The conuerted Iew or Certaine dialogues betweene Micheas a learned Iew and others, touching diuers points of religion, controuerted betweene the Catholicks and Protestants. Written by M. Iohn Clare a Catholicke priest, of the Society of Iesus. Dedicated to the two Vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge ... Clare, John, 1577-1628. 1630 Approx. 1065 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 235 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A18933 STC 5351 ESTC S122560 99857683 99857683 23452

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A18933) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 23452) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1062:10) The conuerted Iew or Certaine dialogues betweene Micheas a learned Iew and others, touching diuers points of religion, controuerted betweene the Catholicks and Protestants. Written by M. Iohn Clare a Catholicke priest, of the Society of Iesus. Dedicated to the two Vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge ... Clare, John, 1577-1628. Anderton, Lawrence, attributed name. Anderton, Roger, d. 1640?, attributed name. [16], 65, 64-421 [i.e. 124], [2]; 155, [1]; 141, [3] p. Printed by the English secret press] Permissu superiorum, [S.l. : Anno. M.DC.XXX. [1630] Sometimes attributed to Lawrence or Roger Anderton. Identification of printer from STC; however, the style of signing the preliminaries is French. P. 124 (first count) misnumbered 421. The second part has separate dated title page, pagination, and register. It has an appendix in reply to: Abbot, George. A treatise of the perpetuall visibilitie, and succession of the true Church in all ages. The third part, "The arraignment of the conuerted Iew", has divisional title and separate pagination and register. Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Abbot, George, 1562-1633. -- Treatise of the perpetuall visibilitie, and succession of the true Church in all ages -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. Catholic Church -- Apologetic works -- Early works to 1800. Protestantism -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. 2006-02 Assigned for keying and markup 2006-03 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-04 Sampled and proofread 2007-04 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE CONVERTED IEW OR CERTAINE DIALOGVES BETWEE MICHEAS A LEARNED IEW.

And others, touching diuers points of Religion, controuerted betweene the Catholicks and Proteſtants.

Written by M. IOHN CLARE a Catholicke Prieſt, of the Society of IESVS.

Dedicated to the two Vniuerſities of OX •• RD and CAMBRIDGE

The leafe following ſheweth the Interlocutours 〈…〉

Iudaeis nou a lux riri viſa eſt.

Heſther. 8.

PERMISSV SVPERIORVM. Anno. M. DC. XXX.

The Interlocutours of euery Dialogue.

1. In the firſt Dialogue is diſputed; whether the Church of Rome hath made any change in fayth and Religion, ſince the firſt plantation of it by the Apoſtles? It is proued, that it hath not.

Cardinall Bellarmyne of worthy memory Michaeas a learned Iewiſh Rabine. Doctour Whitakers of Cambridge.

Ad Romanos perfidia non poteſt habere acceſſum.

Cyprian. lib. 1. epiſt. 3.

2. In the ſecond Dialogue, entituled: The ſecond part of the Conuerted Iew, is diſcuſſed; whether in euery age ſince the Apoſtles; or rather whether but in any one Age ſin e that tyme, till Luthers dayes, there can be giuen any Inſtances of Profeſſours of Proteſtancy? It is proued, that no ſuch Inſtances can be giuen.

Michaeas, the foreſaid Iew. Ochinus, who firſt planted Proteſtancy in England, in King Edward the ſixt his raigne. Doctour Reynolds of Oxford. Neuſerus, Chiefe Paſtour of Heidelberg, in the Palatinat.

Si dixerint vobis: Ecce in deſerto eſt; nolite exire. Ecce in penetratibus; nolite credere.

Math. 24.

3. In the third and laſt Dialogue, ſtyled: The arraingnment of the Conuerted Iew. It is diſcourſed; Whether the Proteſtants of the Catholiks, do ſtand more chargeable, with diſloyalty to their lawfull Princes? It is proued, that the Proteſtants ſtand more chargeable. In this laſt dialogue, are diuers other points of Catholike Religion breifly handled.

The right Honourable the Lord Cheife Iuſtice of England. Michaeas the former Iew. M. Vicechancelour of Oxford.

Vidi mulierem, ebriam de ſanguine Sanctorum.

Apocalyp. 17.
THE ARGVMENT OF THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

MICHAEAS (a learned Iewiſh Rabine) by his diligent comparing of the Prophecies of the Old Teſtament, touching IESVS CHRIST, with the exact accompliſhment of them, recorded in the New Teſtament; forſaketh his former Iudaiſme, and imbraceth the Chriſtian Religion. But in obſeruing diuers differences touching faith among Chriſtians (and particularly among the Catholiks and Proteſtants) knoweth not to whether ſide to range himſelfe. At this tyme it ſo faleth out, that there is a generall meeting of many famous learned Men of all Religions, in the greate Citty of Coſmopolis in Vtopia: among whom Cardinall Bellarmyne, and Doctour Whitakers are thither comne. Michaeas haſtneth thither, and imparteth to the ſaid Cardinall and Doctour his preſent ſtate, & openeth to them his vncertainty, whether to embrace the Catholike fayth, or Proteſtancy. The Cardinall and the Doctour according to the different Principles of each others religion, propound to him different meanes of ſetling his iudgement in poynts of fayth. Michaeas (for ſome peculiar reaſons) forbeareth both their directions; He reduceth the tryall of all to this one head: to wit, that whereas he fyndeth in the New Rom. 1. & 15. & 16. Act. 28. Teſtament, that the true fayth was once planted by the Apoſtles in Rome; He ſaith, that if it can be proued, that this fayth euer altered ſince the Apoſtles tymes, he will become a Proteſtant; if not, he meaneth to be a Roman Catholike. Hereupon he earneſtly entreateth the Cardinall and the Doctour, that they would enter into diſpute, touching the change of fayth in the Church of Rome. They both accord to his requeſt, and inſtantly begin a ſerious & graue diſcourſe touching this ſubiect. Cardinall Bellarmyne ſo preſſeth Doctour Whitakers with weight of arguments, & by diſcouering the weaknes of the Doctours anſweres and Obiections, as that in the end the Doctour (entring into greate intemperance of words, againſt the Church of Rome) abruptly breaketh off his diſcourſe, and ſuddenly departeth. Michaeas, as conuinced with the force of the Cardinals diſputation, is reſolued to become a Roman Catholike; and ſo accordingly receaueth in the end in the Cathedrall Church of Coſmopolis, his Baptiſme, by the hands of the Cardinall, by whom alſo in ſome ſhort tyme after, he is made Prieſt. Thus far concerning the fiction of this firſt Dialogue.

TO THE TWO MOST FAYRE SISTERS THE TWO MOST ILLVSTRIOVS VNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDG.

MOST remarkable and learned Academians, in whoſe due prayſes I could willingly here inſiſt, were it not, that I loath all ſhow of oylye aſſentation. You may be here aduertized, touching the enſuing Treatiſes, that I haue made choice to ſet them downe rather in method of Dialogues, then in any other forme of ſtyle: Becauſe in this ony delicate & faſtidious age (which is quickly cloyed with any thing, not accompanyed with Variety) it is obſerued, that interlocutory Periods, and viciſſitude or alternation of turnes in ſpeech, are more gratefull and pleaſing, then any long, weariſome, continued, and vninterrupted diſcourſe.

Though the ſubiect of theſe Treatiſes be ſeuerall mayne points and Controuerſies in fayth (and conſequently, Points of Religion and Diuinity) yet I preſume, none of you is eyther ſo froward, or ſo ignorant, as to depraue and calumniate the Methode here vſed; by ſaying, that we are not to inuulgar the Myſteryes of ſacred Diniuity by way of Poeticall fiction of Dialogues, in forging that to be, which indeed is not. Which aſperſion of any ſuch Critick is eaſily wyped away, by the warrantable examples in this kind of S. Ierome, Theodoret, S. Gregory the Great, and others: who were not afrayd to treate of the higheſt matters of fayth, in forme of Dialogues. Againe, ſuch an inconſiderate aſſertion muſt needs condemne Poetry in generall (ſeeing Dialogues are a kind of Poetry) which how great an errour it were, might eaſily appeare, in that Poëtry is masked Philoſophy; Philoſophy Natures true Hiſtory; Nature Gods ſeruiceable Agent or Handmayd. Beſids, I am of iudgment that the Body of any long Diſcourſe (like an vnformed Chäos) is beſt brought into an Orbe of forme and Order, by help of interlocutions. And laſtly, admit this kind of Wryting were ſtrange and vnuſuall, and chiefly ſorting to ſubiects of leſſer importance; (as indeed, it is not) yet here we muſt remember, that a Phantaſtike often begins a faſhion, which graue Men (not to be thought Phantaſticks) are in the end content to follow.

Now to approach neerer the ſeuerall ſubiects, handled in all theſe Dialogues. In the firſt is diſputed a Controuerſy, much agitated and toſſed betweene the Catholiks and the Proteſtants; to wit, touching the change of fayth in the Church of Rome.

The Interlocutours are Cardinall Bellarmyne (that Hereſimaſtix) Michaeas, a learned Iewiſh Rabin, and Doctour Whitakers of Cambridg. The place of this conference I haue made to be the great citty Coſmopolis in Vtopia; ſince an imaginary place beſt ſorteth to an imaginary diſputation, in reſpect of the perſons feigned. The Cardinall iuſtifyeth the Catholiks poſition; videlicet, that no change in fayth and Religion hath bene made in the Church of Rome ſince the Apoſtles dayes: Which Poſition is indeed the iuncture, without which the whole frame almoſt of all other Controuerſies hang looſe. Doctour Whitakers vndertaks to proue the Contrary; In whom rather, then in any other Proteſtant, I haue peculiarly (and ex profeſſo) made choyce to perſonate all the ſpeeches and arguments, vſed to proue this ſuppoſed change in the Church of Rome; principally, becauſe there is no Proteſtant wryter (that I know) who hath ſo much proſecuted this preſumed change, as Doctour Whitakers hath done; as appeareth in his Bookes agaynſt the Cardinall himſelfe, agaynſt Father Campion (that bleſſed Saint) and cheifly againſt Duraeus, where the Doctour vndertaketh to inſtance diuers examples of this imaginary Reuolt. Yet here you are to conceaue, that I haue not ſo dwelled in the only wrytings of Doctour Whitakers, as that I neglect what other Proteſtants haue alſo written in maintenance of this change: for I aſſure you, I haue omitted nothing of Moment, which I could fynd in their Bookes, to be obiected in proofe thereof; though Doctour Whitakers is introduced to deliuer or ſpeake it. And withall I haue made ſpeciall references to their Books, where ſuch their ſentences or authorities are to be found; And yet (learned Men) notwithſtanding all that, which can be vrged by any of them in this behalfe; ſooner ſhall they prooue, that the fixed ſtarrs haue changed their poſtures & ſituations in their Orbe, then that Rome hath changed it fayth: So true are thoſe words of an auncient Father: Nazianz. in carmine de vita ſua. Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habere rectam fidem: & ſemper eam retinet. What ſentences, authorities, or inſtances of change Doctour Whitakers hath vſed in any of his Bookes by me alledged; the ſame I haue ſet downe with citation of the Books, and in a ſeuerall Character from that, which he ſpeaketh at large, in the perſon of a Proteſtant; and this to the end that the Reader may ſeuer the Doctours owne words, from the words of a Proteſtant in generall: In like ſort, what intemperate ſpeeches (euen loaded with malice and rancour) the Doctour ſeth againſt the Church of Rome, are not by me forged and fathered vpon him; But are (eſpecially, thoſe which are moſt virulent) his owne words, yet extant in his Bookes: and accordingly they are printed in a different letter, with the Latin words ſet in the margent: So carefull I am not to wrong the Doctour, by vniuſtly obtruding vpon him, any ſcurrilous and vndecent Inuectiues, or Paſquills.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

The Concluſion conſiſteth in retorting that vpon our Aduerſartes, where with they here charge the Church of Rome; I meane, in demonſtrating, that it is the Proteſtant, who hath made in fayth this change and innouation, from the auncient fayth of the Apoſtles; And thus by comparing theſe two contrary fayths & doctrines together, and the antiquity of the one, and innouation of the other, you ſhall find, that errour is beſt knowne by truth, as death is knowne bylife.

Now here your ingenuities are to ſuppoſe for the tyme, that Cardinall Bellarmine and Doctour Whitakers are at this preſent liuing; In like ſort, that the Cardinall hath read all bookes written either in Latin or Engliſh, which are in this Dialogue alleadged: Which like ſuppoſalls you are alſo to make in the other ſubſequent Dialogues, touching the Perſons in them produced; as that they are now liuing, and that they all liued at one tyme &c. All which imaginations are fully iuſtifiable in the true methode of Dialogues; ſince in this kind of writing, the Perſons (you know) are forged for the matter, and not the matter for the Perſons: And thus much touching the firſt Dialogue.

Now to deſcend to the ſecond Dialogue; The ſubiect wherof is to demonſtrate, that the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church cannot be iuſtifyed from the Primitiue Church, (much leſſe from the Apoſtles dayes) till Luthers reuolt: And which is more, that not any one Man, during all that long Period of tyme (nor Luther himſelfe) can be truly inſiſted vpon, for a perfect & abſolute Proteſtant; and ſuch as the preſent Church of England can, or will acknowledge to be a member of it. Which point being once euicted, How deadly it woundeth the Proteſtants, may eaſily appeare; in regard of the euer neceſſary and vndeniable viſibility of Chriſts true Church; whoſe expanſion, enlargment, and vneclypſed radiancy at all tymes, is much celebrated in Holy writ: Eſay. 60. (Her ſunne ſhall not be ſet, nor her Moone hid) as will more fully appeare bereafter in it due place.

The interlocutours are the foreſayd Michaeas, the Iew; Ochinus, who firſt (in King Edward the ſixt his dayes) did diſeminate Proteſtancy at leaſt, ſeuer all points of Proteſtancy, here l England; Doctour Reynolds of Oxford, and Neuſerus, chiefe Paſtour of Heidelberg in the Palatinate. Why Ochinus & Neuſerus are brought in, as ſpeakers in this Dialogue, the Argument prefixed therto will ſhow.

I haue preſumed to incorporate moſt of what can be vrged for the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, in Doctour Reynolds; as a Man, who was beſt able in his dayes to ſupport his owne Church from ruyne; And ſutably herto the ſuppoſed place of this diſputation is Oxford. I haue in no ſort wronged the Doctour, whom I well know to haue bene a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall ſpheare; & to whom (as being of good temperance in his writings, in reſpect of his brother Doctour Whitakers) I am vnwtlling to aſcrybe too litle; only I wiſh, his fauorits had not aſcrybed to him too much.

If any of you ſhall muſe, why in theſe Dialogues all the Proteſtants (being otherwiſe preſumed to be moſt learned) do reply ſo ſparingly eyther to Cardinall Bellarmyne or to Michaeas their anſweres and arguments, as here you ſhall find them to do: you are to conceaue, that it is agreed in the begining of the two firſt Dialogues among all the Interlocutours, to ſtand indiſputably to the freqrent Confeſſions of the learned Proteſtants, vrged in behalfe of any poynt controuerted. Now both the Cardinall and Michae s (for the moſt part) do auoyd the other Interlocutours reaſons and inſtances, by the contrary acknowledgments of diuers eminent Proteſtants; as alſo do produce their owne arguments in defence of their Catholicke articles, from the like acknowledgments of the learned Proteſtants, ſpeaking in thoſe points agaynſt themſelues, and in behalfe of the Catholickes. Which method being chiefly houlden throughout theſe Dialogues, how then can the Proteſtant Interlocutours continue any new reply, agaynſt the Caidinall, or agaynſt Michaeas?

But to reflect vpon the ſubiect of this ſecond Dialogue: And here I do auouch, that to maintayne, that Proteſtancy was euer before the breaking out of Luther (though euen then it was not in it perfection) is no leſſe abſurd in reaſon; then to maintayne, that, the byrth of any thing can precede it conception; and the effect the cauſe.

True it is, that in diuers former ages there haue bene ſome ſecret (and indeed blind) Moules, who working vnder the foundation of the Roman Church, haue labored to caſt vp ſome earth of innouations and noueltyes, comparting perhapps in ſome one or two points with the ſectar es of theſe dayes: But to iuſtify in thoſe men the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, or that they were Proteſtants) which is at this preſent the poynt only iſſuable) I hould it impoſſible; Except we will dreame, that thoſe perſons did pertake of the nature of the planet Mercury; which euer participateth (as the Aſtrologers teach) of all the influences of that other ſtarre or planet, with which it is in any ſort in coniunction.

Be it then, that ſome Innouatours in ſeuerall Centuryes haue contumactouſly defended ſome one or other Theoreme or principle, without which the entyre frame of Proteſtancy cannot ſubſiſt; Will any of you from hence conclude (and yet many Proteſtants do ſo conclude) that ſuch Mens Religion was perfect Proteſtancy? By the like reaſon you may inferre (to inſiſt in ſimilitudes within your owne ſpheare) that Vnity is a Number; a Poynt, Quantity; & an Inſtant, Tyme: Wheras you know well, that theſe are only beginnings or Elements of Number, Quantity, and Tyme; and without which theſe later can haue no being. In regard then of ſuch want of viſible Proteſtants, informer tymes, It is leſſe wounder, that ſome Proteſtant wryters haue thought good to Idëate & frame in their mynd a certayne mathematicall and airy Church, within which a number only of ſuppoſed inuiſibilities are comprehended. Thus much touching this ſecond Dialogue; to the which I haue thought good to ſubnect (as an Appendix) a ſhort view, taken of an Anonymous and froathy Pamphlet entituled: A Treatiſe of the perpetuall viſibility and ſucceſſion of the true Church, in al Ages; written ſome few yeares ſince and ſet forth (as is ſuppoſed) by Doctour Featly.

Now in this laſt place, to come to the third and laſt Dialogue; The ſubiect whereof is to manifeſt, that the Proteſtants (by many degrees) ſtand more iuſtly chargeable, both with the doctrine and practiſe of diſloyalty, agaynſt their lawfull Princes, then the Catholiks do: And that the Proteſtants haue therefore ſmall reaſon (and leſſe policy) to vpbrayde in their pulpits, and writings (as it is their accuſtomed Scene to doe) the Catholicks with any ſuch hatefull cryme. In this laſt Dialogue are alſo ſeuerall inſertions of ſome ſmall Treatiſes, in defence of diuers Catholike doctrines.)

The Interlocutours in this Dialogue are the right Honorable the Lord Cheife Iuſtice of England (to whom all dutifull comportment is borne throughout this Diſcourſe) Michaeas, the former Iew, and M. Vice-Chancelour of Oxford. That the Vice-Chacelour is therein introduced to be partly malignant agaynſt Michaeas (as charged by him beſides with other offences for being a Catholike Prieſt) is not ſtrange; conſidering how ſplenfull ſome Vice-Chancelours of that Vniuerſity haue borne themſelues, towards certayne Prieſts, there heretofore apprehended.

Thus farre particularly of the different ſubiects of theſe enſuing Dialogues; Which point is more largly ſet downe in the Arguments of euery one of them.

Now (moſt illuſtrious Men) I haue preſumed (and I hope this my preſumption will in your fauourable conſtruction be warrantable) to dedicate this whole worke to your ſelues; not for your patronage thereof, for that only it owne worth (If any be in it) muſt effect; but partly becauſe you are beſt able to iudge of the arguments produced on eyther ſide; and partly, in regard I haue ſelected out of eyther of your Vniuerſities, one of the moſt pryme and choyſeſt men in their dayes to be ſpeakers in theſe Dialogues; I meane (as aboue is ſayd) Doctour Whitakers and Doctour Reynolds. I could wiſh, you would not ſleight it, through a cold ſeuerity, proceeding from a foreſtauled iudgment againſt the Catholike fayth in generall; but peruſe it indifferently, and weigh the authorityes and reaſons withall Candour and impartiality. Touching my owne ſincerity, vſed throughout this labour; know you, that if I haue purpoſely and deliberatly detorted from it true meaning, but any one authority here produced by me; then let my forhead be publikly ſeared with an indeleble Stigma or print of ſhame and Confuſion. No. He is not Religious, who handleth Religion with fraud and impoſtures. And I am ſo free and guiltles herein, as that I dare vaunt my ſelfe to be in this reſpect a a dye or any fourſquared thing: Tetragonon; caſt me vp what way you will, my demeanour (in this caſe) will proue eauen & ſquared.

Do not expect any Oratory here, but what the force of vnauoydable Demonſtrations can perſwade; And in this ſence (I truſt, I may, without vanity ſay) you ſhall find Oratory; Since Truth is euer eloquent.

But now (moſt celebrious Academians) giue me leaue to turne my pen more particularly to your ſelues, and pardon this my boldnes; it proceeding ſolely out of my charitable affection, and out of my deſire of aduancing your ſpirituall Good: for you are 2. cor 3. Our Epiſtle, written in our harts. Well then, you are learned, and therefore (if grace aſſiſt) the more able to tranſpierce through any difficulties of Fayth, now queſtioned. Suffer not then your Iudgements to be enthralled to the iudgments of ſome few men among you, more eminent, then the reſt; they being Byrds, whoſe Aery is but in the high Cedars of the pretended reuealing Spirit; ſince through their aſſumed priuiledge therof, they are not aſhamed to reduce the conſtruction of Scripture, and the weight of all authorityes whatſoeuer, to the Tribunall of their owne Cenſure; ſcornfullly contemning whatſouer paſſeth not vnder the fyle of their owne approbation.

But to proceed forward. It is a thing wounderfull (and indeed deplorable) to obſerue the the exorbitancy of moſt Schollers proceedings (and perhapps of diuers of you) in theſe poynts; I meane, to ſee, what labour and toyle they beſtowe in humane ſtudyes, and how remiſſe they are in ſearch of true fayth. I aſſure my ſelfe, that many of you haue indefatigably ſpent much tyme in ſeeking to know: Whether the Opinions of Copernicus touching the Motion of the Earth and ſtanding ſtill of the ſunn and Primum Mobile, can be made probable? Whether a Concentrike Orbe with an Epicycle, or an Excentrike Orbe alone, can better ſalue the Phaynomena and irregular Apparences of the Planetts Whether ech Orbe be moued a Propria Intelligentia, or ab interna forma? Whether, ſuppoſing Infinitum to be in Rerum natura, One Infinitum can be greater, then an other? Which poynt ſome Philoſophers exemplify in the infinit reuolutions of the Sunne and the Moone; the Moone performing her courſe twelue or 13. tymes in that ſpace, in which the Sunne doth but once: And yet both their reuolutions muſt be infinit in Number; if one will grant with Ariſtotle, that the world was ab aeterno: Whether Corpus Sphaericum tangit planum, only in puncto? What is the cauſe, why the Sea keepeth a different courſe in it ebbing & flowing in different Countreyes; though to thoſe ſeuerall Countreyes the Moone beareth one and the ſame aſpect of it light? Whether, when the loadſtone draweth iron vnto it, this be effected through a naturall Sympathy of theſe two Bodyes, or only through the proper forme of the loadſtone? And Whether the turning of the irons point to the North (being touched with the loadſtone) is to be referred to ſome huge ſuppoſed mountayne of loadſtone in the vttermoſt Northparts; or to any one place of the Heauens neere to the Northpole; or to the intrinſe call forme of the loadſtone it ſelfe? Whether Algebra be a diſtinct Art from Arythmetyke; or but the ſame, aduanced to it height and perfection? Whether in the miracles of Chriſt and S. Peter, exhibited in curing of corporall diſeaſes (and the like may be demanded of all true miracles of this nature) God did for the tyme infuſe a Phyſicall quality (for example) in the skirt of our Sauiours garment, & in the ſhadow of S. Peter, which per potentiam obedientialem (as the Scholemen ſpeake) did worke vpon the diſeaſes, and ſo cure them; Or els God himſelfe did immediatly worke theſe ſupernaturall effects, ad praeſentiam illorum, at the preſence of the skirt and ſhadow, which in their abſence otherwiſe he would not worke? And finally (to omit diuers others ſuch nyce and abſtruſe ſpeculations, and but to touch a little vpon Diuinity) Whether Communicatio Idiomatum, flowing from the Hypoſtaticall vnion in Chriſt, is reall in reſpect of the different natures in Chriſt; or with reference only to the Hypoſtaſis of both the Natures?

In theſe (I ſay) and many ſuch like curioſities (for ſo I may tearme them; this laſt only excepted) diuers of you haue no doubt ſpent (and perhaps with great commondation) many howres by peruſing with your owne eyes ſeuerall Authours, & by diſcuſſing the arguments brought on all ſides to fortify their different opinions: And yet it mattereth litle, on which ſyde the Truth lyeth in moſt of theſe ſpeculations; But whereſoeuer it is found in them, we may equally and indifferently breake forth with the three Children in prayſing of God, for his Omnipotency and Wiſdome, diſcouered in them; ſaying, Dan. 3. Benedicite Omnia opera Domini Domino.

If then you haue bene ſo induſtrious and breathles herein, and ſo abſorpt in the delight of theſe leſſe neceſſary ſtudyes, O with what a ſpirituall Leithargy are ſuch of you poſſeſſed, who in matters of Religion (the truth or falſhood wherof concerns your ſoules interminable and endles happynes or miſery) ſhall runne on headlong, till you come to your graues in an vnexamined and yet reſolued opinion agaynſt the Catholike fayth, with a ſupine reſignation of your iudgments in all poynts of Religion (without further tryall) to the wrytings (for example) of Caluin and Beza; whoſe peſtiferous Scripts many make their Catechiſmes? Men charged (euen by their owne Caluin is charged with Sodomy by the publike records of the Citty of Noyon in Frā ce, yet extant; And by Conradus Sluſſenberg (a Proteſtāt) in Theol. Caluin. printed 1594. l. 2. fol. 72. Beza is charged with the ſame cryme, by the foreſaid Sluſſenberg, vbi ſupra, and l. 1. fo. 93. By Titilmannus Heſhutius (a Preteſtant) in his booke entituled: Verae & ſanae confeſſionis. And the ſame is cōfeſſed of Beza by D. Mortō, (though moſt falſly excuſed) in his Apolog. Catholica, part. 1. l 2. c. 21. Brethren) with the execrable cryme of Sodomy: And remember you not, that we Math. 7. gather not grapes of thorns, nor figs of thiſles?

But herewith (moſt excellent Academians) I will end; and craue pardon for this my fulnes of ſpeach, entreating you to call to mynd thoſe words: meliora Prouerb. 27. ſunt vulnera diligentis, quam fraudulenta oſcula odientis. And thus remitting you to the peruſall of theſe following Dialogues, I will with my inceſſant prayers ſolicit the Higheſt, (who is Iac. 1. Pater luminum; and from whom, Omne datum optimum, & omne bonum perfectum deſcendit) ſo to enlighten your iudgements in your ſtudyes and courſes; that after this life, you may be as truly beatifyed with the Intuitiue knowledge of all things, in the moſt happy viſion of God; As now here vpon earth, you labour to enrich your mynds, mith all commendable Diſcurſiue knowledge.

Yours in Chriſt Ieſus. I. C.
THE CONVERTED IEW. OR A DIALOGVE WHEREIN IS PROOVED, That the Church of ROME hath made no change in Faith, and Religion, ſince the firſt Plantation of it by the Apoſtles. INTERLOCVTOVRS, MICHEAS A IEWISH RABBIN, CARDINALL BELLARMINE DOCTOVR WHITAKERS, MICHEAS.

MOST ILLVSTRIOVS CARDINAL, and moſt reuerend and learned Doctour. Such is the ſpreading fame of both your perfections in the ſacred knowledge of Deuinity, as that the report therof hath (I confeſſe) euen giuen wings to my old age, to haſten my fleight to this noble Citty of Coſmopolis in Vtopia; which, as being honored through both your preſence, is for the time become the Rendeuous of all good literature.

Touching my ſelfe, know you both, that I am by birth, and (till this preſent) alſo in Religion, a Iew; by name Micheas, who euer haue honoured the Lord Pſalm. 83. of Hoaſts, the God Exod. 3. of Abraham, the God of Iſaack, the God of Iacob, and the Lord God of the Hebrews; beleeuing with your Apoſtle Paul, God grant with the like happy ſucceſſe to him in change of my Religion, who by his ryſing faule, as I may tearme it, was no ſooner ſtrucken downe to the ground, then he began to aſcēd towards Heauen, all Act. 24. things, that are written in the Law, and the Prophets, and Act. 22. inſtructed according to the verity of the, Law, of the Fathers.

Of late I haue diligently peruſed, the writings of your Euangeliſts (the foure Hiſtorigraphers of that Holy Man, whome you Chriſtians call Ieſus: I alſo haue exactly red the Acts of your Apoſtles; theſe faithfull ſeruants of the ſaid Ieſus, who firſt ſowed the ſeedes of their Maiſters heauenly doctrine, and after did watter them with their owne bloud: To be ſhort, I haue bene much conuerſant in theſe Letters Miſſiues (if ſo they may be called) I meane, in the Epiſtles of the ſaid Apoſtles, written to diuers Nations, for their better inſtruction in the Chriſtian Faith; as alſo in that moſt abſtruſe worke of your Sauiours Beſt-beloued, commonly called the Apocalyps.

I haue made moſt particuler reference of all thoſe writings, to the Propheſies recorded in our owne Law: and I do freely confeſſe (and indeede with an ineffable griefe) that, that Holy One, whome my Fore-Fathers (and in them my ſelfe) did put to the moſt opprobrious death of the Croſſe, was, and is the Sonne of the Higheſt, and the true Sauiour of the World; and therefore I thinke it the leſſe wounder, that the ſtony harts of vs Iewes (beſt diſcouered by ſuch our cruell proceedings) were figured by the Tables of Stones, wherin the Law was firſt giuen to vs. Yea I am ſo inalterably perſwaded herein, that I do auouch, that all the cheife Particularities concerning him, were moſt punctually propheſied by the Antient Fathers of the Iewiſh Law: Thus (for example) was his Precurſor foretold in Eſay. cap. 40. That he ſhould be borne of a Virgine Eſay. 7. The place of his birth, Micheas, 5. The death of the Cheldren at his birth, Ierom. 31. His preaching, Eſay. 61. His foure Eunngeliſts, Ezechiel. 1. The chuſing of his Apoſtles, Pſalm. 8. His riding vpon an Aſſe into Ieruſalem, Eſay. 62. and Zachary. 9, The betraying of him by him, who dipped his hand in the diſh, Pſalm. 41. The Iewes ſpittiug in his Face, and buffeting of him, Eſay. 50. The Iewes mocking of him, Pſalm. 22. The deuiding of his garmēts. Pſalm. 22. Their giuing to him gaule and Vinegar to drinke, Pſalm. 69. The manner of his death, by piercing his hands and feete, Pſalm. 22. His ſtaying in the graue three dayes, Ionas. 2. His Reſurrection, Pſalm. 15. and 132. His Aſcēti n, Pſalm. 109. Finally, (to omitt diuers other leſſer paſſages) The deſcending of the Holy Ghoſt, Ioel. 2. Thus in regard of their Premiſ es, I do fully acknowledg, that in him, and by him our Law, (which did ſerue, but to ſhadow this time of Grace) is now abrogated; and therfore my ſelfe, as conuinced with ſo many irrefragable demonſtratiōs of the trueth of your Chiſtian Religion, do hereby ſubmit my ſelfe to the ſweet yoake of Chriſt; do confeſſe my ſelfe to be in Iudgment and beleefe, a Chriſtian (though as yet, but an analogicall, and halfe Chriſtian) and with reference to the time of the Law, and the time of Grace, and the adumbration of the one in the other, I thinke, I may not vnfitly ſtyle the different ſtate of thoſe two times: The Euangelicall Law, and the Leuiticall Ghoſpell; ſince the Law is but the Ghoſpel Propheſied; the Gohſpel, the Law complet, and actually performed.

CARDINALL BELLARMINE

LEarned Rabby. I much reioyce at your change in Religion; and indeed, that preciſe correſpondency, which your ſelfe haue obſerued; betweene the Old Teſtamēt and the New (wherby you may ſe, the Apoſtle had iuſt reaſon to ſay: 1. Cor. 10. Omnia in figura contingebant illis) is of force to corroborate, and ſtrengthen you in our Chriſtian Faith, againſt all thoſe Ephiſ. 6. ſpirituales nequitiae, or any other contrary aſſaults. For now you ſe, that the Maske or vayle of all your legall Sacrifices, and Ceremonies is taken away, through the perfect conſummation of them in our Lord, and Sauiour. Therefore giue thanks to God for this your illumination, and confeſſe with the chiefe Apoſtle, That Act. 4. there is no other name vnder Heauen (then that of Ieſus) giuen vnto Men, wherein we may be ſaued.

D. WHITAKER.

It is moſt true, which my Lord Cardinall hath ſaid; for Ieſus Chriſt is the ſecond perſon in the moſt bleſſed, and indiuiſible Trinity; who was made Man to repaire the loſſe of the firſt Man; who died, to the end, we ſhould not dye: Chriſtus Hebr. 9. ſemel oblatus eſt ad multorum exhaurtenda peccata hauing humbled himſelfe being made obedient vnto death, euen the death of the Croſſe. for Philip. 2. which thing God hath exalted him, and hath giuen him a name, which is aboue all Names; that in the name of Ieſus euery knee ſhould bow of things in Heauen, in Earth, and vnder the earth: Therefore he is to be your cornerſtone, wherupon you are to build all the ſpitituall edifice of your Soules Saluation. And comfort your ſelfe (Micheas) with this, that though only the Iſralits did put Chriſt to death, yet only a true Iſralite is a true Chriſtian.

MICHEAS

All this I conſtantly beleeue. But now at my firſt embracing of Chriſtian Religion, one maine difficulty doth mightely affrnot me. I ſe you Chriſtians, though you do all militate vnder on ſupreme Captaine; yet through your many Controuerſies in Religion, do reſt deuided amongſt your ſelues (like ſo many diſtracted, and diſordered troupes, or ſqadrōs) not affording Saluation on to an other: ſoe as from whence I am departed, I do well know, but what part to follow, I am moſt vncertaine. And though I firmly beleeue, that without faith in Chriſt a man cannot be ſaued; yet withall I as cnnſtātly beleeue, that on beleeuing only in groſſe in Chriſt, ſhall not be ſaued.

Now here I ſe the Catholicke to condeme the Proteſtāt, for his deſtroying, and taking away many Articles of Chriſtian Religion, to wit, the Doctrine of Free-will, of Purgatory, of Praying to Saincts, of Merit of workes, and (to omit many other controuerted points) the Reall Preſence in the Euchariſt, and Sacrafice of the Alter; and for ſuch proceeding doth anathematize him for an Heretick. The Proteſtant (on the other ſide) for the Catholicke his mantaining, and beleeuing the ſaid points, doth ſtyle him Superſtitious, Idolatrous, and, as on wholy exempt from all hope of Saluation. And in theſe matters the iudgments of the Proteſtant, and the Catholicke are ſo meerely contrary (the one conſtantly affirming, the other peremptorily denying (as that their diſcording beleefes can neuer be wonn vp in any one publick confeſſion or Creede.

Here now my deuided Soule (licke the diſſreſſed priſoner, who hauing broken the Iaile, knoweth not what way to flie, for his beſt refuge) toſſed in the waues of ſuch contrary Doctrines, is ignorant towards what ſhoore to ſaile, if I be a Proteſtant, I can be no Catholicke; If a Catholicke, I am no Proteſtant; The on I can but be, both I cannot be. That threatens to me the brand of, Hereſy; this of Superſtitiō, and Idolatry: O God, that the fragrant roſe of Chriſtian Religion ſhould be thus beſet on all ſides, with the ſharpe pricks of theſe vnpleaſing diſagreements. But this forceth me to remember thoſe words of an auncient doctour: Vt in Tertul. peſſimis aliquid boni, ſic in optimis nonnihil mali.

CARDINALL BELLARMINE.

True it is, that there are many differences in Chriſtian Religion; and each good mans greife is hereby the greater: for wheras contention in other things raiſeth the eſtimation; and valew of them; contention about Faith (in a vulgar eye) leſneth it. But theſe (you are to conceiue, Micheas) take their courſe not from the Faith of Chriſt; (for it is but one: vna Ephis. 4. fides, vnum baptiſma) but from the Elation and height of priuat Iudgments, which bluſh not to aduance themſelues aboue all Authorities, both Deuine, and Humane.

Therfore (Micheas) the better to free you from all thoſe laborinths of opinion, which otherwaiſe may more eaſily illaquiate, and intangle you, build your Faith in all inferiour points of Chriſtian Religion, principally vpon Gods ſacred Word, as it is propounded, and interpreted by Chriſt his Church; and to her repaire in all your doubts, ſince Chriſt himſelfe hath vouchſafed to warrant this proceeding in theſe words: dic Math. 18. Eccleſiae, et Eccleſiam non audieret, ſit tibi ſicut Ethnicus, et Publicanus. Reuerence Ecleſiaſticall Traditions, which are deriued through a continued hand of time, euen from the Apoſtles: Id Tertul. ab initio. quod ab Apoſtolis: for it is true, that we Catholicks do beleeue ſome things without Scripture; but it is as true, that all Sectaries beleeue their Errours, againſt Scripture. Read the Generall Councels, with whome Chriſt is euer preſent, for he hath promiſed, when but two Maeth. 18. or three are geathered togeather in his name (much more when ſeuerall hundreds) he well be in the middeſt with them; and obſerue the Hereſies condemned in them: Peruſe the writings of the Primatiue Fathers; and remember that ſentence: Interroga Deutro. 4. de diebus antiquis. aſſuring your ſelfe, that the Doctrine ioyntly taught by them, is agreable to the Faith, firſt taught by Chriſt, and his Apoſtles.

Finally ſquare your Religion according to the vninterrupted practiſe of Gods Church, which the Apoſtle himſelfe (for our greater ſecurity) hath honored with the title of Columna, 1. Timoth 3. et Firmamentum veritatis; And thus you ſhall forbeare to imitate thoſe men, who thinke to ſhew their loue to the Truth, by their hate to this Pillar, and Foundation of Truth. Beſides, this deportment diſculps great Humility; a Character euen of Chriſt himſelfe: dicite Mat. 12. a me, quia humilis ſum corde. ſo true it is, that an humble man is like to a lowly vally, ſweetly ſeated. Thus doing (Micheas) no doubt you will embrace our Catholicke Faith; of which point I am in greater hope; in that it is obſerued, that whereas many At Dauid Georg Profeſſour at Baſil. Hamelinanus &c. Proteſtants haue becom Iewes, yet not any Iew a Proteſtant.

D. WHITAKER.

The Cardinall here hath giuen you to large a ſcope; ſince moſt of theſe are but humane, and morall inducements, which ſtand ſubiect to errour, and falſhood, and you are to call to minde, that to run well out of the right way, is noe better, then to ſtand ſtill: D. Whit. ſo ſaith cō tra Camp. Rat. 8. Pálin dromêſan, 'è dramêin cacôs.

Therfore let your groundworke be next vnder Chriſt, only the Holy Scriptures. Theſe are the only Iudges of all Cō trouerſies: Theſe are of that worth, as that they are profitable (as the Apoſtle 2. Timo. 3. ſpeaketh) To Doctrine, to reprooue, to correction, to inſtruction, which is in righteouſnes, that the man of God may be perfect, inſtructed in all good workes: of that Clearenes, as that iuſtly they may be called; lucerna Pſal. 18. pedibus meis: Of that fulnes, and amplitude, as we are threatned vnder paine of hauing our names blotted Apocal. vlt. out of the booke of life if we either add, or detract from thence: finally of that eaſines, and facility, as that for picking out the true ſence, we are to, receiue it by the benefit of our owne ſpirit, inſtructed by the Holy Ghoſt: Ioan. 3. ſpiritus vbi vult, ſpirat.

MICHEVS.

You both ſpeake learnedly. And firſt touching your directions (my L. Card.) I hold them moſt graue & waighty. Yet ſeing I haue ſpent all my time chiefly in ſtudying the Law, and the Prophets (being heretofore a Rabnie in our Iewiſh Sinagogue) and ſeing that multiplity of reading, which your method exacts, (to wit of the Auntient Fathers, the Generall Councels, Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories) is to great a burden to be impoſed now vpon the ſhoulders of my old age (my ſelfe not likely to liue ſo many years, as will be anſwerable to ſo infinit a labour) Therefore I muſt bethinke my ſelfe of ſome other more ſhort, and abreuiated courſe, for the perfect ſetling of my iudgment in the Chriſtian Religion.

Touching your graue aduice (M. Doctour) of relying only vpon the Writen word. Grant, that the Scripture alone were of it ſelfe ſufficient to define, and determine all Controuerſies in Religion; yet I am ſo conſcious of my owne weaknes herein, as that conſidering the ſeuerall ſences vſually giuen vpon one, and the ſame text, I ſhould euer reſt doubtfull (once abandoning the ſence, giuen by the ioynt conſent of all Ancient Doctours of what conſtruction to make choyce; and the rather ſeing the Scripture witneſſeth of it ſelfe, That no Propheſy 2. Petr. 2. of the Scriprure is made, by priuat Intepretation. And ſure I am, that if we Iewiſh Rabbins ſhould take liberty to interprete the olde Teſtament, according to euery particular conceipte of each of vs, we longe ſince ſhould haue begotten many diſſentions in Faith amonge vs.

I may add hereto, that I am the more eaſily thus perſwaded, euen by both your ſpeches at this preſent; ſeing both of you do ſtrengthen, and fortifie your different iudgments (touching the finall determining of Controuerſies) euen from the Scripture it ſelfe. But what? doth the Scripture ſpeake different (or rather contrary things?) Noe. The Scripture is like to the Authour of Scripture; euer the ſame, and vnchāgable: Ego Malach. 3. ſum dominus, et non mutor. And indeede to ſpeake plainly, when you vrge thoſe words: ſpiritus vbi vult, ſpirat. whereby you intimate the guift of the Priuat ſpirit, interpreting the Scripture, I euer diſliked this Principle (euen before I beleeued in Chriſt) as ready to create in differētly any one Religion as well as an other: ſo that, that man, who for his Faith, and Religion grounds himſelfe vpon this Reuealing Spirit, and conſequētly is ready to ſtampe any Religion, which himſelfe beſt pleaſeth, is like (in my iudgment) to on that ſhould be immediatly made rather of the firſt Matter, then of the Elements well tempred togeather; ſince he is in poſſibility, Anything. But to proceede: ſeing the directions of neither of you (in regard of ſome difficult circumſtances accompaning them) can at this preſent ſorte vnto my caſe, I muſt make election of ſome other method, for the ſētling of my fluctuating Conſcience in matter of Faith. And (vnder both your fauours) it ſhalbe this, wheras by ſeriouſly peruſing the New Teſtament (as you Chriſtians call it) I am become with infinite thanks to the Lord of Hoſtes, a Chriſtian, though as yet, but a Chriſtian imperfect, and ſcarſly initiated: So out of the ſame deuine Records, I am inſtructed, that the Church of Rome in thoſe primatiue times receaued the true Chriſtian Faith, incontaminate and free from all errour. Now if thoſe ſacred writings be of ſufficient force with me, for my relinquiſhing of my anciēt Iewiſh faith; then ought they as ſecurely to warrant my Iudgment, that the true Faith of Chriſt was planted in the Apoſtles time in Rome.

This laſt point is confirmed to me by your great Apoſtle Paule, who in his Epiſtle to the Romans, much celebrateth the Faith of Rome, ſaying: Rom. 1. To all, that be at Rome the beloued of God, called to be Saints, Grace to you. And againe I thanke Rom. ibid. my God for you, &c. becauſe your Faith is renowned throughout the whole world. And yet more: your Rom. 16. obdience is publiſhed in euery place. finally, the Apoſtle is ſo full in aduancing the Faith of the Romans, as that he particularly euen in words, aſcribs one, and the ſame Faith to himſelfe, and them ſaying: That, Rom. 1. which is common to vs both, your Faith, and mine. From all which texts it is euicted, that Rome in thoſe firſt times enioyed a true and perfect Faith. Now here it comes to be examined, whether Rome, ſince her firſt embracing of it, hath changed her Faith; or othirwiſe ſhe retaines without any alteration the ſame doctrine, which firſt the Apoſtles did plant in her.

This point (moſt excellent Men) deſerus an exact diſcuſſing, and may well ſeeme to be worthy your ſerious diſputs: My owne want in your Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories (from whence cheifly this queſtion is to receiue it triall) doth pleade for my ignorance herein, and makes my humble requeſt (for the better eſtableſhing of my yet vnſetled iudgment) to you both, to enter into a graue skirmiſh, and feight of diſputation herein. Both of you are learned, and therefore (by vrging what can be ſaid on either ſide) able to accompliſh this my deſire: both of you are charitable, (as I muſt ſuppoſe) and therefore (no doubt) willing (for my confirmation in the Chriſtian Faith) to vndertake this my wiſhed taske for Charity (as euer deſirous to do good) omnia 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . 13. ſperat, ſuſtinet; & a charitable man partakes of the nature of a glaſſe, which is as ready to giue, as to receaue ons fauour. My foundation is here the words of your owne Apoſtle; I humbly entreate, that your learned diſcourſes would raiſe the wales, and I ſhall attend your ſpeeches with a greedy, and liſtning eare. Then in the cloſe of all I may be better aſſured, whether for my Soules eternall felicity, I ſhould ſubiect my ſelfe, as a member to the preſent Church of Rome; or otherwiſe conſociate my ſelfe with the Proteſtants; the preſumed Reformers of the ſaid Church.

CARD. BELLARM.

Micheas, your iudgment hath made choiſe of a moſt important ſubiect, and Chriſtian Religion teacheth vs to be benificiall to all, maximè Galat 6. domeſticis fidei, within which number, I hope ſhortly, I may place you. And therefore my paines (according to my ſmale ability) ſhall not be wanting to accompliſh your requeſt; and I much commend your deſire herein; for who neglecteth his owne Soule, is not preſent to himſelfe.

D. WHITAKERS.

The Groundworke (Micheas) of this your deſired diſputation I acknowledg moſt firme; and I ſhalbe ready to afford my beſt furtherāce therto, though in regard of my owne ſmale mite of learning, I ſhalbe like (perhapps to the widdow in the Choſpel, who gaue leſſe, then any other, and yet was more charitable, then any other.

But touching the Baſis, and foundation of this future Diſcourſe, We do D. Whita. thus ſaith. cont. Camp. Rat. 7 grant, that the Church of Rome was holy, when Paule gaue it thoſe foreſaid praiſes; as alſo when he further ſaid: without intermiſſion I make mention of you alwaies in my prayers. When alſo he D. Whita. vb ſupra. ſaid: He would Rom. 15. come to the Romans in aboūdance of the bleſſing of Chriſt; and when in freedome he did preach to them the Ghoſpel of Chriſt. Yea which is more: We D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 7. freely confeſſe, that the Cuhrch of Rome was a famous Church of Chriſt, when Clemence did ſit in that ſeate, and when the prophane Roman Caeſars did put to death the Biſhops of Rome. But ſince thoſe times, that moſt remarkable change of Faith haue violently inuaded, and poſeſſed that Church, I will vndertake to prooue, neither will I draw backe herein, but ſhalbe prepared to manifeſt to you, how ſince the Apoſtles times, the Roman D. Whit. vſeth theſe very words L. cont. Cāp. Rat. 7. ſaying: Haec ſunt Eccleſiae veſtrae inſignia, Superſtitio, Infidelitas, Antichriſtus, Epicurus. Wolues haue inuaded the Church, and ceaſed not to deuoure the flocke; for the badges of the Roman Church are ſuperſtition, Infidelity, Antichriſt, and Epicuriſme.

CARD. BELLARM.

How now M. Doctour. Such paſſion in the beginning? what Philippicks, and inuectiue declamations are theſe; the accuſtomed lāguage of moſt of our new illuminated Brethren, not ſorting to your preſumed grauity? Therefore either forbeare the like hereafter, or let vs forbeare to enter into any diſpute: for I do not loue to conuerſe with thoſe Men, whoſe tongues are vſed to ſpeake nothing but Satyrs.

D. WHITAKERS.

My Lord. my feruour to the Ghoſpel hath thus tranſported me: The Pſalm. 68. et Ioan. 2. zeale of thy howſe hath eaten me vp: But pardon (for euer) this my holy impatience, and I will promiſe you to proceede hereafter in all ſerenity, and mildnes; and will prooue the change of Religion in the Church of Rome, not by conuitiating it with intemperate language, but with weight of argument.

CARD. BELLARM.

You ſay well. And therefore In the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghoſt, let vs beginne.

And here firſt M. Doctour, you are to remember, that ſeing you affirme, that Religion is changed in the Church of Rome, ſince that Church was firſt (as it were) cultiuated, & tilled therewith by the labour of the Apoſtles; you are thereby obliged to prooue this your aſſertion; And I (as houlding the Negatiue) am bound only to anſwere, and to repell your arguments. Neuertheleſſe I will ſupererogate with you in methode herein, and will vndertake to prooue poſituely, that Rome ſince it firſt being Chriſtian, did neuer ſpeake of ſo much, as any on materiall, and dogmaticall Article, (which is the point in queſtion) of her primatiue Faith.

Now for the greter conuinceing of your contrary poſition, I meane to ſtrengthen and fortifie the truth herein, euen from the teſtimonies of your owne learned Men: and thus the Proteſtants penns ſhall deadly wound the Proteſtants Faith. Therefore tell me (M. Doctour) if you will quietly ſubſcribe in this time of diſputation, to the ingenious, and plaine Confeſſion of your owne learned, and iudicious Brethren.

D. WHITAKERS

Moſt willingly: for D. Whit. cont. Bellar. L. de Eccleſ. coutrouerſ. 2. q. 5. c. 14. ſaith: efficax eſt Aduerſariorū ipſorū contra ipſos teſtimonium &c. et quidē fateor veritatē a ſuis inimici Teſtimoniis extorquere poſſe. the argument muſt needs be ſtrong, and efficatious, which is taken from the confeſſion of the Aduerſaries; and I do freely acknowledg, that the Truth is able to extorte teſtimonies euen frō it Enemies. And this point is further warranted with all force of reaſon: for why ſhould learned men confeſſe againſt themſelues, and in behalfe of their Aduerſaries, were it not that the racke of an vndeniable Truth forceth them theirto?

CARD. BELLARM.

It is moſt true, and the matter ſo ſtandeth indeede; and your ſpeech well ſorteth to that ſentence of S. Auguſtine; to wit, That cont. Donat. poſt coll. c. 24. truth is more forcible to wringe out Confeſſion, then any racke or torment. well then to proceede to the matter. And becauſe things contracted in method, enter more eaſily (after a piramic all manner, as I may ſay) into the eye of the vnderſtanding; Therefore for the more facilitating of this point here handled, you are to coceiue (M. Doctour) that in any notable change of Religion, theſe things following can be demonſtrated and pointed out. Bell. thus ſaith verbal ly in l. 4. de Eccleſ. c. 5 de Not. Eccleſ. Nota ſecūda. Firſt, the Authour of ſuch a Change. Secondly. the new opinion or doctrine. Thirdly, the time, in which this new doctrine was firſt broahed, or preached. Fourthly, the place, in which it was taught. Fiftly, and laſtly, the perſons, who did oppugne, and reſiſt it at the firſt: All which are found euen in the Church of Chriſt, which neuertheleſſe was no new Church, but only a certaine mutation or change of the ſtate of the Church, according to the predictions of the Prophets. For firſt we knowe, the authour thereof was Chriſt; The new Articles of beleefe were principally, the Articles of the Trinity, and Incarnation; the time, when this doctrine was firſt preached, was in the fifteenth yeare of Tyberius Caeſar; The place Iudëa; finally the oppugners of it were the Scribes, and Phariſes. Now whereas we are able to demonſtrate all theſe points in the beginning of euery particular ſect, or Hereſie; our Aduerſaries notwithſtanding cannot ſet downe any one of theſe circumſtances concerning our Church or Faith, euer ſince the Apoſtles times.

But becauſe of all theſe Circumſtances, the Time of this ſuppoſed chāge is chiefly to be weighed, I will begin therewith, remitting diuers of the other Circumſtances to be hereafter diſcuſſed by vs; and leuing the reſt for greater breuity to ſome other fitting opertunity. And as touching the Circumſtances of Time, I will firſt diſcourſe therof by meanes of a diſtribution of three diſtinct times ſince Rome firſt receaued the Ghoſpel of Chriſt.

Firſt then, we will take into our conſideration, how longe it is granted by your Proteſtants, that Rome did perſeuer without any alteration in her prematiue Faith. Secondly we will enquire, and ſet downe the acknowledged continuance of that time, during all which ſeaſon the now preſent Faith of Rome hath continued; That is, how longe Papiſtry (as you commonly tearme it) hath bene publikly profeſſed, and taught throughout all Chriſtendome. Thirdly and laſtly, we will then take a view of the times, betweene theſe two former ſeuerall times: for theſe two times being once acknowliged on all ſides (to wit, the time, during which the Church of Rome confeſſedly kept her firſt Faith taught by the Apoſtles, and the time, during which the preſent Romane Faith hath continued from this day vpward) it ineuitably followeth, that this ſuppoſed change of Religion did either happen in the interſtitium, and meane time betweene the two former Periods of times, or els, that there hapened no ſuch chang in Religion in the Church of Rome at all. Now concerning the firſt of theſe times, how long (in the Proteſtants iudgements) M. Doctour did the Church of Rome retayne without ſtaine, or alteration in any point of moment, or Article of beliefe (for that only is to be enquired) the Faith firſt deſeminated by the Apoſtles?

D. WHITAKERS.

I will confeſſe in all ingenuity, that diuers of our owne learned Brethren do teach, that Rome retained her purity of Fayth without any ſuch alteration by you intimated, till after the deaths of Optatus, Epiphanius, and Auguſtine, which is during the ſpace of foure hundred and forty yeares after Chriſt.

CARD. BELLARMINE

You ſay moſt truely, and I do like your playneſſe herein, ſince he is truely politike (eſpetially in matters of Religion, which require all candour in theire menaging) who is not politicke. For wheras our Catholicke writers haue much inſiſted, that Tertullian, prouoked the Heretickes of his daies to the Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome, your owne D. Fulke giueth this reaſon touching ſuch his prouocation, in theſe words: The D. Fulk. in his Coful. of Purgat. p. 374. argument then drawne from Succeſſion was good, becauſe the Church of Rome retained (by Succeſſion vntill Tettullians dates) that Faith, which it did firſt receaue from the Apoſtles. To whoſe iudgment in this particular reaſon your ſelfe (M. Doctour) in your booke writen againſt me ſubſcribs, thus ſaying: from hence D. Whit. co t. a Bell. l. de Eccleſ. where he ſpoketh of certaine Apoſtol. Churches, & perticulerly of the Church of Rome. we do vnderſtād why Tertulliā did appeale to thoſe Churches; to wit, becauſe the Churches did then hould the Apoſtolicall Doctrine by a perpetuall ſucceſſion.

But to deſcend further in time, touching the graunted preſeruation of the Faith of Rome wheras in like manner ſome Chatholicke Authors haue alledged the ſame argumēt, drawne from the Succeſſion of Biſhops by the example of Irenaeus, Cyprian, Optatus, Hierome, Vincentius Lyrinenſis, and Auguſtine, (all which Fathers moſt reſted in the Succeſſion of the Biſhops of Rome, ſtill continued till their daies) your foreſaid D. Fulke anſwereth in behalfe of the ſayd Fathers in this ſort: That theſe In his Confutat. of Purgatory pag. 372. Fathers eſpecially named the Church of Rome, it was, becauſe the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apoſtles; ſo it continued in the Doctrine of the Apoſtles. With whome accordeth D. lewell, ſaying: Aſwell Auguſtine, as alſo other godly Fathers rightly yealded reuerence to the Sea of Rome &c. for the purity of Religion, which was there preſerued a lōg time without ſpot.

To conclude, Caluine himſelfe (euen in the ſame manner) anſwereth the foreſayd argument of Succeſſion of Biſhops in the Church of Romê, inſiſted vpon by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, In his Reply to D. Ha ding pag. 246. Auguſtine, Optatus, Epiphanius, and others; for thus Caluine ſpeaketh: Cùm extra 〈…〉 it. l. 4. c. 2. ſect. 3. controuerſiam eſſet, nihil à principio vſque ad aet •• tem illam mutatum fuiſſe in doctrina &c. Seing it was a Poynt out of Controuerſy that nothing in doctrine, frō the beginning to that very age was changed; theſe holy Fathers did take that, which they thought ſufficient, for the deſtroying of all new Errours; (to wit,) the doctrine conſtantly and with an vnanimous conſent, retayned euen from the Apoſtles dayes, till their tymes. Thus Caluine.

To theſe fromer I may alledge that Sentence: out of D. Fulke, ſaying: The Retentiues pag. 85. Popiſh Church &c. departed from the Vniuerſall Church of Chriſt, long ſince Auguſtins departure out of this lyfe; Thus he granting, that till S. Auguſtins death, the Church of Rome was the true Church: ſo euident and clere (we ſe) it is, that the Church of Rome neuer changed her Religion from the Apoſtles firſt Planting of it, vntill the times of S. Auguſtin, Epiphanius, Optatus &c. which was (as is aboue ſayd) foure hundred and forty yeares after Chriſt.

Thus farre (M. Doctor) concerning the durance of the tymes (euen by the Proteſtants frequent confeſſions) that no change of fayth was made in the Church of Rome; Tonching which poynt Irefere you (for greater ſatiſfaction) to certaine quoted places of the aforeſayed Fathers, to wit, of Fp. ad. Pom 〈…〉 p. 7. ad. Damaſ. Hierome, L. 3. aduer. Haereſ. c. 3. Ire aeus, Tom. 7. in Pſal. Cent. par e Do 〈…〉 2. Ep. 165. et Lib. ae vtilit. Credena . c. 17. Auguſtine, Aduer Haereſ. Paulo poſ 〈…〉 init. Vincentius Lyr ne ſis, De obi . frac . Ambroſe &c. All which Fathers in their writings do conſtantly auerre, that the Faith preached in their dayes in the Church of Rome was the true Fayth; and conſequently, was neither then nor afore ſubiect to change or alteration.

Now all this being made thus euident, it followeth according to our deſigned Method, that we conſider the number of thoſe ages, during the lenght of all which from this day vpwards, the preſent Roman Fayth hath (by the lyke Confeſſion of the Learned Proteſtants) bene generally taught: Seing how long the Proteſtants) bene generally taught: Seing how long the Proteſtants do grant, that the Church of Rome hath from this day contined in her preſent Faith; ſo long it followeth, by their owne implicit cenſures, and moſt neceſſary inferences, that the Church of Rome neuer altered her Fayth: Therfore (M. Doctour) I would know of you, what your learned Men do generally teach about the continuance, and antiquity of our preſent Roman, and Catholicke Religion.

D. WHITAKERS

I will not deny but that our Doctours do aſcrybe an antiquity to your Popiſh Fayth, for a thouſand yeares at leaſt; For firſt D. Humfry (my worthy So Doct. whit ſtileth D. Clarke in L. con. Camp. Rat. 8. meaning theirby his Cem •• les et conſocius in Doctrina. ſy'mmachos cai ſymmy'ſtes) ſhewing what Religion Auguſtine planted in England, being ſent by Gregory the Great, then Pope of Rome (who liued in the yeare 590) thus inſtanceth in the particular points of the then Roman Religion: In D. Hum •• y in Ieſuitiſm. part. 2. Rat. 5. Pag. 5. et Pag. 627 Eccleſiam verò quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Auguſtinus? Onus ceremoniarum &c. what did Gregory and Anguſtine bringé into the Church? They did bring a burden of Ceremonies; They did bring in the Archiepiſcopall Pall, for the ſolemnization of the Maſſe; They did bring in Purgatory &c. the oblation of the Healthfull Oaſt, and prayer for the dead &c. Relicks, Tranſubſtantiation &c. a new conſcecratiō of Temples &c. from all which what other thing is effected then the introducing of Indulgences, Monachiſme. Papiſme, and the reſt of the Chäos of Popiſh Superſtition? all this did Auguſtine the great Monke (being inſtructed herein by Gregory the Monke) bring to the Engliſh men. Thus farre D. Humfry.

CARD. BELLARM.

Well then, M. Doctour, it clearely appeares by this, that at S. Gregory his ſending of Auguſtine into England (which was about a thouſand yeares ſince) our preſent Roman Religion was then wholy, and publickely practiſed in Rome; & that if the Church of Rome had ſuffered any change of Faith from that firſt taught by the Apoſtles, that this change ſhould haue beene made, not ſince, but before Gregories time, and before he had ſent Auguſtine to plant in England the Fayth of Chriſt. I may adde, M. Doctour, in further confirmation of D. Humfrey his iudgment herein, the iudgment of your owne Centuriſts, who in their Index, or Alphabeticall table of the ſixt Century, at the Word: Gregory, ſet downe with particuler figures ofreferences, where euery ſuch mentioned opinion may be found as followeth Eiuſdem Error de bonis operibus, de Cōfeſſione, de cōiugio, de Eccleſia, de ſanctorum nuocatione, do Inferno, de Libero arbitrio, de uſtificatione, de Purgatorio, de Paeni entia, de ſatisfactione &c. And which is more, your ſayd Cēturiſts Al-Which places following of the Cen riſts. thus charging Gregory are to be founde in their ſixt Century after the firſt Editiō ther of between Col 369. and Col. 432. do further accuſe Gregory, out of his owne writings with conſecration of Altars, Chalices, & Corporals, with oblatiō of ſacrifice for the dead, with tranſlation of Reltques, with Monachiſme, with Pilgrimages, with conſecration of Churches, with Maſſe, & ſpri kling of holy-water, With conſecration of the fort of Baptiſme, of Chr •• ſ •• e & Oyle, with celibratio of Maſſe, & finally With claime of ſoueraignty ouer all Churches: All which places of the Centuriſts, charging him, are to be found in their ſixt Century after the firſt edition thereof.

To theſe former acknowledgmēts, we may adioin the words of Luke Oſiander (your famous Proteſtant) which are theſe: Auguſtinus In his ep tom. Hiſt. Eccleſ. Cent. 6. ag 289. Romanos Ritus et conſuetudines, Anglicanis Eccleſus obſtitit: And then immediatly after he perticulerly ſetteth downe ſeuerall rites, & doctrines, practized, and beleeued at this preſent by the Church of Rome; which (as he confeſleth) Auguſtine did plant, & eſtabliſh in England: a poynt ſo euident, that euen your owne ſelfe, M. Doctour, auertes, D. Whit. Lib. de Eccle. cent. Bella . pag. 144. that Boniface the third, (who liued anno. 605. and preſently after the foreſaid Gregory) and all his ſucceſſours were Antichriſts. Yea you ſpeaking of the conuerſion of England, (made by this Gregory) and of other conuerſions of Countries by other Popes after, thus conclude. The Conuerſions D, whit. vbi ſupra p. 339. of ſo many countries were not pure, but corrupt. With you herein Dauaeus (that remarkable Proteſtant) conſpirech, who thus baſely cenſureth of Gregories conuerting of England: Purgatio illa, quam Gregorius primus fecit &c. fuit i ebriatio mer etricis mundo facta, de qua eſt Apocalipſ. 17. et 18. Thus referring our Conuerſion to Chriſtianity, to the worke of Antichriſt. And thus, M Doctour, you here may ſee, how the Church of God (through an ouer vnkind peruerting, and miſconſturing her moſt motherly, and charitable endeauours) hath reaſon even to complaine, and grieue at thoſe, who vaunt themſelues for her owne Children: ſo the Vine being vntimely cut, weeps out its miſhap, through out it owne wound.

Now from all theſe former teſtimonies of your ſelfe, M. Doctour, & other Proteſtant writers, we may infallibly conclude, that from this day till we arriue, at leaſt to the age of the fore-ſaid S. Gregory, the preſent Roman, & Catholicke Religion was taught in diuers Countries; & conſequently (ſeeing thoſe Countries receiued their inſtruction in Faith from Rome) that it was not during all this time introduced into the Church of Rome, as an Innouation, and change of the Faith, afore profeſſed by the ſaid Church.

Now it being made euident; firſt, that the Church of Rome did retaine her purity of Faith, the firſt foure hundred and forty yeares after Chriſt; and alſo, that for this laſt thouſand yeares, the preſent Romā, & Catholicke Faith, hath not (at any time thereof) bin firſt brought into the world; but during the ſaid thouſand yeares it hath bin continually the generall taught doctrine of the Church of Rome: It now followeth, that we take into our conſideratiō the number of years which paſſed betweene the firſt foure hundred, and forty from Chriſt, and theſe laſt thouſand yeares from vs. Which number (ſeeing it is ſixteene hundred yeares, & ſome more from Chriſt to vs) amounteth to about one hundred, and ſixty yeares.

Well then if here we can prooue that no change of Fayth in the Church of Rome, within the compaſſe of this 160. yeares; then followeth it vnauoidably, that the Church of Rome neuer to this day, hath ſuffered any alteration in Fayth, and Religion, ſince its firſt embracing of the Chriſtian Fayth.

That no Change of Faith did happen within the compaſſe of the ſayd 160. yeares, I prooue ſeuerall waies, yet all conducing to erect this one maine truth; like as diuers leſſer numbers (though counted after different waies) make vp but one, and the ſame great number. And firſt, this aſſertion of mine is prooued from the doctrine, which was beleeued, and generally taught at ſuch tyme, as Conſtantine (who was our firſt Chriſtian Emperour) was conuerted to Chriſtianity, which was about the yeare 320. after Chriſt, and therefore before the foreſayd 160. yeares.

That the Faith in his time, was the ſame, that the Church of Rome profeſſeth at this preſent, appeareth from the frequent teſtimonies of your former Centuriſts; who moſt elaborately, & punctually do record all the particuler Articles of the preſent Romane Fayth, to be beleeued moſt conſtantly by the ſaid Conſtantine; and that he did cauſe to be put in practiſe all the Ceremonies, now vſed in the Church of Rome. And the ſaid Centuriſts are ſo exact, and diligent in their enumeration of all the Catholicke Doctrines beleeued by Conſtantine, and of the Catholicke Rites, and Ceremo ies obſerued in his time; as that they ſpend ſeuerall Columnes of the fourth Century touching this point; to wit, from Column. 452. to Column. 497. or thereabout.

Now that not only Conſtantine himſelfe, but alſo the whole fourth Age did generally beleeue, and profeſſe the now profeſſed Doctrine of the Romane Church, is in like ſort abundantly confeſſed, & regiſtred by the ſaid Centuriſts, they ſpending moſt of the leaues of the ſaid Century, in particularizing the now Catholicke Doctrines, and the doctours of that age beleeuing, & teaching them: and therefore for the greater manifeſtation of this point, I remit you, M. Doctour, to the •• ligent peruſall herein of their fourth Century: touching which particuler ſubiect, I am ſo confident that I dare auouche, that by the induſtry of the ſaid Centuriſts, the true ſtate of the Church in that age is ſo painfully, & articulatly (according to my former ſpeaches regiſtred) as the perfect memory thereof (as being exempt from all obliuion in future dayes) is able to turne the ſyth of time: ſo certaine it is that euen in your owne Hiſtories (ſo long as they ſhalbe extant) the Catholicks ſhalbe euer able to glaſſe the true face of their times.

But, M. Doctour, for the greater euidency of this point, I pray you tell me, whether it is your iudgment, that the Fathers liuing in the fourth Age; but eſpecially thoſe who liued before the fourth Age, and conſequently, before the aboue mentioned 160. yeares) were Profeſſours of your Proteſtant, or our Roman Faith.

D. WHITAKERS.

I make no doubt, but all of them profeſſed with a generall conſent our Proteſtant Fayth, & knew not the preſent Doctrine, and Faith of Rome.

CARD. BELLARM.

See how fowly you are miſtaken, M. Doctour, And therefore ſeeing the diſcouery of errours is an eſtabliſhment of the Truth: for the fuller manifeſting of your ouer ſight herein, I will inſiſt (for greater breuity) only in ſix chiefe Articles of the Catholicke Faith, for a taſt of the reſt; which euen by your owne Brethrens Confeſſions, were mantained by the Fathers liuing in the fourth age; frō whence we may neceſſarily inferre, that not any change touching thoſe points was, brought into the Church of Rome, within the compaſſe of the ſaid 160. years.

And firſt I will beginne with the doctrine of the Sacrifice 1. of the Maſſe: where (as alſo in other Articles following I will diſcerpe here, & there, out of the great abundance thereof, ſome few acknowledgments of the Proteſtants. Now here you cannot deny, M. Doctour, but that touching Cyprian (who liued Anno 240. your Centuriſts thus affirme: Sacerdotē Cent. 3. c. 4. col 3. Cyprianus in quit vice Chriſti furgi; et Deo Patri Sacrificium offerre; & for this very point they condemne him of Superſtition. In like ſort, they thus reprehend Ambroſe: (who liued anno. 370.)

Cent 4 c. 4. col. 295. Ambroſe did vſe certaine ſpeaches &c. as to ſay Maſſe, to offer vp Sacrifice. Yea D. Fulke conſpireth openly with the former Proteſtants thus ſpeaking of theſe Fathers following: Tertullian, In his Confutation of Purgatory p. 362. et 303. et 393. Cyprian, Auguſtine, Hierome, (of which ſome liued within the ſaid 160. yeares, others long afore them) do witneſſe, that Sacrifice for il e dead is a Tradition of the Apoſtles. To be ſhort; Sebaſtianus Francus (no obſcure Proteſtant among you) thus writeth: Epiſt. d abrogand & omnibus ſtatu is Eccleſiaſt. ſtatim poſt Apoſtolo, omnia inuerſa ſurt &c. Caena Domini in Sacrificium transformata eſt.

Touching the Primacy of the Biſ op of Rome, your Centuriſts do reprehend Cent. 4. col. 558. 2. Nazianzen Cent. 3. col. 94. Cyprian Cent. 3. cap 84. Origen, and Cent. 3. col. 85. Tertullian for their teaching of Peters Primacy. In like ſort Pope Victor (who liued in the yeare 160. after Chriſt) did actually challenge, and practiſe this kind of Supremacy, as D. Fulke, In hi āſwer to a Counterfeyt Catholick p. 36 D. Fulke acknowledgeth.

Concerning praier for the dead, D. In his Retentiue, pag. 106. Fulke thus writeth: Praier for the dead preuailed within three hundred years after Chriſt: And another of your owne Br •• hren thus confeſſeth: M. Georg Gifford In his demonſtratiō that Browniſts are •• ll Dona •• ſ •• p. 38. 4. Praier for the dead was in the Church long before Auguſtins, daies, as appeareth in Cyprian, & Tertullian. But D. In his Confutation of Purgatory. p. 353. Fulke and In his examen part. 3. p. 110 Kempnitius do confeſſe, that Prayer for the dead is taught in the writings of Dionyſius Areopagita who is Act. mentioned in the Acts of the Apoſtles; whoſe writing (in which Praier for the dead is taught) are acknowledged by D. Fulke againſt the Rhemiſh. Teſt. 2. Theſſ. 2. ſuppoſing them not to be written by the ſaid Dionyſius, as ſome Proteſtants are not aſhamed to auerre) to be writen about thirteen hundred yeares ſince.

Touching Inuocation of Saints D. D. Fulke in Rhemiſh Teſtament. in 2. Petr. Cap. 1. Fulke confeſſeth, that in B •• ſill, Nazia zen, and Chryſoſ ome is nuocatio of Saints. The Centuriſts Cent. 3. Col 84. thus write of Cypriā. Cypriā doth not obſcurely ſignify, that Martyrs, & dead Saints did may for the liuing. Yea they further charge Origen (Who liued in no, 2 0) with praying himſelfe to holy Iob, ſaying Cent. 3. col. 83. O beate Iob ora prouobis in ſeris; They further Cent. 3. col. 75. charge him with inuocation of Angels.

They further thus concluding of that third age after Chriſt. videas Cent 3. c. 4. col. 83. (5.) in Doctorum huius ſeculi ſcriptis, non obſcura veſtigta inuocationis Sanctorum,

Touching Free-will. The foreſaid Centuriſts Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 221. do reprehend Irenaeus (who liued in the ſecond age) in that he admitteth (as they ſay) Free-well in ſpirituall actions. And Cent. 2. pag. 56. Oſiander (the Proteſtant) thus ſaith of iuſtine (who liued in the age of Irenaeus) Iuſtine extolled too much the liberty of mans will, in obſeruing the Commandements of God. To be ſhort, another Abraham S ulte us in his medulla Theolog. ca Patrum pag. 379. (6.) of your brethren doth thus couple the ancient Fathers of thoſe ages, ſaying Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Iuſtine. Irenaeus, &c. erred in the doctrine of Free-will.

Laſtly, touching the doctrine of Merit of workes, Luther In Galat. cap. 4. ſtileth Hierome, Ambroſe, & Auguſtine, Iuſticiarios Iuſtice-workers. In like ſort the Centuriſts thus charge Origen, ſaying: Origen Cent. 3. col. 265. made workes the Cauſe of our Iuſtification. To conclude, D. Humfrey thus confeſſeth of Irenaeus, & Clemens: (the one liuing in the firſt age, the other in the ſecond age after Chriſt,) D. Humf. In eſuct 〈…〉 Part. 2. pag 530. It may not be denyed but that Irenaeus, Clemens, and others (called Apoſtolicall) haue in their writings the opinion of Merit of workes.

Aud thus farre (M. Doctour) of ſome chiefe points of the preſent Roman Religion, taught by the Fathers: of whō ſome liued in the fourth age, and ſo within the compaſſe of the afore mentioned 160. yeares; though moſt of them liued in the firſt, ſecond, & third age of Chriſt; from whence we neceſſarily euict, that no change of the Faith of Rome, in the ſaid poynts, was made within the compaſſe of the ſayd 120. yeares: which time was aboue ſet downe betweene the confeſſed period of the Churches Purity, and the acknowledged generally 〈…〉 ceiued doctrine of the now Church of Rome: And here but that I am willing to auoid all prolixity, I do aſſure you, I could auerre, & iuſtify the like, touching all other Catholicke doctrines, taught by the Fathers of the former ages and accordingly beleeued at this day by the Church of Rome.

Yet before I end this point I will adioyne to the former proofs, this enſuing conſideration, touching the fore ſaid 60. yeares. It is this: if we conſider either the plurallity of our Catholiche Articles; or the incompatibility, which diuers of them beare, partly to the outward ſenſe, & partly to mans naturall propenſion; or the diuerſity of Countries, & Nations in Chriſtendome, moſt remote one from another; all which cur ſaid Catholicke Religion is acknowledged wholy to poſſeſſe, at the later end of the ſixt Age, or Century; I ſay if we conſider all theſe different Circumſtances, the time of the ſaid 60 yeares (within which moſt Proteſtants do teach this ſuppoſed change did happen) is infinitely too litle, and wholy diſproportionable; as that within the cōpaſſe thereof ſo great 〈◊〉 change, and alteration ſhould be wrought; eſpecially in ſuch an admirable manner, that whereas in the beginning of the ſaid 160. yeares, it is auerred by the Proteſtants, that not any one point of our Catholicke Religion was then taught; yet at the end of the ſaid 160. yeares, it ſhould ſo ouerflow all Chriſtendome with ſuch a violent ſtreame, as that no ſparke of Proteſtancy, (ſuppoſing afore it were profeſſed) or any other Religion did remaine in any one Country, or other; but that all was wholy extinct, and (as I may ſay) annihilated. Such an imaginary change, and alteration (I ſay) as this, is more then ſtupendious, and wonderfull; and ſuch, as ſince the creation of the world neuer afore hapned.

But (M. Doctour) giue me leaue by the way, to aske of you the ſecond time (for all the Proteſtants do not preciſely conſent herein) how longe do you thinke, that the Church of Rome, did continue in her Verginall ſtate, and Purity, without any ſtayne in her Faith.

D. WHITAKERS.

I thinke, So ſayth D. Whit. 〈…〉 de Antichriſto cont. Sāderū pag. 35. that during the firſt ſix hundred yeares after Chriſt, the Church was pure, floriſhing; and inuiolably taught, and defended the Fayth, deliuered by the Apoſtles. During all which ages the Church of Chriſt (in reſpect of truth in Faith, and Religion, was (as I may ſay) in the full aſſent of the wheele. And although (to ſpeake by reſemblance there are found euen many irregularities in the regular motions of the Heauens; yet I am fully perſwaded, that for the ſpace of the firſt ſix hundred yeares, no annomalous exorbitancies of errours, or ſuperſtition, did accompany the heauenly preaching of the Ghoſple in the Church of Chriſt.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, indeed part of what you here ſay, are your owne words in your booke againſt D. Sanders, and you deale more liberally herein, then diuers of your Breehren, by affording a hundred, and fifty yeares more to the true Church, then moſt of them will allow. Now you granting the purity of Faith to continue in the Church of Rome, for the ſpace of the firſt ſix hundred yeares after Chriſt, do withall implicitly, and inferentially grant; that no change of Faith was made in that Church, within the compaſſe of the afore mentioned 160. yeares; ſeeing the ſaid 160. yeares are included within the firſt ſix hundred yeares, as being part of them.

But to proceed further; you are here (M. Doctour) to call to minde, what your ſelfe at other times (& no doubt) at vnawares haue writen. I do finde (to inſtance only in ſome two, or three points) that you affirme, that Victor D. whit. cont. Duraeu l. 7. p. 48. who liued anno 160. after Chriſt) was the firſt, that exerciſed iuriſdictō vpon forraine Churches. That not Cyprian D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5. only (who liued anno. 240.) to vſe your owne words, but almoſt all the moſt holy Fathers, of that time, were in errour, touching the Doctrine of good works; as thinking ſo to pay the paine due to ſinne, & to ſatisfy Gods iuſtice. Finally that D. Whit. cont. Bellar. pag. 37. Leo (who was Pope anno. 440. to ſpeake in your owne dialect, was a great Architect of the Antichriſtian kingdome. Are not all theſe your aſſertions, M. Doctour.

D. WHITTAKERS.

I cannot but acknowledge them for mine; ſince they are extant to be read in my owne bookes; & loath I am to be ſo vnnaturall, as to diſauow or abandon any iſſue begotten on my owne brayne.

CARD. BELLARM.

Marke well then, M. Doctour, my deduction. If the Chucrh of Rome remayned in her purity of Fayth without any change for the firſt ſix hundred yeares (for your owne confeſſiō aboue expreſſed is, that the Church of Chriſt ſo long continued a chaſt and intemerate Spouſe) And if (as your owne penne hath left it written) the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy was taught by Victor the firſt: The doctrine of Merit of Works was mainteyned by Cyprian, & generally by other Fathers of that age; and to be ſhort, if Leo were a great Architect of the kingdome of Antichriſt, you meaning of our preſent Roman Religion (all which ſaid Fathers, to wit, Cyprian, Victor, Leo, and the reſt, did liue diuers ages before the ſixt age, or Century, to what time you extēd the purity of the Faith of the Church of Rome) doth it not then ineuitably reſult out of your owne Premiſſes (if al this be true, as you affirme it is,) that the doctrin of the Popes Supremacy, the doctrine of merit of workes, and our Catholicke Doctrine generally taught by Antichriſt, as you tearme the Pope, were no innouations; but the ſame pure doctrines, which the Apoſtles firſt plāted in the Church of Rome? Se how your felfe (through your owne inaduertēcy) hath fortified the truth of that doctrine, which your ſelfe did intende to ouerthrow. And thus farre to ſhow, that their neuer was made any chāg of Fayth in the Church of Rome, prooued from the diſtribution & diuiſion of thoſe two different times, which by the learned Proteſtants acknowledgments, do contayne the Periods of the Church of Rome her continuance in the true Fayth, & of the Publicke and generall Profeſſion of our now preſent Romane Fayth.

D. WHITTAKERS.

My L. Cardinall. Whereas you haue produced ſeuerall teſtimonies from our owne learned Proteſtāts, who teach, that in the ſecond, third, & fourth age after Chriſt; ſuch & ſuch an Article of the Papiſts Religion had it beginning; It ſeemeth in my iudgment, that theſe their authorities do more preiudice then aduantage your cauſe. Since ſuch teſtimonies (if ſo you will ſtand to them) do ſhew a beginning (though moſt anciēt) of thoſe doctrines after the Apoſtles deaths, and conſequently a change of Faith in the Church of Rome. For if you will admit the authorities of the Proteſtants, granting the antiquities of the preſent Romiſh Religion in thoſe former times; you are alſo (by force of reaſon) to admit their like authorities in ſaying; that at ſuch tymes (and not before) thoſe Articles were firſt taught; for ſeing both theſe points are deliuered by the Proteſtants in one, & the ſame ſentence, or teſtimony, why ſhould the one part thereof be vrged for true, and the other reiected as falſe?

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour. Here with my L. Cardinall, and your owne good licence. I am to make bould to put in a word or two. This your reply (M. Doctour) by way of inference, may ſeeme to leſſen the antiqurty of our ancient Iewiſh Law; and therfore I hold my ſelfe obliged to diſcouer the weakenes therof, though not out of deſire to entertaine any conteſtation with you. Grant then, that ſome miſcreants, or Heathen Writers (as Enemies to the Law of Moyſes) affirme, that the Religion of the Iewes had it beginning in the tyme of Eſdras, for example; This their teſtimony may iuſtly be alleaged to prooue that our Iewiſh Law was as auncient (at leaſt) as Eſdras; but it cannot be alleadged to prooue, that our Law tooke it firſt beginning at that time only, and not before in the dayes of Moyſes.

Therefore in the Authorities of this Nature, produced from our Aduerſaries writinges, we are to diſtinguiſh, and ſeuer that, which the Aduerſaries granteth in the behalfe of vs, from that, which he affirmeth to his owne aduantage. What he grāteth for vs, & againſt himſelfe, ſo farre we are to embrace his authority; ſeing it may be preſumed that, ordinarliy, no learned man would confeſſe any thing againſt himſelfe, & his Religion, but what the euidency of the truth therein enforceth him vnto, and therefore one So faith Tertullian. l. de Anima. c. 3. of the ancient Doctours of your Chriſtian Church (if I do remember his words) in this reſpect ſaid well I will ſtrike the Aduerſaryes with their owne weapons. But what the Aduerſary affirmeth in fauour of his owne cauſe, and againſt vs; their we are not to ſtand to his own, authority; ſince no man is to be a witnes in his owne behalfe, and it well may be preſumed, that ſuch his ſentence proceedeth out of his owne partiality.

Now this diſparity (M. Doctour) you may well apply (in my conceipt) to the afore alleadged conſeſſions and teſtimonies of your owne Proteſtants: But if I haue not here anſweared directly, I ſubmit my ſelfe to both your cenſures, and will leaue it to my L. Cardinall to giue fuller ſatisfaction and anſwere thereto.

CARD. BELLARM.

Learned Rabby. Your anſwere is moſt ſufficient and warrantable; and indeed a ſolid iudgment would eaſily diſpell this ſmoake of wit; and if you had not preuented me, I ſhould but haue giuen the ſame anſwere, though perhaps not haue inſtanced it in your example of the Iewiſh Law. But enough of this argument, by which we are inſtructed, that the preſent Fayth of Rome was neuer changed ſince the Apoſtles daies; for it is S. Auguſtines rule S. Augnſtine, Contrae Donatiſt. c. 24. That, that Fayth, which hath bin beleiued by the whole viſible Church of God, and whereof no firſt beginning can be knowne ſince the Apoſtles, is preſumed to haue bin firſt taught by Chriſt, and his Apoſtles.

But, M. Doctour, if it pleaſe you, we will inſiſt in another Medium; from whence we will deduce our former affertion; to wit, that during the firſt ſix huudred yeares after Chriſt (and indeed during all the tyme ſince the Apoſtles) the Church of Rome neuer made any change, or alteration in any one materiall poynt at all. And therefore I do here aske your iudgment, whether there muſt be (at all tymes) in Chriſts Church Paſtours, and Doctours, which muſt teach the People, and be ready to withſtand all innouations, and falſe doctrines at theire firſt appearance?

D. WHITTAKERS.

Yes we all do teach, that there muſt euer be, and without interruption true Paſtours in the church, who ſhall be ready to impugne all emergent, and late arriſing Errours & Hereſyes: So true it is, that the church is the ſ and, from whence we ſtrike an Hereticke. And this we prooue from the predictiō of the Apoſtle, who foretelleth vs that, Epheſ. 4. Paſtours & Doctours, are to be in the Church, to the conſummation of Saynts, till we all meete in the vnity of Fayth; that is, as our owne Doctour Fulke Againſt the Remiſh Teſtāment in Epheſ. 4. interpreteth: for euer. Which Doctours (as our ſayde D. Fulke further auerreth) In his anſweare to a Coūterfeite Catholicke. pag. 11. ſhall alwayes reſiſt all falſe Opinions, with open reprehenſion.

Which poynt is ſo true and euident, as that I haue already taught in my bookes, that the preaching of the worde of God (within which is neceſſarely included the impugning of all falſe doctrines, firſt their arriſing) is among the D. Whit. Speaking of the preaching of the Word &c. ſtileth thē: Eſſentiales notae Eccleſiae Cont. Duraeū. l. 3. p. 260. Eſſetiall Notes of the Church; As alſo that the D. Whit. Saith: ſi adeſt Eccleſiam cōſtituit, tollitſiauferatur Cont. Duraeū l. 3. p. 249. preaching of the Word doth conſtitute a Church; the want of it, doth ſubuerte it. From whence it neceſſarely followeth, that theſe Doctours and Preachers are not to be ſilent, at the riſing of any falſe Opinion; but are obliged with all ſedulity, and diligence what ſoeuer, openly to reſiſt, and beate downe all innouations, & new arriſing doctrines in Fayth, and Religion. And theſe Doctours, & Paſtours thus defending the Church of Chriſt (by impugning of falſe doctrines) are thoſe Watchmen and Sentinels, of whom Eſay ſo lōg ſince propheſied, Eſay c. 62. Vpon thy Walles, ô Hieruſalem, I haue appoynted watchmen all the day, and all the night; for euer they ſhall not hould their peace. And indeed to ſpeake ſincerely, the Nature of the Church requireth, no leſſe: for how can it continue the true Church, if her Paſ outs do ſuffer falſe, & erroneous doctrine to inuade her children, without any cōtroule or reſiſtance? And are not ſuch negligent Paſtou s to be reputed, as Paralyticke, and dead Members of the Church; ſince they performe not that office, and function, for which they were ordayned?

CARD. BELLARM.

Your Iudgment is to be emdraced herein. But now, M. Doctour, I take your ſword out of your owne hand, and do turne the poynt of it into your owne breaſt. For whereas their are many weighty doctrines (as touching the Premacy of Peter, the number of the Sacraments, and their efficacy, Free-will, Merit of workes, Praying for the dead, Praying to Saincts, Worſhipping of Images, Vnmaried liues of Prieſts, the Reall Preſence, the Sacrifice of the Maſſe, and (to omit diuers others) the adoration of Chriſtin the Sacrament, which are beleiued by the preſent Church of Rome; and which (as you Proteſtants do teach) were introduced into the Church, as Nouelties, and Innouations, ſince the Faith of Chriſt was firſt planted in the Church of Rome, by the Apoſtles:

Now here, M. Doctour, I prouoke you, and all the Proteſtants liuing, according to your owne former doctrine of Paſtours, euer reſiſting new and falſe doctrines, to name any one Paſtour, Doctour, or Father of the Church, who euer reſiſted any of the former Catholicke doctrines, as new doctrines; or did once charge the Church of Rome with chang, and innouation in any one poynt, from their former receaued Fayth by the Apoſtles. Reade ouer all the ancient Fathers, and Doctours of the Primatiue Church, and later times: Peruſe the firſt approoued Generall Councells: Go ouer all the ancient Catalogues of Condemned Hereſies; and euen ſtudy all Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes of thoſe former times; and finde in all theſe but only any one of the former Catholicke, and now Romane doctrines, or any other poynt cōtrouerted at this day betweene you and vs, to be condemned for a Nouelty, and as diſſenting from the generall receaued Fayth of thoſe tymes, and I promiſe you, I will caſt off my Cardinalls Hat, and turne Proteſtant.

Can any reaſonable Man then thinke, that, whereas 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 you teach, the Papiſts Religion came in by degrees, and at ſeuerall tymes, that all the Paſtours, and Fathers of thoſe ſeuerall tymes were a ſleepe, when the ſayd doctrines were firſt braoched; or that they obſeruing their entrance, yet not any of them would vouchſafe to make reſiſtance, or at leaſt ſome mention, of any ſuch innouation in doctrine? doth not this mainly croſſe the fore-alleadged Propheſy of the Apoſtle? Or can this ſtand with any poſſibility; eſpecially if we conſider the nature of our former Catholicke doctrines, auerred by you to be introduced, as Noueliſms? ſince they are, as aboue is intimated, many in number; diuers of them of the greateſt conſequence, that may be; as the vertue of the Sacraments, the Manner of our Iuſtification, to wit, whether by workes, or by Fayth only; others of them moſt repugnant to mans ſence, and common reaſon, as the Reall Preſence: Some aduerſe to Mans naturall Propenſion, as the doctrine of Virginity, Pouerty, and Obedience; moſt of them conſiſting not only in an internall beleife, but euen in an externall action and operation; And therfore the firſt Origē and entrance of thē are therby become moſt diſcernable: Such are our doctrines of Praying to Saints, Praying for the deade, Pilgrimages, Single life in the Cleargy, & to omitt diuers others, all Monachiſme. And laſtly ſome, ſuppoſing theire doctrine to be falſe, ſubiect to externall Idolatry; as the worſhiping of Chriſt with ſupreame honour in the Euchariſt. Therfore if any of our graue and learned Aduerſaries ſhould affirme (for there are ſome curious witts, who will ſeeme to erre, euē out of iudgment) that theſe doctrines could ſtealingly creepe into Gods Church, without all reſiſtance of it Paſtours, Doctours, and Fathers, I bouldly auerte, that theſe men not only giue the lye openly to the holy Scripture, in ſeuerall places witneſſing the contrary, but they with all ceaſe to be Men, by looſing wholy the naturall light of all humane diſcourſe and Reaſon.

But, M. Doctour, to preſſe the force of this argument further. Haue you not read, that in the Primatiue Church there were the Hereſies of the Valentinians, Tationiſts Maniches, Arians, and diuers others, all which did embroile the Church of Chriſt, euen before the firſt foure hundred yeares were expyred?

D. WHITTAKERS.

Yea. I haue read all theſe; and I do find them recorded in the writings and Catalogues of Hereſies, compoſed by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Auguſtine, and others; who with their learned Penns openly impugned theſe, and diuets other Heretickes, which Hereticks for the tyme troubled the waters of the Church, more then after they could, at their pleaſure calme them.

CARD. BLLARM.

Haue you not alſo read of the Hereſies, of the Neſtroians, Pelagians, Donatiſts, Minothelits? (All which had their beginnings within the compaſſe of the 160. yeares, aboue mentioned) which was betweene the firſt foure hundred and forty yeares next after Chriſt, and the thouſand yeares from vs; within which compaſſe of yeares (by the Proteſtants owne writings) the Church of Rome did ſuffer this ſuppoſed, and imaginary change in Religion.

D. WHITTAKERS.

I haue alſo read of theſe latter Hereſies, and do finde the firſt three amply recorded, and writen againſt, by S. Lib. de Haereſib. Haeriſ. 88. 89. et Haereſ. 692. Auguſtine; and the fourth (to omit our owne Cent. 6. Col. 312. Centuriſts regeſtring thoſe Heriticks) by the ſixt Councell of Conſtantinople; for I haue euer obſerued in my reading, that the ariſing Hereſies in euery age, were the Markes, whereat the Canons of the Church, and Counceles, and the learned writers of the ancient Orthodoxall Fathers, did ſhoote.

CDRD. BELLARM.

To decend lower. Haue you not alſo ſeene the records of many Hereſies ryſing in euery ſeuerall age, after the firſt ſix hundred yeares. And (to leape ouer diuers ages) the-Heriſies of Berengarius, Waldo, Wicleffe &c, if ſo you will acknowledge them for Hereſies?

D. WHITTAKERS.

All this I muſt, and do confeſſe; for I finde the Hereſies of euery ſeuerall age to be regiſtred (out of the Fathers writings of euery ſuch age) by our owne Centuriſts, in the fift Chapter of euery ſeuerall Century, by Oſiander in his Centuries, and by Pantaleon the Proteſtant in his Chronology. And for the doctrines of Berengarius, Waldo, Wicleffe, &c. I acknowledge them not for Hereſies; Yet I muſt confeſſe, I finde them to this day extant in diuers Bookes: As of Berengarius, in the writings of Langfrancus, Guitmundus, and Algerus; Of Waldo, I read in Illiricus, In his Catalogue teſtium veritatis. as alſo in Oſiander; In epito . Hiſtoriae Eccleſ. Of Wicleffe in his owne writings; as alſo in M. Fox his Monuments, and M. Stow his Annalls of England.

CAD. BELLARM.

Well then. Thus I compound theſe Simples; I meane thus I infer, and collect out of your former granted Premiſſes. Seing it is manifeſt, that the Hereſies riſing within the firſt foure hundred yeares; The Hereſies within the next two hundred yeares; the Hereſies hatched in euery age during theſe laſt thouſand yeares, are moſt largly recorded, partly in the writings of the ancient Fathers in particular, and ſet tracts againſt them, partly in the Canons of generall Councells condemning them; partely by the obſeruing diligēce of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoriographers (whoſe deſined labour is, to tranſmit, & cōmend ouer to after ages the true ſtate, and face of Chriſts Church in former ages; ſince Hiſtory is the life of Memory, and Embaſſadour of antiquity) and partely, by the Proteſtants like endeauours, who haue writen ſeuerall long Volumes of this very ſubiect. Seing, I ſay, all this is manifeſt; and that not only the inundation, and flux, but euen the Ebb, and reflux of euery Hereſie, was preciſely noted by the Pilots of Gods Church, can it enter into any brayne, but to weene, that ſo many Articles of the preſent Roman Religion, being in number far more, then all aboue reherſed, in weight, and conſequently greatly exceeding them, for diuerſity of Countryes, and Nations far further deuulged, and ſpreade, then either all, or any of the former Here ies euer were, moſt of theſe other being reſtrained only to one Contry, or Nation, could euer ſo vneſpiedly infect the whole Church of Chriſt with their contagion, and worke a more notorious chang therin, then euer yet was wrought by al the Heretick, ſince Chriſts time put together; and yet not one Father, or Doctour of thoſe times, either to take notice of any of thoſe ſuppoſed Heretickes, or knowing them, not to impugne their firſt aſſaults by preaching, or writing; neither any one Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory but to mention in their Hiſtories any one of the ſayd Articles, as Innouations in Fayth. Can this be imagined? or can it be in the power of man; thus to create at his pleaſure a new Religion, without controule, or diſcouery? If this can be dreamed, then may we with all dreame, that Impoſſibilities can haue a true, & reall exiſtence; and that the Scripture it ſelfe (for want of due performance of its predictions) is moſt falſe: Into ſuch a depth of abſurdities, M. Doctour, theſe your very ſuppoſals, and imaginary ſpeculations, do precipitate, and caſt all thoſe, who giue any credit vnto them.

MICHEAS.

My L. Cardinall, and you M. Doctour, I muſt ingenuouſly confeſſe to you both, that the former Argumentes are much preuayling: the one drawne frō the diſtribution of times; (whreby euery age ſince the Apoſtles, is by the Proteſtants owne acknowledgmēts, cleared from all change in Fayth.) The other from the ſilence, both of the Fathes, and Doctours of Chriſts Church, in not •• pugning the ſuppoſed introducing of the Catholicke Articles; as alſo of all Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoriographers, in not ſo much, as intimating, or but glancing at any one (Article as innouated) of the Church of Rome.

And to paterne theſe times of Grace with the tymes of the Old Law: If any frontleſſe, and bould Man (and ſome ſuch perhaps may eaſily, and without labour be found, ſince we neede not to plough for weeds, they freely growing of thē ſelues) ſhould affirme, that the Moyſaicall Law had ſuffered greate changes, and alterations, betweene the times of its being firſt promulgated by Moyſes, and the comming of the Meſſias, I ſhould hould it a moſt choaking, and full demonſtration for the ouerthrowing the falſehoode of ſuch an aſſertion; if neither inſtances of any tymes (among ſo many ages, paſſed from Moyſes to Chriſt) wherin ſuch a forged Innouation ſhould happen, could be giuen; neither could it be ſhowed, that any of the Prophets, or Iewiſh Rabbines did openly gaynſay, or contradict the ſaid imaginarie new ariſing Opinions, (who no doubt, would haue maintained the Law with ſheading of their bloud, before any Noueliſme in Fayth ſhould haue inuaded the Synagogue; imitating herein the reſolution of Sampſon, who conquered his enemies by his owne death.) Neither laſtly, if not any hiſtoriographer of the Iewiſh tymes, did in their workes, and writings, giue the leaſt touch therof. But pardon me (both of you) for this my interrupting, and I would intreat you, to proceede further in this your learned diſcourſe.

CARD. BELLARM.

I will ſatisfie your requeſt; but before I deſcend to any other argument, I will annex to my former demonſtration (for I can tearme it no leſſe) drawne from the ſilence of Doctours in contradicting, and Hiſtoriographers, in relating any preſumed innouations in the Church of Rome, theſe enſuing Conſiderations.

(1) Firſt, we finde, that the leſſe iuſtifiable liues, & conuerſatiō in manners, of ſome few Popes, were preciſely So Eugenius 4. is noted by the Councell of Baſill; Benedictus 3. By the Councell of Conſtance. Gregory the 7. By Benno. &c. regeſtred, and recorded to all Poſterity, with intention, perhaps, to diſgrace all Popes; as if all Popes were to be repreſented in ſome one, or other leſſe vertuous Pope, as all men are in Adam. Now then this being moſt true, can we probably thinke, that the Hiſtorians of thoſe ages (being euer ready, & prepared to taxe the Perſonall vices of the Popes themſelues who as you ſee were forced by this meanes to paſſe the Red ſea of ſhame, diſgrace, and obloquy) all of them would be wholy ſilent in relating the greateſt change in Religion, that euer happened, if any ſuch chang had truly & really bin effected?

(2) Secondly, we all knowe, that the Greeke Church hath bin for many ages emulous of the Church of Rome; and therfore if the preſent Church of Rome had anciently made any Diuiſion, or Sciſſure from the true Church of Chriſt, the Grecians no doubt (who then ſtood euer vpon the hight of En •• y, the better preſently to eſpy any ariſing aduantage againſt the church of Rome) would haue bene moſt apt to recommend the memory of ſuch a change in our church to all after ages, in their Hiſtories. But no ſuch records we finde in any of their writings. Yea the Grecians are ſo far from that, as that (on the contrary ſide) the preſent Church of Rome is able to ſpecifie, and note (out of moſt ancient, and approoued Authours) the very times, when the Grecians firſt introduced thoſe particuler Opinions, wherin at this day they deſſint from our Roman, and catholicke church.

I will inſiſt (for breuity) in ſome few cheife examples. Firſt, their deniall of Obedience to the Sea of Rome, was begun by Iohn of Conſtantinople, and was noted, and writen againſt, by Li. 4. Ep. 34. ci 36. Gregory the Great, and Pelagius In his Epi. vniuerſis Epiſcopis.. Their denial of the proceedings of the Holy Ghoſt, from the Father, and the Sonne, tooke it beginning (and at it firſt ryſing was As Kekermannus the Proteſtāt witneſeth in ſyſtē Theolog. pag. 68. gainſaid, and contradicted) about the yeare 764. Their deniall of prayer for the dead, was begun by Arius, and impugned by Epiphanius, (l) and Haerſ. 53. Auguſtine. Their bringing in of leauened bread, by the Grecians in the celeberation of the Euchariſt, was firſt begun about the yeare 1053. as appeareth out of the, writings of Leo In Epiſt. ad Michaelem Epiſcop. Conſtātinop. 〈◊〉 . 5. the nynth, and the Cent. 11 c. 8. Centuriſts. Now ( ) Haereſ. 75. can it be imagined that thoſe, being few in number, could ſo preciſely be contradicted, writen againſt, and left regeſt ed to all poſterity; and yet this ſuppoſed change of the church of Rome: conſiſteth in bringing in of far more Articles in number, and of as great conſequence, ſhould neuer be noted, nor impunged by any one Doctour, or Father, nor recorded, nor obſerued by any one Hiſtoriographer; the ſaid Doctours, Fathers, & Hiſtoriographers liuing in the very ſame ages, wherin this ſuppoſed alteration is ſayd to haue hapned? By the ſame ground might Pyth goras well maintayne, (as in his books he attempted to do) that the earth being in ſpeciall motion of 24: houres; our ſelues, becauſe we are carryed together with this reuolution, cannot obſerue, that any ſuch motion of the earth is.

(3) Thirdy, we may call to mind, that wheras the Ceremonies in the celeberation of the Maſſe, were ſucceſſiuely and at ſeuerall tymes added, and firſt brought in by ſeuerall Popes; So we finde accordingly, that the Aduerſaries The booke entituled: The Relicks of Rome, writen by Tho. Beacon. The Anatomy of the Maſſe, by Anthony de Adamo, printed. 1556. Hoſpiniā hiſt Sacrament. l. 2. c. 4. 5. 6. 7. printed 1591. beſides diuers others. of the preſent Church of Rome, as willing to diſcouer our innouations, though in the ſmaleſt matters, (for Malice is glade to take hould of the leaſt aduantage) and but in points of indifferency, haue moſt diligently, and painfully recorded them in their ſeuerall bookes, written of this very ſubiect, with all due circumſtances, both of the Popes introducing them and the tymes, when they were introduced.

Here now I vrge. If the Enemyes of the preſent Church of Rome, being thus diligent and ſollicitous in noting the beginning of eich Ceremony of the Maſſe (all ſuch Ceremonies being meerely accidentall to the Maſſe, and without which the Maſſe may as truly and effectually be celebrated, as with them) If they (I ſay) could haue diſcouered any innouation in the maine Doctrine it ſelfe of the Maſſe (as in the Doctrine of the Reall Preſence, the Sacrifice of Chriſts body there offered vp, our Adoration of the Sacrament, the Prieſts enioyned chaſtity for ſuch his celebration) would they haue bin ſilent therin? or rather would they not haue loaded their books with the relation of all ſuch innouations; they conſiſting not in ſmale ceremonies, but in moſt ſublime, and high dogmaticall points of Chriſtian Religion? If otherwiſe; then belike our Aduerſaries would haue vs to thinke, that herin they reſemble the Sunne, which reuealeth the Terreſtriall Globe, being but of a litte quantity; but concealeth the Celeſtiall, which is of a far more ſpatious greatnes.

But to proceed; and to conclude the force of this argument, drawne from the impugning, and recording of innouations in doctrine: if this preciſe courſe (by our Aduerſaryes acknowledgments) hath euer bin kept, during all precedent ages, without intermiſſion, in all matters confeſſed, and out of controuerſy betweene vs, and the Proteſtants; ſhall we dreame, that it was ſo wholy neglected, and forgottē, touching the ſuppoſed innouation of our Catholicke Doctrines; as that ſuch our cheife doctrines, though, firſt really brought in, in thoſe former tymes, were neither at there firſt beginning impugned by any Doctours, or Fathers of thoſe ages; nor recorded, or mentioned by any one Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoriographer (among ſo many) of the ſame, or later tymes?

But now to vndertake, according to your deſire, (Micheas) an other argument. You Proteſtants, M. Doctour, do affirme, that this our preſent Roman Religion is Antichriſtian (for ſo commonly moſt of you in your charitable language do ſtile it) and that the Pope is the true Antichriſt, deciphered by the Apoſtle, for his firſt introducing and defending of the ſayd Religion; and vpon this ground you teach, that Papiſtry firſt came in, when Antichriſt firſt came in.

D. WHITAKERS.

We do ſo teach indeed. For ſeing our mayne aſſertiō is, that your Religion is Antichriſtian, we cannot (euen by the nature of Relatiues) ſeuer, and deuide (ſo indiſſoluble companions they are) the one from the other; I meane Papiſtrie from Antichriſt; he being the Man, who firſt did diſſeminate it; and now the heade, who cheifly, principally, and with all wicked molitions, and machinations whatſoeuer, maintayns it.

CARD. BELLARM.

You are, M. Doctour, it ſeemes, full gorged againſt the Pope, as preſumed by you to be Antichriſt. But let that for the tyme paſſe. Do all you Proteſtants, M. Doctour, agree together, touching the tyme of Antichriſts firſt comming, and conſequently, touching the ſuppoſed change in Fayth, wrought by Antichriſt his comming.

D. VVHITAKERS.

No. For I hould with our reuerent Man Beza Cō feſſ. general. 7. Sect. 12. Beza, who teacheth, that Leo (who was Pope anno Domi. 440.) did clearely breath forth the arrogancy of the Antichriſtian Sea: And therfore my conſtant Tenet is, that So ſaith D. Whit. in his booke cō . Bellarm. pag. 37. Leo was a greate Architect of the Antichriſtian kingdome: But ſome few other Proteſtants hould ſeuerall wayes herof.

CARD. BELLARM.

Some few, M. Doctour, not ſo; but very many of them maintaine different, and contrary Opinions touching the tyme of Antichriſt his firſt cōming. And firſt So is Melāct on alleadged by M. Haruey in Theolog. diſcourſe pag. 102. Melācthon, & In his Libri pſalm. quinque pſal. 22. fol. 146. 147. Bucer free the Pope from being Antichriſt; and do teach that the Turke is (as Bucer ſpeaketh) ipſiſſimus Antichriſtus; with whom in iudgment herin conſpireth M. Act. Mō. of An. 1576 pag. 539. Fox.

Iunius vpō the Reuelations, in C. 20. (that remarkable Proteſtant) teacheth, that Hildebrand (who was Pope anno. 1074.) was the firſt Antichriſt, with whom D. In his Treatiſe concerning Antichriſt. pag 110. Downham ſeemeth to agree in theſe words: Gregory the ſeauenth, alias Hildeb and, was the firſt of the Popes, who was openly acknowledged to be Antichriſt. Bullinger affirmeth he came in anno. 763. he therfore tearming that yeare: the vpō the Apocalyps ſerm. 16. pag 198. and in his preface to the Apocalyps. fa all yeare. D. In his anſwere to a Couterf yte Catholicke. p. 36. Fulke and D. In his Synopſ. p. 160. Willi place his comming in Anno, 607. And make Boniface the third to be the firſt Antichriſt; with whome in iudgment herein your ſelfe, M. Doctour, forgetting, as it ſhould ſeeme; what elſewhere you haue taught touching Leo, conſpire in theſe wordes: Gregory D. Whitakers de Eccleſia co ra Bella m. controuerſ. 2. quaeſt. 4. p. 141. Thus writeth: D cunus Gregorium Magnum fuiſſe v 〈…〉 mum verū et p um ill us Eccleſiae Epſ op •• &c. q 〈…〉 m ſecuti ſunt, fuerunt veri Antichriſt &c. Et quia certum aliquod tempus a nobis quaer ni et peſtulant, hoc tempus illis deſign mus. the Great was the laſt true, and holy Biſhop of that Church &c. And therfore becauſe our Aduerſaries demand of vs the tyme, when Antichriſt firſt came in, we deſigne, and ſet downe to them, the very time of his comming, But M. Napper vpon the Reuela •• os, p. 66. aſcendeth higher, affirming Antichriſt to haue firſt comme in Anno Domini. 313. He teathing that Silueſter the Pope, was the firſt Antichriſt. Yet the Reformed Churches of Tranſiluania So ſaith M. Hookerin his Eccleſiaſticall po cy. giue a greater antiquity of Antichriſts firſt cōming, placing it in the yeare. 200.

But Sebaſtianus Francus (no obſcure Proteſtant) outſtrippeth all his former Brethren; for he aſcribes Antichriſts comming to the times immediatly following the Apoſtles. thus writing, for In Epiſt. de abrogadis in vniuerſum omnibꝰ ſiatu tis Eccleſiaſt. certaine through the worke of Antichriſt, the externall Church, together with the Faith, and Sacraments, vaniſhed away preſently after the Apoſtles departure. See how this high ſwelling riuer of Hereſie (for I do hold this ſentence, that the Pope is Antichriſt, to be no leſſe then Hereticall) is fed with the ſmale ſtreames of eich mans particuler and different opinions, which opinions though mainly diſſenting in themſelues; yet moſt of them proceede from one generall ſource of the Proteſtants malice, and hatred againſt the Pope, and Church of Rome; and therefore their iudgments herein muſt be more imperfect, and deceaueable: for as the eye ſeeth not a ight, except the ſpecies, and formes of the thing ſeene, do fall vpon the eye, ad angulos rectos; (as the Optiſts do ſpeake.) So here mans vnderſtanding cannot apprehend any thing truly, as long as is wanteth it owne naturall rectitude, & ſtraightnes, which is euer free from all obliquity of preiudice, and Paſſion.

MICHEAS.

The variety of doctrin touching the comming of Antichriſt, is moſt wounderfull, and far greater by many degrees then the diuerſity of opinions amonge vs Iewes, who was husband to Eſther, or at what tyme Iudith did liue. And indeede I euer promiſed to my ſelfe before this time, to haue found a far greater concordance of iudgment in this point, amonge the Proteſtants, then now I do finde.

D. WHITTAKERS

I am D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5. ſaith: An mihi erit dicta ſingula, quae quiſquā protulit aliquādo praeſtare aut defendere? not to defend eich Mans different opinions herein; and I grant, if any of theſe be true, all the reſt are falſe: But it is ſufficient to prooue, that antichriſt is come; and that by his comming this great change in Faith, and Religion was firſt then wrought in the Church of Rome; and as, touching the difficulty of proouing the circumſtances of his firſt comming, it importeth little; ſeing here we are to remember (to ſpeake by alluſion) that it is eaſy to prooue, that we ſee; but hard to prooue, how we ſee.

CARD. BELLARM.

I do not looke, M. Doctour, that you ſhould make good all the former contraric opinions; for it is impoſſible to iuſtify, but any one of them. Neuertheleſſe it is a weake kynd of proofe, to ſay only in groſſe, that Antichriſt is already come, and with his comming, this ſo great a preſumed chang in Faith was firſt brought in; where you haue no more reaſon to allow of the particuler tyme of his comming, by your ſelfe deſigned, then your former Brethren haue, for the fortifying of eich ones ſeuerall iudgment therin. Only the diſparity, which I finde betweene them, and you, is this: That euery one of them do ſet downe one only particuler tyme of Antichriſt his comming, and content themſelues therwith; wheras you, M. Doctour, imitating herin the skilfull Pilot, who conſtantly changeth his ſayles, with the vnconſtant winds, for your beſt aduantage, & as it moſt fittingly ſorts to your purpoſe in hand, ſometimes will haue his comming to be in Pope Leo, to wit, in the yeare 440. at other tymes, in Boniface the third, which is in anno 607. So you making a great Parentheſis (as I may ſay) of a hundred and fifty yeares at leaſt, betweene your two different ſentences of Antichriſt his comming.

But to returne to the force of this my argument, drawne from the Proteſtants different, and contrary Opinions, touching the firſt reigne of Antichriſt. Here then, I ſay, ſeeing ther are among the Proteſtants ſo many contrary, and irrecō cileable ſentences of Antichriſt his firſt entrance, (at what tyme, this ſuppoſed chang of Fayth in the Church of Rome is ſayd to haue bin effected.) And ſeeing, that not any one of theſe different iudgments haue more warrant, and authority for its ſupporting, then any other of thē hath: Therfore by force of all reaſon we may conclude, that all there ſentences herin are falſe, and that Antichriſt is not yet come; and thus out of falſehood, we may extract truth; & ſo conſequently we may deduce, that no chang of Fayth hath bin yet wrought in the Church of Rome, by the ſaid Antichriſt. Therfore I will cōclude this argument with the more retired, diſpaſſionate, and warie iudgments of ſome other of your learned Proteſtants, to wit, of that eminent Proteſtant In Epiſt. Pauli. Coloſſ. et Theſſal p. 246. Zanchius, of Franciſcus In his Prognoſticin. finis Mundi. pag. 74. Lambertus (no ordinary Man among you) and of ſome others; who Peremptorily affirme againſt all their former Brethren, that Antichriſt is not yet come.

MICHEAS

For my part, I muſt needs confeſſe, that I do beleiue that Antichriſt is not yet come. For, beſides diuers other reaſons, vrged by vs Iewes in proofe therof thoſe words of Daniell concerniug Antichriſt his continuance, (to wit c. 7. tempus, tempora, & dimidium temporis) were euer by all learned Iewiſh Rabbins interpreted literally, and plainly, to ſignify three yeares and a halfe, which ſhort compaſſe of tyme cannot in any ſort be applyed to the Biſhop of Reme, as Antichriſt teaching the preſent Roman Religion; ſeeing he hath cōtinued preaching the ſayd Doctrine, & Religion (euen by the Proteſtants confeſſions (as now I ſee) many hundred of yeares. But good my Lord Cardinall, if there be any other reaſons behinde. to impugne this ſayd change, I would intreate your Lordſhip to deſcend to them; for in matters of great importance variety ſeldome breedeth ſatiety.

CARD. BELLARM.

