MOTIVE I.

Because perpetuall visible profession , which could neuer be wanting to the Religion of Christ , nor any part of it , is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion , so farre as concernes the Points in contestation .

ANSWERE .

God hath neyther decreed nor foretold , that his true doctrine should de facto , be alwayes visibly professed , without any mixture of falshood .

REPLY .

The direct and pertinent Answere to this Motiue , had been , to maintayne , that visible Profession was neuer wanting to Protestant Religion , so farre as concernes the Points in contestation . But forsaking this right way of defence ( wherin he may well be excused , no man being bound to performe impossibilities ) he flyes from the question , and tells vs , that it is not necessary , there should be alwayes a Church , visibly professing true doctrine , without any mixture of falshood . Which is nothing to the purpose , for this argument is still in force : The true Church of Christ must be alwayes visible ( whether with , or without mixture of corruptions , we need not consider for the present : ) But the Protestant Church , as it is distinct from Ours ; hath not byn alwayes visible : Therefore , the Protestant Church as it is distinct from Ours , is not the true Church of Christ . The Maior he grants in diuers places of his Booke , & euen in this his Answere , vpon condition that we grant a possibility of corruption in the Church , as for the present we are content to doe , by way of supposing a falshood . The Minor is affirmed in the Motiue , and not denyed in his Answere , nor can be denyed by any man of iudgement , and learning : And so the Conclusion must of necessity follow . But now , if this were a fit place to proue , that the true Church must be infallible , &c not subiect to any errour in Fayth , it were easy to doe it , if once that be granted , which neither Protestants doe , nor any Christian can deny ; namely , that Christian Fayth is infallibly true , and , not only probable . For , seing this very man confesses , that we cannot know Scripture to be the word of God , by Scripture it selfe , nor by any other meanes except the Tradition of Gods Church ; if she be fallible , our beliefe of Scripture , and all verities contained therin , cannot be certaine , and infallible . We must therfore grant the true Church of Christ to be infallible , if we will maintaine Christian fayth to be certainly true .

MOTIVE II .

Because Luther and his followers separating from the Church of Rome , separated also from all Churches , pure or impure , true or false then being in the world ; vpon which ground I conclude , that either Gods promises did faile of performance , if there were then no Church in the world , which held all things necessary , and nothing repugnant to Saluation ; or else that Luther and his Sectaries , separating from all Churches then in the world , and so from the true , if there were any true , were damnable Schismatiks .

ANSWERE .

God hath neither decreed , nor foretold , that there shall be alwayes a company of men free from all errour in it selfe damnable : Neither is it alwayes of necessity Schismaticall , to separate from the externall communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary . For if this Church supposed to want nothing necessary , require me to professe against my conscience , that I belieue some errour though neuer so small and innocent , which I do not belieue , & will not allow me her communion but vpon this condition : In this case , the Church , for requiring this condition , is Schismaticall , and not I for separating from the Church .

REPLY .

