Pontific. Printed Basileae 1558. pag. 32. fine, & 33. initio. Before Leo was the Carthage Council, whereat St. Austin was present, whereof Pelargus in his Schola fidei, etc. prope finem in his tract there de Conciliis pag. 13. faith, Synodus Carthaginensis quinta intercessionem & Misvam pro defunctis invexit. And Osiander centur. 4. pag. 16. circa med. saith of the 79. Canon of the 4. Carthage Council. Hic Canon (si non fictitius est) ostendit eo etiam tempore rationes, & oblationes pro defunctis factas. Before these Councils was St. Ambrose (Anno 370.) Whom the Century writers cent. 4. cap. 4. col. 295. lin. 3. reprove and charge with not writing well de transubstantiatione & applicatione pro mortuis. And ibid. lin. 23. they further say, Ambrose locutionibus utitur, quibus ante eum ex Patribus nemo usus est, ut Missam facere, offer Sacrificium, etc. Before him again was Gregory Nyssen of the Greek Church (Anno 340.) of whom Andraeas' Crastonius in his Book (against Bellarmine) de opificio Missae lib. 1. sect. 164. initio, & pag. 81. saith, An ignorat opinionem Nysseni per se absurdam esse (&c.) Ait ille (Nyssenus) Cùm itaque dedit (Christus) discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum, (etc.) jam latenter (&c.) ineffabiliter & invisibiliter corpus immolatum erat, (etc.) And see further hereof Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 4. pag. 320. fine. Also Cyril of Jerusalem another Father of the Greek Church flourished (Anno 320.) whom Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria pag. 167. initio chargeth and reproveth saying, Quod ad Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum attinet, dicit ille quidem prosui jam temporis recepta consuetudine, sacr ficium altaris maximum juvamen esse animarum. And Calvin in libro de vera Ecclesiae reformatione, extant in Tract. Theolog. Calvini, etc. pag. 389. a. fine & b. initio saith of the Fathers of this age, Solemn esse nebulonibus istis (meaning us Catholics) quicquid vitiosum in Patribus legitur corradere, (etc.) cum ergo objiciunt locum Malachiaede Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi, oblationem Melchisedech, sic tractari, ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, Arnobio, breviter responsum sit, eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi, sed ita ridiculè, ut dissentire nos cogat ratio & veritas, (etc.) And in his Book of Institutions Printed Argentorati 1539. pag. 350. ante med. and after the other Edition l b. 4. Institut. cap. 18. sect. 11. he further saith, Veteres quoque illos video hanc memoriam aliò detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat, quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae imolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat, (etc.) Imitati enim sunt propiùs Judaicum sacrificandi morem, quamaut ordinaverat Christus, aut Evangelii ratio ferebat. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 3. at sect. after 12. where he expressly chargeth the Fathers with forging a Sacrifice in the Lord's Supper without his commandment, and of adulterating the Supper with a Sacrifice. Before these times lived St. Cyprian (Anno 240.) whom the Century writers cent. 3. cap. 4. col. 83. lin. 34. reprove saying, Sacerdotum inquit (Cyprianus) vice Christi fungi, & Deo Patri sacrificium offerri. In so much as that in their Index or Alphabetical Table in the end of that 3. Century under the letter S. it is said, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi in Coena Domini superstitiosè asserit Cyprianus col. 83. lin. 34. And Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, etc. pag. 100 circa med. saith, It is granted, that Cyprian thought the Bread and Wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ: Also Tertuilian lived (Anno 220.) him doth Luc. Osiander centur. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. pag. 10. circa●med. reprove saying, Tertullianus approbavit oblationes pro defunctis orationes annuas pro natalitiis. In like sort is here reproved by the Century writers cent. 3. cap. 5. col. 138. lin. 56. and no less plainly by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of purgatory pag. 265. circa & post med. Before Tertullian lived Irenaeus (Anno 170.) him Calvin reproveth as before, and the Century Writers cent. 2. cap. 4. col. 63. lin 20. charge saying: De oblatione porrò Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 32. (&c.) satis videtur loqui incommodè, cum ait novi Testamenti novam docuit (Christus) oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo. Before him lived Ignatius the Apostles undoubted Scholar (Anno 90.) of whom the Century Writers in cent. 2. cap. 4. col. 63. lin. 9 say, Quaedam ambigua & incommodè dicta, in quibusdam occurrunt, ut in Epistola Ignatii ad Smirnenses: Non licet (inquit Ignatius) fine Episcopo, neque offer, neque facrificium immolare. And cent. 2. cap. 10. col. 167. lin. 17. the Century Writers affirm these words of Ignatius to be perriculosa, & quasi errorum semina. Lastly Mr. Beacon in his foresaid Treatise fol. 344. a. post med. saith seriously, The Mass was begotten, conceived, and born anon after the Apostles times, if all be true, that Historiographers write. And Hospinianus in Historia Sacramentaria lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 20. fine saith, Jam tum primo illo saeculo viventibus adhuc Apostolis, magis huic Sacramento quam Baptismo insidiari ausus sit (Daemon) & homines à prima illa forma sensim abduxerit, (etc.) and Sebastianus Francus in Epistola de ebrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasticis, saith most plainly, Statim post Apostolos omnia inversa sunt (&c) coena Domini in sacrificium transformata est. In so much as Mr. Ascham (a prime Protestant) in his Apolog. pro Coena Dom. pag. 31. post med. acknowledgeth that no beginning thereof after the Apostles time can be showed, saying, Quibus temporibus, & per quos homines Coena Dominica de possessione sua per Missam deturbata sit, verissimè sciri non potest, etc. Vouchsafeth now your Majesty but to add hereunto the answerable Doctrine of the ancient Jews saith Brereley (tract. 1. sect. 4. subd. 11. & 12.) that the words of Scripture are literally answerable also hereunto, Matth. 26.28. Marc. 14.24. Luc. 22.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11.24. saying, (not which shall be given or offered, but) which is given, and (not to you, but) for you: That also the Apostle calleth our Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Altar for sacrifice, Haebr. 13.10. A word confessedly likewise used by Ignatius heretofore (in this Consideration numb 3. at 11.) that the Prophet Esay 66. ver. 21. foretelling the Ecclesiastical Ministers of the New Testament, termeth them Priests, (hereof see the English Bible of 1576. in Esay 66.21. and Master Hooker l. 5. sect. 78. pag. 236. post med. And Mr. D. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 544. paulo post med.) that the holy Ghost also foretelleth Priesthood and Sacrifice, and the same, not the offering upon the Cross, which is now in Act of sacrifice transitory and past, but to continue for ever, and not in a bloody manner, but accordingly to the Order of Melchisedech, Psal. 110.4. that likewise the Prophet Malachy cap. 1. ver. 10. & 11. foreshowing the rejecting of the legal Priesthood and Sacrifice, foretelleth the now Sacrifice of the Christian Gentiles to succeed, which he termeth a clean oblation: that the Prophet Daniel foreshowing likewise the end of the world, and Antichrists then coming, foretelleth in like manner, that as then, the dally Sacrifice shall be taken away, cap. 12. ver. 11. which one sacrifice cannot be meant of the many spiritual sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving, for that Antichrists persecution shall rather increase, than take those away. As neither can Malachies prediction of that one clean oblation be taken to signify those said spiritual sacrifices, because they are many, and but improperly called sacrifices, and were not new or peculiar only to the Gentiles, but were also belonging to those of the old Testament, no less than now to us.  learned Protestants to have been for such accordingly offered, not only for these thousand years last passed, but also for so many other precedent ages, as being (in our opinion) not any new redemption, but rather a continual commemoration and application of the force and benefit of that one Sacrifice, which was offered once for all, Hebr. 28.  
18. To what hath been said already concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, we may in this occasion about innovations, add that which Brereley hath tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 6. of the same matter, where he saith, Mr. Whitaker giveth example (to wit of innovation in Religion made by the Roman Church) in Gregory the Great, saying, 
[e] Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 480.  He that first delivered Purgatory for a certain doctrine, was Gregory the Great. Whereto in Gregory's full discharge from all innovation in this point, we answer, that long before Gregory, St. Austin (whom our adversaries do unworthily 
[*] Unworthily, for whereas Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament 1 Cor. 3. sect. 6. fol. 267. b. circa med. to prove that St. Austin doubted of Purgatory, allegeth these words of St. Austin, It is not incredible that some such thing is done after this life, and it may be inquired of, whether it be so, and either be found or hid. Aug. Ench●rid. cap. 69. & 68 And ad Dulcitium quaest. 1. And in like pretence that St. Austin denied Purgatory, Master Fulk doth there further allege these other words of St. Austin, The third place we are utterly ignorant of, etc. Aug. Hypognost. contra Pelag. l. 5. This we say is extremely abusively to urge the Father's doubtful obscure words against their other plainer sayings, and known meanings. Therefore in answer or explanation of these saying of St. Austin, we say as to the first, that St. Austin doubteth not there of Purgatory, but only (which point is at this day yet doubted of) whether that (to use St. Augustine's words in the very same place) some of the faithful after this life be saved so much later or sooner by a certain Purgatory fire, as they more or less loved their transitory goods. So that his doubt there is not whether there be any Purgatory, which by these his very words he presupposeth, and in the very same Book saith thereof, as is here alleged in the text at g. it may not be denied, etc. but only as he yet further explaineth himself, whether that (to use his own further words rerum saecularium quamvis licitè concessarum tales cupiditates, etc. such affection to worldly things lawfully enjoyed (as to Wife, Children, etc.) that without grief of mind he cannot part from them, be punished in Purgatory or not? And of this point he saith, as is before objected (and as we our elves yet say) it may he inquired of, whether it be so, and either be found or hidden. Thus much of his unworthily supposed doubt. Now concerning the second place of his like supposed denial of Purgatory, we say that St. Austin useth that alleged saying, not in denial of the temporal pains of Purgatory, but only upon occasion, and by way of disputation against the Pelagians, who imagined, that besides Heaven and Hell there was a third place of everlasting life prepared for infants that died unbaptised. In respective confutation of which said imaginary third everlasting place, he saith, as is alleged, the third place we are utterly ignorant of, etc. acknowledging no more places of ever histing continuance, but Heaven and Hell: and affirming withal further to the Pelagians, that such infants shall for ever remain, not in this pretended third place, which they imagined, and he denied: but saith he, (damnatione omnium levissima) in a state of condemnation of all other most easy. Aug. contra Julian. Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. Their punishment (as the Schoolmen hold) being not paena sensus, any sensible torment, because they never committed actual sin, but paena damni, the punishment of loss, or privation of Heaven: Into which, in regard of their original sin, and want of actual faith, they could not enter without Baptism, Joan. 3.3. Furthermore the other say of Austin most plain for Purgatory are overmany and known to be here recited: in so much as he himself forseeth (as it were) and explaineth our adversaries other common and unworthy objections out of him, concerning his sometimes mentioning Sacrifice offered for Martyrs, and those that be in Heaven, declaring and explaining, that for them it is offered as a thanksgiving, and for others, that are not as yet in such persect estate, as a propitiation. Aug. Enchirid. cap. 110. & vide Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 17. & in Joan. tract. 84. Our adversaries therefore may do well more advisedly to consider of these and such other like obscure seeming say of the Fathers, before they object them to us, and to remember B●za ' s direction in his answer to a like objected doubtful saying from Calun, where after exphcation made thereof he saith, Comparanda sunt enim inter s● saepenumcro unius ejusdemque Scriptoris loca, ut quae fuerit ejus sententia liquidò perspiciatur, quum omnia omnibus locis, etiam de re una quapiam dici nec possint, nec debeant. Hoc qui non faciunt, dici non potest quam injuriam saepe bonis doctisque Scriptoribus faciant. B●za in Ep●st. Theolog. Ep. 82. pag. 382. ante med. This admonition of B●za but duly observed by our adversaries, would save them much labour of often alleging so many unworthy frivolous and mistaken objections, as are by them in many controversies no less tediously, than commonly urged from the obscure seeming sayings of the Fathers  pretend.,.,.,,,),,. to have been doubtful of Purgatory, and to have denied it, to that end abusing his more obscure say accordingly, as the ancient Father 
[*] Vincent Lyr. advers. haer. ant med. saith of the Heretics of his time: Captant plerun. que veter is cujuspiam Viri scripta paulò involutius edita, quae pro ipsa fui obscuritate, dogmati suo quafi congruant, ut illud nescio quid, quodcunque proferunt, ●●que primi neque soli sentire videan●ur.  Vincentius Lyrinensis noteth of the like practice of the novelists of his time) delivereth the same for most certain, saying (amongst his many 
[*] Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 25. paulo ante med. saith, Ex his quae dicta sunt videtur evidentiùs apparere in ●llo judicio quasdam quorundam purgatorias poenas futuras, etc. And l. 21. c. 13. fine, he further saith, Temporarias paemas al●i in hac v●ra tantum, alii post mortem, alii & nunc & tunc, etc. patiuntur. In so much as Mr. Fulk though falsely pretending St. Augustine's incercertainty herein, is yet insorced to confess and say of this place, Austin de civet. Dei l. 21. c. 13. concludeth very clearly that some suffer temporal pains after this life, this may not be denied. Mr. Fulk in 〈◊〉 confutation of Purgatory pag. 110. paulo ante med.  other plain testimonies of this kind: 
[f] Aug. de verbs Apost. Serm. 34. saith, Orationibus vero Sanctae Ecclesiae & Sacrificio salutari & Elcemosyn●s quae pro corum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum morivos adjuvari, ut cum●eis misericordiùs agatur a Domino, quam corum peccata merucrunt, hoc enim à Patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia. And in his Book de cura pro mortuis c. 1. he saith of prayer for the dead; Non parva est universae Ecclesiae quae in hac consuetudine claret authoritas.  It is not to be doubted, but the dead are helped by the prayers of the holy Church, and the healthful Sacrifice, and alms which are employed for their souls, that God will deal with them more mercifully than their sins deserved. For this doth the Universal Church observe as delivered from our Forefathers. And else where he saith no less certainly, 
[g] Aug. in Enchirid. c. 10. saith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pictate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis Sacrificium Mediatoris offertur.  It may not be denied, but that the souls of the deceased are relieved by the piety of their living friends, when for them is offered the Sacrifice of the Mediator, etc. In so much that he for the Latin Church doubted not to 
[h] Aug. haer. 35. saith of Aerius, Fertur quoque propria dogmata addidiffe nonnulla, dicens, Orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere.  censure Aerius for an Heretic, for his denial of this doctrine. As also Epiphanius for the Greek Church condemneth Aerius in like sort, saying against him in defence of Prayer and oblation for the dead: 
[i] Epiphanius haer. 75. and ibid. versus finem he further saith, Ecclesia necessario hoc perficit traditione à Patribus accepta.  The Church hath received (this) through the wide world: it was agreed upon before Aerius was. Hence it is, that Mr. Fulk confesseth and saith, 
[k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 44. fine.  Aerius taught, that Prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an error. Also he acknowledgeth that 
[l] Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 320. ante med. & pag. 326. initio, & 349. circa & post med.  Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Austin allowed Prayer for the dead: that 
[m] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 320. ante med. & pag. 326. initio, & 349. post med. & pag. 78. fine.  it was the common error of their times; that 
[n] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 161. ante med. And he yet further affirmeth ibid. pag. 78. fine saying, Austin speaketh of the amending fire in the place by Mr. Allen alleged. He doth so indeed, but Austin had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time. So confessedly was the amending fire of purgatory the common doctrine of St. Augustine's time.  the error of Purgatory was somewhat ryfly budded in Augustine's time; that 
[o] Mr. Fulk ubi supra pag. 362. ante med. & vide ibid. pag. 303. circa med. & 303. post med.  Tertullian, Austin, Cyprian, Hierom, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles. In like manner Mr. Gifford affirmeth, that even 
[o] Mr. George Gifford in his plain demonstration, that our Brownists be full Donatists, etc. pag. 38. initio. And Arnobius lib. 4. contra Gentes sub finem saith, Cur immaniter, etc. Why deserved our Churches to be pulled down barbarously in which the highest God is prayed unto, peace and pardon is asked for all men, for Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the living, and for the dead?  in the (Churches) public worship, to Pray for the souls of the dead, was general in the Church long before the days of Austin, as appeareth in Cyprian, and Tertullian which was before him and nearer to the time of the Apostles. Whereunto might be added like testimony from 
[q] Calvin. Institut. l. 3. c. 5. sect. 10. acknowledgeth, that ante mille & trecentos annos usu receptum suit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis (and a little after) sed fateor in errorem abrepti fuerunt, etc. And Brereley in Omissions of pag. 190. saith, And Calvin de vera Ecclesiae reformat, rat. extant in his Tract: Theolog. pag. 394. b. ant med. further saith, Superest alter ordo mortuorum, quorum mentionem in Coena fieri volunt, ut detur illis locus refrigerii, lucis & pacis: non nego hanc fuisse vetustissimam consuetudinem, & quoniam magna est vis consuetudinis, aut potius regnum, ideò ejusmodi preces fateor Chrysostomo, Epiphanio, Augustino, & similibus probatas suisse, quod à majoribus quasi per manus tradita essent.  Calvin. So clearly is Gregory (who lived so many ages after these Fathers) discharged from all innovation in this point.  
19 Likewise beside what hath been said before in this Consideration num. 9 that Protestant writers acknowledge the Fathers to have held and taught Confession even of Venial or lesser sins, Brereley saith tract. 3. sect. 1. at a. b. that Fathers and Protestants do acknowledge Confession of our sins. At a. in the margin he saith thus, To omit the plentiful testimonies of the Fathers, St. Leo describeth the usage of the Latin Church in Epist. 91. ad Theodorum Foro-Julii Episcopum, saying, Christus hanc Ecclesiae Praepositis tradidit potestatem, ut & confitentibus actionem poenitentiae darent, & eosdem salubri satisfactione purgatos, ad communionem Sacramentorum per ja●uam reconciliationis admitterent. And Epist. 80. ad Episcopos Campaniae he further saith, Cum reatus Conscientiarum sufficiat solis Sacerdotibus indicari confessione secreta. And it is said in the ancient ripartite History lib. 9 cap. 35. Ad hanc causam Presbyterum bonae conversationis servantemque secretum ac sapientem virum statuerunt, ad quem accidents high qui delinquebant, delicta propria fatebantur. At ille secundùm uniuscujusque culpam indicebat mulctam: quod etiam hactenus diligenter in Occidentalibus servatur Ecclesi is, maximè apud Romam, ubi etiam locus est certus Poenitentium. And St. Basile signifieth the like doctrine of the Greek Church in quaestionibus brevieribus int●rrogat. 288. saying, Necessariò peccata iis aperiri debent, quibus credita est dispensatio mysteriorum Dei, siquidem rationem hanc, in poenitentia etiam veteres illos cernimus secutos fuisse, etc. And the Century Writers cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 127. lin. 29, 30, 31, etc. describe the like doctrine and usage of the Church of afric, out of the writings of Cyprian and Tertullian, and see further hereof in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 7. in the margin there at the letters r. s. t. u. x. y, etc. and in this Consideration num. 9 at 10. Also here at b. Brereley saith, Sarcerius in loc. common. de confession fol. 289. b. saith, It is an error, adserere confessionem, quae coram Deo fit, sufficere, ita ut contemnas claves & absolutionem per fratrem. Hic error prorsus tollit usum clavium & absolutionis, (etc.) Falsum ergo est, confessionem, quae coram Deo fit, tollere confessionem privatam, etc. In like plain manner is private Confession defended most earnestly against our Adversaries by sundry of their own other Brethren, as namely by Lobechius in Disputat. Theolog. pag. 295. sect. 4. By Conradus Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 2. fol. 147. a. By Melancthon l. 1. Epistolarum pag. 234. ante med. By the Confessions of Saxony and Boheme, in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 231. circa med. & pag. 357. & 358. initio, and by many others.  
20. Finally we may conclude how far the ancient Fathers stand for us, out of the ensuing words of Andraeas Duditius, (apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 6. at m. n. o. p.) who is by Beza in Epistolis Theolog. Ep. 1. ad Andraeum Duditium pag. 13. ante med. termed Clarissimus & Ornatissimus Vir, a most eminent and adorned man, and (ibid. pag. 23. circa med.) observantly beloved of Beza for his piety, learning, and elegant wit, and by him (ibidem. pag. 2. initio, & 3. aunt med.) saluted with Frater, the acknowledgement and title of a Brother. This Andraeas Duditius confesseth for all that of the Roman Church; that it is not divided with so many dissensions, but hath the plausible appearance of venerable antiquity, ordinary Succession, and perpetual consent. Beza in Epist. Theolog. pag. 13. paulo ante med. repeateth his words saying, Etsi (inquis) multa eaque horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia, quae infirmo & putrido fundamento nituntur; tamen non ita multis dissensionibus scinditur, & habet vetustatis venerandae, successionis ordinariae, consensûs perpetui speciem plausibilem: & si veritas est quam veteres Patres mutuo consensu sunt professi, ea Pontificiis tota stabit, etc. Haec tu de Pontificiis: At Nostri quales tandem sunt? Palantes (inquis) omni doctrinae vento agitati, & in altum sublati, modò ad hanc, modò ad illam partem deferuntur: horum quae sit hodie de religione sententia scire fortasse possis, sed quae cras de eadem futurae sit opinio, neque tu certò affirmare queas. In quo tandem Religionis capite congruunt inter se Ecclesiae, quae Romano Pontifici bellum indixerunt? A capite ad calcem si percurr as omnia, nihil propemodum reperias ab uno affirmari, quod alter statim non impium esse clamitet. Haec tu in nos, mi Duditi, totidem verbis, etc.  
21. Besides, that divers Protestants confess, and acknowledge, the doctrine, and practise of the Church of Rome at this present, in the most principal points of difference between them and us, to have been taught and practised by the most ancient Fathers; they confess moreover divers points, which they teach and practise, to have been condemned by the ancient Fathers for heretical, and those who taught and practised such points contrary to our now professed Catholic Faith, who have been censured as Heretics. 
[*] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 8. subd. 2. pag. 214. lin. 5. in the text.  The undoubted examples whereof, to be alleged not rackedly or impertinently, as 
[*] Mr. Willet in his tetrastylon Papismi p. 107, 108, 109, etc.  Mr. Willet most intolerably hath done against us, but directly and plainly, are many, and by our very Adversaries acknowledged: So in the first 440. years' next after Christ, was (as is confessed) the denial of prayer and offering Sacrifice for the dead, and of our appointed fasts, condemned as singular novelty in 
[c] Hereof see Aug. haer. 53. And Epiphanius haer. 75. ante med. And Mr. Fulk in his answer to a sergeant Catholic pag. 44. fine, & 45. initio, confesseth this, saying, I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter, Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness, both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an error. Also he taught that fasting-days are not to be observed. And Mr. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 29. pag. 138. prope finem saith, The eleventh is the Heresy of Aerius, he condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of thank sgiving, for them. He disliked set Fasts, and would not admit any difference between a Bishop und a Presbyter, etc. And see this confessed in like manner by Pantaleon in Chronographia pag. 28. initio. And Osiander in epitome. etc. centur. 4. pag. 434. reciteth the condemned errors of Aerius saying, Item non oportere orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem, Jejunia ordinata non esse observanda, etc. jejunandum esse cum quis voluerit propter libertatem.  Aerius. So also was the denial of prayer to Saints, and worshipping of Saints Relics, condemned likewise as then in 
[d] Hieron. contra Vigilantium c. 2. & 3. and Mr. Fulk confesseth this likewise ubi supra pag. 46. paulo ante med. saying, Last of all Vigilantius shall be brought in, who wrote against invocation of Saints, superstition of Relics, and other ceremonies; him Hierom reproveth. Vide centur. 4. col. 1250. lin. 45. and Osiander in Epitome. cent. 4. l. 4. pag. 506. ante med. And see thi● further confessed by Crispinus in his discourse of the estate of the Church pag. 131. post med. And Austin de Eccles. dogm. c. 73. saith accordingly, Sanctorum corpora & praecipuè beatorum Martyrum reliquias, ac si Christi membra sincerissimè honoranda, (etc.) credimus: si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit, non Christianus, sed Eunomianus & Vigilantianus creditur. Also Saravia in defence. tractat. de diversis, etc. pag. 349. paulo post initium, and Beza ibidem pag. 346. circa med. do both of them affirm, that Aerius was likewise charged and condemned by the Fathers for his then affirming that the Saints departed are not to be prayed unto.  Vigilantius. In the same times were condemned in like manner, the denial of Images, in 
[*] Functius (a Protestant Writer) in lib. 7. Commentariorum in praecedent. Chronologiam, at Anno Christi 494. confesseth saying, Porro is Xenaias primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excitavit. And Nicephorus in hist: Eccles. l. 16. c. 27. saith, Xenaias iste primus (o audacem animam & os ●mpudens!) vocemillam evomuit, Christi & ●orum qui alli placuere in agines ven●●andas non esse. And see also hereof Codrenus in compendio histor.  Xenaias, and the denial of voluntary poverty and monastical profession, in 
(e) Hiero me contra Vigila●●●um prope finem saith, Quod autem asseris eos melius facer● qui utuntur rebus suis, & paulatim fructus possessionum suarum pauperibus dividunt, quam illos qui possessionibus venundatis semel omnia largiuntur; non a me eye, said a Domino respondebitur: Si vis esse perfectus, vade & vend omnia quae habes, & da pauperibus, & veni requere me. Ad ●um loqui●u●, qui vult esse perfectus etc. iste quem tu laudas, secundus & tert u● gradus est, quem & nos recipimus, dummodo s●amus prima secund●● & terths praeferenda: nec à suo stud●o Monachi deterrendi sunt à te, lingua Viperca & morsu saevissimo, de quibus argumentaris & dicis, si omnes se clauserint & fuerint in solitudine, quis celebrabit Ecclesias? etc. And see this plainly confessed by Crispinus in his Book of the Estate of the Church pag. 131 & 132.  Vigilantius, and others; The denial of the power 
(f) In like manner is Januarius for this like doctrine repreved by St. Austin serm. 49. ex diversis cap. 1. And Justus is for the same reproved by Gregory l. 4. dial. c. 55. And see further hereof Leo Ep. 92. ad Rusticum. And Concil. Chalcedon cap. 7. And Austin Ep. 89. ad Hilarium, and Chrysostom l. adversus Vituperatores vitae monasticae. And Austin contra literas Petil. l. 3. c. 40. chargeth and reproveth Petilianus, saying of him, Deinceps perrexit ore maled●co in vituperationem Monachorum & Monasteriorum, etc. And Austin in Psalm 132. charges also the Circumcellians, for that, saith he, dicere consueverunt, quid sibi vult nomen Monachorum? And again, Quid ergo dicunt illi qu●●nobis de nomine Monachorum insultant? (etc.) qui nobis dicunt, ostendite ubi scriptum sit nomen Monachorum?  of Priests to remit sins, in the 
(g) See hereafter in this Consideration: num. 23. multo ante med. at d. And in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. at x. in the margin is cited St. Ambrose lib. 1. de paenitentia cap. 2. saying of Novatians, Sed aiunt se Domino deferre reverentiam, cui soli remittendorum criminum potestatem reservant. Immo nulli majo●em injuriam fac●unt, quam qui ejus volunt mandata rescinde●e. Nam cum ipse in Evangelio suo dixerit Dominus, Accipite Spi●itum Sanctum, quorum remis●ritis peccata remittentur eyes (etc.) quis est ergo qui magis honorat, utrum qui mandatis obtemperat, an qui resistit? And cap. 7. he further saith to them, Cur Baptizatis si peccata per hominem dimitti non licet? In Baptismo utique remissio peccatorum omnium est, quid interest u●rum per paenitentiam, an per lavacrum hoc jus sibi datum, sacerdotes vendicent: unum in utroque ministerium est. Also Pacianus in Epist. 1. ad Sympronianum Novatianum, saith, Nunquam Deus non paenitenti comminaretur, nisi ignosceret paenitenti. Solus hoc (inquies) Deus poterit. Verum est. Sed, & quod per Sacerdotes suos facit, ipsius potestas est. Nam quid est illud quod Apostolis dicit, Quae ligaveritis in terris? (etc.) In like manner in Socrates in hist. Tripart. l. 2. cap. 13. fine, is reproved Acesius the Novatian, for that he taught, concerning such as fell in persecution, in vitandos quidem ad paenitentiam; spem verò remissionis, non à Sacerdotibus, sed à Deo solummodò sust●ere, qui potestatem habet peccata remittere. Haec cum dix●ss●● Acesius, Imperato● ait, O Accsi pone scalam, &, si potes, ascend solus in caelum. So strange and singular in those times was this opinion deemed. & vide hist. Tripartit. l. 8. c. 9 prope initium.  Novatians; The denial of  and of Remission of Sins, and Grace conferred in Baptism, in the 
[h] Hieron. in prooemio librorum adversus Pelagianos fine saith, Manichaeorum est, hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium, & Dei adjutorium. and see Hieron. in explanatione Symbol. ad Damasum. And St. Austin de fide contra Manich. c. 9 saith, Adversus haec solita caecitate Manichaei latrant, & cum convincuntur naturam non esse malum, sed in potestate esse hominis facere benè aut malè, dicunt non esse animae liberam voluntatem, & non vident caecitatem suam, etc. & vide ibid. c. 10. & in acts cum Felice Manichaeo l. 2. c. 4. And Chrysostom. in Joan. hom. 45. prope initium saith, Christ said to them, no man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him. Hereat the Manichees do rise up contending by testimony of this Scripture, that we can do nothing of ourselves, etc. but this taketh not away our freewill, but showeth that we need Gods help. And concerning the other point touching Baptism, Mr. Whitaker l. 10. contra Duraeum p. 883. confesseth the same saying, Nos in Baptismo peccata remitti & gratiam conferri credimus ac docemus, quod negari soliti sunt Manichaei, ergo nos à Manichaeis alieni sumus, & vide Sarcerium loc. common. tom. 1. de Baptismo fol. 232. b. post med.  Manichees; The 
(2) See this affirming in the first Consideration in Luther num. 11. in Zuinglius n. 35. in Calvin num. 40. and in other Protestants apud Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 14. throughout.  affirming of God to be the Author of our sin, in Simon 
(3) Vincentius Lyr. lib. adversus haeret. post med. saith, Who before Simon Magus, etc. was bold to affirm God the Creator to be Author of our wicked deeds, etc. and who before Novatianus (taught that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, than that he should return and live? And St. Austin ad Art. sibi falso imposit. Art. 10. saith, Detestanda, etc. it is a hateful and abominable opinion to believe that God is the Author of any ill will or action. And of this condemned opinion see further Eusebius hist. l. 5. c. 19 concerning Florinus his error. And see Mr. Hanmer in his Chronograph. pag. 30.  Magus,,),, and others; The denial of the necessity of children's Baptism, in the 
(i) Innocentius in rescripto ad Melivitanum Concilium post med. saith of the Pelagians, Illud vero quod vestra fraternitas eos asserit praedicare parvulos eternae vitae praem●is absque Baptismatis gratia posse donári, perfatuum est. In like plain manner is this point condemned in the Pelagians by St. Austin haer. 88 contra Jul. P●lag. l. 6. c. 7. & de pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 9 & 27. and by St. Leo Ep. 86. ad Episcopam Aquileinsem.  Pelagians; The denial of the Blessed Sacraments reservation, in the 
[k] Cyril ad Calosyrium saith, I hear, they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof do remain till the next day following, is unprofitable to Sanctification; but they are mad in so saying, for Christ is not made an other, neither shall his body be changed, but the virtue of blessing and lively grace do alwares remain in it. This point is so plain and confessed, that Peter Martyr adversus Stephani Gardineri librum de Eucharistia, Printed Basileae Anno 1581. object. 213. col. 838. post med. saith of this saying of Cyril, Quod autem subjicitur Eucharistiae reliquias asservatas in crastinum diem à sanctificatione non cessare, spectat opinor ad receptam quandam consuetudinem, etc. Ea consuetudo etsi saperet nonnihil superstitionis, tamen illi Cyrillus, aliique subscribebant. Statim enim à temporibus Apostolorum, paulatim caeptum est degenerari ab illa veteri simplicitate divini cultûs.  Anthropomorphites: The impugning of vowed Chastity, in 
[*] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a Sergeant Catholic pag. 45. paulo ante med. acknowledgeth that Jovinian was condemned, for that (among other things) he taught that such as could not contain, though they had vowed Virginity, should nevertheless be married.  Jovinian; The denial of the single and unmarried life of Priests, in 
[l] Hierom contra Vigilantium c. 1. cendemneth this Doctrine in Vigilantius, saying hereof against him, Quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae? quid Egypti & sedis Apostolicae? quae aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desinunt?  Vigilantius, 
[m] See Hierom l. 1. contra Jovin. c. 19 & 14. & ad Pamachium Apolog. c. 8.  Jovinian, and 
[n] Epiphanius haer. 59 ante med. saith, At dices mihi, omnino in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere & Presbyteros & Diaconos & Hypodiaconos? Whereto he answereth, At hoc non est juxta canonem, sed juxta hominum mentem, etc. And see Syricius in Epist. ad Himerium Taraconensem c. 6. & 7.  others; The denial of enjoined times of penance, in the Heretics called 
[o] Theodoret l. 4. haer. fab. de Audianis, reproveth them saying, Deemed confessis, etc. they give remission to such as are confessed, without prescribing time for penance, as the Laws of the Church command.  Audianis; The denial of the diversity of Merits, in 
[p] Aug. de tempore serm. 191. saith, Joviniani damnamus errorem, qui dicit, nullam in futuro meritorum distantiam. And Hieron. l. 1. adversus Jovin. c. 2. reproveth Jovinian for that he taught that Marriage and Virginity were (ejusdem meriti) of equal merit, confessed by Pantaleon in Chronographia pag. 32. And by the Centurists cent. 5. col. 518. fine, and by Wotton who in his defence of Mr. Perkins, etc. pag. 500 circa med. saith, that herein the Fathers dealt unchristianlike with Jovinian. And this error of Jovinian is exceeded rather than equalled by Luther and Mr. Whitaker. (Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 8. subd. 5. in the marg. at g.) Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. in exeg. ad cap. 7. 1 Cor. fol. 107. b. post med. saith of marriage and single life: De usu vel abusu, etc. Of the use or abuse of the States at this present we will say nothing, but of the condition and nature (of life) in themselves, and do conclude, that Matrimony is as gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as dung. And in Assert. Art. he further saith, Matrimony is much more excellent than Virginity. Christ and his Apostles did dissuade Christians from Virginity. See this saying acknowledged and defended by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 151. ante med. where he saith of Virginity, it is not simply good, but after a certain manner. It is never better than marriage (nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but in regard of the circumstance, whereas marriage is often times simply better than it: it is to be desired, not always, but in respect of the troubles which accompany marriage; directly against St. Augustine's particular confutation of this very reason I de Virginitat. cap. 13. alleged and acknowledged in Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Cor. 7. sect. 13. fol. 273. b. post med. And Mr. Whitaker ubi supra concludeth in defence of Luther's foresaid words, saying, Haec certè Lutheri propria non sunt; ea enim omnes boni agnoscunt & defendunt. In so much that whereas St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.38. saith, He that joineth his virgin in marriage, doth well, he that joineth her not, doth better, Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 693. post med. answering hereto saith, Melius hoc loco vocat Paulus, quod est commodius, etc. And St. Ambrose and others say against Jovinian: Agrestis ululatus est, etc. promiscuè velle omnia confundere, etc. diversorumque gradus abrogare meritorum. Hereof see further Concil. Telense & rescriptum Ambrosii (ibid.) & aliorum ad Syricium, prope initium.  Jovinian; The denial of the commandments being possible, in certain other 
[q] Hieron. in explanat. Symb. ad Damasum saith, Execramur blasphemiam eorum, qui dicunt, impossibile aliquid homini à Deo praeceptum est, etc. And the same words hath St. Austin de tempore serm. 191. & vide Hieron. ad Cleantium, and Concil. 2. Arausicanum can. 25. In so much as the Protestant writer Christopher Hoffman in his Commentaries de paenitentia Printed Hallae Suevorum ex offi●●na Petri Brubaclii, Anno Domini 1540 and greatly commended by Melancthon in his preface thereto, l. 1. fol. 55. b. initio saith, Hieronymus scripsit, anathema esto qui dixerit, Deum impossiblia praecepisse: sed cur non anathema potius Hieronymus, qui tam audacter sentit contra Deum, etc. And see this saying of St. Hierom yet further alleged under his name, and rejected by Luther tom. 2. Wittenberg. fol. 216. b. ant med. where he termeth it, Decretellum humanum è Hieronymo sumptum.  Heretics of those times: The denial of Exorcism and Exufflation used in Baptism, was condemned likewise in 
(r) Aug. de nuptiis & concup●scentia l. 2. c. 29. saith, ●ulianus antiquissimam Ecclesiae traditionem nefario crimine aspergit, qua exorcizantur, & ●ut dixi exufflantur parvuli, & vide Aug. ibid. l. 2. c. 17. & contra Julian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 2.  Julianus the Pelagian: The affirming of concupiscence to be in the Baptised truly sin, and not taken away by Baptism, but (as it were) cast asleep by faith, was condemned in 
(2) Vivente adhuc corpore antequam moriatur necesse est simul vivere peccatum intus in nobis, radices suas abscondens, etc. quare constat contrahi quidem ac sopiri per fidem nunc peccatum, ut ne fructus noxios producat, non tamen radicitus tolli, apud Epiph. haer. 64. ante med. and see the like doctrine renewed by Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 15. sect. 10. and by Melancthon in loc. come. Printed Basileae 1561. pag. 121. initio, & post med. and by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 558. and generally by most Protestants, who deny original sin to be truly remitted in Baptism.  Proclus: The overthrowing of 
[3] Optatus l. 6. contra Donatistas' chargeth the Donatists saying, Quid enim est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei (in quibus & vos aliquando obtulistis) frangere, radere, removere? etc. Quid enim est altar, nisi sedes & corporis & sanguinis Christi? haec omnia furor vester aut rasit, aut fregit, aut removit, etc. Quid vos offenderat Christus cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? Quid vos offendistis, etiam vos ipsi, ut illa altaria frangeretis?  Altars, and casting away of sacred 
[4] Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. ●ubd. 2. in the margin at y saith, Optatus l. 2. contra Donatistas' reporteth, how the heretics caused the (reserved) Eucharist to be thrown to dogs, which dogs thereupon all raging, rend in pieces their Masters, as guilty of the holy body: they also (saith Optatus) threw out of the window (ampullam chrismatis) a vial (or little bottle) of Chrism (or holy Oil) to the intent to break it, the which being stayed by an Angel's hand, God preserving it, light safe among the stones. In like manner of later times doth St. Bernard remember how Malachias cured a lunatic child in confirming him (saith Bernard) with sacred unction: A miracle (saith Holinsh●ad) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, (and thereupon) blown through the world. Hereof see Holinshead his Chronicle of Ireland, the Edition of 1577. in the history thereof next after the description pag. 13 a. lin. ult. & pag. 13. b. lin. 1. and after the last Edition pag. 55. a. lin. 56. and see also St. Bernard in vita Malachiae.  Chrism, was specially condemned in the Donatists: The affirming of Adam to have lost the Image of God after which he was created 
[5] Renewed by Illyricus in lib. de orig. pecc. and so confessed by Mr. Whitaker in respons. ad Camp. rat. 8. pag. 131. ante med. renewed also by Calvin, who l. 1. Institut. c. 16. sect. 4. affirmeth the remain thereof to be nothing but horrenda deformitas, which said horrenda deformitas cannot be the Image of God. And l. 2. Institut. c. 1. sect. 1. he affirmeth expressly of Adam, that obliterata fuit in eo caelestis Imago, Renewed also by Szegedine loc. common. pag. 12. ante med. and by Luther in loc. common. class. 2. pag. 21. post med. where he saith, Similitudinem Dei amisimus; as also Szegedine in his forecited places saith of the Image of God in man, that it was obliterata and amissa.  (renewed since by Illyricus and others) was condemned in the 
[6] At verò quod secundum imaginem est, Adam perdidisse dicit (Epiphanius haer. 64. paulo post initium.) And again: Et vide quòd corruit sermo eorum, qui dicunt Adam id quod secundum Imaginem perdidisse (Epiphan. haer. 70. ante med.)  Originists and others: The denial of Chrism or Confirmation to the Baptised by a Bishop, was condemned in the 
[7] In Eusebius hist. lib. 6. c. 35. post med. it is said of Novatus his being Baptised, Neque caetera, quibus post baptismum secundum Ecclesiae canonem imbui opo●tuerat, acquisivit, neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus suerit, quo quidem neut quam potitus, quomodo quaeso Spiritum sanctum adeptus est? And Theodoret lib. 3. haeret. fab. saith of the Novatians: jis qui ab ipsis tinguntur sacrum Chrisma non praeb●nt, etc.  Novatians: And lastly (to omit sundry others) the denial of the Churches continuing visible, was condemned in the 
[s] Augustin. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 12. reproveth the Donatists as being haeretical; for that (saith he) they used to collect certain places of Scriptures, & ea deto●quere in Ecclesiam Dei, ut tanquam defecisse ac periisse de to●o orbe v●deatur. And allegech yet further the Donatists' words to have then been of the Church (as the Protestants words now are of the Church before Luther's time) Apostatavit & peri●t Ecclesia de omnibus Gentibus (Aug. in Psalm. 101. con. 2.) whereof St. Austin there saith, Hoc dicunt qui in illa non sunt, O impudentem vocem! And Aug. Epist. 170. ad Severin: saith, Facile tibi est attendere, & videre Civitatem supra montem constitutam, de qua Dominus alt in Evangelio, quod abscondi non possit. Ipsa est enim Ecclesia Catholica, unde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graecè appellatur, quod per totum orbem terrarum diffunditur: Hanc g●●●ar● nulli licet, ideo secundum verbum Domin. abscondi non potest, & vide Aug. de unit. Ecclesiae c. 12. & 13. & Epist. 48. ad Vincentium Rogatianum. And de Symbolo l. 4. c. 10. he further saith, Ecclesia totum possidet quod à vi●o suo accepit in dote, quaecunque congregatio cujuslibet ●aeresis in angul●s sedet, concubina est, non matrona, etc.  Donatists and 
[t] Hieron. dial. advers. Luciferanos paulo post medium, & cap. 6. prosecuteth this point at large saying (among much other matter:) Ubi sunt isti nimium prophani, qui plures Synagogas asserunt quam Ecclesias? etc. Si Ecclesiam non habet Christus, aut si in Sardinia tantum habet, nimiùm pauper factus est, etc. (And then he answereth their objections, saying, (Quoth si de illa quae in Evangelio Scripta est sententia, sibi blandiuntur, putasne cum venerit Filius hominis inveniet fidem super terram? Sciant illam fidem nominari, de qua Dominus aiebat, Fides tua te salvum fecit.  Luciferans. And all this done by the sundry Writers who lived in the first 600. years after Christ.  
22. All 
[*] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 16. paulo post initium.  which being as heretofore abundantly proved, not from the Father's obscure say (for that course is in regard of our adversaries bold and endless tergiversation purposely forborn:) but (for their more full convincing) from the only frequent confession of learned Protestants themselves, and those not few, but in number many; neither vulgar, or of mean esteem, but such as be prime and eminent men amongst them: we cannot but with amazement wonder, that any should have a conscience so cauterised, or stand so convict in their own judgement, as with exceeding boldness, and without all forehead, to publish to the world, with no less than solemn Protestation, both in Print and Pulpit, a full and resolute denial of whatsoever is, as heretofore by themselves, so frequently and abundantly confessed, concerning the undoubted antiquity of our Catholic Religion. Alas! what meant Mr. Jewel (a man undoubtedly learned) with such public and solemn acclamation to protest and say, 
[d] Mr. Jewel in his public Sermon at Paul's Cross. And see this also in D. Humphrey, in his Johannis Juelli Angli vita & mors, Printed 1573. pag. 123. post med.  O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierom! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O Dyonyse! O Anacletus! O Calixtus! O Paul! O Christ! if we be deceived, you have deceived us; this you taught us, etc. And again, concerning no fewer than twenty and seven several articles by him specially repeated, to insist, and further say, 
[e] Mr. Jewel in his public Sermon. And see his words alleged by D. Humphrey ubi supra pag. 125. circa med. And in his reply to Mr. Harding fol. 1.  As I said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield and subscribe, if (so) any of our learned adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alives, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old general Council, etc. for the space of six hundred years after Christ, etc. protesting withal, that he affirmeth thus much, not 
[f] See this in D. Humphrey in his foresaid Treatise pag. 123. fine.  as carried away by the heat of zeal, but as moved with the simple truth: whereas 
[*] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 16. paulo ante sinem in the margin at k.  concerning this his pretended appealing to the Fathers, M. D. Humphrey saith of him, that therein, he was injurious to himself, and after a manner spoilt himself, and the Church. And the learned Protestant writer Jacobus Acontius in a special Treatise dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, termeth it, a most pernicious course, and altogether to be avoided. Also Peter Martyr de Caelibatu & votis pag. 462. circa med. signifieth his answerable dislike, saying, Quod ad alterum attinet, de Patrum judicio, quoniam adversarii nostri & in hac causa & in aliis controversiis semper provocare solent ad eos, pronuntio mihi non videri esse hominis Christiani, ad hominum judicia provocare à Scripturis Dei. And pag. 476. post med he saith, Quamdiu consistimus in Conciliis & Patribus, versabimur semper in iisdem erroribus. What also meant Mr. D. Whitaker thus confidently likewise to say thereof to us? 
[g] Whitaker in respons. ad rationes Campiani rat. 5. fine pag. 90. ante med. saith, Audi Campiane, quam ea die Juellus vocem verissimam ac constantissimam emisit, quando ad sexcentorum annorum antiquitatem provocavit, vobisque obtulit, ut si vel unicam, ex aliquo Patre aut Concilio, claram & dilucidam sententiam asterretis, non recusaret quin vobis palmam concederet; ea est nostrûm omnium professio; idem omnes pollicemur; fidem non fallemus.  The speech of Mr. Jewel was most true and constant, when provoking you to the antiquity of the (first) six hundred years, he offered, that if you could show but any one clear and plain saying out of any Father or Council, he would grant you the victory: it is the offer of us all: the same do we all promise, and we will perform it. To which public testimonies thus confidently delivered by Master Jewel, and Mr. Whitaker (men of chief 
[h] Concerning Mr. Jewel, Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 2. sect. 6. pag. 112. prope finem, termeth him, the worthiest Divine that Christendom bred for some hundred of years. Also Lubbertus de principiis Christian. dogmat. l. 1. c. 5. pag. 48. circa med. saith of Mr. Whitaker, Quoth & ante me observavit illud decus Angliae Whitakerus. And concerning them both, they were such eminent men, that their lives were specially written, Mr. Jewels as before by Mr. D. Humphrey, and Mr. Whitakers by Mr. Abdy Ashton in Latin, and Printed at Cambridge 1599  rank and place in our Adversaries Church) might be further added sundry like bold assertions of divers other learned Protestants, who with like pretended vehemency of asseveration have claimed 
[i] Mr. Sutcliff in his examination of Mr. D. kellison's Survey pag. 17. ante med. saith, The Fathers in all points of Faith are for us and not for the Pope. Master Willet in Antilog. etc. pag. 163. saith, I take God to witness, before whom I must render account, etc. that the same Faith and Religion which I defend, is taught and confirmed in the more substantial points by those Histories, Councils, Fathers, that lived within five or six hundred years after Christ. And pag. 264. he blusheth not to say, It is most notoriously evident, that for the grossest Points of Popery, a Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping of Images, Justification by works, the Supremacy of the Pope, prohibition of Marriage, and such other, they (Papists) have no show at all, of any evidence from the Fathers within five hundred years of Christ.  the ancient Fathers to be on their part, not forbearing also to charge us with the unworthy and hateful note of novelism and Innovation. In which their bold demeanour with the Fathers (whereof some few 
[†] See heretofore in this Consideration num. 18. initio in the margin at * their pretending of St. Austin to have denied or rested doubtful of Purgatory. And see Brereley tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 9 throughout, their like pretending of St. Gregory against the Bishop of Rome's then claimed Primacy.  examples are in this Treatise casually mentioned) they have so far proceeded, that they have not doubted to enforce their many testimonies, not only against us, but also (which is exceeding gross) even against the Fathers themselves, and which is most, even one and the same Father against himself. So but in the only question of Traditions (omitting in this hast all examples of other kind) Mr. Whitaker saith of Basil: 
[k] Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag 670. post med.  Secum ipse pugnat, he is contrary to himself. And Lubbertuus saith accordingly, 
[l] Lubbertus de Principiis Christian. dogmat. l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 675. ante med. saith, Oppono Basilium controversum Basilio non controverso; That the Book and the very saying there controverted was most clearly St. Basils, St. Damascen so many ages since in orat. 1. pro imaginibus sufficiently proveth, specially there reciting the very said Book 27. Chapter and particular controverted saying, and all of them under the name of Basil. In so much as almost no Protestant Writer doth deny the said saying to be Basils'.  I oppose Basil against Basil; and of Damascen he saith 
[m] Lubbertus de Principiis Christian. dogmat. pag. 678. fine.  sibi non constat, he is contrary to himself; and of Chrysostom, 
[n] Lubbertus ubi supra pag. 676. paulo post med.  Ego Chrysostomum Chrysostomo oppono, I oppose Chrysostom against Chrysostom. And Mr. Whitaker saith of him, 
[o] Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. circa med.  secum ipse pugnat, he doth vary from himself. Also Mr. Whitaker saith of Cyprian, 
[p] Whitaker ubi supra pag. 686. circa med.  Let us not attend what Cyprian said, but let us examine him by his own Law. And of St. Austin, 
[q] Whitaker ubi supra pag. 690. post med.  although in this place he may be thought to favour Tradition; yet in other places he defendeth earnestly the perfection of the Scriptures. Thus much of certain plain examples given but in this one only question of Traditions: which their incredible boldness towards the ancient Fathers, is to be less marvailed at, seeing they are not abashed to entreat also no less boldly their own Protestant Authors of these very times, enforcedly urging and alleging them against their confessed and known meanings. As in the example of the Lutherans, who are known and confessed to defend the Real being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, 
[r] Hereof see Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hooker, etc. pag. 118. prope finem.  before participation, and present also 
[s] Affirmed by the fifteen Lutheran Divines, as appeareth by their words in the answer made to them, entitled Apolog. modest. ad Acta Conventus quindecim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit. pag. 35. fine, & 48. fine. And see Luther there alleged, affirming the same pag: 36. paulo post med.  to the bodily mouth even 
[t] That the wicked receive truly Christ's body, is affirmed by Jacobus Andraeas in confut. disput. Joan. Jacobi Grinaei pag. 110. circa med. & 115. & 244. initio. And by Chemnitius in his Enchiridion pag. 345. And by Adamus Francisci in Margarita Theologica pag. 260. & 261. and by Marpachius in Peter Martyrs Epistles annexed to his Common places in English pag. 96. a. post med. And see Luther alleged by Peter Martyr in his collections annexed to his Common places in English, and his Treatise there of the Lords Supper pag. 138. a. fine, & b. initio.  of the unworthy receiver. In so much as they 
[u] That the Lutherans do adore the Sacrament during the use thereof, see Chemnitius in his examen. part. 2. pag. 91. b. circa med. and Benedict. Morgenstern tract. de Ecclesia pag. 147. & 149. & 135. & Apolog. modest. ad Acta Conventus quindecim Theologorum Torgae nuper habit. pag. 40. circa med. And Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 335. a. ante med. & Schlusselburg in Catal. haeret. l. 3. pag. 867.  adore it▪ Mr. Fulk is not abashed most boldly and untruly to affirm, that 
[x] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic art. 17. pag. 61. fine.  the Lutherans and Zwinglians do both consent in this, that the body of Christ is received spiritually, not corporally, with the heart, not with the mouth. And to pass over the no less incredible boldness herein of 
[*] M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 42. pag. 170. ante med. saith, Yea I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Ubiquitary Presence, or the like, between the Churches reform by Luther's Ministry in Germany and other places, and those whom some men's malice called Sacramentaries.  M. D. Field, Peter Martyr affirmeth upon report 
(y) Peter Martyr, in his Common places, part. 4. pag. 188. fine.  of credit, that Luther judged not so grossly of this matter, etc. and 
(z) Peter Martyr ibid. pag. 195. b. ant med.  that he in very deed put no other conjunction, but Sacramental, between the body of Christ and the signs. As though the hot tragical 
(a) Of the great contentions concerning the Real presence had between the Lutherans and Zwinglians, see Luc. Osiander in Epitome. cent. Eccles. cent. 16. see l. 2. c. 10. pag. 133, 134, 135, etc. And Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common places pag. 137. b. & 139. a. And Mr. Cowper in his Chronicle fol. 284. b. 290. b. & 370. b. and Mr. Whitaker de Ecclesia pag. 322. and they are yet further notified by the very many writings by them published to the world one against an other, mentioned in Brereley in the last Catalogue of Protestants Books.  contentions had, and yet to this day continued, about the Sacrament, between the Lutherans and Zwinglians, were to the world unknown, or but only a dream or an imaginary fiction. And hence it is, that the Lutherans do grievously complain against our adversaries, 
[b] Gerhardus Giesekenius a Lutheran, in his Book De veritate corpor is Christi in Caena, contra Pezelium pag. 93. so chargeth the Calvinists.  because (say they) that you allege Luther's words against his meaning. Which thing as Luther did in his life time perceive by experience, and grievously thereof 
[c] Lutherus in praefat. in Smalcaldicos articulos extant in Luc. Osiander Epitome. cent. Eccles. cent. 16. pag. 253. saith there pag. 254. citca med. Quid dicam? quomodo querelam instituam? adhuc superstes sum, scribo, conciones habeo, & praelego publicè, & quotidiè, & tamen virulenti homines non tantum ex Adversariis, sed etiam falsi fratres, qui nobiscum sentire se aiunt, mea scripta & doctrinam meam simpliciter contra me adferre, & allegare audent, me vivente, vidente & audiente, eriamsi sciant me aliter docere, & volunt virus suum meo labore exornare, etc. Q●id ergo, bone Deus, post obitum meum siet?  complain; so also did he specially foresee, and a little before his death 
[d] Ibid. next after he saith, Deberem quidem ad omnia respondere, dum adhuc vivo, etc. And the Tigurine Divines in Confess. Orthodox. Eccles. Tigur. tract. 3. fol. 108. allege Luther's Confession made a little before his death, wherein Luther saith, Ego quidem sepulchro vicinus, etc. I that walk now nigh to my grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the Tribunal seat of Christ my Saviour, that I have with all carefulness condemned and avoided those fanatical men and enemies of the Sacrament, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Swinckfeldius and their Scholars, whether they be at Zurick, or in what other place soever, under the Sun.  forewarn against the same. In like manner do the Lutherans charge our Adversaries, for that with like extreme boldness, 
(e) Gerhardus Giesekenius l. de veritate corporis Christi in caena pag. 76. fine saith, Zuinglianam Augustanam Confessionem reddere conantur, sed tam manifestis mendaciis & conspicua falsitate, etc. And see there further pag. 118. ante med. And see in Luc. Osiander in centur. 16. pag. 146. post med. the like or worse complaint against the Zwinglians, concerning the Confession of Augusta. In like manner whereas the Confession of Ausburg was exhibited by the same Divines, and in the same year, and to the same Emperor Charles the V as was the Confession of Augusta, as appeareth by comparing of Luc. Osiander cent. 16. pag. 144. & 145. with the Catalogue of Confessions initio set before the Harmony of Confessions in English, and their doctrine of the Real Presence is delivered in the very same words, as in the Confession of Augusta; Yet Mr. Chatterton, or who else soever was Author of the Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions in English, is not abashed in his observations upon the Confession of Ausburg, to endeavour by his explication, to make it agreeable in sense to Calvinism. And so likewise as is there testified, did the Neustadians in their late admonition, c. 5.  they endeavoured to make the confession of Augusta (which teacheth the Real Presence) to be Zuinglian, that is, against the Real Presence, exclaiming thereat, and saying thereof, 
(f) Gerhardus Giesekenius ubi supra pag. 77. prope initium.  Si haec res, etc. If this thing had been done in Arabia, America, Sardinia, or such like remote Countries, and of former times, this usurpation of fraud and historical falsehood were more tolerable: But seeing (say they) the Question is of such things as be done in our own times, and in the sight of all men, who with a quiet mind can endure such lies? And as thus with the Lutherans; so likewise with our Catholic Writers of this age is our Adversaries like practice no less notorious. To forbear their exceeding boldness in alleging 
(g) See Erasmus and Picus alleged for Protestants in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 2. in the margin at * after o.  Erasmus and Picus Mirandula as Members of their Protestant Church, it is beyond belief, and a very wonderment that M. D. Field (a man otherwise grave and learned) should not be abashed by his public writing so confidently to aver of our so many Christian Catholic Churches dispersed through the world at Luther's first appearing; that they were all of them (saith he) 
(h) D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 76. post med. & 72. aunt med.  the true (Protestant) Churches of God, and that they which (then) believed those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend, were a particular faction only; most directly against that which so many learned Protestants have as from common knowledge most plainly, and fully 
(i) Confessed to the contrary in Brereley tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. at i e. * f. and so forwards, to the end of that subdivision.  confessed to the contrary. By which examples thus given of our Adversaries boldness with their own Protestant and our Catholic writers of this present age, your most excellent Majesty may the more easily conjecture the like boldness in Mr. Jewel, Mr. Whitaker, and others, in their provoking, as before said, to the ancient Fathers.  
Pu. This infamy of Protestants falsifying Authors is acknowledged and confessed by Mr. William Chillingworth, who amongst all the Protestant Divines of England was picked out to defend their cause. This man in his ninth Motive to be a Catholic speaks in this manner: Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications and calumnies, whereof their prime Controversy-writers are notoriously, and in a high degree guilty. And what do you think doth he answer to this his own Motive, after he was turned Protestant. Take it in his own words. Iliacoes intra muros peccatur & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants. To which I answer, that we Catholics for our part may be well content to leave Protestant-writers with the just imputation of gross falsifyers and Calumniators, of which vices he accuses them. But we can give him no commission to utter against us more than he can ever prove, or can have any shadow of truth. For my part, if any Catholic should in matters of Faith and Religion, defend his cause, though in itself good, with falsifications and calumnies, both his book and he would deserve to be purged by fire. Nevertheless I must add, that there is a main difference between Catholics and Protestants in this particular, though our writers were supposed to be as guilty of this crime as he confesseth our Adversaries to be. My reason is clear, because we do not rely either upon our own understanding, for interpreting Scripture, or on the judgement and fidelity of any private person. But Protestants, not believing any infallible public Judge of Controversies, must depend very much on the fidelity of their prime Controversy writers, whom this man first as we have heard affirmed, and now again in his answer to his Motives and after he was turned Protestant confirms, to be notoriously and in a high degree guilty of gross falsifications and calumnies.  
23. Besides all that hath been said, the antiquity of Catholic Religion is proved by the confessed belief and practice of the Primitive Church in the time of Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor 
(*) Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 3.  For it is evident that Constantine 
(e) Civitatem multis templis in honorem Martyrum illustrissimisque aedibus sacris adornavit. Euseb. de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47.  erected Temples in memory of Martyrs, 
(f) Apostolorum templum ad perpetuam illorum memoriam conservandam aedificare caepit. Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4. c. 58. and ibidem cap. 59 it is said, Haec omnia dedicavit Imperator, ut Servatoris nostri Apostolorum memoriam apud omnes gentes aeternitatem compararet. And Bullinger in his Treatise De origine erroris, Printed Tiguri 1539. fol. 102. b. ant med. saith, Constantini Magni tempore juxus & nimius templorum ornatus initia accepit.  dedicated a most sumptuous Church in memory of the Apostles, 
(g) Euseb. de vit. Constantini lib. 4. cap. 60. saith, In opportunum venturae mortis diem hic locum sibi provida dispensatione designavit, etc. ut detunctus quoque precationum quae ibidem essent ad Apostolorum gloriam offerendae, particeps efficeretur.  provided his Sepulchre there, to the end that after his death he might be partaker of the prayers there offered: 
(h) The Centurists cent. 4. col. 452. line 29. say, Constantinus etiam diem festum admodum solemnem ad celebrandam dedicationem Templi indixit, etc.  he celebrated the dedication of the Temple with an yearly festival day: 
(i) Ibidem cent. 4. col. 497. lin. 50. it is said of Constantine: Templorum recens extructorum consecrationes, exornationes superbas, alia que superstitiosa, quorum maximam partem Constantinus excogitavit, & in multis Ecclesias propagavit. This consecration of Churches was anciently done with the sign of the Cross, as St. Augustine serm. 19 de Sanctis testifieth, saying, Crucis charactere Bafilicae dedicantur, altar a consecrantur. And also with sprinkling of holy water: whereof see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 4. and St. Gregory apud Bedam hist. li. 1. c. 30. ante med. and confessed by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Tim. 4. sect. 13. fol. 378. a. prope initium.  He caused Churches new builded to be consecrated, for service therein to be celebrated, it being then usual for 
(†) The Centur. cent. 4. col. 408. lin. 54. say, Christianos in templis nondum consecratis non convenisse clarè indicat Athanasius in Apologia ad Constantium. Of this Conseccation of Churches, see further Concil. 5. Carthag. can. 6. And Gelasius Epist 1. ad Episcopos Lucan●ae can. 27. and Leo Epist. 88 ad Episcopos Germ. & Galbae. ad Concil. 2. Brachar. can. 6. & Concil. 1. Brach. can. 37. & Concil. 2. Spalense can. 7.  Christians to have their assemblies (for public prayers) only in places consecrated. In so much as in avoidance of profane places, 
(k) Tabernaculum Ecclesiae figuram exprimens, cum contra hostes praelio contenderet, secum circumferre consuevit, ad eum finem, uti neque sibi in solitudine vitam agenti, neque exercicui deesset aedes sacra, etc. Nam● Sace●●otes & Diaconi (&c.) tabernaculum assiduè secuti sunt, etc. Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. versus finem.  he carried about with him a portable tabernacle (or Church,) and Priests and Deacons attending it, for celebration of the divine mysteries: 
(l) The Centurists cent. 4. col. 497. lin. 48. s●y, Accensiones candelarum interdiù in templis Constantinus instituit. And col. 410. lin. 7. it is said, Cereas candelas & lampades in locis Conventuum a Constantion ipso accensas interdiù fuisse Eusebius retulit. Of lights in the Church, see further Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 6. and Eusebius hist. l. 6. c. 8. ante med. And Eusebius de vita Constantini●. 4. c. 66. and Hierom contra Vigilantium cap. 3. And Paulinus natal. 3. Felicis saith hereof, Clara coronantur densis altariadychnis (&c.) nocte dieque micant.  He had lights in the Church in the day time; 
[m] H●erom contra Vigilantium ante med. saith, Constantinus Imperator sanctas reliquias, Andraeae, Lucae, & Timothei, transtulit Constantinopolim, apud quas daemones rugiunt. And Bullinger de orig. erroris Printed Tiguri 1539. fol. 67. b. circa med. saith hereof, Nimius est in eo St. Hieron●mus, quod ait ad sanctas Andreae reliquias rugiunt daemons. And ibidem fine Bullinger allegeth and reprehendeth Hierom further saying, Dicit Hieronymus, quod si reliquias Sanctorum transfer & in aureos loculos recondere non licet, saci ilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius, omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi sed & fatui judicandi, qui rem vilissimam & cineres dissolutos in serico & vase aureo portaverunt, etc. whereupon Bullinger inferreth saying, Nolumus sanctis Dei hominibus, Constantino divo, Arcadio sancto, etc. nominis gloriam illustrem obscurare, etc. testimonium illis perhibeo, quod studium Dei habent non secundum scientiam, etc.  He translated to Constantinople the holy Relics of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, at which the Devils did roar; 
[*] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 1529. lin. 28. say, Planè simili superstitione Constantinus reliquias quasdam de Cruce ab Helena reperta Constantinopolim dicitur transtu●sse, ut effet ejus Vrbis conservatrix.  He did also (as the Centurists say) superstitiously translate to Constantinople in conservation of that City, certain Relics of the Cross found by Helen; 
[n] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 457. lin. 56. say, De pereg●nation. bus ad loca sacra caeperunt hoc saeculo primum suo Constantino, loca Terrae sanctae (&c.) in pretio haberi, etc. Helena mater Imperatoris mulier superstitiosa illuc profecta adorand● causa, etc. And Eusebius hist. l. 6. c. 9 saith of one Alexander, who lived 100 years before Constantine. Alexander Hierosolymam tum voti tum jocorum visendorum causa properavit. And see Herom de viris Illustribus in Alexandro. And of like Pilgrimage to Hicrusa●em, even upon Vow, see Palladius in Historia Lausaica c. 113. of Philoromus c. 118. and Hierom Ep. 46. ad Rusticum. And see further mention of yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem in Zozomen. hist. l. 2. c. 25.  under him in that age were pilgrimages to Jerusalem: 