I am willing therto. And for the further proſecution therof, I am to put you in mind, M. Doctour, partly according to my former Method, ſet downe in the beginning; that wheras the Profeſſours of the Church of Rome, were in the Apoſtles dayes the true Church of Chriſt (as is aboue on all ſides confeſſed) and conſequently, the moſt ancient Church, ſince God is more ancient, then the Deuil, & therfore truth more anciēt thē falſhood. truth is euer more ancient, then falſehoode, and Errours. It therfore followeth, that all Hereticks whatſoeuer, who make choyſe of any new doctrine in Fayth, do make a reuolt, and ſeperation from that Church of the Apoſtles, according to thoſe words of S. Iohn: Iohn. 2. exierunt a nobis: they went out of vs; and anſwerably to that other text: Act. 15 certaine that went forth from vs: which very words do contayne a Brande, or Note vpon the Authour of euery Hereſy. Since the Apoſtle, and the Euangeliſt do meane hereby, that euer firſt Hereticke goeth out from a more aucient ſociety of Chriſtians, then by him is choſen. So as to go out of a precedent Church, or ſociety of Chriſtians, is not only an infallible note of Hereſy in the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinenſis Aduerſ. haereſ. (quis vnquam Haereſes inſtituit, niſi qui priùs ab Eccleſiae C •• boli ae Vniuer ſitatis, & antiqnitatis conſenſione diſcre •• it?) but euen by your owne Brethren; for we finde Oſiander (among others) thus to write: Epitem. Haſt. Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78. Nota; Haeretici ex Eccleſia progrediuntur.

Thus do Hereticks euer forſake the generall, & moſt ancient company of Chriſtians, as ſmale Brooks do often leaue the common channell of the mayne Riuer. Now here I demād of you, M. Doctour, to ſhew, from what company, or ſociety of Chriſtians, (more ancient) did we Catholicks in thoſe former tymes (when firſt, you ſay, this chāge of Faith was made) depart? or from what Church, afore in being, went we out? The euidency of this Note is manifeſted in Caluin, Luther, the Waldenſes, the Wicliffians, and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries; of whom it is confeſſed, that all of them were originally Members of our Catholicke Church; and by their making choiſe of particuler Doctrines (ſo Iudas the Apoſtle, who departing from the company of the Apoſtls after became Iudas the Traitour) did go, and depart out of the preſent Roman Church, and therby became Hereticks. The like, M. Doctour, I do here expect, that you ſhould prooue, by authority of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories, of the preſent Catholicke, and Romane Church; which if you cannot, then is the inference moſt ſtrong; that the preſent Church of Rome neuer made any ſuch reuolt from, or departing out of that Church, which was eſtabliſhed by the Apoſtles at Rome; and conſequently, that the preſent Church of Rome neuer ſuffered any change in Fayth, ſince it firſt being a Church.

D. WHITAKERS.

Your Church hath departed from that Fayth, which the Apoſtles firſt preached in Rome; and I hope this departure, and going out (without other proofs) is ſufficient enough. And here I anſwere with M. Newſtub (one of our learned Brethren) In his anſwere to certaine aſſertions, tē ding to mā tayne the Churche of Rome p. 35 That when you require, who were they, that did note your going out &c. This queſtion (I ſay) is vnveceſſary &c. we haue taken you with the manner; that is to ſay, with the Doctrine, diuerſe from the Apoſties: and therfore neither Law, nor Conficience can force vs to examen them who were witneſſes of you firſt departing. Thus my Brother M. Newſtubs. And my Lord, as it is far better for one to haue a cleare ſight, then to enioy the beſt helps for curing a bad ſight; ſo we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine, firſt preached at Rome by the Apoſtles, and manifeſted vnto vs by the perſpicuity of the ſcripture, before all humane reaſons, and arguments, directed to the diſcouerie of Romes after embraced Innouation.

CARD. BELLARM.

What ſtrang Logicke is this? and how poore a Circulation do you make. The mayne queſtion betweene vs, is, whether the preſent Church of Rome hath changed it Fayth, or no, ſince the Apoſtles dayes? To prooue, that it hath not, Iverge that the profeſſours therof did neuer go out of any more anciēt Church, and conſequently euer retayned without change it former Fayth: Now you in anſwere hereto (as not being able to inſtance the perſons, by whom, or the tymes when, any ſuch departing, or going out was made by the Profeſſours of our Religion) reply, that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apoſtles; and therfore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion ſince the Apoſtles tymes: and this ſophiſm (you know) is but Petitio Principij, or a beginning of the matter in queſtion, and is nothing els but (without anſwering to any of my premiſſes) the denyall of my Concluſion; which kynd of anſwenng, I am ſure, impugneth all Logicke, and therfore all Reaſon; ſince Logicke is but Reaſon ſublimated and refined.

But to proceed further. In euery introduction of a new Religion, or broaching of any innouation in Doctryne, the Profeſſours therof receaue a new denomination, or name, for the moſt part, from the firſt authour of the new doctryne, and ſometymes from the Doctrine its ſelfe; like vnto a running riuer, which commonly taketh the name of that riuer, into which it falleth. Thus the Arians, the Valentinians, Marcioniſts Manicheans from Arius, Valentinus, Marcian, and Manicheus &c. or from the doctrine it ſelfe, as the Hereticks Monothelites, Agnoitae, Theopaſchitae &c. though this more ſeldome.

This Note, or Marke, of impoſing a new name of the Profeſſours of euery arriſing Hereſy, may be exemplified in all Hereſies without exception, ingendred ſince the Apoſtles tymes, euen to this day: a poynt ſo exempt from all doubt, as that your learned Man M. Doctour Feild thus writeth: In his Treatiſe of the Church l. 2. c. 9. Surely it is not to be denyed, but that the naming after the names of Men, was in the time of the Primatiue Church, peculiar, and proper to Hereticks and Schiſmaticks; with whom agreeth M. In his Apology, vnderthe title of querulous, motions. Parks; both of them borrowing it from the anciēt Lenaeus l. 2. c. 20. Athanaſ. ſ rm-2. contra Arium. Ierom. Cont. Lucif. in fine. Fathers and particulerly from Chryſoſtome, who thus ſaith: hom. 33. in Act. Apoſt. Prout Haereſiarchae nomen, it a Secta vocatur.

Well then, this being thus acknowledged on all ſides; If the preſent Church of Rome hath made a change from her firſt Primatiue Fayth, then the Profeſſours therof by introducing of new Hereſies, and Opinions, became Heretickes, and conſequently they haue taken (according to our former grounde) ſome name, either from the firſt broachers of theſe new Doctrines, or from the doctrines themſelues. But you cannot, M. Doctour, ſhew any ſuch name to be impoſed vpon vs, except the name, Catholicks, which was euen in the Primatiue Church, the ſurname of all Chriſtians, according to that; Pacianus epiſt. ad Simphronianum. Chriſtianus mihi nomen eſt, Catholicus vero cagnomen: Illud me nuncupat; iſtud me oſtēdit, though the contrary we can ſhew of you, who haue the names giuen to you of Lutherans, Caluenits, Beſits, &c. Therfore it clearely followeth, that the Profeſſours of the preſent Roman Church haue neuer changed their Fayth, firſt planted by the Apoſtles.

D. WHITAKERS.

Now my L. Cardinall, you are foiled with your owne argument. For haue you not the name of Papiſts peculiarly appropriated to your ſelues, to diſtinguiſh you from the true profeſſours of the ghoſpel? In like ſort, are not ſome of your religious Men called Bernardins, others Franciſcans, Benedictins, Auguſtins &c. ſo taking their appellation from particuler Men; and thus your owne argument rebutteth vpon your ſelfe with great diſaduantage: Therfore my Lord be not ſo confident aforehand in the force of your alleaged reaſō but remember, that: D. Whit. contra Camp Rat. 5. Thra y's prò'erysóù,'ec pollóù cacòs: who is euer bould before the worke is attempted, is commō ly indiſcreete.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, You ſo ſeriouſly here trifle, as that I euen bluſh in your behalfe, to obſerue how you wrōg yourfollowers, and Proſelits with ſuch weake tranſparency of reaſons. For you are here to vnderſtand, that the Surnames of Peculiar Hereticks (as the Arians, Eutichians, Maniches, and of all others) were impoſed vpon the Profeſſours of theſe Hereſies, euen at the firſt beginning, and riſing of the ſayd Hereſies, and were inuented out of neceſſity, to diſtinguiſh their Hereſies from all other Doctrines: but now the word, Papiſt, M. Doctour, was coyned but lately by Luther himſelfe againſt vs, & this not out of neceſſity, but of reproach: our Fayth, and Doctrine being acknowledged, aboue by your leaned Brethren, to haue bin in the world, many hundred yeares before Luthers dayes.

Agayne, the Word, Papiſt, is not reſtrained to any one Pope, or any peculiar Doctrine, taught by the preſent Church of Rome, but it is indifferently extended to all Popes, and all doctrines taught by the ſayd Popes: ſo fowly, M. Doctour, are you miſtaken in alleadging the name Papiſt againſt vs: and ſo much do you, and other Proteſtants wrong vs, euen for that very name; we vndergoing herein by your Brethrens calumnies the like misfortune, which Collatinus Tarquinius ſuffered, who was depriued of his honours, and ſubiect to diſgrace, and reproach by the Romans, only for the hatefull name of Tarquinius.

Touching thoſe names of Franciſcans, Bernardins, Benedictans, &c. It is ſo cleare, that theſe names are not impoſed for change of Fayth, but only for inſtitution of ſeueral degrees of a vertuous, and religious life, as that I will anſwere you in your former Brother, D. Feild Of the Church. l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. his words, who thus ſolueth this your obiection: We muſt obſerue, that they, who profeſſe the Fayth of Chriſt, haue bin ſometymes in theſe later ages of the Church, called after the ſpecial names of ſuch Men, as were the Authours, beginners, and deuiſers of ſuch courſes of Monaſtical Profeſſion, as they made choyſe to follow; as Benedictans & ſuch like. Thus D. Feild.

MICHEAS.

I thinke, M. Doctour, (vnder yonr fauour) that theſe your inſtances of names, taken from the firſt inſtitutours of ſeueral religious Orders in the Church of Chriſt, do not imply any change of Fayth made by them; and therefore the force of my L. Cardinal his argument, borrowed from new impoſed appellations, is not weakned, but rather fartified by this your reply. My Reaſon is this: in our Iewiſh Law we read, that ther were ſome called Hierom. 35. Rechabits, and others, Numb. 6. Nazarites; both profeſſing a more ſtrict courſe of life, then the vulgar, and common people did. In like ſort Ioſephus Antiquitat. Iudaic. l. 18. c. 2. and Philo De vita contemplat. report much of the auſterity of the Eſſenes, among vs Iewes; who in regard of ſuch their peculiar Profeſſion were called: Eſſenes; and to whom God vouchſafed many ſpiritual, fauours, and conſolations. Happy men: ſince he is moſt fit to walke vpon the hight of celeſtial contemplation; who liueth in the vale of a voluntary humility, retyrednes, and mortification; In whom the fyre of the ſpirit doth euer extinguiſh the fire of the fleſh and ſenſuality; thus the greater heare putting forth the leſſe heate.

Now ſhal any man thinke, that theſe men inſtituted a Fayth, and Religion, different from that, of Moyſes? It is both abſurd to entertayne ſuch a thought, and withall it is a wrong, and diſhonour to the Law of Moyſes. And in my iudgment, both theſe inſtances of the Old Teſtament produced by me, and thoſe other of the Franciſcans &c. obiected by you, M. Doctour, in a true, and eauen libration of thē do prooue that, which my L. Cardinal firſt endeauoured to prooue from the impoſition of new Names. For they manifeſt the ſeueral changes, and alterations, which were made both in the old Teſtament, and the new, touching a more auſtere profeſſion of a vertuous life, which was the ſubiect of thoſe changes; as theſe other new impoſed names of Arians, Neſtorians, Maniches, and the reſt aboue ſpecified, do neceſſarily euict a change firſt made in Doctrine, by Arius, Neſtorius, Manicheus &c. But my L. Cardinall, if you wil enlarge your ſelfe no further vpon this poynt, I humbly intreate you to proceed to ſome other argument.

CARD. BELLARM.

Learned Micheas. I wil proceed to that, which at this inſtant ſhalbe my laſt, though for weight, and force, it might wel take the firſt place. And it ſhalbe taken, M. Doctour, from the firſt plantatiō of Chriſtianity in your owne Country. which though immediatly, it concerneth but one Nation, yet potentially, it prooueth, that ther was no change of Fayth at all, made in the Church of Chriſt, in any former tymes, by the Profeſſours of the preſent Roman Religion. But here, M. Doctour, I am to demand your iudgment, touching the times in which, and the Perſon, by whom the Britons of Wales were firſt conuerted to the Chriſtian Fayth?

D. WHITAKERS.

All we Proteſtants agree, that the Britons of Wales whre conuerted in the Apoſtles tyme, by Ioſeph of Aramathia; and this we prooue, not only form the authority of Sainct Bede, who did write the hiſtory therof in the yeare, 724. but alſo from the authority of our Principal Hiſtoriographers, for thus M. Cambden (our learned Countryman) writeth: In his Britan. pag. 40. Certum eſt Brit 〈…〉 in ipſa Eccleſiae infantia Chriſtian m Religionem imbibiſſe, It is Certaine, that the Britons receaued the Chriſtian, Religion, euen in the infancy of the Church. Who thus further diſcourſeth of this Poynt: In his Britania. p. 157. In hac floruit Monaſterium Glaſtenburiēſis &c. Here floriſhed the Monaſtery of Glaſtēbury, which taketh it anciēt beginning from Ioſeph of Aramathia &c. for this is witneſſed by the moſt ancient Monuments of this Monaſtery &c. nether is there any reaſon, Why we ſhould doubt therof Thus far, M. Cambden, with whom conſpire all other Chroniclers; as Harriſon Annexed to Holinſhead his greate Chronicle, volum. 1. p. 23 in his deſcription of Britanny, and others. Yea of vs Miniſters of the ghoſpel In his booke againſt Heskins, Sand. p. 561 D. Fulke, In his pageant of Popes. D. Iewell, and M. In his ſoueraigne remedy againſt Sch m p. 24 Henoch Clapham, do ioyntly teach the ſame; neither did I euer read any one authentical writer to deny it.

CARD. BELLARM.

How long, M. Doctour, do your writers confeſſe, that the Britons did preſerue their Fayth receaued in the Apoſtles tymes, free from all change, or mixture of innouatiōs.

D. VVHITAKERS.

We do confeſſe, that they preſerued it pure, and not ſtayned with any Errours, til Auguſtine his comming into England, who was ſent by Pope Gregory, to plant his religiō amōg vs Engliſh: for firſt thus I finde D. Iewell to auer: In his pageant of Popes. The Britons being conuerted by Ioſeph of Aramathia, held that Fayth at Auguſtins comming; as alſo D. Fulke ſaying: Againſt the Rhemiſh Teſtament. in 2. cor. 12. The Catholick Britans, with whom Chriſtian Religion had continued in ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles tymes, would not receaue Auguſtine. To theſe we may adioyne the like words of M. Fox: Act. Mon. printed, 1576. p. 463. The Britons after the receauing of the Fayth, neuer forſooke it, for any manner of falſe preaching, nor for tormēts: and finally, that acknowledgment of D. Humfrey: In Ieſuitiſm. par. 2. 〈◊〉 3. p. 304. Habuerunt Britanni templa ſibi, non Romanis &c. The Britons had temples, and Churches peculiar to themſelues, not common with the Romans; they not ſubiecting thē ſelues to the yoake of the Romans.

CARD. BLLARM.

Well, M. Doctour, you deale with integrity, and playnes hitherto; openly diſcouering, what your reading and iudgement are able to deli er herein. And your Prayſe in ſo doing is the greater; ſince there are ſome men, ſo cautelous in their proceedings, and ſpeaches, and of ſuch an impenetrable cloſenes of diſpoſition, as that we can neuer knowe their minde by their words; the one, for the moſt part, ſtanding neutrall to the other, or rather the Aſpect of a Diametricall Oppoſition. But, M. Doctour, let me enquire further of you. You know, that there was an interuiew of meeting, betweene this Auguſtine, and the Biſhops of Britanny, or Walles, for the conferring of their Religions together, at a place called in S. Bede Beda hiſt. 2. c. 2. his time: Auguſtineizat; which point is further recorded by your In his great Chronic. of the laſt edition volū. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. Holinſhead, M. Fox, Act. Mō. printed 1576 pag. 120. and diuers others. Now here I would intreate you ſincerely to ſet downe, the greateſt differences of Fayth, and Religon, which at that meeting were found to be betweene the Briton Biſhops, and the foreſayd Auguſtine.

D. WHITAKERS.

I will and my tongue ſhall truly ſubſcribe to all that, which of this point I haue heretofore read. And firſt S. Bede will fully determine this point; who relating, how Auguſtine anſwered the Briton Biſhops, ſetteth his anſwere downe in th ſe words: Beda l. 2. c. 2. Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis, vt Paſcha ſuo tempore celebretis; vt Miniſterium Baptizandi (quo Deo renaſcimur) iuxta morem Romanae & Apoſtolicae Eccleſiae compleatis; vt Genti Anglorum vnà nobiſcum praedicetis verbum Domini, cetera, quae agitis. (quamuis moribus noſtris contraria) eaquanimiter cuncta toller abimus: that is, If you Briton Biſhops) will obey me in theſe three thinges; to wit, in celebrating aſter day in it due tyme; in conferring of Baptiſme, (by the which we are reborne to God) according to the Rites of the Roman, and Apoſtolicall Church, and in helping vs to preach to the Engliſh; all other matters, which you do (though contrary to our manners,) we wil tollerate, and ſuffer. Thus far S. Bede. But to what end, my Lord Cardinall, do you make ſo many demaunds touching this matter of the Britons? Since I cannot ſee your proiect herein; they neither preiudicing vs Proteſtants, nor aduantaginge you Papiſts.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, you ſhal quickly diſcouer the drift of theſe my ſeuerall demaunds, which reſemble a Torrent, ſtopped for a time, that it may in the end ouerflow with greater violence. Now to your former acknowledgmēts we may adde (touching only the three former differences) the like Confeſſions of Volum. 1. p. 103 Holinſhead, In his Catalogue of the Biſhops p. 6. M. Goodwin, and the Proteſtāt Authour of the Hiſtory of great Briton whoſe words are theſe: Printed anno. 1606. l. 3. c. 13. p. 133. The Briton Biſhops conformed themſelues to the Doctrine, & Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without difference in any thing ſpecially remembred, ſaue only in the celebration of the feaſt of Eaſter &c.

Now, M. Doctour, in this laſt place, I would haue you cal to minde, what is aboue related, touching the Fayth, planted by Auguſtine, of D. Humfrey, the Centuriſts, and Oſiander. D. Humfrey his words herin (though the iteration of them may perhaps ſeeme vnpleaſing) I wil once more repeate, for greater weight of our enſuing argument; who ſpeaking of Auguſtins Religion planted in England, thus writeth: In Ieſuitiſin. part. 2. Rat. 5. pag. 5. & 627. In Eccleſiam verè quid inuexerunt Gregorius & Auguſtinus? onus Caeremoniarum &c. intulerunt Pallium Epiſcopale ad ſola Miſſarum ſolemnia, Purgatorium, &c, Oblationem ſalutaris hoſtiae, & Preces pro demortuis &c. reliquias &c. Tranſubſtantiationem &c. nouas templorum conſecrationes &c. Ex quibus omnibus, quid aliud quaeſitum eſt, quam vt Indulgentiae, Monacha us, Paptus, reliquūque Pontificiae ſuperſtitionis Chaös extruatur? Haec autem Auguſtinus Magnus Monachus (a Gregorio Monacho edoctus) importauit Anglis: Thus D. Humfrey. Are not theſe his owne words? And are not the In the Alphabetical table of the ſixt Century after the firſt Edition therof, at the word: Gregory. Centuriſts and Epitom. hiſtor. Eccleſ. cent. 6. pag. 289. Oſiander (aboue cited) moſt cleare, that Auguſtine at his comming into England, preached the preſent Roman Religion, in all chiefe points to you Engliſh?

D. WHITAKERS.

It cannot be denyed, but that all the foreſayd Proteſtants (as alſo all Hiſtories diſcourſing of this poynt) do cō fidently auerre the ſame. Which ſaid Gregory, as he brought in ſome true, & wholſome poynts of Chriſtian Fayth; ſo did he mingle them, with diuers poiſonous ſuperſtitions, worthily to be avoyded by all good Chriſtians: D. hit. Cont. Camp. Rat. 10. Phármaca pollà mén 〈…〉 esthlà memieména, pollà de lyerà. for it is moſt cleare, that Auguſtine in this his plantation of Religion in England, did greatly labour D. Whit. vbi ſupra. 'ar' 'roſtia quadam dianoias, with an infirmity or ſicknes of iudgment.

CARD. BELLARM.

Wel, M. Doctour, touching the venom, you ſpit out againſt Auguſtines Religion, I holde it, but as fome, & froth of a diſtempered ſtomack, and therfore I paſſe it ouer: but to returne to my argument. Here now I wilbe ſeruiceable vnto you, and by the mixture of all theſe former Ingredients, I will preſent you with a wholſome Electuary, compounded of them all: for indeede I holde the demonſtration iſſuing out of the premiſſes, ſo vnauoydable, as that it precludeth, and foreſtalleth the aduerſary of all ſhew of Reply.

Firſt then it is graunted, that the Britons were cō uerted to the Fayth of Chriſt by Ioſeph of Aramathia; who as he had the honour to interre our Sauiour, & lay his ſacred Body in a new monument, cut out of a rock (as the Math. 27. Euangeliſt ſpeaketh) ſo enioyed he the happines to bury al former infidelity in the Britons, and to cloath, or infolde their (afore ſtony, and rocky) harts, within the cleane Syndon of a pure Fayth in our Sauiour:

But to proceed. Secondly, it is confeſſed, that the Britons retayned this their firſt Fayth, ſpotles, and without change, till Auguſtins comming into England: Thirdly, it is prooued, that at the tyme of the conference betweene Auguſtine, and the Briton Byſhops, the greateſt difference in matters of Fayth, and Religion, (wherupon they ſtoode) were but two poynts, cheifly conſiſting in Ceremony; to wit, the keeping of Eaſter day in it vſuall tyme, and the forme of Baptizing, according to the rites of Rome. Fourthly, and laſtly, it is graunted, that Auguſtine here planted, and preached to the Engliſh all Articles, and points of the preſent Romane Religion, or Papiſtry, as you Proteſtants do vſually ſtyle it.

Now, M. Doctour, what other reſultancy can here be made out of all theſe Premiſſes, but this? To wit, that the Church of Rome in Auguſtins time teaching Papiſtry, was wholy agreeable (the two points, or Ceremonies of keeping Eaſter day, and of baptiſing with the Rites of Rome, only excepted) with the Fayth, and Religion, which was planted among the Britons by Ioſeph of Aramathia in the Apoſtles daies: and conſequently, that the Church of Rome teaching Papiſtry, did neuer ſuffer any change in her Faith, and Religion ſince the Apoſtles departed. This is the Argument, wherin (I graunt) I partly inſult; it is inauoidable; it is a demonſtration: And pryſe it Micheas as a ſtrong Aries, beating downe, & bearing before it, whatſoeuer may ſeeme to withſtand the Truth in this pointe controuerted.

MICHEAS.

In deed, my Lord, it ſeemes to me very forcible, and you did well to reſerue it to the laſt place; that ſo (like ſweetmeats) it might pleaſingly cloſe vp the taſt of our iudgments. Neuertheleſſe the conſideration of it doth not diminiſh with me the force of your other former arguments; for though Better be better, yet followeth it not, but that Good is good.

D. WHITAKERS.

My Lord, This your argument is tyed togeather with many links, and breake but one of them, all the reſt are looſed. And indeed it is but an argument drawne from Authority, Negatiuely, and by Omiſſion only; which you know is little valued in the ſchooles. For the hinge (as I may ſay) or weight of it only conſiſteth in this. That at the meeting of Auguſtine, and the Briton Biſhops, diſſented from Auguſtine. But of other greater points we read no mention made among them; and therfore for any thing we know, the Britons might aſwell diſagree from Auguſtine in all other Articles paſſed ouer in ſilence, as agree with them.

CARD. BELLARM.

How improbable, how abſurd, how impoſſible is this, you ſay? And take heede, M. Doctour, that this your anſwere be not controuled by your owne ſecret conſcience; and beware of much practiſing the like hereafter; ſince the Character of any bad courſe, impreſſed by a long habit, at length becoms indelible. But to the point: Conſider all the Circumſtances of the buſines at that tyme handled, and then deliuer an impartiall, and euen cenſure. The meeting was occaſioned only for comparing their Faiths together; Auguſtine imitating therin S. Paul, Gal. 2. vt conferat cum illis Euangelium, quod praedicat in Gentibus. The Britons (euen by the acknowledgment of M. Act. Mō. printed. 1576. pag. 120. Fox) did beare themſelues at the firſt againſt Auguſtine, with great pertinacy, & ſtubbernes; and therfore the leſſe probable it is, that they would yeeld to him in any point of moment, more then was agreeable to their owne Religion. The differences betweene them after much diſquiſition, and ſearch, are recorded to be only about the two former points of Ceremonies, and ſeeming indifferency. The Recorder of this great Paſſage, was principally S. Bede; who (ex profeſſo) did write moſt elaborately, and punctually, the Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory of England in thoſe times; and therein was obliged (by his deſigned method) not to regiſter the ſmalleſt occurrents, and wholy to omit the greateſt.

Now then can we dreame, that the Doctrines touching the Reall Preſence; the Sacrifice of the Maſſe, Praying to Saints. Purgatory, Free-will, Iuſtification by works, Images, Monachiſme, the Primacy of Peter, and ſome others (all being Articles of greateſt importance, and particulerly taught by S. Auguſtine) were, either not mentioned, and not once ſpoken of in that ſerious diſcourſe betweene Auguſtine, and the Briton Biſhops; or they being then painfully diſcuſſed, and ventilated, the Britons being ſo refractory, and ſtiffe with Auguſtine in the ſmaleſt points, would quietly, and without reſiſtance, embrace all theſe high doctrines, as Innouations, and repugnant to their Fayth, firſt planted by Ioſeph of Aramathia? Or if the Bri on Biſhops ve lded not their aſſent to theſe ſupreame poynts of Fayth of Rome, would not ſuch their reluctation, and diſlike haue bin recorded by S. Bede, and other writers of thoſe tymes, who would not omit to relate the Britons ſtifnes, and coldnes in the leaſt matters of this Hiſtory? It is great weakenes, but to ſuppoſe ſuch impoſſibilities; It is madnes, and lunacy to beleeue them.

Therfore my abſolute, and laſt reſolution here is, that the Fayth of Auguſtine, was then one, and the ſame in all Articles with the Fayth of the Britons, firſt preached to them in the Apoſtles dayes, (the Ceremonies of Baptiſing, and of keeping Eaſter day cheifly excepted) which leſſer errours, S. Auguſtine (obſeruing the Britons ſtiffnes) thought perhaps, would ſooner be recalled by a patient ſufferance of them for a tyme, then by any violent meanes vſed at the firſt to the contrary; like to ſome diſeaſes, which are beſt cured, by continuing the diſeaſes.

Now for the fuller cloſe of this poynt, to wit, touching the agreement of the Doctrine taught by S. Auguſtine, with the then Doctrine, and Fayth of the Briton Biſhops, I will adde the acknowledgement of the Briton Biſhops themſelues, of whom S. Bede thus relateth: Lib. 2. c. 2. Britones quidem confitentur intellexiſſe ſe veram eſſe viam iuſtitiae, quam praedicaret Auguſtinus: ſo vnanimous (we ſee) were the Britons & Auguſtine in their Fayth, and Religion: and therfore it was not ſtrange, that at the laſt (as D. Fulke affirmeth) In his Cō futation of Purgatory, p. 335. Auguſtine did obtayne the ayd of the Britiſh Biſhops, to the conuerſion of the Saxons.

And thus far of this argument, the which ſhall ſerue as the Cataſtrophe, or end of this my Scene; wherin I haue vndertaken (though more, then by rigour of method I was tyed vnto) to prooue by poſitiue arguments, and reaſons, that the Church of Rome hath neuer ſuffered any change in her Fayth, and religion, ſince the Apoſtles dayes; my cheife allectiue (Miche s) inducing me therto, being only your ſatisfaction in this your impoſed Subiect, or Queſtion.

MICHEAS.

My L. Cardinall. I render you humble thankes, and I muſt ſay that theſe your former arguments produced, ſeeme to me very moouing; and except M. Doctour be able to repell them with other more forcible arguments, they will (I cō feſſe) impell my Iudgment to giue it free, and full conſent, to the beleeuing of that point, for the proofe wherof, they are by your Lordſhip alleadged.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour. Seeing there is no truth ſo illuſtrious, and radiant, but that in an vndiſcerning eye, it may ſeeme to be clowded for the time, with the interpoſition of ſome weake Obiections; Therfore I would now wiſh you, to proceede to your proofes, and to alleadg ſuch arguments againſt our former Concluſion, as your owne reading hath at any time beſt miniſtred vnto you.

Do not reſt only in generally ſaying, that the Church of Rome hath altered her Religion; except withal you inſiſt in the particular inſtances, when that Church imbraced ſuch, & ſuch a Doctrine, as an innouation, and repugnant to the Faith planted by the Apoſtles. And remember, that the Truth, or falſhood of generalities in ſpeech do receiue their beſt illuſtration from a curious, and preciſe diſſecting of the Particulars.

This office now is particularly incumbent vpon you; for ſeeing you maintaine, that the Church of Rome hath changed its Faith ſince the Apoſtles times, you are obliged to inſiſt in the particular Doctrines, ſuppoſed to be changed, in the Perſon, and Popes, by whom this change was made, in the time, in which theſe alterations are preſumed to haue happened, and the like; as aboue I intimated in the beginning of this diſcourſe. Therfore, M. Doctour, begin, and I will reply to your Obiections, as far as my owne reading, and iudgment will afford.

D. WHITAKERS

My Lord I willingly take holde of your preſcribed Method; and will giue many inſtances of ſeuerall Doctrines, euen of the greateſt moment, now in queſtion betweene you, and vs, when they were firſt introduced into the Church, and by what Popes they were ſo brought in; and I hope that a due, and mature ponderation of them will be able to ſhake, and diſioynt (or rather to lay leuell to the ground) the whole Syſtima, and frame of your former large diſcourſe.

Well then, the firſt Inſtance of this vndoubted Change, which I will alleadge, ſhalbe Pope So ſaith D. hi . cont. Duraeum, lib. 7. pag. 480. Siritius, who was the firſt, that annexed Perpetuall Chaſtity to the miniſters of the word. And I hope, that it is to be accōpted no ſmale change, to barre our Clergy of their Chriſtian liberty in ſo great a matter; ſince we are taught by him, who in theſe later times firſt taught vs Proteſtantcy that, nothing In Prouerb. 13. where he ſo ſaith in dutcz, as is here ngliſhed. is more ſwee e or louing vpon earth, then is the loue of a Woman if a Man can obtaine it. And Luther Tom. 7. in Epiſt. ad Wophangū. fol. 505. that he who reſolueth to be without a Woman let him lay aſide from him the name of a man, making himſelfe a plaine Angell, or Spirit.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, before I come to apply particuler anſweres to your particuler inſtances following; I muſt tell you, that the force of all ſuch your inſtāces is already ouerthrowne, by what is deliuered aboue. For if it be already demonſtrated, that no chāge of faith hath bin made at any time in the church of Rome, partly by freeing euery age of the Church, ſince Chriſts time from any change in Religion, euen by the acknowledgment of the learned Proteſtants; partly by manifeſting, that neither the Church of Chriſt, neuer made any reſiſtance againſt the firſt ſuppoſed change (as both in duety it was bound to do, and as the holy Scripture propheſieth, that it ſhould euer do, at the innouatiō of any new Doctrine) neither doth any Hiſtoriographer record in his Hiſtory any ſuch chāge; partly by diſcouering the vncertaine iudgments of your owne Brethren touching Antichriſts firſt comming; at what time this ſo much preſſed Innouation of Faith is taught to haue happened; and finally, partly by diuers other reaſons aboue diſcuſſed, and diſputed: I ſay, if all this hath bin aboue prooued (as I hope it is) then doth it follow, that all pretended Inſtances, and Examples (vpon which you may hereafter ſeeme in an ignorant eye to inſiſt) are impertinent, friuolous, and wholy by you miſtaken. Neuertheles, for the fuller content of this our Learned IeW, I will with peculiar anſweres refell euery one of your peculiar Examples. And firſt, to your firſt. Where it ſeemes, that the Doctrine of vowed Chaſtity in Cleargy Men toucheth you neare, in regard of your Miniſters coniugall liues, ſeeing you begin there with. And here by the way, I muſt make bold to ſay, that you Proteſtants (God be thanked) cannot iuſtly be charged with being reputed ſuperſtitious Votaries, and wilfull Eunuchs, (as Catholick Prieſts are ſtyled by ſome of your Brethren to be) ſo carefull you are of your owne reputation herein: but the leſſe meruayle, ſince the very Body of Proteſtancy is Senſuality (pardon me, M. Doctour, for ſpeaking that, which Experience, and your owne Theorems depoſe to be true) as the ſoule of it is an aſſumed height of mind, and controule of all Authority.

But now to your example, wherof you produce no authority of any ancient Father affirming ſo much, but only your owne naked aſſertion. This of Siricius is wrongfully alleadged for ſeuerall reſpects: firſt, in that we finde S. Hierome (who liued before Siricius) to write of this point in this ſort: In Apolo. ad Pāmach. cap. 3. If marryed men like not of this (meaning of the ſingle life of the Cleargy) let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons; who know, they cannot offer vp Sacrifice, if they vſe the act of Marryage. Thus (we ſee) S. Hierome reduceth this point of Prieſts not marrying, euen to the Scripture it ſelfe. Which Father in further proofe thereof, appealeth to the generall Practiſe of the whole Church therein ſaying: contra Vigilant. cap. 1. quid faciunt Orientis Eccleſiae, quid Egypti, & Sedis Apoſtolicae? quae aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut cominentes, aut ſi vxores habuerint, mariti eſſe deſinunt. With Hierome (to omit other Fathers) Epiphanius (ancient to Hierome) conſpireth, who reprehending the abuſe of ſome Deacons, and Sub-deacons, for accompanying their Wiues, whom they had eſpouſed before their Orders taken, concludeth thus: Haereſ. 59 At hoc non eſt iuxta Canonem; This is againſt the Canion; So he implying, that there, was a former Canon againſt the marriage of Prieſts. To conclude Origen, who liued before theſe o her Fathers, thus writeth hereof: In Num. homil. 23. Mihi videtur, quòd illius eſt ſolius offerre Sacrificium indeſinens, qui indeſinenti, & perpetuae ſe deuouerit caſtitati: I am of iudgment, that, that man only, is to offer vp perpetuall Sacrifice, who hath deuoted himſelfe to perpetuall Chaſtity.

This point is ſo euident, that your owne In E am. Concil. Trident. p. 50. & 62. Kēpnitius doth reprehēd the foreſayd Hierome, Epiphanius, Origen, as alſo Ambroſe, for their impugning the ſuppoſed lawfulnes of Prieſts marriage. We may adde (for cloſe hereof) the Coū cell of Carthage. wherat S. Auguſtine was preſent: the Coū cell in expreſſe words ſayth thus: Concil. Carth. 2. Can. 2. Omnibus placet vt, Epiſcopi, Preſbyteri, & Diaconi &c. ab vxoribus ſe abſtineant: It is allowed by all, that Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons do abſtaine from hauing wiues. And then immediatly after the Coū cell giueth the reaſon therof in theſe words: Vt quod Apoſtoli docuerunt, & ipſa ſeruauit antiquitas, nos cuſtodiamus: to the end that we may keepe, what the Apoſtles haue ordayned herein, and antiquity obſerued. Now I referre to any Mans indifferent iudgment, with what colour, M. Doctour, you can auerre, that Siricius was the firſt, who impoſed ſingle life vpon Prieſts, and the Cleargy.

MICHEAS.

I do not know, in what age ech of theſe Fathers did liue, I being more conuerſant in the Genealogies of our ancient Prophets, and Iews, then in the Centuries, or ages of the Fathers of Chriſts Church. Neuertheles Reaſon, and true diſcourſe informes me, that graūting all, or moſt of theſe former alleadged Fathers to haue liued before Siricius, (as you, my Lord, do auouch, and M. Doctour, doth not deny) then in regard of their former produced teſtimonies againſt the Marriage of Prieſts, it cannot be conceaued, how Siricius was the firſt, who annexed perpetuall chaſtity to Prieſt-hood. But if it pleaſe you, M. Doctour, proceed to other inſtāces.

D. WHITAKERS.

The firſt Councell of Nice Can. 3. forbiddeth Marriage of Prieſts in theſe words: Prieſts are not to haue dwelling with them any Woman, other then their Mother, Siſter, their Fathers Siſter, their Mothers Siſter. Now theſe words ſhew an Innouation of this Doctrine touching Prieſts not marrying, different from the former liberty left to them by Chriſt.

CARD. BELLARM.

I will not much inſiſt, how this inſtance ouerthroweth the former inſtance of Siricius; Seing it is impoſſible, that both the Councell, and Siricius (they being in different times) ſhould be the firſt impugners of Prieſts Marriage. But to come to your example. The Cannō of Nice here alleadged, doth not bring in any Innouation of Prieſts not marrying; but onely in regard of ſome negligence afore vſed, by ſome of the Cleargy, in not preciſely obſeruing the Apoſtles Doctrine herein, doth for the greater caution, Decree, that the ſaid Women (& no others) ſhould liue in the howſes with Prieſts. Now that the Doctrine of Prieſts ſingle life was more ancient, then the Decree, appeareth from the words of Paphnutius, then preſent at the Councell; who, though, perhaps, he was perſwaded, that Prieſt-hood did not diſſolue Marriage afore contracted, yet he This is acknowledged by Socrates lib. 1. c. 8. by Sozom. l. 1 c. 22. by the Centuriſts, cent. 4. c. 9. and by M. D. Fulke againſt the Rhemiſh Teſtament in Math. 8. ſaith plainely: Thoſe, who are made Prieſts before they are married, cannot after marry. And this the ſaid Paphnutius calleth: Veteram Eccleſiae traditionem: ſo farre Paphnutius was from aſcribing it to the Nicene Councell, as to the firſt authour therof. But proceede on forward, M. Doctour.

D. WHITAKERS.

It is manifeſt, that he D. Whit. contra Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480 who firſt deliuered Purgatory, for a certaine Doctrine was Gregory the Great. And this my owne reading aſſureth me.

MICHEAS

M. Doctour. Here I muſt make bold to interpoſe my iudgment. And truely, I can hardly be induced to thinke prayer for the dead (which neceſſarily reſulteth out of the Doctrine of Purgatory) to be an Innouation; much leſſe the Doctrine therof to be firſt inuented by the Father, whome you ſtyle Gregory the Great; who, and at what time he liued, I knowe not. My reaſon is this: I am aſſured, both by my owne practiſe, and peruſing of our Iewiſh bookes, that prayer for the dead was euer vſed in our Synagogues, and is practiſed by vs Iewes euen to this day. And here, ſuppoſing, that the Booke of the Machabees be but Apocriphall, yet it is acknowledged by all, that the Hiſtories there recorded, are true Hiſtories. Now there we read, that Iudas Machabeus (the vndowbted ſeruant of God) commanded prayers, and ſacrifices to be made for the dead Souldiers, vpon which Act, it is there ſaid: So Lib. 2. a. achab. c. 2. he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be deliuered from ſinne

This Doctrine with vs Iewes was ſo generall, as that (to omit all other ancient Rabbins, teaching the ſame) Rabby Simeon (a learned Iew, and who liued before Chriſt) thus writeth of thoſe, who are temporally puniſhed after this life: In. l. Zoar. in c. 18. Gen. After they are purged from the filth of their ſinnes, then doth God cauſe them to aſcend out of that place. But pardon me, for inſerting my ſentence herein.

CARD. BELLARM.

Worthy Rabby. You haue ſpoken truely; and indeede; as the ancient practiſe of the Iewes, doth free the Doctrine, and vſe of praying for the dead, from the ſtaine of Nouelty in the new Teſtament; ſo theſe Authorities, and acknowledgmēts following, do wholy ſubuert the former Inſtance of Gregory the Great.

And firſt, we find S. Auguſtine (who liued long before Gregory) thus to ſay: De Verb. Apoſt. Serm. 34 Non eſt dubit andum &c. It is not to be doubted, but that the dead are much helped by the healthfull Sacrifice of the Holy Church, and by almes giuen for their ſonles; and that by theſe meanes God doth deale more mercifully with them, then their ſinns haue deſerued. And in another place the ſayd Father: Neque Aguſt. in Encheri . c. 110. negaudum eſt defunctorum animas pietate ſuorum viuentium releuari, cum pro illis ſacrificium mediatoris offertur; It cannot be dented, but that the ſoules of the dead, are releeued, through the pyety of their liuing freinds, when the Sacrifice of the Mediatour is offered vp for them.

D. WHITAKERS.

Many learned Proteſtants do holde, that Auguſtine did reſt doubtfull of the being of a Purgatory; among whō D. Againſt the Rhemiſh Teſtament. in 1. Cor. 3. Fulke (that learned man) doth ſo write.

CARD. BELLARM.

They do aſcribe a doubtfull heſitation to Auguſtine in this Article, only for the better defence of their contrary Doctrine, Therfore for the greater euidence herein, obſerue the free acknowledgmēts of the learned Proteſtants themſelues paſſed, not onely vpon Auguſtine, but vpon other ancient Fathers. Thus, M. Doctour, you ſhall be herein deadly wounded by the penns of your owne Brethren: and thus may our Sauiours wordes be verified in you: Math. 10. mans Enemies ſhalbe they of his owne houſehold.

And firſt D. Fulke himſelfe (howſoeuer you alleadge him to the contrary) ſpeaking of Aerius, thus ſ ieth: Aerius In his anſwere to a counterfait Catholicke. p. 44 taught, that prayer for the dead was vnprofitable, as witnes Epiphanius, & Auguſtine. Alſo the ſaid Doctour confeſſeth more liberally of this point, thus writyng: In his cō futation of Purgatory, p. 2. vid. 303. et 393. Tertullian, Auguſtine, Cyprian, Herome, and a great many more do witnes, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apoſtles. Which point, M. Doctour, being graunted, and admitting there were no expreſſe Scripture for this Doctrine, but only warranted by tradition, yet may the conſcience of euery good Chriſtian, be ſecured herein,

Finally Caluin thus writeth of the former point touching the antiquity of prayer for the dead: Iuſtit 〈◊〉 . c. 5. ſect 10. ante trecentos annos vſu receptum fuit, vt praecationes fierent pro mortuis &c. ſed fateor in errorem arrepti fuerunt: Within three hundred yeres after Chriſt, it was in vſe to procure prayers to be made for the dead &c. But the performers thereof were led into an errour. Thus much touching Auguſtine, and the times afore him. Now frō the peruſall of theſe Confeſſions, I much wonder, M. Doctour, how you bluſhed not, to obtrude the beginning of praier for the dead, vpon Gregory the Great, who liued diuers hundred ages after all the former Fathers were dead.

D. WHITAKERS.

Howſoeuer, my L. Card. you ſeeke to auoyd my former Inſtances, yet, what anſwere can you make touching Pope Victor. So ſaith D. Whit. cont Duraeutin. l. 7. p. 480. who was the firſt, that exercized iuriſdiction vpon foraine Churches? which ſentence of mine, is alſo approued by my former learned Brother D. In his anſwere to a Cöterfait Catholicke. p. 36. Fulke; from which example I gather, that Victor (out of his elation, & pride) firſt chalenged that Primacy to him ouer all churches, which your Popes, at this day ſtill vſurp, and retaine: This Pope Victor being one of thoſe, who couet: D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 4. 'aiem 'ariſtcucin cai 'yperochòn 'émmenai 'allon; to aduance himſelfe as the beſt, and cheifeſt, aboue all other Biſhops.

CARD. BELLARM.

You do much diſaduantage your ſelfe in alleadging this example, conſidering the time, wherein Victor liued; to wit, in the yeare 198. An age, during the which, your ſelfe hath hertofore confeſſed, that the church f Rome did ſuffer no alteration in her Religion. Now, M. Doctour, wheras you caſt an aſperſion of pride vpon this moſt ancient, and reuerend Pope, I wiſh you take heede that you do not incurre the cenſure paſſed vpon Diogenes, who is ſaid to haue reprooued Plato his pride, with greater pride.

D. WHITAKERS.

It is certaine, that many churches, and Fathrs were offended with Victors proceeding therein; and particulerly that ancient, and pious Father Irenaeus? which is an infallible argument of Victors vſurpation. For if Victor had true power to excommunicate the churches of Aſia (as it is graunted he actually had) why ſhould Irenaeus; and thoſe churches be offended: or reprehend him, for putting onely in execution his lawfull Authority.

CARD. BELLARM.

You muſt call to minde here, M. Doctour, the reaſon, why Victor did excommunicate the Churches of Aſia, which was, becauſe the Biſhops of Aſia were vnwilling to conforme themſelues to the Church of Rome, in keeping of Eaſter day, to wit, to keepe it onely vpon Sunday; whereas they would needs continue the keeping of it vpon the 14. of the Moone, according to the cuſtome of the Iewes: Now for this their reluctation herein againſt the Church of Chriſt, Victor did excommunicate them.

But when this ſeemed (as being but a Ceremony, and for a time tollerated, through the weaknes of the Iewes) in the iudgment of diuers, too ſmal an occaſion to excommunicate, and cut off ſo many famous Churches, therfore Victor was cenſured by diuers, to be ouer ſeuere in proſecuting with ſo great a puniſhment, ſo ſmal a ſeeming fault. From which, their thus cenſuring of Victor, we may rather gather his Primacy aboue other Churches, then otherwiſe: and the reaſon hereof is, becauſe we do not finde any of the ſayd Biſhops to charge Victor with any Innouation, in vnduely aſſuming to himſelfe this Authority ouer other Churches (which doubtleſly they would haue done, if Victor had firſt taken this priuiledge to himſelfe, they being ſo iuſtly prouoked thereto) but they did onely rebuke, (as is ſayd) his ouermuch rigid ſeuerity, in puniſhing (as they thought) ſo rigorouſly, ſo ſmal a diſobedience in the Biſhops of Aſia.

Yea which is more, that Irenaeus, who was moſt forward in taxinge Victor with his ſharp proceeding, aſcribeth to Victor a ſoueraignety ouer all Churches. For beſides, that Irenae s is reprehended by the Cent. c. 4. col. 64. l. 2. Centuriſts, for acknow ledging the Primacy of the Roman Sea, Euſebius thus writeth of Irenaeus touching this point: hiſtor. l. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus admoniſheth Victor by letters, that he would not (for the obſeruation of a Tradition ſo long vſed) quite cut of ſo many Churches from the body of the Vniuerſall Church.

Thus Euſebius. Now I here demand, why ſhould Irenaens diſſuade Victor from excōmunicating thoſe Churches, but that he was perſuaded, that Victor had power to excommunicate them. And thus farre of this inſtance; which may be of force (perhaps) to prooue, that Victor was ouer ſeuere, but not that he had not true power ouer other Churches; for which point it is by you, M. Doctour, vrged. But I pray you paſſe to other inſtances; onely here by the way, I will put you in minde, that careles, and obſtinate Chriſtians, (and ſuch it well may be, ſome of thoſe Aſian Chriſtians were) haue in ſome reſpect ſmall reaſon to feare the excommunication of the Pope, ſince theſe men, through ſuch their diſobediency, do commonly excommunicate themſelues.

D. WHITAKERS.

It is cleare, that Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celeſtinus, D. Whit. inſtanceth in theſe three Popes. l. 7. Cōl. Durae um pag. 480. (all Biſhops of Rome, did chalenge ſuperiority ouer other Biſhops, by forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell; Which proceeding manifeſteth the then vſurped Authority of thoſe Popes, to be contrary to the inſtitution of Chriſt. Thus theſe your Popes thirſted after all domination, and Power, though at other times, rhey made ſhew (by ſtyling thē ſelues: Serui Seruorum, and by their other affected Humility) to contemne all honours and eminency. Tertul. Cur vultis eſſe in mundo, qui extra mundum eſtis?

CARD. BELLARM.

It is moſt ſtrange to ſee how inconſiderately, you proceed. For here you ſay, that theſe Popes firſt introduced this innouatios of the Superiority of the Biſhop of Rome, ouer other Churches; and immediatly afore (and with all one breath) you aſcribe the beginning thereof to Victor, who liued two hundred yeares before any of theſe three Popes. If theſe later Popes brought it in, then Victor did not? If Victor did begin it, then thoſe Popes could not? See how irreconciliable theſe your two Aſſertions are. From the actions of all which Popes, you can truely gather, that they onely practiſed an Authority, which the Church of Rome euer had; but not, that they aſſumed any ſoueraignty to them, (which poynt is only in q 〈…〉 eſtion) which afore that Church had not.

D. WHITAKERS.

M. D. Fulke, conſpireth with me in alledging the foreſaid examples; and he was a man well conuerſant in Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories: his words are theſe: Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Celeſtinus did challeng In his anſwere to a cō terfeyt tho. licke p. 37. prerogatiue ouer the Biſhop of Afrik, by forging a falſe Canō of the Nicene Coūcel. And this Doctours indgmen I much pryze, in matters of controuerſyes.

CARD. BELLARM.

Both, D. Fulke, his iudgment, (how learned ſoeuer you repute him) and your owne alſo, muſt of neceſſity yeald to the truth herein: ſeing the example of Victor (afore infiſted vpon by you) doth vindicate, and free theſe three later Popes, from all innouation in this poynt. And as touching the ſuppoſed forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell, for the erection of the Primacy of Rome; It is moſt falſe, for euen your owne wryters, to wit, Lib. 4 Inſtit. cap. 7 Sect. 9. Caluin himſelfe, and Peter In his Commö places in Engliſh part. 4. p. 39 Martir, do mention the ſaid Canon, as truly made: Only they ſay, that the Popes did miſalleadge this decree, as made by the Councell of Nice, which was made by the Councell of Sardis. And ſo their Error (admitting that they did erre) conſiſteth only in miſtaking, by whether Councell the ſaid Canon was decreed.

D. VVHITAKER.

What ſay you of Boniface the third? So ſayth D. Whit kcr cen ra Duraeuml. p. 48 It is certain that this Boniface the third, was then the firſt that intituled the Roman Church to be caput omnium Eccleſiarum: the Head of all Churches.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour you weary me, by idly diuerberating the ayre with theſe impertinent Examples, and force me to entertayne them with a faſtidious neglect. For do not the former Examples of Victor, Zozimus, Bonifacius, (the firſt of that name) and Celeſtiuus, (all more ancient, then this Boniface the third take away the weight of this your inſtance? And therfore I referre you to my anſweres touching thē aboue ſpecified. Yet becauſe this verball Inſtance, conſiſteth cheifly in the phraſe of: Caput omnium Eccleſiarum; you ſhall therfore (for your fuller ſatr ſaction) know, that this very Title, of being Head of the Church, is acknowledged, and giuen to the Church of Rome, by many both Latine, and Greeke Farhers, who liued diuers hundred of yeares before this Boniface the third, who raigned about the yeare 507.

And firſt Vincentius Lyrinenſis (who was almoſt three hundred yeares before this Boniface) calls the Biſhop of Rome; adnerſ Haereſ. uerſus finem Caput Orbis; the Head of the Chriſtian World. S. Hierome In 1. Timoth. ſayth, that Damaſus (then Biſhop of Rome) eſt Rector domus Dei quae eſt Eccleſia eins, Damaſus is the Reciour or gouernour of the houſe of God which is his Church. But if Damaſus was the gonernour of the Church, then was he the head of the Church. Finally for greater contraction of this poynt, in the Councell of Chalcedon (conſiſting of many reuerend Doctours and Biſhops, and celebrated an hundred & fifty yeares before this Bonif ce his tyme) we thus reade: Act. 1. Papae Vrbis Romae, quae eſt Caput omnium Eccleſiarum precept a habemus. See the like phraſe vſed, and giuen to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, by the Emperour Iuſtinian, Cod. de Summa Trinitate leg. 4. Proſper de Ingratis c. 2. Victor, de Perſecut. Wandal. Vticenſis, and (to pretermit others) by S. Epiſt. 48. ad Anaſtaſiū Leo. So fowly M. Doctour, you were deceaued, in alleadging this Bonifacius, and the phraſe of Caput Eccleſiarum.

D. WHITAKERS.

Who knoweth not. D. 〈…〉 hit cont. Camp. Rat. 6. thus writeth: G 〈…〉 g. Magnus parū ne tuu Pôificē perſtringit, quado quiſquis ſe Vniuerſale Epiſcopū vocat, cū Antichriſti praecurſore procul dubio appellat? Ioh of Conſtantinople firſt challenged to himfelfe, the name of Vniuerſnll Biſhop? But Gregorie the Great (then Biſhop of Rome) eigrauiſſime, & conflantiſſimè reſtitit quouſque vixit; moſt grauely, and conſtātly reſifled him, as long as he liued; affirming him to be the Precurſor of Antichriſt, who ſhould arrogate this tytle of Vniuerſall Biſhop, to himſelfe

But now (my Lord) euery Pope ſince Gregories time ſtyleth himſelfe Vniuerſall Biſhop; and therfore euery ſuch Pope (in the iudgment of the ſayd Gregory) is the Precurſor of Antichriſt: and conſequently, euery ſuch Pope hath made no ſmal change in this mayne point, from the Fayth firſt planted by Chriſt: for what commerce, and aſſociation in Fayth can there be, betweene Chriſt, and Antichriſt?

CARD. BELLARM.

Yet M. Doctour, more of theſe froathy Inſtances? Who hath not read or heard, that Gregory the Great liued in the yeare 590. and therefore ſome thouſand yeares ſince or more? whereas the former alleadged Victor, Zozimus, Benifacius the firſt, Celeſtinus, and Bonifacius the third liued many yeares afore him; and ſome of them ſeuerall hundred of yeares, were his ancients; How thē could they aſſume a Supreāe Authority ouer all Churches, (as you afore haue vrged) and haue the title of Head of the Church giuen them, if Iohn of Cō ſtantinople were, either the firſt, that tooke this title to himfelfe, or that Gregory the Great did diſlike it, in that ſenſe, wherein you inſiſt; Therfore what cenſorious temerity is this in you M. Doctour, and how hardly can you vindicate your name (by this your comportment) from all iuſt blemiſh, and diſreputation?

But ſuppoſe this reprehenſion giuen by S. Gregory were true, this only argueth a change to haue bin in Iohn of Conſtantinople, but not in the Biſhop of Rome, which is the only poynt here queſtioned. Againe, I cannot, but obſerue, how in this place, for your aduantage, you can commend Gregory for his humility, and vertue, whom at other tymes you are not afrayd to tearme Antichriſt, and whoſe firſt Conuerſion of you Engliſh to Chriſtianity, you haue elſewhere ſtiled: D. Whit. l. de Eccleſ. cont Bollar. p. 336. Corrupt, and Impure: ſee how ready, you proteſtants are to turne the ſayles of of your ſpeach to euery winde.

D. WHITAKERS.

Will you deny, that Iohn of Conſtantinopee did take this title of Vniuerſall Biſhop to himſelfe; or that Gregory the Great did not reprehend him for the ſame? There are ancient 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Hiſtories recording no leſſe.

CARD BELLARM.

No. I do not deny it. But I ſay, the deceipt lyeth in the equiuocation of the word: Vniuerſall Biſhop. This worde lyeth open to a double acceptance: either to ſignify, that hee who is the Vniuerſall Biſhop, is ſole Biſhop; ſo as it excludeth all others, from being Biſhops; in which ſenſe S. Gregory did tearme it ſacrtlegious, prophane, and Antichriſtian: Or elſe to ſignify one, who hath the cheife care, and gouerment of the Vniuerſall Church; by which ſignification others are not excluded from being Biſhops.

That in the firſt ſenſe Gregory did take the worde: Vniuerſall Biſhop, is moſt euident, euen out of Gregoryes owne works; for thus he writeth hereof: Lib. 7. epiſt 69 ad Euſeb. ſaying: Si vnus eſt vutuersalis, reſtat, vt uos Epiſeopi non ſitis. If one be Vniuerſall Biſhop, it remayneth, that you be no Biſhops. And agayne: If Lib. 4 Epiſt. ad Eulogium: Si vnus Patriarcha vniuerſalis dicitur, Patria charnm n men aeteris der ogatūr. one be called the Vniuerſall Patriarch, the name of Patriarch is taken away from the reſt. In this ſenſe did Gregory take the word, and in this ſenſe did Iohn of Conſtantinople labour to haue the word applyed to himſelfe, endeauouring to be thought the cheife Biſhop of the world (to vſe your owne Lib. of the Church pag. 62. D. Feilds words) becauſe his Citty was the cheife Citty of the world.

Thus you ſee, M. Doctour, how weakly (or rather, how ſo Phiſtically) you argue from the ambiguous acceptance of the phraſe of Vniuerſall Biſhop. But your fault is here the greater, ſince you being a ſcholler) are not ignorant, that Sophiſtry is only by incidency, and for caution to be known, but not to be practiſed: ſo Phiſitions know (for greater warines) the venemous nature of certayne hearbs, or druggs.

D. WHITAKERS.

Howſoeuer Gregory might take this word, in your former reſtrayned ſenſe; yet ſeeing he did forbeare to exerciſe that foueraignty ouer other Biſhops, and Churches, which now the Biſhops of Rome do practiſe; it followeth therefore, that he wholy diſliked this ſwolne domination, and Primacy, ſo much thirſted after by your Popes.

CARD. BELLARM.

It ſeemes, M. Doctour, you are a ſtranger in your owne ſuppoſed Iſraell, I meane, you are not acquainted with your owne learned Brethrens writings: for what poynr of Primacy, and Soueraignty ouer other Churches, and Biſhops is there, which Gregory the Great did not exerciſe, and this by the acknowledgment of your owne Ceeturiſts? For though he was a moſt religious Pope, and ſo great an Enemy to Pride, as that he might be truly ſayd, to haue bin euen ambitious of Humility, yet in reſpect of his Papall Iurisdiction, it is thus written of him: So write the C turiſts of Gregory Cent. 6. col. 462. He chalenged to himſelfe power to commād Arcbiſhops; to ordayne or depoſe Biſhops at his pleaſure. Cent. 6. col. 427. Hee tooke vpon him right to cyte Arcbiſhops that they ſhould declare their cauſe before him, when they were by any accuſed, vbi ſuprà col. 428. Hee placed in other Biſhops Prouinces, Legats to konw, and end the cauſes of thoſe, who made their appeale ta Rome He vſurped power of calling Synods in the provinces of other Biſhops. Thus do the Centuriſts write of Gregory, collecting the Premiſſes out of his owne writings. To be ſhort, they further in generall thus write of him, ſaying; Cent. 6. col. 425. Gregorius dicit ſedem Romanā ſpeculationem ſuam toti orbi indicere; Gregory ſayth that the Roman Sea appoynteth her watches ouer the whole world.

Now by all this here deliuered, M. Doctour, you may ſee, whether or no, Gregory did practiſe the Authority of an Vniuerſall Biſhop, as the word is taken in a ſober (and in the Latter aboue mentioned) conſtruction? And thus much of the Example of Iohn of Conſtantinople and of Gregory the Greate; which is ſo often enforced, and vrged, though with extreame wilfull (or at leaſt ignorant) miſtaking by many of your Proteſtant doctours.

MICHEAS.

Our Law of Moyses euer enioyed one Supreame Prieſt; and therfore, ſeeing the tyme of the new Teſtament, is much ſuperiour to the tyme of the Law, I do not ſee, but now in theiyme of Grace, there ſhould be one Supreame Biſhop ouer the whole Church of Chriſt; and conſequently the acknowledgmēt of ſuch an Vniuerſall Biſhop ſhould not be reputed any Innouation in Religion, or change made from the firſt Inſtitution of ſuch a Paſtour by Chriſt hymſelfe.

CARD. BELLARM.

Michaeas, you ſpeake according to the Truth, and no more then certaine Puritan proteſtants do teach, who wryte thus thereof: In their Treatiſe entituled Engliſh. Puritaniſme printed anno 190 〈◊〉 . p. 16. The (high Prieſt of the Iewes was typically, and in a figure, the ſupreme heade of the whole Catholyke Church; with whom as other Proteſtant thus iumpeth, ſaying: Penry in his ſupplication to the high Court or Parlament That forme of gouerment, which maketh our Sauiour Chriſt inferio r to Mo ſes is an impious, vngodly, and vnlawfull gouerment, contrary to the Word. &c. But (M. D.) proceede on further.

D. VVHITAKERS.

Our beſt Controuerſiſts, which (as I may terme them) a the Infantaria of our Proteſtant Churches Souldiers, do teach, that touching ſo ſaith D. whitakers coutra Du •• um l. 7. p. 490. your Sacrament of Confeſſion, Innocentius the Third was the firſt, that inſtituted auricular Confeſſion for neceſſary. Now this Innocentius liued not paſt ſome foure hundred yeares ſince: ſo late, and freſh, (yow fee) your Doctryne of Auricular Confeſſion is. And admitting this yonr Article, touching Confeſſion, were not ſo new, but for more ancient; yet this Circumſtance here auayleth litle; ſince we are to call to minde, that Haereſes non am Nouitas, quam veritas reuincit.

CARD. BELLARM.

I graunt willingly, that many of your Controuerſiſts (among whom I alſo rāge yourfelfe) are accounted mē of learning; And therefore I reſt the more amazed, to ſee yow here (perhaps with reſolued willfullnes againſt the Truth) obiect this example to vs for Nouelty. But I feare your, and their learninge is cheifly in obtruding errours, and miſſtakings, for warrantable Truths; and ſuch a knowledge is not to be preferred before ſimple Ignorance.

But to cleare this Innocentius from all innouation herein, and not to oppreſſe yow with multitude of Authorities: We finde S. Bernard (who liued before Innocentius the third) thus to wryte of this point: Sed Ini Meditat. c. 9. dicis, ſufficit mihi ſoli Deo confiteri &c. But thou ſaieſt, it is ſufficient for me to confeſſe my ſinnes only vn to God, becauſe a Preiſt without him, cannot abſolue me from my ſinnes: To Which thy argument not I, but S. Iames anſwereth: Confeſſe your ſinnes one to an other. But to aſcend higher; S. Leo. (who liued anno 440.) deſcribing the vſe of the Latin Church in this poynt, thus saith: Epict. 91. ad Theodorū foro Iulii Epiſcop. Chriſtus hanc Eccleſiae Prepoſitis tradidit poteſtatem &c. Chriſt did deliuer this power to the Prelates of his Church, that they ſhould impoſe penance vpon them, that confeſſed their ſinnes; that ſo they being purged through a healthfull ſatiſfaction, might be admitted, by Way of reconciliation, to the communion of the Sacraments.

In lyke ſort S. Baſil. (S. Leo his ancient) diſcourſing of the vſe of the Greeke Church herein, and teaching, that a Ghoſtly Father in tymeof Cōfeſſion, is an other from himſelfe thus writeth: Neceſſariò In queſtio breuioribꝰ in terogat. 288 peccata eis aperiri debēt &c. Our ſinns are neceſſarily, (ſee heere the Neceſſity of Confeſſion) to be opened to thoſe to whō the diſpenſation of the Myſteries of Chriſt are giuē; for indeede we find, that all the Anciēts did follow this courſe in Penance. To be breife, Cypryan and Tertullian (of ſo greate antiquity is Auricular Confeſſion) are charged by your owne Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 127. Centuriſts to teach priuate Confeſſion; and this euen of thoughts, and leſſer ſinnes; and that ſuch Confeſſion was then commanded; and thought neceſſary. Thus far of this point, Where, by the way I muſt tell you, that ſince proteſtācy had it firſt ſource frō ſence, and ſenſuality, the leſſe wounder it is, that Confeſſion of ſinnes made to a preiſt (being ſo vngratfull to mans nature) ſhould be ſo vnpleaſing to all proteſtants, and ſo baſely eſteemed of, for we all know, that the water will ascend no higher, then is the leuell of its firſt ſpring.

MICHNS

I muſt acknowledg, that our Anciēt Iewes did vſe particular Confeſſion of ſinns to a Preiſt, De Arcanis Catholicae. Veritatis l. 10. c. 3. Galatinus (who hath collecteda ſummary of our Iewiſh Religion) ſheweth in diuers parts of his Writings, our continual practiſe therof. Adde hereto, that the prefiguration of Auricular Confeſſion is not wanting in Leuiticus; Lens . 2. 3. &c. & 5. 6. &c. for ſeeing there were then appovnted different Sacrifices, to be offered vp by the Prieſt for different ſinns, and offences; how could the Prieſt know, what kind of Sacrifice he were to offer, except he knew the particular ſinne, for which it is to be offered? Now then in regard of our Iewiſh practiſe hereof, & ſeing there is no reaſō, why now in the New Teſtament, it ſhould be wholy abrogated, I cannot be induced to think, that the vſe therof is to be accompted as an innouation, and change, different from the doctrine firſt planted in Rome by the Apoſtles.

D. WHITAKERS.

Your doctrine D. Whit. cont. Duraeum p. 480. ſayth: qni Tranſubſtantiatione primus excogitauit, is ſuit Innocentius tertius. in Lateranenſt Concilio. of Tranſubſtantiatinn was firſt, inuented by Innocentius the third in the Councell of Lateran: for before that tyme, not any one of the ancient Fathers did hold it: for where euer in any of their writings was made any mention of Tranſubſtantiation?

CARD. BELLARM.

Good God, how poore, and needy in proofe are you, M. Doctour? For indeed you greatly wrong your ſelfe and this preſence, in ſuggeſting ſuch vnwarrantable Aſſertions True it it is, that if you inſiſt in the word: Tranſubſtantiation wee grant, that it was firſt inuented, and impoſed vpon the Doctrine of the Reall Preſence, in the councell of Lateran. But then this is but a verball litigation of you: for though the Word was then firſt formed to expreſſe the Doctrine of the Church therein; yet the doctrine it ſelfe was generally beleeued in all ages before. And ſtill you allow, M. Doctour, by reſē blance this illation, as good, and neceſſary? The VVord 'omouſios or Conſubſtantialis, was firſt inuented in the Councell of Nice, to expreſſe the Doctrine of the Church touching the Trinity. Ergo the Doctrine of the Trinity was not beleeued before the Councell of Nice. Idly and inconſequently concluded. Therfore, M. Doctour. let your iudgment herein draw equally with your learning.

But to come particulerly to the doctrine it ſelfe: and to omit, that S. Auguſtine ſayth: Tract 2 in Ioani em. vocatur caro, quod non capit caro: And in another place: Lib. 6. contra Parmenianum. quid gratius offerri, aut ſuſcipi poſſit, quàm caro Sacrificii noſtri corpus effectum Sacerdotis noſtri? We are here to remember, that this Councell of Lateran was holden in the yeare, Criſpinus in his booke of the ſtate of the Church pag. 345. 1215. In which were aſſembled the Patriarchs of Ieruſalem, and Conſtantinople, 70 Metropolitan Biſhops, 400. Biſhops, and 800. Conuentuall Priours. Now can it enter into any braine to thinke, that all theſe learned Men, being gathered together from all the ſeuerall places of the world, and many of them neuer ſeeing diuers of the reſt, till they were there met, ſhould all ioyntly embrace (as an innouation, and afore neuer heard of) a doctrine, ſo contrary to ſenſe, and fleſhly vnderſtanding? It is incompatible with common reaſon to beleeue, that ſuch a generall Errour could ſo ſuddenly inuade, and poſſeſſe the iudgments of ſo many learned Prelates.

But to demonſtrate the antiquity of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation: in which ſacred Miſtery the eye of Faith ſeeth things inuiſible (It is confeſſed, by M. Fox Act. & Mon. print. 1576 p. 1121 that about the yeare of our Lord, 1060. the denying of Tranſubſtantiation began to be accoumpted an Hereſy and the profeſſours therof Heretickes and in that number was firſt one Berengarius who liued about the yeare 1060. Now then if the denying of the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation was accoumpted an Hereſy, more then a hundred yeares afore the Coūcell of Lateran was aſſembled; how could the doctrine of Tranſubſtātiation take it firſt beginning at that Councel? Who ſeeth not the impoſſibility hereof? Againe, how could that doctrine (in the times ſet downe by M. Fox) be denyed, and impugned, except it were then, & afore beleeued, and maintained?

But to proceede to higher times. Doth not D. Humfrey confeſſe, that Gregory the Great (who liued fiue hū dred yeares, and more, before the Councell of Lateran) firſt brought into England the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation ſaying; In In I ſuitiſ . part. 2. Rat. 5. p. 628. Eccleſiam vorò quid inuexerunt Gregorius, & Auguſtinus? in ulerunt &c. Tranſubſtantiationem

Againe, your owne Centuriſts thus ſpeake of Euſebius Emiſſenus (an ancient Father:) Euſebius Emiſſenus Cent. 4. c. 10 Col. 985. p rùm commodè de Tranſubſtantiatione dixit. And of Chriſoſtome your foreſayd Brethren thus write: Chryſoſtomus Tranſubſtantiationem videtur confirmare: Chryſoſtome doth ſeeme Centuriſt. Cent. 4. c. 4. Co . 496. to confirme Tranſubſtantiation. The Antiquity of which Doctrine is ſo great, that Adamus Franciſci (a learned Proteſtant) thus acknowledgeth: Tranſubſtantiation In Margarit. Theol. pag. 256. did enter early into the Church. Now, M. Doctour, how do all theſe liberall confeſſions of ſo many eminent Proteſtants ſtand with your aſſertion, to wit, that the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation was firſt inuented in the Later an Councell? And conſequently that the Church of Chriſt ſuffered (at that time) a moſt remarkeable change, and alteration in ſo ſublime an Article.

MICHEAS.

The Doctrine of the Reall Preſence taught by the Church of Rome (in reſpect of the Sacrifice there performed) is moſt conformable to the Propheſies of the ancient Iewes: for to omit the Sacrifice of Melchiſadech, which many did teach to prefigure the Sacrifice, which was to be exhibited after the comming of the Meſſias, we finde moſt of our ancient Rabbins to be of this minde. Accordingly hereto we read, that Rabby Iudas We finde the teſtimonies of theſe Rabbins here produced, to be alled ed by Galatinus de, Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 1. c. 3. Se Rab by Iudas in c. 24. Exo d. and Rabby Simeon in l. entituled: Reuelatio ſe retorum. thus writeth: The bread ſhalbe changed, when it ſhalbe ſacrificed, from the ſubſtance of bread, into the ſacrifice of the body of the Meſſias, which ſhall deſcend from Heauen, and himſelfe ſhalbe the ſacrifice. With Which Rabby (to omit diuers others) Rabby Symeon agreeth in theſe words: The Sacrifice, which after the Meſſias his comming, Prieſts ſhall make &c. they ſhall make it of bread & wine &c. And that ſacrifice, which ſhalbe ſo celebrated on the Altar, ſhalbe turned into the Body of the Meſſias: So conſpiringly, M. Doctour, we ſee, did our ancient Iewes before Chriſts birth, (by way of Predictiō) teach with the prſent Roman Church, touching the Reall Preſence, and the ſacrifice performed therin. And therfore it is the more ſtrāge to me, that the Doctrine of the Reall Preſence, and of the Sacrifice ſhould be reputed by you, as an nnouatiō lately brought into the Church of Rome; for I muſt needs thinke that Chriſt himſelfe did firſt inſtitute the ſame. And thus I beleeue, that though in our Law, Iſaack was externally offred, vp though not Sacrificed; Yet now in the New Teſtament the Meſſias is daily Sacrificed; though not externally offered vp.

D. WHITAKERS.

My Lord Cardinall. To paſſe from the Doctrine it ſelfe, of the Reall Preſence, or Tranſubſtātiation; Yet how can you excuſe from Noueliſine thoſe phraſes, touching the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, firſt inuented by Pope Nicolaus the ſecond, to wit, that D. Whit. Cont. Duraeū. l. 7. p. 480. Saith qui primus docuit corpus Chriſti eſualiter tractari, frangi et dentil 〈◊〉 ri, ſuit Nicola s ſec dus. the body of Chriſt is ſenſibly handled, broken, and chewed with the teeth? So groſſely do you Romaniſts teach herein, as to maintaine a Doctrine, which hath nothing to plead for it, but only ſome few hundreds of yeares.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour. You now carry your ſelfe like a cowardly Maſti ie (pardon this my homely ſimilitude) which not being able to take any ſtrong, and firme hold at the head of his enemy, is glad in the end to catch at the flanck, or other the hindermoſt parts: So you, ſeing you cannot truly charge the Doctrine it ſelfe, of the Reall preſence with innouation; are content to quarrell, and ſnatch at certaine phraſes, and words vſed (by ſome Doctours) about the ſaid Doctrine. But to your obiection: Which (once granting the truth of the Reall Preſence) is meerely verball. Therefore I ſay, that theſe phraſes are taken in a ſober, and reſtiained conſtruction: That is, they are immediatly to be referred to the formes of Bread, and Wine, vnder which the body, & bloud of Chriſt do lye. Now that theſe phraſes were not firſt coyned by this Pope Nicolaus (as you auerre) it is euident out of the writings of S. Chryſoſtome, who liued many ages before this Pope Nicolaus. This Father in one place thus writeth: Chryſiſt. in. 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Chriſt ſuffered fraction or breaking in the oblation, which he would not ſuffer vpon the Croſſe. And in an other place more fully, ſaying: Chryſ. in Mat. hom. 83 ipſum vides, ipſum targis, ipſum comedis: And yet more expreſly: Non Chryſoſt. in Ioan hem. 45. ſe tantum videir permittit deſider antibus; ſed et tangi, et manancari, et denies carni ſuae infigi; Chriſt doth not only permit himſelfe to be ſcene of thoſe, who deſired to ſee him; but alſo to be touched, and eaten by them, and theire teeth to be faſtened in his fleſh. Thus we ſee, that S. Chryſoſtom was not afraid to vſe the foreſaid phraſes in a reſerued ſence, which you make ſo capitall, & heinous. We may adioyne hereto, that Iacobus Andreas (a famous Proteſtant, but a Lutheran) anſwereth this very obiection which you father vpon Pope Nicolaus (as the firſt inuentor of the former phrazes) and thus concludeth thereof, ſaying: In conſut. diſputāt. Ioā nis Gr naei; p. 214 215. This obiection taken from Pope Nicolaus, nihil, continet, quod inſcriptis Orthodoxorum Patrum (Chyſoſtomi in primis ) non continetur.

D. WHITAKERS.

I will not be long in reciting Innouations of ſtrange Doctrins, introduced into the Church of Rome, ſince the Apoſtles times. Therefore I will end with the Inſtance of the faſt of Quatuor So ſaith D. Whit. cont. Duraeum l. 〈◊〉 . c. 480. Temporum, which was firſt ordained by Pope Calixtus.

CARD. BELLARM.

The Veſſell, M. Doctour, from whence you draw theſe Inſtances, ſeemes to runne very low, and nere the dreggs; Seeing for want of examples, for change in dogmaticall points of faith, you are forced at the laſt to deſcend to the Inſtitution of ſet times of faſts. For what is this to the alteration of Faith, and Religion in the Church of Rome, in any dogmaticall Article, which is the point only to be inſiſted vpon by you? Hath not the Church of Chriſt authority to appoint faſting dayes? The Act. 15. Apoſtles (you know) did lawfully command all men to forbeare from eating of bloud, and of things ſtrangled; and may not the Church ſucceeding them, as lawfully command, that (at certaine times of the yeare, and for ſome few dayes) the Chriſtians ſhall for beare from eating of fleaſh, and vſe a more moderate dyet? But it ſeemes, you loue not to feede vpon ſuperſtitious, & Popiſh fiſh, ſince many of you accoumpt it ſo.

Now as touching the antiquity of this faſt of Quatuor Temporū. Where you ſay, it was firſt ordained by Calixius; you grant hereby, that it is aboue fourteene hundred yeares, ſince it firſt inſtitution: for Calixtus was the next ſucceſſour (but one) to Pope Victor; which Victor liued in the yeare of our Lord, and Sauiour, one hundred and ſixty. Thus you are more preiudized, then aduantaged by proſtituting this your ſily ſuppoſed Innouation. I will annex hereto, that whereas, M. Doctour, you do not produce any ancient authour charging Calixtus, with the firſt beginning of this Faſt, we (on the contrary ſide) can alleadge S. Leo aſcribing it to proceede from the Doctrine of the Holy Ghoſt; his words are theſe following: Serm. 8. Eccleſiaſtica ieiunia ex doctrina Sancti Spiritus, ita per totius anni circulum diſtribura ſunt. And thus much touching the Antiquity, and lawfulnes of the Paſt of Quatuor Temporum; whereof you ſee, M. Doctour, your owne bare aſſertion excepted, no certaine beginning can be knowne, ſince the Apoſtles dayes. But (Sir) proceede further in other inſtances, if ſo you can.

D. WHITAKERS.

Touching further multiplicity of examples I will not much labour. The time is already ſpent; And I hope my former examples (notwithſtanding your ſubtill euading of them) are able to ſway with all ſuch, who are truly illuminated with the ſpirit of the Lord.

CARD. BELLARM.

I beleeue you well. You will not labour further therin; the true reaſon being, becauſe you cannot. For I haue peruſed your bookes, written againſt Duraeus (wherein you cheifly inſtāce, touching the chāge of the faith of Rome;) and your other Bookes againſt Father Campian (that bleſſed Martyr) as alſo your writings againſt my ſelfe; and I can finde no other inſtances of this imaginary change, inſiſted by you, then theſe alleadged. Yea, when the ſaid Father Campian) as moſt confident of no change of Faith in the Church of Rome,) did moſt earneſtly prouoke you Proteſtants, to name the time and other circumſtances (accompanying this ſuppoſed change) in thoſe his vehement, and inforcing Interrogations: Rat. 10. Edm. Campiani. Rat. 7. Quā do hanc fide tant opore celebratum Roma perdidit? quardo eſſe deſi t, quod antefuit? quo tempore, quo Pontifice, qua via, qua vi, quibus incrementis Vrbem, et Orbem Relgio peruaſit aliena? quas voces, quas turbes, quae lamenta progenuit? Omnes orbe reliquo ſopiti ſunt, dum Roma (Roma inquā) noua Sacramenta, nonum Sacrificium, nouum Religionis dogma procuderet? You, (though thus a wakened, yet) in your anſwere hereto, only dwells in your former example of Pope Siricius (aboue refuted) touching the ſingle life of Prieſts; & in place of further ſatiſfaction, you thus reply to the ſaid Father Campian: D. Whit. So ſaith, Cont. Camp. in Rat. 7. Tuverò ſi dubitas, an deſierit (meaning, whether Rome had changed it Religion) potes etiam, ſi vis dubitare, anſul meridie ſplendeat. Can any man (not blinded with preiudice) thinke, that if you had any materiall proofes for it change (being a point of the greateſt conſequence, that is betweene you, and vs) but that you (being thus extremely import ned) would haue particularly iuſiſted in them, and would haue enlarged ſuch your reply, with all reading, wit, & learning poſſible? And as for your former Inſtances, they are moſt impertinent, and in themſelues moſt falſe (as is aboue demonſtrated) they being w res (I preſume) wholy wrought in the ſhop of your owne braine; like the ſpiders web, which is ſpinned out of her owne Bowels.

MICHEAS.

M. Doctonr, you muſt giue me leaue to tell you, that your Inſtances (aboue vrged) do not much ſway my iudgment; firſt, becauſe they are not in number, paſt ſome nine or ten in all; of which foure do concerne only the Supremacy of the Biſhop of Rome, and two the doctrine of the Reall Preſence (ſo as it may be iuſtly coniectured, that you Produced ſeuerall inſtances for one doctrine, purpoſely therby to make ſhew (in this your ſo great a ſcarcity) of greater number of Examples) The reſt concerne Prieſts nor marying, Purgatory, auricular Confeſſion, and the faſt of Quauor Temporum. Which doctrines are few in reſpect of the many controuerted points (as I am enformed) betweene the Church of Rome, and the Proteſtants. Therfore I muſt preſume, that no inſtances can be, but ſuggeſted, or imagined to be giuen of the change of the Church of Rome, touching the doctrines of the Viſibility of the Church, of Praying to Saints, of Free-will, Merit of workes, Workes of ſupererogation, Indulgences, Monachiſme, Lymbus patrū, Images, the Adoration of the Bleſſed Sacrament, Communion only vnder one kind, Vninerſallity of Grace, the Neceſſuy, and vertue of the Sacraments, Inherent iuſtice, the knowledge of Chriſt, a man, His being God of God, and diuers others. Secondly, in that touching your former Inſtances, ſome of the ſayd doctrines are ſo agreeable to the practiſe of our Iewiſh Synagogue, and the iudgments of our learned Rabbyes (as I haue ſhewed) as that I can hardly repute them, as Innouations.

D. WHITAKERS.

The vnanimous agreement of the Church of Rome with you Iewes, in ſome of the former doctrines, is of ſmale force; ſeeing you well know (Micheas) that the Law was to be abrogated, at the comming of the Meſſias.

MICHEAS.

It is granted, that our Law at the comming of the Sauiour of the world, was to be diſanulled; ſo far forth, as concerne either ſacrifices, or other Ceremonies, which did prefigure the comming of the Meſſias? yet ſeeing many dogmaticall points of faith beleeued by the Iewes, haue no reference to his comming; (as the foreſaid doctrines of Purgatory, Confeſſion of ſinns &c.) therfore there can be no reaſon alleadged, why the beleife of them in the time of the Lawe, ſhould not be a ſtrong argument for their like beleife now in the time of Grace. Wee may add hereto, that if euery thing which was taught, and commanded by the Law, ſhould now be abrogated; then the tenne Commandements ſhould in no ſort belong to you Chriſtians; And conſequently the cōming of the Meſſias ſhould be a ſufficient warrant for your breach of the ſaid Commandements; then which to grant, nothing can be excogitated more absurd, or more derogating from the honour of Chriſt. But (good M. Doctour) if you haue any more, that can be produced for proofe of change of Faith, made by the Church of Rome, I would intreate you to perſeuer in your diſcourſe.

D. WHITAKERS.

Though I ſhould grant ſome inſufficiency, and defect in my former inſtances, and that we could not inſiſt at all in any particulars of that nature; neuertheleſſe we are not endangered therby: So ſayth D. Whit. contra Duraeis p. 277. For we are not bound to anſwere, in what age ſuperſtition crept into the Church. And to grant more fully herein: D. Whit. contra Cāp. Rat. 7. Thus ſaith of this point De tempore non eſt ſacile reſpondere; neque id neceſſariū eſt vt temporū momenta prodantur Of the tymes of this change, it is not eaſi to anſwere; neither is it neceſſary, that the tymes of all ſuch changes be ſet downe. Breifly, I auerre, So D. Whitak. contra duraeum pag. 277. It is not needfull in vs, to ſearch out in hiſtories the beginning of this change. And with me in iudgment herein agree many learned Proteſtants; As for exā ple (to omit others) Bucanus thus writeth: Bucanus In loc com. pag. 466. Non eſt noſtrum deſignare, quo temporis momento caeperit Eccleſia deficere. As alſo M. Powell, ſaying: We M. Powl In his conſideration of the Popiſts ſupplication Pag. 43. cannot tell, neither by who, or at what tyme, the Enemy did ſow it &c. neither indeed do we know, who was the firſt authour of euery one of your blaſphemous opinions.

CARD. BELLARM.

O Ieſus. What ſtrange and conſcious tergiuerſatiōs are theſe? And how mortally do they woūd your cauſe, & Religiō, wholy diſcouering your diſpaire, and diffidence therein? For do not theſe Confeſſions ouerthrow your former inſtances? If your ſuppoſed Examples be true, then did you know the times of ſuch a chaunge: if you doe not knowe the times of the change (as here you confeſſe, you do not) why then would you alleadge the foreſaid Examples? How can you extricate your ſelfe, M. Doctour, out of this maze, or how can you decline this forked Delemma?

Furthermore, if it cannot be knowne, when any change of Fayth was made (as here you, and your Brethren confeſſe, it cannot) why ſhould we beleiue there was made any chāge at all? He is weake, who enthralleth his iudgment to the beleife of any ſuch thing, if ſo he wanteth the neceſſary, and cōducing Circūſtāces, for the fortifying of ſuch his beleife. But belike you will finally ſay with Ioannes Rhegius (a Proteſtant) who not being able to exemplify any change in the Church of Rome, arriued to that height of impudency, as thus to write: Sed denique licet verum eſſet, Romanam Eccleſiam in ſua Religione nihil mutaſſe, an propterea mox ſequetur, eam eſſe veram Eccleſiam? Non opinor. Thus this Proteſtant.

D. WHITAKERS.

Not ſo, my Lord Cardinall, for I grant a change; and the chang of Fayth made in the Church of Rome, may well reſemble D. Whitakers for prooſe of the change of the faith of Rome. alledgeth this ſimilitude ſaying: Pili non ſubito omnes ea eſcūt nec quicquam repentē habet ſuam maturitatē. Contra Cāp Rat. 7. the change in colour, which heires do make, in being become gray; nothing hauing it maturity vpon the ſodaine. In like ſort it may aptly reſemble the changes in D Whit contra Camp. Rat. 7. thus ſaith in Eccleſia Romana accidit, quëad modum in magno aedificio videmus euenire &c. quod ruinas aliquo loco in cipit agere &c. Ita Romana Eccleſia leporum ſucceſſione &c. Edifices, & houſes occaſioned by their ruines, and decaies. We ſee by experience, theſe changes are true, and reall; and yet cannot any man ſet downe punctually the tyme, when either the heires are becom gray, or the buildings are made ruinous. The like may be ſayd touching the change of Fayth in the Romā Church: certaine it is, that ſuch a change is already made; but when, by whom, and in what manner, it is moſt vncertaine.

MICHEAS.

What, M. Doctour, do your greateſt proofs for the change of Religiō finally end in theſe ſimilitudes? If ſo, then I may ſay, I do carry about me, my beſt inſtructours herein, muſt theſe gray haires of this my hoary heade, and beard (my ſelfe being 60. yeares of age, and more) and the decayes of this my old body (for the ſame reaſon there is here of a ruinous body, which is of a ruinous houſe) teach me, what Religion among you Chriſtians, I am to embrace? Haue my wearied members taken ſo great a iourney of ſo many hundred miles to this place, only to take aduiſe of my beard, and my owne feeble limms; which, ſitting at the ſire ſide at home, I coulde with farre more eaſe, and with as much certainty haue performed? ô the miſery of man, who lyeth open (in matters of greateſt waight, and importance) to the deceit of ſuch rotten foundations; they being as weake for proofe of what they are vrged as the things, frō which theſe reſemblāces are taken, are weake in their owne nature.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, I do aſſure you in all ſincerity, I do much condole the ſtate of ignorant Lay Proteſtāts, to ſee how their eyes are ſealed vp by the learneder ſort of you: who in your Pulpits, and writings are often accuſtomed to inueighe in great acerbity of ſtile: and tragicall exclamations, againſt the Church of Rome, for hauing altered (as you beare your followers in hand) her Primitiue Faith; But you being preſſed to prooue this imaginary change, are forced for the warranting thereof, to take your laſt and beſt proofs from ſome few gray hayres, and ſl fters in an old rotten wall.

But becauſe theſe ſimilitudes, and reſemblances are moſt vrged, not only by your ſelfe, but alſo by many other Proteſtants of Note, and haue much ſwayd with vulgar iudgments, not in reſpect of any force in them, but in regard of the eminency of their firſt Inuentors (ſo the water heateth, not becauſe it is water but by reaſō of it borrowed heate elſwhere: Therefore I will examine them narrowly, and will ſhew the great diſparity betweene them, and the change, which is at any time made in Religion.

1 Firſt then, the firſt ſmale decay in any building, and the (firſt ſhew of whitenes in haires is imperceptible, and not to be diſcerned; wheras euery change in faith (though but in one point, or article) is moſt markeable, and ſubiect to obſeruation.

2 Secondly, the whitenes of the haires of the head, and the ruins of a houſe do not happen, but by degrees; and therefore at the firſt cannot be obſerued; whereas euery Opinion in doctrine is at the firſt either true, or falſe; and therefore is for ſuch at the firſt to be apprehēded by the vnderſtanding.

(3) Thirdly, not any haue the charge, or care impoſed vpon them, to obſerue the changes in theſe petty matters; but in the Church of Chriſt there are euer appointed Paſtours, & Doctors, whoſe office is to marke the firſt beginning of any innouation in doctrine, and accordingly to labour to ſuppreſſe the ſame.

(4) Fourthly, theſe ſimilitudes, and deceitfull reſemblances (being truly vrged) do recoyle backe with diſaduantage to the Proteſtants. For although we cannot ſhew, when the firſt haire began to be white, or the firſt ſlifter in a houſe begunne to be a ſlifter; yet any notable degrees of the ſaid whitenes in the haires, or of the ſlifters in a houſe are eaſily diſcerned: and therefore the Proteſtants are obliged (euen from the nature of theſe their owne ſimilitudes) to tell vs, at what times ſome ſenſible degrees, and increaſe of this ſuppoſed change did happen; and the manifeſtatiō of theſe degrees is to be made, by naming the time, and perſon, when, & by whō ſuch, and ſuch a particular poynt, or article of our preſent Roman Religion, was firſt ſenſibly introduced into the Church of Rome. The which not any Proteſtant (notwithſtanding all his exquiſite and preciſe ſearch of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories) hath bin able yet to perform. And thus farre, M. Doctour, of theſe your ſimilitudes; which (you ſee) in a true ballancing of them, do become rather hurtfull then beneficiall to your Cauſe; and therfore they had ben better forborne by you then vrged.

D. WHITAKERS.

Indeede I grant, that there are no Hiſtories, or Records at this day, out of which we can certainly collect the change of Religion in the Roman Church. But (no doubt) ſuch Records there were, though now wholy extinguiſhed, & made away, by the vigilancy, and carefulnes of former P pes, who to preſerue the honour of their Church (as free, and exēpt from all change, and innouation) did deliberately, & purpoſely cauſe all Coppies of ſuch writings, and narrations, to be for euer ſuppreſſed, and buried in obliuion, eyther by fire, or otherwiſe.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, this is a meare groundles Phantaſie. If you haue any graue teſtimonies warranting a generall ſuppreſſion of all ſuch records; then all of them were not extinguiſhed ſince the teſtimonies, which affirme ſo much, are yet extant. If you produce no authority witneſſing ſo much, then why ſhould we beleiue your bare, and naked affirmation herein? But to examine more punctually this poore refuge. And firſt, wheras you teach, that this change of Faith in the Roman Church came in by degrees, now by innouating one point of the ancient true Fayth, now another: ſuppoſing for the time this to be true, how can it be conceiued, that all the Coppies of ſuch particular changes in Faith, already diſperſed throughout all Chriſtendome in the handes of infinite Proteſtants (as you mā taine, though vntruly that in thoſe times they were) could be gathered, & ſuppreſſed without any remembrance thereof to all poſterity? It is moſt abſurd, but to furmiſe ſuch an impoſſibility.

Furthermore do we not ſee, that the liues of ſuch Popes, which can be leſſe warranted, were recorded in hiſtories, yet extant to this very houre (as elſe where is intimated:) Neither the narrations of them either were, or could euer be ſuppreſſed? How then can we be perſuaded, that the memory of this ſuppoſed great chang could by any ſuch meanes be cancelled in a perpetuall forgetfulnes? Since certaine it is, that the Popes (if poſſible they could) would haue cauſed all narrations, touching the perſonall faults of their Predeceſſours to haue beene vtterly extinguiſhed; conſidering, that ſuch their leſſe iuſtifiable liues might be reputed by many to be no ſmale blemiſne to the Church of Rome: Such an improbability this your euaſion, M. Doctour, inuolues in its ſelfe.

D. WHITAKERS.

My Lord, It ſeemes you are very dexterous in warding all our inſtances, and other arguments (aboue produced) to prooue the former preſumed change. But imagine for the time, that we cannot alleadge out of any now extant authorized hiſtory, examples of any knowne innouation: imagine alſo, that we cannot ſhew, at what particular time, and ſeaſon, the parcels of theſe changes did happen: imagine laſtly, that there were neuer any records, teſtimonies, or writings, in which theſe changes were regiſtred; yet how are you able to put by the ſharp-poynted weapon of Scripture, wherwith your religion is mortally foyled? We know that the Fayth of the preſent Roman Religion is repugnant to the holy Scriptures; to which only wee appeale; and whoſe D. Whit. cont. Camp. ſaith: utarc •• a ſcripturarum defend mu Ra . 1. autarceia, and all ſufficiency is defended by vs Proteſtants; the ſacred Scripture being to vs more then D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 10. decaplês apologia, a tenfould ſhield of our fayth: This (I ſay) we know, and conſequently we further know, that the fayth of the Romiſh Church is not the ſame, which was planted in Rome by the Apoſtles. Here is our fortreſſe, here is our ſtrength, and this place to you Romaniſts is macceſſible. Here we haue D. Whit. cont. Comp. Rat. 2. Tò retòn, the Word; & epi tèn dianeian tóùr etóù, to the true meaning of the Word all Controuerſies are to be referred: And with this Word we are able to inflict D. Whit. vbi ſuprà Rat. 9. Cairian p etèn, deadly to wound your popiſh Religion. And we are ſo truely impatrônized of the holy Scripture, as that wee dare pronounce with the Apoſtle: If an Galat. c. 1 Angell reach any other Ghoſple vnto you, then that which wee haue preached, let him be Anathema. For D. hit. cont. Duraeū. l. 7. p. 478. ſaith: nobis ſufficit &c. ex Pontificioru dogmati et ſcripturarū collatione, diſcrimen et diſſimultudine agnoſcere Hiſto 〈◊〉 liberum relixquimus, ſcribere qui velint. to vs it is ſufficient, by comparing the Popiſh Opinious with the Scripture to diſcouer the diſparity of Fayth betweene them, and vs; and as for Hiſtoriographers, Wee giue them liberty to write what they will? ſeeing this D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5. aplóùs lógos tes 'aletheias this ſimple Word of truth is able to refute any thing brought to the contrary. And therf re my Lord Cardinall, I muſt ſay to you here with Archidamus: D. Whit. haleth in this ſentēce, in Rat. 〈◊〉 . cont. Camp. 'èt è dynamei próſtheis 'e tóù phronématos 'ypheis, either mā taine your Religion with the force of Scripture, or elſe wiſely ceaſe from the further defence thereof.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, before I come to ballance this your laſt argument, you muſt pardon me, if I ſmile to my ſelle to obſerue, how affectedly, and ambitiouſly you haue rioted in your Greeke throughout this whole diſcourſe; and eſpecially in this your laſt cloſe, beſprinkling diuers paſſages thereof (as it were) with ſome Greeke word or other. Which in my iudgment (beare with me if I miſconſter your meaning) is but to beare your ignorant followers in hand, what jolly men, and great Clarkes you Proteſtants are. And according hereto we commonly find, the bookes writen either by Engliſh, French, or German Proteſtants, euen to ſwell with Greeke phraſes, or ſentences. But who ſeeth not, how forced this is? it being a point of oſtentation, and vanity, thus to braue it forth in a froath of ſtrange wordes.

We all know, the tongues are but the porters of learning (in which the Catholicks, though with more ceſſion, & modeſty, are moſt skilfull) and that he, who is a learned man indeede, is euer preſumed afore hand to be expert in them, as being meanes conducing to the perfection of learning: Thus the want of Greeke is a great defect; the enioying of it but a neceſſary furniture of a ſcholar. Therefore who vanteth hereof or is become fond of a few greeke words (being commonly ignorant of the riches contayned in that tongue, as many Proteſtants are) is like to that man, who taketh delight in a litle Mother of Pearle, he reioiceth; he hauing no intereſt to the Pearle within contayned. I ſpeake not this, but that it is lawfull ſometime to make vſe of Greeke phraſes, and ſentences; but this chiefly, when the Queſtiō is touching tranſlations out of that tongue, and that we are to recurre to the Greeke (being the originall) for the cleering of that point: Or when the Greeke word, or phraſe carieth with it a greater grace, emphecy, and force, then the ſame in Latin, or Engliſh will beare. But this I euer auerre, that to be ready vpon euery little occaſion to proſtitute, or ſtaule forth ones Greeke (a diſtē perature peculiar to Proteſtants) as if he tooke a pride, in that he is skilfull in coniugating of typtò: This man (I ſay) deſerues to be verberated throughout all the moodes, and tences of the word, for ſuch his folly: This courſe being among all graue, & learned men, iuſtly cenſured for an exploded vanity.

But now, M. Doctour, to deſcend to your reaſon touched aboue, and drawne from the authority of the holy Scripture. Here I ſay, you haue taken your laſt Sanctuary; not in that the Scripture maketh for you, and againſt vs; but that by this meanes you may the better reiect all other authorities, though neuer ſo forcible, & reduce the triall of all cōtrouerſies to your owne priuat Iudgments? ſince you will acknowledge no other ſēce of the ſcripture, thē what the Genius of Proteſtā cy doth vouchſafe to impoſe vpon the Letter. & thus by your faire pretended Gloſſe of the Scripture in this your laſt extremity, you Proteſtants well reſēble that Man, who being ready to fall, thinketh not how to preuent the fall, but how to fall in the fayreſt, and eaſieſt place. The like (I ſay) you do vnder the priuiledge of the reuealing ſpirit, interpreting the Scripture; the vaine, & fluctuating vncertainty of which Spirit, to diſcouer (though this place be not capable therof) were indeed to cut in ſunder the cheife Artery, which giueth life to the huge Body of Hereſie? ſince once take away this Priuate Spirit, Hereſie is but like a dying lāpe, which hath no oyle to feede it: Only I will here pronoūce, that as ſome haue thus left written. That muſt be good, which Nero perſecuteth; ſo here I do iuſtify by the contrary, that it muſt be euill, and falſe, which the Priuate Spirit affecteth, and manteineth. But let vs proceed herein further, and diſſect the veine of this your laſt, & moſt deſpayring tergiuerſation.

Firſt then, wee are to call to minde, that it hath euer beene the very countenance, and eye of all innouation in religion, to ſeeke to ſupport it ſelfe by miſapplyed, and racked Texts of Scripture; a practiſe ſo anciently vſed (though in theſe later dayes it hath receaued more full groath) as that it was obſerued by Contra Maximinū Arianum E p c p. l. 1. Auguſtine, Ep ſt. ad Paulinum. Hierome, De praeſ r. aduerſ. Haereſ. ſee c. 19. 30. 35. 36. Tertullian, and finally by old Vincentius Vincent. aduerſ. Haereſ. Lyrinenſis who thus expreſſely writeth, not only of his owne times, but euen (in a preſaging ſpirit) of our times: An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae teſtimoniis vtantur? Viuntur planè, & vehementer quidem; Sed tantò magis cauendi ſu •• . Now this being ſo, you are forced, M. Doctour, for your laſt retire, and refuge, to compart in practiſe with all ancient, and moderne Hereticks

Secondly, the Scripture cannot prooue it ſelfe to be ſcripture, and conſequently it is not able to decide all controuerſies; which aſſertion of mine is warranted by your prime men M. Hooker, thus teaching: In his Eccleſ. policy Sect. 14. p. 86. Of things neceſſary the very cheifeſt is, to know what bookes wee are bound to eſteeme holy; which poynt is confeſſed impoſſible, for the ſcripture it ſelfe to teach. And according hereto, you Proteſtants do not agree, which Bookes be Canonicall Scripture, which Apocriphall. For doth not Luther Luther in titul. de libris veteris et ncui Teſtamenti; as alſo in his Prolego a. to diuers of the books of the new Teſtament. and diuers of the Lutherans recite (as apocriphall) the booke of Iob, Eccleſiaſtes, the Epiſtle of S. Iames, the Epiſtle of Iude, the ſecōd Epiſtle of Peter, the ſecōd, and third of Iohn, and finally the Apocalipes? All which bookes are neuertheleſſe acknowledged by Caluin, and the Calueniſts for canonicall Scripture.

Thirdly, euen of thoſe bookes, which all Proteſtants ioyntly receiue as Canonicall Scripture, the Proteſtants doe cōdemne (as moſt falſe, and corrupt) not only the preſent originals, but alſo all Tranſlations of the ſaid bookes, whether they be made in Greeke, Latin, or Engliſh; as apeareth from the reciprocall condemnations of one anothers Tranſlation: for the more full diſcouery of which point, I referre you, M. Doctour, to the peruſing of a booke ſome few yeares ſince written, by a Catholicke Prieſt, and Doctour of diuinity, entituled: The See ſeauē of the firſt chapters of the ſecond part of that book; all of them being ſpent in diſplaying the Proteſtants condenation of all orginals, & Trā ſlations of Scripture. Pſeudoſcripturiſts.

Fourthly, the very text, and letter of ſuch bookes, as you all acknowledg for Canonicall Scripture, are more cleere for our Catholicke Faith, and in that ſence are expounded by the ancient Fathers; then any the Countertexts are, which you produce to impunge our doctrine. For ſome taſt I will exemplify the perſpicuity of the letter in ſome few points. And firſt, for the Primacy of Peter we alleadge: Math. 16 Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church &c. expounded With v by In Pſab contra parté Donali Auguſtine, In c. 16 Math. Hierome, In Epiſt. ad Quintu. Cyprian, & others.

For the Reall Preſence, we inſiſt in our Sauiours words: Recorded by al the Euangeliſts. This is my Body, this is my Blood; taken in our ſenſe by Theoph. in hunc locū. Theophilact, Chryſoſti hunc locū. Chryſoſtome, the Cyril Hieroſol. cat. 4. myſtag. Cyril. Alexād. epiſt ad Caloſiriū. Cyrils, Lib. de ſacramētis c. 5. Ambroſe, and indeed by all the ancient Fathers, without exception.

For Prieſts remitting of ſinnes, we vrge that: whoſe Ioan. 20. ſinnes you ſhall renut, they are remitted vnto them, and whoſe ſinnes you ſhall reteine, are reteyned; which paſſage is interpreted in our Catholicke ſence, by Epiſt. ad Heliodorum Hierome, Lib. de ſacerdotio. Chriſoſtome, Ioan. 3. Auguſtine, and others.

For Neceſſity of Baptiſme: Except (a) a Man be borne againe of water, and the ſpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of Heauen. Of which our Catholicke expoſition ſee In hunc locum. Auguſtine, In hunc locum. Chriſoſtome, L b. de ſpiritu Sancto c. 11. Ambroſe, In c. 16. Ezech. Hierome, L b. 3. ad Quirinum. Cyprian &c.

For Iuſtification by works: Iac. c. 2. Do you ſee, becauſe of works a man is Iuſtiſied, and not by Faith only? expounded with vs (to omit all others for breuity, by L. de fide ct oper. c. 14. Auguſtine.

Laſtly (to auoid prolixitie) for vnwritten Traditions, we vſually alleadge thoſe words of the Apoſtle, Therefore (e) Lib. 20. de Ciuilate Dei Theſ. c. 2. Brethren, hold the Traditions, which you haue receiued, either by ſteach, or by Epiſtle; interpreted with vs Catholicks by L. De ſide cap. 17. Dam ſcene, De ſpirit. ſauct. c. 29. Baſill, In hunc locum Chryſoſtome &c.

Thus farre for a aſt herein; in which Texts, and diuers others omitted, you are to note, M. Doctour, firſt, that the Texts themſelues are ſo plaine, and literall, that the very Theſis, or Concluſion it ſelfe mantained by vs, is conteined in the Words of the ſaid Texts; and therefore you Proteſtants are forced (by way of anſwere) commonly to expound thoſe texts figuratiuely. Secondly, you are to be aduertiſed here, that as we can produce many Fathers, expounding theſe, and other like places in our Catholicke ſence; ſo you are not able to alleadge any one approoued Father (among ſo many) interpreting, but any one of the ſaid paſſages of ſcripture in your Proteſtant Conſtruction. Thirdly, and laſtly, you are to obſerue, that ſuch texts, as the Proteſtants vrge againſt theſe, & other Catholicke Articles defended by vs, are nothing ſo literall, plaine, and naturall for their purpoſe; but for the moſt part are vrged by them, by way of inference, and deduction; which kinde of proofs is often falſe, and ſometimes, but probable. Neither can you, or they alleadge any one Orthodoxall Father of the Primitiue Church (a circumſtance much to be conſidered, and inſiſted vpon) interpreting ſuch your teſtimonies in your conſtruction. And thus farre of this point; where, for greater expedition, I do but skimme the matter ouer.

D. WHITAKERS.

I do not much prize the authorities of the ancient Fathers, in interpreting the Scripture. And furthermore, you are to conceiue, that D. Whit. De ſacra ſcript. p. 521. ſaith: Nam quādo ſcriptura non habetviuā vocem, quā aud amus; vtē dum eſt quibuſ lam mediis, quibus inueſtigamus quisſit seſ s quae meas ſcripturari . ſeing the ſcripture hath not vi am vocem, which we may heare; Therefore we are to vſe certaine meanes, by the which we may finde out which is the ſence, and conſtruction of the ſcripture. For to ſeeke it without meanes, is meerely So ſaith D. Whit. l. de Eccleſ. cōtrauerſ. 2. quaeſt. 2. p. 221. 'enthyſiaſticòn, et Anabaptiſticum. Now the meanes (according to my iudgment, and M. Doctour Reinolds) D. Reynolds In his Conference p. 83. 84. 92. 98. are theſe following: The reading of the ſcriptures, the conference of places, the weighing of the circumſtances of the Text, Skill in tongues, diligence, prayer, and the like. And who hath theſe, and accordingly practiſeth them, is aſſured of finding the true, and vndoubted meaning of the moſt difficult paſſages of the ſcripture; and thereby is able to determine any controuerſies in Religion.

CARD. BELLARM.

I do grant, that theſe are good humane meanes, for the ſearching out of the intended ſence of the ſcripture. But I will neuer yeild them to be infallible, as here you intimate thē to be; ſince this is not only impugned by experience of Luther, and Caluin, who would (no doubt) equally vaunt of their enioying theſe meanes, (and yet irreconcileably differ in the conſtruction of the words of our Sauiour, touching the Sacrament of the Euchariſt,) but alſo it is moſt contrary to your owne aſſertion deliuered in one of your bookes euen againſt my ſelfe; where you write of the vncertainty, and (perhaps falſhood) of theſe Meanes, in this manner: D. Whit. cotra Bellar. de Eccleſ. cō trauerſ. 2. quaeſi. 2. pag. 221. thus writeth. qualia illa media ſunt, tale ipsa interpretatione eſſe neceſſe eſt: At media interpretadi leca obſcura ſunt, incerta, dubia, et ambigua; Ergo fieri non poteſt, quin et ipſa interpretat. o. incerta ſit; ſi incerta; tunc eſſe poteſt falſa. obſerue what the meanes are, ſuch of neceſſity muſt the interprteation be; but the meanes of interpreting obſcure places of ſcripture are vncertaine, doubtfull, and ambiguous; therefore it cannot otherwiſe fall out, but that the interpretation muſt be vncertayne; and if vncertaine, then may it be falſe. Thus you, M. Doctonr, and if I haue in any ſort depraued your words, then here challenge me for the ſame. Now what ſay you to this? Can it poſſible be, that your ſelfe ſhould thus croſſe your ſelfe? Or may it be imagined, that your penne at vnawares did drop downe ſo fowle a blot of contradictiō? O, God forbid. The ouerſight were too greate. Therefore we will charitably reconcile all, and ſay; that D. Whitakers Bellarmines aduerſary in writing) hath only contradicted the learned D. Whitakers, cheife ornament of Cambridge. But enough of this point; from whence the weakeneſſe, of this your laſt refuge to only ſcripture, is ſufficiently layd open.

MICHEAS.

I grant, I am not conuerſant in the authorities of the New Teſtament, as they haue reference to the controuerted points of theſe dayes; ſince my cheife labour hath beene employed in diligently reading the Law, and the Prophets: neuertheleſſe I am acertayned, M. Doctour, that ſeuerall paſſages of the ſaid Law, and Prophets, (in a plaine, and ingenuous conſtruction) do greatly fortify ſome Opinions, defended by the Church of Rome. I will inſiſt (for greater compendiouſnes) in two opinions, taught (as I am informed) by the ſayd Church: within which two, many other controuerſies (if not all) are implicitl infolded. The firſt is touching the euer Viſibility of the Church in the time of the Meſſi s. Now what can be more irrefragably prooued, then this article out of thoſe words of the Pſalmiſt? He Pſal. 18. placed his Tabernacle in the Sunne. As alſo out of that paſſage of Daniell: Dan. 2. Akingdome which ſhall not be diſſipated for euer; and his kingdome ſhall not be deliuered to an other people. Agayne, out of the Prophet Eſay A Eſay 2. Mountaine prepared in the top of Mountaines, and exalted aboue Hills; And finally, more out of Eſay: Her Eſay 60. Sunne ſhall not be ſet, nor her Moone hid. In all which predictions, by the words: Tabernacle, a Kingdome, a Mountaine, her Sunne is vnderſtood the Church in the time of the Meſſias, according to the expoſitions of all our learned Iewes, and Rabbins, interpreting, and commenting the ſayd Propheſies.

The ſecond article, may be the Controuerſie touching Free-will, which (I heare) is mainteined by the Church of Rome, but denyed by the Proteſtants; within which queſtion diuers others (to wit, of Predeſtination, Reprobation, the keeping of the Commandements, Works &c.) are potentially included.

Now how euidently is Free-will prooued out of the writings of the Old Teſtament? And firſt may occurre that of Eccleſiaſticus: He Cap. 15. 16. 17. hath ſet Water, and fire before thee; ſtretch forth thy hand to whether thou wilt. Before man is life, & death: good, and euill, what liketh him, ſhalbe giuen him, what more conuincing.

D. WHITAKERS.

Micheas. D. whit. contra Camprat. 3. thus ſaithe de loco Eccleſiaſtici pa ùm laboro; nec Arbitrii libertatē credam, quā tumuis hic centies affirmet: Coram hominibus eſſe vitam, et mortem. I make ſmale accoumpt of that place of Eccleſiaſticus; neither will I beleeue the freedome of Mans will; although he ſhould affirme it a hundred times ouer, that before man were life, and death.

MICHEAS

I did not expect, M. Doctour, that you ſhould expunge out of the Canon of Scripture any part of the Old Teſtament, but ſince you diſcanon this booke; I will alleadge other places which were euer acknowledged for the ſacred word of God by vs Iewes, and to pretermit that text in Genefis Cap. 4. of Caine, hauing liberty ouer ſinne (as a place ſtrangely detorted by ſome) and diuers other texts in the old Teſtament, proouing the ſame; What ſay you of the like paſſage in Deuteronomy? Cap. 30. I call heauen, and earth in record this day againſt you, that I haue ſet before you life, and death &c. chooſe therefore life. Where you ſee the very point, of which you are ſo diffidēt, is ingeminated, and reinforced. Thus, M. Doctour, you ſee how much theſe ſacred Teſtimonies do wound you herein, as alſo do diuers other paſſages by me here omitted (euicting Mans Free-Will) though all of them haue bene accordingly interpreted by all ancient Iews, and Rabbins, as more fully you may ſee in Galatinus.

D. VVHITAKERS.

Touching your teſtimonies, produced out of the old Teſtament, and interpreted in the Papiſts ſence by your owne Iewiſh Rabbins, as witneſſeth Galatinus take this for my anſwere: I do D. Whit l. 9. contra Duraeum p. 818. thus ſaith of this poynt: Tuū in hac cauſa Petrum Galatinum minimè proſtctò deſideramus, nec Haebreorum teſtimoniis illis indigemus. not regard or neede your Galatinns; neither do I rely, vpon the teſtimonies of the Hebrewes. And further knowe you both, that it is as cleare, that the ſcripture maketh for vs, who are the Profeſſours of the Ghoſple; as it is cleare, that the Sunne ſhineth in his brighteſt Meridian: Since we Proteſtants are (d) the little flocke: we 1. Ioan. 2. haue the vnction from the Holy one, and can cry Rom. 8. et Galat. 4. Abba Pater; from all which the Papiſts are wholy excluded: And this is ſufficient to ouerthrow the proudeſt Romaniſt breathing.

CARD. BELLARM.

Sweete Ieſus, that thinges ſacred ſhould be thus prophaned; and that the words of the ſcripture ſhould be thus detorted, from the intended ſence of the ſcripture, when all proofes whatſoeuer, from the vninterrupted practiſe of Gods ( 〈◊〉 ) Luk. 12. Church, from the ioynt, and moſt frequent teſtimonies of the Primitiue Fathers, from Eccleſtaſticall Hiſtories, and from your owne more moderate, and learned Brethrens acknowledgments, are drawne out againſt you, (like ſo many ſorts of Artilery, to batter downe the walls of Hereſie) and you not daring, (and indeed not able) to indure the aſſaults of any of theſe, then are you at the laſt forced to flee to the bare letter of the ſcripture, interpreted (contrary to all the former authorities) by your owne moſt partiall priuate ſpirit.

