Primum Meletema.

FIrst of all, this maine ground would be laide, and headilie adverted vnto, in the Frontispice of this Worke: to wit, That the Church is still one and the same, though not alwayes alyke affected; as a man remaineth one and the selfe same man in sicknesse and health. Now from hence the ridiculous follie of these de­mands of our Adversaries appeare of will: to wit, Of the being of our Church before LVTHER; as lykewyse, If shee was in Poprie or not. Certes, Papatus invasit Ecclesiam, Poprie hath invaded the Church: for accidentis est inesse subjecto, but not on the contrarie, subjecti inesse suo accidenti: so that the Church throughout her diverse conditions, before Poprie, vn­der Poprie, and delivered, or come foorth of Babel, is but one [Page 10]and the same, remaining thus one common subject, lyable to diverse alterations; and lyke heerein to the naturall or physicall bodie of man, diverslie affected. Hitherto it is that you see the two witnesses, Revel. 11.3. to bee cloathed in sacke-cloath, ob tristem, videlicet, Ecclesiae statum; and againe, the Angels com­ming foorth with the seaven Plagues, ad sumendum debitas de Antichristo poenas, to be cloathed, in signe of victorie & triumph, sutablie in pure bright linnen, Revel. 15. ob laetum Ecclesiae statum: Now Est of the third adjacent, praesupponeth Est of the second, as they speake in Schooles: And so it remaineth quòd subinde alia, atque alia sit Ecclesiae facies. Whitherto shee is well likened by the Fathers to the Moone, which remaineth one and the same, etiam vel ubi patitur deliquium, even while shee is eclipsed. For closure then, as the Church remained the same even whilst holden in captivitie in that Easterne Babylon; so did shee re­maine one and the same, whilst thralled and enbondaged in that Westerne and mysticall Babylon, &c.

Secundum Meletema.

WEE acknowledge all in common, the Church for the ground and Pillar of the Trueth; the word Pillar heere being taken aright, ratione, scilicet, forensi, and not Architectonicâ (for else all shoud proue confused in that speach of Sainct Paules; as if domus, & id eui innititur do­mus, [Page 11]that is, the Trueth and the Church were one and the same, as our Adversaries heere confound: yea, as if the Church were not built on that foundation of the Prophets, and Apo­stles their doctrine) as lykewyse allusion heere being made, ad domum illam Salomonis totam columnis conspicuam. I leaue to speake of the different interpunction, which as it would cleare all heere, so hath it no little probabilitie, because of the synap­ticke or copulatiue particle, Kaì, in the beginning of the next verse, which would seeme to knit these wordes with some­thing going before, to this sense; That CHRIST, or GOD, manifested in the flesh, is the ground and pillar of the Trueth, & without controversie the great mysterie of godlinesse. But to follow the received interpunction & interpretation, ne crabrones irritemus, it is cleare frō hence, that we must needs acknowledge that pillar for the Church, wherevpon wee find the Trueth ap­pended, since that, ad Ecclesiam, tanquam ad columnam pro­stat veritas; in ea demum comparet; so that from the doctrine, judgement must bee given of the Church, and not on the contrarie. Whitherto Gregorie Nazianzen sayeth well, [...]. Wherefore thus are wee ledde by the hand to institute a tryall, penes quod sit veritas, where and with whom the Trueth is; this proveth in the ende the last analysis or resolution of this quaestion. If I durst make bolde, I would pose our Adversaries heere a little of their judgement, Whether it bee safer and surer worke, with Tertullian, personas ex fide, or on the contrarie, fidem ex personis aestimare: now our Adversaries holde this latter, and so must. needes promiscuouslie receiue the leaven of the Pharisees, because they sit in MOSES Chaire, for sound and true Do­ctrine. That I may make this farther tributarie to the errand in hand, from hence I thus argue demonstratiuelie:

That Trueth which CHRIST and his Apostles taught, wanted never men in all Ages constantlie to professe the same: (for the Trueth could never want witnesses)

[Page 12]But so it is, that which wee holde and teach, is one and the same with that Trueth which CHRIST and his Apostles taught.

Ergo, This our doctrine wanted never men in all Ages to professe the same.

Thus wee bring our Adversaries from the historicall part, to the doctrinall. Alwayes, lest I should seeme heere to de­cline this other part, I must speake a little heereof. Truelie, pudendam & stupendam prodit bîc [...], hee bewrayeth a grosse and inexpiable anistoresie, who denyeth, that there were not still more Christiani, so to speake in opposition, than Papani, more not acknowledging the Pope, and his authoritie, than adhering to him, even before LVTHER, and detection of Poprie by him, throughout the world, as were easie to proue by induction. It is cleare, ex Pauli veneti navigationibus orientalibus, that there were most frequent Christian Churches in those dayes wherein hee wrote, some three or foure hun­dreth yeares since, as apud Indos, ultra & cis Gangen. Amongst the Tartars or Tatars, in Scythia, In utraque Armenia, in Meso­potamia, besides diverse other places. Now the greater part of all these Christians scarse vnderstood so much as by heare­say, of the bare and naked name of the Pope. Againe, in Ae­thiopia, the large and ample extent of the Abyssin Churches is knowne: where if wee should bee pleased to measure the ex­tent but of those Provinces, wee should finde even those alone to exceede farre all those which in Europe acknowledge his holinesse, for-sooth. Further, si adhuc libeat & ad septentrionem exeurrere, we shall find most largelie diffused Churches, as Mos­corum, Ruthenorum, Russorum; yea, yet intra mare Caspium, wee shall sinde many Churches over which the Pope hath not the least power. But that wee may doe etiam supra id quod rogatur; the Europaean Graecians doe no lesse execrate the Pope, than wee doe. They excommunicate him yearelie, they instile him in common, with vs, by the name of Antichrist. I would learne of our Adversaries, what they can say de Anglis, quid de Bobemis, [Page 13]quid de Valdensibus, Albigensibus, of the Wallons of France, who being dispersed diverslie throughout Europe, proseminarunt ea­dem dogmata, sew the same doctrine which Hus, and before him, Wicleff, and after both these, LVTHER but renewed. If wee should bee pleased to repeat and a [...]cesse the Histories but of these Europaean Christians, out of our Adversaries their owne Monuments, who wrote against them in those tymes, wee shall finde the most approved Writers amongst them, eadem ipsis dogmata pro erroribus impingere, to lay the same Dog­maes or pointes to their charge for errours, which wee ac­knowledge and sustaine to day for true Dogmaes, and Arti­cles of Christian Fayth. As for taste; That the Pope of Rome had overwhelmed by the multitude of his Traditions, as by a deludge, the whole Christian Church. Item, that the ex­piatorie Sacrifices for the quicke and the dead were null; That there was no Purgatorie; No merit of works; besides diverse other pointes which they denyed, as, Nundination of Indul­gences, [...], &c. Yea, and whereas amongst the rest of their Articles of the Popish Fayth, this obtained, Te­nendum Imperatorem non immediatè à DEO, sed à Papa potesta­tem accepisse; That it was to bee holden, that the Emperour had not, or helde not his power immediatelie from GOD, but from the Pope and his holinesse, for-sooth; and that these who thought otherwayes, were to bee ranked amongst the Manichaeans, as who thus established two Principles. It is more than notoriously heere knowne, quam acriter insectati hîc Albigenses, how odiouslie they traduced them, etiam hoc nomine, multis ad hoc ridiculis & contumeliosis ad ludibrium confictis nominibus, as is cleare out of the Edicts of Fredericke the second Emperour: as now calling them, by the name of Iosephytes, now of Turripines, now of Picards, now of Lombards, now of Tatars, as it were voyaging men, to wit, from the places through the which they were diverslie dispersed; yea, at last, (ne quid hîc deesset) by the name of Manichaeans. Now you see the traduction of our Church, at least per tempus, tempora, & dimidium temporis: for three hundreth and fiftie years, and even so [Page 14]long before Hus, Hierome of Prague; yea, or Wickleff, let bee LVTHER. Catalogus testium veritatis showeth, ah omni aevo reclamatum doctrinae Pontificiae; and pointeth deicticallie at those who opposed and oppugned the same, and stood for the con­trarie trueth. Nay, let vs but evolue and turne over their Monuments, and wee shall finde store of those who long be­fore LVTHER, diverse ages, not onelie set themselues against that Antichristian doctrine; but suffered for this their opposition most exquisite torments: and quaestionlesse wee should haue had yet farre greater store of such examples, nisi historiarum custodia penes ipsos fuisset, & sic partus Israeliticos vn­dis wersissent.

To winde vp this point: Could this their Church bee then the sole, and the Catholicke Church? Vincentius Lyrinensis defineth [...], quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omni­bus: Now from this my historicall deduction, it is cleare, that Poprie cannot bee sayde to bee such; for it obtained not alwayes: for non ab initio, though it began well tymouslie to bee aworking in the verie Apostles their dayes, albeit well imperceptibly, according to the nature of a mysterie; it ob­tained not everie where, nor amongst all, &c. Nay, you may see from this my discourse, that it was so farre from being sim­plie Catholicke, as that it was not so much as such, but in re­lation, or comparison, &c.

Tertium Meletema.

MEE thinkes it strange, how our Adversa­ries can vrge the visibilitie of the Catho­licke Church: for [...] incurreth not in the sense, Mente non sensu depraehen­ditur, percipitur: sensus quippe est singularium. Againe, the Catholicke Church is an Ar­ticle of Fayth: Now Fides est [...], an evidence of thinges not seene, as the A­postle sayeth, Hebr. 11. vers. 1: and as Sainct AVGVSTINE sayeth, Si vides, non est fides. Whitherto BELLARMINE is driven thus to pronounce heere, De Ecclesia, Lib. 3. Cap. 15. Melius dico in Ecclesia aliquid videri, & aliquid credi: videmus enim eum coetum qui est Ecclesia, sed quod ille coetus sit Ec­clesia, hoc non videmus, sed credimus, &c. Thus to trace heere but our Adversarie, Nihil Ecclesiae formale, aut Ecclesiae, qua talis, constitutivum, vel ipso hic nobis suffragante, astipulante, est visibile aut sensui expositum. The Catholicke Church consi­steth of CHRIST the Head, of the Church triumphing in Heaven, and of this Way-faring and Warre-faring on Earth. Now, who can sustaine to affirme this Church to bee visible? I grant, that the matter prooveth easier with our Adversaries, who haue CHRIST with them bodi­lie still present in the Hostie, for-sooth, vpon the Priestes intention; and the Sainctes and Angles semblablie in their [Page 16]representing Images. Nay, to deale heere well liberallie with our Adversaries, and giue them, that, that which is but the most ignoble part of the Church, which repit or serpit humi, which is but a edolating, exasciating, effigia­ting, or efforming heere but by piece-maile, may bee called by the name of the Catholicke Church. I pray you, may all these particular Churches, so diverslie dispersed throughout the whole world, gathered of every Trybe, Nation, Kin­red, Language, bee together, and at once pointed at by finger? for it is headilie to bee observed, how our Ad­versaries confound in this argument, [...] visibile, & [...] videri; taking [...] visibile, non de potentia, sed de actu, &c. As to that their Palmarie, or maine Argument heere, Quod, cujus par­tes omnes sunt visibles, & ipsum totum tale sit; and so that the Catholicke Church must needs bee visible, because of the visibilitie of all the particulare Churches. Truelie this ar­gument, non tam habet paralogismum, quam sapit, redolet hellebo­rismum; as if all the particulare Churches throughout the world, Locorum intervallis tam dissitae, simul & semel digito notari possent. But to binde our Adversaries heere, I argue thus:

Quod desideratur vel in toto Physico, illud frustra requi­ritur, malè exigitur in to [...]o mystico: That is, What is found wanting, or is not findable in a physi­call bodie, is ill required and sought for in a my­sticall.

But so it is, vel in toto Physico, even in a Physicall bodie, quantitatis, scilicet, ita discre­tae, ut partes longissimis locorum intervallis à sein­vicem distent, partes omnes simul & semel digito notari non possunt.

Ergo, farre lesse is this findable in a mysticall bo­die; yea, in such a bodie, quod simul & continuum & discretum praedicatur esse in Scripturis; as which is na­med by the names of things, quantitatis utriusque, con­tinuae & discretae, as of an House, of a Flocke, &c.