[o] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 704. lin. 10. say, Secunda Synodus apud Arelatum celebrata est Constantin● Imperator is & Silvestritempore circa annum Domini 326. And lin. 21. they repeat the second Canon of that Council to be, Assu● aliquem ad Sacerdotium non posse in vinculo conjug● constitutum, nisi fuerit promissa conversio, non oportet. And see many other like testimonies hereof hereafter in this Consideration v●●sus finem at 98. and see heretofore in the beginning of this Consideration at h. i. k. the doctrine in this behalf of the Fathers of the Nycene Council, whereat Constantine was present.  In his time it was decreed by Council, that Priests might not marry: 
[o] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 467. lin. 8. say, Fuisse ante Constantinum etiam Virgines seu mulieres continentes, & castitatem perpetuam professas, ex libro 4. Eusebii de vita Constantin. apparet, ubi magnopere approbasse disciplinam ejusmodi Imperatorem Constantinum affirmat; adeo ut, & frequenter eorum contubernium adierit. Helenam vero etiam Constantini matrem Hierosolymis Virgines Deo sacras reperisse Socrates testatur l. 1. c. 17. quarum professionem usque adeò probarit, ut ministram illis sese praebuerit, etc. And Euseb us de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 28. saith, Sanctissimum perpetuarum virginum caetum constanter colebat Constantinus, etc. And see Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 9  He honoured sacred Virgins professng perpetual Chastity: 
[q] The Centurists cent. 4. col. 1294. lin. 53. begin a special Tract, the title whereof is, Monachi per Syriam, Palestinam, Bithyniam, & reliqua Asiae loca sub Constantino magno, whereof they give there many examples.  Under him were Monks throughout Syria, Palestine, Bithyma, and the other places of Asia, also 
[r] Centur. 4. col. 1306. line 18. they begin another like Tract, whereof the title is; Africani Monachi per Aegyptum sub Constantino magno  throughout.; afric. And 
[s] See the Centurists cent. 4. col. 470. line 40. and in Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 13. initio it is said, Antonium magnum illum monachum in solitudinibus Aegypti-magna cum nominis & famae celebritate vitam degentem, Constantinus Imperator propter ejus virtutis splendorem sibi amicum fecit, literas honorificè scriptas ad eum missit.  he greatly reverenced., Antony the Monk, whose most religious and austere 
[*] Zozomen, hist. l. 1. c. 13. prope initium saith of Antony, Erat ei cibus panis solùm & fall: potus autem aqua, tempus prandii solis occasus, saepenumero ad biduum & amplius cibo abstinuit, vigilabat semper fere integras noctes, & usque dum lucesceret precari non destitit; quod si quando somnum capiebat, illam super parvam stoream cepit; non rarò autem humi jacens, ipsa terra pro cubili usus est. And see all this confessed by Osiander in epitome. & cent. 4. pag. 100 Whereto he further addeth, Vestimentum ejus (ut alii referunt) interius erat cilicium, exterius verò animalis pellis, etc. ad montem sublimem habitaculum suum constituit, etc. erat autem cellula in qua habitabat Antonius, non plus mensurae per quadram tenens, quàm homo dormiens extendi poterat, etc.  life Protestant's term 
[t] Osiander in Epitome: cent. 4. c. 2. pag. 100 paulo post med. saith, Vita Antonii non caret multiplici superstitione. And see further there pag. 102. post med. and see the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1313. line 45. See his monastical strict life reported by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1315. line 44. and his confessed miracles ibid. col. 493. line. 20. Which his miracles were so many, that Athanasius wrote a special Book of his life (teste Socrate hist. l. 1. c. 17. initio.)  superstitious: 
[2] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 14. versus finem saith hereof, Ab omni licentia & vitae ratione luxu diffluente sese vocavit, inedia & corporis afflictione se●psum coercuit, etc.  He chastised his body with fasting and other bodily affliction; 
[3] Chrysostom. in Ep. 2 Cor. hom. 26. versus finem saith hereof, Nam & ipse, qui purpuram indutus est, accedit illa amplexus sepulchra, & lastu deposito stat Sanctis supplicaturus, ut pro se ad Deum intercedant. And see the same also in Chrysostom ad pop. hom. 66. versus finem.  He went to embrace the Sepulchre of Peter and Paul, humbly praying to those Saints that they would be intercessors for him to God; 
[u] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 2. saith of Constantine. A que interdum vultum salutari illa passionis signavit nota. And see the same confessed and so translated by D. Abbots in his answer to D. Bishop pag. 168. initio.  He signed his face with the sign of the cross; 
[x] Eusebius in orat. de laudibus Constantini ante med. saith, Imperator (Constantinus) triumphale signum honorat. And Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. fine saith of Constantine: Sanctae cruci plurimum tribuit honoris, tum propter subsidia in bello contra hostes gerendo ex ejus virtute sibi illata, tum propter divinam sibi de ea oblatam visionem; And see there cap. 4. And Prudentius in Apotheosi doth accordingly affirm this usage of the ancient Emperors, saying thereof, Vexillumque Crucis summus dominator adorat. In so much as Szegedinus in his Speculum Pontificum pag. 229. saith, Crux honorari caepit tempore Constantini. And see the like practice hereof in Conwal King of Scotland reported by Holinshead in his Chronicle of Scotland, after the first Edition Printed 1577. pag. 136. and after the later Edition pag. 107. a. line 69.  Honoured the same sign; 
[y] Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. as next before at x. And Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 2. c. 7. saith, Jam in qua parte istud Crucis vexillum visum fuit, hosts fugam capere, victores persequi: qua re intellecta Imperator sicubi partem aliquam sui exercitus languentem cernebat, ibi salutare illud vexillum tanquam quoddam subsidium ad victoriam obtinendam locari mandavit, cujus adjumentis extemplò parta est victoria, quip dimicantium vires divina quadam potentia fuere admodum confirmatae.  Had affiance and success of victory in the virtue thereof, and 
[z] Hereof see Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 1. c. 25. & l. 2. c. 3. & l. 3. c. 48.  erected it publicly; He 
[a] Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 9 post med. saith, Jussit Constantinus, etc. ut Conciliorum decisiones firmae & immutabiles existerent.  ordained that the Decrees of Councils should be kept firm and inviolable; 
[b] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 10. fine saith, Cum parva quaedam sella ex auto fabricata illi esset loco posita, non prius consedit quam Episcopi ad id innuissent. And Theodoret l. 1. hist. c. 7. circa med. saith, Illo ipse Imperator postremus cum paucis se comitantibus ingressus est (&c.) deinde sella in medio posita (istud enim sibi permitti ab Episcopis postulaverat) consedit. And the Century writers cent. 4. col. 460. line 31. say, Ac notum est quam reverentiam & observantiam Episcopis habuerit in Synodo Nicena ●●●bi nec confidere prius quàm Episcopi annuissent, voluit. And Carrion in Chro●●●●. pag. 274. post med. saith hereof, Assedit Constantinus inter Episcopos sede non altiore.  He would not sit down at the Council of Nyce, till the Bishops had thereto given him there assent: 
[c] Crispin us in his Book of the State of the Church pag. 99 prope finem saith hereof, Constantine said, God hath ordained you Bishops, and hath given you power to judge of yourselves; by means whereof we yield ourselves to your judgement. Men may not judge you, but God alone. And in Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 16. post med. Constantine saith, Mihi vero non est fas, cum homo sim, ejusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare, etc. And see further hereof Ruffinus hist. l. 10. c. 2. And St. Austin tom. 2. Ep. 166. circa med.  He would not undertake the Judgement of Church causes, but committed the same over to Bishops; 
[*] The Century writers, cent. 4. col. 702. line 18.  he procured the Synod at Arles, in which the Roman Bishops authority is so far forth acknowedged, as that 
[†] Osiander in Epitome. etc. centur. 4. pag. 182. fine.  for the uniform observation of Easter day 
[§] Concil. 1. Arelatense can. 1. apud Osiandrum ubi supra, where it is said, De observatione Paschae Domini (constitutum est in hac Synodo) ut uno die & tempore per omnem orbem observetur, & juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas. This was the Councils Petition to Pope. Silvester.  throughout the whole world, he should direct forth his letters, and that according to the former custom; so far was such his authority from being then first begun. In so much as it is yet further said of Constantine, that he 
[4] Mr. Napper in his Treatise upon the Revelations dedicated to King James, for the supposed worthiness thereof reprinted at London Anno 1594. pag. 145. fine saith, After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constantine subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Silvester, from which time till these our days the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church. And see further there 43. versus finem. And see next hereafter in this Consideration at 111. in the margin.  subdued all Christian Churches to the Pope, 
(5) Frigevillaeus Gauvius in his palma Christiana ad Serenissimam Reginam Angliae pag. 35. post med. saith, Per quod nomen designatus fu●t Episcopus Romanus & Constantinopolitanus, quos Constantinus magnus prae caeteris praeferebat, tribuens Romano Primatum ante omnes.  attributed Primacy to the Roman Bishop before all: being therefore charged 
(6) Ibid. pag. 34. fine he further saith, Ex eo apparet fatale suisse ut Constanti●●s daret potestatem Bessiae, quam statim Julius exercuit: nam etiam Conrtantinus magnus ferebat arma draconis in insigniis suis, (etc.) ita ut ipse sit Draco qui dedit potestatem best●ae, & typus Draconis serpentis antiqui, qui Bestiae potestatem dedit Apoc. 13.2.  fatally to have given power to the beast. 
(d) The Centurists cent. 4. col. 653. line 26. report this opinion of Acesius signisied to the Emperor to be: ad paenitentiam quidem admoneri (homines) spem verò remissionis non à sacerdotibus, sed ab ipso Deo expectare, qui possit & potestatem habeat remittere peccata. Cum haec Acesius dixisset, subjunxit Imperator, pone scalam o Acesi, & solus ascend in caelum. Socrates l. 1. c. 7. And see this error of the Novatians further confuted by Ambrose. And Pacianus alleged heretofore in this Consideration num. 21. in the margin at g.  He reproved Acesius the Novatian for denying the power given Priests to remit sin, under pretence 
(*) Vbi supra.  that God only remitteth sin. Of 
[7] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 45.  his Priests (or Clergy by him assembled to the Dedication of the Temple, not only) some of them did preach and interpret the holy Scriptures (but also) others of them who could not so do, appeased the Deity with unbloody 
[*] Alii qui etc. horum nihil poterant officere, incruentis consecrationibus divinum Numen placabant, & supplices Deo preces offerebant pro communi pace, pro Ecclesia Dei, ipsoque Imperatore, etc. By these Unbloody Sacrifices and mystical consecrations thus particularly distinguished, as several from the foresaid Preaching and prayer, cannot be understood other than the said Priests celebration of the blessed. Sacrament, as is plainly acknowledged by D. Abbots in his answer to D. Bishop's Epistle to the King pag. 183. ante med. & 184. paulo post med. Which in regard of the then external oblation thereof by those sundry Priests, Eusebius termeth Unbloody Sacrifices, so thereby distinguishing the same, in manner of Oblation, from Christ's other bloody oblation upon the Cross; according to which sense it is often by the other Fathers termed the Unbloody Sacrifice, as by chrysostom in Psalm. 95. Athanasius alleged heretofore in this Consideration Num. 3. at * next after h. in the margin. Cyril: Alexand: in interpretatione Anathemat: 11. Nazianzen orat. funeb. in Basilium, and orat. 1. in julianum. In so much as they are therefore reproved by Calvin in Epist. ad Haebr. c. 9 vers. 26. pag. 946. b. fine. & 947. a initio. So that if unto these Unbloody Sacrifices thus mentioned by Euschius, we do add the foresaid appeasing of God thereby (by him also mentioned) we do then hereby find, not only Sacrifice, but also propitiatory Sacrifice.  Sacrifices, and mystical Consecrations, and prayed for the health of the Emperor. At 
[8] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 61.  the time of his last sickness he intended to expiate his sins by efficacy of the holy mysteries, and the imtiation of the healthful lavar (of regeneration at those times purposely) 
[†] Osiander in epitome: etc. cent. 4. pag. 248. ante med. saith: Veteres Baptismum distulisse videntur, etc. ut deinde Baptisma suscipiendo universa delicta simul abluerent.  deferred; and so 
[9] Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 4. c. 61. it is said: Humi procumbens genibus in ipsa Martyrum aede errata sua confessus, etc. And of Confession made to the Priest long before these times, see heretofore in this Consideration num. 9 at 10.  prostrating himself upon his knees, confessed his sins in the house of of the Martyrs; and thereupon received 
[10] Eusebius ubi supra.  imposition of hands. 
[e] Centur. 4. col. 454. line 26. it is said: Turba frequens preces cum fletu pro anima imperatoris fudit● And see Eusebius de vita Constant: l. 4. c. 71.  After his death prayer was made for his soul, and the mystical 
[f] Eusebius ubi supra saith: Adhuc quidem licet contemplari ter beatae animae tumulum (&c.) divinis ceremoniis & mystico sacrificio sanctarumque precationum societate perfrui.  Sacrifice offered  
And 
[*] In the brief discourse of the Church's Estate etc. annexed to Crispinus his book of the Estate of the Church, it is affirmed, how that about the end of this period (which continued until Constantine) the love of solitude and monkery, the abstinence from marriage and from certain meats on particular days, many seasts and other seeds of superstition after succeeding, took a marvelous root: so the commencement of Prayer for the dead, and Sacrifice of the Mass did discover themselves, etc.  as concerning the Church's doctrine of that age, it was in like manner so evidently our now professed Catholic faith, that to forbear much other particular proof, and what is by certain our other adversaries confessed in this behalf, the Century-writers of Magdeburge, whose writings are by our English Protestant's affirmed to be 
[11] So saith M. Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi pag. 21. fine.  An excellent work, and 
[g] So saith M. D. Hill in his defence of the article that Christ descended into Hell fol. 23. b. post. med.  worthy of immortal memory, in their fourth Century by them dedicated to Queen Elizabeth (in which they specially undertake to deliver to her Highness 
[12] The Centurists cent. 4. in Epist. dedicatoria Serenissimae Reginae ac Dominae Elizabethae etc. prope finem, say to the Queen concerning that fourth Century: Redit hic Constantinus jam ad te adferens statum ejus Ecclesiae quae suo tempore totum Orbem suo splendore illustravit, etc. And there again: Non dubitavimus Constantini Britannici Ecclesiasticas res tuae Majestati jucundissimas atque acceptissimas fore.  that state of the Church which in Constantine's time illustrated the whole world) do profess to 
[h] Centur: 4. col. 287. line 16. the title there of that special Tract is, Inclinatio Doctrinae complectens peculiares & incommodas opiniones, ●●ipulas & errores Doctorum.  set down the peculiar (supposed) errors of the Doctors of those times, and do join with others in charging sundry of them severally and respectively with some or other particular opinions by collection from their own writings, which in general are as followeth, namely with 
[i] Centur. 4. col. 291. line 7. it is said, Patres omnes ferè hujus aetatis de libero arbitrio consusè loquuntur. And immediately after they do there recite and reject the particular say of Lactantius, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Hierom, etc.  Freewill, 
[k] Cent. 4. col. 292. & 293. there under the titles de Justificatione, and de bonis operibus.  justification by works, 
(l) Ibid. col. 293. throughout, and there line 59 where they conclude, saying, Jam cogiter pius Lector quam procul haec aetas in hoc articulo de Apostolorum doctrina desciverit. And see Osiander cent. 4. pag. 102. post med. & 506. aunt med. & pag. 520. circa med. & 430. aunt med. & pag. 70. prope finem.  Merit of works, 
(m) Centur. 4. col. 425. line 54. it is said, Ad hoc Praesbyterium aliquem, etc. deputarunt, ad quem qui deliquerunt accedentes quae gessissent confiterentur, etc. ea lege confitentes absolvebat, ut à se ipsi paenas commissorum exigerent. And see there col. 426. line 10. And see next heretofore at 9  Confession of sins to a Priest, and 
(*) Concerning enjoined Penance ut supra: and see further Centur. 4. col. 834. line 14. & col. 868. line 56.  enjoined Penance, 
[§] Centur. 4. col. 425. ut supra, and col. 834. lin. 60. mentioneth Reconciliationem per manus impositionem: and see col. 878. line 5. and line 16.  Absolution of such as had confessed (given) with imposition of the hand: also with affirming 
[¶] Centur. 4. col. 1245. line 33. and see Calvin institut. l. 4. c. 19 sect. 17.  Penance to be the second table after shipwreck, and error 
[⁋] Centur. 4. col. 294. line 1. it is said, Paenitentiam haec aetas ut ferè & superiores neque recte definiit, neque partes ejus satis explicavit, etc. And col. 231. line 12. it is said, Doctrinam paenitentiae (&c.) satis tenuiter & frigidè (&c.) quemadmodum & in superioribus saeculis tractatam videas ab hac aetate.  in the doctrine of penance: with 
[†] See centur. 4. col. 299. line 55. and see this further more plainly confessed in sundry Fathers of this age, and the age before, alleged heretofore in this Consideration num. 12. at 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.  unwritten traditions, 
[n] Centur. 4. col. 295. under the title there de Invocatione Sanctorum, & col. 296, 297. are recited and rejected the particular say of Basil, Ambrose, Prudent●us, Ephrem, Athanasius. And see the sundry Fathers of this age and other precedent ages confessed and rejected heretofore in this Consideration num. 7.  Invocation of Saints, 
[o] Centur. 4 col. 304. under the title there de Purgatorio, where are recited and rejected the say of Lactantius, and Hierom, and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 18. throughout.  Purgatory, 
[p] Centur. 4. col. 409. line 15. it is said, Aras in templis suisse id quoque hujus saeculi Historia testan●ur etc. verùm haec etiam consuetudo à Judaica in Ecclesiam Christi permanavit, etc. And see heretofore in this Consideration n. 3. at 6, 7, 10, 11.  Altars 
(*) Nazianzen in Julianum mentioneth altaria à purissmo & incruento Sacr●ficio nomen habentia. And St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 10. Erigimus altaria in quibus sacrificemus uni Deo, etc. And Gildas de excidio Britan. c. 26. calleth the Altar, Sacrificii caelestis sedem. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 3.  so called of Sacrifice thereon offered, and 
(13.) Aug. serm. 19 de Sanctis saith, Crucis charactere Basilicae dedicantur, altaria conscerantur. Of Consecration of Altars, see Gregory Nyssen de S. Baptism. And Concil. 2. Spalense can. 7. & Concil. 1. Bracharense can. 37. & Concil. 1. Hipponense can. 5. dist. 1. c. altaria, & Concil. 3. Aurelianese can. 15. And Aug. de tempore serm. 255.  Consecrated with the sign of the Cross, and 
(14) Concil. Agathense can. 14. saith, Altar placuit, non solum unctione chrismatis, sed etiam sacerdotah benedictione sacrary, in quo nobis divina sacrificia consecrantur. And before all these, Dionysius Arcopagita de Eccles. Hieratch c. 4. saith, Divini Altaris consecrationem sanct●ssimorum mysterium lex sanctissimi unguenti castissimis infusionibus perficit.  Chrism, and called also 
(15) The Centurists cent. 4. col. 409. line 26. and Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 4. pag. 226. a. initio, reprehend Optatus for saying, Quid est altar, nisi sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi, etc. cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? And Gildas de excidio Britan. c. 26. calleth the Altar, Sacrificii caelestis sedem, & Ambrose l. 5. de sacram. c. 2. saith, Quid est enim altar, nisi forma corporis Christi? & l. 4. c. 2. fine he saith, Forma corporis altare est, & corpus Christi est in altari. And Hesichius in Leviticum l. 2. c. 8. saith, Est autom locus sanctus altar, ibi enim Sanctus Sanctorum requiescit.  the seat of the body and blood of Christ, with 
[*] See this point of real presence confessed in the writings of Ambrose and in Cyril, heretofore in this Consideration n. 2. at 4.5.  real presence, and 
[q] See confessed testimonies for Transubstantiation alleged by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 109. line 3. & line 40. & col. 985. line 30. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 1, 2, 3, 6, 11.  transubstantiation, with 
[16] Cyril. Hierosolym it: (who lived in this age) Catech. 5. prope finem saith hereof, Take heed lest any thing of it fall from thee, & Mr. Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol and answer to Sanders, in answer hereto termeth it a mere superstitious precept, pag. 687. post med. And Austin l. 50. homiliarum hom. 26. saith, Quanta follicitudine observamus, quando nobis corpus ministratur, ut nihil de ipso in terram cadat. Tertullian in libro de corona militis saith, calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxiè patimur. And Origen hom. 13. in Exodum saith, You that are accustomed to be present at the divine mysteries, do know that when you receive the body of our Lord, you do with all wariness and reverence take heed that no little thereof fall down.  care (more than was than had concerning the water of Baptism) that no part of the Sacrament should fall down to the ground, with 
[17] Of reservation see centur. 4. col. 427. line 45. & col. 430. line 2. And see ●●re●osore in tins' Consideration num. 2. at 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.  reservation of the Sacrament with 
[*] Chemnitius in his examen. part. 2. pag. 92. allegeth the several say of Austin, Ambrose and Nazianzen (all of them living in this Century) affirming in his opinion, the adoration of the Sacrament, and he reprehendeth there for their denial thereof the Calvinists, by the express term of Sacramentaries. And whereas Nazianzen orat. 11. quae est de Gorgonia sorore, telleth how his diseased Sister prostrated herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who is worshipped on it, o miracle (saith he) she departed presently receiving health; M. Fulk in respons. ad Stapletonium de successione Ecclesiastica pag. 230. circa med. trifleth in his answer hereinto, being enforced to say, Eucharistia in altarinon fuit ab ea adorata quamvis in magna reverentia, & fortasse non sine superstitione habita. And Ambros. in orat. praepar. ad Missam is so plain in this point, that the Centurists centur: 4. col. 430. line 52. do therefore reprove those prayers of Ambrose, saying, Continent adorationem panis in Sacramento. And so likewise saith M. Perkins in his probiem. etc. pag. 21. initio, and Crispinus in his book of the Church pag. 87. fine, and yet are those prayers acknowledged and alleged for the writings of Ambrose by M. Bilson in his true difference, etc. part. 4. pag. 622. circa med.  worshipping of it, and special words of invocation prescribed when the Sacrament was 
[†] S. Basil de spiritu Sancto c. 27. alleging unwritten traditions, saith, Invocationis verba dum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae & poculum benedictionis, quis scripto reliquit? See this saying acknowledged and but weakly put off by M. Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol, etc. pag. 685. post. med.  showed: with receiving it 
[¶] See this heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. in the margin at 32. & 33.  fasting and 
⁋ See this heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. in the margin at 35. & 36. And see also the same further confessed in Osianders' Epitome. etc. centur: 4. pag. 180. fine  chaste. with 
[18] See the sundry Fathers who lived some of them in Constantine's times, others next after his time, others before his time, confessedly in this question of Sacrifice heretofore in this Consideration num. 3 next after 12. at *. ¶. §. g. h. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 17. in the margin at t.  offering of it in sacrifice to God, as being propitiatory, not only 
[§] See this heretofore in this Consideration num. 3. fine at * next after h. confessed in sundry Fathers of this age and the age before, by Andraeas Crastovius a learned Calvinist. Also Basil in Liturgia prayeth, ut digni simus offerre tibi rationabile istud & incruentum Sacrificium pro nostris peccatis & populi ignorantia. And Cyprian de Caena Dom: prope initium saith, Quotiescunque his verbis & hac fide actum est, panis iste substantialis & calix solemni benedictione sacratus, ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit, simul medicamentum & holoc●ustum existens ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates.  for the living, but also 
[r] Hospinianus in historia Sacramentaria lib. 2. pag. 167. initio saith of cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the beginning of this Century: Dicit Cyrillus pro sui jam temporis recepta consuetudine sacrificium altaris maximum Juvamen esse animarum. So common was this doctrine in Cyrills' time; See Cyrils saying hereof in Catech. 5. Mystagog: And see the saying of Ambrose therein rejected Centur: 4. col. 295. line 3. and also Cyprian and Tertullian cent. 3. col. 138. line 56. & 139. line 6. and Osiander of Tertullian cent. 3. pag. 10. Also S. Austin l 9 Confess: c. 12. affirmeth that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his Mother Monica, being dead. And in Enchirid c. 110. he saith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur: affirming there further, that the sacrifices of the Altar or of alms which be offered for the dead, are thanksgiving for those that be very good (or in heaven) and propitiations for those that be not very evil (or not in hell) affirming (else where de verbis Apost: serm. 34.) that the universal Church doth observe as delivered from our forefathers, that for those who are dead in the communion of Christ's body and blood, when in time of sacrifice they be remembered in their places, prayer is made for them (ac pro illis id quoque offerri commemoretur) and (besides this prayer) for them also it is remembered that the Sacrifice be ostered: In so much as S. Austin is herein rejected by Hutterus l. de Sacrificio Missatico pag. 525. fine. See also this point confessed in Austin and many other Fathers heretofore in this Consideration num. 4. at k. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 17. in the margin under t. And see also Bullinger in his decades in English pag. 1082. a. post. med.  for the dead; with affirming it to be 
[s] So it is affirmed to be by Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 3. and by S. Austin de Civitate Dei l. 16. c. 22. & lib. 17. c. 5. fine, etc. 20. & l. 18. c. 35. circa med. and in Psalm. 33. con. 2. and see this point accordingly confessed by Andraeas Crastovius l. 1. de opificio Missae pag. 28. & pag. 58. & 102. & 171. And see M. Fulk against Heskins pag. 100 circa med. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 17. in the text.  a Sacrifice, according to the Order of Melchisedech, with special 
[19] See the Century-writers Cent. 4. col. 662. line 2. & col. 703. line 36. & col. 705. line 31.  liberty for Deacons to distribute it, but not to offer it (so distinct than was distribution from the offering thereof;) with terming it 
[20] Centur. 4. col. 878. line 12, & 13.  the viaticum for such as were sick, with 
(21) Hieron: in Epist. ad Theophilum Alexand●inum ante libros paschales mentioneth sacros calices, sanctaque velamina ex consortio corporis & sanguinis Domini, eadem qua corpus eju & sanguis majestate veneranda.  holy cover (or corporals) holden venerable by reason of their accompanying (or touching) the Body and Blood of our Lord, and 
(22) The Centurists cent. 4. col. 835. line 46● and Osiander in Epitome: cent. 4. pag. 391. initio, and see Council Agathense Can. 66. & Concil. Laodicen. Can. 21. & Concil. 1. Bracharense can. 18. And Greg. Nyss●n in orat. de Baptismo, where he saith, Altate hoc sanctum cui assistimus, etc. quoniam Dei cultui consecratum atque dedicatum est, ac benedictionem accepit (&c.) non amplius ab omnibus, sed à solis sacerdotibus contrectatur. And see Nazianzen in orat. de seipso contra Arianos initio.  holy vessels, which Subdeacons' (and lay persons) might not touch: with careful committing 
[23] Centur. 4. col. 490. line 57  of the holy Chalice to the Priest's custody; with 
[24] Centur. 4. col. 835. line 45. the Laodicen Council is alleged saying, can. 21. Non oportet subdiaconos licentiam habere in sacrarium ingredi & contingere vasa Dominica. And see further mention of this Vestry in Concil. 4 Ca●thag. can. 36. and in Concilio Agathensi can. 66. And in Ambrose l. 1. Offic. c. 50. alleged by the Centurists centur. 4. col. 409. line 40. and see Osiander in Epitome. cent. 5. pag. 391. initio, reproving this.  a Vestry (or place wherein Holy things were laid) into which Subdeacons' might not enter; with 
[25] Cent. 4. col. 480. line 35. & col. 428. lin. 40. & col. 429. line 3. & col. 868. line 32. & col. 871. line 48. And see heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 26, 27, 28.  mixture of Water with Wine in the Chalice, in time of Consecration: Also with the 
[26] Centur. 4. col. 421. line 46. And see this more plainly also heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 3.  sign of the Cross in Baptism, with 
[27] See these at large expressed in Cent. 4. col. 417, 418, & 419.  Abrenuntiation, Exorcism, Anneyling, threefold immersion, and sundry other like Ceremonies used in Baptism; with holding That 
[28] Cent. 4. col. 239. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 7, 8.  Infants dying unbaptised are not saved; with 
[29] Centur. 4. col. 415. line 25. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 9  Baptism of Lay-people in case of necessity; with 
[30] Cent. 4 col. 1160. line 53. & col. 1161. line 2. & col. 1243. line 39 and col. 934. line 29. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at 2. *.  Remission of Sins (not signified but truly) given in Baptism; with 
[31] Cent. 4. col. 415. line 44. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 8. at §. next after 3. Also St. Ambrose de mysteries initiat. c. 3. post med. saith, Aqua cum fuerit mysterio crucis consecrata, etc. And St. Austin de Sanctis serm. 19 saith, Crucis mysterio fons regenerationis consecratur. And the like consecration of the water of Baptism with the sign of the Cross he affirmeth in Evan. Joan. tract. 118.  Consecration of the water of Baptism; with 
[32] Centur. 4. col. 423. line 4. & col. 837. l. 20. & col. 478 line 17. where it is aid, Baptizatiab Episcopis signabantur & chrismate inungebantur. And see here line 27. and see heretofore in this Consideration n. 8. at t. u. x.  The Bishops firming of the baptised with Chrism; with reservation or 
[33] See cent. 4. col. 420. line 10. where it is said, Chrisma in ampulla conservari solitum indicat Optatus.  keeping of Chrism in a Box; with 
[34] Cent. 4. col. 865. line 43. & col. 503. line 8. & col. 1274. line 44. & col. 869. line 14. Os Consecration of Chrism by a Bishop, see further Concil. 1. Bracharense Can. 37. and Concil. Romanum sub Silvestro can. 5. and Concil. 2. Carthag. can. 3. and Concil. 3. Carthag. can. 36. & Concil. 4. Carchag. can. 36. and Concil. Vasense can. 3. and Concil. 1. Toletan. can. 20. and Concil. 2. Hispalense can. 7. and Damasus Ep. 4. de Corep scopis, and Leo Ep. 88 ad Episcopos Germaniae & Galliae, and Innocentius Ep. 1. ad Decentium cap. 3. and before all these Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. not far from the end.  Consecration of Chrism by a Bishop only; with 
[35] Centur. 4. col. 456. line 33. & col. 457. throughout, & 482. line 44. & col. 1446. line 17. and see heretofore in this Consideration in the beginning of num. 23. at m. & see Chemnitius his examen. part. 4. pag. 10. a.  Solemn Translation of Saints Relics, and their 
[36] Centur. 4. col. 602. line 54. & 1250. line 45. & col. 457. line 49. and Chemnitius ubi supra. And St. Hierom. contra Vigilant. c. 3. affirmeth this estimation of Relics to be in his time the received doctrine (saith he) non unius Urbis sed totius Orbis.  worship; with reverend 
[37] See this in Zozomen. hist. l. 5. c. 8. Ambrose Ep. 85. ad sororem. Hierom. contra Vigilant. c. 3. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. & serm. 11. de Sanctis, & Concil. 5. Caithag. can. 14, and Concil. African. can. 50.  placing of Saints Relics under the Altar; with 
[38] Chemnitius examen. part. 4. pag. 10. b. ant med. saith, Suscipiebant etiam peregrinationes ad loca ubi reliquias miraculis celebres & claras audiebant. And see Osiander in Epirom. etc. cent. 4. pag. 393. post med. And centur. 4. col. 457. line 57  Pilgrimage to them, and to such like other holy places, oftentimes made by 
[39] Chemnitius examen. part. 4. pag. 10. a post med. saith, Apud Augustinum in translatione reliquiarum Stephani, mulier caeca illuminata est: & aliquando quaedam miracula ad reliquias edebantur. etc. And the Centurists cent. 4. col. 457. line 47. say, Si Ambrosio credimus, aegri enim qui vestes Sanctorum manu contigissent, sanabantur, obsessi liberabantur, etc. And see many examples hereof in St. Augustin de Civit Dei l. 22. c. 8.  diseased persons, who were thereupon (miraculously) cured: and the same so credibly reported, as Master Whitaker dare not rest in denial thereof; with 
(41) In cent. 4. col. 409. line 42. are alleged many examples hereof.  images in the Church, 
(40) Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med. saith hereof, Nec illa miracula vana fuisse puto, quae in Martyrum monumentis facta narrantur.  with 
[42] Cent. 4. col. 410. line 11. And see heretofore in this Consideration in the beginning of this num. 23. at l.  lights in the Church in day time, with Anchorets, 
[43] Cent. 4. col. 470. line 20. under the title there de Eremitis. And Anchorets col. 474. line 50. of whom it is said, Anachoretae soli habitabant per deserta, & ab eo quod procul ab hominibus recesserunt nuncupantur.  Eremites, 
[44] Cent. 4. col. 488. line 27. And see Concil. Agathense can. 38.  Abbots and 
(45) Cent. 4. col. 300. line 39 & col. 301. line 46. & col. 464 line 9 under the title de Monach. & 465.  Monks; their vowed 
(46) Centur. 4. col. 300. line 52. & col. 301. line 48. & col. 466. line 19 And in the Council of Chalcedon can. 16. it is said, Si qua Virgo se dedicaverit Deo, similiter Monachus, non licere eis jungi nuptiis, etc. in so much as this Council is therefore reproved by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. pag. 62. And by Osiander cent. 5. pag. 359. in can. 15. & 16.  Chastity, 
(47) Centur. 4. col. 301. line 29. & 39 & col. 464. line 58. where it is said, Apparet monasticen professuros facultates suas prius distribuisse, oportet (inquit Basilius) monachum ante omnia id vitae genus amplecti, ut nihil possideat. And see St. Austin Ep. 89. ad Hilarium 4. quaest. And see heretofore in this Censideration num. 21. at e. f.  voluntary poverty, 
(48) Centur. 4. col. 471. line 23. where it is said of them, Nec pane, nec obsoniis vescentes, neque vinum bibentes. And col. 474. line 15. where it is said, Alii à volucribus abstinent, utuntur ovis & piscibus: alii etiam à pi● cibus abstinent, caseo verò vescuntur; alii autem neque caseum sumunt; jam verò adhuc alii etiam à pane abstinent, etc. And col. 475. line 42. it is said, Vivitur pane, leguminibus, & oleribus, que sale solo condiuntur. And see Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. prope initium, and Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. and Epiphanius haer. ult. prope finem.  great abstinence from Wine, Flesh, and certain other meats; their enclosing or muring up of themselves 
(49) Hereof see Osiander in Epitome. cent. 4. pag. 100 fine, & pag. 440. post med. and Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. paulo post initium saith, Se separatim in aediculas concludunt, quae tantum habent latitudinis altitudinisque, ut in illis, neque corpore erecto consistere, neque s● liberè inclinare possint. And see the like in Zozomen. hist. l. 3. c. 13. circa med. and see like mention of Monks cells in Concilio Agathensi can. 38. in Zozomen. hist. l. 6. c. 31. initio, in Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 21. & 36. & 43. & 69. & 109. and in Theodoret in his Theophil. cap. 2, 3, 4, 9, 15. and Evagrius hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. maketh mention of one Simeon dwelling in a pillar, & see centur. 4. col. 465. line 19 alleging it out of Nazianzen.  in Cells, their other wonderful austerity of life, 
[50] Centur. 4. col. 474. line 22. it is said, Multi vero etiam humi dormiunt, alii neque calceamenta induunt, alii saccum gestant occultum, and see the same in Epiphanius haer. ult. fine. And see centur. 4. col. 465. line 19 of their going barefoot, out of Nazianzen.  in going barefoot, lying upon the ground, wearing sackcloth, etc. their 
[51] See this Cowl mentioned cent. 4. col. 472. line 20. where is mentioned tegumentum quoddam capitis, quod cuculium dixerint. And see further mention hereof in Zozomen. l. 3. c. 13. ante med. and in Ambrose serm. 94. who mentioneth their cowl and leather girdle.  cowl, 
[52] Ambrose ut supra, and in the Centurists cent. 4. col. 472. is mentioned out of Zozomen, Zona praeterea circa lumbos  girdle,. and other religious 
[53] In the Centurists cent. 4. col. 472. line 49. it is said, Tiaris laneis capita tegunt, quas purpureis maculis veluti punctis obsignari praecepit. and in Zozomen. hist. l. 3. c. 13. ante med. is mentioned their humerale. And see further Hierom Ep. 4. ad Rust cum monachum. Cassianus l. 1. de institut. Caenoblorum, and Gregory l. 2. dialog. c. 1.  habit; their undoubted and great 
[54] Centur. 4. col. 493. line 18. it is thus confessed, Fuerunt inter Monachos seu Eremitas hac aetate, Viri donis miraculorum celebres, ut Antonius, ejusque discipuli Macharius, Isidorus, Heraclides, etc. And see centur. 4. col. 1445. line 3. & col. 493. line 18. And see hereafter an the fourth Consideration num. 2. at 1. in the margin.  miracles, the 
[55] Cent. 4. col. 467. line 27. it is said, Basilium in Ponti Vrbibus Monasteria construere, & Virgins castitatem vovere instituisse Ruffinus narrat l. 2. cap. 9 and ibidem line 48. it is said concerning the Virgins of Europe, Virginitatis votum apud eum sexum commune fuisse Ambrosius indicat. And see yet further mention of vowed Virgins ibidem line 8. And col. 706. line 57 & col. 483. line 25. & col. 487. line 49. & col. 301. line 1. & 54. and for former times see Centur. 3. col. 140. line 27. and see heretofore in this Consideration num. 23. initio. at p. and also see heretofore in the beginning of this Consideration num. 1.  vowed chastity of Virgins, 
(56) See centur. 4. col. 467. i●e 7. under the title there, De Monasteriis Virginum at line 28, & 36. & col. 476. line 34 & col. 1335. line 58. & col. 1337. line 11. and Osiander in his epitome. cent. 4. pag. 507. initio, & pag. 503. fine.  Monasteries of Virgins, 
[57] Osiander in epitome. cent. 4. pag. 503. fine saith, Trium (Monasteriorum) quae Virginum erant Paula fuit Gubernatrix; and hereof see the Centurists cent. 4. col. 1335. line 38. Also the Centurists cent. 4. col. 125. line 30. give like instance in Publia saying, Erat in eadem urbe Publia nobilissima faemina caetus Virginum quae castitatem profitebantur magistra. And see Theodoret l. 3. c. 17. prope initium.  a woman Governess of professed Virgins, their 
[58] Centur. 4. col. 468. line 18. saith, Potest ex codem libro animadverti quae ratio tum fuerit velandi Virgins, primum enim velabantur in templo ad altar in die Paschae solemni conventu candelis accensis, etc. and see there line 27. & col. 867. line 2. Before these times Tertullian wrote a treatise de velandis Virginibus.  Veil, 
[59] Of women's religious habit see centur. 4. col. 874. line 28. & col. 879. line 37. and see Palladius in historia Lausaica cap. 41. Hieron. Epist. 15. ad Marcellam, & Ep. 22. ad Eustochium de Virginit. and in vita Hilarionis, and Concil. 4. Carth. can. 11. & 104.  religious habit, and specially 
[60] Consecration of Virgins is in plain terms mentioned centur. 4. col. 865. line 44. & col. 869. line 15. & col. 874. line 27. And Ambrose l. 3. de Virginibus saith, dicite quantas Alexandrina totiusque Orientis & Africanae Ecclesiae quotannis consecrare consueverint, pauciores hic homines prodeunt, quam illic Virgines consecrantur.  consecration. The like 
[61] Centur. 4. col. 466. line 42. under the title there, De consecratione Monachi.  consecration of Monks, and 
[62] Concil. Chalcedon can. 24. saith, Quae semel consecrata fuerint monasteria cum judicio sui Episcopi, maneant perpetua, etc. nec ulterius posse ea fieri saecularia habitacula decrevimus. See this Council mentioned and commended Cent. 4. col. 855. line 1. & col. 667. line 18. & col. 515. line 1.  Monanasteries: also with the 
[63] Centur. 4. col. 453. line 29. it is said, Nuptias celebrari in Quadragesima Concilium Laodicenum interdixit, can. 52. and see col. 837. line 33.  forbidding of marriage in Lent, with 
(64) Centur. 4. col. 441. under the title de Quadragesima line 55. it is said, Jejunatum esse à carnibus & vino indicat Nyssenus, and see col. 837. line 25. and see heretofore in this Consideration numb 11.  the fast of Lent from flesh, and with 
(65) Centur. 4. col. 440. line 26. it is said, Jejunia observasse, ac religiosius quidem seu superstitiosius quam superioribus saeculis hujus aetatis Christianos, historiae testantur.  superstitious fasting, even 
(66) Cent. 4. col. 440. line 39 it is said, Epiphanius haer. 75. Jejunium feriae quartae & sextae seu prosabbato in omnium Orbis terrarum regionibus in Ecclesia constitutum esse asserit usque ad horam nonam, ejusque constitutionis authoritatem ad Apostolos refert.  in all Nations upon Wednesday and Friday; with exception nevertheless to be exempted then, as now, 
(67) Cent. 4. col. 440. line 51. it is said, Diem Natalis Domini à jejunio liberum haberi, etiam si in quartum aut prosabbatum incidat.  if they light upon Christmas day; with 
(68) Centur. 4. col. 453. line 33. & col. 874. line 37. & col. 482. line 28. and see Concil. 4. Carth. can. 13.  the Priest's blessing of the Bride and Bridegroom after marriage; with 
(69) Cent. 4. col. 453. line 48. it is said, Ritus & ceremoniae funebres hoc saeculo (superstitione crescente) rum ex Ethnicismo, tum Judaismo cumulatae sunt.  superstitious funer alrites and ceremonies, as 
(70) Centur. 4. col. 454. line 13. & line 23. and line 28. it is said, Sole bant & caerei praeferri suneri inter deducendum, etc. And Sacerdotes lampades caereosque praetulerunt suneri.  lighted tapers, 
(71) Cent. 4. col. 455. line 14.  covering the grave with flowers, 
(72) Col. 455. line 26. it is said, Celebris ob desuncti memoriam suit dies quadregesimus post obitum; and the Centurists Cent. 3. col. 138. line 57 do out of the age before allege Tertullian saying, Oblationes pro desunctis pro Natalitiis annua die facimus, we make oblations for the dead and for the birth (of Martyrs) upon their years day: And see Centur. 3. col. 139. line 4. and hereof see Bristows reply to Fulk Printed 1580. pag. 54.  myning days, 
(73) Centurists cent. 4. col. 454. line 26. it is said, Turba frequens omnis generis hominum secuta est, ac preces cum fletu pro anima Imperatoris fudit. And see the like col. 456. line 24. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 4. at 2, 3, 4, 5. etc.  Prayer for the Soul of the dead party, affirmed in those times 
[74] [74] See this confessed heretofore in this Consideration num. 4. at k.  from Apostolic tradition. Also with special appointment of 
(75) (75) Centur. 4. col. 432. line 13. it is said, vultu converso ad Orientem Christianos orasse author est Basilius de Spik. Sancto c. 27. See many other testimonies thereof there alleged.  prayer towards the East; and to 
(76) (76) Cent. 4. col. 432. line 58. & col. 433. line 8. & col. 663. line 8. and see centur. 3. col. 135. line 4. and see Osiander in Epitome. Cent. 4. pag. 131. circa med.  pray standing upon the Lord's day, at Pentecost, and Easter, with 
(77) (77) Centur. 4. col. 433. line 28. and see these Canonical hours confessed also for the age before cent. 3. col. 134. line 45.  Canonical hours, 
(*) Centur. 4. col. 459. line 18. it is said, Quin & de nocte ad preces surrexerunt. And see col. 411. line 52. & col. 434. line 24.  Rising in the night to prayer; with 
(†) Hereof see centur. 4. col. 433. line 42. & 53.  set form of prayer, and 
(78) See Litanies mentioned cent. 4. col. 433. line 43. & col. 414. line 1. & col. 411. line 39  Litanies; whereunto might be added example also even of saying or 
(79) Cent. 4. col. 1329. line 24. & O siander in Epitome. cent. 4. pag. 454. and Zozomen hist. l. 6. c. 29. post med. reporteth the matter, saying of Paul the Monk; In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam reddidit, ac, ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret, trocentis lapillis in sinum conjectis, ad singulas preces, singulos inde ejecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse. And see other like examples of saying prayers by account or numbering of them in Palladius his historia Lausaica cap. 24. & cap. 51.  numbering prayers upon little stones (or Beads;) also with 
(80) Master Fulk against Hoskins, Sanders, etc. pag. 657. circa med. affirmeth, that by report of Paulinus, the Cross was by the Bishop of Jerusalem brought forth at Easter (yourly) to be worshipped of the people. See this report of Paulinus further confessed by Master Perkins in his problem, etc. pag. 83. post med. And see Evagrius hist. l. 4. c. 25. Also Danaeus in primae partis altera parte ad Bellarminum 5. Controvers. responsione pag. 1415. initio affirmeth, that Cyril and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious and blinded with this enchantment of the Crosses adoration. And see in the beginning of this num. 23. at x.  worshipping of the Cross, with 
[81] Ambrose multa commemorat superstitiosa de Cruce inventa. Centur. 4. col. 302. line 1 & 13. it is said, Ephrem crucis signationi nimium videtur tribuere. And Mr. Fulk against Heskins, Sanders, etc. pag. 657. circa med. affirmeth that Ruffinus and Cyril had a superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross. and Cent. 4. col. 459. line 31. it is said, Ad omnem incessum crucis sig no frontem confignarunt. And concerning the Century or age before, the Centurists cent. 3. col. 121. line 52. say, Crucis imaginem seu in locis publicorum congressuum, s●u domi privatim Christianos habuisse, indicare videtur Tertullianus. And see col. 240. line 57  superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross, with 
[*] Osiander in Epitome. cent. 4. etc. 326. ante med. saith, Julianus metu percussus ilico ex consuetudine Christianismi, frontem cruce signat, ibi daemones subitò disparent.  signing the forehead therewith, with attributing to it 
(82) Master Burges in his words extant in Mr. Covels brief answer to the said Burges pag. 130. ante med. saith of the Father's opinion of the Cross (with exception only to the point of adoration touched next heretofore at 80.) that there is nothing ascribed to the Cross in or out of Baptism by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same; so as if we will use it as the Fathers did, etc. we take the Soul to be fenced by crossing of the body, and the Cross to have virtue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft, etc. In proof whereof he doth allege there in his margin divers Fathers no less or more ancient than the compass of this fourth Century; and see further there pag. 136. post med. And the Puritans in their short Treatise of the sign of the Cross, etc. Printed in 8. at Amsterdam by J. H. 1604. pag. 21. fine say, The Fathers delivered to us the sign of the Cross with an opinion of virtue and officacy; not only in the act of blessing ourselves, and in the expelling of devils, but even in the consecration of the most blessed Sacraments, to which purpose they do there allege the special say of Tertullian, Hierom, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Austin. And see also the Centurists cent. 4. col. 302. line 11. & 27. & col. 1493. line 19 and Tertullian ad Vxorem l. 2. c. 5. Chrysostom in Matth. hom. 55. paulo post med. Austin de Sanctis serm. 19 & in Joan. tract. 118. fine, Lactantius l. 4. c. 27. Athanasius de incarnatione Verb●, and de vita Antomii. Origen. hom. 6. in Exodum c. 15. Ignatius Epist. ad Philippenses.  virtue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft, etc. and with undoubted 
[83] M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. Burges pag. 138. paulo post med. saith concerning the ancient times, No man can deny, but that God after the death of his Son manifested his power to the amazement of the world, in this contemptible sign, as being the instrument of many miracles. And see heretofore in this Consideration in the beginning of this num. at p. and see examples of such miracles in Theodoret hist. l. 5. c. 21. post med. And Epiphanius haer. 30. ante med. Hierom in vita Hilarionis versus finem; and Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 1. fine. And Theodoret in his Theophil. c. 13. etc. 9 etc. 2. and Eusebius in orat. de laudibus Constantini ante med. after Christophersons translation, Printed Coloniae 1581. pag. 299. post med. & 300. post med.  great miracles, which God hath wrought by it. In like manner with 
[84] Cent. 4. col. 873. fine & col. 874. initio. and see these inferior Orders mentioned as yet much more anciently by Cornelius apud Eusebium hist. l. 6. cap. 35. and after Hanmers English translation c. 42. and by Ignatius Scholar to St. John Ep. ad Antiochenses prope finem.  Deacons, Subdeacons, Acolytes, Exorcists, Readers, Doorkeepers, and the special 
[85] Centur. 4. col. 873. fine & 874. initio. and see Con. 4. Carth. can. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.  rites used in ordaining of them; with mention also of the 
[86] Centur. 4. col. 435. line 2. say, Constitutiones Concilii Laodiceni Ordinationes judicio multitudinis fieri prohibuerunt. And after, Ac pro iis apud eum Episcopum, penes quem jus esset Ordinandi, precacabantur, quemadmodum ex Epistola quarta Basilii ad Gregorium, ejusdemque ad Caesariensis trigesima apparet. And cent. 4. col. 489. line 60. it is said, Ordinatio Ministrorum propria erat Episcopi, etc.  ordaining of Priests not by popular election (as the Puritans 
[87] See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 192. post med. and 225. aunt med. & 196. aunt med. And see the use of the Kirk of Scotland Printed at Rochel. 1596.  pretend) but by ordination from a Bishop, then, as now, given 
[88] Hereof see Leo Ep. 87. ad Epis. Africanos ante med. & Ep. 81. ad Dioscorum Alexand.  fasting, with the external sign of 
[89] Cent. 4. col. 435. it is said, Recitat Theodoretus rursus & alios ritus, etc. ut genibus flexis ad sacram mensam assistere, & in frequenti populi conventu manus imponere, qui ritus inde usque ab Apostolis ipsis in omnium locorum Ecclesiis diutissimè haesit.  imposition of hands, conferring inward 
[90] Touching the Doctors of this age, Gregory Nyssen one of them (in orat. de S. Baptismate) saith of the party ordained, that in regard of outward form, he is the fame he was, having his invisible soul changed into better by an invisible power and grace. And Ambrose in 1 Cor. c. 12. saith, In loco Ordinis officii Ecclesiastici pofitus gratiam habet, qualisvis sit, non utique propriam, sed ordinis per efficaciam Spiritus Sancti. And see further Ambrose 〈◊〉 dignitate sacerdotali c. 4. and Austin in quaest. vet. & nov. Test. quaest. 93. See this grace given in Orders confessed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy lib. 5. sect. 77. pag. 230. prope finem, and by Mr. Bilson in his perpetual government of Christ's Church pag. 109.  grace. In respect whereof it was reputed for 
[91] S. Austin tom. 7. contra Epist. Parmen. l. 2. c. 13. saith of Baptism and Orders, Si enim utrumque Sacramentum est, quod nemo dubitat (&c.) neutri Sacramento injuria facienda est. And again, V●●umque enim Sacramentum est, & quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cum Baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur. This thus comparing it with Baptism, and referring the name of Sacrament to them both a like, argueth that St. Austin used the word Sacrament properly. And see further Austin de Baptismo contra Don. l. 1. c. 1. Also St. Cyprian (who lived before this fourth century) in serm. de ablut. pedum, initio, making mention (Baptismi & aliorum Sacramentorum, of Baptism and other Sacraments) reckoneth up withal in that account, sacros Ordines, holy Orders. In so much as Chemnitius in his examen. part. 2. pag. 7. b. post med. confesseth this author's answerable judgement thereof, and only evadeth in affirming this Sermon to be forged; an evasion confuted heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. at 7.  a Sacrament, with further mention of 
[92] In Pacianus Ep. 3. ad Simpronianum, the Priest is termed Vnctus Sacerdos. See this Unction further mentioned in Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. Eusebius hist. l. 10. c. 4. initio, after Christophersons version. And in Cyprian serm. de chrismate initio, contemned therefore by Chemnitius examen. part. 2. pag. 247. a. ant med. and in Gregory l. 4. in libros Regum cap. 5.  the Priest's unction; with like mention also in general of 
[93] Centur. 4. col. 504. line 7. it is said, Meminit Athanasius Vestimentorum Ecclesiasticorum, ornamentorumque & utensilium.  Ecclesiastical vestments, and in particular of 
[94] The Albe is mentioned in cent. 4. col. 876. line 16. & in Chrysostom. ad Pop. hom. 60. & in Liturgia, & in Matth. hom. 83. And in Concil. 4 Carth. can. 41. & in Hierom. l. 1. adv. Pelag. c. 9  the Albe, 
[95] Cent. 4. Col. 835 line 48. & 51. and see this Stole further mentioned in Concilio Aurelianensi can. 16. & in Concil. Laodicen. can. 22. & 23. & in Ambrose in orat. funebri de obitu fratris Satyri.  the stole, (called Orarium) the Vestment called 
[96] That this Dalmatica was in Cyprians time, see Mr. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 269. post med. and pag. 270. he allegeth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind; and see the same Vestment mentioned by the Author Quaestionum veteris ac novi Testam. quaest. 46. extant in St. Augustins' works tom. 4. (that this Author lived before St. Austin see there quaest. 44.)  Dalmatica, 
[*] See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. whitgift's defence pag. 268. and Mr. Whitgift ibid. pag. 269. initio, alleging Theodoret hist. l. 2. c. 27. paulo post initium.  the golden Cope, and the Bishop's 
[†] See this in Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common places in English pag. 119. a. prope finem, and in Mr. Whitgift his defence, etc. pag. 264. paulo ante med. & 268. circa med. & pag. 269. paulo post med. he proveth Cyprian to have also worn the same.  Pontifical plate., or Mitre, worn by St. John the Apostle. M. D. Reynolds confessing further, that 
[97] D. Reynolds in his conference pag. 598. post med, and concerning Ecclesiastical Vestments see further Eusebius hist. l. 10. c. 4. initio.  in the Liturgies which bear the names of Basil and Chrysostom, are (likewise) mentioned the amice, the girdle, the chisible, and the fannel: with teaching that 
[98] Centur. 4. col. 616. line 1. it is alleged out of the Council of Neocaesarea can. 1. Praesbyter si uxorem duxerit ab ordine suo illum deponi debere. And see the same further confessed cent. 4. col. 486. line. 58. & col. 303. line 18. & col. 704. line 21. & col. 1293. line 5. & 17. and see heretofore in the beginning of this Consideration num. 1. at g. h. etc. and heretofore in this Consideration num. 2. in the margin at f. g. h. i.  Priests might not marry after Orders taken; that 
[99] Cent. 4. col. 847. line 47. saith, it was decreed, bigamis ordinationem ad sacerdotium non esse conferendam, and see the like in Centur. 4. col. 303. line 10. & col. 877. line 40. & col. 1293. line 25. also Master Fulk in his Retentive against Bristol, and discovery of Sanders rock pag. 164. initio granteth that he which had had two Wives could not be a Priest in Hieroms time; and see this confessed also for the Century or age before in cent. 3. col. 85. line 60. & col. 86. line 7. and by Mr. Cartwright in his 2. reply part. 1. pag. 509. post med.  Bigamus (or he that hath been twice married) may not be Priest, with 
[100] Centur. 4. col. 497. line 50.  sumptuous Churches consecrated, and superstitious insolency in celebrating of Mass, appointed to be said in no places but such as were hallowed by a Bishop; with denial of 
[101] Cent. 4. col. 549. line 28. it is said, Intempestiuè etiam sibi Imperatores interdum judicium de causis fidei sumebant, quod Athanasius in Constantio reprehendit, & Ambrose in Valentiniano, etc. and Athanasius in Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes allegeth Osius saying to Constantius the Emperor; desine quaeso & memineris te mortalem esse, reformida diem judicii, serva te in illam diem purum, ne te mis●●as Ecclesiasticis, neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potiùs ea à nobis disce: tibi Deus imperium, quae sunt Ecclesiae nobis concredidit, etc. cave ne, quae sunt Ecclesiae ad te trahens, magno crimini obnoxius fias, etc. And again in the same place; Quis enim videns eum in decernendo principem se facere Episcoporum, & praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis, non meritò dicat illam eam ipsam abominationem desolationis effe, quae à Daniele praedicta est. And see the like judgement of Ambrose Epist. 32. post med. & 33. circa med. And Master Cartwright to this purpose alleging the same in Mr. whitgift's defence, etc. pag. 700. initio, and see the like further in Zozomen hist. l. 6. c. 7. initio, and in Concil. 3. Carth. can. 9  authority to the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes; with affirming 
[102] Centur. 4. col. 515. line 30. saith, Hilarius minùs commodè de Petro Apostolo loquitur, quod aedificationi Ecclesiae subjacet, & sit ejus fundamentum; and col. 557. line 45. saith, Hieronymus minùs commodè loquitur de Petro, quod Dominus super cum fundaverit Ecclesiam. And see the like out of Nazianzen Cent. 4. col. 558. line 54. and see further col. 1250. line 2. And see this more evidently as yet in the much more ancient Fathers, namely Tertullian, Cyprian & Origen heretofore confessed in this Consideration num. 10. initio, at 8, 9, 10.  the Church to be built upon Peter; and further teaching of 
[103] See the assertion of Peter's Primacy confessed in sundry Fathers of this age cent. 4. col. 556. line 15. & col. 551. line 31. & col. 1074 line 13. and the same more fully heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 5, 6, 7, 12.  Peter's Primacy, and with deducing the same 
[*] The Centurists Cent. 5. col. 1274. line 32. charge Gelasius who lived anno 480. saying, Romanam Ecclesiam jure divino contendit (Gelasius) off omnium primam, in Ep. ad Brut. etc. cap. 11. And Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis initio saith, Romana Ecclesia nullis Synodicis constitutis caeteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed Evangelica voce Domini Primatum obtinuit, Tu es Petrus, inquiens, & super hanc petram, etc.  jure divino from Peter to his 
[104] Brereley in his Omissions (etc.) of pag. 295. saith, Bucer in praeparatoriisad Concilium saith, We plainly confess, that among the ancient Fathers of the Church, the Roman Church obtained the Primacy above others, as that which hath the Chair of Peter, and whose Bishops almost always have been accounted the Successors of Peter. And Osiander cent. 4. pag. 294. circa med. speaking of the Council of Sardis decreeing appeals to Rome, professeth to deliver the then common received opinion and reason thereof, saying, Inveteratus, communis, & de manu traditus fuit error, quod Petrus fuerit Romae primus Episcopus, ideo hunc honorem habendum censuit successori Petri, juxta communem opinionem, etc. And St. Chrysostom l. 2. de Sacerdotio cap. 1. affirmeth, that Peter was the head of the Apostles, and preferred before the other Apostles, saying further in the same place; why did Christ shed his own blood, but to purchase those sheep, the charge whereof he committed to Peter and his Successors? In like manner concerning St. Leo (being one of those Fathers to whom Mr. Jewel in his public challenge appealed) the Century writers Cent. 5. col. 1262. line 30. confess of him saying, Leo very painfully goeth about to prove that singular praeeminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence risen the Primacy of the Roman Church; and see no less confessed of Leo by Master Reynolds in his conference pag. 42. & 43. And see Mr. Fulk his testimony of the other Fathers like judgement heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 22. Also that Peter's Primacy was thought to descend or come to the Bishop of Rome, is in likemanner yet further affirmed by sundry other Fathers cited heretofore in this Consideration num. 16. in the margin at 45. in so much as from this Primacy thus attributed to the Apostle, Damasus (alleged by Theodoret hist. l. 5. cap. 10.) did (as the Censurists cent. 4. col. 351. line 37. do confess and reprove) commend his Children the Bishops of the East for their due reverence done to the Apostolic Sea; And Concil. Melinitanum in Epist. ad Innocentium Papam (apud Aug. Ep. 92.) saith to Innocentius; Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit, etc. arbitramur authoritati Sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae, facilius eos esse cessuros. And see also the Centurists cent. 5. col. 775. line 13. where it is said, Galla Placidia in Epist. ad Pulcheriam, & Valentinianus in Epist. ad Theodosium nimium Romano Episcopo propter beatum Petrum & Vrbis amplitudinem tribuunt. And see Mr. Fulks retentive, etc. pag. 285. fine.  successor the Bishop of Rome, whose Episcopal Sea the ancient Fathers therefore termed 
[105] Prosper de ingratis cap. 2. saith, Sedes Roma Petri quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundo. A saying so plain that Danaeus therefore termeth Prosper the Pope's Parasite, and this his saying false, in respons. ad Bellarm. part. 1. pag. 594. circa med. And Mr. Fulk in his retentive, etc. pag. 278. paulo ante med. termeth Prosper (over partial to the Sea of Rome,) & S. Austin in Psalm. contra partem Donati saith, Numerate Sacerdotes ab ipsa Petri sede, etc. ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. And see the words of Leo heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 45. and Petrus Chrysologus in Epistola ad Eutichem saith, Hortamur te, frater honorabilis, ut his quae à beatissimo Papa Romanae Civitatis praescripta sunt, obedienter attendas, quoniam beatus Petrus qui in propria sede vivit & praesidet, praestat quaerentibus fidei veritatem.  Peter's Sea, and 
[106] See the Centurists herein charging and reprehending the ancient Father St. Cyprian heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 87. and Hierom. Ep. 57 to Pope Damasus saith, Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae, in est, Cathedrae Petri, common consocior; super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est, (etc.) Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit. And Optatus lib. 2. contra Donatist. saith, Negari non potest scire te in Vrbe Roma, Petro primò Cathedram Episcopalem collatam esse, in qua sederit omnium Ayostolorum caput Petrus, unde & Cephas appellatus est, in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret, ergo Cathedra unica est, etc. And again, Igitur de dotibus supradictis cathedra est prima, quam probavimus per Petium nostram esse. And St. Austin Epist. 162. propè initium saith, In Ecclesia Romana semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus. And see the saying of Julius alleged heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at † next before 79.  Peter's Chair, honouring the same above other with a peculiar 
[107] See this heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 14.  festival day. And decreeing even public 
[108] The Council called Vasense can. 6. saith, In omnibus Missis, etc. & hoc nobis justum visum est, ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi Apostolicae praefuerit, in nostris Ecclesiis reciter●r. This is acknowledged and reproved by the Centurists Cent. 5. col. 775. line 7. This Council was so ancient that the second Canon thereof is cited under the name of this Council in the 2. Council of Arles can. 28. as it is recited by the Centurists cent. 4. col. 706. line 34.  prayer to be made for the Pope in Mass time: And lastly with sundry noted examples of confessed 
[109] See these examples heretofore in this Consideration num. 10. at 56, 57, 58. and so forward till 79.  Primacy in the Bishop of Rome. In so much as certain Protestant writers (being ashamed over grossly to dissemble in such and so manifest evidence of particulars) doubt not therefore to deal plainly with us herein, affirming that Helen Mother to Constantine was 
[110] Centur. 4. col. 458. line 5.  a superstitious woman, and the visible Church in his time 
[111] Apud Brereley tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 4. post med. at q. r. s. t. in the text and margin Mr. Napper in his treatise upon the Revelations pag. 43. versus finem, affirmeth that the Pope's Kingdom hath had power over all Christians from the time of Pope Silvester and the Emperor Constantine, for these thousand two hundred and sixty years: and pag. 145. col. 3. fine he affirmeth, that from the time of Constantine, until these our days, even 1260. years, the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians. And pag. 68 versus finem he affirmeth, that also between the year of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction 1260. years, saying pag. 191. initio, God's true Church most certainly abiding so long latent, and invisible. And see the further confession of others heretofore in this Consideration num. 23. at 4, 5, 6. next after c. and at * next after f. In so much as Mr. William Leigh the Prince's Chaplain, in his great Britain's great delivery, etc. Printed 1606. B. 2. affirmeth accordingly, that the Popes ever since the first 300. years after Christ (which containeth the time now in question) have been Devils. And Szegedine in loc. Commun. pag. 397. circa med. saith of Silvester, Marcus, Julius, etc. who were Bishops of Rome living in Constantine's time, that they were mitrati Episcopi, qu● etsi non pessimi fuerunt, traditionibus tamen suis ac decretis, Antichristo magno sedem paraverunt. And Brerely in his Omissions (etc.) of pag. 297. saith, As also Mr. Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol pag. 2. circa med. saith, I never meant to acknowledge the Emperors Constantine, Jovinian, Valentinian, etc. to be such as I would wish for: for both in their Religion and manners divers things are found which I would wish had been more agreeable to the word of God.  Antichristian and Papistical; whereupon we doubt not in behalf of our whole Religion, to say now to our Adversaries, as did your Majesty to the Puritans in defence of the Cross in Baptism used in Constantine's time: 
[112] In the sum of the Conference before his Majesty with the Bishops and other of his Clergy pag. 69, post med.  Is it now come to that pass, that we shall appeach Constantine of superstition? If then it were used, I see no reason but that still we may continue it. And to your most excellent Majesty we only crave humble leave to say, as did the Centurists in this case to Queen Elizabeth; 
[113] The Centurists in their Epistle Dedicatory to Queen Elizabeth prope finem set before their fourth Century.  To your Majesty this labour seemeth due, as describing that age wherein;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Constantine the great deserved best of the universal Church of Christ; for which he hath received eternal memory, And whereas (according to histories) he was born in Britain, and of British Progeny, and governed that Kingdom with great piety and virtue, he now returneth to your Highness, representing to you that State of the Church which in his time illustrated the whole world with the splendour thereof. That man must needs have an iron heart, which is not moved with the godly, successful, and laudable proceed of his Ancestors. Seeing therefore your Majesty is adorned with all good learning, we doubt not, but that Constantine's Ecclesiastical history shall be to your Highness most pleasant and grateful, etc.  
24. Pu. Now good Reader, out of the foresaid Premises, that the ancient holy Fathers are even by Protestants themselves confessed to stand for us, thou canst not but conclude, First, That either our Doctrines do not exclude Salvation, or else that all those whom even protestants style Holy, and Ancient, and acknowledge them to be Saints in Heaven, were incapable of Salvation, which to affirm is no less than most temerarious and cruel blasphemy, implying that our Blessed Saviour had no true Church on earth when Luther appeared, and that Gentiles were converted to Christian Religion from Paganism and worship of false Gods, with no better effect than to be damned.  
25. Secondly, That no man who hath care of his soul will not judge, that for interpreting Scripture, and in matters of Faith, more credit is to be given to the Fathers, who were so near, yea who were of the Primitive Church, and holy, mortified, and induced with all dispositions making them capable of Gods holy impressions and inspirations, than to Luther, and other novelists appearing so lately for time, and for doctrine and manners teaching and living so carnally and wickedly, as Protestants cannot dissemble it (as hath been proved in the first Consideration) and consequently more open to receive the suggestions of Satan, than the motions of the Ho-Ghost.  
26. Thirdly, that if Luther and his followers could not have been excused from Heresy and Schism, if they had lived in those ancient days, and had opposed the Doctrine, and forsaken the Communion of those Fathers; so neither can they avoid the just imputation of Heresy and Schism, in opposing the Doctrine, and abandoning the Communion of us Catholics, who are confessed to agree with the Fathers, and ancient Christians of those times.  
27. Fourthly, that in a word, we cannot but be safe, since our very Adversaries confess that we agree with those (holy Fathers) whom they confess to be saved.  
28. Fiftly, that this our agreement with Antiquity, and of Antiquity with Truth, is so manifest and forcible, that among all the chief points wherein Protestants do disagree from us, there is not any one of moment, wherein divers chief learned Protestants do not agree with us against their pretended Brethren; so that by the confession of all sides, if either Ancient Fathers or modern Sectaries cannot be saved, we are secure.  
And that this agreement of Protestants with us is truly affirmed by me, the Reader will find evidently proved in the next Consideration.   