I haue already demonstrated that the first part of his Answere is false , for if the Church be infallible , she is free from all errour in fayth . Nay it being the common , and as it were , naturall conceipt , and beliefe of all Christians , that it is a damnable sinne of Schisme , to forsake the communion of Gods Church ; we must of necessity inferre , that she is not subiect to errour , ( for if she were , we might lawfully forsake her ) and not contratily , say , that it is lawfull to forsake her Communion , because she may , and hath fallen into errour . And this was one of the reasons , which Charity Maintayned brought , to proue , that Gods Church is infallible , & consequently , that to disagree from her in Doctrine , was Heresy , and Schisme to leaue her Communion . Thus then , insteed of vindicating Protestants from Schisme , he yields them guilty both of Schisme , and Heresy , in affirming that they separated from all Churches , true or false , then being in the world . The rest of his Answere seemes to me a ridle , or an vnconsequent piece of Doctrine . For , suppose a man disagree from Gods Church in Profession of Fayth , refuse to participate in the same Sacraments , auoide her publike seruice or Liturgy , and disobey her Prelates ; it seemes , by this mans new Diuinity , that such a one is still a member of that Church . He might as well persuade the world , that there is no such thing , as hitherto all Christians haue called Schisme , at least , while a man hath leaue to follow his owne conscience or discourse ; wherin if he be restrained , then the Church , and not he must be accounted Schismaticall . And why ? Because she will not allow such a man her Communion , but vpon condition , that he professe the same fayth with her . And how can she doe otherwise ? Can they be of her fayth , and Communion , who haue already opposed her fayth , & reiected her Communion , and done as much as in them lyes , to make a separation ? They then , who separate themselues , doe that , which of it selfe , makes their Communion with the Church to be impossible , though she were silent , and did leaue euery man to his liberty . For , Profession of the same Fayth , participation in the same Sacraments , Concurrence at the same publike seruice and worship of God , and Obedience to the same Superiours , are conditions necessary of their owne nature for vnity in Communion , whether they be required by any Church , or no . And therfore , not the Church , for requiring these , but they for putting the contrary conditions are to be accounted Schismaticall . In the meane time ; doth not this man make a daungerous Apology for Precisians , and all sorts of refractary persons , if they be forced to obseruances , which to their Conscience seeme superstitious ? For , to vse his words , In this case the Church , for requiring this condition , is Schismaticall , & not they for separating from the Church . Or , if this man be an Arian , and the Church of England should deny him her Communion vnlesse he confessed the B. Trinity , and Deity of Christ our Lord ; not he , but the Church of England , must be branded with the Epitheton of Schismaticall .

MOTIVE III .

Because , if any credit may be giuen to as creditable records as any are extant , the Doctrine of the Catholicks hath byn frequently confirmed ; and the opposite doctrine of Protestants , confounded with supernaturall , and diuine miracles .

ANSWERE .

If any credit may be giuen to Records farre more creditable thon these , the Doctrine of Protestants , that is , the Bible , hath been confirmed , and the Doctrine of Papists , which is in many points plainly opposite to it , confounded with supernaturall , and diuine Miracles , which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles , as much as the Sunne doth an ignis fatuus ; those I meane which were wrought by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles . Now this booke , by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous Miracles , foretels me plainly , that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine , and that I am not to belieue any doctrine , which seemes to my vnderstanding repugnant to the first , though an Angell from Heauen should teach it ; which were certainly as great a Miracle , as any that was euer wrought in attestation of any part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome : But , that true Doctrine should in all ages haue the testimony of Miracles , that I am no where taught ; So that I haue more reason to suspect , and be afrayd of pretended miracles , as signes of false Doctrine , then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth . Besides , setting aside the Bible , and the Tradition for it , there is as good Story for Miracles wrought by those , who liued and died in opposition to the doctrine of the Roman Church ( as by S. Cyprian , Colmannus , Columbanus , Aidanus , and others ) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church . Lastly , it seemes to me no strange thing , that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought , to delude them who haue forged so many , as apparently the Professors of the Roman Doctrine haue ; to abuse the world .

REPLY .