And the better to lay ſome pleaſing, and faire colours vpon the rugged graine of this your aſſumed priuile dge, you are not afraid peculiarly to apply to your ſelues (as though you were the ſole partage of God) theſe former words, of the Flock, the Vnction, and Abba Pater. Neither do you reſt here, but many of your Coate (as may be obſerued, both out of their ſermons, and writings) much ſolace, and delight thē ſelues in theſe following phraſes of the ſcripture; euer hauing them in their mouths, and vſing them (with the helpe of the caſting vp the white of the eye) as ſpels to enchant the ſimple: Spiritus [ 〈◊〉 ] vbi vult ſpirat? Gal 3. et 2. Col. 2. Chriſt crucified; Math. et Mark. 5. ſauing (g) Ioan. 3. faith? the 1 Cor. 2. ſpirituall Maniudgeth allthings,, and is iudged of none; 1. Cor. 2. Animalis homo non percipit ea, quae ſunt ſpiritus Dei; the 1. Pet. 2. ſanctiſication of the ſpirit; the 1. Petr. 2. vt ſupra. reuealing ſayth; finally, (to omit many ſuch others) that Ioan. 3. which is borne of the ſpirit, is of the ſpirit. Thus, as if your ſelues were wholy ſpiritualized, and enioyed certaine Rapts, Viſiōs or Enthuſiaſnes, you vendicate to your ſelues moſt ambitiouſly the former paſſages of Gods ſacred Writ; only to blanch hereby the deformity of your Cauſe, and to bleere the vndiſcerning eyes of your ignorant, and credulous followers: Such men breath herein an inſufferable elation, and height of mind; I will not ſay, pride, impoſture, and Hipocriſy.

D. WHITAKERS.

My Lord, theſe are but your iniuſt aſpertions, caſt vpon the Innocency of the Profeſſours of the Ghoſple; whoſe words, not for forme-ſake (as you wrongfully ſuggeſt) but euen out of pure conſcience are euer concordant to the illuminations of the ſpirit, deſcending from the Lord. But to turne my ſpeaches more particularly to you Micheas. It ſeemes by many ouerturnes by you already giuen, that you intende to turne Papiſt. And indeed I much wonder, why your iudgement ſhould rather propend to the Romiſh faith, then to the cleerelight of the Ghoſple. Since in treading your intended courſe (beſides all other arguments here omitted.) It ſeems you little priſe the authority of ſo many worthy Proteſtant doctors, both in my owne nation of England, and (to omit other places throughout the moſt ſpatious Country of Germany; Men of extraordinary eminency for learning; and whoſe V tuerſities are celebrious throughout all Chriſtendome; and in theire place, you are content to enthrall your iudgment to the abſurd, and ſenceleſſe Poſitions of the obſcure, and illiterated Italians, and Spanyards; who are not by nature made ſo maniable, (as I may ſay) as to menage the high Miſteries of Chriſtian Religion; and whoſe blinde credulity ſuffereth their minds, to enterta ine any ſuperſtition, or errour whatſoeuer.

And you muſt here remember (Micheas) that it is much learning, which conduceth a ſcholler to the Port of a true fayth; whereas a ſuperficiall meaſure rather endangereth him, then otherwiſe; whoſe ſtate herein is like to ſhip-wracke or loſſe by Sea; which is often cauſed through want of Sea, or water, but ſeldome through abundance thereof: thus the ſtore of that, which occaſioneth the hurt, or domage, being had, would preuent the hurt, or domage it ſelfe. The like I ſay) is a ſchollers caſe herein. Therefore Micheas, be wary now at the firſt, with whether ſide you conſociate your ſelfe, leaſt otherwiſe your reſolutiō be atteted hereafter with a fruitleſſe Repentance: And though the knowledge of thinges to come be ouercaſt with the darkenes, or Vncertainty; yet, God grant, I prooue not a true Sybill, deuining of your future miſfortune.

MICHEAS.

M. Doctour. I take your admonition charitably; yet I muſtneeds ſay, you deale ſtrangely herein; for whereas Man only is capable of Religion, you neuertheleſſe would haue me ceaſe to be a man, in the choyce of my Religion. Since you implicitly will me to reiect, and abandon (ſo farre forth, as concerns my election of fayth) all prudence, iudgment, and Reaſon it ſelfe; and to reſt vpon the bare letter of the Scripture, interpreted (contrary to all antiquity) by my owne priuate (and perhaps erroneous ſpirit. And is not this (I pray you) to extinguiſh all light of Reaſon by which we differ from other Creatures, and agree with immateriall Spirits Since not to vſe reaſon at all, is the property of a beaſt; to vſe it well, of a celeſtiall Angell.

Now touching the Parallell, which you make betweene the Proteſtant, and Catholicke Countries, I muſt confeſſe plainely, I do not conſpire with you in iudgment therein, your Engliſh Proteſtant Doctours, I purpoſely paſſe ouer in ſilence, and do repute them learned.

Touching the Germans. It is true, that they haue beene, and ſtill are diuers graue ſchollers of Germany, ſome Proteſtants, and other Catholicks; and infinitly farre more Catholicks, then Proteſtants, by how much longer time Germany hath bin Catholicke, then Proteſtant; againſt whoſe honour, and due reputation, farre be it from me to ſpeake. Neuertheleſſe if we do with a ſteddy hand, ballance that Nation, and the cuſtome of it, with Italy, and Spayne, (to ſpeake nothing of France, which being almoſt wholy Catholicke, ſome few places excepted, hath, and doth daily bring forth men of great worth for learning.) We ſhall then eaſily diſcouer the diſproportion, and inequality.

And to giue a little touch of the nature of them all: who knoweth not, that in diuers parts of Germany, the Inhabitants are but certaine liueleſſe, and great Coloſſes, or Statuaes of fleſh, and bones; who make their bodies, but conduits, or ſtrayners for beare, and wine to paſſe through; belching out their diſcourſes of Religion in ful carouſes? a maine cloude, which darkneth the light of the vnderſtanding. Againe, who can be perſuaded, that Fleame, and Haire (the predominant complexion of that country) and a loathſome beſpitled ſtoue, cā conteſt in matters of eruditiō, with the ingenuous melācholy of the Italians, and Spaniards, and their moſt famous ſchools, and Academies? By the help of which actiue humour in them (for I ſpeake not of that groſſe, and dull Melancholly, wherby a Man thinketh, and walketh away his dayes) the pure, and vnfettred Soule, diſorganized, (as it were) and vnbodyed for the tyme, doth by an inward reflex glaſle it ſelfe in it owne eſſence; and ſo tranſcending it accuſtomed limits, through an internall working of it owne Powers, doth penetrate the moſt difficult, and abſtruſe miſteries in learning, and religion; fanning away points, which in their owne properties are to be ſeuered, and caſting, or fagoting together things of one Nature.

But to returne backe to Germany, (which I will euer acknowledg hath brought forth many moſt famous, and worthy Men for Learning, Vertue, and Piety,) your former aſſertion in aſcribing the Proteſt ant faith to all that Country, cannot be iuſtifyed. For though I grant, it is on moſt ſides obſeſt (as I may ſay) with Proteſtancy; yet it is certaine, that diuers principall parts thereof are not Proteſtant, but Catholicke in Religion: As halfe of Switzerland, a part of the Griſons, Voltolyne, the whole Country of Bauaria, the Territories of all the Biſhops Electours, the kingdome of Bohemia, beſides many Imperiall Citties, and ſtates. Againe, as other parts thereof do ioyntly, and particulerly diſclaime from the Roman Religion; ſo (though they all do challenge to themſelues the name of Proteſtants, yet) do they manteine many irreconcileable differences of Religion enen of the greateſt importance; like ſeuerall wayes, and Tracts meeting in one common place, and then inſtantly deuided one from another. This appeareth (as I am enformed) moſt cleare, and euident from the authority of In his hiſ oria Sacramentariae part. altera. Hoſpinian, a learned German Proteſtant; who hath diligently ſet downe the names of many ſcores of Bookes, written in great acerbity of ſtyle, by one Ger ā Proteſtant againſt another German Proteſtant; & according nereto it is, that we finde ſo many kindes of Sectaries, and Hereticks in Germany; as the Caluiniſts, the Lutherans, the Anabaptiſts, the Antitrinitarians, and ſome others; though they all be linked, and tyed together in the common, and maine knot of Proteſtancy.

And thus farre, M. Doctour, of this point, where you ſee, I haue ſmale reaſon to embrace the Proteſtant Religion, before the Catholicke; becauſe that is profeſſed throughout Germany, (as you pretend) this cheifly reſtrained to Italy, Spayne, and France.

But let vs returne backe to the generall ſubject of this your diſoutation with my Lord Cardinall I would intreat you M. Doctour, to alleadge ſome ſtronger arguments for the change off yeh in the Church of Rome, then hitherto you haue giuen; which if you do not, then what by reaſon of the weakenes of your ſaid arguments (at leaſt in my apprehenſion,) and what in reſpect, that I do not ſee the proofes Produced by my Lord Cardinal to be ſufficiently by you refuted; I muſt tell you aforehand, I will embrace the Catholicke Roman Religion, & diſauow all Proteſtancy.

CARD. BLLARM.

M. Doctour, if you can ſupport this your poſition of Romes change with other more forcing reaſons, I would intreate you now to inſiſt further in them. You ſee I am prepared to giue my beſt anſwere to what you can object. If you do not, I muſt preſume, all your forces are already ſpent; they indeed being but weake, & reſēbling that of S. Iude: Cap. 1. Cloudes without water, carryed about with windes.

MICHEAS

I pray you M. Doctour, forbeare not to grant to this my deſire; ſince otherwiſe I muſt reſt aſſured, that no more can be ſayd (on your part) touching this ſubject.

CARD. BELLARM.

Yeild, M. Doctour, to this Learned Iewes importunity: you know, he hath vndertaken a journey of many hundred miles to this Citty, onely to be reſolued in this one Point; therefore both in charity, and for the preſeruing of your owne honour, and reputation, you ſtand obliged to giue all ſatisfaction vnto him.

D. WHITAKERS.

Tuſh, you are both ouer vpbrayding with me; and ſeeing I intend no further diſpute with men of ſo irre ragable diſpoſitions, I firſt (for a cloſe) ſay to you (Micheas) that where you intend to become a Papiſt; your change is this, that you leaue that, which was ouce good, (though now bad) to embrace that, which is euer bad; I meane, you leaue Iudaiſme, to entertaine Papiſme; and thus you become a new Proſelyte, or rather Neophyte, in the ſchoole of Superſtition, & Idolatry.

Now as for you (Cardinall) whoſe name is ſo celebrious, and ſo much aduanced in the eares, and mouthes a fall men; know you, that touching the ſubiect of this our diſcourſe, I doubt not, but that my arguments, reaſons, and Inſtances aboue alleadged, do in the iudgment of ſuch, as the Lord hath illuminated with the truth of the Ghoſple, ſufficiently prooue the great changes made of Fayth, and Religion in the Church of Rome, ſince it firſt receaued it Faith in the Apoſtles daies. And if the truth hereof be hid from any, I may then ſay with the 2. Cor. 4. Apoſtle: It is hid from them, that periſh, and are loſt. Therefore my irreuocable concluſion is this, that the Church of Rome, was once the true Church, and in fayth pure, and incontaminate, (as before I acknowledged) but at this preſent it is: D. whit. cōtra Camp. rat. 3. caleth the Church of Rome thus: Eccleſia Romae eſt meretrix Babi anica; palmes a •• a v 〈…〉 reſ ctus; ſpeluca latro um, via ampla ad interitū perducens; regnum infe or •• ; Corpus Antichriſti; E rori ••• lluu es; maier •• gna ſcortationum; Eccleſia Impiorum, à qua excedere Chriſtianum quemqne portel; quam Chriſtus miſerè perdet aliqud lo, eique ſceleru omnium meritas penas imponet. Thus D. Whit. The Whore of Babilon, a branch cut from the true Vine; adenne of theeues; the large way leading to deſtruction; the kingdome of Hell; the Body of Antichriſt; a heape, or maſſe of errours; a great Mother of whoring; the Church of the wicked; out of the which it behoucth euery chriſtian to depart, and which Chriſt in the end will miſerably deſtroy, & inflict due puniſhments for all it impieties: and with this, as vnwilling to haue further entercourſe, or diſpute with any, that ſubiect themſelues to this prophane Church, I end, and bid you both farewell.

CARD. BELLARM.

M. Doctour, I much greiue, to ſee you thus tranſported with paſſion, and to inueigh with ſuch acerbity of words againſt Chriſts intemerate ſpouſe; but I the more eaſily pardon you, ſince it is hard (vpon the ſodame) to caſt of a habit which hath beene often engrained in diuers tinctures of many operations: ſo ſpleenfull a •• ſlike you haue againſt the Church of Rome; and indeede it ſeemes you labour with the diſeaſe of thoſe, whoſe ſpitle being enuenomed, make them to thinke, that euery thing they take in their mouths, doth taſte of venome.

But ſince it is your minde to breake off ſo ſodainely with vs, I recommend you to the tuition of him, who in an inſtant is able to turne the moſt ſtony hart, into Cor 3. Reg. 3. docile, and Cor Paraip. 34. emolitum; and my prayers ſhalbe, that before the time of your death you may haue the grace to implant your ſelfe, as a branch of that Church, the profeſſion of whoſe faith may be auaileable to the ſauing of your ſoule.

MICHEAS.

I am beholden vnto you, M. Doctour, for your Paines, and labour taken in this diſputation; howbeit I muſt confeſſe, I did expect to haue heard more ſaid for the proofe of the Church of Rome her change in Religion, then as yet is deliuered; where I ſee, that your faire promiſed mountaines (in the beginning) do but turne to ſnow, and after reſolue into water; and that by your finall appealing to the written word alone, you endeauour to ſet the beſt face vpon your ouerthrow in this your diſpute; bearing your ſelfe herein like to ſouldiers, who are forced to yeild vp their hould, and yet couet to depart with ſuch ceremonies, as are not competent to ſuch, as yeild. Neuertheleſſe I commend you, to the protection of the God of Iſraell, and will pray, that you may (after this life) enioy the bleſſings which are already granted to Abraham, Iſa ck, Iacob, and their Seede.

D. VVHITAKERS.

Well, well. Once more I bid you both farewell.

MICHEAS.

My Lord, the doctour (you ſee) is gone; and indeed I much diſlike his bitter eiaculation of reprochfull words againſt the Church of Rome, little ſorting to the preſumed grauity of a chriſtian Doctour; but the matter is not great, ſince obloquy is but baſenes, and the skumme of malice; and that tongue, which knowes not to honour, cannot diſhonour.

But now touching your learned diſpute, it hath (I humbly thanke the Lord of Hoaſts, and your charitable endeauour) wrought in me ſo much, as that I well know towards what ſhoare I may anker, and ſtay my heretofore floating, and vnſetled iudgment.

I ſee it is already acknowledged, euen by her enemies, that the Church of Rome enioyed in her primitiue times, a true, perfect, and incorrupt faith, as the Apoſtle doth fully aſſure vs: I ſee, that your ſelfe (my Lord) partly by handling the Subiect in groſſe; partly by diſtribution of times, in which this ſuppoſed change is dremed; to haue happened; partly by diſplaying the diuerſity of the Proteſtants Opinions, touching the firſt cōming of Antichriſt, who is ſaid to haue beene the firſt, who wrought this change; and partly by other forcible arguments, haue demonſtratiuely, and irrepliably euicted, that ſince the Apoſtles, there hath bene no change of faith, made at all in the Church of Rome. Finally, I ſee, that the examples of this imaginary change, inſtanced by the Doctour (who, as I am aduertiſed, hath more laboured in the ſearch of this ſubiect, then any other Proteſtant) were ſo defectiue, a d maimed, as that they receiue theire full anſwere, and encounter, both from your former diſcuſſed heads; as alſo from your Lordſhip, proouing a greater confeſſed antiquity of the ſaid Articles, then the inſtances do vrge; and loſtly, euen from the Doctours liberall acknowledgment; who plainly cōfeſſeth, that he knoweth not the time, when this his change receiued it beginning.

Since then all theſe points are made ſo euident, and vndeniable, I grant they haue ſwaighed, and ouer-ballanced my iudgment, indifferently heretofore to either ſide enclining; and haue enduced me indubiouſly to beleeue, that the fayth of the Church of Rome at this day is, as at the firſt it was; to wit, pure, ſpotleſſe, and inchangeable But now ſeeing no man can be a perfect Chriſtian, except he actually enioy the Sacrament of Baptiſme, which is the firſt dore (as you Chriſtians teach) that leadeth a man to the miſteries of your Religion; therefore (moſt illuſtrious Cardinall) I renouncing my former Iudaiſme, and wholy rendring my ſelfe a true diſciple, and ſeruant of Chriſt Ieſus, (as acknowledging, that the Redemption of Iſraell is in him come) do here proſtrate my ſelfe in deſire, to receiue this Sacrament euen from you; that as your tongue is the cheife inſtrument (vnder the higheſt) for my beleefe of the Catholicke fayth, ſo your hand may be the like inſtrument, for the conferring vpon me the benefit of that ſacred Miſtery, where by a man is firſt incorporated, and (as it were) matriculated in the boſome of the Catholicke Church.

CARD. BELLARM.

Worthy Micheas. I much ioy, that our diſcourſe hath wrought ſo happy a reſolution in you, as to embrace the Catholicke, and Roman fayth, and giue ſole thankes to him therefore, who is higher then the higheſt Heauen, and yet as low as the Center of the earth, who thus hath vouchſafed (by his grace) to deſcend to the bottome of your harte; and let the remembeance of your precedent ſtaine in Iudaiſme, be a ſpurre for your greater perfection in the Chriſtian Religion: So ſhall you reſemble that body, which receiueth it greater health, from it former ſicknes. And be ſure, that euery day you encreaſe more, and more in Chriſtian vertues: nulla dies ſine linea. And takeheed, that you grow not lukewarme in this your reſolution, or come to a ſtand of your preſent feruour: But remember, that ſuch motions of the ſoule of this nature, which are ſtationary, are therein become Retrograde, ſince here not to go forward, is to go backeward.

And as touching the precedent ſubiect of our diſcourſe, reſt you aſſured, that the faith of Chriſt firſt preached in Rome was neuer yet (in any one dogmaticall point) altered ſince it firſt plantation. The Church of Rome was (and doubtleſly is) the true Church of Chriſt; which Church is ſo farre from broaching change, and innouation, by her intertayning, but any one Errour, as that therefore it is moſt truly propheſied of it Eſay 2. Micheas 4. that it is a Moūtaine prepared in the top of Mountaines, exalted about Hils. It being indeed ſeated of ſuch a hight, as that neither the thundring fragors of the perſecutours cruelty, nor the windes of Hereticks ſpeaches, and endeauours, were euer able to reach ſo high, as by introducing nouelty in fayth to diſioynt the ſetled frame thereof: ſo true is the ſaying of that holy father (whoſe fire of zeale brought him to the flames of Martyrdome) Cy •• l. de V •• a •• Eccleſiae poſi 〈◊〉 ilium. adulterari non poteſt ſponſa Chriſti incorrupta eſt, et pudica. Now touching your baptizing Micheas wee will take ſuch preſent courſe therein, as ſhall giue you all full ſatisfaction.

MICHEAS

I humbly thanke your Lordſhip. But I am further here to aduertiſe your Lordſhip, that if ſo it might be thought lawfull, and conuenient, that he, who heretofore denyed Chriſt, might after be permitted to be a diſpenſer of the Myſteries, and treaſure of Chriſt; I could then greatly wiſh, that after I haue receiued the Sacrament of Baptiſme at your hands, I might be aduanced to the holy Order of Preiſthood; that ſo now (in the laſt ſcene of my old age) my endeauours of this nature (hereafter to be attempted in the Catholicke Church) might partly redeeme my former miſpent labours in the Iewiſh Synagogue: My ſingle courſe of life, and vnmarryed ſtate beſt ſorteth thereto, and my owne deſire is moſt vehement, and forcing. And indeed I am perſuaded, that the profitable talents of a good Chriſtian ought) in part to reſemble the engendring riches of an vſurer, who breeds vpon ſiluer, and whoſe Tocò in greeke ſi nifieth Vſury, coming of the verb Tictò parto; becauſe ſiluer (put to vſury) b etteth ſiluer. Tocòs, or intereſt money is no ſooner begotten, then it begetteth: So ſhould it fare with a man of ſufficiency, deuoted to Chriſt his ſeruice; who being become of late his adopted ſonne, ſhould himſelfe inſtantly labour to be a parent (vnder Chriſt) of other ſuch like ſonnes. O how ineffable a comfort it is, when a man may truly (yet modeſtly) ſay through his ſpirituall trauell, fruitfully employed towardes others (as your Lordſhip may now of me). 1. Cor. 4. In Chriſto eſu per Euangelium vos genui? And how truly honourable is that profeſſion of life, which conſiſteth in the negotiation, and trafiking (as I may ſay) of ſaluation of ſoules? Zach. 14. Et ero mercator in domo Domini Exercituum.

CARD. BELLARM.

I Commend much your great feruour herein: But yet, I hold it more ſecure to pauſe for a time, to ſee, whether this your reſolution touching Prieſt hood (being, but the Primitiae of your ſpirit) be ſteddy, and permanent, or whether hereafter it may alter, and wauer. And if ſo; then would it follow, that your preſent taking of that courſe, would be attended on with an ouer late repentance.

And you muſt knowe, that the wings of a new conuerted ſoule to Chriſt, do commonly at the firſt performe their ſpeedieſt flight: Pſalm. 54 Quis dabit mihi pennas, ſicut Columbae, et volabo? Which for the moſt part after (through ſome default, or other) do begin to lagg, and to make certaine plaines. For though theſe firſt Motions of the ſoule in the ſeruice of God, be neither Naturall, nor Violent (ſince they deſcend only from him, to whome by prayer we aſcend) yet they pertake much of that Motiō, which is violent; they being ordinarily more ſtrong, & feruerous in the beginning, & more remiſſe towards the end: and indeed experience teacheth vs, that a Precipitiòus, and ouer haſty deuotion, is ſometimes dā gerous. But if this your good deſire do hereafter perſeuere, and continew, I ſhall be ready (within conuenient time) to giue you my beſt aſſiſtance therein.

MICHEAS

My Lord, I make ſmale doubt, that this my reſolution (through the ayde of him, who firſt did inſpire it into my ſoule) will remayne ſtable, and vnchangeable. Therefore your Lordſhip may further hereby take notice, that my intention is to ſpend his ſhort remnant of my yeares, in diligently ſtudying the Controuerſies betweene the Catholicks, & the Proteſtants, to attempt (as afore I intimated) to plant that relilgion in others, which you haue already planted in me.

I further am reſolued, to take a view (if my aged & feeble body will ſuffer me) of the moſt famous Catholicke, & Proteſtant Vniuerſities in Chriſtendome; and particularly I haue (I confeſſe) a thirſting deſire to ſee the two (ſo much celebrated) Vniuerſities of England (of the one of which, I here D. Whitakers is a member) places, of which Fame her ſelfe hath ſounded her trumpet, in the higheſt Note. Now (my good Lord) in regard of theſe my determinations, and of my late embracing of the preſent Roman Roligion, (the noyſe, and bruite whereof will, no doubt, ſpread it ſelfe at large.) I do probably preſage, that I ſhall meete with diuers Proteſtants, who hearing of my election of Religion, will perhaps earneſtly ſolicite me, for my change to them; and making many violent incurſions, vpon my yet weake, and vnfortified iudgment, will endeauour to demolliſh, and lay leuell with the ground, whatſoeuer your Lordſpip (by your former learned diſcourſe) hath already built in my ſoule.

Therefore, that I may ſit cloſe, and immooueable in this my choyce of faith now made, I would intreate your Lordſhip to inſtruct me, how I may beſt guide occaſion in diſcourſe with ſuch Men; that ſo they may not be able to winne ground vpon my weakeneſſe. For though I can (in part) diſcerne the ſufficiency of other men; yet reflecting vpon my owne imbecillity, I with all diſcouer the want of their like ſufficiency in my ſelfe: I herein reſembling the outward ſence, which aſwell iudgeth of the abſence, as of the preſence of it Obiect. Therefore (good my Lord) initiate me a litle, in this Miſtery.

CARD. BELLARM.

Mieheas, I like well of this your Promethian, and forecaſting wiſedome. And I will to my beſt ability & powre, ſatisfie this your deſire. And whereas you ſay, you determine to ſee the Vniuerſities of England, I approoue well thereof; for I haue often heard, that (ſpeaking of the Materials of an Vniuerſity) they are the goodlieſt in all Chriſtēdome; I meane for magnificence, and ſtatelines of their Colledges; for op lency, and great reuenewes belonging to them; and for their pleaſing, and ſweete ſcituations.

If you go to Oxford, you ſhall (in all likelyhood) fall in acquaintance with one D. Reynolds; a Man (as I am enformed) not of a harſh, and fiery (as his Brother D. Whitakers is) but of a temperate comportment; one, of whom the whole Vniuerſity doth highly preiudge; and indeede not vndeſeruedly, he being (his Religion excepted) endued with many good parts of literature; and who hath heretofore bene my D. R ynl. did write againſt Card. Bellurmine in the Controuerſie of Images Antagoniſt in ſome of his Books, written againſt ſome parcels of my Controuerſies. But now to deſcend to your laſt requeſt to me, ſeeing then you are not, as yet, conuerſant in Points of faith, controuerted betweene the Catholicke, and Proteſtant; My maine, and firſt aduiſe is, that in all points of faith (of which any diſpute may hereafter occurre betweene you, and any Proteſtant) you finally do reſt in the authority of Chriſts viſible Church, and the cheife heade thereof; aſſuring your ſelfe, that although Simon the fiſher, was not able to determine matters of faith; yet that Simon Peter, and his ſucceſſours (aſſiſted with competency of meanes) haue euer an impeachable ſoueraignty granted to them, and a delegated authority from Chriſt himſelfe, for the abſolute diſcuſſing, & deciding of all Articles in faith, and Religion: Math. 16. Tues Petrus, et ſuper hanc Petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam, et portae Inferi non praeualebunt aduerſus eam.

Expect to meete with men, who are witty, and of good talents, and who well know, how to ſpread their Netts to catch the vnprouided. And whoſe ſtreame of diſcourſe (for diuers of them are of great elocution) for the moſt part runneth, in their accuſtomed chanels of pleaſing inſinuations, perſuading to their faith, and a violent ouercharge of gauleful words, againſt the preſent Roman faith.

Touching their allegation of authorities (either deuine or humane) credit them no further, then your owne eyes will giue you leaue; for diuers of them vſe ſtrange impoſtures therein, though they warrant ſuch their proceedings with greate cōfidency of earneſt aſſeuerations: Ieremy 5. quod ſi etiam viuit Dominus, dixerint, et hoc falsò iurabunt.

Make choice (if ſo it lieth in your power) rather to diſpute with Proteſtant Doctours, and Miniſters, who are vnmarried, then married; ſince the ſecret iudgments of theſe later may well be ouercome by force of argument; but to perſuade the wills to follow their iudgments (in regard of theire clog of wife, children, and worldly preferments) is more then a Herculean labour. And indeed, I confeſſe, I do much commiſerate the ſtate of diuers of them, who (being otherwiſe of great wits, and might haue beene much ſeruiceable in the Church of God) by being inchanted with a little Redd, and White, and a well proportioned face, do in their yonger daies tye thēſelues (by marriage) to the world, & to the attending afflictions thereof: ô that the ſoule of man (not ſubiect to dimenſion) ſhould be thus enthralled to Creatures, for their hauing a pleaſing dimenſion. But to proceede

You ſhall finde many of them of great reading; yet of reading ſorting rather to contradict, and quarrell, then to inſtruct: but diuers of their coate are content (through their owne want) to retaile, by help of Indexes, and ſuch other meanes, their owne more learned Brethrens writings, & labours. And many of theſe (through their owne ignorance) thinke they do well, and that they profeſſe a true faith; wheras the more learned of them (through their reading, and ſtudy) muſt (in their owne ſoules) of neceſſity be conſcious, & guilty of the falſehood of their owne Cauſe; though the preſēt, and temporary reſpects of riches, and preferments are ſo potent, and forcible with them, as that they c nnot (or at leaſt they will not) be induced to follow the Dictamen, and reſolution of their owne Iudgments.

If the ſubiect of your diſcourſe be about the abſtruſe Miſteries of the Bleſſed Sacrament of the Euchariſt, or of ſome other ſuch ſublime points; you ſhall hardly draw them to relinquiſh naturall reaſon (ſo deepely are they immerſed therein,) it being indeed their Pillar of Non plus vltra: Thus, where other Chriſtians enioy two eyes; the one of Faith, the other of Nature: Theſe Polyphemi (ſhutting that of Faith) do looke vpon the Articles of Religion, only with this of Nature.

Chooſe rather to diſpute, touching matter of fact (with in which may be included the proofe of the truth, or falſhood of the Proteſtant Religion) then touching any dogmaticall point of faith, and doctrine, as receiuing it proofe from the ſcripture. This I ſpeake not, but that the ſcripture makes moſt clearly for the Catholicks, and againſt, the Proteſtants: But becauſe your aduerſary in diſpute will euer cauill at your expoſition of Scripture; reducing it in the end (againſt all antiquity of Fathers, and tradition of the Church) to the interpretation of his owne priuate, and reuealing ſpirit; and ſo your labour would prooue, commonly, to be loſt thereby. Now in matter of fact, your Aduerſary is forced to ſtand to the authorities, deduced frō Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtories, and other ſuch humane proofes; and therfore he muſt either ſhape a pro bable (if not a ſufficient) anſwere to them, which he neuer can do; they wholy making againſt him, euen by his owne learned brethrens Confeſſions; or els he muſt reſt ſilent. And this is the reaſon, why the Proteſtants are ſo loath to diſpute of the Church; ſince this Queſtion comprehendeth in it ſelfe, diuers points of fact; as of it continuall Viſibility, Antiquity, Succeſſion, Ordination, and Miſſion of Paſtours &c. All which Queſtiōs receiue their proofes from particuler Inſtances, warranted by ſhewing the particular times, perſons, and other circumſtances, concerning matter of fact.

An other reaſon of this your choyſe of your ſubiect of diſpute may be; in that few Men (and thoſe only ſchollers) can truly cenſure of the expoſition of ſcripture; whereas almoſt euery illiterate man (enioying but a reaſonable capacity) is able ſufficiently to iudge of the teſtimonies, produced to prooue, or diſprooue matter of fact. And here I would wiſh you, that in your diſpute you labour, to haue ſome Catholicks preſent; for where all the Auditory are Proteſtants, certaine it is, that they will voice it againſt you, howſoeuer the diſputatiō may otherwiſe go. But becauſe theſe obſeruatiōs are ouer generall; I will giue you here ſome more particuler; ſince moſt of them may be reſtrained to certain particular paſſages, which may occurre betweene you, and your diſputant Aduerſary.

1. Firſt then, let the true ſtate of the Queſtion (diſcuſſed of) be ſet downe, and acknowledged on both ſides; in regard of the often willfully miſtaken doctrine of the Catholicks. That done, reduce the queſtion diſputed of, to as few branches as you can; ſince multiplicity of Points is more ſubiect to confuſion, and forgetfulnes, and giueth greater liberty to extrauagant digreſſions. And will your Aduerſary to auoid all ſuch ſpeaches, but what are pertinent to the point handled. And if he will needs wander in his diſcourſes, then you may reduce the force of them (by way of Enthimem, or ſyllogiſme) to the point diſputed of; that ſo both your Aduerſary, and the Auditory may ſee, how roueingly theſe his ſpeaches were vſed, and how lowſely they, and the queſtion then handled do hang together.

2. If your Aduerſary vndertake the part of the Anſwerer, ſuffer not him to oppoſe; though he labour to do ſo, to free himſelfe from anſwering, when he ſhall ſee himſelfe plunged. In like ſort, if he vndergo the part of the Opponent, tye him preciſely euer to oppoſe; which Scene perhaps (he being brought to a Non plus) would ſleyly transferre vpon you. And thus be ſure. that eich of you keepe your choſen ſtation.

3. If your diſputant will vaunt, that he will prooue all by ſcripture onely (as moſt of them giue it out, they will) then force him to draw all his premiſſes (I meane, both his Propoſitions, if ſo they ſhould be reduced to a forme of argument) from the ſcripture alone; of which Methode (within two, or three arguments) he is moſt certaine to faile. And if he take either of his Propoſitions from humane authority, or from Naturall Reaſon; you may tell him, he leaueth his vndertaken Taske; to wit, to prooue from Scripture alone, and conſequently, you may deny the force of his argument, though otherwiſe logicall if it were reduced to forme.

4. In your proofs drawne from Scripture, labour to be much practiſed in the Proteſtants Tranſlations of it; of which infinite places make for the Catholicks Cauſe, euen as the Scripture is tranſlated by the Proteſtants. This courſe farre gauleth them more, then if you inſiſted in the Catholicke trā ſlation.

5. If you diſpute with any by writing, or enterchange of letters (this being but a mute Aduocate of the minde) write nothing but matter, and with as much compendiouſnes as the ſubiect will beare, without any verball excurſions, or digreſſions; ſince this proceeding will force your Aduerſary to reply (if he will reply at all) to the matter. For otherwiſe leauing the point, which is cheifly to be handled, he will ſhape a reply to other leſſe neceſſary ſtuffe deliuered by you; and then his Reply muſt paſſe abroad (by the help of many partiall tongues) for a full anſwere to your whole diſcourſe.

6. In like ſort, if you attempt to charge a Proteſtant Authour with lyes, or Corruptions in their writings (with which many of their bookes are euen loaded) rather inſiſt in a few, (and thoſe manifeſt, and vnanſwereable) then in a greater number; ſeeing if your Aduerſary can make ſhow, to ſalue but three, or foure of a greater number (which the more eaſily he may do, by how much the number of the inſtanced falſifications is greater) the ſuppoſed anſwereing of thē (choſen, & picked out by him) muſt ſeeme to diſgrace all the reſt vrged by you.

7. If you intend to bring, and obiect any wicked, and vnwarrantable ſayings, eſpecially out of Luther, either againſt the Bleſſed Trinity, or about his acknowledged luſt, & ſenſuality, be carefull to note the Editions of the Booke, wherein ſuch his ſayings are to be found. For in the later Editions of his workes, many ſuch ſentences are for very ſhame left out, and vnprinted. And hereupon there are diuers Proteſtants, who vtterly deny, that euer any ſuch words were written by him.

8. Be skilfull in diſcouering (though not in practiſing) Sophiſtry, that ſo you may the better looſe, and vntie e •• e Proteſtants knots of deceipte; diuers of them being moſt expert in all kinds of Paralogiſme. And particulerly takeheede of that groſſe, and vulger ſleight (vnworthy a ſchollar) drawne from the particuler to the Vniuerſall, much practiſed by our Aduerſaries. For according hereto, if they can finde any Father, or any moderne Catholicke Authour, to mantaine (though therein contradicted by other Fathers, and Catholicks) but one, or two Points of Proteſtancy; they bluſh not to auerre, that the ſaid Father, or Catholicke writer, are entire Proteſtants in all points.

9. If your Aduerſary ſhould produce ſome ſuppoſed diſagreements in doctrine among Catholicks; you may reply, that their differences reſt only in ſome Circumſtances of a Catholicke, Concluſion, and not in the Concluſion it ſelfe. And if he produce any preſumed Catholicke denying the Concluſion it ſelfe of the doctrine; then are you to tell him that ſuch a man ceaſeth by this his deniall (vnleſſe ignorance, or inconſideration excuſe) to be a member of the Catholicke Church; & therefore, this his deniall doth not preiudice the Catholicke Faith; this being contrary to the Proteſtants proceeding; who wittingly mantaining contrary concluſions of Faith, do remaine neuertheleſſe (by the iudgments of many of them) good brethren, and true Profeſſours of the Ghoſple.

10. If your Aduerſary conteſt, that all the writinges, and memory of Proteſtants in former ages were extinguiſhed by the Popes of the ſaid, and after ſucceeding ages; you may ſhow, how abſurd this aſſertion is. And the reaſon hereof is, in that the Popes of thoſe times could not preſage, that Proteſtancy ſhould (on theſe our times) ſway more, then any other Hereſies condemned in their very times; which other Hereſies remaine yet regiſtred euen to this day, by the acknowledgment of of the Proteſtants; And therefore by the ſame reaſon, Proteſtancy (ſuppoſing it to be profeſſed in thoſe former times,) ſhould alſo haue remained recorded, either in the writings of the Proteſtants themſelues, (if euer any ſuch were or elſe by the cenſure, and condemnation of them, by the Popes of thoſe daies.

11. Whereas you may alleadge diuers acknowledged Hereſies, both in the iudgment of Proteſtant, and Catholicke; out of the bookes concerning diuers perſons, who beleeued ſome few points of Proteſtancy, recorded in the ſaid bookes; (here I ſpeake of VValdo, VVicliff, &c.) Now if here your Aduerſary diſputant doth auouch (as many Proteſtants do) that theſe Hereſies were falſly obtruded vpon the then ſaid Proteſtants by their Enemies; you may here reply, that to affirme this, is againſt the force of all reaſon. For ſeeing the ſaid bookes do indifferently make mention both of the Proteſtant Opinions, and of the other Hereſies defended by the ſame men; either the ſaid Bookes are to be beleeued in both, or to be reiected in both: If the firſt, then it is certaine, that thoſe men beleeued thoſe acknowledged Hereſies, and then they can not be inſtanced for perfect Proteſtants: If the later; then the ſaid Bookes are not of any ſufficient authority to prooue, that there were any Proteſtants in thoſe ages.

12. There is great diſparity betweene Proteſtants confeſſing ſome points, which do aduantage the Catholicke faith (as for examples, that the Primitiue Fathers were Papiſts in all cheife Articles of Papiſtry, as the Aduerſary vſe to tearme it) and other Proteſtants, impugning the ſaid Confeſſions. Seeing the firſt men ſpeake againſt themſelues, and their Cauſe; which (they being learned) would neuer do, but as conuinced with the euidency of the truth therein; whereas theſe other do deny the Confeſſions of their owne Brethren, in behalfe of their owne Religion; and ſo ſuch their denialls are to be reputed more partiall. In like ſort, there is great difference to be made, betweene Proteſtants ſpeaking againſt themſelues, and yet beleeuing the Proteſtant doctrine, and concluſion, touching ſome Circumſtances, whereof their ſaid Confeſſions are; and betweene ſome others, who afore were Catholickes, and after do defend ſome one point, or other of Proteſtancy. Since theſe later men do not ſpeake againſt themſelues, but in defence of ſuch their Proteſtant doctrine, then newly entertained by them, and conſequently, in defence of their owne opinions: and therefore ſuch their authorities are not to ballance equally, with the Confeſſions of the former Proteſtants.

13. If your Aduerſary doth produce any authorities; either from the Popes Decrees, or from Generall Councels; (by the which the Antiquity of ſome Catholicke Article may be impugned). Be carefull, 1. That particular Councels, or Councels Sciſmaticall (not warranted by the Popes authority) be not obtruded vpon you, for true Generall Councells.

2. That the point vrged out of the Councell doth concerne Doctrine of faith, and not matter of fact; touching which later point, it is granted a Councell may alter it Decrees, vpon better, and later informations. 3. That the Canon, or Decree poduced out of the Councell, do immediately concerne the doctrine it ſelfe of ſome Article of faith, (then ſuppoſed to be brought in) and not the name only to be impoſed vpon the ſaid doctrine afore beleeued; as it happened in the Councell of Lateran, touching the word Tranſubſtantiation.

4. That the Decree of the Pope, or Councell, deliuered only touching the better execution of ſome Catholicke point, afore partly neglected (as for example, touching Confeſſion, the vnmarried life of the Cleargy, or keeping ſet times of faſting, and the like) be not fraudulently extended (by your Aduerſary) to the firſt inſtitution of the ſaid doctrine; he ſo ſuggeſting a more reformed execution, or practiſe of the Catholicke doctrine, for the firſt inſtitution of it.

14. If your Aduerſary produce the ancient Fathers in defence of Proteſtancy, firſt aske him, if he will inappealeably ſtand to their iudgments? If he will; then vrge the Proteſtants (whoſe bookes are moſt plentifull in ſuch like accuſations) charging them, as Patrons of Papiſtry. If he will not ſtand to their authority; then demand; to what end he doth alleadg them? And further let him know, that it is the ioynt conſent of Fathers (without contradiction of other Orthodoxall Fathers) which the Catholicks do admit. Where ſome Proteſtants obiect, that diuers points of the Cathoclike Religion were condemned in ſome Hereticks, by the Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church; you may truely reply hereto, that the Article, or concluſion it ſelfe, of any Catholick point, was not condemned by them; but only ſome abſurd, and wicked Circumſtance (annexed by the ſaid Hereticks to the Article) was condemned by the Fathers. Thus the Catholicks are charged by D. Fulke. and others, to borrow the praying to Saints, and Angels from certaine old Heretickes, condemned by Epiphanius for this doctrine. Whereas thoſe Heretickes praied both, to good, & bad Angels, & to thoſe, who were falſly tearmed Angels; accoūpting them as Patrons of their wickednes. And for theſe Circumſtances only Epiphanius regiſtreth thē for Hereticks. This ſleight is much practiſed by diuers Proteſtāts in certaine points of the Catholicke Religion. Therefore be ſure to ſee the words of the Fathers ſo condemning them, in the Fathers owne bookes; which if you do, you ſhall diſcouer wonderfull forgery, and deprauation of the ſaid Fathers writings, vſed by the Proteſtants.

16. If it be vrged, that the deniall of Free-will (for example, and ſo of other Articles of Proteſtancy) was taught by Manichaeus; and conſequently, that the Proteſtant faith is as ancient, as thoſe primitiue times. Reply, that this particuler Hereticke, or that particuler Sectary did teach, but one, or other Proteſtant Article, and were inſtantly written againſt for ſuch their Innouation, the ſaid Men being Catholicke in other points. And therefore you may truly auerre, that the vrging of ſuch Examples are wholy impertinent, either for the proofe of the antiquity of Proteſtancy, or for the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church in thoſe daies.

17. When you produce the ancient Fathers againſt the Proteſtants, their common ſhift is to make an oppoſition betweene the Scripture, and the Fathers; mantaining that to follow the Fathers iudgment in faith, is to reiect, and abandon the Scripture; and that themſelues are to be pardoned for preferring the Scripture before the Fathers. But to this you may anſwere, that ſeeing the Fathers do admit, and reuerence the ſcripture in as high a degree, as the Proteſtants do; The maine queſtion, and doubt here is onely, whether the Fathers, or the Proteſtants do more truly expound the Scripture.

18. When a Catholicke doth alleadge the Fathers, the Proteſtants do ſeeke to leſſen their authorities ſeuerall waies, as by obiecting either another Father, or the ſaid Father in another place againſt himſelfe, ſo falſly traducing him, as a mantainer of contrary Doctrines. In like ſort, by obiecting ſome confeſſed errour of the Father produced by the Catholicke; which cheifly houldeth in Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. But to this laſt point, you may anſwere; that you produce the Fathers in ſuch Catholicke Points, touching the which, they were not written againſt by any other Father; and therefore their authority therein is of force; ſince it is preſumed hereby, that all the other Fathers (and conſequently all the Church of God) agreed with them therein; whereas their confeſſed errours were impugned by Auguſtine, Hierom, Epiphanius, and others.

19. Do not admit this, as good: ſome Fathers do interpret this, or that text of ſcripture figuratiuely; therefore the ſaid Fathers teach, that it is not to be expounded literally. This is a meere ſophiſme; for ſeeing diuers texts of ſcripture are capable (beſides the literall) of allegoricall ſences (as all the learned Catholicks, and Proteſtants do acknowledg) therfore the figuratiue ſence doth not exclude, but rather often preſuppoſeth, and admitteth the literall. According hereto, S. Auguſtine paſſing ouer (as preſumed, and granted) the literall ſence of thoſe wordes: qui bibit meum Sanguinem &c. allegorically expoundeth in this ſort; Ioan. 6. bibere Sanguinem Chriſti; eſt crederein Chriſtum.

20. You are here alſo to conceiue, that diuers Proteſtants do call our Catholicke Doctrines, as they are defended by vs, Superſtition, Idolatry, Blaſphemies; but as they are taught by the ancient Fathers, they mildly ſtile the very ſame Doctrines, Errours, Scarrs, Blemiſhes. The reaſon of the different appellation of them in the Fathers is, in that they would not ſeeme to breake with the Fathers, or to be of a ſeuerall Church from them; whereas they call the ſame Doctrines in vs, by the former aggrauating tearmes; to imply to their followers, that we Catholicks (as ſuppoſed by them to profeſſe Superſtition, Idolatry, Blaſphemies, &c.) are not of the true Church of Chriſt. By this you may diſcerne the Proteſtants, both Malice, and Subtilty.

21. You muſt be wary to obſerue, and diſtinguiſh, when a Father writeth doctrinally, and ſententially (ex profeſſo) of any ſubiect, from that, which he writeth Antagoniſticè, and in heate of diſpute with his Aduerſary, touching the ſaid ſubiect: ſince in the firſt kind his poſitiue, and true iudgment is clearely ſet downe, and for ſuch his authority (thence deduced) is to be embraced: Whereas in this later kind, he often diſputeth, ad perſonam; and ſo ſome-times (either through vehemency, or for his greater preſent aduantage) writeth more looſely, and not ſo reſeruedly, as the Catholicke doctrine in that point requireth. According hereto, ſome of the ancient Fathers, writing againſt Pelagius, and his ſect (who aſcribed ouer much to Free-will) did not (perhaps) ſo fully diſpute in defence of the Catholicke Doctrine of Free-will, as they might haue donne. This courſe they tooke (of which the Proteſtants make aduantage) that thereby they might the more eaſily conuince their Aduerſaries Hereſy, reſting ſo much on the contrary ſide.

22. In like ſort, the Fathers ſome-times perhaps in a Rhetoricall, and amplifying manner, do vſe certaine tranſcendent ſpeaches (as alſo ſome more moderne Catholicks haue donne) in praiſe of our Bleſſed Lady, or in honour of the Croſſe, or the like; then being taken literally, can well be iuſtified. But they were the more bold to do, becauſe they (as then hauing no Aduerſaries to their Catholicke Doctrines in thoſe points) might reſt aſſured, that their wordes would be taken in that pious ſence (and no other) wherein they deliuered them. But if they had foreknowne, that there would haue come in after times ſuch ſectaries, who would ſo rigidly, and literally inſiſt in all ſuch their ſentences, peruſing euery word, and ſillable of them, and racking them to the worſt conſtruction (as now the Proteſtants do) they would) no doubt) haue writen more reſeruedly, and cautelouſly of thoſe points. But little did they thinke, that any ſucceeding Men, (profeſſing themſelues to be Chriſtians) would euer ſo vncharitably) haue detorted their words, from their intended ſence.

23. Touching the Notes of the Church of Chriſt, preſcribed by the Proteſtants; which are the true preaching of the Word, and a right adminiſtration of the Sacraments; you muſt here know, that theſe Notes are ſet downe by them for two reſpects, and with great ſubtilty: The one is, to auoid our Catholicke Notes of Antiquity, Viſibility, Succeſſion &c. which notes they foreſee, cannot be iuſtified of their owne Proteſtant Church: The ſecond, and more principall reaſon of this their proceeding is, that here by they may reduce the proouing, which is the true Church, to their owne priuate ſpirit, and iudgment; becauſe themſelues will be Vmpiers, and Iudges (not admitting any other mens cenſures therein) when, and where the VVord is truly preached, and the Sacraments rightly adminiſtred: So ſubtle (you ſee) is Noueliſme in Faith for the patronage of it ſelfe.

24. Striue to be more conuerſant, and ready (if ſo your oportunity, and occaſions will not ſuffer you, to be ready in all) in ſuch Controuerſies, which conſ •• in practiſe; as about Praying to Saints, Indulgences, Worſhiping of Images, Adoration of the Bleſſed Sacrament, Communion vnder one kinde &c. then in others, which reſt only in beleife, and ſpeculation. Seeing the vulgar Proteſtant with whom you are (in likelihood) much to conuerſe, ſooneſt taketh exception againſt thoſe former, and will expect greater ſatisfaction in them; becauſe they being ſubicct to the ſenſe, (in regard of their daily practiſe) come neareſt within their Capacity; and are by them often charged (through the calumny of their cheife Maiſters, abuſing their credulity) with many ſuppoſed abuſes.

25. Touching thoſe Articles, or Cōtrouerſies, which chiefly reſt in ſpeculation, be well traueled in the queſtion touching the Infallibility of Gods Chureh, s alſo in that other queſtion, that the Scripture (without the Churches atteſtation) cannot prooue it ſelfe to be ſcripture; and that all points of beleife do not receiue their proofe from ſcripture alone; ſeeing that theſe two potētially include in themſelues moſt of all other Cōtrouerſies. Alſo be moſt ready in the queſtion touching the continuall Viſibility of the Proteſtants Church (ſeeing the Proteſtants muſt grant their Church to haue beene euer viſible, if they will auerre it to be the true Church of Chriſt,) &, Micheas, if euer you diſpute with any Proteſtant, I could wiſh, if ſo the liberty of choicely on your part, & that you afore-hand well furniſh, & arme your ſelfe to that end; that you would make electiō to diſpute of this point; for if you be well experienced therein, you ſhall mightely confound your Aduerſary; he not being able (euen by his owne Brethrens confeſſions) to inſtance (for many Centuries, and ages together) ſo much, as the being of one Proteſtant.

Thus farre (Micheas) of ſuch obſeruations breifly and plainly deliuered, without applying moſt of them to any particular ſubiect; wherewith it is conuenient you ſhould be inſtructed, before you enter into any conflict with any Proteſtant, diuers others may be adioyned to theſe, but that I am afraid, I ſhould tyre you with a weariſome repetitiō of them; and your owne experience hereafter will beſt direct you in ſuch animaduerſions.

MICHEAS

My Lord Cardinall I do much priſe theſe your inſtructions; moſt of them ſeruing, as ſo many loopeholes, through which we may eſpy the ſubtle approach of the Enemy; or rather as ſo many Counter-murs to withſtand his ſecret molitions (b) Vi g. A nea . and attempts: (i) Dolus an virtus, quis in hoſte requirat? And though theſe your premonitions (or rather premunitions, ſince by them I may be fore-armed againſt the aſſault of the aduerſary) be now but generally ſet downe, without any particular application (as your Lordſhip ſaith) yet hereafter I will incorporate them in ſuch points, or paſſages of diſpute, as iuſt oportunity, and occaſion may preſent.

And here according to your Lordſhips deſire, I will labour in thoſe Controuerſies, conſiſting cheifly in practiſe, by you ſpecified; and I will alſo moſt painefully, and elaborately furniſh my ſelfe with reading, touching the queſtion of the viſibility of the Proteſtants Church. The which queſtion, I do promiſe your Lordſhip (according as you wiſhed me) ſhalbe the ſubiect of my next diſcourſe, whenſoeuer my fortune ſhalbe to conteſt with any learned Proteſtant; for this point being well, and throughly proſecuted, I hold it moſt choaking, and mortall to the aduerſary, as your Lordſhip aboue did affirme.

But now my Lord, the time is farre ſpent, and I feare, I haue detained you ouer long in theſe your learned diſcourſes. And now I confeſſe, I thinke it long, till I haue receiued the Sacrament of Baptiſme, which ſhall Waſh away in me all ſpots, and filth, both of Originall, and Actuall ſinne; referring my taking of Prieſthood to ſuch oportunity, and ſeaſon, as you in your owne wiſedome ſhall hold conuenient.

CARD. BELLARM.

Micheas, as concerning your intended implanting in Chriſts Church by Baptiſme, your deſire thereof I much commend; ſeeing in things of this nature, to will to do well, is a doing well. For your actuall Baptiſing (whereby you ſhall ceaſe to be deſcended, from the loines of your firſt Parent) know you, that we are at this preſent in that Holy-weeke, in which the Redeemer of the world was by the Iewes crucified; a time (among ſome other ſeaſons of the yeare) appointed by the Catholicke Church, for the baptiſing of ſuch Iewes, as through Gods infinite Grace are conuerted to the Faith of Chriſt. If therefore it pleaſe you, to morrow to repaire to the Cathedrall Church of this Citty, you ſhall finde me there, prepared to miniſter to you (according to your requeſt) the Sacrament of Baptiſme, with all it Chriſtian rites, and Ceremonies. And after in conuenient, and fitting time, I will conferre vpon you the holy Order of Prieſthood.

MICHEAS.

My Lord Cardinall, till then I will take leaue of you, acknowledging my ſelfe to be your Lordſhips in all obſeruancy; and wilbe ready (with the aſſiſtance of the higheſt) at the place appointed, to expect that happy houre.

FINIS. GOD SAVE THE KING.
THE CONCLVSION

HEre (Learned Academians) endeth our firſt Dialogue; where you are to ſuppoſe, that according to their former intended meetinge the next day, Micheas is Baptiſed by the Cardinall (who being thereby, in Tertulliā de Pudicitia Chriſtum tinctus, induit Chriſtum) and within ſome ſhort time after, he receiueth the holy function of Prieſthood, by the impoſition of the hands of the ſaid Cardinall. What is feigned to haue happened to Micheas after his departure from the Cardinall, the two ſubſequent Dialogues will diſcouer

Touching the precedent ſubiect of this firſt Dialogue if it pleaſe you but to fanne, and ſeuer away, what is fictitious, and imaginary therein, from what is true, and warranted with many proofs, you ſhall finde, (I hope) that the arguments produced, are of ſufficient weight, to ſway any mans iudgments, (not drunken with preiudice of Opinion) to acknowledg that to this day, there was neuer any change yet made in the Church of Rome, ſo much, as in one dogmaticall Article of Faith, or point of importance, (which is the matter here in queſtion) and that therefore the Proteſtants inconſiderate malignity is hereby the more diſcouered; who ſo frequētly traduce, and conuiciate that Church, as the whore of Babilon; which we Catholicks do vndertake (euen with an expugnable confidence) to Prooue, that ſhe is the intemerate, and chaſte ſpouſe of Chriſt: ſo certaine it is, that theſe Men Act. 13. ceaſe not to peruert the ſtraight waies of the Lord.

Now my Concluſion (Vvorthy Men) ſhall chiefly reſt in a true, and reall retorting of that vpon our Aduerſaries which doctour VVhitakers, and other Proteſtants do falſly obtrude vpon our Church: ſo ſhall the accuſer reſt chargeable with the accuſation, and the accuſed become aſſoiled, and freed. My meaning is, I will briefly here ſhew, that it is the Proteſtant Faith, and Religion, which hath made a manifeſt change, and alteration from that Faith, and Religion, which the Church of Rome ſucked from the breaſts of her firſt inſtructours; howſoeuer the Proteſtants labour (by all wit, and other meanes) to cloath their Innouations in the faire attire of a reuerend and regardable Priority of being.

I will inſiſt in the chiefeſt articles mantained at this preſent by the Proteſtants, and will ſet downe the maine circumſtances, neceſſarily attending (as aboue is made playne) euery change in Religion: To wit, the Doctrine, which is newly broached; the Perſon, by whom it was firſt taught; the Impoſition of a new name (for the moſt part) vpon the beleeuers of that doctrine, drawne from the firſt Authour; in whō all his followers were originally contained, as the branches of a tree are vertually in the roote: The time, when euery ſuch Proteſtant Article was firſt anciently introduced: The Perſons by whō thoſe Articles were at their firſt beginning impugned: And finally the Church, or viſible ſociety of Chriſtians, out of which (as more ancient) thoſe ſectaries (by their firſt forging of their ſaid points of Proteſtancy) did depart, and go from.

And to beginne. The Doctrine of the Churches Inuiſibility was firſt taught by Donatus, and of him his followers were called Donatiſts. This Hereſie at it firſt riſing, was written againſt, and impugned by S. Lib. de vnitate Eccleſiae c. 12. Auguſtine. In like ſort, the Donatiſts, were the firſt, who did ouerthrow Altars, and caſt out holy Oile; but contradicted herein by Lib. 2. et 6. contra Pa 〈…〉 . Optatus and Lib. 2 contra Petilia •• rat. 51. et 61. Auguſtine. The deniall of praier for the dead (and conſequently the deniall of the doctrine of Purgatory) as alſo the abrogation of all ſet Faſts, were firſt brought in by Aerius: his followers, for ſuch his doctrines ſtiled: Aëriani. Theſe his falſe doctrines were recorded, and contradicted, by S. Haereſ. c. 33. Auguſtine. The deniall of Free-will was ſet on foote by Manicheus; from him are deſcended the Manichees. His doctrine herein was writen againſt by In raeſat. dialogorum contra Pelagianos. S. Hierome, and Haereſ. cap. 46. S. Auguſtine.

The deniall of ſingle, and vnmarried life was firſt taught by Vigilantius. He alſo taught, that the praiers of the dead are not heard for the liuing; and conſequently he taught, that we ought not to pray to Saints. His ſchollers tearmed Vigilantinians. His doctrines impugned by Lib. contra Vigilanti •• c. 2. Hierome.

Equallity of Works was firſt taught by Iouinian; He alſo broached the Hereſie, that our Bleſſed Lady in the birth of our Sauiour loſt her Virginity. His followers, Iouiniani. His Hereſies exploded by Lib. 1. et 2. contra Iouinianum. Hierome, and Lib. de haereſ. c. 82. Auguſtine.

The doctrine, that all Sinnes are mortall, was firſt ſtamped by Pelagius. He further taught, that the Baptiſme of children was not neceſſary. The firſts of theſe his doctrines was writen againſt by Lib. 2. cotra Pelagianum. S. Hierome; the ſecond by In Re ſcripto ad M l ui ••••• Concilium poſt 〈◊〉 . Innocentius, and Hae •• 88. S. Auguſtine, his followers Pelagiani.

The deniall of all worſhip due to the Images of Chriſt, and his Saints, was firſt introduced by Zena as Perſa; who is therefore recorded, and contradicted by Lib. 26. cap. 27. Nic phorus.

The doctrine that God is the authour of Sinne (which neceſſarily followeth, by taking away Free-will from Man) was firſt ſowed by Simon Magus; but impugned by Aduerſ. haereſ. poſt med. Vincentius yrinenſis.

The deniall of enioyned times of Pennance was firſt taught by the Hereticks called Audiani, and contradicted by L. 4. •• er. 〈…〉 . Theodoret. The deniall of the Poſſibility of keeping the Commendeme s was firſt broached by certaine Hereticks in S. Hieroms time and impugned by In explanat. ſymboli ad Damasū. Hierom and De temporeſerm. 91 Auguſti •• .

The deniall of all reuerent eſtimation particulerly to the Croſſe, or Crucifix of Chriſt, was firſt inuented by Probianus; and he recorded, and reprehended therefore, in Lib 2. cap. 19. the Tripartite Hiſtory.

The deniall of the Reall Preſence was firſt mantained, by certaine Hereticks in S. Ignatius his time, as Dialog. 3. Theodoret relateth, and condemneth them for the ſame.

The deniall of Prieſts hauing power to remit ſinnes, was firſt iuſtified by Nouatus; his ſchollers were called Nouatiani; his Hereſie recorded, and condemned by Lib. 3. de Haereti . fabulis. Theodoret, and Lib. 6. hiſtor. c. 33. Euſebius.

Finally, to omit diuers other Proteſtant doctrines, for greater breuity; the doctrine teaching, that ſinne could not hurt a man, if ſo he had faith (a Paradox reuiued by Lut . In his ſermōs en liſhed. p. 147. et 276. &c. Luther) was firſt inuented by Eunomius, but impugned by Lib. de Haereſ. c. 54. S. Auguſtine: his ſchollers ſtiled Eunomiani.

Thus farre of Proteſtant doctrines broached by certaine impious Hereticks in thoſe former times; who though they be long ſince departed this world; yet their miſery is, that their end cannot be reputed their end, nor their death; ſince in regard of this their change of faith, and innouations introduced by them into Gods Church, they doubtleſly liue (if they had not a finall repentance) in a perpetuity of inſufferable tormēts.

Now concerning the times, when all theſe former points of Proteſtancy did firſt take their being; this Circumſtance (for the moſt part) may be taken from the times, wherein the Fathers (who did impugne, and write againſt the ſaid doctrines) did liue; ſeeing no ſooner any of the ſaid doctrines began to riſe, and get on wing; but preſently one Father, or other was ready (by his penne) to ſuppreſſe, and beat downe the ſame. And thus we finde that ſentence moſt true; to wit, To Vincent. Lyrinenſis cōtra haereſ. reduce an Hereſie to it beginning, is a confutation of the ſaid Hereſie.

That all theſe former prime Hereticks did depart, and go out of a more ancient ſociety of Chriſtians, then themſelues (to wit, out of the then viſible, and knowne ſociety of vs Catholicks, in thoſe times) according to thoſe words of S. Iohn exierunt 1. Ioan 2. ex nobis; and conſequently, that it was thoſe Hereticks (who by drawing to themſelues, the impurity of the former errours, became the channels (as I may ſay) of the Church, cleanſing, and freeing her, from all filth, and ordure of I 〈…〉 ouation) who made the change, and alteration, is p ooued ſeuerall waies. Firſt, becauſe it appeareth from the aboue alleadged Confeſſions of the learned Proteſtants, that our Catholicke Faith was the only faith in thoſe ages, generally beleeued, and that the Proteſtant Church (ſuppoſing that afore it had beene in Being) was as then by their like Confeſſions, wholy extinct, and inuiſible.

Secondly, the foreſaid points of the former Hereticks departing from a more ancient community of Chriſtians; is further euicted, from the Fathers particuler charging this, or that Hereticke, with this, or that particuler Hereſy only, for if either any, or all of them had ioyntly taught all the Articles of proteſtancy (at this preſent beleeued) then no doubt all the ſaid Articles of proteſtancy, as then mantained by one man, had beene impugned, and writen againſt by the ſaid Fathers, as well, as the particuler Hereſies of this, or that particuler Hereticke are by them contradicted.

Thirdly, in that the Fathers, who condemned the foreſa d Hereticks, were euer reputed moſt Orthodoxall, and pious Doctours, neither were they reprehended by any other Father, of Gods Church, for ſuch their proceeding againſt thoſe Hereticks, which conſideration demonſtrateth, that the whole Church of God did in thoſe times agree in faith, and Religion with thoſe Fathers, and againſt the aboue condemned, and nouelizing Hereticks: from whence we may further conclude, that the whole Church of Chriſt (which hath authority to diſcerne, both true, and falſe doctrine; as a ſtraight line me ſureth both a right, and crooked line) did by the former Fathers (as by her inſtruments) condemne thoſe Men for broaching ſuch their Hereſies. Fourthly, and laſtly, (for acceſſion of more reaſons) the former point appeareth, from the conſideration of the Nature of the former Hereſies; which ſeeing they, for the moſt part cōſiſt in Negations, (as the deniall of Free-Will, deniall of Purgatory, deniall of the Reall Preſence &c.) do therefore preſuppoſe a preexiſtency of the Affirmatiue doctrines, whereof they are meerely Negations: I meane they preadmit a former beleefe of the ſaid doctrines of Free-will, of Purgatory, of the Reall Preſence &c. For why ſhould any Sectarie in thoſe daies, riſe vp to deny any of the ſaid doctrines, if thoſe doctrines had not beene afore beleeued? From which it euidently followeth, that the Profeſſours of the affirmatiue doctrines were that ſociety of Chriſtians, out of which (as more ancient) the former Hereticks originally departed, and went out. And with this (moſt remarkeable Men) I end, remitting to your owne cleare eyed iudgmēts (now after the peruſing of this ſmale Treatiſe) whether it was the preſent Church of Rome, or the Proteſtant Church, which hath made this ſo much inculcated change, and alteration from that Faith, which firſt was preached, and taught in the ſayd Church of Rome, by the Apoſtles.

Laus Deo et Beatae Virgini Mariae.

THE SECOND PART OF THE CONVERTED IEVV OR THE SECOND DIALOGVE OF MICHAEAS THE IEW

Betweene. Michaeas the former Conuerted Iew. Ochinus, who firſt planted Proteſtancy in England, in King Edward the ſixt his raygne. Doctour Reynolds of Oxford. Neuſerus cheife Paſtour of Heidelberge, in the Palatinate.

The Contents hereof the Argument following will ſhow.

Here is adioyned an Appendix, wherin is taken a ſhort Suruey (contayning a full Anſwere) of a Pamphlet intituled: A Treatiſe of the Viſibility, and Succeſſion of the True Church in all ages. Printed Anno. 1624.

Si dixerint vobis: Ecce in deſerto eſt nolite exire; Ecce in Penetralibus; no •• e credere.

Math. 24.

PERMISSV SVPERIORVM. Anno. M. DC. XXX.

THE ARGVMENT.

MICHAEAS, after the Diſputation had betweene Cardinall Bellarmine, and D. Whitakers, touching Romes chang in Religion; (through which he was firſt made Catholicke and in ſhort tyme after made Prieſt.) trauelleth into many Countries, to ſee their Vniuerſities, and places of learning. At the length he arriueth in England; where from viſiting of Cambridg, he cometh to Oxford. Then he findeth D. Reynolds, Ochinus, and Neuſerus. They mooue him to become Proteſtant. He anſwereth, that the want of performace of the Prophecies, touching the Viſibility of Chriſts Church, in the Proteſtant Church, induceth him beſides other reaſons to continue Catholicke. Hereupon they all begin a Diſputation touching the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, for former ages; prefixing therto (by mutuall conſent) a ſhort Diſcourſe of the Neceſſity of a continuall Viſibility of the true Church. Michaeas ſo fully diſplayeth the inſufficiency of the pretended Inſtances of Proteſtants, and of all other Arguments vrged for proofe thereof, That inſteed, of Michaeas being to be made a Proteſtant by this Diſputation; Ochinus, and Neuſerus, as not acknowledging the preſent Roman Church to be the true Church, and ſeing the Prophecies, not to be fulfilled in the Proteſtant Church, do finally come to this point, to wit, abſolutely, and openly to affirme, that the Church of Chriſt (as not hauing the Prophecies accompliſhed in it, which were foretould to be performed in the true Church of God touching it Viſibilitie) is a falſe Church, and that our Sauiour Chriſt was a Seducer. Hereupon they both proteſt, that, from that tyme forward they do renounce the Chriſtiā fayth, and do embrace the Iewiſh Religion; and ſo teaching Circumciſion, and reuiuing the Old law, they do turne blaſphemous Iewes or Turks. Michaeas and D. Reynolds do vſe vehement perſwaſions to them, to the contrary; but their words preuayle not; and ſo the diſputatiō breaketh off. What courſes Ochinus and Neuſerus do after take for their ſpreading of Iudaiſme, is hereafter ſet downe: And all the paſſages of their Reuolt are manifeſted, partly out of their owne wrytings, and partly from the acknowledgment of diuers learned Proteſtants: ſo as their Apoſtacy is not feigned, but true and reall.

THE SECOND PART OF THE CONVERTED IEW WHEREIN IS DEMONSTRATED; that the Proteſtant Church hath euer remayned Inuiſible; or rather hath not bene in Being, ſince the Apoſtles daies, till Luthers reuolt. DOCTOVR REYNOLDS.

MICHAEAS, God ſaue you, I much reioyce to ſee you here in England; And I congratulate your coming to this our Vniuerſity of Oxford: I haue often heard of you through occaſion of your former entercourſe of diſputes with my Brother D. Whitakers; though it was neuer my fortune to ſee you before this preſent.

MICHAEAS.

I greatly thanke you M. Doctour, for this your kindneſſe touching my coming hither; you may know, that ſince my laſt ſeeing of D. Whitakers, I haue paſſed through diuers Countries, and Nations, moued thereunto (notwithſtanding my greate age) through my owne innate deſire of ſeeing places and Vniuerſitis of erudition, and learning. Now at the laſt, I am arriued in England, and am immediatly comne frō viſiting the Vniuerſity of Cambridge: a place in my iudgment, much exceeding all prayſes heretofore deliuered of it. But may I make bolde to enquire of you, who thoſe two gentlemen here preſent, are; whoſe externall comportments do euen depoſe, that their mindes are fayrely enriched with many Intellectuall good parts; for it is certaine, that a mans outward cariadge is commonly the true ſhadow of the minde, caſt by the light of the inward ſoule.

DOCTOVR REYNOLDS

You haue coniectured aright. For both theſe are men of great eminēcy for learuing. The elder of thē is called Ochinus, who being accompained with the learned Peter Martyr, did in King Edward the ſixts tyme firſt Oſiander Cet. 16. l. 2. c. 67. p. 423. Hoc tempore, Eccleſiae in Anglia ad formā Cal 〈…〉 ſticam, opera Petri Martyris Florentini, & Bernardi Ochini Senenſis reforma ae ſunt. And Symlerus (a Proteſtāt) in his booke de vita & obit. Petri Martyris fol. 13. Petrus Martyr ab Archiepiſcopo Cantuarienſi de voluntate Regis vocatus eſt; itaque Argentinâ in Angliam diſceſſit, comitante eum Bernardo Ochino, qui & ipſe ab eodem Archiepiſcopo vocatus eſt, plant in England the doctrine of Caluin, after the Romiſh Religion was once aboliſhed: One, whoſe preſence in thoſe dayes made Englād happie, whoſe after Bale in praeſat. in Act. Rom. Pontif. printed 1558 ſayth of Ochinus and Peter Martyr: Faelix Anglia dum haec paria habuit; miſera dum amiſit. abſence made it Vnfortunate; & whom all So ſayth Caluin of Ochinus in theſe words: quos Itali Bernardino Ochi o & Petro Vermilio opponent? l. de ſcandalis (extant) in his tract. Theolog. printed 1597. pag. 111. Italy (for he is an Italian) could not equall. This other is Neuſerus, the chiefe Paſtour Con adus Sluſſenberge in Theolog. Caluin. l. 1. Art. 2 calleth Neuſerus, He 〈…〉 ergenſis Eccleſiae primarius Paſtor. of Heidelberge in the Palatinate: a man whō Nature, & his owne Induſtrie haue not placed in any lower roome of knowledge; for he is tranſcendently learned, and hath much labored in dilating the Ghoſpel of Chriſt. Both theſe men are reciding here for the time, by reaſon of ſome late emergent occations, and buſineſſe, tending to the aduancement of Chriſts Church. I could wiſh Michaeas, you were acquainted with them.

MICHAEAS.

Gentlemen. I greete you both in the ſalutation of the chiefe Apoſtle: 1. Petri. 1. gratia vobis, & pax multiplicetur. And I am glad, that I am comne to that place, where the very wals, and ſtreets (in regard of ſuch mens preſence) do euen Eccho forth learning and all good literature.

OCHINVS.

Worthy Michaeas (for ſo I heare you called) I willingly entertayne your acquaintance; for learning I prize highly in any man, as holding it the chiefeſt riches (next to true Religion) wherewith the vnderſtanding is endowed.

NEVSERVS.

And I as happily do congratulate your arriuall here; for what company of men are more to be eſteemed, then the Society of learned Men, where themſelues (though few in number) are a ſufficient Auditory to themſelues; Satis magnum alteri alter theatrum: they interchangeably giuing, and receiuing all content by their leatned diſcourſes?

DOCTOVR REYNOLDS.

Haue you had (Michaeas) a full ſight of our Vniuerſity, & Colledges? If not; we are ready to accompany you, throughout all the chiefe places thereof.

MICHAEAS.

I haue already ſeene them all; and particularly your late erected ſchooles, (wherin are dayly ventilated all queſtions, worthy the iudiceous eares of Schollers) and your ſpatious liberary the very treaſury, or ſtorehouſe of the Muſes. And I muſt confeſſe, that during my long trauell, and perluſtration of all Chriſtendome, my eyes neuer beheld ſuch two fayre places deſigned for Nurſes of learning, as Oxford & Cambridge are; the very honor, and glory of your Nation. For where are thete ſuch healthfull, and pleaſant ſeates for Vniuerſityes both being placed in a Triangle from the chiefe Citty of the realme? Such magnificent, and ſtately buildings, and Colledges fitting to be pallaces to ſo many Princes? Such opulency of reuenews, and rich endowments, appropriated vnto them for the education of poore ſchollers? Finally ſuch pious ſtatutes, Ordinances, and Decrees, left by their Founders for the aduancement of vertue, and learning? All this is not to be matched (I aſſure my ſelfe) throughout the whole Circumference of the earth. Only the defect, and griefe is, that the Vniuerſityes, & their liuings, being firſt inſtituted, & giuen by Catholicke Founders, and for the propagation of the Catholicke Religion) for; from them, as from two mayne ſources, and welſprings, by the conduits of particuler Mens labors, the whole land (touching ſayth) did receiue its watering) are now moſt repugnantly from the firſt Erectors intention, turned to the depreſſing, and ouerthrow of the ſayd Catholicke Religion: matter to be deliuered in Threnes, or Elegyes, and Accents of lamentation, and complaint. And ſuch as the Vniuerſityes are, ſo are the ſtudents; many of them (euen by my owne tryall) of eleuated wits; of tranſpearcing iudgments; moſt skilfull in the learned tongues; fraught with all choyſnes of good letters; and finally of a candide ingenuity in their comportments.

D. REYNOLDS.

Though reports do often multiply, and become greater in their owne agitation; yet your prayſes of our Academies I take for no amplification of ſpeeches, but (if credit may be giuen to many great trauellers) for poſitiue, and meaſured truths. They both are two Siſters, linked in the bond of ſo inuiolable a friendſhip, and aſſociation, as that they may be well tearmed: Oxonium Cantabrigienſe, and Cantabrigia Oxonienſis. Yet the elder of theſe two is Oxford; And ſince I am a Sonne of her, I could haue wiſhed, I had met with you before your Conference had with D. Whitakers, a Branch of Cambridge, and otherwiſe a Man of great talents, and parts. For I ſhould haue hoped, that as Oxford is the elder Siſter, ſo from a member of the elder Siſter, you ſhould haue receyued greater ſatisfaction in the light of the Ghoſpell; then both by relation of others, and now by your owne ouertures, you haue.

That Oxford is the elder Siſter (and therein hath her preeminence of her primogeniture) we eaſely prooue; for we deduce the firſt occaſion of our Vniuerſity (though not the plantation) euen from the tyme Se Polidor Virgil, and Leyland his Annotations vpon Polidor Virgil. of Brutus; who, when he came into this Iland, was accompanyed with diuers learned Greeke Philoſophers, who made choiſe of a place neere to Oxford, to ſeate themſelues in, as a place moſt pleaſant, and fitting for ſpeculation, and ſtudy. After which tymes, Alphredus (yongeſt Sonne of Ethelwolpe King of the Weſt-ſaxons, about the yeare of the Incarnation. 873. (himſelfe being after King) did tranſlate thoſe ſcholes of the greeke Philoſophers (which afore had ſuffred diſhonour, and contempt) to Oxford; And then with Immunityes, liuings, and buildings, he gaue the firſt foundation to our Vniuerſity.

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour. I am no Herauld to diſcuſſe or proclayme Antiquityes. And I know not whether of theſe two Siſters be more ancient; yet in that I will not be vngratefull vnto Cambridge, for my late kinde entertaynment, I will not conceale, what my Memory can truly yeild vnto, concerning the Antiquity of Cambridge, diſcourſed off by ſome of that Vniuerſity. They Vide authorem Genealogiae principum Cambrorū, Brilannicorum & Saxonicorum. As alſo Cadnaeus de aduent lulij Caeſaris. ſayd, that Cantaber, who was Sonne of one of the Kings of Spayne, coming into England before the Incarnation of our Lord and Sauiour, 394. yeares, and marying a daughter of Gurguntius, King of the Britons, gaue firſt plantation, and Name to their Vniuerſity; and cauſed it to be frequented with Philoſophers, and other learned men. Now of what credit both your Antiquities are, I know not; if the one hath the prerogatiue in Antiquity: the other enioyeth it in ſtatelineſſe of buyldings. But howſoeuer theſe matters be, they are both moſt celebrious, and renowned Seminaryes of learning, and not drouping Academyes, as ſome are in other Countreyes. Seing it is your pleaſure (M. Doctour) thus to entertayne diſcourſe touching theſe famous places, I will acquaint you with two things, which ſince my firſt ſeeing of them I haue obſerued. One is, that not only euery Colledge in it library, but diuers Studens in ech Colledge, haue in their ſtudyes many Catholicke wryters and particulerly the ſo much much celebrated works of Bellarmyne, fayrely bound vp, and well ſtringed: But I feare, they are there placed rather for a compleate furniſhing of their Libraryes, then for any great vſe of reading them; And ſo the benefit by them is no more then if a patient ſending for pills to the Phyſitian, ſhould neuer take them, but let them lye in his chamber window.

D. REYNOLDS.

It is farre otherwiſe; for all thoſe bookes mentioned, are much read by many of vs: And Bellarmynes arguments are refuted in our weekly Sermons, as occaſion is incidently miniſtred from the Text. And my ſelfe particulerly haue publikely read in yonder greate Diuinity Schoole, that you ſee, as alſo haue writen againſt him.

MICHAEAS.

I know your ſelfe are learned, & withall I know you haue not only writen, but alſo read in confuting of him; as a neere acquaintance of myne, who was an earewitneſſe of your lectures, hath tould me. But as for others, who in their Sermons (euen obtorto collo) will needes hale Bellarmyne in, I am halfe perſwaded, they do it with the like policy, which ſome men liuing about great Townes, and willing to get the reputation of valour, are accuſtomed to do; that is, they purpoſely quarell (thereby to be ſpoken of for their courage) with ſome one, or other chiefe profeſſed Hacſter, or Swaſhbukler.

D. REYNOLDS.

O Michaeas. Your cenſure is ouer vncharitable. It is the deſire of hauing, the Truth tryed, which prouokes our Deuynes in their Sermons to trace Bellarmyne; that ſo the ſchollers (their Auditours) may more eaſily declyne the obliquity of his pathes.

MICHAEAS.

I can not much blame you, to ſet the beſt glaſſe vpon your Brethrens actions: But this I muſt ſay, that thoſe Schollers of your Vniuerſiryes, which are of cleere vnderſtandings, not foreſtauled by badly preiudging of Catholicke Religion; but aboue all, hauing ſufficiency of temporall meanes, to ſupport their ſtates, and not expecting to riſe by Eccleſiaſticall liuings (the moſt dangerous Bayte of theſe tymes) muſt in all morall certainty fauour in their priuate iudgment the Catholicke partie, if ſo with diligence they peruſe the Cardinalls works, and other Catholicke writers But otherwiſe; it is a death, when a Man of ripe age, and well furniſhed with learning, is brought through want of meanes to ſay: O how muſt I liue? The Roman Religion (I ſee) threatneth pouerty, diſgrace, and perhapps the rope too; the Proteſtant promiſeth reputation, honour, and riches. Then the Vnderſtanding, and the Will do eaſily partake together, to the betraying of the Soule, by entertaining an erroneous Religion; priuiledged with authority, ſeconded with the ſtreame of the tymes, and aduantaged through meanes of preferring: and here then that Sentence houldeth it force: As gold is tryed by the ſtone, ſo man by gold. But let me ſtay my ſelfe, I feare, I haue ſpoken ouerlowde, and the Schollers ouerhearing me out of their Colledge windows (being ſo neare to vs) may much blame this my Cenſure.

The ſecond thing I note (but pardon me (moſt floriſhing Academies,) I proteſt, I ſpeake with the Apoſtle, in 2. Cor. 6. charitate non ficta, and not in any vpbrayding ſenſe) is, that feminine Seruitours, as employed for ſeruyle vſes, haue an ouerfree acceſſe into the Colledges; a ſight moſt ſtrange in Catholicke vniuerſityes and (as Iam enformed) much diſliked by your owne Proteſtants. O where vigour of youth, Mansinnate propenſion, the preſent inuiting obiect, and the priuatnes of the place, do all conſpire together, what dangerous effects of this Nature, may they produce? And we all ſee, how apt the fyer is to take hould of any neare combuſtible mater. But I had almoſt forgotten my ſelfe therefore leauing theſe poynts, as meerly Perereà, or impertinēcyes, let vsdeſcend to ſome more ſerious diſcourſe. Touching my preſent fayth, whereat you glance, I grant, I was a Iew, both by byrth, and Religion, till by the infinite mercy of the Higheſt, and the charitable endeuour of that moſt Illuſtrious, and learned Cardinall in his diſputes with D. Whitakers, euen through waight of argument, I was forced to embrace the Catholicke Fayth; My Iudgement being till then, but as Plato his Baſatabula, propending indifferently to Catholicke, and Proteſtant; and ready to receiue the wryting, & Impreſſion of that Religion (whichſoeuer it ſhould be) that came preſented to myne eyes in the fayre attyre of venerable Antiquity.

OCHINVS.

I do much grieue (Michaeas) to ſee your candour, and integrity thus diſtayned with the aſperſion of ſuperſtition, and glad I ſhould be, to lend a hand for the pulling you out of the myre of your preſent errours.

NEVSERVS.

Doubtleſly (Michaeas) your choyce of Religion hath proceeded from an indigeſted, and raw cenſure, which you haue made of the paſſages of the former diſputation, by you mentioned: And therefore if you had gone with greater leaſure therein, your ſucceſſe had bene the more fortunate: But yet (h) Ioan. 11. your ſicknes is not vnto death; fot there is tyme for your cure: And ſince Grace, and Temptation are the ſeedes of the Holy Ghoſt, and the Diuell; embrace that offered vnto you by God, by ſhewing you the light of his Goſpell; and ouercome this, being the bayte of Antichriſt; and my ſeruiſeable labour ſhall no way be wanting to further ſo happy a change. And the more I commiſerate your preſent eſtate; you erring out of Ignorance, not out of malice: for we ſee, Saluation of your ſoule is the Circumference, within which all your thoughts are bounded.

MICHAEAS.

Gentlemen, I thanke you all, and do interpret your words in the ſame language, in which you did deliuer them; I meane, in the Dialect of your Charity, And I ſee, how ready your zeale is to take fyer vpon the leaſt occaſion of diſcourſe. Therefore aſſure your ſelues, I am not aſhamed of my fayth. I am a Roman Catholicke at leaſt, and through the grace of God (that working, and efficatious Grace, I meane, which is the ſtone, ſet in the Ring of Nature) I am reſolued ſo to liue, and dye. My reſolution is ſo inalterable herein, as that I truſt through him, who for his owne glory, and in his owne Cauſe, is euer ready to fortify the weake, that your ſtrongeſt aſſaults in diſpute (for I ſee, thither your ſpeeches tend) ſhall not be able to beate me off the Station of my preſent Profeſſion: And I am the more confident, in that with God, cauſes are heard to ſpeake, not Perſons.

And further you may reſt certifyed, that ſince the worthy Cardinals diſpute, with D. Whitakers, I haue ſpent my whole tyme in the ſtudy of the Controuerſies betweene the Catholicks, and the Proteſtants; and haue found diuers other moſt forcible inducements for my continuance in that fayth, of which already I haue made election: ſo certayne it is, that the great Motion of Religion (as it is newly entertayned by the iudgment) turneth vpon many wheeles; one ſtill mouing and ſeconding another.

D. REYNOLDS.

May we entreate of you, to ſhow what Reaſons are moſt preuayling, for your not incorporating your ſelfe within our Proteſtant Church?

MICHEAS.

M. Doctour I will. Beſides the Argument handled betweene the Cardinall and D. Whitakers, touching the ſuppoſed change of the fayth of Rome (which to me ſtill remaynes an vnauoydable Demonſtration) many other Reaſons are, and among the reſt, this oue: I find by my peruſall of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes, that the Proteſtant Church had it firſt being, & (as I may ſay) it Creation in the dayes of Luther (or rather after) then (and not before) coming out of an Abyſſe of Nothing Now what, warrant can I haue (after my leauing of the Iewiſh fayth, which is confeſſed to be the true fayth for ſeuerall thouſand yeares) to implant my ſelfe in that Society of Chriſtians, whoſe Church (my owne age being almoſt 70.) is not thirty yeares elder, then I am? The truth of which point is euicted, in that you are not able to inſtance the being of Proteſtants in any former Age. Now it is an inexpugnable verity, that the Church of Chriſt is euer, and in all ages to be moſt viſible in her members. Whereas on the contrary part ſome Proteſtants, well diſcerning the want in their Church of this ſo neceſſary a Viſibility, haue bene forced to forge in their mindes, a certayne imaginary, and Inuiſible Church; and teaching that it is not neceſſary, that the Church of Chriſt ſhould be at all tymes Viſible; but that it may, and often hath bene, not only inconſpicuous, and inglorious, but wholy latent, and vnknowne. But I feare I haue made an vnpleaſing, and ouer deepe inciſion in ſo dangerous a wound of your Church.

D. REYNOLDS.

See, how the ambuſhment of your owne Paſſions (I meane of preiudice and diſlike) betray your Iudgment. And ſee, how foulely euen in the beginning you are deceaued; and how one errour in your words inuolues in it ſelfe a ſecond errour. For firſt we are ready, and prepared at all tymes, to prooue by particuler, and moſt warrantable Inſtances, that there haue bene men in euery age ſince the Apoſtles, profeſſing our Proteſtant Religion: So farre off we are from acknowledging, that the riuers of our fayth firſt iſſued out of Luthers fountayne. Secondly, it is your miſtaking, to thinke that the learned Proteſtants (for what any Anonymous, and illiterate ſcribler may blot his paper with, by defending the contrary doctrine, we regard not) as acknowledging ſuch a defect of Proteſtants, do teach an inuiſibility of the Church of Chriſt, eſpecially after the tymes of the comming of the Meſſias. For all we concurrently maintayne, that the Profeſſours of the true fayth muſt at all tymes, without the leaſt interruption, be made knowne, and diſcernable; And we further iuſtify, that a want of ſuch a Viſibility deſtroyeth, and annihila eth the Church of God.

MICHAEAS.

But will theſe two learned Men conſpire with you (M. Doctour) in defending this euer neceſſary Viſibility of the Church; and this without any retyring backe herein, or leſſening, and mincing the poynt, once afore granted?

OCHINVS.

I ſpeake for my ſelfe. I am ſo confident therein, as that I am ready at this inſtant, to maintayne it agaynſt any; and this from the prophecyes of Gods ſacred writ, wherein the palme, and victorious ſtate of the Church (in ſubiugating to it the Gentils) is at large ſoretould to be in theſe after tymes, euer moſt illuſtrious, and radiant.

NEVSERVS.

And I as confidently do auerre the ſame, euen from the ſayd former deuine Oracles; and am prepared (if neede ſhould require) to ſolue all ſuch texts of Scripture, which in an ignorant, and miſtaking eye, may ſeeme to import an Inuiſibility of the Church at any tyme.

MICHAEAS.

You all anſwere me to my full content, and aboue my expectation. Well then, let vs eauen, and playne the way of our enſuing diſpute, by reſting vpon ſome one granted ground on all ſides. Which ground is the eſtabliſhment of the Churches Viſibility. For it being once preſumed, that the true Church of God muſt at all tymes enjoy this Viſibility; it then moſt conſequently followeth, that you are obliged, eyther to produce examples of Proteſtant Profeſſours, for euery age ſince Chriſt; or els to grant, that the Proteſtant Church is not the true Church, but a late erected Conuenticle. Therefore in regard hereof, I hould it fitting, that all of vs ſhould ioyne our forces together, for the proofe of this chiefe, and head principle of the Churches Viſibility: you then Ochinus (if it ſhall pleaſe you) may according to your former proffer, vndertake the probation of it from the Scripture. Neuſerus will (he ſayth) recconcile all ſuch chiefe ſeeming paſſages of the Scripture, as may make ſhow to euict the contrary. And I will entreate of you (M. Doctour) to fortify the ſayd Verity, from the learned Monuments of the auncient fathers (in whoſe wrytings (no doubt) you haue bene much conuerſant) as alſo from force of Reaſon. My ſelfe will laſtly reuet, and warrant the ſame point, from the often ingeminated acknowledgments of the moſt markable, & learned Proteſtants. In whoſe bookes (I confeſſe) I haue much trauelled, ſince my conuerſion from Iudaiſme; And whoſe authorities I ſhall haue often occaſion to produce throughout this conference. For now you may take notice, that I haue caſt off all my former outward comportment of a Iew, and am not only in fayth, but alſo in my ſtudyes, my Idiome of ſpeech, and euery way els, wholy Chriſtian.

D. REYNOLDS.

I like well your method here intended; and indeed it is that, which the Philoſophers call: Ordo Naturae. For by this meanes, we firſt handle the Theſis to wit, whether the Church of God is to be viſible, or no. That done, we next deſcend to the Hypotheſis; Which is, if the Proteſtants Church hath euer enioyed this Viſibility, or not. Neyther can any iudicious man hould this firſt part, as but certayne Prolegomena, tending only to the better vnfoulding of the ſecond Part; for it is indeed a primary eſſentiall, and radicall point, and firſt in all neceſſity to be diſcuſſed. For what auayleth it to prooue, that there haue bene Profeſſours of Proteſtancy in all ages ſince Chriſt, if it reſt doubtfull, whether the Church of Chriſt exacteth ſuch a neceſſity of it Profeſſours in all ages, or no? Therefore (Michaeas) for my part I w llingly vndergoe the taske deſired by you.

OCHINVS.

We all ioyne hands herein; Thus we ſee, that ech of vs is prepared to cary a ſtone, to the building of this fort; which being once erected, wilbe able to endure the ſhot of her greateſt Enemyes.

NEVSERVS.

I am moſt ready to performe my former aſſumed Scene: therefore delay no tyme, but begin.

OCHINVS.

Well then, ſeing the proofes drawne from the ſacred Scripture, are worthily euer to haue the firſt place; and ſeing I haue voluntarily impoſed this labour vpon my ſelfe, I will firſt begin. Now for the confirmation of this ſupreme Verity of the Churches Viſibility, we will produce our firſt proofes from thoſe Prophecyes, which foretell, that the Church after the cōming of the Meſſias ſhalbe miraculouſly multiplyed. Which extraordinary multiplicity of Profeſſours muſt needs imply a Viſibility of them. As where it is ſayd of the Church: The Iles Eſay. 60. ſhall wayte for thee. Their Kings ſhall miuiſter vnto thee; and thy gates ſhalbe continually open; Neyther day nor night ſhall they be ſhut; that men may bring to thee the riches of the gentills. And agayne: Kings Eſay. 49. ſhalbe thy nurſing Fathers, and Queenes thy mothers. And yet more: I will Pſalm. giue thee the Heathens for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy Poſſeſſion. And laſtly (to omit diuers others ſuch predictions of the Churches encreaſe, and amplitude, it is ſayd: enlarge Eſay. 54. See here of the contents of the Engliſh Bible vpō that chapter. the places of thy tents, ſpread out the curtaynes of thy habitation; for thou ſhalt encreaſe on the right hand, and on the left; thy ſeede ſhall poſſeſſe the Gentills; and inhabit the deſolate Cityes.

Now how can theſe Prophecyes, touching the enlargement of the Church, be truly applyed to that Church, which ſhall conſiſt of ſo few, as that it ſhalbe ſometimes abſolutely Inuiſible? Or how ſhall it gates be continually open, and ſhut neyther day nor night (as aboue is prophecyed of it) if it ſhall remayne at any time, in a night of Latency?

In this next place, I will alledge ſuch texts of holy Scripture, wherin we fynd the word: Eccleſia or Church; In all which (without exception) by the word: Church, is ſignifyed a viſible congregation of Men. The places (among others, for breuity omitted) may be theſe: Numbers 20. Why haue you brought the Church of the Lord into ſolitude? But this Church was the knowne, and viſible people of Iſraëll, which came out of Aegypt. In like ſort, it is ſayd. 3. Kings 8. The King turned his face, and bleſſed all the Church of Iſraell; for all the Church of Iſraell did ſtand &c. Math 18. Tell the Church, & if he will not heare the Church, let him be as an Heathen or Publican But how can we be commanded to tell the Church, if we do not know which is the Church? And if in all our ſpirituall neceſſities, we are commanded to repaire, to the Church, then followeth it, that the Church at all tymes muſt be viſible. Act. 20. Take heede to your ſelues, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghoſt hath placed you Biſhops, regere Eccleſiam Det, to gouerne the Church of God. But how could they gouerne the Church of God, if they knew it not? Act. 15. They being brought on the way by the Church, paſſed through Ph enice and Samaria. And agayne there: They were receaued of the Church, and the Apoſtles. Act. 18. Paule went vp, and ſaluted the Church. Now how can theſe texts be poſſibly applyed to any Inuiſible congregation or company of men. Furthermore, S. Paul ſpeaketh of himſelfe, that he perſecuted the Church of God, as in 1. Cor. 15. Galat. 1. Philipp. 3. In all which places the word: Church, is vſed: But it is well knowne, whom S. Paul did perſecute. And in 1. Timoth. 3. It is ſayd how to conuerſe indomo Dei, quae eſt Eccleſia Dei, in the houſe of the liuing God, which is the Church of God. But how could Timothee know, how to conuerſe in the houſe of God, except he did know, which was this houſe? To all which former texts of Scripture, I annex this one note (a point much to be conſidered) that not any one place of Scripture can be produced, wherein the word: Church, is named, but that a Viſible, and externall cō pany of men is neceſſarily vnderſtood thereby.

To the former Scriptures may be added certayne deſcriptions of the Church in other paſſages thereof; as in Eſay. 2. Daniel. 3. Michaeas 4. the Church is compared to a conſpicuous mountayne, which cannot be vnſeene, according to the expoſitions of Ierom, In hūc locum. Auſtin, ranct. 1. in epiſt. Ioannis. and the Proteſtants. See the marginall notes of the Engliſh bibles of anno. 1576. In Eſay. 2. In like ſort in Pſalm. 18. thoſe words: He placed his tabernacle in the Sunne: are thus paraphrazed by S. Tract. 2. in epiſt in Ioan. Auſtin: In manifeſto poſuit Eccleſiam ſuam &c. He placed his tabernacle in an open place; his tabernacle is his Church, which is placed in the Sunne, not in the night, but in the day. Thus Auſtin.

Another moſt illuſtrious & conuincing paſſag of the Scripture for the Churches Viſibility, is that in the Epiſtle to the Epheſians c. 4. where it is ſayd of Chriſt: He gaue Paſtours, & Doctours to the conſummation of Saints, vnto the worke of the Miniſtery, till we all meete in the Vnity of Fayth; that is (as D. Againſt the Rhemiſh Teſt. in Eph. 4. Fulke interpreteth) for euer. Theſe words neceſſarily import, that the Church of Chriſt muſt at all tymes, and ſeaſons (and this without any interruption) haue Paſtours to adminiſter the Sacraments, and preach the word. Which expoſition being granted, implyeth neceſſarily an euer Viſibility of the Church. For how can thoſe Doctours, and Paſtours preach at all tymes, and vpon all occaſions the word of God, & adminiſter the Sacraments, if they be concealed, and lye in ſecret? Or how can the perſons, to whom the Word is preached, & the Sacraments diſpenſed, become vnknowne or Inuiſible?

That this is the true interpretation of the former text of the Epheſians, is generally taught by our owne learned men: For according hereto, D. Whitakers teacheth, the preaching of the Word, and the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, to be ſo neceſſary to the Church, that he thus ſaith: Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 249. Si adſunt, Eccleſiam conſtituunt; & tollunt, ſi aufer antur. With whom conſpireth D. Willet, thus ſaying of the adminiſtratiō of the Word, & Sacraments: Theſe In Synops. Papiſin. p. 71. marks cannot be abſent from the Church, and it is no longer a true Church then it hath theſe Markes. And hēce it is, that D. Whitakers further ſayth, that the preaching of the word, and the adminiſtration of the Sacramēts are: Eccleſiae Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260. proprietates eſſentiales; eſſentiall propr etyes of the Church: And that D. Fulke thus affirmeth: Chriſt Againſt Heskins, Sanders &c p. 569. will ſuffer no particuler Church to continue without a ſeruāt to ouerſee it: And that, Fulke vbiſupra p. 536. Paſtours, & Doctours muſt be in the Church, till the end of the World, euen frō Chriſts time to Luthers age, yea our ſayd D. Fulke further affirmeth, that theſe (b) Paſtours, & Doctours muſt reſiſt all In his anſwere to a conterſayte Catholicke p. 11. falſe opinions, with open reprehenſion. Vnto our former brethren accord other Proteſtant Deuines, thus wryting: The Propoſitions and principles diſputed in the vniuer ily of Geneua p. 845. miniſtery is an oſſentiall Marke of the true Church. Finally Caluin comparteth with vs all herein: ſaying: the Church can neuer want Paſtours, and Doctours: So truly do we Proteſtants interpret the words of Eſay: Vpon thy C. 72. walls ô Ieruſalem, I haue ſet watchmen, all the day, and all the night for euer: they ſhall not be ſilent. Now from theſe premiſſes we demonſtraciuely proue the euer, and vninterrupted viſibility of the Church: a point ſo euident, that our owne learned Proteſtants do (according to the former doctrine) defyne a viſible Church in theſe words: A Iacob in his reaſons t ken out of Gods word p. 2 . viſible Church is a congregation of the faithfull people, where the word is preached, and the Sacraments miniſtred; Which definition is alſo allowed by Doctour In his Synopſ. p. 54. Willet; and which euen in reaſon it ſelfe is warrantable; ſince the Church, as enioying the adminiſtration of the Word, and Sacraments, muſt (euen in that reſpect) become viſible, as we ſaid aboue. And thus farre of this prophecy of the Apoſtle, in the explication whereof I haue ſtayed the longer, in that it irrefragably conuinceth the poynt now handled. And here I end, touching the neceſſary Viſibility of Gods Church, prooued out of the ſacred Scriptures.

NEVSERVS.

You might haue added (Ochinus) to the former Propheeyes, that it is in another place foretould of the Church of the new Teſtament, that it Paſtours Ierem. 33. ſhalbe daily multiplyed, to miniſter vnto God; And this (not with any interruption herein, but) euen Eſay. 66. from month to month, and from Sabaoth to Sabaoth. That all this is to be vnderſtood of the Church of the Meſſias, appeareth from the Annotations of the Engliſh Bibles, vpon the Chapters here cited, printed 1576. You alſo might further haue inſiſted in that other Prophecy; that the Kingdome Daniel. 2. of Chriſt ſhall not be giuen ouer to an other People, but ſhall ſtand for euer; And that, it Eſay. 0. ſhalbe an eternall glory, and ioy from generation to generation. All which paſſages to be meant of the Church, is acknowledged by all learned Proteſtants. Now how vntowardly, and vnapt y theſe paſſages (with the former by you alledged) ſort to a company of Profeſſours, ſhut vp in ſo ſecret a manner; as that no man can take notice of them, I referre to any mans iudgement, not wholy blinded with partiality, and preiudice. But I feare (Ochinus) I haue wronged you, in vndertaking part of your aſſumed taske: therefore I will ceaſe, and deſcend (as afore I promiſed) to anſwere ſuch chiefe places of the Scripture, as are by ſome vrged in their ſily wrytings (the impoſtumous ſwelling of their froathy penne) for the ſupporting of the Churches imaginary Inuiſibility.

D. REYNOLDS.

I pray you (Neuſerus) proceed therein; ſince obſcure paſſages in any kind of learning not explayned, do often ſuggeſt tacit obiections, perplexing, and intricating the iudgments of the weake, and ignorant.

NEVSERVS.

I will. And firſt for example, are vſually obiected thoſe of Elias, when he ſayd: relictus Reg. 〈◊〉 . ſum ſolus, I am left alone. As alſo, that ſentence of the Prophet: deficiet Daniel. 9. hoſtia, & ſacrificium, the Oaſt, and ſacrifice ſpall ceaſe. And agayne, that of the Apoſtle: Niſi 2. Th ſſ. 2. venerit diſceſſio primum &c. Except there come firſt a departure &c. And finally that of the Apocalyps: The 12. woman muſt flye into the wilderneſſe &c. All which places are ſtrangely de orted by ſome few iniudicious men, to the defence of the Churches Inuiſibility.

And to the firſt, againſt theſe Inuiſibiliſts, I ſay, touching thoſe former words of Elias; firſt admitting the Iewiſh Synagogue to haue bene then inuiſible; yet is this exāple defectiuely alleadged, as applyed to the Church of Chriſt; ſince the predictions, and promiſes made to Chriſt his Church, (whoſe Hebr . 4 . 8. Teſtament is eſtabliſhed in better promiſes) are farre greater, and more worthy, then thoſe of the Iewiſh Synagogue. Agayne, the foreſaid example doth not extend to the whole Church of God before Chriſt; but only to the Iewiſh Synagogue, being only, but a part, or member thereof. For beſides the Iewes, there were diuers others faythfull; as Melchiſadech, Cornelius, the Eunuch to the Queene of Caudace &c. Secondly, I ſay, this example maketh wholy agaynſt the alleadgers of it; ſince the words of Elias were ſpoken not generally of all the Iewiſh People, but only in regard of the Countrey of Iſrael; and accordingly God anſwered the complaint of Elias with reſtraint to that only Countrey, the texts ſaying: I haue left to me in Iſrael ſeauen thouſands, which haue not bowed vnto Ba l. Adde hereto, that in thoſe very tymes, the Church did greatly floriſh in the adioyning Countrey of Iuda, and was to Elias then knowne, and Viſible, vnder the raigne of Aſa, and Ioſaphat. And thus is this obiection anſwered euen by Melancthon, In corpore doctrinae p. 530. and Enoch Clapham. In his ſoueraigne remedy p. 17. Laſtly, admitting theſe ſeauen thouſands were vnknowne to Elias; yet followeth it not, that they were vnknowne to all others of the ſame tyme; Much leſſe then is this Example of force to prooue, that the Church of God may be Latent, and Inuiſible for many hundred yeares together (as ſome of our ignorant brethren do teach) not to one Elias only; but to the whole World: And thus farre of this ſo much vrged example of Elias.

To the ſecond. Thoſe words of the Prophet: The Oaſt, & ſacrifice ſhall ceaſe &c. Are to be referred to the ouerthrow of Ieruſalem, and the ceaſing of the Iewiſh ſacrifices, euen by the expoſition of In 24. M chae . Chryſoſtome, Vbi Chryſoſt. Ierome, Epiſt. 88. ad Eſichium. Auſtin, & others. Neyther can the words be properly extended to the tymes of Antichriſt; ſince we teach, that Antichriſt is already comne; and yet we ſee, that ſacrifices do ſtill remayne.

To the third. By the word departure, mentioned by the Apoſtle, is vnderſtood, eyther Antichriſt himſelfe by the figure Metonymia; becauſe he ſhalbe the cauſe, why many ſhall depart from Chriſt, as Chryſoſtome, and Theodoret vpon this place do expound, as alſo Auſtin: l. 20. de ciuitat. Deu . 19. Or rather is vnderſtood a departure, and defection from the Roman Empyre, as Ambroſe, Sedulius, Primaſius, and diuers Proteſtants Bullenlēger in his preface to his Sermōs vpon the Apocalyps; As alſo the Proteſtant Sc lio in his booke of the ſecond comming of Chriſt. fol. 21. do expound this Text.

To the fourth. I anſwere, that by the Woman flying into Wildernes, S. Iohn meaneth not any locall or corporall flight out of the knowledge, and notice of the world; but only a ſpirituall retiring in hart, from the allurements, and pleaſures of the World, to pennance, mortification, and contemplation of celeſtiall matters: And in this very ſenſe Bullenger interpreteth the Churches flight from Babilon.

To the former texts I may adde (though not aboue mentioned) that paſſage in S Iohn. C. 4. Venit hora & nunc eſt &c. The hower cometh, and now is, when the true adorers, ſhall adore the Father in ſpirit, and truth. To this I anſwere, that our Lord here teacheth, that the chiefe worſhip of God, which ſhalbe exhibited in his Church, conſiſteth in an internall worſhip of him; but from hence therefore it followeth not, that the Church is Inuiſible, or that all externall worſhip is prohibited; for our Lord here ſpeaketh not of the place, where God ſhalbe worſhiped; but of the manner, and rite of worſhiping. Chryſoſtome, Cyrill, and Euthimius vpon this place, do oppoſe thoſe words: in ſpirit, to the ceremonies of the Iewes, as they are corporall; and thoſe other words: in truth, to the ſayd Ceremonies, as they are figures of things to come.

Now becauſe diuers of the former paſſages of Scripture are obiected to proue, that the Church of Chriſt ſhalbe Inuiſible (at the leaſt) in the time of Antichriſt; I do reply further hereto, ſaying; firſt, That the former place of the Apoſtle to the Epheſians (alledged by Ochinus) touching an inceſſant, & vndiſcontinued, being of Paſtours, & Doctours in the Church, to remaine euen to the end of the world (omitting other texts aboue cited by him) as alſo the Proteſtants confeſſions of the Churches euer Viſibility (hereafter to be deliuered by Michaeas) do fully anſwere, and ſatisfy the ſuppoſed doubts ſuggeſted in the former texts, touching the Churches Inuiſibility in the time of Antichriſt. Secondly I reply, that diuers learned brethren of ours (punctually, and purpoſely, with reference to that time) do teach, that the Church ſhall remayne then Viſible. And to giue ſome taſt hereof, D. Pulke thus writeth: In Againſt the Rhemiſh Teſtament, in 2. Theſſal, 2. the time of Antichriſt, the Church was not driuen into any corner of the world; but was, is, & ſhalbe diſperſed in many Nations. And againe he thus writeth: The Vbi ſupra. true Church (though obſcured, and driuen into wildernes by Antichriſt) yet ſhall continue diſperſed ouer the world.

Bullenger ſayth, the Church in the time of Antichriſt ſhalbe right Vpon the Apocal. ſol. 200. famous: But if it ſhalbe then right famous, it muſt of neceſſity be then Viſible. To be ſhort, Szegedine (a learned Proteſtant) thus writeth: The miniſters of Gods word ſhall preach all the time, in which Antichriſt ſhall tread vnderfoote the holy (d) In a . analyt. p. 368. Citty. Thus farre in ſolution of all ſuch chiefe paſſages of Scripture, vſually obiected againſt the perpetuall Viſibility of the Church. But now (M. Doctour) I thinke it is your turne, to warrāt the former truth, from the wrytings of the auncient fathers, and from arguments of Credibility, which the force of reaſon it ſelfe doth miniſter.

DOCTOVR REYNOLDS

I am prepared thereto. And I will not preſſe your memoryes with a needles ouercharge of their ſentences: Some few (and thoſe pertinent) ſhall ſerue; though otherwiſe they are moſt luxuriant, and plentifull herein. And firſt thus Origin writeth: Eccleſia Homil. 30. in Math eum. eſt plaena fulgore, ab oriente vſque ad Occidentem, the Church is full of fulgour, or brightnes, from the Eaſt euen to the Weſt. Cyprian diſcourſeth thus: Eccleſia L. de vnitate Eccle. Dom. &c. The Church of our Lord, being repleniſhed with light, caſteth forth it beames throughout the whole earth. Chryſoſtome Homil. 4. in cap. 6. Ioan. ſaith: facilius eſt ſolem extingui, quam Eccleſiam obſcurari; It is more eaſy for the Sunne to be extinguiſhed, then the Church to be obſcured, or darkened. Finally (for greater conpendiouſneſſe) S. Auſtin is ſo full in this point, as that he maketh the Viſibility of the Church, a Marke for the ignorant to diſcerne the true Church of Chriſt, from all falſe Conuenticles, thus writing: Propter hoc enim motus &c. Contra fauſtum Manich. lib. 1. By reaſon of the tēptations of thoſe, who are weake, and may be ſeduced by ſome, from acknowledging the Churches brightneſſe; our Lord euen foreſeeing ſo much, ſaith: A Citye, that is built vpon a hill cannot be hidd. And further S. Auguſtin thus enlargeth himſelfe: Eccleſia Contra lit Precil. 〈◊〉 . 2. c. 32. vera nemiem latet, the true Church is hidd, or concealed from no man. And yet more: Tract. 1. in epiſt. Ioannis. numquid digito &c. Do we not point our fingar to the Church? it doth ſhe not lye open to all? And laſtly he exaggerateth this point further in theſe words: Tract. 2. in epiſt. Ioannis. Quid amplius diccturus ſum &c. What may I more ſay, then account them blynd, who cannot ſee ſo greate a mountaine who do ſhult their eyes againſt a candel, placed in a candelſtich? Thus S. Auſtin. And thus farre of the Fathers, from whence we may eaſely coniecture, how muche different ware the iudgements of the auncient, and primatiue Fathers, from their conceipts, who labour by their ſpeeches to turne the faire ſtreame of the Churches Reſplendency, into the ſhallow current of her ſuppoſed Obſcurity.

1. In this next place, I will deſcend to arguments drawne from analogy of reaſon. And firſt, from the compariſon, made betwene the old Teſtament, and the New Teſtament. Certaine it is, that the Iewes euer ſince Ghriſts dayes retained, and kept a knowne profeſſion of their Religion, (though vnder ſome reſtraint) and their Synagogues haue euer ſince bene extarnally viſible (though diſperced) as in Greece, Spayne, Italy, Germany, France, England &c. And this point Peter Peter Martyr in Com. place in Engliſh. part. 2. pag. 594. ſaith: The Iewes, though they be kept in ſo great aduerſity &c. yet they hould ſtil their Religion Martyr, and others Se hereof Caelius Secundus Curio l. de amplit. regn Dei. l. 1. p. 65. and the Century: writers in the 4. chapter of euery Century. do acknowledg, and your ſelfe (Michaeas) can well iuſtify the ſame. Now then if the Church of the new Teſtament ſhould want a continuall Viſibility, then ſhould it be inferiour in honour, and dignity to the Iewiſh Synagogue; euen then, when the Goſpell is propheſied to be moſt floriſhing, and the Synagogue to be in it greateſt decay, and ruyne: a reaſonable to ouerbalance all reaſons, brought to the contrary.

2. The foreſaid Concluſion of the Churches Viſibility is alſo proued, from the beginning, and progreſſe of the Church. For firſt durnig the old Teſtament the Church was then ſo Viſible, as that the Profeſſours thereof did beare euen in their fleſh, the Viſible, and markable ſigne of Circumciſion, as a badg of the Church. Againe, in the new Teſtament, the whole Church of Chriſt was in it infancy, and beginning in Chriſts Apoſtles, and Diſciples; Who were ſo Viſible, as that the Holy Ghoſt did Viſibly deſcend vpon them, vpon the feaſt of Penticoſt. Furthermore, We reade in the Acts. c 2. 3. 4. that on one day three thouſands; on an other, fyue thouſands were adioyned to the former, by their confeſſion of fayth, and Baptiſme. And ſo after they (and only they) were reputed, as membrs of Chriſts Church, who did adioyne themſelue to the former Chriſtians, by their externall confeſſion of fayth, and by Baptiſme.

3. An other argument may be taken from the greate neceſſity impoſed vpon Chriſtians; who are obliged vnder paine of eternall damnation, to range themſelues vnto the true Church of Chriſt, and to perſeuer in the ſame; as appareth not only from the teſtimonies of lib. de ſimplicit. Praelat. Cyprian, Epiſt. 1. ad Damaſum de nomine Hypoſtaſis. Ierome, and Auſtin: l. 4. de Baptiſm. c. 2. but euen from reaſon it ſelfe. Since no man can raigne with Chriſt, who is not a member of Chriſt. But how can this be performed, if the Church of Chriſt be Inuiſible? Or how can God be excuſed from cruelty, by threatning to vs eternal perdition for our not performing ſuch conditions, the which (ſuppoſing the Church not to be Viſible) is not in our power to accompliſh?

4. Furthermore the Inuiſibility of the Church impugneth the marks of the Church, giuen by vs Proteſtants; which are the true preaching of the Word, and the adminiſtration of the Sacraments; ſeeing there matters cannot be put in practice, but among a Viſible Society of men; and ſuch a Society, as that one of it is knowne to an other.

5. Againe, the Inuiſibillity of the Church mainly croſſeth the ende, for which the Church of God was inſtituted. Which end was to proſecute God with that entier and perfect worſhip, which man can giue to him; that is worſhip him not only with his Soule, but alſo externally with his body, and works, or deeds (ſeeing Man conſiſteth of ſoule, and body) But an Inuiſible Church performeth it worſhip to God, only in hart, and minde: And with this I end, referring the laſt point to you (Michaeas) who is next to enter (as I may ſay) vpon the ſtage.

MICHAEAS.

