CV● BONO DEO. RAIN FROM THE CLOUDS, upon a Choicke Angel: OR, A returned Answer, to that common Quaeritur of our Adversaries, Where was your Church before Luther? Digested into several Meditations, according to the difference of Points. Extorted off the Author, for stilling the uncessant, and no less clamorous Coassation of some Patmicke Frogs, against the lawfulness of our Calling. MATTH. XXI. VERS. 23. etc. And when He was come into the Temple, the chief Priests, and Elders of the People, came unto Him, as He was teaching, and said; By what authority dost Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority? ABERDENE, IMPRINTED BY EDWARD RABAN, DWELling upon the Marketplace, at the Town's Arms, 1634. Cum privilegio. BON ACCORD Insignia Vrbis abredonie blazon or coat of arms of Aberdeen TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL, AND TRVELIE RELIGIOUS, Sr ALEXANDER GORDON Of Clunie, Knight, Grace, Mercie, and Peace, etc. RIGHT WORSHIPFUL, I have dared, out of the temporality (as we learn now abusivelie to speak) to emprunt your Worship's Name to this little unpolished piece of mine unworthy workmanship; as justly fearing to disjoin in my Dedication, whom GOD hath so happily conjoined in so tender and hearty affection: which your Worship shall give as the truth beareth, not to any itching desire on my part to put hand to the pen, as if in boc mustaceo quaererem laureolam; Nay, as who am more than loath and unwilling of myself, to give aught forth to the public view, out of a consciousness of my weakness, whereof I am not the least ashamed to give open signification; besides divers others more than just reasons and respects best known to myself: But to the inopportune importunity of the Adversary, enforcing this task upon me, and expressing it of me, how nilling so ever: As semblably to that due regard had by me 〈…〉 ●rueth, (whereof it beseemeth every Gregarie Christian in common to be chary) though not the least here endangered of itself, and in itself; yet turning quaestionarie with some of the blacker note amongst us, as the easier, so as yet (blessed be GOD for it) the best prey of our compassing Adversaries; to whom we envye not much these their so well accomplished Proselytes. Certes, I have not subserved here my humour in this my Dedication, neither yet sub manu demum hic mibi natum consilium, as the trivial adage hath: But to speak sadly, & no less sincerely, without the least assentation, as which proves not much compatible with my natural, if I durst gloze myself, not without right putation and due pondering of the matter, have I recoursed with these my barely & nakedly delineated, and unfilled up as yet lineaments, to the Zoar of your Worship's Name; that shrouded and sheltered under the shadowing wings of the same, they may find the better harbouring at home, and receive as the safer conduct, so the friar passage abroad: as who truly here find myself, as emboldened on every hand, so necessitated on every side; whether from that your Worship's respectful regard to all, and reverend eftimation of all of my Coat; or from that your Worship's sincere love to the Truth, (for the which we have matter to praise GOD, and pray for the happy and long continuance thereof, with a daily increase, because of this so thick apostating Generation) from whence the meanest endeavours of any in this kind cannot but find most gracious acceptance, and hearty welcome, at your Worship's hands. Expecting and expeting your Worship's charitable construction, to the better part of those my simplaries, or rude and homely labours; and so bold, as familiar usage of your Worship's Name, in full acquytall, of these whatsoever my pains, I most humbly take my leave: this one thing entreating, what is wanting here in the effect or work itself, your Worship would be pleased, out of that your Persian mind to arcesse and repeat it from the workman's praepondering affection; and here withal most heartily wishing your Worship the comble of all true happiness, here and hence. Your Worships in all obsequiousness, most humbly devoted, ANDREW LOGIE, Arch-Deane of ABERDENE. AVTHOR I. DIssidium sine dissidio, sine lite malignâ Cui lis & bello qui sine bella gerit, Militat ille DEO verè: velut umbra vagantur Qui secus hìc vires exseruere suas. Ista LOGI Tua laus. Nam dum Te ostendis ìn armis, Oppugnatque novam Te duce Roma vetus, Dumque (aevi fatum!) velut unda supervenit undam Schismata schisma parit, vulnera vulnus alit, Vsque sacram puris manibus Tu tendis olivam, Vsque Tibi CHRISTI tessera, PACIS AMOR. At nunc ô strages! ô funera! sanguine templi Non aditus, verum ipsa immaduere adyta. D. Wedderburnus. IN LAUDEM AUTHORIS. SAepius externis pugnans LOGIAEVS in oris Praevalidis rationum armis, Romana subegit Arma, ducesque ipsos: Patriis quoque victor in oris Exultat, calcatque hostes ratione, sagaci Ingenio, verboque sacro, flammantis Olympi Quod pater ipse dedit. Telo hoc * Hoc enim nomine se insignari vult Georgius Lestaus, Romano Catholicus, Meletemata haec doctissima Authori extorsit. Archangelus ipse Confusus periet; Romanorumque phalanges, Pontificemque premet gladio hoc penetrante, ruinam Dogmatibus falsis feret hoc. LOGIAEUS; hic omnes Expediet nodos, quoscunque vet Itala tellus Opposuit veris verbi praeconibus olim. To the Author. Brave LOGIE, so continue to beat down, By Scripture, Fathers, Reason, what is hatched Against the Truth, by Doctors of new Rome: And show, that much of Untruths is but patched, Which they maintain. So Truth shall Thee uphold, And make Thy foes to quail, but Thee more bold. Amoris ergo posuit Cargillus. MELETEMATA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quibus aseritur Vocatio nostrorum ab Adversariorum velsycophantiis quibuscunque. THere came to mine hands another straying leaf, with the loins trussed, carrying or bearing this inscription; Who want lawful calling, are Robbers, according to the wayrands following, etc. secunded and excepted by a farrage of rudely consarcinated, and confusedly amassed passages of Scripture: needlessly to prove the necessity of Calling; as which is not so much as controverted amongst us. Truly we admit this leslaean, as less indeed lying position, vel. ultro; as who acknowledge in common, Quòd nemo debeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministerium invadere: That none must take this honour to himself, Heb. 5.4. but he who is called as Aaron. Where in the very entry we would headily distinguish betwixt these two, To defer our travels to the Church; and, To obtrude them on the Church, and intrude ourselves into the Church: for the first may be lawful in cases through the iniquity of time, Vbi non virtus aut meritum, sed favor ereat presbyterum: but this last remaineth still unlawful. It holdeth always true, that in a Minister there is required, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or faculty to teach; (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or potestas, as they speak in Schools; he must be instructed with commission. Hitherto the LORD is said to have called Bezaleel by name, and to have filled him with his spirit for working in his Tabernacle, Exod. 31. Hitherto the LORD commanded Moses, to take joshua the son of Nun, in whom the spirit was, and to put hands upon him, Num. 27. vers. 18. Hitherto we see, Numbers, 17. amongst all the twelve Rods of the Princes of Israel, only AARON'S Rod to have budded, blossomed, and borne ripe Almonds; where-by we are taught symbolicallie, that the LORD will only bless their Ministry, whom he setteth a-work himself. Matth. 28.19. Hitherto we see the marriage of these three in unum Spiritum, Ite, Docete, Baptizate, Matthew. the last at the upshot, whereas CHRIST sent forth his Disciples to that public Ministry. Hitherto we see with what care the whole Prophets, at least in common, alleged still in the entry of their prophecy to their warrant of Calling. Yea, last we see, quàm severè à DEO hic animadversum in sacri bujus ordinis temeratores, but the least regard to their quality. But in respect our Adversary goeth no farther length, but contenteth him simply to amass some passages together, enforcing the necessity of Vocation or Calling, I might vel citra tenuissimum pulvisculum hoc labore defungi, by subscrybing to this granted and acknowledged truth in common: the quaestion still remaining, with whom this vocation or calling is. Always I shall lay hold on the matter even from so fare, and impose here a necessity on myself, whereas there is none so much as deferred, or but barely offered; not out of the least consciousness of any unlawfulness of our Calling, or the least weakness therein; Neither yet herein sillilie to subserue the humour of our Adversary; Neither yet out of the least presumption on my part: but fiduciâ bonae causae; as likewise to satisfy, in some measure, as the expectation of all, so the most earnest expetition of the well affected: as last of all, lest else I might justly seem, overpassing it with a dry foot, to overleape it like a Ditch, from whence I feared danger: Yea, and be misconstrued, as to detract the Combat, whiles being so pointlie pointed at, etc. Out of these considerations then, one word, en passant, with a running pen, of this so much ventilated quaestion, of our Church her being before Luther; which our Adversaries with so open & full mouth noise so much to day, yea, fill both Heaven and Earth with the brute hereof, and wherein they place the strength of their cause, as Sampsons' strength lay in his hair. Truly, to untie and unloose this their Gordian knot, non expectandus hîc nobis Elias aliquis, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Primum Meletema. FIrst of all, this main ground would be laid, and headily adverted unto, in the Frontispiece of this Work: to wit, That the Church is still one and the same, though not always alike affected; as a man remaineth one and the self same man in sickness and health. Now from hence the ridiculous folly of these demands of our Adversaries appear of will: to wit, Of the being of our Church before LUTHER; as likewise, If she was in Poprie or not. Certes, Papatus invasit Ecclesiam, Poprie hath invaded the Church: for accidentis est inesse subjecto, but not on the contrary, subjecti inesse suo accidenti: so that the Church throughout her divers conditions, before Poprie, under Poprie, and delivered, or come forth of Babel, is but one and the same, remaining thus one common subject, liable to divers alterations; and like herein to the natural or physical body of man, diversly affected. Hitherto it is that you see the two witnesses, Revel. 11.3. to be clothed in sackecloath, ob tristem, videlicet, Ecclesiae statum; and again, the Angels coming forth with the seven Plagues, ad sumendum debitas de Antichristo poenas, to be clothed, in sign of victory & triumph, sutablie in pure bright linen, Revel. 15. ob laetum Ecclesiae statum: Now Est of the third adjacent, praesupponeth Est of the second, as they speak in Schools: And so it remaineth quòd subinde alia, atque alia sit Ecclesiae facies. Whitherto she is well likened by the Fathers to the Moon, which remaineth one and the same, etiam vel ubi patitur deliquium, even while she is eclipsed. For closure then, as the Church remained the same even whilst holden in captivity in that Eastern Babylon; so did she remain one and the same, whilst thralled and enbondaged in that Western and mystical Babylon, etc. Secundum Meletema. WE acknowledge all in common, the Church for the ground and Pillar of the Truth; the word Pillar here being taken aright, ratione, scilicet, forensi, and not Architectonicâ (for else all should prove confused in that speech of Saint Paul's; as if domus, & id eui innititur domus, that is, the Truth and the Church were one and the same, as our Adversaries here confound: yea, as if the Church were not built on that foundation of the Prophets, and Apostles their doctrine) as likewise allusion here being made, ad domum illam Salomonis totam columnis conspicuam. I leave to speak of the different interpunction, which as it would clear all here, so hath it no little probability, because of the synapticke or copulative particle, Kaì, in the beginning of the next verse, which would seem to knit these words with something going before, to this sense; That CHRIST, or GOD, manifested in the flesh, is the ground and pillar of the Truth, & without controversy the great mystery of godliness. But to follow the received interpunction & interpretation, ne crabrones irritemus, it is clear from hence, that we must needs acknowledge that pillar for the Church, whereupon we find the Truth appended, since that, ad Ecclesiam, tanquam ad columnam prostat veritas; in ea demum comparet; so that from the doctrine, judgement must be given of the Church, and not on the contrary. Whitherto Gregory Nazianzen sayeth