I could in the very beginning stop his course , by telling him with much truth , and profit too , that the miracles which were wrought by our Sauiour Christ , and his Apostles , did primarily and immediatly gaine Authority and credit to their Persons , and by consequence only to their Writings , as being penn'd by them , who 's Authority was made most worthy to be credited by miracles . If he aske , to what purpose do I put in this word of Consideration ? I answere , that it is done in opposition to a certaine vnchristian doctrine of his . For if the Apostles , and the whole Church , notwithstanding those miracles , may be belieued to haue erred , as this man teaches (a) (a) Pag . 137. n . 21. & pag . 144. n . 31. they did , the Bible can much lesse be said to haue been confirm'd by those miracles , in such manner as nothing in it can be erroneous ; because , as I said , the whole credit of Scripture , is grounded vpon the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers therof . But I need not insist vpon this point ; for do not we also receaue the Bible ? Yea do not all Hereticks in a manner , pretend to belieue it , and their doctrine to be agreable to it ? This plea then is too generall , especially , for this occasion . But , sayes he , This Booke foretels me plainly , that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought , in confirmation of false Doctrine . What then ? Must we belieue that no signes and wonders are true , because some are false ? Then , we must reiect all true Scripture , because diuers false Scriptures haue been forged . Thē may we despise those very miracles , which were wrought in confirmation of the Bible : and so with this his Argument drawne from Scripture , he ouer throwes Scripture it selfe . Did the Apostles themselues , and Apostolicall men worke no true miracles , after the time wherin Scripture had foretold , that great wonders should be wrought in confirmation of false Doctrine ? Neither speakes he to any purpose in these words : That true Doctrine should in all Ages haue the testimony of miracles , that I am no where taught . For the Motiue only said , that the Doctrine of Catholiks , hath been frequently confirmed , and the opposite doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernaturall , and diuine Miracles . Now , though it were granted that true Doctrine had not in all Ages the testimony of miracles , ( which heere I do not examine , as being a thing nothing to the purpose ) yet it is very true , that all Doctrines confirmed by miracles are true , and that they are false which haue been confounded by them But he willingly thrust's in matter to diuert the question from the true state . As here he does againe in the very next words , wherin he alledges the example of some , who liued and dyed in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church ( he meanes , as I conceaue , rebaptizing of such as were baptized by Heretiques ; and keeping of Easter at the same time with the Iewes ; both which errours haue been condemned by the whole Catholike Church , ( and not only by the Church of Rome ; ) and yet , sayes he , there is as good Story for miracles wrought by them , as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of our Church . All which is impertinent , vnlesse he can shew that they wrought miracles in confirmation of that doctrine , God hath appointed miracles as signes of true doctrin . Exod . 4. Matth . 11.5 . Ioan . 15.24 . Mar. vlt . 17.1 . Cor . 12. Hebr . 2.4 . wherin they disagreed from the Roman Church ; for example , that S. Cyprian proued by miracle , that Rebaptization of those who had been baptized by Hereticks , was lawfull . This Answere is cleere , and fit for this occasion and intended breuity : though much more might be said , if I would descend to particulers , concerning the persons whom he alledgeth to no purpose at all . His last Answere is a desperate one , That it seemes to him no strange thing , that God in his Iustice should permit some miracles to be wrought , to delude them who haue forged so many , as apparently the Professours of the Romane Doctrine haue , to abuse the world . Which doctrine if we receaue , we cannot be certaine , but that the miracles of our Sauiour Christ , and his Apostles , were wrought to delude the Iewes , who receaued so many false Prophets , committed Idolatry ; and perpetrated other crimes , for which God in his Iustice might haue permitted them to be deluded by true miracles . He should at least haue reflected that by this meanes , he contradicts himselfe , whyle by impeaching the Authority of miracles , he ouerthrowes Scripture it selfe , which in this very Answere , he say's , was confirmed by miracles . And he also contradicts what he affirmes in his Booke ( Pag . 144. n . 31. ) in these words : It is impossible that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale ( by miracles ) to the confirmation of a falshood . Seing then the Professours of our Catholike Religion , men knowen to haue been full of Zeale , integrity , contempt of the world , and eminent for all kind of sanctity , haue in euery Age frequently , constantly , and manifestly , wrought wonderous things aboue all created power , wherby God hath been glorifyed , sinners conuerted , and Christian Religion propagated ; and that many of those admirable signes haue been wrought expresly in confirmation of diuers particular Points of our Catholike Fayth , as may be seen in Bellarmine (b) (b) Cap. 14. de not . Eccles . and in Brerely (c) (c) Tract . 2. cap . 3. sect . 7. subd . 1. who out of most credible Authours bring pregnant examples of miracles , wrought in confirmation of our Doctrine , concerning Prayer to Saints , Reliques , the Image of Christ , Reall presence , sacrifice of Christs body , Purgatory , and Prayer for the dead , the great vertue of the signe of the Crosse , Holy-water , Lights in the Church , Reseruation of the Sacrament , Holy Chrisme , Adoration of the Crosse , Confession of sinnes to a Priest , and extreme Vnction ; seing , I say , these things are so euidently true , that they cannot be denyed without impudency , and great scandall to Christian Religion , to which the world hath been conuerted by men of our Church and by meanes of these miracles , which therfore to question , must needs bring the world back to doubt of Christianity ; we must conclude , that his third Motiue was true and sound ; that his Answere not only forsakes Protestancy , but vndermines Christian Religion ; and lastly , that we Catholiks to our vnspeakable comfort , may humbly , yet confidently say with that deuout and learned man : (d) (d) Rich . de S. Vict . lib . 1 de T●… t . cap 2. Domine , si error est quod credimus , à te decepti sumus : ista enim in nobis ijs sig nis & prodigijs confirmata sunt , quae non nisi à Te fieri po tuerunt . If we belieue a falshood , thou , O Lord , hast deceaued vs ; for the things which we belieue haue been confirmed by such signes and wonders , as could not be wrought but by Thee alone .

