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,

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.

[Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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.

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, [Page 4] 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.

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.

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 [Page 5] 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.

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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] At Dauid Georg Pro­fessour at Basil. Ha­melinanus &c. Protestants haue becom Iewes, yet not any Iew a Prote­stant.

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.

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 [Page 8] 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) [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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.

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.

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 [Page 11] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 12] 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.

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?

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 [Page 13] 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, [Page 14] 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?

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.

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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] &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.

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.

[Page 17]

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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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.

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.

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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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.

[Page 24]

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.

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 [Page 25] of the Antichristian kingdome. Are not all these your asser­tions, M. Doctour.

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.

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.

[Page 26]

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?

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, [Page 27] 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.

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 [Page 28] 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?

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 [Page 29] 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?

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 [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] Maniches, Arians, and diuers others, all which did embroile the Church of Christ, euen before the first foure hundred yeares were expyred?

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Page 32]

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.

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 [Page 33] 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.

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 [Page 34] 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.

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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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.

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.

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.

No. For I hould with our reuerent Man Beza Cō ­fess. general. [...]7. Sect. 12. Beza, [Page 38] 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.

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.

[Page 39] 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.

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.

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 [Page 40] (to speake by allusion) that it is easy to prooue, that we see; but hard to prooue, how we see.

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 [Page 41] 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.

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.

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 [Page 42] 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.

Your Church hath departed from that Fayth, which [Page 43] 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.

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, [Page 44] 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.

[Page 45]

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.

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 [Page 46] 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.

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 [Page 47] 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.

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?

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 [Page 48] 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.

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.

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.

Well, M. Doctour, you deale with integrity, and playnes hitherto; openly discouering, what your reading and [Page 49] 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.

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, [Page 50] nor aduantaginge you Papists.

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?

It cannot be denyed, but that all the foresayd Pro­testants (as also all Histories discoursing of this poynt) do cō ­fidently [Page 51] 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.

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 [Page 52] 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.

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.

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.

[Page 53]

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, [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] satisfaction in this your imposed Subiect, or Question.

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.

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.

My Lord I willingly take holde of your prescribed [Page 56] 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.

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 [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] (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.

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) [Page 59] 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Page 60]

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.

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 [Page 61] 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.

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.

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 [Page 62] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 63] offended: or reprehend him, for putting onely in execution his lawfull Authority.

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 [Page 64] 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.

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?

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 [Page 65] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 64] 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.

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 [Page 65] 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?

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.

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 [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 66] Histories recording no lesse.

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.

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.

[Page 67]

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.

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 [Page 68] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 59] 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.

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 [Page 70] 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.

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?

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.

[Page 71] 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? [Page 72] 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.

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, [Page 73] 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.

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.

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 [Page 74] 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.

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.

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, [Page 75] 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.

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.

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 [Page 76] 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.

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 [Page 77] 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.

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.

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 [Page 78] 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.

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.

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 [Page 79] 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.

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.

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 [Page 80] 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.

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.

[Page 81] (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.

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.

[Page 82]

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.

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 [Page 83] 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.

M. Doctour, before I come to ballance this your last argument, you must pardon me, if I smile to my selle to [Page 84] 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, & [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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, [Page 88] 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.

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.

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 [Page 89] 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.

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 [Page 90] 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.

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.

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 [Page 91] 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.

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.

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 [Page 92] 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.

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 [Page 93] 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.

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 [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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, [Page 96] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 97] 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.

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, [Page 98] 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.

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.

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

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) [Page 99] 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, [Page 100] 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.

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, [Page 101] 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.

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.

[Page 102]

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.

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) [Page 103] 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.

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) [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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.

[Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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 [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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, [Page 112] 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, [Page 113] 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, [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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, [Page 116] 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.

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.

[Page 117] 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.

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.

[Page 118]

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.

GOD SAVE THE KING.

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.

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.

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 [Page 6] 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.

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.

Gentlemen. I greete you both in the salutation of the [Page 7] 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.

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.

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?

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.

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, [Page 8] 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.

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 [Page 9] 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.

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 [Page 10] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 13] 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.

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

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 [Page 14] 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.

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.

[Page 15] 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?

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.

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.

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 [Page 16] 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.

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.

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.