[Page 17]I leaue to show, How the Church may bee called visi­ble, and invisible, in different regards, respectis [...] materialis, or [...] formalis; respectu formae internae, or externae; which ex­ternall forme againe, variis mutationum vicibus ac gyris obnoxia, ac infesta est.

Quartum Meletema.

IF so bee, That the Church may suffer such eclipse, as to her externall forme or visible face, as that shee cannot bee espyed, and dis­cerned, there remaining but a remanent through the election of Grace; then it fol­loweth, that this demand of our Adversaries, Concerning the being of our Church before LVTHER, as to that her externall forme, or visible face, is but idle. But wee may see the possibilitie of this hypothese vnder both the Testamentes: in the dayes of Eli, vnder the olde Testament, 1. King. 19; and in Sainct Pauls time, vnder the newe Covenant, Rom. 11. vers. 5. Then the question turneth to this, to see, When and where this case hath behappened the Church: wherefore, from hence thus I reason:

In the dayes of Eliah, there was a true Church in Israel, which the LORDS owne answere re­turned [Page 18]to Eliah vpon that his complaint, instructeth to the full: except that seaven thousand, Nume­rus definitus pro indefinito, can not make vp a Church with our Adversaries heere, who can cut her shor­ter at tymes to their owne advantage, as in their private Communion:

But so it is, this Church suffered eclipse, as to her outward forme, or visible face: for howe could shee else haue escaped even the sight of the Prophet, cui erant & ad videndum oculi?

Ergo, a Church ceaseth not to bee simplie, whilst eclipsed as to her externall forme, or visible face.

Thus you may perceiue evidentlie, how our Adversa­ries heere deceiue the simpler sort, vrging still the visib­litie of the Church: for what hath alreadie behappened the Church, the same case may againe befall her; and so their quaestion resolveth in the winde.

Our Adversaries heere perceiving and feeling them­selves straited, as touching the Church in Israel, are for­ced to bethinke with themselues of some escape here, whi­therto to haue their refuge; wherefore they grant this to bee true of the Church of Israel, or of Samaria: but they pretende, that there was then a flowrishing Church in Hie­rusalem, vnder the reigne of Asa and Iosaphat, godlie Princes; and so that this instance proveth nothing for the whole Church vnder the Law.

For answere: First, wee alleadge not hitherto that in­stance, that therevpon wee may conclude the generall, or in the generall, of the whole ancient Church vnder the Law; but onlie to proue, that these may suffer, yea, and haue reapse suffered divorce: that is, That a Church may remaine simplie a Church, though eclipsed, as to her ex­ternall [Page 19]policie, outward forme, or visible face; which our Adversaries flatlie deny, because of the errand in hand.

Next: it is sufficient for probation of our Theme, and decyding the quaestion betwixt them and vs, to prooue this of anie particular Church: for why may not the same case befall anie sister Church? So frustra sunt Adversarii; whereas they except, that this alleadged instance by vs prooveth nothing for the Catholicke Church, or for the whole Church vnder the Law: for wee are not so swollen vp, as to acclaime to vs the name of the Catholicke Church, but humblie acknowledge our selues but Daughters of that Mother.

Last, ut dejiciamus eos hoc praesidio, that wee may driue them from this starting hole; I would pose our Adversa­ries, if the Church of Iudah had anie farther Priviledge heere. Truelie, wee may see Iudah to haue surpassed her Sister Samaria in her abhominations; nay, to haue exceeded Sodome, and her daughters, Ezech. 16. yea, wee finde her revolts so generall, as that Prince, Priest, and People, all in common, abandoned the Law of GOD, declined from His service, fell away to Idolatrie, and followed after the same, Ezech. 7. vers. ultino. But because that generals can­not binde, nor worke with our Adversaries, let vs instance the matter more particularlie. Whereas King Ahaz set vp a strange Altar, after the fashion of that of Damascus, in the house of GOD; nay, the Priest himselfe, Vriiah, made it, and set it vp at the wicked Kinges commaundement, and sacrificed therevpon vnto the gods of the Damasconians: yea, last, whereas this wicked King gathered together the Ves­sels of the House of GOD, brake them, and shut vp the doores of the House of the LORD, made him Altars in everie corner of Hierusalem, and in everie Citie of Iudah made high places, to burne Incense vnto other gods, 2. King. 16. Item 2. Chron. 28. vers. 23.24.25. I would pose our Adversaries heere, where was the visible face of the [Page 20]Church of Iudah, whilst Idolatrie thus occupied, and filled the Temple; nay, filled everie corner, and everie high place? And because una birundo non facit ver, I would inquire yet farther, Where was the visible Church of Iudah, whereas Manasseh restored Idolatrie, as lykewyse vnder Amon?

If our Adversaries would except heere, That there re­mained still a Church throughout all those dayes and times, to wit, in some certaine persons, as Prophets, and others of the same note, the answere should prooue easie. The quaestion is not of the Church simplie, for there remaineth still a Church, while there remaine anie two or three, qui Patrem in CHRISTO per Spiritum invocent; but of the Church, as to her externall policie, If shee remaine alwayes so visible, as to her externall forme, as that shee may bee straight discerned, or internosced by the eye, from other companies, whether acclaiming or not acclaiming to them this name: for our Adversaries cannot away, that anie Church receiue the name of a true Church, which is not instructed with this externall policie, furnished with this outward visibilitie, eutaxie, and constitution.

If you could bee pleased, heere to eye a little with mee the Church, throughout her whole marching, from Fami­lies to the Tabernacle, and from thence to the Temple; as lykewyse throughout her whole estate, before the Law, vnder the Law, and vnder Grace; you should see her still to haue suffered eclipses, and deliquies, as to her externall forme, or visible face: so that our Adversaries denying, That a Church can turne invisible, quoad externam' [...], politiam, and yet continue a Church, bewray an inexpiable anistoresie, or ignorance of the sacred historie. Reade you not in the third Chapter of Genesis, of the fall of our first Parents? and at the closure of the fourth Chapter, howe men began to call vpon the Name of the LORD, as Enoch was borne to Seth, which importeth a prior suppres­sion of Religion? How long continued the true Religion [Page 21]vnviolated, Etiam in sanctâ illâ gente, even in that holie po­steritie of SHEM? Were not ABRAHAMS Fathers Idolaters? and himselfe called out of VR of the CHAL­DAEANS, being an Idolater? Againe, Did not the peo­ple followe Idolatrie the space of two hundreth yeares in AEGYPT, without so much as anie open opposite? Eze­chiel 23. Vers. 3. and 19. Heere both the Daughters, IV­DAH as ISRAEL, or SAMARIA, idolatred, and committed Fornication, as is cleare from the alleadged place.

What will our Adversaries say heere, where the whole people idolatred, and worshipped the golden Calfe, etiam ARAONE duce? Exod. 32. For as to that, That MO­SES was free heere, it is nothing: for hee is Ecclesiae, but non Ecclesia. BELLARMINE here affirmeth yet farther; That the whole Levites remained pure, and free from this contagion, because that the whole sonnes of LEVI are sayde to haue gathered themselues vnto him, Vbi ultionem pararet, poenas exigeret Idolomanias illius. For aunswere, BEL­LARMINE playeth the Sophist heere; for the Text ser­veth to show indeede who they were that adjoyned them­selues to MOSES, that they were Levites: but it sayeth not, that the Levites were all to one pure, and free from this contagion; nay, it is not probable, that all the sonnes of LEVI gathered themselues to MOSES: for so, if omnes sese ad ultionem accinxissent, majorem indubiè edidissent stra­gem: for a little after, Habito eorum censu, they are recko­ned foorth about nine thousand. Alwayes the first answere serveth the turne. What can our Adversaries say to their manifolde and most frequent revolts vnder the IVDGES? Nay, What can they possible except heere, whereas wee reade, Iudg. Cap. 8. Vers. 27.33.34. of the generall revolt of the Iudge and people in common, whilst even GIDEON, one of the Iudges, of no slender note, made an Ephod, and put it in EPHRATH his Citie, where all ISRAEL [Page 22]went a-whoring after it: Yea, and not staying heere; af­ter his death, went a-whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-Berith their god?

By the waye heere it is observeable, what aunswere that ARCHI-RABBI BELLARMINE, returneth to this exception of our men: to wit, Of the generall in­veighing of the Prophets, against the generall defection of the whole bodie in common, of the whole people, head and tayle, as it were: to wit, That, that is directed to all, oratorio more, which pertayneth but to the greater part: that is, per [...]. Nowe then, to take but what hee giveth; it holdeth then still true, Ecclesiam deficere saltem se­cundum rationem [...]: or, in respect of the greater part, Aufugiente & subducente se interim muliere in desertum, the Woman taking her flight in the meane time to the Wil­dernesse, ubi à DEO mirabiliter pascitur, rationibus nobis saepe oc­cultis, sibi autem ut notissimis, ita facillimis.

But to come a little nearer: I would learne of our Ad­versaries, Where the visible face of the Church was, where­as CHRIST came into the worlde; If this was to bee measured, ex visibili illa Sacerdotum successione, from that vi­sible succession of the Priestes? Againe, I would vnder­stand heere, What shall bee the visible, or externall forme, or face of the Church, whereas CHRIST shall come to judgement, whiles Hee hath fore-prophesied Himselfe, Hee shall scarse finde Fayth on the Earth? This I vrge onelie, ad sensum currentem. I grant indeede, that there may bee such a visible Church, as our Adversaries require, and holde; to wit, As consisting of members devoyde of Fayth, Hope, and Charitie: for I would haue you to remember heere that of BELLARMINE, de Ecclesiae, Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. ultima, where hee sayeth, Non requiri ad hoc ut quis sit mem­brum Ecclesiae, ut habeat Fidem, Spem, Charitatem. And yet, Si diis placet, this Church shall bee [...]. Where­as the Church rested, as some of themselues even acknow­ledge, [Page 23]in the person of the blessed Virgine, where was then the visible face of the Church?

I would farther pose our Adversaries; If the Kingdome of GOD may not admit and suffer translation, from one Nation to another: nay, and if it hath not indeede suffe­red the same? What follie, or yet madnesse is it then, so pertinaciouslie to pretende heere, That a Church cannot suffer such eclipse, as to her externall forme, as that shee may not bee espyed? Wherefore, to deale a little more presslie here, I would vnderstand, if What hath behappened to anie one part of the Catholicke Church, that is, to this or that particular Church, may not befall another: or else, the reason of the difference heere: But so it is, This or that particular Church may suffer this eclipse, yea, admit this translation, as the Church of EPHESVS, to men­tion it exemplarlie: for, Nonne CHRISTVS hoc ipsum interminatur in Epistolis ad Asiaticas Ecclesias tollam Candelabrum? doeth hee not thus menace the Church of EPHESVS, Revel. Cap. 2. vers. 5. that hee will come against her short­lie, and remooue her Candle-sticke out of his place, ex­cept shee amende? Then it remayneth, That the lyke case may befall anie Church else.

To vse yet a fewe particulare instances, for the fuller and clearer conviction of our Adversaries, Vbi Mahumetis­mus omnia in Oriente obtinuit: nay, Vbi totus orbis ingemuit, & sese Arrianum factum esse, miratus est, ubi visibilis illa Ecclesiae fa­cies quaeso videris? Whereas Mahumetisme obtayned through­out the whole East; nay, and the whole worlde groaned vnder the heavie Yoake, and Burden of Arrianisme, vvhere was the visible face of the Church?

Truelie, there is nothing more certaine, than that there were manie most flowrishing Churches in the East, which are to daye (proh dolor) transformed in Muscetas Mahumetano­rum. Nay, I haue it of those, who had it ex [...], that [Page 24]they saw in Greece manie flowrishing Cities, wherein there was not so much as the least trace of anie Church, nor vestige of anie Christian doctrine: omnia quippe occupaverat Mahumetica colluvies. But lest I might seeme heere, vel è si­nu proferre testem, as is ordinarie with our Adversaries, I sticke not to deferre this to their owne testimonie, or the testimonie to themselues. I pray you then, what letteth mee to reason heere, by way of Analogie, and so con­clude, That what hath behappened this or these particu­lar Churches, may befall others their Sisters, nothing more heere priviledged against the same danger?