well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore thus are we led by the hand to institute a trial, penes quod sit veritas, where and with whom the Truth is; this proveth in the end the last analysis or resolution of this quaestion. If I durst make bold, I would pose our Adversaries here a little of their judgement, Whether it be safer and surer work, with Tertullian, personas ex fide, or on the contrary, fidem ex personis aestimare: now our Adversaries hold this latter, and so must. needs promiscuouslie receive the leaven of the Pharisees, because they sit in MOSES Chair, for sound and true Doctrine. That I may make this farther tributary to the errand in hand, from hence I thus argue demonstrativelie: That Truth which CHRIST and his Apostles taught, wanted never men in all Ages constantly to profess the same: (for the Truth could never want witnesses) But so it is, that which we hold and teach, is one and the same with that Truth which CHRIST and his Apostles taught. Ergo, This our doctrine wanted never men in all Ages to profess the same. Thus we bring our Adversaries from the historical part, to the doctrinal. Always, lest I should seem here to decline this other part, I must speak a little hereof. Truly, pudendam & stupendam prodit bîc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he bewrayeth a gross and inexpiable anistoresie, who denyeth, that there were not still more Christiani, so to speak in opposition, than Papani, more not acknowledging the Pope, and his authority, than adhering to him, even before LUTHER, and detection of Poprie by him, throughout the world, as were easy to prove by induction. It is clear, ex Pauli venetis navigationibus orientalibus, that there were most frequent Christian Churches in those days wherein he wrote, some three or four hundreth years since, as apud Indos, ultra & cis Gangen. Amongst the Tartars or Tatars, in Scythia, In utraque Armenia, in Mesopotamia, besides divers other places. Now the greater part of all these Christians scarce understood so much as by hearsay, of the bare and naked name of the Pope. Again, in Aethiopia, the large and ample extent of the Abyssin Churches is known: where if we should be pleased to measure the extent but of those Provinces, we should find even those alone to exceed fare all those which in Europe acknowledge his holiness, forsooth. Further, si adhuc libeat & ad septentrionem exeurrere, we shall find most largely diffused Churches, as Moscorum, Ruthenorum, Russorum; yea, yet intra mare Caspium, we shall finde many Churches over which the Pope hath not the least power. But that we may do etiam supra id quod rogatur; the European Grecians do no less execrate the Pope, than we do. They excommunicate him yearelie, they instile him in common, with us, by the name of Antichrist. I would learn of our Adversaries, what they can say de Anglis, quid de Bobemis, quid de Valdensibus, Albigensibus, of the Walloons of France, who being dispersed diversly throughout Europe, proseminarunt eadem dogmata, sew the same doctrine which Hus, and before him, Wicleff, and after both these, LUTHER but renewed. If we should be pleased to repeat and access the Histories but of these European Christians, out of our Adversaries their own Monuments, who wrote against them in those times, we shall find the most approved Writers amongst them, eadem ipsis dogmata pro erroribus impingere, to lay the same Dogmaes or points to their charge for errors, which we acknowledge and sustain to day for true Dogmaes, and Articles of Christian Faith. As for taste; That the Pope of Rome had overwhelmed by the multitude of his Traditions, as by a deludge, the whole Christian Church. Item, that the expiatory Sacrifices for the quick and the dead were null; That there was no Purgatory; No merit of works; besides divers other points which they denied, as, Nundination of Indulgences, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Yea, and whereas amongst the rest of their Articles of the Popish Faith, this obtained, Tenendum Imperatorem non immediatè à DEO, sed à Papa potestatem accepisse; That it was to be holden, that the Emperor had not, or held not his power immediately from GOD, but from the Pope and his holiness, forsooth; and that these who thought otherways, were to be ranked amongst the Manichaeans, as who thus established two Principles. It is more than notoriously here known, quam acriter insectati hîc Albigenses, how odiously they traduced them, etiam hoc nomine, multis ad hoc ridiculis & contumeliosis ad ludibrium confictis nominibus, as is clear out of the Edicts of Frederick the second Emperor: as now calling them, by the name of josephytes, now of Turripines', now of Picards, now of Lombard's, now of Tatars, as it were voyaging men, to wit, from the places through the which they were diversly dispersed; yea, at last, (ne quid hîc deesset) by the name of Manichaeans. Now you see the traduction of our Church, at lest per tempus, tempora, & dimidium temporis: for three hundreth and fifty years, and even so long before Hus, Hierome of Prague; yea, or Wickleff, let be LUTHER. Catalogus testium veritatis showeth, ah omni aevo reclamatum doctrinae Pontificiae; and pointeth deicticallie at those who opposed and oppugned the same, and stood for the contrary truth. Nay, let us but evolue and turn over their Monuments, and we shall find store of those who long before LUTHER, divers ages, not only set themselves against that Antichristian doctrine; but suffered for this their opposition most exquisite torments: and quaestionlesse we should have had yet fare greater store of such examples, nisi historiarum custodia penes ipsos fuisset, & sic partus Israeliticos undis wersissent. To wind up this point: Can this their Church be then the sole, and the Catholic Church? Vincentius Lyrinensis defineth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus: Now from this my historical deduction, it is clear, that Poprie cannot be said to be such; for it obtained not always: for non ab initio, though it began well timously to be working in the very Apostles their days, albeit well imperceptibly, according to the nature of a mystery; it obtained not every where, nor amongst all, etc. Nay, you may see from this my discourse, that it was so fare from being simply Catholic, as that it was not so much as such, but in relation, or comparison, etc. Tertium Meletema. ME thinks it strange, how our Adversaries can urge the visibility of the Catholic Church: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incurreth not in the sense, Mente non sensu depraehenditur, percipitur: sensus quippe est singularium. Again, the Catholic Church is an Article of Faith: Now Fides est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an evidence of things not seen, as the Apostle sayeth, Hebr. 11. vers. 1: and as Saint AUGUSTINE sayeth, Si vides, non est fides. Whitherto BELLARMINE is driven thus to pronounce here, De Ecclesia, Lib. 3. Cap. 15. Melius dico in Ecclesia aliquid videri, & aliquid credi: videmus enim eum coetum qui est Ecclesia, sed quod ille coetus sit Ecclesia, hoc non videmus, sed credimus, etc. Thus to trace here but our Adversary, Nihil Ecclesiae formale, aut Ecclesiae, qua talis, constitutivum, vel ipso hic nobis suffragante, astipulante, est visibile aut sensui expositum. The Catholic Church consisteth of CHRIST the Head, of the Church triumphing in Heaven, and of this Way-faring and Warrefaring on Earth. Now, who can sustain to affirm this Church to be visible? I grant, that the matter prooveth easier with our Adversaries, who have CHRIST with them bodily still present in the Hostie, forsooth, upon the Priest's intention; and the Saints and Angles semblably in their representing Images. Nay, to deal here well liberally with our Adversaries, and give them, that, that which is but the most ignoble part of the Church, which repit or serpit humi, which is but a edolating, exasciating, effigiating, or efforming here but by piece-maile, may be called by the name of the Catholic Church. I pray you, may all these particular Churches, so diversly dispersed throughout the whole world, gathered of every Tribe, Nation, Kindred, Language, be together, and at once pointed at by finger? for it is headily to be observed, how our Adversaries confound in this argument, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visibile, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videri; taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visibile, non de potentia, sed de actu, etc. As to that their Palmarie, or main Argument here, Quod, cujus partes omnes sunt visibles, & ipsum totum tale sit; and so that the Catholic Church must needs be visible, because of the visibility of all the particular Churches. Truly this argument, non tam habet paralogismum, quam sapit, redolet helleborismum; as if all the particular Churches throughout the world, Locorum intervallis tam dissitae, simul & semel digito notari possent. But to bind our Adversaries here, I argue thus: Quod desideratur vel in toto Physico, illud frustra requiritur, malè exigitur in to●o mystico: That is, What is found wanting, or is not findable in a physical body, is ill required and sought for in a mystical. But so it is, vel in toto Physico, even in a Physical body, quantitatis, scilicet, ita discretae, ut partes longissimis locorum intervallis à seinvicem distent, parts omnes simul & semel digito notari non possunt. Ergo, fare less is this findable in a mystical body; yea, in such a body, quod simul & continuum & discretum praedicatur esse in Scriptures; as which is named by the names of things, quantitatis utriusque, continuae & discretae, as of an House, of a Flock, etc. I leave to show, How the Church may be called visible, and invisible, in different regards, respectis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 materialis, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formalis; respectu formae internae, or externae; which external form again, variis mutationum vicibus ac gyris obnoxia, ac infesta est. Quartum Meletema. IF so be, That the Church may suffer such eclipse, as to her external form or visible face, as that she cannot be espied, and discerned, there remaining but a remanent through the election of Grace; than it followeth, that this demand of our Adversaries, Concerning the being of our Church before LUTHER, as to that her external form, or visible face, is but idle. But we may see the possibility of this hypothese under both the Testaments: in the days of Eli, under the old Testament, 1. King. 19; and in Saint Paul's time, under the new Covenant, Rom. 11. vers. 5. Then the question turneth to this, to see, When and where this case hath behappened the Church: wherefore, from hence thus I reason: In the days of Eliah, there was a true Church in Israel, which the LORDS own answer returned to Eliah upon that his complaint, instructeth to the full: except that seven thousand, Numerus definitus pro indefinito, can not make up a Church with our Adversaries here, who can cut her shorter at times to their own advantage, as in their private Communion: But so it is, this Church suffered eclipse, as to her outward form, or visible face: for how could she else have escaped even the sight of the Prophet, cui erant & ad videndum oculi? Ergo, a Church ceaseth not to be simply, whilst eclipsed as to her external form, or visible face. Thus you may perceive evidently, how our Adversaries here deceive the simpler sort, urging still the visiblitie of the Church: for what hath already behappened the Church, the same case may again befall her; and so their quaestion resolveth in the wind. Our Adversaries here perceiving and feeling themselves straited, as touching the Church in Israel, are forced to bethink with themselves of some escape here, whitherto to have their refuge; wherefore they grant this to be true of the Church of Israel, or of Samaria: but they pretend, that there was then a flourishing Church in Jerusalem, under the reign of Asa and josaphat, godly Princes; and so that this instance proveth nothing for the whole Church under the Law. For answer: First, we allege not hitherto that instance, that thereupon we may conclude the general, or in the general, of the whole ancient Church under the Law; but only to prove, that these may suffer, yea, and have reapse suffered divorce: that is, That a Church may remain simply a Church, though eclipsed, as to her external policy, outward form, or visible face; which our Adversaries flatly deny, because of the errand in hand. Next: it is sufficient for probation of our Theme, and deciding the quaestion betwixt them and us, to prove this of any particular Church: for why may not the same case befall any sister Church? So frustra sunt Adversarii; whereas they except, that this alleged instance by us prooveth nothing for the Catholic Church, or for the whole Church under the Law: for we are not so swollen up, as to acclaime to us the name of the Catholic Church, but humbly acknowledge ourselves but Daughters of that Mother. Last, ut dejiciamus eos hoc praesidio, that we may drive them from this starting hole; I would pose our Adversaries, if the Church of judah had any farther Privilege here. Truly, we may see judah to have surpassed her Sister Samaria in her abominations; nay, to have exceeded Sodom, and her daughters, Ezech. 