THE THIRD CONSIDERATION.  
Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion against their Protestant Brethren.  
BRereley tract. 3. sect. 7. saith, The sundry Articles of our Catholic Faith, defended, and that most earnestly, against the other opinions of our learned Adversaries, by sundry of their own no less learned Brethren, and all this by either party, upon pretended certainty from the Scriptures, are many, known and evident, as may appear by the seventy, and above, examples thereof, here particularly alleged.  
1 First, as concerning the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament to the bodily mouth, it is affirmed by Luther, and Lutherans; and contradicted for Popish, by Calvin and his followers.  
Secondly, the Real presence not only of the efficacy of Christ's body, but also of the body itself, after a wonderful and incomprehensible manner, to the mouth of Faith, is affirmed by Calvin Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 7. & 10. & 32. by Mr. Rider in his friendly Caveat etc. the third leaf a. circa med. And by Mr D. Whittaker contra Duraeum pag. 169. by the confession of Belgia in the English Harmony pag. 431. By Bucer in Script: Anglican. pag. 548. post med. & 549. And by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174. circa medium, & pag. 177 post med. & vide Apolog. modest. ad acta conventus quindecim Theolog. Torgae nuper habit. etc. pag. 19 & pag. 13. initio & 23 & 47. And contradicted as inclining to Popery (to omit the known Doctrine of Oecolampadius and Zuinglius) whereof see Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 67. pag. 174. ante med. & Lavat. in Hist. Sacramentar. pag. 4. & Calvin in libello de Coen. Dom. versus finem, extant in Calvin's tract. Theolog. pag. 12. a. & Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 78. b. & 82. b. by Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his common-places in English pag. 107. b. Ep. 25. & ibidem pag. 98. a. & pag. 108. a. for which Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 548. post med. & 549, ante & post medium reproveth Peter Martyr. Also by Aretius Serm. 3. de Coena, by Szegedine in loc. common. pag. 182. at 12. & 15. and by our English Puritans in their Christian letter to M. R. Hooker pag. 35. paulo post medium, and by certain French Protestants mentioned by Hospinian in hist. Sacramt. par. altera fol. 344. a. post. med. & b. initio. And by others mentioned by Mr. Rogers in his Catholic Doctrine etc. pag. 176. circa med. And by Ludevicus Alemannus in positionibus apud Lugdunenses editis Anno 1566. who said hereof, neque etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, ut vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat appertissimè Dei Verbo: of whose opinion see further Beza Epist. 5.  
Thirdly, that Sacraments do not only signify, but also confer Grace, is affirmed by Osiander in Enchirid. Controversiarum quas Augustanae Confess. Theol. habent cum Calvinianis pag. 272 post medium, & in Epitome. Histor. Eccles. etc. centur. 16 pag. 527.529.531. & 538. by Jacob. Andraeas in Epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 58. prope initium, & pag. 42, initio, and by M. D. Bilson in his true difference etc. part. 4. pag. 539. ante med. and 592. post medium, & 368, post medium. by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 57 pag. 127, & 128. and by M. D. Whittaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 662. paulo ante medium. & 664. post medium, & Melancthon in c. 4. Ep. ad Rom. after the first Edition saith, Repudienda est Zuinglii opinio, qui tantum civili modo judicat de signis, scilicet Sacramenta tantum notas esse professionis etc. apud Ulembergium causa 20. pag, 697. And contradicted for Popish, by the Survey of the book of Common prayer, pag. 103 & 104. by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 415 ante med. and he reproveth some Protestants herein in his meditation upon the 122 Psalms pag. 92 ante med. And by Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 35, and many others.  
Fourthly, that the Church must continue visible, is affirmed by Melancthon and sundry others, alleged in Brerely tract. 2, c. 2. sect. 1 post medium at d. e. f. g. in the margin, where at d. Bartholomaeus Kekermannus in System. Theolog. pag. 408. initio, saith, Novi Testamenti Ecclesia ratione notarum et formae externae, semper debet esse sensibilis seu conspicua, ut nimirum reliquae Gentes, quae adhuc extra Ecclesiam sunt, scire possint cuinam Ecclesiae sese debeant aggregare, id quod de Ecclesia Novi Testamenti Esay c. 61. ab initio magnific is verbis praedixit. And Hiperius in Method. Theolog. pag. 552. prope finem saith, Profectò nisi signa haec extarent, ac vera Ecclesia sensibus deprehenderetur, qui scire possit homo cuinam coetui salutis consequendae ergo adhaerendum sibi foret. And Peter Martyr in his Epistles annexed to his Common-places in English pag. 153. a. circa medium, reporting certain points wherein he professeth to agree with us Catholics, saith, We also do not appoint an invisible Church, but do define Congregations, unto which the faithful may know that they may safely adjoin themselves: affirming further a little there before, that this opinion is (saith he) common with us to Catholics. Ibid. at e. M. Henoch Clapham, in his sovereign remedy against Schism pag. 18, after many proofs alleged by him from the Scriptures and otherwise, concludeth saying: Not only all Ancients ever hold the Churches ever vifibility, but also all learned men of our age. Also Mr Field l. 1. of the Church, c. 10. pag. 19 ante med. saith: The persons of them of whom the Church consisteth, are visible, their profession known, even to the profane and wicked of the world, and in this sort the Church cannot be invisible etc. (with much more very plainly in that behalf.) And pag. 21. circa medium, he further saith, It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vain, in proving that there is and always hath been, a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry, or use of Sacraments, for all this we do most willingly yield unto, howsoever perhaps some few have been of opinion, that etc. In like full manner is the Church's visibility affirmed from the Scriptures, as well by Melancthon in locis commu. edit. 1561. c. de Ecclesia, pag. 354. initio saying, Quotiescunque de Ecclesia cogitamus etc. 
[a] ibidem in Brereley at 6.  Whensoever we think of the Church, let us behold the company of such men as are gathered together, which is the visible Church: neither let us dream that the Elect of God are to be found in any other place than in this visible Society, etc. Neither let us imagine of any other visible Church etc. But let us know that the Ministry of the Gospel must be public etc. And having then alleged sundry Texts of Scripture in behalf of the Churches ever visibility, he concludeth saying, Hi & similes loci non de Idea Platonica, sed de visibili Ecclesia loquuntur. And see there pag. 360. post med. And see Melancthon further in Praefat. l. corp. Doctrinae Christianae in Ecclesi is Saxon. & Misnisis Elector is Saxon. impress. Lip. Anno 1561. And in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 512. & part. 2. pag. 201. & 394. As also by D. Humphrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 240. where he saith, Declaratum est, nos Ecclesiam non in aëre collocare, sed in terra, nos Ecclesiam confiteri esse oppidum supra montem positum, quod abscondi non potest, Matth. 5. montem excelsum Domus Dei, cunctis collibus editiorem, ad quem omnes Gentes confluent, Esay 2. etc. cur ergo anxiè & curiosè probant, quod est à nobis nunquam negatum & c? (And ibidem pag. 241. initio he saith) visibilis est propter exercitia pietatis, quae videntur ab omnibus in Ecclesia, nam dum ministri docent, alii discunt, illi Sacramenta administrant, high communicant etc. qui ista non videt, talpa est caecior, visibilis est, quia notae sunt insignes & conspicuae etc. and pag. 242. initio, he saith, non enim clancularii secessus etc. convocationes sunt Christianae. Secret abodes are not the Christian convocation etc. because this communion of Saints is an open testification of Christianity. ibid. in Brerely at b. And pag. 281. fine, affirmeth concerneth the Church militant (which is the only point in question) Oportere Ecclesiam esse conspicuam, conclusionem esse clarissimam. And ibidem in Brerely under 6. fine, Justus Molitor in his Treatise de Ecclesia militante etc. contra Bellarmin. pag. 36. sect. 4. saith, Haec invisibilis Ecclesia electorum in illa nempe visibili Ecclesia latet, & extra●eam nec inveniri potest, sicut rectè dicitur extra Ecclesiam (nempe visibilem) non est salus etc. And see further there, pag. 38. sect. 10. Ibidem in Brereley at 5. Calvin. l. 4. Instit. c. 1. sect. 4 saith, Verum quia nunc de visibili Ecclesia disserere propositum est, discamus vel uno matris elogio, quam utilis sit nobis ejus cognitio, imò necessaria, quando non alius est in vitam ingressus, nisi nos ipsa concipiat utero, nisi pareat, nisi (&c.) denique sub custodia & gubernation sua nos tueatur, donec exuti carne mortali etc. Add quod extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio. Ibidem in Brereley at f. Melancthon in council. Theol. part. 2 saith, Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Ecclesiam etc. quo spectat haec portentosa oratio, quae negat esse ullam visibilem Ecclesiam? pag. 393. fine, & 394 initio. Lastly ibidem in Brereley at g. M. Henoch Clapham in his Sovereign Remedy against Schism pag. 17. post medium, saith: contrary to all Scriptures they do affirm that there hath been no visibility of the Church for former hundred of years, which position is against Psalm 72.3.17 Esay 59.21. Matt. 2.24.26. Whereupon M. Henoch Clapham in his Sovereign Remedy against Schism pag. 23. post medium saith, Our Saviour forbids going out unto such desert and corner-Gospells Mat. 24.23, 24, 26. and St. Augustine tom. 4. quaest. Evang. l. 1 quaest. 38 saith accordingly: Constituta ergo authoritate Ecclesiae per orbem terrarum clara atque manifesta, consequenter Discipulos admonet, & qui in eum credere voluerint, ne schismaticis atque haereticis credant: unumquodque enim schisma & unaquaeque haeresis aut locum suum habet in orbe terrarum partem aliquam retinens, aut obscuris atque occultis conventiculis curiositatem hominum decipit. Ad quod pertinet quod ait, Si quis vobis dixerit, ecce hic est Christus aut illic, quod significat terrarum parts & provinciarum, aut in penetralibus, aut in deserto, quod significat obscura & occulta conventicula haereticorum etc. And see him further contra Faustum Manich. l. 13. c. 13. Notwithstanding this Doctrine is contradicted for Popish by M. D. Fulk in the Tower-Disputation with Edm. Camp. the second day's Conference, by M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 48 circa medium, and many others.  
Fiftly, as concerning the necessitity of good works to salvation it is affirmed by M. Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi pag. 90. fine, and by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 2 Pet. 2. sect. 3. fol. 444. a. post med. and by Mr. Whitaker against M. Reynolds pag. 350 post med. and contradicted for new Papistry as pernicious as the old, by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others; Whereof see Colloquium Altembergense fol. 210. a. & 231. b. & 324. a. & 382. b. fine. & Acta Colloquii Aldeburgensis pag. 5. & 7. & 151. initio, and in Brereley troth. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 4. at k, l, m, oh, p.  
6 Sixtly, concerning Evangelicall Counsels, viz. that a man may do more than (de facto) he is commanded, is affirmed for most clear by M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140. post med. and l. 2. pag. 103. & 122. post medium, by D. Covell in his defence of M. Hooker art. 8. pag. 49, 50, 51, 52. by Luther in assertionibus art. 30. and others. And contradicted for Popish by Mr. Willet (particularly reproving M. Hooker for this and other like Catholic Opinions) in his meditations upon Psalm 122. pag. 91. post med. By Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic pag. 241. and many others.  
7 Seventhly, as concerning the Doctrine of Universality of Grace, and that Christ died for all, is affirmed by Zuinglius in l. Epistol. Oecolampadii & Zuinglii l. 1. pag. 274. circa med. By Hemingius Enchirid. Class. 3. pag. 220, 221. and l. de universali Gratia, by Hiperius in Method. Theolog. l. 2. pag. 431, 435, 436. by Snecanus in Method. descrip. 430. by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. pag. 104. by Bullinger upon the Apocalypse in English fol. 79. b●initio. by Mr. Gibbons in his Questions upon Gensis pag. 108. circa med. by Mr. Smith in his Treatise of prayer in general for all mankind etc. and (besides the Lutherans) by very many other learned Calvinists, alleged by Huberus in his Theses etc. pag. 159, & 163, & 164, & 166, & 167, & 168. And contradicted for popish by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis of Anno 1600, pag. 789, circa medium, and 808, post initium. And by Beza, Calvin, Knox etc. in whole Treatises.  
8 Eighthly, that God doth permit or suffer sin, and not will or decree the same, is affirmed by the Book entitled Corpus Doctrinae etc. printed 1561, in folio. pag. 618. fine, and by Jacobus Andraeas in epit. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 47, 49, & 53. By Hemingius l. de universali Gratia, and almost all the Lutherans, and (of the Calvinists) by Amandus Polanus in partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 75, 76. & 10, 11, 12. by Snecanus in Method. descript. pag. 621, 622, & 645, 650. by Bullinger in his Decades Englished, pag. 492, 493, 494. by Castalio in l. ad Calvinum de Praedestinat. by Melancthon in loc. common. de causa peccati & contingent. and in libro de Consil. Theolog. part. 2. pag. 111, & 112. by M. Gibbons in his questions upon Genesis pag. 108. circa med. And contradicted for Popish, by Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 4. sect. 3, 4, & 5. & l. 1. c. 18. sect. 1. & l. 3. c. 23. sect. 8. By D. Baro in his Treatise of God's Providence c. 4. paulo ante med. by Aretius' loc. common. loc. 40. de induratione pag. 129. by M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 562. fine, 563, ante med. and many others.  
9 Ninthly, that men are not certain of their election, and that he, who is once in state of Grace, may finally fall, is affirmed by their public confessions cited in the Harmony etc. pag. 224, post medium, & 80. paulo ante med. & 230. post medium, & 233. fine, by Chemnitius Examen part. 2. pag. 193. a. post medium, & part. 1. pag. 190, b. initio, by Musculus loc. common. pag. 29. circa medium, by Lobechius in disput. Theolog. pag. 317, 318. by Haffenrefferus in loc. Theolog. etc. pag. 184, 188, & 331. by Rungius in disput. etc. ex Epist. ad Corinth. part. 1. thes. 5. by Gesnerus in disput. pro libro concord. pag. 150, 156, 157, 650. by Jacobus Andraeas in Epitome. Colloq. Montisbelgar. pag. 47, 61. by M. D. Overell Dean of Paul's in his Speech set down in the Conference before his Majesty, pag. 42. circa med. and contradicted for Popish by M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic pag. 39, & 55. by Calvin, Beza etc.  
10 Tenthly, that in case of Divorce upon Adultery, the innocent party may not marry again, was some few years since preached openly at Paul's Cross, by D. Dove, and since defended publicly in the University by D. Howson in tertia thesi, printed Anno 1602. and is the constant Doctrine of many others. And is yet contradicted for Popish by M. Fulk against the Remish Testament, fol. 38. a. circa med. and many others  
11 Eleventhly, that to Children of the Faithful dying unbaptised, salvation is not promised, is affirmed by Vrbanus Regius in 1. part. operum in Catech. min. fol. 105. by Hoffmannus in Commentar. de penitent. l. 3. c. 4. fol. 229. a.b. by Sarcerius in loc. common. fol. 238, 239, 240. by the Confession of Ausberg in the Harmony pag. 403. fine. and by Mr. Bilson in his true difference etc. part. 4. pag. 368. ante medium, & 369. aunt med. and see the Sum of the Conference before his Majesty pag. 16. And contradicted for Popish particularly in the Protestants, by the Survey of the book of common prayer, pag. 105. and by Mr. Willet in his meditation upon Psalm 122. pag. 92. ante medium, and vulgarly by Beza, Calvin etc.  
12 Twelfthly, Freewill is affirmed by sundry Protestants mentioned in M. Fox his Acts and Monuments pag. 1533. b. paulo post medium, and pag. 1605. b. fine, also by Snecanus and Hemingius, witness whereof M. Willet in his Synopsis printed Anno 1600. pag. 808. post initium, & 810. post initium, and by sundry others, 
[b] Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 688 lin. 12.  whereof see Benedict Morgensterne in tract. de Eccles. pag. 6. & Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 86. b. And is contradicted for Popish by Calvin, Beza etc.  
13 Thirteenthly, that in regard of Christ's Passion and promise, our good works proceeding from Faith, are meritorious or deserving, affirmed by their public Confessions in the Harmony etc. pag. 495. ante medium, and pag. 273, circa medium, by Spangeburge in Margarit. Theol. pag. 48, & 50. post medium, by Melancthon in loc. common. etc. de bonis operibus circa med. And see M. Hooker l. 5. Eccles. polit. sect. 72. pag. 208. fine. Contradicted for Popish by Calvin, Beza etc. 
[c] Brereniely his Omissions of pag. 688. lin 19  And M. Hooker herein is namely contradicted by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that reverend man Mr. Hooker, printed 1599, pag. 12.  
14 Fourteen, temporal punishment reserved by God in Justice for sin remitted, is affirmed by John Knox in his answer against the Adversaries of God's Predestination, pag. 215, 216, 217. by Gasper Olevianus in Symbolum pag. 8. ante med. and by the public confessions of Protestants in the Harmony etc. pag. 229, paulo ante medium, and pag. 235. circa et post medium, and 508. initio. Contradicted as inclinining to Purgatory, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 514. by Calvin, Beza etc.  
15 Fifteenthly, (were this place capable thereof) we could likewise allege at large divers other points, defended in like manner from the Scriptures by sundry of our learned Adversaries, as namely Peter's Primacy, by Mr. Whittgift in his defence etc. pag. 373. initio & circa med. & 70. initio, & 394, & 375. and by Calvin alleged by Mr. Whitgift ubi supra pag. 373, ante medium, & 469, ante med. and by Musculus alleged ibidem pag. 66. post medium, & pag. 68 and by Mr. Bridges Bishop of Oxford in his defence of the Government etc. pag. 445, & 446.  
16 Sixteenthly, the impugning of the Civil Magistrates headship, though but of a particular Church, by the Century-Writers, Praefat. Centur. 7. pag. 11, ante medium, where it is said of the Civil Magistrates, Non sunt Capita Ecclesiae, quia ipsis non competit iste Primatus, & vide pag. 13. and by Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 650, & 181, & 301, & 694, & 695. and in his second Reply part. 1. pag. 414. where he allegeth Calvin to that purpose. And see further there pag. 413, & 415, & 418. And by Calvin, in the Survey of the Holy pretended Discipline etc. of Mr. Bancroft, pag. 251, fine, and by Viretus alleged there, pag. 252, & 253, & 254. and by Martin Chemnitius who in Epist. ad Electorem Brandenburg. saith of our late Q. Elizabeth; Foemineo & à saeculis inaudito fastu se Papissam & caput Ecclesiae fecit.  
17 Intercession of Angels, by Mr. D. Covell in his answer to Mr. John Burges, pag. 90, circa medium, and by Peter Martyr alleged fully there pag. 91, ante med. and by the Communion book in K. Edward's time printed 1549. fol. 117. a. circa med. and by Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 23. pag. 52, & 53. and by Calvin Institut. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 6 & 7. & l. 3. c. 20, sect. 23. and by Melancthon in Apol. Confess. August. fol. 179. b. post med.  
18 Intercession of Saints, by Latimer Acts and Monuments pag. 1312. a. initio, art. 6. & pag. 1315. a. paulo ante med. and by Oecolampadius ad orat. 1. Chrysostomi de juventio & Maximo Martyribus; and see this only point of Intercession impugned by M. Whitaker contra Duraeum pag. 793, circa med.  
19 Invocation of Saints, by Luther in Epist. ad Georgium Spalatinum, and also in purgatione quorundam articulorum; where he saith, De intercessione Divorum, cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio, & judico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque invocandos; by Oecolampadius in orat. 1. Chrysost. de juventio. & Maximo, by Thomas Bilney a Protestant Martyr, Acts and Monuments pag. 462. b. post med. art. 6. by Latimer, acts and Monuments pag. 1312. a. ante medium, & b. paulo ante medium, & pag. 1315. a. paulo ante med. and by certain Protestants in Polonia, whereof see Hafferenferus in his loc. Theolog. l. 3. stat. 4. loc. 5. pag. 463. ante & circa med.  
20 Vowed Chastity, by Augustine Marloret in 1. Tim. c. 5. verse 11. pag. 375. a. fine, and Mr. R. Alison and others alleged in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subdivis. 9 in the Margin at 13 & 14. where at 14. it is said, The Protestant Author of the book entitled, Antichristus, sive prognostica finis Mundi, pag. 148. fine, & 149. saith, Quod Lutherus hanc primam fidem de fide justificante intelligit, & non de fide pudicitiae, id planè coactum est etc. loquttur Apostolus de fide seu voto officii etc. quia autem Paulus vitio vertit quod nubere postea voluerint, clarissimum est hanc conditionem in voto intercessisse etc. and Mr. Alison in his Confutation of Brownism pag. 71. affirmeth likewise of these Widows, that before God and his Church they had vowed not to marry. And thus (saith he) is this place expounded by Bullinger, Claudius, Guilliam, and others, 
[d] Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 689. lin. 27.  and by Mr. Buddle in his discourse of Evangelicall Fasts pag. 19, circa medium, & 20, ante & post med.  
21 Voluntary poverty, Chastity; and Obedience, by Mr. D. Covell, in his defence of Mr. Hooker art 8. pag. 52. fine, & 51. paulo post med. and for voluntary poverty, see Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, l. 2. pag. 103, paulo post medium, alleged in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subdivis. 9, at 11. where in the Text, Mr. Hooker in the place cited, acknowledgeth Ananias his solemn Vow unto God, which strictly bound him to the giving of his Posessions to the Church's use: And ibidem in Brereley in the margin at 11, it is said, and Mr. Fenton in his Sermon of Simony printed 1604. pag. 46. fine, saith, Albeit we had liberty before to use Ecclesiastical Live as mere temporals, yet after these Vows our case is the very same with that of Ananias Acts 5.2. etc. 
[e] Brereley in his Omissions of pag. 689. lin. 31.  See also Mr. Buddle in his discourse of Evangelicall Fasts pag. 19 paulo post med. & pag. 20. paulo ante med.  
22 Prayer for the Dead, both by Luther and Urbanus Regius, Teste Urbano Regio in prima parte operum in formula cautè loquendi cap. de Sanctorum cultu. And see Urbanus Regius in loc. common. cap. 19 & 18. and by the Communion-book in K. Edward's time, printed 1549. fol. 116. a. circa & post med. & 149. b. post med. & by William Thorp Acts & Monum. pag. 149. a. paulo post initium, and by Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana pag. 450. circa med. 
[f] Brereley in his Om●ssions of pag. 690. lin. 3.  and by Zuinglius tom. 1. in explan. art. 90. fol. 53. a. ante med. & circa med. & in explan. art. 60. fol. 104 post med. 
[g] Brereley in his addition of Errors and Omissions of pag. 690. lin. 3.  and by Melancthon in Apolog. Confess. August. fol. 216. b. & 217. a. initio.  
23 Purgatory, by Luther tom. 1. Wittenberg. in resolute. de indulgentiis, conclus. 15. fol. 112. a. prope finem. and in Disput. Lipsica cum Eckio, and by Latimer Act. mon. pag. 1313. a. paulo ante med. & b. ante med. &. pag. 1315. b. paulò ante med.  
24 Lymbus patrum, by John Lascicius in the book entitled, de Russorum, Muscovitarum, & Tartarorum Religione pag. 122. & 123. and by Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampadii 1. pag. 19 and by Zuinglius ibidem l. 3. pag. 560. & 561. and by Peter Martyr in his common places in English, part. 2. c. 8. pag. 621. a. ante & circa med. & part. 3. c. 16. pag. 377. a. versus finem, & pag. 378. b. circa med. & 379. a. initio, and by Bullinger in his Decades, fol. 66. a. and also in Luc. 16. alleged in Mr. Bilson's Survey of Christ's suffering, pag. 656. post med.  
25 Images in the Church, though impugned by Mr. Fulk as against the Commandments l. against the Rhemish Testament in 1. ep. Joan. c. 1. fol. 456. b. ant med. & fine, and in his defence of the English Translations, c. 3. pag. 119. initio: are yet defended by Luther and Brentius, teste Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. altera in praefat. pag. 12. post med. & vide ibid. pag. 30. ante & post med. by Jacobus Andraeas in epitome. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 39 fine, by Chemnitius in his Examen part. 4. pag. 14. a. circa med. & pag. 33. b. paulo post med. and by Bachmannus in Centur. exercitat. Theolog. pag. 270. fine, & Centur. 1. pag. 53. post med.  
26 Worshipping of Images, by Thomas Bilney a Protestant Martyr, Act. mon. 462. b. art. 7. & 464. b. art. 5. and by certain Protestants of Germany, teste Beza in his respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelga●● part. altera pag. 23. post med.  
27 Reverence and bowing at the name of Jesus, (which is the same to the Ear, that the Image is to the eye, and being lawful at, or to the said name, proveth the like lawfulness thereof at, or before his Image) is affirmed by the late Queen's Injunctions Art. 52. and by Mr. Leonard Wright, in his Summons for Sleepers, pag. 30. by Musculus in loc. Commun. pag. 59 fine, by Zanchius in Epist. Pauli ad Philip. Colloss. Thessaly. in Philip. c. 2. v. 10. fol. 123. Col. 2. by Mr. Whitgift in his defence etc. pag. 742.  
28 That the good works of one may help another, by Melancthon in loc. common. de Eucharistico Sacrificio ante medium, and in his Edition of Anno, 1561. pag. 425. initio, and by the Harmony of Confessions pag. 298. ante medium.  
28 The power of Priests, not only to pronounce, but to give remission of Sins, by sundry Protestants alleged in Brereley tract. 3. sect. 1. in the margin at y. where it is said, Lobechius, Dr. and Professor in the University of Rostock in disput. Theol. pag. 301. answereth our Adversaries common objection, saying, Est quidem solius Dei à peccatis absolvere, sed ita, ut hoc faciat alias immediate (etc.) alias mediatè per suos Mini●ros, condonando nobis culpam, (etc.) Errand ergo Calviniani, qui, (etc.) absolutioni Ministri Verbi illam efficaciam detrahunt (&c.) contendentes Ministrum absolvere tantum ut internuntium, etc. In like plain manner is our Adversaries objection of God only forgiving sin, and their denial thereupon of that power to Ecclesiastical Ministers, no less plainly further answered and refelled by sundry other Protestants, as namely by Andrea's Althamerus in Conciliat. locorum Scripturae pugnantium, etc. loc. 194. fol. 21. a. b. and by Jacobus Helbrunerus in Swenckfeldio Calvinism. pag. 55. Insomuch as Absolution is (affirmed to be) properly a Sacrament by Melancthon in Apolog. confess. August. Art. 13. de numero & usu Sacramentorum fol. 161. b. initio, by Spangeburg (in his Margarita Theologica pag. 116. & 117) by Andrea's Althamerus in conciliat. locorum Scripturae pugnam, (etc.) loc. 191. fol. 211. b. initio, & loc 195. fol. 219. b. and by Sarcerius in loc common. tom. 1. de potest. Ecclesiae fol. 305. b. post medium. Also the power of Priests to forgive sins is affirmed by the English Communion-book in the visitation of the sick, where the Priest saith (And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins &c.) for which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese in their Abridgement pag. 72. fine, and the Survey of the book of Common prayer pag. 154 & 155. do expressly reprove therein the said Communion-Book.  
30 Confession of sins to a Priest, heretofore in the second Consideration num. 19 circa finem.  
31 Distinction of Mortal and venial sin in one and the same person (and therefore not from the diversity of persons, but from the disparity of the sins) affirmed by Melancthon in Concill. Theol. pag. 546. initio, and in loc. common. de discrimine peccati mortalis, ac venialis. and see also his latter Edition of 1561. pag. 346. initio, & 350. fine, & 345 circa med. and see Corpus Doctrinae, etc. printed in folio 1561. pag. 525. post med. & pag. 488. and by Adamus Francisci, in his Margarita Theologica pag. 469. and by Bachmannus in Centur. Exercit. Theol. pag. 663. & 664. and by Mr. Jacob in his defence of the Ministry and Church of England pag. 88 prope initium, by Musculus in loc common. pag. 29. circa med. also by the Protestants, alleged in the Acts of the Disputation in the Council of the Empire holden at Ragenspurge, etc. set forth by Martin Bucer and Melan●●hon, Englished and printed 1542. pag. 165. circa med. by Hemingius in Enchirid. pag. 103. fine, printed Londini 1577. by the Harmony of Confessions pag. 80. & 81. circa med. & 290. post med. & 82. prope initium, and by Jacobus Andraeas alleged in Beza's respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 68 fine, 69. initio, & 70. paulo ante med. Insomuch as he is therefore specially reprehended by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 1. in praefat. pag. 23. fine. & 24. paulo ante med.  
32 The indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds, by Luther alleged in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. at † next after f. in the margin at fourthly, where it is said: Fourthly as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds, Luther, in Epist. ad Bohemos, saith thereof: Quamvis pulchrum quidem esset utrâque specie in Eucharistia uti, & Christus hac in re nihil tanquam necessarium praecepit, praestaret tamen pacem (&c) sectari, quam de speciebus contendere, and Luther, de utraque specie Sacramenti, saith: Si veneris ad locum ubi tantum una species ministratur; cum aliis una tantum specie utere (&c) 
[h] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2▪ sect. 5. initio in the margin at x.  And the like indifferency hereof is affirmed by Melancthon in Centur. Epist. Theologic. pag. 252. initio, and see the Protestant Writers, affirming in plain terms the indifferency of Communion under one or both kinds, alleged, and by Mr. Jewel not denied in his Reply, pag. 110. & 106.  
33 Sacrifice of the New Testament, according to the Order of Melchisedech, by Andraeas Crastovius in libro de opificio Miss●e l. 1. pag. 28. paulo post medium, & 119. paulo ante med. & 51. post med. & 58. paulo post med. & 122. aunt med. & 171. and see Mr. Jewel in his Reply pag. 7. initio.  
34 That the first motions of our Concupiscence without our consent thereto, are not sin, by Zegedine in loc. common. printed Basileae, 1588. pag. 229. post med. where he saith, Peccatum tribus gradibus exurgit, & absolvitur, suggestione, delectatione, & consensione plena etc. qui non consentit, sed delectationi repugnat, & tentationi, immo, delectationem respuit, peccati impuritate non inficitur, etc. contradicted by Keckermannus in System. Theologic. pag. 275. post medium.  
35 That the Commandments are not impossible, by Sebastian Castalio de perfect. obed. leg. Dei (and he therein namely contradicted by Mr. Reynolds in his second conclusion annexed to his Conference pag 697. ante medium,) also by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 2. pag. 101. prope finem, where he saith distributively, at the least all great and grievous actual offences, as they offer themselves one by one, both may and aught to be avoided (wherein he is namely reprehended by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to that Reverend man Mr. R. Hooker pag. 15. circa med. and by Mr. Willet in his Meditation on Psalm. 122. printed 1603. pag. 91. post medium,) and see Mr. Hooker's said Saying, yet affirmed by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker art. 7. pag. 54. and see this like possibility now in the time of the Gospel, further affirmed by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic pag. 26. fine, & pag. 51. prope finem & 52. aunt med.  
36 That no professed Widow might be such, as had before been Bigama, or twice married, by Marloret in 1. Tim. c. 5. verse 9 pag. 374. post med. and by Calvin in omnes Pauli Epistolas in 1. Tim. 5.9. pag. 778. circa med. and see Calvin's words so understood by Mr. Bancroft in his Survey, etc. pag. 218. circa & post med. who in the same place allegeth Beza, and Mr. Cartwright, as herein contrary to Calvin.  
37 Transubstantiation, affirmed by Luther after his revolt from our Church, teste Hospiniano in Histor. Sacramentar. part. alter a pag. 12. circa med. and see Melancthon in Concil. Theolog. part. 1. pag. 584. initio, affirmed also by D. Barnes (one of Mr. Fox's Martyrs) who in his Protestation at his death said expressly, that the Sacrament after the words spoken by the Priest doth change the substance of Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ; which his Protestation being then published by a professed gospeler of that time, and then also answered unto by D. Standish in his book then printed in octavo in English, the said words are yet extant therein, though fraudulently since omitted by Mr. Fox, who acts monument. pag. 610. 611, 612. following the said Copy verbatim, and coming by course to those very words, doth purposely overpass them: See also Transubstantiation believed by the Lord Cobham, act. mon. pag. 272. a. and by John hus act monum. pag. 209. a. fine & b. initio, & paulo post med. & pag. 197. b. fine.  
38 That Christ is God of God, and hath his substance of his Father, is affirmed by 
[i] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. sub- 13. sect. 1. in the margin at s.  Zegedine in loc. come. pag. 634. paulo post med. where he saith directly Dicendum est, Filium eam ipsum Deitatem quae est Patris habere, non ex sese, sed ex Patre. Also Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 5. pag. 113. initio, saith, The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not. And see him further pag. 106. fine, & 113. aunt med. which his Assertion, Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 16. & 17. specially defendeth, affirming further pag. 17. initio, That Christ had received his substance by the gift of eternal Generation, and pag. 18. ante med. That Christ is God by being of God, light by issuing out of light: and more plainly yet ibidem pag. 121. which his Doctrine is reproved by the Puritans in their Christian Letter, etc. pag. 6 ante med. and by Mr. Willet in his meditation upon Psalm 122. printed 1603. pag. 91. Also Mr. Fox in Apoc. pag. 474. initio, saith, Christus Deus ex Deo, and Lobehius in disput. 30. Theolog pag. 49. saith, Filius non solum id quo Filius dicitur habet à Patre, veram etiam suam essentiam. Solus enim Pater vitam seu essentiam habet à seipso, and Mr. D. Dove in his Confutation of Atheism pag. 37. fine, saith, God the Father from everlasting understanding himself, begat his Son, coeternal with himself, etc. and the Confession of Belgia in the Harmony, etc. pag. 34. initio, saith, We believe that Christ, in respect of his Divine nature, is the only Son of God, and Melancthon in loc. common. of Anno 1561. pag. 24. fine, saith, Pater aeternus sese intuens, gignit cogitationem sui quae est imago ipsius, dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quia cogitatione generatur, & ibidem pag. 25. initio, he saith, Secunda persona Filius dicitur, quia de substantia Patris natus est. 
[k] Brereley ibidem in the margin at n. o. p. q.  This Doctrine is impugned by M. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 121. circa med. where he saith, Utcunque patres illi (Niceni) Christum esse dixerunt Deum de Deo, tamen firmissime tenendum esse confirmat Calvinus; Christum ex sese habere ut Deus sit, nisi Christum volumus sua Divinitate spoliare, and see Calvin. Institut. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 23. where he saith, Quomodo autem Creator qui omnibus esse dat, non erit ex seipso, sed essentiam aliunde mutuabitur? and in his Explicat. perfid. Valent. Gentil. (extant in his tract. Theolog. etc. pag. 774. a. circa med. he saith, Hoc modo videmus precariam fieri ejus Divinitatem, cui datum est esse. Impugned likewise by Mr. Willet Synopsis, pag. 610. fine, and Snecanus in his Method. descript. etc. pag. 107. ante med. he saith, Filius qua Deus non habet essentiam Deitatis à Patre. and Calvin in explicat. perfid. valent. Gentil. extant in tract. Theolog. pag. 774. a. ant med. saith, Jam tibi responsum fuit non posse Deum esse Filii sui Patrem, nisi personae respectu, quia alioqui vel partibilis esset Dei essentia, vel Filius ipse Deus non esset. By Beza contra Heshusium, saying, Non est penitus de essentia Patris, whereas Mela●cthon loc. common. of Anno 1561 pag. 25. initio, saith to the contrary, De substantia Patris natus est, also by Calvin in his Explicat. perfid. Valent. Gent. (extant in his tract. Theolog. &c.) pag 771. b. ant med. saying, Si essentiam communicavit Pater cum Filio, vel in solidum, vel ex parte communicavit: Si ex parte, dimidium nobis Deum fabricas, etc. add quod hoc modo nimis scelestè ac faedè laceratur Dei essentia, and pag. 772. a. ant med. he further saith, Si ex parte Pater suam Divinitatem in Filium transfudit, jam lacera erit Divinitas: si in totum, ergo Divinitas quae ante fuerat penes Patrem, in Filium conversa, in ipso Patre evanuit, and see the like in Calvin Inst. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 23. fine & circa med.  
39 That Christ, as Man, was from his Nativity freed from ignorance, and full of knowledge; affirmed by Jacobus Andraeas, alleged by Beza in Respon. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 1. pag. 147. fine, & 148. initio, & pag. 134. circa & paulo post med. and affirmed further by Andraeas in Epit. Coll. Montisbelgar. pag. 33. circa & post med. by Osiander in Enchirid. Controversiarum, printed Tubingae 1603. pag. 146, 147, etc. And affirmed also further generally by the Lutheran Protestant's, overmany to recite, yet contradicted by Beza ubi supra, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 599. & pag. 600. paulo ante med. and many others, and namely by Mr. Sutcliffe who (in his Review and Examination of Mr. kellison's Survey, printed 1606. pag. 55. post med.) will not attribute to the human nature of Christ, fullness of knowledge, so much as but in respect of its personal union with the Godhead, but saith to the contrary, If Christ as man, by the union, be omniscient, why is he not also omnipotent, and present in all places?  
40 That Christ after his Passion descended in Soul into Hell, affirmed by D. Hill in his Defence of the Article, that Christ descended into Hell, throughout that book; by Mr. Bilson in his survey of Christ's suffering, etc. and of his descent into Hell pag. 650, 651, 652, 653. etc. by the Lutherans generally, and very many Calvinists, and impugned by Mr. Carliele in his special book, that Christ descended not into Hell; by Mr. D. Willet in his like special book entitled Lymbo-Mastix: also by Mr. D. Fulk alleged by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 605. 606.  
41 That Christ's corporal death was sufficient without his further suffering in Soul the pains of Hell, affirmed by Mr. Bilson in his several Treatises of that very Argument, viz. in his book of the 
[l] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. sub. 8. in the margin at 19  full Redemption of mankind by the Death and Blood of Christ; and also in his Survey of Christ's sufferings &c. and affirmed also by many others, and contradicted by 
[m] Brereley ibidem in the margin at 8.9.10.  Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 19 sect. 10. and by Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 603. post med. and see Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 129. initio, also Mr. Willet in his Synopsis of Anno 1600. pag. 985. ante med. & vide pag. 987. initio, where he saith, That Christ suffering in his Flesh only, wrought not our Redemption; by Calvin Institut. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 10. Dires in anima cruciatus Damnati ac perditi hominis pertulit.  
42 That the Sacraments of the old Testament were not, in working and effect, equal with ours, affirmed generally for the most part by the Lutherans, whereof see Schlussselburg in Theol. Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 59 a. circa & post med. & b. and Luther in loc. come. class. 1. pag. 88 circa med. and Luc. Osiander in epitome etc. Centur. 16. pag. 411. prope finem, contradicted for most part by the Calvinists, whereof see Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 418. paulo post med.  
43 The visible sign of Imposition of hands in confirmation, with the inward Grace thereby conferred (which proveth it a Sacrament) affirmed by the Communion-Book turned into latin, and printed at London by Tho. Vautrollerius. Anno 1574. in the tract of Confirmation, and by Mr. D. Covell in his modest Examination etc. against the Plea of the Innocent, pag. 192. paulo ante med. where he saith, In Baptism we are regenerate to life, but in Confirmation we are strengthened to battle, and by Mr. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 66. pag. 69. fine, & 170 initio, & 173. post med. Impugned by the Survey of the Book of Common-praier, pag. 117. & 118. by Josias nicols in his Plea of the Innocent, pag. 25. post med. where he reproveth in this behalf the foresaid Communion-book, as also doth Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence, pag. 726. initio, and the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese in their Abrigement, pag. 76. ante med. say, The Communion-Book giveth to Confirmation the definition of a Sacrament; and most, or rather all the other Calvinists, who use the same, deny yet the inward Grace given therewith, professing to use it as but by way of instruction or catechising,  
44 The like visble sign, and invisible Grace given in Orders, affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 77. pag. 230. prope finem & initium, by Mr. Bilson in his perpetual Government of Christ's Church, pag. 109. Insomuch as it is accounted a Sacrament by Melancthon in loc. come. Edit. 1536. de Sacramentorum numero, where he saith, Maximè mihi placet Ordinem, ut vocant, inter Sacramenta numerari, and see his Edition of 1561. pag. 383. fine, & 384 initio, and see his other Edition of 1552, & 1558. accounted likewise for a Sacrament, by Calvin Institut. l. 4. c. 19 sect. 28. alleged by Mr. Bilson ubi supra: See all this impugned by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 545, & 546. and generally by many others.  
45 That Deaconship is a distinct order from Priesthood, and a step thereto, affirmed by Mr. Whitgift in his Defence etc. pag. 586, & 587, & 582, 583, 584, 585, & 688. and so it is at this day used in the Church of England, as an Ecclesiastical degree, distinct from the Ministry, and yet contradicted by Mr. Cartwright ubi supr a pag. 519. initio, & 587. aunt med.  
46 That there is no extraordinary calling since the Apostles times, affirmed by 
[n] Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect 3. subd. 2. in the margin at ●.  Musculus loc. common. pag. 394. where he saith, Vocatio quae immediatè est à Christo jam in usu non est, ut erat olim, habebat sua signa, unde cognosci potuit, de quibus meminit Marcus Evangelista cap. ult. dicens, Praedicaverunt etc. sequentibus signis etc. and 
[o] Brereley ibidem in the margin at a.  Lobechius in disput. Theolog. pag. 358. fine, & 359. initio saith, Immediatam porrò vocationem cum mediata ab Apostolis permutatam esse Scriptura testatur etc. credimus immediatae vocationis usum Deo in hoc mundo nullum amplius futurum: nullam quippe de ea dedit promissionem, nullum mandatum; and D. Saravia in his book of the divers degrees of Ministers pag. 9 initio, termeth extraordinary Calling, an unknown Coast, out of which (the now Defenders thereof) can not ways wind themselves: And see Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 86. fine, & 87. initio, and see Saravia in defen. tract, etc. contra resp. Bezae, pag. 306, & 307. and ibidem pag. 37. circa medium he saith, Sed speciem illam extraordinariae vocationis ad Ecclesiae ministerium etc. cum nullo testimonio Scripturarum, nec exemplo certo doceatur, non admitto: est enim periculi plena, & novi malique exempli etc. ea sola fretus nemo se ministerio Ecclesiastico ingerere debet, and see there pag. 35, 36, 38, etc. Insomuch that pag. 59 fine, & 60. post med. & 74. fine, he reprehendeth Beza, for that in the Disputation had by him and other Protestants, with Catholics, in the Conference at Poysy, being demanded of their calling, Beza affirmed the same to be extraordinary. See hereof more in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. at y, z, a. and see the contrary affirmed by others in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. at f. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. prope finem, at r. & sect. 11. subd. 3. at *.  
47 The indelible Character imprinted by certain Sacraments, affirmed in express terms by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker. pag. 87. fine, & 91. initio & circa med. where he allegeth St. Augustin for it: And for the Doctrine thereof, see Mr. Hooker l. 5. pag. 228. circa & paulo post med. yet impugned by other Protestants, whereof see Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 419. and see him reproving Mr. Hooker herein in his meditation upon Psalm 122. printed 1●03. pag. 91. fine.  
48 The baptism of Women and Lay persons in case of necessity, affirmed by Jacobus Andreas in epitome. Colloquii Montisbelgar. pag. 46. prope initium, & 58. circa med. by Mr. Hooker l. 5. sect. 61. pag 137. circa med. & prope finem, & sect. 62. initio, pag. 139. ante med. by Mr. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker. pag. 91 fine, & 92. aunt med. by Mr. Whitgift in his defence etc. pag. 518. ante med. who also there allegeth Zuinglius; by Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinistarum l. 1. fol. 68 b. and many others: yet contradicted by Calvin, as appeareth in Schlusselburg in Theolog. Calvinist. l. 1. fol. 60. b. ant med. & 61. a. initio, and contradicted by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 432. fine, & 433. and by many others.  
49 The known intention of the Church, needful to the Administration of the Sacraments, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 58. p. 126. versus finem, and by D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker pag. 103. ante med. and more plainly 104. post med. & 106. post med. And yet impugned specially in Mr. Hooker by certain English Protestants, in their Christian Letter to Mr. R. Hooker pag. 29. fine, & 30. initio & post med. and promiscuously by others.  
50 Seven Sacraments, by the Protestant Divines assembled in the Conference at Lipsia, teste Illyrico inadhortatione ad Constantiam in agnita Christi religione etc. printed in Octavo, Magdeburg. 1550. paulo post initium, & aunt med. and by the Protestant Divines assembled in the Conference at Ratisbon anno 1541. whereof Bucer in Acts Colloq. Ratisbon. saith, Protestants non gravatim admiserunt septem Sacramenta.  
51 Implicit Faith, commonly termed, Fides implicita; affirmed by Dr. Field of the Church, l. 3. c. 2. pag. 65. circa med. and in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop, near the beginning of that Epistle hesaith, 
[o] Alleged by Brereley tracked 2. c 3. sect. 11. subdi. 1. in the margin under 1.  For seeing the Controversies in Religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricat, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength and understanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of Holy ones, that Household of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, that so they may embrace her Communion, follow her Directions, and rest in her judgement? So that Implitite Faith is here by Mr. D. Field implied, and allotted to those that want strength of understanding to examine Controversies: In respect whereof he directeth them as before said, to rest in the Church's Judgement. Affirmed also by D. Baro l. de Fide & ejus ortu pag. 40. initio, & pag. 91, 92. initio, 94. ante med. 97. initio, by Mr. Jacob in his Reasons taken out of God's Word, pag. 55. ante med. Insomuch as we are taught to rest in other judgements by the French Confession, in the Harmony, pag. 319. prope finem, and by Jacobus Acontius stratag. Satan. l. 4. pag. 203. paulo post initium, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, in the Preface, sect. 6. pag. 28. paulo ante & circa med. by Melancthon l. 1. Epist. ep. ad Regem Angeliae, pag. 49. fine: yet impugned as Popish by certain Eng. protestants, in their christian letter to M. Hooker pag. 30. post med. and generally by others.  
52 Usury altogether unlawful, affirmed by D. Pie in his Treatise entitled usuries spirit conjured, with his answer to a treatise written in defence of Usury, printed 1604. and in his Epistle Dedicatory, he allegeth Mr. D. powel, and sundry others who have written herein against Usury; yet contradicted by sundry Protestants mentioned there pag. 20. fine, & 32. initio, Contradicted also by Bucer in script. Anglican. pag. 789, 790, 791. etc. and contradicted by Geneva itself, witness whereof is Mr. Hutton in his second part of the answer etc. In his Preface to his fellow Brethren etc. where he saith, Two Ministers at Geneva were deposed and banished for speaking against Usury, allowed in that State; See all so Usury further defended by Matthew virel in his principal grounds of Religion, Englished and printed 1595. pag. 148. post med. & 149. aunt med.  
53 That antichrist is yet to come, affirmed by 
[q] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 9 subdivis. 3. in the margin at 18. and in the margin and Text at †  Franciscus Lambertus in his book entitled, Antichristus sive prognostica finis Mundi, pag. 74. post med. 75, & 79. and see Franciscus Lambertus his Commentary upon the Revelations. And by Zanchius in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil. Colloss. & Thess. pag. 246. a. and in his Miscellaniorum libri tres etc. printed Neapoli Palatinorum An. 1582. pag. 298, & 299. read the places. And concerning the like judgement of others, Mr. Dove in his Sermon of the second coming of Christ etc. versus finem confesseth that some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet revealed or no. Insomuch as the Puritans, in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the high Court of Parliament, do therefore specially charge the Protestants with affirming that the Pope is not Antichrist, saying concerning themselves and the Protestants: Do we vary from the sincere Doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay rather many of them do much more swarve from the same, touching general Grace, and the death of Christ for every particular person, touching Images in the Church for devotion, touching the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, that the Pope is not Antichrist, concerning the necessity of Baptism, touching Auricular Confession etc. See also these words thus further alleged by Mr. powel in his rejoinder to the mild defence, annexed to his book of things indifferent etc. printed 1607. pag. 118. post med. and impugned generally by those other who pretend the Pope to be Antichrist.  
54 Certain distinct degrees and orders of Angels and archangels etc. affirmed by Mr. Hutton in his second part of the answer to the Reasons etc. pag. 168, & 169, & 170. throughout: and by Trigevillaeus Gauvius in his Palma Christiana pag. 39 and by Kekermannus in System. Theolog. pag. 159. fine, & 160. initio, & 163. aunt med. by Piscator in volume. 1. Thes. pag. 93. ante med. and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English, part. 1. pag. 120. b. paulo post med: and see Marloret his Enchirid. printed Londini 1591. pag. 20. post med. Yet contradicted by Calvin Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 5, & 6. where he maketh the diversity to consist only in diversity of Names or Callings given to them all in general, diversely according to the diversity of their employment, and with him in opinion herein Hiperius in Method. Theolog. pag. 287. initio, & paulo po● medium, & 288. paulo ante & post med. and many others do agree, insomuch as the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, in their Abridgement etc. pag. 74. post medium, will not grant that there are archangels.  
55 The Patronage and protection of certain Angels over certain Countries and Kingdoms, affirmed by Calvin Instit. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 7. and by Hiperius in Method. Theolog. pag. 291. initio, and by Peter Martyr in his Common-places in English, part. pag. 120. a paulo post med. and in the margin there, and contradicted by M. D. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in Revelat. 1.20. sect. 9 fol. 464. a. paulo ante medium, and by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 294. paulo post initium, and many others.  
56 That by Michael the Archangel, is meant not Christ, but a very Angel, affirmed by the English Communion-Book which appointeth a peculiar Collect for St. Michael, and by Marloret in his Enchiridion printed Londini 1591. p. 20. post med. and by Wygandus & Matthaeus Judex in their Syntagma etc. ex Novo Testament printed Basil. 1585. pag. 509. initio. Yet contradicted by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 293. fine, & 294. initio, and by Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Revel. 1. sect. 9 fol. 464. a. ante med. & ibidem in c. 12. sect. 3. fol. 477. a fine, and by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, in their Abrigement etc. pag. 74. circa med. reprehending there, the Communion-book, because, say they, it affirmeth that Michael mentioned Revelat. 12. is a created Angel.  
57 That the observation of Sunday for our Sabath, is not alterable to any other Day, affirmed by Mr. Whitgift in his Defence etc. pag. 89. fine, and by Mr. Cartwright alleged ibidem pag. 89. paulo ante med. and by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 382. ante med. and in his Edition of Anno 1600. pag. 431 circa med. by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Revelat. 1. sect. 6. fol. 463. b. ant med. and by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles etc. cap. 33. pag. 80. sect. 12, & 13. Yet most clearly contradicted by Calvin in his book of Institutions. And see his other Edition l. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. by Peter Martyr in 1 Cor. 16. and in his Common places in English part. 2. pag. 375. b. circa med by Ursinus in his Doctrine. Christian. compend. pag. 775. initio, & 777. circa med. and by Mr Thomas Bell in his Survey of Popery, printed 1596. l. 3. part. 1. c. 5. pag. 117.  
58 That the alteration of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, is not proved by Scripture (but is therefore Apostolic tradition) affirmed by Bullinger in his Decades etc. Englished, Decad. 2. & serm. 4. pag. 140. b. initio, by Mr. Whitgift in his defence etc. pag. 88 fine, & 89. post med. and most fully and at large by Mr. Thomas Bell in his said Survey of Popery l. 3. part. 1. c. 5. p. 116. Insomuch as it is acknowledged for an Apostolic tradition to be perpetually observed by the Divines of Geneva, in their said Propositions and principles, etc. pag. ●o sect. 13. and see Mr. Fulk in Revelat. 1. sect. 6. fol. 463. a. prope finem, and Ursinus in his Doctrine. Christianae compendium in prolegom. pag. 36. saith thereof, Hanc esse Apostolicam traditionem credimus: Yet contradicted by Hieron. Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura, printed 1593. pag. 123, & 124. and by many others.  
59 Set time of fasting, and from certain meats, appointed not only for politic Order, but for spiritual Considerations, affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 5. sect. 72. initio, pag. 204. fine, & 205. initio. Insomuch as pag. 209. fine, he answereth the vulgar objection of Montanns, & ibidem post med. he likewise answereth the common objection from St. Paul 1 Tim. 4.3. and pag. 210. paulo post med. he saith, Aerius was worthily condemned for his opposition against Fasting, with whom agreeth the Protestant Author of the Treatise entitled Querimonia Ecclesiae, printed Londini 1592. reproving in like manner Aerius. pag. 31. fine, & 94. aunt med. & 103. fine, answering also the said objection of Montanus pag. 110. ante & post med. and answering likewise the said objection from St. Paul pag. 106. circa med. Yet contradicted by Mr. Fulk, who to the contrary objecteth Montanus (against the Rhemish Testament in Matth. 15. sect. 3. fol. 28. a. post med. & in Acta Apost. c. 13. sect. 5. fol. 208. a. fine) defendeth Aerius (in his Answer to a counterfeit Catholic, pag. 45. initio, as also doth Mr. Whitaker more fully contra Duraeum l. 9 pag. 830. initio) and objecteth 1 Tim. 4.3. to prove this fasting to be the Doctrine of Devils (in 1 Tim. 4. sect. 5. fol. 375. a.)  
60 That making of Vows was not part of the old Law, now abrogated, but continueth yet in force, and to be performed; affirmed in divers cases 
[r] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 4. subd. 9 in the margin at 10.  by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic pag. 156 post med. saying: And now in the New Testament we have warrant in like manner to vow, etc. Of this kind, are the Vows to keep set times of fasting, etc. By Musculus in loc common. de votis pag. 524. circa med and by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 241. postmed. and by Amandus Polanus in partitiovibus Theolog. l. 2. pag. 394. And Danaeus in primae partis altera parte contra Bellarminum pag. 987. affirmeth, Fas esse Christianis hominibus vovere quae cum Dei voluntate consentiunt. Yet contradicted by 
[s] Brereley ibidem in the margin at 7.  Peter Martyr de caelibatu & votis pag. 302. fine, & 303. & ib. pag. 304. post med. he further saith, Votum ego cerimoneale antiquae legis praeseptum fuisse affirmo, and pag. 52. ante med. he saith, Consentaneum est quando Christiana libertate fruimur, & sub Evangelii gratia & luce vivimus, ritum ceremonianque vivendi omittendam esse etc. Quare ut aliae ceremoniae quae variè ac multipliciter ista & consimilia docebant, per Christum sublatae sunt, ita & vovendi ratio debet facessere etc. and by Mr. Fulk answering to Psalm 76.11. who saith, that Text pertaineth to the Old Testament, in his Retentive against Bristow's Motives &c. pag. 153. fine, and by Bullinger in his Decades in English pag. 380. ante med. saying, Vows belong to the Jews Ceremonies, and by Zuinglius part. 1. in explanat. art. 30. fol. 69. b. initio, saying, de votis universum hoc dico, quod per Christum sunt abolita.  
61 That Fasting, Chastity, and the giving of ones Goods to the Poor for Religious uses, embracing Poverty, is of greater perfection and acceptance before God, than not fasting, marrying, or retaining of the said Goods: Affirmed by Mr. Hooker l. 5. pag 205 initio, & 208. fine, & l. 3. sect. 8 pag. 140 fine, and by M. D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker art. 8. pag. 51. circa med. Yet directly contradicted in the Case of retaining Goods, by Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 245. post medium saying, 
[t] Alleged by Brereley tracked 2. c. 3. sect. 8. fine, at him the margin.  He is an enemy to the Glory of God, that changeth his rich estate wherein he may serve God, for a poor, and in the case of marriage most grossly, by 
[u] Brereley ibid. at g. in the margin.  Luther tom. 5. Wittenberg. in exeg. ad cap. 7.1 Cor. fol. 107. b. post med. saying of marriage and single life, De usu vel abusu etc. of the use or abuse of the States at this present we will say nothing, but of the condition or nature (of life) in themselves, and do conclude that Matrimony is as Gold, and the spiritual state (of single life) is as Dung. And in Assert. Art. he further saith, Matrimony is much more excellent than Virginity, Christ and his Apostles did dissuade Christians from Virginity. See this saying acknowledged and defended by Mr. Whitaker contra Camp. rat. 8. pag. 151. ante med. where he saith of Virginity, it is not simply good, but after a certain manner. It is never better than Marriage (nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but in regard of the circumstance, whereas marriage is often times simply better than it; It is to be desired, not always, but in respect of the troubles which accompany marriage: directly against St. Augustins' particular Confutation of this very Reason l. de Virginitat. c. 13. alleged and acknowledged in Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in 1 Cor. 7. sect. 13. fol. 273. b. post med. and Mr. Whitaker ubi supra, concludeth in defence of Luther's foresaid words, saying, Haec certè Lutheri propria non sunt; ea enim omnes boni agnoscunt & defendunt: Insomuch that whereas St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.38. saith, He that joineth his Virgin in marriage doth well, he that joineth her not doth better, Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 693. post medium, answering hereto saith, Melius hoc loco vocat Paulus, quod est commodius etc. and by Mr Wotton in his defence of Mr. Perkins pag. 500 initio where he saith, marriage is simply better, and paulo ante med. where he defendeth Jovinian, condemned for but equalling marriage with Virginity; and in the case of fasting, by 
[x] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect 8 subd. 5. at f●m the margin.  Mr. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 243. ante med. saying, Neither is God better worshipped by eating or not eating, and by Mr. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic pag. 220 fine, saying, Fasting is in itself a thing indifferent, as is eating and drinking.  
62 That he, who hath the gift of Continency, may lawfully either marry, or for the Kingdom of Heaven refrain from marriage. Affianced directly by Bucer in sacra quatuor Evangelia in Matt. 19.10. fol. 150. b. circa med. and after the other Edition at Basil 1536. pag. 400. paulo post initium, by Wygandus & Matthaeus Judex in their Syntagma etc. ex Novo Testamento coll. 1011. paulo ante & post med. by the Century-Writers Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 4. coll. 454. lin. 39 by Chemnitius in Enchirid. c. de conjugio pag. 411. by Mr. Hooker l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140. prope finem, by M. D. Covell in his defence etc. pag. 51. circa med. and by the H●●mony of Confessions pag. 543. post med. & 545. prope finem. Yet contradicted (because otherwise it proveth evidently that a man may supererrogate, or do more than he is commanded) by M. D. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 236. circa & paulo post med. & fine, where he absolutely restraineth such from liberty of marriage, whereto many others do, for the same reason, assent.  
63 That sin against the holy Ghost is only final impenitence, and that all sins, during this life, may be repent of, are remissible, and the parties may be prayed for: affirmed by Mr. Smith in his Treatise of prayer in general for all men, against those that preach, that all men are not to be prayed for; by Urbanus Rhegius in loc. come. c. de peccato fol. 20. b. fine, & 21. a. initio, by Wygandus & Matthaeus Judex in their Syntagma ex Novo Testament. coll. 580. b. lin. 40. & 58●. lin. 34. & 584. lin. 28. & lin. 41. & lin. ult. & 585. initio, by Chemnitius in Enchirid. pag. 269. & 273. Yet impugned by Mr. D. Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory pag. 274. post med. and against the Rhemish Test. in 1. ep. Joan. c. 5. sect. 4. fol. 455. b. circa & post med. and by M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 562. ante med.  
64 That one Text of Scripture may have divers understandings, and all of them true (against our Adversaries practise, who, to make the same plain by one example for many, if they can show that St. Augustin or some other Father, doth by Fire 1 Cor. 13.15. upon occasion of other application, understand the tribulation of this life, do therefore urge this Exposition thus given against the other common received sense of Purgatory; though also given elsewhere by the very same and other Fathers, which the said Fathers by their other foresaid firster sense never meant to gainsay: This slight being usual by our Adversaries is hereby once for all prevented) affirmed by the Translator of the English Bible published 1576. in his Epistle to the Brethren of England, Scotland and Ireland, circa med. by the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneva etc. cap. 52. pag. 149. post med. by Hierome Zanchius de facra Scriptura pag. 422. fine, 424, 425. and by Aretius in loc. come loc. 59 pag. 187. circa med. & pag. 177. circa med. (with whom herein agreeth St. Augustine de Civit. Dei l. 11. c. 19 initio, & l. 12. confess. c. 31. & de Doct. Christ. l 3. c. 27. & lib. 1. c. 36. & de util. cred. c. 3. & de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. c. 21) Yet contradaicted by Mr. Fulk in his confutation of Purgatory pag. 151. and M. Willet in his Synopsis pag. 26 fine.  
65 The distinction of Order and Jurisdiction (whereby the greatest Archbishop and the meanest Bishop or Priest are said to be equal or unequal, the equality being in respect of Order, and the inequality in respect of Jurisdiction, which distinction serveth to explain the seeming repugnant sayings, whether of Scripture or Fathers, which otherwise might be thought to affirm sometimes a superiority, at other times an equality between Peter and the other Apostles, and so likewise between the Pope and other Bishops) Affirmed by Mr. Whitgift, and 
[y] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3 sect 10. subd. 2. sine in the margin at m.  Mr. Bridges in his defence etc. pag. 313. & 445.446. 1156. fine, and Mr. Whitgift acknowledgeth this distinction, affirming in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition pag. 303. post med. that Archbishop's quoad ministerium do not differ from other Pastors, but touching Government, affirming also pag. 386. ante med. and answering to a common objection out of Hierome, who equalleth the meanest Bishop with the Pope, that they are equal quoad Mnisterium, but not quoad politiam, And see him there further pag. 320. fine, & 461. initio, & pag. 390. prope initium, and contradicted for Popish, by Mr. Cartwright alleged in Mr. Whitgift's defence pag. 389. prope finem, and by many others.  
66 That the true visible Church cannot wholly err; affirmed by Mr. Fox in his Martyrs, as by Philpot, Act. Mon. pag. 1401. a. prope finem, by Bilney Act. Mon. 464. b. art. 4. by Ridley Act. Mon. pag. 1361. b. post med. & pag. 1286. b. prope finem, by James Baynham Act. Mon. pag. 493. b. prope finem, also by Mr. Fox himself Act. Mon. pag. 999. a. fine, at art. 36. by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon, and page mentioned next hereafter in number 67. by the Divines of Geneva, in their Propositions and Principles disputed etc. pag. 141. sect. 12. & 13. and most expressly by Bertrand de Loque, Minister of Delphinine, who in his discourse of the Church c. 12. pag. 198. saith of this very question, The Controversy in my judgement is not of the Catholic (or universal) Church, for we all agree herein that she cannot err touching Faith etc. wherefore this question is touching (only) a particular Church: Impugned by Mr. Fulk, who in his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 8●. fine, saith, The whole Church militant consisting of men, which are all liars, may err altogether, as every part thereof. And by the Puritans, who in their Brief Discovery of untruths, in a Sermon preached 1588. by D. Bancroft, pag. 34. do expressly reprove Mr. Bancroft for his teaching our Catholic Doctrine herein.  
67 An external Judgement, or difinitive sentence (and not only Scripture) appointed for the ending of Controversies; affirmed by Mr. D. Field in his words alleged heretofore in this Consideration, num. 51. by M. Bilson in his perpetual government etc. pag. 372. initio, by Mr. Bancroft in his Sermon preached February 8. 1588. pag. 42, 43. (see his saying alleged and reprehended in the Puritans foresaid Discovery etc. pag. 34.) by Mr. D. Covell in his Modest Examination etc. pag. 108. paulo ante med. & 109. prope finem, by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity in the Preface sect. 6. initio, pag. 26. circa med. & pag. 28. ante med. by Melancthon in Consil. Theolog. part. 2. pag. 1. & 2. And in the end (after much winding in and out) by Mr. D. Reynolds in his Conference with Mr. Hart pag. 99 post medium, and by the Puritans, whereof see M. Bancroft's Survey etc. pag. 304. fine: Yet contradicted vulgarly by over many (to be named) Sectaries of all sorts, who (thereby to exempt themselves from all trial) do pretend that the Church may err, and therefore that only Scripture is to be our Judge. See this at large pretended by the Protestants throughout the late Conference at Ratisbon, printed Lavingae Anno 1602.  
68 Those that be learned know that the Government of the Church is neither Popular, nor Aristocratical, but a Monarchy: affirmed in these words by Mr. Whitgift in his defence etc. pag. 641. post medium, by M. D. Covell in his Examination etc. against the Plea of the Innocent pag. 109. & 107. alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num. 10. after 15. at a. b. c. e. by Luther alleged there afterwards in the margin under * next before 18. and vulgarly by many other Protestants, who affirm the temporal Magistrate to be the head of the Church. But yet many others (who discern the known difference between the several Commonwealths of foreign Nations governed by several Princes, and the particular Churches of those Nations: as namely that those sundry Commonwealths be each of them of itself a several absolute politic body, governed severally by distinct laws, whereas yet all those several National Churches, professing all of them one Faith and Religion, make but one Catholic Church, one Body, Ephesians 2.16. & 3.16. One visible Church of Christ. Hooker l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 126. prope finem,) do therefore impugn Mr. Whitgift's foresaid Assertion, foreseeing that by sequel thereof the several Churches of Foreign Nations, making, as aforesaid, all of them but one visible Church, one Body, should be accordingly governed by one visible Ecclesiastical Head, or Monarch. And hence it is, that Mr. Jacob in his Reasons taken out of God's word, retorteth (how probably we refer to judgement) Mr. hooker's Assertions, saying there pag. 24. paulo ante med. It followeth from this necessarily, that there ought to be a Catholic or universal government Ecclesiastical. This is a Conclusion whereunto Mr. Hooker setteth down both the Proposition and Assumption, viz. Every visible Church, truly and properly so called, aught to have a correspondent Ecclesiastical government; but there is a Catholic or Universal visible Church on earth (to which premises every Child can add the Conclusion) ergo there is, and aught to be on eartha Catholic or Universal Ecclesiastical government. Thus far Mr. Jacob, upon supposal of a Catholic visible Church and Monarchical government.  
69 That Children have not actual Faith: affirmed by 
[z] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 6. subd. 3. in the margin at r.  Mr. Cartwright in M. Whitgift's defence pag. 611. and by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbelgar. part. 2. pag. 124. initio, & in the propositions and principles disputed in the Uuiversity of Geneva pag. 178. sect. 4. and by Jacob Kymedoncius in his Redemption of mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine, and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 682. initio. Yet impugned by Luther in loc. common. class. 2. pag. 12. fine, and generally in his Writings, and by David Rungius in his disput. in Academia Wittemb. printed at Wittemb. 1606. pag. 195. sect. 144, 145, 146. etc. by Jac. Andraeas', see his words in Beza's Respons. ad Acta Coll. Montisbel. part. 2. pag. 124. ante med. and see there part. 1. in praefat. pag. 21. fine, & 22. circa med. and impugned generally by the Lutherans; see further of this confessed Controversy Musculus in loc. common. pag. 309. post medium, and Jacobus Kimedoncius in his Redemption of Mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. post med. & 165, & 166.  
70 That the Controversy of the Scriptures, as which be sacred, which not, is not to us determined otherwise than by the Church's tradition; affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 1. sect. 14. pag. 86. ante med. and lib. 2. sect. 4. pag. 102. fine, & 103. initio, & l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 147. circa medium, and by M. Whitaker adversus Stapletonum l. 2. c. 6. pag. 370 prope initium, & pag. 357. prope initium, & l. 2. c. 4 pag. 300. ante med. & p. 298. post med. and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 1. c. 6. sect. 8. initio, pag. 42. b. and Lubbertus de principiis Christian. dogmat. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 18. circa med. Pu. and Chillingworth also proves through his whole book, that we receive the certainty of Scripture upon the Authority of the Church: Yet impugned by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to Mr. Hooker pag. 9 & 10. by Ursinus in his Doctrinae Christianae compendium in prolegomen. pag. 13. circa med. by Calvin. Institut. l. 1. c. 7. sect. 4. post med. and generally by divers others, who to avoid the Church's Authority, do refer the proof and knowledge of the Scriptures to the testimony of the Spirit.  
71 That the Church of Rome is part of the house of God, a Limb of the visible Church of Christ etc. is affirmed by 
[a] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 6. subd. 1. in the Text and margin at e.f.g.h. 1. k.l.m.n.o.  Mr. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions disputed ad clerum etc. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine, saying, I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sigh the learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God; by Mr. Hooker in his fifth book of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 188. initio, saying, The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ; and Johannes Regius in his liber Apologeticus etc. in Considerate. Censurae, etc. pag. 95. fine, saith, In Papatu autem cum fuerit Ecclesia vera etc. and Mr. Hooker ubisupra pag. 130. ante med. saith, We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ; by Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 18. pag. 109. circa med. saying, Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God, and pag. 113. post med. saying of Catholics and Protestants, We are no several Church from them, nor they from us, also by D. Some in his defence against Penry, and Refutation of many absurdities etc. in Mr. Penries' Treatise pag. 164. ante med. saying, That the Papists are not altogether Aliens from God's Covenant, I have showed before; and ibidem pag. 182. initio, saying, In the judgement of all learned men, and all Reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church; a Ministry, a true Christ etc. and pag. 176. prope finem, saying, If you think that all the Popish sort which died in the Popish Church are damned, you think absurdly, and descent from the judgement of the learned Protestants; Likewise by M.D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker his five books of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 77. ante med. saying, We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and die in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved: Insomuch that he doubteth not (ibidem pag. 68 paulo post med.) to charge the Puritans with Ignorance for their contrary opinion; Yet impugned so generally by others, as to name any, is needless.  
72 The Patriarchship or Primacy of one, over the Church, in several Nations and Kingdoms, is acknowledged by Melancthon, alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num. 10. paulo post initium, in the margin at 17. by Jacobus Andraeas, alleged there in the Margin at * next before 16. by Luther alleged ibidem in the Margin at * next be 18. and by Sir Edwin Sands, who more than insinuateth the known want hereof in the Protestants Church, to be to them as matter of defect and imputation, 
[m] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 3. in the margin at l.  saying in his Relation etc. fol. S. 2. on the B. side: The Papists have the Pope as a common Father, Adviser, and Conductor to reconcile their jars, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Councils unto Unity etc. whereas on the contrary side, Protestants are as severed or rather scattered Troops, each drawing adverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrels; no Patriarch, one or more to have a common superintendance or care over their Churches for correspondency or Unity; no ordinary way to assemble a general Council of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their Contentions, and by 
[n] Brereley in his Omissions and Additions of pag. 702. l. 19  Andraeas Friccius de Ecclesia l. 2. c. 10. pag. 570.  
73 Unwritten Traditions, necessary to be observed, are confessed even by such Protestants as are professed Adversaries thereto: As namely Mr. D. Field in his Treatise of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. fine, where having impugned unwritten Traditions, in the end yet, as enforced, confesseth and concludeth saying, Let us come to those Traditions which concern the Manners and Conversation of Men, that the Apostles delivered many things of this nature to the Churches, some by way of Precept, some by way of Counsel only, some to continue but for a time, some to continue for ever, we make no doubt: Of this sort is the observation of the Lords-days; and sundry other things there are, which doubtless the Apostles delivered by Tradition. And see the unwritten Traditions of the Lords Day, and of the Canonical Scriptures further acknowledged next heretofore under the several numbers of 57, & 58, & 60. and see also in Mr. D. Field ubi supra pag. 239. circa med. the Tradition of Lent-Fast; And Mr. D. Covell in his Answer to John Burges pag. 139. circa med. affirmeth the moderate use of the Cross to be an Apostolical Constitution; as also the said Mr. D. Covell in his Examination against the Plea of the Innocent c. 9 pag. 104. paulo post med. referreth expressly the terms of Archbishops unto Apostolical ordination; and the than Bishop of London, and late of Canterbury in the Conference before the King pag. 11. initio, referreth likewise Confirmation to Apostolical Institution, signified not, but necessarily proved from Heb. 6.2. also Mr. Whitgift in his defence etc. pag. 539. fine, affirmeth and proveth abundantly the Apostles Tradition of Easter; and Oecolampadius doth affirm the baptism of Infants not to be taught in the Scriptures, in libro Epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampadii pag. 301. post med. & 363. post medium; and so likewise doth Zuinglius tom. 2. l. de Baptismo fol. 96. a. circa med. and Mr. D. Field pag. 239. termeth it a Pradition, because (saith he) it is not expressly delivered in Scripture (either) that the Apostles did baptise Infants, nor any express precept there found, that they should do so, only undertaking that Scripture delivereth to us the ground thereof, which is impertinent, unless he show that it withal delivereth also to us a necessary proof thereof, which his former words deny, for which cause, he termeth it, as before, a Tradition: and see lastly Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 2. sect. 7. pag. 118. post med. & 119. where he maketh special answer (as we do) to divers Testimonies of the Fathers, as namely of Irenaeus, Hierome, and Augustin alleged there by Mr. Cartwright, and usually by other Protestants in behalf of only Scripture; and see there sect. 5. pag. 106.  