That wee may come yet nearer, and strike home, let mee demande of our Adversaries, Whether or not the Church vnder Grace should haue her flight to the Wilder­nesse, and that with Eagles wings, not onlie for pernicitie in flying, but for continuing of the flight, in respect of tract of tyme, and so lurke there for a goodlie space? I hope our Adversaries dare not so farre foorth rubbe their fore-heads heere, as openlie to disavow this, the Scripture beeing heere so expresse and formall. Now, this beeing laide, the answere to the maine quaestion prooveth easie: Our Church was lurking in the Desert, fleeing the perse­cution of the Dragon; as that Church of Israel lurked vn­der that persecution of Achab and Iezabel. Nay, this affor­deth vs an infallible demonstration for vs, and against our Adversaries, to this sense:

That must needs bee the true Church, which ac­cording to Sainct Iohns prophesie, hath had her flight to the Wildernesse: But so it is, such onlie is ours, and not theirs, according to their owne confession and concession, whereas they stand to the constant visibilitie thereof. Ergo, with vs still is the true Church.

[Page 25]Thus, who seeth not, except a borne-blinde, that our Adversaries wrong their cause mightilie, through impru­dencie, or impudencie; whereas they contende, That their Church was not onlie visible, but still actuallie seene? for, differunt haec duo, quantum actus & potentia, adeoque non statim de­sinit esse visibile, quod non actu videtur; it ceaseth not straight to bee visible, which is not actuallie seene: which our Ad­versaries still confound in this argument; as who deny straight the visibilitie of a Church, except shee may bee still actuallie pointed at by the finger: as if the Sunne cea­sed to bee visible, whiles the sight thereof is intercepted from vs, by the interjection of a Cloude; or through the weaknesse of our seeing facultie, vnseene of vs.

Thus you see, how variable a Church is, and may bee, us to her outward policie; so that our Adversaries haue heere no just matter offered them of offence, whereas tra­cing heerein the Fathers, in whose words else they sweare, yea, their fayth resolveth, wee liken the Church to the Moone, propter varios, labores, defectus, eclipses, deliquia. Hi­therto Sainct AUGUSTINE, Ipsa est quae aliquando obscu­ratur, & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum; aliquando tranquillitate temporis quieta & libera apparet: aliquando tribulatio­num & tentationum fluctibus operitur atque turbatur. But let vs heare the Church of her selfe, and for her selfe, Micab, Chap. 7.8. Rejoyce not against mee, O mine Enemie; though I fall, I shall aryse: when I shall sit in darknesse, the LORD shall bee a light vnto mee, &c. Heere this is spoken in the per­son of the Church, which calleth the malignant Church her enemie. Now [...] praesupponeth [...], or, Est of the third adjacent, Est of the second. Then the true Church may fall, and sit in darknesse. Hitherto reade we, Isaiah, Chap. 1. vers. 8, where the Daughter of Zion is like­ned to a Cottage in a Vine-yarde, to a Lodge in a Gar­den of Cucumbers, and to a besiedged Citie, &c. which if committed with these other places importing, at least [Page 26]poynting at her conspicuitie and visibilitie, serue to shew foorth her variablenesse, and shadowing by turning.

I know, that our Adversaries except against the former part of my Discourse; where I concluded from the Iewish Church to the Christian, because of the great oddes heere, and diverse priviledges of the Christian Church aboue the Iewish: wherefore, it standeth vs vpon, to eye a little in­to these alleadged Priviledges, as wee would haue my prior Discourse to remayne in its full vigour.

The Priviledges of the Christian Church aboue the Iewish, at least alleadged vnto in this Argument, I finde in speciall to bee these two: The first, The vniversalitie of the one, aboue the other; and this to this sense, As that there is no salvation without the Christian, but was not so of the Iewish. The seconde is, That the Christian hath farre fayrer and larger promises made to her.

As to the first, taken from the vniversalitie of the Chri­stian Church, lest they might seeme heere to stand but to a bare and naked Assertion, they thus instance the matter, from Iob, and some yet from Melchisedecke.

That I may proceede heere the more orderlie, first I will treate a little in the generall of the whole matter, and then come to the particulare exceptions, and their proba­tions.

To the generall then, I would first inquire and learne of our Adversaries, Whether the Church vnder the Law, and vnder Grace, bee two different Churches, or but one and the same in matter and substance, though differing in respect of the externall scheme or Vesture, Iewish or Christian; as still the grace dispensed vnder both the Covenantes, was but one and the same, the manner of dispensation but varying.

Next, I would vnderstand, Whether or not, Eadem fit analogia partium similarium; so that what behappeneth anie [Page 27]one part, may befall another: and so all in common are lyable to the same dangers? Last, the Apostle vvideth this pro­cesse heere to our advantage, Rom. 11. where hee showeth, That the Christian Church of the Gentiles is capable of ex­cision, incase shee persevere not; as was the Iewish Syna­gogue: nay, hee reasoneth from rhe more to the lesse.

Now, to the particular exceptions: As to the first, I avouch, That the Iewish Church ceedeth not the least heere to the Christian; and, That without her, there was no sal­vation. For proofe heereof, besides diverse other passages making heerevnto, let vs advise the Apostle, Ephes. Cap. 2. Vers. 11.12; where wee shall see what is his construction of the vncircumcision, during that their state: to wit, Peo­ple without CHRIST, aliants from the Common-wealth of ISRAELL, strangers from the Covenants of Promise; yea, without hope, and without GOD in the worlde. From hence thus I reason:

If there was anie salvation for those of the vn­circumcision, or for those without the Iewishe Church, (for Circumcision was their Sacrament of Initiation) then was there salvation for people without CHRIST, for aliantes from the Com­mon-wealth of ISRAELL, for strangers from the Covenants of Promise, yea, for people with­out hope, and without GOD in the world.

But I hope our Adversaries dare not averre that there was, or could bee, anie sal­vation for such.

Ergo, There was no Salvation, or yet could bee, without the Iewish Church.

As to the instances, from which they goe about to in­stance this exception in the particular, of Iob and Melchi­sedecke; first of the first: I grant indeede, that it were well [Page 28]hard divining about the tyme, or of the tyme, wherein Iob lived: but even from off of this vncertaintie I collect, That this instance drawne from his person, cannot prooue of great force, and demonstratiuelie conclude this their point. Next, giving hee lived vnder the Law, and yet was not circumcised, were it safe argumenting thus to reason from one particular exemple, against the constant tenour of the whole Scriptures, denying salvation to those who were not inrolled amongst the people of GOD by Circumci­sion? Yet, if it should not offende, I would gather for my selfe, that hee was so farre from living in the dayes of Moses, that at the least hee lived before Abraham, out of the last of his Booke, at the vp-shot, from that his age, where it is sayde, And after this lived IOB an hun­dreth and fourtie yeares, and saw his sonnes, and his sonnes sonnes, even foure generations, &c. Now, what convenient tyme can wee assigne to him before this? If we assigne to him but some fiftie or sixtie yeares, his whole dayes shall amount to some two hundreth yeares, or there-about. Now wee see not anie in the dayes of MOSES to haue come neare this age; nay, wee reade not of anie after ABRAHAM that came to such: yea, hee lived not so long himselfe. Last, the whole narratiue of his historie would seeme to make him more ancient than MOSES. But I take not vpon mee to define ought heere; onelie I would showe, that our Adversaries can argument but well weakelie, from so slender and so vncertaine a warrand.

As to the other instance of MELCHISEDECK, I am ashamed so much as to mention it but the least: for hee is sayd expreslie To haue blessed ABRAHAM before his Circumcision, or receiving of the seale of the aliance or Covenant, and To haue teethed LEVI in ABRAHAMS loynes. Truelie, magnum hic [...], hiatus multus be­twixt MELCHISEDECK and MOSES; wherefore, this instance is altogether [...], or impertinent.

[Page 29]Our Adversaries beeing now thus deboutted from their first Exception, let vs see into the seconde, if it bee of anie greater force, which concerneth the Priviledge of Pro­mises.

I would learne of our Adversaries, If the LORD tendered lesse that His Church vnder the Law, than Hee doeth this vnder Grace? and, If the Promises were not semblablie made to her, as to the Christian Church, by GOD, of His gracious assistance and praesence? Hîc hae­ret iis aqua, the Apostle beeing so expresse: For amongst the manie Priviledges of the IEW aboue the GENTILE, Rom. Cap. 9. hee reckoneth this as one, That vnto them the Promises were made. Nay, the Apostle Sainct PE­TER, in the seconde Chapter of the Actes of the Apo­stles, at the thirtie and ninth Verse, witnesseth disertlie, That the Promises first and especiallie concerned the IEWES, and the GENTILES but in the next rowme: For the Promise is made vnto you, and to your Children, and vnto all that are afarre off, even as manie as the LORD our GOD shall call, &c. Did not one and the selfe same Spirit, still in­forme this one and the same mysticall bodie?

Quintum Meletema.

THat wee may the more happilie verse in this businesse, and travell in this matter, we would heere headilie distinguish betwixt the essen­tiall and integrant partes of a Church: for a Church may remaine and consist, whiles constant ei sua essentialia, though lamed or maimed in respect of her partes integrant; (I know the integrant partes to receiue their subdivision heere, into those which are more or lesse principall, or into the prin­cipall and secundarie partes) as it is with a naturall or yet artificiall bodie: so that it followeth not straight, That a Church ceaseth to bee there, where shee is not visible; but onlie this, That shee is not quoad sua integrantia: so that shee ceaseth onlie to bee in a certaine regarde, remaining alwayes simplie a Church, quantisper constant ei sua essentialia, supersunt duo aut tres Patrem in CHRISTO per Spiritum in­vocantes, there remaine vocatio activa & passiva, which are the essentials of a Church.

It resteth then, that the want of externall policie, or outward visibilitie, praevaileth not so farre, as to abolish simplie a Church. But yet as to this, wee deny not, but that it ought to bee de jure: But the quaestion is de facto; and of the force of this actuall want, if it bee such, as prooveth destructive of the subject simplie, and not in a certaine regard onlie, &c.

Sextum Meletema.

AS to the promises made by CHRIST to his Church throughout the Gospel, they would bee vnderstood aright; which are indeede heere misvnderstood, and miscon­ceived by our Adversaries: for they draw straight whatsoever promise is made to the whole bodie of the Church in common, to the Romane Church, [...]; nay, and require the accomplish­ment and fulfillment of the same, in everie particular Church, or in everie part of the whole. Now, from hence it is cleare, that this consequence is verie inconsequent, that the Church ceaseth simplie to bee visible, because this or that particular Church, or yet both, are devoyde of this visibilitie: for first, the Church may bee visible elsewhere: and next, the Church may remaine even there where shee is eclipsed of her visibilitie, to wit, as to her essentials.

Againe, our Adversaries yet deceiue heere, whilst they tye these promises of CHRIST, as De firmitate Petrae, De continua spiritus sui assistentia, and others of the same note, to the externall forme of the Church; and so will haue them onelie to concerne that externall Policie: for so CHRIST should cease to bee the Head of His Church, [Page 32]and to His Church; whereas the Woman subduceth her selfe, and taketh her flight to the Wildernesse, and lurketh there. Thus that House-holder, Matth. Chap. 21. Vers. 33.34. should haue casten off all care of his Vine-yarde, whiles hee letteth it foorth to those wicked and perfidious Hus­band-men. Nay, did not CHRIST well often subduce Himfelfe? Did hee not take Him to flight, even praesentlie and immediatlie after His birth and nativitie? Fled Hee not into AEGYPT, and abode there till the death of HE­ROD? and yet the Father hath appointed Him over all things, to be the head to the Church, Ephes. Chap. 1. vers. 22.

Thirdlie, our Adversaries fraudem hic faciunt, yea, fu­cum manifestissimum, whereas they reason so in this matter, as if the holie Spirite wrought so in this mysticall bo­die, ad modum agentis naturalis, non voluntarii, as a naturall agent, and not voluntarie: for if this were the manner of the Spirites operation in the government of this mysticall bodie, then there could bee no place left for sinne in the will, more than for errour in the mynde; there should bee no place left whether for vertue or vice, for merites, or deme­rites; there should bee no further two principles in man; hee should no farther carrie about a double man, the olde and the new man: for nature worketh still after one con­stant tenour, actiones naturales sunt uniformes; they admit no relaxation, no intension or remission. The Spirite then worketh in this mysticall bodie, as a voluntarie agent, and so admeasureth foorth according to his owne pleasure, se­cundum oeconomiam consilii sui non nostri arbitrii; as lykewyse, ad modum receptivitatis subjecti, as wee learne to speake. And last, GOD even so worketh in the workes of Grace, ut causas secundas etiam proprios suos motus exerere & exercere sinat, as Sainct Augustine sayeth well, de Civitate DEI, Lib. 7. Cap. 30. From whence it is, that the action sapit ac rede­let proximum canalem, tubulum, siphunculum.