16. yea, we find her revolts so general, as that Prince, Priest, and People, all in common, abandoned the Law of GOD, declined from His service, fell away to Idolatry, and followed after the same, Ezech. 7. vers. ultino. But because that generals cannot bind, nor work with our Adversaries, let us instance the matter more particularly. Whereas King Ahaz set up a strange Altar, after the fashion of that of Damascus, in the house of GOD; nay, the Priest himself, Vriiah, made it, and set it up at the wicked King's commandment, and sacrificed thereupon unto the gods of the Damasconians: yea, last, whereas this wicked King gathered together the Vessels of the House of GOD, broke them, and shut up the doors of the House of the LORD, made him Altars in every corner of Jerusalem, and in every City of judah made high places, to burn Incense unto other gods, 2. King. 16. Item 2. Chron. 28. vers. 23.24.25. I would pose our Adversaries here, where was the visible face of the Church of judah, whilst Idolatry thus occupied, and filled the Temple; nay, filled every corner, and every high place? And because una birundo non facit ver, I would inquire yet farther, Where was the visible Church of judah, whereas Manasseh restored Idolatry, as likewise under Amon? If our Adversaries would except here, That there remained still a Church throughout all those days and times, to wit, in some certain persons, as Prophets, and others of the same note, the answer should prove easy. The quaestion is not of the Church simply, for there remaineth still a Church, while there remain any two or three, qui Patrem in CHRISTO per Spiritum invocent; but of the Church, as to her external policy, If she remain always so visible, as to her external form, as that she may be strait discerned, or internosced by the eye, from other companies, whether acclaiming or not acclaiming to them this name: for our Adversaries cannot away, that any Church receive the name of a true Church, which is not instructed with this external policy, furnished with this outward visibility, eutaxie, and constitution. If you could be pleased, here to eye a little with me the Church, throughout her whole marching, from Families to the Tabernacle, and from thence to the Temple; as likewise throughout her whole estate, before the Law, under the Law, and under Grace; you should see her still to have suffered eclipses, and deliquys, as to her external form, or visible face: so that our Adversaries denying, That a Church can turn invisible, quoad externam ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, politiam, and yet continue a Church, bewray an inexpiable anistoresie, or ignorance of the sacred history. Read you not in the third Chapter of Genesis, of the fall of our first Parents? and at the closure of the fourth Chapter, how men began to call upon the Name of the LORD, as Enoch was borne to Seth, which importeth a prior suppression of Religion? How long continued the true Religion unviolated, Etiam in sanctâ illâ gente, even in that holy posterity of SHEM? Were not ABRAHAM'S Fathers Idolaters? and himself called out of VR of the CHALDAEANS, being an Idolater? Again, Did not the people follow Idolatry the space of two hundreth years in EGYPT, without so much as any open opposite? Ezechiel 23. Vers. 3. and 19 Hear both the Daughters, JUDAH as ISRAEL, or SAMARIA, idolatred, and committed Fornication, as is clear from the alleged place. What will our Adversaries say here, where the whole people idolatred, and worshipped the golden Calf, etiam ARAONE duce? Exod. 32. For as to that, That MOSES was free here, it is nothing: for he is Ecclesiae, but non Ecclesia. BELLARMINE here affirmeth yet farther; That the whole Levites remained pure, and free from this contagion, because that the whole sons of LEVI are said to have gathered themselves unto him, Vbi ultionem pararet, poenas exigeret Idolomanias illius. For answer, BELLARMINE playeth the Sophist here; for the Text serveth to show indeed who they were that adjoined themselves to MOSES, that they were Levites: but it sayeth not, that the Levites were all to one pure, and free from this contagion; nay, it is not probable, that all the sons of LEVI gathered themselves to MOSES: for so, if omnes sese ad ultionem accinxissent, majorem indubiè edidissent stragem: for a little after, Habito eorum censu, they are reckoned forth about nine thousand. Always the first answer serveth the turn. What can our Adversaries say to their manifold and most frequent revolts under the JUDGES? Nay, What can they possible except here, whereas we read, judg. Cap. 8. Vers. 27.33.34. of the general revolt of the judge and people in common, whilst even GIDEON, one of the judges, of no slender note, made an Ephod, and put it in EPHRATH his City, where all ISRAEL went whoring after it: Yea, and not staying here; after his death, went whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-Berith their god? By the way here it is observable, what answer that ARCHI-RABBI BELLARMINE, returneth to this exception of our men: to wit, Of the general inveighing of the Prophets, against the general defection of the whole body in common, of the whole people, head and tail, as it were: to wit, That, that is directed to all, oratorio more, which pertaineth but to the greater part: that is, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now then, to take but what he giveth; it holdeth then still true, Ecclesiam deficere saltem secundum rationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or, in respect of the greater part, Aufugiente & subducente se interim muliere in desertum, the Woman taking her flight in the mean time to the Wilderness, ubi à DEO mirabiliter pascitur, rationibus nobis saepe occultis, sibi autem ut notissimis, ita facillimis. But to come a little nearer: I would learn of our Adversaries, Where the visible face of the Church was, whereas CHRIST came into the world; If this was to be measured, ex visibili illa Sacerdotum successione, from that visible succession of the Priests? Again, I would understand here, What shall be the visible, or external form, or face of the Church, whereas CHRIST shall come to judgement, whiles He hath foreprophesied Himself, He shall scarce find Faith on the Earth? This I urge only, ad sensum currentem. I grant indeed, that there may be such a visible Church, as our Adversaries require, and hold; to wit, As consisting of members devoyde of Faith, Hope, and Charity: for I would have you to remember here that of BELLARMINE, de Ecclesiae, Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. ultima, where he sayeth, Non requiri ad hoc ut quis sit membrum Ecclesiae, ut habeat Fidem, Spem, Charitatem. And yet, Si diis placet, this Church shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whereas the Church rested, as some of themselves even acknowledge, in the person of the blessed Virgin, where was then the visible face of the Church? I would farther pose our Adversaries; If the Kingdom of GOD may not admit and suffer translation, from one Nation to another: nay, and if it hath not indeed suffered the same? What folly, or yet madness is it then, so pertinaciouslie to pretend here, That a Church cannot suffer such eclipse, as to her external form, as that she may not be espied? Wherefore, to deal a little more presslie here, I would understand, if What hath behappened to any one part of the Catholic Church, that is, to this or that particular Church, may not befall another: or else, the reason of the difference here: But so it is, This or that particular Church may suffer this eclipse, yea, admit this translation, as the Church of EPHESUS, to mention it exemplarlie: for, Nun CHRISTUS hoc ipsum interminatur in Epistolis ad Asiaticas Ecclesias tollam Candelabrum? doth he not thus menace the Church of EPHESUS, Revel. Cap. 2. vers. 5. that he will come against her shortly, and remove her Candlestick out of his place, except she amend? Then it remaineth, That the like case may befall any Church else. To use yet a few particular instances, for the fuller and clearer conviction of our Adversaries, Vbi Mahumetismus omnia in Oriente obtinuit: nay, Vbi totus orbis ingemuit, & sese Arrianum factum esse, miratus est, ubi visibilis illa Ecclesiae facies quaeso videris? Whereas Mahumetisme obtained throughout the whole East; nay, and the whole world groaned under the heavy Yoke, and Burden of Arrianisme, where was the visible face of the Church? Truly, there is nothing more certain, than that there were many most flourishing Churches in the East, which are to day (proh dolour) transformed in Muscetas Mahumetanorum. Nay, I have it of those, who had it ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they saw in Greece many flourishing Cities, wherein there was not so much as the least trace of any Church, nor vestige of any Christian doctrine: omnia quippe occupaverat Mahumetica colluvies. But lest I might seem here, vel è sinu proferre testem, as is ordinary with our Adversaries, I stick not to defer this to their own testimony, or the testimony to themselves. I pray you then, what letteth me to reason here, by way of Analogy, and so conclude, That what hath behappened this or these particular Churches, may befall others their Sisters, nothing more here privileged against the same danger? That we may come yet nearer, and strike home, let me demand of our Adversaries, Whether or not the Church under Grace should have her flight to the Wilderness, and that with eagle's wings, not only for pernicitie in flying, but for continuing of the flight, in respect of tract of time, and so lurk there for a goodly space? I hope our Adversaries dare not so fare forth rubbe their foreheads here, as openly to disavow this, the Scripture being here so express and formal. Now, this being laid, the answer to the main quaestion prooveth easy: Our Church was lurking in the Desert, fleeing the persecution of the Dragon; as that Church of Israel lurked under that persecution of Achab and jezabel. Nay, this affordeth us an infallible demonstration for us, and against our Adversaries, to this sense: That must needs be the true Church, which according to Saint john's prophecy, hath had her flight to the Wilderness: But so it is, such only is ours, and not theirs, according to their own confession and concession, whereas they stand to the constant visibility thereof. Ergo, with us still is the true Church. Thus, who seethe not, except a borne-blinde, that our Adversaries wrong their cause mightily, through imprudency, or impudency; whereas they contend, That their Church was not only visible, but still actually seen? for, differunt haec duo, quantum actus & potentia, adeoque non statim desinit esse visibile, quod non actu videtur; it ceaseth not strait to be visible, which is not actually seen: which our Adversaries still confound in this argument; as who deny strait the visibility of a Church, except she may be still actually pointed at by the finger: as if the Sun ceased to be visible, whiles the sight thereof is intercepted from us, by the interjection of a Cloud; or through the weakness of our seeing faculty, unseen of us. Thus you see, how variable a Church is, and may be, us to her outward policy; so that our Adversaries have here no just matter offered them of offence, whereas tracing herein the Fathers, in whose words else they swear, yea, their faith resolveth, we liken the Church to the Moon, propter varios, labores, defectus, eclipses, deliquia. Hitherto Saint AUGUSTINE, Ipsa est quae aliquando obscuratur, & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum; aliquando tranquillitate temporis quieta & libera apparet: aliquando tribulationum & tentationum fluctibus operitur atque turbatur. But let us hear the Church of herself, and for herself, Micab, Chap. 7.8. Rejoice not against me, O mine Enemy; though I fall, I shall arise: when I shall sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me, etc. Hear this is spoken in the person of the Church, which calleth the malignant Church her enemy. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praesupponeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, Est of the third adjacent, Est of the second. Then the true Church may fall, and sit in darkness. Hitherto read we, Isaiah, Chap. 1. vers. 8, where the Daughter of Zion is likened to a Cottage in a Vineyard, to a Lodge in a Garden of Cucumbers, and to a besieged City, etc. which if committed with these other places importing, at least pointing at her conspicuity and visibility, serve to show forth her variableness, and shadowing by turning. I know, that our Adversaries except against the former part of my Discourse; where I concluded from the jewish Church to the Christian, because of the great odds here, and divers privileges of the Christian Church above the jewish: wherefore, it standeth us upon, to eye a little into these alleged Privileges, as we would have my prior Discourse to remain in its full vigour. The Privileges of the Christian Church above the jewish, at least alleged unto in this Argument, I find in special to be these two: The first, The universality of the one, above the other; and this to this sense, As that there is no salvation without the Christian, but was not so of the jewish. The seconde is, That the Christian hath fare fairer and larger promises made to her. As to the first, taken from the universality of the Christian Church, lest they might seem here to stand but to a bare and naked Assertion, they thus instance the matter, from job, and some yet from Melchisedecke. That I may proceed here the more orderly, first I will treat a little in the general of the whole matter, and then come to the particular exceptions, and their probations. To the general then, I would first inquire and learn of our Adversaries, Whether the Church under the Law, and under Grace, be two different Churches, or but one and the same in matter and substance, though differing in respect of the external scheme or Vesture, jewish or Christian; as still the grace dispensed under both the Covenantes, was but one and the same, the manner of dispensation but varying. Next, I would understand, Whether or not, Eadem fit analogia partium similarium; so that what behappeneth any one part, may befall another: and so all in common are liable to the same dangers? Last, the Apostle wideth this process here to our advantage, Rom. 11. where he showeth, That the Christian Church of the Gentiles is capable of excision, incase she persevere not; as was the jewish Synagogue: nay, he reasoneth from the more to the less. Now, to the particular exceptions: As to the first, I avouch, That the jewish Church ceedeth not the least here to the Christian; and, That without her, there was no salvation. For proof hereof, besides divers other passages making hereunto, let us advise the Apostle, Ephes. Cap. 2. Vers. 11.12; where we shall see what is his construction of the uncircumcision, during that their state: to wit, People without CHRIST, aliens from the Commonwealth of ISRAEL, strangers from the Covenants of Promise; yea, without hope, and without GOD in the world. From hence thus I reason: If there was any salvation for those of the uncircumcision, or for those without the jewish Church, (for Circumcision was their Sacrament of Initiation) then was there salvation for people without CHRIST, for aliens from the Commonwealth of ISRAEL, for strangers from the Covenants of Promise, yea, for people without hope, and without GOD in the world. But I hope our Adversaries dare not aver that there was, or could be, any salvation for such. Ergo, There was no Salvation, or yet could be, without the jewish Church. As to the instances, from which they go about to instance this exception in the particular, of job and Melchisedecke; first of the first: I grant indeed, that it were well hard divining about the time, or of the time, wherein job lived: but even from off of this uncertainty I collect, That this instance drawn from his person, cannot prove of great force, and demonstrativelie conclude this their point. Next, giving he lived under the Law, and yet was not circumcised, were it safe argumenting thus to reason from one particular example, against the constant tenor of the whole Scriptures, denying salvation to those who were not enrolled amongst the people of GOD by Circumcision? Yet, if it should not offend, I would gather for myself, that he was so fare from living in the days of Moses, that at the least he lived before Abraham, out of the last of his Book, at the upshot, from that his age, where it is said, And after this lived JOB an hundreth and forty years, and saw his sons, and his son's sons, even four generations, etc. Now, what convenient time can we assign to him before this? If we assign to him but some fifty or sixty years, his whole days shall amount to some two hundreth years, or thereabout. Now we see not any in the days of MOSES to have come near this age; nay, we read not of any after ABRAHAM that came to such: yea, he lived not so long himself. Last, the whole narrative of his history would seem to make him more ancient than MOSES. But I take not upon me to define aught here; only I would show, that our Adversaries can argument but well weakelie, from so slender and so uncertain a warrant. As to the other instance of MELCHISEDECK, I am ashamed so much as to mention it but the least: for he is said expressly To have blessed ABRAHAM before his Circumcision, or receiving of the seal of the alliance or Covenant, and To have teethed LEVI in ABRAHAM'S loins. Truly, magnum hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hiatus multus betwixt MELCHISEDECK and MOSES; wherefore, this instance is altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or impertinent. Our Adversaries being now thus deboutted from their first Exception, let us see into the seconde, if it be of any greater force, which concerneth the Privilege of Promises. I would learn of our Adversaries, If the LORD tendered less that His Church under the Law, than He doth this under Grace? and, If the Promises were not semblably made to her, as to the Christian Church, by GOD, of His gracious assistance and presence? Hîc haeret iis aqua, the Apostle being so express: For amongst the many Privileges of the JEW above the GENTILE, Rom. Cap. 9 he reckoneth this as one, That unto them the Promises were made. Nay, the Apostle Saint PETER, in the seconde Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, at the thirty and ninth Verse, witnesseth disertlie, That the Promises first and especially concerned the JEWS, and the GENTILES but in the next room: For the Promise is made unto you, and to your Children, and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our GOD shall call, etc. Did not one and the self same Spirit, still inform this one and the same mystical body? Quintum Meletema. THat we may the more happily verse in this business, and travel in this matter, we would here headily distinguish betwixt the essential and integrant parts of a Church: for a Church may remain and consist, whiles constant ei sua essentialia, though lamed or maimed in respect of her parts integrant; (I know the integrant parts to receive their subdivision here, into those which are more or less principal, or into the principal and secundary parts) as it is with a natural or yet artificial body: so that it followeth not strait, That a Church ceaseth to be there, where she is not visible; but only this, That she is not quoad sua integrantia: so that she ceaseth only to be in a certain regard, remaining always simply a Church, quantisper constant ei sua essentialia, supersunt duo aut tres Patrem in CHRISTO per Spiritum invocantes, there remain vocatio activa & passiva, which are the essentials of a Church. It resteth then, that the want of external policy, or outward visibility, praevaileth not so fare, as to abolish simply a Church. But yet as to this, we deny not, but that it ought to be de jure: But the quaestion is de facto; and of the force of this actual want, if it be such, as prooveth destructive of the subject simply, and not in a certain regard only, etc. Sextum Meletema. AS to the promises made by CHRIST to his Church throughout the Gospel, they would be understood aright; which are indeed here misunderstood, and misconceived by our Adversaries: for they draw strait whatsoever promise is made to the whole body of the Church in common, to the Roman Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nay, and require the accomplishment and fulfilment of the same, in every particular Church, or in every part of the whole. Now, from hence it is clear, that this consequence is very inconsequent, that the Church ceaseth simply to be visible, because this or that particular Church, or yet both, are devoyde of this visibility: for first, the Church may be visible elsewhere: and next, the Church may remain even there where she is eclipsed of her visibility, to wit, as to her essentials. Again, our Adversaries yet deceive here, whilst they tie these promises of CHRIST, as De firmitate Petrae, De continua spiritus sui assistentia, and others of the same note, to the external form of the Church; and so will have them only to concern that external Policy: for so CHRIST should cease to be the Head of His Church, and to His Church; whereas the Woman subduceth herself, and taketh her flight to the Wilderness, and lurketh there. Thus that Householder, Matth. Chap. 21. Vers. 33.34. should have casten off all care of his Vineyard, whiles he letteth it forth to those wicked and perfidious Husbandmen. Nay, did not CHRIST well often subduce himself? Did he not take Him to flight, even presently and immediately after His birth and nativity? Fled He not into EGYPT, and abode there till the death of HEROD? and yet the Father hath appointed Him over all things, to be the head to the Church, Ephes. Chap. 1. vers. 22. thirdly, our Adversaries fraudem hic faciunt, yea, fucum manifestissimum, whereas they reason so in this matter, as if the holy Spirit wrought so in this mystical body, ad modum agentis naturalis, non voluntarii, as a natural agent, and not voluntary: for if this were the manner of the Spirits operation in the government of this mystical body, than there could be no place left for sin in the will, more than for error in the mind; there should be no place left whether for virtue or vice, for merits, or demerits; there should be no further two principles in man; he should no farther carry about a double man, the old and the new man: for nature worketh still after one constant tenor, actiones naturales sunt uniformes; they admit no relaxation, no intention or remission. The Spirit than worketh in this mystical body, as a voluntary agent, and so admeasureth forth according to his own pleasure, secundum oeconomiam consilii sui non nostri arbitrii; as likewise, ad modum receptivitatis subjecti, as we learn to speak. And last, GOD even so worketh in the works of Grace, ut causas secundas etiam proprios suos motus exerere & exercere sinat, as Saint Augustine sayeth well, de Civitate DEI, Lib. 7. Cap. 30. From whence it is, that the action sapit ac redelet proximum canalem, tubulum, siphunculum. Our Adversaries reason so here, as if the Spirit not only wrought as a natural agent, but as if he should together, and at once, agere & peragere, work and persite this work, which were foolish to urge in nature; as if Trees should come at the first to their perfection, as if men behoved to be perfect at their first birth, etc. Truly the Spirit of GOD is still a-working; agit quidem continuò, sed non simul peragit & perficit omnia, semper hîc locus aedificationi; then shall the Church be stayed before her immortal Husband perfect, Vbi celebrabuntar nuptiae Agni, ubi deducetur in domum mariti; till than her face shall not want its wrinkles, nor shall all tears be wiped from her eyes. Last of all, those promises made by GOD to his Church, whilst considered in relation to us, are not to be conceived as absolute, but conditional, scilicet, Si manseritic in sermone meo; Si servaveritis mandata meae. Our Adversaries here quite mistake this point, while as they gather, that GOD cannot but continuallic assist this or that particular Church, because of that promise made in general to the whole body in common, Ego sum vobiscum, etc. Matthew the last. Howsoever she carry herself, she harken and follow the voice of the Brydgroome, or not, etc. Septimum Meletema. WHereas Saint PAUL answering for himself, Acts, 24. to that accusation of TERTULLUS the Orator laid forth against him ad longum, allegeth to this, That he worshipped the God of his Fathers, after that way which they called Heresy; which he could not mean of his immediate idolatrous Fathers, but of his mediate Fathers, yea, of ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JAAKOB: there is no matter, Wherefore our Adversaries should here construe so hardly of this, as a silly effuge on our part, if we should be pleased to use this answer amongst others, peradventure more pressing, That we worship the God of our Fathers, after that way which our new Pharisees call Heresy, meaning by