74 Concerning Equivocation or doubtfulness of Answer, affirmed by some Catholics, not in matter of Faith, (for it is evident to the contrary that we refuse to go to Protestant Churches, or to make the least dissimulation of our Faith) neither in Civil Contracts (for who confessedly more credible, or of better performance therein than Catholics?) neither in the case of our Prince or Country (for concerning either of these, we are bound in Conscience to make ourselves Transparent; insomuch as to conceal any thing prejudicial to these, were in the sight of God, grievous and multiplied Iniquity:) but only as in case of unlawful Demands, to betray the Professors of Religion to the Persecuters thereof: or to reveal, to the hurt of others, that which the party demanded is in Conscience bound to keep secret. For so much as the Doctrine hereof is objected, as a special imputation to Catholics; we will (forbearing the question thereof) only but briefly examine, whether any like (if not worse) Equivocation or doubtfulness of speech be affirmed by our Adversaries. Peter Martyr in his Common places part. 2. c. 13. sect. 39 pag. 547. a. post med. after much discourse of this matter, concludeth saying, In these cases I think it is not forbidden, nay, I rather think it is most lawful to speak doubtfully. Zuinglius tom. 3 fol. 45. a. initio, entreating of Abraham's speech to his servants, when intending to sacrifice his Son, he said to them, abide you here, and I and the Child will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. Gen. 22.5. saith of Abraham's reserved meaning, Mentitus non est, neque enim mentitur, qui secretum aliquod celat, ne quid periculi inde nascatur. Mr. Willet upon Genesis 27. pag. 290. ante med. teacheth by many examples of Scripture, that dissimulation in outward gesture is tolerable, & pag, 292. circa med. he saith, It is one thing to conceal the Truth, an other to lie: As Abraham did hid the Truth, when he said Sarah was his Sister, Gen. 26.7. Melancthon in loc. common. printed Basilliae 1562. pag. 763. paulo post initium, saith, Non enim nemino mendacia figuras quibus ex probabili causa aliquid tegitur quod non necesse est dici, ut Raab negat speculatores domi suae esse: tales figurae nominantur officiosa mendacia. Of these figurative Locutions, or (as Melancthon termeth them) Officiosa mendacia Luther tom. 6. Wittenberg. fol. 352. b. prope finem, saith, Simile est mendacium Raab Josuae, Est igitur mendacium officiosum, quo saluti, famae corporis vel animae consulitur etc. Igitur honestum & pium mendacium est, ac potius officium Charitatis appellandum. Zegedine (a learned Calvinist) in loc. common. pag. 422. initio, affirmeth, Mendacia licita & bona quae commendantur. In proof whereof he there allegeth from Scripture the example of Raab, and of divers others. Wolfangus Musculus in loc. come. pag. 106. paulo post initium saith, Alius mentitur ex timore Dei, sic obstetrices Aegyptiae, Exod. 1. Alius ex charitate, vel fide debita, sic Michol. 1. Sam. 19 Alius ex fide, sic Raab Haeb. 11. etc. To come now to Adversaries known practice, Mr. Fox reporteth of Wiccliff, saying, Wiccliff to avoid the rigour of things answered with intricate words etc. To forbear the like known and confessed example of the Waldensis (who for peace and tranquillity sake used to be present at Mass, which they held and professed to be Idolatricall) alleged in Brereley tract. 2. c. 2 sect. 3. subd. 4. in the Text and margin at 17. John Careless, Protestant Martyr, being demanded by the Magistrate if he knew such a man, recordeth his own Answer thereto in these words: No forsooth I do not know any such, nor have I not heard of him that I wots of. But yet (saith he) I lied falsely, for I knew him indeed: Act. Mon. pag. 1530. a. post med. As concerning the Equivocation or doubtful speaking and writing, even in matter of Religion used by Martin Bucer, it is reported in the example of the Sacrament, by the Protestant-Writers Schlusselburg in Theol. Calvinist. l. 2. fol. 129. a. post med. from the words of Lavater the Calvinist, and by Osiander in epitome. Hist. Eccles. etc. Centur. 16. pag. 249. initio, and by Josias Symlerus (Bucer's dearest friend) who (in his Oration of the Life and Death of Peter Martyr annexed to the end of his Common-places in English fol. Q q. on the a. side paulo post initium) reporteth that many learned Calvinists did, in explication of the Sacrament, use a certain affected obscurity; that accordingly Bucer often times exhorted Peter Martyr that in the question of the Lords Supper he would use some certain obscure and doubtful kind of speaking. That also thereupon Peter Martyr gave place to Bucer, and used the self same Forms of doubtful speaking that Bucer did, see further hereof, Hospinianus in Hist. Sacrament. part. 2. fol. 210. a. fine, & b. initio. And of the very same doubtful writing of Melancthon in the same question of the Sacrament, Osiander in epitome etc. Cent. 16. pag. 614. giveth Testimony saying, Calvinus crebris ad Melancthonem literis datis, hortatus est eum, ut aperte & perspicuè sententiam suam de Caena Domini profiteretur etc. Sed Philippus neque apertam, & ab omnibus ambiguitatibus alienam confessionem sibi extorqueri persuaderi passus est, etc. ita Philippus interdum cum Calvinistis collusit, interdum cum Lutheranis facere videri vult, and Osiander ibidem pag. 826. initio, saith of the Calvinists Divines of Wittenberg. Wittembergenses Theologi edunt confessionem de Caena Domini, non totam sinceram, sed ambiguitatibus involutam etc. Theologi autem Jenenses admonent Ecclesiam Christi, etc. Wittembergensium phrases in hoc negotio esse ambiguas, quae in utramque partem flecti queant, & meros esse Cothurnus, and pag. 841. versus finem he mentioneth and reproveth occultissimos Calvinistas, qui sub ambiguitatibus & dissimulatione veritatis latitare cupiebant, and see further there pag. 912. post med. & 913. initio. Insomuch as ibidem pag. 796. paulo post med. he reporteth for a received Principle or R●le with the Calvinists, saying Hanc maximam, s●u Regulam habent Calvinistae, licere pro gloria Christi mentiri. They have this for a ground or principle, that it is lawful to lie for the glory of Christ. And thus much briefly concerning Equivocation or worse than it) taught or practised by Luther, Zuinglus, Peter Martyr, Melancthon, Musculus, Szegedine, Bucer, and many others before mentioned.  
75 As concerning blessing of our Meat and Forehead, with the sign of the Cross, and further use thereof in the public Liturgy, Joannes Creccelius in his Discriptio & refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae etc. printed Magdeburgi Anno 1603. pag. 118. post medium, giveth Testimony of the Lutherans Doctrine saying: Nos autem non improbamus signum sanctae Crucis, si semel atque iterum absque superstitione liberè in divinis officiis adhibeatur atque usurpetur: imò si privati cibi & potus libere signentur. Nam cum imus cabitum, sive surgimus ex lecto, cruse nos juxta Lutheri & aliorum priorum institutionem signamus, and Joannes Manlius (Luther's Scholar) in loc. common. pag. 636. fine saith, Respondit Lutherus, signo Crucis facto, Deus me tueatur etc. As also the Communion-Booke in the time of King Edward the sixth (penned by advice and approbation of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other Protestant Divines of that time, and) printed Anno 1549. fol. 116. b. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross. And fol. 131. a. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Fountain of Baptism with the sign of the Cross: All which is vulgarly contradicted by many others, as being in itself superstitious and against Scripture.  
76 To these Seventy and Five several points, we could add sundry other Catholic Opinions, defended in like manner by our learned Adversaries: As the guilt of original sin, and condemnation of the Heathen, against Zuinglius (whereof see Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 9 subd. 3. from g. to q.) The Divinity of Christ, against the Reformed protestant Churches of Polonia, and Transilvania, (whereof see Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 13. sect. 3. at p. q.) The Authority of Bishops: and sundry other points against the Puritans. And all these affirmed or denied on each part upon pretended certainty from the Scriptures.  
77 Pu. To this Consideration belong those many and learned Writers, who expressly teach, that many of the chief points which we hold against Protestants, are not necessary to Salvation, but indifferent, (which is sufficient for us to be secure of Salvation for matters of Faith. Of this kind Brereley tracked 2. c. 2. sect. 14. at † next after f. in the margin, giveth divers examples; As of Freewill, Prayer for the Dead, Honouring of Saints and Relics, Invocation of Saints, Real presence, Transubstantiation, Receiving one or both kinds, Our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin, Worshipping of Images, Granting Primacy to the Pope, and denying it to Kings, Satisfaction and Merit of Works, Mass, Seven Sacraments, Auricular confession. Of all which Brereley (ubi supra) citys exactly the Protestant Authors, and the places of their Books, which we will put down in the fifth Consideration, where we show that Protestants yield us Salvation. And it is to be observed that even Puritan Writers grant this indifferency, as appears in Brereley.  
78 Besides what hath been said, that several Protestants hold with us in divers points of our Faith; Protestant's when they pretend to make a Catalogue of Professors of their Faith through all Ages, are wont to allege the Waldenses, Wiccliff, and hus; and yet it is certain, that these men, in most points, held with us against Protestants.  
79 Of Waldo, or Waldenses, Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 3. subd. 3. & 5. showeth out of Protestant Writers, That they held the Real presence in the Sacrament, That the Doctrine of Justification by only Faith, was so unknown to Waldo, and he so wholly affected to our Catholic Doctrine of Merits and Works, that he did forsake all things, that being poor he might follow Christ, and the Evangelicall perfection, which our Adversaries reject for Popish. Insomuch as he and his followers, were a very Order or Profession of begging Friars, and therefore called the poor men of Lions, professing) as D. Humphrey in Jesuitismi part. 2. pag. 270. circa med. urgeth) a kind of Monastical life, wherein they were so forward, that they afterwards made means to Innocentius the third, than Pope, to have their Order by him confirmed, but could not prevail, by reason of certain supestitious things perceived in their Conversation, and it is notorious that they maintained divers absurd and gross Heresies, contrary both to Catholics and Protestants, as Brereley shows ubi supra subd. 4. & 5. They held also with Catholics in the number of Sacraments, in the Doctrine of single life, Vows, Holy Scripture, good Works, justification, Baptism of Infants, Purgatory, etc. as the protestant Writer Benedictus Morgenstern witnesseth in tract. de Ecclesiae pag. 79. paulo post medium.  
80 Wiccliffe, saith Brereley tracked 2. c. 2. sect. 4. with his Disciples, went barefooted, and basely clothed in course russet Garments down to the heels, and seemed to contemn all temporal Goods for the love of eternal Riches, adjoined himself to the beging Friars, approving their poverty, and extolling their perfection, retaining also his former Catholic opinion (as Brereley proves out of Wiccliffs own writings) concerning Holy water, the worshipping of Relics and Images, the intercession of our blessed L. St. Marry, (whereof he saith in Serm. de assumptione Mariae: Videtur mihi quod impossibile est nos praemiare sine Mariae suffragio etc.) the apparel and Tonsure of Priests, the Rights and Ceremonies of Mass, extreme Unction, and all the seven Sacraments, and all those sundry other Points of our Catholic Faith, now in question, with denial whereof he is not found so much as charged.  
81 hus (as Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 5. proves out of Protestant Writers) believed seven Sacraments, Transubstantiation, the Pope's Primacy, the Mass itself, and being a Catholic Priest, he said Mass even to his dying day, and observed the Vows of Priestly Chastity; in the Doctrine concerning , Predestination, informed Faith, the cause of Justification, and merit of good works, Images, he agreed with Catholics.  
82 To the aforesaid learned Protestants, I may add two famous men, the one an Englishman, the other a Stranger, I mean D. Andrews pretended Bishop of Winchester, and Hugo Grotius a man of great estimation among Protestants.  
83 As for D. Andrew's, in his Stricturae, or A brief Answer to the 18. chapter of the first book of Cardinal Perron's Reply etc. n. 1. he disclames from the opinion of Zuinglius, and also saith plainly, It cannot be denied but reserving the Sacrament, was suffered a long time in the Primitive Church: From whence we must infer, that Christ is present in the Sacrament permanently, and not only in the Action or use. Yea he grants that in time of persecution Christians were permitted to carry away how great a part they would, and to keep it by them, and to take it at times to comfort them; that those that lived in remote desert places, as Anchorets and Hermit's, were permitted to carry with them how much they thought good, because a long time together they were not to come back to places where any Churches were; that they did carry it about with them in their journey etc. Out of which Concessions, I infer by the way, that Christians did not always receive the Sacrament under both kinds, seeing it is clear, that Wine could not be so long conserved in hot countries, nor delivered to so many, in different Vessels to be kept at home or carried up and down in journeys etc. n. 9 he saith, For offering and praying for the dead, there is little to be said against it; it cannot be denied but that it is ancient. n. 10.11. He acknowledges the Fast of Lent, and that Protestants fast not on Christmas day, though it fall upon a Friday or a Saturday. n. 12. He professeth the restraint of Priests from marrying not to be against either Jus Naturale, or Divinum. From which grant it follows, that the Arguments which Protestants are wont to allege out of Scripture, or natural reason, to prove the unlawfulness of such restraint, are of no force: For if they were of force, it should be against Jus Naturale or Divinum, and no positive Law could ordain it. n. 13. He grants, that Vows of a single life, made orderly and duly, are to be kept, and cannot be broken without offence. n. 14. He doth not disallow the mingling of Water with Wine in the Eucharist, as also n. 17. He doth not reprove in the Ceremonies of Baptism, the sign of the Cross, and the consecration or hallowing of the Water, and confesseth, that Crism indeed is very ancient. n. 18. He confesseth the necessity of Baptism, via ordinariâ. n. 20. He confesseth, that the ancient Church had the five Orders of Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcist, Acolythus, Subdeacon, which we hold and keep, but Protestants reject. n. 20. He saith, the Church of England doth hold, that there is a distinction between Bishop and Priest, and that de jure divino. n. 23. He tells us, that the Protestant Church of England holds Good works necessary to Salvation, and that Faith without them saveth not: that no man is predestinate to do evil: nor that it is safe for any man peremptorily to presume himself predestinate. From whence it follows, that men are not justified by an assured and certain belief that they are just and predestinate: for with such a Faith it could not be presumption, but certainty to believe himself predestinate. n. 25. He grants, that in time of persecution, and after in the time of Peace, so long as the Christians dwelled mingled with the Heathen, they shown plainly by making and using the Cross, that they were not ashamed of that sign, wherewith the Heathen men did use to deride them. What then shall we say of Protestants, who deride us Catholics for not being ashamed of that sign, wherewith the Heathen men did use to deride Christians? and much more, what shall we say of those who sacrilegiously abuse and break down that holy sign? Ibidem he grants, that the primitive Christians, in time of persecution, used Lights and Incense (though voluntarily he feign to himself the reason for which they used them) and after when Peace came, Christians retained both the Lights and the Incense, to show themselves to be the Sons and Successors of those ancient Christians, which in former times had used them, showing their Communion in the former Faith, by the communion of the former Usages. What then shall we say of Protestants, who in us deride those things as superstitious, but that they show themselves not to be the Sons and Successors of those ancient Christians, nor to have communion of that former Faith? In the Brief of the 26. Heads, he saith, The Church of England holds Feasts in Memory of the Saints and Martyrs, with other points, which I omit. In his Sermon upon the 20. of St. John, n. 23. he says, confession to a Priest is necessary, urging that of St. Augustine hom. 49. de 50. homil. Nemo tibi dicat occultè ago paenitentiam; apud Deum ago, ergo sine causa dictum est: Quae solveritis in Terra, soluta erunt in Coelo, ergo sine causa claves datae sunt Ecclesiae Dei: frustramus Evangelium Dei, frustramus Verba Christi. Finally to join his deeds with his words, when the Bishop of Spalata, by way of complaint, said to some (of Andrews:) iste Episcopus toruè me aspicit, this Bishop shows me a sour countenance; Andrews not denying the thing, answered: This man could have no good meaning in coming to England from a place, where he had in abundance all things for the salvation of his Soul.  
84 Now to show how far Grotius stands for us against other Protestants, I will cite only, and that briefly, what I find in two Books which he wrote in his ripest age, after long study and mature consideration. The one book he calls Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica, the other, Rivetiani Apologetici pro Schismate contra votum pacis facti, discussio.  
85 First then, he teacheth that Goodworks are not only a way to, but also a cause of reigning. vot. pag. 26. Secondly that there is true merit vot. pag. 27. Discuss. pag. 46.50.53. line 1. & 2. Thirdly, that we are not certain of our salvation certitudine fidei. vot pag. 28. Discuss. pag. 55. and ibidem. Fourthly, that with God's Grace, we may observe the Covenant between God and Man. Fifthly, that the Pope is constituted above all Bishops to take away the occasion of Sciusm, vot. pag. 32. Sixtly, that ancient Churches and Fathers were wont to have recourse to him in doubts concerning Faith, Discuss. pag. 23. That the Pope's power and primacy is necessary for deciding Controversies in Religion, Discuss. pag. 63. & ibidem pag. 66. & sequentibus, he proves the primacy and prerogative of the Pope, by divers excellent proofs of the ancient Fathers and times; and to conclude, he saith, that there can on Union in matters of Faith, and Religion be hoped for, except under the Pope. Discuss. pag. 255. his words are these: Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idemque corpus, semper optatam a Grotio, sciunt, qui eum norunt. Existimavit autem aliquando (&c.) incipi posse à protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit, id plane fieri nequire; quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia firme omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima, Protestants nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur: quae causae sunt, cur factae parts, in unum Protestantium corpus colligi nequeant; imo & cur parts aliae atque aliae sint exsurrecturae. Quare nunc plane ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestants inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis, qui Sedi Romanae coherent; sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio, quae evenit, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est primatus Episcopi Romani secundum canonas, fatente Melancthone; qui eum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem. Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere pontificis libidini, sed reponere ordinem, sapienter institutum, etc. Seventhly, that the Baptism of St. John Baptist did not forgive sins, but was imperfect in comparison of Christian Baptism, Discuss. pag. 76. vot. pag. 38. Eightly, that Saints hear our prayers, and that the ancient Writers did believe that Saints hear us. Vot. pag. 68 69. 70. & 71. That the ancient Fathers defended and practised Invocation of Saints, he proves at large, Discuss. pag. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. out of Chrisostom, Augustine, Hierom, Prudentius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Origen, and concludes, that from so great consent of Fathers it appears, that praying to Angels and Saints, was approved by the Churches of those times, and that if it be Idolatry, there was no Church of God upon Earth. Yea he saith that K. James acknowledges that in the fourth Age there is to be found examples of Invocation of Saints, and that it is free from Idolatry he proves it out of Luther in Epistola ad Georgium Spalatinum, and ad Erfordienses, and out of Oecolampadius in Annotationibus ad Chrisostomum, and that Bucer doth not condemn it. Ninthly, that Catholics are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Bread-adorers, or Idolaters in worshipping Christ in the Sacrament. Tenthly, that Communion of the Laity under both kinds is not necessary, nor any divine command. vot. pag. 81. Discuss. pag. 249. Eleventhly, he saith that anointing the sick was used in the primative times, and lasted through all Churches without interruption till Luther's time, vot. pag. 82. Discuss. pag. 128. Twelfthly, he defends learnedly the authority, and certainty of Tradition, and answers what may be objected to the contrary; vot. pag. 101. 102. 103. 104. Discuss. pag. 26. 179. 189. Thirteenthly, that the vulgar Translation of the Scripture of all others is the safest, Quae (saith he) nullum habet malum dogma, sicut tot saeculorum & gentium concensus judicavit, which contains no ill Doctrine, as the consent of so many Ages and Nations have judged. Fourteen, he holds works of supererogation. Vot. pag. 112. 15. Seven Sacraments Discuss. pag. 75. 76. 128. 16. Works of satisfaction. Discuss. pag. 84. 220. That they who teach Justification by Faith alone run in a circle, and utter unintelligible things. 17. Prayer for the dead, and Purgatory, Discuss. pag. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. etc. 18. That Grace may be lost. 19 Distinction of Mortal and Venial sins. Discuss. pag. 206. 207. etc. 20. He doth not deny that God may be painted ea forma, qua se patribus conspiciendum dedit, which he proves even from the learned Jews, as also from Philosophers. Discuss. pag. 114.  
86 But to show that we may in Favour of Catholics allege not one or many particular men, but the whole Protestant Church of England, it is to be observed, that their Communion book, together with the Articles and book of Ordination, were composed in the year 1547 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Rochester, Ely, Hereford, Worcester, Lincoln, Chichester, wherein is Invocation of Saints, and prayer for the dead, as hath been said in the first Consideration num. 28.  
87 The further I proceed in this so important an Argument, and Consideration, the more matter offers itself. We have showed divers ways, how many learned Protestants stand for us against their Brethren; There remains yet a Demonstration of the same Truth, taken from a great pretended Protestant, who proves and grants this to be true, even by denying it to be true. The case stands thus, Mr. Chillingworth in his book (approved by three principal men of Oxford) c. 5. n. 91. pag. 292. speaketh thus to the Author of the book entitled Charity maintained by Catholics. who, part. 1. c. 5. n. 31. pag. 196. saith to D. Potter, You cannot be ignorant, but that many chief learned Protestants are forced to confess the Antiquity of our Doctrine and practice, and do in several, and many Controversies, acknowledge that the ancient Fathers stand on our side. Now seeing we have in this third Consideration proved, that many chief Protestants in the most important differences between us and them, hold our Doctrine to be true, and consequently to be most ancient, I wonder how Mr. Chillingworth will answer the now alleged words of Charity maintained. His Answer consists in alleging some particular points, wherein he pretends that our Doctrine is not confessed to be ancient, in which enumeration if we can demonstrate his Instances to be either untrue or impertinent, this our third Consideration will remain true; That chiefest Protestants in chiefest points, hold with us against their pretended Brethren. For it is a true Axiom, Exceptio firmat oppositam regulam; If he can show only some particulars wherein Protestants agree not with us; he yields, ipso facto, that for the rest they hold as we do, and so, as I said, his verbal denial is a real proof of our Doctrine and Practice; Let us examine his particulars.  
88 First, he specifies the Doctrine of the Communion in one kind: But of this we have showed that the Doctrine of Catholics (which is, that the Communion of the Laity in one kind, is neither commanded nor forbidden, but of itself indifferent) is defended to be indifferent by many of the chiefest, and most learned, and of greatest authority among Protestants.  
89 Secondly, he names the lawfulness and expediency of the Latin service. I wonder how he durst question the lawfulness of Latin service, it being practised in the Universities: And in Queen Elizabeth's time, in Wales the service was read in English, where the people understand it not. Yea Nichol. Harpsfield in Hist Wiccleffianorum c. 16. inter caetera saith, Ex aliis dogmatibus (quae Wiccliffianis communia erant) quae Licestriani isti sectabantur fuit & illud, non licere Missas aut Horas Matutinas, sive Vespertinas, sonore, & alta voce in Ecclesia & Templis recitare. Cardinal Richilieu deservedly taxes heretical Ministers, for reading in certain Countries the Service in a language not understood by the people of those Countries, saying, (in his book called Defensio praecipuorum fidei Catholicae Capitum, c. 4. sect. 2. pag. 121.) to the Ministers of Charanton: Populum universum quae dicuntur intelligere pugnatis oportere, & tamen sectatores vestri, qui in Bearnia, Gallia, Marbonensi, Provincia, Fasconia degunt, non sunt Gallicae linguae peritiores, quam latinae populi, qui in Ecclesia Catholica vivunt; & tamen illarum regionum Ministri Gallicam in officiis linguam usurpant, non autem illarum Provinciarum linguam. The same Cardinal, sect. 1. pag. 111. saith, Habendum esse aliquem hominum delectum, neque omnia omnibus passim proponenda, nemo dubitat (inquit Whitakerus l. contra Duraeum sect. 15.) Evangeliis doctrina multos reddit perversiores & improbiores; addit idem Whitakerus Controvers. 1. q. 2. c. 17. The Reader may be pleased to see what we have said above about promiscuous reading of Scripture in English, as not permitted in K. Edward's time, and 
[d] Consideration 1. num. 29.  disallowed by D. Collins. The greater the Authority of Scripture is, with greater obstinacy men stick to their Errors, falsely pretended to be contained in Scripture, read or heard. Besides, D. Potter pag. 62. 63. puts Latin service among those points which are not fundamental, nor necessary to constitute a Church; and in King Edward's time, Stow (Chron. pag. 594.) reporteth, The French King being deceased etc. also the Church of St. Paul in London being hanged with black, and a sumptuous Hearse set up in the Choir, a Dirige was there sung; and on the next morrow, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer) assisted of Eight Bishops all in rich Mitres and other their Pontificals, did sing a Mass of Requiem etc. The Protestant Hospinianus in Hist. Sacramentar. part. 2. fol 33. saith, Docet (Lutherus) liberum esse sive in vulgari, sive in peregrina lingua celebrare: Which is the very Doctrine of Catholics, who teach, that there as no Divine Precept or prohibition to celebrate public Offices in a learned or vulgar language, and therefore it must be left to the power and Ordinance of the Church, which we are commanded to hear, and of which we must learn what in particular circumstances is most expedient for the Common good. Of this point I will allege, what Brereley hath in his Liturgy of the Mass, tract. 5. sect. 4. subd. 3. pag. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. where he saith; The more ancient proof and reason (of celebrating the public Liturgy in Latin) is established and certain; for seeing it is heretofore made plain, that in the other much more ancient times, the Chancel in which the Priest did celebrate the public Liturgy, was so 
[e] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 1. sect. 2. subd. 1. in the margin. at m. o. Council 6. Const. Can. 69. saith, Nulli omnium, qui sit in laicorum numero, liceat intra sacrum Altare ingredi etc. ex antiquissima traditione. Hist. Tripartit. l. 9 c. 30. versus finem, It is reported concerning Chancels, how that Ambrose non quievit sed differentiam locorum edocuit. And that St. Ambrose said thereupon, O Imperator, interiora loca tantum sacerdotibus sunt collata, quae caeteri nec ingredi, nec contingere permittuntur: egredere igitur etc. And see further concerning chancels, Socrates Hist. l. 5. c. 17. versus finem. And Zozomen. Hist. l. 7. c. 24. And Concil. Laodicen. can. 19 and Concil. Agathens. can 66. And Germanus Constantinopolitanus in Theoria paulo post initium, saith, Cancelli locum orationis designant, quosque extrinsecus populus accedit: intrinsecus autem sunt sancta sanctorum solis Sacerdotibus pervia. And apud Brereley in the Preface sect. 7. initio at e. D. Reynolds in his Conference etc. pag. 488. allegeth that Dionysius maketh mention of Churches and Chancels therein severed with such sanctification from the rest of the Church, that Laymen might not enter thereinto. See more hereof in Brereley ubi supra tract. 1. sect. 2. subd. 1. in the margin at n.  several to the Clergy, as that the Lay people might not enter thereto; and that also divers parts of the public prayers usual there in Mass-time, were 
[f] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. in the Preface, sect. 14. at the second h. In Basil 's Liturgy fol. 38. at g. and fol. 41. b. Pontifex secretè: and the same yet further there, fol. 34. b. 38. a. b. 39 a. b. 41. b. 45. b. 43. b. And in Chrysostom 's Liturgy fol. 56. a. fine, & fol. 50. b. it is said: & dicit sacerdos remissa voce: and fol. 59 a. it is said: dicit orationem hanc sacerdos sedatissima voce: and see there fol. 61. circa med. and apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 5. sect. 3. at e. in the margin it is said; In Basil 's Liturgy it is said, tunc elevans manus Pontifex dicit secretè. fol. 38. & vide ibidem fol. 36. 39 40. 42. 43. etc. And this ceremony is further mentioned in Chrysostom 's Liturgy fol. 56. & 61. and the ancient Laodicen Council can. 19 saith hereof, tres orationes fiant, prima per silentium, secunda, & tertia, per vocis pronuntiationem, & tunc demum of culum pacis dari debere. And see Innocentius Epist. 1. ad Decentium, c. 1. whose testimony in this point ●s so plain, that Hutterus de Sacrificio M●ssatico, pag. 590. answering thereto, saith thereof: Innocentii primi authoritatem merito explodimus, quip ab hoste veritatis petitum; and before all these see St. Clement (the Apastles' Scholar) in constit. Apost. after the Antwerp print of 1604 l. 2. c. 61. fol. 56. Hereto also is not impertinent the Veil used of ancient in the Greek Church, wherewith the Priest was for the time compassed about, whereof S. chrysostom (apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 2. sect. 7. initio at z.) add pop. hom. 61. circa med. saith: Dum hic profertur sacrificium, & Christus immolatur, & ovis Dominica, cum audieris, oremus omnes communiter, cum vela videris retrahi, tunc supernè caelum aperiri cogita, & Angelos descendere etc.  pronounced in secret, it is thereby made undoubted, that the public Liturgy was not then made audible and common to the Lay people. Also there is not any appearing necessity herein of the vulgar language, for seeing that the Priests proper and principal end in his celebrating of Mass and Sacrisice, is thereby not to instruct the people, but to worship God (as saith St. Augustin thereof 
[g] Hereof Brereley in the Liturgy of the Mass, tract. 3. sect. 1. subd. 2. at f. in the margin saith, Aug. contra Faustum Manichaeum l. 20. c. 21. speaking of the sacrifice which Christ commanded in his institution of the New Testament at his last Supper, saith, Non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis Martyrum quod frequentissimè facimus illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari Novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum qui latria dicitur, & uni Deo debetur. What can be more plainly spoken to prove that Christ in his Institution of the Sacrament, ordained and commanded Sacrifice?  cultu latriae) and to make 
[h] Hieron. in c. 1. ad Titum saith, Quid de Episcopo sentiendum est, qui quotidie pro suis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est victimas? and Ambrose in Psalm. 38. saith, Vidimus principem sacerdotum ad nos venientem, vidimus & audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum: sequamur ut possumus sacerdotes ut offeramus pro Populo Sacrificium, etsi infirmi, tamen honorabiles sacerdotio; and Nazianzen Epist. 8. ad Simplicium haeret. termeth the Priest The Mediator between God and Man; and Ignatius in Epist. ad Smirnens. saith, In the Church nothing is greater than the Bishop, who sacrificeth to God for the safety of the World; and Chrysostom. de sacerdot. lib. 6. c. 4. initio, saith: Nam eum qui pro omni civitate (quid autem dico pro civitate?) Imo pro universo mundo legatione fungitur, & deprecatur iniquitatibus omnium propitium Deum fieri, non solum viventium sed etiam mortuorum, qualem putas esse debere? And apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. in the preface etc. sect. 14. at the first r. in the margin, it is said, In Basils' Liturgy fol. 40. a. post med. Suscipe nos appropinquantes sanct● Altari tuo, ut simus digni offerre tibi rationabile istud & absque sanguine sacrificium pro nostris peccatis & populi ignorantia, etc. suscipe servitutem nost●●m sicut suscepist● Abel munera, No sacrificium, etc. And Chrysostom. Liturgy fol. 53. a. fine saith, Fac nos dignos offerendo tibi preces, & hostiam incruentam pro universo populo tuo. And ibid. fol. 59 b. Fac me dignum sacerdotii gratia indutu●● assist●re sanctae ●uae mensae, ac consecrare sanctum corpus tuum, & pretiosum sanguinem. And agam fol. 60. b. Fac nos offerre tibi dona. & sacrificium spirituale pro nostris pecca●is, & ignoranti●s populi. And the Apostle, Hebr. 5.1.3. teacheth accordingly that every Priest is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and Sacrifices for sins, etc. as or the people, so also for himself.  Oblation and Prayers for himself and the people, it is sufficient that God understandeth what is therein said and done by the Priest; as for the people, the Priest's act of celebrating of public service for them, dependeth not upon the correspondence of their particular understanding, no more than doth his like confessedly practised oblation 
[i] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 3. sect. 1. subd. 3. in the margin at 4. See Bullinger 's Testimony hereof in his Decades in English, pag. 1082. and Mr. Fulk against Purgatory, pag. 362. & 363. and Hospinian. hist. Sacram. (apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 3. sect. 2. subd 2. in the margin at g.) reproveth the Fathers etc. namely Ca●olus Magnus, Tharasius, Joannes Eleemosynarius, Damascen, and Isiodore, charging them directly with Mass for the dead: For which he reciteth their particular Say, l. 3. pag. 281. and see more hereof in Brereley ibid. sect. 1. subd. 3. in the margin at b. ibidem at 5. Aug. l. 9 Conf. c. 11. saith, Cum offeretur pro ea sacrificium pret●i nostri; and ibidem c. 13. he further saith of his sick Mother, Non ista mandavit (Monica) nobis, sed tantummodo memoriam sui ad Altare tuum fieri desideravit etc. unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis. Ibidem also at t. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 110. faith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur, Ibidem at u. Aug. de verbis Apost. serm. 34. saith, Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eiis qui in corporis & sanguinis Christi communione desuncti sunt, cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id osterri commemoretur. Ibidem at x. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 110. The sacrifice of the Altar, or of Alms, which are offered for the dead, are thanksgiving for those that be very good, (or in Heaven) and propitiations for those that be not very evil, (or not in Hell) & vide Aug. de verbis Apost. serm. 17. and in Joan. tract. 84. Ibidem in Brereley at y. Cyprian. l. 1. Epist. 9 saith, Antecessores nostri etc. censuerunt ne quis frater excedens etc. Clericum nominaret, ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec pro dormitione ejus sacrificium celebraretur, Ibidem also at z. Chrysostomus hom. 69. ad pop. saith, Non temerè ab Apostolis haec suerunt sancita, ut in tremendis mysteriis defunctorum agatur commemoratio, sciunt enim illis inde multum contingere lucrum, utilitatem multam: and the very same he affirmeth in hom. 3. in Epist. ad Philip. et vide Hom. 21. in Acta Apostolorum, & Hom. 41.1. Cor. Ibidem at a. Tertull, de corona militis, saith, Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis Annua facimus; and Cirill. Hierosolymit. cateches. 5. saith, Maximum esse credimus animarum juvamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi quod in Altari positum est sacrificii: See further hereof Eusebius de vita Constantini, l. 4. c. 17. and Ambrose l. 2. Epist. 8. ad Faustinum, & Concil. 2. Cabilonens. can. 39 and Concil. 1. Brach. can. 34. 35. 39 and see the Liturgies of St. James, fol. 28. a. of Basil, fol. 44. initio, and of Chrysostom, fol. 62. b. fine: and Clemens l. 8. Apostol. Constitut. after the Antwerp print of 1564. c. 18. See also more hereof in Brereley in the Liturgy etc. ibidem at b. By all which it is sufficiently proved, that the Primitive Church held the Priest's celebration absolute in itself without any necessity of the people's particular understanding.  for the dead, depend upon correspondence held with them, but is in itself accomplished and perfect, as was the Priest's Sacrifice in the old law, for himself and the whole Congregation, whereat the people 
[k] And there shall be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an altonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the Congregation of Israel. Leviticus 16.17.  might not be present. And so accordingly 
[l] Apud Brereley in the Liturgy etc. tract. 5. sect. 3. fine at * in the margin, Beza in Epist. Theolog. ep. 8. pag. 73. saith, Plerique tamen ex vetustissimis illis (Patribus) Christianorum sacra non aliter quam Cereris mysteria quaedam occultanda censuerunt, adeo ut ne Catechumenos quidem ad spectandum admiserint, & totam illam actionem, in qua quicquid paucis & simplicibus symbolis figurabatur, verbo suo clarè & ea lingua quae ab omnibus intelligeretur explicato palam praedicari & promulgari voluit ac praecepit Dominus, sicut & ipsemet factitavit, in Aporreta quaedam & ne ipsis quidem mystis plerisque intellecta sacra transformarunt; and pag. 82. He taxeth herein both the ancient and new Liturgies, aswell of the East, as of the West; and pag. 83. he saith, Introducta sunt paulatim pro mensis Altaria etc. at qui primam hanc arripuit occasionem Satan, sacram istam actionem non dandi sed accipiendi Christi causa institutam in sacrificium ctiam ilasticon transformandi; non placuerunt vulgares & simplices Hymni etc. non placuit simplex & communis apparatus, idcirco conquiri marmora, inaurati parietes, vasa aurea & argentea comparari, pretiosae etiam & pontificales atque adeo imperatoriae vestes Ministris circundari caeperunt, honorandi scilicet Sacramenti causa, rotundi panes singulis porrigi caepti & ritus à Domino institutus abrogatus; non placuit vel sedentibus vel stantibus panem in manum porrigi ut olim fiebat, sed attolli panem quasi venerandum etc. and pag. 79. he saith, Totum illum apparatum quo vetustissimi etiam illi Baptismum & Coenam Domini se exornare posse putarunt non satis mirari possum etc.  Theodore Beza confesseth of the public Liturgies celebration had in the times of the most ancient Fathers. Moreover, the inconvenience of the vulgar language seemeth great, as well in respect of the 
[m] The change of the vulgar languages appeareth by example of our own, so greatly altered from the first old English, as that ours now used, is almost become another language, a thing so incident to other Nations, that M. D. Morton in Apolog. Cath. part. 1. cap. 10. pag. 25. saith, Tu igitur tempus primum demonstra, quo vernacula Graeca, Romana, Hebraea, primo caeperint à nativa sua integritate degenerate.  change and degenerating, daily incident to those languages; as also in regard of the Communion of dispersed Churches in Foreign Nations, which is preserved by Latin Service, so as in what Country soever of the Latin Church any stranger sojourneth, he is yet, in regard of the Church service and public worship of God, as though he were at home; and so accordingly the Italian Priest may celebrate his public Liturgy aswell in France, and Germany, as in Italy, and the like may be said of other people and nations; the contrary whereof falleth out upon the variable and divers celebration of the public Liturgy according to the diversity of rites and vulgar languages variably observed in several nations. Besides, the ancient precedents of public Liturgies within the first 600. years, are worthy of observation herein, for the Liturgies in those ancient times used by the Oriential Churches are either Greek or Caldee, as likewise all the like ancient Liturgies of the west Church are only Latin, which argueth that upon the first conversion of nations, the public Liturgy was not diversely first taught and celebrated according to the diversity of vulgar Languages.  
And whereas our adversaries do no less vehemently than usually object to the contrary that which the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians, of 
[n] 1. Cor. 14.15.  prayer with understanding. To forbear that longer discourse had in explication thereof by our other 
[o] See the Annotations of the Rhemish Testament upon this place.  writers, I briefly answer: first, that though we should suppose it were meant of our ordinary prayers, (as indeed it is only spoken of languages 
[p] I would that you all spoke strange languages, but rather that you prophesied, for greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with Tongues, except he explained it, that the Church may receive edification. verse 5. Even so you, for so much as you covet spiritual gifts, seek that you may excel unto the edifying of the Church. v. 12. Whereby, and yet further by the 13.26.27. & 28. verses, is made evident that the Apostles discourse is not of vulgar languages, but only of such Tongues as then were given by Miracle, before which he here preferreth the gift of interpretation: As also the prayer in a strange tongue here mentioned ver. 14. concerneth likewise the spiritual prayers then uttered in a strange tongue given by extraordinary and miraculous gift, and therefore is impertinent to the point now properly issuable.  given in those first times by miracle) yet it is in such sort defective as against us, aswell for that our present question is only of Church's Liturgy celebrated by the Priest, who understandeth the same, and not concerning the primitive prayers of the Faithful, whom to understand their prayers, we do not forbid: As also, for that concerning prayers though not understood, the Apostle doth not there forbidden and condemn them, but to the contrary in the same place expressly 
[q] If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit. 1. Cor. 14.14. Wherein it is to be observed, that the Apostle here saith, that not the prayer but the understanding is unfruitful, affirming plainly that nevertheless the devotion or spirit of the party so praying is acceptable, or (as the marginal Notes of the English Bible of 1576. upon this place at 1. are) doth his part.  affirmeth that the spirit and affection of the party so praying, doth pray well towards God, although his understanding be not thereby instructed. Secondly though we should for the time yet further suppose with our Adversaries, that the Apostles saying did concern the prayers made in the public Liturgy, yet so also it maketh nothing for them; for thus much, though supposed, at the most but proveth, that the Clergy celebrating this Liturgy, should understand the same: As for the other question of the Lay people's actual joining with the Priest in the celebration thereof, that is nothing at all hereby inferred or proved, but at the most (the premises, though supposed, notwithstanding) remaineth in question still as before; Nay the Apostle himself (his saying being so understood) seemeth rather to signify the contrary, in his affirming that not all the vulgar or unlearned, but 
[r] If thou bless in the Spirit, how hall he that supplieth the place of the vulgar say Amen upon the blessng, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 1. Cor. 14.16.  one specially appointed to supply their place, must for them all answer Amen; so as the Lay people's joint action herein with the Priest, is by the Apostles words (according to this supposed understanding of the place) rather excluded than directly proved.  
90 Thirdly, Mr. Chillingworth allegeth the present use of Indulgencies. But D. Potter (pag. 63.) whom Mr. Chillingworth undertook to defend, placeth this matter as a thing not belonging to points fundamental, and necessary to constitute a Church; so that although it were falsely and impiously supposed that the Church erred in this particular (as it is impossible she should) yet the error were not exclusive of Salvation. Nevertheless of the antiquity of Indulgences, see the confession of Protestants in Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. pag. 62. and in the Triple Cord Chap. 26. sect. 3. pag. 640. citing the Centurists, Field, and Napper.  
91 Fourthly, he talks of the Pope's Power in Temporalities over Princes; wherein he shows much malice, and no discretion, considering what we have delivered in our first Consideration concerning the Doctrine of the greatest Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Zuinglius, Beza, Knox, and others in order to obedience of the civil Magistrate.  
92 Fifthly, he objects the picturing of the Trinity. It were strange if he did not know very well what may be answered to this point, but he was disposed to cavil. Bellarmine tom. 2. de Reliquiis Sanctorum lib. 2. cap. 5. saith, Non est tam certum in Ecclesia, an sint faciendae Imagines Dei, five Trinitatis, quam Christi & Sanctorum: hoc enim confitentur omnes Catholici, & ad fidem pertinet, illud est in opinion; and accordingly he citys for that opinion of not painting the Trinity, Abulensis, Durandus, and Perisius. Nevertheless Bellarmine doth answer clearly all that is objected against the said practice of painting the Trinity; and indeed there can be no doubt made but that it is very lawful and secure. See what hath been said above out of Grotius, in so much as D. Lawd in the Star Chamber, to defend the practice, made a speech, which is extant in print. But no man ought to wonder, that he excepts against picturing the Trinity, seeing He and his Fellow-Socinians do not believe that Mystery; and therefore in their wicked opinion, to picture the Trinity, were to paint a nothing, or an Idol, as (de facto) they blasphemously affirm the Blessed Trinity to be triplicem Cerberum, etc. as hath been said in the first Consideration num: 44. and accordingly they would wickedly paint this sacred Mystery, if they were to make a picture thereof.  
93. Sixthly, He specifies the worship of pictures. I answer; It hath been showed, both that Protestants confess the worship of Images to be ancient, and also that some Protestants hold it: although indeed there needs no other proof than the light of nature to make good, that respect and veneration is due to pictures, if once it be granted that veneration is due to the Prototypons, or those whom Images represent; nor can there be any doubt but that supernatural veneration is due to Saints for their supernatural worth or Excellency, as natural or civil respect is due to Magistrates, and the like, in regard of their civil or natural perfection, dignity, or degree.  
94. Seaventhly, he names Our Beads, Rosary, & our Lady's Psalter: and in a word our whole worship of the B. Virgin. Answer. In the Beads, rosary, etc. We may either speak of praying to, and worshipping of Saints, (which we have proved heretofore) or of repeating in the Beads the same prayers, wherein there can be no difficulty, if the former supposition of praying to Saints be granted as lawful. For it it be lawful to do it once, why not often? How often are the same words repeated in Scripture, and in particular Psalm. 135? and I wonder what crime had it been for Mr. Chillingworth to have said a hundred times, God give me his Holy Grace, first to know, and then to be constant in the true Faith and Religion. If it be lawful to demand and beg often the same thing, what imports it, whether we use the same or different words signifying the same thing? or were it not superstition to put force in the mere difference, or Identity of words, the thing or matter being confessedly the same? We Catholics put not any force in the precise number (which were superstitious, and heathenish) but in some mystery signified by that number. Is it not recorded in the holy Gospel, Matth. 26. v. 44. that our Blessed Saviour in the garden prayed thrice, saying the same words? A proof so pregnant in our behalf, that D. Preston Master of Emanuel College in Cambridge speaking against repeating the same prayer, when the said example of our Saviour was alleged, replied, 'tis true, but he was in an Agony, he knew not what he said. O blasphemy! and yet none ought to wonder that this man speaks in this manner, if he call to mind what we have related in the first Consideration, n. 46. concerning Calvin, & ibid. n. 5. concerning Luther, & ibid. n. 52. concerning Beza. Besides we have showed, Consideration 2. n. 23. at 79. that by the confession of Protestants, numbering prayers upon little stones (or beads) is very ancient.  
95. Eightly, He obtrudes, oblations by way of consumption, & therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Virgin Mary and other Saints. My answer to this must be, that neither I, nor any other, as I conceive, can riddle, what he means by oblations by way of consumption, and therefore in the quality of Sacrifies, etc. His conscience cannot but tell him, that he knows we offer Sacrifice only to God. If he mean we use lights in the Church, and that sometimes we place them before the Images of our Blessed Lady, and Saints, he would do us a pleasure, if he could teach us to light candles or lamps without their being consumed, but like that vision represented to Moses of a bush burning & not consumed. So far are we from intending any oblation by way of consumption, or in the quality of Sacrifice. I wonder he would make any such objection as this, at that time when Protestants did much affect the use of lights, Altars, & Pictures in their Churches. In the mean time who would not (I know not whether to say) laugh, or conceive just indignation, to see so great a Champion as M. Chillingworth was esteemed, to object such matters as these, and, as causes sufficient to forsake God's Church?  
96. Ninthly, he specifyes our saying of Pater-nosters, and Creeds, to the honour of Saints, and of Ave-maries' to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin. This is not unlike to the former, neither can I imagine what difficulty he can find that any good work, (as saying of Pater-nosters and Creeds is, even in the account of Protestants, and the saying of Ave-maries' must be sapposed to be in the opinion of these Protestants who allow prayers made to Saints) may be offered in honour of Saints. What will he say to the known doctrine of S. Augustine, that although Sacrifice be offered to God only, yet it may be offered in honour of Saints? And much more why may not Pater-nosters and Creeds, be offered in honour of Saints, and Ave-maries' in honour of other Saints, though the words be directed only to the Blessed Virgin? In the mean time I return to say; can such matters as these be alleged in the day of judgement, as sufficient to excuse Luther and his followers, from the grievous sin of Schism, in forsaking the Communion of all Churches then extant?  
97. Tenthly, He names the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome. Answer. It cannot be expected that Protestants or any other divided from the Church of Rome, will in express terms acknowledge her to be infallible under that word of Infallible; but it hath been showed, that if they will speak with consequence to themselves, they cannot deny her to be infallible, while they give her such titles, and grant her such Prerogatives, as we have seen heretofore, and deny not but that the ancient Fathers yielded her a pre-eminence before all other Churches, and took her Doctrine and Practice for a Rule and proof of the Truth or falsehood of what was believed or practised through all Christian Churches; Yea and we have heard Protestants confessing that the Pope's Authority for conserving unity, and deciding Controversies in matters of faith, is altogether necessary, and that there cannot be expected any peace and union among Christians, except by submitting to the Pope. Besides, Protestant's commonly grant that the true Church is infallible in fundamental points, and we must either say that the Roman Church was the true Church, when Luther appeared, or that Christ had no true Church on earth at that time, nor hath any at this present, seeing even the chiefest Protestants agree with us in many of those very points, for which the first Protestants pretended to forsake all Churches extant when they appeared.  
98. Eleaventhly, He objects our prohibiting the Scripture to be read publicly in the Church in such languages as all may understand. Of this we have spoken heretofore; Neither is it true, that there is any general prohibition to read any Scripture in the Church in such a language as all may understand; for some Preachers are wont to read in a vulgar language the Gospel of which they are to preach; but our doctrine is, that there is no Divine precept to use vulgar languages in the Liturgy or public Offices recited in the name of the Church: But what would he say to the custom which I have understood to have been used in Ireland, of forcing people of that Nation, to be present even at Sermons made in English, of which they understand not one word? which is a case far different from the use of an unknown tongue in the Liturgy or public Offices ordained to the public worship of God by the Church, and not referred immediately for a Catechism or Instruction of the people, as Sermons are.  
99 Twelfthly, He strangely mentions our doctrine of the Blessed Virgin's immunity from actual sin; and our doctrine and worship of her immaculate Conception. Answer. It is a sign you want better matter, while you object these points. Your conscience cannot but tell you, that you know we are so far from making the immaculate Conception a point of Faith, that there is a severe prohibition, that neither part censure the other of Heresy, Error, or the like, so that this Instance is manifestly impertinent. The reader may be pleased to read Bellarmine tom. 4. the amissione Gratiae & statu peccati lib. 4. cap. 15. where he saith: Quod ad primum, (scilicet, non haberi apud Catholicos pro re certa & explorata, ac fide Catholica tenenda, beatam Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam) Joannes Pomeranus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis, in comment. cap. 1. & 44. Hierem. scribere ausus est, pro articulo fidei, apud Catholicos haberi B. Virginem sine ullo peccato, immo etiam de Spiritu Sancto fuisse conceptam. Sed hoc impudentissimum mendacium satis apertè refellunt duae Pontificum constitutiones, & Concilii aecumenici decretum, quibus constitutionibus, ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obediunt. Sixtus IU. Pontifex Max. in ea Constitutione quae incipit, Grauè nimis, de reliquiis & veneratione Sanctorum, desirtis verbis pronuntiat, nondum esse quaestionem istam, de Conceptione B. Virgins, ab Ecclesia Romana & Apostolica sede definitam, & ideò paenam excommunicationis statuit in eos, qui alterutram sententiam ut haereticam damnare audent. Judicium Sixti Pontificis secutum est Concilium TRIDENTINUM ses. 5. ac demum nostro tempore PIUS V in constitutione quam edidit de conceptione Beatissimae Virginis Mariae. Besides, Protestant's themselves acknowledge this point to be a thing indifferent, excusable, and not defined; as may be seen in the fift Consideration num. 4. at † next after f. in the margin at Fifthly, and as Brereley tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. in the margin at † next after f. at Fifthly, & tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 5. subd. 2. at f. in the margin proves saying, Touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original sin, and the worshipping of Images, Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to pacification sect. 17. pag. 104. paulo ante med. & pag. 105. saith, If any think it more honour able for the Blessed Virgin (yea for Christ himself that took flesh of her) to have been without sin, and thereupon for his part do rather think that by special prerogative she also was preserved from original corruption, etc. in these or such like, whosoever will condemn all those that are not persuaded, as we are, committeth an uncharitable part towards those his brethren. And D. Field ibid. apud Brereley pag. 499. in the margin at * expressly affirms (lib. 3. of the Church, c. 42. pag. 174. post med.) the point concerning the Conception of our Blessed Lady to be a controversy not 
[s] Not defined saith M. D. Field cited in the text. And in his said Treatise of the Church l. 2. c. 9 pag. 58. ante med. he affirmeth of the contradictory opinions (for which saith he) some were named Thomists, other Scotists, that they consisted (to use his own words) in the controversies of religion not yet determined by consent of the universal Church.  defined. Now if these Protestants speak thus of our B●essed Ladies immunity from Original sin, much more will they hold that it is no damnable error (if it were an error, as it is indeed a most certain Catholic truth) and so still we are safe for matter of Doctrine. But here Chillingworth doth much forget himself, not to consider that He, his brethren the Socinians, and some other Protestants deny all Original Sin, and consequently that our B. Lady neither was, or could be conceived therein. So far is this doctrine from being an error or heresy in the grounds of these men.  
100 Thirteenthly, He exemplifies the necessity of Auricular Confession. But we have showed that some learned Protestants hold the necessity of Confession, and confess that the Fathers taught the necessity of confessing even thoughts. Yea Chemnitius, than whom not Protestant was ever more famous, 2. part. Exam. pag. 960. teacheth, perfect sorrow or contrition not to be sufficient without Absolution; as also I am informed by persons of worth and credit that Dr. Jeremy Tailor is so much for the necessity of Confession and Absolution, that he teaches Contrition without Absolution not to be sufficient for remission of sins, which he endeavours to prove in a Book written purposely to that end, though for aught I understand, it is not printed as yet. And M. Spar: a Cambridge Man printed a Sermon to prove the necessity of Confession: as also in this third Consideration, n. 82. fine, we have heard Dr. Andrews prove the same out of St. Austin.  
101. Fourteen, He allegeth the necessity of the Priest's intention to obtain benefit by any of the Sacraments. But this as we have seen out of Brereley in this third Consideration, n. 49. is taught also by learned Protestants, and the thing of itself is so reasonable, that no man can deny it, who understands the terms.  
102. Fifteenthly, He ends his enumeration with these words: And lastly, for this very doctrine of licentiousness, That though a man live and die without the practice of Christian virtues, and with the habit of many damnable sins immortifyed, yet if he in the last moment of life, have any sorrow for his sins, and join Confession with it, certainly he shall be saved. In this accusation are involved three points or propositions, First, that Attrition with Absolution is not sufficient for the abolition of sin. Secondly, that true Repentance requires the extirpation and mortification of all vicious habits. Thirdly, that we teach any sorrow with Absolution to be sufficient for pardon of sins. For the first we appose M. Chillingworth to himself, who pag. 32. n. 4. saith: God hath no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleased to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For though he like best the bright Flaming holocaust of Love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not, the smoking flax of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear; which is more than we grant, who teach only, that not Attrition alone, but with Absolution is sufficient. The second is, for aught I know, against the common Tenet of Protestants, and all Christians, who believe that a sinner may be saved at the hour of his death, if he have true contrition for his sins past, with a firm purpose to amend for time to come, though at that instant he cannot extirpate all vicious habits, which as M. Chillingworth pag. 391. n. 8. confesses, being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant: So that a poor sinner, though he be never so contrite for his sins, must despair of remission and salvation. The third point, that we believe any sorrow with Absolution to be sufficient for pardon of sins, is a mere calumny; as will appear to any that reads the sacred Council of Trent, declaring what sorrow is required to obtain pardon of our sins, or Catholic divines writing on this subject. For, if the sorrow be conceived upon any Reason merely of temporal Hope, or Fear, we teach that it is no wise sufficient to make men capable of Absolution, or forgiveness of sins; but it must proceed from some motive, known by supernatural Faith; for example, the fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven. Secondly, it cannot be produced by the natural forces of men, or Angels, as being the gift of God, and requiring the special motion, inspiration, and grace of the holy Ghost: and contrarily all the wit, pains, and industry of all men, that have been, are, or shall be, yea or are possible to be created, cannot arrive to it, by all the natural forces of them all, though they were assisted by the help of all Angels, created, or creable, or of all other natural Creatures, contained in the Omnipotency of Almightly God. Thirdly, Such sorrow must extend itself to all deadly sins, in order to which it is to be so effectual, that it must exclude all affection to them, and the Penitent must be resolved, rather to undergo a thousand deaths, than once consent to the least mortal sin. And therefore, Fourthly, He must resolve to avoid for time to come, all proximas occasiones, or imminent danger of falling into any one mortal sin: As also, if he have injured any man, by taking away his good name, or goods, or limb, or life, he must effectually, and speedily, procure to give satisfaction, or make restitution, according as the case shall require: Yea and sometime, if it be justly feared, that deadly will cause a failing in his purpose, Absolution may prudently, or must, be deferred, till he hath actually satisfied all obligation, the neglect whereof would prove a deadly sin. And in a word, that sorrow which we call Attrition, differs from Contrition, in the motive only; because Contrition is conceived for sin, as it is against the infinite goodness of God; Attrition as it is repugnant to our eternal salvation; and therefore Contrition is an act of the Theological Virtue of Charity, Attrition, of the Theological Virtue of Hope, which as it moves us to desire and hope everlasting happiness, so doth it incite us to fear the loss thereof, and out of that holy fear, not to fear any other temporal loss, with the prejudice of our Souls; according to those words of our blessed Saviour, do you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him, who can punish with Hell fire, both the body and soul. Which words declare, that, as I said, a natural fear, merely of temporal loss, though it be even of our life, is not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins, as is signified by (Do you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul;) but it must be conceived, for some loss known by supernatural Faith, as for the loss of heaven, or pains of Hell; as is signified by the second part of our Saviour's speech, and the adversative particle, sed; but fear him who can etc.  
103. Thus the Reader cannot but see, that upon examination, even this our Adversary is forced to grant, that in the chief differences between us and Protestants, many chief Protestants stand for us, and that all his Instances or Examples to the contrary, are either manifestly untrue, or clearly impertinent. But to omit more Instances or proofs, I may in this occasion make use of that saying with which Chillingworth serves himself in his Book: Quid verba audiam cum facta videam? M. Chillingworth shown himself in deeds so assured of our salvation, that whereas his Mother had been converted from Protestancy to our Catholic Religion, he, even after his fall from us, persuaded his Mother to remain constant in our faith, and I hope he had no meaning to persuade his Mother to her damnation.  
104. Now for Conclusion I desire the Reader to consider the following Corollaries, or deductions, which follow evidently out of the Premises delivered and proved in this third Consideration.  
105. First, that the Points wherein Protestants agree with us against their pretended Brethren, for number or quantity, are very many, and for quality, of highest moment and concernment; that they are taught not by a few, or unlearned, but by many of the most learned Protestants; that they hold them with us Catholics, whom they reckon among professed enemies, and against them, whom they acknowledge to be their Brethren; and consequently, that this their agreement with us, must be against their inclination and will, against all humane reason or policy, since they can gain nothing by joining with us in opposition to other Protestants, but dislike, hatred, and contempt from those on whose good or bad opinions, their fortune depends. But no torture or rack is so powerful to draw from the will and tongue a true confession, as evidence of Truth forces the understanding not to descent from what is presented to it: for which and many other respects the judgement of those Protestants who agree with us, ought, in reason, to weigh much more in our favour, than the verdicts either of these, or other Protestants, when they are against us.  
106. Secondly, That in every one of the above specified examples we challenge this great advantage; That they increase the number of those who hold our doctrines by addition of our very Adversaries to us, for as much as concerns those particulars, and thereby add strength to our Doctrines and Arguments or Reasons, whereby we prove them against other Protestants, in a higher degree than they could have advantaged their pretended brethren by still agreeing with them, and not joining with us in those points; in regard that the confession of an Adversary is a most convincing proof. 
[t] Apud Brerely in the preface to the Reader sect. 4. in the margin at * next after. 2.  Irenaeus advers. Haereses lib. 4. c. 14. versus finem, saith to this purpose: Illa est enim vera & sine contradictione probatio, quae etiam ab adversariis ipsis singula testificationis profert, etc. For as Tertull: in Apologetico saith: Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur, quin potius ad honorem: magis fides prona est in adversus semetipsos confitentes, quam pro semetipsis negantes. Whereto assenteth Tully in orat. P. Queen saying: Testimonium tuum quod in alienare leve est, hoc contrate grave, etc. 
[u] Apud Brereley tract. 3. sect. 6. in the text and margin at x y.  And our learned Adversaries do likewise affirm, that, it is a great piece of work to convince the Adversary from himself: Academia Nemansis respons. ad professorum Turnoriorum Societatis Jesu assertiones etc. pag. 84. saith, Magnae profecto industriae est, ex ipsius adver sarii verbis Adversarium convincere. And M. D. Field in his treatise of the Church, l. 3. c. 47. initio, pag. 182. circa med. saith: The next note whereby Bellarmine indeavoureth to prove the Romish Synagogue to be the true Church of God, is our own confession; Surely if he can prove that we confess it to be the Church, he needeth not to use any other arguments. And M. D. Whitaker saith accordingly (de Ecclesia controvers. 2. quaest. 5. cap. 14. initio pag. 366.) The argument must needs be strong, which is taken from the confession of the Adversaries; For the confession of the Adversaries against themselves is effectual. And truly, (saith he) I do acknowledge, that the truth enforceth testimony from her enemies. Decimam tertiam notam statuit Bellarminus adversariorum confessionem, firmum certè sit necesse est argumentum illud, quod hinc sumitur, etc. Efficax enim erit Adversariorum ipsorum contra ipsos testimonium, etc. & quidem fateor veritatem etiam & suis inimicis testimonium extorquere, etc. And Peter Martyr in his common places part. 2. pag. 329. b. circa med. saith, Doubtless, among all testimonies, that testimony is of greatest account, which is testified by the enemies.  
107. Thirdly, I ask, whether those learned Protestant writers who agree with us against Protestants, are to be esteemed and called Protestants, or no? If not; seeing scarcely any one doth not agree with us in some point against the rest, the name of Protestant will come to nothing. If they may be esteemed Protestants notwithstanding their disagreement from their brethren, the denomination of Protestants will grow to be over large, and embrace what sects soever, yea even those whom they most abhor, and by contempt call Papists, with whom they pretend a necessity not to communicate; seeing so many learned men may remain Protestants, and yet agree with us. In a word, by this occasion, it will be obvious for every one to express a desire to know, how far Protestancy extends itself.  
108. Fourthly, I demand, whether those Protestants who agree with us against their brethren, be heretics in regard of such their doctrines, and, without repentance not capable of salvation. If they be heretics, and cannot be saved without repentance, seeing it hath been proved, that scarcely any of them doth not agree in some points with us against their brethren, it follows, that scarcely, any Protestant can be judged free from Heresy, or capable of salvation. Or if they be not Heretics, but capable of salvation, we Catholics also (with whom they agree) by the confession of Protestants are no heretics, nor excluded from salvation. And here I cannot omit this Reflection; That whereas Protestant's generally grant, that although our Forefathers might be saved by reason of their ignorance, yet it follows not that we also may be saved, because we may, forsooth, receive light from Luther and others, which our Ancients could not. This evasion is so patently insufficient, that directly it may be retorted, by saying, that although it were supposed (but in no wise granted) that they who were first acquainted with the arguments of Luther against us might be excused by ignorance, yet none can be excused at this time, seeing not only we Catholics, but also the best learned Protestants, upon further advice, better Consideration, long, accurate, strict, and even partial, and passionate, examination of the doctrines and grounds of Luther and other pretended Reformers, have finally forsaken them, and are come to us, and therefore they who at this day oppose themselves to all Christian Churches extant when Luther appeared, and to us of this time, and even to their own learned Protestant brethren, cannot pretend ignorance, or any other lawful or probable excuse.  
109. Fifthly, The demand, which even now we made concerning Heresy, may be with proportion applied to Schism, by ask whether the Communion of those Protestants who hold with us against their pretended brethren ought to be forsaken, or no, by those who entirely and constantly descent from us in all points controverted at this day (if there can be imagined any one such, as it is not easy to believe there is, or morally speaking, can be any, considering the great liberty which Protestants, for want of an infallible visible guide, have to believe what they apprehend as true to day, with freedom to forsake it to morrow.) If their Communion must be forsaken, Protestants will be divided into nothing, by perpetually forsaking one another, yea the same man by forsaking himself, at different times. If they need not be forsaken for such doctrines, we infer, that the first pretended Reformers could not forsake our Communion for the very same doctrines which now chiefest Protestant's hold, and yet are not forsaken by the rest; and therefore Luther could not be excused from the grievous sin of Schism, in forsaking our Communion.  
110. Sixthly, It is very carefully to be observed, that all the different Sects of Protestants, and every single person of these Sects, whether they agree with us against other Protestants, or disagree one from an other, and also from us, or the same man at different times disagree from himself; It is I say to be observed, that in all these differences, and contrarieties against us, against their brethren, and against themselves, they still pretend evident Texts of Scripture in favour of their opinions for the then present time; wherein seeing it is clear they must be deceived (it being impossible that the word of God can deliver contradictions) we must evidently conclude, that Scripture alone cannot be to them a sufficient Rule of Faith, but that we must finally acknowledge a living judge of Controversies, namely, the Church of God, which therefore must be believed to be absolutely infallible in all her Definitions concerning matters of faith; Otherwise we can have no certainty in Articles of Religion.  
111. Seaventhly, Considering what hath been said in the next precedent second Consideration; That many learned Protestants acknowledge the Ancient Fathers to stand with us against Protestants, we may by the confession of our Adversaries, with all truth and sincerity, use that exclamation and Protestation, which in M. Jewel was false & hypocritical, & reprehended even by his greatest & earned'st Protestant friend (as we have seen heretofore.) O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierome! O Chrysostom! O Leo! O Dionyse! O Anacletus! O Calixtus! etc. If we be deceived, you have deceived us; this our Adversaries confess you taught us, etc. and further, considering what hath been proved in this third Consideration, That many of the most learned Protestants, in many of the most important points of faith, agree with us against other Protestants, we may use an other more strange and unexpected exclamation, and truly say: O Luther! O Calvin! O you other most famous Protestants, if we were deceived, you are deceived, this you teach with us, and you teach with us those very points, which your brethren are wont to call Popish, and for which (a thing to be well considered) the first Reformers took a pretence to divide themselves from all Churches of Christ extant before Luther's time.  
112. Eightly, every one who hath care of his eternal salvation is deeply to consider, That this agreement of protestants with us, against their brethren, demonstrates that they are not the Church, of which unity in matters of Faith is a most inseparable, necessary, and essential note. Whereof Brereley tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 5. subd. 1. saith, As concerning unity (in doctrine) it is said, 
[y] 1. Cor. 1.10.  I beseech you, that you all speak one thing; be ye knit together in one mind and one judgement; 
[z] Ephes. 4.3.  endeavouring to keep the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace; 
[a] Philip. 1.27. &. 1. Pet. 3.8.  continue in one spirit, and one mind, 
[b] Philip. 2.2.  of one accord, and of one judgement. Thus in the first times 
[c] Act. 4.32. & 1.14.  were the multitude of them that believed of one heart and one soul. Thus our Saviour in his special prayer, 
[d] Hebr. 5.7.  heard (no doubt) for his reverence, instantly prayeth for the members of his Church 
[e] Joan. 17.11.  that they may be one. And thus the holy Ghost describeth the Church of Christ, saying, 
[f] Cantic. 6.8  My Dove is one. As also on the contrary, it is said of dissension, 
[g] 2 Cor. 1.10.  I beseech you brethren that there be no dissensions among you, 
[h] Hebr. 10.25.  not forsaking the fellowship that we have among ourselves: 
[i] Proverb. 6.16, 19  God hateth him that raiseth up contentions among Brethren. This want of Unity is so improper to God, that he is therefore termed 
[k] 1 Cor. 14 33.  the God, not of dissension, but of Peace; and it is so certainly the means to dissolve continuance, that the holy Scriptures, which cannot lie, say thereof, 
[*] Galat. 5.15.  If you by't one another, take heed you be not consumed one of another; 
[l] Luc. 11.17.  Every Kingdom divided in itself shall perish; 
[m] Psalm. 55.9. & see Gen. 11.6, 7, 9  Destroy O Lord and divide their Tongues; 
[n] Osee 10. ●.  Their heart is divided, they shall now perish, etc. By this Brand or mark of want of Unity, did the ancient Fathers 
[o] Irenaus' l. 1. c. 5. initio saith: Videmus nunc & corum inconstantem sententiam, cum sint d●o veltres quen admodum de ●●dem cadem non dicant. And cap. 18. fine he saith, Cum autem discrepant ab invic●●●, & doctrina & traditione, & qui recentiores 〈◊〉 adnoscuntur, aff●ctant per singulos die● norum aliquid invenire, etc. Darum est enim omnium describere sententias  Irenaeus, 
[p] Tertullian. de Praescrip. advers. haerer. c. 42. saith: M●ntior si non etiam à regulis su●● variant inter se, dum unusquisque proinde modulatur quae accept'st, qu●●nadmodum de suo arbitrio composu●t, etc. denique inspectae haereses omnes, in multis cum authoribus su●s dissentientes deprehenduntur. And see cap. 37.  Tertullian, 
[q] Chrysost. opur. imperfect. in Matth. hom. 20. saith, Omnes infideles qui sub Diabolo sunt, non sunt uniti, n●c●unum sapiunt, sed sunt per diversas opiniones dispersi: alius quidem sic dicit, alius sic (&c.) comodo perfidia haereticorum qui nunquam sapiunt unum, sed quot sunt, tot sententias habent.  Chrysostom, 
[r] Hilar. l. 7. de Trinitate saith: Haeretici igitur omnes contra Ecclesiam veniunt, s●●d dum haeretici omnes se invicem vincut, nihil tamem sibi vincunt: victoria enim eorum Ecclesiae triumphus ex omnibus est, dum in eo haeresis contra alteram pugnat, etc.  Hilary, and 
[s] Athanasius orat. 1. contra Arianos saith: Illud q●oque pror●us admirabile, omnes quot sunt hae rese in fingendo diversa, pugnantiaque inter se adferre, nee alib, nisi in falsitate sibi invicem consentire, etc. And see in Decret's synod. N●caenae contra haeresim Arianam. See further a notable example hereof in Socrates hist. l. 5. cap. 10. etc. 22. And see the say of Ambrose l. delfis de ad Gratianum c. 4. Hicrom in Matth. 24. Austin contra Epist. Parmen. l. 3. c. 4. & de Baptismo contra Don. l. 11. c. 6.  others, discover the Heretics of their times. By the same mark also doth Luther himself make his like discovery saying, 
[t] Luther tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psalm. 5. fol. 166. b. fine.  A Kingdom divided in itself shall not stand, neither have any Heretics at any time been overcome by Force or subtlety, but by mutual dissension; neither doth Christ fight with them otherwise than with a spirit of giddiness and disagreement. And again, 
[u] Luther tom. 5. Wittemb. in Galat. cap. 5. fol. 416. a post medium.  The Authors of Schisms are disagreeing among themselves etc. they by't and devour one another etc. till at last they perish. This (to omit Scriptures) the examples of all times do testify: After that afric was overthrown by the Manichees, presently followed them the Donatists, who disagreeing among themselves, were divided into three Sects etc. In our time the Sacramentaries first, and then after the Anabaptists divided themselves from us, neither of them are in Unity among themselves: so always Sects bring forth Sects, and one condemneth another. And, the very same argument is yet further afforded against the Anabaptists by 
[x] Sebast. Francus Chronicorum part. 111. fol. 263. b. & seq. numbereth up Seaventy of the Anabaptists different opinions, and concludeth their further differences to be so great, as no m●n can either know or number them, affirming further, that scarce two of them are found to agree in all things.  Sebastianus Francus, and the Divines of 
[y] Theologi Heidelbergenses in protocol. Frankentalensi in praefat. ad Anabaptistas' say; Si vobis Ecclesiae titulum concedere vellemus, quaenam inter vos Secta pro Ecclesia Dei habenda offet, cum tam in multas sectas divisi sitis?  Heidelberge: and also against the Sacramentaries by the Divines of 
[z] Theologi Mansfeldenses in confession Mansfeldica latina fol. 120. say: Suspectam meritó habemus Sacramentariorum doctrinam, (etc.) quod non definitè in eadem sententia concords, sed inter seipsos divisi sunt; ut alii sunt Caralostadianis, alii Zuingliani, Oecolampadiam, Calvinistae, etc.  Mansfield.  
113. But now although the Testimony of our Adversaries against themselves be great and convincing, whether they confess that the Fathers stand for us, and whether Protestants join with us, and thereby witness our Doctrines to be true; yet there remains a greater testimony, that is, true Miracles, of which our Blessed Saviour saith (Joan. 5.36.) I have a greater testimony than John, the very works which I do give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.  
And that our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles, shall be demonstrated out of the very confession of Protestants in the next fourth Consideration.   