Our Adversaries reason so heere, as if the Spirit not [Page 33]onlie wrought as a naturall agent, but as if hee should to­gether, and at once, agere & peragere, worke and persite this worke, which were foolish to vrge in nature; as if Trees should come at the first to their perfection, as if men behoved to bee perfect at their first birth, &c.

Truelie the Spirit of GOD is still a-working; agit quidem continuò, sed non simul peragit & perficit omnia, semper hîc locus aedificationi; then shall the Church bee stayed before her immortall Husband perfect, Vbi celebrabuntar nuptiae Ag­ni, ubi deducetur in domum mariti; till then her face shall not want its wrinkles, nor shall all teares bee wiped from her eyes.

Last of all, those promises made by GOD to his Church, whilst considered in relation to vs, are not to bee conceived as absolute, but conditionall, scilicet, Si manseritic in sermone meo; Si servaveritis mandata meae.

Our Adversaries heere quite mistake this point, while as they gather, that GOD cannot but continuallic assist this or that particulare Church, because of that promise made in generall to the whole bodie in common, Ego sum vobiscum, &c. Matthew the last. Howsoever shee car­rie her selfe, shee hearken and followe the voyce of the Brydgroome, or not, &c.

Septimum Meletema.

WHereas Sainct PAUL answering for himselfe, Acts, 24. to that accusation of TERTULLUS the Oratour layde foorth against him ad longum, allead­geth to this, That hee worshipped the God of his Fathers, after that way which they called Heresie; which hee could not meane of his immediate ido­latrous Fathers, but of his mediate Fa­thers, yea, of ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and IAAKOB: there is no matter, Wherefore our Adversaries should here construe so hardlie of this, as a sillie effuge on our part, if wee should bee pleased to vse this answere amongst others, peradventure more pressing, That wee worship the God of our Fathers, after that way which our new Phari­sees call Heresie, meaning by our Fathers heere, CHRIST and His Apostles. What letteth heere, why wee may not by way of Analogie thus repart to the quaestion, Of our Church her beeing before LVTHER, or, Of the beeing of our Religion, since the distance is farre lesse heere be­twixt vs and them, than was that Chasme or Gulfe of two thousand yeares betwixt ABRAHAM and PAUL?

Octavum Meletema.

A Church ceaseth not to bee visible, (though not still obvious, and exposed to their sight, who either haue not eyes to see, or else animum tantum ad infestandum, odii scilicet glau­comate excaecati, haue but a mynde to infest her: nay, albceit shee escape even the sight of the sharper sighted,) more than that there ceased to bee a Church in ISRAEL in the dayes of ELIAH, whereas hee complained, that hee was left alone, and so could not see into that great number which the LORD had reserved to himselfe, and preserved from bowing of the knee to BAAL: So to speake heere accommodatè ad subjectum, albeeit that that ANTICHRIS­TIAN smoake before LVTHER over-whelmed so the Temple for a space, that it could not bee discerned, and pointed at by the finger; it followeth not from hence, that either there was no Temple, or yet that there were no witnesses therein, though it seemed so generallie and commonlie, albeit perhaps not vniversallie, shut altogether, because of that thicke mist of superstition hanging over it, and overclouding it. Hitherto you see, Revel. Chap. 15. vers. 5. how Sainct JOHN subjoyneth straight his vision of the open Temple, to those his other visions of AN­TICHRISTS tyrannie. So it resteth, that the LORD [Page 36]had still an open Temple notwithstanding of whatsoever ANTICHRISTS Tyrannie and Power; albeit this Temple latebat canes illos venaticos, and was not obvious, and exposite to these Inquisitours. CHRIST ceaseth not to bee that true Light, licet tenebrae non compraehendant hanc lucem, though darkenesse comprehend it not, &c. Lucerna lucet sed iis qui sunt in domo. It is not simplie necessarie, that al­wayes it diffuse its light to those that are without: where­as CHRISTS Disciples shut themselues vp for feare of the people; noti erant & visi sibi invicem, they were knowne and seene one to another: though they escaped there the sight of those, who onelie had mynds to persecute them.

Nonum Meletema.

BVt if it please you, let vs retort the Argu­ment heere, and demand our Adversaries, Where is your Church in SCOTLAND ENGLAND and the LOW-COUN­TREYS? I hope the Catholicisme of their Church may not suffer them to de­ny, That they haue one heere. Now, if they affirme, That they haue one heere, let vs regest, atqui nullum sub­latum vexillum, they haue no publicke, open, or avowed Mi­nistrie heere, no visible face of a Church. Then, as they must needs grant, That their Church lurketh heere, why [Page 37]will they not suffer vs, vsing the same libertie, to say, That our Church ceased not to bee simplie, even whereas shee lurked, patrum nostrorum memoria, vnder Antichrists persecu­tion, more than theirs ceaseth to bee with vs to day?

For closure, It would bee headilie heere adverted vn­to, howe our adversaries heere reason and conclude ab au­thoritate, negativè, Vestra Ecclesia non fuit visibilis, ergo non fuit; which argutation, rather than argumentation, non recto stat talo, aut ingreditur pede; as which deceiveth [...].

Decimum Meletema.

WHereas the current of the ordinarie Voca­tion is intercepted, or interrupted through the iniquitie of tyme, licet hic DEO aliquid extra ordinem, the LORD may heere ex­traordinarilie stirre vp men to the redinte­gration of this broken-off worke, as the storie of the olde Church, both vnder the Iudges and Kings, may instruct to the full. I would inquire of our Adver­saries, Vbi interruptus fuit ille syndelechismus (notius est hîc illud institutum DAVIDIS, 1. Chron. 24. quàm ut necessum habeam illud commemorare?) whereas the daylie Sacrifice was broken off, from whence was the redintegration or reformation heereof to bee expected? If from GOD heere extra or­dinem, by stirring vp men for his owne worke; or if ab ip­sis [Page 38]deformatoribus? and if even those praebuerunt sese instaurandae religionis administros, and so reparation was made even by those, who in common had miscarried (which case who dare sustaine to denye to haue behappened?) whether or not GODS Hande is to bee acknowledged heere singularlie? Thus there were no danger heere, if wee should bee pleased to recourse to this helpe of extraordi­narie vocation: for the LORD hath one and the same right still, and may alwayes dispose of his Church as plea­seth him best, vnder Grace, as vnder, or yet before the Law. But this were but frustra, or in vaine on our parte, ubi nulla cogit necessitas, &c.

XI. MELETEMA.

THE Calling even of those our men, vvhich our Adversaries singularlie aime at, at least produce exemplar­lie, as of LVTHER, was ordina­rie quoad ortum, as to his separation to the worke, or to the Gospell; though extraordinarie in some regard, as of those heroicall motions, where­by hee was stirred vp, matters so standing, to attempt a Reformation. So here we may distinguish betwixt [...], and [...], respectu [...], his Calling was ordinarie; but respectu [Page 39] [...], it was extraordinarie; not so much in respect of the Calling in it selfe, but relatè ad subjectum, in relation to the person called: for as the Apostle Sainct Paul sayeth, 1. Cor. Cap. 4. Vers. 7. Quis te discernit? so to trace our Ad­versariee heere, who separated LVTHER? Truelie, ubi corpus in commune laboraret, whereas the bodie was affected in common, this his separation, not to the worke simplie, wherevnto hee had an ordinarie calling; but in a certaine respect, to wit, in regarde of a greater measure of puritie in the worke, was, and may bee called extraordinarie.

I say of LVTHER, That hee had an ordinarie Cal­ling to the worke it selfe, if so bee that there was anie ordinarie vocation with our Adversaries for the time: for doe they not acknowledge this, whilst they arcesse vs of secession; which praesupponeth and subinferreth a prior vnion, and being amongst them? except, as it prooveth in­deede well ordinarie with them, they holde quod vnum rela­torum possit esse absque altero; quod sublato fundamento, locus queat esse termino, as yee may see, In that matter of their Vtopicke Purgatorie, In the retention of the punishment, the fault beeing remitted and pardoned; as if there could bee possi­blie anie place condemnationi & morti, or judicio, ubi reatus nul­lus, condemnamentum nullum, which the Apostle maketh as consequents, and after-effects. Nay, which is yet farther, though wee should simplie grant of the calling of our first men, that it were extraordinarie quoad ortum; the function should not cease from hence to bee ordinarie: for ortus ex­traordinarius may giue beginning functioni ordinariae; as may bee instanced in Aarons Priesthood, which was an ordina­rie function, though as to the spring, extraordinarie: for as to Moses parte, it was no creation, but renunciation; hee created not, or made him Priest, but simplie renoun­ced him for Priest, and declared him to bee such.

And last, whereas our Adversaries require fayth to bee made to the extraordinarie vocation of our first men, by [Page 40]some miracle, or extraordinarie signe; truelie if wee eye the matter aright, nec hoc defuit, neither was this wanting: for I pray you whilst they confesse and acknowledge, that so few in number, so obscure in qualitie, bore out this worke so mightilie against so great opposition, doe they not im­prudentlie thus acknowledge GODS hand warranding this his owne calling heere miraculouslie? for quis hic tam [...], cujus sensus hoc non feriat, afficiat?

XII. MELETEMA.

TÒ ordinarium is to bee considered two man­ner of wayes: first, for that which is agree­able to that order at the first established by GOD himselfe: and secondlie, for that which through an inveterated custome hath commonlie obtained. Now, as to that vo­cation obtaining with vs to day, it is ordinarie, as to the first acception of the word ORDINARIE, and may indeede bee called againe extraordinarie in some regarde, the word being taken in the latter acception: as theirs is lykewyse in part ordinarie, and in part extraordinarie; I say in part: for you would remember, that even in that Po­pish [Page 41]Ordination, traditur ordinato codex Evangelii, vocatur ad prae­dicandum Evangelium, non simpliciter ad sacrificandum CHRIS­TVM. Wherefore, as our Adversaries heere checke vs in­to those words of Sainct PAUL, Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus: so if the Apostles Patres Patrum were aliue, they should not faile to except them by, the like checke, in eadem verba, Nos talem consuetudinem non habuimus.

XIII. MELETEMA.

WEE haue not made the least secession from the Church of ROME, neither as shee is a Church, nor yet as such, to wit, ga­thered at ROME: for as to this last, there is no evill in the word ROMA­NA; for fides Romanorum praedicata fuit per universum orbem: and would to GOD wee had that ancient ROME, whiles shee kept the Trueth in sinceritie; but onelie from her as shee is Papana, or ra­ther, that wee may secerne heere secernenda, à Papatu, from this accident, and not from the subject; which is but a betaking of vs from a foule place to a cleaner, and not an egression out of the Church simplie, (which phrase [Page 42]cannot bee vsed properlie, except ROME, which is but a sister-Church, and collaterall, were the sole Mother-Church) or a secession from the same; for a secession sub­inferreth, nay, praerequireth, and praesupponeth a prior vnion. Now Papatus and Ecclesia, Poprie and the Church make vp but one, as a subject doth with its common ac­cident, as Hydrops and homo doe. So the secession of our first men from Poprie within the Church, was not proper­lie or simplie a secession; but this their foorth-comming, whiles the bodie was in common affected, was rather ter­minatiue of a prior secession or common defection.

From hence, it might seeme but needlesse, (if I might speake it with reverence of greater and better judgements,) to seeke so carefullie to the just causes of our secession, to wit, the Heresie, Idolatrie, and Tyrannie of the Romane Church, or in the Romane Church, whereas the ground it selfe, or the secession, is justlie denyable. Now, non entis nulla sunt accidentia.