our Fathers here, CHRIST and His Apostles. What letteth here, why we may not by way of Analogy thus repart to the quaestion, Of our Church her being before LUTHER, or, Of the being of our Religion, since the distance is fare less here betwixt us and them, than was that Chasm or Gulf of two thousand years betwixt ABRAHAM and PAUL? Octavum Meletema. A Church ceaseth not to be visible, (though not still obvious, and exposed to their sight, who either have not eyes to see, or else animum tantum ad infestandum, odii scilicet glaucomate excaecati, have but a mind to infest her: nay, albceit she escape even the sight of the sharper sighted,) more than that there ceased to be a Church in ISRAEL in the days of ELIAH, whereas he complained, that he was left alone, and so could not see into that great number which the LORD had reserved to himself, and preserved from bowing of the knee to BAAL: So to speak here accommodatè ad subjectum, albeit that that ANTICHRISTIAN smoke before LUTHER overwhelmed so the Temple for a space, that it could not be discerned, and pointed at by the finger; it followeth not from hence, that either there was no Temple, or yet that there were no witnesses therein, though it seemed so generally and commonly, albeit perhaps not universally, shut altogether, because of that thick mist of superstition hanging over it, and overclouding it. Hitherto you see, Revel. Chap. 15. vers. 5. how Saint JOHN subjoineth strait his vision of the open Temple, to those his other visions of ANTICHRISTS tyranny. So it resteth, that the LORD had still an open Temple notwithstanding of whatsoever ANTICHRISTS Tyranny and Power; albeit this Temple latebat canes illos venaticos, and was not obvious, and exposite to these Inquisitours. CHRIST ceaseth not to be that true Light, licet tenebrae non compraehendant hanc lucem, though darkness comprehend it not, etc. Lucerna lucet sed iis qui sunt in domo. It is not simply necessary, that always it diffuse its light to those that are without: whereas CHRIST'S Disciples shut themselves up for fear of the people; noti erant & visi sibi invicem, they were known and seen one to another: though they escaped there the sight of those, who only had minds to persecute them. Nonum Meletema. But if it please you, let us retort the Argument here, and demand our Adversaries, Where is your Church in SCOTLAND ENGLAND and the LOW-COUNTRIESES? I hope the Catholicisme of their Church may not suffer them to deny, That they have one here. Now, if they affirm, That they have one here, let us regest, atqui nullum sublatum vexillum, they have no public, open, or avowed Ministry here, no visible face of a Church. Then, as they must needs grant, That their Church lurketh here, why will they not suffer us, using the same liberty, to say, That our Church ceased not to be simply, even whereas she lurked, patrum nostrorum memoria, under Antichrists persecution, more than theirs ceaseth to be with us to day? For closure, It would be headily here adverted unto, how our adversaries here reason and conclude ab authoritate, negatiuè, Vestra Ecclesia non fuit visibilis, ergo non fuit; which argutation, rather than argumentation, non recto stat talo, aut ingreditur pede; as which deceiveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Decimum Meletema. WHereas the current of the ordinary Vocation is intercepted, or interrupted through the iniquity of time, licet hic DEO aliquid extra ordinem, the LORD may here extraordinarily stir up men to the redintegration of this broken-off work, as the story of the old Church, both under the judges and Kings, may instruct to the full. I would inquire of our Adversaries, Vbi interruptus fuit ille syndelechismus (notius est hîc illud institutum DAVIDIS, 1. Chron. 24. quàm ut necessum habeam illud commemorare?) whereas the daily Sacrifice was broken off, from whence was the redintegration or reformation hereof to be expected? If from GOD here extra ordinem, by stirring up men for his own work; or if ab ipsis deformatoribus? and if even those praebuerunt sese instaurandae religionis administros, and so reparation was made even by those, who in common had miscarried (which case who dare sustain to deny to have behappened?) whether or not GOD'S Hand is to be acknowledged here singularly? Thus there were no danger here, if we should be pleased to recourse to this help of extraordinary vocation: for the LORD hath one and the same right still, and may always dispose of his Church as pleaseth him best, under Grace, as under, or yet before the Law. But this were but frustra, or in vain on our part, ubi nulla cogit necessitas, etc. XI. MELETEMA. THE Calling even of those our men, which our Adversaries singularly aim at, at least produce exemplarlie, as of LUTHER, was ordinary quoad ortum, as to his separation to the work, or to the Gospel; though extraordinary in some regard, as of those heroical motions, whereby he was stirred up, matters so standing, to attempt a Reformation. So here we may distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, respectu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Calling was ordinary; but respectu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was extraordinary; not so much in respect of the Calling in itself, but relatè ad subjectum, in relation to the person called: for as the Apostle Saint Paul sayeth, 1. Cor. Cap. 4. Vers. 7. Quis te discernit? so to trace our Adversariee here, who separated LUTHER? Truly, ubi corpus in common laboraret, whereas the body was affected in common, this his separation, not to the work simply, whereunto he had an ordinary calling; but in a certain respect, to wit, in regard of a greater measure of purity in the work, was, and may be called extraordinary. I say of LUTHER, That he had an ordinary Calling to the work itself, if so be that there was any ordinary vocation with our Adversaries for the time: for do they not acknowledge this, whilst they arcesse us of secession; which praesupponeth and subinferreth a prior union, and being amongst them? except, as it prooveth indeed well ordinary with them, they hold quod unum relatorum possit esse absque altero; quod sublato fundamento, locus queat esse termino, as ye may see, In that matter of their Vtopicke Purgatory, In the retention of the punishment, the fault being remitted and pardoned; as if there could be possibly any place condemnationi & morti, or judicio, ubi reatus nullus, condemnamentum nullum, which the Apostle maketh as consequents, and after-effects. Nay, which is yet farther, though we should simply grant of the calling of our first men, that it were extraordinary quoad ortum; the function should not cease from hence to be ordinary: for ortus extraordinarius may give beginning functioni ordinariae; as may be instanced in Aaron's Priesthood, which was an ordinary function, though as to the spring, extraordinary: for as to Moses part, it was no creation, but renunciation; he created not, or made him Priest, but simply renounced him for Priest, and declared him to be such. And last, whereas our Adversaries require faith to be made to the extraordinary vocation of our first men, by some miracle, or extraordinary sign; truly if we eye the matter aright, nec hoc defuit, neither was this wanting: for I pray you whilst they confess and acknowledge, that so few in number, so obscure in quality, bore out this work so mightily against so great opposition, do they not imprudentlie thus acknowledge GOD'S hand warranding this his own calling here miraculously? for quis hic tam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cujus sensus hoc non feriat, afficiat? XII. MELETEMA. TO ordinarium is to be considered two manner of ways: first, for that which is agreeable to that order at the first established by GOD himself: and secondly, for that which through an inveterated custom hath commonly obtained. Now, as to that vocation obtaining with us to day, it is ordinary, as to the first acception of the word ORDINARY, and may indeed be called again extraordinary in some regard, the word being taken in the latter acception: as theirs is likewise in part ordinary, and in part extraordinary; I say in part: for you would remember, that even in that Popish Ordination, traditur ordinato codex Evangelii, vocatur ad praedicandum Evangelium, non simpliciter ad sacrificandum CHRISTUM. Wherefore, as our Adversaries here check us into those words of Saint PAUL, Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus: so if the Apostles Patres Patrum were alive, they should not fail to except them by, the like check, in eadem verba, Nos talem consuetudinem non habuimus. XIII. MELETEMA. WE have not made the least secession from the Church of ROME, neither as she is a Church, nor yet as such, to wit, gathered at ROME: for as to this last, there is no evil in the word ROMANA; for fides Romanorum praedicata fuit per universum orbem: and would to GOD we had that ancient ROME, whiles she kept the Truth in sincerity; but only from her as she is Papana, or rather, that we may secerne here secernenda, à Papatu, from this accident, and not from the subject; which is but a betaking of us from a foul place to a cleaner, and not an egression out of the Church simply, (which phrase cannot be used properly, except ROME, which is but a sister-Church, and collateral, were the sole Mother-Church) or a secession from the same; for a secession subinferreth, nay, praerequireth, and praesupponeth a prior union. Now Papatus and Ecclesia, Poprie and the Church make up but one, as a subject doth with its common accident, as Hydrops and homo do. So the secession of our first men from Poprie within the Church, was not properly or simply a secession; but this their foorth-comming, whiles the body was in common affected, was rather terminative of a prior secession or common defection. From hence, it might seem but needless, (if I might speak it with reverence of greater and better judgements,) to seek so carefully to the just causes of our secession, to wit, the Heresy, Idolatry, and Tyranny of the Roman Church, or in the Roman Church, whereas the ground itself, or the secession, is justly denyable. Now, non entis nulla sunt accidentia. XIIII. MELETEMA. WHereas our Adversaries suffer not that to be called Rebaptisation, whilst they superadded de suo, their toyish assumentes to that Baptism conferred by our men: as hereby acknowledging the Baptism in itself to be valide and lawful, quòd viz. simus in ministerio, si non ministri, as the matter and quaestion was cleared and decided about BARBARIUS PHILIPPUS his acts of Praetorship, that they were to be holden rata & grata, and not to be rescinded, quòd fuerit in praetura, licet non praetor; nay, and as the case I hope holdeth de joanna Papista, who was in Papatu, though not Papa: and semblably, whilst it falleth out, that an Heretic, nay, a Magician, or Necromancier possesseth the Chair, which cases have proven possible, as the Counsels can bear us here record. Now, that I may reason hence by way of Analogy, using the like liberty; Why may they not suffer the vocation and ordination obtaining with us, go for current, Cum nostri ordinatores fuerint saltem in ministerio, si non ministri? Or, I pray you, is Ordination of greater weight and importance than Baptism? Or, may Baptism be conferred and administered by any not instructed with commission? May these but suffer the least divorce, which CHRIST Himself hath thus coupled, MATTHEW the last, Ite, Do●●te, Baptizate? Certes, me thinks it strange, how our Adversaries so fare forth miscarry here, as to permit to Laickes the administration of this blessed Sacrament; yea, farther, acknowledge it lawful, whilst conferred but in sport and merriment, and that not in the ordinary element thereof, appointed by CHRIST, but in sand, yea, and but by Children. Truly, horret animus, yea, tremunt artus, whilst I but show quàm impiè hîc ludant in re tam seria. To make collection to the errand in hand, If our men may baptise, Or, if the Baptism conferred by them be valide and effectual, than they may teach, & have the warrant of Ite, are instructed with commission; and so from the first to the last, viget inter nostros vocatio, vel ipsis hic Adversariis nobis suffragantibus astipulantibus, etc. XV. MELETEMA. IN that Vocation or Calling obtaining with our Adversaries, and which our men brought from thence with them, (giving we had our Calling of them) these three acts are distinctly to be considered; GOD'S own act, penes quem summum vocandi jus, ac mittendi imperium, and from whom is that inward Calling; next, The Church her act, from which as GOD'S Instrument in this work is that external, or outward Calling; The third is of the Church popishly affected, or of the Pope his act, and of his Bondslaves, from whence is vitium Vocationis, or that faultiness and vitiosity in the