THE FOURTH CONSIDERATION.  
That the Doctrine of us Catholics hath been approved by the omnipotent hand of God, using for Instruments of working Miracles, those who were confessedly of our Relgion, yea and in express confirmation of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants.  
1 LIKE as in those 
[a] Brereley tract. 1. sect. 5.  firster times of the Church's infancy, our Saviour did make manifest the truth of his Apostles doctrine, with undoubted miracles, to serve as 
[b] 2 Cor. 11.12.  signs of their Apostleship, to that end 
[c] Marc. 16.20.  confirming the word with signs following: so likewise this virtue or power of Miracles not ceasing, but (as our Adversaries confess) 
[d] Whereas our Saviour loan. 14.12. saith, He that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do, and greater. In the marginal Notes of the English B●ble printed 1576. it is thereupon said, This is referred to the whole Body of the Church, in whom this Virtue doth shine for ever.  shining in the Church for ever, the necessity thereof being one and the same in all succeeding Ages, to the 
[e] In Euseb. Hist. l. 5 c. 7. Irenaeus is alleged saying, Quidam Daemones pro certò & verè ejiciunt, etc. alii co qui gravibus morbis afflictantur per manuum impositionem curant, etc. lamb verò ut diximus mortui suscitati sunt & multos annos post apud nos commorati, quid plura? dona fanè ne dicendo quidem numerari poterunt, quae Deus Ecclesiae per universum mundum diffusae donaverit, quibusque illa in nomine Jesu Christi sub Pontio Pilato Crucifixi, in dies singulos multa miracula ad Gentium utilitatem, effic●t, etc. And see Irenaeus l. 2. c. 58. versus finem. And S. Austin de civet: Dei l. 22. c. 8. initio saith: Cur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula quae praedicatis facta esse, non fiunt? Possem quidem dicere, necessaria quidem fu●sse priusquam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus. And a little afterwards: Nam etiam nunc fiunt in ejus nomine, etc. And Luther tom. 7. Wittenberg. l. de Judaeis fol. 209. b. saith: Nunc autem per hos 1500. annos audierunt (Judaei) esse verbum De●, viderunt max●●a signa & mitabilia, & contra fremuerunt. And ibid. fol. 210. b. ant med. he further saith: A Deo did c●mus & accepimus, ut aeternum verbum & veritatem Dei hactenus mille quingentis ann●s miraculis & signis confessam ac confirmatam.  Conversion of the heathens, who contemn the Scriptures, are nothing moved with the Miracles therein mentioned; our Saviour did in like manner confirm our now faith so then taught by Austin, with like manifestation of Miracles: not such only as Antichrist or the Devil can, by the power of nature, or secondary causes, bring to pass, which may be 
[f] Thess. 2.9.  lying signs, against which we are forewarned: but with Miracles exceeding the power of nature, and done immediately by God: which by the Doctrine of learned Protestants 
[g] Visinus in commentar: Catech. pag. 21. fine saith: Etsi Ethnicorum nonnulla miracula commemorantur, ac de Antichristo & Pseudoprophetis dictum est edituros esse signa, etc. tamen ea, neque numero, neque magnitudine paria sunt Miraculis Ecclesiae, etc. Primum enim ea miracula quae jactantur ab hostibus Ecclesiae, sunt e●usmodi, quae (ordine naturae non mutato) hominum vel diabolorum traudibus possunt effici, etc. miracula verò quibus Deus Ecclesiam ornavit, opera sunt praeter aut contra naturae & causarum secundarum ordinem, ac proinde non nisi divina potentia facta. And the like is affirmed by Zanchius in D. Pauli Epistolas, ad Philippenses, Coloss. & Thessaly. pag. 241. & 242: By Danaeus in Isagoges Christianae part. 4. pag. 43. initio. 46. fine, & 47. initio. By Piscator in Annal. Epistolarum Pauli pag. 470. paulò ante med. and by many others.  are evermore true and infallible. Of which kind though some be some times done (as the Scriptures 
[h] Matth. 7.22.  forewarn, and 
[i] Danaeus in Isagoges Christianae part. 4. pag. 48. initio saith: Ad eos qui donum duntaxat miraculorum à Deo acceperunt, absque dono regenerationis, pertinet, quod ait Christus, Multi dicent mihi in die illo, Domine, nun per nomen tuum prohetavimus, & daemonia ejecimus, etc. And see the same further affirmed by Sigwartus in 23. disputat. theolog. etc. pag. 164. sect. 12. & 13.  Danaeus confesseth) by professors of wicked life, accordingly as our Saviour in like manner, 
[k] Math. 10.1.  gave power over unclean Spirits, 
[l] Matth. 10.4.  and to cure all manner of diseases, to his twelve Disciples (whereof even the wicked Judas was then one:) yet are the Miracles so wrought, though by such, nevertheless certain and undoubted testimonies of God's truth: and for such in general are Miracles throughout the whole course of Scriptures most fully both 
[m] Acknowledged Exod. 8 19 & 3. Reg. 17.24. & 3. Reg. 18.39. & 4. Reg. 5.15. & Matth. 27.54. & Matth. 14.25.33. & Joh. 2.23. & 3.2. & 4.53. & 9.30. & 11.45. Act. 4.14.16. & 9.35.  acknowledged and 
[n] Urged Exod. 7.17. & 16.12. & Numb. 16.28. & Josue 3.10, 16. & 3. Regum 13.3, 5. & 18.24, 38. & 20.23, 28. & 4 Reg. 20.8, 9, 10. & Matth. 9.6. & Marc. 2.10. & Joan. 14.11. & 15.24. & 20.30, 31.  urged, as being even to our Saviour himself, 
[o] Joan. 5.36.  a greater testimony than John.  
And hence it is that the credible Histories as well of all 
[o] For former times, Zozomen. Hist. l. 7. c. 26. post. med. saith: Nec solus Petrus Apostolus mortuum suscitavit, sed & Joannes Evangelista Ephesi, & Philippi filiae Hierapoli, & eadem à multis tum veteribus tum nostri temporis piis viris esse gesta reperies; and see Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 7. post med. alleged heretofore at *; And S. Austin de Civit: Dei l. 22. c. 8. reciteth in particular many like miracles of his time, & so likewise for their several times do the other Fathers of every age.  former times, as also of this 
[q] In the book entitled A report of the Kingdom of Congo a region of afric Printed 1597. published by M. Abraham Hartwell servant to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and by him dedicated to his Lord, mention is made l. 1. c. 1. initio, of the discovery of that Kingdom Anno 1587. by Odoardo Lopez: and of the conversion thereof to the Christian faith l. 2. c. 2. and of the great and undoubted miracles showed by God in the presence of a whole Army l. 2. c. 3. In so much that M. Abraham Hartwell in his Epistle there to the Reader post medium confesseth, that this conversion of Congo was accomplished (by massing Priests) and after the Romish manner, and this action (saith he) which tendeth to the glory of God shall it be concealed and not committed to memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests and Popish means? God forbidden. In like manner M. John Pory lately of gonvil and Caius College in Cambridge, in his Geographical History of Africa by him published Anno 1600. pag. 410. versus finem, acknowledgeth and mentioneth the said Miracles, and pag. 413. imtio he commendeth M. Hartwell for publishing his foresaid treatise. Also where as it appeareth in the book entitled Rerum in Oriente gestarum commentarius, fol. 2. ●hat Francis Xaverius fet forward in his journey from Lysbone to the East ●nd a Anno 1541. to the Conversion of those nations: & pag. 36. that the King of Portugal hearing of the great Miracles as then there wrought, sent forth his Commission to his vice Roy there, dated in April 1556. to take examination upon oath: upon execution whereof, and certificate thereupon being accordingly made, it did appear (fol. 8. b.) that Xaverius, in testimony and proof of the Christian saith by him then preached and taught, cured miraculously the dumb, the same, the deaf, and with his word healed the sick; and (fol. 9 a.) raised sundry dead persons to life: and after his death, which happened (fol. 14. a.) Anno 1552. the grave being opined, wherein his dead body for a● time had lain buried, to the end his naked bones might be carried from thence to Goa (fol. 14. b.) they found his body not only unconsumed, but also yielding forth fragrant smells: from whence they curried it to Goa, and placed it there in the Church of S. Paul, where yet to this day (saith the Commentary) it remaineth free from corruption: witness whereof (saith that treatise) are all the inhabitants of that City, and travellers that repair thither, and the truth hereof for matter of fact is so probable, that M. Whitaker lib. de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum pag. 353. dare not in his answer thereto altogether rest in denial of the matter of fact, but saith: Ne putet (Bellarminus) me omninò haec miracula contemnere. Respondeo fieri posse ut in regno Pontificio fuerint hujusmodi miracula & nunc sint; and pag. 354. post med. he saith: potuit diabolus Xaverii corpus ad tempus servare incorruptum & suaviter olens. And so he not so much denieth those Miracles, as over boldry referreth them to the Devils works: Whereas yet to the contrary M. Richard Hacklu●te preacher in his book of principal navigations, etc. Printed 1599 in the 2. part of the 2. volume pag. 88 initio, doubteth not to offord commendable mention of that holy man (Xaverius) his particular virtues and wonderful works in that Kegion.  present age, are plentiful in like examples of true and undoubted miracles showed by God at the Conversion of heathen nations. Among which our Countries 
[r] Bale in Catalogue. Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Britanniae cent. 14. pag. 117. saith of Augustine: Plebem per interpretes fidem Papisticam docuit. Apud. Brereley tract. 1. sect. 1. at e. in the margin.  foresaid confessed conversion by Austin, to our now professed Catholic faith, holdeth not the least place, as being in like manner greatly then confirmed with undoubted miracles; not lately feigned, but so credibly testified by the faithful writers of those times, that now since they are acknowledged for certain and true by learned Protestants themselves. To this end doth S. Bede and our Chronicles witness, how that Austin 
[s] Bed. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. ante medium saith Allatus est quidem de genere Anglorum o●ulorum luce privatus, etc. tandem Augustinus justa necessitate compullus, flectit genua sua, deprecans, ut visum caeco quem amiserat restitueret, & per illuminationem unius hominis corporalem, in pl●●rimorum cordibus fidelium spiritalis gratiae luccm accenderet: nec mora; illuminatur c●cus, ac verus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus. Tum Britoneses confitentur intellex●sse se, veram esse viam Just●tìae quam praedicaret Augustinus. And see Holinsheads Chronicle, after the last edition vol. 1. l. 5 c. 21. pag. 102. b. line 51.  to prove his opinion good, wrought a miracle in restoring sight to one that was blind. Which kind of Miracle, as Hemingius 
[t] Hemingius in his exposition of the 84. Psalm. Englished part. 1. c. 6.  acknowledgeth for a true Miracle, so likewise the Christian Britan's present thereat, were specially 
[u] Beda ubi supra, and Holinshead ub● supra.  moved therewith.  
In like manner is testified by S. Bede and Protestant writers, that Austin persuaded the King to his Religion 
[x] Beda Hist. l. 1. c. 26. circa med. saith of the King: Miraculorum multorum oftensione credens baptizatus est. And Holinshead ubi supra pag. 100 b. line 60. and M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments Printed 1576. pag. 117. a. prop finem.  by divers miracles showed; which were at those times so certainly known, that (as S. Bede reporteth) it was 
[y] Beda Hist: l. 2. c. 3. fine. And see Stows Annals dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Printed 1592. pag. 66. fine.  written in the Epitaph upon his tomb, that he was suffultus à Deo miraculorum operatione. And 
[z] Beda Hist. l. 2. c. 1. versus finem, saith: Quibus verbis Beatus Gregorius declarat, quod sanctus Augustinus & socii ejus caerestium ostensione signorum, Gentem Anglorum ad cognitionem veritatis perducebant; and S. Gr gory himself l. 7. Epist. 30. indict: 1. reporteth hereof to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria, saying: Know then that whereas the English nation etc. remained hither to in infidelity, I did, by the help of your prayers, etc. send unto that Nation (Austin) a Monk of my Monastery, to preach to them, etc. and now letters are come to us, both of his health, and of his work that he hath in hand: and surely either he or they which were sent over with him work so many Miracles in that Nation, as they may seem therein to imitate the power and Miracles of the Apostles themselves.  Gregory himself not only affirmeth those miracles, but also by his 
[a] Holinshead ubi supra pag. 192. a. line 25.  letters dated Anno 602. did specially 
[b] This letter of Gregory is extant in Bede Hist. l. 1. c. 31. and mentioned by Holinshead ubi supra pag. 102. a. l. in 10.11. etc.  write to Austin touching the Miracles showed by him, advising him, not to glory therein; but rather to consider, that God gave him the gift for the weal of those to whom he was sent, etc. In so much that M. Fox and M. Godwin (both of them learned Protestants) do accordingly mention and acknowledge 
[c] M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments Printed 1576. pag. 117. a. prop. finem. And M. Godwin in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England pag. 4. fine.  the Miracles (then) wrought by Austin through God's hand. As also S. Bede, M. Fox and Holinshead do in like manner specially mention the 
[d] Beda Hist. l. ●. c 12. post medium, and M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments printed 1576. pag. 121. b. post. med. 122. a. and Holinshead in his great Chronicle the last edition volum. 1. pag. 108. b. initio. & 109. a. line 29.30. etc.  miraculous conversion of Eawin King of the Northumber's, which happened some 26. years after Augustine's foresaid coming into England, M. Fox not doubting to place the same in his Catalogue of true 
[e] M. Fox in the Alphabetical table of his Acts and Monuments printed 1576. at the word Miracle  Miracles.. Hereunto we could likewise add the undoubted many and great Miracles 
[f] As concerning the Miracles of Malachias, to omit particular mention of them, no meaner a witness than S. Bernard (who lived in the same time with him, and was to him so familiarly known) saith of them in general in his book de vita Malachiae, mentioned and acknowledged by the Centur●sts, Centur: 12. col. 1633. line 39 In what kind of old Miracles did not Malachias excel? he wanted not Prophecy, not revelation, not the gist of healing: and to conclude, not raising of the dead. And see further the Centurists, cent. 12. col. 1597. line 43. And no less undoubted Miracles are written of S. Bernard by his own Scholar Godfridus and others of that time, who wrote his life. And the same so certain, that Osiander in epitome. cent. 12. pag. 310. post. med. dare not rest in denial of them, but saith: partim permissione Dei praestigiis Satanicis effecta existimo, non quod Sanctum Bernardum Magum fu●sse putem, sed quod verisimile sit Satanam talia miracula effecisse, etc. ad confirmationem Idololatriae & falsorum cultuum: So good a Protestant he maketh S. Bernard. Of Malachias his miracles see also the Century-writers, cent. 12. col. 1594. line 30. And see S. Bernard's Miracles further hereafter in this Consideration num. 4. at p. q. r. etc.  wrought of later times (to omit sundry others) by holy Malachias, and S. Bernard, both of them confessed and known 
[g] As concerning Malachias his Religion, Osiander cent. 12. pag. 315. post. med. saith: Malachias Archiepiscopus in Hibernia ab ineunte aetate literis & Religioni addictus, tandem invitus & diu admodum coactus, Archiepiscopatum Hiberniae assumpsit, S. Bernardo admodum familiaris fuit: ejus monachatum admiratus & imitatus est, superstitiones Pontificias amplexus, Romanum Pontificem pro Deo coluit. Tribuuntur illi admodum plurima Miracula, etc. & vide ibid. pag. 256. post med. And S. Bernard in vita Malachiae affirmeth, that Malachias was Legate to the Pope. As concerning S. Bernard's Religion of whom M. Whitaker (in praelect. de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum pag. 369. paulo post medium) saith: Bernardum verè sanctum suisse existimo. He was Abbot of Clairevaux (as testifieth Simon de Voyon upon the Catalogue, etc. pag. 126.) and ho acknowledged so plainly the Pope's Primacy (whereof see S. Bernard l. 2. de consider. ad Eugenium, & l. 3. c. 8. and Epist. 125. & 131. & 190. add Innocentium) that he is therefore reproved by D. Fulk (against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect. 11. fol. 133. b. post initium) and by M. Whitaker (lib. 2. contra Duraeum pag. 154. ante med.) and was so evidently a professed Catholic, that Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. versus finem allegeth him to us saying: Bernardus Sanctus vester, and M. Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Camp. rat. 7. pag. 105. ante med. saith: Bernardus quem Ecclesia vestra multis annis unum tulit pium virum, etc. And the Century-writers cont. 12. c. 10. say of S. Bernard, that coluit Deum Maozim ad novissimum vitae ivae articulum, acerrimus fuit propugnator Sedis Antichristi, etc. And the Lutherans in libro Germanico, quo causas recusati Concil●i Tridentini reddunt, sol. 257. do term S. Bernard an impudent writer, heaving the Pope up into an Idol, a corrupter of God's honour, and preacher of Antichrist. Lastly this point is made yet surther evident, both in Malachias and Bernard, that it is manifest, that they both lived Anno Domini 1140. When the profession of our new Catholic faith was most storishing. Which thing M. Jewel in his defence of the Apology printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med. confesseth saying: S. Bernard lived in the midst of the Pope's rout and Tyranny. Whereupon it followeth, that for so much as neither of them is found to have been troubled for any one point of Doctrine disagreeing from those times, but were to the contrary both of them in high favour, as then with the Roman Sea, the one of them being the Pope's Legate, the other an Abbot, that therefore they were agreeable in Religion to the professed Doctrine of those times; so improbably do our adversaries pretend S. Bernard to have been a member of their Church for his only then zealous reproving the corruption of life and manners in the Clergy of that age.  members of our now professed Catholic faith.  
2. This 
[h] Brereley tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 7. per totam.  gift of Miracles is so necessary to the Conversion of the Heathen in all ages, that the Apostles therefore made special 
[i] Act. 4.29.30.  prayer for this gift, and our Saviour saith accordingly, 
[k] Joan. 15.24.  If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not sinned. In so much as S. Austin placeth the same among those 
[l] Aug. tom. 6. contra Ep. Manich c. 4. and in his l. 22 de Civ. Dei c. 8. initio he oss●●met●, that before the world believed, Miracles w●●e necessary to this end, that the world should believe. Pu: If miracles be necessary to convert Nations, much more necessary must they be to reverse what all Christ an Churches have once embraced, and therefore it was inexcusable temerity to follow the first pretended Resormers (who did not so much as pretend Mira cles) against the whole Church extant before their time. Even amongst men Possession is a string Plea.  many things which most justly held me in the Church's bosom. Thus did this gift of Miracles accordingly continue (and that most wonderfully in the times of 
[m] See this heretofore in the precedent num. at *.  Irenaeus, and no less wonderfully afterwards for four hundred years after Christ, as appeareth by 
[n] Zozom. hist. l. 7. c. 26. post med. see the words alleged in the precedent num. of this Consideration at ● next after m.  Zozomene, and also by St. Austin, who speaking of the Miracles of his time, telleth how 
[a] Aug. l. 9 Confess. cap. 7. & S. Hierome in vita Hilarionis telleth, how the dead body of, Hilarion was after ten months found uncorrupted, yielding forth a fragrant smell. And see the like miracle testified by S. Bede of S. Cuthbert. l. 4. hist. c. 30.  the dead Bodies of Gervasius and Protasius were after many years found uncorrupted, and that 
[b] Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. inicio.  at their dead Bodies a blind man received his sight: A Miracle (saith St. Austin) done at Milan, (where the said Bodies lay) when I was there, a great number of people being witness thereof. In like manner doth he make mention of sundry persons who being dead, were by God 
[c] Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. post med.  restored to life at the Monument of St. Stephen: and mentioneth further 
[d] Aug. ibidem versus finem.  another Miracle done (saith he) with us, so known and manifest, as I think there is none in Hippo (the City where it was done) who either had not seen or learned it. This miracle by his report made thereof more at large, was, that ten infirm persons were, in presence of himself and the whole people, miraculously cured at the said Monument of St. Stephen. These miracles were so evident in his time, and the number of them so many, that having already mentioned divers others, he yet saith 
[e] Aug. ibidem post medium saith, Quid faciam? Vrget hujus operis implendi promissio, ut non hic possim omnia commemorare quae sc●ò, & proculdubio plaerique nostrum cum haec legent, dolebunt metam multa pretermisisse, quae utique mecum sciunt, ques jam nunc u● ignoscant rogo, etc.  Quid faciam etc. What must I do, I am not able to remember all that I know, and doubtless sundry of ours when they read these, will grieve that I have omitted so many, which likewise they know as well as I, and concludeth, that it would require 
[f] Aug. ibidem saith: Si enim miracula sa●itatum ut alia taceam, modò velim scribere, quae per liunc Martyrem, id est gloriosissimum Stephanum facta sunt in colonnia Calamensi, & in nostra, plurimi conficiendi sunt libri, nec tamen omnia colligi poterunt, sed tantum de quibus libelli dat● sunt qui recitarentur in populis, etc.  many books to set down the miracles of healings (to omit others) done only at the memory (or monument) of S. Stephen. Thus much briefly out of S. Austin only. And like mention of other miracles in this kind is further made by sundry other 
[g] See Basil. orat. in Mamant. & Nazianzen orat. in Cyprianum & Chrysostom. in lib. contra Gentiles fine; and Ambrose in serm. de S Gervas'. & Protas. & Hierome contra Vigilantium, & in Epist. ad Eustoch●um de vita Paulae, and in vita Hilarionis, and Sulpitius in vita Martini.  Fathers of that age, in so much as M. Whitaker saith hereof to Duraeus, 
* Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med.  I do not think those miracles vain which are reported to have been done at the Monuments of Saints. This continuance of miracles in the true Church since the Apostles times to this present, is so undoubted and certain, that our very adversaries the 
[h] The Century Writers of M. gdeburge, make this their report in their 13. Chapter of every several Century.  Century writers, do for thirteen hundred years next after Christ, accordingly report in particular, out of the credible writers of those several times, many of the miracles done in every succeeding age, whereof a great number are reported by the ancient Fathers to have been done by 
[i] Of the wonderful miracles done by Monks see Zozomen hist. lib. 3. c. 13. & l. 6. c. 28. & Evagrius hist. l. 6. c. 22. & Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. fine, etc. 9 and Hierome in vita Hilarionis, and Palladius in his historia Lausaci throughout, and Theodoret in his Theophil. throughout; and Osiander cent. 4. pag. 369. & 370. and the Century writers cent. 4. col. 493. line 18. sundry of those miracles being many resuscitations or raisings up to life of the dead, curing of diseases by word, prayer, or touching: commanding of the Sea to return or stay its passage or course of inundations, and sundry other like, which could not but proceed from God.  Monks whose confessed 
[k] As concerning the great and almost incredible austerity of sundry the Monks of those times, as namely in enclosing or muring up themselves in Cells or Pillars of stone: in loading and chastizing their bodies with weight of iron bands; their wearing privately of sackcloth: their lying on the ground: their going barefooted; their abstinence from flesh, fish, cheese, eggs, wine, etc. their eating of bread by weight, and drinking of water by measure, with much more of like nature, see testimony thereof in general in Epiphanius haer. ult. fine, Evagrius hist. l. 1. c. 21. & in Luc. Osiander in epitome, etc. cent. 4. pag. 368. & 506. and in the Century writers cent. 4. col. 471. line 23, & col. 473. & 474. and see particular examples hereof testified by Socrates hist. l. 4. c. 18. Zozomen. hist. l. 6. c. 29. & l. 3. c. 13. post med. Evagrius hist. l. 5. c. 21. & l. 6. c. 22. but most specially by Theodoret in his Theoph. or historia Sanctorum Patium cap. 26. & cap. 4. and also cap. 2. Which is the life of James, and cap. 3. in the life of Julianus: his special mention of both which last persons in this very Treatise, he remembreth with reference thereto in his other history l. 1. c. 7. & l. 3. cap. 19 In like manner see the like particular examples in Palladius in hist. Lausaica cap. 43. & 52. & 70. and thoughout, (of this Palladius and this his book, mention is made by Socrates hist. l. 4. cap. 18. fine,) See also further testimony of like austere life, in Osiander in epitome. etc. centur. 4. pag. 99 & 100 & 101. & 103. and see heretofore in the 2 Consideration num. 23. at 49. & 50.  austerity of life is by our adversaries condemned for 
[l] Osiander in epitome. cent. 4. pag. 99 circa med. & 100 paulo post med. & pag. 103.  superstitious, and many also are by the Fathers reported as directly done in confirmation of some one or other 
[*] Brereley in his Omissions and Additions of pag. 527. addeth, directly against M. D. Field, who in his book of the Church pag. 185. saith: We peremptority deny, that ever any miracle was done to confirm any of the things controversed between the Papists and us.  particular point of our Catholic faith, as namely, to omit many other particulars, of 
[m] Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. prop. finem, telleth how that in the presence of him and others, a devout woman called Palladia, who being before diseased, and repairing for health to the monument of S. Stephen, Ad sanctum Martyrem (saith S. Austin) orare perrexerat, quae mox ut cancellos attigit, collapsa similiter velut ad somnum, sana surrexit, etc. And see a little before in the same Chapter the like miraculous example of one Florentius of Hippo, and of Eucharius a Priest of Spain.  Prayer to Saints, 
[n] Nazianzen in Cyprianum saith: Omnia potest pulvis Cypriani cum side, ut sciunt hi qui ipsi experti sunt, & miraculum usque ad nos transmiserunt. And Chrysostom. in libro contra Gentiles, speaking of the Relics of the holy Martyr Babylas saith: Sententiae nostrae abundè fidem faciunt, quae quotidiana à Martyribus eduntur miracula. Insomuch as Mr. Fox, act. mon. printed 1576. pag. 61. b. ant med. reporteth (which thing chrysostom also, ubi supra, and Theodoret, l. 3. c. 9 affirm) how that after the bringing of the (dead) body of (the said) Babylas into the Temple (of an Idol) the Idol ceased to give any more Oracles, saying, That for the body of Babylas he could give no more answers. Gee further examples of Miracles done at the Relics of Saints in Palladius in his Historia Lausaica, cap. 62. in vita Philemonis, in S. Austin de Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. in Hierom contra Vigilantium, in Basil. in orat. in Mamant. in Gregorius Turonensis l. de gloria Martyrum throughout; and see what Mr. Whitaker confesseth next heretofore at * next after g.  Relics, 
[o] Eusebius, hist. l. 7. c. 14. maketh mention of (the Image of Christ) erected by the woman whom he cured of her flux; and of an unusual herb growing at the bottom thereof, which after that growing up, it had touched the garment of the Image, it had power to cure all diseases. See further mention of Miracles in confirmation of Christ's Image in Athanasius de passione imaginis Christ● in Berito, alleged in 2. Concil. Nicen. act. 4. and in Gregorius Turonensis de gloria Martyrum, l. 1. c. 22. in both which is mentioned, that upon violence offered by the Jews upon Christ's Image, blood did miraculously issue from thence.  the Image of Christ, 
[p] S. Chrysost. de sacerdotio, l. 6. c. 4. reporteth, that Ascertain venerable old man, to whom many mysteries were revealed by God, told that in time of Sacrifice he once beheld a multitude of Angels, with shining garments, compassing the Altar with bowed heads, as Souldurs do in presence of their King. Which attendance of Angels Chrysostom in the words next before affirmeth to have been performed, by Angels present (saith he) at that wonderful Table, and compassing it about with reverence, in honour of him that lieth thereon. And that it hath pleased God, in satisfaction of the incredulous, to have turned the outward Sacrament into visible flesh, is testified by St. Gregory, whereof see Paulus Diaconus in vita S. Gregorii, and ●oannes Diaconus in vita S. Gregori●, l. 2. c. 4. and D. Humphrey in Jesuitismi, p. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. And of another like M●racle, Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus (who lived Anno 440.) in Epigram. in D. B●sil. saith: 
Intuitus panem & nigrum in cratere Lyaeum,  
Riserat Hebraeus sacra mystica Christicolarum;  
Haec ubi Basilius persensera●, utraque edenda  
Porrigit, illa statim cruor & caro versa resultant.  And see the Century Writers, cent. 4. col. 431. lin. 39 And of sundry other like miraculous appearances, see Paschasius de corp. & sangu. Christi, cap. 14. where he saith of the miracles before his time, Nemo, etc. None that read the examples and lives of the Saints, can be ignorant, that these mystical Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord, either in respect of those that were doubtful (in faith) or of them that more ardently loved Christ, have often appeared in the visible form of a Lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood, etc. that what was latent in Mystery, might to the doubtful appear clear in Miracle.  Real Presence, 
[q] S. Austin de Civit. Der, l. 22. c. 8. circa medium, reporteth of his own time and Country, how that one Hesperius having his house infested with wicked spirits, to the affliction of his beasts and servants, desired (saith S. Austin) ●n my absence, certain of our Priests, that some would go thither (&c.) one went and offered (saith he) there the Sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying what he might, that the vexation might cease, and God being thereupon merciful, it ceased. In like manner doth S. Gregory, hom. 37. in Evang. and S. Bede, hist. l. 4. c. 22. ante m●d. tell of two several persons taken prisoners in the wars, for the pardon of whose souls, as supposing by their friends they had been slain, Mass was said, at which very time of Mass so said, their bands were loosed, and fell fròm them. S. Gregory also, and S. Bede, report these things as particularly known to be done in their own times. And in behalf of Sacrifice is also appertaining the foresaid other Miracle recited by Chrysostom here next before at p. Also S. Gregory, l. 4. D●●●iog. cap. 55. telleth of a Mon● called Justus, who (saith he) was obsequious to me, and watched with me in my daily sickness: this man being dead, I appointed (saith Gregory) the healthful host to he offered for his absolution, thirty adies together, which done, the said Justus appeared to his brother by vision, and said, I have been hitherto evil, but now am well, etc. And the brethren in the Monastery counting the days, found that to be the day on which the thirtieth oblation was offered for him. See certain of these Miracles reported by the Century Writers, centur. 6. col. 819. lin. 51. & centur. 7. col. 577. lin. 37.  Sacrifice of Christ's body, Purgatory, and 
[r] These foresaid Miracles alleged next before from Gregory and Beda are available also for Purgatory and prayer for the dead.  prayer for the dead, the great 
[s] The Miracles reported by the Father's concerning the sign of the Cross are almost infinite. Insomuch as M. Covell in his answer to M. John Burges, pag. 138. paulò post medium, confesses accordingly, saying, Noman can deny but that God after the death of his Son manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign (as) being the instrument of many miracles. He that would desire to see certain of those Miracles in particular, let him read Hierom in vita Hilarionis versus finem; Athanasius in vita Antonii; Palladius in Historia, c. 1. in vita Isidori; Theodoret, in his Theoph. c. 2. ante med. in vita Juliani; & Lactantius, l. 4. c. ●7. ●  virtue of the sign of the Cross, 
[t] Epiphanius, haer. 30. ante med. maketh report of certain enchantments dissolved by Joseph his sprinkling of water signed with the sign of the Cross, etc. and Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 21. telleth, that Marcellus dissolved the like enchantments by sprinkling of holy water, which done (saith Theodoret) the Devil not enduring the virtue of the sprinkled water, fled away. Read the place. See also the like report made of Macharius by Palladius in Historia Lausaica, cap. 19 In like manner do the Father's mention miraculous cures wrought by the means of holy water, whereof see S. Gregory, l. 1. Dialog. cap. 10. and S. Bede histor. l. 5. c. 4. and Palladius, cap. 9 & 20. and Theodorer in his Theoph. c. 13.  Holy water, 
[u] Of a memorable Miracle done concerning Church-lights, read Eusebius hist. l. 6. c. 8.  Lights in the Church, 
[x] Cyprian in sermone de lapsis, post med. reporteth concerning a cortain woman, who (saith he) when she would with unworthy hands have opened her Coffer, wherein was (reserved) the holy thing of our Lord, fire did spring up, whereby she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it. And S. Ambrose in orat. Funebri de obitu fratris sui Satyri, cap. 7. reporteth how that his brother Satyrus being by shipwreck thrown into the Sea, and having tied the divine Sacrament in a stole, and fastened the stole about his neck, was (thereby miraculously) saved from the water, etc. and being delivered, went to the Church, that he might give thanks, and acknowledge the eternal Mysteries. And see no less Miracles in Evagrius, hist. l. 4. c. 35. in Gregorius Turonensis de gloria Martyrum, l. 1. c. 14. and also next hereafter at y.  reservation of the Sacrament, 
[y] Optatus, l. 2. contra Donatistas', reporteth, how the Heretics caused the (reserved) Eucharist to be thrown to Dogs, which Dogs thereupon all raging, rend in pieces their Masters, as guilty of the holy body; they also (saith Optatus) ihrew out of the Window (ampullam chrisma●is) a Vial (or little Bottle) of Chrism (or holy Gil) to the intent to break it, the w●●ch being stayed by an Angels, hand, God preserving it, light safe among the siones. In like manner of latter times doth S. Bernard remember how Malachias cured a lunatic Child in confirming him (saith Bernard) with sacred Unction: A Miracle (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, (and thereupon) blown through the world. Hereof see Holinshead in his Chromcle of Ireland, the edition of 1577. in the history thereof next after the description, pag. 13. a. lin. ult. & pag. 13. b. lin. 1. and after the last edition, pag. 55. a. lin. 56. and see also S. Bernard in vita Malachiae.  Holy Chrism, 
[z] See in Evagrius, l. 4. c. 25. a Miracle reported upon his own knowledge, and another like miracle in the Tripartite history, l. 2. c. 19 post med.  Adoration of the Cross, 
[a] Of the sundry miracles shown that confession of sins to the Priest should be made entire without concealment of any, see Joannes Climachus in libro qui dicitur, Climax, grad. 4. Petrus Damianus in epist. ad Desiderium, Petius Cluniacensis, l. 1. de mirac. c. 3, 4, 5, & 6. And concerning neglect of Confession, see Beda hist. l. 5. c. 14.  Confession of sins to a Priest, and 
[b] S. Bernard. in vita Malachiae, reporteth, that A Noble Man lived near the Monastery of Benohor, whose Wise being sick, Malachias was requested to aneyl her, which was duferred till morning: afterwards a sudden outcry being made that she was dead, Malachias came, and when he certainly found that she was dead, he was greatly troubled in mind, imputing the fault to himself, that she died defrauded of the grace of the Sacrament, and lifting up his hands to Heaven, said, I beseech thee, O Lord (etc.) what more? she that was dead opened her eyes (etc.) and Malachias giving thanks, praised God, and aneyled her, knowing sins to be remitted in this Sacrament. Thus doth S. Bernard write of his known, familiar and dear friend Malachias.  Extreme Unction.; Whereto, were this place capable thereof, many others might be added.  
3. The gift of Miracles being thus evidently proved not to cease (as is pretended) after those firster times of the Primitive Church, but in all ages to continue, though not as being common to all the Church's Pastors, as was the gift thereof made common to all 
[c] And having called the twelve, he gave them power to cure all manner of diseases. Math. 10.1.  the twelve, but only as being now but peculiar to certain persons, and at certain times, according to the more special dispensation of God's good pleasure in that behalf, (for as for any supposed necessity of the same to be ordinary now as in the Apostles times, against which M. 
[d] M. Morton in Apologia Catholica, part. 1. l. 2. c. 25.  Morton urgeth certain needless testimonies, it is by us neither urged nor affirmed) we will now only further examine, which Church it is, whether Catholic, or the said foresaid Protestant Church, to which the said gift hath for the last thousand years been confessedly appertaining or wanting. First, concerning the foresaid Protestant Church, it seemeth so evidently destitute of this gift, that our learned Adversaries confess to the contrary, the said Church to have been 
[e] Apud Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. in the margin at ¶ it is said, Joannes Regius being urged in this kind, doth (in his liber Apologeticus, etc. pag. 176. circa & post med.) answer thereto, saying, Negas Lutherum suae fidei coetum invenisse, (etc.) Dico fuisse ante Lutherum verae religion's, & qui cum Luthero per omnia consentiret coetum Ecclesiasticum. But coming to answer where this Congregation was then to be found, be hath no other refuge, but saith there, that it was à Pontificiis non agnitus, nec, propter tyrannidem Pontificiam visibiliter for tassis oftendi potuerit: ideoque quando urgent Jesuitae ut Lutherus verae religionis asseclam Ecclesiam ostendat, etc. volunt ut Lutherus oppositum in adjecto demonstret, & invisibile visibile probet, etc. Interim tamen absurdum est ita argumentari; Haec res ab aliis non agnoscitur, nec potest etiam videri aut demonstrarl, ideoque non est in rerum natura, etc. So plainly doth he (being urged to particulars) acknowledge his pretended Congregation at Luther 's coming to have been then invisible, and not able to the shown. Also Whitaker (apud Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subd. 1. in the margin at † next before t.) de Ecclesia contra Bellarminum, controv. 2. quaeff. 5. pag. 262. ante med. reciteth Bellarmine 's argument, saying, Secundum Bellarmini argumentum est hujusmodi, etc. Ante Lutheri tempora non erat in mundo, etc. Whereto he there answereth, Nostra Ecclesia tum●suit. At non fuit visibilis (inquit Bellarminus.) Quid ●um? Anideo non fuit? Nequaquam. Latebat enim tum in solitudine; and nameth not (though thus urged) so much as but any one man of his Church in being at Luther 's first appearing. See more hereof here in Brereley, and in the place above cited, & tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 3. fine, at e. f. g. h. i.  invisible (at the least for almost) one thousand years last before Luther, which could not so be, had the same been made so gloriously known and apparent as with the testimony of miracles. And as for the said Protestants Church since Luther's time, whereas our learned Adversaries do affirm the calling of Luther, Calvin, and others, to have been 
[f] Beza, (apud Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subd. 3. at ¶ next before g.) in Ep. Theolog. ep. 5. Alemanno, paulò post initium, pag. 49. saith to Alemannus: Ordinariam certè vocationem praetexere non potes: Quis enim te elegit? ergo de extraordinaria videamus. Hu●c verò tum demum locum esse dicimus, cùm vel nulla, vel paenè nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu, cùm expectari ordinaria vocatio, quae nusquam erat, nee debuit, nec potuit. See more hereof in Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10. subd. 15. fine, at q. r. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. versus finem, at f. & tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 4. at q. *. s. t.  extraordinary, as being not by ordination from man, but immediately from God, to which calling themselves annex 
[g] Apud Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2. at z in the margin, it is said, Amandus Polanus, in Partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 308. saith, Ministrorum extraordinariè vocatorum etiam dona extraordinaria fuere, nempe Prophetiae, donum edendi miracula, etc. And Musculus, loc. common. pag. 394. saith, Vocatio quae immediatè est à Christo, jam in usu non est, ut erat olim, habebat sua signa, unde cognosci potuit, de quibus meminit Marcus Evangelista, cap. ult. dicens: Praedicaverunt, etc. sequen●bus signis, etc. And M. Henoch Clapham in his sovereign remedy against Schism, pag. 25. initio, doth upon this ground reprehend Brown, for that he did take upon him extraordinary calling, and wanted miracles. And Luther, in loc. common. class. 4. c. 20. initio, pag. 38. post med. admonished to this end, saying, Hoc explores an vocationem suam possint probare: neque enim Deus unquam aliquem misit, nisivel per hominem vocatum, vel per signa declaratum, nè ipsum quidem fillum. And Luther, tom. 5. Jen. Germ. fol. 491. a. b. saith, Unde venis? Quis te misit? etc. Ubi sigilla quòd ab hominibus missus sis? Ubi sunt miracula quae te à Deo missum esse testantur? Also Luther admonished the Senate of Milhouse against Munster the Anabaptist, saying, Si dicat se à Deo atque ipsius Spiritu missum esse quemadmodum Apostoli, probet hoc signis & miraculis editis, vel nolite far, ut concionetur: nam ubicunque Deus ordinariam viam mutare vult, ibi semper miracula facit. Luther, tom. 3. Jen. Germ. fol. 455. b. & 456. a. and hereof see Sleydan, lib. 3. An. 25. Also Sigwartus in his 23. disputationes Theolog. etc. pag. 207. sect. 8. saith, Haec vocatio semper extraordinaria quaedam & divina dona comitantia habet, quae sunt tanquam sigilla doctrinae, etc. cu●usmodi suerunt miracula, etc. And D. Saravia in defence. tract. etc. contra respons. Bezae, c. 2. pag. 38. ante med. saith, Ea verò quae proximè à Deo est vocatio, nunquam sine aliquo externo & visibili signo aut visione facta legitur. And see further hereof Saravia in his English book of the divers degrees of Ministers, c. 2. pag. 7. and M. Fenner in his Sacra Theologia, pag. 119. b. Also Bullinger, adversus Anabaptist. l. 3. c. 7. saith to the Anabaptists, Quod si dicitis vos instar Apostolorum peculiarem vocationem habere, probate eam signis & miraculous, etc. hoc autem nunquam facietis; ideoque vocatio vestra nihili, imò pernitiosa est Ecciesiae Christi. See this saying alleged to this end by M. Thomas Bell in his Regiment of the Church, pag. 137. initio.  miracles as necessary to prove that it is from God: yet is the gift of miracles (which is to them according to their own doctrine so needful in proof of their said pretended extraordinary calling) so confessedly wanting and defective in their Church, that M. Fulk thereof saith, 
[h] M. Fulk against the Rh●msh Testament, in Apocalyp. cap. 13. sect. 3. fol. 478 a. post med.  It is known that Calvin and the rest, whom the Papists call Arch-heretics, do work no miracles. And M. Sutcliff saith accordingly: 
[i] M. Sutcliff in his examination of Kellison 's Survey, printed 1606. pag. 8. post med.  Neither do we practise miracles, nor do we teach that the doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles. Insomuch as certain others (discerning the necessity of miracles, and themselves unable to afford any true example thereof in their Church) do lastly urge and name for miraculous, 
[k] Fox act. mon. printed 1596. pag. 789. a. lin. 59 And Sigwartus in Disp. Theol. pag. 170. and Sutcliff de vera Catholica Christi Ecclesia, pag. 313. and Philip Mornay in his Treatise of the Church englished Anno 1581. cap. 11. pag. 351. and Justus Molitor de Ecclesia militante, pag. 159.  Luther 's so large dispersion of his Doctrine, maugre the malice of the Pope and all his Adherents: which as it is against the evident confession of their own brethren, who disclaim as before in all miracles showed by Luther, Calvin, etc. and (as the learned 
† Theologi Casm●riani in admonit. sua de libro Concordiae Bergensis, cap. 6. and after the edition of Neustadii, 1581. pag. 203. post med. say: Scimus istos Theologos (&c.) magnis clamo●ibus regerere, Lutherum esse Prophetam, quia & ipse immediatè & extra ordinem à Deo excitatus, etc. quia miracula fuerint res ip●●us gestae & successus, & multa futura praedixerit, etc. Whereto they answer among other things, saying, Miraculum quod ediderit, nullum audivimus. Nam fortunatio & defensio curriculi ipsius fuit beneficium Dei ordinarium secundum promissiones datas ipsum timentibus, etc. quod autem praedicit de paenis ingrati udinis pro luce Evangelii donata vel similia, non sunt nova oracula, sed veterum oraculorum Scripturae ad nostra tempora accommodatio.  Calvinists confess) is withal 
[*] The learned Protestants d●sin● a miracle to be, signum supra naturae ordinem effectum. So doth Amandus Polanus in partition. Theolog. pag. 228. And see others hereafter in this Consideration, num. 7. at * next after k.  no miracle in itself, as not being against or above the power of nature and secondary causes, so also by like instance might the proceeding of Arius and Mahomet be much more probably said to be miraculous, for that their errors were from no less small beginning, 
[l] More generally dispersed: For whereas Lutheranism holdeth only in the Northern parts of the world, and also but in a corner of those said Northern parts, which are but a parcel of Europe, A●ianism was far more universal, as extending itself into sundry parts of Asia, afric, and Europe. Hereof Daniel Camierus, in epist. Jesuitic. part. altera pag. 49. paulò post initium, saith, Arianorum venenum non portiunculam quandam, sed paenè totum orbem contam●na verat. And see Joannes Pappus in epitome. histor. Eccles. pag. 412, & 413. And the like enlargement in short time of Mahometanism is evident and confessed by Melancthon, chronic. l. 3. a pag. 311. ad pag. 317. by Illyricus, in Apoc. c. 9 a versu 13. ad finem.  more generally for the time dispersed, than ever was the doctrine of Luther. And thus much concerning the confessed want of miracles in our Adversaries Church.  
4. As concerning now our Catholic Church, the 
* M.D. Downham in his Treatise of Antichrist, l. 1. c. 7. pag. 111. propè initium, saith, Neither Turks, nor Jews, nor any other Churches of Christians, but only the Pope and Church of Rome, do vaunt of miracles.  which only confessedly challengeth the gift of miracles, the known examples of her true and undoubted Miracles are plentifully testified. As first, for the thousand years' last passed, it is confessed that we Englishmen were so long since 
[m] See Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 1.  converted to our now professed Catholic Faith: Insomuch as they charge Austin with his then converting us to 
[n] See Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 1. at 9  Popery, and to 
[o] See ibid. at e.  the Papistical faith; for which, say they, 
[o] See ibid. at 6.  he went undoubtedly to Hell after his death. And yet are the undoubted miracles which God wrought by the same Austin in proof of his doctrine sufficiently confirmed with the credible 
[q] See heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. at r. s. t.  testimony of those very times, with like 
[r] See heretofore, ibid. at n. q. *.  testimony also of S. Bede, who lived in the age next after, and are thereupon reported and 
[s] See ibid. at u. and see M. Fox act. mon. printed Anno 1576. pag. 117. a. prope finem, where he saith of Austin and those that came with him to the Conversion of England: The King was moved with the miracles wrought through God's hand by them.  acknowledged as true & undoubted by our very Adversaries themselves. In the same age also lived Holy Oswald King of Northumberland, whose undoubted miracles are by like credible 
[t] Concerning Oswald, Beda, hist. l. 3. c. 2. affirmeth, that the place where he with religious prayer obtained victory, was after called Heavens field, in regard of the innumerable miracles there done. That also, usque hodie, etc. even till Bede's time diseased persons were thereby restored to health. Among whom was (saith Beda) one Bothelmus yet living restored miraculously to health, ante paucos annos, but some sew years (then) since. To omit St. Bede 's further mention of Oswald's other miracles, reported l. 3. c. 9, 10, & 12. done even in his own time; he relateth also yet further, l. 3 c. 11. initio, that after Oswald 's death, a heavenly miracle was showed when his bones were found and translated to the Church in which they are (saith he) now remaining; namely, that from the Chariot in which his Relics were carried, a Pillar of Light was continued up towards Heaven, conspicuous almost to all the places of that Province; and that, saith he, Edilhild an Abbess yet living saw the same: insomuch as Holinshead (in his Chronicle of his last edition, volum. 1. pag. 115. a. lin. 27. and after the first edition, pag. 170. 2. lin. 38. saith of Oswald, that He was the first of the English Nation that approved his virtue by miracles after his life.  testimony made to us known and confessed. In the age next after (which was the seven hundreth year after Christ) lived St. Bede himself, who affirmeth 
[u] Bed● hist. l. 5. c. 2. initio.  many miracles to have been (then) done by Bishop John, reported by divers that familiarly knew him, and specially by his Deacon, a most Reverend and true man, now Abbot (saith Bede) of the Monastery called Inderwood: sundry of which said miracles he there specially 
[x] Bed. ibid. mentioneth the miraculous curing of one born dumb, that was never able to speak one word: he reporteth this (ut ferunt qui praesentes fuere) from the report of them that were present thereat. And l. 5. c. 3. he reporteth from the words of one Berectus, who was present at the miracle, the said Bishops wonderful curing a young Virgin, named Coenburg, of an ulcerous painful tumour in her arm, by his praying over her, and blessing her. And l. 5. c. 4. he reporteth from the same eye-witness the said Bishops curing of a diseased woman with holy water. And see his greate● curing of one almost dead, ibid. c. 5. and of another like, c. 6. See these miracles mentioned by the Centurists, cent. 7. c. 10. col. 533. and by Osiander, in epit. cent. 7. p. 328. post med. where his chief answer thereto is, that inter Antichristiana miracula sunt reverenda.  mentioneth. In like manner doth he particularly mention the sundry great miracles of holy Cuthbert, and namely his miraculous 
[y] Beda hist. l. 4. c. 29.  foretelling the time of his own death, and obtaining of God by prayer, that his faithful Companion, Herebert, might departed this life together with him: 
[z] Ibidem.  the finding of his body eleven years after its burial, whole and sound, as it were living, with limbs, joints, and sinews, soft and pliaeble, more like a body sleeping than dead, and the  about him without blemish, fresh and fair, as when they were first made. Besides sundry other miracles of healths done at his 
[a] Ibidem, cap. 31. the title thereof being, Ut quidam ad tumbam ejus sit à paralysi curatus. And cap. 32. the title thereof being, Ut quidam ad reliquias ejus nuper fuerit ab oculi languore curatus. S. Bede saith there, That this Miracle was some three years passed done at his Relics, and told to him by the same man on whom it was done.  Monument, so many and so known, that even S. Bede himself did therefore write a special 
[b] Of this Treatise Beda maketh special mention, ibidem 30. fine, etc. 31. fine.  Treatise thereof. In like sort doth he mention 
[c] Beda in hist. lib. 5. cap. 11. saith, Nec martyrio eorum coelestia de sucre miracula, nam cum, etc.  the heavenly miracles testifying the martyrdom of (the two English brethren named) Edwaldi, who were so confessedly of our Catholic Religion, that John Bale saith of them, 
[d] Bale in Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae Catalogue. cent. 14. pag. 145. saith of them, Passi sunt pro Papismo Papistici martyrs, Anno 693. And Osiander in epitome. etc. cent. 7. pag. 331. post med. saith, Hi vero Edualdi inter veros martyres numerandi non sunt.  They were Popish Martyrs, and died for Popery, Anno 693. And thus much briefly concerning the undoubted miracles, specially done in proof of that faith whereto we Englishmen were so many ages since converted, and in which we have accordingly ever since persisted. Now concerning the other succeeding ages; the miracles of the eighth age, or hundred years after Christ, are mentioned by 
[e] See Osiander in epit. etc. cent. 8. pag. 47. & 92. post med. & pag. 24. ante med. & pag. 25. post med.  Osiander and the 
[f] See the Centurists, cent. 8. c. 13.  Centurists in their special Tracts of that Century, and so likewise are the miracles of the ninth age, Osiander in his answer thereto referring them to 
[g] See the Centurists, cent. 9 cap. 13. And Osiander in his epitome. etc. cent. 9 pag. 63. imtio, saith, Miracula quae a superstitiosis scriptoribus in hac nona centuria recitantur, vel ab hominibus ot●osis conficta, vel à Satanae praestigiis estecta, ad Antichristi miracula, (etc.) referenda sunt. Ad manifestam enim Idololatriam confirmandam, vel conficta, vel à Satana edita sunt, videlicet ad statuendum imaginum impium cultum, ad venerationem rel quiarum, ad invocationem & cultum Sanctorum, ad Miss●rum sacrificia continuanda pro vivis & mortuis.  Antichrist. And like further mention is by them and other credible Writers made of the undoubted miracles done in the 
[h] Concerning the tenth age, see the Centurists, cent. 10. c. 13. and Osiander in opitom. cent. 10. pag. 125. And see the wonderful minacles of holy Dunstan reported by Osbertus in vita ojus, whereof see also Holinsheads great Chronicle, the last edition, part. 7. in the History of England, pag. 165. b. lin. 7. and see also Petrus Damianus reporting the mirdeles of holy Romwald.  tenth and 
[i] Concerning the eleventh ●ge, Osiander in epitome. cent. 9, 10, 11, etc. pag. 213. initio, saith, Hoc saeculum undecimum plenum est Antichristianis miraculis, quorum alia ab otiofis Monachis excogitata, aliqua Satanae praestigiis effecta sunt, ad confirmationem Idololatriae Pontificiae circa Missam, invocationem Sanctorum, etc. And see the miracles of holy Anseln● mentioned by Edinerus in vita ejus. And of Odilo Abbas Cluniacensis, reported by Petrus Damianus in vita ejus.  eleventh ages. In the twelfth age flourished holy Malachias and S. Bernard, both of them being 
[k] Of their confessed Religion, see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. fine, in the margin at 3.  confessed Roman Catholics. Concerning Malachias, his known miracles are reported by no meaner a witness that by S. Bernard himself, who having known Malachias most 
[l] Of their familiarity, Osiander in epitome. cent. 12. pag. 315. post med. saith, Malachias Sancto Bernardo admodum familiaris fuit. And see M. Holinsheads Chronicle, part. ●. after the last edition, in the sundry invasions of Ireland, next after the description, and next before the Chronicle● of Ireland, pag. 55. a. lin. 43. Here Brereley in his Omissions and Additions of page 535. addeth. See also S. Bernard in praefat. in vita Malachiae, where he signifieth his familiarity and presence at the death of Malachias, saying, Me inter speciales amicos Sanctus ille habebat, etc. Accurri ego, ut benedictio morituri super me veniret, etc. elevatis sanctis manibus super caput meum, benedixit mihi, & benedictionem haereditate possideo; affirming (after many other stupendious miracles reported there in the end of that Treatise) that after Malachias was newly dead, Stabat eminùs puer cui emortuum pendebat è latere brachium, magis ille impedimento quàm usui, apprehensam manum aridam, applicui ad manum Episcopi, vivificavit eam: nempe vivebat in mortuo gratia sanitatum, etc. So present, and witness, was S. Bernard at this miracle. And concerning the certainty of his report of Malachias his other miracles, he saith there, in praefat. fine, Narrationis veritas apud me secura est.  familiarly, saith of him, 
[m] Bernard. in vita Malachiae.  In what kind of old miracles did not Malachias excel? He wanted not prophecy, not revelations, not the gift of healing, and, to conclude, not the raising of the dead. Among which his so many undoubted miracles, there is none more known and memorable, than his 
[n] Bernard. in vita Malachiae. And Holinshead, ubi supra, pag. 55. a. lin. 56.  curing of a lunatic Child in his confirming (or Bishoping) him: 
[o] Holinshead ubi supra.  A miracle. (saith Holinshead) seen and confessed by many hundreds of people, and (thereupon) blown through the world. In like manner concerning S. Bernard's miracles, they be specially written by his own Scholar 
[p] Godefridus in vita Bernardi. And Wilhelmus Abbas S. Nicodorici Rhemensis, l. 1. c. 10. in vita Bernardi. And Bernard the Abbot of Bonevallis (who lived in the same time with S. Bernard) in vita Bernardi, l. 2. c. 2, & 3.  Godefridus, and others of that time who wrote his life: among which his so many miracles, we cannot pass over in silence that great dogmatical miracle by him wrought against the Henricians, or Apostolici, who then did (as Protestants now do) 
[q] That the Henricians or Apostolici joined with Protestants in denial of ●hese several articles, see in Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. in the margin at n.  deny the real presence, Sacrifice of the Mass, Chrism, Purgatory, prayer for the Dead, prayer to Saints, etc. Insomuch as sundry Protestants 
[*] See this in Catal. Testium veritatis, printed 1597. tom. 2. pag. 561, & 562. and in M. Symonds upon the Revelations, pag. 142, & 143.  claim them to have been brethren or members of their Church. These reigned as then most in the Country of Tholosa in France: Into which Country S. Bernard came to preach against them, whereof his Scholar Godefridus writeth thus: Est locus in regione, etc. There 
[r] Godefridus in vita Bernardi, l. 3. c. 5.  is (saith he) a place in the Country of Tholosa, called Sarlatum, where after the Sermon was done, they offered to the Servant of God (as every where the use was) many loaves to bless, which he by lifting up his hand, and making the sign of the Cross, in God's name blessing, said thus; In this you shall know that these things are true, which we, and that those other are false, which the Heretics labour to persuade you, etc. and whosoever they be (of your diseased persons) that taste the loaves, they shall be healed, that you may know us to be the true Minister of God: And so huge a multitude of diseased persons recovered by tasting the same bread, that over all the Country this was divulged, etc. Thus reporteth Godefridus, who lived in the same time with S. Bernard, was his Scholar, and could not without known discovery and discredit have as then set down a matter of this importance, and with such variety of other particular 
[s] As among other circumstances he affirmeth in the same place the number of persons healed, was so divulged, that (saith be the holy man returning over the places near thereto, was glad to go out of his way, for intolerable concourse of people  circumstances.) as are set down in the report hereof at large, had the same been as then but feigned and untrue. From suspicion whereof S. Bernard himself doth also further free it, 
[t] Like as the Apostle insinuateth to the Thessalonians his miracles wrought among them, together with his preaching, saying, Evangelium nostrum non fuit ad vos in fermone tantùm, sed in virtute. 1 Thess. 1.5. So S. Bernard, in imitation thereof, upon the like occasion, saith in his 241 Epistle to the Tholosians, We thank God for that our coming to you was not in vain, our tarriance indeed was short with you, but not unfruitful, the truth being by us made manifest, (non solum in sermone, sed etiam in virtute) not only by preaching, but also by power (of working miracles) the Wolves are deprehended (or convinced, etc.) And S. Bernard himself is alleged, as giving further testimony of his miracles, by the Centurists, cent. 12. col. 1634. lin. 60. & col. 1635. lin. 1. & col. 1649. lin. 40.  insinuating in his Epistle to the same Tholosians, their remembrance thereof, with imitation of such like modesty in speech, as did the Apostle in the like case in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. To conclude this point, the miracles of S. Bernard were so many and certain, that Osiander not daring to deny the same, is not ashamed in answer thereof to affirm them to 
[u] Osiander in epitome. cent. 12. l. 4. c. 6. pag. 310. post med. saith of S. Be●nard, Miracula ci propè infinita à Pontificiis Scriptoribus affinguntur, quae ego partim ab otiosis Monachis excogitata puto, part●m perm●ssione Dei praestigiis Satanicis effecta existimo, non quod Sanctum Bernardum magum fuisse putem, sed quòd verisimile sit Satanam talia miracula effecisse, etc. tales suisse puto Sancti Bernardi visiones, & post mortem suam apparitiones, praestigias videlicet Diabolicas, quibus Satan & ipsi S. Bernardo (dum viveret) & aliis illusit.  have been done by the Devil. Hitherto concerning the miracles of St. Bernard, whom our Adversaries acknowledge to have been a 
[x] See this proved and confessed heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. fine, in the margin at 3.  Popish Catholic, and yet withal 
[y] Whitaker de Ecclesia, pag. 369. paulò post med. saith, Ego quidem Bernardum verè fuisse Sanctum existimo.  a true Saint, 
[z] Osiander, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med. saith, S. Bernardus Clarevallensis Abbas valdè pius vir fuit, etc.  a very good man, 
[a] See this in Pasquil's return into England, pag. 8, & 13.  a good Father, (and) one of the Lamps of the Church of God.  
5. In the thirteenth age (to omit many 
[b] Many others, as namely, holy Peter, Thomas, Antony, and Bonaventure, whereof see Antoninus, 3. part. hist. tit. 23, & 24.  others, that were famous for miracles) lived S. Francis, and S. Dominick, preaching as then earnestly 
[c] See Act. Mon. pag. 70. at An. 1215.  against the Albigenses, who 
[d] See this in Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. under n.  denying Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Confession, extreme Unction, the Pope's Authority, Images, Pardons, Ceremonies, Traditions, are therefore by our Adversaries 
[e] See this in Brereley, tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 2. in the margin at q. And tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 5. in the margin at 3.  challenged for brethren and members of their Church. Among the many miracles credibly reported of them, we will, to avoid tediousness, only allege that great miracle which it pleased God so publicly and openly to show in the last sickness of S. Francis, and the same commended to us, not upon the only credit of any obscure or fabulous Legend, but upon the constant and credible report of Matthew Paris in his History, published by our very 
[f] Printed by them at T●gure, 1589. with title of Matthae● Patis. etc. historia major, etc.  Adversaries themselves, who in respect thereof do commend him (to use their own words) for 
[g] In their Preface to the Reader (set before the beginning of the Book) initio.  the great study, faithful diligence, and simple narration of truth, which the Author thereof (say they) Matthew Paris used, affirming further his said Book to be Opus laudatissimum, wherein, say they, he doth 
[i] Ibidem it is said, that he doth tam saepè, tam manifestè, tam vehementer, & intrepidè notare & simul detestari arrogantem superbiam, Tyrannidem, & injustum imperium Romani Pontificis.  so often, so manifestly, so vehemently, and so boldly note and detest the great arrogant pride, Tyranny, and unjust government of the Roman Bishop, 
[h] Ibidem, in praefat. ad Lectorem.  that Illyricus doth therefore place him in his 
* In Catal. test. pag. 593. & 625.  Catalogue of Witnesses of the Truth, etc. And other Protestant Writers 
† So challenged by Mr. Welsh in his reply against M. Gilbert Brown, Priest. pag. 181. fine. And by M. Gifford upon the Revelations, pag. 194. paulò ante med.  challenge him as a member of their Church. Thus then doth this so true, credible, and indifferent reporter (who 
[k] Matthew Paris lived Anno Domini 1250. and S. Francis begua his Order, as M. Fox reporteth, Anno 1215. Act. Mon. pag. 70. at Anno 1215.  lived in the same age with S. Francis) report of this matter in his so greatly commended Book before mentioned, saying, 
[l] Matthew Paris in his foresaid History, pag. 329. initio. And see S. Bonaventure in vita Francisci.  Quinta decima die, etc. The fifteenth day before his death, there appeared out of his body wounds in his hands & feet freshly bleeding, such as appeared in the Saviour of the world, hanging upon the Cross, when he was crucified by the Jews. Also, his right side appeared so open and bloody, that the inward parts of his heart were to be discerned; whereupon there repaired to him great concourse of people, wondering at so strange a thing, among whom the Cardinals themselves demanded of him what this sight meant, to whom he said, This sight in me is therefore showed, to whom I preached the mystery of the Cross, that you may believe in him, who for the salvation of the world suffered upon the Cross these wounds which you see, and that you may know me to be the Servant of him whom I preached, etc. And to the end that without doubt you may persevere in this constancy of faith, these wounds which you see in me so open and bloody, shall immediately after I am dead be whole and coherent like to my other flesh. Afterwards he yielded up his soul to his Creator, without all anguish or pain of his body, and being dead, there remained no marks of his foresaid wounds. Thus much reporteth Matthew Paris of S. Francis, a confessed 
[m] M. Whitaker de Ecclesia, pag. 369. post med. saith, Franciscus verò & Dominicus homines superstitiosi fuerunt (&c.) de religione verò, quod sciam, idem illi senserunt quod nunc vulgus Papistarum sencit. And see M. Fulk in his Retentive against Bristol, pag. 101. ante med.  Popish Catholic, whose wonderful holy and austere life is 
[n] Pantaleon in Chron. pag. 95. fine, saith, S. Franciscus sanctitate & erudition illustris, in Italia claret. And Fox Act. Mon. pag. 70. next after Anno 1216. going about to disgrace him all he can, saith of him, This Francis was superstitious in casting all things from him, even also his girdle, gi●ding a cord about him, and in outward chastisings of himself, was so straight to his flesh, that in winter season he covered his body with ice and snow: he called Poverty his Lady. So desirous he was of Martyrdom, that he went into Syria to the Sultan, etc. And Melancthon in his Apologia Confessionis Augustanae, printed at Wittenberg, 1573. fol. 221. b. ant med. saith, Obedientia, Paupertas, & Caelibatus exercitia sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ideoque Sancti uti eis sine impietate passunt, sicut usi sunt Bernardus, Franciscus, & alii Sancti Viri. And tindal in his Treatise entitled, The revelation of Antichrist, saith, I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, Dominick, and many other holy men erred, as concerning Mass. Act. Mon. pag. 1338. a. prope initium. That tindal was Author of this Treatise, see Act. Mon. pag. 573. b. fine. And see the religious austerity of S. Francis yet further at large reported and confessed by the centurists, cent. 13. col. 1158. lin. 20. & 1162. lin. 33. & lin. 60. And especially col. 1164. l. 10, 11, etc. And in the Book entituted Corpus Doctrinae, written by Melancthon, and printed Lipsiae, 1561. and subscribect unto by many learned Protestant Divines, ibid. pag. 300, & 301. it is said, ibid. p. 95. fine, Antonius, Bernardus, Dominicus, Franciscus, & alii Sanct● Patres, elegerunt certum vitae genus, vel propter studium, vel propter alia utilia exercit●a; etc.  acknowledged by our very Adversaries. Whereto might be added further report of the same Author concerning many undoubted 
[o] As for example, pag. 128, & 129. Matthew Paris telleth how that in those times the Martyr Alban appeared to one Robert with great brightness, and shown to him the sepulchre and relics of the blessed Martyr Amphibalus, the which he opened, and thereupon great splendour and brightness thence issued, and that upon notice had thereof, great concourse was had thereto of people, quos fervor devotionis adduxerat. And ibid. Pag. 130. he setteth down in particular sundry infirm persons miraculously cured thereat. And pag. 131. he further saith, In praesentia Sanctarum Reliquiarum ipsius, nec non in loco sepulturae ejus, ad laudem Dei & gloriam Martyris, a diversis infirmitatibus sanantur aegroti, membra paralytica solidantur, multorum ora ad loquendum laxantur, coecis tribuitur visus, surdis auditus, claudis firmatur gressus, & quod magis magnificum est, arrepti à daemonio liberantur (&c.) & ad vitam mortui revocantur. And see many other undoubted miracles by him reported, pag. 195. post med. & pag. 203. circa med. 207, 208, & 283. aunt med. & 315. post med. & 389. fine, & 390. initio, & 397. fine, & 398. initio, & 536. circa med. & 572. post med.  miracles of those times. To overpass now the fourteenth age, in which are famous the known and reported 
[p] Of these, see Antoninus, 3. part. hist. tit. 23, 24. where he reporteth certain Refuscitations of the dead. And see also Raymundus Capuanus in vita Catharinae Senensis. And Petrus Rauz in vita Vincentii. And Joannes Capistranus in vita Bernardini.  miracles of holy Bernardine, of Vincentius, and of S. Katherine of Sienna; and to conclude this point with some known examples of the fifteenth and last expired age, we have already heretofore alleged the known and confessed wonderful miracles of holy Xaverius in his conversion of the East-Indians, and the like confessed miracles showed in this age by God in the conversion of the Kingdom of Congo in afric; and the same so credible, as are published to the world by Protestants themselves. Whereunto might be added the example of Joannes à S. Francisco, who in Conversion of the Mexican Nation, came to the 
[s] Hereof see Bozius, de sig. Eccles. lib. 12. cap. 21.  knowledge of the Mexican Language by only prayer, without study. As also of Aloysius Bertrandus, who (not unlike to that which is mentioned in the 
[t] Act. 2.6, 7.  Acts) preaching to the Indians in Spanish, was by them 
[u] Bozius, l. 6. c. 2. & l. 7. c. 1.  understood as 
[q] See heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. in the margin at *. next after m.  
[r] See ibidem.  in their own language, besides sundry other 
[x] Read the Book entitled Rerum in Oriente gestarum Commentarius, throughout. And the Book entitled, Avisdel Giapone, de gli Anni 1582, 1583, & 1584. printed 1586. And the other Book entitled, H●stor a dell● Indie Orientali (printed) in Venetia, 1777. lib. 2. cap. 53, 57, & 63. & l. 3. c. 3.  miracles showed by God in the late conversion of sundry Nations. And the same so evident, as the Protestant writer, 
* See this of Philippus Nicolai in Brereley, tract. 2. c. 3. sect. 6. subd. 2. versus finem, after n. in the margin at 10, & 11.  Dr. Philippus Nicolai, is enforced to acknowledge them: Forbearing all which, I cannot but remember that memorable miracle, and not to be denied, which happened 
[y] See Nicolaus Basilius additione ad Chronicon Naucleri.  in February, Anno 1510. in a Town called Knobloch; (Whereas) one Paul Form, a sacrilegious person, went secretly into the Church by night, broke the pix, and stole from thence two consecrated hosts, one of which he sold to a Jew, who, blinded with malice, said, If thou be the God of Christians, manifest thyself, and that said, he pierced the Sacrament with his Dagger, whereupon Blood did miraculously issue forth, etc. This miracle was not private, but so known and evident, that 
[z] Vide ibidem, and see next hereafter at b.  thirty eight Jews assenting thereto, were therefore apprehended, and publicly burned the 19 of July, 1510. in the Marchy of Brandeburg, and all (other) Jews were also thereupon (by public decree) banished out of the said Territories. This being so certainly set down, with such foresaid known particularity of circumstances, as the certainty of time and place, the known execution of so many Offenders, the solemn banishment by public decree thereupon ensuing of all Jews out of that Country, with many other particulars mentioned in the story at large, is accordingly reported for credible, not only by 
[a] For Catholic writers read hereof Surius in Chronic. and Pontanus, l. 5. rerum memorabilium, and Lintur●us Appendice ad sasciculum temporum.  Catholic Authors, but also by 
[b] Joannes Manlius (Luther's Scholar) in loc. common. pag. 87. saith hereof, Anno post natum Christum, 1510. die 19 Julii, combusti sunt in Marchia Brandeburgensi 38. Judaei, qui sacramentalem hostiam à sacrilego quodam emptam pugionibus & cultellis in ipsius Christi & Ecclesiae Christianae ignominiam impiè confoderant, adjectis blaspheme is quòd Christianorum Deus nullum haberet sang●unem, qui tamen miraculosè promanavit, adeo ut celari nullo modo potuerit: Quare comprehensi scelerati omnes vivi sunt exusti, etc. That Manlius who published this, is but the Collector of Melancthons' report, appeareth by the verses in the beginning of the Book, and in the Book, pag. 89. the Reporter mentioneth his being at Ratisbone, and disputing there with Eckius, which was meant of Melancthon.  Melancthon, and sundry other 
[c] The Protestant writer, Michael Beuther, in his Ephemeris Historica, printed at Basil, pag. 226. maketh the very same report hereof; And so likewise doth Osiander, in epitome. etc. cent. 16. c. 14. fine, pag. 28.  Protestant writers.  
6. To forbear certain other 
[d] Pontanus, l. 5. rer. mem. and Surius in Comm. rer. in orbe gestarum, do report the like miraculous appearance of blood upon like violent sacrilege done by Jews to the Blessed Sacrament, Anno 1556. in Polonia: whereupon the Offenders, one Bisphem a Jew, and Dorothy his woman-servant, were upon Friday after the Ascension day publicly burned. And Jansonius in his Mercurio Gallobelg. l. 4. Anni 1591. maketh mention of the like violence and miracle thereupon ensuing at Presburg in Hungary, Anno 1591. where three Jews being the Offenders, were publicly executed.  examples in in the same kind, we will remember that which is known and evident, concerning Margaret Jesop, an 
[e] Born at Longwick Parish in Buckinghamshire. See the report thereof in Dr. Bristows Motives, the fifth motive.  English woman, who serving in London in the Old Baily one Samuel Rogers a Dutchman, Anno 1568. 
[f] She went to seek after one John Masten a Dutchman, her affianced Husband, who leaving her with Child in London, did, in regard of her poverty, unkindly forsake her, returning into his own Country, and there marrying another.  went to Brussels, 1569. and there fell grievously 
[g] She became upon her delivery so lame, that she kept her bed for half a year, a deep hole remaining on her right side, as if some of her ribs had been sunk far within her body.  lame, the one leg being shorter than the other by half a foot, being known to continue in that estate of lameness, and to live upon common alms three years and four months, at the end of which time, with help of her Crutch, she went to the Church of S. Gudila, vulgarly called S. Trigules in Brussels, to hear the solemn Mass of the blessed miraculous 
[h] Anno 1369. certain Jews at Brussels having with their knives transfixed the blessed Sacrament, blood miraculously issued, (which being discovered) the Jews confessing the same, were thereupon publicly condemned, and burned upon the Ascensiun Eve, Anno 1370. and the foresaid sacred host was religiously placed in the Church of S. Gudila in Brussels, where it is yet, (most miraculously without all corruption) reserved. See the history hereof more particularly and at large reported by Theodoricus Loer, in his Book hereof taken from the Notary's public Records. See also a summary report thereof in Tilman Bredenbachius, collat. sacr. l. 9 c. 25.  Sacrament, in which place many cures had been wrought, where (in the presence of hundreds of eye-witnesses) she was miraculously 
[i] Of the many miraculous cures there before time done, see Theodoricus Loer de miraculis Bruxellis editis circa Venerabilem Eucharistiam. And see a collection of them taken from the said Author, and extant in Tilman Bredenbachius, l. 9 collat. sacr. cap. 25. and see there in the end of that 9 book the subscription of the public Notaries testifying the same.  restored to health, in memory whereof her Crutch was there left in the place near to the blessed Sacrament, where it is yet to this day remaining, and the foresaid miracle was proclaimed in Pulpits of the Cities round about, and the woman herself, together with many eye-witnesses of her then cure, are yet living to testify the same. And no less memorable is that which of late times happened to 
[k] Justus Lipsius in his book, entitled, Diva Sichamiensis five Aspricollis, printed Antwerpiae, 1605. cap. 45. saith hereof, Erat Bruxellae Joannes Clemens filpus Jacobi (&c.) à nativitate claudus, debilis, imò monstrosa quadam facie corporis suit, tib●ae & pedes contracti antrorsum, versi in pectus sic ut genua injungerentur & adhaerescerent, nec esset digitum aut aliud immittere tanquam nativa concretione: Imò verò cavitas & velu● putei apparuerunt sub pectore, cum sanatus ille fuit, idem in utroque femore & ventri imo jungebantur: globosum aliquod corpus diceres, nec stare, jacere, ambulare idoncum: sedere tantùm & sedendo proserpere, manuumal quo nixu, quae sulcris etiam ●uvabantur; Haec deformitas patri dolour, matri etiam exitio fuerat, quae in partu obiit ventre exsecto, caeso hic p●ociietristi fato. And afterwards: B●uxellam rediit, paternam pecuniolam consumpsit●, benignita●e aliena deinceps sustentatus, etc. crebra fama motus capitu● ad Divam nostram veni●e, si forte & ipse opem ac solatium referret: vectus est cu●●u, in sacellum repsit, culpas confession & paenitentia expiavit, sacram hostiam sumpfi●, & paulò post angi visus & animo collabi, item dolores in omni corpore sentire, & dum conatur egredi atqu● aëre refici, magis increvit mo●bus, mansitque volens nolens to●um diem in vesperam. Tunc solemnes Divae laudes canebantur, & ipse ante Aram, sentitque palam à terra se attolli, & pedes ante contortos & ligatos laxari, dejici, idque thorace qui velabat per vim disrupto: & statim directus pedibus suis stetit: ipse attonitus, quid alii? etc. haec turbis ibi visa. haec Lovanii cum rediit, haec Bruxellae, & quis non occurrit? Audivi medicos primarios, & talium haud temerè credulos exclamantes, verè hanc vim & manum Dei esse. Hereunto Brereley in his omissions and additions of page 543. addeth, saying, If any curious Adversary will deny this miracle to have been done by God, because it was not done in instants, let that man remember, that upon our Saviour's curing of the blind man at Bethsaida, he did not at the first instant perfectly cure him, for it is said that at first he (but) saw men walking like trees, Marc. 8.24. and S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. mentioning the like miraculous cures done in his own time, and knowledge, at the Monument of S. Stephen, of Paulus and Palladia, he declareth them both to have been cured not at the first instant, but saith of Paulus, Repen●è prostratus est, & dormienti simillimus jacuit. And afterwards of Palladia, Collapsa sim●lit●r velut ad somnum sana su●rexit. And of an other there before mentioned, he likewise saith, Ecce dormitum est, & ecce ante diluculum, etc. and yet more plainly and at large of an other young man brought to the Memory (or Relics) of Gervasius and Portasius at Milan, whose cure of his eyes were discerned post septein dies.  John Clement, whose mother being at her delivery of him cut, thereupon died, leaving behind her (this) her son lame from his nativity, and of a monstrous composition of body, his thighs and feet were contracted and turned towards the forepart of his breast, so as his knees did grow and stick thereto, his body was round (or spherical) unfit to stand, lie, or walk. Having from his birth continued in this estate for 20. years, and so known to the Inhabitants of Brussels, and other places adjoining, he was moved in his mind to go to our Lady's Chapel, in or near the Town in Brabant called Sichemium, where he had heard of many miraculous 
[l] Of the many miraculous cures there done, the foresaid Treatise of Justus Lipsius consisting wholly thereof  cures. credibly 
[m] Concerning the undoubted credit of these, Justus Lipsius, a neighbour to the place, in his Preface of the said Book to the Reader, initio, saith thereof, Quid enim de hominibus dicam, si quis non abnuit, sed ambigit in tam illustribus, nec homines esse, aut certè sponte oculos claudere nè solem hunc admittant tam clarae veritatis. Sunt enim in sensibus nostris pleraque gesta. Quid etiam? Ne fraus & sucus imponant; publico mandato Mechliniensis Antistitis explorata inquisita (&c.) lege igitur & cr. de. And in the beginning of his first Chapter, he further saith, Ecce in oculis atque auribus omnium nostrum gesta, ecce concursu, plausu, fructu gentium celebrata. Quae fides potest esse in rebus humanis, si haec non est? etc. And Brereley in his Omissions (etc.) of pag. 544. adds. See also this reported of John Clement's cure done in July, Anno 1604. more particularly reported in the History of Miracles at Mont-a●gue near unto Sichem, printed 1606. pag. 244, 245, etc. And see also there, pag. 260, 261, 262, 263, etc. the sundry witnesses there particularly named, together with their particular testimonies of this matter solemnly taken by oath: and there pag. 267. initio, mentioned to be recorded by Public Writings both of the City of Brussels, subsigned (by) P. Numan, Secretary: as also of Lovam, subsigned (by) R. the Prince, Secretary, dated respectively 29. Jul●i, and 2. Augusti, 1604. and sealed with the Scals of the said Cities.  published to have been there done: Being carried thither in a Wagon, and having confessed his sins, and received the blessed Sacrament, he did (in the end) feel his contracted and bound feet to be loosed, and stretched forth, so as presently he stood on his feet, himself and the beholders being amazed thereat. Will our Adversaries deny this? It is thus reported by that excellent learned man, Justus Lipsius (dwelling thereby) as lately done in July, Anno 1603. in the presence of many eye-witnesses, and thereupon published both in Print and Pulpit, sundry of the Gentlemen attending upon our late Ambassador the Earl of Hereford, having received answerable satisfaction in that behalf, as well by seeing and conferring with the party, as by other public and credible testimony thereof given. Will they yet take exceptions to this John Clement himself, as being but a counterfeit? His known foresaid more than ordinary lameness continued till then, even from his own nativity and mother's death, proclaimeth the contrary. What therefore remaineth, but that honouring our Blessed Saviour in due acknowledgement to his holy Mother, they should so with all herein acknowledge 
[n] Exod. 8.19. & Luc. 11.10.  the finger of God, 
[o] Esay 59.1. & 5.2. & Num. 11.23.  whose hand is not yet shortened. Hereunto might be added the many other miracles there done in these times, and mentioned by Justus Lipsius in his foresaid Treatise. The many more miracles likewise by him reported in his other Book, entitled, 
[p] Printed Antuerpiae, 1604.  Virgo Hallensis, together also with the miraculous cures confessed by the Protestant writer Joannes Manlius from Melancthons' report, as done at the Memorials of the blessed Virgin at 
[q] Manlius in his Book entitled, Locorum communium collectanea (mentioned before at b. and of whom it is said in the verses before the Book, Haec partim scripsit magno dictante Philippo.) undertaking, pag. 184. to set down examples of Idolatry, confesseth the matter of fact, saying there, pag. 187. paulo post medium, of infirm persons, Ad Sanctam Miriam Ratisbonensem homines ultra viginti milliaria, nec bibentes nec comedentes currebant: quò cùm venissent, jacebant prostrati quatuor horas, posteaque liberabantur. And the Protestant writer, Osiander, confesseth the same accordingly, centur. 16. pag. 69. circa med. saying, Viri & Mulieres, Juvenes & Virgins, Ratisbonam currebant, ad Idolum beatae Virginis Mariae: ibi enim credebantur miracula stupenda fieri, & quidem edita su●s●e quaedam Antichristiana miracula praestigiis Satanicis credib●le est.  Ratisbone and 
[r] Manlius, ubi supra, pag. 185. ante med. saith, Novimus homines cueurrisse ad Grimenthall qui amentes suerunt, & acuerunt ante Civitatem per a liquot horas, postea redierunt ad se, haec dixerunt esse miracula Sanctae Mariae. So clear and confessed herein is the matter of fact, that this Author is not ashamed to allege these as examples of Idolatry.  Greementhall: the latter whereof is set down upon the Authors own knowledge. Which foresaid course of these and many other miracles hath been so assuredly accomplished in this last age, that Martin Luther (not unlike herein to the unclean 
[s] Marc. 1.24. & Luc. 4.34.  spirit, who confessed Christ to be the Holy One of God, was in respect of so evident truth enforced likewise to confess and say, 
[t] Luther in purgatione quorundam articulorum.  Quis enim potest contradicere his, etc. Who can gainsay the things, which God to this day worketh miraculously and visibly (ad Divorum sepulchra) at the Monuments of the Saints? In regard of which our foresatd so plentiful alleged testimony from miracles, which are (as the Scriptures term them) 
* God testifying by signs and miracles (Hebr. 2.4.) I have a greater testimony and witness than John, the works that I do give testimony, etc. (John 5.36.)  the testimonies of God, we may not unaptly say in behalf of our Catholic Church, with a holy writer, 
[u] Rich. de S. Victore, l. 1. de Trinit. c. 2.  Domine, si error est quod credimus, à te decepti sumus, etc. O Lord, if it be error which we believe, we are deceived by thee, for thou hast confirmed these things to us with signs and wonders, which could not be done but by thee. Or rather as said that blessed man Nicodemus of our Saviour, 
[x] Joan. 2.23.  We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles thou dost, except God were with him.  
7. And let it not (most gracious Lord) seem tedious if here we do but touch those idle tergiversations wherewith our Adversaries seek to obscure so great a light. As first, under pretence or example of divers dispersed fabulous Legends, of things merely feigned, but never done, as also of sundry counterfeit miracles, done indeed, but by confederacy and practice of Impostors, to reject all other as being likewise untrue, or at least counterfeit. But with how small equity is this? To touch the first, Must all historical faith be abolished, because of some abuse or error in history? To these it shall suffice only to oppose the grave answer of S. 
[y] Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 18. initio, saith, An dicit aliquis ista falsa esse miracula, nec su●sse facta, sed mendaciter scripta, quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omninò ullis literis esse credendum: potest etiam dicere nec etc.  Austin in like case of his time. As concerning the other part wherein they give example of the blood of Hales, the aversion or moving of the Images face by device of secret wires, and such like; whereto (supposing them for true) we may match the late sleeping Preacher, discovered by your Majesty. M. 
[z] See at large the Book entitled, A discourse of the fraudulent practices of John Dorrel in his proceed concerning the pretended possession and dispossession of William Summer at Nottingham, of Thomas Darling the Boy of Burton, of Caldwall, and of Katherine Wright at Mansfield, and of his deal with one Mary Cowper at Nottingham, written by M. Harsnet, and printed by John Wolf, 1599 And see another Treatise entitled, A summary answer to all the material points in any of M. Dorrel's Books, more specially to that one Book of his, entitled, The doctrine of the possession and dispossession of Demoniacs, out of the Word of God (written by John Deacon and John Walker, Preachers) printed 1601.  Dorrel's like discovered confederacy with Will Summer, and others, and their other confessed 
[a] See this in Stow 's Annals, printed 1592. pag. 1058. post. med.  counterfeit spirit in the wall practised against Queen Mary, with such like. To omit, that deceits of this kind 
† See example hereof in our Church reported by our Adversary Osiander in epitome. etc. centur. 16. pag. 222. ante med. & 770, & 771, And see the Treatise entitled, Two Treatises, the first of the lives of Popes, etc. the second of Mass, etc. also of false miracles wherewith Marie de la Visitation, Prioress de la Annunciada of Lisbon deceived very many, and was discovered and condemned: Englished and printed 1600. Of our Church's Inquisitors, severe inquiry, discovery and punishment of that hypocritical woman, see there pag. 362. initio, & pag. 424, 425, & 427. And see there in the addition, after the end of the Book, another like discovery and punishment in Sevil of one Father Lyon. And see the like discovery of false miracles in Sir Thomas Moor's dialogue of veneration of Images, Relics, etc. lib. 1. c. 14. And see Osiander, epitome. etc. centur. 16. pag. 32. initio, an example of a woman counterfeiting of herself to live without mea● and sleep, etc. discovered and punished by our Church.  are by our Church carefully enquired of, may the particular blemish of certain such forged examples, suffice to discredit a general received truth? then much more by this reason away with the true Scriptures of the New Testament, because there were many more writings 
[b] Of the very many writings forged under the Apostles names, see Eusebius hist. l. 3. c. 19 & l. 6. c. 10. and S. Austin contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. l. 1 c. 20. and Gelasius in decret. cum 70. Episcopis, and Zozomen. hist. l. 7. c. 19 post med. and see also the Protestant writer Hamelmannus de traditionibus Apostol●cis, etc. primae partis, l. 1. col. 251. & part. 3. l. 3 col. 841. lin. 15, & 22. In which places mention is made of sundry writings forged under the name of Paul, Peter, Barnabas, Thomas, Matthew, Andrew, John, and divers others; and S. Paul, 2 Thess. ●. 2. insinuateth the then forging of Epistles in his name  counterfeited. under the Apostles names, than are now remaining true and undoubted: many also of those foresaid true writings now remaining, having been, as the learned Protestants 
[c] In the Tower disp. Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian, the first day's conference, D. 1. the Deans of Paul's and Windsor do thus report of themselves: for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom. in Catal. where he thus writeth: The Epistle of James is said to be published by some other under his name, and of the second of Peter he saith, that it is denied of many to be his: we also allege Eusebius writing thus; Those books that be gain said, though they be known to many, be these, the Epistle attributed to James, the Epistle of Judas, the latter of Peter, the second and third of John. And in the fourth day's conference, fol. 2. b. M.D. Walker saith, Hierom saith concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews, many have doubted of it. And also concerning the second of Peter, he saith it was doubted of by many, and so with some were the two Epistles of John, etc.  affirm, greatly suspected and doubted of, even in the times of the Primitive Church. This pretence therefore being most unreasonable to impugn the matter of fact in our miracles, which is so evident, as is often times 
[d] This appeareth in sundry of the examples before mentioned and alleged from Protestant writers.  confessed by learned Protestants themselves. Their next or second refuge is confessing the matter of fact, withal to affirm the same to be in many cases but by the Devils counterfeiting, as in our anciently continued Catholic 
[e] Exorcist being one of the inferior Orders leading to Priesthood, is mentioned as one of them by Ignatius in epist. ad Antiochenos, by Cornelius apud Eusebium, l. 6. c. 35. and by Cyprian, l. 4. epist. 7. post med. where he saith, Quod hodie etiam geritur, ut per Exorcistas voce humana & potestate divina flagelletur, & uratur, ut torqueatur Diabolus. And see further hereof the Protestant writer Zepperus, l. de Sacramentis, printed 1606. pag. 362. initio. And whereas Protestant's usually answer, that this was not any peculiar Order, but a miraculous gift, such as was the gift of healing, peculiar to those beginning times of the Primitive Church, for planting and enlargement of the Christian faith, and that it is now ceased; this answer appears many ways frivolous, as first, in that the foresaid ancient Fathers placed and numbered it with the other Ecclesiastical Orders conferred by the Church, among which they forbear to mention or number any such peculiar Order of healing. Secondly, it is in like sort numbered among the Ecclesiastical Orders long afterwards, even when and where the Christian faith was already greatly enlarged, as appeareth in Concil. Laodicen. can. 26. & in Concil. Antioch. can. 10. Also in the fourth Council of Carthage, can. 7. the Exorcist is specially named as one of the Ecclesiastical Orders, together with the special rite of his ordination. And in Sulpitius, in l. de vita Martini, cap. 4. it is most plainly mentioned as a peculiar Order. Thirdly, whereas the possessing of men by unclean spirits was likewise during the old Law (whereof see Josephus, l. 8. antiq. c. 2. paulò post initium, in remedy whereof there were Judaical Exorcists, at 19.13.) it is strange that our Adversaries can affirm either the thing itself, or the cure thereof, to be now ceased: but the reason is evident, in that they discern the daily dispossessing powerfully practised in our Catholic Church, whereof see next hereafter at f. and the known defect or want thereof in theirs: for as for their only example of M. Dorrel and Will Summer, their deceitful confederacy is now at last by our Adversaries themselves discovered, and for such published in print, as appeareth next heretofore in the margin at Z.  exorcisms, or casting forth of unclean spirits in persons possessed, whereof many 
[f] To forbear the known successful daily examples hereof in our Catholic Church, which impudence itself dare not deny, we rem●t the Protestant Reader to the report of D. Board the Physician, a report so indifferent, that in his extravagantes annexed to his breviary of health, printed 1575. at the 11. chapter, of a Demoniac, he maketh mention of his travel to Rome, with exceeding Protestantlike invectives against the Pope, City and Clergy there, and yet with all d●th in the same chapter report himself to have been an eye-witness of a Gentleman possessed with Devils brought from Germany to Rome, to be made whole there, the course whereof was, saith he, stupendious and above all reason, if I should write it; and the cure so evident, as he there attributeth the same to the virtue of the holy words that the Priest did speak. And see in Sir Thomas Moor's Dialogue of Images and Relics, l. 1. c. 16. his constant and credible report of the stupendious dispossessing of M. Wentworth 's young Daughter, the circumstances whereof clear it from fiction.  examples are known and remaining, and in terrifying the Devil with the sign of the Cross, and holy Relics: these, and such like, they 
† They are not abashed to affirm this of the approved examples in the Primitive Church: let the example of Osiander serve for many, who in his fourth Century, pag. 326. speaking of the Devils flying away at Julianus his signing his forehead with the Cross, mentioned next hereafter at g. saith hereof, Diaboli simulata sua suga voluerunt valgi superstitionem confirmare, etc. And in the same Century, pag. 377. post med. mentioning the memorable example of the buried corpse of Babylas, and the Devils enforced confession, that he could not give answer (in his Idol or Oracle) by reason of Babylas his being so near, they say hereof (against Chrysostom and all antiquity mentioning the same) that this was responsum hand dubien a Satana ideo datum, ut paulatim cultum idololatricum reliquia●um in Ecclesiam inveheret. And the same answer thereto give the Centurists, cent. 4. col. 1446. lin. 18.  affirm to be not truly exercised upon the Devil, but by his own assent, either apparently voluntary, or otherwise dissembled, wherein they do overboldly imitate the like unworthy evasion which was in like case heretofore of old 
[g] So Ambrose, serm. 93. de inventione corporum SS. Gervasii & Protasii, saith of the Arians, Dicunt Daemones martyribus, venistis perdere nos, Ariani dicunt non sunt Daemonum vera tormenta, sed ficta & composita judibria. So Hierom. contra Vigilan. cap. 4. saith to Vigilantius, In morem gentilium impiorumque Porphyrii & Eunomii has praestigias Daemonum esse confingas, & non verè clamare Daemons, sed sua simulare tormenta, etc. So in Theodoret, hist. l. 3. c 3. initio, it is said, Daemonibus specie qua solent apparentibus metus coegit Julianum signo cruc●frontem suam signare, Daemons igitur dominici trophaei conspicati figuram, confestim evanuerunt, etc. Julianus se virtutem crucis vehementer admirari dixit, & Daemons quoniam ejus figuram ferre non poterant, aufugisse, cui praestigiator, nec (inqu t) amabò sic existimes, siquidem non ob eam cau same quam tu afters formidabant, sed tuum fastum detestati, se ab o●ulis nost●is removerunt: whereupon such Theodoret, Ita miser, etc. And s●e Zozomen. hist. l. 5. c. 2. paulò post initium. And A nobius, l. 10. contra Gentes, doth in like manner reprove the Gentiles saying of Christ, Whose name but heard, driveth away wicked spirits (etc.) frustrateth the actions of the arrogant Magicians, not as you say upon horror (or hatred) of the name, but by grant of greater power. And yet O siander, cent. 4. pag. 326. is not ashamed to justify this foresaid speech of the Magician to Julianus, affirming of this example, Diaboli simulata sua suga voluerunt vulgi superstitionem confirmare, quasi crucis signo Daemones abigantur.  condemned. A third kind of their refuge, from those other miracles which implying in them apparent power of producing some miraculous external effect, cannot stand with this foresaid answer, as curing of the diseased, and such like, wherein the matter of fact is evident, and by themselves confessed, is to affirm such miracles to be 
† See examples hereof in Osiander, cent. 10, 11, 12, etc. pag. 63, & 213. initio, & 298. fine, & 310.  Antichristian, and done by power of the Devil: so to our Saviour the Pharisees also said, 
* Mat. 12.24. & Luc. 11.15.  This fellow casteth not out Devils, but by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils: so to the miraculous cures done at the Monument of holy Hilarion, the Centurists say, 
[h] Centur. 4. col. 1445. lin. 8. And see the like answer given to the miracles which Theodoret reporteth to have been done at the Relics of h●ly Simeon, by Junius in his Animadversiones ad controver. quintam, etc. de membris Ecclesiae, etc. printed 1602. pag. 612. circa & post med. & 614. aunt med.  These are lying signs whereby the Superstition and Idolatry of Antichrist were to be confirmed: and the same answer do they give to the other confessed miracles done in our Church, both of 
[i] See the Centurists, cent. 5. col. 1489. lin. 57 & col. 1486. lin. 54. & col. 1587. lin. 14. & cent. 6. col. 806. is a special tract from thence continued, till col. 821. the title whereof is, De miraculis superstitionem & idololatriam redolentibus, which he referreth to the Devil, saying, col. 807. lin. 47. Haec absque dubio Deo permittente à Diabolo sunt facta, ut invocatio mortuorum constabiliretur: And see the like, col. 809. lin. 39 & 47. And col. 817. lin. 12. they say of S. Gregory, Gregorius magnus plurima recenset miracula in libris suis, praesertim vero in dialogis, quae palàm confirmant superstitionem, fiduciam in sanctos, idololatriam, invocationem mortuorum, Miss●m impiam, etc. of all which they conclude, col. 821. that they were praestigiae hominibus objectae à malis spiritibus.  ancient and latter 
[k] See Osiander, cent. 16. pag. 69, etc.  times. But when, as forbearing in this plenty of matter, we tell them, that though the Pope were Antichrist (wherein they do but beg the thing in question) yet the miracles done at Hilarion's Monument, and at Babylas Relics, and many other before alleged, being done in the Primitive Church, before their supposed time of Antichrists coming, cannot therefore be said to be Antichristian: we do otherwise reply to them even from their Ursinus, and sundry their other most learned writers, that 
* See Ursinus his words alleged at large in Latin before in this Consideration, num. 1. initio, in the margin at 〈◊〉. and Hemingius in his expofition of the 84 Psal. part. 1. c. 6. pag. 68, 69, 70. saith, that miracles which exceed the power of nature, have God for their Author. Also Beza and the Divines of Geneva in their Propositions and Principles disputed in the University of Geneva, pag. 28. num. 12. say, We call those miracles which are done against all order of nature; and the Devils can work none such: the miracles wrought by Devils are wrought by the secret operation of nature. Likewise Piscator in his Analysis Epistolarum Pauli in 2 Thess. 2. pag. 470. ante med. saith, Miraculorum quaedam divina sunt, alia Satanica: divina sunt quae per potentiam Dei ita fiunt, ut omnem facultatem creatae naturae superent, ut excitatio mortuorum, sanatio aegrotorum subita, etc. Diabolica sunt quae à diabolo per vires naturae occultas efficiuntur, etc. And Danaeus in Isag. Christ. part. 4. l. 2. c. 8. pag. 46. saith, Vera miracula sunt & fiunt à Deo, & quidem solo; & ad ejusdem solius laudem (&c.) solus enim Deus id potest propriè quod est supra naturam creatam. etc. 6. pag. 43. Miraculum Christianum est opus Dei ipsius totius naturae creatae vires & facultates superans, quod invocato Dei nomine ad verae fidei confirmationem fit. And see the like affirmed by Amandus Polanus, in Partition. Theolog. l. 1. pag. 228, & 229. And by Hierom Zanchius in D. Pauli Epistolas ad Philip. Colloss. & Thessaly. pag. 241, & 242. And by Zegedinus in loc. common. pag. 188.  Antichrists miracles are (but) such as the order of nature observed, may be brought to pass by the deceit of Men or Devils, etc. whereas the miracles wherewith God garnished his Church, are works besides or against the order of nature and secondary causes, and therefore done only by the Divine power: of which kind are to cure diseases without means of physic, and many other such like, whereof we have heretofore given plentiful examples. All this being to them evident, and not to be denied, to what refuge now do they lastly betake themselves? To name one prime man instead of many, M. Whitaker, (the matter being reduced or straitened to this issue) rather than he will acknowledge our Catholic Church (in which such true miracles are as before most plentifully evident) doubteth not to betake himself to this extremest despair, rather than hopeful refuge, as seriously to affirm, that although it be indeed certain, that 
[l] Whitaker, de Ecclesia, pag. 348. circa med. saith, Respondeo, me minimè ignorare, vera miracula nulla vi, nisi divina fieri posse.  true miracles cannot be done but by the Divine power, which to Antichrist or Satan were to acknowledge them for God: yet (as it were to supply in this want the Devils confessed defect or unableness to work such miracles) he is not abashed against the 
* Sigwartus in disput. Theologic. pag. 172. initio, saith, Pseudo-doctores, vel etiam ipsum Satanam ad stabiliendas haereses, prodigia verè divina designare pos●e, pernegamu●. And that false Prophets can do no true miracles, see further heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. initio, in the margin at e. And next heretofore in the margin at *▪ next before l. To which Brereley in his Omissions (etc.) of pag. 551. lin. 25. addeth: Also M. Anthony Wotton in his trial of the Romish Clergies title, (etc.) pag. 115. ante med. accordingly saith, For my own part, under correction I speak it, I am not persuaded that ever any true miracle was, or shall be wrought for confirmation of false doctrine, etc. I see no sufficient cause to imagine that God will employ his infinite power to the countenancing of any untruth.  doctrine of other Protestants to conclude and say (observe we beseech your Majesty, for it is a Monster) that 
[m] Whitaker, ubi supra, pag. 349. further saith, that true miracles are not of force to demonstrate true doctrine; whereof be giveth this reason, saying, Nam possunt vera miraracula etiam à falsis Doctoribus & Pseudoprophetis fieri; sed tamen Dei, non illorum virtute, etc. Constat enim Deum non modo veris, sed & falsis Doctoribus vim tribuere hujusmodi faciendi miracula, non tamen quò confirmet illorum falsa dogmata, sed quò tentet eos ad quos mittantur. And see the like in Danaeus in his respons. ad Bella●mini disput. etc. part. 1. pag. 784.  God (himself) doth give power of working such (true) miracles unto false teachers, not to confirm their false opinions, but to tempt those, unto whom they be sent. In colour of which paradox he forbeareth not to 
[n] Misapply. For Deut. 13.1, 2. by him there alleged doth not speak of Gods enabling false Prophets, but of permitting them in trial of his people; neither doth it concern their foretelling of things simply future, by immediate revelation from God, but only of such other future effects as are depending upon their precedent known causes, and are also in them foreseen, or else of such other future things, as depend but upon probability of conjecture, collected from circumstances of persons, time, and place, which do, though not ever certainly, yet often times casually happen, and so accordingly it is but said with condition: If there arise a Prophet, and give thee a sign, and the sign which he hath told thee come to pass, it is not said, shall come to pass, but, if it do come to pass: and withal he saith, Let us go after other Gods, thou shalt not hearken to his words. Secondly, though some of those who have true Revelations from God, or of those who cast out Devils, or work true miracles, be reprobates, whereof see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1. initio, at f. g. h. yet have they those gifts, not as false teachers, nor to the confirmation of any false doctrine, but of God's truth, themselves being otherwise reprobates in regard of their wicked life. Which premises observed, sufficeth to explain and prevent many impertinent objections commonly urged in this behalf.  misapply the Scriptures, inferring thereupon, that 
[o] Whitaker, ubi supra, pag. 349. ante med. having divided miracles into true and false, saith, Dico ex neutro genere miraculorum posse sufficiens testimonium sumi, aut certum argumentum coll●gi, pro vera doctrina, etc.  no sufficient testimony can be taken, or certain argument collected for true doctrine, from neither kind of miracles (true or false:) directly against the Scriptures themselves, which affirm of true miracles, that they 
[p] Our Lord confirming the Word with signs following, Marc. 16.20.  do confirm and 
[q] God withal testifying by signs and miracles, Hebr. 2.4.  witness the truth, terming them also therefore 
[r] The signs of my Apostleship have been done among you in signs and wonders, 2 Cor. 12.12.  signs and 
[s] I have a greater testimony than John, the very works which I do give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me, Joan. 5.36.  testimonies thereof. And thus much but briefly (respecting the length of the matter) concerning miracles, and to whether Church, Catholic, or the foresaid Protestant Church; the same have been confessedly appertaining or wanting; and consequently that our Church, (whose doctrines have been confirmed by perpetual, great, and manifest miracles, before any Protestant appeared in the world: and therefore could not be feigned, or recorded upon any particular design against them, and their Heresies) cannot be false, but the only true Church of Christ.   