MOTIVE IV .

Because many points of Protestant doctrine , are the damned opinions of Hereticks , condemned by the Primitiue Church .

ANSWERE .

All those were not Hereticks which by Philastrius Epiphanius , or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques .

REPLY .

The weakenesse of this Answere shewes , that his heart is not with Protestants , nor that it is his intention , to defend them in good earnest . What if all those be not Hereticks , who by these three Authours are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks ? There be diuers besides these who haue made Catalogues of Heresies . And to account any doctrine to be an Heresy , it suffices , that we know it to haue byn condemned by the Church , by what meanes soeuer we come to that knowledge . If he had meant well to Protestants , he should haue specified the particular Points , wherin they are accused to agree with Hereticks anciently condemned ; and then haue shewed , that they are not such . Or if he could not doe this ( as indeed it is impossible to be done ) he should not haue vsed this tergiuersation in matters of Religion , but either haue plainly confessed the truth , or at least not haue put himselfe vpon answering that , which he knew could not be answered in the grounds , which Protestants will seeme to maintaine , namely , Consent with the Ancient Church . But the truth is , he cares not for Antiquity , and therfore with the Socinians would readily grant , that opinions condemned for Heresies by the ancient Church , may be orthodoxe truths . If any desire to be satisfyed , that sundry doctrines of Protestants , are the same with those which haue been condemned by the ancient Church , let him read (e) (e) Bellar . cap . 9. do not . Eccles . Bellarmine and (f) (f) Brerely Pract . 1 sect . 8. subd . 2. other Catholicke Writers .

MOTIVE V.

Because the Prophecyes of the Old Testament , touching the Conuersion of Kings & Nations to the true Religion of Christ , haue been accomplished in , and by the Catholicke Roman Religion , and the Professors of it ; and not by Protestant Religion , and the Professours of it .

ANSWERE .

Kings and Nations haue been , and may be conuerted by men of contrary Religions .

REPLY .

We haue no reason to take his bare words without any proofe . Meanes he , perhaps , that the Gothes were conuerted to Christian Religion by Arians ? But , first , this is false , as Bellarmine (g) (g) Cap. 12. do not . Eccles . demonstrates . Secondly , it is impertinent to proue that the conuersion of Kings and Nations is not the worke of Catholiks alone . For , euen they who are pretended to haue been conuerted by the Arians , were but the lesser part of the Gothes , most of them hauing been Catholiks before , and therefore Thirdly this example makes rather for vs , in that of all the world conuerted to Christian Religion , one only poore halfe example , and that not of Protestants , is so much as pretended to the contrary ; which cannot exempt Protestants from that property which Tertullian (h) (h) Lib . de Praescript . cap . 42. affirmes to be common to Nouelists : Their imployment , sayth he , is not to conuert Heathens , but to perucrt them who are already conuerted . And doubtlesse it must needs seem a very prodigious thing , that Hereticks should haue so litle Zeale , or meet with so ill successe in conuerting the world to Christ , if they alone be true Christians ; Or that the prophecyes of dilating the Church of Christ , should be performed by the endeauours of Catholiks , and yet they be not true Christians : Or finally , that our Doctrine should be false , and yet it alone should haue that power , and efficacy to conuert soules , which the holy Scripture ascribes to the Doctrine & Law of God ( Psalm . 18. ) And might not Pagans , Iewes , and other enemies of Christian Religion , refuse , not without shew of good reason , to imbrace Christian Fayth , if they could say with truth , that all they who for many Ages past , and at this present labour to make them Christians , are themselues no true Christians ? And who can oblige them to exchange one falshood for another , which is the best they could hope for , by being conuerted to vs , euen though they were persuaded that their owne sect were false ? What ill successe Protestants haue found in their poore endeauours in this kind , may be seen in (i) (i) Tract . 2. cap . 3. sect . 6. subd . 3. Brerely ; who also cites the words of Beza , that such pilgrimages to remote Countreys , for conuerting of Infidells , are to be left for the locusts , the Iesuits , as it pleases him to speake .