Calling. Now, this last cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or make devoyde, and of nats' effect and force the two 〈◊〉; so that there remaineth still a Calling amongst our Adversaries, though well vicious. Thus whereas our men came as it were forth from amongst them, they but renounced this latter part, constantly retaining quod DEI erat, & quod Ecclesiae. It is to be adverted here, That we traduce not even those Ordinations obtaining to day with our Adversaries pro nullis, sed pro vitiosis; as we acknowledge a Church with them, whiles the matrimonial Tables are not rend, or repeated, nor a Bill of divorce given, ubi libellus repudii? as it fared with the adulterous ISRAELITES, they continued GOD'S people even after their many adulteries and spiritual whoredoms: I say, that we acknowledge their Church as veram Ecclesiam, though not veracem, as a true Church, in regard of a Physical verity, though not of an ethical veracity. Always, it is to be considered headily, how the case here altereth, whilst their ordinations are not so much as warrandable by their own Canons, as whereas they deferred orders to Idiots and Children: for here non habemus hujusinodi ordinationes pro vitiosis, sed pro nullis: for the lawfulness of the Cheirothesie dependeth from the lawfulness of the preceding Cheirotonie, and not on the contrary, this from that other; the sign being suspended from the matter, and not the matter from the sign. XVI. MELETEMA. Whereas there concur and occur some three acts even in that Vocation obtaining with our Adversaries, and so in that Calling which our first men brought from thence; so the concurrence and occurrence of the same are necessary to a lawful deposition: for the same must occur and concur to a lawful destitution, which to the prior institution. For example, Where Kingdoms come by election, the same consents are required to a Kings destitutione, which to his prior institution in Regem; and else, to meddle with the sacred person of a King, is to touch and meddle with the LORDS anointed: yea, and to fail and fault even against the Law of Nations. These are hitherto; to meet here with our Adversaries, excepting, that we have loosed by excommunication, what right we had from amongst them formerly by any vocation. Certes, the Pope here cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or make of no force, neither quod DEI est, nor yet quod Ecclesiae. Nay, in common, and promiscuous marriages, multa quae impediunt contrahendum, non dirimunt contractum. Again, without the concurrence and occurrence of the whole acts in the destitution, which occurred and concurred to the prior institution, the proceedure is well summary and unformall, as I hope is clear from the instanced example. I leave to speak of the ground of the excommunication, according whereunto judgement must be given of the excommunication itself; where it feareth me, the matter hath proceeded clavae errante. As likewise, quod non statim rumpatur interius illud spiritus coagulum, ubi rumpitur exterius illud vinculum; giving that a sister-Church, to wit, the Roman Church, could have lawfully sentenced us, where-about sub judice lis est. XVII. MELETEMA. WHereas out of the common College of Presbyters, or Elders, one began to be praefected over the rest, and be singularly so called by the name of BISHOP, (I dispute not here, whether this Bee ju ris divini, or positivi) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the act of Ordination, or matter itself remained common, solâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or ritu ordinandi manente penes Episcopum singulariter, the sole Rite or external sign of ordination being appropriated to the BISHOP singularly. But no, not even then, whereas this custom first obtained, and was in its greatest vigour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was the Rite or the external sign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, scilicet, solely proper to the Bishops so called in opposition, as that it was not administered and peracted by Presbyters; as the Fathers here, Saint AMBROSE and AUGUSTINE, bear us record; and ALEXANDRIA and EGYPT can bear witness, where consignabant, or consecrabant & Presbyteri: for the one useth the word Consignandi, as the other Consecrandi. Nay, seeing it cannot be denied, actum ordinandi, rem ipsam, scilicet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the greater part, mansisse penes & Presbyteros, what letteth why that which is but the lesser part, the sign or the bare and naked Rite, may not remain common to Presbyters with Bishops so called antitheticallie? for cui competit quod majus est eidem adscribi nil vetat quod minus est, modo sint ejusdem generis: but the gendre is still kept, etc. It standeth us upon yet a little to eye more nearly into this matter, because of our Adversaries. Saint CHRYSOSTOME, posing the quaestion cur Apost. ad Philip. transeat ab Episcopat●● ad Diaconatum, nullo relicto loco intermedio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyterorum, thus answereth the matter, Quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the order is but one and the same: and strait subjoineth, quòd eadem conveniant Presbyteris, quae Episcopis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sayech he, to the one which to the other: nay, which is yet farther, he speaketh more peremptorily to the matter, and saith positively, that the Bishops herein wrong the Presbyters, That they appropriate this singularly to themselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I know this place to be wrested to the contrary, to the establishment of this their prerogative, as if the same were the force of the word here in composition, which it carrieth, whilst resolved in its pure simples, whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum Chrysostomo, beareth this other signification, which is quite contrary. And lest this might seem but an idle Grammatication, not having any foundation in the truth, I pray you observe with me the use of this word in sacred Scripture; as I. Thess. Chap. 4. Vers. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ne quis opprimat aut circumveniat fratrem suum in negotio, etc. I forbear here to meddle with that idle difference, so hotly and contentiouslie tossed and agitated amongst us to day, Whether a Bishop be greater, than a Presbyter, Institutione Dominica, or dispositione Ecclesiastica; whereas it were fare safer, privatas has simultates deponere, quò melius reipub. Christianae in communi possemus consulere; yea, and where frustra contentiosum funem ducimus: as who may agree in the matter, without great prejudice to the truth, scilicet, that the order is but one and the same, admitting always a disparity or difference of degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and this not absolute or simple, but relative or respective ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the different measure of graces and gifts in the LORDS workmen, and sutablie to CHRIST'S institution, who gave some to be Apostles, and some Evangelists, and so forth. Nay, according to that seeming, at least subinsinuated and employed difference, or disparity amongst the Apostles, where some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides some other names to this same purpose, importing, at least bewraying a distinction. But to the matter again unde digressi you see how Saint HIEROME prooveth this power of Ordination to be common to Presbyters with Bishops, by an argument taken from the more to the less. Quod qui possunt corpus CHRISTI conficere, possint & Presbyterum creare; except (forsooth) it be more to consign a Presbyter, than to create our own Creator. To this same sense and purpose I would pose our Adversaries here a little, possuntne Presbyteri, so called antitheticallie, or in opposition, Christianum efficere, or baptizare? I take these for one ex bypothesi ad bominem; for our Adversaries hold and maintain, quod per Baptismum character indelebilis imprimatur, That by Baptism an indelible character is imprinted. Now, there is none who can deny, but that this latter may be adscrybed to any Gregarie Presbyter; Ergo, the first may be said to be no less competent unto him. As to those places of the Apostle, where this seemeth singularly to be adscrybed unto one, they are to be taken communiter, or in common to be understood: for non statim de caeteris negatur, quod de uno praedicatur; yea, herefore what the Apostle seemed singularly to have taken and acclaymed unto himself in the one place, 2. Timoth. Chap. 1. Vers. 6, he showeth plainly to have been common to the whole Eldership, 1. Timoth. Chap. 4. Vers. 14. I fear to wade any farther in this point: for non nise caute incedendum per ignes suppositos cineri doloso; adeoque offendicula vel in ipsis picturis nudis tollenda. And yet I need not fear much the incurring here the offence of any, ut qui Episcoporum axioma ne vel minimum hîc eam imminutum, so fare forth as I can trace any light going before me, for warrant and appuy to my conscience: for as to that Primacy of order without power, whether absolute or by delegation, which may suffer upon abuse repetition by the party delegating, I cannot so much as by dream conceive thereof: for albeit all be called to one and the same Ministry, it followeth not strait, quod simil & quisque vocetur ad parem in ministerio gradum, more than in the College of justice all are of alike power and dignity in place: nor yet of that Orbiculare praesidence falsely fathered upon Saint AMBROSE, upon a wide misinterpretation and mistaking of his mind; cum varii sint modi recedendi, as also that so I could not see, how the first Presbyter could be called by the name of Bishop singularly; whereas in a circle there is nothing first or last, nisi recurras ad puncta imaginaria. But how-so-ever the matter go, this must be given to the present necessity, because of our Adversaries excepting here against the lawfulness of that bygone Ministry with us these divers years heretofore, quod nostri destituti fuerint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Episcopali. You see that this cannot evacuate, or but the least enervate our Calling; both these being but one, the word being taken ex usu Scripturae, where we see the one subjoined to the other exegeticallie, as Acts, Chap. 20. Vers. 28. The Elders of the Church of EPHESUS accersed, or sent for to MILETUM, are exhorted to take heed to themselves, and to their Flocks, over the which the holy Ghost praefecit eos Episcopos, had made them Overseers. As likewise, we see th'Apostle to pass strait from the Name to the Office, which would argue a communion in the one, as in the other: nay, we see the Apostle to require the same thing in a Presbyter, which in a Bishop; which subinferreth a necessary competency of the same in common to both. As last, we see the Apostle Saint PETER himself, & synpresbyterum sese indigetare. But besides this, that both these are but one and the same, the words being taken exusu Scripturae, true is it not, that all our first men were devoyde of this sort of Ordination, which our Adversaries so praeciselie urge. XVIII. MELETEMA. LEst there might seem here justly not the least part of this work wanting, if I should overpass by silence that point of Succession, which our Adversaries esteem to be of such poise and weight, as if without it there could be no lawful Church nor Ministry; it standeth us upon to speak so fare forth of it, as the present necessity requireth. Wherefore, seeing nullum apud eos sonorius crepitaculum, quo vehementius nos obtundant, I shall touch it a little en passant, if it were but to silence their so clamorous cries here; though it may be, if GOD shall give grace and leave, I speak more properly and fuselie of this argument in its proper place, Of the notes of the Church. In the entry here, I pray you always to remember, that it was the doctrinal, and not personal succession, which those Ancients so highly regarded, and that they mentioned but this last, because of the first, as which is the very soul and life thereof. Again, it would be headily remembered here, that those Haeretiks, against whom those Ancients instituted their Disputations, by alleging to the persons professing, and not to the doctrine professed, (as we see tertullian to reason against the MARCIONITES and GNOSTICS; Edant Origines Episcoporum suorum, evolvant seriem antistitum it a per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris habuerit auctorem & antecessorem; hoc enim modo Romanorum Ecclesia CLEMENTEM à PETRO ordinatum refert, confingant tale aliquid haeretici, etc.) that those Heretics, I say, denied, either in whole, or in part, the Scriptures, wherethrough the Dispute could not be instituted from hence against such. So then, thus the Ancients adorted those