THE FIFTH CONSIDERATION.  
By the Confession of Protestants, We Catholics may be saved, though we live and die in the belief and profession of those Articles, wherein Protestants disagree from us.  
ALL 
† Brereley, tract. 1. sect: 6. paulò post initium.  the learned Protestants of sober judgement have afforded us Catholics the promises of hopeful salvation, as appeareth most plainly, 1. By their own most evident testimonies; 2. By their like confessed examples thereof given; And 3. By their undoubted answerable practice. To give proof of every of these parts.  
1. And first, concerning their testimonies in this kind, M. D. Baro saith, 
[e] M. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions disputed, ad Clerum, etc. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine.  I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists, sigh the learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God. And M. Hooker also saith, 
[f] M. Hooker in his fist Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, pag. 188. initio, and Joannes Regius in his Libe● Apologeticus, etc. in considerate. Censurae, etc. pag. 95. saith, In Papatu autem cùm suerit Ecclesia vera, etc.  The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ; and 
[g] M. Hooker, ubi supra, pag. 130. ante med.  We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ. M. Bunny likewise saith of Catholics and Protestants, 
[h] M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 18. pag. 109. circa med.  Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God; 
[i] M. Bunny ubi supra, pag. 113. post med.  we are no several Church from them, nor they from us. In like sort doth M. D. Some, in defence thereof, (against Penry the Puritan) say, 
[k] M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry, and refutation of many absurdities, etc. in M. Penry 's treatise, pag. 164. ante med.  That the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's covenant, I have showed before: for 
[l] M. D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 182. i●icio.  in the judgement of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church, a Ministry, a true Christ, etc. 
[m] M. D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 176. propè finem.  If you think that all the Popish sort which died in the Popish Church are damned, you think absurdly, and descent from the judgement of the learned Protestants. Also M. D. Field saith, 
† M. D. Field, Of the Church, l. 3. cap. 46. fine, & pag. 182. initio.  We doubt not but the Church in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Luciferlike pride exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ, and by force thereof did convert many from error, etc. In like sort doth M. Thomas Morton affirm in express words, that 
† M. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel, and of the Church, pag. 94. fine.  Papists are to be accounted the Church of God, because (saith he) they do hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. Lastly, to omit many 
* Peter Martyr (as it appeareth by his Epistles annexed to his Common Places in English, pag. 153. a fine) desired at the Conference had at Poisy between the Catholics Protestant's, that they should not for diversity of opinion break brotherly charity, nor call one another Heretics. And see the same opinion yet further affirmed by the Protestant writer against Nicholas Machiavelli, printed at London, 1602. pag. 80. post med. & 83. paulò post med. & 85. propè finem.  others, M. D. Covel in his late Treatise published by authority, and dedicated to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, defendeth this opinion at large, and concludeth, saying, 
[n] M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker 's five Books of Ecclesiastical Policy published by authority▪ pag. 77. ante med.  We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and die in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved: Insomuch as he doubteth not to charge the Puritans with 
[o] M. D. Covel, ubi supra, pag. 68 paulò post med.  ignorance for their contrary opinion. Hitherto concerning their testimonies before undertaken.  
2. Secondly, as concerning now their like confessed examples, we will out of very many allege only some few. It will not (we think) be denied, but that our late Sovereign King Henry the eighth did, after his breach with Rome, believe and maintain the whole frame and substance of our Catholic faith, the Article of the Pope's Primacy only excepted. To which end their own Author, Sleydan, saith of him, 
[2] Sleydan in English, l. 13. fol. 174. a. initio.  He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome, but kept still his doctrine: and M. Fox saith accordingly, 
[3] Fox Act. Mon. pag. 1472. b. fine.  He set forth, and by full consent of Parliament established the Book of six Articles, containing the sum of Popish Religion. And it is evident that he himself in person, not only as then disputed, 
[4] Act. Mon. pag. 530. a. 〈◊〉 b. initio.  but also 
[5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med.  commanded 
[5] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a. circa med.  sentence to be pronounced against Lambert: as also the Lord Cromwell read and 
[6] Act. Mon. pag. 533. a.  pronounced that sentence, and at his own death protested himself 
[7] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. circa med. and see Holinsheads Chronicle, pag. 591.  to die in the Catholic faith, not doubting in any Article of faith, or Sacrament of the Church, though (saith he) many have slandered me to the contrary. And yet he is commended by M. Fox to die as 
[8] Act. Mon. pag. 598. b. post med.  a valiant Soldier and Captain of Christ. As also the Church under the reign of King Henry the eighth, is by M. Fulk affirmed to be a true 
[9] M. Fulk against H●●kit●s, Sanders, etc. pag. 564. sect. 80, & 82.  Church, and the King himself acknowledged in like manner for 
[10] Fulk ubi supra, sect. 82. and se D. Humphrey in jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 304. circa med.  a member of the Catholic Church of Christ. In like sort 
[11] Osiander, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med.  S. Bernard lived (some 400 years since) as M. Jewel confesseth, even 
[12] Jewel in his defence of the Apology, printed 1571. pag. 557. paulò ante med. and see Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 2. pag. 154. ante med.  in the midst of the Pope's rout and tyranny; And as we find he was not troubled or gainsaid so much as in any one Article different from the doctrine of the Roman Church at that time: so we find confessed to the contrary, that he acknowledged even the 
[13] Bernard. l. 2. de considerate. 2d Eugenium, & vide Epist. 125. & 131. & epist. 190. ad Innocentium; and see this confessed by M. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament in Luc. 22. sect. 11. fol. 133. b. post initium; and by M. Whitaker, l. 2. contra Duraeum, pag. 154 ante med.  Pope's Supremacy, and was so conformable to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, that he was made 
[14] Osiander in epitome. etc. cent. 12. pag. 309. & Simon de Voyon in his Catalogue. etc.  Abbot of Clairevaux, being also 
[15] Ofiander, abi supra, pag. 309. fine, saith, Centum & quadradraginta monafteriorum Author fulsse creditur: and Danaeus in primae partis altera parte contra Bellarminum, pag. 940. saith, Hieronymus & Bernardus suerunt monachi, & istius erroris Authores & Fautores.  Author of many Monasteries both in France and Flanders. Insomuch as our Adversaries alleging him to us, do call him Sanctus vester, 
[16] Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae, pag. 23. fine.  our Saint, and 
[17] Whitaker in respons. ad rat. Campiani●, ●at. 7. pag. 105. ante med. saith, Bernardus quem Ecclesia ves●ia multis annis unum tulit piuni virum.  a man brought forth by our Church, who in regard of Christian communion, was dearly 
[18] Osiander, abide. See his words heretofore in the fourth Consideration, num. 1. sine, in the marg●nt at the figure 3. initio.  familiar to Muiachias, whom our Adversaries reject for a confessed Catholic, or Papist; As also the 
* The C●rturists, c●rt. 12. col. 1637. l n. 45. ●o say therefore of S. Bernard, Co●u●t Deum M●ozim, ad novissimum vitae suae articulum; & col. 1638. lin. 16. they say farther of him, Acerrimus propugnator Sedis Antichristi suir, etc.  Centurists do for such in most plain terms reject S. Bernard: and yet this his known Religion notwithstanding, our Adversaries do acknowledge him for 
[20] Whitaker de Ecclesia, pag. 369. paulò post med. saith, Ego quidem Bernardum verè fuisse Sanctum ex stimo. And see the like in Whitaker against M. William Reynolds, pag. 125, & 126.  a true Saint, 
[21] Osiander, cent. 12. pag. 309. post med.  a very good man, 
[22] See this in Pasquds return into England, pag. 8. & 13.  a good Father, and one of the Lamps of the Church of God. In like manner S. Bede (who lived about 900 years since) was so evidently of our Religion, that our Adversary, Osiander, therefore saith of him, 
[23] Osiander in epitome. etc. cent. 8. l. 2. c. 3. pag. 58. initio.  Beda was wrapped in all the Popish errors, wherein we at this day descent from the Pope: for he admired and embraced the worship of Images, the Popish Mass, invocation of Saints, etc. Which thing appeareth also yet more undoubtedly (to omit his evident writings) by his 
[24] See M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128, & 129.  confessed credit and estimation had with the Popes of that age, whom M. Fulk termeth 
* M. Fulk in his retentive against Bristol, etc. pag. 278. post med. reciteth Bede ' s authority, saying, The last testimony out of Beda, who lived under the tyranny of Antichrist, I will not stand upon, M. Sanders may have great store of such, etc.  Antichrists, and yet is he (all this notwithstanding) acknowledged by our Adversaries to have been 
[25] Osiander, cent. 8. pag. 58. ante med.  a good man, 
[26] M. Cowper in his Chronicle at the year of our Lord 734. fol. 171. b.  renowned in all the world for his learning and godly life: for which he was also privileged with the surname of 
[27] Of this title see Holinshead 's Chronicle at the year 735. and M. Cowper in his Chronicle at the year 724. fol. 168. b. and M. Fox Act. Mon. printed 1576. pag. 128. b. & vide 129. a. & Oecolampadius in libro Epist. Zuinglii & Oecolampadii, pag. 654. post med.  Reverend, and by D. Humphrey specially registered among 
[28] Hum fredus, in Jesuitismi part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 326. initio.  the godly men raised up by the Holy Ghost. Hitherto also appertaineth the like examples of Gregory and Austin, both of them acknowledged for 
[29] Hereof see Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 2. a●d. 2. 3. e.  confessed Popish Catholics, and yet is one of them called by our Adversaries, 
[30] M. Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops, pag. 3. ante med.  that blessed and holy Fatner S. Gregory, and the other, 
[31] M. Godwin, ubi supra, pag. 7. initio, & aunt med.  S. Austin our Apostle. Whereunto (to omit others) might be added the  example of your Highness' dearest Mother, whose undoubted Salvation (her known Religion notwithstanding) was (even in that opposition of time) by the learned Adversary, as before, 
[32] See Brereley in the beginning of this 6. section of tract. 1. at z.  publicly acknowledged. What now can our Adversaries answer unto these confessed examples? Is there 
[33] James 1.17.  with God variableness? or 
[34] Ephes. 6.9. & Deut. 10.17. & Ro. 2.11. & 1 Pet. 1.17.  any acception of persons? or is he 
[35] Num. 23.19.  as the Son of man that he should change; so as one and the same Religion, which was before in them holy, should now be in us damnable? And thus much briefly concerning certain undoubted examples of this kind.  
3. Thirdly, to make this point more evident as yet by the like confessed answerable practice of almost all the Protestant reform Churches. Whereas they hold that 
[p] In the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva, pag. 166. 25.  the Sacraments are only to be administered to those that are taken for known members of the Church, which no man can be without faith, because that 
[q] Hebr. 11.6.  without faith it is impossible to please God: for which cause they teach concerning Infants, who in their opinion have not 
[r] That Children have not faith, is affirmed by M. Cartwright in M. whitgift's defence, pag. 611. and by Beza in respons. ad Acta Colloquii Montisbelgar. part. 2. pag. 124. initio; and in the Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva, pag. 178. sect. 4. and by Jacobus Kimedoncius in his redemption of mankind, l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine, and by M. Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 8. pag. 682. initio.  faith, (which, as the Scriptures witness, 
[s] R●m. 10.17.  cometh by hearing, which Infants cannot accomplish) that 
[t] So say the Divines of Geneva in the foresaid Propositions and Principles disputed, pag. 178. sect. 4. Also Oecolampadius in libro Epistolarum O●colampadii & Zuinglii, l. 2. pag. 301. circa med. saith hereof, Parentum & compatrum fides pueros sanctificat. And Praetorius l. de Sacramentis, pag. 108. saith, Respectu fidelium parentum infantes fideles habentur, etc. credunt igitur infantes sed in parentibus.  they are comprehended within the Covenant of eternal life, by means of the faith of their Parents, and 
* In the Propositions, etc. pag. 178. & Luther, l. de praeparatione cordis pro suscipiendo Sacramento Eucharistiae, saith, Parvulus alienae fidei merito baptizatur & salvatur; and see him further, tom. 2. de captiv. Babyl. fol. 77. a. fine. And M. Perkins in his works printed 1605. fol. 585. o. post med. affirmeth, that Parents believe for themselves and their Children, (and that) the Child by the Parent's faith hath title to the Covenant: and fol. 585. b. initio, it is said, that Infants are Gods children, not by virtue of their birth, but by means of their Parent's faith.  are for that cause to be baptised: and that therefore the Children of Jews, Turks, and such like professed Infidels, 
[u] In the Propositions and Principles, etc. ubi supra, sect. 8. pag. 179. and M. Whitaker contra Duraeum, l. 8. pag. 679. fine, saith, Infidelium liberos (ut Turcarum, Judaeorum, Ethnicorum) Calvinus meritò & verè negat esse baptizandos; and the like is taught by Kimedoncius in his redemption of mankind, l. 2. cap. 15. pag. 167. fine, and see M. D. Some in his defence against Penry, and resutation, etc. pag. 150.  are not to be baptised, as not being comprehended within the Covenant, by reason that their Parents do not believe. All this yet notwithstanding they profess 
[x] Taught by M. Whitgift in his defence, etc. pag. 623. ante med. by M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 131. by D. Some, ubi supra, pag. 149, & 150. and in the foresaid Propositions and Principles, etc. pag. 179. sect. 9 it is said by the Divines of Geneva, We are of mind that the Children of Papists may be received into Baptism.  to teach and practise their baptising of Infants born of Catholic (or as they term) Popish Parents, not (saith M. Hooker) in regard of 
[y] M. Hooker, ubi supra.  God's promise, which reacheth unto a thousand generations, for by this reason the Children of Turks, and (as M. Hooker saith) 
[z] M. Hooker, ibidem.  all the world may be baptised, insomuch as no man is a thousand descents from Adam: but their said baptising of them is (according to the other premises of their Doctrine) by themselves practised and holden good; though (as M. D. Some affirmeth to 
[a] M. Some in his foresaid defence, etc. cap. 22. pag. 165, & 167.  Penry) they were the Children of Popish West Indians, whose other former Ancestors never knew the Christian faith. And though (saith he) those West-Indians 
[b] M. Some, ibid. pag. 167  were baptised by Popish Shavelings, yet they received true Baptism, and were engrafted into Christ, and for this reason, because there is a Church in Popery; For (saith he) 
[c] M. Some, ibid. pag. 149. post med. And Amandus Polanus in partit. Theolog. pag. 305. post med. saith, Hodierna Ecclesia Romana est adhuc Ecclesia Christi, sed omnium impurissima, etc. alicquin two qui in Papatu sunt Baptizati, extra Ecclesiam Christi, ac proinde nec baptismo Christi fuissent baptizati, etc.  if there were no Church at all in Popery, (then) the Infants of Papists were not to be baptised in any reformed Church. By which premises of their confessed practice, it appeareth, First, that the Children of Catholic (or Popish) Parents, are to be baptised; Secondly, as being comprehended within the Covenant of eternal life; Lastly, and that by reason of their Parent's faith: So evidently in their Doctrine and practice, is the faith of the Catholic (or Popish) Parent holden for available to his Child. And shall it then be thought damnable to himself? or holden worthy to be yet further persecuted by our so implacable and unrelenting Adversaries?  
4. This foresaid Truth is further proved by Brereley (tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 14.) saying, That the more sober and learned Protestants, whom headstrong and inconsiderate zeal hath not altogether blinded, for the preservation of Christ's Church in Being (which according to 
[r] M. Whitaker against M. Reynolds in his answer to the Preface, pag. 33. saith, We believe to the comfort of our souls, that Christ's Church hath continued, and never shall fail, so long as the world endureth: And we account it a profane heresy to teach otherwise. And the same is yet further affirmed by Fulk in the Tower disput. with Edm. Camp. the 2. day's conference. And also by the Confessions of Belgia, in the Harmony of Confessions, pag. 321. and by the Confession of Helvetia, ibid. pag. 306. by the Confession of Saxony, ibid. pag. 324, 325. & 473. Insomuch as the Divines of Wittenberg, in Colloquio Badensi apud Osiandrum in epitome. etc. cent. 16. pag. 1064. ante med. say, Ecclesiam inde ab ascensione, usque ad haec tempora, nunquam interruptam, sed perpetua successione in terris permansisse firmiter credimus. And ibid. pag. 1065. post med. it is said, Contra omnes furores Satanae, Ecclesia vera in terris usque adventum Christi ad extremum judicium est mansura.  all opinions must evermore continue without failing or ceasing to be, not so much as for any one moment of time) do acknowledge as well that their own Succession, Calling, and Ministry, is, and hath been for former times 
† Apud Brereley, tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 6. post med. in the margin at * next before d. M. Bridges in his defence of the government, etc. pag. 1276. post med. resteth so wholly upon the calling conferred to their Protestant Ministers from and under our Catholic Church, that saith he of our Catholic Bishops, and their calling, If our Brethren will make them but mere Laymen, then are neither they nor we any Ministers at all, but mere Laymen also. For who ordained us Ministers, but such Ministers as were either themselves of their Ministry, or at least were made Ministers of those Ministers? except they will say the people can make Ministers, etc. See hereof further in Brereley, ibid. at g. h.  preserved in, and by the only succession and calling continued in our Catholic Church: as also that the true Church, immediately before Luther's time, had its 
* Luc. Osiander, in epitome. hist. Eccl. cent. 16. part. altera, pag. 1073. in fine, saith, Ecclesia quae sub Papatu fuit eo tempore quo Lutherus natus est, suit Ecclesia Christi, etc. Ideoque qui sub Papatu ad ministerium Ecclesiasticum fuerunt ordinati, ut Lutherus & multi alii Evangelici Doctores, revera habuerunt legitimam ordinationem.  being in our Catholic Church. To this end M. D. Field saith, 
† M. D. Field in his Treatise of the Church, l. 3. c. 6. pag. 72. ante med.  Where some demand of us where our Church was before Luther began? We say it was where now it is: if they ask us which Church? we answer, it was the known and apparent Church in the world, wherein all our Ancestors lived and died, wherein Luther and the rest were baptised, received their Ordinance and power of Ministry. And our other learned Adversaries do accordingly teach, that like as Luther himself before his preaching against the Pope, was an 
(t) Sleydan, l. 1. initio.  Augustine Friar, and (as himself saith) 
(u) Luther in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians englished, fol. 35. circa med.  kept chastity, poverty, and obedience, was only given to fasting, watching praying, saying of Mass, and such like, and 
(x) Luther, ibid. fol. 35. a. circa med.  honoured the Pope of mere conscience, etc. and was so thereby most undoubtedly a professed member of our Catholic (or as they term it, Popish) Church: So likewise upon his pretended reformation or preaching afterward against the Pope, he did not (say they) thereby 
(y) M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, Art. 11. pag. 73. post med, saith, As it is strange for any man to deny them of Rome to be of the Church, so I cannot but wonder, that they (of Rome) will ask where our Church was before Luther? as if any were of opinion, that Luther did erect a new Church, etc. And see the like saying in M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 3. pag. 129. post med.  erect a new Church, then before not in being (for that were most directly against themselves) and therefore did not departed from the Church he was of before, but continued still a member thereof. Which thing both M. Hooker and M. D. Covel (speaking thereof) do very plainly 
(z) M. Hooker, l. 3. pag. 130. & M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68 say, We gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the Family of Jesus Christ, therefore we hope that to reform ourselves, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before: In the Church we were, and are so still: as also we say that they of Rome (notwithstanding their manifold defects) are to be held a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ.  acknowledge, to the great 
(a) In the Christian Letter of certain English Protestants unto that Reverend man M. Hooker, pag. 18, & 19 they reprove at large M. Hooker for this opinion of not severing themselves from the Church they were of before.  dislike of the Puritans: as also M. Bunny prosecuteth the same more at large, affirming therefore, 
(b) M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 18. pag. 108. paulò post med.  that of departing from the Church there ought to be no question at all among us. 
(c) Ibidem, pag. 113. post med.  We are (saith he) not several Church from them, nor they from us, and therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church, for any to departed from them to us, nor from us to them: all the difference between us is concerning the truer members, whether we or they may be found more worthy of that account: As for the other we allow no such question. Insomuch as he doubteth not to say, 
(d) Ibidem, pag. 109. circa med.  It was evil done of them who first urged such a separation; confessing further our great 
(e) Ibidem, sect. 15. pag. 92. circa med. he saith of this separation, Our Adversaries see themselves to have advantage, if they can win us to acknowledge (it.)  advantage given thereby: which our advantage he afterwards very plainly to this purpose expresseth to be, 
(f) Ibid. pag. 96. circa med.  For that (saith he) it is great probability with them, that so we make ourselves answerable for to find out a distinct and several Church from them, which continued from the Apostles age to this present, else, that needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung up of late, or since theirs. And hence perhaps it is, that their learned writers (to the better enabling of our Church to be, howsoever, according to their opinion, in part erroneous, yet withal a true Church) doubt not to affirm of the sundry points of our Catholic faith in particular, that they are, though (in their opinion) errors, yet not 
† To give some few and chief examples hereof. First, M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed, pag. 402. saith, A weakening error is that, the holding whereof doth not overturn any point in the foundation of salvation; as the error of Free will, and sundry such like. M. Cartwright in his reply, pag. 14. sect. 1, 2, and in M. Whitgists' defence, pag. 82. post med. affirmeth the like indifferency of the doctrines of , Prayer for the dead, and a number of other, as necessary doctrines, wherein (saith he) men being misled, have notwithstanding been saved. And a little there before he further saith, If you mean by matters of faith and necessary to salvation, those without which a man cannot be saved, than the doctrine which teacheth there is no , or Prayer for the Dead, is not within your compass. For I doubt not but divers Fathers of the Greek Church, who were great Patrons of , are saved. And the like is yet further affirmed of Prayer for the Dead, by John Frith, Act. Mon. pag. 501. by M. Fulk in his Confut. of Purgatory, pag. 336. ante med. and by M. Penry in his Book entitled, M. Some laid open in his colours, pag. 99 Secondly, M. Spark in his answer to M. John d'Abbines, pag. 382. ante med. discoursing of the honouring of Saints Relics, and Prayer for the Dead, saith thereof to his Adversary, We are not so hasty to pronounce sentence of condemnation of any for such errors: for you know well enough, that we make not these matters such, as that either we think that all must be saved that hold the one way, or all condemned that hold the other. As touching invocation of Saints, M. D. Goad and Fulk do in the disputation had in the Tower with Edm. Campian, the 2. day's conference, Arg. 8. R. 11. & R. 111. affirm thereof, that it doth not exclude from being members of the Church, etc. Thirdly, concerning the Real Presence, Jacobus Acontius in lib. 3. Stratagematum Satanae, pag. 135. paulò ante med. saith, It is evident concerning as well those, who hold the Real Presence of Christ's body in the bread, as those others which deny it, that although of necessity the one part do err, yet both are in way of salvation, if in other things they be obedient to God. And M. D. Reynolds in his 5. Conclusion annexed to his Conference, etc. pag. 722. affirmeth the Real Presence to be as it were the grudging of a little ague, if otherwise the party hold the Christian faith. And John Frith, Act. Mon. pag. 503. a. fine, saith hereof, The matter touching the substance of the Sacrament bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation, whether he believe it or not. And see Luther's like judgement of Transubstantiation, in magna Confession, cited by Amandus Polanus in his Sylog. Thesium Theologicarum, pag. 464. initio, and in the Book entitled, Orthodoxus consensus, printed Tiguri 1578. in folio, fol. 12. b. initio. Fourthly, as concerning the receiving under one or both kinds, Luther in epistola ad Bohemos, saith thereof, Quamvis pulchrum quidem esset utraque specie in Eucharistia uti, & Christus hac in re nihil tanquam neceslarium praecepit, praestaret tamen pacem (&c.) sectari, quàm de speciebus contendere. And Luther de utraque specie Sacramenti, saith, Si veneris ad locum ubi tantùm una species ministratur, cum aliis una tantùm specie utere (&c.) And the like indifferency hereof is yet further affirmed by Melancthon and others cited heretofore in the third Consideration, num. 32. fine. Fifthly, touching our B. Ladies being preserved from Original Sin, and the worshipping of Images, M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 17. pag. 104. paulò ante med. and pag. 105. saith in like manner of them: In these therefore, or such like, whosoever will condemn all those to be none of the Church, that are not fully persuaded herein, as we are (etc.) committeth an uncharitable part towards those his Brethren. Sixthly, concerning Primacy, M. Anthony Wotton in his answer to a Popish Pamphlet, etc. pag. 68 fine, denyeth that Protestants hold the King's Supremacy to be an essential point of faith. And Luther in assertionibus, art. 36. versus finem, speaking of the Pope's Primacy, doth expressy number it among (saith he) those unnecessary trifles wherein the Pope's levity and foolishness is to be born withal. And Melancthon in his Epistle extant in the Book entitled, Centuria Epistolarum Theologicarum, ep. 74. pag. 245. fine, saith, The Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end, that consent may be retained: wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon. Seventhly, as concerning Satisfaction and Merit of Works, affirmed by the ancient Fathers no less than now by us (whereof see heretofore in the second Consideration, num. 6. at q. & num. 7. at r. s. & num. 9 at 13, 14. & num. 23. at k. l.) M. Whitaker contra rat. Campiani, pag. 78. and in his answer to M. William Reynolds, c. 6. pag. 135. initio, & 136. fine, saith, The Father's thought by their external discipline of life to pay the pains due for sin, wherein they derogated not a little from Christ's death, etc. which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers. Eighthly, as concerning Mass, Luther in Colloquiis Germanicis, c. de Missa, saith, Private Mass hath deceived many Saints, and carried them away into error, from the time of Gregory, for 800 years. And tindal, Act. Mon. pag. 1338. a propè initium, saith accordingly, I doubt not but S. Bernard, Francis, and many other holy men erred as concerning Mass: So little did the Mass impugn Holiness. Lastly, as touching Mass, and sundry other points of faith, M. Francis Johnson in M. jacob's defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, etc. pag. 13. ante med. saith, Did not John Huss that worthy Champion of Christ, and other also of the Martyrs of fore-times say and hear Mass, even to their dying day? etc. did not (also) divers of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy, some seven Sacraments, some auricular Confession? etc. And Benedict Morgenstern, in tract. de Ecclesia, etc. pag. 41. circa med. saith, that in former times, Condonanda erant piis, etc. These things were pardonable in the godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the Church, the Papacy for the Church, Saints for Mediators, and the Mass for the Supper of our lord And see heretofore in this Consideration, num. 2. throughout, sundry examples of acknowledged salvation in many confessed Catholics.  such as are against the foundation or hope of salvation, but rather in respect thereof, as only matters of indifferency. And hence it also cometh, that in general M. Hooker and M. Covel do acknowledge 
[g] M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Policy, l. 3. sect. 1. pag. 130. ante med. & l. 5. pag. 188. initio, and M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68  the Church of Rome to be of the Family of Jesus Christ, a part of the House of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ: that M. Barrow saith, 
[h] In his four Sermons, and two Questions, etc. ser. 3. pag. 448. fine.  The learneder Writers acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God: that M. D. Some saith, 
[i] M. D. Some in his defence against M. Penry (&c.) c. 23. fine, pag. 182. initio.  In the judgement of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church: that another late English Protestant writer saith, 
* See the discourse upon the means of well governing (&c.) against Nicholas Machiavelli, printed at London, 1602. pag. 80. post med.  The Catholic and Reformed make not two, but one same Religion, 
⁋ Ibidem, pag. 83. paulò post med. & 85. propè finem.  agreeing in all principal points of Religion necessary for salvation: That also George Cassander, though disliking 
[k] Cassander in libro de officio pii viri, etc. pag. 14. ante med. & 15. initio, & pag. 27. post med.  the Pope,. and acknowledged for 
¶ David Pareus in his book de Symbolis Sacramentalibus, etc. in praefat. ant med. saith, Cassander eruditus Scriptor, etc. And M. Morton in his full satisfaction concerning a double Romish Enquiry, etc. pag. 55. circa med. termeth him, that most grave and learned Cassander, of singular learning and piety.  a most grave and learned writer, saith, 
[l] Cassander, ibidem, pag. 14. post med. and in defence of his opinion, he allegeth Luther, ibidem, pag. 14. fine, & pag. 21, & 22.  The Church of Rome is to be reverenced, as being the true Church and Temple of God: and that a late disguised French Protestant writer affirmeth 
[m] Examen pacifique de lafoy doctrine des Hugonotes, etc. imprimè à Caen, 1590. en argum. du liure, pag. 2.  Catholics and Hugonots to be of one faith and religion: with whom agreeth another like writer, terming them in like manner, 
[n] Apology Catholic, etc. part. 2. pag. 26. 203, & 204.  Domestics of one faith, and Branches of one and the same Vine. And hence also it cometh, that the learned Protestants (as we before 
[o] Heretofore in this Consideration, num. 1, & 2.  have showed) do afford to our Catholic Professors the hopeful promises of salvation, affirming this to be 
[p] M. Doctor Some in his defence against Penry, pag. 176. propè finem.  the judgement of all learned Protestants, and made 
[q] M. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 15. pag. 93. circa med.  clear by the whole course of their writings. Insomuch as they doubt not to charge such of their other headstrong Brethren, as affirm the contrary, even with 
[r] M. D. Covel in his defence of M. Hooker, pag. 68 paulò post med.  ignorant zeal.  
5. Hence lastly it is that M. Bunny (apud Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 9 subd. 6. fine) in his Treatise tending to Pacification, sect. 14. circa med. pag. 89. acknowledgeth a particular blessing of God in the Church of Rome, and an evident work of the Holy Ghost, saying, That the Church of Rome hath ever continued after a sort in profession of the faith, since the time that by the Apostles it was delivered to them, etc. and hath also in some manner preserved and hitherto maintained both the Word and Sacraments that Christ himself did leave unto us; which surely (saith he) is a very special blessing of God, and an evident work of the Holy Ghost, etc. To make good (saith Brereley, ibidem, in the margin at †) M. Bunny's words of the evident work of the Holy Ghost in preservation of the Roman Sea, the same hath appeared many ways extraordinary and admirable. As first, in that the other four Patriarchal Seas are noted and known to have been pestered every one of them with confessed Arch-heretics, or Inventors of new doctrines, against some principal Article of our Christian faith: As at Antioch, Paulus Samosetanus: at Jerusalem, Joannes and Arsenius: at Alexandria, Dioscorus: at Constantinople, Macedonius and Nestorius: only the Sea of Rome hath been preserved free from all such known note or touch. For howsoever our Adversaries do pretend some one or other Pope to have had his private error, yet to charge any Pope with being an Arch heretic, as before-said, they have not any colour. Secondly, in that the Cities of all the other Patriarchal Seas, and the Bishops belonging to them, now are, and of long have been oppressed with Infidels, and their succession is either none, or but inglorious; whereas God hath yet hitherto disposed otherwise of the City and Sea of Rome. Thirdly, in the example of so many great Christian Kingdoms and Countries in Asia, afric, and Europe, which forsaking the Communion of this Sea, became not long afterwards barbarous, and subject to Infidels, accordingly as it is foretold of the true Church's prerogative, The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, and those Nations shall be utterly destroyed, Esay 60.12. Fourthly, in that this is the only Sea or Church which is confessed by our Adversaries to have continued known and visible for these last thousand or 1300 years: whereof see Brereley, tract. 1. sect. 2. at k. l. & sect. 8. in the margin at c. & tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 7. fine, at 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. converting also to the Christian faith during all that time, by its Legates and Preachers, so many confessed Nations and Kingdoms of the Gentiles, agreeable to the predictions of the Prophets in that behalf (whereof see Brereley, tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 4. initio, in the margin at*.) Fifthly, in that this Sea hath been persecuted by the contrary factions of so many Christian Princes, by the very Citizens and Cardinals of Rome, by the Schisms, Factions, and wicked lives of the Popes themselves, by the implacable hatred and contradiction of so many confessed heresies and heretics of every age, conspiring all of them (howsoever divided otherwise among themselves) to malign and impugn this Sea, as the principal object of their daily continued malice: So Hell gates may be said to have assaulted her, and yet not prevailed, Matth. 16.18. Upon which consideration but duly had of all Heretics, though divided among themselves, yet joining so together in malice against the Roman Sea, how can that outfaced opinion of our Adversaries be possibly true, which M. D. Downham in his treatise concerning Antichrist, l. 2. pag. 22. ante med. delivereth, saying: We hold Antichrist to be the whole body of Heretics in the last age of the world, etc. The head of which body is the Papacy. The Pope to be their Head, and yet he ever against them all, and they all ever against him; is it possible?  
6. Pu. Besides what hath been said out of Brereley of this point, that Protestants confess that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation, I will show the same yet more at large. D. Potter in his Answer to Charity mistaken, pag. 63. saith; The most necessary and fundamental Truths, which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned: And for that reason, learned Protestants yield them (Romanists, as he calls us) the name and substance of a Christian Church. Where we see, that he saith in general, learned Protestants yield them, etc. In proof whereof, he citys in his margin, junius, D. Reinolds, and says: See the judgement of many other writers, in the advertisement annexed to the old Religion, by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter; and adds, The very Anabaptists grant it. Fr. Johnson in his Christian Plea, pag. 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter, we have many other, even of our greatest Adversaries. And pag. 62. he saith: To those twelve Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholesome Doctrine, they (Catholics) have added many more. Such are for instance, their Apocryphal Scriptures, and unwritten dogmatic Traditions, their Transubstantiation, and dry Communion, their Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of the Images, Latin service, traffic of Indulgences; and shortly, the other new doctrines and decrees canonised in their late Synod of Trent. Upon these and the like new Articles, is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants. And then he adds the words which we have cited; The most necessary and Fundamental truths which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned; and for that, etc. Where we see he grants, we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, which he teaches at large, to contain all Fundamental Points of Faith; and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamental truths which constitute a Church. Therefore, those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance, are no Fundamental errors, nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamental truths; and yet he names all the chiefest Points controverted between us and Protestants; even Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, and Latin Service, which are the things they are wont most to oppose; Yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Therefore we are free from Fundamental errors, by the confession of our Adversaries. pag. 59 he further saith, The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church, but to purge the old. The reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure qualities. If the Protestants erected not a new Church, then ours is still the old Church; and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities, without change of the substance, the substance must be still the same it was; and that which was, must be still the same with that which is. pag. 61. The things which the Protestants believe on their part, and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised, are most, if not all of them, so evidently and indisputably true, that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them as well as they. Therefore we Catholics have the life and substance of Religion. pag. 60. In the prime grounds or Principles, of Christian Religion, we have not forsaken the Church of Rome. Therefore he grants that we have the prime grounds, or Fundamental Articles of Religion. pag. 11. For those Catholic verities which she (the Roman Church) retains, we yield her a member of the Catholic, though one of the most unsound and corrupt members. In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholics. Behold, we are members of the Catholic Church, which could not be, if we erred in any one Fundamental Point. By the way; If the Romanists may be called Catholics, why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholic? And yet this is that Argument, which Protestants are wont to urge against us; and Potter in particular, in this very place, not considering that he impugns himself, whiles he speaks against us, not distinguishing between universal, as Logicians speak of it, (which signifies, one common thing, abstracting, or abstracted, from all particulars) and Catholic, as it is taken in true Divinity, for the Church spread over the whole world, that is, all Churches which agree with the Roman; and upon that vain conceit, telling his unlearned Reader, that universal and particular, are terms repugnant, and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other; that is, say I; Catholic cannot be affirmed of D. Potter, nor D. Potter said to be a Catholic, because a particular cannot be said to be universal, or an universal. pag. 75. To departed from the Church of Rome, in some doctrines and Practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. pag. 70. They (the Roman Doctors) confess, that setting aside all matters controverted, the main positive truths wherein all agree, are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian, both for his knowledge, and for his practice, teaching him what to believe, and how to live, so as he may be saved. His saying, that the Roman Doctors confess, that setting aside all matters controverted, etc. is very untrue: it being manifest, that Catholics believe Protestant's to err damnably, both in matters of faith, and practise; yet his words convince ad hominem, that we have all that is necessary, yea and abundantly sufficient, both for knowledge, and practise for us to be saved. And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein we differ from Protestants, saith, pag. 74. If the Mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and novelties, he shall find in that which remains, little difference of importance between us. Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe. After these words, without any interruption he goes forward, and says, pag. 75. But by this discourse, the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged, and may reply; If Rome want nothing essential to Religion, or to a Church, how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church, or free themselves from damnable Schism? Doth not this discourse prove, and the Objection, which he raises from it, suppose, that we want nothing essential to Religion? Otherwise, this Objection which he makes to himself, were clearly impertinent, and foolish, if he could have dispatched all, by saying we err in essential points, which had been an evident, and more than a just cause, to justify their separation: which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection: That to departed from a particular Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church, of Rome wanted nothing necessary, to salvation. And afterward in the next, pag. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome, he saith expressly; Her Communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member, though corrupted. And this clears us from the imputation of Schism, whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ, & the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. But if she did err in any one Fundamental point, by that very error she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ, and should be cut off from the hope of salvation; therefore she doth not err in any Fundamental point. p. 83. We were never disjoined from her (the Church of Rome) in those main essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a Church. You must then say, that she errs not in any Fundamental Point. For, the essence of a Church cannot subsist with any such error. And that it may appear how desirous he is that it should be believed, Catholics & Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion, he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited; Whereof if the mistaker doubt, he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholic writers. One of France, who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved (as he believes) the Hugonots and Catholics of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church and Religion, because of truths agreed upon by both. And another of our Country (as it is said) who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors, both Papists and Protestants, who are all of the same mind. Thus you see, he ransacks all kind of proofs, to show that Catholics and Protestants differ not in the substance, and essence of Faith, and to that end citys for Catholic writers, those two who can be no Catholics; as Charity Maintained, part. 1. chap. 3. pag. 104. Shows the former in particular to be a plain Heretic, or rather Atheist, Lucian-like, jesting at all Religion. Pag. 78. he saith: We hope and think very well of all those holy and devout souls, which in former Ages lived and died in the Church of Rome. Nay, our Charity reaches further to all those at this day, who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion, and profess it. To these words of the Doctor, if we subsume; But it were impossible, that any can be saved, even by Ignorance, or any simplicity of heart, if he err in a Fundamental point (because as by every such error, a Church ceases to be a Church, so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Church) the Conclusion will be, that we do not err in any Fundamental point. Nay, pag. 79. he saith further, We believe it (the Roman Religion) safe, that is, by God's great Mercy, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess: But we believe it not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable, to such as profess it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright, and not perversely obstinate, might believe) the contrary. Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved; we are even safe, upon condition, we believe that Faith to be true which we profess, and for which we have suffered so long, so great, and so many losses, in all kinds; which if we did undergo, for external profession of that Faith, which we do not inwardly believe to be true, we should deserve rather to be begged for fools, then persecuted for our Religion. In the mean time, every Catholic hath this comfort, that he is safe, (even by the confession of an Adversary) if he be not a foolish dissembler, which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant, or any other. Even the profession of a truth, believed to be false, is a sin. But I return to say; it were impossible for any Roman Catholic to be safe, upon what condition soever, if we err in any one Fundamental Article of Faith.  
7. With D. Potter agreeth M. William Chillingworth in his book entitled; The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation. For whereas Charity Mantained, part. 1. pag. 15. n. 13. saith; Since D. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her, when Luther first appeared, I desire him to declare, whether it doth not follow, that she hath not erred Fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of a Church, and so our Saviour Christ should have had not visibly Church on earth. To these words (which he thought fit to set down very imperfectly) he answers, pag. 16. n. 20. in this manner; I say, in our sense of the word Fundamental, it does follow. For, if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, than it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny; or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was part of the whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the Church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholic. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamental, I hope she erred not Fundamentally: But in your sense of the word, I fear she did. That is, she held some thing to be Divine Revelation, which was not; something not to be, which was. He hath spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church, and not only affirmed, but proved that she did not err in any Fundamental Point, that I need not say one word to ponder his words, or declare the force of them. Pag. 7. n. 3. He expressly approves the saying of D. Potter. That both sides by the confession of both sides, agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary. Therefore, do we infer, Catholics believe all that is precisely necessary to salvation, and more. But we never yield so much to you Protestants. Pag. 85. n. 89. He confesseth the Roman Church to be a part of the Catholic Church; and pag. 16. n. 20. he saith, If she were a true part of the Church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were unevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church, a member of the Church Catholic. Pag. 163. n. 56. He saith, From Scripture we collect our hope, that the Truths she (The Roman Church) retains, and the practice of them, may prove an Antidote to her against the errors which she maintains in such persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalon. These points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poison of all sins and errors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she erreth not Fundamentally, but still remains a part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: Seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she errs not Fundamentally, (mark how he professeth to learn out of Scripture, that we err not Fundamentally) assures us, that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And these errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against Conscience, could not but bring us certain damnation! Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants, being acknowledged not to be Fundamental, and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience, we are safe by his own confession. If we did not believe as we profess, we were no Roman Catholics. In the same place he saith expressly, De facto we hope the Roman Church does not err in Fundamentals; Yea he saith, line 33. Perhaps she does not err damnably, the contrary whereof he affirms so often. His example of Absalon, was very ill applied to the Roman Church, which did not rebel from Protestants, but they against the whole Church (the Mother of all Christians) more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himself wickedly toward his Father. Pag. 404. n. 29. He approves Dr. Potter's saying (pag. 79) which I cited above, that the Roman Religion is safe, that is, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess. And in the same place he saith, We may hope that she retains those Truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to Salvation. Pag. 401. n. 7. We approve those fundamental and simply necessary Truths which you retain, by which, some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and Heresies. The Truths you retain, are good, and, as we hope, sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you, to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists. If any Soul may be saved in our Religion; It is clear we hold not any fundamental Error, with which no soul can be saved. Pag. 277. n. 61. he saith, The simple defect of some Truth's profitable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation. Seeing therefore he hath so often confessed that we err not in fundamental points, our Errors in some Truth's profitable only, and not fundamental, may consist with salvation. How then doth he say to Catholics pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresy, and yielding you salvation, neither he (Dr. Potter) nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? Pag. 219. n. 50. Speaking of Protestants, he saith, They do not differ at all in matters of Faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and meanby matters of Faith, such Doctrines as are necessary to salvation, to be believed or not to be believed. Now you know well that in points of greatest moment, which Catholics believe against some Protestants, other Protestants stand for us, against their pretended Brethren: And therefore he must either say that we believe all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation; or that many learned Protestants do not believe all such Doctrines, and consequently are not capable of Salvation. Pag. 269. n. 45. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himself and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of a Church consists. For this cause he saith, That although Protestants leave the external Communion of the Church, yet they left not the Church, because they left her not in any thing essential to a Church, as Fundamental points are: Therefore he supposeth the Church before Luther, did not err in any Fundamental Article: Otherwise Protestants had left her, that is, they had disagreed from her in a Fundamental point. P. 272. n. 52 and pag. 283. n. 73. He denies that Protestants divided themselves from the Church, absolutely and simply in all things, that is, ceased to be a member of it; which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essential and fundamental Points, which Protestants also pretend to hold, and for that cause say, they left not the Church. Pag. 272. n. 52. He saith, In the reason of our separation from the external Communion of your Church, you are mistaken: For it was not so much because she, your Church, as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted, and needed Reformation. But if we erred in Fundamental points, Protestants must have forsaken us chief for that reason, that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental errors of Faith. Therefore he grants, that we erred not in any such necessary Points. Pag. 401. n. 26. He confesseth, that D. Potter saith indeed, that our not cutting off your Church from the Body of Christ, and hope of salvation, frees us from the imputation of Schism. Pag. 133. n. 12. He saith expressly, By confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. It is well he makes so open a confession, that we believe much more than is simply necessary to salvation. But as I said before, we will not, because we cannot, yield so much to Protestants. And here I must ask again, how he could say, Pag. 401. n. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Heresy, and yielding you salvation, neither D. Potter, nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? Seeing he saith, that by the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation, by what Logic will he deduce, that we believe not as much as is necessary?  
8. These so many and so clear words of D. Potter and M. Chillingworth, may justly make any man wonder, with what pretence of truth, or modesty, he could say, Pag. 280. n. 95. As for your pretence that your errors are confessed not to be Fundamental, it is an affected mistake, as I have often told you. And Pag. 308. 108. As for your obtruding upon us, that we believe the Points of difference not Fundamental or necessary, you have been often told it is a calumny. The oftener the worse; it being a Saying void of all truth, and a shameful calumny in him.  
9 To these testimonies of Potter and Chillingworth, many other might be alleged, out of other Protestants, as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter. D. Laud in his book against Fisher Pag. 299. saith, I do acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself. Behold, not only a possibility of salvation, but also the reason thereof, because we believe the Creed, etc. which is the very reason for which Protestants hold, that they themselves may be saved, though they differ in many points from one another. This, I say, is the reason of D. Laud, which other Protestants must approve; though in true Divinity it be of no force at all; for, though one believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself, that is, that he is God, and Saviour of the world, yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture, or otherwise sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, he cannot be saved, even according to Protestants, who therefore do in this, as in many other things speak inconsequently, and contradict themselves. Pag. 376. he saith: The Religion of the Protestants, and the Romanists Religion, is the same: nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants, set up a different Religion (for the Christian Religion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion. Therefore, say I, we hold no Fundamental errors, wherein whosoever differ, cannot be of the same, but must be of a different Religion. And Pag. 129. The Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence, not in the things which constitute a Church. And Pag. 282. he saith: The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, I think cannot be denied: and in proof hereof Pag. 281. he alleges Luther, Field, Joseph Hall, Geor.: Abbot, Hooker, Mornaeus, Prideaux, Calvin. And D. Jeremy Taylor in his liberty of Prophesying Pag. 251. sect. 20. teaches, that we keep the foundation, and believe many more truths, than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation. And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party, allowed to them possibility of Salvation, whilst their errors are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding, (which as I said, may easily be believed of us Catholics, who suffer so much for our Religion,) so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith, that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted: The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures. And in particular he shows that Prayer for the dead, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, are not Fundamental errors; and also saith, these two be in stead of the rest. Yea he affirms Pag. 258, that there is employed as great difficulty in the mystery of the B. Trinity, as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and shows that we are not in any danger of sinning by Idolatry, in adoring the Sacrament.  
10. Thus, good Reader, having proved out of the Confession of Protestants, That the first Protestants, who pretended to reform all Churches extant when they appeared, led such lives, and taught such Doctrines as no man of judgement can think them to have been fit Instruments for that Work; That Protestants confess the Ancient Holy Fathers to stand for us; That the chiefest Protestant Writers join with Catholics against other Protestants in the most principal Articles of Religion, Yea even in those very points, for which Luther and his followers opposed our Doctrine, and forsook our Communion; (which deserves well to be considered;) That our Doctrines have been confirmed by Miracles; and finally That all Protestants of note and learning acknowledge that we may be saved: These points, I say, having been evidently proved out of the confession of Protestants, no man of conscience, or even of common judgement and reason, can deny, but that we are safe; and seeing eternal Salvation depends upon making choice of the true Religion, whosoever hath a care of his soul, must either embrace the Catholic Roman Religion, or else acknowledge himself to be inexcusable in that last day or moment, upon which eternity and that second death will depend, from which there can be no reprieve, or hope to amend by a second trial. I conclude as I began, O ETERNITY! ETERNITY.  
FINIS   