Moſt willingly I come. For if we peruſe the writings (and eſpecially of ſuch, who haue bene of the chiëfeſt note, in the Proteſtant (Church) it is a world to ſee, how riotous, (as it were) and abounding they haue bene in their works, for proofe of the Churches Viſibility at all times, and in reſpect of all men; and this euen in the Concluſion it ſelfe, without any borowed ſequels, though neuer ſo neceſſary. And firſt we find Caluin (the halfe Arche of the Proteſtant Church) thus to ſay: Inſtit 4. 1. ſect. 4. Nunc de Viſibili Eccleſia &c. Now we determine to diſpute of the Viſible Church &c. extracuius gremium, nulla eſt ſperanda peccatorum remiſſio, out of whoſe boſome we cannot expect any remiſſion of ſinns. Neither is Melancton leſſe full herein, who thus acknowledgeth: in concil. Theol. part. 2. Neceſſe eſt fateri eſſe Viſibilem Eccleſiam &c. it is neceſſary to confeſſe the Church to be Viſible; Whither tendeth then haec portentoſa oratio, this monſtrous opinion, which denyeth the Church to be Viſible? Melancthon Further thus ſaith: in loc. com. edit. 1561. c. de Eccleſia. Whenſoeuer we thinke of the Church, let vs behould the company of ſuch men, as are gathered together, which is the Viſible Church: Neither let vs dreame, that the Elect of God are to be found in any other place, then in this Viſible Society &c. neither let vs imagine of any other Inuiſible Church. Briefly the ſaid Melancthon vrging diuers texts of Scripture in proofe of the Churches Viſibility, thus cō cludeth: Hi & Melan. vbi ſupra. ſimiles loci &c. Theſe, and ſuch lyke places (of Scripture) non de Ideä Platonica, ſed de Eccleſia viſibili loquuntur; do not ſpeake of Plato his Ideä, but of the Viſible Church this Melancthon. The Learned Hunnius giueth his ſentence in theſe words: God in his Treatiſe of freewill. p. in all times hath placed his Church, in a high place, and hath exalted it in the ſight of all Prople, and Nations. Iacobus Andreas (that famous Proteſtant) thus umpeth with his brethrē herein: We in his booke againſt Hoſius p. 210. are not ignorant, that the Church muſt be a Viſible company of teachers, and hearers. The eminet Dan us oth thus ſecond the reſt: Who in his booke of the viſible Church. denyeth the true Church of God (and that Viſible) to haue bene from the beginning of the world; he without doubt ſheweth himſelfe to be ignorant in holy Schripture. M. Hooker (your Countriman) thus writeth of this point: God in his booke of Eccleſiaſt. policy. p. 126. hath had euer ſhall haue ſome Church Viſible vpon earth.

Peter Martyr (once your Companion, Ochinus) confeſſeth the trueth herein in theſe words: We do in his Epiſt. annexed to his Commō. places printed in Engliſh. p. 153. not appoint an Inniſible Church; but do define the Church to be a Congregation vnto which the faithfull may know, that they may ſafely adioyne themſelues.

D. Field conſpireth with al the former Proteſtants, thus ſaying: l. 1. of the Church. c. 10. p. 19. The perſons of them of whom the Church conſiſteth are Viſible; their profeſſion knowne euen to the prophane, and wiched of the world; And in this ſort the Church cannot be Inuiſible. Thus this Doctour preuenteth the anſwere of thoſe who ſay the Church is Viſible, but to the Elect only. The ſaid D. Field thus reprehendeth Cardinal Bellarmine touching this point, ſaying: vbi ſupra. p. 21. It is true, that Bellarmine laboreth in vaine in proouing, that there is, and alwayes hath bene a Viſible Church; and that, not conſiſting of ſome few ſcattered Chriſtians, without Order of Miniſtry or vſe of Sacraments; for all this wee do moſt willingly yeeld vnto; how ſoeuer perhaps ſome few haue bene otherwiſe of Opinion.

But for great breuity, and ommitting the like confeſſions herein of other remarkable Proteſtants, D. Humfrey ſhall cloſe vp this ſcene, who enthereth into heate, and paſſion with his Aduerſaries for needeleſly prouing the Churches euer Viſibility. For thus he writeth: Cur ergo anxiè & curiosè probant, quod eſt a nobis numquam negatum? Why do they (meaning the Catholicks) ſo painfully and curiouſly proue Ieſuitis in part. 2. c. 3. that, which we neuer denyed? And then after the ſaid Doctour: Non enim clancularij ſeceſſus & conuocationes ſunt Chriſtianae, the ſociety of Chriſtians are not ſecret meetings. And then there againe, ſpeaking of the Church militant: Oportet Eccleſiam eſſe conſpicuam Concluſio eſt clariſſima, It is a manifeſt Concluſion, that the Church is to be conſpicuous, and Viſible. And thus farre (Gentlemen) of your owne Brethren confeſſing with vs Catholicks, the euer Viſibility of the Church of God; And this in ſo full a manner, as that the wicked (as D. Fyeld aboue ſpeaketh) ſhall take full notice, and ſight of it; by force of which cleare teſtimonies, thoſe few, and ignorant Proteſtants (who confeſſe the Church to be Viſible, but not in ſo full a maner) are preuented of their poore refuge, ſaying: The Church is Viſible, but not at all tymes (as if the Church, like the Sea, enioyed a flux, and reflux of it Viſibility) knowne, but knowne only to the Elect, and faythfull: phantaſtically ſpoken without al colour of proofe, and mainly croſſing, not only their owne more learned Brethren; but alſo moſt repugnant to the formery mentioned Propheces of Gods ſacred word, and other paſſages thereof; to the graue authority of the Primatiue Fathers, and finally to al force of reaſon it ſelfe.

D. REYNOLDS.

Wee ſee (Michaeas) you are very conuerſant in our owne Writers; And now I hope this firſt point is perfected, Whereupon the force of the future diſcourſe is to relye; And though thē be ſome difficulty to crye downe an errour or falſe opinion in doctrine, once aduanced; Neuertheleſſe I truſt, no learned, iudicious Man, peruſing the former authorities at large, will euer dreame of an Inuiſible Church; being in it ſelfe a meere intentional Notion, and hauing no ſubſiſtence, or being.

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour, you ſay truly. But now ſeeing it is in this next place properly incumbent vpon you, and theſe two graue men, to inſtance in Proteſtants for all ages ſince Chriſt (for the Church of Chriſt by your owne former doctrine, neceſſarily exacteth ſuch a Viſibility (I hould it conuenient to put you al in minde of two or three points; the due conſideration of which may much induce to the diſcouery of the weaknes of ſuch Inſtances, which as my thoughts preſage, wilbe hereafter inſiſteth vpon, by you.

NEVSERVS.

You do well (Michaeas) to ſet downe thoſe premonitions; for we deſire, that if there ſhal be any defect in the future examples, it may be fully diſplayed. Therefore proceed in your Method.

MICHAEAS.

The firſt then of theſe any maduerſions, may be to obſerue the wounderful reluctation, and backwardneſſe in ſome Proteſtants (a manifeſt ſigne of their owne guilty defectiueneſſe herein) when this Catholicks preſſe them, to giue inſtances of Proteſtancy, and of the adminiſtration of the word, and Sacrements: For, ſeing they wil beare men in hand, that their Church hath euer continued Viſible; they are therefore in reaſons it ſelfe bound (as mantayning the affirmatiue part) to vndertake the prooſe thereof. Now anſwearably to my former Aſſertion, I finde D Wutton In his anſwere to a Popiſh Pamphlet. p. 11. (ſpeaking to his Catholicke Aduerſary) thus to write: you wilt ſay, ſhew vs, where the fayth, and Religion, you profeſſe, where held. Nay, proue you, that they were held no where &c. And what if it could not beſhewed? yet we know by the articles of our Creede, that there hath bene alwayes a Church, in which we ſay, this religion, we profeſſe, muſt of neceſſity be held &c. This ſtands vpon you to diſproue, which when you do by particular Records, you ſhall haue particular anſwere. Then which what can be ſpoken, firſt more abſurdly, as expecting records of things, which neuer were in being? He furthermore transferring the part of prouing vpon Catholicks to which himſelfe, and his fellowes only ſtand obliged. Secondly, what can diſcouer more their vnableneſſein guing examples of Proteſtancy during the former ages? The like diſpairing Anſwere D Fulke, D. Fulkde ſucceſſione Eccleſ. p. 89. vſeth vpon the ſame point, ſaying to his Aduerſary: Proferre me iubes teto orbe latitantes, vah quam iniquum poſtulas? Thou willeſt me to produce, and name thoſe, which did lye ſecret through out the World; how iniuſt a thing doſt thou here demand?

The ſecond Obſeruation. Seing the Church of God is at al times, and ſeaſons (without the leaſt diſcontinuance thereof) to be Viſibile, and to enioy a publike adminiſtration of the Word, and Sacraments (as aboue we al haue proued) That therefore ſuch Inſtances of Proteſtancy, which may be giuen by you hereafter (ſuppoſing them to be true) do but iuſtify Viſibility of your Church, only for ſo long (& no longer) as the ſaid Proteſtants did liue. And therefore except you be able to produce examples of Proteſtancy, for al ages ſince Chriſt (& if you do fayle herein, but for any one only age) it neceſſarily followeth; that Church of the Proteſtants (as wanting this vninterrupted Viſibility) is not the Church of Chriſt, deſcribed in the old Teſtament, and their prophecyed of, in ſo many different places

The third, and laſt Obſeruation. That one may truly, and iuſtly be called a Proteſtant, two things (among others) muſt neceſſatily concurre: The one, that he do mantayne al the chiefeſt points of Proteſtancy; Thus he is not to hould only ſome few points of Proteſtancy; and in the reſt (being more in number, and of greater importance) to pertake with the Catholicks: ſeeing ſuch a Man is rather (as beleiuing more Articles of Catholicke Religion, then of Proteſtancy) to be reputed a Catholicke, then a Proteſtant; for his denomination is to be giuen him rather according to the greater, and weightier number of Articles beleeued by him, ther otherwiſe; though to ſpeake the truth, ſuch a Man ſo beleeuing, is formally neither Catholicke not Proteſtant.

The ſecond thing neceſſary to the being of a Proteſtant, is, that he doth not hould pertinaciouſly any mayne Hereſies, or Paradoxes wholy impugned, gainſaid, and contradicted, both by Proteſtant, and Catholicke. For this Man in this reſpecte, is to be ſtyled rather an open Hereticke, then a Proteſtant, euen in the cenſure of the Proteſtants themſelues. Therefore to conclude this laſt obſeruation; Euen as when beaſts of ſeueral Kyndes (or ſpecies) do coople together, that which is ingendred, is of a third Kinde, diuers from them both: So here, that Religion or fayth, which is (as it were) propagated from the mixture of contrary Religions, muſt be a beliefe, different from them al. Theſe things being premiſed, now M. Doctour or either of you two, may begin to inſtance in Proteſtant Profeſſours for euery age; And I ſhall reply therto, as my iudgment, and reading wil beſt inable me.

OCHINVS.

I do like well of theſe your animaduertions; and they are able in a cleare iudgement to fanne away imperfect, and faulty inſtances, from ſuch as be true, and perfect.

MICHAEAS.

Before any of you begin your diſcours of Inſtancing, I muſt demand of you al (as Cardinal Bellarmyne did in his late diſcours with D. Whitakers) whether you wil be content to ſtand to the authority of your owne learned Brethren, in al the following paſſages betweene vs?

D. REYNOLDS.

I here anſwere for vs al We will indiſputably ſtand to our owne mens learned iudgmēts. And if you can conuince either our future examples, or our cauſe in generall, from our Proteſtants penns we yeald you the victory. For I do hould with Oſiander the Proteſtant; that in Epiſt. Euchar. the Confeſſion and teſtimony of an Aduerſary, is of greateſt authority. And therefore Peter Martyr truly ſaith: ſurely loc. tit. de Iudaeis. col. 390. among other teſtimonyes, that is of greateſt weight, which is giuen by the Enemyes. And D. Bancrofs (to omit al other Proteſtants in this point) confirmeth the ſame, thus writing: Let In his ſuruey c. 〈◊〉 vs take hould of that, which they haue granted you may be bould to build thereupon, for a truth, that they are ſo conſtrained to yeeld vnto. Which kinde of proofe is no leſſe warranted by the Auncient Fathers; for Ireneus ſaith: It is an vnanſwerable Lib. 4. c. 14. proofe, which bringeth atteſtation from the Aduerſaries themſelues. And Nazianzen pronounceth thus hereof: It is the Orat. de S. Baſil. greateſt cu ning and wiſdome of ſpeech, to bynd the Aduerſary with his owne words: So full you ſee (Michaeas) I am in this point. But now let vs come to the maine matter. To produce inſtances of Proteſtancy ſhalbe my peculiar Scene. And that I may the better marſhal, and incampe (as it were) my examples, thereby the more forcibly to inuade your iudgment, I will begin with the later times of the Church, and ſo aſcend vpwards And firſt, for theſe laſt threeſcore yeares, the Goſpell of Chriſt hath enioyed here in England) to forbeare all other Countreyes) it Viſibility, in it full Orbe; all writers of theſe dayes and other Nations acknowledging no leſſe. Againe in K. Edward the ſixt his time, this worthy Man Ochinus here preſent (backed with the like endeauours of the learned Peter Martyr) did ſo plant our Proteſtant fayth in our Nation, as that infinite moſt remarkable Profeſſours thereof did inſtantly growne (like roſes after a long cold, or tempeſt, blooming forth through the heate of the Sunne) with refe erence of which Profeſſours, Ochinus may iuſtly apply to himſelfe, the words of Aenias: Vir 〈…〉 Quorum pars magna fui.

MICHAEAS.

Concerning the Profeſſours of Proteſtancy here in England, ſince Queene Elizabeth came to the Crowne, I eaſily grant they haue been moſt Viſible (as I gather out of your Engliſh Chronicles) And thus I freely confeſſe, that Proteſtancy hath continued in England ſome threeſcore and ſeauen yeares: But where you ſay, that Proteſtancy (I meane, as it comprehendeth all the Articles taught, at this day for Proteſtancy, and which neceſſarily concurre to the making of a perfect, & complete Proteſtant) was fully taught, and beleiued in K. Edward his dayes, I abſolutely deny.

OCHINVS.

Will you deny (Michaeas) ſo manifeſt a verity, whereas myſelfe was not only an eyewitneſſe in thoſe times; but (If I may ſpeake in modeſty) a greate Cauſe thereof? What will you not deny, if you deny, ſuch illuſtrious Trueths? and what hope can we haue of your bettering, by this our diſputation?

MICHAEAS.

Good Ochinus, beare me not downe with aſtreame of vaunting words (the refuſe of ſpeech) but if you can, with force of argument. I peremptorily deny the former point; and for iuſtifying this my deniall, I wil recurre to the Communion Booke, ſet out in K. Edwards time with the approbation, and allowance (as D. Doue, a Proteſtant affirmeth) of Peter Martyr, your Cooperatour. Which Booke we muſt preſume in al reaſon, was made according to the publike fayth of the King and the Realme, eſtabliſhed in thoſe tymes; and the rather conſidering, that the ſaid Communion Booke (for it greater authority) was warranted in the Kings time, by Act of Parliament. Now this Communion Booke, or publicke Lyturgy of the fayth of England in thoſe dayes, being printed in folio by Edward Whit-church anno 1549. pertaketh in many points, with our Roman Religion. For it maketh ſpeciall defence for Ceremonyes; ſol. 156. and preſcribeth, that the Euchariſt ſhalbe conſecrated with the ſigne of the Croſſe. It commandeth ſol. 132. conſecration of the Water of Baptiſme, with the ſigne of the Croſſe. It alloweth of Chriſme; fol. 132. as alſo of the Childs annoynting fol. 128. and Exorciſme. In that booke mention is made of prayer 116. for the dead; and interceſſion, and fol. 117. offering vp of our Prayers by Angells. It deffendeth Baptiſme giuen by Layperſons, ſo. 1 9. in time of neceſſity; and the grace ibidem of that Sacrament; as alſo Confirmation fo. 132. of children, and ſtrength giuen them thereby It mentioneth (according to the cuſtome vſed in tyme at Maſſe at this very day) the Prieſts turning ſometimes to the Altar; fol. 115. and ſometimes to the People. fol. 117. It ordayneth that anſwerably yet to our Catholike cuſtome) fol. 4. Alleluya ſhould be ſaid, from Eaſter to Trinity ſunday. It preſcribeth the Prieſt bleſſing of the fol. 138 & 139. Bryde, & brydegroome, with the ſigne of the Croſſe. It alloweth the Prieſts abſolution of the ſicke Penetent, with theſe particular words: By fol. 14 . the authority committed vnto me. I abſolute thee of all thy ſinns. It mentioneth a ſpeciall Confeſſion fol. 142. of the ſicke Penitent; And laſtly it commandeth the fol. 14 annoynting of the ſicke Perſon, which we Catholicks call the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction. So little reaſon [Ocbinus] you ſee, you haue to affirme, that the Proteſtancy of the preſent Church of England is the ſame, which was mantained, and publikely eſtabliſhed by King Edward.

OCHINVS.

Indeede I grant, the Communion booke was then made by the conſent of the Parliament, but I inſtructed thoſe, with whom I conuerſed, to reiect thoſe ſuperſtitions their confirmed.

D. REYNOLDS.

Well let that paſſe. It auayleth not much, whether Proteſtancy was here in England at thoſe dayes, or no; ſince it is certaine, it was then moſt fully dilated in many other Countryes, by the late afore rayſing vp of Luther; who was miraculouſly ſent by the Holy Ghoſt, to illuminate the world with the Trueth of the Ghoſpell, and to diſcipate the clowds of the former Romiſh Errours. And I am aſſured, [Michaeas] you wil acknowledg Luther for a perfect Proteſtant in all points; and conſequently that the Proteſtant Church was in Luther, & his followers, moſt conſpicuous, and Viſible.

MICHAEAS.

I know, moſt of our new Ghoſpellers trauayle with you [M. D.] on this child; to wit, that Luther did erect a perfect forme of Proteſtancy. By the which we may learne, that Affection, is not only blind but alſo deafe; ſo loath you Proteſtants are either to ſee or heare any thing againſt Luther herein. Neuertheleſſe I here auerre, it is impoſſible to iuſtify Luther for a true Proteſtant. I know alſo, that himſelfe thus vaunteth Luther epiſt. ad Argentinenſes. Chriſtum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari; where we may ſee, it is an accuſtomed blemiſh of moſt Innouatours, to become their owne Paraſites.

NEVSERVS.

Strange Luther not a Proteſtant? doth the Sunne ſhine? Is the fier hot? Doth the Sea ebb, and flow? As certaine, as any of theſe ſo certaine, Luther was a perfect, and true Proteſtant. He was the Sunne, that did diſpel in thoſe dayes the miſts of Antichriſtian darkeneſſe. From his preaching, and writings, a ier of Chriſtian zeale was inkindled in thouſands of mens ſoules, for the embraſing of the Ghoſpell of Chriſt; And neuer did the torrent, and inundation of ſuperſtition, and Idolatry ſuffer a greater reflux a greater reflux and Ebb, then in his life time.

MICHAEAS.

Rhetorically amplifyed, Neuſerus. But it is the weight of Reaſon, not a froath of empty words, which ſway the iudicious. I grant that Luther did derogatize more articles of Innouation, and Noueliſme, now taught by Proteſtants, then any one Man afore him, did ſince the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity: yet that Luther was a perfect, and articulate Proteſtant, and ſuch, as the preſent Proteſtant Church (with relation to the doctrine now taught by that Church) may iuſtly, & truely acknowledg for a member thereof, I eternally denye, and do iuſtify my deniall out of his owne bookes; ſo ſhall Touching the ſentences alledged in this paſſage out of Luthers writings, the Reader is to obſerue perciſly, the editions of his bookes here quored; ſeeing in ſome later editions, diuers of his ſaid teſtimonyes are for very ſhame wholy omitted & left out. Luther prooue, that Luther was no Proteſtant. Now this I euict, (according to my former premonitions, and cautions) firſt, becauſe Luther did euer hould (euen after his reuolt from the Church of Rome) diuers Catholicke opinions, or doctrines, then, and ſtill now taught by the ſaid Church. Secondly, in that Luther after his departure from the Church of Rome, did mantayne diuers groſſe errours, or rather Hereſies, or rather blaſphemies; and for ſuch at this day condemned, both by Catholicks, and Proteſtants: So euident it will appeare, that Luther was too weake a bulke, to giue nurriſhment to all thoſe different plants, which now do ſtile themſelues Proteſtants. And firſt touching ſeuerall Catholicke points, euer beleiued, & defended by Luther, euen to his laſt day, theſe following may ſerue, as Inſtances.

1. Firſt he euer maintayned the Reall Preſence in the Bleſſed Sacrament of the Euchariſt (as the world knoweth). And his followers for their peculiar defence of this doctrine, are ſtyled Lutherans by Swinglins, Caluin, & their party; impugning the foreſaid doctrine.

2. Luther alſo defended Prayer to Saints, of which point he thus wryteth: Luther in purgat. quorūdam. A ticul. & in epiſi. ad Georgium ſpalatinū. De interceſſione diuorum, cum tota Eccleſia Chriſtiana ſentio, & iudico ſanctos a nobis honorandos eſſe atque inuocandos.

3. He alſo taught the doctrine of Euangelicall Counſells; to wit, that a man might do more, then he is commanded, as appeareth out of his Booke: de Art. 30. aſſertionibus.

4. The Doctrine of Purgatory, he taught; of which ſee tom. 〈◊〉 . Concluſ. 15. & in diſput. Lipſica cum Echio. Wittenberg. in reſolut. de Indulgentijs. And anſwerably to this ground he is confeſſed by Vrbanus Regius In 1. part. operum formula cā tè loquendā cap. de Sanct. cultu [a Proteſtant] to defend prayer for the Dead.

5. Luther further taught, and approued the vſe of Images, as Beza In reſp. ad art. Colloq. Montis . part. alt. in prefat. witneſſeth.

6. The indifferency of communion vnder one, or both kindes (contrary to the doctrine of the Proteſtants, who place a neceſſity in both) is allowed by Luther, in theſe words: quamuis Luther in epiſt. ad ad Bohemos pulcrum ſit &c. Although it were very ſeemely, to vſe both the ſpecies, or formes in the bleſſed Euchariſt; & though Chriſt commanded nothing herein, as neceſſary; yet it were better to follow peace &c. then to contende about the formes.

7. Touching the making of the ſigne of the Croſſe, vpon our foreheads; Iohannes Creuelius (a Lutheran) thus witneſſeth: Cum imus cubitum, iue ſurgimus electo, cruce nos iuxta Lutheri In his refutation Caeremoniarum Miſſae, printed Magd •• . 1603. p. 118. & aliorum piorum •• inſtitutionem, ſignamus: When we go to bedd, or riſe from thence, we do ſigne our ſelues with the ſigne of the Croſſe, according to the aduice of Luther and other pious men. And Iohannes Maulius Loc. 7. com. pag. •• 6. (Luthers ſcholler) thus writeth of Luther: reſpondet Lutherus, ſigno crucis facto, Deus me tuetitur: Luther anſwereth, at the making of the ſigne of the Croſſe, God defend me.

8. Finally, to omit diuers other points, (wherein Luther neuer diſſented from the Church of Rome) Luther euer mantained, that the gouerment of the Church is Monarchical & neither Ariſtocratical, nor Popular: of which point Luther thus writeth: Cum In loc. om. claſſ. 1. c. 37. p. 107. Deus voluerit &c. Seing God would haue one Catholicke Church, throughout the whole World: it was needful, that one people, imo vnum aliquem patrem iſtius vnius populi elegi, yea ſome one father of this one people ſhould be chooſen, ad quem, & ſuos poſteros ſpectant totus orbis, to whoſe care, and his ſucceſſours the whole World ſhould belong. And thus farre [Gentlemen] touching ſome taſt, to ſhew, that Luther, euen after his forſaking of the Catholicke, and Roman Church, did neuertheleſſe ſtill retaine, and belieue, diuers Catholicke doctrines: and conſequently was no no entire, and perfect Proteſtant.

D. REYNOLDS.

I confeſſe indeede, that Luther (as appeareth by his owne writings) did not reueale to the new World (as I may tearme it) all the Euangelical Trueth: the fuller diſcouery of ſome parts thereof, being reſerued for our later dayes. And though his owne Religion was not (through want of beliefe of ſome Trueths) perfectly good; yet I am aſſured, It is not by his peſitiuely mantayning of any one errour (then in what he was nuzled by the Church of Rome) in any ſort euill.

MICHAEAS.

This your reply is impertinent: for here the Queſtion is only, whether Luther in reſpeſt of his faith, was ſuch an abſolute Proteſtant, as at this day our Goſpellers repute for a good, & ſound Proteſtant. Yet that you may ſee your owne errour otherwiſe, in ouer highly preiudging of Luthers Religion. I wil here particularize out of his owne writings, and other Proteſtants relations, certaine Hereſies and blaſphemies; neuer by him after recaled, and incompatible with ſaluation, (for modicum 〈◊〉 . Cor. . firmentum totam maſſam corrumpit) which he did egurgitate out of his impure ſtomak. From whence we may inferre, that with leſſe reaſon he may be vrged for a Proteſtant.

1. And Firſt, I wil here alleadg his impious doctrine (wherin he labored to cut, and wound Chriſtian Religion, euen in it maiſter-veine) touching the moſt Bleſſed Trinity, concerning which he thus ſpeaketh: The Sorelateth Zwinglius of Luther tom. 2. in reſpons. ad confut. Lutheri f 474. Diuinity is threefould, as the three Perſons be &c. And from hence the reaſon may well be, why Luther Luth. in encherid. praecum. anni 1543. expungeth out of the Litany, this verſe: Holy Trinity, one very God, haue mercy vpon vs. And hereupon he is not afraid to ſay, that the word. Trinity, Luth. in poſtill. maiori Baſili 〈…〉 apud Heruagium in enarrat. Euang. Dominicae Trinit. is but an humane inuention, and ſoundeth coldly. And finally, he concludeth, that his ſoule hateth the word: Homouſion, or Conſubſtantiale; For thus he writeth: Anima Contra Iacobum Latomum, tom. 2. Wittenberg. latine edit. anno. 1551. me a odit Homouſion, & Optimè exigerunt Ariani, ne vocem illam prophanam & nouam regulis fidei ſtatu liceret. My very ſoule ha eth the word: Homouſion, or Conſubſtantiale; And the Arians, not without reaſon, required, that it should not be lawfull to put this prophane, and new Word (meaning, Homouſios or conſubſtantialis) among the rules of fayth. Luthers blaſphemy againſt the B. Trinity was ſuch, and ſo odious, that euen Zwinglius tom. 2. in reſpons. ad Confeſſ. Lutheri. Zwinglius did purpoſely write againſt Luther touching this very point.

2. Touching the euent of things, Luther houldeth (contrary to all Chriſtian faith) that all things come to paſſe, through a certaine Stoical, and Fatal neceſſity; for he defending this Hereſy thus writeth: Nullius In aſſert. damnat. per Leonem, art. 36. eſt in manu &c. It is in no mans power, to thinke good, or euil: but al things (as Wicleffs article, condemned at Conſtance, did rightly teach) proceed from abſolute Neceſſity. And againe: Luth. deſeruo arbitrio c. 32. fateor articulum &c. I do confeſſe Wicleffs article of all things, comming to paſſe by Neceſſi 〈◊〉 to haue 〈◊〉 falſly condemned, in the conuenticle of Conſtance.

3. To the diſhonour of Chriſt his Paſſion (who was cloathed with Eſſentiall Maieſty and as intimating the inſufficiency of it, for the redemption of mankinde; he teacheth, that Chriſt not only ſuffered in body, but alſo his Diuinity ſuffered: for thus he writeth Cùm Luther in Confeſſ. Maiore in Caena Domini. credo, quod ſola humana Natura pro me paſſa eſt, Chriſtus vilis, noc magni praetij ſaluator eſt &c. If I beleiue, that only the Humane Nature of Chriſt ſuffered for me; then is Chriſt a Sauiour, but of a baſe, and ſmall worth; and himſelfe nedeth a Sauiour. And Luther ſpeaking of this point in an other place, thus reprehendeth the Zwinglians: The Vide Concil. part. 2. Zwinglians did contend againſt me moſt pertinaciouſly, that the Diuinity of Chriſt could not ſuffer: A doctrine, ſo blaſphemous, as that it was not refuted only by the Zwinglians in Luthers dayes (as himſelfe confeſſeth) but alſo euen by Beza In epiſt. theologie epiſt. 60. ſuch chaynes you ſee of blaſphemies (one ſtil following an other) are wouen in Luthers faith, and Religion.

4. Touching the Adminiſtration of the Word, and Sacraments; Luther teacheth, that al men (and women alſo) haue authority, & power to adminiſter them: Theſe be his owne words: The firſt Luth. tom. 2. l. de miniſtris Eccleſ. inſtitue 〈…〉 lis fol. 368. 369. id. l. de abrog. Miſſa priuata tom. 2. fol. 249. & lib. de captiuit. Babilon. c. de ordine. office of a Prieſt is to preach the Word &c. But this is common to al: Next, to baptize; and this alſo al may do, euen women &c. The third office is to conſecrate bread, and wine: But this alſo is common to al, no leſſe, then Prieſts; And this I auouch by the authoritie of Chriſt himſelfe, ſaying: do this in remembrance of me. This Chriſt ſpeake to al then preſent, and to come afterwards. If then that, which is greater, then al, be giuen indifferently to al Men, and Women (I meane, the word, and Baptiſme) then that, which is leſſe (I meane to conſecrate the ſupper) is alſo giuen to them. Thus Luther. Yea Luther proceeded ſo farre herein, as that, as D. Couell witneſſeth, he was not afraid to affirme, that the Sacraments Theſe be D. Couelis words in his defence of M. Hooker art. 15. p. 101. were effectual though, adminiſtred by Satan himſelfe. With D. Couell agreeth the Proteſtant Hoſpintan, thus writing: Lutherus In hiſt. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 14. o vſque progreditur &c. Luther proceedeth ſo farre herein, that he maintained the Sacrament to be a true Sacrament, •• iamſi a Diabolo conficeretur, though it were to be conſecrated by the Deuil.

5. For abſolute deniall of tempor all Magiſtrats (an Hereſy indifferently condemned, both by Catholicks, and Proteſtants) we finde Luther thus to write: Among Luth. de ſeculari poteſt in tom. 6. german. Chriſtians no man can, or ought to be a Magiſtrate; But euery one is to other equally ſubiect &c. And agayne: As Chriſt Luth. in tom. 7. Wit. tenberg. fol. 327. cannot ſuffer himſelfe to be tyed, & bound by lawes &c. So alſo ought not the Conſcience of a Chriſtian to ſuffer them.

6. Touching Luthers deniall of certayne parcels of Scripture: And firſt the Epiſtle of S. Iames is called by Luther, Contentious, Luther praeſai. in epiſt. Iacobi edit. 4. Ienenſi. ſwelling, ſtrawy, and vnworthy an Apoſtolicall ſpirit. The booke of the Apocalyps is alſo reiected by Luther, by the acknowledgment of Bullenger, thus writing hereof: Doctour (z) Vpon the Apocalyps engliſhed c. 1. ſerm. 1. fo. 2. Martin Luther, hah (as it were) ſticked this booke, with a ſharpe preface, ſet before his firſt Edition in Duch; for which his iudgment, good, and learned Men were offended with him. Hereunto I will adde Luthers contempt of Moyſes, and ſome of the Apoſtles: Againſt Moyſes he thus writeth: Tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Pſal. 45. fol. 423. Habuit Moyſes labia in faecunda, irata &c. And againe: Moyſes habuit labia diffuſa felle & ira. Touching the Apoſtles, he thus controuleth S. Peter; S. Peter In epiſt. ad Gala . 1. tom. 5. Wittenb. of anno 1554. fol. 290. did liue, and teach, extra verbum Dei; beſides the word of God. Thus we may ſee, how no wynde was able to weigh downe the eares of Luthers pryde.

7. Luther alſo taught an Hereſy, whereby the Propagation of Chriſtian Religion is much endangered; to wit, That it was not lawfall to wage warre againſt the Turke: an errour; which enen the greateſt Idolatours of Luther haue mainly condemned. Luthers words are theſe: Luth. in tom. 2. Wittēberg In aſſert. damnat. per Leon decimum aſſert. 34. Praeliari contra Turcas, eſt repugnare Deo viſitanti iniquitates noſtras per illos. To wage warre againſt the Turke, is to reſiſt God viſiting our ſinn s by thē: A point ſo confeſſed, that Eraſmus, thus writeth of the conſequence, and effects of Luthers doctrine: Many In ep. ad fratres Inferiori Germaniae. of the Saxons following herein, that firct doctrine of Luther, denyed to Caeſar, and King Ferdinand ayde againſt the Turke &c. And ſaid; they had rather fight for a Turke not Baptized, then for a Turke Baptized; meaninge, the Emperour. Thus Eraſmus.

8. Touching Fayth, and good workes, Luther taught an Hereſy, diſallowed by all learned Proteſtants. For Luther teacheth, as followeth: It is Luther vpon the Galat. engliſhed, in c. 2. And ſee Luther in his Sermons engliſhed fol. 204. impiety to affirme, that fayth without Charity, iuſtifyeth not. Nay Luther proceedeth further, thus writing: Fides niſi ſit ſine &c. Except Luther tom. 1. Prop. 3. fayth be without the leaſt good works, it doth not iuſtify; nay it is not fayth. And thereupon, the more to debaſe good works, he thus ſaith: In his Sermons engliſhed p. 147. Works take their goodnes of the Worker; Aud Luth. ibid. pag. 276. no worke is diſallowed of God, vnleſſe the authour thereof be diſallowed before. Here now I end touching Luther, Where you may perceaue [Neuſerus] that this your Sunne (of which you afore vaunted) prooues to be but a fading Comet; the fyery zeale (you ſpoake of) but a turbulent combuſtion ſe on flame by Luther in ſubiects minds, againſt all Chriſtian Magiſtracy; and the reflux, which Luther (as you pretend) cauſed in the Church of Rome, was inſtantly attended on, with a flux and ouerflowing of many dreadfull, and blaſphemous doctrines, then broached, and defended by him. But here I referre two points to the mature Conſideration of you [M. Doctour] and theſe two learned men, here preſent. Firſt, whether Luther can truely be challenged at this day for a perfect Proteſtant; (and conſequently, whether the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, can be truely iuſtifyed in him) conſidering, both the ſeuerall Catholicke Doctrines, as alſo the many explorat Hereſyes, and blaſphemyes, he maintayned euen after his reuolt from the Papacy. The ſecond (though but incidentall at this preſent) whether it ſorteth to the ſweete proceeding of God, to vſe as his Inſtrument, for the reedifying of his Church (admitting it afore ruined) a man, who practized his penne (and this after his ſuppoſed calling) to the wronging of Chriſtian Faith, and Charity; to the fortifying of the ſtate, and Empyre of Chriſts greateſt Enemy; to the expunging of Gods ſacred Writ, and conuitiating of his greateſt Seruants: to the diſauthorizing of all Chriſtian Princes, and Ciuill Magiſtrates: to the diſhonoring, and debaſing of the Sacraments: to the diſualewing of the infinit worth, and price of Chriſt his Paſſion: to the vphoulding, and maintayning of a ſtoicall, and fatall Neceſſity in all things: And laſtly to the abſolute deniall of the moſt Bleſſed, and holy Trinity. Now (Gentlemen all) if you want a Proteſtāt, to be the ſquare, and rule of Proteſtancy, I am content (in this your penury) that you take Luther for a Proteſtant.

OCHINVS.

I am amazed to here of theſe Points: and I would not beleiue them: but that Luthers owne wrytings are yet extant, & ready to charge him with them.

NEVSERVS.

I condemne my ſelfe [Michaeas] of my former raſh, and vnexamined aſſent, giuen in behalfe of Luther: and I blame my owne haſty Credulity But by this I may learne, that the attendant of Wiſdome, is ſlowe beliefe. But, M. Doctour, we would wiſh you, to aſcend to higher times.

D. REYNOLDS.

I will. And I will aſcend ſofely and by ſmall degrees. Only afore in part of excuſe (though not in defence) of Luthers errours. I muſt put you in minde [Michaeas] that the pureſt gold Oare is mixt with ſome dreſſe: the fayreſt roſe beſet with ſharpe pricks, and diuers auncient and reuerend Fathers had their ouerſights. But to proceede higher: what ſay you [Michaeas] of the twenty yeares firſt before Luther? Do you not thinke, that there were then many markably, and viſibly knowne, who profeſſed the preſent Proteſtant faith, and Religion?

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour. If you can euict to much, then you are to name thoſe many Profeſſours: if not many, ſome few: at leaſt ſome one or other. If you can, I now vrge you to it. But it ſeemeth by your ſilence, being thus prouoked, you cannot name any one Proteſtant then liuing: ſo rare in thoſe dayes (though ſo late) were the byrds of ſuch an Aëry.

D. REYNOLDS.

Do you not know, that Bucer, Melancthon, and Pelican, were profeſſed Proteſtants, euen before Luthers breaking with the Church of Rome?

MICHAEAS.

Indeede D. Morton In his Apol. Cathol. p. 42. in extreme penury, and for maine releife of his Cauſe, is not abaſhed to nam the ſaid three men for Proteſtants, before Luthers reuolt from the Pope: Whereas it is certaine, that all theſe were originally Catholicks: & only vpon Luthers fale, did after adioyn themſelues to him.

I here further tell you, that it is repugnant to Common ſenſe, that any Proteſtants, or any adminiſtration of the word, and Sacraments, ſhould be within the twenty yeares, next afore Luthers Apoſtaſy (for I can tearme it no better) and yet no memory to be extant thereof, in any one Country or other, throughout all Chriſtendome; eſpecially ſeeing all Occurrents thereabouts (if there were any) ſhould haue bene performed in the memory of Man, and conſequently leſſe ſubiect to forgetfulneſſe. Againe, you pretend, you can exemplify in Proteſtants for all former auncient times; and yet you faile euen in this laſt age: Belike you will perſwade vs, that our knowledg of theſe matters, is like to ſome bad eyes, which ſee things a farre of, better, then neerer at hand.

Furthermore, I here aske the reaſon, that if any ſuch examples of proteſtancy had bene immediatly before Luthers reuolt, why at leaſt did not Luther, Zwinglius and the reſt, that adioyned themſelues to him, make mention of ſome ſuch Proteſtants?

D. REYNOLDS.

The Proteſtant Church doubtleſly was in thoſe dayes, but it was in ſolitude: And herein I ioyne in iudgment with D. Whitakers, thus cenſuring of this point: Ante Lib. de Eccleſ. contra Bellarm. controuerſ. 2. quaeſt. 5. 〈1 line〉 Lutheri tempora, latebat Eccleſia in ſolitudine, Before the times of Luther, the Church lay hid in the deſert.

MICHAEAS.

I grant, the Doctour anſwereth ſo; but why doth not he (being much prouoked by his Aduerſary thereto) alleadg as much as one Man, who was a Proteſtant before Luthers chang? Againe I demande, why did thoſe ſuppoſed Proteſtants immediatly before Luthers dayes, lye ſo hid and vnknowne, at Luthers reſing? If you ſay for feare of Perſecution (for no other pretext you can alledge) I reply, that feare of Perſecution could not be pretended to be a let after Luthers open reuolt; but that the Proteſtants (if any ſuch were) might ſecurely then haue ſtept out, and publikely haue ioyned themſelfs with Luther; Conſidering that then diuers magiſtrats and commonwealths had openly vndertaken the patronage of Luthers doctrine and Religion; And who obſerueth not, that the floud of any doctrine in faith is more or leſſe, as it is gouerned with the ful or wayne of ſecular Authority?

But to vrge a more irrefragable proofe, for this matter. This point (to wit, that not any one Proteſtant was to be found, through the whole World, immediatly before the dayes of Luther) is ſo cleare and vndeniable, as that we find the ſame granted, by a whole volley of Confeſſions, proceeding from the Proteſtants owne penns. For thus (for example) D. Iewel acknowledgeth: The In his Apolog. of the Church part 4. c 4. truth was vnknowne at that tyme, and vnheard of, when Martin Luther and Hulderick Zwinglius, firſt came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Goſpel. And vpon this ground it is, that Bucer In ep. ann. 36. ad Epiſc. Hereford. ſtileth Luther: The firſt Apoſtle to vs, of the reformed doctrine. Yea Conradus Sluſſenberg (the Lutheran) thus vehemently conteſteth this point, ſaying: It is In theolog. Caluiniſt. l. 2. fol. 130. impudency to affirme, that many learned Men in Germany before Luther, did hould the doctrine of the Goſpel: With whom in like manner conſpireth Benedictus Tract. de Eccleſ. pag. 145. Morgenternenſis, thus writing: It is ridiculous to ſay, that any before the tyme of Luther, had the purity of the Goſpel. Thus theſe Proteſtants: from whoſe authorityes being thus fully recited, I gather [M. D.] this Reſultancy; That Luthers reuolt was ſo farre, from prouing the contemning of the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, or the adminiſtration of the word and Sacraments; as that it proueth a manifeſt interruption, or rather a nullity thereof. It being ſo fully confeſſed, that at the firſt appearance of this Miſ reant of Saxony, (I meane of Luther, who firſt poizned the Duchy of Saxony with his doctrine) there was not any one Proteſtant (much leſſe, a Proteſtant Church, preaching the Word and adminiſtring the Sacraments) vpon the face of the earth, to be ſeene or heard of: But hereat I meruayle not, ſince Philoſophy reacheth vs (to ſpeake by all ſion) that where the Obiect is wanting, there the ſenſe ſuſpendeth it operation.

DOCTOVR REYNOLDS.

Admitting all that you ſay, to be true, touching the firſt twenty yeares before Luther; yet it is moſt eu cent, that Iohn Hus (who liued anno. 1400. and not very many yeares before thoſe 20. yeares) was a good and true Proteſtant; for him I fynd regiſtred for a moſt holy Martyr by M. Fox, Act. mon. pag. 190. and D. In his Treatiſe of Antichriſt p. 40. Downeham.

MICHAEAS.

Iohn Hus did liue in the yeare. 1400. Who firſt was a Catholicke Prieſt. The cauſe of his death, was in that he taught the Neceſſity of Communion vnder both kinds, and the ſeditious doctrine touching Princes, Biſhops, and Prieſts, being in mortall ſinne.

But to make a more particular diſſection of this Inſtance; The Articles, wherein his followers (the Bohemians) diſſented from the Church of Rome, were theſe following, which M. Fox thus relateth: The Bohemians Act. Mon. p. 260. being demanded in what poynts, they did differ from the Church of Rome; the only Propoſitions, which they propounded, were theſe foure Articles firſt, Communion vnder both kinds; The ſecond, that al Ciuil dominiou was forbidden to the Clergy; The third, that the preaching of the Word was free for all Men, and in al places; The fourth, that open crymes are in no wyſe to be ſuffered, for auoyding of greater euill. Thus M. Fox of the Huſſite, who (we ſee) as comparting with the Church of Rome in all other points, cannot poſſibly be alledged, for, viſible members of the Proteſtant Church.

D. REYNOLDS.

But what do you ſay of Iohn Hus himſelfe, was not he a Proteſtant, and dyed in defence of the Proteſtant fayth?

MICHAEAS.

M. D The teſtimonies of Luther and M. Fox ſhall decide this point betweene vs. And firſt M. Fox thus ſaith of him. Quid Fox in Apocalyps c. 11. pag. 290. vnquam docuit, aut in concilio defendit Huſſius &c. What did Hus defend at any tyme, or taught in the councel, wherein he might not ſeeme euen ſuperſtitiouſly to agree with the Papiſts? What doth the Popiſh fayth teach concerning Tranſubſtantiation, which he did not in like ſort confirme with the Papiſts? Who did celebrate Maſſes more religiouſly, then he? Or who, more chaſtly, did keep the vowes of Prieſtly ſingle life? Add hereto, that touching free •• l, fayth, prede •• nation, the cauſe of iuſtification, merit of Works, what other thing taught he, then was taught at Rome? What Image of any ſaint did he caſt out at Bethleem? therefore what can we ſay, (for which he deſerued, death) touching the which, he is not a like to be condemned with the Sea of Rome, or with it to be freed and abſolued? Thus far M. Fox, with whom agreeth. Luther, thus writing of Hus: The In colloquijs Germ. c. de Antichriſto. papiſts burned Hus, when as he departed not a fingars breadth from the papacy; for he taught the ſame, which the papiſts do; only he did find fault with their vices and wicked life; agaynſt the Pope he did nothing. Thus Luther.

Beſides all the Catholicke doctrines, mantained by Hus, he taught (as aboue is touched) the Hereſy of Wiclef, to wit, that there are no Princes, Prieſts, or Biſhopps, whyle they are in mortall ſinne, as M. Fox Act. mon. 230. Art. 1. & 2. recordeth; with whom agreeth the Proteſtant Oſiander, thus wryting: Nullus eſt Dominus ciuilis, nullus eſt Praelatus, nullus eſt Epiſcopus, dum eſt in mortali (x) In epitom. Cent. 15. p. 469. peccato: Haec propoſitio approhart non poteſt; ſed paſſus eſt Ioannes Hus hac in parte aliquid humani: There is no Ciuill Prince, no Prelate, or Biſhop, whiles he is in mortall ſinne: This propoſition cannot be approued; but Iohn Hus ſuffered herein the infirmity of Man. Now I cannot, but admire the incredible boldnes of M. Fox, who acknowledging the former Hereſy mantayned by Hus, but eſpecially granting (as ſhewed out of his owne words) that Hus did hould all the cheiſe points and frame of the preſent Roman Religion, was neuertheleſſe not aſhamed to pronounce Iohn Hus, for a moſt holy Martyr (as aboue is expreſſed) meaning a martyr of his owne Proteſtant Church. So gladly you Proteſtants (for the ſupporting of the continuance and viſibility of your Church) do make clayme, to any Catholicke, or hereticke whoſoeuer; who in one only point of Religion, (though diſſenting in all others) may ſeeme to compart and interleague with you. Thus far of Hus, whom to legitimate, for a Proteſtant, you ſee, it is impoſſible.

OCHINVS.

I muſt here agree in iudgment with Michaeas. And this Inſtance had far better bene forborne, then obtruded; And indeed it is no ſmall blemiſh to our Church, to inſiſt in ſuch weake and inſufficient examples. But [M. Doctour] Let vs entreate you, to riſe vp to Higher tymes in your diſcourſe.

D. REYNOLDS.

I will ſatisfy your deſire. The next then, in whom I will inſtance, ſhalbe our owne Contryman Wicklef: Whom all the world (I hope) will euen diſpoſe, that he was a perfect Proteſtant; and that himſelfe and his followers enioyed the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments; the practize of which is acknowledged to be an eſſentiall note of the Churches Viſibility. This my opinion touching Wicklef, being a Proteſtant, is not myne alone; but it is warranted with the authorityes of M. Fox, Act. mon. printed. 1596. pag. 391. and the learned In his booke of the ſtate of the Church pag. 418. Criſpinus.

MICHAEAS.

Indeede [M D.] M. Fox & Criſpinus (I grant) do ſo teach; but how truly, Obſerue, what followeth; and then geue vp your eauen and impartiall iudgment. And yet before I come to the tuche of this point, I muſt put you in mind, what thy two former Proteſtants grant in the places by you cited, that at Wickleffs reuolt (ſuppoſing him to be a Proteſtant) the Proteſtant Church was wholy inuiſible; for thus M. Fox Fox vbi ſuprà. writeth: In the tyme of horrible darknes, when there ſeemed in a manner to be no one ſo little ſparke of pure doctrine, left or remayning; Wicklef by Gods prouidence roſevp, through whom the Lord would firſt awaken & raize vp againe the World. Thus he. This Wicklef being an Engliſhman (as you know, M. D.) was a Catholicke, Prieſt, and Perſon of Lutterworth in Leiceſterſhirs; and as Stow In his Annals of England printed 1591. p. 425. relateth, He firſt inueighed againſt the Church of Rome, becauſe he had bene depriued by the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, from a certaine benefice. He liued, anno. 1370. Now that Wicklef cannot be truly claymed for a Proteſtant, I proue, in that (beſides he was a Catholicke Prieſt, and no Church of the Proteſtants, then knowne to him) he ſtill retayned many Catholicke Opinions; and withall taught diuers notorious Hereſyes,

Touching his Catholicke Opinions ſtill beleiued by him, I will alledge diuers out of his owne Wrytings; Firſt he beleiued ſeauen Sacraments, thus writing of them: Quaedam Wicklef in poſtilla ſuper 15. cap. Marci mē tioneth all the ſeauen ſacramēts. And in poſtilla ſuper 1. Cor. cap. 1. he writeth, as is here ſet downe. ſacramentaper ſe promulgauit Chriſtus &c. Certaine ſacraments Chriſt did promulgate by himſelf, as Baptiſme, the Euchariſt, the ſacrament of Orders, and of Penance; certaine alſo by his Apoſtles, as the ſacraments of Confirmation, and of Extreme Vnction.

He alſo beleiued the rites and Ceremonyes of the Maſſe, as appeareth in his booke de Apoſtaſiac. 18.

Touching his praying to our Bleſſed Lady, he thus in feruour writeth: Wicklef ſerm. de Aſſumpt. Mariae. Hic videtur miht, quod impoſſibile eſt nospraemiari ſine Mariae ſuffragio: It ſeemeth impoſſible to me, for any man to be rewarded, without the ſuffrage (or prayers) of Mary, He acknowledged the worſhip of Relicks & Images, of which he thus ſaith: Wicklef de Euchariſt. c. 9. Ador aneus imagines, vnde & ſigna &c. conceditur it aque, quòd reliquae Imagines &c. ſunt cum prudentia ador andae: We worſhip Images, as ſignes &c. Therfore it is granted, that relickes, Images &c. are to be worſhipped with prudence.

Touching Merit of Works, and works of Supererogation; Wicklefe was ſo forward in defence thereof; that Stow thus writeth of him: In his Annals printed 1592. p. 426. Wicklefe and his diſciples went in courſe ruſſet garments, downe to the heele , ſeemed to contemne all temporall goods, for the loue of eternall riches; adiayned himſelfe to the begging fryars; approouing their pouerty, and extolling their perfection. He thus teaching with the Catholicks, that a Religious, and voluntary pouerty, is the greateſt abundance. Beſides theſe his ſeuerall Catholicks doctrines, He defended diuers groſſe Herefyes. He firſt As witneſſeth O iand. Cēt. 15. p. 457. taught, that all things came to paſſe by an abſolute and ſtoicall Neceſſity: He condemned lawfull Oathes, ſauoring (as Oſiander ſaith) Cent. 6. 10. 11 &c. p 459. a t. 43. of Anabaptiſms. Touching Eccleſiaſticall perſons, thus writeth In ep. ad Fredericum Miconium. Melancthon of Wicklefe: Wicklefus contendit presbiteris non licere, vt poſſideant quicquam proprium; Wicklefe mantayneth, that it is not lawfull for Prieſts, to poſſeſſe any thing in propriety. He further taught euen by the acknowledgment of M. Fox Act mon. p 96. art. 4. (the Canonizer of the Pſeudomartyrs of his Religion) that if a Biſhop or a Prieſt be in deadly ſinne, he doth not order, conſecrato, or baptize; Which point is alſo verifyed of Wicklefe, by Epitom. h ſt. Cent. 9. 10. 11. a t. 4. Oſiander. Furthermore, Wicklefe did not only aſcribe (with Catholicks) merit to works, done in ſtate of grace; but he was ſo paſſionatly reſolute herein, as that (as Tom. 3. c. 7 8. 9. Waldenſis witneſſeth) he taught merit of works, done by force of nature, with the Pelagians. Finally, (n) Oſiander in epitom. hiſt. Cēt. 9. 10. 1. 12. Wicklefe taught, that there is no Ciuill magiſtrate, while he is in mortall ſinne; and this ſo groſly, that Melancthon thus cenſureth him: De Domino ciuili, ſophiſticè planè, & ſeditioſe vixatur; Wicklefe diſputeth of the ciuill magiſtrate ſophiſtically and ſeditiouſly: (o) M lancthon. vbi ſupra And according to this his doctrine in ſpeculation, his followers in great As witneſſeth S ow, vbi ſupra. numbers did riſe againſt the King; And for ſuch their treaſon, diuers of them were apprehended, and executed.

But to contract this point, touching the Hereſyes of Wicklefe; This matter is ſo euident and confeſſed by diuers learned Proteſtants, as that Pantaleon (a Proteſtant) placeth Wicklefe in the Catalogue of Hereticks, thus writing; Iohannes In Chronol. p. 119. Wicklefus cum Lolhardis, in Anglia ſuam Haereſim praedicat; Iohn Wicklefe di •• lgeth with the Lolhards, his Hereſy in England. And Melancthon thus writeth in generall of him: Melancthon. vbi ſupra. I haue found in Wicklefe many errours, wherby a Man may iudge of his ſpirit. Finally M. Fox Act. Mon. p. 95. (though at other times, gracing him with the title of a Proteſtant) confeſſeth, That VVicklefe vſed often for feare of perſecution and danger, to diſſemble his Religion; Which no man (in the iudgment both of Catholicke and Proteſtant) profeſſing any conſcience, can lawfully do. Thus much touching Wicklefe.

OCHINVS.

M. Doctour. I muſt confeſſe (euen betweene God and my conſcience) that hitherto the Veſſell, from whence you haue drawne all your former wine (I meane examples of Proteſtancy) is not good and pure: But I hope, we ſhall haue reaſon to ſay (in regard of your other more conuincing Inſtances, hereafter to follow) with the cheife ſteward of the feaſt in the Goſpell: Ioan. . Thou haſt kept the good wine, vntill now. But howſoeuer it is, Truth is not ſo feeble, as to be forced to leaue (for it owne ſupporting) vpon the cruches of any one mans ability.

NEVSERVS.

Truly hitherto, the Examples of proteſtancy are inſufficient (for how can they be reputed Proteſtants, who not only maintayne the moſt articles of the Romiſh Religion; but alſo do pertinaciouſly iuſtify diuers confeſſed Hereſyes?) Neuertheleſſe, I doubt not but Ochinus and my ſelfe ſhalbe able to proue, that the Proteſtant Church was enriched at all tymes, with many of the faythfull; though not alwayes it was ſo gloriouſly ſubiect to the eyes of others. But [M. D.] what do you ſay to the tymes precedent to the former? For we are moſt willing, that Michaeas ſhould haue good ſatisfaction giuen him herein.

D. REYNOLDS.

I ſay, that in thoſe tymes floriſhed not two or three, but many hundred Proteſtants. For then liued VValdo, from whom, as from a moſt worthy ſtemme (his branches) the VValdenſes are deſcended. All which (both the father and the Sonns (euen in the iudgment of M. Fox) Act. Mon. p. 628. were perfect Proteſtants. In thoſe tymes alſo were the Albigenſes, confeſſed for good Proteſtants. Alſo the Henricians or Apoſtolici, Peter Bruts. learned Almericus, and diuers others liued about thoſe dayes: Indeede there were ſo many Proteſtants in thoſe tymes, as I am partly troubled, where to beginne to reckon them; but may here ſay with the Poet: Inopem me copia fecit.

MICHAEAS.

Thus [M. D.] are but oſtentations; And I ſee, that ſaying verifyed in you: Many through loue, do hurt themſelfs. For you through your ouer much affecting, to preſerue the honour of your Church, do indeed) by proſtituting diuers Pſeudoproteſtants) indignify your Church: For all theſe, whom you now haue alledged, are merely Excentrous (as I may tearme them) & irregular Sectaries; their doctrines indifferētly mouing about the Poles of Catholicke Religion, Proteſtancy, & Senſuality.

And firſt touching Waldo. It is certaine, that he was a Layman of Lyons in France; vnlearned, but rich, and gaue money for the tranſlating of the Scripture into his owne vulgar tōgue. Of him the Waldenſes are deriued about the yeare 1218.

Now that neither Waldo, nor the VValdenſes (his followers) were Proteſtants, (though they be much vrged for ſuch, by many Proteſtants) is ſeuerall wayes prooued.

Firſt, in that they did ſtill hould diuers Catholicke points, as the Reall preſence in the Bleſſed Sacrament, of whom concerning the ſame point Caluin thus writeth: Epiſt. 244. Formula Confeſſionis &c. The forme of the Confeſſion of the Waldenſes doth inuolue all thoſe in eternall damnation, who do not confeſſe, that the breade is become truly the body of Chriſt. They alſo maintayned ſeauen Sacraments, the doctrine of Vowes, of ſingle life, and of Purgatory; with all which doctrines Benedictus In tract. de Eccleſ. p. 124. Morgenſtrenſis (a Lutheran) chargeth the Waldenſes, and reprehendeth them for the ſame.

Laſtly, they were ſo full in defending the doctrine of merit of works; as that, as D. Humfrey In I uitiſm. part. 2. rat. 3 p. 270. And M. Fox Act. mon. p. 628. writeth of VValdo; He did forſake all things, that being poore, he might follow Chriſt, & the Euangelicall Perfections. And in the end, it did ſo faule out, that his ſchollers and diſciples were an Order of begging Fryars, and commonly called: the Poore Men of Lyons. And did profeſſe (as D. Humfrey D. Humfrey vbi ſupra. affirmeth) a kind of Monaſticall life; And finally labored to Pope Innocentius (the third) to haue their Order confirmed; but could not preuayle, as Vſpergenſis witneſſeth in his Chronicle.

Secondly, The Hereſyes mantayned by VValdo and his followers are ſuch, as that you [M. D.] in regard of their defence of them, cannot challenge them for Proteſtants.

For firſt, they taught, that maryed Perſons mortally ſinned, in hauing the Act of Matrimony, without hope of Procreation, as teſtifyeth Illyricus Illyricus in catalog. teftium verirat. p. 743. the Proteſtant. They alſo did hould all embracements (marke this gotiſhe doctrine) and things donne aboue Illyrecus vbi ſupra. pag. ibid. the girdle as touching, kiſſing, words, compreſſion of the papps &c. to be done in charity: They further taught, that neither Prieſts Illyrecus vbi ſupra. p. 760. nor ciuill Magiſtrats being guilty of mortall ſinne, did enioy their dignity, or were to be obeyed: That Ibid p. 731. et p. 745. Laymen and VVomen might conſecrate and preach: That Clergy Ibid. p. 729. Men ought to haue no poſſeſſions: That men Ibid. p. 735. et 756. ought not to ſweare in any caſe: They Illyric. ibid p. 734. went to the Catholicke Churches diſſemblingly, & confeſſed & communicated diſſemblingly: Finally (to omit ſome others) they condemned all Princes Illyric. ibid p. 735. et 755. and Iudges. And thus far (M. D. and you two learned Men) to proue, that VValdo and his followers were no Proteſtants, (though it is not denyed, but that ſome one poynt or other of proteſtancy, they might mantaine) and conſequently, that the example of them is defectiue, to proue the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church in their dayes.

NEVSERVS.

But what ſay you [Michaeas] of the Albigenſes, and the reſt aboue mentioned by M. Doctour? Were not all they Proteſtants?

MICHAEAS.

I grant, they are marſhalled among Proteſtants by D. D. Fulke againſt the Rhemiſh Teſtarnēt in Apoc. 12. Fulke and D. D. Abbots in his ſecond partof the defēce &c. printed 1607. p. 55. Abbots. But here [M. D.] you are either deceaued, or (which I thinke not) intend to deceaue. For here the Albigenſes are brought for ſhew only of greater variety of diſhes, the better to furniſh the table of Proteſtancy: Whereas indeede they were of the ſame Sect with the Waldenſes, or rather the ſame Men; according to the iudgments of D. Abbots and D. Fulke. For D. Abbots thus writeth: In his booke againſt D. Hill his reaſons. p. 57. Theſe Leoniſts, or poore Men of Lyons, and waldenſes, and Albigenſes were the ſame Men; but diuerſly, and vpon diuers occaſions tearmed by the Romiſh Sinagogue: And D. Fulke ſayth the ſame in theſe words: De ſucceſſ. Eccleſiaſt. contra ſtapletonum. p. 332. They are called the VValdenſes by the vulgar Papiſts; as alſo by others, they are named the poore Men of Lyons, Leoniſts, Albigenſes, or by what other name, it pleaſed the Sycophants of Antichriſt.

Now theſe Albigenſes (be who they will, eyther the ſame with the Waldenſes, or not) as they mantayned ſome points of Proteſtancy; ſo with all euen by the teſtimony of Oſiander In Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 329. the Proteſtant, they taught diuers execrable Hereſyes. The words of Oſiander are theſe: Albigenſibus dogmata haec attribuuntur; Duo eſſe principia; Deum videlicet bonum, & Deum malum, hoc eſt Diabolum &c. Theſe opinions are aſcribed to the Albigenſes: That there are two Principles; to wit a good God, and a bad God, which is the Deuill; and who created all bodyes, as the good God did all ſoules &c. They do reiect Baptiſme, and they ſay, to go to Churches, and to pray in them, is not profitable: &c. They condemne Mariage, & do allow (as holy) promiſcuous concubitus, al promiſcuous lying togeather, how wicked ſoeuer &c. Thy deny the reſurrectiō of the body, & that Chriſt was true Man. Thus far Oſander, who alſo ſayth: The opinions of the Albigenſes are abſurd, wicked, & hereticall; & finally, tearmeth their ſpirits: an Anabaptiſticall furye. And D. Cowper In his dictionarium historicum, annexed to his theſaurus printed anno. 15-78. at the word: Albigenſes. of Wincheſter, maketh like mention of their abſurd Hereſyes. A point ſo acknowledged, that D. Iewell wholy diſclaymeth from the Albigenſes, as Proteſtants; ſaying thus plainly: They In his defence of the Apology. p. 48. be none of ours.

Touching the Apoſtolici, or Henricians; they are ſo far from beinge Proteſtants, as that they are acknowledged for Heretyks by D Fulke, D. Fulke in his Retentiue againſt Briſtow. p. 124. D. Iewel, In his defence of the Apol. p. 48. and Oſiander, Cent. 12. p. 291. who reports their Hereſyes.

But to proceed forward to other of your Examples. Peter Bruis is cenſured for an Hereticke, by Oſiander, Oſiander. Cent. 12. p. 282. and 283. and Hoſpinian; Hoſpinian in hiſtor. Sacrament l. 4. p. 361. who relates his Hereſyes.

Almaricus his Hereſies are reported by Oſiander, & himſelfe reiected for an Hereticke, and not acknowledged for a Proteſtant by the ſaid Oſiander; Oſiander vbi ſupra. neyther by D. Iewell, In his defence of the Apol, vbi ſupra who ſpeaking of the Albigenſes, the Apoſtolici, and Almaricus, ſaith (as before) they be none of ours. And thus far Gentlemen) touching the VValdenſes, the Albigenſes, the Apoſtolici, or Henricians, Peter Bruis, and Almaricus.

D. REYNOLDS.

I ſee no reaſon, but that we may be iuſtly diſtruſtfull, in giuing ouer much credit, to the wryting of former tymes, which charge the Waldenſes, Albigenſes, and the reſt, with the Hereſyes by you recited: And if ſuch wrytings were eyther falſe in himſelfs, o but forged only, through deceate and confederacy of their Enemyes; then may the ſaid Men well be reputed for true, and perfect Proteſtants.

MICHAEAS.

If you [M. D.] be ſo diffident, as that (contrary to the iudgment of Oſiander Hoſpinian and other Prteſtants) you will not beleiue the writings of former tymes, charging Waldo and the reſt (in this paſſage or diſcourſe mentioned) with the Hereſyes afore alleadged; then what colour can you pretend, why you ſhould giue Credit to thoſe Writings of the ſame (s) Cent. 9. 10. 11. p. 326. tyme, which affirme, that the foreſaid Men beleiued certaine Opinions of Proteſtancy? And therefore it followeth by force of all Reaſon, that ſuch Writings affirming both the one and the other, are eyther ioyntly to be beleiued and credited, or ioyntly to be reiected, as falſe and forged: And the rather, ſeing the Reporters of thoſe tymes, did impartially and indifferently recite and condemne, all thoſe opinions, wherein the foreſaid Hereticks diſſented from the Church of Rome; without any foreknowledge, which of the ſaid Opinions, would eyther be approued or reiected, by Men of this age. So weake you ſee [M. D.] is this your Replye.

OCHINVS.

I am of iudgment, that the VValdenſes, and the reſt can 〈…〉 truly be reputed for Proteſtants, in regard of the reaſons alledged by you [Michaas.] And I do hould, that your laſt reply [M. D.] (touching the vncertainty of the credit of thoſe wrytings, charging the VValdenſes, and all the other with Hereſyes) is moſt firmely auoyded by Michaas.

NEVSERVS.

I am of the ſame iudgement with Ocbinus herein: And the truth is, we do much wrong the honour of our Church, by pretending ſuch vnworthy Men, for members thereof. But proceede [M. D.] to higher tymes.

D. REYNOLDS.

In the precedent ages to theſe former (if credit may be giuen to authenticall Hiſtoryes) there were not only many Proteſtants, but euen ſeuerall Bookes then written, in defence of the Proteſtant Religion: As the Authour of the Booke, written againſt Images, in the name of Carolus Magnus: Bertram, Vlrick, Berengarius &c. All or any of which to denye, to haue bene Proteſtants, were to infringe all authority of Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory.

MICHAEAS.

There are not any of theſe, you haue named, as much (I may ſay) as of the halfeblood to a Proteſtant: ſo little affinity there is, betweene the Proteſtants Religion, and theſe Mens religion. I grant, that ſome Proteſtants (and theſe but very few, and of meane eſteeme) do inſtance (through their ſecurity of better examples) in theſe your mentioned men; but how coldy and weakly, we will now diſcouer. And firſt, touching the Booke written againſt Images, in the name of Carolus Magnus, I ſay, firſt, that booke concerneth only but one point of Religion; and conſequently it can giue no proofe of Proteſtancy in thoſe dayes. Secondly, I auer, that it was forged by ſome Heretike, that denyed the doctrine of Images (perhapps) in thoſe dayes; but neuer made or allowed by Carolus Magnus. This I prooue firſt, becauſe Carolus Magnus was wholy addicted and deuoted to the Church of Rome, and it fayth in generall; And therefore the leſſe probable it is, that he ſhould wr t, or ſuffer to be written in his name, any booke, inpugning but any one point of that Religion. I will relate the words of Hoſpinian (the Proteſtant) touching his affection to the Catholicke fayth; Thus be ſayth: In ep. dedic. hiſtor. Sacrament. Carolus Magnus nonſolum publicis edictis &c. Charles the Great did not only command by publike Edicts, that the Ceremonyes, rites, the Latin Maſſe of the Church of Rome, and other decreſſe and Inſtituts of the Pope of Rome, ſhould be obſerued, through out the whole Empyre; but alſo himſelfe did force the Churches, to theſe obſeruations vnder payne of impreſonments, and other kinds of puniſhments; with whom alſo conſpireth in iudgment herein Criſpinus In his booke of the ſtate of the Church. p. 221. M. Cowper, In his Cronicle p. 473. and Oſiander. in ep. hiſt. eccleſ. cent. 8. p. 101. Secondly, in that it is acknowledged by learned writers, that Carolus Magnus was an enemy to thoſe, who impugned Images. For Paulus Lib. 2. hiſt. Franciae. Aemilius witneſſeth, that Carolus did ſend twelue Biſhops vnto a Councel houlden at Rome, vnder Pope Steuen in confutation of the errour of the Grecians, againſt Images. The ſame doctrine of Images, as defended by Carolus, is further confeſſed by the Centuriſts, Cen. 8. c. 9. col. 570. D. Cowper, In Chronic. p. 474. and by Ioannes Lib. 1. pro Imaginibus. Aurelianenſis, who liued in the tyme of Carolus Magnus. Thirdly and laſtly, there are ſuſpicious of the forgery of that Booke. For it appeareth out of the booke of Pope Adrian, to Carolus Magnus (which booke was purpoſely written, againſt that booke diuulged in Carolus his name) that the ſaid booke was then written by ſome ſecret enemy of Images: a point ſo euident, that Caluin Inſtit. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. intimateth the vncertainty of the Authour of that Booke, thus ſaying: E tat refutatorius liber ſub Caroli Magni nomine &c. There is extant a booke of refutation, vnder the name of Carolus Magnus; which we may eaſily gather to be made about that tyme: ſo doubtfully and irreſolutly Calum writeth of the authour of that Booke.

Touching the ſuppoſed booke of Beriram, written de Corpore & Sanguine Domine, and dedicated to Charle the Bawld; as ſaid, to impugne the doctrine of the Reall Preſence in the moſt bleſſed Sacrament of the Euchariſt: Which booke ſome thinke to haue bene forged by Oeculampadius, in the name of Bertram. I ſay [M. D.] firſt this booke writeth ſo doubtfully and intricatly of the Reall Preſence, vſing the words: figure, ſpirituall, and Myſtery, with ſuch qualifications, as that no ſtrong Argument againſt the Reall Preſence can be drawne from thence; yea which is more, this booke ſo much fauoreth the Reall Preſence, as that the Centuriſts Cent. 9. c. 4. col. 212. do thus cenſure of it: Tranſubſtantiationis ſemina habet Bertramus, The booke of Bertram hath in it the ſeedes of Tranſubſtantiation. Secondly, the Catholicke wryters of thoſe tymes, (as Hoſpinian relateth at large) did honour In hiſtor. Sacrament. l. 4 p. 317. Bertram, as a holy Martyr of the Catholicke Church. How then is it probable, that Bertram ſhould wryte a booke againſt one of the cheifeſt Articles, defended & beleiued by the ſaid Church? Thus far of Bertram.

Touching Vlricke (who was Biſhop of Auguſta) who is vrged for a Proteſtant, in that it is ſuppoſed, he ſhould wryte an Epiſtle to Pope Nicolas in behalfe of Prieſts Mariage, and printed lately at Baſill. We reply, that by force of all Reaſon, this Epiſtle is but forged by ſome enemy of the Roman Church in his name; and was written diuers yeares after Pope Nicolas was dead, or before that Vlrick was borne. For as Onuphrius L. de Rom. Pontif. writeth; Pope Nicolas the firſt (to whom it is ſuppoſed, Vlrick ſhould write) was elected Pope, anno 858. enioying the ſame nyne yeares, and two months, & dyed anno 867. Whereas Vlrick was not made Biſhop of Auguſta, till anno 924. Which was after the death of Pope Nicolas; And he contemning Biſhop fifty yeares, dyed anno 973. Of which point, we may reade Vſpergenſis, In Chronico- Cytraeus, In Chronico. & Pantaleon. In Chronico.

D. REYNOLDS.

But what ſay you [Michaeas] touching Burengarius; I hope it cannot be denyed, but that he impugned the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation?

MICHAEAS.

I come to Burengarius (who liued anno 1051. and was Archdeacon of Angiers) who is challenged for a Proteſtant, for his deniall of Tranſubſtantiation, in the moſt bleſſed Sacrament of the Euchariſt; I anſwere, firſt. It is true, that for a time he impugned the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation: yet afterwards he recanted As M. Fox confeſſeth. Act. Mon. p. 13. his Hereſy therein and dyed moſt Catholicke in that Article. Secondly, I anſwere, that this Heretick-Catholicke Berengarius, did hould diuers errours, euen in the iudgment of Oecolampadius, In epiſt. Oecolampedii et Swinglii. l. 3. p. 710. the Proteſtant: who thus writeth of him: Berengarius non nulla affirmat aduerſus Baptiſmum parnulorum, & coniugium, Berengarius affirmeth diuers things againſt the Baptiſme of Infants, and Marriage: And againe: Damnata Ibidē p 812. eſt Berengarij Opinio, Sacerdotio Chriſtiano parum minus tribuens: The Opinion of Berengarius is condemned, which aſcribed ouer little to Chriſtian Prieſthood. Alſo Papir Maſſon L 3. in Hugone et Roberto. in his Annals of France writeth, that Berengarius and his followers denyed the grace of Baptiſme; denyed, that men committing mortall ſinne, could euer obtaine Pardon; and further, that Berengarius was an enemy to Mariage. Thus much of Berengarius his owne and his followers Hereſyes: though himſelfe before his death (according to the iudgment of certaine Catholicke Writers) recanted his Hereſyes.

But (M. D. and you Gentlemen) I will conclude this paſſage, with recurring to one obſeruation aboue ſet downe. ſuppoſe therefore for the tyme, that theſe former bookes were doubtfull, but truly penned by the Authours, vnder whoſe name they go: ſuppoſe alſo that Berengarius had neuer recanted his hereſy in denying of Tranſubſtantiation; ſuppoſe finally, that you may alledge diuers other ſectaryes, houlding this or that point of Proteſtancy: yet what can all this conuince? It can neuer proue any Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church: ſeeing all theſe (thus admitted) are but the Examples of one or other priuate Man, who was originally Catholicke and after embraced ſome one or two points of Proteſtancy (ſtill remayning in all other articles, wholy Catholicke.) And therefore I much commend the Ingenuity of D. Fulke In his anſweare to a Counterfeyte Catholicke. p. 34. herein, who foreſeing the impertinency of theſe Examples of Bertram, Berergarius, and thoſe others, reiecteth them in theſe words: Although theſ and ſuch like defenced ſome part of the tru h which we ould againſt you; yet le ſt you ſhould obiect, it was but in ſome one or two points, paſſe them ouer with ſilence Thus D. Fulke, who euen vpon this ground, preterm •• teth all the ſaid examples, and firſt inſtanceth in Wicklefe.

OCHINVS.

I do find [Michaeas] ſome learned Proteſtants to make mention of Ioannes de Ioannes de Rupe ſciſſa, and Guilielmus de S. Amore, claymed for Proteſtants by M. Napper vpon the Reuclat. in c. 20. rupeſciſſa, Gui ie mus de S. Amore, Peter Peter blois i . claymed by M. Gabriel Powel in his conſiderat. p. 25. Blois, and ſome others for good and found Proteſtants? what is your opinion of them.

MICHAEAS.

I grant they are claymed for Proteſtants, but obſerue how iniuſtly. And firſt, touching Ioannes de rupe ſciſſa: M. Fox Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 287. thus writeth of him. Iohannes de Rupe ſciſſa, liued anno 1340. who for rebuking the ſpiritualty for their great enormityes, and neglecting their office, was caſt in priſon. Thus M. Fox. Thus we ſee, he otherwyſe was Catholicke in all points. Willi lmu de S. Amore is thus charged by Pantaleon In Chronographia pag. 102. the Proteſtant: Gulielmus de S. Amore Monach s ex 〈…〉 oſyna, in otio 〈…〉 tes, non ſalua i ſcribens, a Papa Haereticus cenſetur: Guilielmus de S. Amore, teaching, that Monkes liuing of Almes in idlenes, could not be ſaued, is therefore cenſured by the Pope for an Hereticke. Laſtly, Peter Blois, who liued anno 1200. is freed from being a Proteſtant by Oſiander in theſe words: Cent. 12 p. 181. Petrus Bleſenſis &c. principum, praelatorum, religioſiſorum & priuatorum peccatā grauiter arguit; non tamen Pontificios errores refutauit. Peter Blois did much aggrauate the ſinns of Princes, Prelates, Religious, and priuate Men; but he no way intermedled with the errours of Popish religion. Now [Ochinus] I refer euen to your ſelfe, how vntruly theſe former Men may be obtruded vpon vs for Proteſtants. But the proceeding of our Aduerſaries in this queſtion of the viſibility of their Church is incredible, who are not aſhamed (in their owne defence herein) to challenge (beſydes regiſtred and confeſſed Hereticks) any one, that hath impugned the Pope or his Church but in any one point, eyther of manners or doctrine; And hence it is, that they challenge to themſelfs for Proteſtants, men, whom all the world do know to be Catholicks, in all articles of fayth without exception: Thus are Willielmus Occam, and Gandanenſis by M. Fox: Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 358. & Iohn Scotus Oſiander cent. 9. p. 44. by Oſiander vrged for Proteſtants. Thus alſo is S. Bede claymed by D. Humfrey, In Ieſuitim. part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 326. of whom Oſiander In epitom. cent. 8. pag. 58. thus ſpeaketh: Bede was a Papiſt in all thoſe Articles, wherein Proteſtants do at this day diſſent from the Pope. Thus is Peter Lombard placed in the Catalogue By Symon Pauli in method. aliquot. locorum doctrinae. fol. 12. of the Doctours and reſtorers of the heauenly doctrine, whom notwithſtanding M. Fox Act. mon. pag. 41. ſtyleth: An archpillar of Papiſtry. Thus alſo Ioannes Gerſon & Thomas Aquinas (whom all Chriſtendome acknowledgeth to be of the Church of Rome) are challenged for Proteſtants by Illyricus. See all theſe & ſome others, in the Alphabeticall table of Illyricus his Catalogue, re ium veritatis. Finally, Thus is Eraſmus canonized by them for a Proteſtant, and particularly by your ſelfe [M. D.] L. 1. de Rom. Idolat. l. 1. c. 2. act. 3. p. 73. & yet we reade, that Eraſmus thus writeth: Eraſm. in l. 16. epiſt. 1 Chriſtum agnoſco, Lutherum non agnoſco, Eccleſiam Romanam agnoſco. Chriſt 〈◊〉 acknowledge, Luther I do not acknowledge, the Church of Rome I acknowledge. But D. Field (one of this vniuerſity) ouergoeth all others; for he with more, then a meretricious and frontles bouldnes, auerreth, that all Chriſtendome before the dayes of Luther, were Proteſtants; for thus he writeth: D. Fyeld in his booke of the Church. l. 3. c. 8. p. 76. We firmely beleiue, that all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers liued and dyed, to haue bene the true (Proteſtant) Churches of God &c. And that they, which taught, imbraced, and beleiued thoſe damnable errours, which the Romaniſts defend againſt vs, were only a faction: An aſſertion, which Impudency it ſelf would bluſh to mantayne; it being controuled by all hiſtoryes whatſoeuer, and by the free acknowledgment of all Proteſtant wryters without exception.

NEVSERVS.

This bould aſſeueration of D. Field (I confeſſe) diſpleaſeth me infinitly; and it is no ſmall blemiſh to vs (who profeſſe the Goſpell) and who ſhould bound and meaſure our ſpeeches with truth, at leaſt with ſome probability of Truth, thus to write. For who knoweth not, that the Maſſe (which contayneth in it ſelfe, diuers doctrines of the Romiſh Religion) was the publike Leyturgy, celebrated in all Churches throughout Chriſtendome, at Luthres firſt reuolt from the Pope? And I grant, that this may giue iuſt ſuſpition to many to thinke, that we make vndue clayme to the auncient Fathers, and others aboue inſtanced (being further of in tyme remoted from vs) when ſome of vs bluſh not, to affirme ſo vntruly of the dayes next before Luther, and of the tyme, in which himſelfe firſt did riſe vp; it being yet in the memory of Man. But [M. Doctour] I pray you, proceede to higher tymes.

D. REYNOLDS.

I acknowledge, it is a difficult point, to name profeſſours of Proteſtancy, for euery age: Though (no doubt) our Proteſtant Church (as being the true Church) enioyed many Profeſſours at all tymes. But theſe examples afore produced, may giue great coniecture; that at all times ſince the Apoſtles, there haue bene many faithfull Proteſtants, and an anſwerable adminiſtration of the word & Sacraments.

MICHAEAS.

Touching your former produced examples; your owne ſecret iudgment (no doubt) aſſureth you that as yet we haue not met with one pertinent example, in all this diſcourſe. But ſeeing you [M. D.] do forbeare to inſtance for former ages, yet not diſcuſſed (contrary to your promiſed attempt in the beginning) I would entreate Ochinus, or Neuſerus, to inſiſt in perticular Inſtances of Proteſtancy, for euery ſuch age.

OCHINVS.

I will ſpeake both for my ſelfe and N uſerus. The labour of inſtancing is peculiar to M. Doctour; And therefore we would be loath, (as being no more able to performe it, then he) to take it from him, and aſſume it to our ſelfs.

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour and you two Gentlemen. Theſe are but words, ſeruing fruitleſly to rauell out the time, allotted for diſputation: Therefore once more I vrge you all, to giue inſtances for euery age, not yet mentioned.

NEVSERVS.

What needs this earneſt ſolicitation of you in this point? There were (no doubt) in euery of thoſe Centuryes many Proteſtants: And let that ſuffice.

MICHAEAS.

What Neuſerus? Generalityes without particulars? What Logicke is this? And yet you know, Logicke is the ſchollars eye, wherewith he diſcerneth Sophiſms and ſubtill Euaſions. But the plaine truth is, neither any of you, or any learned Man whoſoeuer is able ſo much, as but to ſuggeſt any one man (much leſſe any one Country) profeſſing in the next precedent ages the Proteſtant fayth. And therefore (ſince Neceſſity is euer pardonable) I pardon you all for your flying to theſe generall anſweres; though I muſt confeſſe, they openly diſcouer the ſtrayts, within which you are here enuironed.

But [Learned Men] ſeing we haue waded ſo far in this diſcourſe, we will reflect a little vpon the former examples or Inſtances. And I will here deale liberally with you, in yeelding or the tyme more, then I am bound to doe. And as the Ma •• ematicians do forge certaine imaginary and vnreal Circles in the Heauens, whereby they arriue to the knowledge of the true and naturall motions of the ſtars and planets: So I will for the tyme here imagine, that Waldo, Wicklef, Hus and the reſt by you exemplifyed, were in all points Proteſtants, and that their faith was not contaminated and ſoyled with any one Errour or Hereſy: yet from theſe acry ſuppoſals, I will neuertheleſſe deduce the infallible and certaine truth of the defection of the Proteſtants Church; And will proue, that the ſaid Examples (admitting them for true examples) are not ſufficient, for ſeuerall Reaſons, to ſupport the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church.

1. And firſt, we are here to call to mind, that the Church of God (as appeareth from the Etymology of the Word: Eccleſia, and the Eccleſiaſticall acceptance thereof) is a calling out, or Congregation of many of the faithfull: So as to the neceſſary being of the Church (eſpecially after the firſt plantation of it) not one or two, but diuers and many faythfull muſt concurre. Which point is made more euident, in that the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments (being euer a moſt neceſſary Attendant of the Church) includeth in it ſelfe a multitude of perſons, conſiſting of Paſtours and Doctours, on the one ſide, and of ſpirituall ſheepe or children on the other ſide. In like ſort the former prophecyes touching the encreaſe, amplitude, & continuall ſplendour of the Church do euict the ſame. Now to apply this to our preſent purpoſe. In ſome of the former examples, we fynd no mention of others, ioyning in beleife with the firſt ſuppoſed Proteſtants of that tyme: There ore from hence it may be concluded, that the being of any one ſuch ſtrange Proteſtant or other, doth not include the being of any Proteſtant Church at that tyme; much leſſe, the Viſibility of ſuch a ſuppoſed Church, during but that very tyme.

2. Secondly, the Scriptures and firſt part of our diſcourſe, do irrefragably prooue, that the Church of God muſt, not at one only tyme or other, but all tymes, and in all ages, without the leaſt interruption or diſcontinuance (much leſſe, without interruption for many hundred yeares togeather) be moſt viſible and conſpicuous; for it is reſembled (euen in this reſpect) by Gods ſacred Writ, to a Citty, Math. 〈◊〉 Eſay 2. placed vpon a hill, that cannot be hid at any tyme: And to a mountayne, Eſay ibidem. prepared in the top of mountaynes, and exalted aboue Hills. All which implyeth a continuall and inceſſant Viſibility of the Church: To which Scriptures D. Fulke Againſt the Rheniſh Teſtament in 2. Theſſal. 2. and In his anſwere to M. Reynolds preface p. 34. & 37. D Whitakers ſubſcrbe (as aboue is ſhewed) Both who teach, that euen in the greateſt perſecution of Antichriſt (much more, then at other tymes) the Church of God ſhalbe moſt viſible, and as Bullenger Vpon the Apocalyps p. 200. ſayth: right famous. This now being granted, and withall it being acknowledged by D. ulke In his anſwere to a Coūterfeyte Catholicks p. 36. and other learned Proteſtants, (who ſpeake more ſparingly and warily here of, then others of their Brethren do, who grant a longer tyme of the reigne of the Catholicke Fayth and Religion): That anno Domini 607. the papiſts religion preuayled (as the ſayd Doctour ſpeaketh) and that all Popes from Boniface the third, were Antichriſts; which Boniface did liue about the ſaid yeare 607.

Now here ſatisfying my ſelfe at this preſent, with our Aduers: Confeſſions, touching the continuance of our Catholicke Religion; I demaund (M. D. and you learned Men) what Proteſtants can be alledged, liuing betweene Anno 607. and 〈◊〉 220. at which tyme liued Waldo. Here are about ſix hundred yeares betweene theſe two tymes; during all which Period, as alſo for euery yeare thereof, you ſtand obliged to alledge Proteſtants for the continuance of the Viſibility of your Church; or els to acknowledge your Church not to be the Church of God. But here all you Proteſtants are at a ſtand; as being not able to name any one Proteſtant liuing within the compaſſe of the ſaid ſix hundred yeares; I meane from anno 607. to anno 1220 wherby to ſupport the Viſibility of your Church, but for any part of that tyme (much leſſe for whole tyme.) And if you [M. Doctour] can inſtance for thoſe tymes, I here prouoke you thereto: for as for Bertram, and Berengarius &c. their examples are ouer vnworthy to be inſiſted vpon (as aboue is ſhowed) Beſyds, ſuppoſing them for Proteſtants, yet their examples ſerue but only during the life of Bertram and Berengarius; both which liued ſome foure or fiue hundred yeares after the acknowledged foreſaid 607. yeare of Boniface; for which foure or fiue hundred yeares, you ſtill remayne bound to inſtance your Proteſtants.

Againe Waldo (as is ſaid) liued in anno 1220. Wocklefe liued anno 1370. Hu in anno 1405. Luther liued more then a hundred yeares after Hus. Here we ſee againe, there is a good number of yeares betweene euery one of theſe ſeuerall tymes: And here I demand agayne of you, to name ſome Proteſtants to fill vp the Bancks (as it were) or empty roomes of theſe many Sta ions: During all which tyme, you cannot inſtance (I am ſure) in any one knowne confeſſed Proteſtant. Wherefore I conclude, that ſeing the Church of God is to be at all tymes & ſeaſons euer viſible and diſcernable; And ſeing your former Examples of Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, and the reſt aboue mentioned (admitting them for true examples in all points) are found defectiue to proue your Churches Viſibility; that therefore your Proteſtant Church (for want of this viſibility, ſo neceſſarily required) is not the true Church of God; and conſequently, that I haue no warrant, to leaue the Catholicke Church, and to implant my ſelfe in your Proteſtant Church.

3. Thirdly, All the former Men (I meane, Berengarius, Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, Luther &c.) were originally Catholicks; and then after by forging of new doctrines (afore vntaught) they deuyded themſelues from the Church then in being: And ſo thereby they iuſtifyed in themſelfs thoſe words of S. Iohn: (r) they went out of vs; the very ſignature or Character Ioan. 2. & Act. 15. of an Hereticke, euen in the iudgment of Proteſtants. Oſiand. inepitom. Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78. thusſaith: nota, haeretici ex Eccleſia progrediuntur. Now this diſparture or going out of the Church, implyeth in lieu of a continuance of their Church, an interruption, diſcontinuance, and defection of their Church (and conſequently a want of Viſibility of their ſayd Church: Since it infallibly proueth, that the doctrines taught by theſe men after their departure, was not taught by the Church afore in being: for if they had bene taught by it, theſe Men needed not to leaue the then knowne Church, for their defending and teaching of their ſaid doctrines.

4. Fourthly & laſtly, you (no doubt) will ſay, that Wicklefe, Hus, Luther &c. did preach the word and adminiſter the Sacraments to their diſciples (ſince without theſe meanes, euen by your confeſſion, the Church cannot ſubſiſt.) Here then, ſeing no Hebr. 5. Man taketh to him the honour of Prieſthood, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. And ſeing according hereto it is ſayd: how Rom. 10. ſhall they preach, except they be ſent? And further, who ſo Ioan. 10. entreth not at the dore, into the ſheepfould, but clymeth another way, is a theife. I now demand [M. Doctour] who did call Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, &c. to preach the word, and adminiſter the Sacraments? Or by whom were they ſent?

D. REYNOLDS.

I here anſwere, with Caluin, So laſciuius, a Proteſt. relateth of Caluin, in muſcouit. et Tartar. religionē. c. 23. Beza, In his conference at Po ſi. and D. Fulke: Againſt Stapleton & Martial. c. 2. that they had extraordinary calling immediatly from God, in reguard of the Popes tiranny in thoſe dayes, and the ouerflowing of ſuperſtition of thoſe tymes.

MICHAEAS.

This is but extrauagantly ſpoken, and merely forged by you Proteſtants [M. D.] as hauing no other colour to warrant your calling. But Muſculus, loc. com. p. 394. Amandus Polanus in part. theolog. l. 1. p. 30 . to refute this phantaſy: Extraordinary calling is euer accompanyed (as it was in the Apoſtles) with working of miracles, euen by the iudgment of the Proteſtants thē ſelfe: Among whom Luth. tom. 5. 〈◊〉 . Germ. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . Luther thus expoſtulateth others of their extraordinary calling, ſaying: Vnde venis? quis te 〈…〉 iſ •• ? 〈…〉 iſunt 〈…〉 , que is a Deo miſſum eſſe teſtantur? (See how by Gods prouidence, Luthers penne turneth vpon himſelfe.) And therefore D. Bilſ n, as wholy reiecting all extraordinary Calling (not warranted with Miracles) thus confeſſeth: In his perpetuall gouermēt of the Church c. 9. p. 111. They can haue no part of Apoſtolicall Commiſſion, who haue no shew of Apoſtolicall ſucceſſion. Thus then Luther, Hu , Wicklefe, and the reſt are exempted from all extraordinary Calling, immediatly by God himſelfe: ſince their Calling was neuer confirmed with the working of any one miracle, euen in the iudgment of D. Fulke, whoſe words are theſe: It Againſt the Rheniſh Teſt. in Apocalyp. 13. is knowne, that Caluin and the reſt, whom Papiſts call Archhereticks, do worke no Miracles.

D. REYNOLDS.

Some learned Proteſtants (to wit, Contra Durae m l. 9. p. 820. D. Whitakers, D. Bridges, In his defence of the gouerment pag. 1276. and others) do auerre, that it is not improbable to affirme, that Wicklefe, Hus, Luther, &c. receaued their calling from the Church of Rome; Which calling was conferred vpon them. before their departure out of that Church. Which opinion of theirs (admitting it for true) taketh away the ſuppoſed difficulty of this your Argument.

MICHAEAS.

Neuer [M. D.] doth the poore and fearefull hayre vſe before the hounds, more windings and turnings, to ſaue her life; then you Proteſtants do here, to ſalue your Vocation: for you being here ſtabled; to get your ſelfe out of the myre, ſometymes affirme your calling to be extraordinary, and immediate from God; warranted by him with certaine Euthuſiaſms (forſooth) and illuminations. But when the vanity of that pretext is layd open, then you fly to the Catholicke Roman Church, making it your Sanctuary. But ſee, with what an abſurdity this your later Anſwere is accompanyed. For (beſides, that Walde, as being a Layman, neuer receaued any calling from thence) Why do you and others moſt contumeliouſly call the Roman Church, Antichriſtian? ſeing it ſeemes, you confeſſe, that it is able to conferre true Calling to Luther, Hus, and the reſt, and to their ſucceſſours or deſcendents; which ability and power is peculiar only to the true Church. For if the Pope be Antichriſt, and his Church, Antichriſtian (as your Brethren in their pulpitts, do vociferate) then how can you pretend, their Calli g to be ſufficient and warrantable? ſeing your owne men teach, Propoſitions & principl •• diſputed in Geneua p. 245. that in Babylon (meaning thereby the Church of Rome) there is no holy Order or Miniſtery indeed, but a mere vſurpation. And moſt certaine it is, and confeſſed by all learned Men; that Antichriſt cannot auaylably confer commiſſion, for the Preaching of the Word of Chriſt, and admitting the Sacraments of Chriſt. Now if Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, and the reſt do want true calling, then they cannot be any true viſible Paſtours of Chriſts Church; and conſequently they cannot iuſtify in themſelfs their Churches viſibility: So plunged (we ſee) you Proteſtants are, when you are demanded to iuſtify the calling of Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, and their ſucceſſours.

And thus far now (Learned Men) to demonſtrate, that ſuppoſing Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, Luther, and the reſt inſtanced in your precedent paſſages, had bene in all points of beliefe, Proteſtants; & that they had otherwiſe neyther comparted with the Catholicks, in any Catholicke doctrines, nor had defended any groſſe and acknowledged Hereſyes; yet it is moſt euident (in reguard of the Reaſons and arguments here alledged) that the examples of them are defectiue and inſufficient, to proue the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, in that manner, as the viſibility of Chriſts Church is taught both by Catholicke and Proteſtant, and peculiarly by our ſelfs, according to the beginning of this our diſputation.

OCHINVS.

With M. Doctour good leaue, who hath ſhowed great reeding in his former examples (though they be not ſo conuincing and pregnant, as I did hope to find them) Neuſerus, and I will vndertake, to iuſtify the viſibility of our Proteſtant Church, in all precedent ages. And you are heare (Learned Michaeas) to know, I am of opinion, that ſuppoſing no inſtances at all of Proteſtancy could be giuen, for all theſe former tymes by you mentioned, yet followeth it not, that therefore there were no Proteſtants in thoſe tymes (which is only the Queſtion betweene vs) for many Reaſons may be giuen, why the names of ſuch Profeſſours are not now knowne to vs of theſe dayes. And one Reaſon may be this, you know well, the Popes for many ages haue borne more, then a ſerpentine malice to the Proteſtant Religion; euer endeuouring by all meanes poſſible, to extirpate it out; Therefore my iudgment is, that their rage and fury was ſo precipitate and violent agaynſt the Proteſtants of formes ages, as they labored by all courſes, to extinguiſh all remembrance of them, as by burning the books written in thoſe tymes by Proteſtants; by purpoſely making away of all other Records of Proteſtancy; and by an abſolute concealing the names of all Proteſtants; thus hoping, that the Memory of them, might be interred with their Bodyes. This is my opinion. I meane, that there neuer was an vtter diſparition and vaniſhing away of the Proteſtant Church in auncient tymes but only, that the names and Profeſſours of that Church were moſt diligently concealed from all after tymes, through the Popes affected malignity.

MICHAEAS.

It is ſtrange, to obſerue the exhorbitant proceeding of Proteſtants in matters of Religion. For ſometimes you Proteſtants do diuulge in your wrytings, that there can be named Proteſtants, liuing in euery Century ſince Chriſt (as you, M. D. in the frontiſpice of this diſcourſe, with great ven itation did vndertake to performe.) Now you retyre backe [Ochi •• s] from M. D. aſſertion, and ſay; doubtleſly there were Proteſtants in all ages; though their names and memoryes by ſome indirect courſe or other, were concealed from Poſterity: So diſtracted you are in your owne iudgements, paſſed vpon one and the ſame point at ſeuerall tymes. Which certainly muſt be reputed as a Moale in the face of a learned man; ſince now zealouſly to affect an opinion, at another tyme to let the ſame ſaulle, by entertayning the contrary opinion, is but the Ague of an irreſolute, and inconſtant iudgement. But to come to the point. Firſt I ſay, that this euaſion of Ochinus mainly ouerthwarteth M. D tours former Inſtances. For if the names of all Proteſtants were buried in forgetfulnes, by the Popes Agens (as here you ſay) how then can we know, that Berengarius, Waldo, Wicklefe, &c. were Proteſtants? And if theſe and others were Proteſtants, then was not Proteſtancy and the Mantayners of it wholy extinguiſhed by the former Popes ſedulity and diligence. How do you extricate your ſelfe [Ochinus] out of this Labyrinth? Agayne, I ſay, this your ſentence is but a meere Imagination, wrought in the forge of your owne brayne. For you haue neyther proofe nor colour of proofe, that either the names of Proteſtants in former ages ſhould be concealed, or their bookes, or any other Records touching them ſhould (by the labored confederacy of the Popes and their followers) be ſuppreſſed and made away; And why then ſhould here your bare aſſeueration be credited?

Secondly, I vrge, that ſuch proceedings, as here are pretended to be (as the extinguiſhing the light and ſplendour of Chriſts Church, for ſo many ages togeather) do mainly impugne the Prophecyes of holy Scripture, deliuered of it, for we reade, that it is ſayd of Chriſts Church: Her Eſay: c 60. Sunne ſhal not be ſet, nor her Moone hid: That ſhe Daniel. 2. ſhall not be giuen to another People; but ſhall ſtand for euer: That ſhe ſhalbe Eſay. 60. an eternall glory and ioy from Generation to generation. All which Prophecyes (beſydes diuers others (recited by your ſelfe afore) tending to the exaltation and glory of Chriſts Church, how diſſortingly and diſproportionably can they be auer ed of the Proteſtant Church of former tymes? If ſo the Annals, Records, and all other Monuments of it former being be wholy obliterated and extinguiſhed?

Thirdly, this Euaſion contradicteth the more ingenious and playne acknowledgments of others of your owne Brethren: who do teach, that your Church for ſundry ages hath remayned wholy inuiſible, or rather vtterly extinct. I will here produce the authority only of D. Parkins; His words are theſe: For many In his expoſition vpon the Creed, p. 400. hundred yeares paſt, an vniuerſall Apoſtaſy hath ouerſpred the whole face of the Earth: And our Church hath not bene viſible to the world.

Laſtly and principally, this your ſurmiſe impugneth all experience, touching the cheife Occurrents of the ſame ages and times. For firſt we find, that the perſonall defects and blemiſhes of certaine Popes are regiſtred in thoſe tymes, and the relation of them are at this preſent extant; Neyther could the Popes preuent the ſame; And from ſuch relations do the Proteſtants (and particularly you, M. D. D. Reynolds in his conference with M. Hart. c. 7 diuiſ, 6. the like doth D. Iewell in his defēce of the Apology. in ſome of your writings) vpbraid vs with the leſſe warrantable life of ſome Popes. Now then theſe things ſtanding thus, how could the Popes hinder the regiſtring of any Profeſſours of fayth, aduerſe & contrary to themſelfs in thoſe dayes? It is abſurd therefore to thinke, that the Popes were well contented, that their owne ſcarts ſhould remayne to be ſeene by all poſterity (ſuppoſing, it were their powers, to preuent the ſame) and yet ſhould affectedly labour, that all teſtimonyes of different profeſſours in fayth from them (but eſpecially of Proteſtant Profeſſours) ſhould be buryed in eternall ſilence and obliuion: Themſelfs not being able to forſee, that proteſtancy ſhould ſweigh more in theſe dayes, then any other erroneous fayth and Religion. Againe, the Examples of the Wrytings of Hus, Wicklefe, the pretended booke of Carolus Magnus, the ſuppoſed booke of Bertram, the connterfeyted Epiſtle of Vlrick, and all other writings of the foreſaid Hereticks, or any others at this day yet extant,) & not ſuppreſſed) fight mainly with this your Opinion: For were it not, that the ſaid Wrytings and bookes were yet remayning to the world, the Proteſtants of theſe tymes could not haue knowne, what articles of proteſtancy the ſaid Heretickes did mantayne in thoſe dayes.

Furthermore, the very ſubiect of the Decrees and Canons of Catholicke Councels, celebrated in all former ages, is chiefly the condemning and anathematizing of particular Hereſyes, there [verbatim] ſet downe and expreſſed, as they did riſe in the ſame ages; with commemoration and recitall of the Hereticall doctrine inuented, and the perſon inuenting, with all other due circumſtances. Ad hereto, that your owne Brethren confeſſe, what we here endeauour to proue. Among whom D. Whitakers ſhall ſerue for all at this tyme; who being glad to make clayme for Proteſtants of all ſuch, as in any ſort reſiſted the Pope, thus writeth to his Catholicke Aduerſary: Contra Duraeū l. 7. p. 469. Veſtris hiſtorijs noſtrae Eccleſiae memoria viget; Et qui Pontificij regni res narrare conati ſunt, ij noſtrae Eccleſiae ſunt teſtis. The memory of our Church floriſheth euen in your Hiſtoryes; And thoſe, who labored to relate the proceedings of the Popes Kingdome, are become Witneſſes of our Church. Thus D. Whitakers. Laſtly, we will adioyne, to all the former experiences, the hiſtoryes and Cronicles euen of the Proteſtants, whoſe ſubiect, taske, & deſigned labour is to relate and make mention of ſuch ſtrange & new doctrines, as did riſe in euery age; ſhewing, how the ſaid doctrines were not proued ouer in ſilence by the Church of Rome; but how, and when, and in what Popes reigne, they were openly gainſaid, croſſed, and condemned by the ſaid Church. And all this the Proteſtant Hiſtoriographers do borrow from the Catholicks auncient Records (for but for thoſe Catholicke Records, they could not tell, how in theſe dayes to write of thoſe matters.) This (we ſee) is performed very diligently by the Century writers, in their ſeuerall Centuryes: by Pantaleon in his Chronographia; by Oſiander in his Epitome Eccleſ. And by Illyricus in his booke ſtiled: Catalogus teſtium Veritatis, qui ante noſtram aetatem reclamarunt Papae. And which is here to be noted (as making more in our behalfe herein) diuers of theſe opinions and doctrines, thus related by theſe Proteſtants, to haue bene condemned in former ages, are ſuch, as are at this preſent mantayned for true doctryne by the Proteſtants. Now from all theſe premiſſes we may fully gather, how far thoſe former ages or the Popes then liuing, were from laboring and affecting to keepe in ſilence or ſuppreſſe any doctrine whatſoeuer, or perſons mantayning the ſame, which did appeare to be repugnant to the faith and Religion of the Roman Church at thoſe tymes. But gentlemen I feare, I haue bene ouer longe.

OCHINVS.

Learned Michaeas, I do confeſſe, I haue ſeldome ſeene the weaknes of an opinion more fully and irreplicably diſplayed, then this of myne is by you at large, euen by direct of ſeuerall reaſons; And therfore for euer after I am reſolued wholy to diſauthorize, and depoſe it. For indeed I ſee, It is but a meere aery and vaſperous Conceate, inſtantly diſſipated before the leaſt beame of a cleare Iudgment.

NEVSERVS.

I do (with you Ochinus) acknowledge the tranſparency of it, ſince an impartiall eye is at the firſt, able to ſee through it. But [Michaeas] I ſee no reaſon, but that we may auer, that the Proteſtant Church, and the adminiſtration of the Word & Sacraments were in all ages; though the particular profeſſours of it were latent, and indeed inuiſible, through the raging tyranny and perſecution, wherewith the Popes of former times did afflict all thoſe, who in externall profeſſion of fayth did in any ſort diſſent from them. And you know, how aduerſe Aduerſity is to Mans inclination: And therfore the leſſe wounder, if the rayes of proteſtancy were in former tymes ouerclowded with the myſts of perſecution.

MICHAEAS.

Indeed, I haue read, that Antonius ſadellius (a proteſtant of no vulgar note) giueth this reaſon of the latency of his Church, and of the want of adminiſtration of the word and Sacrament in former ages; with whom it ſeemes you [Newſerus] in iudgment do ioyne. But to poyze the weight of this reaſon. Where firſt I muſt put you in mind, that it being approoued, maketh the proteſtant Church to be wholy inuiſible in former tymes; and ſo deſtroyeth the mayne Theſis or Tenet, mantayned by you all in the begining of this diſputation; who ioyntly did auer, that the Proteſtant Church was in all ages viſible, & the profeſſours of it were, knowne and diſcernable; But to let that paſſe. Thus I argue, in further diſproouall of this your poore refuge. The Church of God vnder perſecution, eyther communicateth openly with the falſe viſible Church, in participation of Sacraments and externall profeſſion of Fayth; Or els ſhe doth refraine, from all ſuch externall communion. If ſhe doth not communicate with it; then by ſuch her refrayning, ſhe is made knowne, and conſequently is become thereviſible: If ſhe doth communicate with a falſe and idolatrous Church (as you repute the Church of Rome to be) then is ſhe not the true Church; ſince the true Church cannot brooke any ſuch diſſimulation: I will enlarge my ſelfe vpon the ſeuerall parts of this Argument. And firſt, that the true Church by not communicating with a falſe Church, is (in regard of the perſecution comming thereby) made viſible, is cleere euen in reaſon it ſelfe. For who are perſecuted, but Men, that are knowne? And how can one lying ſecretly and vnknowne, be ſayd to be perſecuted? A point ſo euident, that M. Curtwright confeſſeth, that the Church vnder perſecution is viſible and ſenſible, for els (ſayth he) how In Whitguifts defence, p. 174. could it be perſecuted? Yea he further thus conteſteth with his Aduerſary, ſaying: To let paſſe, both Scriptures and ſtoryes Eccleſiaſticall, haue you forgotten, what is ſayd in the firſt of Exodus? that the more the children of Iſrael were perſecuted, the more they encreaſed. With whom agreeth M. Iewell, ſaying: In his Reply, p. 506. The Church is placed vpon a mount, her perſecutions cannot be hid. I may truly ad herto, that the greater and more violent the perſecution is, the more viſible knowne, and conſpicuous, is the Church made thereby; like to a ſhip, which the more it is toſſed with waues and ſtorms, the higher to the eye it appeareth; or like vnto an Arch in building, which the greater weight and burden it beares, the more ſtrong and firme it remaynes.

The truth of which point is further warrantable, from the example of the perſecution in the Primitiue Church; which of all preſſures of the Church, was incomparably the greateſt. And yet we find, that the particular Biſhops, Confeſſours, & Martyrs are euen to this day made knowne, who they were, and what Hereſyes or falſe Religion they impugned; And this from the penns not only of Catholicke Hiſtoriographers, but euen of Proteſtants; of which ſubiect, you may peruſe the In Cēt. 1. 2. 3. Centuriſts, In Chronographia. Pantaleon, In Chronologia. Functius, Cent. 1. 2. 3. Oſiander, and M. Act. Mon. in his diſcourſe of the tenn. Perſecutions. Fox. And may not the Engliſh Catholicks (if I be truly informed) deſeruedly here inſiſt in the Examples of their owne Nation. The Catholicks whereof in regard of their former perſecutions in Queene Elizabeth her reigne, are ſo far from being latent and inuiſible, as that they were become moſt famous & remarkable, throughout all Chriſtendome. O pietatem de crudelitate lndentem. Tertul. l. de reſurrect. carnis. Are not the names and memoryes of thoſe reuerend Prieſts, and others of the Laity (to ſpeake nothing of many worthy Confeſſours, and others ſuffering great loſſes and diſgraces) who loſt their liues in her dayes only for Religion (whoſe bleſſed ſoules I humbly beſeech, to interceede and pray for me, to our Sauiour:) Are not their names and memories (I ſay) euen to this day freſh and liuing? haue their deaths obliterated & extinguiſhed their memoryes, or rather through a ſpeaking ſilence, perpetuated and eternized them, their liues being by this meanes extended beyond their liues? Who, by reaſon of their then calamities and preſſures (too well knowne to God and Man) became balls to that ſtate; and might iuſtly complayne in the words of the Apoſtle: 1. Cor. 4. Spectaculum facti ſumus mundo & Angelis, & Hominibus. Such were the ſtormy flouds, innundations, and ouerflowings of perſecution in the ſayd Queenes tyme. But to returne, and to apply this here ſaid. If the Catholicks in this Country (being but a ſmall part of Chriſtendome) could not, but for ſome few number of yeares in compariſon, eſcape the ſearch and hands of their perſecutors, but became therby moſt viſible and knowne: the very Ayre ecchoing forth their miſeryes; How could then the Proteſtants, (being ſuppoſed to be diſperſed throughout many Nations) lye hid, and auoid for ſo many ages together (as is pretended) the force of that perſecution, which is affirmed by our Aduerſaryes, to haue bene far more greiuous, then euer this of England was.

NEVSERVS.

I pray you [Michaeas] deſcend to the ſecond part of your former Argument; And firſt tell me your iudgment, if it be not lawfull for auoyding of loſſe of goods, or death it ſelfe, ſometymes to conceale our Religion?

MICHAEAS.

No, we neuer ought to conceale our profeſſion of fayth, for feare of any puniſhment how great ſoeuer: for here, nolle confiteri, Tertul. l. de fuga in perſecut. negare eſt. And though we are not to importune perſecution (for this were to tempt God) or to take a ſpirituall pride in our afflictions, for our Profeſſion of fayth, yet if the temporall Prince do impoſe any miſeryes vpon vs our Religion, we are with all alacrity & Chriſtian magnanimity, patiently to endure the ſame; euer continuing in our former Religion, loyalty, and obedience, and powring cut our daily prayers to the Almighty; that he would vouchſafe to touch the ſayd Princes hart, with commiſeration of our deſpicable and betrampled eſtates, and to grant him all true temporall and eternall happines our ſelfs in the meane tyme euer remayning confortable: Quid hic mali eſt, Tertul. l. aduerſu gentes. cuius reus gaudet, cuius accuſatio votum eſt, & paena faelicitas: But I will come to the ſecond branch, which contayneth the reaſon of this my Aſſertion; Which was: That if the Church of Chriſt doth communicate with a falſe and idolatrous Church, ſhe ceaſeth (ipſo facto) to be the true Church of God. This is moſt euident out of Gods ſacred Writ, which teacheth vs. Rom. 10. that with the hart a man beleiueth vnto Iuſtice, and with the mouth confeſſeth vnto ſaluation: Which text is truly paraphrazed by D. Field in theſe words: Seing the Church is the Lib. 3 of the Church pag 1. multitude of them, that ſhalbe ſaued; And no man can be ſaued, vnleſſe he make Confeſſion nto ſaluation (for fayth hid and concealed in the hart, doth not ſuffice.) It cannot be, but they, which are of the true Church, muſt by the profeſſion of the Truth, make themſelfs knowne in ſuch ſort, that by their profeſſion and practiſe, they may be diſcerned from other men: A point further receauing it moſt warrantable truth, from Truth himſelfe, who thus threatneth: Math. cap. 10. Whoſoeuer ſhall deny me before Men, him I will deny before my Father in Heauen. And from hence it is, that the Proteſtants themſelues thinke, they are obliged in conſcience not to be preſent at the Seruice or Maſſe of the Catholicke Church, or to participate with the Catholicks in their Sacraments: Which kind of Recuſancy is punctually taught by In his Synops. printed, 1600. pag. 612. 613. 614. D. Willet, In Cō cil. Theol. pag. 628. Melancthon, In his diſcours hereof recited in Melanc hons former treatiſe of Concil. Theolog. p. 634 635. Peter Martyr, Alledged in the foreſaid place by Melancthon. Bucer and Lib. de vitendis ſuperſtitionibus, extant in Caluin. tract. Theolug. &c. p. 584. Caluin.

But to draw towards an end of this your pretext of perſecution. The ſame is refuted euen from the nature of the Church, delineated in Gods holy Word: and accordingly acknowledged by you Proteſtants. For if the Church of God muſt at all tymes be viſible, and eminent (as is largly proued by vs all in the firſt part of this diſcourſe) and muſt be eminent in ſo full a manner; as that we are commanded to repayre to the Church in all our ſpirituall Neceſſityes, according to thoſe words of our Sauiour: Math. 18. Tell the Church &c. And if the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments muſt euen to the end of the World, euer and at all tymes be practized in the Church of Chriſt; How then can the Church, but by theſe meanes become moſt viſible, or rather moſt radiant? The force of which reaſon I will conclude, with the words of D. Humfrey, thus wryting: In Ieſuitiſm. part. 2. tract. 2. rat. 3. p. 241. Dum miniſtri docent, alij diſcunt; illi ſacramenta adminiſtrant, hi communicant; omnes Deum inuocant, & fidem ſuam profitentur; Qui iſta non videt, talpa eſt caec or, Whyles the Miniſters do teach, and others do heare; whyles theſe Men do adminiſter the Sacraments, thoſe do communicate or participate of them; whyles all do call vpon God, and profeſſe their fayth; He, that doth not ſee theſe things, is more blynd, then a moale.

NEVSERVS.

Haue you not often obſerued [Michaeas] how a little qu 〈…〉 tity of copper, in a counterfeyte Coyne; And yet neyther is the corne or gould extinguiſhed or annihilated? But that it may be truly ſayd, the Corne and chaffe is mingled together, & the gould and Copper moulted together; And yet neyther is the Corne, chaffe, nor the gould copper: Why then by the like analogy & proportion, may it not be here auerred, that the Proteſtant Church, was in former ages in the Papacy; the Papcy was in the Proteſtant Church; and yet the Proteſtant Church was not the Papacy? Which being granted, freeth our Church from an abſolute Inuiſibility, at leaſt from an vtter extinction and ouerthrow of it in thoſe former Popiſn tymes. And to my remembrance, I haue read certayne learned Proteſtants, expreſſing this point, not much differently from my words: for I find M. Parkins, thus to allude to this ſaying: In his reformed. Cathol. p 328. 329. The Church of Rome may be ſaid to be in the Church of God; and the Church of God in the Church of Rome; with whom D. Whitakers Lib. de Eccleſ. pag. 165. ſeemes to conſpyre, thus wryting: Eccleſia ver a fuit in Papatu; ſed Papatus non fuit Eccleſia vera: And with theſe former euen In ep. Theol. ep. 1. p. 15. Beza (beſids Caluin in l. epiſt. epiſt. 104. Oſiander in epitom hiſt. Cent. 16. part. alt. pag. 1072. others) doth agree, ſaying: voluit Deus in Papatu ſeruare Eccleſiam; et ſi Papatus non eſt Eccleſia. Which anſwere is thought ſo ſufficient and choaking, as that the former learned Proteſtant, M. Parkings much reſteth vpon it, thus euen exulting: D. Parkins vbi ſupra. This anſwere ſerues to ſtop the mouths of Papiſts, who demaund of vs, where the Church was foureſcore yeres before Luther: for they are anſwered, that our Church hath bene ſince the dayes of the Apoſtles, and that in the very middeſt of the Papacy.

MICHAEAS.