MOTIVE VI .

Because the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable , and the doctrine of Protestants contrary , to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church , euen by the confession of the Protestants themselues ; I meane those Fathers who liued within the compasse of the first 600. yeares to whom Protestants themselues do very frequently , and very confidently appeale .

ANSWERE .

The Doctrine of Papists , is confess'd by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points .

REPLY .

In this Anssvere he clearly forsakes Protestants , and yields that , euen by their owne confession , our Doctrine is conformable , and theirs contrary to the doctrine of those Fathers , who liued within the compasse of the first 600. yeares . But that our Doctrine is confess'd by vs , to be contrary to the Fathers , we vtterly deny , and he could not hope that we should belieue him affirming the contrary without any proofe .

MOTIVE VII .

Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God , nor ordinary Mission from the Church to preach Protestant Doctrine .

ANSWERE .

The Pastours of a Church cannot but haue authority from it , to preach against the abuses of it , whether in Doctrine or practice , if there be any in it . Neither can any Christian want an ordinary Commission from God , to doe a necessary worke of Charity after a peaceable manner , when there is no body else that can or will doe it . In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed . If some Christian Layman should come into a country of Infidels , & had ability to persuade them to Christianity , who would say be might not vse it for want of Commission ?

REPLY .

Heere he is so farre from defending Protestants , that he directly opposes their 23. Article , which sayth : It is not lawfull for any man to take vpon him the office of publike preaching , or ministring the Sacraments , in the Congregation , before he be lawfully called , and sent to execute the same . And those we ought to iudge lawfully called and sent , which be chosen and called to this worke , by men who haue publike Authority giuen them in the Congregation , to call and send Minislers into the Lords vineyard . But by this mans doctrine , euery priuate Christian , euen by being a Christian , must haue an ordinary commission from God himselfe ( which therfore , no Church , Prelate , or Authority can oppose ) to teach and preach if need require ; because , as he declares himselfe in his Booke , (k) (k) Pag . 359. It is one of the greatest works of Charity , to persuade men out of a false , into a true way of eternall happinesse . According to which reason of his , not only a Christian , but euery man whatsoeuer , hath commission from God to teach , preach , and do other such necessary works of Charity . But certainly this Doctrine tends only to the ouerthrow of all Order , Obedience , and subordination in the Church of God , that Socinian liberty of Iudgment , may be enioyed with all freedome . And it puts into the mouth of vnquiet people an answere , whensoeuer they are questioned for preaching their Nouelties , if once they be persuaded in conscience that they are truths . Neither can any such proceeding be a necessary worke of Charity , as he pretends : but rather , euen from hence , we are to inferre , that Gods Church is not subiect to errour in points of Doctrine . For if she were , then euery priuat person , might publikely oppose , and preach against her Doctrine , and forsake her Communion . From which true ground of the Churches Infallibility , we deny his supposition , and auouch . That no Prelate , or priuate person can pretend any Authority , to preach against her Doctrine ; neither does she intend to giue them any such Autority . He sayes , indeed , that in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed . But if euery Christian haue , as he teaches , an ordinary commission from God , to do such a worke , how is it an extraordinary course ? Or if it be extraordinary , it must be proued by miracles , which ought to accompany extraordinary calling , euen in the opinion of chiefest Protestants , as may be seen in Brerely (l) (l) Tract . 2 cap . 2. sect . 3. subd . 2. . Our Sauiour Christ sayes of himselfe , (m) (m) Ioan . 15.24 . If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath , done , they should not haue sinne : and yet Scripture did abundantly witnesse , that he was the true Messias . Neither did he oppose any doctrine receaued by the whole Church of the Iewes ; and that Church was not to last alwayes . But this man speakes of a case , wherin the whole Church of Christ must be opposed , and her Doctrine condemned ; euen that Church which hath a promise of perpetuity , from Christ her Lord and spouse . Which considerations require , that whosoeuer pretends an extraordinary calling to oppose her , ought to proue it by euident miracles . And euen Luther is forced to say ( how directly against himselfe , & his adherents I leaue others to consider , ) (n) (n) In loc . Commun . clas . 4. God neuer sent any , who was not either called by men , or declared by miracles , no not the Sonne of God himselfe . This man in the meane time does very vnworthily , in comparing the conuerting of Infidells by priuate exhortation , with preaching against Christian Churches , where Religion is setled , and Bishops ( who by diuine Institution are appointed to gouerne Gods Church ) ordained . In which case , to say that euery Christian hath Commission from God , to preach in opposition to such Superiours , is to fasten a contradiction on the Ordinations , or Commissions of God himselfe . And , euen Infidels are not to be conuerted by priuate persons , without due subordination , and either expresse , or interpretatiue leaue from the lawfull Prelates of Gods Church , but neuer with opposition , and disobedience to them .