XIIII. MELETEMA.

WHereas our Adversaries suffer not that to bee called Rebaptization, whilst they super­adde de suo, their toyish assumentes to that Baptisme conferred by our men: as hereby acknowledging the Baptisme in it selfe to be valide and lawfull, quòd viz. simus in ministe­rio, si non ministri, as the matter and quaestion was cleared and decided about BARBARIUS PHILIPPUS his acts of Praetorship, that they were to bee holden rata & grata, and not to bee rescinded, quòd fuerit in praetura, licet non praetor; nay, and as the case I hope holdeth de Ioanna Papista, who was in Papatu, though not Papa: and sembla­blie, whilst it falleth out, that an Hereticke, nay, a Magi­tian, or Necromancier possesseth the Chaire, which cases haue proven possible, as the Councels can beare vs heere record.

Now, that I may reason hence by way of Analogie, vsing the lyke libertie; Why may they not suffer the vo­cation and ordination obtaining with vs, goe for current, Cum nostri ordinatores fuerint saltem in ministerio, si non ministri? Or, I pray you, is Ordination of greater weight and im­portance than Baptisme? Or, may Baptisme bee conferred [Page 44]and administred by anie not instructed with commission? May these but suffer the least divorce, which CHRIST Himselfe hath thus coupled, MATTHEW the last, Ite, Do [...]te, Baptizate? Certes, mee thinkes it strange, how our Adversaries so farre foorth miscarrie heere, as to permit to Laickes the administration of this blessed Sacrament; yea, farther, acknowledge it lawfull, whilst conferred but in sporte and merriment, and that not in the ordinarie ele­ment thereof, appointed by CHRIST, but in sand, yea, and but by Children. Truelie, horret animus, yea, tre­munt artus, whilst I but shew quàm impiè hîc ludant in re tam seria.

To make collection to the errande in hande, If our men may baptize, Or, if the Baptisme conferred by them bee valide and effectuall, then they may teach, & haue the warrand of Ite, are instructed with commission; and so from the first to the last, viget inter nostros vocatio, vel ipsis hic Ad­versariis nobis suffragantibus astipulantibus, &c.

XV. MELETEMA.

IN that Vocation or Calling obtayning with our Adversaries, and which our men brought from thence with them, (giving wee had our Calling of them) these three acts are distinctlie to bee considered; GODS owne act, penes quem summum vocandi jus, ac mittendi imperium, and from whome is that inward Calling; next, The Church her act, from which as GODS Instrument in this worke is that externall, or outward Calling; The third is of the Church popishlie af­fected, or of the Pope his act, and of his Bond-slaues, from whence is vitium Vocationis, or that faultinesse and vitio­sitie in the Calling. Nowe, this last cannot [...], or make devoyde, and of null effect and force the two [...]; so that there remayneth still a Calling amongst our Adversaries, though well vitious. Thus whereas our men came as it were foorth from amongst them, they but renounced this latter parte, constantlie retayning quod DEI erat, & quod Ecclesiae.

It is to bee adverted heere, That wee traduce not even those Ordinations obtayning to daye with our Adversaries pro nullis, sed pro vitiosis; as wee acknowledge a Church [Page 46]with them, whiles the matrimoniall Tables are not rent, or repeated, nor a Bill of divorce given, ubi libellus repudii? as it fared with the adulterous ISRAELITES, they con­tinued GODS people even after their manie adulteries and spirituall whoredomes: I say, that wee acknowledge their Church as veram Ecclesiam, though not veracem, as a true Church, in regard of a Physicall veritie, though not of an Ethicall veracitie.

Alwayes, it is to bee considered headilie, howe the case heere altereth, whilst their ordinations are not so much as warrandable by their owne Canons, as whereas they deferred orders to Idiots and Children: for heere non habe­mus hujusinodi ordinationes pro vitiosis, sed pro nullis: for the lawfulnesse of the Cheirothesie dependeth from the law­fulnesse of the praeceeding Cheirotonie, and not on the contrarie, this from that other; the signe beeing suspended from the matter, and not the matter from the signe.

XVI. MELETEMA.

WHere-as there concurre and occurre some three actes even in that Voca­tion obtayning with our Adversaries, and so in that Calling which our first men brought from thence; so the concurrence and occurrence of the same are necessarie to a lawfull de­position: for the same must occurre and concurre to a lawfull destitution, which to the prior institution. For exemple, Where King­domes come by election, the same consentes are required to a Kings destitutione, which to his prior institution in Regem; and else, to meddle with the sacred person of a King, is to touch and meddle with the LORDS anoynted: yea, and to faile and fault even against the Law of Na­tions. These are hitherto; to meete heere with our Ad­versaries, excepting, that wee haue losed by excommunica­tion, what right wee had from amongst them formerlie by anie vocation. Certes, the Pope heere cannot [...], or make of no force, neither quod DEI est, nor yet quod Ecclesiae. Nay, in common, and promiscuous marriages, multa quae impediunt contrahendum, non dirimunt contractum. A­gaine, without the concurrence and occurrence of the whole actes in the destitution, which occurred and concurred to [Page 48]the prior institution, the proceedure is well summarie and vnformall, as I hope is cleare from the instanced exemple. I leaue to speake of the ground of the excommunication, according wherevnto judgement must bee given of the ex­communication it selfe; where it feareth mee, the matter hath proceeded clave errante. As lykewyse, quod non statim rumpatur interius illud spiritus coagulum, vbi rumpitur exterius il­lud vinculum; giving that a sister-Church, to wit, the Romane Church, could haue lawfullie sentenced vs, where-about sub judice lis est.

XVII. MELETEMA.

WHereas out of the common Colledge of Presbyters, or Elders, one began to bee praefected over the rest, and bee singular­lie so called by the name of BISHOP, (I dispute not heere, whether this Bee ju ris divini, or positivi) [...], or the act of Ordination, or matter it selfe remained common, solâ [...], or ritu ordinandi manente penes Episcopum singulariter, the sole Rite or externall signe of ordination being appro­priated to the BISHOP singularlie.

[Page 49]But no, not even then, whereas this custome first ob­tained, and was in its greatest vigour, [...], was the Rite or the externall signe [...], scilicet, solelie pro­per to the Bishops so called in opposition, as that it was not administred and peracted by Presbyters; as the Fa­thers heere, Sainct AMBROSE and AUGUSTINE, beare vs recorde; and ALEXANDRIA and AEGYPT can beare witnesse, where consignabant, or consecrabant & Pres­byteri: for the one vseth the word Consignandi, as the other Consecrandi. Nay, seeing it cannot bee denyed, actum ordi­nandi, rem ipsam, scilicet, [...], which is the greater part, mansisse penes & Presbyteros, what letteth why that which is but the lesser part, the signe or the bare and naked Rite, may not remaine common to Presbyters with Bishops so called antitheticallie? for cui competit quod majus est eidem ad­scribi nil vetat quod minus est, modo sint ejusdem generis: but the gendre is still kept, &c.

It standeth vs vpon yet a little to eye more nearlie in­to this matter, because of our Adversaries. Sainct CHRY­SOSTOME, posing the quaestion cur Apost. ad Philip. trans­eat ab Episcopat [...] ad Diaconatum, nullo relicto loco intermedio [...] Presbyterorum, thus answereth the matter, Quod [...], that the order is but one and the same: and straight subjoyneth, quòd eadem conveniant Presbyteris, quae Episcopis, [...], sayech hee, to the one which to the other: nay, which is yet farther, hee speaketh more peremptorilie to the matter, and sayth positiuelie, that the Bishops heerein wrong the Presbyters, That they appro­priate this singularlie to themselues, [...]. I know this place to bee wrested to the contrarie, to the establish­ment of this their praerogatiue, as if the same were the force of the word heere in composition, which it carrieth, whilst resolved in its pure simples, whereas [...], [Page 50] cum Chrysostomo, beareth this other signification, which is quite contrarie. And lest this might seeme but an ydle Grammati­cation, not having anie foundation in the trueth, I pray you obserue with mee the vse of this word in sacred Scrip­ture; as I. Thess. Chap. 4. Vers. 6. [...], ne quis opprimat aut circumveniat fratrem suum in negotio, &c.

I forbeare heere to meddle with that idle difference, so hotlie and contentiouslie tossed and agitated amongst vs to day, Whether a Bishop bee greater, than a Presbyter, In­stitutione Dominica, or dispositione Ecclesiastica; whereas it were farre safer, privatas has simultates deponere, quò melius reipub. Chri­stianae in communi possemus consulere; yea, and where frustra con­tentiosum funem ducimus: as who may agree in the matter, without great prejudice to the trueth, scilicet, that the or­der is but one and the same, admitting alwayes a dispari­tie or difference of degree [...]; and this not ab­solute or simple, but relatiue or respectiue ad [...], ac­cording to the different measure of graces and gifts in the LORDS worke-men, and sutablie to CHRISTS institution, who gaue some to bee Apostles, and some Evangelists, and so foorth. Nay, according to that see­ming, at least subinsinuated and implyed difference, or dis­paritie amongst the Apostles, where some are called [...], besides some other names to this same purpose, importing, at least bewraying a distinction.

But to the matter againe vnde digressi you see howe Sainct HIEROME prooveth this power of Ordination to bee common to Presbyters with Bishops, by an argu­ment taken from the more to the lesse. Quod qui possunt corpus CHRISTI conficere, possint & Presbyterum creare; ex­cept (forsooth) it bee more to consigne a Presbyter, than to create our owne Creator. To this same sense and pur­pose I would pose our Adversaries heere a little, possuntne [Page 51]Presbyteri, so called antitheticallie, or in opposition, Christia­num efficere, or baptizare? I take these for one ex bypothesi ad bominem; for our Adversaries holde and maintaine, quod per Baptismum character indelebilis imprimatur, That by Baptisme an indelible character is imprinted. Now, there is none who can deny, but that this latter may bee adscrybed to anie Gregarie Presbyter; Ergo, the first may bee saide to bee no lesse competent vnto him.

As to those places of the Apostle, where this seemeth singularlie to bee adscrybed vnto one, they are to bee ta­ken communiter, or in common to bee vnderstood: for non statim de caeteris negatur, quod de uno praedicatur; yea, heerefore what the Apostle seemed singularlie to haue taken and ac­claymed vnto himselfe in the one place, 2. Timoth. Chap. 1. Vers. 6, hee showeth plainlie ao haue bene common to the whole Eldership, 1. Timoth. Chap. 4. Vers. 14.

I feare to wade anie farther in this point: for non nise caute incedendum per ignes suppositos cineri doloso; adeoque offendi­cula vel in ipsis picturis nudis tollenda. And yet I neede not feare much the incurring heere the offence of anie, ut qui Episcoporum axioma ne vel minimum hîc eam imminutum, so farre foorth as I can trace anie light going before mee, for war­rand and appuy to my conscience: for as to that Prima­cie of order without power, whether absolute or by de­legation, which may suffer vpon abuse repetition by the partie delegating, I cannot so much as by dreame con­ceiue thereof: for albeit all bee called to one and the same Ministrie, it followeth not straight, quod simil & quisque vocetur ad parem in ministerio gradum, more than in the Col­ledge of Iustice all are of alyke power and dignitie in place: nor yet of that Orbiculare praesidence falselie fathered vp­on Sainct AMBROSE, vpon a wyde misinterpretation and mistaking of his mynde; cum varii sint modi recedendi, as also that so I could not see, howe the first Presbyter [Page 52]could bee called by the name of Bishop singularlie; where­as in a circle there is nothing first or last, nisi recurras ad puncta imaginaria.

But how-so-ever the matter goe, this must bee given to the praesent necessitie, because of our Adversaries excep­ting heere against the lawfulnesse of that by-gone Mini­strie with vs these diverse yeares heere-to-fore, quod nostri destituti fuerint [...] Episcopali. You see that this can­not evacuate, or but the least enervate our Calling; both these beeing but one, the word beeing taken ex usu Scrip­turae, where wee see the one subjoyned to the other exe­geticallie, as Acts, Chap. 20. Vers. 28. The Elders of the Church of EPHESUS accersed, or sent for to MILE­TVM, are exhorted to take heede to themselues, and to their Flockes, over the which the holie Ghost praefecit cos Episcopos, had made them Over-seers. As lykewyse, wee see th'Apostle to passe straight frō the Name to the Office, which would argue a communion in the one, as in the other: nay, wee see the Apostle to require the same thing in a Pres­byter, which in a Bishop; which subinferreth a necessa­rie competencie of the same in common to both.