O how ingenious and pregnant [Niuſerus] is Noueliſme in fayth; ſpining (like the ſilke worme) out of it owne wombe, ſuch fine threeds of wit: But (alas) theſe threeds are too weake to detayne and hould the Aduerſary. This diuerſion of yours (rather then anſwere) conſiſteth of a froath of words, artificially put togeather: And indeed it partly reſembleth your own former ſimilitude. For the matter (as I may ſay of it) is euen 〈…〉 aſe mettall, guilded ouer with a ſpecious ſhow of myſticall phrazes. For you Proteſtants, ſeing you are not able to inſtance particularly in any one man (during ſo many ages, as from the Apoſtles dayes to Luther) who was a perfect Proteſtant; much leſſe to inſtance in the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments: And alſo perceauing by Experience, that it ſoundeth in the eare couldly (and indeede, harſhly) to grant in plaine and direct words, that the Proteſtant Church (during all thoſe ages) was wholy extinct and vaniſhed away out of the world: and further remembring, that great & huge burdens are better remooued by ſleight of witty Engins, then by ſtrength; haue at length reſolued to deliuer this your doctrine or Poſition, in an affected and obſcure phraze, thereby (as vnder aueyle or clowd) to ſhadow the falſhood thereof; ſaying, as aboue you alledge: The Church is in the Papacy, the Papacy is in the Church; And yet the Church is not the Papacy. Thus do you here imitate phyſitians, who giue phyſicke to delicate bodyes, not in the groſſe ſubſtance, but eyther in infuſion, or extraction.

This curious frame of ſpeech maks (as I ſayd) a glorious ſhow, at the firſt; but examine it, and it preſently reſolues to nothing; like vnto the lightning, which is an eminent Obiect to the eye, and yet it no ſooner commeth, then it vaniſheth. Now for the better diſcouery & diſplaying of this your ſleight, you are here to conceaue, that the ſenſe of theſe words is not, that the Proteſtant Church had in thoſe tymes a latent and hidden being in Catholicke Countreyes, without hauing entercourſe or Communion with the then knowne and viſible Church, in the Sacraments. For ſo the true Church could not be ſaid, to be in the Papacy; no more then at this day in reſpect of it like aboadin Turkiſh Countreyes, it can be ſayd to be in Turciſme. Therefore the particular manner of this ſtrange and ſtupendious mixture together for externall Society (like chaffe and Corne in due heape, or copper and gould in one coyne) is truly expreſſed by Oſiander (the Proteſtant) in theſe words: In epitom. Cent. 16. part. alt. p. 1076. & 1072. Quod ſemper ſub Papatu aliqui pij homines fuerint, qui errores Pontificios, & idolatrica ſacra improbarunt: temetſi id non ſemper profiteri and ebant, nemo negat; No man denyeth, but that there were euer vnder the Papacy ſome holy men, who diſliked the Errors of the Popes, and their Idolatrous worſhipps: although they durſt not openly profeſſe ſo much, Niſi ardere aut ad minimum exulare velint, except they would burne for their Religion, or at leaſt ſuffer baniſhment. And yet the ſaid Proteſtant more fully: Animum ad iſt a pōtificia idolatrica ſacra non applicuſrunt, tameiſi extern •• ritus non pro ſus negligerent, vt communi conſue •• dino (quaſi torrente rapido) arriperentur, vt eadem cum alijs facerent; The faythfull of thoſe tymes, did not apply their minds to, to thoſe popiſh idolatrous worships; although they did not wholy neglect their externall rites and ceremonies: and they were led with common cuſtome (as men caryed with a violent ſtreame) to do the ſame things with the Papiſts; Quorum infirmitatem Deu tolerauit & ondonauit, Whoſe infirmityes herein, God did tolerate & pardon. Thus Oſiander doth apologize for his Proteſtant Church in former tymes. From whoſe teſtimony (we ſee) that the laſt ſublimated ſenſe of your former ſentence reſolues to this point; To wit, that the Proteſtant Church in thoſe former tymes, being in. or vnder the Papacy, did through feare of burning, or baniſhment, or ſome other perſecution, diſſemble their Religion, and communicate in all eternal rites and ceremonyes with the Church of Rome. This is the ſole true conſtruction of the foreſayd quaynt ſentence, though the former Proteſtants (and perhapps, alſo your ſelfe Newſer s) thought it good policy, to deliuer this their meaning to their followers, in nyce and artificiall words (as Phyſitians are accuſtomed to giue their moſt bitter pils, rowled in ſugar.) But ſeeing this point of groſſe and palpable diſſimulation in Religion, is ſufficiently diſcuſſed in our laſt paſſage, I will enlarge my ſelfe no further therein.

NEVSERVS.

Michaeas, I muſt confeſſe, that vpon my more ſerious and intenſe obſeruation of what you haue here ſpoken, touching our deliuery of our former Anſwere, that it is like to the ſpydars web artificially wouen, but to ſmall purpoſe: And indeed 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 in a true examining of it, it is (as you rightly ſay) but the former Anſwere drawne from perſecution, though faſhioned a new, in an other mould.

OCHINVS.

I do acknowledg the ſame with Neuſerus; And therefore it is but loſſe of tyme, to inſiſt in ſuch Extrauagancyes and phan aſyes. But to proceed, if there were no other reaſon to euict the viſibility &c.

If there were no other reaſon, to euict the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, yet this following is of it ſelfe ſufficient: The true Church of Chriſt is euer to be viſible (as we all aboue haue taught:) Now we can prooue out of Scriptures, that the Proteſtant Church is only the true Church. Therefore we may infallibly conclude, that the Proteſtant Church hath euer bene moſt viſible. That our Church is the true Church of Chriſt, we proue, in that it profeſſeth that fayth, which is agreable to the holy Scripture. This is our demonſtration; This is our Aſylum. Here we need not to recurre to Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes, or to ſearch out examples of proteſtancy for euery age; ſince this reaſon comprehendeth within it ſelfe all ages, as a greater number doth the leſſer.

MICHAEAS.

Indeede I grant, this Argument is the Mayſter-peece in all your ſhopps; and (as you well tearme it) your Sanctuary. But may not the Arians, the Anabaptiſts, or any other Hereticks prooue by the ſame ground, their Church euer to haue bene viſible? Who (no doubt) with as great confidence (as your ſelfs do) will maintayne, that they can iuſtify their Church from the Scripture it ſelfe, to be the only true Church of God: See how you Proteſtants here labour with the generall Infirmity of all Sectaryes; and ſee how truly that Aphoriſm of the Phyſitians is verifyed in you and them: to wit, One and the ſame Symptome is incident to ſeuer all diſeaſes. But ſeing Doctour Whitakers (for his vpſhot) did caſt his laſt argument in his conference with Cardinal Bellarmyne, in this your frame & mould, to prooue that the Church of Rome had altered it Religion, becauſe (ſaid he) it fayth and Religion is contrary to the holy Scripture; Therefore as loath to obtund your eares with a faſtidious iteration of the ſame points, I referre you to the full anſwere of the Cardinall, In the firſt part of the Conuerted Iew. giuen therto. Only before I here ceaſe, I will patterne this your Euaſion. If then ſome ſlippery fellow ſhould truly owe your [Ocbinus] a hundred pounds, and ought to pay it by ten pounds euery yeare; The yearely dayes of paymēts being come, you require of him the ſiluer. He confidently auerreth, that he hath payed you euery yeare, the allotted portion of ten pounds, till the whole hundred was payd. You deny the ſame, and will him, eyther to ſhow ſome quittance of any one payment, or produce ſome witneſſes thereof, or relate ſome circumſtance eyther of tyme or place, where the yearely paymēts were made. Now he (not being able to make good any one of theſe points, not ſo much as but for one yeares payment) flyeth to this ſhift, ſaying: Euery man of honeſty, integrity, and ſufficiency will pay his debts, according to the due tymes of payment; But he is aſſured, that himſelfe is in the number of theſ men profeſſing honeſty, integrity, and ſufficiency. Therefore certayne it is that he hath payed the foreſayd hundred pounds, within the preſcribed tymes of payment. Thus this Cheater bringeth his owne honeſty (which may iuſtly be called in Queſtion) as a Medium, for proofe of theſe his imaginary payments, as you do alledge the Conformity of the Proteſtants Religion to the Scripture, for the ſuppoſed viſibility of your Proteſtans Church for many ages. Now [Ochinus] if you like this mans anſwere (for both his and yours are wouen in one & the ſame loome) my wiſh then is, that the next tyme you lend any ſiluer, you may (for a puniſhment of your ignorance herein) be repayed backe after the ſame manner.

NEWSERVS.

I cannot, but ingeniouſly confeſſe, that our flying to the Scripture in this place, ſerues only but to preuent the inſtancing of Proteſtants for former tymes: And ſo to make a ſubtill and flye tranſition from the expected examples of Proteſtancy, to the vniformity of the Proteſtant Religion with the Scripture: And indeed it is but a Paralogiſme or fallacy, called Petitio principij; conſiſting in aſſuming that to be proued and confeſted, which is moſt in Queſtion. For the mayne Queſtion betweene the Papiſts and vs is, Whether their Religion or ours is more agreable to Gods Word? And [Michaeas] I confeſſe you ſpeake the truth, in ſaying; that euery Hereticke will appeale to the Scripture, and will vrge a conformity of his fayth to it, and conſequently may ſeeke to iuſtify his owne Churches viſibility by this his Appeale; Whoſe Priuate ſpirit (forſooth) by detorting of the Scripture, is able to Proiect any text thereof (as Al hymiſts do of Mettalls) ſo as it ſhall endure the touch, for the gilding ouer of his Hereſy: An Haeretici Lib. aduerſ. Haereſes. (ſayth old Vincentius Lyrinenſis) Diuini Scripturae teſtimonijs vtantur? Viuntur planè & vehement er quidem; ſed tantò magis cauendi ſunt.

OCHINVS.

Indeed now vpon a ſecond reuiew of this my argument, I do not find that force in it, which in the beginning it ſeemed to cary. And I do ſee, that euery Hereticke (I meane in his owne iudgement, and according to his owne falſe interpretation of Scripture) may challenge the Scripture for the fortifying of his Hereſyes, as fully as we Proteſtants can do: And therefore. I do allow that former ſentence of Vincentius, alledged by you. Neuſerus.

D. REYNOLDS.

I haue found ſome of our owne learned brethren, to teach (though aforehand I tell you, Michaeas, that I diſſent in opinion from them) that the Church of Rome and the Proteſtant Church, are but one and the ſame Church from which poſition they inferre: that ſeeing the predictions of the continuall Viſibility of the Church of God, and an vninterrupted adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments haue bene performed (at leaſt, as you Romaniſts do auer e) in the Church of Rome; that conſequently (ours and yours being but one Church) they are performed in the Proteſtant Church. And according hereto we find M. Hooker Lib. 3. Eccleſ. po p. 130. thus to teach. We gladly acknowledg them of Rome, to be of the family of Ieſus Chriſt &c. And agayne; we ſay that they of Rome &c. are to be held a part of the houſe of God, a limme of the viſible Church of Chriſt: with whome conſpireth D. Some In his former ſermons, and two queſtiōs, ſer 3. p. 44 . thus graunting: The learneder Wryters acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. But this Opinion I haue to the liberty of euery one, eyther to retayne it, or reiect it.

MICHAEAS.

Here now you Proteſtants are retyred to your laſt refuge and hould: And thus is Errour glad to be ſhrowded, vnder the Wings of Truth. For whereas the moſt diſpaſſionate, ſober, & learned Proteſtants among you, do grant, that for many ages before Luthers reuolt, they cannot truly and really iuſtify the viſibility of their Church in particular, (much leſſe the adminiſtration of the word and Sacraments.) And yet during all the ſayd ages, they ſee, that all this is actually accompliſhed, in our Catholicke Roman Church; They are therefore forced to giue back, and to retyre in all their former anſweres; And at length are driuen (for the ſupporting of their owne Church) to ſay that the Proteſtant Church & the Roman Catholicke Church, are identically but one and the ſame Church: And thereupon they inferre, (as you M. Doctour ſay) that ſeing our Catholicke Church be generall acknowledgment, hath euer continued viſible, during all the former ages; that therefore your Proteſtant Church (both being but one and the ſame, by their (curteous yeelding) hath alſo enioyed the ſame priuiledge of a perpetuall Viſibility, and the like adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments: So ready you Proteſtants are, for the preſeruing only of your owne imaginary Church in former tymes, to ioyne hands with they Catholicks (if ſo they would agree therto) you granting, that your owne Succeſſion, calling, and Miniſtery is and hath bene, for former ages continued and preſerued, only in the Succeſſion, calling, & Miniſtery of our Catholicke Roman Church.

And according to this our meaning, M. Bunny (a Proteſtant of good eſteeme here in England) dealeth plainly & ingeniouſly herein; for he not only teacheth, as the former Proteſtants do, but giueth ſincerely the true reaſon of ſuch their doctrine; to wip, that otherwiſe they cannot proue the being of the Proteſtant Church, during ſo many former ages: for thus he writeth: M. Bunny in his Treatiſe of Pacificatiō ſect. 18. p. 108. Of the departing from the Church, there ought to be no queſtion amang vs. We M. Bunny vbi ſupra p. 123. are no ſeuerall Church front them (meaning from vs Catholicks) nor they from vs; And therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church: Nor any do depar from them to vs, nor from vs to them &c.

And yet more fully: It M. Bunny ibidem pag. 119. was euill done of them, who vrged firſt ſuch a ſeparation &c. For M. Bunibidem p. 36. that it is great probability for them (meaning vs Catholicks) that ſo we make our ſelf anſwerable, to find out a diſtinct and ſeuer all Church from them, which hath continued from the Apoſtles age to this preſent; Or els, that needs we muſt acknowledge, that our Church is ſprung vp but of late, or ſince theirs: And finally M. Bunny thus concludeth: Vbi ſupra p. 92. Our Aduerſaryes ſee themſelues to haue aduantage, if they can ioynt vs to this ſeparation. Thus M. Bunny. But touching my particular iudgment herein, I vtterly (with all Catholicks) diſclayme from mantayning, that our Church and the Proteſtant Church is all one: And I confidently auerre, that this ſtrange Paradox is inuented by Proteſtants, for the reaſons aboue expreſſed.

OCHINVS.

What is the matter brought to this Iſſue, that we muſt grant the Papiſts Church, and our Church to be one and the ſame Church? Is this [M. Doctour] the euent of our diſputation? I will here imprecate with the Poet A n d. 〈◊〉 . againſt myſelfe.

Sed mihi vel tellus optem priùs ima debiſcat; Vel Pater Omnipotens adigat •• ful ine ad vmbra , Pall •• ies vmbras Erebi, octe que profundam.

Before I acknowledge the Synagogue of Rome, to be the Church of God.

NEVSERVS.

I giue you free leaue [Ochin s] to include me within this your imprecation. For I will dye the death of a ſinner, before I grant, that the Popiſh Church is the ſame with the Proteſtant Church. What? ſhall Superſtition and Idolatry (by our owne conſents) be aduanced and ſet vp (ſide by ſide) with the Goſpell, in the throwne of Gods Tabernacle? It is a thing inſufferable; and the thought thereof is not ſo much, as once to be entertayned.

MICHAEAS.

Gentlemen; good words. God grant your owne Prayers agaynſt your ſelfs, be not heard. And though I be of your mynd, that the Catholicke Church, and your Church is not all one Church, yet if before your deaths, you do not acknowledge the Church of Rome, for the true Church, doubleſly your prayer wilbe heard, when your ſelfs (though too late) ſhall with vnutterable (but improfitable) remo ſe, condemne your ſelfs, of your owne groſſe conſideration, in ſo weighty a matter.

But M. Doctour and you two. Hitherto, we ſee our diſcourſe hath bene cheifly ſpent in your obiecting Arguments, for your Churches viſibility, and my anſwering of them. Now I do expect, that our Scenes be altered; And that I may inſiſt in obiecting, what I haue red confeſſed, euen by the moſt learned Proteſtants touching this ſubiect: For theſe alternatiue variations of parts in diſpute, are in all Reaſon, and by cuſtome of all Schooles, moſt warrantable.

D. REYNOLDS.

We giue you good leaue. For it argueth a great diſtruſt & diffidence in a Mans cauſe, to tye his aduerſary only to anſwere, and neuer to ſuffer him to oppoſe: And it is as vnreaſonable, as if in a Dueliſme, the one party ſhould be indented with, only toward, and neuer to ſryke: Therefore proceed [Mich •• s] at your pleaſure.

MICHAEAS.

Truth ſayth Cont. Donatiſt. poſt. collat. 〈◊〉 4. [S. Auguſtin] i m re foroible to wr ng 〈◊〉 Confeſſion then any rack or torm nt. Which ſentence we fy d to be iuſtifyed in this Queſtion of the Proteſtant Churches Inuiſibility: For diuers learned Proteſtants there are, who as being more ingenuous and vpright in their wrytings, and in their managing of matters of Religion, then others of their party; & as well diſcerning the inſufficiency of all pretended Inſtances, and other colorable euaſions and anſweares (which ſerue only to bleare for the tyme the impenetrating and weake eyes of the ignorant) do in the cloſure of all, both by certaine neceſſary inferences, as alſo in playne and expreſſe tearmes, grant the point here controuerted; to wit, that the Proteſtant Church hath for many ages togeather, bene wholy inuiſible, and not knowne to any one man liuing; or rather, that during ſuch ſaid ages, it hath bene vtterly ouerthrowne, deſtroyed, and (as it were) annihilated, and no ſuch Church in being. The proofe of which point ſhalbe the ſubiect of this paſſage.

This point then is prooued two wayes, and both from the penns of the Proteſtants. Firſt, from their acknowledged want of ſucceſſion of Paſtours, and of their like defect of ſending by ordinary Calling. Secondly, from their manifeſt & open complaints of their Churches inuiſibility for former ages in expreſſe words; or rather of it vtter extinction & Nullity.

And as touching the firſt. It is euident euen in reaſon it ſelfe, that that Church, which wanteth ſucceſſion of Paſtours & ordinary Calling, (if any ſuch Church could be) muſt needes be inuiſible, at leaſt at that tyme, when ſuch want is. And the reaſon hereof is, becauſe this want neceſſarily preſuppoſeth, that there were not in that ſuppoſed Church, any former Predeceſſours or Paſtours at all, which could conferre authority or calling to the ſucceding Paſtours or Preachers. But where no Paſtours are, there are no ſheepe (for it is written: how Rom. 〈◊〉 ſhall they heare, without a Preacher?) And where no ſheepe are, there is no Church; And where is no Church, there is no viſiſibility of it; ſince euen Logicke inſtructeth vs, that: Non Eutis •• n eſt Accidens. That the Proteſtant Church for many ages, hath wanted all perſonall ſucceſſion, and ordinary Calling, is ouereuident; ſeeing (beſides that, which hath bene ſayd of this point already) we find diuers learned Proteſtants to confeſſe no leſſe. For thus doth Sadellius write: Diuers De rebus grauiſſ. cōtrouerſ. pag. 319. Proteſtants affirme, that the Miniſters with them are deſtitute of lawfull Calling, as not hauing a continuall viſible ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles tymes, which they do attribute only to the Papiſts. And hence it is, that many Proteſtants confeſſe, that they are forced to flye (e) The Proteſtant Laſciuius reciteth this ſaying of Caluin I. de Ruſſor. Muſcouit. &c. religione, c. 23. to Extraordinary Calling, which is immediatly from God, without any help of man. Thus for example, Caluin ſaith: Quia Papae tyrannide &c. Becauſe through the tyrann of the Pope, true ſucceſſion of Ordination was broken off; therefore we ſtand neede of a new courſe herein; and this function or Calling was altogether extraorinary. Thus Caluin. And D. Fulke Againſt Stopleton, Ma tial. p. 2. in like manner ſayth: The Proteſtants, that firſt preached in theſe dayes, had extraordinary Calling; with whom agreeth D. Parkins, ſaying: The calling of W cklefe, Hus, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr &c. was extraordinary.

Thus we ſee, that the Proteſtants, confeſſing the want of (g) In his works printed, 1605. f. 916. perſonall ſucceſſion in their Church, as alſo the want of Ordinary Vocation, and flying therefore to Extraordinory Vocation; do euen by ſuch their Confeſſions, acknowledge withall the Inuiſibility of their Church in thoſe tymes, and an interruption (next before) of all perſonall ſucceſſion: for if ſucceſſion of Paſtours had then bene really & truly in being; then had thoſe men bene viſible, to whom the Authority of calling others to the Miniſtery had appertayned; and conſequently there had bene no need of Extraordinary Calling: Which Extraordinary Calling is euer accompayned with Miracles (as aboue is ſhowed) in the iudgments of the more ſober Proteſtants: Ama dus Polanus in part. Theolog. p. 308. Muſculus in loc. c •• . p 394. Luther tom. 5. lenae Germ. 〈◊〉 . 491. or otherwiſe it is but a meere illuſion: And we haue not red or heard, that any of thoſe firſt Proteſtants (who vendicated to themſelues this Extraordinary Calling) haue euer wrought, in confirmation eyther of their Calling or doctrine, any one Miracle.

OCHINVS.

I muſt confeſſe [Michaeas] that you haue diſcuſſed well of this poynt, and in my iudgment very forcingly. But proceed (we intreate you) to the ſecond branch of your Proofe; ſince I can hardly belieue, that any Proteſtants will expreſly acknowledge the Inuiſibility of their owne Church: for if they do, then is the Queſtion at an end, and hath receaued it vttermoſt tryall, that can be imagined.

MICHAEAS.

The euent will ſeale the truth of this point. And firſt, that immediatly before Luthers reuolt, the Proteſtant Church was inuiſible, Vibanus In his Apologetic. c. 176. Regius (a markable Proteſtant) confeſſeth ſo much. But of the Proteſtant Church it viſibility at Luthers appearance, we haue already fully diſcourſed: and therefore we will aſcend to higher times. M. Parkins then thus writeth of ages more remote: We ſay, In his expoſition of the Creed. p. 400. that before the day of Luther, for the ſpace of many hundred yeares, an vniuerſall Apoſtaſy ouerſpred the whole face of the earth; and that our Church was not then viſible to the world. Caelius Secundus De amplitud. regni Dei. p. 212. Curio (an eminent Proteſtant) confeſſeth no leſſe in theſe words: Factum eſt, vt per multos i am annos Eccleſia latuerit, ciueſque hutus regni vix ab alijs (ac ne vix quidem) agnoſci potuerint &c. It is brought to paſſe that the Church for many yeares hath bene latent, and that the Cittizens of this Kingdome could ſcarſely (and indeed not as all) be knowne of others. D. Fulke confeſſeth more particularly of this point, ſaying: In his anſwere to a counterfeit Catholicke. p. 16. The Church in the tyme of Bonifac the third (which was anno, 607.) was inuiſible, and fleed into wildernes, there to remayne a long ſeaſon. M. Napper riſeth to higher tymes, thus wrytinge: Vpon the Reuelation in c. 11. & 12. God hath withdrawne his viſible Church, from open aſſemblyes, to the harts of particular godly men &c. during the ſpace of twelue hundred and ſixty yeares; the true Church abiding latent and inuiſible: With whome touching the continuance of this Inuiſibility agreeth M. M. Brocard vpon he Apocalyps. fol. 〈◊〉 . Brocard, an Engliſh Proteſtant. But M. Napper is not content with the latency of the Proteſtant Church, for the former tymes only; but inuolueth more ages therein, thus auer ing: During Vpon the Reuelat. in c. 11. & 12. euen the ſecond and third Ages (meaning after Chriſt) the true Church of God and light of the Goſpell, was obſcured by the Roman Antichriſt hymſelfe. But Sebaſtianus francus (a moſt remarkable Proteſtant) ouerſtripeth hearein all his former Brethren, not doubting to comprehend within the ſaid Inuiſibility, all the ages ſince the Apoſtles, thus wryting: for In ep. de abrog. in vniuerſum omnibus ſtatutis Eccleſ. certaine the externall Church together with the fayth and Sacraments vaniſhed away preſently after the Apoſtles departure; And that for theſe thouſand and foure hundred yeares (marke the lenght of the tyme (the Church hath beene no w eare externall and viſible. Which acknowledgement of ſo longe a tyme (or rather longer) is likewiſe made by D. Fulke, in theſe words: In his anſwere to a counterfeyte Catholick pag. 33. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apoſtles tyme. But D. Downham (with whom I will heare conclude) is not aſhamed to inſimulate the very tymes of the Apoſtles, within the lyke latency, thus wrytinge: The Lib. de Antichriſto l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 . pag. 25. generall defection of the viſible Church (foretou d 2. Theſſal. 2.) begunne to worke in the Apoſtles tymes. Good God. Would any Man hould it poſſible (were it not, that their owne books are yet extant) that ſuch eminent Proteſtants ſhould confeſſe (contrary to the neceſſary Viſibility of Gods true Church, proued out of the Scriptures, & acknowledged by their owne learned Brethren) their owne Church to haue beene wholy latent and inuiſible; or rather, wholy extinct and annihilated for ſo many ages together? But this we muſt aſ rybe (O God) to thy holy permiſſion, who, as thou ſuffered in the tyme of the Old Teſtamēt, thyne Enemyes to ſheath their ſwords in their brethrens ſydes; ſo heare tho permiteeſt (for the greater honour of thy Church) ſo many learned Proteſtants (euen with wounderfull admiration, ſweete Ieſus) deadly to wounde their owne Church, fayth, and Religion, with their owne penns.

D. REYNOLDS.

Forbeare (Michaeas) theſe woundering Interiections, the accuſtomed Dialect of an vngouerned Paſſion. I grant, theſe learned Proteſtants aboue alledged were of this opinion; Notwithſtanding to confront their authorityes, there may be found many others as learned and iudicious Proteſtants, as theſe are, who abſolutly mantayne the Viſibility of their Church for all ages. And I ſee no reaſon, but that the ſentences and iudgemēts of theſe other ſhould preponderate and weighe equally with) the iudgements of the former Proteſtants, by you alledged.

MICHAEAS.

You muſt pardon me (M. Doctour) if I wounder at things, ſo ſtrangly and vnexpectedly fauling out. But to your ſolution. I ſay, it is moſt defectiue for ſeuerall reaſons. Firſt, becauſe it mainly croſſeth the method agreed vpon, amonge vs, in the beginninge of our diſcourſe; where you tyed your ſelfe irreph ably to ſtand to the iudgments and confeſſion of your owne learned Men. Againe, though you can bringe other Proteſtants of as greate eminency for learninge, as theſe by me obiected; yet except you and the ſaid Proteſtants will inſiſt in true and confeſſed Inſtances of Proteſtancy, for euery ſeuerall age (which is impoſſible for you to performe.) your and their aſſeuerations are to be reputed but naked, verball, and inauayleable.

Laſtly and principally, your Replye is inſufficient, Becaus I heare alledge Proteſtants confeſſinge the Inuiſibility of their owne Church, to their owne mighty preiudice, and the Catholycks greate aduantage; And therefore it muſt needs be, that the racke of Truth forced them (being otherwyſe ingenuous, learned, and iudicious) to all ſuch Confeſſions; Whereas ſuch Proteſtants, as may be brought to gainſay and contradict the former Confeſſion (as being men of more ſpatious and large Conſciences) do ſpake in their owne cauſe and behalf; and therefore as being ready preſſed to auere any thinge (how falſe ſoeuer) for the ſafery of their Church, are deſeruedly to be reputed in their wrytings, more partiall: So as in this caſe the Words of Tertullian may iuſtly take place. In Apologeti o. Magis fides prou eſt, in aduerſus ſomet pſos confitent •• , quam pro 〈◊〉 egantes.

NEVSERVS.

I lyke well [Michaeas] the reaſon of your diſparity, geuen touching ſome Proteſtants confeſſing againſt themſelfs, and others affirming the contrary; to their owne aduantage.

OCHINVS.

The difference ſet downe by you is moſt foreible: for no doubte the open Confeſſion of one learned Aduerſary, is to ouerballance twenty denying the ſame, euen for that peculiar reaſon aboue mentioned.

D. REYNOLDS.

Michaeas Suppoſe for the tyme, that we could not proue our Churches perpetuali Viſibility: yet ſeinge you are not able, (if you were preſſed thereto) to iuſtify and make good the Viſibility of your owne Roman Church, during all the ages ſince the Apoſtles dayes. Therefore looke into what danger, through our confeſſed Inuiſibility, we may be preſumed to tune, within the ſame we may juſtly includ you: And thus you owne argument rebucts vpon your ſelfe.

MICHAEAS.

Heare I ſee [M. D.] that for meare want of poſitiue arguments, to ſupport your owne Church, you are laſtly fled to picke quarrells at our Church; as if it were a iuſtification of yourſelfs, that wee Catholycks did labour with your infirmities; lyke men, who reioyce to haue compartuers in miſery. But to your point vrged. ſay it is impertinent to the whole drift of our diſpute, which was only, touching the want of Viſibility in the Proteſtant Church; which alone to proue, was by me vndertaken; the viſibilitye of the Catholycke Church comminge in incidently; lyke as a diſcours of vice doth often in the End; biget ſome ſpecches of Vertue; our Contrary being thus brought to our remembrance, by meanes of the other Contrary. But becauſe [M. D.] you ſhall diſcouer no tergiuerſation in vs herein, and that here to entreate of the continuall Viſibility of our Catholycke Church, violateth our former impoſed method: Therefore I will pawne my credit, that there ſhalbe left with you certaine This is performed in the Cō cluſion of this Trea iſe. prouffs, con ayninge the expreſſe and confeſſed Viſibility of our Roman Church, from the Apoſtles to theſe dayes; And this by the acknowledgment of ſundry learned Proteſtants; though heare by the way, I muſt tell you, that the confeſſed Inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church, during ſo many former Ages, doth potentially and vertually include the proufe of the Viſibility of our Roman Church, during the ſaid ages: Seing the Inuiſibility of your Church (for ſo longe a tyme) is aſcribed by you Proteſtants (as appeareth by many of the former Proteſtants teſtimonyes) to be the worke of Antichtiſt; (you meaninge thereby, the Pope, and the Church of Rome) therefore it ineuitably followeth, from your owne Primiſſes, that Popes and the Church of Rome haue euer beene viſible, during all the ſaid former Ages and Centuryes.

OCHINVS.

Newſerus, I would haue a word or two with you in priuate; therefore if it pleaſe you, let vs walke a little a part.

NEVSERVS.

I am willingthereto: go into the next roome, and I will follow you,

OCHINVS.

You ſee here [Neuſerus] how this Queſtion of the Proteſtant Churches viſibility hath bene diſcuſſed and argued: And I muſt conſeſſe, that [Michaeas] hath euen in replicably demonſtrated, that the Proteſtant Church hath (at leaſt for many ages) bene inuiſible, or rather extinct: you ſee alſo, how royatous and abounding the old Teſtament s in prophecyes, and other teſtimonies, that the Church in the daye, of the true Meſſias, ſhalbe at all cy res, moſt conſpicuous and viſible. Therefore what reſteth, but that eyther we muſt reiect the old Teſtament (which I neuer will do) for falſly prophetying of the ſtate of the Church; Or els we muſt denye, that theſe tymes of the new Teſtament, are the tymes of Grace; & that the Church erected by Chriſt and his Apoſtles (as wanting the accompliſhment of the foreſayd predictions) is the true Church? which later poynt, I hould to be more probable.

NEVSERVS.

You haue preuented me [Ochinus] in tyme of ſpeaking, but not in iudgment. For to confeſſe the truth, after I had obſerued the weaknes of the Inſtances alledged (though alledged by the Doctour, with as much Scholarlike Art, and aduantage, as might be) my houering thoughts tranſported my iudgment to this your Center. Which though it be enuironed with difficultyes, yet I hould it the more ſafe way with you (ſince the one muſt neceſſarily be reiected as falſe and erroneous, they ſo diametrically croſſing one the other) to retayne our former reuerence to the old Teſtament, and abſolutly to abandon and diſclayme from the New. And therefore, let vs returne backe to Michaeas and the Doctour, to acquaint them, with this our finall reſolution.

OCHINVS.

Michaeas, and M. Doctour. My ſelfe and Neuſerus haue in the ſecretts of our ſoules, paſſed our impartiall cenſures vpon this our Conference. And we both acknowledge the full weight of Michaeas his reſons, in diſprouall of your inſtances & of our owne former euading anſweres: And our Concluſion is, that we both aſſure our ſelfs, that the Proteſtāt Church had neuer any viſible exiſtence, for theſe many laſt ſeuerall ages, at the leaſt: And in deed (I confeſſe) when I do So ſaith Ochinus in praefat. ſuorum Dialogorum. conſider, how Chriſt by his power, wiſdome, and goodnes, had eſtabliſhed and founded his Church, waſhed it with his bloud, and enriched it with his ſpirit; and diſcerning how the ſame is (funditus auerſa) vtterly ouerthrowne, I cannot but wonder; and being deſirous to know the cauſe, I find, there haue bene Popes, who haue preuayled in vtter extirpation and ouerthrow of Chriſt his Church. Here you haue my ceuſure, accompanyed with the true Reaſon thereof.

NEVSERVS.

I do fully conſpyre in iudgment with Ochinus, mooued thereto through the ſtrenght and validity of Michaeas his Arguments. And yet I hope, this is no blemiſh eyther to you (M. Doctour who haue moſt learnedly handled this poynt) nor to our ſelfs, but only to the weaknes of our cauſe: for there are ſome vntruths ſo palpable and iniuſtifiable, (and among them, rang the ſuppoſed viſibility of our owne Church (that neyther learning, Art, or the beſtfiled words (which commonly 〈◊〉 the eare of credulity) are able to ſet a good gayne vpon them. Therefore [Michaeas] to be ſnort, in beleiung that the Proteſtant Church for many centuryes hath bene wholy inuiſible, Ochinus and my ſelfe are wholy yours.

MICHAEAS.

I much reioyce thereat, and I hope (notwithſtanding both your former acerbity of ſpeeches) that now vpon your ſecond and more ſerious renew of this point the acknowledgment of this one Truth wilbe a good diſpoſition, for your further encertaynment of the Catholicke fayth: ſince a diſlike of the Proteſtant Church implyeth in itſelfe, a fauorable reſpect to the Catholicke Church; which Church hath euer bene houored with a perpetuall viſibility.

OCHINVS.

Stay [Michaeas] Not ſo. You are ouer haſty; your praē is as yet not gotten; and your credulous expectation ouerrunne your iudgment Know you therefore; firſt, that touching your Church (at the ſtear e whereof that Romiſh Antichriſt doth ſit) we hould it not (as aboue we proteſted) to be the Church of God; And then it mat reth nothing with vs, whether your ſayd Antichriſtian Church haue euer ſince it firſt being, bene viſible, or no For though we teach, that the true Church muſt euer be viſible; yet we teach not conuertibly, that what Church hath euer bene viſible, the ſame is the true Church, Furthermore Michaeas and M. Doctour, take both you notize, that the confeſſed want of a continuall viſibility, and of the adminiſtration of the word and Sacraments, miniſtreth to vs a great ſuſpicion, whether the Church of Chriſt, be that Church of God, which is ſo much celebrated by the Prophets of the Old Teſtament; and conſequently whether Chriſt be the true Meſſias of the World. For if he had ſo been, doubtleſly he would not ſo quickly haue repudiated his intemerate and chaſt ſpouſe (for ſo the true Church of God is) after his departure from hence.

NEVSERVS.

What Ochinus ath deliuered (though perhapps with amazement to you both) I do here iuſtify. And as it is euident, that the former Prophecyes haue not been actually performed in Chriſt his Church: So we muſt needs reſt doubtfull (at the leaſt) through want of the performance of the ſayd Predictions, whether Chriſt be that Redeemer of the World, which was promiſed to the Fathers of the old Law; And whether he had true authority to erect this Church, of which he hath made himſelfe Head or certainly the auncient Predictions deliuered in a propheticall ſpirit, touching the Meſſias and his Church, are infallibly to be performed in the Meſſias & his Church.

MICHAEAS.

How now my Mayſters? Is this the fruit of my refelling your Churches Viſibility? Tends your approbation of my former diſcours to this? Whether ayme theſe ſtrange and fearefull ſpeeches of yours? Will you diſclayme from Chriſt as your Redeemer, becauſe the Prophecyes of the old Teſtament touching the expanſion, latitude, and continuall viſibility of the Church of God, are not performed in the Proteſtant Church? And will you not confeſſe the ſayd predictions to be fulfilled at all, becauſe they are not fulfilled by that way and meanes, as your ſelfs would haue them? Take heed; do not obliterate and deface thoſe fayre impreſſions, charactered in your ſoules, at your Baptiſme; neyther now di auo •• your (then taken) firſt now. O mercifull God; how ignorant are you in theſe matters? And then more miſerably ignorant, it that partly through learning you are become ignorant. Do you thinke to honour the Father, by d ſhonoring the Sonne; euen that Sonne, in whome the Father tooke ſuch ineffable contentment? Math. 3. Hic eſt filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui. Certayne it is, that if you perſeuer in iudgment, as your words import, you deny him for your Sauiour, who had a Father without a Mother; a Mother without a Father: The firſt argued his Diuinity; the ſecond his immaculate and pure Natiuity. Tertul 〈◊〉 gentes. Quod de Deo profectum eſt, 〈…〉 eus eſt, & Dei Filius & Vnus Ambo. You deny him, whoſe body was framed of ſuch an admirable and delicate conſtitution and temperature, as that the earth did then (contrary to it accuſtomed manner) euen power it influence vpon Heauens; To be ſhor , you deny him, who gaue 1. Timoth. 2. himſelfe 〈◊〉 Redemption for all, who taſted Hebr. 2. death for all; who Ioan. 1. tooke away the ſinnes of the World; and finally who was Sauiour Ioan. 4. of the world, and reconciliation 1. Ioan. 2. for our ſinnes: In the tyme of whoſe Paſſion, death did euen eui e, and Eclips did enlighten: Lux Ioan. 1. in tenebris lucet, & tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. But why labour I, to celebrate his byrth, who is from all eternity, or to performe his exequies, who cannot dye; Rom. 6. Mors illi vltrà non dominabitur. And by you aſſured, that who contemne Chriſt, the Redeemer of all fleſh, muſt needs contemne God, the Authour of all fleſh.

And where you call the Pope: that Romiſh Antichriſt; ſee how malice ſeeleth vp the eye of your iudgement you mantayne (is ſeems) that the true Chriſt and Meſſias is not yet come; How can the Pope then (by your doctrine) be Antichriſt; ſince Antichriſt (you know) is to come after (not before) the true Chriſt? Againe for prouffe, that the Pope is Antichriſt, you (no doubt) will make ſhow to reſt vpon the wreſted authority of the New 2. Theſſ. 3. Apoc. 17 Teſtament: And ſhall not then the ſaid New Teſtament be of the like authority with you, to proue, that Chriſt is the true Meſſias?

OCHINVS.

Tuſh (Michaeas) This is but your Oratorye. Wee ſay the Prophecies of the old Teſtament (of which we haue ſet downe ſo great ſtore) are infallibly to be performed; We find they are not performed in Chriſt Church: How then can we beleiue in Chriſt, as our true Meſſias and Redemer, or rep te his Church, for the true Church of God? And where you (Michaeas) replye, that the ſaid Prophecyes are accompliſhed in your Popiſh Church, that forceth nothing: ſince we are aſſured, that that your Church is a ſuperſtitious and idolatrous Church, and wholy alienated from the Couenant of God. Therefore briefly touching my ſelf, I openly ſay, I do expect an other That Ochinus vpon the not performance of the Prophecyes of the old teſtament in the Church of Chriſt, denyed the Trinity, taught Circumciſion, and became an abſolute Apoſtata, is witneſſed by Zanchius (the Proteſtant) in his booke de tribus elohim, printed, 1594. l 5. c. 9. As alſo by Cōradus Sluſſenb. (a Proteſtant) in Theolog. Caluiniſt. lib. 1. fol. 9. The tytle of which chapter in Sluffenberg. is: reſpontio ad Ochini blaſphemiam. And laſtly, the ſame is auerred by Beza, in Polygam pag. 4. Meſſias, an other Redemer: And I do not acknowledg your Chriſt to be the ſecond Perſon of the Trinity: And therefore I do hould, that the Old Law being in force, Circumciſion is to beretayned.

NEWSERVS.

Michaeas, the ſtreame of the tymes ought not to beare downe the Truth. Therefore ſeing in the Church of Chriſt, the Predictions of the Prophetts (aboue by Ochinus and my ſelf fully alledged) touching the enlargment, the vninterupted Viſibility, and the inceſſant adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments are not performed: I here pronounce, that That Neuſerus through the want of the performance of the foreſaid Prophecyes, denyed our sauiour Chriſt, reputed him a ſeducer, turned Turke, and was circūcized at Conſtantinople, is witneſſed by Oſiander (the Proteſtant) Cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 818. in theſe words: Adam Neuſerus, Paſtor Heidelbergenſis &c. prolapſus eſt in Turciſmum, & Conſiantinopole circumciſus. As alſo by Conradu Sluſſenberg. in Theolog. Caluin. lib. 1. art. 2. fol. 9. in theſe words: Adam Neuſerus olim Heidelbergenſis Eccleſia primarius Paſtor, ex Zwinglianiſ •• per Arianiſmum ad Mahometiſmum, progreſſus eſt. Chriſt was not the true Meſſias, but aſeducer; and that his Church is not the Church of God. And more particulary for my ſelf (as continuing for euer in this my ſentence) I am reſolued to goe to Conſtantinople: and there (as now beleuing in the law of Moyſes) I wilbe circumcized. Therefore (Micheas) content yourſelf, and forbeare all further vehemency of ſpeach againſt vs: in o which afore you did begin to enter; but ſhow in you words greater temperanee and Patience.

MICHAEAS.

Patience Peace Pr digious men. It is heare a Vertue, to tranſgreſſe all bonds of Patience; and but ſtupiditie not to be angry. You Miſcreants, vnworthy to breath, ſince you deny hym, through whom you breath; and vnwothy to enioye a being, ſince you reiect hym, who gaue you your Being preſumptious Clay, that d •• eſt thus conteſt with thy maker. Thinke you my Words ſhalbe ſlowe, in defence of hym, who is the Word: Ioan. 1. 〈◊〉 Verbum care factum eſt, & habita t in nobis? No. I muſt ſpeake. I will ſpeake. Neuer (neuer) ſhall my eares be guilty of my Redemers blaſphemies, but that my Tonge to it vttermoſt power ſhall replye (and in this feruour keepe me, ſweete Ieſus, to my laſt gaſpe) And I wilbe ready to trumpet orth t e diſgrace and ignominye of you both, throughout all Chriſtendum Call you your former Religion: The light of the Goſpell, which finally tendeth to put out the Light it ſelfe? erat lux Ioan. 1. vera, quae illuminat mnem hominem. O that I had one of the coales of the holy ltar of God, to ſeare your blafphemous tongues, as the Eſay. 6. Seraphin by taking one of the coales thereof, did purify the lipps of the Prophet Eſay ô impiety of tymes, in which ſuch Munſters are bred; worthy for feare of infecting others, to be eliminated out of the Society of Men, and to be relegated vnto ſome deſart or Wildernes; there to conuerſe with Beaſts ſince in ſauadgnes of Nature you excede beaſts you Batteyd Infidells, that cannot endure the light of the Sun, Malac . cap. 4. orietur Sol Iuſtitiae: vnder what name do you expect Saluation; Since Act. 4. there is not any other name vnder heauen, giuen vnto Men (then tha of Ieſus) wherein we muſt be ſaued? Cannot the Prophecyes of the Old Teſtament (vpon which in other poynts, you ſeeme ſo much to relye) touching ſo many particularities of our Sauiours Birth, Lyfe, Paſſion, and Reſurrection (the due conſideration See hereof the firſt part of the Cō erted ew at the beginning. of all which, I acknowledg, firſt made me a Chriſtian) preuayle with you, to confeſſe him for your Red mer? Since all thoſe particulars were to be performed only in the true Meſſias and all of them haue beene actually performed in hym, whom now you refuſe. The patration of infinit ſtupendious Mirac es, exhibited not only by Ieſus himſelfe, but by his Apoſtles and ſeruants, may be able (I ſhould thinke being truly weighed) to waſh out this blot of your Infidelitie, and to yle away the ruſt of this your misbel ife. ô England, bluſheſt not thou, that after thy caſting of thy primatiue fayth, Ocb nus was the Apoſtle, by whoſe meanes and labour thou firſt did ſuch Proteſtancy? Is this he, whoſe preſence Bale in prefat. act. Rom pō tific. printed 1558. initio. in thoſe day s is ſaid to make thee happy; and whoſe abſence vnfortunate; and Caluin. l. deſcandalis, (extant) iu tract. Theolog. printed, 1597 pag. 111 vt ſupra dicitur. whom all Italy could not equall? See (to thy diſhonour, and his perdition) what he is become: A Iew, a Turke, an Apoſta a, forſaking Chriſt and all Chriſtianity and teaching Circumcition and polygamy or plurali ye of wyfes; a doctrine, where Senſuality diminiſheth the pleaſure of ſence. And thou He delberg (at this preſent honored, by hauinge tranſ-planted in thee, ſo fayre a Roſe ou of the Engliſh garden) Behould here once thy cheif Paſtour Neuſerus (and now confeſſedly a cheife inſtrument of the deuill) from whome, as from one (by ſuppoſall) peculiarly illuminated by the Lord, thou hearetofor diſt receaue thy ſpirituall nurriſhmēt; Who e Superintendency (forſooth) is not afrayd in the •• d, openly to blaſpheme againſt the Sauiou of the World, and to turne Turke; and who hauing an vncircumcized hart, will needs carye about with hym a circumcized body. And Celebrious Oxford (the good •• eſt skryne of the Muſes, vnder the Sunne) how canſt thou brooke, that ſuch impure Imps, as theſe, ſhould breath thy pure ayre? Or can thy worthy and noble Sonns (eminently endued with all good lettars) endure the ſight of theſe Infide ls? Hadſt thou afore bene perſwaded, that theſe two Monſters (whoſe very Soules and bodyes Mans goaſtly Enemy ſeemes of late to organize) would haue •• ulne into theſe blasphemyes, no doubt thou wouldeſt &c.

D. REYNOLDS.

Stay [Michaeas] Proceede no further. You haue ſpoken enough. And I much commend your Chriſtian feruour herein: And I confeſſe, it gaulingly vpbraids me, to ſee any of my owne Religion, thus to apoſtatate from the fayth of Chriſt. And it is no ſmall greife, that this diſputation firſt intended, to make one Papiſt a good Proteſtant, hath in lieu thereof made two Proteſtants, two Iewes or Turks. But yet [Michaeas] let not the ſeueritie of your Cenſure paſe further, then the fault extendeth. It is only Ochinus and Neuſerus (and two, though too many, in reference to ſeuerall thouſands, is ſcare reputed a number) who thus ſinne. Let not then the Goſpell it ſelfe, or any other Profeſſours of it, be inſimulated by you within this atrocity and Cryme. And you O hinus and Neuſerus. ô ſoyle not your ſelfs with this ſo foule an imputation. But ſeing Wiſdome only iudgeth of Wiſdome, and learning of learning; ſo let your learning and Wiſdome equally runne together, to acknowledg him for your Redemer, who is the ſource of all Wiſdome, learning and knowledge: de 2. Io. an. 2. plenitudin eius omnes accepimus. your Sinne is moſt heinous and dreadfull; yet being attended hereafter with a true remorſe and repentance, is remiſſible; and for your conforts remember that Paull the Apoſtle (who once perſecuted hym, whom you now deny) did expiate the ſinnes of Saule the Publican.

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour you do well, and like a Chriſtian Doctour, to endeauour to re all home theſe two wretches. Yet touching the paucity of Proteſtanticall Apoſtates by you pretended; it ſeem s, your Memory wrongs your Reading. For it is a vaſt vntruth to affirme, that only Ochinus and Neuſerus haue reuolted to Turciſme and Iuda ſme. For did not Dauid George (a cheife Proteſtant, and once Profeſſour) Oſiander cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 647. ſaith, of Dauid George: Vtebatur publico Vir Dei miniſterio Baſi ien i &c. at Baſil) become a blaſphemous Apoſtata? who affirming our Sauiour to be a ſeducer, and grounding himſelfe (with Ochinus & N uſer s) vpon the not accōpliſhment of the Propheſyes of the Churches viſibility, in the Proteſtant Church, thus writeth: See hiſtoria Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp. 1568 publiſhed be the deuines of Baſil. Si Chriſti & Ap ſtolor an doctrina vera & perfecta fuiſſet &c. If the doctrine of Chr ſt and his Apoſtles had bene true a d perfect, the Church, which they had planted, ſhould haue cont nued &c. But now it is manifeſt, that Antichriſi hath ſubuerted the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and the Church by them begunne &c. therefore the doctrine of the Apoſtles was falſe and imperfect. Thus that imp ous Iew And was not Alamannus, a Swinglian, and once moſt Conradus Sluſſenberg in Theolog. Caluin. l 1. art. 2. f. 9. Alemanus Bezae antea fami iariſſim s & irenuꝰ Caluiniſta, R ligioni Chriſtianae longum valde dixi & factus eſt Apoſtata & Iudaeus blaſphemus familiar with Beza? who, perſwading himſelfe, that the prophecyes touching the continuall viſ bility of the Church, were not performed in Chriſt his Chu ch, becauſe he ſaw they were not performed in the Proteſtant Church, did thereupon renounce Chriſtianity and became a blaſphemious Iew: a point ſo euident, that Beza himſelfe (notwithſtanding their former inwardnes and friendſhip) thus writeth of him: S writeth Beza in epiſt. 65. p. 308. Alamanum affirmant ad uda ſmum d feciſſe. Did not Georgius Paulus Stancurus de mediatore fol. 38. (miniſter of Cracouia) deny the Trinity with the Turkes? In like ſort Conefius, and Laelius Socinus (a ſchollar in the ſchoole of Geneua (who writ whole books againſt the B. Tri ity) vpon the former grounds forſooke the Chriſtian fayth. And this Socinus (as Beza Epiſt. Theol. 81. witneſ eth) ſo at the firſt corrupted the firſt chapter of S. ohn his Ghoſpell (which ſpeaketh ſo plain ly of Chriſt) as that, Beza ſaith of him: mih quidem videtur omnes corrup ores longè ſuperaſſe. In like ſort Andreas V lanus In Pa aeneſi. (a great Caluiniſ ) not only became in the end a Turke, but infected many others with his wrytings, agaynſt the Ble ſ ed Trinity and Chriſtian fayth. But if you haue a deſire to r ede of more Proteſtants, who became Turkes and Iewes, as preſuming, that the former Prophecyes were not performed in the Church of God, I referre you to a booke, to which I thinke you are no ſtranger; I meane to that moſt elaborate and mother-booke (for it hath giuen byrth to diuers others) written by your owne brother, M. William Reynolds, and called Caluino Lib 1. c 19 l 3. c. 3. & 8. and in diuers other places thereof. Turciſmus. You may alſo to the ſame end, peruſē Conradus Lib 1. de Theol. Caluin. a t. 2. c. 9. Sluſſenberg and Oſiander Cent. 16. p. 207. 208. 209. (both Proteſtants) where I preſume, your ſtomacke wilbe ſoone gluted, with the diſpleaſing guſt of diuers others there related.

And now in the through of theſe examples, my thoughts are caried to Sebaſtian Caſtalio (once Profeſſour at Baſill) And one highly extolled by your owne D. Humfrey Lib. de ratione interpretādi 〈◊〉 . 1 p. 62. 63. And Oſiander in Cent. 16. who ſaith: Sebaſtianus Caſtaleo vir aſprimè doctus &c & dinguarum perit ſſimus and others. This Caſtalio, though he went not ſo fare as by open breach and Apoſtaſy to leaue the fayth of Chriſt; yet in regard that the former predictions touching the ſpreading of Chriſts Church; and the euer vneclipſed conſpituity of it, were not (in his iudgment) performed in Chriſt Church, he writeth very perplexedly hereof, to King Edward the ſixt in this Maner: Equidem In the Preface of the great Latin Bible, dedicated to King Edward the ſixt. aut h c futura f 〈…〉 endum eſt &c. Truly it is to be confeſſed, that theſe predictions are either to be performed hereafter; or haue bene allredy; or that otherwyſe God is to be accuſed of lyinge. Yf it be ſaid, they haue bene allready accompliſhed. I aske of hym, When? Yf he anſweare in the Apoſtles dayes; I demand then, how it happeneth, that neith r then the knowledg of God was wholy perfect, and why it ſo ſoone vaniſhed away; which was promiſed to be eternall, and more abundant, then the floudds of the Sea? And then without ſaluing this his difficulty, he finally thus dowbtfully concludeth: Quo magis libros ſacros conſidero, eo minus hactenus praeſtitum video, vtcum que oracula illa intelligas: The more peruſe the Scriptures, the leſſe do I find the ſame performed, howſoeuer you vnderſtand the ſaid Prophecies. See with what a fearefull and wauering trepitation of iudgment, this learned Caluiniſt writeth of this point; through his falſe ſuppoſall, that the Catholycke Church is not the Church of God; but cheiffly through his true acknowledgment, that the former Prophecies were not performed in the Proteſtant Church. And thus far of theſe Examples. But if you will haue a cenſure, whether any Proteſtants (or rather Caluiniſts) turne Arians or no (who as denying the moſt Bleſſed Trinity, are litle bettar, then Turks or Iewes) I will giue it in this Neuſerus his owne words (and if I wrong hym herein, let hym now before you charge me.) who thus hath left written: None Oſlander in epitom. cent. 16. p. 209. reporteth, that Neuſerus being turned Turke, and circumciſed at Cō ſtātinople, did write theſe words to one D. Gerlachius (a Proteſtant Preacher, at Tubinga) from Conſtantinople. is knowne in our tyme to be made an Arian, who was not a Caluiniſt, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alchianus, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Siluanus and others; therefore who feareth to faule into Arianiſme, let hym take heede of Caluiniſme. Thus you Neuſerus: ſo certaine it is that Arianiſme, Turciſme, and Iudaiſme, are the laſt ſublimations of Caluiniſme.

Well M. Doctour. I am cloyed with the ſociety of this diſcours, and can hardly endure any longer with patience, the ſight of theſe two Wretches, belcking forth ſuch horrible poyſon; And therefore I will now leaue you, and perhapps inſtātly after (vpon ſome vrgent occaſions) leaue England. I could haue wiſhed, that this our Diſpute had made a deeper impreſſion in you, then I feare it hath, for your incorporating into the Catholicke Church: Neuer the leſſe, I will pray to God, that before your diſſolution, you may be more ſolicitous and carefull in this ſo great a matter, which concerns your Soules happines or infelicity for all eternity. Touching my ſelfe, I do ingeniouſly proteſt, that now by meanes of this diſcours, I ſeeing the weaknes of all that, which may be vrged by the learnedeſt Proteſtants, in defence of this Churches viſibility, am become hereby more ſetled and ſtrenghtned in the Catholicke fayth and Religion, then afore I was; if more I can be. But now before I end, I cannot but put you in mind [M. Doctour] how fouly you were ouertaken in your defence D. Reynolds in his cenſura librorū Apocryphorum. tom. alter, in the table of Contents ſet before, there at the nūbers 161. 175. & 176. defendeth againſt Bellarm. Ochinus his book writtē againſt the Maſſe. of this impious Ochinus, for his writing againſt the ſacrifice of the Maſſe: where you may well ſee, that to deny the ſacrifice, which was firſt inſtituted by our Sauiour, is a fitting preparation towards the after denyall of our Sauiour himſelfe.

D. REYNOLDS.

I muſt confeſſe [Michaeas] that notwithſtanding whatſoehath bene ſayd in this diſcourſe, I ſtill remayne a member of the Proteſtant Church; aſſuring my ſelfe, it is the true Church of Chriſt. Touching my defence of Ochinus his wryting, I did it out of my conſcience; and my conſcience (I truſt) will warrant it, at the laſt day. For your preſent departure, I am agreiued, we ſhall loſſe you ſo ſoone; Only I would entreate you, to haue in your diſcourſes (whereſoeuer, you ſhall hereafter come) a tender and gentill touch of the Proteſtant Church, & of all the true and conſtant members thereof. And herewith [Worthy, Michaeas;] I take my laſt farewell.

MICHAEAS.

M. Doctour of your ſelfe I will euer ſpeake, anſwerably to your deſarts; Nobly, and with great reſpect: Since you are a Man, whoſe barke is richly fraught, with learning & Morality. And what defects haue bene committed by you in this diſpute, I do wholy aſcribe them, to your want of a good cauſe, not to your want of good parts. And if there haue bene any words miſplaced by, vs on eyther ſyde, ſ t the thought of them vaniſh away: ſince they were ſpoken Antagoniſtice , and in hea e of diſputation; And ſo in all kindnes & Chriſtian charity, I leaue you, with this my aduiſe that you will not aduenture your ſaluation vpon your owne priuate conſcience preferring it before the Iudgement and conſcience of the vniuerſall viſible Catholicke Church: As for you two (fagotts of Hell-fire) I grant my eyes euen ſparkle forth r ge in behoulding of you; And I account (contrary to the place of the burning Exod. 3. buſh) the place, wherin you ſtand, to be curſed ground. or ſince your Sunne is ſo f rie of you (I meane, your excepted falſe Meſſias) what can you looke, but for a winter of could diſpayre and damnation? Therefore I will take leaue with you, in the phraze of the Apoſtle to Elymas, the Magitian (and what greater Magicke, then for one to be encha ted to beleiue, that Chriſt is a ſe ucer?) O Acts. c. 23. you full of all ſubtilty and miſcheife, the Sonns of the Deuill, enemyes of all iuſtice, who ceaſe not to peruert the right wayes of our Lord: Adieu.

OCHINVS.

You enioy [Michaeas] the liberty of your Tongue; but age you well.

NEVSERVS.

Let him go: I will nor take leaue with him: ſuch opprobrious ſpeeches he vſeth againſt vs.

OCHINVS.

Now [M. Doctour] Michaeas is gonne; And now we haue the more freedome of ſpeech among our ſelfs, without feare of being ouerheard. I know, that not only yonder black-mouthd Michaeas, but your ſelfe alſo, reſt much diſediſyed at our ab enunciation of Chriſtianity. But [M. Doctour] come to the point. We ſee the Prophecyes of the old Teſtament (which muſt euer remayne ſacred, permanent, and 〈…〉 uiolable) do ſhew that the Church of God in the dayes of the Meſſias, muſt euer be viſible, knowne, and conſpicuous, and muſt in all ages without any intermiſſion, enioye a publicke and externall adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments: And this is abundantly confeſſed, not only by vs all in the front of this our diſputation, but by all learned men whoſoeuer. We now (notwithſtanding ſuch neceſſity therof) cannot but confeſſe, that the accompliſhment of the ſayd Prophecyes hath not bene effected in the Church of Chriſt, at le ſt in the Proteſtant Church: how then can the Church of Chriſt be that true Church of the Meſſias, which is ſo gloriouſly deliuea ed with the penalls of the Prophets? Now what other reſultancy can be out of the premiſes, then that the Church of Chriſt (as wanting the fulfilling of the former diuine Oracles) is not the true Church of God; and conſequently, that Chriſt is the true Meſſias & Sauiour of the World? except we will grant (which I neuer will) the Papiſts Church (as hauing by relation of Michaeas the Prophecies performed in it) to be the ſole Church of God. Therefore ſo farre, as toucheth my ſelfe, I do renounce my former Chriſtian fayth, and will embrace the auncient Law of Moyſes; and as intending to be ſeruiceable to that Religion, I will teach the doctrine of Circumciſion, and will inſtantly write a Beza 〈◊〉 . de Polygamia printed 1527. p. 4. ſaith of this point: Pelygamiam nemo vnqua 〈…〉 callidius vel impu enti s defendit, quam impurus ille Apoſtata Ochinus i quibuſdam D 〈…〉 booke of the lawfulnes of Polygamie or plurality of Wyues; aunciently practized by the ewes in the old Teſtament; though now by Chriſtians houlden, as vnlawfull and altogether pro •• ibited.

NEVSERVS.

By the Lord of Heauen, I cannot ſee how this difficulty can otherwyſe be ſalued, then either by denyinge the Goſpell of the New Teſtament; or by granting the Church of Rome to be the true Church, which my Soule abhorrs to do. For as concerning the perpetuall Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, It cannot be made good, notwiſtanding our great ventitation thereof afore in our Words: And therefore it were honeſty in vs now in the end to pull of our Viſards (through which wee ſpooke to Michaeas) and plainly confeſe the truth herein.

And here [M. D.] to take a ſhort view of all the diſcours paſſed, and to examine it impartially a monge our ſelfs; We cannot but obſerue, that the Exemples produced by you, were moſt inſufficient; firſt, becauſe they were no Proteſtants at all: Secondly, in that admitting them for Proteſtants, they but only ſerue (as Michaeas well noted) to iuſtify the Viſibility of Proteſtants only for thoſe tymes; neither you nor wee being able to produce but only for for me ſake, any one confeſſed Example of Proteſtancy, for the ſpace of ſix hundred yeers at the leaſt. Againe, when Ochinus and my ſelfe perceaued, that no true inſtances of Proteſtancy could be giuen; I grant we vſed diuers euaſions and inflexious to and froe; and all for the ſauing of our Churches honour. As firſt, to pretend (though God knowes, a ſilly pretence) that all Relations and teſtimonyes of Proteſtants in former ages were by the Popes induſtry and tyranny, vtterly extinct. That fayling, then we made ſhow (for in our priuat iudgments, we could not really thinke it) That the Proteſtants in former tymes were forced to lye ſecret and latent, in regard of the ſuppoſed then raging Perſecution. That playne anſwere not ſeruinge, then we thought good to inuolue and roule our ſaid euaſion touchinge Perſecution, in a certaine obſcure and darke ſentence: to wit, That the Church was in the Papacy; the Papacy in the Church, and yet the Church was not the Papacy: a forme of words (as Mich as truly •• id forged by vs Proteſtants, only to caſt a yſt in the eyes of the vnlearned. The next we fled (for our ſureſt, but indeed ſham full refuge) vnto the Scripture, pretending our Church to be conſonant to it, and therefore euer viſible; a cours which indifferently lyeth open to euery Heretyke. After all which (if you remember M. D.) your ſelfe did politikly touch vpō that opinion (though not with any greate approbation of it) which, for ſauing our Church from it vtter ruine, teacheth, that the Papiſts Church and Ours are all one. But did you marke, how Michaeas neuer ceaſed, till he had ferretted vs out of all our former Connyhoales; be in the end irrephably and choakingly prouing, from our owne learned Mens penns, the mayne queſtion now controuerted among vs? Now [M. D.] ſeeing I am irrefragably reſolued not to admit the Papiſts Church for the true Church (though perhapps it hath enioyed the fulfilling of the forementioned Prophecyes) I do therefore conſpyre in iudgment herein with Ochinus, and ame determined to haue this Country; from whence I will retyre myſelfe into the Palatinate; Adamus Neuſerus Conc 〈…〉 natores in •• Palatinat fiad ſuam 〈◊〉 dem perd xi , & con tacta cum Sacerdotibus in Tur c a amicitia, & dati atque acceptis vltro citroque literis, Mahometanam religionem in Germania propagare 〈◊〉 ter conat 〈…〉 eſt. In Colloquio priuato inter Catholicū Paſtorem & Baduini Miniſtrum Coloniae. Anno. 1591. p. 5 •• . where I will drawe the preachers to embrace my doctryne; will procure priuate correſpondency with ſome Turkiſh Pryeſts; will labour with all diligence to ſpreade the Turkiſh Religion in Germany; and finally will go to Conſtantinople, and there I wilbe Circumcized.

D. REYNOLDS.

O God vnto what miſerable and ſtrange tymes haſt thou reſerued me, to ſe Chriſt thus abandoned by Chriſtians, and embraced by Iewes? And what horrid and dreadfull reſolutions are theſe comming from our owne boſome aduerſaries? Alas, Ochinus and Neuſerus, thinke what ſchandall it wilbe to the Goſpell, when it ſhalbe truly rumored, that ſuch men (as your ſelfs) are Enemyes of the Goſpell. And what will many graue Proteſtants (and particulary the moſt learned Beza) ſpeake of you, for this your moſt infamous reuolt? ſweet Ieſus, that ewes and Heathens ſhould fynd light in darknes, and Chriſtians darknes in light! You both ſay you will not acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the true Church of God. Be it ſo. Yet are the Profeſſours of it, Chriſtians. And will you therefore abandon Chriſt Ieſus, out of your malignity to them? ô no. A bad Chriſtian is better, then no Chriſtian; as a dime ſight is better, then to be ſtone blynd. You demande, how can the Church of Chriſt be the true Church, when the Predictions of the Prophetts touching it, are not performed in it? Who knoweth, they are not performed in it? Yf you aske by whome, were they performed? Where? and at what tymes? Remember that theſe are but Circumſtances of the buſines; and it is a receaued Axiome, that: Aliquando conſtat dere, quando non conſtat de modorei. And how all theſe things may be reconciled, is a Myſtery ſealed vp (perhapps) by God from our knowledge, for our greater Humili ie. But to come to an end. Seeing you both are ſo obſtinately headlong (as if you were weary or aſhamed of the Chriſtian fayth) to embrace Iudaiſme; I cannot but ſay, that I do much prefer Michaeas, before you both (for a Iew being made a Chriſtian, is much more noble, then a Chriſtian, who intende to be a Iew) and I do from henceforth forbid all entercours, and as ſotiation with you. Therefore fare you well, Both; only for this foule miſnap of yours, I can but euaporate my greife out into ſights, and weepe; becauſe in neither of you, I can ſee teares of remorſe.

OCHINVS.

Wee thanke you [M. D.] for your freindly admonitions, though they haue no working influence ouer vs. And where you vrge, that Proteſtāts will ſpeake fowly of this my change: I anſweare, let any of them, or Beza himſelfe (in whom you peculiarly inſiſt) ſhower downe reproches vpon me; as that, I am a Beza in epiſt. 1. p. 11. calleth Ochinus, Arianorum •• a d ſ •• nus ſautor, Polig niae 〈◊〉 omniam Chriſtianae religionis dogmatum irriſor. ſecret fauorer of the Arians; that I am a defendour of Polygamy; that I am a derider of all articles of Chriſtian Religion; Yea let hym playnly and bluntly ſtyle me; an impure Beza de polyga ia, p 4. calleth Ochinus impurus Apoſtata, as aboue is ſhewed in the margen . Apoſtata; All this ſweighs nothing with me; for I do glory to ſuffer opprobry and diſgrace, in defence of the auncient Iewiſh Religion. But come Neuſerus; let vs begonne. And thus [M. D.] I leaue you, and commit you to the tuition of the Higheſt.

NEVSERVS.

Farewell, good M. Doctour, and the Lord of Heauen illuminate the eyes of all thoſe, who remayne yet blinded.

D. REYNOLDS.

Gentillmen, once more I leaue you to God: Who at his pleaſure, is able to mollify, the moſt ſtonye ha t.

FINIS. GOD SAVE THE KING.
THE CONCLVSION.

HEARE now (Worthy Academicks) is my penne come to it full ſtop, and our ſeconde Dialogue to it laſt Period: Where you haue ſeene the true and vnfeigned downe fall of the two former Proteſtants, Ochinus and Neuſerus: and the ſtumbling block, occaſioning this their miſerable precipitation. Yf any of you do reape profit hereby (and I hope you may, if you vouchſafe to peruſe it with Ind ſterency) ô how fully then is my labour recompenſed? As for thoſe, who out of an affected moroſity, do detractiuely preiudge of our labours in this kind: and through their owne inueterate auerſiō to the Catholicke faith, do betrample with all ſcorne and indignation our beſt endeuours (though I hope, few or no ſuch ſpydars do breede in your Colledges) I pryze not their Cenſures; only I do, and ſtill will pray inceſſantly to God, to giue them more ſupple and docible harts; with whom wee may perhapps truly expoſtulate in the Pſalmiſts phraza: Filij Pſal. 4. hominum, vſ que quo graut corde?

Peruſe (learned Men) the authorityes and reaſons here aboue alledged; and deuyde in your iudgments, what is here ſeigned by way of interlocution from that, in which I really and forcebly inſiſt; and then make in the ſecrets of your ſoules, a reflection vpon your owne Religion. And that you may more warrantably proceede therein I will here proue (though but breifly) the viſibility of our Catholycke Church, during all thoſe ages, in which your Proteſtant Church is aboue acknowledged to lye latent, or rather not to be at all: a poynt (if you remember) of which Michaeas promiſed to leaue behynd him, ſome proufs.

1. This then I proue ſeuerall wayes. And firſt, from the Inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church, during all former ages till Luthers inſurrection (if ſo we take Luther for a Proteſtant) For ſeeing euer ſince the Apoſtles dayes, there hath bene a viſible Church of Chriſt in the World (as all Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes, Chronicles, and Antiquityes do irrefragably conuince) And ſeing that by the Confeſſions of all ſydes, there hath beene no other Church of Chriſtians viſibly in being all theſe tymes, but either the Catholycke Church or the Proteſtant Church (For as for the Arians, and other Heretycks, they continued only for certaine ages) And laſtly, ſeeing it is acknowledged aboue by ſo many learned Proteſtants, and otherwyſe alſo proued by many vnanſwerable arguments, that the Proteſtant Church hath not beene viſible for ſo many ages till Luthers appearing: Therefore it inauoydably followeth, that the Catholycke Church is that Church, which hath euer bene viſible and knowne to the World during all that long ſpace of tyme: And the rather, ſeeing the learned Proteſtants confeſe (as aboue is ſhewed) that all the former Inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church was wrought by the labour, power, & diligence of the Catholicke Roman Chuch now how could the Roman Church effect ſo much for ſo long a tyme, except it ſelfe during al that tyme, were moſt viſible?

2. Secondly, I proue the ſame poynt from the acknowledged ſucceſſion of Paſtours in our Catholycke Church, euer ſince the Apoſtles. Which euer viſible ſucceſſion of Paſtours neceſſarily includeth in it ſelfe the euer viſibility of the Catholycke Church: thoſe viſible Paſtours being the viſible and moſt eminent members of the ſaid Church; and preaching and inſtructing others: who euen in this reſpect muſt become alſo viſible and knowne.

Now that the Catholicke Roman Church hath ever enioyed this viſible ſuceſſion of Paſtours, is confirmed from the wrytings of the Centuriſts in their ſeuerall Centuryes: their relating of which poynt being a Principall part and ſubiect of that their ſo much commended Work; A matter ſo euident and confeſſed by our aduerſaryes, as that D. Fulke thus exprobrateth the Catholicks in theſe words: You can D. Fulke in his anſwere to a Counterfeyte Catholick. p. 27. and in his Reioinder to Briſtowes Reply. p. 343. name the notable perſonages in all ages (obſerue theſe words: in all ages) and their gouerment and miniſtery and eſpecially the ſucceſſion of the Popes you can rehearſe in order, and vpon your fingars. Thus D. Fulke.

3. Thirdly, We prooue the former aſſertion of our Catholicke Church its Viſibility, during the firſt ſix hundred years after Chriſt (and conſequently during the whole period of the Primatiue Church) by taking a view in generall, how the cheife auncient Fathers of thoſe tymes are pryzed and entertayned by the Proteſtants; who indeed (diſpenſing with all Ceremonyes herein) do abſolu ly reiect them, as inexcuſable and groſſe Papiſts. For as for theſe laſt thouſand yeares; It is acknowledged by all Proteſtant whoſoeuer; that our Church hath bene moſt viſible, tyrannyzing (they ſay) ouer the true Church, for ſo many ages. And according hereto M Powell In his cōſiderations of the Papiſts reaſons p. 105. ſayth: From the yeare of Chriſt ſix hundred and fyue, the profeſſed company of Popery hath been very viſible and conſpicuous.

But to proceede. If the moſt auncient & moſt reuerend Fathers of the Primatiue Church, (I meane, Ignatius, Dionyſius Areopagita, Iuſtinus, Ireneus, Tertul an, Origen, Cyprian, Athanaſius, Hilarius, the Cyrills, the Gregoryes. Ambroſe, Baſill, Optatus, Gaudentius Chryſoſtome, Ierome, Auſtin, and diuers others) be accounted by our aduerſaryes, moſt earneſt Profeſſours of our Catholicke and Roman fayth; then followeth it ineuitably, that our Catholicke Church was moſt conſpicuous in thoſe dayes: ſince thoſe Fathers were then the viſible Paſtours of the Church; and then conſequently the Church (whereof they were Paſtours) muſt needs be viſible.

That theſe primatiue Fathers were Papiſts (as our Aduerſaryes tearme vs) appeareth euidently out of theſe few confeſſions here following; which for breuity I haue diſcerped out of the great ſtore of like acknowledgments of this point occurring in our aduerſaryes bookes.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

And firſt, Peter Martyr Lib. de votis, pag. 476. thus confeſſeth of this point: As long as we inſiſt in the Fathers, ſo long we ſhalbe conuerſant in their errours. Beza thus inſulteth ouer the Fathers: Euen In his preface vpon the New Teſtament, dedicated to the Prince of Condy. in the beſt tymes (meaning the tymes of the Primatiue Church) the ambition, ignorance and lewdnes of the Biſhopps was ſuch, as the very blind may eaſily perceaue, that Satan was preſident in their Aſſemblyes or Conncells.

D. Whitguift thus conſpireth with his former Brethren: How In his defence of the Anſwere to the Admonition, p. 472. 473. greatly were almoſt all the Biſhops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church & Latin alſo, for the moſt part ſpotted with doctrines of freewill, of merit, of Innocation of Saints, and ſuch like? meaning ſuch like Catholicke doctrines.

Melancthon is no leſſe ſparing in taxing the Fathers, who thus confeſſeth: Melancthon in 1. Cor c. 3. Preſently from the beginning of the Church (that is, preſently after Chriſt his Aſcenſion) the auncient Fathers obſcured the doctrine concerning the Iuſtice of Fayth, increaſed ceremonyes, and deuiſed peculiar Worſhipps. But Luther himſelfe ſhall end this Scene, who moſt ſecuriouſly traduceth the Fathers in theſe words: The Fathers Tom. 2. Wittenberg. anno 2551. de eruo arbitrio. pag. 34. for ſo many ages (meaning after the Apoſtles) haue bene blind, and moſt ignorant in the Scriptures: They haue erred all their lifetyme; and vnleſſe they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saincts, nor pertayning to the Church. Thus Luther; And thus much touching the Fathers of the Primatiue Church, being profeſſours of our preſent Catholicke Fayth and Church; and conſequently, that our Catholicke Church was moſt uiſible and floriſhing in thoſe primatiue tymes.

4. Fourthly, The former inexpug 〈…〉 verity is proued, from that, the Church of Rome neuer ſuffered change in fayth, ſince it firſt plantation by the Apoſtles. Now if the Church of Rome neuer ſuffered chauge in Religion; & if it hath euer continued a Church ſince the Apoſtles dayes; and laſtly if at this day it profeſſeth our preſent Catholicke fayth; then followeth it demonſtratiuely, that there were viſible Profeſſours of our Catholicke fayth in the Church of Rome, euer ſince the Apoſtles: and conſequently, that our Catholicke Church hath euer bene uiſible ſince thoſe tymes. To proue, that the Church of Rome neuer brooked change of fayth ſince the Apoſtles dayes, I referre you to the firſt former Dialogue of the Conuerted Iew.

5. Fiftly and laſtly, our foreſaid Aſſertion is acknowledged for true & vndoubred, euen from the penns of our learned Aduerſary, who moſt frequently in their wrytings do intimate ſo much. And here I am to craue pardon, if I iterate ſome few teſtimonies and acknowledgments of Proteſtants, aboue produced in this Dialogue; Which as they there did prooue an inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church in thoſe former Ages; ſo here alſo diuers of them prooue (ſo neerely do theſe two points interueyue the one the other) a continuall viſibility of our Catholicke Church, during the ſaid tymes.

To come then to theſe confeſſions of the Proteſtants in this point, touching the euer viſibility of the Catholicke Church; I will aſcend vp by degrees euen to (and within) the Apoſtles dayes: And this, becauſe ſome Proteſtants (as leſſe ingenuous and vpright in their writings (do affoard to our Catholicke Church a ſhorter tyme or Period of viſibility, then others of their more learned and well-meaning Brethren are content to allow.

Firſt then M Parkins thus ſayth: In his expoſition of the Creed. p. 307. During the ſpace of nyne hundred yeares, the Popiſh Hereſy hath ſpreed it ſelfe ouer the whole earth. This point is further made cleere from the Penns of the Centuriſts and Oſiander; all which do in euery of the Centuryes (from S. Gregories tyme to Luther) name and record all the Popes 〈◊〉 cheyfe Catholicke Biſhops, and diuers others profeſſing our Catholicke fayth, according to the Century or age, wherin eich of them liued.

But to aſcende higher M. Nappier confeſſeth of a longer tyme, thus ſaying: Vpon the Reuelations, 〈◊〉 43. The Popes Kingdome hath had power ouer all Chriſtians from the tymes of Pope S lueſter and the Emperour Conſtantyn, for theſe thouſand two hundred and ſixtie yeares. And alſo againe: M. Napper, vbi ſupra. p. 68. from the tyme of Conſtantyn vntill theeſe our dayes, euen one thouſand two hundred and ſixty yeres, the Pope and the Cleargy hath poſſeſſed the outward viſible Church of Chriſtians

But M. Napper in an other place dealeth more bountifully with vs herein; for thus he witneſſeth: During Vbi ſupra p. 191. euen the ſecond and third ages, the true temple of God and light of the Goſpell, was obſcured by the Roman Antichriſt.

Sebaſtianus Francus alloweth the Viſibility of our Church from the tyme immediatly after the Apoſtles; thus wrytinge: Preſently In epiſt. de abrog. in vniuerſum omnibus ſtatut. Eccleſiaſt. after the Apoſtles tymes all things were turned vpſyde downe &c. And for certaine through the worke of Antichriſt, the external Church together with their fayth and Sacraments vaniſhed away, preſently after the Apoſtles departure. With this Proteſtant D Fulke conſpireth, thus ſaying: The In his anſwere to a counterfeyte Catholicke. p. 35. true Church decayed immediatly after the Apoſtles tymes. Which being ſpoken by him of the Proteſtant Church; then may we infer, that the Church of Rome and it fayth (as preſumed to be by the iudgment of this Doctour, the falſe Church) was viſible immediatly after the Apoſtles. With D. Fulke agreeth Peter Martyr thus writing: Errours Lib. de Votis pag. 477. did beginne in the Church preſently after the Apoſtles tymes; Peter Martyr heere vnderſtanding by the word: Errours, our Catholycke doctrins, with theſe three laſt Proteſtants, the Authour of the booke called Antichriſtus, Pag. 13. ſiue pronoſticon finis Mundi (a Proteſtant) thus iumpeth: from the Apoſtles tymes till Luther, the Goſpell had neuer open paſſage. Now this hinderance of the Goſpell is ſuppoſed by hym, to proceede from the Pope and Church of Rome; therefore during all thoſe tymes the Church of Rome hath beene viſible.

But D Downham confeſſeth more freely herof, who doth include the very tymes of the Apoſtles with in the Viſibility of the Catholycke Roman Church, thus In his treatiſe of Antichr. l. 2. c. 2. p. 5. teaching: the generall defection of the Viſible Church (foretould 2. Theſſol. 2.) begunne to worke in the Apoſtles tymes, he meaning hereby, that the Viſibility of our Catholicke Church did obſcure in the Apoſtles dayes, the Viſibility of his Proteſtant Church. From this Doctours ſentence Hoſpinian Hiſtor. Sacramēt. lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 20. (the Proteſtant) litle diſſenteth, who ſpeaking of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, thus writeth: I am tum primo illo ſaeculo, viuentibus adhuc apoſtolis &c. Euen the very firſt age (the Apoſtles being aliue) the deuill endeuored to deceaue more about this Sacrament, then aboute Baptiſme; with drawing Men from the firſt forme thereof.

Thus (iudicious Men) you may fully ſee how viſible at all tymes our Catholy ke Church hath beene; And of this Veritie you may be more fully aſſured, not only (by fiction) from the diſcourſe of Michaeas, the Conuerted Iew; but euen from Michaeas, The Prophetical Iew; Whoſe praediction of the amplitude and euer conſpi uitie of Chriſts Church (and conſequently of our Catholycke Church) is ſet downe in theſe words: In Michaeas cap. 4. nouiſſimo di erum erit mons domus Domini praeparatus in vertice montium, & ſublimis ſuper colles; & fluent ad cum Populi; Et properabunt gentes multae, & dicent: Venite aſcendamus ad montem Domini, & ad domum Dei Iacob; & docebit nos de vijs ſuis, at ibimus in ſemitis ius. Which Prophecy, as it hath beene hitherto fully accompliſhed in the preſent Roman Church; ſo on the other ſyde, how vnaptly (indeed, how falſly) it can be applyed to a Conuenticle of Chriſtians, which is confeſſed (for many more yeres, then a thouſand) to haue bene wholy latent and Inuiſible (or rather vtterly extinguiſhed) I leaue to your Candour and impartialitie to cenſure.

But before I take my leaue with you for this tyme, (moſt excellent Men) I will caſt my eye back vpon the Premiſſes in groſe, diſcuſſed in this Treatiſe. Yf then it be ſo (as is aboue manifeſted) that the Church of God muſt at all tymes be reſplendent and viſible: If ſhe muſt euer enioy the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments by the miniſtery of her Doctours and Paſtours without any interruption; and this with ſuch an impoſed Neceſſity, as that the being D. Whitakers ſaith ſo. l. cōtra Du aeum. l. 3. p. 249. of them conſtituteth a Church, the want of them deſtroyeth it. Yf we all be bownd vnder payne of eternall damnation, to incorporate our ſelfs into that Church, which is beutifyed and enriched with the former ſpirituall endowments; and to auoyde all ſuch Societyes of Men, wherein they are wanting; ſeing only the members of Chriſts true Church are capable of Saluation: Yf finally our Catholycke and Roman Church, on the one ſyde, by the frequent Confeſſions of our learned Aduerſaryes (beſids oll other proofs thereof) hath alwayes enioyed the ſaid priuiledges of Viſibility, and adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments; And the Proteſtant Church on the other ſyde (euen by their owne lyke acknowledgments) hath bene for many Centuryes and ages, wholy diſtitute and depryued of theſe ſpirituall graces, and (as I may tearme them) Immunityes. What ſtupor then and dulnes of mynd, or rather what Letargious conſtitution of the Soule (forgetfull of it owne well fare) poſſeſſeth ſo infinit Men at this day; as to deuyde themſelfs from our ſaid Catholycke Church euen in greate hoſtility; and in lien thereof, to be ranged with particular and nouelizing Conuenticles?

The conſideration whereof (moſt iudicious Men) though I looke not to be of that weigh with you, as to moue you actually to implant your ſelfs in our Catholicke Church; yet ſince you are wyſe, learned, and loth (no dowbt) to commit any ſuch explorate errours, as the force of Naturall Reaſon and your owne Conſciences may freely check; I am in good hope, that the ſerious peruſall of the poynts aboue diſputed, will at leaſt preuayle thus far with diuers of you; as that you will not be ready hereafter in your diſcourſes, ſo tragically to enueigh and declame againſt a Religion, which is fortyfied which ſuch impugnable and irrefragable proufs, as our Catholycke fayth (euen from our owne Aduerſaryes mouths) is euicted to bee: But that you being Men profeſſing Conſcience, Integrity, and Ingenuity, will beare a more fauorable reſpecte to the ſaid religion;

And herewith I will conclude, recommending you all in my daily prayers vnto him, who out of his Power and Goodnes created vs all, and out of his Mercy dyed for vs all; to the end, that by our profeſſing of a true fayth, and exercizing of a vertu us lyfe, he might ſaue vs all; ſeing otherwiſe we can no more auaylably expect eternall Beatitude, then the Patriarchs dying in Egypt, could hope to be buried in the Laude of Promiſſe.

Laus Deo, & Beatae Virgini Mariae.
AN APPENDIX, WHEREIN IS TAKEN A SHORT VIEW [CONTAINING A FVLL ANSWERE] OF A PAMPHLET ENTITVLED: A Treatiſe of the Perpetuall Viſibility, and ſucceſſion of the true Church in all Ages. Printed anno. 1624.

CVRTEOVS READER. Thou mayſt be aduertized hereby, that not long ſince, to wit in the yeare. 1624. there came out a certaine Booke entituled: A Treatiſe of the perpetuall Viſibility and ſucceſſion of the true Church, in all Ages: not ſubſcribed with any Name. The reaſon thereof (belike) was, in that the Authour (as guilty to himſelfe of his impure proceeding therein (durſt not iuſtify neyther himſelfe, nor this his labour: Though the entituling him in the Epiſtle to the Reader (which ſeemes to be written by ſome other perſon, then the Authour) The moſt Reuerend, Religious, and painfull Authour thereof &c. doth in the iudgment of many, intimate him to be no meane Man, but a great mayſter in Iſrael: to wit eyther D. White, or D. Featly, or ſome other as great as eyther. To this concealing of them, of the Authours name (who, as being a Proteſtant, might boldly and without danger ſubſcribe his owne name to his owne Booke; farre differently from vs Prieſts) I may ad the Authours affected ſilence through out his whole Treatiſe, in not touching, neither glancing at the then late and freſh Conference had at London, euen of this very Subiect of the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church in all Ages, betweene the afore mentioned D White, and D. Featly on the one part, and M. Fiſher and M. Sweete on the other: This Authour not ſo much as naming eyther the ſaid Prieſts or Conference; though all the Realme did then ring thereof. But his intended policy therein may well be preſumed to be, that if he had made any particular Reference to the ſayd Conference or Prieſts; he might well aſſure himſelfe, that then preſently an anſwere would be ſhaped againſt his Booke; which e had leſſe reaſon to feare (as he thought) his Treatiſe comming forth in this louely manner. And ſo himſelfe (as no doubt, he hoped) might haue ſet downe (as the phraze is) with the laſt Word.

But whoſoeuer the Authour is; moſt certaine it is, that the Treatiſe is moſt ſhalow and frothy; though otherwiſe it be fraught with diuers deceats and impoſtures: But we muſt pardon him, ſeing we are to remember, that there are ſome falſhoods (and among theſe, this of the ſuppoſed Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church in all Ages, may iuſtly be placed) of ſo deep a tincture of lying, as that no art can make them receaue any other dye.

The ambitious title (as preſuming the Proteſtant Church to be the true Church) promiſeth (you ſee) to prooue; that the Viſibility and Succeſſion of the Proteſtant Church hath perpetually and without interruption bene in all ages, ſince Chriſt his dayes. But here that vulgar ſaying is iuſtifyed: parturiunt montes naſcitur ridiculus mus: as will eaſily appeare to any, that ſhall ſtudiouſly peruſe the former Dialogue, or will obſerue, what is here adioyned.

And as touching this precedent Catholicke Treatiſe of the ſecond part of the Conuerted Iew. Though it be indeed purpoſely and principally written againſt all eminent Proteſtants in generall (as appeareth by the alledging of their names and teſtimonyes therein) who heretofore haue mantained by their penns, the continuall viſibility of the Proteſtant Church; yet may it with all be iuſtly reputed, as a full anſwere to this diſcourſe here examined; ſeeing the whole ſcope, drift, and cheïfe examples of Proteſtancy (I meane of Hus, Wicklefe, Waldo, & diuers others) inſiſted vpon by this Anonymous and nameleſſe Authour, are diſcouered in the former Dialogue, for falſe, idle, and impertinent; as being alledged long ſince by other more famous Proteſtants: Thus we ſee, that this Authour is glad to licke vp the arguments of his former Brethren, & to feed vpon their reuertions. Now what other things of leſſer moment may occurre herein (eſpecially touching the impoſtures and calumnyes here practized and the names of ſome obcure men, ſuggeſted for Proteſtants only by this Authour,) they ſhall in this ſhort Suruey be diſplayed and refuted. What is here ſet downe by me, is ſet downe with all affected and labored playnes of words or ſtyle; purpoſely forbearing all excurſions or amplifications of diſcourſe; and this to the end, that the Reader may with the leſſe diſtraction of Iudgment and Memory, haue at once a ſhort and whole Synopſis and ſight of this Authours falſhoods, ſubt ltyes, and ſnares; where with he labours to illaqueate & entangle the ſimple and ignorant.

And now to deſcend to a particular diſſection or anatomizing of this Pamphlet. Firſt the Reader is to obſerue, that the Wryter thereof ſpendeth 28. pages, in ſeeking to prooue, that it is not exacted, that the Church of God ſhould be at all tymes viſible; at leaſt to others. Yea he is ſo full and earneſt therein, as that meerely croſſing his prefixed title, he laboreth to prooue the contrary to the ſaid title; for thus (to omit diuers ſuch other paſſages) he writeth: The Pag. 3. godly are driuen to extremityes by Hereſyes or perſecutions; they be viſible one to an other &c. they are not ſo apparent to other men, as that at all tymes they know, where to find Aſſemblyes and Congregations of them. And againe: It is not Pag. 17. doubted, but that the Woman (to wit, mentioned in the Apocalyps) doth repreſent the Church, concerning whom being in Wildernes, it doth manifeſtly follow, that for the tyme of her aboad here, which the Almighty hath decreed, ſhe ſhould not be diſcerned; that is, by her Enemyes, who did & would chaſe her. Notwithſtanding it is not to be doubted, but ſhe knew, where herſelfe was. And yet more fully: The Pag. 24. Church of Chriſt, whileſt this troubleſome World laſteth, is now glorious, then ſhadowed; in one age in bewty, in an other kept vnder; vnder ſome Princes in peace, vnder others in perſecution; yea ſometymes ſo preſſed with the extremity of the malicious, as that ſhe is glad to remayne retyred into ſecret places, and not to appeare openly to the, malignant. But in an other place following, (to wit, pag. 26.) he plainly depriueth the Church of Chriſt of all Viſibility, thus ſpeaking: In the dayes of Conſtantius, when the Arian Hereſy had once gotten on head, wherein the World did there appeare any ſenſible Congregation, mantayning the orthodoxall beleife?

Now what a ſtrange Inuiſible Viſibility (as I may tearme it) doth this Authour aſſigne to the Church of God? in effect thus extrauagantly arguing: The Church of Chriſt is ſometymes more obſ ure, then at other tymes: Therefore the Church of Chriſt is ſometymes inuiſible. For I can ſee no other Inference nor other end, whereunto his former ſpeeches are directed. But this ſleight, as being ſhadowed vnder the colour of Perſecution, is refuted in a paſſage of this former Dialogue. And here I now demand, how doth all this ſort to the former glorious tytle of his Booke? to wit: Of the perpetuall Viſibility, and Succeſſion of the true Church in all ages.

Now how painfully (or rather calumniouſly) the Authour laboreth to prooue this inconſpicuouſ es and obſcurity of Chriſt his Church, we will in ſome few leaues touch; referring the Reader to the beginning of the former Diſcours, for the more full refuting and impugning of the ſame: Where it is demonſtrated, that the Church of Chriſt muſt at all times be moſt viſible.

And firſt, this Pamphleter much inſiſteth in the tymes of the Iewes; prouing from the paucity of true beleiuers among them, that the Church of Chriſt is in lyke ſort at diuers tymes to be ſtraytned. And to this end, he produceth many ſentences of the Prophets (whoſe places Pſalm. 12. 1. Samu l. 22. Eſay. 1. 5. 6. Ezech. 22. beſides others. for greater breuity, are noted in the margent) But here his Ignorance (or at leaſt his fraude) is diſcouerable. For firſt, theſe places are to be vnderſtood, not ſo much of want of fayth; as of bad conuerſatiō in lyfe and manners, wherewith the Prophets did charge the Iewes. Secondly, the Texts alledged are indeed for the moſt part in words ſpoken of the Iewes in generall; but not intended by the Prophets to be ment of all the Iewes promiſcuouſly. Which Prophets were often accuſ omed (as S. Auſtin Lib. de vn tat. Eccle . c. 12. well noteth) to reprehend the whole People, as if not any among them were good, though many among them were pious. Thus for Example Ezechiel ſaith c. 3. All the houſe of Iſrael are impudent and ſ ifharted; and yet in the nynth chapter of the ſame Prophet we thus reede: Set a marke with Ta , vpon the forheads of them, that mourne and crye, for all the abominations, that be done in the middeſt thereof.

Laſtly, this Inference drawne from the ſtate of the old Teſtament, and applyed to the New, is moſt inconſequent: Both becauſe the New Teſtament is better eſtabliſhed, then the, old; ſeing to it is promiſed, Math. that the gates of Hell ſhall not preuayle againſt Chriſts Church; And alſo it is ſtyled: The 1. Timoth. 3. pillar and foundation of truth. And finally, in that the Peoples of the Iewes were not the Vniuerſal Church of God (as the People of the Chriſtians are) And therefore out of the Iewiſh Synagogue, there were diuers others of the faythfull and Iuſt; as Melchiſedech, Iob, Cornelius, the Centurion, the Eueuch of Queen of Candice &c.

This ended, this Triffler in pag. 6. & ſeuerall other places, mētioneth the vſuall Obiection taken from the words of Elias, ſaying: relictu, ſum ſolus. But this is fully ſatisfyed in the firſt part or begining of the former Dialogue.

In the next place (to wit, pag. 10.) he commeth to depres the glory of the Church of Chriſt, during his aboade here vpon earth, and tyme of his Paſſion; but all this moſt impertinently: ſeing the radiant ſplendour and Viſibility of Chriſt his Church was cheiffly to beginne (and then for euer after to continue, till the worlds end) after the deſcending of the Holy Ghoſt, and not before. This done, the Authour commeth to the tymes of the Tenn Perſecutions by the Heathen Emperours; prouing from thence the obſcurity of Chriſts Church in pag. 25. To which I anſwere, that theſe Perſecutions (according to the nature of perſecution) were ſo far from making the Church of Chriſt in thoſe dayes inuiſible; as that it became thereby moſt viſible; ſeeing none are perſecuted, but viſible Men: And the very names of the cheiffe Martyrs of thoſe dayes are yet moſt freſh and honorable in the memoryes of all good Chriſtians, euen to this very hower: they remayning yet regiſtred in the Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes, both of Catholicks and Proteſtants.

In pag. 26. he inſtanceth in the tymes of the Arians, and produceth Saint Ieromes teſtimony and words to wit, Ierome aduerſ. 〈…〉 uc erean. The whole World did ſ ght, and wounder, that it was Arian; from which authority he would proue the Inuiſibility of Chriſts Church in thoſe dayes. But here the Authour diſcouereth his ignorance. For here Firſt, Ierome calleth that (by the fig •• e Synecdoche) the whole World, which is but a part of the World; S Ierome meaning only of certaine parts of Chriſten 〈◊〉 . Secondly S. Ierome here taketh the word: Arian, in a ſecundarye ſignification. For here he calleth them improperly, and Abuſiue, Arians who through Ignorance did ſubſcrybe to the Arian Hereſy. For he ſpeaketh of that great number of Biſhops, which came out of all parts of Chriſtendum to Arimine; and were deceaued by the Arians, through their miſtaking of the greeke Word: Omoſios; and there vpon Materially only they ſubſcrybed to the Hereſy of the Arians. But the ſame Biſhopps being after admoniſhed of their errour, did inſtantly correct the ſame, and bewayled their miſtaking with teares and penance. Thus we ſe, the true relation of this poynt really proueth an actuall Viſibility of the Orthodoxall Chriſtians, at that very tyme.

Pag. 27. He inſiſteth in Athanaſius and Liberius, as the only defendours in thoſe dayes of Chriſts Diuinitie; and conſequently that the Church of Chriſt did only reſt in them two: For thus he wryteth: The Church for any externall ſhow, was brought low; for if any body held it vp, it was Athanaſius, who then played leaſt in ſight, and durſt not appeare. Heere is ſtrang and wilfull miſtaking; for though it be granted, that Athanaſius (in regard of his feruour and learning) was more perſecuted by the Arians, then any other Biſhop; yet to auer, that himſelfe alone, or Liberius did only impugne the Hereſy of Arius, and that there were no other Orthodoxall Beleiuers at that tyme, is moſt improbable, or rather moſt abſurd. This is proued; firſt, from the Councell, which was aſſembled cheifly for the ſuppreſſing of the Arian Hereſy; at which Councell Athanaſius hymſelfe was preſent.

This Councell conſiſted of three hundred Biſhopps and more; the greateſt part whereof by their voyces did abſolutly condemne the Arian Hereſy. Now how can it be conceaued, that all the ſaid Biſhopps (ſpeaking nothing of the Orthodoxall Laity of that tyme) excepting only Athanaſius, ſhould inſtantly either a fore or after apoſtatate or through feare of Perſecution, externally profes the Arian Hereſy? Againe, the truth of this poynt is further confirmed from the Epiſtle, which Athanaſius and the Biſhops of Thebes and Lybia gathered together 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 in the Councell of Alexandria, did wryte to Pope Paelix, the Second of that name; wherein they vnanimouſly proteſt to defend with all Chriſtian reſolution, their Orthodoxall fayth againſt their Enemyes, the Arians.

Thirdly, the falſhood of the former Aſſertion is euicted from that, that many Fathers and Doctours liuing in the very age of A hanaſius and Libertus (and diuers of them euen in the dayes of Athanaſius, and well knowne to hym) did refute and contradict (ex profeſſo) the Arian Hereſy in their learned wrytings: As for example, Lib. cō tra Eunomium. Baſil, Orationes quinque in theolog. Gregory Nazianzene, Lib. de Trinitate. Gregory Nyſſene, Catecheſes. Cyrill of Ieruſalem, Lib. 9. de Trinitate. Hilarius, In c. 1. ad Timot. Ambroſe, Contra Arian. haereſ. 69. Epiphanius and ſome others: Now in reſpect of the Premiſſes, can it be but dreamed, that there ſhould be no Profeſſours of the Diuinity of Chriſt in thoſe dayes, but only Athanaſius, or Liberius?

Pag. 25. The Pamphleter leauing examples & authorityes, deſcendeth to Reaſon, thus arguing: Faith doth much conſiſt of things, which are not ſeene. Therefore (ſeing we beleiue the Holy Church, as an article of our fayth) it followeth, that it needs not to be euer eminently viſible, or apparently ſenſible vnto vs.

Learnedly concluded. Therefore for the better inſtruction of this Pamphleter, he is to vnderſtand; that in the Church of God, there is ſomething to be ſeene, and ſomething to be beleiued. We do ſee that company of men, which is the Church, and therein the Church is euer viſible; But that, that Company or Society is the true viſible Church of God, that we ſee not, but only beleiue: Euen as the Apoſtles did ſee that very Man, which is Chriſt, the Sonne of God; but that he was the Sonne of God, this the Apoſtles did not ſee, but only beleiue.

In pag. 28. and 29. as alſo in ſome other pages afore, he much inſiſteth in the words ſpoken of the Woman in the Reuelations. cap. 12. of whom it was prophecyed, that ſhe ſhould flye into the Wildernes; affirming that by the Woman, is vnderſtood the Church, which is not to be ſeene in tyme of perſecution. To this I anſwere; firſt, this paſſage being taken from out of the Reuelations, cannot (as euidently to vs men) proue any thing; ſeing the Reuelations being deliuered in viſions & prophecyes (many of them being yet vnaccompliſhed) and figuratiue ſpeeches, we cannot ſo eaſily apprehend the true ſenſe & meaning of them. Secondly, What diuers learned Catholicks and ſome Proteſtants, do vnderſtand by the Woman in the reuelations (differently from the vrging of this Authour) is ſet downe aboue, in the firſt part or beginning of the former Dialogue. Thirdly, admitting, that by the Woman, is vnderſtood the Church in Perſecution; yet followeth it not, that therefore ſhe ſhalbe inuiſible (which is the point, for which it is vrged here (ſeing a Church, in that it is perſecuted, euen in that reſpect is become viſible (as is proued in the Treatiſe aboue) though otherwiſe it be granted, it is not ſo gloriouſly eminent, as it is in tyme of proſperity.

Now whereas the Authour pag. 29. from the Woman (mentioned in the Reuelations) flying into Wildernes, thus diſputeth: The true Church is for the tyme out of ſight in the Wildernes: But ſo ſay they (meaning vs Catholicks) was their Church neuer: Therefore Will they, Will they, their Church is not the true Church. Here Ignorance mixt with extreme boldnes, diſputeth. For whereas Learned Men (both Catholicks & Proteſtants (as appeareth in the former Treatiſe) make a continuall Viſibility, to be a Marke of the true Church; Here the Authour (diametrically croſſing all former Authorityes, aboue alleadged) teacheth, that that Church, which euer hath beene viſible, and neuer out of ſight (to vſe his owne words) cannot be the true Church; and conſequently that the Catholicke Roman Church is not the true Church: Thus he (contrary to all other authours) maketh an Inuiſibility to be a neceſſary Marke of the true Church. Ad hereto (as afore is intimated) that if in this Pamphleters iudgment, the true Church muſt ſometymes euen of neceſſity be out of ſight, and in Wildernes (or otherwiſe not the true Church) how then doth not this mainly feight with the tytle of his Booke, to wit: Of the perpetuall Viſibility and Succeſſion of the true Church in all ages? And why ſhould not the tytle thereof rather be: Of the interrupted and diſcontinued Viſibility of the true Church?

And thus farre of the firſt part of this Pamphlet in which we ſee, how painfully the Authour hath labored, ſometymes to prooue, that the Church of God muſt at certaine ſeaſons be more glorious and reſplendent, then at others (though no Catholicke denyeth this, and therefore the prouffe of it is but impertinently vndertaken) At other tymes, as in his laſt produced ſentence and argument, as alſo in ſome paſſages aboue cyted, to prooue that the true Church muſt be often wholy inuiſible, plainly thwarting the Inſcription of his booke. But his affected calumny here (whereby he bewrayes his owne guiltines in theſe his vnworthy Scripts.) is only, to prefix this diſcourſe of the Churches obſcurity, or rather Inuiſibility; that it may ſerue, as an excuſe (and for a plaſtering ouer) of thoſe few, weake, and falſe examples of Proteſtancy in former ages, alledged after in this Pamphlet by him: For he hopeth, that by this his former inſinuation of the Churches obſcurity, the Reader will leſſe expect any full demonſtrations and certaine arguments of the Proteſtants Churches Viſibility in former tymes; and the rather ſeing ſuch an vnterrupted viſibility is not (in this Mans weening) neceſſary to the true Church.

Now here we will further tract this Authour in his paſſages, who, (whether he be D. White or D. Fearly, or ſome other) next beginneth with extraordinary calumnye & deceate, to exemplify his Proteſtants for certaine ages. For whereas he ought to prooue (euen from the Title of his Booke, and the Controuerſy of the Proteſtants Churches viſibility, now ventilated betweene vs and his Partye) that the Proteſtant Church (ſeeing he preſumeth it to be the true Church) hath bene viſible for the ſpace of ſixteene hundred yeares (for ſo long ſince and more, it is ſince our Sauiours Incarnation) he produceth examples (admitting them for true) only for foure hundred yeres at the moſt; and immediatly before Luther; ſo leauing one thouſand, and one hundred yeres, and more (a ſmall tyme, you ſee) wholy deſtituted of any one produced example of Proteſtancy: he ſaluing this his omiſſion, or leauing ouer theſe eleuen hundred yeres, in this manner following: What Pag. 100. the old Fathers taught (meaning the Fathers of the Primatiue Church, as being Proteſtants) we haue tyme hereafter to ſhow, (which time of his ſhowing, what they taught, is not yet come) And of the ſuppoſed Proteſtants, betweene the Primatiue Church and the tymes of Waldo (he aſcending no higher then Waldo) being about ſix hundred yeares, he vſeth this preterition: We ſhall Pag. 89. not need to aſcend any higher (meaning any higher from Luther, then to Waldo) Which otherwiſe to make playne, is as eaſy, as to deliuer that, which hitherto I haue ſpoken: And it is not to be conceaued, that Petrus Waldo (of whome the Waldenſes did take their name at Lyons) had his doctrine from no body &c.

Is not this a very learned ſatisfaction (thinke you) or rather a ſatisfaction vnworthy to proceede from any Man, profeſſing learning for inſtancing of the being of Proteſtants, from Chriſt his tyme to the dayes of Waldo (contayning about twelue hundred yeres, or but little leſſe) for all which tyme he inſtanceth not in any one Proteſtant, but wholy ſlips it ouer notwithſtanding the Catholicks euer earneſt prouoking of the Proteſtants herein? Or can any impartiall iudgment, demanding for inſtances of Proteſtancy, during all or any of thoſe former ages, reſt thus contented? Heere then (good Reader) thou ſeeſt, how this Authour abuſeth thee, who dealeth with thee herein no otherwiſe, then if he iuſtly and truly owing thee Sixteene hundred pounds, ſhould in ſpeeches vauntingly pretend, that he had payed thee euery penny thereof; And yet he comming to particular accounts and reckonings with thee, ſhould be able to prooue, that he had payed thee (and this alſo, but in counterfeyt ſiluer) only foure hundred pounds; affirming in lieu of further payment, that he would be as able to pay thee all the reſt, as he hath already done this leſſer Somme. Wouldſt thou not take ſuch an one, for a moſt diſhoneſt and perfidious man? The caſe of this Treatiſer is here iuſt the ſame.

But to returne to the Fathers of the Primatiue Church, Of whom he ſaith, what they taught, he would hereafter ſhow; meaning (belyke) in ſome other Booke hereafter to come forth Of that labour he is now allready preuented; And therefore the Reader may find in the Concluſion to the former dialogue, that by the confeſſions of moſt learned Proteſtants, the Fathers were abſolute Papiſts (as we are called) and are therefore by the ſaid Proteſtants vtterly reiected. In which former paſſage, is alſo proued, from the Proteſtants lyke Confeſſions; that all the Profeſſours of Chriſtianity, betweene the tymes of the auncient Fathers, and the dayes of Waldo (contayning ſix hundred yeres at leſt) were wholy of our preſent Roman Religion; and not any of them a Proteſtant.

But let vs now in this next place, come to his particular Inſtances of Proteſtancy, for the ſpace of foure hundred yeres only aboue mencioned: in ſetting downe of which the Pamphleter vſeth this enſuing policy (for indeed he is a man wholy made of ſophiſtications, deceats, and colluſions) he doth not beginne with Waldo, ſo deſcending to Luthers dayes; ſeing by this playne method the Reader might at the firſt ſight and ſenſibly obſerue, that he hath omitted (contrary to the title of his Booke) eleuen hundred yeres, without giuing any one inſtance of Proteſtancy for all thoſe ſeuerall ages. Therefore he craftily beginneth to inſtance in the tymes before Luther, and ſo ryſeth vpward ſome foure hundred yeres from this day, in his pretended Examples: Thus hoping, that the vulgar Reader would either, through not peruſing the booke to the End, or through want of Iudgment, not ſo eaſely and inſtantly eſpye, how far (and no further) he had proceeded in theſe Examples.

Now touching his Examples; he firſt inſtanceth in Hus and Pag. 30. Ierome of Prage, who liued anno Domini 1400. that is, ſome hundred and twenty yeres (or thereabouts) before Luthers Apoſtaſy. To this Example of Hus, in which the Pamphleter cheifly inſiſteth (for as for Ierome of Prage, he but embraced ſome of Hus his errours, as learning them from him) I Firſt anſwere, that ſuppoſing Hus had broached all poynts of Proteſtancy; yet followeth it not, that Luther had receaued the ſaid Doctryne from Hus, by an vninterrupted deſcent of Beleife (as this Authour pretendeth) for it may well be, that Hus his Errours were extinct in reſpect of any beleiuers before Luthers dayes: Euen as Aerius denyed prayer for the deade, and the Hereticke Manichaeus freewill (as Lib. de Haereſ. c. 23. & 46. S. Auſtin witneſſeth) yet were thoſe Hereſyes vtterly extinguiſhed for many ages, till Luther reuiued them. Secondly, the articles, which Hus mantayned (different from the Roman Church) were but foure, as they are recorded by Fox himſelfe: Of which, the doctrine of Communion vnder both kinds, was the cheifeſt: though according to the iudgement of Luther epiſt. ad Bohem. & lib de captiuit. Babylon 〈…〉 de Euchar. Luther, it is a point but of In differency. In all other points Hus was Catholicke, which this Authour calumniouſly concealeth. Thirdly, Hus mantayned that acknowledged Hereſy on all ſydes, that Biſhopps & Princes (being in mortall ſinne) were not to be obayed, but thereby did looſe all their authority. Which Hereſy is in like ſort wholy concealed by this Pamphleter. Concerning the particular prouffes of all which points, euen from the Proteſtants Confeſſions, I referre the Reader to the former Dialogue, where Michaeas diſcouereth them at large: as the like he doth of Wicklefe, Waldo, and others hereafter alledged by this Treatiſer. Fourthly, if the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church may be iuſtifyed in Hus, or in Waldo, Wicklefe, or in any other hereafter obtruded for a Proteſtant by this Pamphleter, becauſe eich of them taught two or three (at the moſt) of Proteſtant points, then by the ſame reaſon may the Proteſtant Church de ſayd to haue beene viſible, in the Arians, Athan. in Apolog. pro fulga. for reiecting of Traditions, & for perpetrating many ſacrileges agaynſt the Sacraments, Altars, and Prieſts; in Pelagius, Ierom. lib. contra Pelag. for teaching euery ſinne to be mortall; in Vigilantius, Ierom. lib. contra Vigilant. for condemning all religious virginity, and affirming the relicks of Saincts are not to be worſhipped: In the Manichees, for denying of freewill: And in diuers ſuch others: (4) Auſtin. lib. de Haereſ. c. 46. All branded Hereticks and regiſtred for ſuch, by the orthodoxal Fathers of the Primatiue Church. Now this Inference I would entreate the Reader to obſerue, with peculiar application to all the pretended examples of Proteſtancy, alledged in this Pamphlet. Fiftly, if we ſhould grant heere all that, which is ſpoken of Hus, yet it but warranteth the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church, only for the age, in which Hus did liue: His doctrine not being taught in ages before.

Now here in this diſcourſe touching Hus, I am to put the Reader in mind, how this Authour ſpendeth many idle leaues, in ſhowing how the Nobles of Bohemia, mantayned the errours of Hus; And that they came into the field in great forces, agaynſt the Emperour in defence of the ſame: ſo much (ſayth he) was the doctrine of Hus dilated. He alſo introduceth ſome one or other, inueighing againſt the Popes manners and Cleargy of thoſe tymes: and for ſuch their proceedings, he tearmeth them Proteſtants. (And this method, he mightely obſerueth throughout his whole Pamphlet.) Idly inferring: as if fayth, which reſids in the vnderſtanding, were not different from manners and conuerſation, which reſt in the Will: Or that abuſes in manners, will not euer be in ſome members of the Church: Or finally that a Proteſtant, for charging of ſome Miniſters of his part with diſorders of life, or Puritans for their bitter inuerghing againſt the Biſhops here in England, were therefore to be reputed Roman Catholicks: ſo looſly and weakly he diſputeth herein.

But all theſe his Digreſſions, in reſpect of the vndertaken ſubiect of his diſcourſe, are meerly extrauagant. And in my iudgment his intention in theſe, and other ſuch dilations, and declamatory inuectiues (wherewith his Treatiſe is in many places hereafter fraught) is cheifly, but to fill vp leaues of paper: that ſo his booke might grow to ſome reaſonable quantity. For ſeeing all his ſuppoſed examples of Proteſtancy in his Treatiſe, might well be contayned (omitting all froathy ambages and circumſtances) in two ſheets of paper, and ſeeing ſuch a poore thing could not come forth alone, with any credit to the cauſe, or reputation to the writer: He therefore thought it more fit, to interweaue in his Pamphlet diuers long and tedious diſcourſes, how improfitable ſoeuer. This to thinke, I am the rather induced: in that we may further obſerue: in how great and large a letter his Booke is printed: and how ſpacious the margent of his leaues are, being almoſt as much paper in quantity, as that, which is printed: And all this (as probably may be coniectured (to the end, that this his learned Tome (forſooth) might contayne ſome indifferent number of leaues: See how ſuttle Hereſy is, in triffles and things of no moment.

The Authour hauing finiſhed his diſcours of Hus, & his adherents & followers: in the next place riſeth to the Waldenſes, Pag. 52. who (as is here alledged) denyed Purgatory, Tranſubſtantiatiō, & bleſſing of Creatures. Firſt, touching Tranſubſtantion, what the Pamphleter here deliuereth, is a vaſt Vntruth; as appeareth from the teſtimony euen of Calu 〈…〉 , Epiſt. 244. thus wryting: Formula Confeſſionis &c. The forme of Cōfeſſion of the Waldenſes doctrine, doth inuolue all thoſe in eternall damnation, who do not confeſe, that the Bread is become truly the body of Chriſt. In lyke ſort, touching the doctrine of Purgatorie, Benedictus In tract. de Eccleſ. p. 124. Montargenſis (a Lutheran) chargeth the Waldenſes therewith: from which two Examples we may take a ſcantling, what credit is to be giuen to the Pamphleter, in his other Aſſertions hereafter. But grant, that the Waldenſes did teach ſome one or other poynt of Proteſtancy; yet in regard of their far greater Number of Catholicke Articles, euer beleiued by them, and their many execrable Hereſies (condemned for ſuch both by Catholicks and Proteſtants) both which poynts this Pamphleter pretermitted in ſilence; The Waldenſes cannot iuſtly be exemplified for Proteſtants: Now of the Catholicke Articles, as alſo of the Hereſies beleiued by the Waldenſes, ſee the Dialogue aboue in the paſſage touching Waldo, and the Waldenſes, and their followers.