I am most ready to performe my former assumed Scene: [Page 17] therefore delay no tyme, but begin.

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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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.

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 [Page 21] 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.

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.

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 [Page 22] 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, [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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.

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: [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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.

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: [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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.

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.

[Page 30]

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.

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.

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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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.

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.

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?

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 [Page 33] (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.

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 [Page 34] Protestant) was fully taught, and beleiued in K. Edward his dayes, I absolutely deny.

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?

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; [Page 35] 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.

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.

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.

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. [Page 36] 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.

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.

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 [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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.

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.

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 [Page 39] 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.

[Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Page 44]

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

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?

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. [...] Lutheri tem­pora, latebat Ecclesia in solitudine, Before the times of Luther, the Church lay hid in the desert.

[Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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.

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.

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, [Page 47] for, visible members of the Protestant Church.

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

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 [Page 48] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 49] 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.

[Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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.

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.

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.

[Page 52] 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.

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. [Page 53] 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.

[Page 54] But what say you [Michaeas] of the Albigenses, and the rest aboue mentioned by M. Doctour? Were not all they Pro­testants?

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 [Page 55] 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.

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.

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 [Page 56] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] (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 [Page 59] 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.

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

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.

[Page 60] 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.

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.

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, [Page 61] 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, [Page 62] 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.

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.

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 [Page 63] haue bene many faithfull Protestants, and an answerable ad­ministration of the word & Sacraments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Page 64] 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 [Page 65] 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 [Page 66] 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. [Page 67] 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?

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.

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 [Page 68] 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.

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.

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 [Page 69] 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.

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 [Page 70] 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.

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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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, [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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.

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?

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 [Page 78] 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.

Haue you not often obserued [Michaeas] how a little qu [...] ­tity [Page 79] 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.

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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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.

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 [Page 82] [...] [Page 83] [...] [Page 82] 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.

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.

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, [Page 83] 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.

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 [Page 84] 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.

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.

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) [Page 85] 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.

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.

[Page 86] 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.

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.

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

[Page 87]

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.

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.

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.

[Page 88] 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 [Page 89] [...]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.

[Page 90]

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.

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; [Page 91] 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.

Forbeare (Michaeas) these woundering Interiections, the accustomed Dialect of an vngouerned Passion. I grant, these [Page 92] 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.

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 [Page 93] prou [...] est, in aduersus somet [...]psos confitent [...], quam pro [...] [...]egantes.

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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 94] 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.

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

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

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 [Page 95] 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.

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.

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.

[Page 96] 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.

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.

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 [Page 97] 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.

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.

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, [Page 98] 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?

Tush (Michaeas) This is but your Oratorye. Wee say the Prophecies of the old Testament (of which we haue set downe [Page 99] 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.

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 [Page 100] vs: in [...]o which afore you did begin to enter; but show in you [...] words greater temperanee and Patience.

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▪) [Page 101] 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.

[Page 102]

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.

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) [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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.

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 [Page 106] 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.

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.

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

[Page 107] Let him go: I will nor take leaue with him: such oppro­brious speeches he vseth against vs.

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.

[Page 108]

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 [Page 109] [...]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.

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 [Page 110] 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.

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 [Page 111] thus [M. D.] I leaue you, and commit you to the tuition of the Highest.

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

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

GOD SAVE THE KING.

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.

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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] that so he may be punished by the Law, who hath transgressed the Law.

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.

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 [Page 8] 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.

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.

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; [Page 9] 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?

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, [Page 10] 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, [Page 11] 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.

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 [Page 12] 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.

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.

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.

My L. I will. You haue di [...]gled (Michaeas) to your sol­lowers, [Page 13] 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.

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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] the actuall insurrections and rebellions of Protestants, against their lawfull Princes.

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.

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.

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 [Page 16] 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.

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 [Page 17] 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.

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.

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 [Page 18] 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.

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?

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, [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] Pooles Church, termeth these two men: The two fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland.

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.

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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 24] 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.

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 [Page 25] 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, [Page 26] (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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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) [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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.

Michaeas. You haue heare entred into a wyde and wyld [Page 31] 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.

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 [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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.

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.

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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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.

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 [Page 37] 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.

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 [Page 38] & 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.

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 [Page 39] 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.