As last, wee see the Apostle Sainct PETER himselfe, & synpresbyterum sese indigetare. But besides this, that both these are but one and the same, the wordes beeing taken exusu Scripturae, true is it not, that all our first men were de­voyde of this sorte of Ordination, which our Adversaries so praeciselie vrge.

XVIII. MELETEMA.

LEst there might seeme heere justlie not the least part of this worke wanting, if I should over-passe by silence that point of Succes­sion, which our Adversaries esteeme to bee of such poyse and weight, as if without it there could bee no lawfull Church nor Mi­nistrie; it standeth vs vpon to speake so farre foorth of it, as the praesent necessitie requireth.

Wherefore, seeing nullum apud eos sonorius crepitaculum, quo vehementius nos obtundant, I shall touch it a little en passant, if it were but to silence their so clamorous cryes here; though it may bee, if GOD shall giue grace and leaue, I speake more properlie and fuselie of this argument in its proper place, Of the notes of the Church.

In the entrie heere, I pray you alwayes to remem­ber, that it was the doctrinall, and not personall succession, which those Ancientes so highlie regarded, and that they mentioned but this last, because of the first, as which is the verie soule and lyfe thereof. Againe, it would bee [Page 54]headilie remēbred here, that those Haeretiks, against whō those Ancients instituted their Disputations, by alleadging to the persons professing, and not to the doctrine professed, (as wee see TERTULLIANE to reason against the MAR­CIONITES and GNOSTICKS; Edant Origines Episco­porum suorum, evolvant seriem antistitum it a per successionem ab initio decurrentem, vt primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apo­stolicis viris habuerit auctorem & antecessorem; hoc enim modo Ro­manorum Ecclesia CLEMENTEM à PETRO ordinatum re­fert, confingant tale aliquid haeretici, &c.) that those Haereticks, I say, denyed, eyther in whole, or in part, the Scriptures, wherethrough the Dispute could not bee instituted from hence against such. So then, thus the Ancientes adorted those Haeretickes, and improoved their doctrine, because they could not show anie constant profession of the same, they could not point at those Bishops who professed with them, where the ROMANE Church is well often exem­plarlie alleadged vnto. But it is to bee observed, howe Tertulliane in the alleadged place, alleadgeth the exemple of the Church of SMYRNA, as a Transmarine Church, as hee doth the exemple of the Church of ROME, as a Cismarine Church; that so hee might shew evidentlie, doctri­nam Novati, Marcionis novam & inauditam prorsus fuisse, as which was not acknowledged, or believed by anie Church at all, whether on this side of the Sea, or beyonde the Sea. Thus then, it was to this sense, that the Ancients vrged the argument from succession; from whence it is cleare, that the personall succession was still alleadged vnto, be­cause of the doctrinall onlie.

But to speake conciselie and sinewishlie of this mat­ter, first wee shall show, GOD willing, That there is no ne­cessitie of this succession, which our Adversaries solelie and singularlie require. Next, that this sort of succession is not findable with themselues. Last, That we haue that succes­sion which is necessarie penes nos▪ or with vs.

[Page 55]That I may borrow mine empledged worde, let mee, as to the first, packe vp the matter by forme of Argu­ment.

If so bee, that personall and locall succession suffe­red even then and there interruption, where it was of greater necessitie, it followeth, that it may suffer the lyke with the lesse danger, where it is of lesser necessitie:

But so it is, the first holdeth and pro­veth true:

Ergo, the same judgement must bee given in this latter case.

For probation of the minor; the Priesthood of AA­RON may serue to the full, from whence wee thus binde vp the Argument.

Whereas the Priesthood vnder the Law was tyed to AARONS carnall descent, truelie then this personall succession behooved to bee of greater ne­cessitie, than it can bee now vnder Grace, where the matter goeth by free election:

But so it is, that even then this personall succession suffered diverslie interruption:

Ergo, it may admit yet the lyke interruption, without the least danger, &c.

For probation of the minor; were not NADAE and ABIHU stricken with fire from Heaven, who should haue succeeded by Line? Next, whereas it came to ELEA­ZAR, I would enquire, if it continued still in him and his race? Was it not vpon their abuse translated to the stocke of ITHAMAR? Now, rested it in the stocke of ITHAMAR? Was it not broken off, because of the wic­kednesse [Page 56]of ELIES sonnes, HOPHNI and PHINE­HAS, albeit it had well long continued in the house of ELI? Was not ABIATHAR the last Priest of that stocke deposed by SALOMON, and ZADOK substi­tuted and suffected in his vice and place? Thus I hope it may appeare most evidentlie, to anie who shutteth not his eyes wilfullie against this so cleare a light, from this my so long deduction of the matter, That the Church is not tyed to anie personall succession, suite, or traine of Bishops; which were heere indeede to lay a false reckoning and compt; as if filii ABRAHAE omnes secundum carnem censendi essent in semine, and not these onlie, who are Children after the Promise.

In the next roome, I would haue you with all dili­gence and headinesse to advert heere, that the place gaue the praeheminence to the persons, and not the persons the dignitie or primacie to the Seage or Seate: That is, that it was not whether the residence or death of an Apostle, in this or that Seage or Seate, which gaue the procathe­drie, and praeseance heere to the after succeeding Bishops in that Seage, or in that Sea; from whence our Adversa­ries collect and conclude the Procathedrie, nay, that gene­rall Prostasie of the Pope of Rome, as Sainct Peters Suc­cessour, forsooth, in sedem Apostolicam: but that the Seages or Seas received this praeheminence, according to that ranke they helde and obtained as Cities of the Empyre: for else, I hope it could not bee well denyed, but that the first place heere were due to Hierusalem, before Rome, if succession can make ought to the praeheminenee or pri­macie of place: for did not CHRIST Himselfe preach, yea, and suffer at Hierusalem? Nay, did Hee not accomplish there all the mysteries of our Salvation? Did not all the Apostles issue as it were from thence? Preach, yea, and re­side there for a goodlie space? Doe not the Ancients here agree as it were in common, That Iames turned the ordi­narie [Page 57]Bishop of Hierusalem, whereas the matter of Peters beeing at Rome, and Bishopricke there, is at least so doubt­full.

I would pose our Adversaries heere a little, How is it heere, that the Bishop of HIERVSALEM was not reputed and holden for the first Bishop, if the persons gaue the primacie or praeheminence to the place? Nay, wee see it especiallie provided, Concil. Nie. 1. Can. 6. that ho­nour should bee deferred to the Bishop of HIERVSA­LEM, without the least praejudice to that honour and regarde due by him to the Bishop of CAESARIA, his Metrapolitane. Thus it is cleare from hence, That this sort of praeheminence in those Apostolicke Seages, or Seas, was vnknowne then in those olde tymes, and to those ho­lie Fathers, gathered at that Councell.

Thirdlie, giving heere liberallie for the tyme, That a constant and vninterrupted succession of Bishops were an infallible note of a true Church, wherefore should not this militate aswell for the three other Seages, of ALEX­ANDRIA, ANTIOCHIA, HIERVSA­LEM, as for the Sea of ROME; seeing, as EV­SEBIVS witnesseth in his Ecclesiasticall Historie, Lib. 3. that they haue this succession? Why then should the Church of ROME bee more instyled by the name of the true, sole, Catholicke, and Apostolicke Church, than the Church of ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, &c? What can this succession to PETER in sedem Romanam, import and rapport, beyond the succession to anie Apostle else, into anie other Seage or Seat? I would bee glad to bee instructed heere, where I promise to follow the light, as docilem me praebere.

Fourthlie, If this sorte of Succession, to wit, perso­nall and locall, which is the onelie Succession vrged and requyred by our Adversaries, were simplie necessarie to [Page 58]the constitution of a true Church, and lawfull Ministrie, and were an infallible, if not constitutiue, at least often­siue note of a true Church; then wee behooved to ac­knowledge that Church straight for a true Church, where this were to bee found: For nota debet [...], or retrocommeat with the subject noted, as [...] risibile doeth cum homine: but I hope our Adversaries shall not stande heerevnto; for then they behooved to acknowledge the GREEKE Church for a true and lawfull Church, which they most pertinaciouslie heere denye: for & haec bâc Suc­cessione gaudet, possent & hi longam seriem texere, Catalogum in­stituere EPISCOPORVM. Nay, then the AR­RIANS should haue made vp a true Church, because of this Succession obtayning lykewyse with them.

Our Adversaries heere finding themselues strayted, are driven to seeke to some posture, whitherto they affirme, That the Argument proceedeth heere but negatiuelie; that is, That it serveth not so much to showe vvhere the Church is, or, What is the true Church; as Where shee is not. Where-vpon it followeth, That this Succession shall bee nota non nota, or nota non notificans, a note not no­tifying or poynting foorth the subject; which is to convell the fundaments of all true and sound Philosophie.

But to trace them yet heere, and deject them from this refuge: Thus there shoulde not haue beene a Church in the beginning; neyther shoulde there bee one at the consummation of the worlde: as where utrobique hic defec­tus comparet, haec successio desideratur, this Succession is vvan­ting. Wherefore, the Argument proceedeth not so much as by way of negation.

Fiftlie: The practise of the Primitiue Church standeth heere to the contrarie: where wee finde a double sorte of Vocation, where-of una fiebat [...], alia [...]. [Page 59]Nowe, I woulde vnderstande of our Adversaries, their judgement of and about those Ordinations vsed by those olde ancient Fathers, which were called absolutelie; If they bee to them, or with them, eyther for null, or for vitious? But so it is, This Succession which they presse, to wit, personall and locall, was heere wanting, where-in they place the verie essence of Succession, &c.

Sixtlie: I would inquyre of our Adversaries, Where­as CONSTANTINOPLE vvas made a Patriarchall Seate, tempore THEODOSII Magni, which Citie before was still subject HERACLENSI Episcopo; tantum abest ut CONSTANTINOPOLITANVS Episcopus fuerit Patriarcha, ut ne Metropolites quidem: Whether or not they vvill take vpon them heere to condemne this, because of this defect of a personall and locall Succession in Caput; al­though else it was a cooptation in commune corpus, tagma, Collegium, systema reliquorum Patriarcharum, according to those absolute Ordinations vsed of olde by those auncient Fa­thers, &c.

Seaventhlie: If this Succession personall and locall, were simplie heere necessarie, then it shoulde followe to their great praejudice heere, quòd nulli novi Episcopatus possent con­di, institui, That no newe Bishoprickes could bee erected: so that heere they praejudge, through imprudencie and in­consideration, their so due and just deserved prayse, of their so fruitfull labours amongst the INDIANS, where they haue builded and created so manie newe CHUR­CHES, &c.

Last of all: Where-as our verie Adversaries conclude this poynt from that Succession of the Iudges of ISRAEL, vvhy may they not admit heere, That this Succession may fuffer interruption? as wee see that to haue beene reapse diverselie, and eft-soones interrupted vnder their diverse enemies, MOABITES, CANANITES, AMO­RITES, [Page 60]and so foorth; and that nowe for longer, and nowe for shorter space; as nowe for the space of twentie yeares, nowe of seaven, yea, nowe of whole fourtie. Truelie, this Argument heere militateth [...]. Thus I hope I haue improven to the verie full, the ne­cessitie of this Succession, to wit, personall and locall, vvhich our Adversaries heere vrge and presse so much.

As to the second I promised to prooue, that is, That this Succession is not to bee found with our verie Adver­saries, I shall, GOD vvilling, prooue this by infallible demonstrations.

No Haereticke hath jus ordinandi, or power of Or­dination, even according to some of their owne Canons: (Thus I argue not by position, but of supposition onelie ad hominem: vvhere I denye not lykewyse BABEL to bee confounded, &c.

But so it is, that manie and diverse of their Popes haue proven such:

Ergo, for the least during this space, this Succes­sion hath suffered interruption: nay, it followeth from hence, That there hath beene no lawfull Church, or Ministrie vvith them since, so much as vvarrandable by their owne Canons.

For probation of the minor: Our probation shall not stay it selfe heere in the Scriptures, which were indeede sufficient, but of surplussge, and for the clearer conviction of our Adversaries, and to take from them all effuge & means to escape heere, I offer mee to prooue, That diverse Hae­retickes haue possessed that Chaire, and occupied the same, even according to that way which themselues call Haeresie: where I may reckon foorth a great traine of them, as were LIBERIVS, FOELIX the second, LEO the first, GELASIVS the first, VIGILIVS, GREGORIE [Page 61]the second, ZACHARIE the first, ADRIAN the first, NICOLAS the first, IOHN the eight, NI­COLAS the second, COELESTINE the third, INNOCENT the third, IOHN the twentie-two, and INNOCENT the eight; all which haue erred in that which concerneth the Fayth; else our Moderne Doctours prooue heterodoxe, as who holde not, nor maintaine the same doctrine with them.