Haeretickes, and improved their doctrine, because they could not show any constant profession of the same, they could not point at those Bishops who professed with them, where the ROMAN Church is well often exemplarlie alleged unto. But it is to be observed, how tertullian in the alleged place, allegeth the example of the Church of SMYRNA, as a Transmarine Church, as he doth the example of the Church of ROME, as a Cismarine Church; that so he might show evidently, doctrinam Novati, Marcionis novam & inauditam prorsus fuisse, as which was not acknowledged, or believed by any Church at all, whether on this side of the Sea, or beyond the Sea. Thus then, it was to this sense, that the Ancients urged the argument from succession; from whence it is clear, that the personal succession was still alleged unto, because of the doctrinal only. But to speak conciselie and sinewishlie of this matter, first we shall show, GOD willing, That there is no necessity of this succession, which our Adversaries solely and singularly require. Next, that this sort of succession is not findable with themselves. Last, That we have that succession which is necessary penes nos▪ or with us. That I may borrow mine empledged word, let me, as to the first, pack up the matter by form of Argument. If so be, that personal and local succession suffered even then and there interruption, where it was of greater necessity, it followeth, that it may suffer the like with the less danger, where it is of lesser necessity: But so it is, the first holdeth and proveth true: Ergo, the same judgement must be given in this latter case. For probation of the minor; the Priesthood of AARON may serve to the full, from whence we thus bind up the Argument. Whereas the Priesthood under the Law was tied to AARON'S carnal descent, truly then this personal succession behoved to be of greater necessity, than it can be now under Grace, where the matter goeth by free election: But so it is, that even then this personal succession suffered diversly interruption: Ergo, it may admit yet the like interruption, without the least danger, etc. For probation of the minor; were not NADAE and ABIHU stricken with fire from Heaven, who should have succeeded by Line? Next, whereas it came to ELEAZAR, I would inquire, if it continued still in him and his race? Was it not upon their abuse translated to the stock of ITHAMAR? Now, rested it in the stock of ITHAMAR? Was it not broken off, because of the wickedness of ELIES' sons, HOPHNI and PHINEHAS, albeit it had well long continued in the house of ELI? Was not ABIATHAR the last Priest of that stock deposed by SALOMON, and ZADOK substituted and suffected in his vice and place? Thus I hope it may appear most evidently, to any who shutteth not his eyes wilfully against this so clear a light, from this my so long deduction of the matter, That the Church is not tied to any personal succession, suit, or train of Bishops; which were here indeed to lay a false reckoning and count; as if filii ABRAHAE omnes secundum carnem censendi essent in semine, and not these only, who are Children after the Promise. In the next room, I would have you with all diligence and headiness to advert here, that the place gave the praeheminence to the persons, and not the persons the dignity or primacy to the Siege or Seat: That is, that it was not whether the residence or death of an Apostle, in this or that Siege or Seat, which gave the procathedrie, and praeseance here to the after succeeding Bishops in that Siege, or in that Sea; from whence our Adversaries collect and conclude the Procathedrie, nay, that general Prostasie of the Pope of Rome, as Saint Peter's Successor, forsooth, in sedem Apostolicam: but that the Seages or Seas received this praeheminence, according to that rank they held and obtained as Cities of the Empire: for else, I hope it could not be well denied, but that the first place here were due to Jerusalem, before Rome, if succession can make aught to the praeheminenee or primacy of place: for did not CHRIST Himself preach, yea, and suffer at Jerusalem? Nay, did He not accomplish there all the mysteries of our Salvation? Did not all the Apostles issue as it were from thence? Preach, yea, and reside there for a goodly space? Do not the Ancients here agree as it were in common, That james turned the ordinary Bishop of Jerusalem, whereas the matter of Peter's being at Rome, and Bishopric there, is at least so doubtful. I would pose our Adversaries here a little, How is it here, that the Bishop of JERUSALEM was not reputed and holden for the first Bishop, if the persons gave the primacy or praeheminence to the place? Nay, we see it especially provided, Concil. Nie. 1. Can. 6. that honour should be deferred to the Bishop of JERUSALEM, without the least praejudice to that honour and regard due by him to the Bishop of CAESARIA, his Metropolitan. Thus it is clear from hence, That this sort of praeheminence in those Apostolic Seages, or Seas, was unknown then in those old times, and to those holy Fathers, gathered at that Council. thirdly, giving here liberally for the time, That a constant and vninterrupted succession of Bishops were an infallible note of a true Church, wherefore should not this militate aswell for the three other Seages, of ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCHIA, JERUSALEM, as for the Sea of ROME; seeing, as EUSEBIUS witnesseth in his Ecclesiastical History, Lib. 3. that they have this succession? Why then should the Church of ROME be more instyled by the name of the true, sole, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, than the Church of ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, & c? What can this succession to PETER in sedem Romanam, import and rapport, beyond the succession to any Apostle else, into any other Siege or Seat? I would be glad to be instructed here, where I promise to follow the light, as docilem me praebere. fourthly, If this sort of Succession, to wit, personal and local, which is the only Succession urged and required by our Adversaries, were simply necessary to the constitution of a true Church, and lawful Ministry, and were an infallible, if not constitutive, at least oftensive note of a true Church; then we behoved to acknowledge that Church strait for a true Church, where this were to be found: For nota debet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or retrocommeat with the subject noted, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 risibile doth cum homine: but I hope our Adversaries shall not stand hereunto; for than they behoved to acknowledge the GREEK Church for a true and lawful Church, which they most pertinaciouslie here deny: for & haec bâc Successione gaudet, possent & high longam seriem texere, Catalogum instituere EPISCOPORUM. Nay, than the ARRIANS should have made up a true Church, because of this Succession obtaining likewise with them. Our Adversaries here finding themselves strayted, are driven to seek to some posture, whitherto they affirm, That the Argument proceedeth here but negativelie; that is, That it serveth not so much to show where the Church is, or, What is the true Church; as Where she is not. Where-upon it followeth, That this Succession shall be nota non nota, or nota non notificans, a note not notifying or pointing forth the subject; which is to convel the fundaments of all true and sound Philosophy. But to trace them yet here, and deject them from this refuge: Thus there should not have been a Church in the beginning; neither should there be one at the consummation of the world: as where utrobique hic defectus comparet, haec successio desideratur, this Succession is wanting. Wherefore, the Argument proceedeth not so much as by way of negation. fively: The practice of the Primitive Church standeth here to the contrary: where we find a double sort of Vocation, where-of una fiebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now, I would understand of our Adversaries, their judgement of and about those Ordinations used by those old ancient Fathers, which were called absolutely; If they be to them, or with them, either for null, or for vicious? But so it is, This Succession which they press, to wit, personal and local, was here wanting, wherein they place the very essence of Succession, etc. Sixthly: I would inquire of our Adversaries, Whereas CONSTANTINOPLE was made a patriarchal Seat, tempore THEODOSII Magni, which City before was still subject HERACLENSI Episcopo; tantum abest ut CONSTANTINOPOLITANVS Episcopus fuerit Patriarcha, ut ne Metropolites quidem: Whether or not they will take upon them here to condemn this, because of this defect of a personal and local Succession in Caput; although else it was a cooptation in common corpus, tagma, Collegium, systema reliquorum Patriarcharum, according to those absolute Ordinations used of old by those ancient Fathers, etc. Seaventhlie: If this Succession personal and local, were simply here necessary, than it should follow to their great praejudice here, quòd nulli novi Episcopatus possent condi, institui, That no new Bishoprickes could be erected: so that here they praejudge, through imprudency and inconsideration, their so due and just deserved praise, of their so fruitful labours amongst the INDIANS, where they have builded and created so many new CHURCHES, etc. Last of all: Whereas our very Adversaries conclude this point from that Succession of the judges of ISRAEL, why may they not admit here, That this Succession may suffer interruption? as we see that to have been reapse diverselie, and eftsoons interrupted under their divers enemies, MOABITES, CANAANITES, AMORITES, and so forth; and that now for longer, and now for shorter space; as now for the space of twenty years, now of seven, yea, now of whole forty. Truly, this Argument here militateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus I hope I have improven to the very full, the necessity of this Succession, to wit, personal and local, which our Adversaries here urge and press so much. As to the second I promised to prove, that is, That this Succession is not to be found with our very Adversaries, I shall, GOD willing, prove this by infallible demonstrations. No Haereticke hath jus ordinandi, or power of Ordination, even according to some of their own Canons: (Thus I argue not by position, but of supposition only ad hominem: where I deny not likewise BABEL to be confounded, etc. But so it is, that many and divers of their Popes have proven such: Ergo, for the least during this space, this Succession hath suffered interruption: nay, it followeth from hence, That there hath been no lawful Church, or Ministry with them since, so much as warrandable by their own Canons. For probation of the minor: Our probation shall not stay itself here in the Scriptures, which were indeed sufficient, but of surplussge, and for the clearer conviction of our Adversaries, and to take from them all effuge & means to escape here, I offer me to prove, That divers Haeretickes have possessed that Chair, and occupied the same, even according to that way which themselves call Heresy: where I may reckon forth a great train of them, as were LIBERIUS, FOELIX the second, LEO the first, GELASIUS the first, VIGILIUS, GREGORY the second, ZACHARIE the first, ADRIAN the first, NICOLAS the first, JOHN the eight, NICOLAS the second, CELESTINE the third, INNOCENT the third, JOHN the twentietwo, and INNOCENT the eight; all which have erred in that which concerneth the Faith; else our Modern Doctors prove heterodoxe, as who hold not, nor maintain the same doctrine with them. But for shortness sake, I will content me to point at those who have been condemned for such, by lawful Counsels. First then, I would pose our Adversaries, what they can say to HONORIUS the first, condemned in two general Counsels, the sixth and the seaventh; and anathematised as an Haereticke, for a Monothelite? Our Seraphic Doctor BELLARMINE can tell us here, that HONORIUS erred, but as a private man here, and not as Pope. A brave eschappatoire, forsooth, ficulneum ADAMI praesidium, a fine Coat of figtree leaves, to cover his nakedness. I pray you, if HONORIUS being consulted as Pope in a matter of Faith, controverted upon for the time, answered not to the point as Pope, but as a private Doctor or man; in what postern shall we seek his Holiness, forsooth, whereas his person speaketh to us, that we be no farther here deceived? Nay truly, if so be he may err, whereas advised and consulted in a matter of Faith, I see not what profit his pretended privilege of not erring, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can rapport here to the Church. But this cannot help our Adversary here; for HONORIUS was anathematised as Bishop of ROME, and not as a private man, or Doctor. Nay, which is yet farther, LEO the second, his own