A TABLE Of the CONSIDERATIONS.  
Consideration 1. 
Concerning the Lives of the first Protestant pretended Reformers Pag. 1. 

Of LUTHER pag. 2.  
Of JACOBUS ANDREAS pag. 72.  
Of ZUINGLIUS pag. 74.  
Of CALVIN pag. 105.  
Of BEZA pag. 134.  
Of MELANCTHON pag. 156.  
Of BUCER pag. 159.  
Of KNOX pag. 165.    Consideration II. 
By the confession of Protestants, the ancient holy Fathers believed and practised the same things, which we believe and practise against Protestants. pag. 171.  Consideration III. 
Chief Protestants stand for us in the most important points of Religion, against their protestant Brethren. pag. 301.  Consideration IU. 
That the Doctrine of us Catholics, hath been approved by the omnipotent hand of God, using for instruments of working Miracles, those, who were confessedly of our Religion, yea, and in express confirmation of points believed by us, and rejected by Protestants. pag. 395.  Consideration V. 
By the confession of Protestants, we Catholics may be saved, though we live and die in the belief and profession of those Articles, wherein Protestants disagree from us. pag. 437.    

An Alphabetical Index of the chief things contained in this Treatise; in which c: signifies the Consideration, n, the Number, p, the Page, t, the Text, m, the Margin, If neither of the two last letters be put, the thing is only in the Text  