After this Authour hath finiſhed his ſpeech of the Waldenſes, he further thus proceedeth: The Pag. 54. Authour of the ſixtenth Century nameth about the yere 1500. Baptiſta Mantuanus, and Franciſcus Picus Earle of Mirandula; both which inueighed againſt the Cleargy and their whole practize: Alſo one D. Keiſers pergius, an other called Iohn Hilton, a third named Doctour Andreas Proles, and Sauanorola, all grawning vnder the burden of thoſe tymes. Againe, the Pamphleter thus ſaith: Aud the Pag. 56. ſame is written of Trimetheus, an other learned Man, who liued at that tyme. Thus this our Authour.

Now how exorbitantly and wildly are theſe vrged for Proteſtants? For Firſt, they are auerred to be ſuch only by Proteſtant Wryters (to wit, O •• ander and Pantaleon) who heerein may well be preſumed, for the vphoulding of their owne Proteſtant Church, to be partial in their Relations. Secondly, this Treatizer doth not inſtance any poynts of Proteſtancy beleiued by any of them (which if he could, no doubt, he would not haue omitted) but only vrgeth their wrytings againſt ſome pretended abuſes of the Church of Rome in thoſe dayes. And therfore ſuch his proceeding is but calumnye and impertinency. Laſtly, touching Sauanorola and Picus of Mirandula (for as for the others, they are ſo obſcure, that hardly any particular information can be had of them.) It is certaine, that they were both Roman Catholicks, and dyed in that Religion. For as concerning Sauanorola, he beleiued all the Articles of the Roman fayth (as euidently appeareth out of his owne writings, ſtyled: Vigiliae) excepting the doctrine of the Popes power to excommunicate. This one point he contumaciouſly denyed, and for this he was burnt.

Touching Picus of Mirandula, Syr Thomas More of bleſſed memory) wryting his life, ſhoweth, that he was ſo fully a Roman Catholicke, that in his life tyme, he ſould a great part of his lands to giue to the poore; that he often vſed to ſcourge & diſcipline his owne fleſh; that if he had liued longer, he intended to haue entred into the Religious Order of the Dominican Pryars: That in tyme of his ſicknes he receaued (according to the Catholicke cuſtome) the moſt bleſſed and reuerend Sacrament of Chriſts body and bloud, for his Viaticum; Finally that hearing the Prieſt in his ſicknes to repeate vnto him, the articles of the Roman fayth, and being demanded, whether he beleiued them; Anſwered, He did not only beleiue them; but did know them alſo to be true: So fowly (we ſee) this Pamphleter is ouerſeene in alledging Sauanorola and Picus of Mirandula, for Proteſtants.

But to proceede further. This idle waſter of penne, inke, & paper (for I can tearme him no better) next deſcendeth (in a retrograte and diſorderly method) to Laurentius Pag. 56. Valla the Grama iā; who touching the Articles of the Roman Catholicke fayth, only denyed freewill; as appeareth euen frō the Proteſtāt Illyr. catal. teſtium Vetir. tom. 2. printed 1597. pag. 872. Writers; And who after (g) ſubmitted himſelfe to the Pope, and finally dyed in all poynts Catholicke; all which this Authour affectedly concealeth. He ſaith of Valla in this ſort: Valla wrote a Treatiſe of purpoſe, againſt the forged donation of Conſtantine: He pronounceth of his owne experience, that the Pope maketh war againſt peaceable People, and ſoweth diſcord betweene Cittyes () Valla in his Apol. ad Eugenium Papam 4. Pō tif. prope finem. and prouinces &c. With much more refuſe of baſe matter, concerning the ſuppoſed coueteouſnes of the Pope; yet notwithſtanding all this, he nameth not any one Article of Proteſtancy defended by Valla.

But the Pamphleter thus further proceedeth to others, ſaying: About Pag. 57. & ſequentib. the ſame tyme liued Nicolaus Clemingius, who rebuked many things in the Eccleſiaſticall State; and ſpake excellently in the matter of Generall Councells &c. Petrus de Aliaco Cardinal of Cambray, gaue atract to the Councell of Conſtance, touching reformation of the Church; There he doth reproue many notable abuſes againſt the Romaniſts &c. About Pag. 58. the ſame tyme liued Leonardus Aretinus, whoſe litle Booke, againſt Hypocrates is worth the reading; So is the Oration of Antontus Cornelius Linnicanus, laying open the lend lubricity of Prieſts in his dayes: So doth Pag. 59. he detect many abuſes and errours, who wrote the ten agreiuances of Germany; But thoſe, who compiled the hundred agreuances of the German Nation, do diſcouer many more. And then the Pamphleter moſt ambitiouſly (or rather ridiculouſly) thus concludeth: By this tyme I truſt, it is manifeſt, how falſe a ſlaunder of the Papiſtsis that before the dayes of Martin Luther, there was neuer any of our Religion. Egregiam verè laudem, & ſpolia ampla refectis. Tu calamuſ que t •• s.

For who obſerueth not, how abſurdly you Pamphleter do apologize. For the Viſibility of your Church? Thus (good Reader) thou ſeeſt, that this Authour inſtanceth in Valla, and others aboue mencioned, for Proteſtants; and yet ſetteth not downe any one Article of Proteſtancy beleiued by them: for not any of them denyed the Reall preſence, Purgatory, prayer to ſaincts, the Seauen Sacraments, Iuſtification by Works, the Popes Supremacy &c. All that this Authour can produce thē for, is, becauſe they did wryte Satyrically and bitterly againſt the abuſes of the Church, in thoſe dayes. But to this we replye; That it is granted on all ſydes, that both in the Catholicke and the Proteſtant Church, there haue bene (and ſtill are) diuers of irregular and diſedifying lyues. Muſt now thoſe, who in their wrytings or Sermons reprehend ſuch, be neceſſarily ſuppoſed to be of a different fayth from thoſe, whom they ſo reprehend? Who ſeeth not the weaknes of this inconſequent and abſurd kynd of reaſoning?

From the former Iuſtances, the Pamphleter aſcendeth to Iohn (l) Wiclef, proſtituring him for a Proteſtant. And heere 〈◊〉 ) Pag. 60. alſo he ſpendeth many leaues in wandring excurſions of ſpeeches; and indeede to no other end, but (as I intimated a fore) to dawbe inke vpon paper. For he pretendeth to ſhow the Auſſits had receaued their doctrine out of the Books of Wiclef; how the Councell of Conſtance condemned Wiclef for an Heretiycke; as alſo how the doctryne of Wiclef was much dilated heare in England. But to manifeſt, how impertinent the alledging of Wiclef for a Proteſtant is, I refer the Reader to the Dialogue; where are ſhowed out of Wiclefs one Wrytings the many Catholicke articles of the Roman Religion, (to wit, the doctrine of the ſeauen Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies of the Maſſe, praying to our Bleſſed Lady, worſhip of Images, merit of Works, and works of Supererogation &c. ſtill beleiued by him, euen after his leaping out of our Church. As alſo there are ſhowed the many condemned Hereſies in like ſort mantayned by him, after his departure from the Roman Church; and this from the penns of the Proteſtants.

But here before I end with Wiclefe, I muſt put the Reader in mind of one notorious Colluſion or deceate, much practized by this Pamphleter, touching diuers of the former men alledged for Proteſtants, but moſt particularly touching Wiclefe. It is this: He here particularizeth no Proteſtant articles, but only the denying of Tranſubſtantiation; yet where he aboundantly declareth, that W clefe was condemned by the Church of Rome for his defence of many errours and Hereſyes, he ſubtilly beareth the Reader in hand (though he expreſſeth not any of them in particular) that all theſe Hereſyes condemned in him were points of proteſtancy; thereby to make ſhow, what a great number of proteſtant articles were beleiued in thoſe dayes, and how much the ſaid Men did participate in doctrine with the proteſtants of theſe tymes. But this is a meere ſleight and impoſture; ſeeing it is euident, that beſides ſome few points of proteſtancy beleiued by Wiclefe, Hu , the Waldenſes or Albigenſes, there were many more Hereſyes mantayned by them & then condemned by the Church of Rome; Which are acknowledged for Hereſyes, both by Catholicks and Proteſtants; and ſuch as in no ſort concerne the Proteſtant Religion; as way euidently appeare from the peruſing of the ſeuerall paſſages of the former Dialogue; wherein the hereſies of Wiclefe, Hus, the Waldenſes, and others are at large diſplayed.

From Wiclefe the pamphleter commeth to Geffray Chaucer. And thus he is forced by his owne poetizing and forging art, to beg ſome prouffe from Poets. Of Chaucer he thus wryteth. Pag. 69. He did at large paint out the pryde, laſciuious, vicious, and intellerable behauiour of the Popes, Cardinalls, and Cleargy &c. adding much more ſecurili y of his owne: and ſetting downe certaine verſes of Chaucer. But what prooueth this? For firſt, we are not in reaſon to giue credit to euery verſe dropping from the ſatyricall penne of Chaucer. Secondly, admit all were true, that Chaucer writeth; yet ſeeing his reprehenſions do only touch manners and conuerſation, and not fayth; it followeth not, that Chaucer was a proteſtant (as I haue intimated in the former examples (or that the Proteſtant Religion was in his dayes profeſſed, which is the only point here to be prooued. Thirdly, if it muſt be concluded that Chaucer for ſuch his wryting was a proteſtant; then by the ſame reaſon may Spencer the Poet, for his bitter taxing of the Cleargy in his Mother Hubbardstale; and Daniel, for his controuling of the preſent tymes, touching Religion and Learning in his Muſophilus, be reputed Catholicks or Papiſts; & yet it is well knowne, they both were Proteſtants, and the later rather a puritan.

The Pamphleter next inſiſteth in one Walter Pag. 71. Bruit, an Engliſh Man, liuing anno 1393 and puteth him forth for a proteſtant, for his defending of diuers ſuppoſed doctrines of proteſtancy there ſet downe. To this I anſwere: firſt, he alledgeth no authenticall writer affirming ſo much, but only an obſcure Regiſter of the Biſhop of Hereford: and therefore it may iuſtly be ſuſpected to be meerely ſuppoſitions and forged (or rather, that it is but feigned, that ſuch a writing is) ſeeing ſuch a writing may with more facility be coyned without any diſcouery of deceat therein: as being to he found only among the Antiquityes, belonging to the ſayd Biſhop, who is a proteſtant. Secondly, ſuppoſe all for true: yet ſeeing that Scedule prooueth the ſayd Bruite to be a proteſtant, but only in ſome points: it followeth, that he was Catholicke in the reſt: and therefore can no more be challenged, for a proteſtant, then for a Catholicke: being the fayth of a profeſſour in any Religion ought to be entyre, perfect, & compleate; otherwiſe no man can take his denomination and name from the ſame fayth. Thirdly, ſuppoſe him to be a Proteſtant in all points, yet ſeing he is but one particular man; & that it cannot be prooued, that others did communicate with him in doctrine, his example cannot prooue the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church: ſince one man alone cannot be accounted for a Church. Laſtly, this example ſerueth (admitting it for true) but for the tyme, that Bruyte liued; It not being able to be prooued, that the doctrines of Proteſtancy (imputed to him) were taught and beleiued in all other Ages and Centuryes.

This donne, the Pamphleter Pag. 7 . proceedeth to diuers burnt and put to death for their Religion, in the dayes of King Henry the fourth, the fift, and the ſixt, King Edward the fourth, and King Henry the ſeauenth. Which teſtimonyes he taketh out of that lying Legend of Fox; to which booke no more credit is to be giuen, then to Eſop fables. But to theſe examples, I reply firſt. The Treatiſer ſetteth not downe the Proteſtant articles mantayned by theſe men, for their defence of which, they are here preſumed to be burned: And therefore it well may be, that they ſuffered death for their broaching of ſome other hereſyes or blaſphemyes, not controuerted between the Proteſtant and the Catholicke; & therefore ſuch Examples are wholy impertinent. Secondly, if we do admit the authority of Fox herein; yet it proueth, that thoſe men loſt their liues, but for one, two, or three particular points (at the moſt) of proteſtancy, mantayned ſeuerally by eich of them; they embracing all other poynts of Catholicke Religion: being both more in number and of greater importance; And if it be otherwiſe, then let this Authour prooue 〈◊〉 were Proteſtants in all chiefe Articles of Proteſtancy.

Now how inſufficiently ſuch examples can be ſuggeſted, for the viſibility of the Proteſtant Church in former Ages, appeareth, both from that already ſet downe in this Suruey; as alſo more fully from the peruſall of the former Treatiſe.

And here the Reader is to obſerue, that as ſuch men (aboue mentioned) cannot iuſtly be taken for Catholicks, ſo may they truly be ranged for hereticks; ſeing a ſtubborne and contumacious beleife but of one hereſy, maketh a man, an hereticke: Whereas it muſt be an nanimous fayth of all points of true Religion (without exception of any) which is exacted for making a man a true beleiuer: For the nature of true fayth doth here participate, of the nature of an action morally vertuous; Which is become defectiue, through the want of one due circumſtance only, but is made perfect and complete, by the neceſſary preſence of all due circumſtances.

After the former examples, he commeth to Marſilius Pag. 78. de Padua (an acknowledged Hereticke) Who cheifly erred in denying the Popes authority Now the Pamphleter to make his doctrine in this one point, to ſeeme more diuers in ſeuerall points from the doctrine of the Catholicks, ſubtilly deuideth it (in ſetting it downe) into ſeuerall branches. But to what end is this example preſſed? Seing it was the errour but of one Man at that tyme, and principally but in one Controuerſy; He comparting with the Catholicks in the doctrine of the Reall preſence, Purgatory, Freewill, praying to Saints, merit of Works, Traditions &c.

In the next place he vrgeth two Italian Poets, Dantes and (r) Pag. 79. & 80. Petrach for Proteſtants, becauſe they did wryte ſomewhat in depreſſing the Popes Authority, in behalfe of the Emperour.

Now to diſcouer more fully the Pamphleters falſhood, in his producing theſe two Italian Poëts (Dantes and Petrach) as ſuppoſed by him Pag. 81. to teach, that the Pope is Antichriſt, and Rome Babilon, I will heare proue: from their owne wrytings the meere contrary to this his impudent aſſertion. And firſt touching Dantes; He thus wryteth of S. Peter in his Italian verſes.

O luce Cant. 24 del Pa ad. etern del gran viro, A cui noſtro Signor laſcio le chiaui, Ch' ei portò giùda queſto gaudio mir . That is: O eternal light of that great man, To whom our Lord did leaue the keyes, which He did carye with wonderfull ioye.

In lyke ſort, touching Rome it ſelfe he thus diſcourſeth.

Non Cant. 2. dell Inferno. pare indeg no al huomo d'intelletto, Che ei ſu de l'alma Roma, & de ſuo impero Nel' empirco ciel' per padre eletto. La quale, el quale à voler direilvero, Fur ſtabilite per lo loco ſancto; r' fiede il ſucceſſor del maggior Piero.

In which verſes Rome is called a reuerend Citty; a holy place; fortified and ſtrenghtned euen from Heauen; and finally the ſeate of Peter.

Againe, Dantes was much aduers againſt Pope Nicolas the third; whom being dead Dantes notwithſtanding thus honored with his Verſe.

Et Cant. 19. dell. Inferno. ſe, non fuſſe, ch' aucor le me vieta I ariuerentia delle ſumme chiani, Cheiuteneſti vella vita lieta, Iover ei parcle ancor più graut.

In which words Dantes confeſſeth plainly, that the reuerence, which he did beare to this Pope, in regard that he receaued the keyes of the Church (meaning ſupreme authority in Chriſts Church) was the cauſe, why he did forbeare to wryte more ſharply againſt hym. Finally, to omit many other lyke paſſages, Dantes ſaith, that Boniface the eight:

Ne Cant. 22. del' Inferno. ſummo offitio, ne Ordini ſacri Guardò in ſe.

In which verſe he acknowledeth, that ſupreme authority and holy Orders did reſyde in Boniface; whoſe manners were otherwiſe diſpleſing to Dantes.

In this next place I will come to Petrarch, who thus wryteth in acknowledging the power of the Biſhop of Rome. Lib. 1. Seuilium Epiſtolarū ad Talanā dum Cardinalem. Quis (quaeſo) non ſtupeat, ſimul que non gaudeat, ſi amicus ſit Vicario IESV CHRISTI? And further: Romano Lib. 1. Inuectiuarum contra Medicum. Pontifici omnes, qui Chriſtiano nomine glortamur, non modo conſilium, ſed obſ quium inſuper & obedientiam debemus. All we, who glory in the name of Chriſtians, do owe not only counſell, but duty and obedience to the Biſhop of Rome.

Now for greater euidency of this poynt, I will deſcend to the particular prayſes, geuen by Petrarch, to particular Popes in his Italian booke, written of the liues of Popes.

We there then find, that of Pope Vrbanus 5. he thus writeth: Fu nelle ſacre Scripture dottiſſimo, & ſantamente viſſe: Vrbanus was moſt learned in the holy Scriptures, and liuod moſt Sanctly. Of Clemens 6. he thus recordeth: Fu & per nome, & per fatti, di molte virtù pieno: Clement was both for his name and for his deeds, repleniſhed with much vertue. Of Benedict. 12. theſe are his words: Beneditto fatto Papa reformò l'Ordine di S. Benedetto &c. era feruido nella fide, & nelle buone operezelatore: Benedict being created Pope, did reforme the Order of S. Benedict &c. He was feruerous in the fayth, and zelous in good works. &c.

To be ſhort, of Iohn 22. he thus ſaith: Coſtuifu ottimo & glorioſo Paſtore; fece molti bein, & Hereticiper zelo della fide condamno! This man was a very good and glorious Paſtour; He did many good deeds, and condemned Hereticks, out of his zeale to the fayth. And now I ref r to any in different iudgment, whether theſe two Italian Poëtes (Dantes and Petrarch) did thinke the Pope of Rome to be Antichriſt, or no, (as our Pag. 81. Pamphleter ſemeth to vrge, hey did) and whether the former prayſes can be truly applyed to Anthichriſt, & the whoare of Babilon: o euident it is, that what the foreſaide Poēts did Sa yrically wryce, was written only againſt ſome diſorders in the Church of Rome, and againſt the preſumed faults of ſome particular Popes; but neuer againſt their ſupreme dignity in the Church of Chriſt. And as touching the former Popes by Petrarch ſo commended; We are to remember, that his prayſes deliuered of them, where written after the deaths of the ſaid Popes; and therefore his words could not be cenſured to proceede from adulation and flattery; but according to his owne true and ſecret iudgment paſſed vpon thoſe Popes.

In the ſame manner, for their lyke inue ghing againſt the fulnes of the Popes power and iuriſdiction, he alledgeth certaine obſcure men; to wit, Dulemus, Hayabalus, Ioannes Biraenſis, Ioannes de Rupe ſciſſa, three religious Men; who liued and dyed (in reſpect of all other poynts) in the Roman Church. And yet touching Ioannes de Rupe ſciſſa, both this Authour and the authour of Catalogus teſtium veritatis: (From whom this man taketh it) are deceaued, if we may beleiue Fox Vide Fox in act. Mon. ſpeaking of this Ioāne de Rupe ſciſſa. who thus wrytes of hym: Ioannes de Rupe ſciſſa, liued in the yere 1340. who for his rebuking of the ſpiritually for their great enormittes, and neclecting their office, was caſt into priſon.

Our Pamphleter after produceth Gerſon for a Proteſtant, of whom he thus ſaith: Gerſon Pag. 81. ſaw in his ages many horrible abuſes of the Church of Rome, and in his wrytings ſpake liberally of it. Is not this a learned prouf for Gerſons being Proteſtant in all poynts of Proteſtancy?

After all the former nſtances the Pamphleter (euen for want of other matter) returneth back againe to the Waldenſes Pag. 82. or Albigenſes, iterating with a tedious prolixity his former diſcou s concerning them, and this in many leaues: Whereby he ſheweth the extreme mendicity of his Cauſe; and that he laboreth with all Art poſſible, to draw out this his Treatiſe (as is aboue ſaid) into ſome reaſonable number of ſheets. But touching the Waldenſes, I refer the Reade (as afore I willed) to the p rticular paſſage of Waldo, in the former Dialogue.

His former Extrauagancyes of diſcours being ended, he is not aſhamed to challenge S. Bernard Pag. 91. for a Proteſtant, of whom he thus wryteth: Before our aſcending thus high, we might tell you of S. Bernard, whom all though it is lykely at the firſt daſh, you will challenge as your owne; yet when you haue well aduized of hym, you may let hym go againe. O perfrictam front m, and wonderfull Impudency. For who is ſo ignorant or ſo bould, that wil not confeſſe S. Bernard to haue bene a Roman Catholicke in all points? He was a religious Man, and Abbot of Claireuaux and Authour of many Monaſteryes in Flanders and France (as O ſiander Epitō. Cent. 12. p. 309. the Proteſtant confeſſeth) he alſo was Pryeſt, and ſaid Maſſe to his dying day (as all Writers of him do teſtify) A poynt ſo euident, that for his being a great and eminent member of our Catholicke Church, the Centuriſts (al Proteſtants) thus cenſure him: Bernard •• s Cent. 12 col. 1627. and 1638. coluit Deum Maozim, ad nouiſſimum vitae ſuae articulum: And further they ſay of him: Bernardus fuit acerrimus propugnator ſedis Antichriſti, Bernard was an earneſt defendour of the ſea e of Antichriſt. Here now I refer to the candid and vpright Reader, what impudency it was in this Man, to challenge Bernard for a member of the Proteſtant Church. But heere touching S. Bernard, I cannot but abſerue this Authours fraud and impoſturous cariadge, who tearmeth all ſuch Articles, wherein S. Bernard did agree with vs; as the Sacrifice of the Maſſe, Purgatory, merit of Works, free will praying to ſaincts, and indeed all other Catholicke Articles whatſoeuer (only his boldnes of wryting to Pope Eugenius excepted, to whom afore he had bene Mayſter, and therevpon preſumed to wryte more freely) Slips Pag 92. & Lapſes, Pag. 93. as they were beleiued by him: which in vs Catholicks he exagerateth by the name of Superſtition, Idolatry &c. And thus we may ſee, how one and the ſame Cauſe being exemplified in different Perſons, is by this Pamphleters deceate, diuerſly cenſured.

Leaning S. Bernard, the Authour generally (but with out any prouf at all) wiſheth his Pag. 95. Reader to thinke, that the Proteſtant Church was in all Countries in Chriſtendome, and did lie hid, as thoſe Iewes did in the tyme of Elias, for feare of Perſecution. But this he only ſaith, but proueth not: and it is therefore reiected with the ſame facilitie, with which it was ſpoken.

Now touching thoſe Men, who conceales their fayth for feare of perſecution, I refer the Reader to the former dialogue, wherein the weaknes of this pretext of Perſecution is particularly diſplayed.

That done, the Pamphleter ſayth, that Pag. 96. India, Armenia, Aſia the l ſſar, and Egypt, had in former tymes Chriſtians in them (for he giueth them no other name, then Chriſtians:) And then he inferrs, without any proofe at all, or inſtances in the points of their Religion, that they were Proteſtants. Poore man, that thus moſt inſenſibly reaſoneth: Seing we find the Chriſtians of all thoſe Countreyes to agree in all the cheife points, with the preſent Roman Churrch; Only ſome of them do not acknowledge the primacy of the Biſhop of Rome, aboue all other Biſhopps.

In the laſt place of all, he much inſiſteth in the Greeke pag. 96. Church (within which are included the Ruſſes and Muſcouits) he thus ſaying thereof: The Greeke Church was neuer ſo much as in ſhow extinguiſhed; And from whome the Ruſſians and Muſcou ts had their fayth. And then a little after he thus enlargeth himſelfe: We ſhould do wrong to Almighty God &c. to pull from him, ſo many ample Churches (meaning the Greeke Church, & the others aboue ſpecifyed) inferring from thence, that the Proteſtant Church did in former ages reſt viſible, euen in the Greeke Church.

Now this his ſhameleſſe alleadging of the Greeke Church for Proteſtants, ſhalbe confronted with the teſtimony of Syr Edwin In his Relation of theſtate of Religiō vſed in the Weſtparts of the World, in the laſt fol o, but fiue. Sands (a man of his owne Religion) who plainly affirmeth, that the Greeke Church doth concurre with Rome in opinion of Tranſubſtantiation, & generally in the ſacrifice and whole Body of the Maſſe, in praying to Saints, in au •• cular Confeſſion, in offering Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatory, & worſhipping of pictures. Yea the Proteſtant Deuines In their booke entituled: Acta Theologorum Wittenbergenſoum & Ieremiae Patriarchae Conſtan in p. de Auguſtana Cō feſſion &c. Wittenbergae Anno, 1584. of Magdeburg do record, that the Greeke Church doth not only beleiue all the former Articles, recited by Syr Edwin Sands; but alſo that it beleiueth and teacheth the ſignifying Ceremonyes of the Maſſe, Confirmation with Criſme, Extreme V ction, all the ſeauen Sacraments, Almes for the dead, freewill, Monachiſme, vowes of Chaſtity, the faſt of Lent, and other preſcribed faſts, that Prieſts may not mary after Orders taken, and finally that the tradition & 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept. Now heere I refe re to any one not blinded with preiudice, whether the profeſſours of the Greeke Church, are to be accounted for Catholicks or Proteſtants: And from hence we may diſc uer the idle and ridiculous vaunting of this Pamphleter, who in the cloſe of this point touching the Greeke Churches being proteſtant, and a continuall Viſ •• ili y of Proteſtancy in the ſaid Churches, thus inſulteth: Looke to theſe places (you Papiſts) and Imagine, that if there had beene none, but theſe; yet the words of the Scripture, (i) Pag. 97. which in generality ſpeake of a ſpouſe, had beene true: And Chriſt had there had his Body vpon earth: and the Church had not beene vtterly extinguiſhed, if neither We, nor the Synago ue of Rome had beene extant. Thus he.

His former examples being ended, he entertayneth his Reader with great ſtore of frothy and needleſſe matter, touching former differences betweene the Popes and Emperours, the (k) Pag. 98. 99. 100. Kings of England and France. And then all ſuch perſons, as did bandy themſelues either by wryting or otherwiſe with the ſaid Emperour or Kings, agaynſt the Popes of thoſe tymes, the Pamphleter vrgeth for Proteſtants though the cheife cauſe of ſuch differences betweene the Popes and the ſayd Princes, was touching Diſtribution of Eccleſiaſticall Liuings, within their owne Realmes. That done, the Treatiſer extra agantly diſcourſeth in his de lamatory rayling veyne, that the Pope is Antichriſt: But how rouing and wandring all this is to the title of his Pamphlet, and prouing of his owne Churches viſibility (the which he obliged himſelfe to performe) may appeare, by what is already ſet downe.

After all this, & for a Cloſe of all, he obiecteth (for forme-ſake, as if his taking notize of what, we can truly obiect againſt his wryting, were a ſufficient anſwere to it) certaine exceptions vrged by the Catholicks, agaynſt his former Inſtances of proteſtancy: Which Obiections of ours being ſet downe, he ſhapeth no true Anſwere vnto them. And firſt, he thus obiecteth in our behalfe: (l) The Papiſts will beginne and ſay, that 〈◊〉 Pag. 102. we rake together, as the Aunceſtours and forerunners of our fayth, ſuch as were notorious Hereticks, as Wicklefe, Hus, or the Waldenſes &c. To which (after much ſecurtility of words) he finally thus anſwereth: We do Pag. 103. not beleiue that all thoſe, are Hereticks, whom you Papiſts will ſo call or account. But we reply hereto, and ſay; That not only the Catholicks, but the Proteſtants themſelues do particularly charge Wicklefe, Hus, the Waldenſes, as alſo Almaricus, Peter Bruus, &c. with many groſſe and abſurd Hereſyes, acknowledged for ſuch euen by our Aduerſaryes; as may abundantly appeare by recurring to the ſeuerall paſſages of this former Dialogue. The defence of which hereſyes doth neceſſarily make their defendours, abſolute Heroticks: ſeing they were mantayned by Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, &c. with a froward and open contempt of the authority of Gods Church, publikly teaching the contrary: far differently from S. Auſtin, S. Cyprtan, and Lactantius, their beleiuing certayne errours (the which this Pamphleter, for the more leſning of the Hereſyes of Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, &c. in p. 112. ſuttely repeateth) ſeing theſe Fathers taught them only, as their owne probable opinions: euer ſubmitting (with all Obedience) their Iudgments therein, to the ſupreme Iudgments of Chriſt his Church. Ad hereto, that ſeing thoſe Books written by Catholicks of thoſe tymes, do indifferently charge Wicklefe, Hus, Waldo, and their followers with mantayning of ſome one point or other of proteſtancy, and with diuers abſurd Hereſyes: The authority therefore of thoſe Writers are eyther equally to be beleiued in all their accuſations, or equally to be reiected in them all: And the rather, ſeing they could not foretell (a conſideration much to be obſerued) or preſage, what points touching fayth and Religion, and different from the then Roman fayth (wherewith Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, &c. were then charged) would be profeſſed, bele ued, and mantayned in theſe dayes, by the enemyes of the Church of Rome: And therefore it neceſſarily followeth, that the accuſations paſſed in former times vpon Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, and the reſt, are either in generall true, or in generall falſe: If falſe, then haue we no ſufficient Records, that there were any in thoſe dayes, who beleiued any points of proteſtancy: If true, then certayne it is, that as Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, &c. mantayned ſome points of proteſtancy, ſo with all, that they mantayned diuers explorate Hereſies: and acknowledged for ſuch both by Catholicks and Proteſtants.

Secondly, the Pamphleter obiected in the Catholicks name in this ſort: None Pag. 110. of all thoſe, which hitherto haue beene named, or can be named (meaning for Proteſtants) but in ſome knowne, confeſſed, and vndowbted Opinions did varye from you: And therefore they and you Proteſtants may not be ſaid to be all of one Church. This difficulty he ſalueth with a moſt impudent and bare denyall, ſaying: All thoſe, whom before I haue named, did generally for all mayne Matters teach the ſame, Which we now teach. What forhead or ſhame hath this Man? For Firſt, as touching Waldo, Wiclef, Hus, and their followers (in whom through out this Pamphlet, the Authour principally inſiſteth) It is confeſſed by Oſiander, Luther, Fox, and other Proteſtants, as alſo it appeareth by ſome of their owne Wrytings, that they agreed with the Catholicks in moſt points of Catholicke Religion, which were of greateſt moment (as in the Reall Preſence, ſeuen Sacrements, praying to Saincts, Purgatory, frewill, Merit of Works, and in all other moſt principall Articles of the preſent Roman Religion) Concerning the proufe of all which poynts, I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue. Secondly, touching other obſcure Men, alledged by the Pamphleter for Proteſtants he commonly and for the moſt part (ſome two or three excepted) exemplifieth no other Article of Proteſtancy defended by them, then their diſobedience and inueighing againſt the Biſhop of Rome. But if he could haue iuſtly auerred them for Proteſtants in all chiefe Articles, why would he not as well particulary ſet the ſaid Articles of Proteſtancy downe, as he did the other, touching their diſclayming from the authority of the Biſhop of Rome? Ad hereto, that many are produced for Proteſtants by this Authour, only for their ſharply ſpeaking and writing againſt the manners and conuerſation of the Cleargy in thoſe dayes; they not diſſenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatſoeuer; & euer euen ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea.

To all the former poynts I may adioyne this following Conſideration. That ſuppoſing the forſaid alledged Men were proteſtants in all poynts: yet do they not proue the Viſibility of the true Church of Chriſt, for theſe Reaſons enſuing: Firſt, becauſe they were but few in number, and in regard of ſuch their paucity, the Predictions of the amplitude largnes, and continuall ſplendour of Chriſt Church could not be performed in that ſmall number. Touching which predictions, peruſe the beginning of the Dialogue: Secondly, becauſe neither this Authour, nor any other Proteſtant liuing (how learned ſoeuer) can proue, that, there were in thoſe tymes (ſpecified by this Pamphleter) any Adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments practized by any of theſe ſuppoſed Proteſtants: which euer neceſſarily concurs to the exiſtence and being of the true Church; as is demonſtrated in the former Tract. Thirdly, becauſe the former Men could but ſerue for inſtances during their owne lyues, and no longer; The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Proteſtant, for the ſpace of many Ages and Centuryes together: which poynt being ſo, impugneth not only the Nature of Chriſts true Church, which muſt at all tymes and ages be moſt viſible; but alſo it croſſeth the Title of this Pamphlet: wherein the Authour vndertaketh to proue the Viſibility of his Church in all Ages.

Thus far now (Good Reader) I haue labored in ſurueighing this Idle Pamphlet. Now for they better memory, I will breifly recapitulate and repeate certaine chiefe impoſtures and deceatefull deportements, practized by this Authour throughout his Booke. And then I will remit both him and his Treatiſe, to they owne impartiall Iudgment.

1. Firſt then, I may remember his putting no name to his Booke, nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London, touching the Viſibility of the Proteſtant Church: nor once naming M. Fiſher and M. Sweete, the two then diſputants. Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purpoſly affected in all probability: ſeing otherwiſe he might well thinke, that the ſetting of his owne Name downe (eſpecially if the Authour were either D. Whyte or D. Featly) or hauing in this diſcours particular reference to the foreſaid Diſputation, might ſooner draw on an anſwere to his Pamphlet, from one of the ſaid two Fathers, or from ſome other Prieſt.

2. Secondly, You may call to mynd, that in the firſt part of his Treatiſe, he laboreth to proue rather the Inuiſibility of the true Church, then the Viſibilitie thereof (contrary to the Inſcription of his Pamphlet) cheifly to intimate thereby, that a continuall Viſibility of the true Church is not ſo neceſſarily to be exacted, as we Catholicks do teach it is: and conſequently, that what few, weake, may ied, and imperfect proufs and examples for the continuance of proteſtancy, he was after to alledge, the ſame might be thought ſufficient and ſtrong enough, for the eſtabliſhing of his owne Churches Viſibility.

3. Thirdly, The pamphleter callengeth any one for a Proteſtant who did but hould one or two Articles of proteſtancy (and eſpecially if he did but impugne the Popes authority) or did wryte againſt the Manners & conuerſation of the Cleargy of thoſe dayes; though otherwyſe he did agree with the Church of Rome, in all Articles of fayth.

4. Fourthly, He callengeth thoſe for proteſtants, who were condemned by the Church of Rome, for other Errours, then are mantayned by the proteſtants; ſo making the ignorant Reader beleiue, that the Pope in thoſe dayes condemned only the doctrines of Proteſtants for Hereſies. this the pamphleter doth to the end, that the number of the profeſſours of his Church in thoſe dayes might ſeeme the greater, in his Readers eye.

5. Fyftly, he moſt cauteouſly concealeth the Catholicke doctrynes, euer beleiued by Hus, Wiclefe, Waldo &c. as alſo ſic moſt falſly extenuateth ſuch Hereſies, as they mantayned, & are acknowledged for Hereſies euen by learned proteſtāts; The Treatizer ſubtelly forbearing to name or ſet downe (in expres Words) any one of their Hereſies.

6. Sixtly, For want of better Authours, he fleeth to the teſtimonyes euen of Poëts (as Chaucer, Da •• es, Petrarch) vrging them for proteſtants; only by reaſon of their Satyrs, written againſt the ſuppoſed abuſes of Rome.

7. Seauently, he moſt impertinently dilateth and ſpreadeth hymſelfe, in long and tedious diſcourſes, touching the increaſe of the Doctrine of Waldo, Hus, Wiclef &c. as alſo touching the Contentions betweene the Popes, and the Emperours, the Kings of England and France; and finally ſpendeth diuers leaues in rayling againſt the Pope, as Antichriſt: All which weriſome prolixityes he vſeth, thereby to ſpine out his booke to ſome reſonable lenght or quantity; ſeing otherwiſe to the title of his booke, they are mearly impertinent.

8. Eightly, his Monſtrous Impudency is to be obſerued, in making S. Bernard, and the Greeke Church in former tymes, as alſo the Churches in India, Armenia, Aſiae, Minor, Egipt &c. to be proteſtants, without ſhowing any one Proteſtant Article, that they did hould; excepting the Greeke Church, denying the Popes Supremacy.

9. Nynthly, The title of his Booke, being to proue the continual Viſibility of his owne Church in all ages, he produceth his Examples of proteſtancy (ſuppoſing them for the tyme, to be true Examples) only for the firſt three or foure hundred yeres before Luthers dayes; and ſo (mearly croſe to the title of his booke) he omitteth eleuen hundred yeres, without geuing inſtance of any one proteſtant, during all thoſe Ages.

10. Tenthly, Touching the Compas of thoſe few ages, for which he produceth ſome ſuppoſed Examples, his fraud and calumny is, to begine from Luther vpward (and not downward towards Luther) thereby the better (as is aboue ſaid) to conceale from a vulgar Eye, the ſmall number of thoſe ages or Centuryes, for which he endeuoreth to proue the imaginary Viſibility of the proteſtant Church.

11. Eleuently and laſtly, his ſtilling the Catholicke Articles (to wit of the Reall Preſence, Purgatorye, free will, praying to Saincts, and all the reſt, beleiued by S. Bernard and other Catholicks only Lapſes and Slipps; the beleife of which Articles in vs Catholicks at this preſent he, commonly calls Idolatry, Superſtition &c. But this alleuiation of words and ſpeech he vſeth moſt ſubtelly of S. Bernard that ſo notwithſtanding S. Bernards different beleife yet by this Pamphleter he neuertheles may be reputed a good proteſtant.

Thus far (Good Reader) of his cheife affected ſleightes And with this I end, referring this one Conſideration vnto thee. That is: Yf the queſtion of the Viſibility of the proteſtant Church through the Conference had thereof at London (immediatly before the comming out of this Pamphlet) and occaſion of that other Toy, intituled: The Fiſher catched in his owne M t, was at that tyme, much diſcourſed and talked of by many Men through out the land; and therefore the Mantayners of this Viſibility did ſtand more obliged (by all Reading and learning poſſible) to iuſtify the ſame; being then and at all tymes, ſo much prouoked vnto it by vs Catholickes, and if neuertheles, the Authour heare refuted, being ſtiled in the Epiſtle of this Treatiſe: A moſt reuerend, and learned Man, and one who hath more particularly and perſpicuouſly traualled in this Argument, then any in our Engliſh tongue; And therefore he may be preſumed in all lyklyhood, to haue ſpoken in defence thereof, as much as can be ſpoken therein: Yf (I ſay) this Man cannot but for three or foure ages only (and theſe, neareſt to Luthers dayes) ſeeke to iuſtify the ſame; and this by meanes of ſome few, falſe, defectiue, and miſapplyed examples and Inſtances, accompanied with diuers frauds impoſtures, and Colluſions: What other thing then from hence may be concluded, but that it is impoſſible to make good or proue the Viſibility of the Proteſtants Church, during all the ages ſince Chriſt to Luthers dayes (or indeed, du ing but any one ge thereof) And conſequently, that the Proteſtant Church, for want of ſuch a neceſſary Viſibility (euer attending o •• the true Church of Chriſt) is not, nor can be the true Church of Chriſt?

FINIS.

THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW OR THE THIRD DIALOGVE OF MICHAEAS THE IEVV.

Betweene. The right honorable, the Lord Cheife Iuſtice of England. Michaeas, the former Conuerted Iew. M. Vice Chancelour of Oxford.

The Contents hereof the Argument following, will ſhow.

Vide mulierem ebriam de ſanguine Sanctorum,

Apocalips. 17.
THE ARGVMENT OF THE THIRD DIALOGVE OF MICHAEAS. STILED THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW.

MICHAEAS, after his diſputation ended in Oxford, with D. Reynolds, Ochinus, and Neuſerus, touching the Inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church; and giuing it out, that he would inſtantly depart from thence; Neuertheleſſe lyeth ſecretly in Oxford, and hath peculiar acquaintance with ſome of the choyeſt witts there; whome he perſuadeth to the Catholicke, and Roman fayth.

The Vice-Chancelour of Oxford, hearing thereof, apprehendeth Michaeas, conuenteth him before the right Honourable the Lord Cheife-Iuſtice of England; before whome he ſtands arraigned of three Crymes. The firſt, that (according to the falſely ſuppoſed Principles of the Roman Religion) he laboreth to plant diſloyalty in the Schollars mindes. The which Michaeas abſolutly denyeth; and thereupon retorteth (by way of recrimination) the cryme of Diſloyalty vpon the Proteſtants, both for their doctrine thereof, and for their practiſe. The ſecond offence vrged by the Vice-Chancelour is, that Michaeas did write certayne ſhort Diſcourſes of diuers points of Catholicke Religion, and diuulged them to the Schollars of his acquaintance: Of which diſcourſes the Vice-Chancelour getting a copie (of Michaeas his owne hand wryting) deliuereth it (in the preſence of Michaeas) to the Lord Cheife-Iuſtice. This Action Michaeas acknowledgeth it, as true, and warranteth it by force of Reaſon, and ſtrong example. The third Cryme. That, Michaeas (being a Roman Prieſt) vndertaketh to reconcile ſome Schollars to the Church of Rome, and daily celebrateth Maſſe.

All this Michaeas granteth vnto, iuſtifying ſuch his proceeding, by deducing the antiquity of Prieſthood: of the power of remitting ſinnes (in the Sacrament of Pennance) and of the Maſſe euen from the times of the Apoſtles, and the Primatiue Church: By reaſon of which occaſion, the preſent ſtate of Prieſts, and Catholicks in England, is impart diſcourſed of.

To conclude (omitting diuers other ſhort inſertions, & paſſages in the Dialogue, incidently occurring) the Lord Cheife-Iuſtice (as inclining to clemency, and commiſeration) proceedeth to an honorable, and myld Cenſure, or iudgment againſt Michaeas; at which cenſure the Vice-Chancelour mightely ſtormeth. And ſo, (Michaeas, earneſtly praying for the Kings health, and true happynes) the Dialogue endeth.

THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW BEING A DIALOGVE BETWEENE THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE LORD CHEIFE-IVSTICE OF ENGLAND MICHAEAS THE CONVERTED IEW AND M. VICE-CHANCELOVR OF OXFORD. Wherein is prooued (beſides diuers other ſhort inſertions) that the Proteſtants ſtands more chargeable with diſloyalty to their Lawfull Princes, then Catholicks do. THE VICE-CHANCELOVR.

MY Lord. All duty to your Lordſhip. I haue here brought before your Lordſhip, a Man moſt turbulent in his proceedings; and who of late hath much ruffled, and diſordered the fi e, and quiet ſtate of our Vniuerſity, by ſeeking to infect the Schollars thereof, with his Popiſh, and ſuperſtitious doctrines: One, whom kinde, and curteous entertaynment (for ſuch he hath found at our hands) cannot mollify, and whoſe demerits are of that nature, as that Compaſſion ſhewed to him, would prooue Cruelty to others; And we ſhould become acceſſory to our owne hurt, to ſuffer ſuch a man to paſſe vn puniſhed. Therefore I hope your Lordſhip will not preſerue him, whō the Law hath ouerthrowne; nor ſuffer his preſent calamity (how great ſoeuer it may ſeeme) to attract from your cleere iudgment commiſeration, & pitty; But rather you will vouchſafe to remember, that he doubteth his crime, who masketh it vnder the tecture of Religion.

This is that Michaeas; homo Act. 24. The Iewes ſo called S. Paul in their Accuſation. peſtiferus & concitans ſeditionem; who after his diſputation in our Vniuerſity with the moſt learned D. Reynolds, made ſhow preſently to leaue our vniuerſity, and to retire himſelfe into ſome forayne Countrey: But many months haue ſince that time paſſed: He, during all the whyle, ſecretly lourking among vs (ſo the Spidar lyes cloſe, to ſurpriſe the incautelous flee) ſeeketh to get priuate acquaintance with diuers eminent Maiſters of Arts, and others of the yonger ſort. Which being obtayned, he then enuenometh their iudgments with Superſtition, and Idolatry, and with his other Romiſh poſitions, breathing diſobedience, & diſloyalty againſt the Magiſtrate. And indeed he hath ſuch a facility by ſlye, and ſubtill inſinuations, to ſerue himſelfe within the Schollars affections, as that it is moſt wounderfull: For firſt he commonly beginneth a farre off, to talke with them of the nature of other Countreyes, and of his owne trauells in other vniuerſityes (to which diſcourſes our Schollars do lend their greedy eares) before euer he entreth to talke of Religion; And ſo (like a good tabler,) he vſually playeth with them an aftergame, the more ſpeedily to come to his deſigned end. The hurt, which he hath already perpetrated in our vniuerſity (which is one of the two eyes of the whole Realme) is great and inſufferable; and your Lordſhip well knowes, that Math. cap. 5. if the eye be wicked, then all the Body ſhalbe darke. Therefore now at the lenght hauing apprehended him, I haue conuerted him before your Lordſhip that ſo he may be puniſhed by the Law, who hath tranſgreſſed the Law.

LORD-CHEIFE IVSTICE.

Stand forth Michaeas. Many and greiuous (you ſee) are the complaints giuen vp agaynſt you; from which you muſt either truly vindicate your ſelfe, by being faultles therein, or otherwiſe you muſt vndergoe the chaſtiſment appointed for ſuch offences. And though we Iudges be ordayned to puniſh what is euill; yet we are to wiſh, that men do not prooue themſelues euill: And therefore I deſire, that your Innocency (if innocent you be) may be here cleared: for I hould it a farre greater ouerſight to puniſh the guiltles, then to leaue vnpuniſhed the guilty; Since Iuſtice inſtructeth vs not to delight in puniſhment, but to recurre to it for playne neceſſity. Now ſpeake Michaeas, what you can in your owne defence.

MICHAEAS.

My Lord. I do heare firſt proſtrate myſelfe in all Humility before your Honour; reſting glad, that though my accuſer haue wronged me by thus falſly traducing me before your L. yet that it is my fortune, to appeare before ſuch a Iudge, with whom Innocency ſhall find it ſanctuary, and only true faults be corrected: for I preſume, that that ſentence of the Pſalmiſt is euen imprinted and ſealed vp in your hart: Pſalm. 57. Rectè iudicate filij hominum.

Now for my more iuſt defenſe your L. may heare be aduertized, that I am a Iew by byrth and Nation, and a Roman by Religion; and do hould, that Ieruſalem, (I meane the Church of Rome, which is vpon earth, the ſpirituall Ioan. cap. 4. Ieruſalem) is the place, where Men ought to worſhip. I came into this floriſhing Kingdome, only through my greate deſire of ſeeing your famous and ſo much celebrated Vniuerſityes, with intention of returne in a conuenient tyme. Now I truſt (my L. I ſpeake it vnder correction of your more experienced Iudgment) that I, as being a ſtranger, and not borne within theſe dominions, do not ſtand preciſly ſubiect to the lawes of the ſaid dominions; And therefore, what I haue committed (ſuppoſe moſt to be true, as moſt of it is falſe) may well be an errour in me; but any heinous cryme (as now it is exagitated) it cannot be. And further euery Man well knowes, that euen by the lawe of Nations, the very name of a ſtranger (who in this reſpect cannot take particular notiſe of the Municipall ſtatuts and Ordinances of the Realme) doth pleade excuſe for many Tranſgreſſions; the committers whereof being borne ſubiects, are ſeuerely and deſeruedly puniſhed. Therefore my L. ſince Lawes are made rather to ſuccour, then to wound Mankynd, I dowbt not, but your L. will heare diſpence with all ſterne ſeuerity, and will remember that ſaying of an auncient Father: Facilius Ira, quam Indulgentia obliqua eſt.

VICE CHANCELOVR.

See you not my L. how this Polypragmon, this Michaeas dare not only (without feare) violate the lawes of our Realme; but alſo will needs braue it before your Lorſhip, that for being a ſtranger, and not borne in our Nation, he ſtands not ſubiect to the ſaid Lawes? and thereupon doth iuſtify his impietyes; but it ſeemes he gloryes to be extremly facinorous: Tertul. lib de Pudicit. Eſt & mali dignitas, quod in ſummo peſſimorum collocetur.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Michaeas. Your Plea heare is moſt weake and defectiue for though you be a ſtranger, and as you ſay, not borne vnder the lawes of our Dominions; yet you muſt know, that you had leaſure enoughe to be acquainted with our Lawes, before you entred into our Country, or at leſt within ſhort tyme after. And you muſt conceaue, that the Lawes being made by the conſent of the whole Realme, are not to be violated in fauour of any one Man. Furthermore, where you ſpeake of Priuiledges and Indulgences allowed to ſtrangers euen by all Nationall Lawes; you muſt •• ke notize, that theſe fauours are imparted to ſtrangers with ſome conditions and reſtrictions; to wit, if the bad comp rtment and cariadge of the ſaid ſtrangers do not worthely 〈◊〉 them of participating of the ſaid Priuiledges; ſince otherwiſe, no reaſon there is, why they ſhould be partakers of them; And indeed the leſſe reaſon, becauſe in tyme of Neceſſity, when the Prince is to command aydes, forces, or Tributs from his ſubiects, no ſuch releife and helps can be expected at the hands of any ſtrangers, reſyding in his Country. Laſtly, it were repugnant to the nature of Iuſtice (which in it ſelfe is euer ſacred and inuiolable) that a ſtranger, (ſuch an one, as you Michaeas, are) by comming into a forrayne Country, and as it were, by indeuizing hymſelfe for the tyme, ſhould become a ſubiect in the fruition of the benefits of the ſaid Country; And yet, when he would performe any vnlawfull act, he ſhould of new create himſelfe a ſtranger. Therefore (Michaeas) my iudgment here is, that you ſtand obnoxions and ſubiect to our lawes; And therefore you muſt either plead yourſelfe innocent in the obiected Crymes; or els the Lawes of our Realme will iuſtly take hould of you. What ſay you therefore to the offences, wherewith you heere ſtand charged?

MICHAEAS.

Well my good Lord: ſince it is ſo I humbly ſubmit myſelfe to your L. graue iudgment heerein, and do willingly recalle my former miſtaking, in alledging the priuiledge of a ſtranger. Yet I hope I reſt excuſable: ſince not knowing, but that it might ſtand in force, I had no reaſon (by not inſiſting vpon it at the firſt) to be vniuſt to myne owne Innocency, or to be ſlow in myne owne defence. Now my L. to come to the obiected Offences. Where firſt I muſt ſay, that though an extraordinary Loue of Iuſtice doth ſometymes cauſe Iniuſtice in the louer: Yet no ſuch effects do I feare in your L. ſince you are one, who will impartially cenſure of Mens Actions, as they are in themſelfs: and not as they are tragically amplified by the tongue of malice.

Touching then my accuſations, I muſt put your Lordſhip in minde, that my Aduerſaryes Serpentine (not Prudence, according to our Sauiours words, but) Subtilty, hath in accuſing of me, ſo affectedly mingled together Truths with falſhoods, as that I can neither with one breath abſolutely acknowledge all, nor abſolutly deny all. Yf I ſay, I haue not perſuaded ſome Schollars of the Vniuerſity to the Catholicke Roman Religion, I do lye; And if I do confeſſe, that I haue diuulged to them any Poſitions of our Religion, as ſuppoſed to contayne the ſeeds of diſobedience and diſloyalty to their Prince (beſides the vntruth thereof) I ſhould be falſe to myſelfe, and wrongfully become my owne Accuſer. Therefore) to ſeuer and ane theeſe two different poynts, one from the other) know you (moſt worthy Iudge) that I do freely grant, that during my ſtay in this your celebrious Vniuerſity, I haue moued diuers of the ſtudents to embrace our Catholicke and only true Religiō. And if it be thē an offence to perſuade a Man to ſaue his ſoule, I do heere acknowledge my ſelfe to be an offendour in this Kynd, and ſhall receaue with comfort any impoſed puniſhmēts for the ſame: But if it had been far better for one, to haue lyed in euerlaſting Informitye and Abis of Nothing, then to enioye a Being, and after to haue that Being (for want of a true fayth and Religion in his Creatour) to be puniſhed with eternity of paynes; I hope then, we lyue not in thoſe Canicular and vnluckly tymes, but that the perſwading by fayre and ſweete meanes to the true fayth and religion, ſhalbe houlden if not as worthy of Commendacion yet at leſt as exempt from blame and diſlyke; and the rather, ſince Men are not to be forced by lawes to an erroneous fayth only for ſtateſake: Religionis Ter •• l. l b ad Sca 〈…〉 . non eſt cogere religionem, quae ſpontè ſuſcipi debeat, non vi.

Touching the ſecond poynt, wherewith my aduerſary (too myld a word, my Enemy) chargeth me at this preſent: that is, that I ſhould lye ſecret in the Vniuerſity, and labour by all meanes poſſible, to plant in the Schollars iudgments ſuch Theorems of doctryne, as might breede diſloyalty in their mynds; It is a moſt falſe and calumnious imputation: myſelfe being therein as innocent, as Innocency itſelfe. I know well, that as on the one ſide, nothing is more delicate, then is the ſenſe and feeling of an Eſtate; ſo on the other, I am aſſured, that our Catholicke Religiō is ſo far from approuing diſloyalty, as any Profeſſion or Religion can be. For it teacheth with the chiefe Apoſtle, that we 1. Pet. 3. ought to be ſubiect to the King, as excelling; It ſurther inſtructed vs with the Apoſtle of the Gentills, That Romā. cap 13 we are to be ſubiect to higher powers, ſeing there is no power, but of God, that Who vbi ſupra. reſiſteth the power, reſiſteth the Ordinance of God; and they, that reſiſt, purchaſe to themſelfs damnation; Finally, that we Ibidem. ought to be ſubiect euen of neceſſity, and for conſcience ſake; ſince Ibidem. ſuch a Power beareth not his ſword without cauſe.

Now our Religion teaching all this, why ſhould this Plantife out of his owne ſpeculatiue and ſuſpicious concea e (like to a ſuperfluous Comment, which aſcrybeth more to the Text, then euer the Authour meaned) ſoyle my innocent and cleere intentions with the aſperſion of ſuch a foule demeanour? Therefore my L. ſince this is only ſtorme, which at this preſent cheifly ſhowereth vpon my diſgrace; I hope that the radiant beames of Iuſtice (through your L. meanes) will be of force to diſcipate and diſſolue it.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

My Lord theſe are the accuſtomed common places of mouths, exhaling forth diſloyalty; I meane, to plead innocency, though neuer ſo faulty; and to ſtuffe their excuſe with tragicall phraſes, apt to ſtir vp a vulgar pitty. But if this Man [my L.] who hath contaminated himſelfe with ſo many foule breaches of Ciuill Hoſpitality (which all men in all Nations moſt ceremoniouſly obſerue (may paſſe vnchaſtized; then let vice expect to be rewarded, and vertue puniſhed. But why do I labour ſo painfully to take the height of this his wicked action (ſince it is a kind of errour, ouer preciſely to inſiſt in proofe of moſt euident Truths) as if doubt were here to be made either of your L. iudgment herein, or of your Iuſtice? the one being ſufficiently warranted vnto vs, by your long experience in this kind; the other by your many examples of like Nature. But to turne my words particularly to you, Michaeas. I pray you, why muſt your ſtay in our Vniuerſity be kept ſo cloſe and ſecret, after you gaue it out, you would inſtantly depart? Belike you thought, the more retyredly you liued from the eye of vs all, the greater conceate would be had of your preſumed Worth; and ſo your followers might keepe you, as a treaſure reſerued to themſelues; you imitating herein Diogenes, who became the more eminent, in regard of his affected obſcurity.

MICHAEAS.

O M. Vice-Chancelour. do not thus betrample vpon old age and calamity; neither lay a further weight of digrace, by your forgeryes vpon him, whom miſery and yeares haue almoſt proſtrated euen with the earth. Neither ſeeke to enlarge my faults with your more greiuous fault. And where you inueſt my priuat retyringe in your Vniuerſity with a veyle of a deſired emminency; I muſt replye, that I am as far from all ſuch elation and pryde of mynd, as your ſelfe is from all charitable cenſuring of me. For I do acknowledge my ſelfe to be a meane and de ected Old Man, and do aſcrybe all glory height and honour to hym, who is celſitudo Pſalm. 137. humilium; And who being only ſupreme, doth moſt delight in thoſe, who are the loweſt; And this deſeruedly, ſince we find by experience, that who are moſt poore in Spirit, are commonly moſt rich in the guyfts of the Spirit.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

M. Vicech: I would haue you to deſcend to the particular doctrines of diſloyalty, broached by Michaeas in your Vniuerſity: for as yet both your words haue bene ſpent only in diſcourſing and äery generalityes. And they are particulars only, of which the law taketh hould: for ſince the puniſhment preſcrybed by the Law is particular, it followeth, that the offence muſt alſo be particular. Therefore ſhow in ſuch and ſuch a poynt with others particularityes, where Michaeas hath offended againſt the Soueraignty of Princes.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

My L. I will. You haue di 〈…〉 gled (Michaeas) to your ſollowers, that the Pope hath full authority to det one Kings and Princes (though neuer ſo abſolute) at his pleaſure. And further Papiſts teach, that the ſpirituall Iuriſdiction reſidi g in the Pope, ought to haue that predominancy ouer all temporall authority, which the ſoule hath ouer the body. To be ſhort, this poynt (to wit, that your Popiſ Religion doth teache rebellion & inſurrection of the ſubiects againſt their lawfull Prince) is ſo cleare, as that we may well ſay, Papiſtry and Diſloyalty are almoſt Termini conuertibiles: for though ſome diſloyall Men are not Papiſts: yet euery Papiſt (in that he is a Papiſt) is to his ſoueraigne Proteſtant Prince, diſloyall.

MICHAEAS.

You are glad (M. Viach.) to moyſten this your drye accuſation, in the froath of many idle and ſplenfull words. Your accuſation ſtands vpon two poynts: Firſt, you charge me in particular for diſſeminating of diſloyalty in your Vniuerſity: That being only ſaid, you make in lieu of further proofe thereof a ſub •• ll tranſition to the doctryne of other Catholicks in that poynt: As if what were wanting to the perfecting of my ſuppoſed Cryme therein, ought to be made vp, by the acceſſion and application to me of other Catholicke Doctours wrytings of that ſubiect.

Now to the firſt I anſwere. It is a moſt falſe Calumny forged in your owne brayne, and wrought vpon the anuile of Mali e. For produce (if you can) the parties, to whom I euer vttered ſuch a Doctrine, the Place or the Tyme, Where or when, ſuch ſpeeches were deliuered. Thus, we ſee, that this your report (as being in it ſelfe moſt falſe) is wholy diſueſted of all Circumſtances, neceſſarily attending vpon euery humane Action. For euen to re cyle the ſecrets of my ſoule herein: I did in all my diſcourſes with your Scholars purpoſely auoyde of Sta e, (as a ſeamarke) all ſuch queſtions [of State:] ſo vnwilling I euer was, but to touch vpon thoſe dangerous ſands. And for the greater demonſtration of my Innocency herein, and of my Loyalty to his Maieſty of England, I here acknowledge (and in this acknowledgement I do for the tyme, depoſe and put of the perſon of Michaeas, and ſpeake in my owne perſon, the Authour of this Treatiſe; and in the name of all other Prieſts and Catholicks of England) all layalty and fidelity to our moſt gracious and dread ſoueraigne King Charles, and to his moſt illuſtrious and worthy Queene; beſeeching the Almighty to graunt him a fruitfull bed, and to make him Parent of many noble Children: And further I humbly pray to the Higheſt, that he may in all tranquillity and true happynes raigne ouer vs many yeres; and after his diſſolution of Body, that he may equall in euerlaſting Be atitude the greateſt Sainct of his Predeceſſours now in Heauen. This is my Proteſtation made in all ſincerity, and in which by Gods grace euen to my laſt gaſpe. I intend to continue and perſeuer.

But now to reſume my former ſhape of Michaeas. Touching the firſt point of my accuſation (M. Vice-Chancelour) you ſee how cleere and innocent I am. I will now haſten to the ſecond branch, contayning (as you ſay) the doctrine of Diſloyalty, taught euen by all the Doctours of the Roman Church. Firſt I anſwere, It is a moſt iniuſt ſlander obtruded vpon them by you; ſince not any one Catholicke Doctour teacheth, nor aone good lay Catholicke beleiueth, that the Pope can at his ny pleaſure depoſe Princes, and transferre Kingdomes and ſtates, as to him beſt liketh. Secondly, I reply, that ſeeing you neuer ceaſe to vpbraid our Catholicke Religion, with the foule ſtayne of diſloyalty (this being your, & other Proteſtants common Theame, wherein you ſo much ryout in malignant exagerations) Therefore as awakened by your ſo often ingeminated accuſation herein, I do auouch (pardon me moſt Reuerend Iudge, if being thus prouoked, I enter into a Subiect, perhapps vngratefull to you) that the Proteſtants do by infinit degrees, ſtand more reprehenſible in this poynt of diſloyalty and diſobedience towards their Prince, then we Catholicks do. And this I will prooue, if I may be ſuffered, at this preſent againſt you [M. Vice-Chancelour] firſt from the poſitions and ſpeculatiue aſſertions of the moſt learned Proteſtants; and after, from the actuall inſurrections and rebellions of Proteſtants, againſt their lawfull Princes.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

This is the Scene [Michaeas] of men of your diſpoſition, that when you are truly charged with your owne faults, then in place of better anſwere, you inſimulate (by way of recrimination) your Aduerſaryes within the ſame faults. But it ſeemes by you, that dotage is the accuſtomed Attendant of old age; or that you take a delight and complacency to haue the ſubiect of diſloyalty often in your mouth, as you euer haue it in your hart. But begin at your pleaſure to charge vs Proteſtants (if you can) either with the doctrine or practize of diſloyalty. My Lord-Iudge (I know) will giue you leaue, who in the end ſhall perceaue, that all what you can imagine in this point, is but meete imagination, and no reall Truth; And ſo in your diſcours, you will reſemble that Man, who dreames, he doth but dreame.

MICHAEAS.

O wound not [M. Vice-Chancelour] my reputation with theſe Philippicks and declamatory Inuectiues; ſo much hurtfull euen to the ſpeaker: for, Tertul quomodo placabit Patrem, iratus in fratrem? And reſt ſatisfyed, that I do not ſolace myſelfe (as you ſuggeſt) in this vnpleaſing Text: but do acquaint my ſelfe with diſcourſes of that ſubiect, with the like intention, that the morall Philoſopher doth buſy himſelfe with the nature of Vice; which is, the better to auoid Vice.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Michaeas. I muſt needs now ſay, that you do infinitly wrong our Religion, by aſcrybing both to the chiefe Doctours and Profeſſours of it, this odious Cryme of Diſloyalty and Rebellion. No, no. Our Goſpell which cometh from God, beſt teacheth our duty towards the Lieutenants of God. I preſume, that herein you reſt but vpon the bare and naked ſpeeches of others of your owne Religion, our deſigned enemyes: But you muſt remember, that as things, which are ſeene by reflexion, are imperfectly ſeene; ſo reports and bruits taken only at the rebound of partiall mens mouths, deſerue but a light eare.

But ſeeing it is the part of a Iudge, to heare all ſides with an indifferent eare; you may [Michaeas] at your pleaſure begin your diſcours of this your aſſumed Argument, where I doubt not, but M. Vice Chancelour will ſufficiently repell all your reaſons, and anſwere to your examples, to the greater Honour of our Religion; which is a free from all ſtayne and blot of diſloyalty, as an intemerate virgin is free from any defyled touch. Therefore, Proceede.

MICHAEAS.

My L. I will; And I muſt entreate your Patience herein, as deſirous to abſtayne from geuing the leſt iuſt offence to your L. And touching this ſubiect, I dowbt litle, but that (howſoeuer you are as yet perſwaded) after I haue finiſhed my Diſcours, your morning and more retyred thoughts will (at leſt in the ſecrets of your owne Iudgment) geue an other cenſure hereof. And I will begin in deliuering the Poſitions & doctrines, which the moſt accompliſhed Proteſtants for literature, haue left of this Argument in their Bookes and wrytings.

And firſt do we not find Luther euen to denye all ſecular principality, as moſt vnlawful now in theſe Chriſtian dayes? For thus he wryteth: Among Luth. de ſecular. poteſt. in tom. 9. German. Chriſtian Men none is ſuperiour, ſaue one, and only Chriſt. As alſo more fully: Among Luth. vbi ſupra. Chriſtians, no man can or ought to be a Magiſtrate; but eich one is to other equally ſubiect. And further in contempt of all Magiſtrats touching matters of Religion, he thus diſcourſeth: As Chriſt Luth. ſermons engliſhed & printed 1579. p. 97. & tom. Witenberg. f. 327. cānot ſuffer hymſelfe to be tyed and bound by Lawes &c. So ought not the Conſcience of a Chriſtian to ſuffer them. And more: Yf the Luth. Sermons vt ſupra. p. 261. Ciuil Magiſtrate ſhould contend, that his Commandements be neceſſary to ſaluation; then as it is ſaid of the Traditions of the Papiſts, the contrary is to be donne. Thus we find, that Luther is not affraid, not only to impugne all Magiſtracy and domination in certaine caſes; but he is alſo not aſhamed, to dogmatize and teach in his wrytings, that there neither are nor ought to be any true ſouerainty or Princes at all, now in the dayes of Chriſt. To which Princes partly their Eminency graced with Pompe and ſtate; but chiefly an innate & imbred Obedience to Power and Maieſty (God and Nature making that now good, which law of man did firſt ordayne) induce men to exhibit all due reuerence and veneration: In compare of whom, euen the greateſt ſubiects are to ſeeme but priuate & obſcure; like the brighteſt ſtarrs, which are darkened in the preſence of a fayrer light.

VICE CHANCELOVR.

Touching Luther [Michaeas] you muſt know, that although we acknowledge him, to haue been a great inſtrument of God, for the reuealing in theſe later tymes the Goſpell of Chriſt; yet we grant, that in ſome points he varyed from the Truth; and particularly in denying all Magiſtracy and Principality. But all other cheife Profeſſours of our Religion concurrently teach with vs the lawfulnes of Princes, and all due Obedience vnto them.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour If Luther by your owne acknowledgment, did erre in this point, how then can you reſt aſſured, that he did not erre in other points of fayth, firſt by him broached, and after entertayned by you: Since he had no better warrant for teaching the truth in the one, then in the other; and it is certayne, that a manifeſt errour but in one point, carryeth with it a poſſibility of erring in any other point. But to come to your anſwere. I ſay the contrary thereto will preſently appeare. For is it not euident, that Swinglius (a man of extraordinary note among you) thus teacheth? Quando Tom. 1. in explanat. Art. 42. perfide & extra regulam Chriſti egerint Principes, poſſunt depon : When Princes do euill, and contrary to the rule of Chriſt, they may be depoſed. Thus Swinglius; who there warranteth this his doctrine from the example of Saule, whom God depoſed; although afore he deſigned him, King. Yea Swinglius thus further proceedeth: Due Swingl. in l. epiſt. Oecolam. & Swingl. l. 4. epiſt. Cunhardo Somio &c. Promittendum eſt Caeſart officiū, ſi modo fidē obis per 〈◊〉 illibatam. reuerence it to be promiſed to Caeſar, if ſo be permitteth to vs our Religion inuiolable: Thus intimating, that if the Prince doth not permit Religion, then no honour is to be giuen, but reſiſtance is to be made. Swinglius furthermore continueth his former diſcours in theſe very words Romanum Swin 〈…〉 b upra. Imperium, m qu du s aliud Imperium, vbi religionem ſinceram opprimere caperit &c. If the Roman Emperour, or any other Prince or Soueraigne ſhall beginne to oppreſſe the ſincere Religion, & nos illud negligentes patim &c. And we negligently ſuffer the ſame. We ſhall ſtand charged with contempt thereof, as much as euen the opp eſſours themſelues: An aſſertion ſo much diſpleaſing to other more ſober and quyet Proteſtants, that D. Bilſon doth reſt much diſt ſted with thoſe words of Swinglius; ſaying in lieu, of further anſwere to them: As I muſe In his true d 〈…〉 rence pa t 3. pag. 273. at Swi glius his words; ſo I like not his iudgment.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Mich 〈…〉 . You know well, that Swinglius and Luther liued both in one tyme togeather: I meane, then, when though many Articles of the 〈◊〉 were by them diſcouered; yet all were not diſcouered; but happ ly they might mantayne ſome errours; The Sunne of Chriſts Goſpell not as then arriuing to it Meridian and full aſcent. And indeed it is a kind of imperfection and (as I may tearme it) a ſigne of an ouer rigid nature, to expect in the w yters of thoſe firſter tymes, no imperfection at all. But now in theſe more late and refyned dayes, the Profeſſours of the Goſpell haue wholy exploded the former doctrine of Luther and Swinglius herein. For what Men do more aduance & defend the dignity and ſoueraignty of Princes, then we do in our Sermons, and other our priuat Conferences?

MICHAEAS.

If you do ſo much magnify in your Pulpitts (as you ſay, you do) the regallity of Princes, it is to the end, that in the cloſe (I ſpeake only but of ſome of you) you may the better vndermyne them all: like the earth, which for the tyme nurriſheth all Creatures, yet finally deuoureth all Creatures. But becauſe you reply, that the Profeſſours comming after Luther and Swinglius, cannot be blemiſhed in their wrytings, with any ſpot of diſloyalty; Therefore to follow you in your owne method therein, I will come by degrees from Luther and Swinglius euen to theſe our dayes; and ſo deſcending in tymes, I will aſcend in weight and force of Argument.

And now to come to Caluin, who next in tyme ſucceeded Swiglius, and towards whom moſt of you Proteſtants do commit a Kynd of Idolatry. It is ouer euident, that Caluin thus wryteth of Princes and their authority: Earthly Caluin in Daniel. c. 6. Abdica t ſ pot •• ta e err •• i Principes, du nſ rg nt con r Deū; mo i digni ſun , qui ceſ antur in num 〈…〉 h m num: P tius ergo cō ſpuere oportet in illorum capita, quam illis parere. Princes do depr 〈…〉 themſelfs of authority, when they erect themſelfs againſt God, yea they are vnworthy to be accounted in the number of Men: and we are rather to ſpit vpon their f ces, then to obey them. Thus we ſe, that Caluin teacheth that, Princes commanding thi gs vnlawfull, do vtterly depryue themſelfs of all authority and regality, where with a fore they were inu ſted. With which former Words of Caluin D. Wilks (no vulgar Proteſtāt) doth vppraid the Puritans in this ſort: They In his obedience or Eccleſiaſticall Vnion. pag. 60. were your teachers, who account thoſe Princes (who are not reſined by their ſpirit) vnworthy to be accounted among the number of Men; and therefore rather to be ſpitted vpon, then obeyed: They were your teachers, who defend Rebellion againſt Princes of a different Religion Thus D. Wilk .

To come next to Beza. He was ſo full and intemperate in ouerthrowing the authority of Princes; as that he did purpoſely wryte a booke of this very Subiect, ſtyling it: De 〈◊〉 Magiſtratuum in ſub •• tos: a booke much diſlyked by D. Bancroft (the late Arch Biſhop in his Suruey of the pretē ded diſcipline. pag. 48 As alſo in the booke entituled: Dangerous Poſitions. of Canterbury) and D. Succl ffe: Which Doctour t us cenſureth thereof: Beza D. Succleffe in his anſwere to a certayne 〈…〉 applicatory pag. 75. in his booke of the power of Magiſtrats, doth arme the ſubiects againſt their France in theſe caſes &c. And further: Beza (m) roundly teacheth, what reaſon haue Chriſtians to obey hym, that is Satans ſl ue. And yet ſpeaking more of that Booke of Beza, he ſaith: a booke, D. Succleffe vbi ſupra, pag. 98. which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Chriſtian Magiſtrats. To contract this poynt touchinge Beza. Beza hymſelfe thus wryteth in one of his Epiſtles to a friend of his: P rplace In his epiſt. theolog. epiſt. 68. mihi &c. It pleaſeth me very much, that you wryte, that priuate Conuents and aſſemblyes are to be made without the authority of Princes And againe, in the ſaid epiſtle: Si pijs ſemper expectandum putas, dum lupi vltro cedant &c. Yf you thinke, we muſt ſtay the delayes of godly men, till the woul es do freely depart, or are driuen away by publyke authority: I cannot yeald to your iudgment therein &c. And if we had made ſuch delayes, What Churches ſhould wee haue had at this day? Thus far of the doctrines of Caluin and Beza in this poynt: concerning both which in generall, I will ſet downe the iudgment of therfore named D. Bancroft, paſſed vpon them both, who thus wryteth: He that In his Suruey of pretended diſcipline. pag. 42. ſhall reede M. Caluins and M. Bezaes two bookes of Epiſtles &c. Would certainly meruayle to vnderſtand, into what actions and dealings they put themſelfs of war, of peace, of ſubiection, of reformation, without ſtaying for the Magiſtrate. Thus he.

Next we will come to k ox, who thus teacheth: Reformation Knox to the Communalty f. 49. & 50. of Religion belorgeth to the Communalty. Knox hiſtor. pag. 343. God hath appoynted the Nobility to bridle the inordinate appetits of Princes, Knox hiſt. p. 371. Princes for iuſt cauſe may be depoſed. Finally Knox further auoucheth in theſe words: Knox to En lād & Scotlād. fol. 76. Yf Princes be tyra ts againſt God and his Truth, their Subiects are freed from the oath of obedyence. Of all which paſſages of Kno ſee D. Bancroft in his booke of dangerous Poſitions. Neither his Collegue Bucanan is leſe ſparing herein: for thus he teacheth: The Bucanan. l. de iure regni pag. 13. People haue right to beſtow the Crowne at their pleaſure And yet with at more debaſing ſpyte he thus egurgi ates his ve ome: It Bucanan vbi ſupra. p. 40. were good, that rewards were appointed by the People for ſuch, 〈◊〉 ſhould kill Tyrants, as commonly there is for thoſe, which haue killed vulues. Finally Bucanan affirmeth, that People Bucanan vbi ſupra pag. 62. may arraigne their Prince. Now in regard of theſe impious poſitions of Knox and Bucanan, I fully approue and allow the graue ſentence of the Biſhop of Rocheſter; who in his Sermon Preached the 〈◊〉 . of No 〈…〉 ber & printed. 606. at Pooles Church, termeth theſe two men: The two fiery ſpirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Michaeas. Notwithſtanding what you heere haue alleged touching ſtrangers; yet no part thereof conce neth the Church of England, or it Members: Our Church remayning moſt incontaminate, f ee, and ſpotles from the l aſt tuch of diſloyalty. And therefore what is by you as yet heareſaid, concerneth vs litle; you only diſcouering your Ignorance in miſapplying other mens doctrines to vs, who wholy diſclayme from the ſame.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour: Pardon me, if I heere do ſay, you charge my Ignorance with greater Ignorance. For firſt, are not your Proteſtants of England of the ſame fayth and Religion with Luther, Sw nglius, Caluin, Beza, and the others aboue mentioned? If you be not, then haue you erected a new Proteſtant Church of late, different from all Proteſtant Churches afore in Being. If you be of the ſame fayth, muſt you not then confeſſe, that your Religion teacheth diſobedience and diſloyalty to your Prince? Secondly, it is ouer manifeſt, that the Church of England (I ſpeake of ſome members thereof only, & not of all) doth ſtand moſt chargeable with the ſame crime. In proofe of which point, I will produce the teſtimony of your former Archbiſhop of Canterbury, D. Bancroft; who in one of his Books, thus confeſſeth of Engliſh Miniſters concerning this point, ſaying: I omit In h 〈…〉 Suruey of the pretē ded holy diſcipline pag. 48. their deſperate courſes of depoſing Princes, and putting them to death in diuers caſes of reſiſtance againſt reformation: The generall ſumme was this: That if the ſoueraigne Magiſtrate refuſe to admit it; the Miniſters, the inferiour Magiſtrate, the People &c. might ſet it o foo e themſelues. Of theſe, and ſuch like arguments diuers bookes (he meaning, made by Engliſh proteſtants) were allowed by the Miniſters of Geneua, to be there then printed in Engliſh, and to be publiſhed in England &c. And againe the ſaid Archbiſhop in an other of his Books, ſpeaking of the ſeditious Engliſh Proteſtants in Queene Maryes tyme, thus writeth: Goodman, D. Bancroft in his dangerous Poſitions pag. 34. Whitingam, Gilby, the authour of the booke of Obedience, with the reſt of the Geneua Complices in Queene Maryes dayes, urged all ſtates by degrees, rather to take armes and to reforme Religion themſelues; then to ſuffer ſuch Idolatry & Superſtition remayne in the Land. But to deſcend more particularly to this Goodman. He was a forward Proteſtan in Queene Maryes tyme, & did write a booke of this very ſubiect, as D. Bancroft In his dangerous poſitions. p. 35. and D. Succliffe In his anſwere to a certaine libel ſupplicatory. p 192. affirme. Thus hereof he wryteth (as D. Bancroft D. Bancroft vbi ſupra pag. 35. alleadgeth his ſentences) If Goodman in his ſaid Booke p. 119. 139. Magiſtrats tranſgreſſe Gods Lawes, and comman others to do the like, then haue they lo •• honour and obedience, and ought no more to be taken for Magiſtrats; but to be examined, accuſed, condemned &c. And more: Goodman p. 63. & 43. It is not ſufficient for ſubiects not to ob y the wicked Commandements of their wicked Princes, but to withſtand them alſo. And yet more plainly: Euill Goodman pag. 144. & 145. Princes ought by the lawes of God to be depoſed. To abbreuate this vnpleaſing ſubiect, there was alſo in the ſaid times an other Booke, made againſt the authority of Princes and entituled: Of Obedience. Which booke is much diſliked by D. Bancroft In his dangerous Poſitions pag. 35. 36. and D. Succliffe, In his anſwere to a libel ſupplicatorie. pag. 71. in which booke we thus read: Kings In the booke of Obedienc. pag. 25. haue their authority from the People, and by occaſion the People may take it away agayne. And more: By Obedience. pag. 110. the word of God, in a manifeſt defection (meaning of fayth and Religion) a priuate Man hauing ſome ſpeciall inward motion may kill a tyrant. Marke you not, how he doth Rauiliac it? And finally: It Obedience pag. 99. & 103. is lawfull to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants. But I will wade no further in this argument. For I much feare, that the afore vnheard, and now vnexpected recitall of the former Proteſtants doctrines is moſt diſpleaſing to the eares of this honorable Iudge. Only I muſt note, that among the aboue mentioned Proteſtants, ſome do ſpeake with more reſpect and honour of Princes; others with a •• contempt and diſgrace; yet all of them alledged do with one & the ſame eye or countenance, indifferently looke vpon this principle; to wit: That Princes in ſome caſes may be depoſed: ſuch a diſpacity we find in this their generally acknowledged Concluſion: So in the pourtrayture of diuers mens faces, we obſerue great diſproportion, in one and the ſame proportion.

LORD-CHEIFE IVSTICE.

Michaeas. I muſt confeſſe, that theſe Doctrines of the former learned Proteſtants, touching the depoſing of Princes are moſt ſtrange, and indeede, diſtaſtfull vnto me. But it well may be, that either the places by your in ertions and additions are corrupted; or that you haue violated them by diuorcing the words from their true intended Senſe: Which ſenſe of their (no doubt) is different from that meaning and Conſtruction, which you haue impoſed vpon them. But to confes my ignorance, I haue not at any ty 〈…〉 r d the former Authours; And therefore I muſt refer this poynt (for my fuller ſatisfaction) to the iudgment of M. Vice Chancelour, here preſent.

MICHAEAS.

I do aſſure your 〈◊〉 . in all ſincerity, that the teſtymonyes of the former Proteſta ts are truly aledged; without any ſ 〈…〉 〈…〉 ertion either of the Words or ſenſe: And hearein I appeale euen to M. Vice-Chancelour owne iudgment; who if he can change me with any ſuch willfull impoſture but in any one of the paſſages aboue, I will acknowledge my ſelfe guilty in all. Beſydes, all the former Authours are long ſince departed out of this World; and therefore my fault (if any ſuch were) ſhould be far more odious and inſupportable; ſince Chriſtian Charity teacheth vs, to treade gently vpon the graues of the deade.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Suppoſe (Michaeas) that we ſhould grant, that all the former Proteſtants did teach, as you haue produced them; for to ſpeak the truth, I cannot take any iuſt exception againſt your allegations; and the leſſe, ſeeing I find ſome of our owne Brethren by you alledged (and particularly D. Bancroft and D. Succlif) to acknowledge with diſcontent their ſaid ſentences. Yet ſeeing they were but certaine Metaphyſicall and aery ſpeculations only of Schollars; men vnapt for a mes and Rebellions, and not of any acting ſpirits: Their doctrinall Comminations therefore (as neuer being accompanied with any externall Acts of diſloyalty) are to be reputed the leſſe dangerous to Princes and Magiſtrats. And thus in regard hereof, it may be truly ſaid, that the errour of thoſe former Proteſtants hearein was but ſmall, though the poynt, about the which they erred, was great. But the Caſe is far otherwyſe with you Papiſts, who do not only teach and warrant rebellion by your doctrine; but alſo haue actually practized the ſame with greate effuſion of innocent bloud, to the amazement of all Chriſtendom, and irreparable diſhonour of your owne Religion.

MICHEAS.

I will here ſpeake with the Poët (M. Vice Ch.) mutatio nomine, de te fabula narratur: Since theſe your words do uſtly recoyle vpon your ſelfe, and your Religion. And therefore euen to choake you irreplyably hearein, I will preſent to your view, the tragicall & deplorable face of many ſtats and Countryes in Chriſtendom, ingendred from the former Proteſtants Principles; In the contemplation whereof we ſhall find it a Miſtery, euer peculiar to diuers Proteſtant ſtats, to caſt of their loyalty and obedience; that ſo either by one meanes or other they would either fynd right, or make right, to violate the bond of all ſouerainty (as men ſpeake of Hercules breaking Gorgons knot) with whom it hath beene vſuall, to grow wanton in ſhading of bloud, for the more ſpeedy eſtabliſhment of their Goſpell to the end then, that theſe former doctrinal Theorems of Rebellion ſhall not become meare aery (as it pleſeth you, M. Vice-Ch. to tearme them) I will truly and really incorporate them in diuers moſt lamentable Inſurrections and outrages, perpetracted by Proteſtant ſubiects againſt their Catholicke Princes. Many of which Rebellions did receaue their firſt Conception (and after their byrth) euen from the violent incitemēts and inſtigations made by diuers of the afore alledged Proteſtants: Wryters, in the mynds of the ſubiects againſt their Catholicke Leige Lords. And in ſhowing this, I will firſt begine with England, then Scotland, and ſo I will paſſe to other more remote Countryes.

Now touching England. Do wee not find, that the aforenamed L. Archbiſhop D. Bancroft, ſpeaking of the attempts made in Q. Maryes tyme for aduancing of the Proteſtants Religion, thus wryteth? Sundry Engliſhmen did wryte hither (meaning (p) In his dangerous poſitions. pag. 34. from Geneua) ſundry letters and books of this ſubiect; That the Councellours of Q. Maries tyme, Noblemen, Inferiour Magiſtrats, and (rather then fayle) the very People were bound before God, to ouerthrowe ſuperſtition and reforme Religion, whether Q Mary would or no; yea Though it were by putting her to death. And according herto we thus reade in the former booke of Obedience: By Gods law and Mans lawe, Q. Mary ought to (q) The Booke of obedience pag. 99. & 103. be put to death; as being a Tyrant, a Monſter, and a cruell beaſt. O poore and titulary ſoueraignty, that is forced in theſe mens iudgments to be thus ſubiect to it owne ſubiects, and to endure thoſe opprobrious and contumelious tearmes from any one obſcure Superintendent, which ciuill Conuerſation forbiddeth amonge Men of the meaneſt ranke and quality. No, ſupreme domination and rule, whearewith Princes are inueſted, is lyke to hym, from whom it ſelfe originally firſt ſtreameth; that is, Abſolute and independent; and brooketh not the controule of any ſuch, whom God hath ſubiugated to it by lawfull ſubiection. But to proceede: from theſe former, and other ſuch elements and Principles of Treaſon, it came to paſſe, that one Wiltin Thomas See hereof Holinſhed Chron. the laſt edition volum. 3. pag. 1104. with others, conſpyred to murther Q, Mary; for which offence he was hanged, drawne, and quartered: that D. Crammer Act Mon. printed 1596. pag. 1282 and Holinſhed reat Chronicle volum. 3. pag. 10 3. (Archbiſhop of Canterbury) partly for ſpreading ſeditious Books, and cheifly vnder pretext of Religion for ayding the D. of Northumberland with horſe and Men, was ſent to the Tower, arraigned in the ſtarrchamber, & attaynted of High Treaſon: Finally, that S. Thomas Wyat, (ſeconded with the D. of Suffoch) attempted his treaſon againſt Stow in his A nals pag. 1046. the ſaid Q Mary, only vnder the colour of erecting Proteſtancy. But to leaue England, and to come to Scotland: Who is ignorant, that Knox H l n 〈…〉 d great Chronicle in the hiſtory of Scotland, the laſt edition. p. 366. being inſtructed in this Art at Geneua, returned into Scotland, attempting to reforme Religion euen by open rebellion, and force of armes; and murthering the Cardinall in his bedchamber at S. Andrewes, was conuented to appeare before the Queene Regent, and for not appearing was proclaymed Rebell? In like ſort, D. Bancroft thus further wryteth of Knox and his Confederats and followers: They In his dangerous poſitions. p. 1 . kept the field two months, and tooke away to themſelues the coyning irons, and iuſtifyed the ſame &c. They gaue the Queene the lye diuers tymes, and vſed her with moſt deſpi full ſpeeches, and re ounced their obedience vnto her; and depryued her of all further regiment by formall Act, penned by Kno .

The ſaid D. Bancroft thus further enlargeth himſelfe, touching Knox and hi, followers, ſaying: By D. Bancroft vbi ſupra. the perſwaſion of Knox in his Sermon, they did caſt downe and deſtroy t S. Andrews both the houſes of the Eryars, and the Abbeys in that towne: So deal they with the Abbey of Scone, the Fryars at Ste cling, & Lu quo, and Edenburrough; the Queene being fled thence for feare.

Thus D. Bancroft of theſe mens proceedings; who not content in afflicting the ſaid Queene, in ſuch rebellious a manner, further extended their malice and Diſloyalty in ſo high a degree, to the laſt Queene of Scotland; as that his deceaſed Maieſty (her Sonne) thus complayned thereof: King Iames in the ſumme or the cō 〈…〉 nce at Hampton Court. printed 1604. p 81. How they vſed (ſpeakind of Knox and his Confederats) that poore Lady my Mother, is not vnknowne, and with greife I may remember it.

Touching Ge enna, Goneu , I would ſay (but the miſtaking is not great, ſince what the one teacheth, the other puniſheth) We find that D. 〈…〉 l ſte thus truly writeth: In his anſwere to a certaine 〈…〉 〈…〉 p. 149. They of eneua did depoſe their Liegt Lord (who was Catholicke) & Prince from his temporall right; albeit he was by right of ſucceſſion the temporall Lord and owner of that Citty and Territorie. Which whom conſpireth D. Bancroft thus wryting hereof: The in his Suruey of the pretē ded holy diſcipline pag. 11. Citizens of Geneua receauing ſome good encour agement (meaning from Caluin and ſuch others) I doubt not, tooke vpon them the endeauouring of altering Religion: and omitted not the occaſion offered of changing alſo the Eſtate of the Commonwealth.

In this next place, the 〈…〉 ow Countryes affoard a greater euidency and demonſtration of this point. For O iander (a moſt eminent Proteſtant) thus woundeth his owne Profeſſours: The Low In epitom. cent. 16. p. 941. Countreyes by publike wryting renounced all obedience and ſubiection to Philip, their Lord and King &c. When Oſiand. vbi ſupra. pag. 801. foure hundred of them, (men of good ranke) had ſued for tolleration in religion, and did not preuayle, the impatient People ſtirred In defenſ. tract. de diuerſ. gradib. miniſ tor. c. 2. p. 74. vp with fury at Antwerp and other places of Holland, Z land, and Pladders, threw and broake downe images &c. The y ſubiects of thoſe Countreyes tooke armes againſt the Magiſtrate, and made the Prince of Orange their Gouernour: A truth in like ſort confeſſed by D. Sarauia in theſe words: They of the Low Countryes did ouerthrow and ſpoyle temples and monaſteryes with Monks, Biſhops, and the whole popiſh Cleargy, againſt the mind of the cheife Magiſtrate, and prom ſe giuen.

Finally Criſpinus Of the ſtate of the Church p. 627. (the Proteſtant) and the foreſaid Oſiander Cent. 16. p. 959. do relate, that one Petrus Dathenus and other cheife Proteſtants of Gau t, did ſtir vp in the yere. 1587. the Ci tizens to caſt all the Maſſe Prieſts (as they ſpeake) and Monks out of the Citty, and to place their goods in the Treaſury.

Next let vs come to France. What ciuill Warrs haue beene raized by the Proteſtants, during the ſpace of forty yeares togeather, till the laſt King Henry the fourth made himſelfe Catholicke, only for their Religion, againſt their Catholicke Kings and Princes? Many hiſtoryes are become the ſubiect thereof; only I will content my ſelfe with diſcerning ſome few teſtimonyes and confeſſions of the Proteſtants heerein. And firſt may occu re the battayle of Dreux wherat As Antony fayus witneſſeth (being a Proteſtāt) in vita & obitu Bezae. p 45. Beza himſelfe was preſent; vndertaken only for the aduancement of the Proteſtant Religion and of which Battayle Beza thus writeth: The Nobility Beza in his epiſtle dedicatory of his new Teſtament, to the Queen of En lād printed 1564. of France vnder the noble Prince of Condy, layd the foundation of the reſtoring true Religion in France, by conſecrating moſt happily their bloud to God, in the battayle of Dreux. In like ſort, we thus reede in a Proteſtant booke, entituled: The generall Inuentory of the Hiſtory of France; and tranſlated into Engliſh by Ed. Grimſton: The Printed 1607. pag. 593. Proteſtants of Meaux tranſported with indiſcreete zeale, grounded vpon their numbers, did fly to the Churches, beate downe images, and make the Prieſts retyre. And againe: Beza vbi ſupra pag. 610. preaching at Grenoble, Charters, and Orleans with his ſword and piſtoll in his hand, exhorted the people to ſhow their manhood, rather in killing the Papiſts, then in breaking Images. And yet more: The vbi ſupra p. 623. Proteſtants (to wit anno. 1567.) being firſt armed, were in the beginning mayſters of the field &c. The King being incenſed agaynſt them, was at Me ux, and preparing to celebrate the feaſt of S. Michael, the Prince of Condy approaching with fiue hundred horſe, by this attempt forced the King to retyre, with ſome amazement to Paris. And yet further: The Prince of Condy and the vbi ſupra, pag. 610. 625. &c. Admirall kept S. Denis, S. Owen, and Auberuilliers to curbe Paris. The Conſtable (the Kings Lieutenant) gathered an Army, whereupon bartayle e ſued &c. Which Authour of the aforementioned Inuentory of France, relateth many more occurrents of thoſe matters, which here for breuity are omitted.

But to proceede further touching the Country of France. Oſiander (the foreſaid Proteſtant) recordeth this matter in theſe words: The Cēt. 16. pag. 698. Proteſtants vnder colour of exhibiting a Confeſſion of their fayth, came armed to the Kings palace &c. That Oſiander vbi ſupra. p. 804. ciuill warre, for Religion was renewed; the Prince of Condy being Generall of thoſe of the reformed Churches; and the Conſtable, Generall of the Kings Army. That the Conſtable vbi ſupra. being ſlayne in theſe warres, the Kings Brother ſupplyed his place. To conclude this point of the Prince of Condy his rebellion herein; It is ſo euident & vndeniable, that Criſpinus (a Proteſtant) thus writeth hereof: After Of the ſtate of the Church pag. 625. many meſſages (though in vayne) ſent by the King to the proteſtant Princes, the warre beganne againe. For the Prince of Condy roſe vp in armes, and ſwore not to leaue them, vnder whoſe proteſtation this ſentence was placed: Deo & victricibus armis.

This lamentable ſubiect of Proteſtant Subiects ryſing againſt their Catholicke Princes, hath buſied my tongue very long: Therefore I paſſe ouer, how in Baſil, (a cheife Citty in Heluetia) a great diſſention did ryſe betweene the Burg ſſes & certaine of the Senatours, for cauſe of Religion only (as Criſpinus Of the ſtate of the Church p. 509. relateth.) And how the Burgeſſes hauing taken armes, forced the others to agree, to what they demanded; and thereupon they did caſt downe Images; and how twelue Senatours fauoring our Catholicke Religion, were caſt out of the Senate; and how the Maſſe was firſt by theſe meanes abandoned, throughout all that S gnory.

Alſo, I pretermit the dolefull paſſages of this nature, practized in Swe eland, of which Country Cythreus (a Proteſtant) thus relateth: Cythreus in Chronico anno 1593 & 1594. p. 75. & 71. Sigiſmond being King of Sweueland by hereditary ſucceſſion, was conſtrayned to giue his aſſent, that none ſhould beare office in that Kingdome, but ſuch only (meaning Proteſtants) as retayned the Confeſſion of Auguſta. He further ſaith thus. They forced the King to content himſelfe with exerciſe of his (Catholicke) Religion in his owne Chappell. A truth ſo well knowne & confeſſed, that Oſiander thus ſpeaketh of it in generall tearmes: The Proteſtants Oſiander cent. 16. p. 1115. of Sweueland did decree, that the exerciſe of Popiſh Religion, ſhould be baniſhed out of all parts of that Kingdome &c.

Finally, I paſſe ouer with a gentill uche, what the Kingdome of Palonia, hath ſuffered in this kynd; of which poynt the foreſaide Proteſtant Oſiander thus writeth: Certaine Cent. 16 p. 115. of Polonia did (out of an vntymely zeale) expell their Prieſts, with great violence and ſedition: without expecting permiſſion (as the ſaid Authour Cent. 16. p. 653. confeſſeth) of the Kinge

Thus far (moſt worthy Iudge) I haue proceeded (contrary to the byas of myne owne naturall diſpoſition) in relation of theſe lamentable I lyads, as I may tearme them but I am to be pardoned; ſince the vpbrading importunity of M. Vice-Chancelour, did compell me thearto: from which former Examples we may gather, that for diuers yeres paſt, moſt Nations of Chriſtendome haue become the ſable and mournfulle Theaters or ſtages, whereupon ſo many blouddy Tragedyes haue bene acted; or rather the very ſhambles, whearein haue bene ſhaughtered ſo many thouſand Chriſtians; and all this warranted, vnder the pretext of introducing the Proteſtant fayth and Religion. And for the more iuſtifying of theeſe ſo wicked perpetrations, we find diuers moſt eminent Proteſtants euen with greate laudes and applauſes to celebrate theſe their attempts. To forbeare the Encomion aboue recited, giuen by Beza to the Proteſtant Nobility of Fran e, who were ſlayne at the batayle of Dreuz; do we not find, when euen an inundation of bloud (ſhed through the inſurrection and Rebellion of Proteſtants) had ouerflowed moſt parts of Germany, that Luther thus honoreth in words the ſame? Vide or Luther. loc. com. claſſ 4. c. 30. fol. 55. mihi videre Germaniam in ſanguine natare &c. Chriſtus meus viuit & regnat; ego vino & regnabo. It ſermes, that Germany euen ſwims with bloud: But Chriſt liueth and reigneth; and I will lyue and reigne. As alſo he thus further triumphet heareof: Thou complaineſt, Luther. loc. com. claſſ 5. p. 57. that by the Goſpell the world is become tumultuous; I a ſweare, God he thanked: Theſe things I would haue to bee; and woe me miſerable Man, if ſuch things were not. In lyke ſort doth not Caluin magnify the former ſeditions attempts of knox in this maner? Knox Galuin in epiſt. d Knox epiſt. 305. pag. 566. valiantly beſtoweth his labour vpon Chriſt and his Church. O poore weake blaſt of wynd (ſince iniuſt praiſe is no better) thus idly ſpent in commending that, which deſerueth all diſcommendation and reproach: for I much feare, that theſe Men, thus extolled for ſuch their rebellions combuſtions and aſſacinacyes, are intereſted in that ſentence of Sainct Auſtin: La 〈…〉 vbi non ſunt; torquentur vbi ſunt.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Michaeas. You haue heare entred into a wyde and wyld excurſion of Diſcourſes. But I hould them not altogether pertinenm: ſince all your former Inſtances were vndertaken, for depreſſion of ſuperſtition and aduancement of the Goſpell of Chriſt. The weight whereof is to ouerballance all humane reſpects. And how far a Man may proceede hearein, I will not determyne: Only I hope, I may without offence ſay, that in matters ſo me rely touching the endangering of our Goſpell, and for the better beating downe of Antichriſt, it is a kynd of Paſſion to be inſenſible and voyde of Paſſion. But you ſhould (Michaeas) haue brought ſome examples of Proteſtants diſloyalty, and want of duty againſt their Proteſtant Prince, if ſo you had thought to haue wounded our cauſe indeed: But ſince you haue not, nor cannot inſiſt in any ſuch, your former Inſtances wee repute (ſuppoſing them to be true) for leſſe materiall and conuincing.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour. If it did comport with my preſent afflicted ſtate, or with my due reuerence to this Seate of Iuſtice I could well ſmyle to ſee, how you ſtill giue ground more and more, in euery of your anſweares, againſt our former authorities and examples, for whereas the mayne Queſtion heare is, Whether the Proteſtant Religion doth teach any diſloyalty to the Prince, of what Chriſtian Religion ſo euer he be? And whether the Profeſſours of Proteſtancy do truly ſtand chargeable, with ſuch their Diſloyalty for matter of Religion? you now haue heare vſed diuers inflexions and turnings to wynd your ſelfe out of this Labyrinth. For firſt, when Luther and Swinglins were produced out of their owne wrytings to that end; You anſweare, that indeede they were iuſtly charged thearewith; but neuertheles the tymes after them, being more refined and purged from all errours, were moſt free from all ſuch imputations. When to impugne this reply, I did vrge, that Caluin, Beza, Knox, Bucanan and diuers others of theſe dayes, did in their book & wrytings moſt confidently defend the ſame doctrine of Rebellion and diſloyalty for defence of Religion: Your next ſleight was (croſſing your former anſweared) to ſay, that though theeſe later Men did teach the ſayd doctryne; Yet ſeing this was but only the ſpeculation of ſome Proteſtant Schollars; but neuer put in practize by any of them, or their followers; that therefore their errour was herein the leſſe dangerous and more pardonable. When to confront this your ſilly euaſion, ſome of the ſaid particuler Proteſtant wryters, and many thouſands of other Proteſtants are vrged (by their open rebellions and inſurrections) actually to haue practized the ſaid ſpeculatiue doctryne of diſloyalty: You then laſtly replyed, that all this was vndertaken by them, for the defence of the Ghoſpell, and depreſſing of ſuperſtition and Idolatry: Which you ſay, may perhaps deſearue hearein a myld cenſure. And further, you affirme, that you hould the Proteſtants leſſe chargeable with any iuſt fault hearein, becauſe they are euer loyall to their Proteſtant Princes, for any attempts touching religion; though not euer loyall to their Princes of a different religion from them. But how rouing and wandring are all theſe Replyes from the Queſtion heare ventilated? Which was, Whether Proteſtants did teach or put in practize Rebellion and inſurrection againſt their lawfull Princes, of what Chriſtian Religion ſoeuer they were?

But M. Vice-Chancelour. I do heare pardon you. For either you muſt haue openly confeſſed in the firſt entrance of this paſſage, that the Proteſtants do ſtand obnoxious, for teaching and practizing of diſloyalty, &c. Againſt their true Kings and ſoueraigns (which, perhaps, you were loath to doe) Or otherwyſe, as being depriued of all better. Yf any learned Proteſtant, thinke, I do wrong his party, by feigningly impoſing theſe euaſions vpon the Vice-Chancelour; then let that Man ſet downe ſuch his other owne replyes, as he may thinke more ſatisfying to all the former obiected authorityes and examples, and he ſhalbe anſweared. For I cannot preſage, what heare could by ſayd by any Proteſtāt, but either to vſe theſe ſleights, or otherwyſe plainly at the firſt acknowledge the Proteſtants doctrine hearein. Anſweares, you muſt haue bene forced (thereby to wine a little tyme) to haue vſed your former declynings and ſubterfugious tergiaerſations. But belyke you did at the firſt call to mind, that the leaſt degree of weaknes in a Cauſe, wheare nothing but weaknes is, is to be reputed, as a kynd of ſtrenght; and that little ſconces are fore the preſent good fortreſſes; when Caſtells, Rompyers, and ſuch other ſtrong forts are Wanting.

But M. Vice-Ch. To trace you in the ſteps of your laſt refuge. I do heare auonch, that Proteſtants euen to their Proteſtāt Princes, only for matter of Religion (contrary to this your laſt aſſertion) haue manifeſted great diſloyalty: Thus is your Goſpel ſet againſt your Goſpell; I will not ſay with Eſay, Eſay. 19. the Aegiptians againſt the Aegiptians. And here I paſſe ouer (for greater breuity) the examples of this Kynd, acted in Scotland See hereof D. Succlif in his anſwere to a certaine libell ſupplicatory pag. 80. & H •• inſhed in the hiſtory of Scotland the laſt edition p. 433. and Germany, Oſia der epitō. cent. 16 p. 735. euen by Proteſtants againſt their Proteſtant Princes; and will a whyle reſt in the ouertures and intendments at leaſt, heare in England. And according heareto we fynd D. Bancroft thus to wryte of the proceeding of the Puritās, againſt their Proteſtant Biſhops: The In his dangerous poſitions. pag. 74. Puritans meete and co ferre concerning the proceedings of the Miniſters, without aſſiſtance or ſtaying for the Magiſtrate. And further, talking of Penry and other Puritans, he thus accuſeth them: They D. Bancroft vbi ſupra. pag. 137. would make men to beleiue, that they had for the tymes, and within their limits, an abſolute authority, as if themſelfs were Princes. In lyke ſort, this Doctour reciteth Martin Sein r, making mention of a hundred vbi ſupra. thouſand hands; and what a ſtroake ſo many would ſtryke together; and that (Martin affirming) their ſuyte ſhould not be reiected; eſpecially in ſuch a tyme, whearein we now lyue in danger of our enemyes abroad, and therefore had need of no cauſes of diſcoradgment at home. Thus D. Bancroft cyteth the words of Martin Marprelet; and then he giueth his ſentence & iudgment of this their Menage, and tearmeth it thus: A ſpeech, at leaſt ſeditions.

This Doctour alſo further diſcoureth the threats of the Puritans againſt the Magiſtrate, and he alledgeth one of their comminations thus in their owne words: We haue D. Bancroft vbi ſupra pag. 140. ſought to aduance this cauſe of God by humble ſuyte to the Parlament, by wryting &c. ſeing none of theſe meanes vſed by vs haue preuayled, if it come by that meanes, which will make all your harts to ake; blame yourſelfs. Finally not to ſtay long hearein D. Succlif thus ſpeaketh of Martin Marprelate: Martin wiſheth, that the Parlament (d) In his anſwere to a certaine libell ſupplicato. pag. 76. would bring in the Elderſhip (notwithſtanding her Maieſtyes reſiſting of it) vz by a rebellion. They bragged of a hundred thouſand hands, and in playne •• armes, talked of Maſſacring their Aduerſaries. Thus D. Succlif, with whome I will heare end.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Though I cannot deny (Michaeas) the former attempts of the Proteſtants; Yet ſince not only the Papiſts Doctrine, but alſo the mainfold traiterous deſigments and reall practizes of them againſt their Proteſtant Prin es, are no leſſe tragicall, then the former related by you are; I do not ſee, but that granting the Proteſtants to be faulty in defect of Loyalty, you Papiſts may in a far more high degree be iuſtly inſimulated within the ſaid Cryme. Good God, your treaſons and machinations haue bene ſo apparent and ſo approued, by the conſent almoſt of all other Papiſts; as that I may truly pronounce, that in the whole thronge of Papiſts, a true and Loyal Papiſt towards his Proteſtant Soueraigne (ſo rare ſuch an one is) is lyke a Diamond, placed among many whyte Saphyrs: So iuſt reaſon had the learned D. Morton to ſay of your Profeſſion: We may D. Mort in his Romiſh poſition pag. 51. now expect as well a white Ethiopian, as a loyall Subiect of this Religion.

MICHAEAS.

Alas. M. Vice-Chancelour. Theſe are but verball exagerations without prouffe: which as they are but wynde of ſp enfull tongues, ſo are they blowne away with the Wynd. Be it, that ſome Catholicke Doctours in certaine peculiar Caſes, do aſcrybe a powrfull authority to the Pope againſt Princes; And grant alſo, that ſome few Catholicks haue proued to be (to the ineffable greife and diſlyke of all other good and ſober Catholicks) Diſloyall to their Prince: Yet ſince the difference both of their doctrines, and circumſtances of their attempts, are incomparably ſhort and inferiour, to the doctrynes and reall inſurrections of the Proteſtants, againſt their Soueraignes; You haue no reaſon (M. Vice Chancelour) thus to inſult, in galantry of ſuch amplifying ſpeeches againſt vs. Therefore I will paralell them heare together; that ſo you ſeeing the greate diſparty, may ecall (for ſhame) thoſe your ſpeeches; and ſuffer your cheekes to witnes your former errour.

And firſt touching the doctrine. The Proteſtants (I meane, thoſe former alledged Proteſtants) do extend this power of depoſing Princes to euery pore parochial ſuperintendent; who is Pope, (or ſo would be) within his owne circuit; yea for want of ſuch a turbulent fellow (if at any tyme, theare can be a want of theſe) they giue this liberty (as aboue I haue ſhowed) to the baſe Common people, and promiſcuous multitude; the many headed tyrants of all humane ſocietyes: The Catholicke deuynes, who moſt defend ſuch tranſcendency of proceedings, do neuertheles aſcrybe the doing of it to the Pope only; who is a ſtranger, and therefore further of from any ſuch ſudden & preſent attempting; and who himſelfe in caſe of Hereſy (as a priuate perſon) lyeth open to the ſame perill. This alſo they teach muſt be done, by many former ſweete admonitions and proceedings. To proceede to the attempts on both ſides. The Proteſtants haue actually depoſed ſeuerall Kings, Queenes, and abſolute ſoueraigns: Thus is the King of Spayne depoſed, of a greater part of the Lowcontryes; the King of France, of certaine Cittyes in France; The ſupreme Lord of Geneua, of his Territory belonging to that Cittie; The Emperour, of many Imperiall Cittyes in Germany; King Sigiſmond, of his Kingdome of Sweueland and Finally his Maieſties Grandmother and Greatgrandmother, of the Kingdome of Scotland: The Pope and the Catholicks haue neuer yet to this day, actually detroned any one abſolute Proteſtant Prince or King, throughout all Chriſtendome, of their Sates and Territoryes. The greateſt matter of this nature, that can be alledged, is the excommunications of King Henry the eight of England, Queene Elizabeth his daughter, and King Henry of France the fourth. The Proteſtants haue come into the fyeld againſt their Catholicke Princes, in many huge Armyes and hundred thouſans of men; as appeareth by the warrs made by them in the Low Countryes, France, & Germany: which warrs haue continued for many yeres: The Catholicks neuer yet leuyed any ſuch Armyes againſt their proteſtant Prince. Laſtly the Proteſtants haue not only depoſed their Princes of ſeuerall ſtates and Countryes; but they haue really impatronized themſelues of the ſayd ſtates, and keept them in their owne poſſeſſion; as is ouer manifeſtly euident by the examples of Rochel in France, Geneua, Holland, Zeland, ſeuerall parts of Germany, Sweueland, Tranſiluania &c. The Catholicks to this very day haue not made themſelues Lords of any one towne or Citty (much leſſe of any ſtate or Kingdome) which haue belonged to their proteſtant Princes. And thus farre touching the libration and weighing in an euen hand, the doctrine and attempts taught and made by Proteſtāts & Catholicks in point of diſloyalty, againſt their lawfull dread ſoueraigns of a different Religion.

And now (M. Vice-Chancelour) after the true vnfoulding of theſe matters (which afore were lapped vp in a great miſtaking) I demaund of you, where are your former Termini Conuertibilis of Papiſtry & Diſloyalty? Your ſimilitude of one Diamond, among many worthles Saphyrs? And D. Mortons ſtrange beaſt? As if all Papiſts (and o Proteſtants) were guilty of Treaſon and Rebellion, againſt their lawfull Princes: ſo fowly, you ſee, your ſelfe was miſtaken therein; and ſo wildly did your Blackmouthed Doctour aue of a whyte Ethiopian.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Michaeas. I am tyred with learning thus much of this diſtaſtfull Theame; and I am vnwilling, you ſhould ſpinne out this diſcours to any further lenght: Therefore you may heere end. And truly I would ſcarſe haue beleiued till now, my owne eyes (much leſſe, my eares) that the Proteſtants wrytings and actions had ſtood ſo iuſtly ſubiect to this kind of Reprehenſion. But I muſt yield (though with greife) to ſuch euident teſtimonyes, as you haue produced; and the rather, ſeeing you (M. Vice-Chancelour) ſuffer them to paſſe without eyther gainſaying the teſtimonyes alledged, or denying the Examples inſiſted vpon.

But [Michaeas] notwithſtanding the truth of all, what you here haue ſayd; Neuertheleſſe you haue proceeded very partially in your diſcourſe; ſeeming to inuolue all Proteſtants within the greiuous offence of diſloyalty, becauſe ſome of them do deſeruedly ſtand obnorious thereto: And you deale as iniuſtly herein, as if one ſhould charge all mankind with drunkennes, becauſe many men do ſinne therein. But I feare, you repute no men loyall, but thoſe of your owne religion.

MICHAEAS.

My honourable Lord. be ſuch & ouerſight far diſtant from my thoughts; and God forbid, my charitable conceats ſhould be enriched within ſo narrow a compaſſe, as Your Lordſhip ſeemes to coniecture. No. I do willingly acknowledge, that many Proteſtant Doctours haue in their wrytings learnedly defended the right and royalty of abſolute Princes, againſt their ſubiects of a contrary religion. I alſo do as fully acknowledge, that theare are many thouſand Proteſtants in the world, who (no dowbt) would ſpend their lyues and liuings in defence of their Souerain of a different fayth, whos loue, zeale, and loyalty is caried with a moſt forcible bent to their Princes ſafety and honour. What is aboue deliuered by me, is euen forcedly drawne out of me, by way of recrimination; ſince M. Vice-Chancelour would neuer ceaſe to weary your Lordſhip & idly beate the wynd, in obiecting Diſloyalty to me and my Religion Therefore my good Lord, do not thinke, I do extend my former diſcours to Proteſtants in generall; or particularly to the Proteſtants of England in theſe dayes, whoſe laudable & confeſſed Loyalty farre be it frō me in any ſort to impugne but rather my pene ſhall be ready vpon iuſt occaſion, to celebrate ſuch their due praiſes thearein. But to be ſhort, your Lordſhid may obſerue, that what is aboue ſpoken, is ſpoken not by me, but by the Proteſtants themſelfs; and acknowledged, as ſo ſpoken (and therefore condemned) by other learned Proteſtants. What diſlyke then I may incure heareby, the ſame doth neceſſarily attend vpon D. Bancroft, D. Bilſon, D 〈…〉 u cliffe and other moderate proteſtants, condemning the foreſaid proteſtants of diſloyalty. I am but the poore Relater of their words, and can be reputed no more faulty hearein, then is the Herauld, for openly proclayming the rebellion of a ſubiect againſt his prince; or the Printer, for printing a hiſtory, contayning the manifeſt confeſſed vices of ſome particuler Men.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Well, well, Michaeas. All what you haue ſaid (to which for this tyme, I will forbeare further to reply) is not ſufficient, to waſh out the ſtaynes of thoſe other cryms, which you haue perpetrated in our vniuerſity. You are come hither to make a rekoning for them, and not for to rauell out the tyme, in long and tedious perorations. I ſay, that beſydes your diſloyall poſitions, which you haue diſtilled into our Schollars iudgments (which are ouer manifeſt, howſoeuer you do palliate them with impudent denyalls, and ſubtill recriminations) you haue enuenomed ſome of them, with many ſuperſtitious and Popiſh doctrines. And not content to effect the ſame in words and ſpeeches only, you haue not forborne (ſo precipitious and impetuous you are in your deſigns) euen to wryte certaine ſhort Treatiſes of the ſaid Popiſh Opinions; geuing them to your Proſelytes that ſo the poyſon of theeſe your doctrines thus ſpreading it ſelfe, and multiplyed through theſe your aery wrytyngs (as through a well diſpoſed Medium) may the more ſpeedely affect the ſenſe and vnderſtanding of the more weake ſtudents. Now My Lord, if ſuch a Man, who hath thus diſcolered the beauty and reputation of our (otherwiſe) moſt famous Vniuerſity, ſhall eſcape vnpuniſhed; then inſteed of due vnpuniſhments, let vs erect Tropheys and garlands of Honour to Men, for their attempted impietyes. And that your Lordſhip ſhall not fynde this my Accuſation to be only verball; but that you may reſt aſſured, that this Man Act. 18 Theſe words the Iewes ſpoke againſt S. Paul at his Arraignment. perſwadeth Men to worſhip God, contrary to the Law; I haue heare brought vnto your L. a Copye of Michaeas his owne hand writing of euery ſuch Papiſtical doctrine, by hym vented out. Heare the wrytings are, which I deliuer at this preſent into your L. hands to peruſe at your pleaſure. The which, after your L. haue red, you ſhall find them to be, but certaine ro ing Paperbulletts, ſhot by Michaeas, againſt the walls of our floriſhing Vniuerſity; Which (for the tyme) may perhaps make ſome ſmall crack and noyſe, but cannot batter: ſo fortified and firmely ſeated our Academy is, through the ſtrenght of the Ghoſpell.