But for shortnesse sake, I will content mee to poynt at those who haue beene condemned for such, by law­full Councels. First then, I would pose our Adversaries, what they can say to HONORIVS the first, condem­ned in two generall Councels, the sixt and the seaventh; and anathematized as an Haereticke, for a Monothelite?

Our Seraphicke Doctor BELLARMINE can tell vs heere, that HONORIVS erred, but as a private man heere, and not as Pope. A braue eschappatoire, forsooth, ficulneum ADAMI praesidium, a fine Coate of figge-tree leaues, to cover his nakednesse. I pray you, if HONO­RIVS beeing consulted as Pope in a matter of Fayth, controverted vpon for the time, answered not to the point as Pope, but as a private Doctor or man; in what posterne shall wee seeke his Holinesse, forsooth, whereas his person speaketh to vs, that wee bee no farther heere deceived? Nay truelie, if so bee hee may erre, whereas advised and consulted in a matter of Fayth, I see not what profite his pretended priviledge of not erring, [...], can rap­port heere to the Church.

But this cannot helpe our Adversarie heere; for HO­NORIVS was anathematized as Bishop of ROME, and not as a private man, or Doctor. Nay, which is yet farther, LEO the second, his owne successour, confesseth of HONORIVS, that hee polluted that holie Seage or Sea: wherevpon it followeth by an inevitable consequence, [Page 62]that hee erred as Pope: for else his private souilleurs, or pollutions, could not haue polluted this sacred Seage.

Last, for my selfe, I would not bee heere curious for the second person of the Pope his Holinesse: but would bee content to take order with his private person, for his miscarriage, forbearing his Holinesse, or the second person hee sustaineth out of pure and meere religion, for-sooth.

Next, I would learne what our Adversaries can say to IOHN the twelft, condemned for most enormious crymes, in a Councell holden at ROME, as for carow­sing of Wyne, for loue of the Devill, for directing his devotion, at least in sport and merriment, to IVPITER and MARS, I, to IVPITER and VENVS their Proprogoddesse! What will they saye to IOHN the three and twentieth, or foure and twentieth, denying the Resurrection, condemned in the Councell of CON­STANCE? Last, what can they except against EV­GENIVS the fourth, deposed in the Councell of BA­SIL, and condemned for Haereticke? Now, quicquid h [...] ­die Episcoporum, aut ordinis [...] superest in Ecclesia Romana, ad hoc fonte profluxit: and so it followeth, that these two hundreth yeares since, or there-abouts, there hath beene no lawfull Vocation with our Adversaries, which they can warrand by their owne Canons. Now, quis dabit mundum ex immundo, who can bring a cleane thing out of filthi­nesse.

It is worthie our best observation, that BELLAR­MINE having acknowledged, even by the force of the Trueth, That this Councell was lawfullie indicted: where­vpon it followth, after their owne Canons, that so it could not erre; sayeth, That it turned vitious: and where­as hee poynteth at the faultinesse thereof, it is heere, for­sooth, quod pronunciarit secundum Concilium. Truelie, it is well heere, that they may authorize, or exauthorize, at [Page 63]their pleasure, as they finde ought to make for them, or against them.

I should but miss-spende good tyme, if I should rec­kon foorth all those vitious and monstrous heads the haue adapted to this bodie, some Infidels, some Magitians, some Necromancers, as SYLVESTER the second; some attayning to the Popedome by brigandise, by Armes, some by one finesse, and some by another; scarce one amongst numbers entering in at the Doore so much as of an externall Vocation, warrandable by their owne Canons. Nay, I might heere arcesse them all in common of Simo­nie: for if all came not thus by the place, at least all to one thus carrie themselues in the place: for they expose to sale the Graces and Giftes of GOD, and holde them get-able by Money; as their Nundination of Indulgences, Soule-Masses, and their other Wares of this Note, may in­struct to the full; where-thorow they approoue themselues to haue succeeded indeede to SIMON, but SIMON MAGVS, and not SIMON PETER, to bee his singular Successours.

And BAPTISTA MANTVANVS to this same sense:

I would vnderstand of our Adversaries, If their ele­ction was canonicall, who came thus by the Popedome, as by Simonie, Brigandise, Armes, &c.?

Pope LEO telleth vs, that those foure are required to a canonicall and lawfull Election, vota civium, testimonia [Page 64]populorum, arbitri a honoratorum, electio cleri. Now, I would de­mand our Adversaries heere, If the free suffrages of the people bee so much as required to the election of a Pope to day? And yet BELLARMINE himselfe, Lib. de Clericis, Cap. 7. is forced to confesse, That of olde none was holden for lawfull Bishop, who wanted the suffiages of the people to his election: wherevpon it followeth, that they walke not in the olde waye, but they haue de­clyned in the latter dayes.

I would faine learne of our Adversaries, Whether this Succession was free from suffering interruption, whereas the ROMISH Bishops were divided amongst themselues by Schismes, for manie yeares together? I remit the Rea­der heere to that great papist ONUPHRIUS, in Chronico, where hee reckoneth foorth roundlie some thirtie Schismes in the Church of ROME: as the first, betweene COR­NELIUS and NOVATUS; the second, betwixt LI­BERIUS and FOELIX; the third, betwixt DAMA­SUS and VRCISINUS, which prooved a well bloodie Schisme; and so foorth of the rest of that note.

I would in like manner inquire heere, Where one Pope disanulled the Actes of another, and reordained those who formerlie had received orders of his Decessour, as thus not acknowledging that prior Ordination for lawfull and valide; as, for instance, Pope SERGIUS the third, carried him towardes his decessour Pope FORMOSUS, besides diverse other instances, whether of those contesting Fathers shall wee acknowledge for his Holinesse, and from whether shall wee deriue and aestimate the succession? Truelie, dignus hic vindice nodus. I hope those may suffice heere ad gustum, yea, and to bring in distaste this their so much boasted-of Succession, with those whose sensorie is not altogether distempered; yea, who are not devoide of the sense of tasting.

[Page 65]Certes, the providence of GOD is singularlie to bee admired heere, in that Hee hath not suffered those pro­bations and Monumentes, of the turpitude of this holie Seage, for-sooth, to bee so farre foorth suppressed, as that we haue not sufficiencie of proofe for cleare conviction of the ADVERSARIE; and yet questionlesse hî non defuerant sibi, &c.

But to arcesse this matter from on high, and deduce it vel à capite, from PETER'S beeing at ROME; if wee shewe but [...], that PETER was never there, the after-substruction falleth of will: wherefore, thus I argue:

If Sainct PETER was never at ROME, then this Succession to him into that Seate or Seage ceaseth:

But so it is, Sainct PETER was ne­ver there:

Ergo, this Succession ceaseth, and falleth of will.

For probation of the minor, I purpose not no treate of this ad longum, but onelie so farre foorth as the neces­sitie of the praesent errand requireth: so that I will con­tent my selfe heere but to poynt at some few thinges, ex­erto vel intento demum digito.

In the entrie heere, I would haue you to obserue these generalles: That the first Father or Author of this Forge­rie, is one PAPIAS, a meere Fabler: so that all the manie Witnesses, which our Adversaries heere alleadge for this his beeing at ROME, resolue in one, and are but one in substance: for they all haue it but from him; and so this prooveth the last resolution of the matter, PA­PIAS a fabulous Tale-teller related so. Ergo. Nay, BA­RONIVS in his Catalogue of his Authors for this For­gerie, goeth no higher.

[Page 66]Againe, that great confusion of BABEL woulde bee headilie adverted vnto, where scarce one vnderstandeth anothers Language heere. Mee thinkes it strange, howe they all, at least in common, agreeing in the generall, that PETER was at ROME, should so vniversallie varie in everie circumstance, as about the time of his going thi­ther, some standing for one yeare, and some for another. Truelie, all these cannot stand and subsist together, the first, the second, the sixt, or seaventh, the thirtienth of CLAVDIVS, &c. Againe, about the place from whence hee went thither; nowe from HIERVSALEM, and nowe from ANTIOCH. Againe, about that conflict with SIMON MAGVS, which they make the ende of his going thither. Certes, omnia hîc [...], & fabu­ [...]osa: wherefore, as this alleadged ende of his going is but a Fable, his going it selfe may justlie seeme to bee but fabulous.

Let mee pose our Adversaries heere a little: Why is not this SIMON'S opposing of PETER mentioned, as wee see the wickednesse of ELYMAS the Sorcerer against Sainct PAVL? Or, I pray you, Was not PAVL [...]ble enough for the worke, who smote that Sorcerer with blindnesse? But I should but in vayne busie my selfe here in this matter of SIMON MAGVS, ubi omnia scatent fabulis: nay, where our MIDIANITES mutuis se con­ficiunt vulneribus.

Againe, about the place, time, and qualitie of his death; yea, and about his buriall: and last, about his Suc­cessours, some standing for CLEMENT, and some for LINVS.

Now, what can wee laye holde on in so great vncer­taintis? Where-vpon can wee appuy or rest heere our Fayth? And yet, si Diis placet, this is rei summa & caput, PETER'S beeing at ROME.

[Page 67]Questionlesse, it is from hence, that BELLARMINE finding but so weake a foundation to builde the Popes headship vpon, as convinced in judgement, against the light of his conscience, seeketh thus to shift off the matter, and betaketh him to this posterne, nec requiri, nec sufficere, that this is neyther requisite nor sufficient to make PETER Bi­shop of ROME, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 1. which hee proo­veth by partes: The first, Because thus PETER should haue beene Bishop of HIERVSALEM, CAESAREA, and so foorth of all those places whither-to hee came. The se­cond, Because manie were Bishops of ROME, who came never thither, as CLEMENT the fift, IOHN the twen­tie-two, BENEDICT the twelft, CLEMENT the sixt, and INNOCENTIVS the seaventh; which were ordayned Bishops in FRANCE, and abode still there.

I would inquire of our Adversaries, Why they fight so much for this, which according to their owne confes­sion and concession, can neyther serue the turne, nay, ix not so much as requisite there-vnto? May it not justlie seeme that they are but ledde heere by the spirit of Con­tradition?

I leaue for the tyme to dispute the matter, whether this bee requisite or not, that one come to that place, yea, and reside there, whereof hee is created Bishop: for our Adversaries thus imprudentlie wrong their owne cause of personall and locall Succession, except a designation to a place bee to them for locall Succession; and so an habi­tuall Bishop and an actuall bee with them for one and the same. Last, it is well, that PETER thus of an Apo­stle turneth an irregulare Bishop, and a patterne of non re­sidence.

But to deale a little punctim, as wee haue done caesim:

The first Argument may bee drawne from the puta­tion and committing of tymes, to this sense.

[Page 68]If wee shall bee pleased to commit and collation to­gether the first and the second Chapters of Sainct PAUL to the GALATIANS, wee shall see PETER to haue kept in IEWRIE, and therea-bout, some eighteene yeares after CHRIST'S Passion, as is cleare out of Sainct PAUL his visiting of him at HIERUSALEM so ma­nie yeares after his conversion, and of his after rebuking of him to his face at ANTIOCH. Nowe, if wee shall adde to this number, the seaven yeares of his beeing at ANTIOCH, and the twentie-fiue yeares of his Bishop­ricke at ROME, there shall aryse the summe of fiftie yeares, or there-abouts. From hence it followeth, That PETER could not haue suffered Martyredome with PAUL, as the common tradition hath at ROME, the twelfth or thirteenth yeare of NERO: for it is moste certaine by collationing of the sacred and prophane storie, that there ran but thirtie and seaven. yeares for the moste, from CHRISTS Passion, to the verie ende of NE­RO his Empyre. What shall bee done with these super­numerarie yeares heere? Nay, though wee should praecide and cut off heere those seaven yeares of his abode at AN­TIOCH, lest wee might seeme too strict in putandis tem­poribus, wee shall yet find hiatum multum, no little gulfe or distance.