A  
PErpetual Abstinence from certain meats was never commanded by the Church. Co. 2. n. 11. p. 230. 1.  
Alms for the dead, is an antieut use, n. 3. p. 198  
Altars, of great and acknowledged antiquity. p. 192. 3. t. m.  
St. Amphibalus his body revealed by St. Albania, and many miracles wroughtat it. c. 4. n. 5. p. 420.  
Amsdorphius (in whom Luther said, Spiritus meus requiescit) affirmed good Works hurtful to salvation, c. 1. n. 19 p. 66. 7. t. m.  
Anabaptists infinitely divided, c. 3. n. 112. p. 392.  
Andrea's, Luther's famous Scholar, qualified by Protestant Writers, c. 1. n. 21. p. 72. 3.  
Dr Andrews no Protestant. c. 3. n. 83. p. 356, 7, 8, 9  
His judgement of Spalata. p. 359.  
Antichrist one single person. c. 2. n. 3. p, 192.  
Arianism, the centre of Calvinism. c. 3. n. 43. p. 123, 4, 5. t. m  
Armenians condemned, for denying the mixture of water with the wine in consecrating the Chalice. c. 2. n. 2. p. 183  
Saint Augustine the Monk, brought Ceremonies into England c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6.  
St Austin the Dr. most clear for Miracles c. 4. n. 2. p. 402. 3. t. m. Also for Purgatory c. 2. n. 18. p. 265. etc.   

B  
BAldwins interpretation of Luther's Conference with the Devil concerning Mass refuted, c. 1. n. 7. p. 27. etc.  
Baptism (saith Luther) in whatsoever words, if taken, though not given in nomine Domine, truly saves m. 4. p. 15.  
Beads lawfully used c, 3. n. 94. p. 174.  
St. Bernard refuted by miracle, points then held by the Henricians or Apostolicks, and now by Protestants, who ascribe the Miracles to the Devil, yet hold St. Bernard for a St. c. 4. n. 4. p. 414.15, 16, 17. and most conformable to the Church of Rome c. 5. n. 2. p. 440. 1. t. m. He was an eye witness of St. Malachias his miracles, and being present at his death, received his blessing c. 4. n. 4. p. 414. t. m  
Of Beza, c. 1. from the n. 48. to 54. from p. 134. to 155. inclusiuè. An abridgement of his wicked life out of Hic. Bolseck n. 48. p. 134, 5, 6. His lascivious Poems with Apologies for them of Dr. Morton, Mr. Spark and others, refuted p. 137. to 144. Candida was his Concubine four years before he married her at Geneva p. 144.5. She dying when he was 69 years old, he, to the scandal of his friends, within few months, married a young Widow p. 147. He is charged with many odious Conspiracies, and to have struck deadly at all Christian superiority with his seditious spirit and writings p. 147.8.9. t. m. He confesseth that had it not been by these means, they had had no Church p. 150. His hypocrisy, ibid. His encouraging Rebels to fight, kill, and commit sacrileges at the battle of Dren. p. 151. He persuaded Poltrot to kill the Duke of Guise p. 152. t. m. He prefers in knowledge these times to those of the Apostles ibid. t. He avers three divine substances p. 153. That our Saviour was for a time in despair ibid. His mental reservation in matter of Faith p. 153. 4. t. m. His confession, that whilst he taught others Goodness, himself was wicked, ibid. t.  
Of Bucer, c. 1. n. 58.9. p. 159. to 65. inclusiuè. By his Doctrine any man or woman may take occasion of Divorce, and marry another, p. 160.1, 2, 3. He four times changed his Religion, and for every change vehemently pretended evidence of Scripture p. 163.4.5.   

C  
OF Calvin, c. 1. from n. 37. to 47. from p. 105. to 134. inclusiuè. He was excessively dainty in his diet n. 37. p. 106. t. m. An Adulterer, ibid. t. Burnt on the shoulder at Noion, for a Sodomite, and fled for shame p. 108, 9 He is said to have forged Letters in his own praise. p. 105. He agreed with Braule to fain himself dead, who, when he should have risen at his call was dead indeed. ibid. t. m. His seditious Doctrine caused the Prince of Geneva to be deprived of his Inheritance by Arms, n. 38. p. 110, 11. It lays open the way to all liberty, teaching that God is the author of sin, and predestinates merely upon his pleasure, some determinately to Heaven, others to Hell, n. 40. p. 113, 14. yet he would seem to be against this Doctrine p. 114, 15, 16. t. m. It leads to Mahometism, and hath much increased Arianism in Polony, Hungary, and Transilvania. n. 42. p. 121, 2, 3. And hath it or infidelity, for its Centre, n. 43. p. 125. It hath hatched the reformed Arrians, who allow only Scripture interpreted by themselves, and hideously blaspheme the blessed Trinity, n. 43. p. 123, 4. t. m. He uses the Arrians shifts, & teaches them new, to avoid the testimonies for the blessed Trinity, & is by divers Protestants accused of Judaisme, and Arrianism, n. 45. p. 126, 7, 8, 9, 30. He terms it Barbarism to say Christ is God of God, or Sancta Trinitas unus Deus. He affirms three Substances in the Trinity, and Christ to be improperly God, who makes intercession to his Father, both according to his Humanity and Divinity, n. 41. p. 117, 18, 19, 20, 1. That Christ suffered all the torments due to the damned, and despaired for fear they should be eternal, yea, refused to be obey his Father in Redeeming Man, n. 46. p. 131, 2, 3. He calls it a foolish curiosity, to question whether Christ merited for himself; and a timer arious definition to merit, n. 19 p. 67. t. m. He furiously railed (saith Grotius) at the opposer of his Doctrine, n. 47. p. 133, 4. He contemptibly condemns the ancient Fathers for averring the sacrifice of the Mass, n. 39 p. 111, 12, 13. He died calling desperately upon the Devil; eaten up with Lice, and other Vermin, n. 37. p. 107.110.  
Calvinists held it lawful to lie for the Glory of God, n. 53. p. 155. t. m.  
Of Canonical Scriptures, the sense of the holy Fathers, and the Protestants reprehending them for it, c. 2. n. 12. p. 234, to 242. inclusiuè t. m. Canonical Scripture only determined by the Church, p. 240. t. m. etc.  
Carolostadius pretended Visions and Conference with God for his Doctrine, c, 1. n. 23. p. 79. t. m.  
Of Catholic Religion, as Protestants confess, no beginning can be assigned after the Apostles times, c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. t. m. It is by them judged safe, c. 5. per totam. showed by their clear Testimonies, n. 1. p. 437.8, 9  
Ceremonies practised by the Fathers, c. 2 n. 8. p. 205, 6. t. m. and n. 12. p. 234. Most of the now used, acknowledged by Protestants to have been then used, n. 13. p. 247. t. m.  
The Chancel prohibited to the Laity, c. 3. n. 89. p. 366.  
Chillingworth confutes himself, n. 87. p. 363. With reason he excepts against painting the Irinity, for he denies the Trinity, n. 92. p. 377. His ridiculous objection of an Oblation by way of Consumption, n. 95. p. 375. Divers other of his impertinent objections, in the Numbers and pages precedent, and following particulars about the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady, n. 99 p. 378.9. His many testimonies that the Catholic Church is saving; and his contradicting himself, c. 5. n. 7, 8. p. 459, 60, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  
Chrism, or Confirmation gives grace, c. 2. n. 8. p. 205.6.  
Clement vide John Clement.  
Confession as now used, avowed by the ancient Fathers, n. 9 p. 206, 7. and n. 19 p. 269. etc. Confirmed by Miracles, c. 4. n. 2. p. 407.  
Consecrating of Creatures, c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6. t. m. etc.  
Constantine the great, always had with him a portable consecrated Tabernacle or Church, with Priests and Deacons, not to be forced, against the then practice of the Church, to celebrate Divine Mysteries in profane, places, n. 23. p. 292. t. m.  
The Lord Cromwell professed at his death, to believe in all with the Church of Rome, c. 5. n. 2. p. 439, 40.  
Use of the Cross, c. 2. n. 8. p. 205, 6. m. In practise with the holy Fathers, reprehended by Protestants, n. 12. p. 243. t. m. The virtue of it confirmed by Miracles, c. 4. n. 2. p. 406.  
St. Cutbert's Miracles, and miraculous integrity after his death, n. 4. p. 412, 13.   

D  
Alms, Prayer, Sacrifice for the Dead, c. 2. n. 3, 4. p. 196.7.8. t. m.  
Delrius cleared from Morton's falsification, c. n. 7. p. 26. 7. t. m.   

E  
Equivocation beyond all limits held and taught by Protestants, c. 3. n. 72. p. 348, 9, 50, 1, 2.  
English, inconstant in Doctrine, c. 1. n. 28. p. 85, 6, 7.  
Errors affirmed by Protestants to have crept into the Catholic Church, but no beginning of them can be assigned since the Apostles time, c. 2. n. 15. p. 255. etc. t. m. wherefore they impute them to the Apostles time, n. 14. p. 251. etc. t. m.  
Eucharist consecrated by virtue of the words, n. 2. p. 179. t. m. In round Wafers, of which use no beginning can be showed, p. 178. t. m. Transubstantiation held by the ancient Fathers, p. 179, 80, 1, 2. t. m. 'twas carefully conserved in the Church, p. 181, 2. in one kind only: so also carried in long journeys, c. 3. n. 83. p. 356. Water mingled with the Wine in consecration, c. 2. n. 2. p. 182, 3. It must be received fasting, p. 183, 4. And Chastely: wherefore Priests are not to marry, p. 184. etc. t. m.   

F  
In the ancient Fathers, the now Catholic Doctrines acknowledged, and reprehended by Protestants. Vide Protestants.  
The Faith of Catholics judged saving by Protestants, c. 5. per totam. Their clear testimonies of it, n. 1. p. 447, 8, 9  
Fasts obligatory, c. 2. n. 12. p. 229, 30, 31. t. m. Held an Heresy by many Fathers to fast on Sunday. ibid.  
Father's so evident for all Catholic Tenets, that Protestants rebuke one another for citing of them, and cry out that if their Authority be acknowledged, the Protestant Church is undone, n. 14. p. 249. etc. t. m.  
Fox's Revelation concerning the 42 Months in the Apocalypse rejected, c. 1. n. 23. p. 80. His fraud to cover Dr. Barnes his acknowledgement of Transubstantiation, c. 3. n. 37. p. 320.  
St. Francis his Miracles, Wounds, and austere life, c. 4. n. 5. p. 418, 19 t. m.  
Freewill, and merit of Good Works, frequent in the holy Fathers, c. 2, n. 5, 6. p. 200. etc.  
Fulke held Christ, according to his Deity, to be his father's Priest, c. 1. n. 41. p. 120. and the Arrians to be a true Church of God, n. 42. p. 122. t. m.   

G  
GRegory the great, introduced by St. Austin, Rites and Ceremonies in England, c. 2. n. 12. p. 244, 5, 6.  
Grotius his censure of Calvin's furious railing against the Opposers of his Doctrine, c. 1. n. 47. p. 133, 4. He stands in most points for Catholics, c. 3. n. 85. p. 359, 60, 1, 2.   

H  
KIng Henry the vl, kept to his death the Doctrine of Rome, c. 5. n. 2. p. 439.  
Heretics fraud in citing Authors, c. 2. n. 18. p. 267. They moulter away by Divisions amongst themselves, c. 3. n. 112. p. 391, 2. t. m.  
Holy-Water confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 417.  
Hus no Protestant, c. 3. n. 80. p. 355.   

I  
JAcobus Andreas, vide Andreas.  
King James his censure of John Knox, c. 1. n. 60. p. 166. And of the English translations of the Bible, n, 33. p. 95.  
Jewel affirms Christ, according to his Deity, to be his Father's Priest, n. 41. p. 120. His impudent imposture upon Fathers, Apostles, and Christ himself, c, 2. n, 22. p. 281 2, 3.  
Thirty eight Jews burnt in the Marchy of Brandenburg, and all the rest banished for stabbing the B. Sacrament, c. 4. n, 5. p. 421, t, m, 422, m.  
John Clement's miraculous cure at our B. Ladies of Sichem, p, 423, 4, 5.  
Images used by the ancient holy Fathers, c, 2. n, 12. p, 243. Confirmed by miracle, c, 4. n, 2. p. 404, 5. t. m.  
Innocentius the third, falsely taxed to have first brought up Transubstantiation, c, 2. n, 16. p, 257. t. m.  
The Invisibility of the Protestant Church before Luther, c, 4. n, 3. p, 408. t. m.  
●ish forced to hear English Sermons, which they understood not, c, 3. n, 98. p, 377.   

K  
OF John Knox, c, 1. n, 60, 1. from p, 165. to 170. inclusiuè. Why many particulars of his turbulent seditious spirit are omitted, p, 165. King James his censure of him, p, 166. His dreadful death, ibidem.   

L  
Dr. Laud acknowledges Catholic Faith to be saving, c, 5. n, 9 p, 465, 6.  
Lent, held of obligation by the Fathers, c, 2. n, 12. p, 211, 12, 13.  
Limbus Patrum, held by ancient Fathers, n, 3. p, 198, 9 t. m.  
Lyturgy in an unknown tongue, c, 3. n, 87. p, 364. etc.  
Of Luther, c, 1. from n, 1. to 20. from p, 1. to 71. inclusiuè His own testimony of his pious and penitent life before his Apostasy, n, 1. p, 2. His raging Lust, described by himself, p, 2, 3, 4, t. m. His blasphemy, that no Sin, Lust, or other, can separate from Christ, p, 4. Whence he gave scope to all villainy, ibid. He secretly, to the disgust of his friends, married Katherine Bore a Nun, and i● such heat, that he could not expect until next morning when the forbidden time for marriage expired, p, 4, 5. t. m. This shamelessly excused by Melancthon, Luther himself acknowledging that he did not profess good life, but Doctrine, p, 5. t. m. Hence Protestants, when they will be licentious, say, This day we will live Luther- like, p, 6. t. m. His inclination to Polygamy, n, 2. p, 7, 8. t. m. His contempt of superiority. His hideous railing against K. Henry the vl and other Princes; forced the Protestant Lansgrave to disallow his Writings by a public Manifest, p, 9, 10, 11. t. m. He hired Corolostadius to rail against him, n, 3. p, 12. t: m: He gives as much power to Laymen, yea, to Women, concerning the Sacraments, as to Priests, n, 4. p, 12, 13: t: m: and n, 7: p, 27: He says, that the Devil can truly consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, n, 4. p, 13. m. and n, 7. p, 34. For his opinion of Baptism, vide Baptism. He held, that had not Christ's Divinity suffered, we had had but a base Redeemer, n, 5. p, 15. That Christ's Soul suffered in Hell after death, p, 16. He boasted of more truth in his Doctrine than in the Fathers, or Apostles, n, 6, p, 16, 17. t. m. His contempt of the Fathers, p, 18. His Doctrine, as certainly divine, must judge Angels, not be judged by them, ibid. and p, 19 Chief Protestants do sharply reprove this his pride, p. 19, 20, 1, 2, 3. His inconstancy in Doctrine, n, 4. p, 14, 15. He was taught by the Devil to impugn the Mass, n, 7. p, 23. t. m. and that by bodily conference, not by spiritual fight, as Fulke would have it, nor by dream as Sutcliff says, both against Luther's express words, p. 22. to 36. inclusiuè. he was grievously haunted & frighted by an evil spirit, p. 23, 22. He affirms, the Emp. Oecolampadius and others, were slain by evil spirits appearing to them, p. 24, 25. He denies obedience to spiritual Pastors, and G. Councils, and right to judge of Doctrine, and grants it Lay-people, n. 8. p. 37.8. He teaches, that whatsoever a General Council commands, the contrary is to be done, n. 12. p. 44, 5. He affirms, that when one dies, the Soul sleeps as Insensibly as the Body, and denies Purgatory and prayer to Saints, n, 9 p, 39 t. m. He puts three: Divinities as three persons; and praises the Arrians for rejecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n, 10. p, 39, 40. t.m. His wicked Doctrine concerning the Author of sin, n, 11. p, 40, 1, 2. His Blasphemy that God crowns and damns without desert, p, 42. By these Doctrines he opened the way to all lewdness, p, 43. To have his will he stuck not to contradict himself and Scripture, n, 12. p, 43. He acknowledgeth that he believed not what he preached, p, 46. He acknowledgeth his fall to have been Pride and wilfulness, and speaks of it with great perplexity and terror of Conscience, p, 47, 8. Yet false Flatterers will call him Saint, ibid. He is deeply taxed by Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and all Calvinists, for his unchristian bitterness against them, n, 14. p, 49, 50, 1. He most arrogantly conceived himself the only man opposed by Satan, as the first teacher of Christianity, and sole right understander of the Gospel, n, 15. p, 51, 2. His wicked Doctrine in favour of the Turk, and disesteem of Christianity, n, 16. p, 53, 55, 54, 56. His Scholars ashamed of divers things in his Works, corrupted them in the edition at Wittenburg, n, 17. p, 57, 58. t. m. & alibi ipse. His wilful corruptions and impudent censures of Scriptures and holy Writers, makes them of no credit, p, 57, to 64. t. m. inclusiuè. He acknowledges that the manifold translations of Scripture, will force to receive Councils, n, 34. p, 97. He teacheth that only Infidelity condemns, and only Faith (which cannot be without Good works) justifies, n, 18, 19 p, 64, 5. That, who is good, can do nothing but good: that good works neither justify, nor are any way necessary to salvation, p. 65. but hurtful to it, p. 66, 7. t. m. Erasmus his saying of him, n. 20. p, 68 m. He cannot be held a Protestant. p, 68, 9 His vild Doctrine and Manners are now so notorious, as none can be excusable in following him, p, 69. He prefers Melancthon to all the Doctors of the Church, n, 54. p, 155. His Blasphemies against the Holy Ghost, c, 1. n, 2. p, 187, 8. By his Life and Doctrine many Protestants held Lewdness to be an Evangelicall Institution, and serious Christian Discipline, a new Popery, c, 1. n, 1. p, 6.   

M  
St. Malacias his Miracles, c, 4. n, 1. p, 400. i t. m. and n, 4. p, 414, 15. Calumniated as wrought by the Devil, n, 1. p, 400. m. Dying he gave his Blessing to St. Bernard n, 4. p, 414. m.  
Marriage forbidden to Priests from the Apostles time, c, 2. n, 7. p, 166, 7. t. m. Like for Monks, p, 167. t. m.  
Mass, and the sacrifice of it, most ancient, n, 17, p, 267. t. m.  
Of Melancthon, c, 1. n, 55, 6. p, 156, 7, 8, 9 He held three Divinities. He persuaded Polygamy to King Henry the eight: n, 56. p, 156. He taught, that in case of Divorce the offending party might marry another: p, 157. He changed from Lutheranism to Calvinisme, n, 57 p, 157. Yet he persuaded others to remain Catholics, and wished he had rather lost a Finger, than wrote of Divinity, p: 159.  
Melchisedeck and his sacrifice presigured Christ and his sacrifice: c, 2. n, 17. p, 260. etc.  
Merit of Good Works: n, 5, 6. p, 200. etc.  
Of Miracles, c, 4. per totam: wrought in confirmation of points believed by Catholics Protestant's, and are testimonies of true Faith, although wrought by wicked men, they being of that kind, which cannot naturally be done: n, 1 p. 396, 7. t. m. The gift of Miracles, necessary to the conversion of the World, m, 2. p, 401, 2. Much more necessary to reverse, what by infinite miracles the whole world had embraced, p. 402. m. No miracles wrought by Luther, Calvin etc. n. 3. p. 408. t. m. Yet they pretend an extraordinary calling, which they confess must be proved by Miracles p. 409, 10. t. m. No miracle that Luther's sensual Doctrine should suddenly spread, p. 410. t. m. Many miracles acknowledged by Protestants wrought by Catholic Priests for the conversion of Con. n. 1. p. 397, 8. By St. Xaverius in the Indies. The miraculous incorruption of his body, ibid. Wrought by St. Austin at the conversion of England, p. 398, 9, 400. t. m. and, n. 4. p. 411, 12, 13. t. m. Many, of which St. Austin the Dr. was an eye-witness, n. 2. p. 402, 3. t. m. Undoubted miracles recounted by the Centurists to have been done in each of the thirteen ages next after Christ, p. 404. t. m. etc. Many of them by Monks of most austeer life. Many in confirmation of points now controverted, ibid. One, of the B. Sacrament stabbed by the Jews, n. 5. p. 421, 2. t. m. Another also of the B. Sacrament, n. 2. p. 405, 6. t. m. True miracles defended against the shifts and impostures of Protestants, n, 7. p. 427. etc. to the end of the fourth Con.  
Monasteries of professed Virgins in St. Ignatius the Martyr's time, c. 2. n. 1. p. 173, 4. t. m.  
Montanus, falsely said to be the first Author of Fasts, n. 11. p. 230, 1.  
Mortons' shameless falsifying of Delrius, to cloak Luther's Conference with the Devil, c. 1. n. 7. p. 26, 7. t. m. He accounts the Arrians a true Church, n. 48. p. 140, 1.  
Motives to convince Protestants of the safety of the Catholic Religion, c. 3. n. 105. p. 383, etc.   

N  
NIcene Council censured by Luther, c. 2. n. 2. p. 187, 8. It gave no liberty for married men to keep their Wives after Priesthood, p. 186. etc.   

O  
OEcolampadius. wished his right hand cut off, on condition he had never wrote of Controversies, c. 2. n. 20. p. 7. He pretended Visions, and was, in one slain by the Devil, n. 23. p. 79. t. m. He was the first that disswacted Luther from saying Mass, p. 80.  
Holy Oil, confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 407  
Osiander's Nonsense, c. 2. n. 2. p. 187.  
King Oswald's miracles, c. 4. n. 4. p. 412. t. m.   

P  
PAphnutius defended against Socrates, c. 2. n. 2. p. 186. etc.  
Dr. Potter's large verdict, that Catholic Faith is saving, c. 5. n. 6. p. 453, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  
Prayer in an unknown tongue, as now used, not gainsayed, 1 Cor. 14. c. 3. n. 89. p. 370, 1, 2. t. m. Prayer directed by the words to one party, may be offered to another, n. 96. p. 375, 6. Prayer to Saints, and for the dead, confirmed by miracle, c. 4. n. 2. p. 405, 6. t. m.  
Reflections for Protestants to ponder, c. 1. n. 61. p. 167, to 170. inclusiuè. Protestants are Children without a Father, p. 167, 8. They acknowledge the ancient holy Fathers to hold with us against them, c. 2. per totam, For Vows of perpetual Chastity, n. 1. p. 171, 2, 3, 4. t. m. Priests forbidden to marry, p. 174, 5. t. m. Or to have any woman living with them, except their Mothers, Sister, Father's sister, Mother's sister, n. 2, p. 186. And that if they had been married before Priest hood, they must not after accompany or live in the house with their Wife, p. 186, 7. etc. Religious Vows, n. 1. p. 176. t. m. Prayer to Saints, n. 2. p. 202, 3, 4. Purgatory, n. 18. p. 265, 6, 7, 8, 9 t. m. Saint Peter's Primacy, of which Protestants finding no beginning, nor of the Pope's exercising all that now he does, they ascribe it to St. Peter's Ambition, n. 10. p. 207. t. m. etc. They acknowledge the name and office of a Priest as most ancient, n. 17. p. 261. t. m. etc. The uniform Doctrine of the Roman Church, and division of their own, n. 20. p. 271. 2, 3. Many of their Tenets to have been condemned for Heresies, and the Abetters of them for Heriticks, within the first six hundred years, n. 21. p. 273. etc. Had those that now are, lived then, they would likewise have been condemned, n. 26. p. 318. Yet they impudently challenge the holy Fathers for theirs, and falsify all sorts of Writers, old and new; yea, of their own Brethren, n, 22. p. 281. t. m. etc. They must confess the present Doctrine of Catholics not repugnant to salvation, or damn the ancient Fathers, whom they hold to be Saints, n. 24. p. 317. see many other points noted in their Alphabetical Order.  
Protestants confuted, and the now Catholic Religion proved by the practice, in the great Constantin's time, n. 23. p. 291. t. m. etc.  
Chief Protestants, in the following most important points stand for us against their brethren c. 3. p. 301. per totam. The real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and not only inefficacy n, 1, 2. p. 301, 2. Sacraments do not only signify, but confer Grace, n. 2. p. 303. The Church must be continually visible, p. 303, etc. Good works necessary for salvation, n. 5. p. 307, 8. Christ died for, and giveth grace to all, n. 7. p. 308. God only permits sin, n. 8. p. 309. Men uncertain of their Election, and may finally fall from the state of Grace n. 9 p. 309, 19 In divorce, the innocent party cannot marry again, n. 10. p. 310. No salvation promised to the Children of the Faithful, dying unbaptised, n. 12. p. 310, 11. , n. 12. p. 312. Good works with Faith, meritory, n. 13. ibid. Temporal punishment for sinremitted, n. 14. p. 311, 12. No Civil Magistrate, head of the Church universal, or particular, n. 16. p. 312, 13. Invocation of Saints, their, and Angel's intercession, n. 17, 18, 19 p. 313. Vows of Chastity, n. 28. p. 313, 14. Of Poverty, n. 21. p. 314. Prayer for the dead, Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, n. 22, 3, 4. p. 315, 16. Images in the Church, worship of them, bowing at the name of Jesus, Good works of one may help another, n. 25, 6, 7, 8. p. 316, 17. Priests truly give remission of sins, Confession to Priests, Distinction of Mortal and venial Sinn, n. 29, 30, 1. p. 317, 18. Communion under one or both kinds: Sacrifice of the New Testament, according to the order of Melchisedeck n. 32, 3. p. 319. The first motions of Concupiscence not consented to, are no sin, n. 34. p. 319, 20. The Commandments not impossible, n. 35. p. 220. No Widow bigama professed, n. 36. Transubstantiation, n. 37. p. 321. Christ Consubstantial to his Father, n. 38. p. 321, 2, 3. As man full of knowledge from his Nativity. He descended with his Soul into Hell, but suffered nothing there, n. 39, 40, 1. p. 323, 4, 5. The Sacraments of the old Testament, inferior in operation to the New. Grace conferred by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of Confirmation. Also in the sacrament of Order, Deaconship, a distinct order from Priesthood, and a step unto it, n. 41, 2, 3, 4, 5, p. 325. Extraordinary calling is ceased, n. 46. p. 327. An indelibel Character imprinted by some sacraments, n. 47. p. 328. Baptism by Lay persons and women in case of necessity, n. 48. p. 328. The known intention of the Church, needful to administer Sacraments, n. 49. p. 328, 9 Seven Sacraments, n. 50. p. 329. Implicit Faith, n. 51. p. 329, 30. Usury unlawful, n. 52. p. 330. Antichrist not yet come, n. 53. p. 331, Distinct degrees of Angels. Angel's Protectors of several Countries. By Michael the Archangel, is not meant Christ, n. 54, 5, 6. p. 331, 2, 3. Sunday for our Sabbath is unalterable, and an apostolical Tradition, n. 57, 8. p. 333, 4. Get Fasts and Abstinence from certain meats for spiritual motives, n. 59 p. 334, 5. Vows not obrogated, n. 60. p. 335, 6. Fasting, Chastity, giving one's Goods for pious uses, and Vlountary poverty, are more pleasing to God than their contraries, n 61. p. 336, 7. Who hath the gift of Continency, may lawflly marry or refrain, n. 62. p. 337, 8. The sin against the Holy Ghost, is only final impenitence, n. 63. p 338. One Text of Scripture may have divers under stand, n. 64. p. 339. Ecclesiastical persons equal in Order, unequal in Jurisdiction, n. 65. p. 339, 40. The whole truc Church cannot err, n. 66. p. 340, 1. Scripture without external judgement, cannot end Controversies, n. 67. p. 341, 2. The Church Government is monarchical, n. 68 p. 342, 3. Children have not virtual Faith, n. 69. p. 343, 4. Sacred Books only determined by the Church's Tradition, n. 70. p. 344. The Church of Rome is part of the Church of God, n. 71. p. 344, 5, 6. One Primate over the Church in all Nations, n. 72. p. 346. Unwritten Tradition must be observed, n. 73. p. 146 7, 8. Equivocation, n. 74. p. 348, 9, 50, 1, 2. Use of the sign of the Cross, n. 75. p. 352, 3. Many other added, n. 76. p. 353. Most points in which we disagree from them, held by some or other of their chief men, indifferent matters, n. 77. p. 3●3, 4.  
Protestants to continue a Succession, allege such as hold against them n. 78. p. 354. etc. They cannot with consequence deny the Roman Church to be infallible, n. 97. p. 376, 7. They judge the Faith of Catholics saving, c. 5, p. 437. per totam,  
Protestant's clear testimonies, that the Catholic Faith is saving, c. 5. n. 1. Many confessed by them to be true Saints, yet rigid Roman Catholics, n. 2. t. m. They allow that Infants baptised are saved by the Faith of their Catholic parents, which then must needs be saving in the Parents themselves, n. 3. t. m. That our Church is a true Church, one with theirs, not differing in Fundamentals, both good and saving, and only controverted which is the better, n. 4. Divers Protestants, drew from Luther's Life and Doctrine, that Lewdness was an Evangelicall Institution; and serious Christian Discipline, a new Popery, c. 1. n. 1.  
Pultrot strangely taken, after he had by Beza's counsel and encouragement, murdered the Duke of Guise, n. 49.   

R  
THE Real Presence in the blessed Sacrament confirmed by Miracle, c. 4. n. 1.  
Relics acknowledged by the holy Fathers, c. 2. n. 12. Confirmed by Miracles, c. 4. n. 2.  
Rome acknowledged by Protestants to be the Seat of, and fittest for, the Primate of the Church, c. 2. n. 10. t. m. And the Bishop of it to have exercised what now he doth for the first 500 years, p. 213, 14, etc. And the Church to be uniform and constant in its Doctrine, n. 20. They cannot fancy it to be infallible, c. 3. n. 97, It is evidently showed to be sigularly protected by the Holy Ghost c. 5. p. 450, 1, 2, 3.   

S  
WHat is confessed by Protestants concerning Sacraments, vide Protestant's, and c. 2. n. 13.  
Of the sacrifice of the Altar, c. 2. n. 3. t. m. The Antiquity of it, p. 196. t. m. see more n. 17. and c. 3. n. 89. t. m. It is offered for the dead, p. 368, t. m.  
Prayer to Saints, impugned by the Devil, c. 1. n. 7. Held by the holy Fathers, and they reproached for it by the Protestants, c. 2. n. 7.  
Scriptures manifold and corrupted translations, c. 1. n. 28. to 33. inclusiuè, which forced Luther to confess that the Conncills must be received again, n. 34. The vulgar Translation preferred by Protestants, before all other, n. 34. What Scriptures are Canonical, must be learned from the Church, c. 2. n. 12. t. m. Liberty of reading Scriptures confessed by Protestants to be the cause of so many Heresies, c. 1. n. 29.  
Siricius Pope, was not the first that made the Decrees of Priest's Chastity, c. 2. n. 2.  
Socrates' his false relation of Paphnutius, His heretical writing of the celebration of Easter, and of other things p. 189, 90.  
Sorrow necessary for remission of sins, c. 3. n. 102.  
Mr. Sparks excuse of Beza's liconciousness refuted, c. 1. n. 48.  
Sutcliffs impertinent and false interpretation of Luther's conference with the Devil, c. 1. n. 7. He falsely said that Innocentius the third, was the first that brought in Transubstantiation, c. 2. n. 16.   

T  
One's testimony against himself is most strong, c. 3. n. 106.  
tindal, and Teuxbury, Fox's Martyrs, held Good Works hurtful to salvation. That all Christ's works did not deserve Heaven. That God is no more pleased with one work than with another, c. 1. n. 19 t. m.  
Traditions, c. 2. from n. 12. to 16. inclufiuè. whence it is concluded, that those, of which no certain beginning is known, were introduced by the Apostles.  
Transubstantiation, not first brought in by Innocentius the third n. 16. But held, (as Protestants confess) by most ancient Fathers, n. 2. t. m. The Antiquity of it, n. 16. t. m.   

V  
Vow's acknowledged by Protestants, to be held by ancient holy Fathers, lawful and obligatory, c. 2. n. 1. By the first Faith 1 Tim 4. is understood by holy Fathers, the Vow of continency, p. 172, 3.   

W  
WAldo and Waldenses no Protestant's. They pretended an Order of begging Friars, but could get no confirmation. Some of their Tenets, c. 3. n. 79.  
Water to be mingled with Wine in the Consecration of the Eucharist. c. 2. n. 2. t. m.  
Wicliff no Protestant: his, and his Disciples habit, c. 3. n. 80.  
Whitaker's impudent justification of Calvin's branding, c. 1. n. 37. His false imputation upon Pope Siricius, c. 1. n. 2. t. m. He condemns the ancient Fathers, for holding that Antichrist is one single person, n. 3. t. m. He falsely says, that Innocencius the third began Transubstantiation, n. 16. His impudent provocation to the first 600. years, n. 22.  
Continent Widows the Sanctuary of God, n. 1.  
Mr. Wotton falsifies St. Ignatius, n. 6. m.   

X  
ST. Xaverius his miracles in the Indies, and the incorruption of his body acknowledged by Protestants, c. 4. n. 3. Xenaias' the first opposer of Images, c. 2. n. 12. t. m.   

Z  
ZOzomenus followed Socrates in his false report of Paphnutius, and is affirmed by St. Gregory to have lied much in his Writings, c. 2. n. 2.  
Of Zuinglius, c. 1. from n. 22. to n. 39 To cloak his acknowledged incontinency, he affirms that St. Paul found no other cause of Marriage, but to sattisfie Lust, n. 22. He was taught in a dream, which Hospinian calls a Revelation, to impugn the Mass, n. 23. t. m. He taxes Luther for contradicting himself, to temporise, n. 24. m. Himself did shamefully the same, but (says he) Invenite Domino, p. 80, 1. He calls God's promise of reward Hyperbolical, p. 81. Original sin no sin, but a Disease, which deserves not Damnation, n. 25. t. m. and is reproved for it by his Brethren, p. 82. t. m. He teacheth that Heathens, never believing in Christ, are saved, if they have a pious mind. For this also his Brethren reprove him, n. 26. t. m. That neither St. Paul, or any of the Apostles thought their own Writings Canonical, or. could think so, but with extreme Arrogancy, n. 27 Wheresoever be finds in Scripture, This is my Body, This is my Blood; for is he puts signifies, for which Schlusselburg reprehends him, p. 84, 5. He says, that to God, who is bound by no Law, 'tis an honour to move to sin; but in man, who is bound by Law, it is a sin, n. 35. That Civil Magistrates, opposing his Doctrine, must be resisted by the Sword, and deposed, n. 36. Armed in this quarrel he was killed: and died, as Protestants affirm, a Child of Hell. n. 36. t. m.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 22. Line 18. in the text, read Charke. p. 25. l. ult. t. r. Charke. p. 30. l. 28. t. r. est. p. 72. l. 26. t. r. lecto. p. 94. l. 18. t. r. Parker. p. 158. l. 31. t. r. graves. p. 159. l. 13. t. r. vocasse. p. 162. l. 9 t. r. mulierem. p. 102. l. 11. t. r. cohabitante. p. 200. l. 26. t. r. Apostolos. p. 221. l. 31. m. r. Archiepiscope. p. 222. l. 36. m. r. latere. p, 231. l. 2. m. r. Eusebius. p. 257. l. 16. m. r. constat. p. 273. l. 29. t. r. to. p. 276. l. 29. m. r. negare. p. 346. l. 21. t. r. a divers. p. 349. l. 26. t. r. nomine. p. 350. l. 24. t. deal not. p. 352. l. 24. t. r. cubitum. p. 360. l. 6. t. r. no. p. 375. l. 24. t. r. is. p. 367. l. ult. m. r. for. p. 368. l. 35. m. Annuas. p. 389. l. 31. t. add next to the word error (to free her from actual sin, if etc.