CERTAINE SHORT DSICOVRSES TOVCHING SOME POINTS OF CATHOLICKE RELIGION, WRITTEN BY MICHAEAS THE CONVERTED IEW AND FIRST.
That the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments are not the true Notes of Chriſts Church; And that admitting them for ſuch, they make wholy againſt the Proteſtants, and for the Catholicks.

THIS Queſtion will take it beſt illuſtration and vnfoulding, if it be conſidered; firſt, Categorically and abſolutly in it ſelfe; To wit, whether the Adminiſtration of the Word & Sacraments can be reputed to vs, for Notes of the Church? Secondly, Hypothetically, that is, that if by ſuppoſall it be granted for the tyme, that they are the true Notes of the Church; Whether the ſaid Notes do preiudice the Proteſtant Church, and aduantage our Catholicke Church, or no?

Both theeſe poynts ſhall heare be diſcuſſed. And firſt of the firſt. Wheare the Reader is in the beginning to vnderſtand, that the true Reaſon, why Inſ it. c. 1. par 〈…〉 . 10. 〈…〉 ela 〈◊◊〉 di 〈…〉 verb p 〈…〉 dic 〈…〉 S 〈…〉 nto 〈…〉 que obj 〈…〉 onem poſuimus. Caluin, the Confeſſion of Art. 7 Auguſta, In his 〈◊〉 of the anſwere p 81. D. W 〈…〉 guift, Contra Camp. rat. 〈◊〉 . D. Whitakers, and all other Pro 〈…〉 in generall do preſcribe theeſe as Notes of the Church is for two reſpects: firſt, that by this meanes themſelves may be Vmpiers, where and which is the true Church; ſeing they alone through their miſapplication of the Scripture, and priuiledge that they aſcribe to their owne Spirits, interpreting the Scripture, will with a Lordly peremptorines decree and ſet downe, Where and when the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly adminiſtred (they reiecting all other Mens interpretation heerein) and conſequently, where and which is the true Church. The ſecond reaſon of the Proteſtants conſtituting theeſe as Notes, is, Becauſe on the one ſide they ſee, that the Church of Chriſt by force of all Reaſon and prudence, is to enioye ſome Notes, for it diſtinguiſhing from all prophane Conuenticles: And on the other ſide they well diſcouer, that the Notes of the Church aſſigned by Catholicke Wryters (to wit, Antiquity, Suc eſſion of Paſteurs, an ni terrup •• d Viſibility, Working of M 〈…〉 s, Holin s of Life and doctrine, Vaity, and diuers others of like nature) are by all Eccleſiaſticall Authours, reaſon, and experience, and by the Proteſtants confeſſions, peculiar to our Catholicke Church; and incomparible with their proteſtant Church. Therfore in this their want of be te Notes (ſeing euen for very ſhame, ſome Notes their Church muſt haue) they haue thought it good policy, to erect the preaching of the Word and vſe of the Sacraments, as Notes: And thus they, reiecting all former Catholicke Notes, do reduce (as aboue is ſaid) the determining of which is the true Church, to the inappealable and laſt Reſort of their owne priuate opinions; paſſed vpon the true preaching of the Word and the due adminiſtration of the Sacraments.

But now to come to the Queſtion it ſelfe, touching theſe Proteſtant Notes; Where the eader (for the more cleare ſetting downe of the ſtate of the Queſtion, and his owne better inſtruction) is to conceaue; firſt, that theſe Proteſtant Notes (ſuppoſing them to be Notes of the Church) prooue only the place, where the Church is; but not, which is the Church; Which here is only the Queſtion. Secondly, the Reader is to call to mind, that whereas a Note may be of two ſorts: The one in reſpect of Nature; the other in reſpect of vs, according to the doctrine of the learned Proteſtants themſelues, thus teaching: Nottus eſt duplex; Lub ertus (the Proteſtāt) l. 4. de Eccleſ. cap. 〈◊〉 Vnum Naturae, vlterum nobis: that here the Queſtion is only of ſuch Notes, as are Notes in reſpect of vs, for our better informing, which is the true Church (ſince here we are inſtructed à poſtartori, and according to the meaſure of that knowledg, which God vouchſafes to affoard to vs.) And not as they are Notes in reſpect of Nature; Which Notes in regard of Nature, are euer 〈…〉 ſicall ſecret, and often eſſentiall to the thing, of which they are Notes. Now in reference hereto, we free y grant, that the true preaching of the Word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments may be tearmed Notes of the Church; but not Notes to vs, which is the only point now iſluable: for though they be Notes in Nature, of the true Church: yet what anayleth it vs: ſince they are not Notes to vs for our direction, to find which is the true Church?

And here we are to remember, that the Queſtion is not, what kind of Notes, or what kind of knowledge is better (for it is granted, that ſcire per Cauſas, is moſt perfect and noble) but the Queſtion is, what kind of knowledge God is content to imparte to vs, in this life, for the attayning of the Myſteryes of our f •• th, and particularly for the knowing & ſearching out, which is his Church.

Now that the true preaching of the Word, and vſe of the Sacraments cannot be erected as notes of Chriſts Church (I euer meane in reſpect of vs) is ſeuerall wayes demonſtrated.

And firſt, this I prooue from the Nature of a Note; which is euer to be of a greater perſpicuity and clearnes, and better knowne to vs, then the thing is, of which it is a Note. Since otherwiſe it ſhould follow (an inference both in reaſon and Art moſt abſurd) that, that which is vnknowne, ſhould be prooued by an other thing, which is leſſe knowne an more obſcure.

That the true preaching of the Word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments (which is but a neceſſary 〈◊〉 to the true preaching of the Scripture) are more obſcure and vnknowne to vs, then is the Church; I prooue firſt, from the Scripture; which teacheth, that true ſayth (which is the effect of true preaching the Word) proceedeth only from the Miniſtery of the Church, according to that: how Rom. 10 ſhall they beleiue, whom they haue not heard? and ho 〈…〉 ſh a they heare, without a Preacher? Thus Gods ſacred Word (we ſee) doth preſuppoſe, that the Miniſter, who is the member of the Church, (and conſequently it followeth hereby, that the Church muſt be afore knowne) doth reueale vnto vs the true ſenſe of the Scripture. And therefore Caluin thus well ſayth of this point: Deus Inſtit. l. 4. c. 1. para 〈◊〉 . 5. poteſt memo 〈…〉 ſues perficere: nolit tamen eos adol ſcere in 〈…〉 ilem tatem, niſi educatione Eccleſiae: God can pe fect and inſtruct vs in a moment (meaning touching fayth) yet he will not bring vs to any manlike (as it were) and perfect ſtrength therein, but by the help and lab ur of the Church. And hence it is, that in all Controuerſyes touching fayth, we are alwayes for the determining of them, bot in the iudgments of the auncient Tertul. l. de Pra •• pt c 21 irenaeu l. 3. cap. 4. Fathers and learned Proteſtants D. Barow l. de fide & 〈◊〉 ortu p 40. Melanct •• l 〈◊〉 epiſt. ad Re •• cm An 〈…〉 , p 49. Hocker in Eccle 〈…〉 pol in the pr face ſect. 6. pag. 28. D. Bancroft in his Sermon preached 8. of February anno. 1588. referred to the Church; Among whom I cannot here pretermit the ſentence of D. Field, thus wryting: Seeing D. F eld of the Church in his Epiſtle Dedicatory. t e Controuerſies in our tyme are growne in number ſo many, and in nature ſo intricate &c. What remayneth for me , d ſirous of ſatiſfaction in things of ſuch conſequence but delige tly to ſearch out, which among all the ſocietyes of Men in the World, is that bleſſed Company of Holy Ones, that houſe-hould of fayth, that ſpouſe of Chriſt, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that ſo they m 〈…〉 follow her directions, and re i in her 〈◊〉 ? Thus we are inſtructed by this learned Proteſtant, to know which is the true fayth in all Controuerſyes and ſincere 〈◊◊〉 the Word, from the Church; and not to know, which is the Church, from the ſincere preaching of the Word.

Secondly, that the true prea 〈…〉 of the Word and the vſe of the Sacrements re more ob 〈…〉 and difficult to vs to be knowne, then to know 〈◊〉 is the true Church; appeareth from the volunt •• y acknowledgments of our moſt iudicious Aduerſaries: For greater 〈◊〉 hearei , I will inſiſt only in o e or two. And to omit the anſwearable iudgment hearto of D. Fyeld, potentially included in his 〈…〉 met words; We do fynd Iuſtus Molitor (a learned Proteſtant, and Aduerſary in his 〈…〉 gs to Cardinal Be l rmy e) thus to confes: Nobis De militante Eccieſ. p. 34. Quo ad iud 〈…〉 s o f ſ al qua notitià, prius vera Eccleſ 〈…〉 , quam 〈◊〉 praedicatio 〈…〉 o eſcit &c. The true Church by a cert 〈…〉 co 〈…〉 , 〈◊〉 ſo 〈…〉 k o ne to vs, according to the iudgment of re ſon, then the preaching of the true word is knowne. With whom c 〈…〉 pireth in expr s Words the foreſaid mentioned 〈…〉 teſtart Lubbertus, thus wryting: Sacramenta Lib. de Eccleſ. printed 1607 p. 226. in v 〈…〉 nt nobis m 〈…〉 , quam pſa Eccleſia: The true vſe of the 〈…〉 ments i leſſe knowne o vs, 〈◊〉 the Church. And 〈◊〉 geueth his eaſon hereof in theſe Words: Nobis notio a ſu 〈…〉 externa ſigna per quae rem qu •• do que cogn 〈…〉 ; The external ſignes are more man 〈…〉 ſt 〈◊〉 , v , by which we know a thi g 〈◊〉 heareby imp ying, that the true adminiſtration of the word & Sacraments is internal and inward in reſpect of the true externall Notes of the Church. For although eich preaching of the Word and vſe of Sacraments be externall and ſub ect to the outward Senſe; yet which is the true preaching of the word, and true adminiſtration of the Sacraments (for as they are purely preached, and ſincerely adminiſtred, ſo (and no otherwiſe) are they appoynted by the Proteſtants for the Marks of the Church) is internal; ſince truth in doctryne is internal and inuiſible. We may ad hearto, that in the note of true preaching the word, the beliuing & receauing it ſo preached & this with perſeuerance) is included by our Aduerſaries doctrine, as a part of the ſame Note. But how can it be known, whether the Word (though truly preached) be truly heard and beleiued with a final perſeuerance? So far diſtant is this pretended Note, from being (for our direction) a true Note of the Church.

An other Argument for the impugning of the Proteſtants former Notes may be this. The Scripture it ſelfe cannot be made knowne to vs to be Scripture, but by the atteſtation of the Church: for as for that ſentence, which teacheth, that the Maieſty and voyce of God, which appeareth in the Scripture, or the Priuate Spirit iudging of it, aſſ eth vs, which is true Scripture, it is an exploded Errour; Seing one Man is perſuaded, he fyndeth in thoſe books, which himſelfe admitteth for ſcripture, that Maieſty and voyce of God: the which very books, for want of the ſaid ſuppoſed voyce or Maieſty, an other Man vtterly reiecteth, as Apocryphil. And in lyke ſort, the priuat Spirit of this Man embraceth ſuch books, as Canonical: the which bookes the Priuat Spirit of an other abſolutely diſcanoneth.

Now this being granted, it from hence ineuitably reſulteth, that firſt we muſt know, which is the true Church, to giue this approbation of the Scripture, before we can know, which is the Scripture; and much more then, before we can be aſſured, which is the true preaching of the word and ſincere conſtruction or Senſe of the Scripture. Now that our knowing which is Scripture, proceedeth from the authoritie of the Church, I firſt proue, not only from S. Auſtin, who ſaith: (n) Actibus Apoſtolorum neceſſe eſt me credere, ſi c edo Euangelio; ( 〈◊〉 ) Tom. 6. contra epiſt. fundamenti c. 5 quoniam vtram que Scripturam ſimiliter mihi Catholiea commendat Eccleſia: But alſo from the acknowledgement of our learned Aduerſaries; whoſe words in their wrytings to this purpoſe are moſt plentifull. I will content myſelfe (referring the Reader to the references of others Kempnit. exam. part. 1. p. 69. Zāchius de Sacra Scriptura p. 61. D. Whita aduerſ. S apelto. num p. 00. D. ewd in 〈◊〉 defēce of the Apology. p. 201. at this tyme with Peeter Martyr, and M. Hooker. Peter Martyr, thus wryteth: We In his Common places engliſhed part. l. c. 6. acknow ledge it to be the function of the Church (ſeing it is endued with the Holy Ghoſt) that it ſhould diſcerne the true and proper books of Scripture. M. Hooker more fully 〈…〉 th heare of, ſaying In his Eccleſ. policy. ſect. 14. lib. 1. p. 86. Of thing neceſſary, the very cheifeſt is to know, what bookes we are to 〈◊〉 •• ly; Which poynt is confeſſed impoſſible, for the Scripture it ſelfe to teach &c. For Eccleſ. pol. l. 2. ſect. 4. p. 102. of any Booke of Scripture did geus teſtimony to ll; et ſti that Scripture, which geneth credit to the reſt, world require n other Scripture to g ue credit vnto it: Neither could we come to any pa ſe, whe reon to reſt vnles beſids Scripture, theare were ſomething, which might aſſurs vs. Which thi g M. Hocke man other place articulatly earmeth: The vbi ſupra l. 3. p 146. authority of Gods Church, thus ſaying: We all know, the 〈◊〉 outward Motyue leading Men to eſteeme of the Scripture, is the authority of the Church. Now if by theſe learned Mens con eſſion, the Church hath authority to propownd to vs, which bookes preſented for Scripture, are true Scriptures and which are Apocry hall and ſpurious; then followeth it, that the Church hath in lyke ſort authority to propownd to vs, which is the true and pure ſenſe of the Scripture; ſince the one is as neceſſarye to vs, as the other; for it aduantageth vs litle to know, which are the vndoubted bookes of Scripture, if ſo we know not which is the true ſenſe of the Scripture.

Now out of the Premiſſes I demonſtratiuely conclude, that ſeing by the authority of the Church (and not otherwiſe) we are tought which ookes of Scripture are Canonicall, and conſequently which is the true ſenſe of the ſaid Scripture; that therefore the Church being f ſter in ode of knowledg to vs, then either the Scripture, or the true preaching of the word of Scripture; the true preaching of the word is not, nor can be apprehended to be a Note to vs, to find thearby which is the true Church. Since then it would follow (an abſurdity incompatible with all true diſcours of Reaſon) that a thing, which to vs is later knowne, ſhould be a Note to vs of that, which by vs is firſt knowne.

An other argument may be drawne from the Nature of euery true Note; which ought to be ſo peculiar to that, of which it is a Note, as that it cannot be applyed in the iudgment of others to it meare Contrary: But we ſee different ſectaryes teaching contrary doctrynes, and profeſſing themſelfs to be members of different Churches, do all neuertheles promiſcuouſly challenge the true preaching of the Words, and the vſe of the Sacrements to be the Notes of their ſo much diſcording Churches or Conuenticles. And therefore the afore named Lubbertus thus truly pronounceth of this poynt: Lubbertus, l. de Eccleſ. printed. 1607. l. 4. c 2. p. 202. Praedicatio, Sacramentorum communicatio, & ſimilia, Eccleſiae eſſentiam non attingunt; ſunt enim Haereticorum conuerticulis & veris Chriſtianorum Eccleſi s communia: The preaching of the word, the diſtribution of the Sacraments, and ſuch like, do not belong to the eſſence of the Church ſince theſe things are common both to the Conuenticles of Hereticks, and to the true Churches of Chriſtians. And according hearto we find by experience, that Lutherans, Proteſtants, and Puritās theaching moſt repugnante doctrines, do wartant theſe their doctrines, by the former Notes of preaching the Word. And therefore it from hence followeth, that it is no leſſe a madnes in our aduerſaries, to preſcrybe the preaching of the word and the vſe of the Sacraments, for the notes of the Church (which are common to all Hereticall Conuenticles at leaſt in their owne Opinion) then for one, who would diſcouer and note out one particular Man from all others, to diſtinguiſh him from them, by ſaying: It is he, who hath two eyes, one noſe, one mouth, two armes &c. Since theſe Notes or deſcription are common to all men in generall.

Againe, I thus diſpute. A true Note of any thing ought to be at all tymes (without diſcontinuance) a Note theareof, and not ſometymes only: ſince otherwiſe it is but a temporary Note. But theare hath bene a Church of God euen then, when there was no Scripture at all: much leſſe any preaching or interpretation of the Word Therefore the preaching of the word cannot be erected, as a true Note of the Church. The Aſſumption of this argument is manifeſt: For it is acknowledged, that the Church of God continued two thouſand yeres before Moyſes his tyme, without any Scripture: and therefore D. Parkins truly thus ſaith: Morſes In his reformed Catholick. p. 133. was the firſt pennman of Holy Scripture; With whom agree De Sacra Script. p. 133 Zanchius, D. Whitak. de ſacra Script. p. 99. & 583. Whitakers, and all other learned Men whoſoeuer. Againe after Moyſes had pened the Scripture, it remayned only in the cuſtody of the Iewes, and was among them for many yeres loſt; as it is granted euen by the marginall annotations of the Engliſh Bibles of the yere 1576. where it is ſaid: That Vpon the 2. of Kings. c. 22 and 2. Chron. 34. it was either by the negligence of the Prieſts loſt, or by the wickednes of idolatreus Kings. And yet euen in thoſe tymes Iob and diuers others were of the true Church of God: of which poynt peruſe S. De ciuit. Dei. l. 18 c. 47 Auſtin.

Furthermore Irenaeus Lib. 3. cap. 4. ſaith, that theare were diuers Coū tryes of Chriſtians, which beleiued only by preaching and by force of Tradition, without enioying any Scripture at all. And it is certaine, that after our Sauiours paſſion, theare was a diſtance of tyme, before any part of the New Teſtament was written. And after when it was penned, what partly by violence of perſecution, and partly through ſcarſity of Manuſcripts, the New Teſtament could but come to the hands of few, in reſpect of the whole number of Chriſtians then in being: which being true: how then could the Scripture or the preaching of the Word be a knowne Marke, to all other Chriſtians of thoſe dayes? Neyther auayleth it heere to reply, that whatſoeuer was then deliuered by Tradition, was agreeing and anſwerable to what was afore or after written by the Apoſtles & Euangeliſts. This ſatisfyeth not the point; ſeing admitting ſo much for true; yet what was then deliuered, was receaued by the hearers through the authority only of the Church, and not by Note or direction of the Scripture; which is the point here concrouerted. But to proceede further. I do aue re, that this Poſition of erecting the preaching the word for a Note, for the ignorant to fynd out the true Church, implyeth in it ſelfe an abſolute contradiction. The reaſon is this Firſt euery true Note of anything, muſt firſt be knowne it ſelfe to the party ſo ignorant and doubting: But it is impoſſible, that the true preaching of the Word ſhould be knowne to one, as long as he con nues ignorant or doub f ll; therefore it is impoſſible, that to ſuch a man the true preaching of the Word ſhould become a Note of the Church.

Secon ly, True ſayth is no ſooner knowne, but that withall the true Church is knowne; Therefore true preaching of the Word (from whence ſprings true ſayth) cannot be any Note of the Church: Since that thing, of which any Note is giuen, ought not to be coincident with the Note; but is to be knowne after the Note is knowne; and not immediatly at o •• and the ſame tyme with the Note; ſeing the end of the Note is after to know a thing, of which it is a Note.

My laſt argument here vſed ſhalbe taken from the conſideration of the obſcurity and difficulty in generall of the Proteſtant Note here giuen. For if the Scripture be in it ſelfe moſt ſublime, abſtruſe, and the ſenſe thereof impenetrable without Gods directing grace therein; how then can it be obtruded for a Note of the Church, not only to the learned, but to the illiterate and vnlearned? Now that the Scripture is moſt difficult, is a point acknowledged by all learned men, and prooued by ſenerall Media. Firſt becauſe the Scripture is authenticall only in the originalls, according to thoſe words of D. Whitakers: De Sacra Scriptura con ••• u rs. 1. q. 〈◊〉 . p. 128. Nullam nos editionem, niſi Hebraicam in vetere, & Graecam 〈◊〉 Nouo Teſtament authen •• cam facimus. This being admitted, how can the ignorant in the Hebrew and Greeke tongues, know which is true Scripture, or which is the true ſenſe of the Scripture? Yf it be replyed, that they are to know true Scripture from the Tranſlations of it, I ſay hereto that (beſydes no Tranſlation of Scripture s authenticall Scripture, both in the former Doctours iudgement, as alſo in the cenſure of D. n his b e fe anſwere to Iohn Burges pag. 94. Couell) ſeing there are many Tranſlations made of Scripture by the Proteſtants, and one mainly differing from an other, and accordingly eich ſuch tranſlation is charged as Hereticall and erroneous by other Proteſtants, the ignorant in the tongues cannot diſcerne which tranſlation among ſo many is the trueſt. And as touching the Engliſh Tranſlation in particular, it is thus condemned by the Proteſtants themſelues: In the abridgmēt of the b oke iuē by the Miniſter of Lincolne Dioceſſe to his deceaſed Maieſty. vide p. 11. 12. 13. &c. A Tranſlation; which taketh away from the text; which addeth to the Text; and that ſometymes to the changing or obſcuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt. And yet more: A Translation, which is abſurd, and ſenſeleſſe, peruerting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt. Now then if the ignorant, who can but reede, is thus ſtabled, how ſhall all they do, who cannot reede at all? And yet to all ſuch Men God (who 1. Tim. 2. would haue all men ſaued) hath left ſome meanes for their direction, to find out the true Church; which meanes muſt be ſutable to their capacity and in themſelues infallible; ſeeing otherwiſe they cannot produce true fayth, without which the vnlearned cannot be ſaued.

The like difficulty of the ſcripture appeareth, not only from the ſeeming contrary places of the ſcripture; one text in ſhew of words impugning an other; all which to reconcyle (though in themſelues they are reconcileable) there is no ſmall difficulty: But alſo euen from the many Comments of the ſcripture, made euen by the Proteſtants. For if the ſcripture be eaſy and facill, to what end do thēſelues beſtow ſuch labour and paynes in illuſtrating of it? And if it be of ſuch difficulty, as that it needeth Commentaryes for it further explanation, how then can the true ſenſe of it be proſtituted (eſpecially to the vnlearned) as a true Note of the Church?

Laſtly, the difficulty of the ſenſe of the ſcripture is ſo great, as that it ſelfe needeth other more cleere Notes (as I may call them) to make it ſelfe knowne; without which Notes it ſelfe reſteth moſt doubtfull And yet are theſe ſecond Notes in themſelues moſt vncertaine. The Notes for the finding out of the true senſe of the ſcripture, are in D. (g) Reynolds and D. (h) ( 〈◊〉 ) In his •• n e •••• p 83. 84. 92 98. &c. Whitakers iudgments, theſe following: Reading of the Scripture Conference of Places, we g ••• g the Circumſtances of the text, Skill in 〈…〉 gues Prayer &c. In the obſeruation of all which, a 〈…〉 Lib. de Sacra Script. p. 521 522. &c. Man ſtands neuertheleſſe ſubiect to errour and falſe conſtruction of the ſcripture, euen by the iudgment of D. Whitakers, thus ſaying: Lib. de E cl •• cō trouer . 2. quae •• t 4 pag. 221. Q •• l à ll medi ſu •• &c. Such as the meanes of i terpreting the obſcu e places of the ſcripture are, ſuch alſo is the interpretation but them 〈…〉 es of in ••• p e ing obſcure places are incerta, dubià, & ambigua, vncertaine, doubtfull and amb guous: Therefore it neceſſarily followeth, that the interpretation it ſelfe is vncertaine; ſi incerta, tunc poteſt eſſe f 〈…〉 ſa, and if it be vncertaine, then may it be falſe. Thus farre D. Whitakers.

Now I referre to any Mans impartial iudgment, how the true preaching of the Word (which euer preſuppoſeth the true ſenſe thereof) can be a certaine and infallible Note of the true Church; when itſelfe neceſſarily elyeth vpon meanes, as Notes of it; which meanes are in themſelues vncertaine; and at the moſt can affoard but a doubtfull, and perhapps a falſe conſtruction of the Scripture?

And here now I can but commiſſerate our aduerſaries: who ſeing themſelfs enui oned in theſe ſtrayts, touching the finding out of the true ſence of the Scripture, by Men vnlearned, vnskilfulle in the tongues, and perhaps not able to reade (and conſequently touching this their mayntayned Note of the Church) are •• nally and for their laſt refuge, enforced to compart hearein with the very An baptiſts; fleeing for the interpreting of the Scripture, to the teſtimony of Gods Spirit, and immediate inſtruction of the Holy Ghoſt. Sortably hearto we find, that the foreſaid D. Lib. de Sacra Script. cō trouer . 1. quaeſt. 2. p 127. Whitakers (to re er others M. Wutton in his anſwere to a pop •• bly Pamphlet. pag. 20. D. Barlow in the defence of the Articles of the Proteſtant Religion. pag. 199. to the Margent) thus wryteth: Omnes linguarum imperiti &c. Al thoſe who are ignorant in the tongues, though they cannot udge of places whether they be truly tranſlated or not; yet they appr •• e and allowe the doctrine, being inſtructed by the Holy Ghoſt. Thus he. O you Galat. 〈◊〉 ſenſles Galatians, who haue bewitched you? For may not any obler, Wibſtar, or other Mecanical fellow (as by experience we daily find they do) flee to this refuge for their interpreting of ſcripture; at ouching themſelfs in the interpretation thereof, to be peculiarly enlightned with the ſpirit and inſtruction of the Holy ho 〈…〉 ? Which being granted, what Hereſies ſo abſurd, which theſe ignorant fellowes will not attempt to mantayne? And thus far to proue, that the true preaching of the word and a due adminiſtration of the Sacraments) which reſulteth, as aboue is ſaid, by ſequele out of the former Note of true preaching) cannot be appoynted as Notes to vs, for our direction to finde out the true Church of Chriſt; within which we are bound (vnder payne of eternall damnation) to implant our ſelſes.

I will ſu uect to th Premiſſes this pertinent a imaduerſion following. It is this. When the Catholicks do demand the Proteſtants, to ſet downe certaine Notes of the true Church: And they anſwe ri g, that that Church is the true Church, which enjoyeth a true preaching of the Word, and a due and auayleable adminiſtration of the Sacraments. Now heare I auer, that this deſcription of Notes is but our owne queſtion, re ur ed vs back in other tearms; and conſequently but a Sophiſme, •• nſiſti g in an idle circulation of the ſame poynt, in eſted with a new forme of words. For when I demand, which is the true Church; I vertually, implicitly, and according to the immediate meaning of my Words, demaūd which Church is that, which enioyeth the true preaching of the Word and the true vſe of the Sacraments: ſince only the true Church is honored with this Kynd of preaching and diſtribution of Sacraments: The Proteſtants then anſwearing, that that is the true Church, whearein are fo d the true preaching of the Word and due adminiſtration of the Sacraments, do they not giue me back my owne Queſtion, varyed in other phrazes? being no other thing in ſenſe then to ſay: That Church, which enioyeth the true preaching of the word; & due vſe of the Sacraments, is that Church, which en •• yeth the true preaching of the Word and due vſe of the Sacraments: Moſt abſurde, being but: Demonſtratio eiuſdem per Idem, iuſtly exibilated out of all ſchooles.

Heare now I will end this firſt part of this Queſtion of the Proteſtants Notes of the Church; Admoniſhing the Reader of one thing: to wit, that whereas S. Auſtin Epiſt. 166. & l. de Vnit Ecclaeſ. c. 3. and other Doctours do ſay, that out of the Scriptures, we learne, which is the Church. This is ſo to be vnderſtood that we are able to proue from the ſcripture, wheare the Church is: but this, not as from a Note of the Church (which is the poynt only heare iſſuable) but only becauſe the ſcripture teacheth which are the Notes of the Church; in teaching of what nature and quality the Church ought to be.

In this next place, we will handle the foreſaid queſtion Hypotetically, and by ſuppoſall only; That is, we will imagin for the tyme, that the true preaching of the Word, and due adminiſtration of the Sacraments, are the Notes of the Church to vs. To this end we will call to mynd, what diuers learned Proteſtants do teach hearein: Caluin thus ſaith: Paſtoribus Inſtit. l. 4. c. 3. ſect. 4. & Doctoribus earere nunquam poteſt Eccleſia &c. The Church can neuer want Paſtours and Doctours, to preach the Word and adminiſtr r the Sacraments. Doctour Fyeld confirmeth the ſame in theſe words: The Of the Church l. 2. c. 6. miniſtery of Paſtours and teachers is abſolutly and eſſentially neceſſary, to the being of a Church. Briefly Doctour Whitakers affirme, That D. Whtak. contra Camp. rat. 3. p. 44. the ſaid Notes being preſent do conſtitute a Church, being abſent, do ſubuert it. Now all this being granted, I confidently auer, that the force thereof doth moſt dangerouſly recoyle vpon our Aduerſaries: ſince it irrephably proueth, that the Proteſtant Church hath bene (contrary to the Nature of the true Church) at ſeuerall tymes (or rather for ſeuerall ages together) wholy extinct and annihilated. Sine during many ages, it hath bene vterly voyde & depryued of Paſtours and Doctourr, to preache the Word and adminiſter the Sacraments.

That the Proteſtant Church hath during ſo many reuolutions of yeres abſolutely wanted all Paſtours and Doctours, to preach the word and diſpence the Sacraments, is euicted in generall from the confeſſed Inuiſibility of the Proteſtāt Church for many Ages; concerning which ſubiect, I refer the Reader to the peruſing of the Second part of the Conuerted ew, out of which, I will diſcerpe certaine Confeſſions of the learned Proteſtants. Firſt then Sebaſtianu Francus (a Proteſtant heretofore alledged) thus wryteth: For Epiſt. de abrouā dis in vniuerſum omnibus ſtatut. Eccleſiaſt. certayne through the worke of Antichriſt, the externall Church together with the fayth and Sacraments vaniſhed away preſently after the Apoſtles departu e; and for theſe thouſand foure hundred yeres, the Church hath bene no wheare externall and viſible. D. Parkins in lyke ſort thus confeſleth: We In his expoſition of the Creed p. 400. ſay, that before the dayes of Luther for many hundred yeres, an Vniuerſall Apoſtaſy ouerſpred the whole face of the earth; and that our Church was not then viſible to the World. In regard of which confeſſed latency of the Proteſtant Church, Caluin had iuſt reaſon (as preſuming his owne Brethrens preaching of the Word to be true) thus to ſay. Inſtit. 4 c. 1. ſect. 11. Factum eſt, vt aliquot ſecul spura Verbi praedicatio euenuerit &c. It was brought to paſſe, that the pure preaching of the Word of God did vaniſh away, for the ſpace of certaine ages. The perſpicuity of which poynt (I meane of the inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church in former ages) will more eaſely appeare, if we inſiſt for Example but in the ryme immediatly before Luthers Apoſtaſy; of what tyme it is thus confeſſed by D. Iewell; as taking his doctryne to be the truth: In the Apology of the Church of En land. part. 4. c. 4 p. 426. The Truth was vnknowne at that tyme, and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius firſt came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Ghoſpell. Thus we ſee, that the acknowledged Inuiſibility of the Proteſtant Church demonſtratiuely prooueth the want of the former Proteſtant Notes, (to wit, the preaching of the Word, and Adminiſtration of the Sacraments) during all the tyme of the ſaid granted in Viſibility; And that therefore the Proteſtants haue much endangered themſelfs, aſſigning the ſaid Notes, for the Notes of the true Church.

Now that the ſetting downe of the forſaid Notes do make for vs Catholicks is no leſſe cleare, then the former poynt, for ſeing it is granted, that Paſtours and Doctours muſt be in the Church, till the end of World, for the adminiſtration of the Word and Sacraments; as not only D. Fulke, and other learned Proteſtants do teach; but alſo is euidently proued in the fore-ſaid mentioned Second Part of the Conuerted Iew: And ſeing an vnterrupted preaching of the Word and adminiſtratian of the Sacraments hath euer (by the lyke Confeſſion of our learned Aduerſaries) bene in our Catholicke Church; Therefore it may inauoydably be concluded, that either our Catholicke Church (as euer enioying the former impoſed Notes) is the only true Church of Chriſt; Or (which is moſt abſurd in it ſelfe, and repugnant to infinit places of Holy Scripture) that there hath beene (for ſeuerall ages) no true Church of Chriſt at all, extant vpon the face of the Earth. That the Catholicke Roman Church enioyeth the preaching of the Word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments (beſides the euidency of the truth thereof other wiſe) is confeſſed by D. Field, In his Booke of the Church l. 3. c. 6. f. 72. who ſpeaking of Luther and others, acknowledgeth, that they receaued from the Church of Rome their Baptiſme, Chriſtianity, Ordination, and power of Ordination: By Luke Oſiander, thus wryting: Eccleſia, Epitō. Cent. 16. p. 736. que ſub Papatufuic &c. The Church, which was vnder the Papacy, when Luther was borne, was the Church of Chriſt; for it had the miniſtery of the Ghoſpell, the ſacred eriptures Baptiſme, the Lords ſupper &c. and finally (to omit many others) by Luther himſelfe thus acknowledging: In his booke againſt the Anabaptiſts. N s fatema &c. We confeſſe, that there is vnder the Papacy, true Scrpture, true Baptiſime, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keres for the remiſſion of Sinnes, the true office of preaching, true Catechiſme. Thus Luther. And here with I end touching further diſcourſe of this ſubiect: remitting to the euen and impartiall cenſure the more ſober Proteſtant: whether the danger and detriment, which fall vpon our Aduerſaryes, by erecting the preaching of the Word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments, for Marke of Chriſts Church (granting them for the tyme, to be the marks thereof) do not by many degrees ouerballance the aduantage, which our Aduerſaryes (by pretending them for Notes) do hope to gaine. Since as by ſuch their pretence, they on the one ſide, labour to reduce the knowing which is the true Church, to their owne priuat Iudgments (which euery learned and iudicious man at the firſt ſight expoldeth, for an impoſtute) ſo on the other ſide, they are forced euen by moſt neceſſary Inferences (reſulting out of their owne doctrine herein) firſt to grant, that the Proteſtant Church, as for many ages, by their owne acknowledgments, wanting the ſaid Notes (being eſſentiall to the true Church) hath for the ſayd ages (contrary to the Nature of Chriſts true Church) beene vtterly extinct, and not in being. Secondly, that during the ſayd centuryes or ages, our Catholicke & Roman Church (through it euer enioying of theſe Proteſtant Notes) is the true Church; or that otherwiſe, there hath beene no true Church of Chriſt, in all that great compaſſe of yeres; Which laſt point to affirme, is moſt repugnant to God ſacred Eſay. 60 & 62. Pſalm. 102. Epheſ 4. beſydes many other places. Writ.

That the Pope and Church of Rome may (vpon moſt vrgent Occaſions) ſometimes diſpence with ſome degrees of Mariadge, prohibited in Leuiticus; And that in ſo diſpenſing the Law of Nature (which euer bindeth) is not violated or tranſgreſſed by them.

THE explanation of th Queſtion taketh it ſource from this one Propoſition: To wit; All the preceps, which are deliuered in Leuiticus (touching the degrees prohibited in mariadge) do not bind Chriſtians by deuyne law, to obſerue them. Which propoſition or ſentence being once confirmed and fortifyed; it then followeth, that the Church of Chriſt and the Head thereof, may vpon iuſt and moſt vrgent occaſion diſpenſe without any ſinne, with ſome degrees prohibited in Leu •• icus.

For the better vnfoulding and vnderſtanding of this one propoſition, we are firſt to conceaue, that both the Catholicks and Proteſtants do teach: That the precepts of Leuiticus do not oblige Chriſtians, as they are properly Leniticall; that is, as they are Poſitiue and Iudic all; but only as they are Naturall; that is, as they are prohibited by the law of Nature.

Now the Catholicks do further teach, that as ſome preceps in Leuiticus are Naturall; ſo ſome other preceps are not naturall, but meerely iudiciall; and therefore may be diſpenſed with, by Chriſt his Church, as the Councell of Trent Seſſ. 24. Can. 3. affirmeth; Whereas our Aduerſaryes mantayne, that all the precepts of Leuiticus are Naturall; and therefore ich of them indiſpenſable by the Church.

Now here we are to remember, that thoſe are Naturall precepts, which are knowne for ſuch only by the light of nature, without any diſcourſe: or at leaſt, which are knowne for ſuch, by a moſt ſmall diſcourſe of Reaſon: And theſe precepts are the ſame among all Men, in all nations and tymes, both for the knowledge of them, and for the rectitude and iuſtnes of them. Now ſuch precepts, as for the knowing of thē, do neede ſupernaturall light, are called: Diuina poſitiua, diuine Poſitions: And thoſe other Precepts, which receaue their eſtabliſhment by humane diſcourſe, from the Prince or Magiſtrate, are ſtyled: Humana, humana Conſtitutions: and theſe are not the ſame among all men and in all nations.

Now then this iuſtly preſuppoſed: The firſt propoſition, to wit. That all the Precepts deliuered in Leuiticus (touching the degrees prohibited in Mariadge) do not bynd Chriſtians by diuine Law, to obſerue them. Is proued.

Firſt, from the conſideration of the different puniſhments, appointed in the twentith of Leuiticus againſt thoſe, who tranſgreſſe in Ma iadge the different degrees, prohibited in the eighteenth of Leuiticus Thus for example, we there fynd, that Mariadge contracted in the firſt degree of Affinity in the right line, God puniſheth with death, and compareth it with adultery and ſodomy: Which are manifeſtly againſt the Law of Nature. The ſame puniſhment of death is there apointed for ſuch, as marye in the firſt degree of Conſanguinity in a collaterall line; as when the Brother maryeth the Siſter. But now in the ſecond degree of conſanguinity in the collaterall line (as when the nephew maryeth his Fathers ſiſter, or the Mothers ſiſter) this Mariadge is puniſhed with a leſſe and more gentill puniſhment. In like ſort, mariadge in the firſt degree of Affinity in the collaterall line (as when one maryeth the wife of his brother being dead; and in the ſecond degree; to wit, when the nephew maryeth the wife of his vncle) is not puniſhed with death of the parties, ſo contracted; but only with priuation of children: That is, that the children begotten in ſuch a mariadge, ſhould not be aſ rybed or reputed the childrē of their ſaid patents. Now this puniſhment euidently ſhoweth, that theſe mariadges are not prohibited by the Law of Nature; ſince the light of Naturall Reaſon doth not dictate to all Men, that the former chaſtiſement is a iuſt puniſhment of the foreſayd kind of mariadge.

Secondly, the former propoſition or ſentence is thus prooued. If all the precepts of Leuiticus (touching the degrees of mariadge) were ordayned by the law of nature; then followeth it, that they ſhould be vniuerſall; ſo as all mariadges contracted within the degrees there prohibited, ſhould be vnlawfull. For what is prohibited by the Law of Nature, is in all tymes and places prohibited; as euen the Proteſtants do mantayne. But Moyſes hath prohibited Leuiticus certaine mariadges, and hath permitted other mariadges in the ſame degree. Therefore this prohibition in Leuiticus proceedeth not from the law of nature; but is meerely iudiciall and poſitiue: and conſequently diſpenſable. The Aſſumption of this argument is euident: for the Law of Leuiticus doth forbid mariadge of the nephew with his Aunt, either by his Fathers or his Mothers ſide; and yet it forbiddeth not mariadge of the Vncle either of the Fathers ſide or Mothers ſide, with the Neeſe eyther of the Brother or the ſiſter: And yet the nephew & the aunt are in the ſame degree, in which the vncle and the neeſe are. In like ſort Leuiticus forbiddeth mariadge with the wife of the brother, though dead; and yet it doth not forbid mariadge with the ſiſter of the wife, except the wife be aliue; and conſequently, it forbiddeth not with the ſiſter of the wife being dead: And yet there is one & the ſame degree of affinity with the ſiſter of the wife, and the wi e of the brother.

Thirdly, the foreſaid verity is thus prooued: If all the preceps (touching the prohibition of degrees in Leuiticus) were Naturall, & binding by the law of nature; then they ſhould at all tymes be bynding, even before the Law was Queene of them. As we ſee, that the Law of not killing, of committing adultery, of not ſtealing &c. were obliging, before the law of theſe Precepts were giuen to the Iewes by Moyſes. Now if the foreſaid Lawes touching the degrees prohibited in mariadge, were euer and at all tymes binding; Then Men of ſanctity and in high grace and fauour with God, would neuer haue contracted mariadges within thoſe prohibited degrees: But there are federall examples of holy Men, who in the law of nature, did contract mariadge within the degrees prohibited in Leuiticus.

According hereto we fynd, that the Patriarch Iacob did take to wifes, two ſiſters, both liuing togeather: to wit, Lia and Rachael, as we eede in Geneſis: Cap. 2 . But this is expreſſely forbidden in the eighteenth of Leuiticus: it being the firſt degree of affinity in the Collaterall line. In like ſort, Iudas Gene 〈◊◊〉 3 . (the Patriarch) did giue in mariadge to his ſecond Sonne, the wife of his firſt Sonne, being dead: and the ſecond ſonne after dying, Iudas promiſed her to his third ſonne: And yet this degree is prohibited in Leuiticus: ſince it is (as the former was) the firſt degree of affinity in the Collaterall line.

Neyther can it be replyed agaynſt theſe examples, & ſome others of this nature here omitted: That theſe Patriarchs did ſinne in contracting the foreſayd mariadges: for although Holy Men (ſuch as they were) may, as men, ſinne: yet ſtill to liue and dye in this ſtate without repentance, ſuppoſing it to be ſinne (as Iacob and Iudas did) is not incident to vertuous men, and ſuch as be the friends of God. Ad hereto, that if we grant, that the precepts of Leuiticus do euer bind in conſcience: thē followeth it, that not only Iacob and Iudas did ſinne: but alſo that the Sonnes of them both were baſtards and illegitimate.

Neither will that ſecond Euaſion (geuen by ſome) ſatiſfy the former Examples. Which is, that God did diſpence in the ſaid Mariages, through ſome intended Miſtery. This cannot be iuſtified, ſeing we reade in the twentith eight of Geneſis, that two Siſter were ioyned in Mariadge to one Man. Thus did Laban who (when he had de eaued Iacob in obtruding to him one Siſter, for an other) offend him the other whom he accepted: Neither was this Act reprehended by any, netheir repented of, as being an ouerſight. Which if it had bene vnaccuſtomed and ſingular, and ſuch as might iuſtly beget a ſcandall; No dowbt the bleſſed Man Iacob would either not haue donne it, or a leſt would haue warranted the doing of it with ſome reaſon.

The lyke is euident in the fact of Iudas, who, when he ioyned the wyfe of one brother to an other Brother, inſiſted not in any diſpenſation from God for warranting this his Act: but vrged only the reaſon of the Cuſtome: to wit to the end that the ſeede and oſpring of the dead Brother might be rayſed vp.

Laſtly, the former Propoſition touching the prohibited degrees in Leuiticus, is pro ed out of Deutcronomy wheare it is Cap. 25. commanded, that if any one dye without children, his Brother ſhall mary his wife, that ſo he may raiſe vp iſſue to his dead Brother. Now h e e it can not be ſayd, that this Law in Deut onomy commandeth any thing againſt nature: ſince it is moſt abſurd, that the Authour of nature ſhould impug •• and croſſe nature. Therefore from hence we may conclude, that it is not againſt the law of nature, but that for ſome moſt important & iuſt reaſons ſome prohibited degrees in Leuiticus may be diſpenſed with. Now for the ſlauing of theſe two contrary lawes in Leuiticus and Deutronomy (that ſo the ſcripture be not contrary to the Scripture) we are to obſerue (according to the iudgment of the Learned) that matrimony with the wife of the deceaſed Brother, is not prohibited in Leuiticus: but only as ſuch a mariadge is conſidered in it ſelfe nakedly, ſimply, and abſtracted from all Circumſtances: euen as manſlaughter is taken in the Decalogue, when it is ſayd: Thou ſhalt not kill. Which law of Leuiticus doth not hinder, why there may not after be ordayned ſome particular poſitiue Lawes, which may prohibit mariadge with the wife of the Brother, according to ſome circumſtance: and yet according to other circumſtances, may warrant and iuſtify the ſaid mariadge. Euen as the foreſaid law in the decalogue: Thou ſhalt not kill: doth not let, but that particular lawes and decrees may be ordayned, which may command a theefe or a murtherer to be killed: and may alſo command, that he ſhall not be killed, who killeth another eyther by chance, or in his owne defence.

Now if againſt the former doctryne, deliuered in this queſtion of prohibition of degrees in Leuiticus: It be obiected, that S. Iohn Baptiſt (whoſe miniſtery impoſed an end to the old law) did confirme the precept of Leuiticus of not marying the wife of the Brother, when he ſayd to Herod: Math. 6. It is not lawfull for thee, to haue the wife of thy Brother: And therefore howſoeuer this point was in the old law: yet now it is not lawfull, but wholy indiſpenſable.

I anſwere hereto, and firſt ſay, that if we ſpeake of the change and abrogation of the Law, Chriſt only, and not Saint Iohn Baptiſt did impoſe an end to it: though it be granted, that Saint Iohn Baptiſt was the laſt Prophet of the old Law. I further ſay, that it was not lawfull for Herod (euen according to the Lawe of Leuiticus) to haue the wyfe of his Brother: becauſe an O pring was then begottē of that former Mariadg (to wit, the daughter of Herodiades, who ſo pleaſed the King with danſing, that ſhe obtayned the heade of S. Iohn Baptiſt) That this daughter was the daughter of Herodiades, begotte by the Brother of Herod, is acknowledged by the teſtimony of Homi 49. in Matheun . Chriſoſtome: Secondly, I further anſweare to this example of Herod: that the ſinne of Herod was not only Inceſt, but alſo adultery: ſince Herod did marye the wyfe of his Brother, he being yet liuing, as S. In Cō ment. c. 24. in Mathae m. Ierom witneſſeth out of auncient hiſtoryes: and L. 18. Antiquit, cap. 9. Ioſephus auerreth the ſame.

Thus far then of this poynt, to ſhow that all the Precepts of Le iticus (touching the prohibited degrees in Mariadg) are not commanded by the law of Nature: and that they do not oblige Chriſtians by diuine Law, for the euer obſeruing of them: But that ſome of them are in themſelfs diſpenſable: And conſequently that the Church of Chriſt may (vpon moſt vrgent Occaſions) ſometymes diſpenſe with ſome of the ſaid Precepts.

Now heare then appeareth the inconſidrate and raſh obloq y of our Aduerſaries: charging the Pope, that he teaching Mariadg to be a Sacrament: conſequently by his owne doctrine, vndertaketh and preſumeth to alter the Matter or Eſſentiall parts of a Sacrament: which was firſt inſtituted by Chriſt, and therefore inaltorable by Man. To which falſe aſpertion I anſweare, that neither the Pope nor the Church can change the eſſentiall parts of this or any other Sacrament for we are heare to conceaue, that the Matter of this Sacrament is not the ioyning together of euery Man or woman (ſince then this Sacrament might be perfected betweene the Father and the Daughter.) but only the ioyning together of Lawfull perſons Now which are lawfull perſons for Mariadg, Chriſt did not appoint or ſet downe; but only a humane Contract betweene lawfull perſons being preſuppoſed, Chriſt himſelfe did aduance this coniunction to the dignity of a Sacrament. Therefore the Church or the Pope doth only determine, who are to be accounted Lawfull Perſons, for the contracting of mariadge; And in this ſort, the Church doth only prepare the Matter or foundation fitting for this Sacrament: But doth not, nor can alter and change the eſſentiall parts of the Sacrament of Mariadge. And herewith I conclude this ſhort diſcours, touching this ſubiect.

That the Catholicks do not expunge out of Gods writ, or reiect thoſe words in the Decalogue. Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauen Image &c. But that they willingly acknowledge them, as part of the Decalogue: howſoeuer they be not ſometymes ſet downe in Cathechiſ es and Primars.

VVHereas the Proteſtants do charge the Catholicks to conceale (through their affected fraud) in their Catechiſ nes and Primars one commandement, and ſo to expunge it out of Holy Writ; To wit: Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauen Image, nor the likeneſſe of anything aboue in Heauen, or on earth beneath: neyther of thoſe things, which are in the waters vnder the earth: Thou ſhalt nor adore them or worſhip them &c. This (I ſay) is eyther a fraudulent, or an ignorant miſtaking of our Aduerſaries. For the truth is, thoſe words (heere recited) do but make one and the ſame Commandement with thoſe firſt words: Thou ſhalt not haue any other Gods before me; theſe later being but a more full explication of the firſt words; and conſequently may be omitted ſometimes in a ſhort numbering or ſetting downe of the Commandements. This is thus prooued: Euery Image is not prohibited in the Decalogue or ten Commandements; but only that, which may be truly called an Idoll; that is an Image, which is taken for God; or which repreſenteth God to be that thing, which God is not. Therefore when it is ſayd. Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauen Image &c. the exteriour Act of Idolatry is forbidden; But in thoſe firſt words: Thou ſhalt not haue any other Gods before me: the internall Act of Idolatry is prohibited: Of which point moſt at large Saint Auſtin Quaeſt. 77. diſcourſeth.

Now that Images are not abſolutely forbidden by the law of God, appeareth; in that the Scripture telleth vs, that God himſelfe commanded Images to be made: According heere to we reade in the booke of Kings, 3. Regum. c. 6. and 7. that God commanded the Images of the Cherubins, Lyons and Oxen to be made: In the Booke of Numbers, Cap. 21. the brazen ſerpent; And in Exodus Cap. 25. the Images of the Cherubin to be made. From whence we may infallibly conclude, that the making of Images is not abſolutely forbidden by God, as a diſtinct precept from the firſt; but only ſo farre forth, as the Images be taken for God; and conſequently that (as is aboue ſaid) theſe words (forbidding the making of Images) do but make one & the ſame Commandement with the firſt words: Thou ſhalt not haue any other Gods before me. And therefore the Catholicks do not fraudulently conceale one of the ten Commandements; as our Aduerſaryes do in their Pulpits tragically complaine.

Againe. Yf all Images ſhould be abſolutly prohibited, in the former words of the Decalogue; then ſhould it follow, that the Precepts of the Decalogue ſhould not be only ten, but eleuen or twelue; an inference incompatible with the Scripture Exod. 31. & 34. Deut on. 4. 9. 10. it ſelfe, which in expreſſe words teacheth, that there are but ten Commandements. The neceſſity of this Inference is thus prooued. It is granted on all ſides, that thoſe words: Thou ſhalt not haue any other Gods before me, is one Precept. That, thou ſhalt not take the name of God in vayne, is an other. A third: Thou ſhalt keepe holy the Saboath day. A fourth; Honour thy Father and thy Mother. A fift; Thou ſhalt not kill. A ſixt: Thou ſhalt not commit adultery. A ſeauenth: Thou ſhalt not ſteale. An eight. Thou ſhalt not beare falfe witneſſe againſt thy neighbour. A ninth: Thou ſhalt no couet &c.

Now that: Thou ſhalt not couet &c. is eyther to be deuyded into two precepts ſo as the ninth Precept ſhalbe: Thou ſhalt not couet thy neighbours wife; the tenth: Thou shalt not co ct thy neighbours Oxe, nor his Aſſe, nor any thing, that is his. Or els thoſe word: Thou shalt not couet &c. with all the words following to wit, his Wife, his Oxe, his Aſſe, or any thing, that is his; do make but one precept or Commandement. Yf they ought to be deuided into two; then followeth it, that thoſe words: Thou shalt not make any grauen mage &c. ſhalbe the eleuenth Commandement (contrary to the Scripture) or that, this is not a diſtinct precept frō the firſt, videlicet: Thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me. As Clemens Alexander: Lib. 6. ſto . citū. Saint Quaeſt. 71. in Euod. & epiſt. 119. cap. 11. Auſtin, all ſchoolemen, and Latin Catechiſmes do teach. And then it followeth, that not euery grauen Image is forbidden in theſe words; but only that, which is taken for an other God. Now if ſuppoſing further, that that: thou shalt not couet &c. be only one Precept (as ſome other fathers do hould) then (to make vp the tenth Commandement) all thoſe words: Thou shalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauen image &c. thou shalt not adorethem, nor worship them &c. do concurre to make vp one Precept or Commandement. But abſolutly and ſimply to make Images, and to adore or worſhip them being made, are two different things in themſelues; becauſe one man may adore an Image, which he did not make; and an other Man may make an Image, and yet not adore it. Therefore only one of theſe two things is prohibited in the foreſayd words. (Since otherwiſe there ſhould be eleuen Commandements:) But it is certayne, that the worſhipping of Images in place of God, is forbidden; Therefore the abſolute making of them is not forbidd n; but only with reference of worſhipping them inſteed of God.

Now the Schoolemen, and all Latin Catechiſmes, & Primars do follow herein the firſt opinion of S. Auguſtin; to wit, that thoſe words: thou shalt not make any grauen Image &c. do make but one Commandement, with the firſt Precept of not worſhipping other Gods. And therefore Primars and Catechiſmes, intending but breifly and in few words, to ſet downe the ten Commandements, do omit to ſet downe that: thou shalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauen Image &c. thou shalt not adore them &c. becauſe (as is ſaid) theſe words are implicitly included in the firſt Commandement. In like ſort, and for the ſame cauſe of briefly ſetting downe the ten Commandements; we find, that Latin Cathechiſmes and Primars do omit to ſet downe diuers words immediatly following in Exodus, and belonging to the Commandement of keeping the Saboath day, holy. The words omitted are theſe: Six dayes thou shalt labour, and doe all thy worke; but the ſeauenth day is the Saboath of thy Lord, thy God &c. Beſides many other words there following. The ſame courſe the Catechiſms and Primars take in ſetting downe the Commandement of honoring thy Father and thy Mother: where theſe words following are alſo for b euity omitted: that thy dayes may be prolonged vpon the land, which the Lord, thy God giueth thee. Now is it not a looſe and diſſolute kind of reaſoning, thus to argue: The Papiſts do purpoſely conceale and labour, to put out of holy Scripture, diuers paſſages immediatly following & belonging to the Commandements of keeping the Saboath day, holy; and of honoring thy Father and Mother: becauſe (for greater breuity) they do not ſet downe the ſaid paſſages (being but meere explications of the ſayd Commandements) in their Cathechiſmes and Primars, when they make recitall of the ten Commandements. And yet we ſee, the Proteſtants do euen in the ſame manner argue moſt wildly againſt the Catholicks, for not ſetting downe thoſe words: Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelfe any grauē Image &c.

Yf the Proteſtants could prooue, that any one Catholicke did ſay or mantaine, that the ſaid words of not making Images, were not Scripture, and were not ſpoken by God, in the deliuery of the ten Commandements to Moyſes: then they had iuſt reaſon, to charge the Catholicks with great Impiety herein: But this is impoſſible for the Proteſtants to do. And therefore this accuſation of the Proteſtants againſt the Catholicks herein, is an errour (as in the beginning was intimated) compounded of malice and ignorance: where (I thinke) the greater Ingredient is malice. And thus much touching the ſuppoſed raizing and expunging out of one Commandement by the Catholicks.

The Catholicke Doctrine touching Images.

TOuching Images the Catholicks do teach two things. Firſt, that lawfully they may be had and kept, by reaſon of the profit proceeding from them. Secondly, that we hauing them, may lawfully geue vnto them a peculiar reſpect or worſhip (aboue other prophane things) as they are things conſecrated vnto religious vſes.

Touching the Vtility. This we find in them. Firſt, they do inſtruct the ignorant, and ſuch as cannot reade; and therefore they are worthely called: Gre •• ry Nyſſen, orat in Theodor. Libri illiter atorum, by ſome of the fathers. And hence it is, that the picture is ſo made, as that for the moſt part, it contayneth in it ſelfe a ſhort abſtract or Compendium of the hiſtory of him, of whom it is the Image: Thus for example, When Chriſt is painted either in the ſhape of a yonge Child in the boſome of his mother; or in the forme of a Man, tyed to a Pillar to be whipped; or hanging vpon the Croſſe; or ryſing from the graue: or aſcending to Heauen &c. And ſo the ignorant by behoulding the pictures, are theareby put in remembrance of the Incarnation, the Paſſion, the Reſurrection, and the Aſcention of our Lord and Sauiour. And the lyke may be ſaid of the pictures of Saincts: who are commonly pictured in ſuch ſort, as that the picture doth deſcrybe ſome cheiffe part of their Sanctity, ſufferance, Martyrdome, or power and authority.) as for example, S. Lawrence is commonly pictured lying vpon the gridiron, and ſo of other Saincts) And thus ſecondarily it reſulteth from hence, that Images are profitabl to 〈…〉 our Loue towards God, and his Saincts: Seing we ſee by experience, that who loueth, doth moſt willingly behould and comtemplate the Image of the partye, ſo beloued by him.

Laſtly and principally, Images do greately healpe vs in tyme of prayer; for ſeeing and behoulding them at that tyme, they preſearue in vs the Memory of Chriſt and his Saincts: and ſo n time of prayer our thoughts are fixed with greater eleuation of mynd vpon Chriſt and his Saincts, by reaſon of the pictures eare preſent. Now this is to be vnderſtood that whē we pray, we neither pray to the Pictures, nor honour them with the honour due to God (for this is the Proteſtants willfully miſtaken aſſertion, moſt wrongfully laid to our charge) but only in preſence of them, we do in tyme of prayer, proſecute God with that ſupreme reuerence and honour, which is peculiar to himſelfe alone. This is the true vſe, which we Catholicks make of Images in tyme of our Deuotions.

But now before we come to entreate of the worſhip of Images in particular; we are to conceaue, that according to all learned S. Thomas. in 3. ſentent. diſtinct. . Schoolemen, Adoration or worſhip of any thing containeth in it ſelfe three different Acts. The firſt, is an Act of the Vnderſtanding by the which we apprehend the excellen y of any thing: The ſecond, the Act of the Will; by the w •• ch we are inwardly moued to manifeſt or proteſt our Worſhip, by ſome exteriour or interiour Act: The third, is an exteriour Act: by the which we moue our hat, or bow our leg, or ſhow ſome other externall ſigne in manifeſtation of our inward worſhip geuen. Of which three Acts, the ſecond (which is of the Will) is moſt e entiall; ſeeing the firſt may be without Adoration, and the third with riſion and ſcorne; as the Iewes worſhipped our Sauiour vpon the Croſſe. Heare further we are to remember, that that worſhip, which is geuen to God alone, is a cheife and ſupreme proſtration and inclination of the Will, with the apprehenſion of God, as the firſt beginning and laſt ending of all things: and therefore as our cheife Good: and is called by the Deuynes, Latria: and cannot be communicated without Idolatry to any Creature.

Worſhipps geuen to Creatures are diſtinguiſhed, according to the different degrees of excellencyes in the Creatures. And ſo according to the different degrees of the worth of Creatures, the worſhip exhibited is ſeuerally called: as dulia, ſ perdulia, cultus religioſus, and cultus ciuilis. Laſtly, it is further to be obſerued, that by the exteriour Act, it is not eaſy to diſtinguiſh the ſeuerall kynds of worſhipps: For almoſt all exteriour Acts (ſacrifice only excepted) are common to euery kynd of worſhip. And according hearto wee recde, that Abraham with the ſame act of bowing his body to the ground, did adore God, Geneſ. 17. did worſhip Angells. Geneſ. 18. And did worſhip Men, Geneſ. 23. In lyke ſort, all men do vſe to kneele to God in their prayers: to their Prince or King: and to their owne parents: yet with diſparity of honour to eich of theeſe. And heare is the ſource and fountayne of the Proteſtats miſtaking, who hearing that Catholicks do ſometymes exhibit part of that externall worſhip to Creatures, which is geuen to God: do inſtantly exclayme forth in this, or the lyke maner; Se how the Papiſts commit Idolatry to Creatures: ſee how they pray to ſtocks and ſtones: Poore Men, I commiſerate their Ignorance who ſo much miſtake the true meaning of the Catholickes practiſe.

Now then the former doctryne preſuppoſed, touching the worſhip geuen to Images: This enſuing is the Catholicke doctryne: Thus teacheth the Coū cell of Trent. ſeſſ. 25. Images of Chriſt and his Saincts are to be worſhipped and honored with a peculiar reſpect; ſo as neither any Confidence be placed in the Images: neither any petityon be made to them, nor that it be bele ued, that theare is any Diuinity in them. And this honour, being but an inferiour kind of religious worſhip, aſcrybed to things conſecrated to holy ends (as is euer preſumed) is geuen them only for the perſons ſake, of whom they are Images, and whom they repreſent.

This is proued by the example of the Images of the Cherubins, Exod. 25. appointed by God to be placed ouer the Arke: and by the Image of the braſen Serpent, in lyke ſort appointed by God (which as we reade in Iohn c. 3. was the figure of Chriſt.) But to both theeſe the Iewes gaue a peculiar worſhip, as to things ordayned to religious vſes: For how could they adore the Arke, but withall they muſt adore the Images of the Cherubin? Or how could not the braſen Serpent but be worſhipped by the Iewes: when it being ſeated in a high place by Gods command, did cure thoſe, which locked vpon it?

But now I here inferre, that if it were lawfull to worſhip the Images of Angells (I euer meane, with that reſpect, due to conſeciated things) then by the ſame reaſon, it is lawfull to worſhip the Images of Saincts departed. And if the braſ n Serpent might be worſhipped (ſo long as this religious reſpect (without any act of Idolatry) was giuen to it) as be ring the Image of Chriſt in the forme of a Serpent: then may the Image of Chriſt be eſteemed venerable. Ad hereto, that if the day of the Paſcha be called, Holy, Exod. 12. in regard of it ſignification: and becauſe it was dedicated to diuine Worſhip: And if the veſtements of the Prieſts in the old Law, for the ſame reaſon, be tearmed, Holy: Exod. 28. And if the ſepulcre or graue of Chriſt, be named, Glorious: Eſay. 11. Yf alſo it be ſayd in Exodus: Cap. 3. The place, where t 〈…〉 ou ſtandeſt is holy: and this ſayd by reaſon of the preſence of the Angell, being then there: And if in the New Teſtament the Scripture be called: 2. Tim. cap. 3. Sacrae litterae holy letters: & this only by reaſon, that the letters are ſignes of holy things, expreſſed by them: And finally if to the name of IESVS we be commanded to bow Philip. 2. (the ſound of the word being to the care, as the picture is to the eye) then by the ſame reaſon, why may we not be re to the Images of Chriſt and his Saincts a religious reſpect, in regard of the perſons, of whom they are made?

Againe leauing diuine authorityes, and comming to force of reaſon. Yf a picture be capable of diſgrace and iniurye, in regard of the perſon thearein repreſented; then by the ſame reaſon a Picture may be capable of honour, reſpect, and reuerence. This inference is moſt demonſtratiue. Now that a Picture is capable of diſgrace or Contumely, is euident: For example, if a Subiect (diſloyalty affected to his Prince) ſhould deface, teare, or breake, or any otherwyſe indecently handle his Princes picture, as by ſtabbing it with his knife, or the lyke: Or if ſome Athiſt (denving all Scripture) ſhould betrample vnder his feete (through ſcorne and malice) the Bible it ſelfe; Would not theeſe actions be ſeuerely chaſtized? And might not the Pictures of the Prince, and the Bible, be ſaid to haue ſuffered diſgrace and indignity heareby, with reference to the wrong and indignitie committed againſt the Prince, and the ſacred Scripture? Then by the ſame reaſon, may the Pictures of Chriſt and his Saincts be affected with due religious reſpect aboue other things: in regard of Chriſt and his Saincts repreſented in them, of whom they are the Pictures.

Only heere we are to remember (as aboue is often intimated) that the reſpect we giue to the picture of Chriſt, is not that If any Authour ſeeme to ſay that the ſame worſhip is giuen to the Image which to the hrofit vpon eyther he meaneth that nothing is giuen to the Image but all to that which it repreſenteth or that it is the ſame only in name not in nature or only Analogicè non vniuocè. ſupreme honour and veneration due to Chriſt: but only an inferiour religious reſpect, due to things, as they are directed to ſpirituall ends: and not otherwiſe. The verity of the former Point may be further confirmed, by our cuſtome of ſtanding barehead, and giuing reuerence to the Cloath of Eſtate, euen in the Kings abſence. or as to it (as repreſenting our temporall Prince) a ciuill honour may lawfully be giuen: ſo (by the ſame ground) a religious reſpect or honour may be aſcrybed to the picture of Chriſt, who is our cheife King and Sauiour.

That this our Catholicke doctrine is warranted by the practice and authority of the auncient Fathers, is moſt euident; And therefore I refer the Reader hearein to the cleare teſtimonyes of Lib. 2. de doctrina Chriſtiana. c. 25. Auſtin, Serm. 10. in pſalm. 118. Ambroſe, In Leitu ••• a. Chryſoſtome, In vita Paulae. Baſill, Quaeſt. 16. an Antiocum. Ierome, Cent. 4. cap. 10. col. 1080. Athanaſius and others: whoſe whole ſentences thereof were ouer longe to ſet downe. This point of the Fathers iudgment touching Images is ſo euident, that we find Learned Proteſtants to confeſſe no leſſe of them: For thus w yte the Centuriſts: Lactantius affirmeth many ſuperſtitious things, concerning (n) In ulianum, vt citat Adrianus ad Imperator. Chriſts Image: Cent. 10. c. 8. col. 850. And Bede erred in worſhipping of Images. And Oſiander In epitō. Cent. 6. p. 288. confsſſeth, that Gregory by his Indulgenſes, eſtabliſhed pilgrimages to Images. In his pageant of Popes. p. 24. & 27. Bale thus playnly wryteth: Leo allowed the worſhipping of Images. Finally M. on the reuelat. p. 57. Symondus thus accordeth with Bale: Leo decreed, that reuerence should be giuen to Images. To all whoſe confeſſed teſtimonyes, we may adioyne the acknowledgments of Functius Lib. 7. cōmentar. at anno. Chriſti. 494. and Cedrenus, Cedrenus in cō pend. Hiſtor. confeſſing (as they prooue out of Nicephorus in hiſt. l. 16. c. 27. Nicephorus) that Xenayas Perſa was the firſt in auntient tymes, that impugned the due worſhip of Images.

That it is lawfull to haue Images in Churches, is taught (as true and warrantable doctrine) by diuers learned Proteſtants; as by Cempnitius, Exam. part. 4. p. 14. & 33. by Luther, So doth Beza relate of Luther and Bren ius in reſp. ad Act. Colloq Montisb. part. altera in praefat. pag. 12. and Brentius, Iacobus In epitom. colloq. Montisb. pag. 39. Andreas &c.

But now I will conclude this diſcourſe touching Images with a moſt authenticall and ſtrange miracle, wrought by the Image of Chriſt, and recorded by Lib. 7. hiſtor. cap. 14. Euſebius, In cap. 9. Mathaei. Theophilact, and Lib. 6. hiſtor. cap. 20. Zozemene; all auncient & graue Wryters; whoſe authorityes herein if we reiect, we reiect by the ſame reaſon the proofe of all other things, recorded by auntient Hiſtoriographers.

It was this. The woman, whom our Sauiour cured of the bloody flux, cauſed to be made a brazen Image of Chriſt; at the foote whereof did ſpring a ſtrange hearb; the which hearbe, after it did aſcend ſo high, as to touch the ſcirt of the Image, it had vertue to cure all diſeaſes. Which vertue (no doubt) God would not haue imparted to the Hearbe, but only in manifeſtation, that due reſpect might lawfully be giuen to the Image of Chriſt. And thus far, touching the Catholicke doctrine of Images.

Touching Prayer to Saincts.

TOuchinge Prayer to Saincts. I will deliuer the Catholicke doctryne thereof in certaine Propoſitions; which Propoſitions may ſearue as certaine graduall ſtips or degrees of this Controuerſye.

The firſt Propoſition may be this. It is not lawfull to pray to Saincts, as authours or principall diſpenſours of diuine benefitts, to obtaine from them either grace or glorye, or the meanes of obtaining our Eternall felicitie; much leſſe, the Crawne of glory or heauen it ſelfe. Since in this ſenſe to pray to them, were (according to the iudgment of S. Auſtin Lib. de ciuitate Dei c. vlt. and all Catholicks) to make Saincts, Gods. And therefore if at any time, the words directed to Saincts ſhould ſound otherwyſe: as when we ſay: Our Lady healpe me &c. We are heare to inſiſt in the ſenſe, not in the naked words: That is, Our Lady healpe me by her interceſſion and prayers to her ſonne; and no otherwyſe: Euen as we fynd, that S. Paule ſaith of hymſelfe: Rom. 11. vt ſaluos facerē aliquos ex illis. If I may ſaue ſome of them: meaning, of the Gentills. And againe the ſayd Apoſtle ſaith of hymſelfe: To 1. Cor. 9. vt omnes racerē ſaluos. all Men I am become all things, that I might ſaue all: meaning, to ſaue all not as God: but only healping them and furthering their Saluation by his preaching to them, and by his prayers for them. Which words of the Apoſtle (being truly vnderſtoode) may ſear e well to ſtop the Mouths of the Proteſtant Miniſters, for their often miſtaking and miſinterpreting of the Catholicke Doctrine touching prayer to Saincts.

The ſecond Propoſition. Saincts are not our immediate Mediatours, by way of interceſſion with God; But whatſoeuer they demande or obtayne of God for vs, they demaund and obtayne it, through Chriſt and his Merits. And according hearto we find, that all the Prayers of the Church (which are made to Saincts) end with this clauſe: Per Chriſtum Dominum noſtrum: For we willingly acknowledge, Ioh. 10. 14. that no Man cōmeth to the Father, by the Sonne; And that their is but one Mediatour of Redemption: though all the Saincts may be tearmed our Mediatours, by way of Interceſſion.

The third Propoſition. The Saincts, which reigue with Chriſt, do pray for vs, and this not only in generall, but in particular: That is, for particular Men, and for the particular Neceſſityes of the ſame Men. This is proued firſt, from thoſe words in Ieremy: Cap. 15. If Moyſes and Samuel ſhall ſtand before me, my Soule is not towards this People. From whence it is inferred, that Moyſes and Samuel (then being dead) might and were accuſtomed to pray for the People of Iſrael.

Secondly, the ſame is proued from the Example of Angells, who do pray for vs, and haue a care of vs in particular, as appeareth out of ſeuerall paſſages of Toby. 12. Zach. 1. Math. 18. Apoc. 8. Scripture. But if the Angells do pray for vs, then much more Saincts; ſeing ſo far forth, as appertayneth to this function, nothing is wanting to the Saincts in Heauen, which Angells haue: for they are endued with Intelligence or Vnderſtanding, and with Will; they are euer in the preſence of God; they loue vs vehemently; and finally they Luc. 20. are equall euen with Angells: Beſids, ſome priuiledges they haue in this point, which are wanting in Angells: to wit, that Saincts are more conioyned and vnited members of the body of the Church; and that they haue tryed our dangers and Miſeries, which Angells haue not.

Thirdly, the former Propoſition is proued from the many apparitions of Saincts, which haue euidently teſtified, that they do pray for vs euen in particular. Of diuers ſuch particular Apparitions, See Lib. hiſt. c. 5. Euſebius, Decura pro mortuis. Auſtin, Orat. de Sancto Manante. Baſill, Orat. 1. in Iulianū. Gregory Nazianzene, In vita Gre orij ueo 〈…〉 a •• ens. Gregory Nyſlene, and Lib. 5. hiſtor. c. 24. Theodoret; all which teſtimonyes of ſo auncient and reuerend Fathers to reiect, touching matter of fact, by anſwearing, that all ſuch relations are fabulous, is in effect (and by neceſſarie inference) to take away all authority of Eccleſiaſticall and humane Hiſtoryes.

The fourth and laſt Propoſition. Saincts and Angells are religiouſly and profitably inuoked and prayed vnto, by liuing Men. This is proued. Firſt, Wee reade, that Iacob bleſſing the ſonns of Ioſeph, thus ſaith: The Geneſ. 8. Angell, which hath deliured me from all Euill, bleſſe theſe Children; wheare we ſee, that Iacob expreſſly inuoketh theſe Angell. Againe, we reade thus in Iob. Call, Cap. 5. if any will anſweare thee, and turne to ſome of the Saincts: Wheare by the word: Saincts, he meaneth Angells, according to the expoſition of Sainct Auſtin In anno at. in Iob. Secondly, this laſt Propoſition is proued from that, that in both the Teſtaments the Liuing were inuoked and prayed vnto by liuing; as in the firſt Booke of the Kings, and in the laſt of Iob. Cap. 7. In lyke ſort in the Epiſtle to the Romans S. Pauli thus ſaith: Cap. 15. Brethren I beſeach you, that you all healpe me in your prayers for me to God. Which Kynd of prayer the Apoſtle vſeth in the Epiſtle to the 6. Epheſians; in the firſt to the 5. Theſſalonians, in the ſecond 3. to the Theſſalonians, in his epiſtle to the 4. Coloſſians, & to the 13. Hebrewes: So familiar and vſuall was this to S. Paull. Therefore from hence I conclude, that now it is lawfull to inuoke and pray to the ſaid Men; being now Saincts, and raigning with Chriſt. This Inference is moſt neceſſarye & demonſtratiue. For if it be not now lawfull to pray to them, It is either becauſe the Saincts now in Heauen will not healpe vs with their interceſſion to God; But this is not ſo, ſeing the Saincts in Heauen enioye greater Charity, then they had heare vpon earth: Or els in that the Saincts cannot healpe vs with their prayers: And this leſſe true: for if they could afore healpe vs with their prayers, they being then but Pilgrims; much more now, they being arryued into their Country. Or els becauſe they do not know, what we pray or demaund of them: But this is falſe: for looke from whence the Angells do know the Conuerſion of ſinners, for which they ſo much reioyce in Heauen, (as we reade in S. Cap. 〈◊〉 . Luke) from the ſame ſource or wellſpring of knowledge the Saincts do know our prayers; Or laſtly, becauſe we offer iniury to God and Chriſt, if we pray to any other, then to him alone; But this is the leaſt of all true, ſeing by the ſame reaſon, it ſhould not be lawfull for vs to pray to the liuing, that they would pray for vs; And then conſequently Saint Paul ſhould haue beene moſt iniurious to God and Chriſt, in praying to the Romans, the Epheſians, the Theſſalonians, the Coloſſians and the Hebrews, to pray for him to God. Therefore, as it is no iniury, but an honour to Kings, when their friends are honored, and Embaſſadours are ſent to them; Euen ſo heere there is no iniury done to God, but honour, when the Saincts of God are honored by praying vnto them; not as to Gods, but as to the friends of God: ſince otherwiſe it would follow, that he ſhould commit ( 〈◊〉 ) Serm. Euang. de ſanctiſſima Deipara. an iniury to God (as is aboue ſayd) who ſhould deſire & entreate the prayers of the liuing. This argument is vnanſwerable, and the rather: ſince the Saincts in Heauen are members of the ſame Church, of which the liuing are: they alſo wholy relye vpon the ſame interceſſion of Chriſt with the liuing: for what they deſire for vs, that they deſyre of God, through the merits of our Sauiour Chriſt.

This doctrine of Inuocation of Saincts is further prooued from ſeuerall auncient Councells: whoſe places for greater breuity I referre the Reader to As to the Epiſtle of the Biſhops of Europe, written to Leo the Emperour, which epiſtle is adioyned to the Councell of Calcedon, the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 11. it ſelfe, the ſixt Act. 7. generall councell, the ſeauenth Act. 6. generall coūcell, beſides diuers others. That the auncient Fathers of the Primatiue Church beleiued & practized this doctrine of praying to Saincts, is euident from the references herein the margent. See then hereof Dioniſius Cap. 7. Eccleſ. Hierarch. Areopagita, Ireneus, Lib. 5. cōtra Haereſ. vltra medium. Euſebius, Lib. 13 praeparat. Euang. c. 7 Athanaſius, (h) Baſill, Orat. in 40. Martyres. Chryſoſtome, Homil. 66. ad Populum. Gregory Orat. in Sanctum Theodorū Nyſſene, Hilary, In pſal. 129. Ambroſe, Lib. de Viduis vltra med. Ierome, In epitaph. Paulae. Auſtin, Tract. 84. in Iohannem. and others. This point of the Fathers iudgment and practize herein is ſo manifeſt, as that we fynd it to be thus confeſſed of them, by the learned Proteſtants. M. Fulke thus ſayth: D. Fulke in his Reioinde to Briſtow. I confeſſe, that Ambroſe, Auſtin, and Ierome did hould Inuocation of Saincts to be lawfull. The ſayd D. Fulke doth further thus write: In D. Fulk agaynſt the Rheniſh Teſt. in 2. Petr. c. 1. Nazianzen, Baſill, and Chryſoſtome is mention of Inuocation of Saincts. And yet more fully the ſame D. thus confeſſeth: Many D. Fulk agaynſt the Rheniſh Teſt. vbi ſupra. of the auncient Fathers did hould, that the Saincts departed do pray for vs. In which generall condemnation of the Fathers herein D. Whitguift (the Archbiſhop of Canterbury) thus cōſpireth with the foreſayd D. Fulke: In his defence agaynſt the reply of Cart. wright. p. 472. Almoſt all the Biſhopps and Wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin alſo, for the moſt part, were ſpotted with the doctrine of Inuocation of Saincts, and ſuch like points. To conclude D. Couell thus 〈…〉 peth with the former Proteſtants, ſaying: In his examinat. p. 120. Diuers both of the Greeke and Latin Church, were ſpotted with the errour, about the Inuocation of Saincts.

Now that the Proteſtants do not only confeſſe the auncient Fathers iudgment hearein; but that alſo diuers of them do beleiue the doctrine 〈◊〉 ſelfe to be true, is no leſſe cleare: For we find Luther hymſelfe thus to wryte: De In purgat. quorūdam articul. interceſſione diuorum, cum tota Eccleſia Chriſtiana ſentio, Sanctos a nobis hon randos eſſe & inuocando . With whom agree In orat. 1. Chry oſt. de Inuentio & maximo. O colampadius, Act. mon. p. 1312. Latimer, and diuers See H fferenfetus in loc. theol l. 3. ſtat 4. Proteſtants in Polonia.

Now I will end this poynt, in ſetting the iudgment of learned Ierome epiſt. 2 cotra V 〈…〉 l. Gregory. lib. 11. moral. cap. 13. 16. Fathers and Catholicks, touching the manner how Saincts do heare out prayers. Which is, that Saincts as being in Heauen, euen from their firſt beginning of their beatitude and happines, do ſee all things in God (as in a cleare glaſſe) which belong vnto them any way, according to that: Quid Gregory vbi ſupra eſt, quod ibi n ſciunt, qui ſcie tem om •• a ſciunt? And therefore they ſee and heare our prayers, directed vnto them. And hence it is, that the holy Soules before our Sauiours Incarnation and Aſcention, being in Ly bus Patrum, were not prayed vnto; becauſe they then not being in Heauen, could not heare the prayer of the liuing made to them; And therefore no maruayle, if neither in the old Teſtament nor in the new, we find no expreſſe examples of prayer made to Saincts. To the former maner, how ſaincts do ſee the actions of the liuing, and do heare their prayers, I may adioyne an other manner of hearing thē allowed & taught by S. Lib. de cura pro mortuis c. 15. Auſtin & other Nazianzene orat. fun. in ſororem Gorg. Fathers. Which is, that God out of his ſpeciall fauour and loue to his Saincts, doth open and reueale to them, the particular ſtates and prayer of their friends, yet liuing in the World.

Now how agreable it is to all force of Reaſon, that Saincts in Heauen ſhould know the affayres of their liuing friends, is ſeuerall wayes proued. Firſt, becauſe the Luc. 15. Angells in Heauen reioyce at the conuertion of a ſinne : Therefore the Angells know the particular ſtates of liuing Men. But if the Angells do, then by the ſame Reaſon the Saincts doe: ſeeing ſo far as concerne this poynt, theare is no difference betweene the Angells and the Saincts.

Secondly, the Nature of their beatitude requireth ſuch knowledge of the affayres of their liuing friends. For ſeeing their Happynes is a mayne Ocean of all ioyes (no kind of happines being to them wanting, which is requiſite for them to haue) therefore it followeth, that for their greature meaſure of their felicity, they are to haue notice of the miſeryes, wants, & prayers of their liuing friends. And this the rather, ſeing Nature is not aboliſhed, but betered and perfected by grace; from whence we may gather, that the Saincts in heauen do not abandon & reiect the cares & ſtates of their liuing friends; but do ſtill retayne (though with greater perfection) their former naturall deſire, to know & releiue the ſtate of their ſaid friends.

Thirdly, This priuiledge of Saincts, knowing the ſtate, and hearning the prayers of the liuing, beſt ſorteth to the nobility and worth of their beatificall and happy Viſion of God. For if God hath honored diuers of his friends (whyles they liued in this world) with the guyft of Prophecy; as he did Daniell, Ezechiel, Eſay, Dauid, and many others, wheareby diuers of them reuealed many things to come, meerely depending of Mans freewill (and therefore not forſeene, in their cauſes) as alſo did tell (at the very tyme they were donne) things donne in places far diſtant and remote from them. How can it then otherwyſe be, but that his diuine Maieſty is moſt willing to communicate vnto his Saincts the ſtate and prayers of the liuing? To the force of which Reaſon S. Auſtin ſubſcribeth in theeſe words: Yf the Prophet Elizaeus (abſent in body) (a) Lib. 22. de ciuitat. Dei c. 29. did ſee the brybe his ſeruant Geizi did take of N man ſyrus &c. How much more in that ſpirituall bodye, ſhall Saincts ſee all things &c. When God ſhalbe All in all, vnto vs?

Laſtly, the damned ſpirits and deuills, (being far abſent from their Witches, ſouthſayers, and coniurers) do neuertheleſſe heare their inuocations and coniurations: As is warranted by all Experience. Shall any Man then thinke, that the bleſſed Saincts of Heauen, are depryued of hearing the prayers and interceſſions, which the faythfull heare vpon Earth, do make vnto them? ſince otherwyſe it would follow, that ſpirituall ſubſtances by their loſing of Heauen (I meane, the deuills by their fall) did obtayne greater prerogatiues and excellencye, then the ſoules of the Saincts do by gayning and aſcending vp to Heauen: an abſurdity incompatible with the goodnes, wiſdome, and Charity of God. And thus much, touching the doctryne of Prayer to Saincts.

The Catholicke doctrine touching Iuſtification by works, Merit of works, and Works of Supererogation.

TOuching Iuſtification by Works, the Catholicks teach, as followeth.

Iuſtification, Bellar. de 〈…〉 cat. l. 4. c. 10. wheareby a Man being afore wicked, and the Sonne of Wrath, is become the Sonne of God, is wrought by the healpe of Gods grace (without any meritte of works on our ſyde) and by the ſpirit of fayth and Charity, infuſed by God in vs, in the very Act of our Iuſtification. Thus our Aduerſaries may ſee, that we do not aſcribe our firſt Iuſtification to any of our works at all; though they moſt wrongfully traduce vs to the contrary; For we willingly acknowledge thoſe words of the Apoſtle: It Rom. 9. is not of the willer, or of the runner; but of God, who ſheweth Mercy.

Secondly, the Catholicks teach, that after a Man iuſtifyed (being of wicked become good) he may encreaſe his firſt iuſtification by works: That is, he being already made iuſt, by Gods grace and mercy, may by his works become more Iuſt: Which works are not thoſe, which are performed by the force of Nature (as the Pelagians did teach, and the Proteſtants do falſly charge the Catholicks) but as they are performed by the ſpirit and grace of God; and as they receaue their force & vertue from our Sauiours Paſſion.

Concerning the merit of Works more particularly, the Catholicks teach, as followeth; whoſe doctrine herein (for greater perſpicuity) I will ſet downe in certaine propoſitions; Which propoſitions do contayne certaine condicions, neceſſarily requyred, that Works may merit.

The firſt propoſition is this. That works may merit, it is requyred, that the partye (who worketh) be in ſtate of grace, and an adopted Child of God. Thus we exclude all works from meriting, which are performed by one, who is not in ſtate of grace; that is, who wanteth true fayth, true hope, true charity: for ſuch Works are performed by force of Nature only, & not by force of Gods grace.

The ſecond propoſition: That works do merit, a free & liber all promiſe or Couenant of God is neceſſary; by which his promiſe of reward made vnto good Works, God in a manner obligeth himſelfe, to reward good works, according to his promiſes. Heere our Aduerſary may ſee, that we willingly confeſſe, that no works of ours (of themſelues) can merit, as we abſtract from them the promiſſe of God: for without this promiſſe and Couenant of God, made out o his moſt mercifull bounty to remunerate good works, we do willingly ſay with the Apoſtle: The Rom. 8. paſſions of this life are not condigne, to the glory to come, that ſhalbe reuealed vnto vs.

The third propoſition. That Works do merit, it is (according to the moſt probable opinion) neceſſarily requyred, that they cheifly preceede from actually or virtually Charity, & loue towards God: That is, that they be vndertaken cheifly and primatiuely for the honour and loue we beare to God. From whence it followeth, that no works, which are not ſeaſoned with this condic on of Charity in God, but haue to themſelues only peculiar and leſſe principall ends, c 〈…〉 merit.

The fourth and laſt propoſition, which is implicitly included in the former Propoſitions. That Works do merit, they muſt take their worth and dignity from the 〈…〉 ritis of our Sauiours Paſſion; and from thence receaue (as it were) a new tincture and dye. Thus we ſee, that originally and principally it is Chriſts meri ts, which do merit for vs; and that our works are but once of the meanes, whereby we apply Chriſts merit s vnto vs.

That the doctrine here ſet downe touching merit of works is ſutable to the doctrine of the Catholicke Roman Church, is euident euen from the authority of the Councell Seſſ. 6. c. vl . of Trent, where we thus reade: To them, who worke well to the end of their life, and do hope in God, eternall life is giuen, both as a grace, and fauour mercifully promiſed to the Sonns of God, through the meritts of Chriſt Ieſus; as alſo as a reward, proceeding from the promiſſe of the ſame God, faythfully to be giuen to their good Works and Meritts &c. Thus the Councell.

The certainty of this doctrine of merit of works receaueth it cheife proofe from the holy Scripture; and this from the teſtimonyes of Scripture of ſeuerall kinds. Firſt, then from thoſe places, where eternall life is called Merces, a wage or reward. As Mathew Math. 5. Reioyce, for your reward is great in Heauen. Againe, Math. 20. Call the workemen, and pay them their hyre, beſides diuers others of like nature. Secondly, from thoſe places, wherein a heauenly reward is promiſed to men, according to the meaſure & proportion of their Works; as where it is ſaid: The v . Matth. 16. Sonne of Man ſhall come in the glory of his Father, and ſhall render to eueryone, ſecundum opera ſua, according to his works. In like ſort it is ſaid: Rom. 〈◊〉 . God will render to euery one according to his works: beſides many other like places, vz. pſalm. 65. Luc. 6. 1. Cor 3. Galat. 6. Apocal, vlt. here omitted.

Thirdly, from thoſe teſtimonyes of Scripture, which expreſſe the reaſon, that works are the cauſe, why eternall life is giuen; thus we read: Math. 25. Come you bleſſed of my Father, poſſeſſe the Kingdome prepared for you; eſ 〈…〉 iui enim, & dediſti mihi manducare, for I was hungry, and you gaue me to eate. Againe in the ſame place: Quia in pauca fuiſti &c. Becauſe thou haſt been faithfull ouer few things, I will place thee ouer many things; enter into, the ioy of thy ord. And in the Apocalyps: Cap. 7. Theſe are they, which are come out of great tribulation &c. ideo ſunt ante thro um Dei, therefore they are before the throne of God. In all which places the particles: Enim, Qui , Ideo, are cauſaſes; that is implying our ſhewing the reaſon and cauſe of a thing.

Fourthly, from thoſe texts, in which a reward is promiſed to good Works euen by force of Iuſtice; According hereto we reade: Hebr. 6. God is not vniuſt, that he ſhould forget your worke. As alſo that: Apoc. 2. be thou faythfull euen vnto death, and I will giue thee the Crowne of life. See of this nature other texts 2. Theſ. 1. 2. Tim. 4. Iacob. 1. quoted in the margent.

Fiftly, and laſtly, from thoſe paſſages, wherein there is mention made of dignity or worth; As where we reade: The Luc. 10. workeman is worthy his wage. Agayne: vt 2 Theſ. 1. digni habeamini regno Dei &c. That you may be had worthy the Kingdome of God, for which you ſuffer. See the like texts Sapient. 3. Luc. 20. Apoc. 3. noted in the margent.

That the auncient Fathers mantayned the doctrine of merit of works: ſee for greater breuity Epiſt. ad Rom. Ignatius, Lib. 4. aduerſus Haereſ. c. 72. Ireneus, Lib. de Spirit Sanct. cap. 24. Baſill, Homil. 4. de Lazero. Chryſoſtome, Orat. in Sanct. Baptiſm. Nazianz, Orat. 1. de amandis pauperibus. Nyſſene, De vnitat. Eccleſ. Cyprian, Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 15. Ambroſe, Epiſt. 103. ad Sixtum. Auſtin, Aduerſi Iouinianum prop finem. Ierome.

The iudgment of the auncient Fathers touching merit of works is diſcouered (beſides by their owne teſtimonyes) euen from the acknowledgment of the Proteſtants. For firſt we find D Humfrey to confeſſe in this ſ 〈…〉 rt: Ieſuitiſm. part. 2. p. 530. Ireneus, Clemens, and others (called Apoſtolicall) haue in their wrytings merit of Works. In like ſort the Centuriſts thus charge Chryſoſtome: Cent 5. col. 1178. Chryſoſtome handleth impurely the doctrine of iuſtification, and attributeth merit to works. They alſo t 〈…〉 cenſure Origen Cent. 3. col. 265. Origen made works the cauſe of our iuſtification. In Cō feſſ. Wittenberg. Brentius in like ſort ſaith, that Auſtin taught aſſiance in mans merits, towards remiſſion of Sinns.

Luther ſtyleth Ierome, Ambroſe, Auſtin, and others Iuſtice Luth. in Galat. cap. 4 the latin word by him need is Iuſtiliarij Workers of the old Papacy. D. Whitakers thus wryteth of the age of Cyprian: Contra Camp. rat. 5. Not only Cyprian, but almoſt all the moſt holy Fathers of that tyme were in that errour, as thinking ſo to ay the payne due to ſinne, and to ſatiſfy Gods iuſtice. D. Whitguift (as afore of praying to Saincts, ſo) of merit of works thus confeſſeth: In his defence againſt the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. & 473. Almoſt all the Biſhopps and Wryters of the greeke Church and Latin alſo, were ſpotted with doctrine of merit. Vpon the Apocalyps ſer 87. Bullenger confeſſeth the great antiquity of the doctrine of merit in theſe words: The doctrine of Merit, ſatisfaction, and iuſtification of works, did incontinently after the Apoſtles tyme lay their firſt foundation. To conclude this point M. Wotton (no obſcure Proteſtant) reiecteth the authority of Ignetius (the Apoſtles ſcholar) touching merit of works in this ſort: In his defence of M. Parkins p. 340. I ſay plainly, this Mans teſtimony is nothing worth; becauſe he was of little iudgment in Diuinity. Thus farre, touching our Aduerſary acknowledgments of the Fathers iudgment herein.

Now that ſome learned Proteſtants do teach and beleiue the doctrine of Merit of Works, to be true and Orthodoxall doctrine, is no leſſe euident, then the former point. For it is taught, as true doctrine by the Publike Pag. 495. & 273. Confeſſions in their Harmony: by M. Lib. 5. eccleſ. pol. ſect. 72. p. 08. Hooker, by In loc om de bonis operib. circu medium. Melanct on, and by Spandeburge In Margarit. Theolog. p. 48. & 50. the Proteſtant.

To the former doctrine of merit of Works, I will adioyne the doctryne touching works of Supererogation; Which doctrine is greatly exagirated and depraued by many Proteſtants; who are not aſhamed to traduce the Catholicks, and to diuulge both by penne and in Pulpit, that the Catholicks do hould, that their works can do more, then merit Heauen. But this is the Proteſtant 〈…〉 lumny; ſince the Catholicks do not hould or beleiue any ſuch thing. Therefore I will ſette downe the true definition of an Euangelical Counſell diſtinguiſhed from a Precept; ſeing vpon Euangelicall Counſells works of Supererogation are grounded.

An Euangelicall Counſell of Perfection, is called any good Worke, Which is not commanded by Chriſt but only commended by him, and poynted on to vs by hym; As the Vowe of Chaſtity of Pouerty, of Obedience; and diuers other good Works, not commanded by God.

It differeth from a Precept. Firſt, becauſe the ſubiect of a Precept is more facill and eaſy, then that of a Councell; Secondly in that a Counſel doth include in it the Performance of a Precept, and ſomething more then a Precept; Thirdly, in that Precepts are common to all Men to performe, Counſells are not ſo; Fourthly, Precepts of their owne nature do oblige Men to their performance; Counſells are in the choyce of one, to performe or not performe; Laſtly Precepts, being obſerued are rewarded; being not obſerued, the tranſgreſſion is puniſhed: Whereas Counſells, being obſerued and kept haue a greater reward; being not kept, no puniſhment followeth.

Thus far touching the definition of an Euangelicall Counſell: Which in other words may be alſo thus defined: An Euangelical Counſell is any ſuch good Worke of high Perfection, to the performance whereof we are not bownd, as that we ſinne in not doing of it.

Now whereas it is commonly obiected againſt the doctrine of Euangelicall Councells, That we are ſo obbliged to God, as that we cannot euer do more, then we ought to do: It is therefore heare to be conceaued, that if we conſider Gods benefitts beſtowed vpon vs, we willingly acknowledge, that Man can not do more good, then he ought: no not the thouſand part of that, he ought to do, in that Man cannot render or retaliate any thing of equall valew and worth to Gods benefitts.

Neuertheleſſe Yf we conſider the Law and Commande impoſed by God vpon vs; then man may be ſayd to do more, then indeede he is obliged by Gods Law to do. For although Man cannot exceede or equall Gods benefits with his owne works: yet he is not become guilty hearby: ſeing Men is not obliged to performe more, then that only, which God commaundeth.

Euangelicall Councells take the cheife and firſt proufe from ſacred Scripture: As wheare it is ſaid: Math. 19. There are certaine Eunuchs who haue gelded themſelfs for the Kyngdome of Heauen: Which place is expounded of the Euangelicall Counſell of Chaſtity, by Lib. de habitu virginum. Cyprian, In hūclocum. Chryſoſtome, De ſancta virginitat. c. 24. Auſtin, and others.

A ſecond text (to omit diuers others for breuity) is that where our Sauiour ſayth to the yong Man: Math. 19. Yf thou wilt be perfect, go, and ſell all that thou haſt, and giue it to the poore, and thou ſhalt haue treaſure in heauen: Which text is interpreted of the Euangelicall Counſell of pouerty, by S. De viduis vltra medium. Ambroſe, S. Lib. cō tra vigilant. Ierome, and S Epiſt. 89. quaeſt. 4. Auſtin.

The foreſayd doctrine is further confirmed by the authority of the auncient Fathers: For b 〈…〉 es their expoſitions of the foreſaid places of Scripture, this doctrine is further taught by In c. 5. ad Rom. Origen, Lib. de humanitate verbi vltra med. Athanaſius, Lib. de virginit. vlt. med. Baſil, Homil. 8. de Penit. Chryſoſtome, Orat. in Iulian. vltra medium. Nazianzene, De hábitu vir inum vltra medium. Cyprian, Lib. de •• duis Ambroſe, Lib. contra Iouinianum. Ierome, and finally by Lib. de virginitate Sancta. cap. 30. Auſtin, who ſpeaking of Precepts and Counſells, vſeth the very Word: Supererogation, thus ſaying of precepts and Counſells: Dominus debitum imperat nobis: in his autem ſi quid amplius ſupererogaueritis, in reddendo reddet nobis.

The doctrine of Euangelicall Councells is warranted and taught (beſydes by the former auncient fathers of the Primatiue Church euen by diuers learned Proteſtants.

According hearto we find it is mantayned for true doctryne, by Eccleſ. pol lib. 3. ſect. 8. pag. 140. M. Hooker, by D. In his defence of M Hooker art 8. pag. 49 50. 51. 52. Co ell, and by In Sacra 4. Euangel. in Math. c. 19. Bucer, And thus f r breifly of Iuſtification by Works, of merit of Works, and of works of Supererogation.

The Catholicke Doctrine, touching Indulgences.

THe Vi ulency of Proteſtants againſt the doctrine of Indulgences is moſt remarkable. Wherefore for their better conceauing of the ſtate of this Queſtion or Indulgences, this following in the Catholicke Doctrine.

Firſt, that Mortall ſinne is remitted by the Sacrament of Confeſſion; ſo far forth only, as concerneth the guilt or offence of God and the puniſhment of eternall damnation; yet ſo, that this eternall puniſhment by Gods Mercy is turned into temporall puniſhment; as appeareth by the example of Dauid: Who (though the eternall puniſhment due to the guilt of his ſinns was for giuen) yet was puniſhed temporally by the death of his Sonne: For theſe are the words in Scripture after his ſinne was forgiuen: 2 Reg. c. 12. Becauſe thou haſt cauſed the name of God to be blaſphemed, the Child, that is borne to th e, ſhall dye. In lyke ſort, Dauids ſinne in numberring his People, being remitted him; yet was he put to chuſe Reg. 〈◊〉 24. for his temporall puniſhmēt and ſatisfaction, either Warre, Famine, or Peſtilence.

Now the guilt of eternall damnation for ſinne being remitted, there remaineth a temporall puniſhment. And this tēporall puniſhment (thus reſerued) is the ſole ſubiect of Indulgences. Therefore an Indulgence (as heare the word is taken) is a mercifull relaxation or remiſſion of temporall puniſhment, due for ſinne, by applying the ſuper abundant ſatisfaction of Chriſt, after the ſinne it ſelfe and guilt of eternall damnation due to mortall ſinne is remitted by the Sacrament of Confeſſion; or for want thereof by perfect Contrition.

The ground and foundation of Indulgencs is cheifly the treaſury and ſatisfaction of Chriſts death, which is of that infinity greate valew an pryce (ſeeing euery drop of his bloud was able to redeeme a thouſands Worlds, in regard of his Diuinity being vnited to his Humanity) as that it can ueuer be exhauſted. For we reade: that 1. Cor. 1. Chriſt dyed for all; Alſo that 1. Iohn. 〈◊〉 . 2. Chriſt is apropitiation for our ſinns; and not for our ſinns only, but for the Sinns of the whole World.

But it is certaine, that the pryce of Chriſts death was not actually applyed to all Men hitherto liuing; ſince then it would follow, that all Men (which hitherto haue liued) ſhould haue bene ſaued.

Therefore it followeth, that theare yet remayneth a greate abundance of the pryce of Chriſt paſſion (if it were not in finite, as indeede it is) to be applyed and ſtill will remaine.

The diſpenſer of this treaſury of the Church is the Heade of Chriſts Church, who hath power to apply this treaſury for the abſoluing of Men from their temporall puniſhment, due to their Sinns, allready remitted by Sacramentall Confeſſion, according to the authority geuen him in thoſe words: Whatſoeuer thou loſeſt vpon earth, ſhalbe loſed in Heauen; with which Math. 16. place accord other places Math. 18. Iohn. 20. of the Euangeliſts. Now theſe words being generall, they do extend aſ well to the puniſhment due for ſinne, as to the ſinne itſelfe; ſeing the puniſhment is as remiſſible, as the Sinne; And as to the one are applyed Chriſts Meritts, ſo to the other Chriſts atisfactions.

The Cauſe, why any Indulgence is granted to any Man, ought to be iuſt and reaſonable (or otherwyſe the Indulgence granted is of no valew) for ſeing the Pope is not Lord of this ſpirituall treaſure of the Church, but only the diſtributer thereof therefore this diſtribution he cannot make without a iuſt, reaſonable, and lawfull Cauſe.

The Partie receauing the benefit of an Indulgence ought (at the tyme of receauing it) to be in ſtate of grace (ſince otherwiſe he can reape no benefit by any Indulgence) to which ſtate he is brought by true Contrition of his former Sinns, although not perhaps forgeuen (in reſpect of eternall damnation) in the Sacrament of Confeſſion: And heare is diſcouered the triſſling vanity & falſhood of our Aduerſaries: in affirming, that the Catholicks teach, that the Pope can giue (a fore hand) an Indulgence to any Man for any ſinne, which hereafter is to be committed. Since wee ſee, that the obiect of an Indulgence is the temporall puniſhment only (and not the puniſhment of damnation) and this for a ſinne allready committed (and not hereafter to be committed) of which a Man being in ſtate of grace (and conſequently not one, who beareth a preſent reſolution to commit any ſinne hereafter) is remitted by his Indulgence; applyed to hym, vpon iuſt and reaſonable Cauſes.

We are further heare to admoniſh, that the Partie receauing an Indulgence, ought to performe entyrely and preciſly all things enioyned hym by his Indulgence; Whether it be prayer, Alms, faſting &c. According to that vſuall ſaying: Indulgentia tantum valent, quantum ſonant.

Wheare it is taught, that the Merits and ſuffrings of ſome greate Saincts as of our Bleſſed Lady, S, Iohn Baptiſte, and ſome others, do concurre to the encreaſe of this ſpirituall Treaſure of the Church (which is the foundation of Indulgences) this is to be vnderſtood in this ſenſe; to wit, that becauſe their Meritts, works, and ſufferings haue their vertue and valew only from the Meritts of our Sauiours Paſſion: And that they onely concurre to the increaſe of the treaſure as they depend vpon the meritts of Chriſt therefore it may be truly ſaid, that primatiuely and Originally only the Meritts and Paſſion of Chriſt, do make this ſpirituall treaſure, from whence Indulgences do flowe.

Ad hearto, that if S. Paule might truly ſay in a reſearued ſenſe: Ad imple ea, quae deſunt paſſionum Chriſti, in earne mea, (g) Colo . 1. pro corpor •• ius, quod eſt Eccleſia I do fullfill thoſe things, that do want of the paſſion of Chriſt, in my fleſh, for his body, which is the Church (words, which if any Catholicke ſhould haue auerred of any one Sainct, without the warrant of the Apoſtle, he ſhould haue bene mighrely calumn ated and wronged by the Proteſtants) then followeth it, that the afflictions and ſufferings of S. Paule (as receauing their force from Chriſts Paſſiō) may be ſaid without any indignitie to Chriſt, to encreaſſe this ſpirituall treaſure of the Church. For theſe former words do not import, that there was any defect in the Paſſion of Chriſt; but that the ſufferings of S. Paule, did fulfill the plenitude of Chriſt his Paſſion, and his members for the benefit of thoſe, to whom they are to be communicated For as Chriſt, being the inuiſible and ſupreme heade of his Church, doth with his Church, make but one myſticall body; ſo his ſufferings with the ſufferings of his members (receauing all their force and efficacy from the Paſſion of Chriſt) do make (as S. In pſal. 61. Auſtin affirmeth) one common and publ ke We le, or one publike treaſure. And according hereto it is, that we fynd, offered S. Paules afflictions ſometymes for the Coloſ. 1. Coloſſians at other times for the Corinthians Cor. 2. Cor. 1.: he deſiring at one tyme to dye for the Romans Row. 9.; at an other tyme, to become an A athem for them.

To proceede further. The Old Teſtament it ſelfe warranteth this mutuall communication of one ſuffering for an other; And in this ſenſe it is ſaid of Gods Church (there entituled Ieruſalem, that it is, Pſal. 21. as a Citty, whoſe participationes in it ſelfe. That is: As in a publicke Citty there is a generall trafficke, for the publicke benefit of euery particular Citizen; So in the Citty of God (which is his Church) there is a communion or participation of all the ſpirituall works thereof, to the generall benefit and behoo e of eich particular Man. And vpon this ground it is, that Dauid ſaid (in reſpect of the communication of one Mans ſufferings for an other) Pſalm. 218. I am made partaker of all, that feare the Lord.

Now this former doctrine, touching the ſufferings of one to be applyed to an other, being the vndoubted, true, and auncient doctrine of Chriſt Church (vpon which ground Indulgances are builded) it from hence appeareth, how idly and impertin ntly our aduerſaryes do vrge ſome texts of Scripture to the contrary; As where it is ſayd: The Ezech 18. ſoule, which ſinneth, •• en that ſhall dye. And againe: Ad Galat 6. Euery one ſhall be are his owne burden. And more: No Pſalm. 49. Man c •• redeeme his brother, or giue a price to God for him. All which texts are ſpoken of the ſtate of eternall damnation, (and therefore impertinently alledged) in which ſtate a Man depar eth out of this World; but they are not ſpoken of temporall puniſhment only, which is reſerued, after the guilt of eternall damnation is remitted; which is the point here controuerted.

If it be vrged againſt this doctrine, that the actions of the Saincts, deceaſed, were meritts to themſelues; and therefore cannot be applyed, as ſatisfactions for others. o this I anſwere, that one and the ſame action may be (in a different reſpect) both meritorious, and ſatisfactory; Meritorious, as it proceedeth from ſupernaturall grace; ſatisfactory, as it is performed with payne, labour and difficulty; According hereto we reade in Scripture, that alme deeds do both merit, and ſatisfy for ſinne: For thus we reade: Marc. 9 Whoſoeuer ſhall giue in my name a cup of cold water, &c. he ſhall not looſe his reward. Here is merit. We alſo reade of Alme deeds Iob 4. in this ſort: Almeſdeeds deliuer vs from ſinne and death; and againe: As Eccleſ. 3. water quencheth the fire, ſo Almeſdeeds extinguiſh ſinne. Here is ſatisfaction. Here alſo we are to concea e, that though the ſame action may be meritorious and ſatisfactory; yet a man meriteth only for himſelfe, & not for others: but ſatisfy he may both for himſelfe, and for others: only Chriſt (our Sauiour) hath merited both grace and glory for vs all, and alſo hath ſatisfyed for the ſinnes of all Men, Yet the worth and price of his merites we can apply only to ourſelues, (by our meritorious actions) and not deriue it to any other; but the benefit of his ſatisfaction we may deriue (by our owne ſatisfactory works) not only to our ſelues, but alſo to others.

Where it is vulgarly objected, that Iuduigences are oftentymes granted for more thouſands of years, then the World or Purgatory are like to endure and continue; And that therefore they are ridiculouſly and fooliſhly granted. I anſwere, this argument proceedeth from meere Ignorance. For heere the yeres are not to be vnderſtood of the yeres or dayes of penall ſatisfaction, which are to be impoſed in Purgatory; but of the number of yeres, which were more or leſſe in number proportioned (according to the diuerſity of the crime) by the Canonicall Decrees of the Church. And here we are further to know, that God in the ſpace and compaſſe of an houre or ſome ſuch ſhort time, may by the bitter paynes of Purgatory expiate that, which (in this life) a remiſſe and ſlow penance or ſatisfaction would ſcarce redeeme in the compaſſe of many yeres.

Now touching the antiquity of Indulgences; we fynd them practized by S. Paul, who thus ſayth of the inceſtuous perſon: Whom 2. Cor. 2. you haue pardoned, I alſo pardon: for that which I haue pardoned, in the Perſon of Chriſt, for you I haue done it, that we be not circumuented of Satan. Here now we are to remember, that the inceſtuous perſon (to whom the Indulgence was heere giuen) being in great contrition and ſorrow for his ſinne, was excommunicated by S. Paul, who at the requeſt of the Corinthians did releaſe him of his excommunication, for feare he might faule into diſpayre. Now in this example, we find all things neceſſary to an Indulgence or Pardon. As firſt, the authority of the granter of the pardon; to wit, S. Paul, who affirmes to do it, in the perſon of Chriſt. Secondly, ſtate of grace in the Receauer of the Indulgence; as appeareth by his Contrition and ſorrow for his ſinne committed. Thirdly, the temporall puniſhment remitted; to wit, his Excommunication. Laſtly, a iuſt & ſufficient cauſe for giuing this Indulgence or Pardon: Which was, leſt the offendour ſhould faule into diſpayre, or be ouerplunged in ſorrow.

After the Apoſtles tymes, we fynd that the Biſhops of the Primatiue Church gaue pardons and Indulgences to many: and this was done by the mediation of Confeſſours or deſigned Martyrs, as is witneſſed by Lib. ad Martyr. Tertullian & Cyprian. epiſt. 13. 14. 15. & ſerm. vlt. de Lapſis. Cyprian.

We alſo find, that Pardons and Indulgences were giuen by ſundry •• opes in other ages: as by Luggerus epiſt. de S. Swiberto. apud Suriū. Leo the third, by Thom, in 4. ſentent diſ. 20. q. 1. art. 3. Gregory the Great, by Anton. 2. part. hiſtor. tit. 16, cap. 1. Vrban the ſecond, by Abbas Vlperg. in Chronic. Innocentius the third, by Paſchalis the firſt, and by others. All which diſpenſed and diſtributed out of the common treaſure of the Church.

Beſides the former authorityes, the doctrine and vſe of Indulgencs is warranted by Councells, both Generall and Prouinciall. To wit, the firſt Councel of Can. 11. Nice, the Councell of Can 9. Ancyran, the Councell of Leodice, Can. 2. the Councell of Claramontane, the Councell of Lateran, of Vienna, of Conſtance and of Trente: as appeareth in the Councells themſelfs. Now if the former auncient Popes and Fathers, as alſo theſe alledged Councells ſhould erre in the doctrine of Indulgences, then two mayne abſurdityes ſhould follow; firſt, that the Primatiue Church ſhould moſt fouly erre in a dogmaticall poynt of fayth; contrary to the iudgment of the more ſober & Leared Proteſtants, among whom I will (for breuity) heare ſet downe the iudgment only of Kempnitius, touch ng the Primatiue Church, who thus ſaith: Cempnit. in his Examen. Concil. Trident. parr. 1. pag. 74. I dowbt not, but the Primatiue Church receaued from the Apoſtles and Apoſtolicall Men: not only the text of Scripture, but alſo the natiue ſenſe thereof. But this the Primatiue Church could not receaue, if it wholy erred in ſo mayne a matter of Chriſtian doctrine, as the doctryne of Indulgences is. The ſecond Abſurdity, is that in regard of the ſaid Fathers and Generall Councells, defending the doctrine of Indulgences, the whole Church of Chriſt (ſuppoſing the doctrine to be fa ſe) ſhould erre in matter of fayth; contrary to the Promiſe of Chriſt, who hath promiſed euer to be with his Church till the end of the World; which ſaid Church of his is ſtyled by the Apoſtle (for it greater certainty of fayth 1. Tim. 3. columna & firmamentum veritatis; and therefore incompatible with errour.

And thus much concerning the doctrine of Indulgences; ending this diſcours with the Confeſſion of Kempnitius, (touching the antiquity thereof) who plainly acknowledgeth, and ſaith Kempnitius examen. part. 4. p. 329. that the beginning of Indulgences is not clearely enough ſet downe in hiſtories.

The Catholicke doctrine touching Communion vnder one Kynd, defended.

THe true ſtate of this queſtion is not, whether Chriſt did inſtitute the Euchariſt vnder both kynds; Or whether hymſelfe and the Apoſtles did at the firſt inſtitution, receaue it vnder both kynds: Or whether the Apoſtles and the Fathers afterwards at ſundry tymes did miniſter it to the Laity, vnder both kynds (for all this is confeſſed for true) But only the Queſtion heare is, whether Chriſt our Sauiour did geue an abſolute Command, vnto his Apoſtles and their Succeſſours of adminiſtrating the ſaid Sacrament vnder both kynds, (to wit of breade and Wyne) ſo as the deliuering of it to the Laity vnder one kynd only, ſhould be a breach of our Lords precept therein.

The Proteſtants affirme it to be an abſolute tranſgreſſion of onr Sauiours precept; The Catholicks denye it; mantayning, that our Sauiour in the firſt inſtitution of the Sacrament, did leaue no precept, touching the maner, how it is to be adminiſtrated to the Laity.

The Catholicks do further iuſtify, that the Proteſtants in this place do ignorantly confound a Precept with an Inſtitution betwene which two, theare is great differēce. For example, God did firſt Inſtitute and ordayne Mariadge; yet he gaue no precept or command thereof: For if he had, then all Men ſhould haue bene bownd to marye.

The Catholicks prooue this their doctryne; firſt from our Lord and Sauiours owne words; Who, as he ſome tymes maketh mention of both kynds: ſo often doth be mention but ore Kynd only, as wheare he ſayth: He, Ioan. 〈◊〉 . that eateth this bread, ſhall liue for euer. Againe: This vbi ſupra. is the bread, that commeth downe from Heauen: in both which places (beſides diuers others) be maketh no mention of the Cup.