MOTIVE VIII .

Because Luther to preach against the Masse ( which containes the most materiall points now in controuersy ) was persuaded by Reasons suggested to him by the Diuell himselfe , disputing with him . So himselfe professeth in his Booke de Missa priuata : that all men might take heed of following him , who professeth himselfe to follow the Diuell .

ANSWERE .

Luthers conference with the Diuell might be for ought I know , nothing but a melancholy dreame . If it were reall , the Diuell might persuade Luther from the Masse , hoping by doing so , to keep him constant to it : Or that others would make his dissuasion from it an Argument for it ( as we see Papists doe ) and be afraid of following Luther , as confessing himselfe to haue been persuaded by the Diuell .

REPLY .

That Luthers conference with the Diuell , was no dreame is demonstratiuely proued by (*) (*) Conolus . sect . 7.8.9.10 . Brerely . And though it had been but a dreame , yet this eight Motiue is very strong ; because Luther conceauing it to be a reall Apparition , followed that which according to his conscience proceeded from the diuell ; and so , his action must , by reason of such his conscience ( whether true , or erroneous ) be sinfull , and Diabolicall . Nor could the holy Ghost moue to that action which the party himselfe belieued to proceed from a bad spirit , and yet did not abstaine from it . In his second euasion that the diuell did but dissemblingly dissuade Luther from the Masse , hoping by doing so to keep him and others constant to it , he imitates his Brethren , or rather Progenitours , the Arians ; of whom glorious S. Ambrose writes (o) (o) Serm . 93. de Innent . sorp . S S. Gernasij & Protasij . thus : Dicunt damones martyribus , venistis perdere nos : Ariani dicunt , non sunt daemonum vera tormentae , sed ficta & composita ludibria . The diuels say to the Martyrs , you are come to destroy vs : The Arians say , they are not true torments which the Diuels suffer , but feigned and compacted deceits . Thus also , when the diuels were forced to fly from Iulian the Apostate , who frighted with the sight of them blessed himselfe with the holy signe of the Crosse , a Magician told him , that the diuels sled , not out of feare to the Crosse as they seemed to doe , but in detestation of his signing himselfe with the signe of the Crosse (p) (p) Theod lib . 3. c . 3. But if men may thus be more crafty then the Diuell , in vaine shall we persuade any man hereafter , to fly from that towards which the Diuell tempts him . For , it may be belieued , that the Diuell tempts him to it dissemblingly , to the end he may fly from it : and for the same reason , in vaine haue spirituall men giuen Rules for discerning , whether or no , the motions which we feele in our soules , proceede from a bad spirit . It seemes this man is resolued to spare neither God , nor the Diuell . He told vs before (q) (q) Auswere to the third Motiue . that miracles , which are works proper to God alone , may be intended by him to an End contrary to that , for which they seeme to be wrought : Heere , he charges the Diuell to pretend one thing , and intend another in his persuasions , or temptations . I wish that himselfe be free from belieuing , that men also , may dissemble , euen in matters of Fayth . But because it were a sinne , either to bely the diuell , or deny him his due ; it must be acknowledged , that he spak as he meant , and meant to persuade Luther , and others by his meanes , to reiect and impugne the Masse : and none ought to be blamed for saying , that the Diuell vpon this ground had a chiefe hand in drawing Germany to Lutheranisme , from the ancient Catholicke Fayth , which they had imbraced , by the preaching of S. Boniface , and other Apostolicall holy men .