Truelie, hic haeret iis aqua, our Adversaries cannot pos­siblie expede and extricate themselues heere, vtut in omnes se vertant partes: wherefore expectandus iis ELIAS aliquis, aut [...], qui nodum hunc solvat, fortean vel secet.

In the next roome, I might reason from that generall, yea, and vniversall silence of the whole Scriptures heere; as where wee can finde nothing for his going thither, as wee doe for PAUL'S, nor of his beeing there. Certes, in summis fidei capitibus argumentum rectè procedit negativè. Now, [Page 69]this is rei summa & caput, PETER'S Bishopricke at ROME, which our Adversaries collect of his beeing there; and conclude from hence, as who can finde no bet­ter warrands else: where-vpon it followeth, quod super are­naceo fundamento omnis illa insana substructio exstructa sit.

But of surplussage heere; the Scriptures furnish vs store of Arguments against this forgerie: for if PETER had beene at ROME, before PAVL'S comming thi­ther, either hee was negligent, or else his ministrie there was fruitlesse, and ineffectuall: for PAVL telleth round­lie, That hee found the IEWES in common innorant of CHRIST altogether, and His Gospell; as which they odiouslie instyled by the name of a Sect; and such a Sect, as generallie evill spoken of, Acts, Chap. 28. Vers. 22. Or doe wee thinke, that the IEWES at ROME would haue carried greater reverence to PAVL, than to their owne ordinarie Apostle, if so bee hee had beene there?

Againe, the manie Epistles which PAVL wrote from ROME, wherein hee doth not so much as make the least mention of PETER, whether in Salutation, or Valediction, argue to the full, that hee co-lived not with PAVL at ROME. Nay, PAVL'S complaint, That hee was left alone, and forsaken of all at his first compea­rance; and his deposition, that at the second tyme LVKE onelie was with him; these joyntlie considered, serue to prooue, That PETER was not at ROME now with PAVL; except wee would brand him with this foule not of Apostasie, or deserting of PAVL in the common cause of CHRIST, and the Gospell.

Againe, mee thinketh it strange, how PETER, wri­ting two Epistles to the dispersed IEWES, in diverse Countreyes, could so deeplie forget those at ROME; as not the least to mention them, if so bee they were his [Page 60]chiefe charge, and ROME it selfe the Seate of his Popedome.

Last, were not this flat against that compact betwixt him and Sainct PAVL, That hee should goe to the IEWES, and PAVL to the GENTILES; which the Fathers acknowledged as singularlie administred by GOD, as you may see out of Sainct HIEROME, on the second Chapter to the GALATIANS; and which wee see done with vniforme consent of the rest of the Apostles? Howe could wee free Sainct PETER heere of faedifragie, if contrarie to that covenant, thus solemn­lie made, hee should not onelie haue preached vpon oc­casion to the GENTILES, and as it were extraordi­narlie, or [...], or by the way, but turned their ordinarie Apostle; yea, not Apostle, but Bishop, to the great praejudice of his Apostolicall authoritie: as who is reckoned with them Apostolorum primus, as who perhaps was first called to the Apostleship, though ANDREW was called prior to the Discipleship.

But to winde vp this point, lest I might seeme for­getfull of my promise in the beginning of this Treatise, and so seeme too deeplie drowned in this Meditation, let mee thus argue for the generall:

That Religion whose foundation and maine ground is purus putus stochasmus, a meere stochasme, can­not bee but stochasticke, and conjecturall:

But such is the Popish Religion to day: for Sainct PETER'S Bishopricke at ROME, and his beeing there, which is rei summa & caput, is but an ylde for­gerie, and foolish conjecture; as I hope is cleare to the full, from this my deduc­tion of the matter:

[Page 71] Ergo, the Popish Religion is but stochasticke, and conjecturall.

Wherefore, seeing this point non cadit sub fidem, immo ne sub sensum quidem, there can bee no certainlie in their Religion, to settle mens consciences. Truelie, there is great neede heere of a well implicite Fayth.

Last, I offer mee, ne quid desit, to prooue this point by that constant and ordinarie practise with our Adversa­ries, even vnto this day.

Is not this the nature and qualitie of their suffragant Bishops, as that their ordinations are absolute, absolutae, or solutae forte & dissolutae? Those who vnderstand but the least into this matter, know, that heere for common both these Successions are found wanting, personall and locall: for ex trivio nomen arripitur & inditur, non scrupulosè inquiritur in sta­tum Ecclesiae, from whence my L. receiveth his name. Truelie, the institution of these is but a meere histrionicall and dramaticall action.

Alwayes, lest I should seeme to father an vntrueth vp­on them, I must entreate your patience heere a little, that I may snew the forme and manner of the creation of these suffragant Bishops: wherefore, thus take the matter.

REVEREND. D. BOGVINTINVS, HOSTIENSIS, or CO­LONIENSIS, standeth in neede of a suffragant, as who cannot doe all by himselfe; nay, as with whose dignitie it cannot stand omnium vertices contrectare, inungere. Nowe, this Suffragant can not doe those thinges, which my L. should haue done by himselfe, except hee bee instructed with power, and so created Bishop: for non potest quis in alium conferre, transferre, quod ipse prior non habeat: wherefore hee is created Bishoppe of some Transmarine Church, or other, from whence hee may receiue the denomination, whereas in the whilst they are altogether ignorant of the [Page 72]state of that Church, yea, doe not so much as vnder­stand of the Vacancie of the Seate; as wee had with our selues in SCOT-LAND some Bishops of ATHENS, for-sooth.

The Suffragant beeing thus created, least hee shoulde seeme a non resident, dat se in viam, hee betaketh him to his journey, to his Station, for-sooth; but ad tertium aut quar­tum ab urbe lapidem, some three or foure myles off of the Towne, one is summitted, and so per lucida intervalla an­other, to shew him of the danger of the journey, of the great losse and pert the Church shoulde sustayne thorowe his departure: in a word, and in effect, to recall him to my L. where-vpon hee returneth; and vpon his returne, is praefected over some of his Churches, as his Vicar and Suffragant, where hee attendeth my L. Mandements.

Nowe, vvho seeth not, except a Borne-blinde, that there is neyther personall nor locall Succession heere? And yet these are the Fathers of all those other Bishoppes with our Adversaries to day; these are they qui generant tot Epis­coporum examina, &c.

Thus I hope, nisi mea me hic destituat spes, I haue showne to the full, That this so much noysed Succession, is not to bee found with our Adversaries. Now, I come to the last thing I promised to prooue, to wit, That wee haue such Succession, as is necessarie and requisite here.

For the clearing of this point, you must heere headilie distinguish betwixt those things which are essentiall in and to Succession, and so are altogether, or simplie necessarie, and these which are but accidentarie, and so may bee prae­sent or absent without destruction of the subject. Nowe, there bee two of each sort; of the first are Successio Doctrinae, and Successio Vocationis: for it is heere simplie, and altogether necessarie, vt succedatur in doctrinam Apostolicam. And the se­cond [Page 73]is no lesse necessarie, successio Vocationis: for quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur? nemo sibi hunc honorem assumit, &c. It hath still proven a matter full of danger, to vsurpe sa­cred Functions. But as to those other two, personall and locall Succession; that is, that a person succeede to a per­son, in and to a certaine place, these are not essentiall, and simplie necessarie, as without which a Church and mini­strie may bee, yea, and are de facto amongst themselues, as their new built and instituted Churches amongst the IN­DIANS may instruct to the full; and as I haue proven alreadie at large, yea, and besides other probations, from the practise of the primitiue Church, where fiebat vocati [...] [...] as [...].

Last, giving that there were such personall and locall Succession with our Adversaries, it were no lesse ours: Communes enim fuimus possessores, licet deturbarint nos de communi possessione, adeoque non excidimus jure ad rem, licet soli vsurpare ve­lint jus in rem: siquidem non magis haec sunt Papae, quam Tem­plum DEI, illius Idoli fuisse censendum est, quod in eo collocârat ANTIOCHVS Epiphanes, rectius Epimanes.

XIX. MELETEMA.

HIERVSALEM vvhich is Aboue, is Mother of vs all, Gal. Chap. 4. Vers. 26: as to the Church of ROME, shee was for the best but a Sister-Church, and collaterall; but nowe wee affirme her to bee heavilie affected and diseased. It is true indeede, that the Bishop of ROME was called in common with the rest of the Patriarches, by the name of occumenicall Bishop; as which all joyntlie and commonlie repraesented [...]: Nay, wee deny not heere yet farther, that the Bishop of ROME obtained at last [...], a certaine Procathedrie, or preseance, and this perhaps not onlie because that ROME was se­des, or Caput Imperii, the Imperiall Seate, or Seage; or yet because it prooved a ZOAR, or place of refuge to them of the Easterne Church, during the ARRIAN persecu­tion; but even because of the fayth, as which kept then the Trueth in sinceritie, where-as other Churches were more corrupted; But all this is ours: for, as POMPEY sayde well, Non est in parietibus Respuplica: so, no more is the Church of ROME within her Walles.

Againe, it is an evill collection, to gather, or conclude straight an vniversall Prostasie from a particular Procathe­drie. [Page 75]Nay, and albeit the Church of ROME was al­leadged vnto exemplarlie, whilst shee kept the Fayth in puritie and sinceritie, followeth it from hence, that shee was either the Mother-Church, or the Catholicke Church, which were orbem vrbi includere? The Ancients indeede ad­ducebant Ecclesiam Romanam, sed vt exemplum particulare, scilicet, during that space of her puritie, sed ne vel tum quidem vt at­tributum vniversale, which our Papistes doe to daye. You know, that this is ordinarie with vs, whilst anie differ ari­seth, to appeale or provoke to the most famous Church where wee liue, as in FRANCE, appellation is for com­mon made to the Church of GENEVE; or yet to de­ferre the cognition of the matter to some Transmarine Church: but shall anie inferre from hence, That by this appellation wee abjudge the name of a true Church from our selues, or yet singularlie adjudge this name to that Church, wherevnto wee appeale? Nay, last of all heere, Ab Ecclesia Romana, during that her flowrishing age, ad ho­diernam Papanam non est concludere: distant ac differunt haec du [...] immane quantum, immo [...].

XX. MELETEMA.

THe Chiefe Priests and Elders of the People, where-as they could not except against Christ's works, or authoritatem factorum, they began to quarrell authoritatem faciendi, and so to quaestion Him, by what authoritie Hee did these things, and who gaue Him this authoritie, Mat. 21.23. Thus it fareth with our Adversaries, or these our new Pharisees, to day, since they can not except against [...], or the doctrine which wee teach, lest else they should haue nothing at all to holde their poore bewitched people in hand, they must needs except here, and quarrell authoritatem [...], and so squabble about our authoritie in Teaching, if not authoritie of Doctrine: wherefore let vs giue this to their so great and pressing necessitie.

There is one of our Men, no lesse truelie in Digna­tion than Place, vvho hath latelie written most learnedlie in defence of our CALLING; vvhere-at I can not heare of anie amongst our Adversaries, vvho hath so much as snatched as yet but lyke a Dog leaping at NILVS: so that I graunt this to bee but a superfluous labour on my part, vvhere-in but benè actum malè ago: yet I can not but looke for a charitable construction: voluntas quum sit actio­num mensura; and that it may bee permitted to those, qui prae tenui peculio vitulum vivum divis minus elustrare possunt, vel taurum è farina fingere; yea, and as who could not bee alto­gether heere muet, being so deicticallie pointed at, and pres­sed by the greater part in common, but at least some advan­tage taken by the Adversarie vpon my silence against my selfe, though not to the least praejudice to the errand or com­mon [Page 77]cause, or yet derogation to the credit of the Ministrie with vs, through my weake sides: wherefore, gentle Reader, giue to necessitie whatsoever thou findest heere done; and vouchsafe at least thy best countenance, which is grace enough against all disgrace I feare these whatsoever my paines shall incurre with the enemie, yea, or bee lyable vnto: for if thou pardon my praesumption, and accept of this my meane in­deavour, thou shalt perhaps incourage mee to some greater attempt: what well done, giue GOD the praise; and where I haue taken the paines, reape thou the profit: what thou findest amisse, corrigi ac sanari posse ne despera: as who, aliis vt prosim, veritatis Discipulus esse malim, quam, aliis dùm prae­sim, erroris Magi­ster, &c.