Secondly, the ſ me doctrine is proued from the practiſe of our Sauiour hymſelfe; Luc. 24. who being at Emaus with his two Diſciples at ſupper, did take breade, and (as S. Luke relateth) and bleſſe and breake it, and did reach it to them. Wheare S. Luke mentioneth not the Cup. That by this breade is vnderſto de the uchariſt, is taught by S. Lib. 3. de conſenſu. c. 25. Auſtin, and euen by ſome Proteſtant Melan 〈…〉 on Apolog. Cō 〈…〉 . Aug. 〈◊◊〉 de vtraque ſpecie. Wryters.

Thirdly, from the Apoſtles practize, after Chriſts tyme. For werea •• , that S. Luke Act. 2. eaking of the beleiuers and the faythfull) thus ſayth: They (f) were perſeuering in the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and in communication of breaking of bread, and in prayers. Heare is no mention of the Cup to the Laity; And yet eare, by breaking of breade is vnderſtoode the Euchariſt; both becauſe it is ioyned with doctrine and prayers, as alſo by the teſtimonies of the auncien Author operis imperfect in Math. homil. 17. Beda ad c. 20. Act. Fathers, & the Proteſtants. Luth. ſetm. de Fuchariſt. Caluin. l. 4. inſtit. par. 17. Kempnit. exam. Cō cil. Tridē . ſeſſ. 21. part. 2. Concerning which place of S. Luke, wee are to conceaue, that S. Luke related not what the Apoſtles did (who, no dowbt, did conſecrate in both hynds) but only, what the Laity did, and vnder what kynd they did receaue.

Fourthly, the foreſaid doctryne of the Laity communicating vnder one kynd or both, is confeſſed by diuers learned Proteſtants, as a matter of Indifferency only, and not of Neceſſity: For Luther thus writeth heareof: De captiuit babilon. l. de Euchariſt. They ſinne not againſt Chriſt, who vſe one kind; ſeing Chriſt hath not commanded to vſe both but hath le f •• t to the will of euery one. In lyke ſort Hoſpinian Hiſt. Sacram. part 2. fol. 112. (the Proteſtant) relateth, that certaine Proteſtants (as houlding it a matter of indifferency) did actually communicate vnder one kynd. To be ſhort, Melancton thus writeth heareof: Cent. epiſt. theolog. epiſt. 74p. 25 〈…〉 Concerning both the kinds of the Lords ſupper 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 &c. The Pope with out any hurt, might eaſely healpe theſe inconueniences; Yf taking away the prohibition, he would leaue the vſe free. And this liberty would noting hurt vs: Of ſuch indifferency (we ſee) Melancton maketh this poynt to be

In the next place, we will examine our Aduerſaries, cheifeſt arguments produced out of the Scripture to the contrarie. And firſt, they obiect the words of our Sauiour: Ioan. 6. Vnleſſe you eate the fleſh of the Sonne of Man, and drinke his bloud, you ſhall not haue lyfe in you.

To this I anſweare; firſt, that according to diuers learned Luth. de capt. Babil. c. 1. Swinglius de vera & falſa religione. c. de Euchariſt. Caluin Inſtit. l. 4. c. 17. par. 33. Proteſtants, theſe words do not concerne the Sacrament of the Euchariſt But that by eating and drinking in this place, is vnderſtood beleiuing in Chriſt.

Secondly, admitting the ſame words to concerne the B. Euchariſt; and withall ſuppoſing them to include a precept (as indeed they include no precept) yet this precept reſteth not in the Maner of receauing, but in the thing receaued; to wit, the body and bloud of Chriſt. But the body and bloud of Chriſt are as fully receaued vnder one kynd, as vnder both; as hereafter ſhalbe ſhowed.

Our Aduerſaryes further obiect thoſe other words of our Sauiour: Math. 26. drinke you all of this. Which words they will needs extend, as ſpoken to all the La ty.

To this I firſt anſweare, that the word: All, is not euer taken in the Scripture Vniuerſally, for all Men, or all things; but often for all only of ſome certayne kynd; And according hearto we thus reade: Rom. 3. All Men ſinned; and yet from hence Chriſt is excepted. Againe, we alſo reade: Math. 7. 〈◊〉 cryed, Crucifye hym: And yet the Apoſtles were exempt out of this: All. And ſo heare in the former words: Drinke you all of this; The word: All, is to be reſtrayned only to all the Apoſtles, who then were with Chriſt: For if it were to be extended to all Men vniuerſally, and without reſtraint; then ſhould the Sacrament of the Cup be giuen to Iewes, Turks, Infidels, and Children; all which not withſtanding are exempted from thence, by the confeſſion of the Proteſtants. Moreouer Drinke yee all of this was ſpoken onely to thoſe to whom was ſaid do yee this in remembrance of me. But this was ſpoken onely to the Apoſtles and in them to Preiſts their ſucceſſours.

Now ſeeing (as aboue it is proued) Communion (vnder one, or both kynds) is a thing of Indifferencie; The Church of God out of her authoritie, hath debarred the Laity from the Cup; moued thearto (beſides ſome other reaſons) out of a due reuerrence to this highe and venerable Sacrament. For if the Laity ſhould drinke of the Cup, it would not (morally ſpeaking) be otherwyſe, but that through the negligence of diuers of the Laity, theare would be frequent ſpilling of the Cup vpon the ground; a thing moſt indecent and irreuerent; and which the auncient Auſtin. l. 5. homil. 26. Cyrill Catech. myſtag. 5. Origen homil. 13. in Exodū. Fathers had a ſpeciall care to preuent.

Neither can it be heare replyed, that to the Laity (as being retayned from the Cup) but a halfe and imperfect Sacra ment is geuen; and that thereupon the Laity is depryued of much grace and fruyte, imparted by receauing it vnder both kinds: To this I anſwere. Firſt, the Proteſtants haue ſmall reaſon to vrge the want of Grace or fruit, by giuing it vnder one kind; ſeing by their doctrine, this Sacrament actually giueth no grace or fruit at all, but only by repreſentation or ſignification; But this repreſentation of our Sauiours death is perfectly accompliſhed vnder one kind only; As we ſee, it was fully figured in the old Law, in the Manna alone, and in the Paſchall Lambe alone.

Secondly and more particularly, I ſay, that neither is this Sacrament giuen by halfs only (as our Aduerſaries ſuggeſt) neither is leſſe fruit imparted by one kind, then by both; the reaſon hereof is, becauſe the Catholicks do ioyntly teach, that vnder eyther kind, is truly contayned whole Chriſt; to wit, his Body, Bloud, Soule, and Diuinity.

That this doctrine is true (euer preſuppoſing the Reall Preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, which all Catholicks doe) is prooued from two other Principles of faith. The firſt is, that Chriſt after his Reſurrection, ſhall neuer dye agayne, according to that of S. Paul: Rom 6. Chriſt ryſing from the dead, now dyeth no more. From whence it immediately followeth, that vnder the forme of Bread, the Body of Chriſt is not without bloud and Soule; ſeing otherwiſe, it would be without life, and conſequently dead. The ſecond Article is, That Chriſt is one Diuine Perſon, ſubſiſting in two Natures: from whence it followeth, that ſeing the Body of Chriſt hath no other ſubſiſtence, then that of his Godhead; That therefore where his body is, there alſo is his Diuinity. Both which Articles being true, & acknowledged by the Proteſtants, it vnauoydably followeth, that (once ſuppoſing and granting the Reall Preſence for true doctrine) neyther the Sacrament is maymed or imperfect vnder one kind; nor that leſſer grace or fruyte is giuen vnder one kynd, then vnder both. And thus farre of this poynt.

The Catholicke Doctrine touching Relicks of Saincts Bodyes; the ſigne of the Croſſe; Praying vpon Bea es; Benediction of Creatures &c.

FIrſt touching Relicks of Saincts Bodyes. Whereas the In prae •• t. 6. Cēt. Centuriſts do charge vs Catholicks, that the Relicks of Saincts bodyes are worſhipped by vs, with diuine honour; and that we do pray vnto them, as if they did heare vs, or were liuing. To this I anſwere. It is a moſt impudent and lying ſlaunder, fitting to proceede from the tongues of ſuch falfe Apoſtles. For which of vs Catholicks haue euer inuoked the Relicks of any Sainct? Or who of vs was euer heard to ſay: Holy Relicks pray for vs?

The honour we do to them is this. We worſhip Relicks with the ſame inferiour worſhip, as we do to other religious things: And this we do, as reputing them the holy pledges of our Patrons; and as being parcells of thoſe bodyes, wherein the Holy Ghoſt did vouchſafe to inhabite; and which hereafter at the day of generall Reſurrection of our bodyes, ſhalbe reunited to their glorious ſoules now in Heauen: But we neyther honour them, as God: nor inuoake them, as Saincts. And this is the very anſwere, which S. Lib. 〈…〉 tra V •• ilantium. Ierome made to Vigilantius (the Hereticke) denying (as Proteſtants now do) the lawfull worſhip of Relicks.

The worſhip of Relicks giuen by vs Catholicks, is warranted by the authorityes of the ſecond Act. 3. Nicene Councell, by the Councell Can. vlt. Gangreuſe, as alſo by the practiſe of the auncient Fathers: to wit In vita B Antonij. Athanaſius, In pſal. 115. Baſill, Serm. de Sanctis Inuentio & Maximo. Chryſoſtome, Serm. 93. de Sanctis Naſa io & Celſo. Ambroſe, Lib. aduerſ. Vigilantium. Ierome, and (to omit diuers others) Auſtin. de Eccleſ. dogm. c. 73. Auttin himſelfe: who thus writeth hereof: Sanctorum corpora & praecipuè Beatorum Martyrum reliquias, (ae ſi Chriſti membra) ſyncertſſime honor anda credimus: ſi quis contra hanc ſententiam venerit, non Chriſtianus, ſed Eunomianus & Vigilantianus creditur. We do beleiue, that the bodyes of Saincts, and eſpecially the relicks of bleſſed Martyrs are to be honored, (as the members of Chriſt) And who impugneth this ſentence, is not to be reputed a Chriſtian, but an Eunomian and Vigilantian. Thus S. Auſtin.

The euidency of the auncient rathers iudgments hereof, appeareth from the open confeſſions of the learned Proteſtants. For O •• ander the Proteſtant thus reprooueth S. Ierome. In epitom. Cēt. 4. pag. 506. Ierome did fooliſhly contend that the relicks of Saincts are to be worſhipped. In like ſort, where Ierome thus writeth: Cont a Vigilant 〈…〉 ant med. Conſtantinus imperator ſanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae, & Timothei tranſtulit Conſtantinopolni, apud quas dae 〈…〉 rugiunt. Conſtantin the Emperour did cauſe the holy relicks of Andrew, Lucke, and Timothee to be carryed to Conſtantinople, whereat the very Deuils did roare or rage. Now Bullenger (the Proteſtant) thus taxeth Ierome. De Origine Erroris printed •• guri, 1539. fol. 67. S Ierome is ouerfall, in that he ſaith, the Diuills did roare at the holy relicks of Andrew. The ſaid B •• lenger Bulenger vbi ſupra. confeſſeth, that many holy men of God (he ſtyling them, Sancti Dei homines) did hould the doctrine of worſhipping of Relicks: and in lieu of anſwere, thus ſayth: ſtudium Dei habent, ſed non ſecundum ſcientiam.

Touching Pilgrimages to the bodyes & relickes of Saincts, the Centuriſts do thus write: Cent. 4. col 457. De peregrinationibus ad loca ſacra, caeperunt hoc ſeculò primum ſub Conſtantino, locaterrae Sanctae in praecio habert: Helenama er Imperatoris (mulier ſuperſt 〈…〉 ſa) illuc profect a ador andi carſa &c. Touching pilgrimages to Holy places, the places of the holy Land did beginne firſt in this age vnder Conſtantin, to be had in eſtimation and reſpect; Helen the mother of Conſtantine (being a ſuperſtitious Woman) did goe thither, to the end to worſhip them. Thus the Centuriſts. The ſayd Centuriſts do in like ſort thus condemne Conſtantine himſelfe: Cent. 4. col. 15 9. plane ſimili ſuperſtitione, Conſtantinus reliquias quaſdam de Cruce (ab Helena reperta) Conſtantinopolni dicitur tranſtuliſſe, vt eſſet eius Verbis conſeruatrix. uſt with the like ſuperſtition, Conſtantiue is reported to haue tranſlated certaine relicks of the Croſſe (found by Helen) to Conſtantinople: that they might be the 〈◊〉 of the Citty.

Touching Miracles, wrought at the Sepulchres and bodyes of Saincts, the Proteſtants do no leſſe acknowledge the ſame for firſt Luther thus confeſſeth: In purgat. quorundam. articul. Who can deny thoſe things, which God to this day worketh miraculouſly and viſibly (ad diuorum Sepulora) at the Monuments of the Saincts? In lyke ſort Cempnitius thus confe eth: Cempnitius exā. part. 4. p. 10. Apud Auguſtinum, in tranſlatione Reliquiarum Stephan , mulier caeca illuminatae eſt; & aliquando quaedam miracula ad reliquias edebantur. Auſtin recordeth, that vpon the tranſl tion of the Relicks of Steuen, a blynd Woaman was reſtored to ſight, and that ſometymes certaine Miracles were wrought at the preſence of Relicks. And the Centuriſts affirme the lyke, thus wryting: Si Cent. 4. col. 457. Ambroſio credimus, agri, qui veſtes Sanctorum manu contigiſſent, ſanabantur; obſ ſſi liber bantur &c. Yf we beleiue Ambroſe, Sick perſons, who touched with their hands the veſtments of Saincts, were cured, and perſons poſſeſſed with euill ſpirits, were theareby freed of them. Finally D. Whitakers geueth a full allowance and approbation of all ſuch relations in theſe words: Contra Durae um. l. 10. p. 66. Nec illa miracula vanafuiſſe put , quae in Martyrum monumentis facta narrantur. I do not hould thoſe Miracles, as vayne or idle, which are related to haue been exhibited, at the monuments or ſepulcres of Saincts.

Thus much ton hi g •• licks, the true and Catholicke doctrine whereof may receaue it moſt full and vndowbted prouffe (if all aboue ſpoken, were falſe) euen from Gods holy writ. For do we not find, that Moyſes Exod. 13. vſed great reuerence to the bones of Ioſeph the Patriarch? As alſo did not Ioſias Reg. 4. cap. 23. the lyke to the bones of an other Prophet? And were not Miracles wrought, by the dead bones of Elizeus, Reg. 4. c. 3 by the ſhadow of S. Peter, Act. 5. and by the Nappkin of S. Act. 19. Paule? Therefore if the Proteſtants will ad wit the old and New Teſtament; they muſt conſequently admit the Catholicke doctrine of Relicks.

In this next place, we will come to the ſigne of the Croſſe; which we make vpon our foreheads, which is ſo much diſliked by the Proteſtants.

When a Catholicke ſigneth hymſelfe with the ſigne of the Croſſe, be but only implicitly deſ •• eth that by this ſigne; which ex 〈…〉 citly and by mediation of words, he deſireth by prayers. For ſeeing the ſigne of the Croſſe doth figure out to the eye our Sauiours Paſſion; and ſeing the ſecret deſires of the hart are manifeſted and made knowne, as well by ſignes of the bodye (as dumbe Men, and ſuch as cannot ſpeake, are accuſtomed to make) as by prayers and words of the tongue: Therefore if it be lawfull for me with the tongue to pray, that God will forgiue my ſinns, through the Meritts of Chriſt his death and Paſſion; It muſt needs then conſequently be lawfull for me, to pray to hym to the ſame end, without words, by making the ſigne of the Croſſe: Seing the making of this ſigne, with an intention of internall Prayer (the Croſſe being the badge and remembrance of our Sauiours death and Paſſion) is all one, as to pray in words by vertue and force of the ſame death and Paſſion; Since the hand in this caſe, by making the ſigne of the Croſſe, doth ſupply the place and office of the rongue.

The lawfulnes of this ſigne may be taken and proued. from the ſigns of the Old Teſtament; So the Bloud of the Exod. 12 Lambe, ſprinckled vpon the poſts of Howſes, did ſignify nothing els, but the ſigne of the Croſſe vpō the foreheads of Chriſtians, by the authority of S. Lib. de catechiſ. rudibus c. 20. Auſtin.

In lyke ſort, the ſigne: Tau, Ezéch. cap. 9. which was commanded to be drawne vpon the foreheads of thoſe, who lamented, was a manifeſt ſigne of the ſigne of the Croſſe on the foreheads of Chriſtians, by the iudgments both of S. Lib. aduerſ. Demetrianū. Cyprian and S In Cō ment. Ezechiel. Ierome.

The making of the ſigne of the Croſſe was euer practized and iuſtified by the Fathers of the primatiue Church; of which point ſee, De Eccleſ. Hierarch. c. 4. 5. 6. Dioniſius, Lib. 4. epiſt. 6. Cyprian, Catech. 4. Cyrill, De Incarnat. Verbi. Athanaſius) who ſaith: Sign cru •• s omnia magica compeſcentur, by the ſigne of the Croſſe all Magick is ſuppreſſed) De Spirit. Sancto. c. 37. Baſil, Serm. 43. Ambroſe, Epiſt. ad Demetriadem. Ierome, Tract. 18. in loannem ad finem. vide lib. 1. Confeſſ. c. 1. Auſtin, beſydes diuers others of the Greeke and Latin Church: The words of S. Auſtin I will heare ſet downe; Thus then he wryteth: Quid eſt, quod omnes •• uerunt: ſignum Chriſti, niſi crux Chriſti? quod ſignum, in ſi adhibeatur ſiue frontibus credentium &c. What other thing is the ſigne of Chriſt (which allmen know) then the Croſſe of Chriſt? Which ſigne of the Croſſe, except it be made vpon the forehead of the faythfull beleiuers; vpon the water, by the which, they are regenerated; vpon the oyle, with which Criſme they are anoynted; vpon the Sacrifice, with which they are nuriſhed, not any of theſe former myſteries are duly performed. Thus S. Auſtin.

Ad hearto, that God hath vouchſafed to worke diuers Miracles by the ſigne of the Croſſe, as appeareth by the frequent teſtimonyes of the Fathers; to wit of Initio Scorpiaci. Tertullian, Haereſ. 30. Epiphanius, Orat. in Iu ianum. Nazianzene, In vita Gregorij. Thaumaturgi. Nyſſe e, Iu vita Antonij. Athanaſius, In vita Pauli, primi Eraemitae. Ierome, Lib. 22. de ciuicare D 〈…〉 Auſtin and others: All which authorityes to contemne in this point, were moſt inſolently to traduce ſo many learned and auncient Fathers (and conſequently the whole Church of God in thoſe pure and primatiue tymes) as ſuperſtitious, blynd, and ignorant.

Now that the teſtimonyes of the former auncient Fathers (though their owne words, for breuity, be not at large ſet downe) both touching the worſhip giuen by them to the Croſſe, (I euer meane, ſuch religious and inferiour worſhip, as is giuen to things conſecrated to religious ends: farre different from that giuen to God) and touching diuers Miracles wrought by the ſaid ſigne, are moſt clear , euident, and vnanſwerable, appeareth from the acknowledgments of learned Proteſtants in this behalfe: And thus concordantly hereto, D nae s (that learned Proteſtant) thus wryteth: In prime part. altera parte ad Bellarm Cō trouerſ. 5. p. 1415. Cyrill and ſundry other Fathers were plainly ſuperſtitious and blynded with this enchantment of the Croſ es adoration. The Centuriſ •• thus wryte of S. Ambroſe: Cent. 4. col. 302. A broſius multa comme crat ſuperſtitioſ de cruce 〈…〉 nta: Ambroſe relateth many ſuperſtitious things of the Croſſe, which was found. In like ſort the ſaid Proteſtants thus taxe Ephrem: Cent. 4. vbi ſupra. 〈…〉 is ſignationi nimium viditur tribuere: Ephrem is thought to aſcrybe too much to the ſigne of the Croſſe And yet Ephrem liued within little more then three hundre yeres after Chriſt. The ſaid Cent riſts, ſpeaking of the age of Tertullian, (who liued not much more, then two hundred yeres after Chriſt) thus confeſſe: Cent. 3. col. 121. Crucis Imaginem, ſeu in locis publicorum congreſſ um, ſ u domi priuatim Chriſtianos habuiſs indicare vide 〈…〉 Tertullianus: Tertullian ſeemeth to ſhow, that the Chriſtians ai cauſe the ſigne of the Croſs to be made in places of publicke meetings, as alſo priuatly in their houſes: D. Fulke, ſpeaking of Paulinu thus wryteth: againſt Heskius, Sanders, p. 657. By the report of Paulinus the Croſse was by the Biſhop of Ieruſalem brought forth at Eaſter, to be worſhipped of the People. The ſayd Doctour thus wryteth of Cy ili and Ruffinus, ſaying: D. Fulk vbi ſupra. Ruffinus and Cyrill had a ſuperſtitious eſtimation of the ſigne of the Croſse.

Now touching more particularly the miracles wrought (in the Fathers iudgments) by the ſigne of the Croſse, we find theſe confeſſion following.

And firſt, we find Oſiander ſpeaking of Iulian, thus to wryte: Iulianus metu perculſus, illico ex conſuetudine Chriſtianiſmi, (f) In Epitom. 326. frontem cruce ſignat, ibi Damones ſubito diſparent; Iulian being ſtroken with feare, according to the cuſtome of Chriſtians, did preſently ſigne hymſelfe with the ſigne of the Croſſe; and therevpon the Deuills did vaniſh away.

M. Burges (an Engliſh Proteſtant) with exception only to the worſhipping of the Croſſe, thus wryteth of the Fathers in this poynt Extant in D. Couels breife anſwere to the ſaid M Burges. There is nothing aſcrybed to the Croſſe (in or out of Baptiſm ) by the rankeſt Papiſts, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the ſame; ſo as if we will vſe it, as the Fathers did &c. we take the Soule to be fenced by croſſing of the body, and the Croſſe to haue vertue of conſecrating the Sacrament, dryuing away Deuills, Witchcraft &c.

To be ſhort, Doctour Couel, ſpeaking of thoſe auncient tymes of the primatiue Fathers, thus tr ly and ngenuo ſly confeſſeth: In his anſwere to M. Burges. No man can deny, but that God (after the death of his Sonne) manifeſted his power to the amazement of the world, in this contemptible ſigne; as being the inſtrument of many Miracles. And thus far touching the Fathers iudgments of the worſhip due to the Croſſe, and the Miracles, which God hath vouchſafed to worke by it, as his inſtrument; an 〈◊〉 all this confeſſed by the learned Proteſtants. And with this I end; putting the Reader in mind, that when a Croſſe is made in Paper, wood, or ſtone &c. It is made to put the behoulder in remembrance of our Sauiours' Paſſion and death; And therefore that Man, who calumniateth thereat, ſheweth greate ouerture, that he cannot willingly endure to heare of our Sauiours death and Paſſion: The Croſſe being but to the Eye, as the Words are to the eare.

In this next place, we will breifly touche praying vpon beades, benediction or bleſſing of Water, Sali, Aches, Candells &c. againſt which many Proteſtants do mightely inueigh, as charging the Catholicks the rein, with Superſtition; affirming further, that the Catholicks do place a kynd of Diuinity in theſe matters. Into ſuch ſtrayts (we ſee) the Proteſtants are driuen, that whereas they are not able (by any forcible arguments) to ouerthrowe the Catholicke fayth in the greateſt & cheifeſt articles, they therefore bend all their ſtenght to impugne theſe ſmall rytes and Ceremonyes.

And firſt, touching praying vpon beades. All Men know, it is but the repetition of the ſame prayers, ſeuerall tymes; the beades ſeruing only but to number or counte the tymes.

This Cuſtome is warranted by the ex mple of our Sauiour hymſelfe, who being in the garden, did repeate one and the ſame prayer, to wit, Math. cap. 26. Yf it be poſſible, let this cup paſſe from me hree ſeuerall tymes. Now if it be lawfull to iterate one and the ſame prayer thryſe; it is lawfull (by the ſame reaſon) to iterate it many ſcores of tymes together. Againe, if it be lawfull to repeate the Lords prayer ſeuen tymes in a weeke (for I preſume, euery Proteſtant will confeſſe, he ſaith it once a day) why then may he not repeate the ſaid Lords prayer, or any other good and ſpirituall prayer, ſeauen tymes a day: and if ſeauen tymes, why not then any greater number of tymes? Againe, once granting the prayer to be good; the goodnes of the Prayer (by force of all reaſon) doth warrant the often repetition of it.

The preciſe number or tymes of repeating one & the ſame prayer (among Catholicks) hath a myſticall reference, either to the number of Dauids Pſalms; or to the nūber of the yeeres, that our bleſſed Lady liued heare vpon earth: or to the number of our Sauiours wounds; or to the number of the Perſons in the moſt bleſſed Trinity: Or to ſome other ſuch Myſtery.

The Antiquity of praying vpon Beads, is confeſted by the Cent. 4. col. 1329. Centuriſts and by Epitō. Cent. 4. pag. 454. Oſiander, to haue bene twellue hundred yeres ſince. In lyke ſorte, the antiquity is recorded by Hiſt. l. 6. cap. 29. Zozomene, who ſaith, that Paule (the Monke) was accuſtomed to pray by counting the number of litle ſtones, in tyme of repeating his prayers; Which is all one as to pray vpon beads. The words of Zozomene are theſe: Indi s ſingulos trecentas orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam, reddidit: ac neper imprudentiam in numero errant, tr centis lappillis in ſinum contectis, ad ſingulas preces, ſingulos inde e ecit lapillos: conſumptis igitur lapillis, conſtabit ſibi orationes (lapillis numero pares) abs ſe explectos eſſe. And thus much touching praying vpon Beads.

We will next de •• ende to the conſecrating or bleſſing of Creaturs (vſed in the Catholicke Church) the lawfulnes whereof is warranted by the example of Chriſt himſelfe; Math. 14. Luke 9. Who intending to multiplye the breads, did looke vp towards Heauen and bleſſed the breads; and from that bleſſing of his did multiplye them. But certaine it is, that what our Sauiour did, is free from all reprehenſion.

Againe, doth not the Apoſtle ſay: That 1. Tim. 4 euery Creature is ſanctified by the Word and prayer

The Antiquity of Hollowing or bleſſing Creatures (and particularly of holy water) is very greate. For Lib. 8. Apoſt. cō ſtit. c. 35 Clemens, De Eccleſ. Hierarch. c. de Baptiſmo. Dionyſius (both who liued in the Apoſtles tymes) Catech. 3. Cirill, Lib. 1. epiſt 12. Cyprian, Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Ambroſe, Lib. 16. in ul anū c 8. ſerm. 19 de Sauctis. Auſtin, and others co make frequent mention of Holy Water, and the religious vſe thereof. And hence it is, that the Cent. 3. col. 28. & 148. Centuriſts do charge the Fathers (liuing in the third age after Chriſt) with ſuperſtition in bleſſing and hollowing of water; among which Fathers S. Cypr. lib. 1. epiſt. 12. Cyprian, thus ſaith: Oportet mandari & ſanctificari prius aquat a Sacerdote.

Benediction of Oyle is mentioned and approued by Clemens, and Dioniſius (in the places aboue noted) by Lib. de Spirit Sā cto. c. 27. Baſill, Auſtin, Tract. 11. in Ioannem. Cyprian, who thus expreſly Lib. 1. epiſt. 12. ſaith: Olium in Altari Sanctificatur by the Councel of Can. 48. Leodice, by the ſecond Councell of Can. 3. Carthage, by the third Councell of Can. 36. Carthage, by the firſt Councell of Can. 20. Tole •• : Finally (to omit the teſtimonyes hereof of other Councells, and vz. Damaſu, epiſt. de Corepiſcopis. Leo epiſt. 88. ad Epiſcopos Germaniae & Galliae. auncient Fathers) the antiquity of Hollowing of Oyle (and that particularly by a Biſhop (is acknowledged by the Cent. 3. col. 143. & Cent. 4. col. 865. Centuriſts, and by In Exā. part. 2. p. 58. Cempin 〈…〉 s.

Benediction of breads (and this beſides the ſe thereof in the conſecration of the Sacrament,) is proued from the authority of S. De peccat. merit l. 2. e. 26. Auſtin, S. Epiſt. ad Alipiū & Romanianum inter epiſt. Auguſtini. Paulinus, and S. In vita Hilarionis, poſt med. Ierome; the words of which laſt Father are theſe: Coneurrebant Epiſcopi, Preſbiteri &c. vulgus ignobile, potentes viri & Iudices, vt benedictum ab eo panem vel leum acciperent. This poynt of the benediction of bread is ſo euident to haue bene practized in thoſe auncient tymes, that D. againſt Heskins, Sanders &c. pag. 377. Fulke thus ſpeaketh thereof: It was a ſuperſtitious bread giuen (in S. Auſtins tyme) to thoſe, that were Catechumeni, in ſteede of the Sacrament. And Philip Mornay in lyke ſort thus chargeth the Liturgy of S. Baſill: It In his booke of the Maſſe. pag. 51. alloweth holy bread to be diſtributed, after Seruice to ſuch, as had not communicated.

Benediction of Candells is acknowledged by the fourth Councell Can 〈◊〉 . of T 〈…〉 ledo, by Pope In Pō tifical. Zozimus, S Lib. 〈◊〉 . epiſt. 28. Gregory, In benedict. Caerei Paſchal. Prudentius, and Cap. 30. Strabo: and according hearto the Centuriſts Cent. 5. col. 744. do confeſſe the antiquity of this Ceremony to be greate: and withall do further confeſſe, that Candells did burne in the Church in the day tyme, in Conſtantyns dayes: thus wryting hereof: Cent. 4. col. 497. Accenſiones candel rum interdiù in templis Conſtantinus inſtituit; The proufe of which cuſtome is further euident, out of the fourth Councell of Can. 6. Carthage, Hiſt. lib. 6. cap. 8. Euſebius, and Contra Vigilant. cap. 3. Ierome.

The benediction of Palms and Aſhes is proued from the authority of S. In homil. de die Cinerem & Dominica Palmarum. Maximus. Now to reiect the authorityes of all the former Fathers, touching the benediction of Creatures, is to charge the Primatiue Church with ſuperſtition and errour: Which no Man either of humility, Charity, or learning, will do. Ad herto, that the Proteſtants themſelfs do practice this conſecration of Creaturs: For they do conſecrate their new builded Colledges, and Ch 〈…〉 ches, or Chappells: yea (which is moſt ridiculou.) It hath bene obſerued of late, that in ſome places of England. Yf a Catholicke hath bene buryed in a Church ( otwithſtanding the Church was firſt builded by Gotholicks) the Church (as ſuppoſed, to be propha ed by the dead body of the Catholicke) hath beene by it Perſon and Miniſters of new conſectated and hollowed. Spectatam admiſſi iſumteneatis.

Now in this next place we will ſhow the end, why Creatures are bleſſ d, by the prayers of the Chu ch. Which end is threefould. Firſt to ſignify ſpirituall effects: Thus the ſprinkling of Aſhes ſignifyeth penance: Palmes ſignify victory: the Paſchal Candell betokeneth the glory of theſe Reſurrection And thus they are vſed to ſtirrup our deuotion The ſecond End is to take away veniall ſinns: of which poynt S. 3. part. quaeſ. 87. art. 3. Thomas and In 4. S 〈…〉 nt. diſt. 15. quae. 2. Dominicus a Soto, fully diſpute. Now heare we are to conceaue, that as the bloud of Chriſt doth clenſe vs from all ſinne, if ſo it be applied to vſe by the Sacraments of Baptiſme and Pēnance: ſo theſe Conſecrated things and our Lords prayer do apply his bloud for the taking away of veniall ſinne from hym, who is in ſtate of grace. The third end is to dryue away wicked ſpirits, and to cure diſeaſes, as appeareth from the prayers, by which they are conſecrated. Neuer the leſſe we are hea e to know, that theſe conſecrated things do not any worke theeſe effects, as the Sacraments (wheare no let is) do infallibly work their effects. And the reaſon heare of is, becauſe theſe conſecrated things haue not their force from any expreſſe couenant made by God (as the acraments haue) but from the Prayers of the Church, and denotion of the parties vſing them: Beſides, ſometymes it is not conuenient, that we ſhould be freed from ſicknes or diſeaſes, or from the moleſtation of the Deuills.

And according hearto we find, that the Marc. 4. Apoſtles did vſe to annoynt the ſicke with oyle, and they were cured. In like ſort. Haereſ. 30. Epiphanius relateth, how Ioſeph by holy water, did diſſolue inca tation and Magicke. And Lib. 5. cap. 21. Theodoret recordeth the ſame of Marcellus Apameenſis; and Cap. 19. Palladius of Macharius.

Againe S. Ierome teſtifyeth, that S. Hilarion did cure diuers diſeaſed Perſons with holy bread and holy oyle. The like did S. In vita cius l. 3. c. 5. Bernard. S. Lib. Dialog. c. 10. Gregory witneſſeth that one S. Fortunatus did cure one of a brokē thigh, only by ſprinkling holy water vpon it, and his owne prayers. Finally In vita Malachiae. S. Bernard affirmeth, that S. Malachius did cure one, that was ph anticke, by the meanes of Holy Water. Now theſe Examples do ſhow, that it is not Negro 〈…〉 cy (as the Proteſtants ſometymes do tearme it) to ſeeke to produce (with the help of prayers) ſupernaturall effect, by applying of holy water or holy oyle.

That the Church of God hath authority to bleſſe Creaturs for the former ends, (and for the furtherance of Denotien) is prooued from her greater authority, practized in changing the Saboath day, from Saturday to Sunday; And now it being thus changed, is 〈…〉 erable. So teacheth D. Whitguift in his defence pag. 89. D. Willet in Synops. p. 382. Cartwright, vbi Whitguift ſupra. Which point by the confeſſion of learned D. Whit uift in his defence p. 88. D. Fulke in reuelat. 1. Bullenger in his Decad, engliſhed. Decad. 2. ſerm. 4. Proteſtants, was wrought by the ſole authority of the Church; and is not warranted by any text or paſſage of Scripture.

Now thus farre of all theſe former poynts. And heere I am to end; aduertizing the Proteſtant Reader, that what is heere ſet downe, contaynes (for greater breuity) but ſhort diſcourſes of the ſaid controuerſyes heere handled; and aſſuring him, that ſcarſe the fift part of the prooff, and authorities, drawne from Gods holy Word, from the teſtimonyes of the Fathers, from the practiſe of Gods Church, and from the confeſſion euen of our Aduerſaryes are heere alledged, which might be produced, in warrant of the ſaid Catholicks doctrines. And therfore I referre the Reader (theſe be 〈…〉 uen, but for ſome delibation and taſt aforehand) for his greater ſatisfaction, to the many learned Catholicke Treati es, written vpon the ſaid ſubiects.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Michaeas. What do you reply hereto? Are theſe diſcourſes of your owne framing? Againe; If they be, how can you then free your ſelfe from that infinite Wrong, which you (being a ſtranger) offer to our ſtate, in ſeeking thus by ſupplanting the Ghoſpell, to plant your owne falſe Religion? And laſtly, what were the Motyues, inducing you rather to diuulge theſe particuler doctrines, then diuers others of greater weight and conſequence, which are ſtill in Queſtion betweene you and vs? Belike there was ſome reaſon or this your election & choyce.

MICHAEAS.

My very good Lord. I will anſwere you to all your demands; And herein my Tongue ſhalbe a true Interpreter of my Hart. Firſt, concerning the Authour. I do heere freely grant, I was the Man, who penned them; who taugh them: and who through Gods grace and aſſiſtance, wilbe ready to ſeale the truth of them (if need ſhould ſo requyre) with my bloud. Concerning the choyce made of theſe Controuerſyes, among many others of as great, or greater importance, now ventilated betweene the Catholicks and the Proteſtants. Your Lordſhip may be aduertized, that the true reaſon was; becauſe I do find by experience, that the common and ignorant Proteſtant of meaner conceate, and whoſe vnderſtanding is vſually immerſed in ſenſe, ſeemeth to take more exception at theſe Catholicke doctrines, then at others, heere not diſcourſed off. The cauſe hereof I take to be, in that moſt of theſe conſiſt in practize (and conſequently, are dayly ſubiect to the outward ſenſe) Whereas thoſe other, for the cheife part, do lye inſpeculation; & thereby are further remooued from the apprehenſion of the vnlgar; whoſe vnderſtandings herein are commonly like to boyſterous Inſtruments, vnportionable and inſutable to worke vpon any fine and curions matter. For I grant, that though they were principally written for fome ſtudents of the vniuerſity of good talents; yet ſecondarily my intention was, the inſtructing of the vnlearned Proteſtant, in the ſaid Catholicke doctrines. That they are heere handled ſo breifly, is in regard of the multiplicity of the Queſtions: each of which, if it were at large diſputed off, would requyre no ſmall Treatiſe; And therefore I haue rather vndertaken to ſet downe (beſides ſome few prooffs of them) the true ſtate of euery ſuch Catholicke poynt (ſo to vindicate is from the foule miſtaking of the Aduerſary) then in the fulleſt manner by authorities, to confirme & fortify them.

LORD CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Well touching theſe two former poynts, you haue anſwered (and in part ſat s yed) me. But what ſay you to the iniury by you wrought, not only againſt the vniuerſity; but euen againſt the whole ſtate? Which cannot by our owne ſtat ts and Decrees, brooke ſuch tumultuous proceedings in any Man, much leſſe in forayners; as to labour to diſioynt the beautifull 〈◊〉 me of that Religion, which the whole Realme for theſe many yeares, hath ſo peaceably enioyed.

MICHAEAS.

Moſt Reuerend ludge. Giue me leaue without offence, to vſe the words only al 〈…〉 uely, not comparatiuely of that great Apoſtle; who like my ſelfe, was once a Iew, but after a Chriſtian: Neither Act. 2 . againſt the Law, nor againſt the temple of God, nor againſt Caeſer, haue I any thing offended.

It is true, And this I confeſſe with comfort (for diſcomfort is the ordinary attendant of a faulty guiltines, that I much labored (and to that end cheifly penned theſe ſhort Diſcourſes) to diſſem 〈…〉 ate the true faith of theſe points in the minds of the Schollars of my acquaintance; And why might I not? Since the valew of an a 〈…〉 yleable fayth is ſo great, as that without it no man; with it all men may ſtand gratefull in Gods eye: Sine Hebr. 11. fide impoſſibile eſt placere Deo.

Conſider my L. the price but of one Soule, which our Sauiour hath ranſomed out of the Deuills hands, with ſo high a reate: (humiliauit Philip. 2. ſemetipſum, factus obediens vſque ad mortem; mortem autem crucis) And then thinke, what greife it were, that this Soule through want of true fayth, ſhould returne to it former thraldome. Alas my L. Is 〈…〉 not greate pitye, to ſee diuers yong ſtudents of eleuated Witts and apprehencſions, either to receaue their Religion (which they beleiue to be true) from the bare affiance and truſt of their Readers and Mayſters, without any further examining or tryall of it; Or els litle to pryze any Religion at all? And thus in this later maner, this poore Materia Prima being Forml ſſe, is ready indifferently and without choyce, to entertayne the impreſſion of any Religion. Now is it not great pitye (I ſay) to ſuffer theſe Soules to periſh eternally, as not hauing an articulate & perfect Chriſtian fayth? Which fayth ought ſo to be qualified; ſeing it auayleth litle to beleiue in Chriſt, except we beleiue truly in Chriſt: For though fayth be heare to be requyred; yet a falſe fayth is as preiudicial, as a meare Misbeleiffe: So light is more neceſſary to the eye, then darknes; yet not being well proportioned, is more dangerous to the eye, then darknes. And indeed (my L.) I muſt confeſſe, that I do more fully glaſſe their danger in my owne former want of fayth, when I continued a lew; And am in this reſpect more ready to imparte the benefit of that to others, of which my ſelfe haue allready ſo fully taſted.

Now for this my attempt (my ſelfe being an Alien) I muſt ſhrowd it vnder the wings of the lyke attēmpts of S. Peter, and other the Apoſtles; who were not afrayd to go (by our Lords commandement) into ſtrange Countreyes, to preach & teach the faith of Chriſt: Marc. 16. Euntes in mundum vniuerſum, praedicate Euangelium omni Creaturae.

And my good Lord: I muſt therefore further ſay, that though a Zeraphicall and burning zeale in this kind, may in an humane eye, ſeeme to be but a kind of madnes; And that high Vertues of this Nature (through want of due conſideration) do rather offend, then pleaſe; yet ſince the Apoſtles did firſt tract this vnuſuall path, their example hath more emboldned me to tread herein their ſtepps.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Good God. See vnto what an aſſent of impiety Mans nature is arryued. I meane heere, not only to do euill, but to make the Holy Apoſtles patrons of the ſaid euill. No Michaeas: As ſoone may the Idoll Dagon ſtand by the Arke, as your pernitious Machinations beare affinity with the actions of the Apoſtles. You preach not Chriſt, but Antichriſt; and you muſt remember, that Chriſt himſelfe ſaid: Who Math. 12. gathereth not with me, ſcatereth.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour, I ſee, you much labour to haue the aduantage of the day againſt mee: ſo willing you are, that I ſhould lye proſtrate with the baſeſt ſhame. Yet my comfort is that Innocency (though oppreſſed) ſtill continues Innocency. But to come to the poynt. What haue I donne, which the glorious Apoſtles may not ſeeme to haue donne? They went into forayne Countryes, without any peculiar licence of the Princes of them, to preach the Goſpell of Chriſt: I heare (being a ſtranger) haue aduentured to initiate ſome ſtudents in the fayth of Rome, which is the ſole true fayth of Chriſt. They preached peaceably without raiſing of tumults, or teaching diſobedience againſt the Prince of the Country: I did yet neuer intimate in my words or actions the leaſt ſpote of diſobedience, againſt the ſupreme Magiſtrate; ſince I hould it a mighty errour, to ſeeke o order things by diſorderly courſes. They moſt happely pulled thouſands of Soules out of the iawes of the Deuil: I do confeſſe, my ſole end was to do ſome good in that kynd, if ſo God would vouchſafe to bleſſe therein my endeuours; And moſt ioyfull I ſhould be, if through my owne labour (vnder Chriſt) I might ſay, but of any one ſtraying Soule, with the good Father in the Goſpell: This Luke. 15. my ſonne was dead, but is reuyued; was loſt, and is found.

Breifly, the for ſuch their accheiuements, finiſhed their dayes in moſt bl ſſed Martyrdomes: O that might be ſo happy, as to ede me y maninfold 〈◊〉 with ſo glorious a death: ſo true is that ſentence; The bloud of Martirs is the key of Paradiſe.

Heere now my good L. Yf you condemne me, how can you free them? Therefore either abſolue me with them, or accuſe them with me: Since all of vs be either guilty, or all Innocent. Yf guilty; I glorye to haue ſuch Precedents of this my imaginary Cryme; Yf innocent; Why then do I ſtand at this wofull barre of Iuſtice, pleading (if not for lyfe, at leaſt) for Liberty?

LORD-CHEIFE IVSTICE.

Although theſe your molitions and endeauours [Mich as] may ſeeme to proceede from a feruour and zeale; Yet I feare, this your zeale is branded with thoſe words of S. Paul: Rom. 10. Aemulationem Dei habent, ſed non ſecundum ſcientiam. Since diuers Men haue certaine impetuoſityes and violent ſtraynes of Nature, which (becauſe in their owne priuate conceats, they meane well) they feare not to guild ouer with the fayre title of Chriſtian zeale. Againe [Mich as] wheare you ſeeke to ſheyld your attempts, vnder the example of the Apoſtles, your miſtaking heare is ouer groſſe: ſince they preached the incontaminated and vnſpoted fayth of Chriſt; and weare therefore not only excuſable, but euen warranted by the Holy Ghoſt; Whereas you do teach a religion, mixted with diuers errours, and humane Inuentions; and therefore farre different from that, firſt planted by the Apoſtles.

MICHAEAS.

My Lord. What colours ſoeuer of diſgrace and contumely may (in an other Mans eye) be layed vpon theeſe my actions; yet to my ſelfe I am beſt priuy, that they proceeded from my ſole deſire of aduancing the fayth of Chriſt, and from the bent of a ſtrong affection, and loue towards hym: Amor Auſtia. meus, pondus meum; illo feror, quocun que feror. Which loue and promptitude ought to be ſo intenſe and vehement, as that indeede it cannot tranſgreſſe any bounds, within which it may ſeeme to be limited. And therefore I heare hold it an extreame, to ſeeke in theſe actions to auoid the Extreame; where the Exceſſe (if any ſuch can be) putteth on the nature of the Meane. O my Lord, when the Apoſtle did write thoſe fiery words: 2. Timoth. 4. Praedica Verbum, inſta oportunè, importunè: argue, obſecra, increpa &c. No doubt he taught vs thereby, that in the preaching of the true Chriſtian fayth, we ſhould performe it with all improperation, ſpeedines, and alacrity; not looſing the tyme in any ceremonious delayes. Now my Lord, where you ſay, that the fayth taught by me, is different from the fayth firſt planted by the Apoſtles; I hereto anſwere (though moſt breifly, ſince this tyme is not capable of any long Diſcourſe:) Yf that Chriſtian Religion, wherewith Rome was firſt cultiuated & tilled by the labours of the Apoſtles, did neuer ſince that time to this day, ſuffer the leaſt change in any dogmaticall & materiall poynt; Then followeth it ineuitably, that our preſent Catholick Religiō is the ſame, which was preached by the Apoſtles; and conſequently, that I (contrary to your L. ſuppoſall) do heere inſtruct the Academians in the ſame fayth and Religion, which firſt floriſhed in thoſe primatiue tymes. Now that neuer any change was made at Rome in poynts of fayth and Religion, your Lordſhip may be fully ſatisfyed, by peruſing the former Dialogue, betweene the Honorable Cardinall and Doctour Whitakers.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

My Lord. Michaeas will tyre you with his weariſome ſpeeches, and (if you would ſuffer him) will perorate whole dayes togeather; for he hath a peculiar deliuery of himſelfe in ſeeking to decline his accuſations, by framing his tedious diſcourſes, touching the ſuppoſed honour of his owne Religion; wholy impertinent to that, for which he now ſtands arraigned. Therefore to cut off all ſuch exhorbitancyes of ſpeeches, I now in your L. preſence (to the greater accumulation of his former crymes) do in this laſt place, accuſe him of being a Popiſh Prieſt: a pernicious ſtate of Men, and ſuch, as your Lordſhip well knowes, is incompatible with the Lawes of our Realme. Thus we may obſerue, how the ouerſhadowing Prouidence of God hath diſpoſed in theſe matters, that if (by ſuppoſall) his former faults might paſſe vncorrected, yet this laſt breaketh through the bounds of all Commiſeration and Pitty.

Therefore your L. may do well to examyne him ſtrictly hereof, and cauſe him to anſwere without any reſerued ſenſe of equiuocation; the peculiar Dialect of the Papiſts in like caſes.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Perceaue you not heere Michaeas, how in your accuſation one cryme is euer at the backe of an other; like waues following one another, till they all ouerflow and ouerwhelme you? You are heere laſtly accuſed to be one of that ſtate of Men (I meane, a Romiſh Prieſt) which are inſufferable in our Nation; and whom (as guilty of many foule tranſgreſſions) our Lawes do moſt ſeuerely puniſh: Tell me therefore directly, whether you be a Prieſt, or no.

MICHAEAS.

Sweete Ieſus, what ſallyes of Malice hath your tongue [M. Vice-Chancelour] made in this your long Proceſſe of my accuſation? Firſt by charging me with reall diſobedience to the ſupreme Magiſtrate, then with penning the foreſaid Catholicke Treatiſes; and now (for the cloſe of all) with being a Prieſt: Where I ſee, howſoeuer my cauſe be good, yet I muſt be reputed Euill. But leauing that, and to anſwere to my Lords laſt Queſtion. Since then I am demaunded thereof, I will not conceale my greateſt honour. I grant, I am a Catholicke and Roman Prieſt, created by the reuerend hand of the moſt illuſtrious and learned Bellarmine. But is the very name of a Prieſt (though otherwiſe, not to be charged with any fault) ſo diſtaſtfull in this place? Or ſhall it be at any tyme heere asked, Cur de ſolo nomine punitis facta? (c) Tertul. aduerſ. Gentes.

Your Lordſhipps iudgment (no dowbt) would hearein be altered, if ſo you would vouchſafe to take into your Conſideration, the antiquity of the holy Order of Pryeſthood. ſince our Sauiour hymſelfe was the firſt Prieſt in the tyme of Grace; typically adumbrated by that of Melchiſadech: Tu Pſalm. 109. es Sacerdos ſocundum ordinem Melchiſadech; Of which poynt the goldentonged Father thus wryteth: Videns Chryſoſtome. homil. 35. in Geneſ. typum, cogita (oro) veritatem: Thus Chriſt was the ſupreme Prieſt; Man, but the Miniſteriall Prieſt. O how reuerently do the auncient Fathers ſpeake of Prieſthood? Nazianzene tearmeth a Prieſt, the Mediatour betweene God and Man. Chryſoſtome (h) Epiſt. 8. ad Simplicium. honored Prieſhood ſo much, as that he did wryte a booke, entituling it: De Sacerdotio; among infinit other paſſages of which ſubiect, he thus ſaith: Non Angelus, non Archangelus, non alia quaeuis creata potentia; ſed ipſo Paracle us Ordinem eiuſmodi diſpoſuit: Neither Angel, nor Archangell, nor any created Power; but only our Aduocate & Comforter (Meaning Chriſt) did inſtitute this Order of Pryeſthood. Ambroſe in like ſort did wryte of this ſubiect; ſtyling his Treatiſe: De dignitate Sacerdotale; In which booke, ſpeaking of the manner how a Prieſt is created, thus wryteth in the firſt Chapter thereof: Homo imponit manum, Deus langitur gratium; Sacerdos imponit ſimplicem dexteram, Deus benedicit potenti dexiera: Man doth impoſe the hand, but God giueth the grace, The Prieſt doth lay his humble hand (meaning, vpon hym, who is to be made Pryeſt) But God doth bleſſe with his pouerfull hand. Leo the firſt, thus worthely wryteth hereof: Omnium Epiſt. ad Anaſtaſium. Sacerdotum tam excellens eſt electio, vt haec, quae in alijs membris Eccleſiae vacant a culpa, in illis tamen habeantur illicita: The ſtate of all Pryeſts is ſo noble, as that ſome things theare are (meaning, mariadge of Pryeſts) which being lawfull in other members of the Church, are neuertheleſſe prohibited in them. To be ſhort, Pac nus thus amplifieth vpon this poynt: Epiſt. 3. ad Symphronianum. Plebi vnde Spiritus, quam non conſignat vnctus Sacerdos? How can that Society or company of Men receaue the Holy Ghoſt, if the annoynted Prieſt doth not ſigne & bleſſe them?

Thus farre in generall of the dignity of Pryeſthood, which I hope in modeſty, and without the leſt tuche of Vanity, I may alledge; forbearinge many more authorityes of lyke nature; leſt my producing of them might be miſconſtiued (my ſelfe being a Prieſt, and therefore interreſſed in them) by ſome one or other deprauing tongue.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

What you haue heare [Michaeas] alledged out of Antiquity in honour of Prieſthood, we willingly acknowledge; ſince it was then ment, and now is truly applyed to the Miniſters of the Ghoſpell, and others of the faythfull (in regard of the ſpirituall ſacrifices of Prayer, dayly offered vp by them) who therefore in a metaphorical and improper acceptance of the word: Pryeſt (and as the phraze is,) are tearmed Pryeſts.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour You are fowly miſtaken heerein, & willing (it ſeemes) you are to vendicate to your owne Miniſterial function the prayſes due to Prieſthood. But I hope, you will ſtand to the iudgment of S. Auſtin and other Fathers herein. S. Auſtin then thus ſpeaketh of this poynt: Lib. de ciui . Dei 20. c. 10. Soli Epiſcopi & Presbiteri propriè vocantur in Eccleſia Sacerdot s. Thus Auſtin by expreſſely calling Biſhops & Presbyters only Prieſts, excludeth this ſecondary and improper ſignification of the word Prieſt, which you ſeeme heare to mantayne; and which in your ſenſe may be truly extended to Weomen, who offer vp the Sacrifice or prayer to God, as well as Men. And according hereto it is, that Ireneus, Lib. 4. c. 20. acknowledging with you, that in a reſtrayned ſenſe all iuſt Men may be called Prieſts doth further teach a peculiar Pryeſthood of the Apoſtles (different from the former kynd of Pryeſthood) which (ſaith he) dayly attends vpon God and the Altar. And hence alſo it is, that the greeke Word: 〈…〉 ereus, which properly ſignifieth: Sacerdos, is applyed to Chriſtian Pryeſts by Lib. 3. c. 32. Euſebius, Lib. de viris illuſtrib. Ierome, In epiſt. ad Smirnenſes. Ignatius, and finally (to omit others) by De Eccleſ. Hierarch. c 5. Dionyſius Areopagita. I may ad in further warrant of this Truth, that the auncient Fathers do make frequent mention of Altars, now to be in the Church of Chriſt. But the word: Altar, hath euen by the confeſſion of D. In his Cōference with M. Har . p. 55. Raynolds a neceſſary and inſeparable reference to the words: Pryeſt, and Sacrifice, as they are taken in their proper and naturall ſignification; ſince they are Relatiues, And ſeing euery Altar hath a relation to a true and real Sacrifice, and to a Pryeſt, as the Word is properly taken, and as the ſaid Pryeſt doth offer vp a true and reall Sacrifice. That the Fathers do often mention Altars, now to be in the Church of Chriſt, you may [M. Vice-Chancelour] peruſe, De ciuitat. Dei lib. 8. c. vlt. & l. 22. c. 8. Auſtin, Lib. 6. de Sacerdotio, & homil. 53. ad populū. Chriſoſtome, Lib 6. cōtra Parmen anū. Optatus, Cap. 3. Eccleſ. Hierarch. Dyoniſius Areo pogita, and finally the Canō. 3. & 4. Canons of the Apoſtles.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Howſoeuer the Primatiue Fathers may take the word; Prieſt, It is not much materiall to vs, who heere relye only vpon the pure word of God, interpreted to vs by the Holy Ghoſt: yet ſure I am, that Thoſe Prieſts, (who come into England) do arrogate vnto themſelues a dooble Prerogatiue, of which all Antiquity was wholy ignorant. The firſt is, in vndertaking to reconcile men to the Pope, (our ſtates deſigned enemy.) And ſo by this meanes, to alienate them in their allegiance from their owne natiue Prince and ſoueraigne: The ſecond, in aſſuming to them power to offer vp in the Maſſe, the body & bloud of Chriſt: Which once for all was offered vp for the whole world vpon the Croſſe. Now both theſe attempts are deſeruedly puniſhed by our Lawes, for their acrocityes therein committed; And to the daunger (decreed againſt them) your ſelfe [Michaeas] reſts obnoxious; ſeing you (being a Prieſt) haue no doubt often practized them both, ſince your arriuall into England.

MICHAEAS.

It is wonderfull to obſerue how Malice (taking the place of Ignorance) ſeeleth vp Mans iudgment for I preſume [M. Vice-Chancelour.] You cannot be ignorant of the vntruth of theſe your aſſertions. Therefore for the better ſatisfying of you (Myreuerend Iudge) whom in all reaſon and duty I am bound to ſatisfy. You are heere to know, that what M. Vice-Chancelour calleth reconciling to the Pope, is nothing els, but an incorporating of one into Chriſt Church (if ſo afore he was no member thereof) by Confeſſion of his ſinnes, (accompanied with a reſolution neuer to ſinne more) to a Catholicke Prieſt, and abſolution thereof giuen by the ſaid Prieſt; Or if he were afore a branch of the ſaid Myſticall Body, then is this M. Vice-Chancelour reconciling, a meere penitent Confeſſion of our ſinnes to a Catholicke Prieſt; attended on with an abſolution from the ſaid ſinnes: By force of which Sacrament, we ouercome him, who is inuincible, and reſtrayne him, who is Omnipotent.

Now heare I demand in all ſincerity, how theſe ſpirituall Actions of a penitent ſinner may be reputed preiudiciall to his Loyalty to his Prince? Or what neceſſary reference hath the one to the other? Or ſhall we thinke, that in Catholicke Coū tryes (for the reaſon is the ſame of Catholicks, liuing either in Catholicke or Proteſtante Countries) one renounceth his Loyalty to his Prince, by recurring to this ſpirituall phyſick, for the curing of his ſoules diſſeaſes? Alas (M. Vice-Chancelour) I much greiue, to ſee you thus drunke (as I may ſay) with malice, as to forge ſuch ſtrange and forced interpretations of the Prieſts and Catholicks proceedings hearein. And I pray you, how can it be conceaued (M. Vice-Chancelour) that our prop •• quity towards God (for ſuch a nearnes is wrought, by a true & penitent Confeſſion) ſhould be preſumed to cauſe a greater diſtance of our obedience from our Prince? and that our ſtate of grace in the ſight of God, ſhould be cenſured as a ſtate of Diſloyalty in the eye of Man? No. The caſe is mearly contrary to your ſuppoſall. For ſince abſolute Princes are the Vicegerents of God, and in that reſpect are tearmed Gods: Pſalm. 81 Ego dixi dij eſtis. And ſince we are bound to obey our Prince, euen propter Rom. 3. conſcientiam: Therefore we may truly inferre, that a fearefull Conſcience, loath to offend God, or through f 〈…〉 ty offending; yet willing by the Sacrament of pennance & abſolu ion to expiate it ſinns, is euer moſt ready to performe it d 〈…〉 y ( 〈…〉 en for feare of Gods diſpleaſure) to 〈◊〉 ſoueraigne. And that ſuch Men, as want this ten ernes of conſcience, •• e loyall ſubiects ſo long only, as their owne temporall and humane reſpects do comport with this their loyalty.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

You ſpeake much [Michaeas] of your Prieſtly function, in abſoluing of ſinnes, confeſſed. But you ſhould prooue (if you can) ſince it is moſt materiall; that ſuch Men, as were tearmed Prieſts in the Primatiue Church, did heare the confeſſions of other Mens ſinnes, and did giue abſolution of them, ſo confeſſed. And if you cannot make this good, from the Precedents of thoſe firſter and purer tymes; we muſt then reſt aſſured, that this your aſſumed authority, is but a meere Innouation, ingendred betweene the pryde of the Prieſt (taking vpon him Gods perſon heerein for we read: Quis poteſt dimittere peccata, niſi ſolus Deus? Marc. 2.) and the ſcrupulous ſuperſtition of the confeſſed Penitent.

MICHAEAS.

It is true, that only God originally, primatiuely, and immediatly remitteth ſinne; and in this ſenſe the Scripture ſpeaketh of only God remitting of ſinne; yet is his diuine Maieſty pleaſed to vſe Man, as his inſtrument therein, according to thoſe words of our Sauiour to the Apoſtles: Iohn. 20. Whoſe ſinnes you ſhall forgiue, they are forgiuen; and whoſ ſinnes you ſhall retayne, they are retayned. From which paſſage we further inferre, that ſeing ſome ſinnes are to be retayne , and not remitted; it followeth inauoydably, that we are obliged particularly and diſtinctly to confeſſe our ſinnes to the Prieſt. For how can the Prieſt know, what ſinnes are to be retayned, and what ſinnes to be remitted, except he know, which the ſinnes be in particular? Ad heereto, that if God vouchſafeſt to vſe Water (a creature much more baſe, then Man) as his inſtrument, for the taking away of Originall ſinne; then much more may Man, as his inſtrument, and receauing his authority heerein from the words of Chriſt, and from his Paſſion (which giue force and efficacy to ich Sacrament, now in the tyme of grace) practize without ſacriledge the ſame authority.

that the auncient Fathers of the Primatiue Church (contrary to your former bold aſſertion, M. Vice-Chancelour) did concordantly teach & practize our Catholicke doctrine herein, is moſt euident. I will not ouerwhelme you with multitude of their teſtimonyes (though all of them are moſt luxuriant in ſuch their ſentences) therefore th •• e or foure of them, and ſuch as are moſt auncient, ſhall ſerue. Heere then firſt, I will produce the words of Saint Baſill, thus wryting: In quaeſtionib. breu 〈…〉 b. interiogat. 288. Neceſſario peccata ijs apperiri debent, quibus credita eſt diſpenſatio myſteriorum Dei ſi quidem rationem hanc in paerite •• ia etiam veteres illos ernimus ſecutos fuiſſe. Our ſinnes ought of neceſſity to be reuealed to them, to whom is committed the diſpenſing and diſtribution of the myſteries of God; And th s ou ſe in Pennance we do find, that the auncient Chriſtians did follow. Thus we ſee, that this authority and words of Saint Baſill ſimply a neceſſity of confeſſion of our ſinnes to the Prieſt; and conſequently a particular relation of them. Saint Leo thus conſpireth with Saint Baſill: Cum Epiſt. 88 ad Epiſcopos Cāpaniae. reatus conſcientiarum ſufficiat ſolis Sacerdotibus iudicari confeſſione ſ creta &c. Seing it is ſufficient; that the guiltines of our conſciences be made knowne only to Prieſts, in ſecret confeſſion &c. where you may ſee, that confeſſion of ſinnes in thoſe dayes was made ſecret, and only vnto Prieſts. Saint Auſtin thus agreeth with the former Fathers: Non ſolum Lib. homil. l homil. 41. poſt paenitentiam &c. Not only after Pennance is preſcribed, a Man ought to keepe himſelfe from thoſe vices; but alſo before pennance, whiles he is ſound; who if he ſhould deferre it all his laſt end, Neſcit, ſi ipſam p nitentiam accipere, & De , & Sacerdoti peccata ſua confiteri poterit; He knoweth not; whether he ſhall haue power to receaue his pennance, and to confeſſe his ſinnes to God, and to a Prieſt.

S. Cyprian thus wryteth of this poynt: Serm. 5 de lapſis. quantò fide maiore & timore meliore ſunt, qui quantum •• uis nullo ſacrifi ij aut libelli faci ore conſtricti; quontam tomen de hoc vel cogitauerunt, hoc ipſum apud Sacerdotes Dei volenter & ſimpliciter confidentes, exomologeſni conſcientiae faciunt; animi pondus expenum, ſalut rem meaelam paruis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt? How much more greater fayth and better feare haue they, who though they be not guilty of any cryme touching Sacrifice, or giuing vp a Libel; yet becauſe they had ſuch a conceate or thought, they do with greiffe and ſimplicity confeſſe this to Prieſts &c. Thus do they disburden their conſciences, and ſeeke to apply a healthfull remedy to their ſmall wounds? Now heere by the words: Sacrifice, and Libel, are to be vnderſtood, ſacrifizing to Idolls in the tymes of the Heathen Emperours, and giuing vp their names in a booke, that they were content to ſacrifize.

To be ſhort, Tertullian thus ſayth of this cuſtome of confeſſing our ſinnes to a Prieſt. Pleroſ que hoc opus aut ſubfugere, aut (h) Lib. de Penitētia. de die in diem differie preſumo, pudor •• magis memores, quam ſalutis; velut illi, qui in partibus verecundieribus corporis, contracta vaxatione, ſcientiam Medentium vitant, & ita cum e •• beſcentia ſua pereunt: I do preſume, that diuers do eyther anoyd this worke (meaning of confeſſine their ſinnes) or do deferre 〈◊〉 from day to day; being more mindfull of their ſhame, then of their health: They being heerein like to thoſe Men, who hauing ſome diſ •• ſe in their more ſecret parts of their body, do flee the cure of Phyſitians; and ſo they periſh through their owne ſhame. Thus Tertullian, from whoſe teſtimony is neceſſarily euicted particular confeſſion of our priuat ſinnes, euen according to the nature of his ſimilitude heere vſed.

This point of the auncient Fathers iudgment touching confeſſion of our particular ſinnes to a Prieſt, is ſo deere and manifeſt, that the Centuriſts diſcourſing of the vſe thereof, in thoſe former tymes, thus plainly acknowledge: Cent. 3. cap 6. col. 127. Si quis paenitentiam agebant peccatum prius confirebantur. ac enim confeſſionem magnoperè Tertullianus vrget in libro de P nitentia; & inſtitutem fuiſſe priuatam Confeſſionem, qua delicta & cogitata praua confeſſiſunt, ex aliquot Cypriani locis apparet. &c. Yf any in thoſe tymes did pennance; they did firſt confeſſe there ſinn e: for thus doth Tertullian mightely vrge Confeſſion in his booke de Paenitentia: And that priuate Confeſſion was then in vſe, by the which ſinnes & euen wicked thoughts were confeſſed, appeareth from certaine places of Cyprian; to wit, out of his fift ſermon de Lapſis, & lib. 3. Epiſt. epiſt. 14. and 16. Thus farre the Centuriſts (all eminent Proteſtants) who (we ſee) do grant, that in thoſe tymes, euen priuat thoughts (much more particular actu ll ſinnes) were accuſtomed to be confeſſed. Which Centuriſts do further witneſſe, that the Prieſt did in thoſe tymes, abſolue the penitent (beſides by pronouncing the words of Abſolution) with the Ceremony Cent. 3. col. 127. of impoſing her hand: a ceremony, which at this very day, is vſed by the Prieſts. And thus (My Honorable Lord, and you M. Vice-Chancelour) you both may from hence perceaue, how neere to the Apoſtles dayes Confeſſion of particular ſinnes (euen by the acknowledgment of the Proteſtants) was vſually practized: Which point being granted, it muſt by force of all Re ſon follow, that Chriſt did firſt inſtitute this Sacrament of Confeſſion, and the Apoſtles did firſt exercize their authority therein, giuen to them by Chriſt. Since otherwiſe it cannot probably be conceaued, that a dogmaticall point of fayth and Religion, ſo croſſe and repugnant to Mans nature (as Confeſſion is, could in ſo ſhort a tyme, inuade the whole Church of God, without any contradiction or reſiſtance.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

Michaeas, you haue ſpoken much in warrant of Confeſſiō and Aſolution, geuen by the Pryeſt. But the queſtion (in regard of your former alledged authorityes) is not ſo much, whether Confeſſion of particular ſinns was generally taught by thoſe auncient Fathers; as whether they had iuſt reaſon and warrant ſo to teach? But I will paſſe no cenſure of them, touching this point. But [Michaeas] what do you ſay to that aſſumed authority and priuiledge, which you Pryeſts vendicate to yourſelfes, in the ſacrifice of the Maſſe? Wheare you bease the people in hand, that you ſacrifize and offer vp the true and naturall body and bloud of Chriſt to his Father. I am aſſured, that the auncient Church of God cannot affoard you any example hereof; And the rather, ſince it is manifeſt, that the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation (vpon which your doctrine of ſacrifice is grounded) was firſt brought into the Church, at the Councell of Lateran by Innocentius the third; Which Councell was houlden anno 215. And therefore it was celebrated many hundred yeres, after the Period of the Primatiue Church.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour The ſequ le will ſhow of what Antiquitie the doctrine is conce ning the ſacrifice of the body and bloud of Chriſt. Which is dayly offered vp by the Prieſt. But firſt, I will take away your ſtumbling block, touching the name of Tranſubſtantiation, impoſed by the Councell of Lateran. For the better remouall whereof, you are to conceaue, that the doctrine of the re ll being of Chriſts body and bloud in the Sacrament of the 〈◊〉 , and Sacrifice of the Maſſe was taught, in all the precedentages; though the word: Tranſubſtantiation, (for the better explicating of the doctryne, was then (and not before) inuented: Euen as the doctrine of the Trinity, was eue in the firſt infancy of the Church generally beleeued; yet the word; Trinity, was firſt impoſed vpon the doctrine, by Councell of Nice.

But to proceede further, touching the Antiquity of the doctryne of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe. We firſt anſweare herto, that it receaued it firſt inſtitution and beginning, euen from the night before, the Creatour of all fleſh did ſuffer in fleſh. For our Sauiour being at his laſt ſuffer, did then firſt inſtitute it, when e deliuered to his Apoſtles his owne body and bloud, ſaying: This is my body. This is my Bloud &c. With reference to which inſtitution, the Apoſtle calleth the table (vpon which this ſacrifice is made, Heb 13. _____ to wit an Altar, being deriued of the verb. _____ ſignifying: Sacrifice. But let vs ſee in what dialect Antiquity ſpeaketh hereof. Some few places (among infinit) I will heare ſelect: firſt then we find S Auſtin thus to ſay: Quid Lib. 4. de Trinitate c. 1 . gratius oſſerria t ſ ſcipi poſſit, quam c r ſacrificij noſtri corpus effectum Sacerdotis noſtri? What can be offered vp, or accepted more thankfully, then the fleſh of our ſacrifi being made the body of our Prieſt? Chryſoſtome thus wryteth: Per Lib. 6. de Sacerdotio. id tempus & Angeli Sacerdoti aſſident &c. At that tyme the Angells draw neare vnto the Pryeſt, and the whole order of the heauenly Powers cauſeth greate voyces, and the place neare vnto the Al •• r is full of q ears of Angells (in illius honorem, qui in molatur) by reaſon of the honour of hym, who is theare 〈…〉 d or offered vp; which thing we may fully beleiue, (vel extanto illi ſacrificio, quod iunc peragitur) in regard of ſo great a ſacrifice then performed Gregory Nyſſene: Dominus Orat. de reſur e &. praeoccupans impetum iudeorum &c. Our Lord preuenting the violence of the Iewes, being both Prieſt and Lambe, made hymſelfe a ſacrifice. But thou demandeſt of me when this did happen? Euen then, when he gaue to his diſciples his body to eate, and his bloud to drink.

Optatus Miliuitanus thus diſcourſeth: Quid eſt tam ſacrilegum, quam altaria ei, in quibus aliquando nos obtuliſtis, (o) Lib. 6. cōtra Parmenianū. frangere, radre, & 〈…〉 e? in quïbus vot a Populi, & membra Chriſti partata ſ ni &c What is ſo ſacrilegious, as to breake, or ſcrape, or to remoue and take away the Alt •• s of God? vpon which your ſelfs ſomtymes haue offered; in the which the vowes of the People, and the members of Chriſt are borne. And further the ſaid Father: Quid Optatus v •• ſupra. eſt altari niſi ſides corporis & ſanguints Chriſti? What is the Altar, but the ſeate of the body and bloud of Chriſt?

S. Ambroſe: Etſi in pſal. 38. nunc Chriſtus non videatur offerre: ipſe tamen ffertur in terris, cum corpus eius offertur. And againe: Cum In c. 〈◊〉 . Lucae. Sacriſicamus, Chriſtus eſt preſens, Chriſtus immolatur: When we do ſacrifize, Chriſt is preſent, Chriſt is ſacrifized or immolated.

Ephrem: Quid De Natura Dei min 〈…〉 ſcrutanda cap. 5. ſcrutaris inſcrutabilia &c: Why doſ thou ſearch into things, not to be ſearched after &c. Be thou faythfull and innocent, and participate thou of the immaculate body of thy Lord, with a moſt full fayth: being aſſured, that thou doſt eate the whole Lambe.

Cyprian: Caena Serm de caena Domini. diſpoſita inter Sacramentales epu as &c. The ſupper being prepared, the auncient and new Inſtitutions did meete together among the Sacramentall 〈◊〉 eats; And the Lambe, which auncient Tradition did ſet vpon the table, being conſ med, the Maiſter doth giue to his Diſciples an inconſumption meate.

Tertulian Lib. de pae iten a. and Dioniſius Cap. 3. Eccleſ. Hierarch. make frequent mention of Altars, and conſequently of Sacrifice:

To conclude this paſſage (as auoyding prolexity) Eyppolitus Martyr introduceth Chriſt ſpeaking to Biſhops and Pryeſts in theſe words: Orat. de An chriſto. Venite Pontifices & Sacerdotes, qui praecioſum corpus & ſanguinem meum quo die immolaſtis: Come hither, you h •• fe Pryeſts and other Pryeſts, who haue dayly immoluted and offered vp my precious body and bloud.

Now (M. Vice Chancelour) in regard of the perſpic ity of theſ ſentences of the former Fathers, and of diuers others ſuch authorityes of the ſaid and other athers of the Primatiue Church (heare through br 〈…〉 y prete nitted) It is the leſſe wonder, that your owne learned Proteſtants do ingenuouſly confeſſe the truth of thoſe Fathers iudgments hearin. For (to omit, that the Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295. Centuriſts do particularly charge S. Ambroſe, with this very phraze: Maſſam 〈…〉 ere, vſed by vs Pryeſts at this very day) do wee not fine Calumn himſelfe thus to acknoledge of them in generall? Lib. 4. Inſtit c. 18. ſect. 12. Veteres illos video &c. I do ſee, that thoſe auncient Fathers did wreſt the memory of the Lords ſupper otherwyſe, then was agreeing to the inſtitution of the Lord. Since the Fathers ſupper did beare the ſhow and reſemblance of a renewed Oblation &c they imitating more nearely the 〈◊〉 maner of ſacrificing, then either Chriſt did ordayne, or the nature of the Goſpell would ſuffer. And hereupon it is, that Caluin in an other place, thus chargeth the Fathers: In omnibus Pauli Epiſt. in Hebr. c. 7. The Fathers did adulterate the ſupper of the Lord, by adding of Sacrifice vnto it. Neither can theeſe words of Caluin be reſtrayned to thoſe Fathers only, who liued either in the mideſt, or towards the end of the Primatiue Church: Firſt becauſe they are deliuered (without exception) of the Fathers in generall; Secondly, by reaſon that other learned Proteſtants do charge the Fathers (ſome of them liuing immediatly after the Apoſtles; others 〈…〉 g euen in the dayes of the Apoſtles) with the ſaid doctrine of ſacrifice. Thus (conſorting hearto) we find Sebaſtianus Francus (an eminent Proteſtant) to vſe theeſe words: In epiſt. de a rogandis in vniuerſum omnebus ſtatut. Eccleſiaſt Statim poſt Apoſtolos, omnia inuerſa ſunt &c. Preſently after the Apoſtles departure, all things were inuerted &c. Et caena Domini in ſacrificium transf rmata eſt, and the ſupper of the Lord was changed into a ſacrifice. But Hoſpinian (that famous Proteſtant) uſeth higher in tyme, thus confeſſing: Hiſtor. Sacramēt. l. 1. c. 6. p. 20. I am tum primo illo ſeculo, viuentibus adhuc Apoſtolts &c. Even in the very firſt age (the Apoſtles yet liuing) the deuill labored to ſeduce Men more about this Sacrament (meaning, touching the athers ſuppoſed adding of ſacrifice to the Sacrament of the Euchariſt) Then about Baptiſme, withdrawing Men from the firſt former thereof. Thus farre of the Fathers cleare ſentences, and of the learned Proteſtants confeſſing no leſſe, touching the doctrine of Sacrifice.

VICEC-HANCELOVR.

It l tle preiudizeth vs [Michaas] who profeſſe the Ghoſpell though the Fathers did teach the doctrine of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe. For ſeing it is granted, (both by vs and you Papiſts) that diuers Fathers erred in other paticular poynts, why might they not alyke erre in the doctrine of the Sacrifice? And ſeing we are not obliged to embrace their other acknowledged Errours; why ſhould we be forced to entertaine this their errour.

MICHAEAS

O [M. Vice-Chancelour,] the difference is great, and ſubiect (b) Vide Auguſt. in Haereſi 43. & 46. Hieronym. in lib. contra Iouinianū & Vi ilā tium. Vide Epiphanium lib. de Haereſibꝰ. euen to a vulgar iudgment. For we grant with you, that ſome particular Fathers did e 〈…〉 certaine poynts; yet were thoſe their errours preſently condemned and written againſt, by other Ortodoxall Fathers. Thus for exemple, did Auſtin, Ierome, and Epiphanius wryte againſt Origen, teaching that the Deuills were at the laſt day to be ſaued; againſt Tertullian, denying ſecond Mariadges; againſt Cyprian, mantayning Rebaptization.

Now heare wee grant, that ſuch particular Fathers might and did errein ſuch particular poynts. But the Caſe 〈…〉 otherwyſe, When many of the cheife Paſtours and Father 〈…〉 ſeuerall Ages of the Primatiue Church do concurrently teach a poynt of doctrine, as an Article of fayth; And that they are not contradicted by any other of the Fathers, for their mantayning of the ſaid doctrine; And in this ſort is the former doctrine of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, taught without any oppoſition at all, not only by the former alledged Fathers, but by many others (or rather all othors) for breuiuy heare omitted.

Now in this Caſe [M. Vice-Chancelour] we Catholicks do hould, that ſuch their doctryne ſo ioyntly by the Fathers taught (without any contradiction) is moſt agreable to Gods word. For ſeing the Fathers of the Primatiue Church, were in thoſe dayes the cheife Paſtours of Chriſts Church; Yf they ſhould ioyntly rre in fayth, then would it follow, that the whole Viſible Church of God ſhould erre: an aſſertion moſt repugnant to the promiſſe of our Sauiour: Math. 16. Super hanc petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam; Et portae Inferi non praualebant aduerſus eam) and to that honerable title giuen to the Church by the Apoſtle ſtyling it: 1. Tim. 3. columna & firmamentum veritatis.

Now what reuerence and reſpect we are to giue to the Primatiue Church, and how we are to conceaue of the authority of it, I will (for the cloſure of this paſſage) referre you [M. Vice-Chancelour] to the ſentences of your own Brethreh, being moſt learned and remarkable Proteſtants; & from whoſe iudgment therefore herein, you cannot without great branch of modeſty decline. Firſt then we find Kempnitius thus to aduance the authority of the Primatiue Church: We Examē Concil. Trident. part. 1. p. 74. doubt not, but that the Primatiue Church receaued from the Apoſtles & Apoſtolicall Men, not only the text of the Scripture; but alſo the right and natiue ſenſe thereof. The confeſſion of Bohemia thus magnifyeth the ſame: The In the Harmonyes of Confeſſ. pag. 400. auncient Church is the true and beſt Miſtres of Poſterity; and going before, leadeth vs the way. Finally D. Iewell is no leſſe ſparing in his prayſes heereof, ſaying: In his defence of the Apology . The Primatiue Church, which was vnder the Apoſtles and Martyrs, hath e 〈…〉 r a been accounted the pureſt of all others without exception. Such tranſcendency of ſpeeches (you ſee) your owne more ſober and learned Brethren are not afrayd to aſcrybe, to the Fathers of thoſe primatiue tymes.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Michaas, I grant, you haue ſpoken fully in defence of your owne ſtate, and of the ſeuerall offices thereof, practized by you 〈…〉 ) Act. 〈◊〉 . Prieſts. And though I will not ſay like to Agrippa: (h) A little you haue perſuaded me, to become a Catholicke; yet I muſt ingenuouſly acknowledge, I neuer heard a cauſe of this Nature, with ſtronger & better arguments defended; Yet for the more perfect balan •• g and weighing the force of your authorityes (my ſelfe not being conuerſant in the written Monuments of the auncient Fathers) I muſt remit this poynt, to the more mature diſquiſition of our learned Deuins.

MICHAEAS.

Though your Lordſhip will not apply to your ſelfe, the fore-ſaid words of Agrippa; yet I will make bould to reply to you (ſuch is my charitable wiſhing of your chiefeſt good) in the phraze of S. Paul to Agrippa: I Act. vbi ſupra. wiſh to God, both in little & much, that your L. were ſuch as I am, except this my wat of liberty.

But my worthy Lord. Here now begmneth the Tragedy of the diſconſolate and mournefull ſtate of Prieſts and Catholicks in this Country. You haue heard [my L.] of the Antiquity of Prieſthood; of the like antiquity of the Sacrament of Confeſſion and Pennance; and lsſtly of the antiquity of the moſt holy ſacrifice of the Maſſe. And yet notwithſtanding all this, it is decreed (as your L. well knowes) by the pennall lawes of this Country, that Prieſthood ſhalbe Treaſon; the releiuing of any one ſuch Prieſt, death to the Releiuer; Confeſſion of our ſinns to a Prieſt, and abſolution of them, reputed to be in the Penitent a renouncing of his Loyalty; and the hearing of Maſſe, attended on with a great fine of ſiluer. And thus by theſe means, euery good Prieſt and Catholicke are (at the firſt ſight) become Statute traytours. And indeed ſuch is the caſe heere, that neither Prieſt nor Catholicke can (with ſafety of conſcience) giue any yeelding obedience and ſatisfaction to the Magiſtrate, touching thoſe lawes; ſince here not to offend, were to offend: Act. 〈◊〉 Obedire oportet Dee magis, quam hominibus.

And touching my ſelfe, and other Prieſts in particular; your L. is to take notice, that (not ſpeaking of our Bleſſed Sauiour, who was the firſt Prieſt, nor of his Apoſtles, ſucceeding him therein) moſt of the auncient Fathers were Prieſts, enioying the ſame Prieſthood, practizing the ſame function in hearing of Confeſſions, abſoluing the Penitents, & ſaying of Maſſe, which the meaneſt Prieſt of England at this day doth. Therefore your Lordſhip may truly ſuppoſe. That before you at this preſent, ſtand arraigned (only for being Prieſts, & exercizing that their function) S. Auſtin, S. Ambroſe, S. Ierome, S Cyprian, S. Athanaſius, S. Chryſoſtome, S. Ignatius, and many more of thoſe primatiue bleſſed Doctours. What I am, they were: I ſtand but here, as their Image; and they are perſonated in me. Neither can you impleade or condemne me, but that your ſentence muſt (through my ſides) wound them: ſo indiſ oluble an vnion there is betweene their ſtares & myne; no other difference betwene vs, but difference of tymes.

But my good Lord. To paſſe on further to the deſpicable & detected ſtate of Lay Catholicks (a theame not vnſeaſonable at theſe tymes) I will not inſiſt in particularizing the pennall ſtatuts decreed agaynſt them. Neuertheleſle my tongue (vnder your L. licence) can hardly pretermit one point in ſilence.

Among then ſo many Calamityes and vexations (wherewith on eich ſyde they ſtand plunged) Not any one preſſure is more inſufferable to them, or more opprob •• ous in the eares of ſtrangers (who are ready to trumpet forth the ſame, to the irreparable diſhonour of this noble Nation; otherwiſe famous throughout all Chriſtendome) Then to obſerue the houſes of Catholicks, to lye open to the ſearch of the Common & baſe Puſu uants: Who vnder colour of looking for a Prieſt, do enter their houſes at moſt vnſeaſonable tymes, euen by force: And there opening their Trunks & Cheſts: peruſing their Euidences of their Eſtats: taking the Mayſters of the houſes, bound in great ſommes of money, for their after appearance in Courts of Iuſtice: and violently breaking downe, what may ſeeme to withſtand their preſent furye; do by ſtrong hand, cary away any gold, ſiluer, Iewells, Plate, or any other portable thing of worth; And all this vnder the pretext of them, being forfeyted through Recuſancy; And the leaſt reſiſtance agaynſt theſe men here made, is puniſhed as an Act of Diſloyalty. Neither are any Engliſh Catholicks (the Nobility excepted) free from theſe Indignityes; the dead pittyleſſe law herein promiſcuouſly taking hold of all without difference. Now my Honorable Lord, Is it not a thing deſeruing aſtoniſhment & amazement, to ſee in a moſt noble Country (where the Ghoſpell, which forbiddeth all Rapine, is preſumed to be truly preached) that men free & not borne Bondſlaues, ſhould thus in body and ſtate (only for feare of offending God, and deſire of ſauing their ſoules) lye proſtrate, to the depradations & robberyes of certaine hungery Refuſe and Outcaſts of men? who make ſhow at leaſt (though wrongfully) to warrant all theſe their pillages, by force of the ſtatute Law; though otherwiſe prohibited by all Diuine and humane Law: Thren 〈◊〉 Si eſt dolor, ſicut dolor horum? And if it fortune, that any Prieſt be taken, or Recuſants do appeare; then is the Pryeſt aſſured, and the Catholicks in danger, to be committed to a darke and loathſome priſon; there to remayne (the Prieſt ſometymes in fettars) ſo long, as it ſhall pleaſe the ſubordinate Magiſtrate; His Maieſty, who is moſt proue to mercy, pitty, and commiſeration, being wholy ignorant of ſuch outrages and proceedings.

But My Lord. How baſe ſo euer the Prieſts & Catholicks of England ſeeme to be in the eyes of their Aduerſaryes; yet no doubt their ſtate is moſt gratefull (through this their impriſonment) in the ſight of God, and honorable in the iudgment of all foraine Catholicke nations; who in regard of the others endurance, may iuſtly apply to the ſaid impriſoned Prieſts & Catholicks, that ſentence of a moſt auncient Father: Tertul. ad Martyres. Carcer habet tenebras, ſed lumen eſtis ipſi; habet vincula, ſed vos ſoluti Deo eſtis; triſte illic expirat, ſed vos odor eſtis ſuauitatis.

LORD CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

Theeſe exorbitancyes of proceedings (Michaeas.) whereof you ſpeake (if any ſuch be) the Law chaſtizeth, and the Offendours are puniſhable; neither doth the ſupreme Magiſtrat geue allowance of them. Yet heare (Michaeas) you are to remember, that though wrong be not to be recompenſed with wrong, and Cruelty, with Iniuſtice, The tymes haue bene (I meane, in the reigne of Queene Marie) When the Profeſſours of our Religion did not only ſuffer loſſe of Goods, but euen death itſelfe. And therefore there appeareth leſſe reaſon, why you Romaniſts ſhould ſo tragically complayne at your preſent afflictions: Since in ſo doing, you are lyke to thoſe Men, who perpe rate impietyes, yet expoſtulate of Wrong.

MICHAEAS.

Indeede (my Lord) I grant, that this is the vulgar recrimination, often vrged and reinforced by the Proteſtants, for the more depreſſing of our preſſures in the eye of others; yet though I will not vndertake the defence of all the procedures of thoſe tymes (myſelfe being a ſtranger both to the Nation, and to the affayres of thoſe dayes) Neuertheleſſe let it not be offenſiue vnto you (my honerable Lord) if I vnfould the reaſon, why ſuch actions in that Queens tyme, may ſtand leſſe ſubiect to the cenſure of an iniuſtifiable puniſhment, then theeſe in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and ſince. The reaſon is this. In Q. Mar es tyme, the Profeſſours of any Religion, different from the Catholicke and Roman Religion, were puniſhed by certaine Canon and Imperiall Lawes, made by moſt auncient Popes & Emperours; they not then hauing any forknowledg, that Proteſtancy ſhould rather ſway in theſe dayes, then any other erroneous fayth. And this they did, in regard that all ſuch different Religions were reputed and oulden, as Innouations, and moſt repugnant to the auncient Catholicke fayth. Now that Proteſtācy was to be accounted in Queenes Maryes reigne a mere Innouation in faith, (as well as any other ſect) appeareth euen from the free acknowledgment of the learned Proteſtants; who teach expreſſly, that for theeſe foureteene, or fyfteene hundred yeeres, the Proteſtāt fayth was neuer ſo much as heard or thought of, till Luthers dayes. I will heare content myſelfe (for greater breuity) with the authorityes of two or three Proteſtants. Do we not then find M. Parkins thus to cō feſſe hereof? For In his expoſitiō of the Creed. many hundred yeres, our Church was not viſible to the World; an vniuerſal Apoſtaſy ouer spreading the whole face of the Earth. And doth not Sebaſtianus Francus (the Proteſtant) confeſſe the ſame in theeſe words? In epiſt. de abrogandis in vniuerſum omnibus ſtatut. Eccleſiaſt For certaine the externall Church togeather with the Sacramenti vaniſhed away, preſently after the Apoſtles departure; and that for theeſe foureteene hundred yeres, the Church hath not beene externall and Viſible. In lyke ſort D. Fulke, ſpeaking of the Proteſtant Church, doth he not thus wryte? In his anſwere to a Coū terfeyte Catholick pag. 35 The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apoſtles tymes: A verity confeſſed by Luther hymſelfe, thus vaunting of his owne ſuppoſed true faith: Luth. epiſt. ad A entinenſ. Chriſtum anobis primo vulga um audemus gloriari; We dare boaſt, that Chriſt was firſt preached by vs. Thus then we ſee, that Proteſtancy was puniſhed in Q. Maryes reigne, as an Innouation in fayth and religion, neuer afore that tyme dreamed of. But now the caſe is farre otherwiſe, touching the afflictions layed vpon the Catholicks, for profeſſing of their fayth: ſince they are puniſhed by certaine Parlamental ſtatuts only, decreed not paſt ſome threeſcore yeres ſince, by the authority of a Woman Prince, againſt a religion which (by the learned Aduerſaries lyke acknowledgment) hath poſſeſſed all Chriſtendome theeſe many hundred yeres; and indeed ſo many hundred yeres, as the Proteſtant Church is confeſſed by them to haue bene latent and inuiſible; And therefore thoſe ſtat •• s were decreed not againſt the Catholicke Religion, as againſt an Innouation; but as againſt the (till then) only and ſole Religion, profeſſed by all the Chriſtia s, through out the whole world. To this end we find M. Napper (a learned Proteſtant) thus acknowledging In his treatiſe vpon the Reuelat. p. 68. Betweene the yeres of Chriſt 300. and 316. the Antichriſtian & Papiſticall reigne began, reigning vniuerſally without any debatible contradiction one thouſand, two hundred, & ſixty yeres. And as conſpiring with the former Proteſtant herein, the See of this point the Centuriſts, in Cent. 4. & ſo in euery ſucc eding Century. Centuriſts do euen from the tymes of Conſtantyne, charge both hym, and euery age and Century ſince, till Luthers dayes, with the Profeſſion of our preſent Roman Religion.

Thus now your Lordſhip may clearly diſcouer the greate diſparity, betwene the proceedings of Queene Mary, and Q. Elizabeth. Since in the former Queens tyme, the Lawes, wheareby Sectaries were puniſhed for their Religion, were inſtituted many hundred yeres ſince: In this later Q. raigne the Statuts were firſt made at the beginning of her comming to the Crowne; which is yet in the memory of eich Man, being but of reaſonable greate yeres. Thoſe lawes were enacted by Popes and generall See Concil. Laodicenſ. can. 31. 32. 33. Concil. Cartha. canon. 16. ouncells (to whoſe charge and incumbency the burden of Religion is peculiarly by God committed) ſecunded otherwiſe by the ſecular authority of L. Ariani, c. de Haereticis. L. cuncti Haeret. L. Man chaei Emperours, and particularly of ( 〈◊〉 ) Valentinian and Marcian: Theeſe were firſt inuented by a Woman, and a Parlament of Lay Perſons: the incompetent iudges of fayth and Religion. Breifly, by the former Decrees a Religion, confeſſed by the cheife Profeſſours of it, to be neuer heard of, at leſt for foureteene hundred yeres together (and thearefore to be an innouation of fayth which is held by Catholicks to be a deſtruction of fayth neceſſary to Soules health) is interdicted and prohibited: By theeſe later, a Religion (confeſſe ly by it greateſt Enemyes) (3) Valentinian & Marcian decreed obſtinate Hereticks to be puniſhed with death of which Law ſee Concil. Chalcedō. Act. 1. practized vniuerſally throughout all Chriſtendome, the ſpace of the aforeſaid foureteene hundred yeres and by the learneder ſort of Proteſtants graunted to be ſufficient to Saluation is puniſhed with loſſe of Goods and 〈◊〉 , in p 〈…〉 ſonment to the Profeſſours of it, and death to the Prieſts and 〈…〉 ers of them: Pſalm 103. Quantum diſt at Orius ab Occaſ ? And heare I cannot omit to rehearſe, how the ſaid Queene Elizabeth, among other her lyke pious and charitable deeds (that ſo theare might a ſutablenes in her Actions) was not afrayd (contrary to the law of God, contrary to the law of Nation, contrary to her owne ſolemne vowe and promiſe afore giuen in that behalfe, contrary to the pitifull flexure of her owne Sex; and finally contrary to all Nature, Honour, and Religion) to detayne by force, to impriſon, to be cade, her owne neareſt kinſwoman and immediate Succeſſour; A Princes, a Catholicke Queene of incompatable excellencyes and vertues; Mother (and therein the other Q. greater atrocitye) to the late deceaſed Kinge of famous Memory, and Grandmother to his Maieſty; that now is.—Virg. Aenad. Quis talia faud Myrmidonum, Dolopumue, aut uri milles Vlyſſis, temperet a lacrimis? Since heare this moſt worthy Princes deſcent was her only fault; her byrth, her cryme; And thus did neareſt in bloud occaſiō the effuſion of moſt innocent bloud, and proximitie in Nature produce this barbarus Act, euen loathed in Nature.

But doth your Lordſhip thinke, that the other Q. then height of ſtate and faſtigious Dignity, could be a Sanctuary (without finall repentance) for ſuch her immanitie? o no. Sapiēt. cap. 6. vz. potentes potenter tormenta pati ntur. Potentes potenter &c. But I will conceale, what followeth.

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

That moſt deplotable Act (Michaeas) by you now mentioned, was rather to be aſcrybed (perh pps) to certaine of the ſayd Queens Councellours of ſtate in thoſe dayes, then to the Queene herſelfe. But ſince ſhe was a Princes of greate parts and perfections, I could wiſh, that (as free from ill reproach) ſhe now being deade (through of neuer dying memory) might reſt in Honour, who gouerned with Honour.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

my L. Iudge. Michaeas is come hither, not to declame thus at large, or to make excurſions of longe diſcourſe, (is hitherto he hath bene permitted) but to ſuffer condigne puniſhment for his former Miſdemeanours: The tyme is almoſt ſpent, and therefore I would entreate your Lordſhip, ſpeedely to proceed to ſentence againſt hym.

MICHAEAS.

Moſt Excellent Iudge. ô let not my gray heyres become diſcolored with any imaginary Crymes; nor ſuffer my ruinous and decayed bones to be attended to their graue, with any iniuſt puniſhment; and therefore, Pſalm. 〈◊〉 . In virtute tua iudica me. Yf I deſearne euill, let me haue my due recompence: Yf I be faultles, I ought to be aſſoyled: It is the law, & my owne demerits (not this Mans viperous tongue) that muſt make me, euill.

LORD-CHEIFE IVSTICE.

I will deſcend to your ſentence [Michaeas] And firſt, ſeing I well obſearue, that greate and vnaccuſtoined Examples of Iuſtice muſt euer in the eye of the multitude, be preſumed to haue ſome what of Wrong, at leaſt of Rigour; therefore for the better auoyding of ſuch an aſpertion; I will call to mynd of what particular offences you heare reſt accuſed; and will paſſe my euen & impartiall iudgment of them; not reſpecting, how they are amplyfied in words, but what they deſearue (ail collaterall reſpects conſidered) in themſelfs: S 〈…〉 ce one and the ſame Action (the circumſtances being v rie is with thē alſo varied.

You arr heare then Michaeas arraigned (as farre as my memory may ſeaiue to ſuggeſt; and if I do forget any thing, I hope your charitable friend, M. Vice-Chancelour, wilbe my Remembrancer) of three ſeuerall Offences.

Firſt, of diuulging and mantayning Poſitions of Diſloyalty of the ſubiect, agaiuſt his Prince. Secondly, of ſpreading ſhort Treatiſes in the Vniuerſity, contayning diuers poynts of your owne Romiſh Religion: Thirdly and laſtly, of being a Prieſt, and exercizing your Prieſtly function within this Realme.

Touching the firſt, I can find no prouffs againſt you, but only M. Vice-Chancelour bare & naked aſſertion; to the which I haue leſſe reaſon to giue ſo farre credit, as to ru iſh you for the ſame; not only, becauſe you do as peremptorily deny it, as he did confidently auerre it; but alſo in that you made a voluntary and earneſt proteſtation (in the name of your ſelfe, & all other Prieſts and Catholicks in England) of due allegeance to his Maieſty: ſo whereas M. Vice Chancelour did thearein ſpeake words, you did ſpeake matter. Beſids I ſhould hould it no ſmall ouerſight, to chaſtize you publykely for that preſumed fault (though moſt weakely proued) with the which (if your formerrelations be therein true) our owne Brethren do ſtand (in a farre higher degree and meaſure (chargeable.

Touching your Pryeſthood and exercizing of it in our 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Country (the greate antiquity whereof, if you haue truly diſcourſed of it, hath party awakened my Spirits) thoughe you be much blame worthy in ſo doing; Yet I cannot but confeſſe, that our Satuts made in that buſines, haue particular reference to thoſe Pryeſts only, which are borne in our Country, and not to Aliens or ſtrangers, as you giue your ſelfe out to be: And therefore our Lawes thearein cānot take any full hould of you.

That third fault then it is, whereunto you lye more dangerouſly ſubiect; Which is, touching the diuulging of your Treatiſes, and perſuading others to your owne Religion. The which, as it is prohibited by our Lawes, for euery vrgent reaſons (as begetting turbulency in our ſetled and quyet State) ſo the offendours thearein ſtand highly puniſhable. Neuertheleſſe [Michaeas] ſince in the whole procedure of your Arraignment, you haue ſhowed greate temperance in your deportment, and loyalty to our Soueraigne; by the which we muſt coniecture the integrity and candour of your Mynde (for though God do iudge the words by the hart; yet Man muſt iudge the hart by the words) ſince Old age, a Schollar, and a Stranger (euen in all Countryes) deſearue ſpeciall commiſeration and pittye. Finally, ſince he, who through any great offence committed, is dead in the Law, if after the rigour therof be to him diſpenſed, is become the Chyld of Mearcy, enioying (as it were) a ſecond Byrth; in which kynd of diſpencing with rigour, the Higheſt cheifly glorieth: Pſalm. 144. Suauis eſt Dominus, & miſerationes eius ſuper omnia opera eius. Therefore my ſentence ſhalbe againſt you in the moſt gentill māner (yet with due conſideration of all circumſtances) And it ſhalbe this. You ſhall continue in this Nation, as long as your ſelfe ſhall thinke good, enioying your full liberty of body; ſo that hereafter you forbeare all perſuading of others to your owne Religion, and do perſeuer in your former obedience to his Maieſty, you ſhall at the next Act or Commencment at Oxford, be ready there publykly (in the eye of that Vniuerſity) to defend your owne doctrine, mantayned in theſe your written Treatiſes; at what tyme M. Vice-Chancelour heere (as being a Profeſſed Deuine) ſhalbe in thoſe diſput , your cheifeſt opponent and Antagoniſt. And if any of our Doctours ſhall by writing impugne your ſaid diſcourſes, you ſhall giue your faithfull promiſſe, to reply thereto. And laſtly you ſhall pray for the well-fare of his Maieſty; vnder whoſe happy and clement gouerment, your former Tranſgreſſions are ſo mildly chaſtized.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

My Lord. I willingly accept of the Diſputation; Where I doubt not, but to lay open at full the ſuperſtition of that Man of ſinne. But what? Muſt in the meane tyme, Mich as (a member of Antichriſt) be freed from impriſonment, and paſſe thus vnpuniſhed? Muſt the Whore of Babylon be entertayned among vs (in her followers) no worſe, then a chaſt and inte erate Virgin? Shall the words ſpoken in the Dragons voyce, be ſo preuayling, as to enchant the eares of the faythfull with her pleaſing (yet poyſenous) muſicke? Breifly, ſhall Hereſy, Superſtition, and Idolatry (the worſt of all euill) endeauour among vs (and that in our Vniuerſity) to take place in the Soules of Chriſtians, with all impunitie, and as exempt from controule? Yf ſo; then come (O Lord of heauen) haſten thy approach; Ouerrunne the earth with an irreſiſtable proſternation of all Creatures: and reduce all things of their laſt Period and diſſolution: for now it ſeemes, the tyme is, that Ezech. 28. Apoc. 20. Gog and Magog (the forces Vide Auguſt. l. 20. de ciuitate Dei cap. 11. of Antichriſt) are let looſe, to ceaze vpon the faythfull (without any gainſaying or oppoſition) and to beget in mans ſoule, a giddy diſſipation of all his intellectuall powers.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour: Horat. Proijcis ampullas, & ſeſquipedalia verba. You mouth it ouer loudly, and vſe very turgent and ſwelling words, agaynſt vs poore diſtreſſed Prieſts & Catholicks: Whoſe ſhyeld, in the meane tyme is Patience: whoſe armour, our Confidence in God: and whoſe recrimination, reſts in words of myldnes and charity: 1. Cor. 4. Maledicimur, & benedicimus: blaſphemamur, & obſecramus.

But my very good Lord. To turne my ſpeeches vnto you: Touching this your ſentence (how innocent ſoeuer I am) I do vndergoe it with all humblenes of mynd, and without the leaſt reluctation: for I haue red: Eccleſ 8. Non iudices contra iudicem. And I embrace it the more willingly, ſince I hope, that by this meanes, the radiant and moſt ſhyning Truth of the Catholicke Doctryne in the former diſcuſſed Poynts, will in the fight of ſo noble and worthy an Auditory (as the famous Vniuerſity of Oxford is) more eaſily diſpell the myſt of all contrary Noueliſ 〈…〉 e.

Touching my Loyall duty to his Maieſty, my prayer is, (& this I ſpeake, not in a Dialogizing and feigned manner: but plainly, ſincerely, and ſeriouſly, in the ſight of God and his Angells) God preſ 〈…〉 ue King Charles and his Royall Queene, with a proſperous and bleſſed Domination and gouerment ouer this Nation: Grant to them the happynes, to branch themſelues forth into many diſ ente and Progenyes, from generation to generation: And finally vouchſ 〈…〉 fe (moſt mercyfull God) that the greatnes of this their temporall 〈…〉 ity may ſerue as a Type, or dumbration, to figure out their greater eternall Beautitude in the world to come. And thus with bended knee, and hart proſtiated in all du 〈…〉 full humility, and with all remonſtrance of thankefulnes, for this your l 〈…〉 ency and myldnes of Iudgment and ſentence, I take my laſt fare well with your good Lordſhip.

VICE-CHANCELOVR.

My Lord, muſt your former iudgment paſſe vnaltered? and muſt it not be accompained with any chaſtizement at all?

L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE.

M. Vice-Chancelour. Content your ſelfe with my former ſentence: It ſhall ſtand: Math. 20. an oculus uus nequam eſt, quia ego bonus ſum? I hope, you will haue aduantage enough againſt him, in your future diſputation: and it is more honour for you, to haue the Victory ouer his Cauſe, then ouer his Perſon. And indeed, it is inhumanity to depreſſe and waigh downe a poore old Man and a ſtranger, with multiplicity of miſeryes: your ſelfe is a Schollar: and therefore you are the ore to commiſerate him, being a Schollar. And ſo with theſe my laſt words, both of you may depart from this barre, at your owne pleaſure.

VICE C-HANCELOVR.

My Lord. Since ſuch is your reſolution, I muſt reſt ſatiſfyed therewith: and ſo I take my humble leaue of your Lordſhip.

As for you [Michaeas.] I will not take any formall farewell with you: becauſe I hope according to my L. ſentence deliuered, I ſhall meete with you in our Vniuerſitie this next Commencement: at what tyme, I will anatomize and diſſect that Wh 〈…〉 re if Bab 〈…〉 lon, and ſtrike her in her Mayſter vey e: and will (to your irreperable diſgrace) diſplay the falſhood and abſurdities of all your former diſperſed Popiſh doctryres; when your Auditour ſhall eaſily perceaue, that you in your former wrytings, did much pertake of the byrd, that owed the wing, from which you borrowed your penne: And ſo till then, I bid you: A 〈…〉 eu.

MICHAEAS.

M. Vice-Chancelour. I do contemne theſe your Lucian and ſcoffing vaunts; vnworthy to proceede from the mouth of a graue and learned Man. At the tyme appoynted, I meane to be preſent in your Vniuerſity: where I truſt through the ayde of him, whoſe cauſe I am then to mantayne, to make good & iuſtify all my former Catholicke doctrynes.

Touching your malignant demeanour (for I can tearme it no better (agaynſt me, throughout the whole Proceſſe of this cauillous accuſation; know you, that as all Chriſtians in generall, ſo Pryeſts and Catholickes more peculiarly (of which number I am one) are bound to requyte good for euill; imitating therein our Lord; who, Cum 1. Petri. 2. malediceretur, non maledicebat: cum pateretur, non comm nebatur. Therefore in 2. Theſſ. 3. charitate Dei, & patientia Chriſti; I freely forgiue you: and will affoard you my dayly Prayers for your Conuerſion, and ſauing of your Soule. And with this [M. Vice-Chancelour] vntill the tyme ſet downe of our future diſputation. I leaue you.

FINIS. GOD SAVE THE KING.
THE CONCLVSION to the Academicks of both the Vniuerſities.

LEARNED and worthy Academicks Now Michaeas (the Conuerted law) hath acted his laſt Scene; And new he heare pulleth off his viſard, vnder which in the former Dialogues he masked, and taketh his laſt farewell with you in the playne and naturall Dialect of an 〈…〉 Pryeſt, the Authour of the ſayd Dialogues. You haue heare peruſed the points diſcuſſed. It hath in the former Dialogues (I hope irrefra ably (bene proued, that ſince the Apoſtles dayes euen to Luthers reuolt, Our Cathelicke fayth without chan e, hath euen bene profeſſed; the Proteſtāts fayth hath neuer bene profeſſed What demonſtration more choaking? You alſo haue ſeene, with what diſaduantage diuers of your Profeſſours (in regard of the moſt iuſt retorting of it vpon themſelf ) haue in greate waſt and profuſion of words, wrongfully & promiſ uouſly charged all Catholicks with the hatefull Cryme of Diſloyaltye. Laſtly, heare hath bene laid open before you, (beſids ſome 〈◊〉 diſcourſes of certain Catholicke doctrines) the venerable Antiquitie of Prieſthood; the lyke antiquity of the Sacerdotal 〈…〉 h 〈…〉 tye of remitting of ſinns in the Sacrament of Confeſſion; and of celebrating the moſt reuerend and incruent Sacrifice of the Maſſe: ſubiects againſt which, many Proteſtants ſo bitterly 〈…〉 both with tongue and penne.

Now if Gods 〈◊〉 W •• t, partly deliuered in a propheticall ſpirit, and partly by our Sauiours 〈◊〉 and Apoſtles, touching the former poynts. Yf the vninterrupted practize of Gods Church, anſwearable to thoſe diuine Oracles. Yf the learned Monuments of the Primatiue Fathers in the Churches Infancy, conteſting (or rather, depoſing) the ſame. Yf the Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtoryes recording the euen s, ſorting to all the former pro ffs and authorityes. Finally, if your owne Brethrens free Confeſſions in their wrytings to their owne irreperable preiudice) warranting the ſame, cannot induce many of you, to beleiue the truth of the Articles aboue diſcuſſed; then can I but diſpaire of your bettering by peruſing the former diſputes; and can but cōmiſerate your irremediable ſtates in the words of the Prophet, ſpoken to Iſraell: Ieremy. c. 30. Inſanabilis ract 〈…〉 a, peſſima p •• ga tua. but if you be ſuch, as I haue fi ured out to my ſelfe: Men profeſſing Candor and ingenuitie; thirſting after your owne Saluation; deſirous to embrace the Truth, once found out; and chornin any lon er to liue and implicit and blynd aſſent (without further 〈◊〉 and ſearch) to your grand Mayſters Theorems; then I am in good hope, that theſe my Labours may wunne ſome ground vpon your iudgments; and that you will make good in yourſelf that ſentēce of our Lord and Sauiour: Math. 〈◊〉 . Iuſtificata eſt ſapientia a fil 〈…〉 ſuis. I will ſpeake playnly vnto you, becauſe I affect you in true Chriſtian Charity and pittie it is, that ſuch-tranſcendent Spirits ſhould for euer periſh. You are created to enjoy Eternitye: Spurne there at thoſe temporary illaqueations; whearwith the ſoule i accuſtomed to be detayned from her cheifeſt Good. You are (through the force of Chriſts Paſſion 〈…〉 borne Cohey es to the Kin dome of God: Why then will you longer ſeede with the Prodicall Sonne, vpon the husks of wordly deli hts and pleaſures? ſay eich of you rather, with an auncient Father: Terr. cōtra marcionē. l. 5. Mihi amulo Create is, murd 〈…〉 us ſi non tamen Deus mundi; Et igo Mundo, non tamen Deo mundi. Pray with in •• ſlant and feruerous eiaculations of ſpirit (by which meanes, he will no dowbt, of new become preſent to you, who at all tymes is God is in euery thing and place, per eſſentiam, potentiam, & g ortam. preſent) that his Diuine Maieſty would vouchſafe to remoue from your eyes (as he did from the corporal eyes of the Act. 91. Apoſtle) the ſcales of partiality and preiudice in matters of fayth: the moſt dangerous rocke of the ſoules eternall naufrage.

Do not ſtill perſeuer in vp raidin the Catholicks, with Superſtition, Idolatrie Antichriſtianiſme relyinge on humane inuentions, and diſualewing of the moſt precious ſufferings of our 〈◊〉 no. Theſe are but our Aduerſaryes impoſtures and Calumnyes, forged to enſware the ignorant. For we all moſt willingly acknowledg, that the bloudy wounds of a ſinfull ſoule are cured, only by the bloudy paſſaues of Chriſt his Paſſion: thus we teach and beleiue, that bloud heare ſtancheth bloud and Death (through ouerthrow of death) raiſe Men from death: So ſaith the Catholicke Church, in the office of the Holy Croſſe. Mors ortua tunc eſt: in ligno quando mortua vita fuit.

But to returne more particularly to the former Dialogues. I do probably pre age, that perhaps ſome one or other of your learned Profeſſours will vndertake to anſweare theeſe my Wrytings. Therefore let me premoniſh that man cheifly of three Things.

Firſt, that whereas theare are in the three former diſcourſes, almoſt a thouſand Teſtimonies of all ſorts of authorities, produced (ſome immediatly, and others by neceſſary inferrence, prouing the Catholicks Poynts aboue treated of) That therefore he would not (forbearing in policy to anſweare the authorities) flee a new to the ſtate of the queſtion (being allready acknowledged on all ſides) and to other extrauagancyes of diſcours; and all, to with draw (by ſuch ſubtill tranſitions) his Reader from the poynt iſſuable; which is, whether the former Con rouer ed Queſtions do receaue their full prouſſe, from my alledged teſtimonies, or no 〈◊〉 Secondly, that whereas the greateſt part of the aboue alledged authorities, are taken from the proteſtants Confeſſions and acknowledgments, (they mainly thearby wounding their owne Religion) That the Replyar for the auoyding of the force of their authorities, would not ſeeke to oppoſe other Proteſtants denying that, which they confeſſe; ſince this Kynd of euading s moſt weake (as is intimated allready in the ſecond Dialogue) in that the Proteſtants alledged by me, are the moſt remarkable Proteſtants, that euer did wryte, and do confeſſe to their owne preiudice, and againſt the 〈◊〉 ; which they neuer would do, but that the euidency of the Truth enforceth them thear to. Whereas thus others (which perhaps the Replyar may pro 〈…〉 ce) are Men of meaner ranke, and ſpeake in their owne behalfe; and therefore as compacted of impudency and boldnes, their ton ues and pe 〈…〉 ns ſtand at all tymes ready charged, to ſpeake and wryte by affirming of chings (thou 〈…〉 neuer ſo falſe) for the ſupporting of their owne Cauſe. Thirdly and laſtly, that in anſwearing to the teſtimonyes and Confeſſious, he would take them in order, as they lye, and not omit any; as otherwyſe hoping, that is regard of the •• ltitude of the teſtimonyes the ſluggiſh yauning Reader would eaſely ſwalow ſuch ouerſights of Omiſions. For heare I aduertize the Replyar a forehand: That preſently vpon the firſt comming out of his Anſweare, I will make a ſhort Cathalogue of all the teſtimonyes and Confeſſions omitted by hym (if any ſuch he) ſhewing to what end the ſayd Teſtimonyes were particularly produced; And will cauſe this Cathalogue within few dayes after, atleaſt few weeks (for I will not ſtay for months) to be printed and d 〈…〉 , for the preſent ſ 〈…〉 of the Readers thirſt, till further oportunity be geuen for confuting of his anſweare at large And thus I dowbt not, but the Sunne of the Replyars ſame end worth, which may ſeeme perhaps ſo gloriouſly to ryſe at the firſt appearance of his moſt learned anſweare (forſooth) within th 〈…〉 tyme after (if any of the former premoniſhed lei hts and colluſions be vſed thearein) wilbe forced to ſet in a Cloud of his owne diſgrace and diſreputation.

Neither let that Man think, that the ſ 〈…〉 of his, Booke with greeke ſentences, or the hayling in of certaine myſapplyed and g 〈…〉 beaded Apotheges of ſome one or other old and outworne Philoſoph •• (an Idiome peculiar to moſt Proteſtant Wryters) muſt carye the ma ter: But it muſt be a 〈…〉 , and ſincere coa s of anſwearing, which at this tyme can ſatisfy.

But now (Cel 〈…〉 Academicks) taking my laſt leaue of you all I will heare ceaſe, but will neuer ceaſe, to power out my dayly prayers to the moſt Bleſſed and v deuided, for your encreaſe of all vertues; but particularly for true and orthodoxall fayth; that o (you being gratefull in the ſi ht of the three diuine Perſons) God the Father, would vouchſafe you the Power, Chriſt his Mearcy, and the Holy-G 〈…〉 rection and ſpirit, for the 〈…〉 your ſoules with ſo 〈…〉 able a ewell: Ter . l. de Anim . Cut veritas comp. 〈◊〉 ſi •• 〈…〉 cognitus, 〈…〉 Chriſto cui Cr •• us exploratus, ine Spiritu Sancto? cui Spiritus, anctu accomoda us, ſine ſi ei Sacramento?

Laus Deo, & Beate Virgini Maria. 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