MOTIVE IX .

Because the Protestant cause is now , and hath byn from the beginning , maintained with grosse falsifications , and calumnies , whereof their prime Controuersy-writers , are notoriously , & in a high degree guilty .

ANSWERE .

Iliacosintra muros peccatur , & extra . Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestams . Euen this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaues , as falsifications and calumnyes .

REPLY .

We may for our part , be content to let him leaue Protestant Writers with the imputation of falsifiers , and calumniatours as he does . But we can giue him no commission , to speake against vs , more then he can proue , or hath any shadow of truth . It is strange that the Directour could possiblily vtter so many falsifications in citing so very few Authours , which , if I mistake not , are about six in all . And I am well assured , that he citeth not any one of those Authours , without hauing first both seen , and pondered the places . And till he proue at least one of those many falsifications , he must not take it ill , if I doe not belieue him . Neuerthelesse , there is a maine difference between Catholiks and Protestants in this particular , though our Writers were granted by vs to be as guilty of this crime , as by him our Aduersaries are . For we do not rely , either vpon our owne vnderstanding , or on the iudgment , and fidelity of any priuate person . But , Protestants , not belieuing any Infallible publike liuing Iudge of Controuersy , must depend very much , on the fidelity of their prime Controuersy Writers , whome this man affirmes , to be notorionsly , & in a high degree guilty of grosse falsifications and calumnies .

MOTIVE X.

Because by denying all humane authority , either of Pope or Councels , or Church , to determine controuersiers of Fayth , they haue abolished all possible meanes of suppressing Heresy , or restoring Vnity to the Church .

ANSWERE .

Let all men belieue the Scripture , and that only , and endeauour to belieue it in the true sense , and require no more of others ; and they shall find this not only a better , but the only meanes to suppresse heresy , & restore vnity . For he that belieues the Scripture sincerely , and endeauours to belieue it in the true sense , cannot possibly be an Hereticke . And if no more then this were required of any man , to make him capable of the Churches Communion ; then all men so qualified , though they were different in opinion , yet notwithstanding any such difference , must be of necessity one in Communion .

REPLY .

The summe of his Answere , is this : Let a man belieue the Scripture , and for the interpretation of it , be guided by himselfe alone , and then there can be no Heresy , but all must be of one Communion . A paradoxe sufficiently confuted , only by being recited . Such a Church of Socinians , will indeed abound with Vnity , or rather singularity , of euery man a part by himselfe : but it can neuer hope to enioy Vnion , or Communion of one with another .

Thus , I hope , the Reader cleerly perceaues , that , as I said in the beginning , Protestants are forsaken in this mans Answers , and grounds layd to introduce a new vnchristian Sect . But yet notwithstanding his contrary intentions , men who haue a feeling care of their owne soules , will see , both the force of his Motiues , and that the Infallibility of Gods Church , & the necessity of a liuing Guide in the way to Heauen , manifestly appeares , by his very Answers and Example , which demonstrate , that whosoeuer relyes not on such a Rocke , must be inconstant in all his wayes .