successor, confesseth of HONORIUS, that he polluted that holy Siege or Sea: whereupon it followeth by an inevitable consequence, that he erred as Pope: for else his private sovilleurs, or pollutions, could not have polluted this sacred Siege. Last, for myself, I would not be here curious for the second person of the Pope his Holiness: but would be content to take order with his private person, for his miscarriage, forbearing his Holiness, or the second person he sustaineth out of pure and mere religion, forsooth. Next, I would learn what our Adversaries can say to JOHN the twelft, condemned for most enormous crimes, in a Council holden at ROME, as for carousing of Wine, for love of the Devil, for directing his devotion, at least in sport and merriment, to JUPITER and MARS, I, to JUPITER and VENUS their Proprogoddesse! What will they say to JOHN the three and twentieth, or four and twentieth, denying the Resurrection, condemned in the Council of CONSTANCE? Last, what can they except against EUGENIUS the fourth, deposed in the Council of BASIL, and condemned for Haereticke? Now, quicquid h●die Episcoporum, aut ordinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superest in Ecclesia Romana, ad hoc fonte profluxit: and so it followeth, that these two hundreth years since, or , there hath been no lawful Vocation with our Adversaries, which they can warrant by their own Canons. Now, quis dabit mundum ex immundo, who can bring a clean thing out of filthiness. It is worthy our best observation, that BELLARMINE having acknowledged, even by the force of the Truth, That this Council was lawfully indicted: whereupon it folowtheth, after their own Canons, that so it could not err; sayeth, That it turned vicious: and whereas he pointeth at the faultiness thereof, it is here, forsooth, quod pronunciarit secundum Concilium. Truly, it is well here, that they may authorise, or exauthorize, at their pleasure, as they find aught to make for them, or against them. I should but miss-spende good time, if I should reckon forth all those vicious and monstrous heads the have adapted to this body, some Infidels, some Magicians, some Necromancers, as SYLVESTER the second; some attaining to the Popedom by brigandise, by Arms, some by one finesse, and some by another; scarce one amongst numbers entering in at the Door so much as of an external Vocation, warrandable by their own Canons. Nay, I might here arcesse them all in common of Simony: for if all came not thus by the place, at least all to one thus carry themselves in the place: for they expose to sale the Graces and Gifts of GOD, and hold them get-able by Money; as their Nundination of Indulgences, Soule-Masses, and their other Wares of this Note, may instruct to the full; wherethorow they approve themselves to have succeeded indeed to SIMON, but SIMON MAGUS, and not SIMON PETER, to be his singular Successors. Vendit Alexander Claves, Altaria, Christum. Vendere jure potest: emerat ipse prius. And BAPTISTA MANTVANUS to this same sense: — venalia nobis Templa, Sacerdotes, Altaria, Sacra, Coronae, Ignis, Thura, Preces, Coelum est venale, Deusque. I would understand of our Adversaries, If their election was canonical, who came thus by the Popedom, as by Simony, Brigandise, Arms, & c.? Pope LEO telleth us, that those four are required to a canonical and lawful Election, vota civium, testimonia populorum, arbitri a honoratorum, electio cleri. Now, I would demand our Adversaries here, If the free suffrages of the people be so much as required to the election of a Pope to day? And yet BELLARMINE himself, Lib. de Clericis, Cap. 7. is forced to confess, That of old none was holden for lawful Bishop, who wanted the suffiages of the people to his election: whereupon it followeth, that they walk not in the old way, but they have declined in the latter days. I would fain learn of our Adversaries, Whether this Succession was free from suffering interruption, whereas the ROMISH Bishops were divided amongst themselves by Schisms, for many years together? I remit the Reader here to that great papist ONUPHRIUS, in Chronico, where he reckoneth forth roundly some thirty Schisms in the Church of ROME: as the first, between CORNELIUS and NOVATUS; the second, betwixt LIBERIUS and FOELIX; the third, betwixt DAMASUS and VRCISINUS, which proved a well bloody Schism; and so forth of the rest of that note. I would in like manner inquire here, Where one Pope disannulled the Acts of another, and reordained those who formerly had received orders of his Decessour, as thus not acknowledging that prior Ordination for lawful and valide; as, for instance, Pope SERGIUS the third, carried him towards his decessour Pope FORMOSUS, besides divers other instances, whether of those contesting Fathers shall we acknowledge for his Holiness, and from whether shall we derive and aestimate the succession? Truly, dignus hic vindice nodus. I hope those may suffice here ad gustum, yea, and to bring in distaste this their so much boasted-of Succession, with those whose sensorie is not altogether distempered; yea, who are not devoide of the sense of tasting. Certes, the providence of GOD is singularly to be admired here, in that He hath not suffered those probations and Monuments, of the turpitude of this holy Siege, forsooth, to be so fare forth suppressed, as that we have not sufficiency of proof for clear conviction of the ADVERSARY; and yet questionless hî non defuerant sibi, etc. But to arcesse this matter from on high, and deduce it vel à capite, from PETER'S being at ROME; if we show but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that PETER was never there, the after-substruction falleth of will: wherefore, thus I argue: If Saint PETER was never at ROME, than this Succession to him into that Seat or Siege ceaseth: But so it is, Saint PETER was never there: Ergo, this Succession ceaseth, and falleth of will. For probation of the minor, I purpose not no treat of this ad longum, but only so fare forth as the necessity of the present errand requireth: so that I will content myself here but to point at some few things, exerto vel intento demum digito. In the entry here, I would have you to observe these generals: That the first Father or Author of this Forgery, is one PAPIAS, a mere Fabler: so that all the many Witnesses, which our Adversaries here allege for this his being at ROME, resolve in one, and are but one in substance: for they all have it but from him; and so this prooveth the last resolution of the matter, PAPIAS a fabulous Tale-teller related so. Ergo. Nay, BARONIUS in his Catalogue of his Authors for this Forgery, goeth no higher. Again, that great confusion of BABEL would be headily adverted unto, where scarce one understandeth another's Language here. Me thinks it strange, how they all, at least in common, agreeing in the general, that PETER was at ROME, should so universally in every circumstance, as about the time of his going thither, some standing for one year, and some for another. Truly, all these cannot stand and subsist together, the first, the second, the sixth, or seaventh, the thirteenth of CLAUDIUS, etc. Again, about the place from whence he went thither; now from JERUSALEM, and now from ANTIOCH. Again, about that conflict with SIMON MAGUS, which they make the end of his going thither. Certes, omnia hîc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & fabu●osa: wherefore, as this alleged end of his going is but a Fable, his going itself may justly seem to be but fabulous. Let me pose our Adversaries here a little: Why is not this SIMON'S opposing of PETER mentioned, as we see the wickedness of ELYMAS the Sorcerer against Saint PAUL? Or, I pray you, Was not PAVL ●ble enough for the work, who smote that Sorcerer with blindness? But I should but in vain busy myself here in this matter of SIMON MAGUS, ubi omnia scatent fabulis: nay, where our MIDIANITES mutuis se conficiunt vulneribus. Again, about the place, time, and quality of his death; yea, and about his burial: and last, about his Successors, some standing for CLEMENT, and some for LINUS. Now, what can we lay hold on in so great uncertaintiss? Where-upon can we appuy or rest here our Faith? And yet, si Diis placet, this is rei summa & caput, PETER'S being at ROME. Questionless, it is from hence, that BELLARMINE finding but so weak a foundation to build the Pope's headship upon, as convinced in judgement, against the light of his conscience, seeketh thus to shift off the matter, and betaketh him to this postern, nec requiri, nec sufficere, that this is neither requisite nor sufficient to make PETER Bishop of ROME, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 1. which he prooveth by parts: The first, Because thus PETER should have been Bishop of JERUSALEM, CAESAREA, and so forth of all those places whither-to he came. The second, Because many were Bishops of ROME, who came never thither, as CLEMENT the fift, JOHN the twentietwo, BENEDICT the twelft, CLEMENT the sixth, and INNOCENTIUS the seaventh; which were ordained Bishops in FRANCE, and abode still there. I would inquire of our Adversaries, Why they fight so much for this, which according to their own confession and concession, can neither serve the turn, nay, ix not so much as requisite thereunto? May it not justly seem that they are but led here by the spirit of Contradition? I leave for the time to dispute the matter, whether this be requisite or not, that one come to that place, yea, and reside there, whereof he is created Bishop: for our Adversaries thus imprudentlie wrong their own cause of personal and local Succession, except a designation to a place be to them for local Succession; and so an habitual Bishop and an actual be with them for one and the same. Last, it is well, that PETER thus of an Apostle turneth an irregulare Bishop, and a pattern of non residence. But to deal a little punctim, as we have done caesim: The first Argument may be drawn from the putation and committing of times, to this sense. If we shall be pleased to commit and collation together the first and the second Chapters of Saint PAUL to the GALATIANS, we shall see PETER to have kept in JEWRIE, and thereabouts, some eighteen years after CHRIST'S Passion, as is clear out of Saint PAUL his visiting of him at JERUSALEM so many years after his conversion, and of his after rebuking of him to his face at ANTIOCH. Now, if we shall add to this number, the seven years of his being at ANTIOCH, and the twentie-five years of his Bishopric at ROME, there shall arise the sum of fifty years, or . From hence it followeth, That PETER could not have suffered martyrdom with PAUL, as the common tradition hath at ROME, the twelfth or thirteenth year of NERO: for it is most certain by collationing of the sacred and profane story, that there ran but thirty and seven. years for the most, from CHRIST'S Passion, to the very end of NERO his Empire. What shall be done with these supernumerary years here? Nay, though we should praecide and cut off here those seven years of his abode at ANTIOCH, lest we might seem too strict in putandis temporibus, we shall yet find hiatum multum, no little gulf or distance. Truly, hic haeret iis aqua, our Adversaries cannot possibly expede and extricate themselves here, utut in omnes se vertant parts: wherefore expectandus iis ELIAS aliquis, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui nodum hunc solvat, fortean vel secet. In the next room, I might reason from that general, yea, and universal silence of the whole Scriptures here; as where we can find nothing for his going thither, as we do for PAUL'S, nor of his being there. Certes, in summis fidei capitibus argumentum rectè procedit negatiuè. Now, this is rei summa & caput, PETER'S Bishopric at ROME, which our Adversaries collect of his being there; and conclude from hence, as who can find no better warrants else: where-upon it followeth, quod super arenaceo fundamento omnis illa insana substructio exstructa sit. But of surplusage here; the Scriptures furnish us store of Arguments against this forgery: for if PETER had been at ROME, before PAVL'S coming thither, either he was negligent, or else his ministry there was fruitless, and ineffectual: for PAUL telleth roundly, That he found the JEWS in common innorant of CHRIST altogether, and His Gospel; as which they odiously instyled by the name of a Sect; and such a Sect, as generally evil spoken of, Acts, Chap. 28. Vers. 22. Or do we think, that the JEWS at ROME would have carried greater reverence to PAUL, than to their own ordinary Apostle, if so be he had been there? Again, the many Epistles which PAUL wrote from ROME, wherein he doth not so much as make the least mention of PETER, whether in Salutation, or Valediction, argue to the full, that he co-lived not with PAUL at ROME. Nay, PAVL'S complaint, That he was left alone, and forsaken of all at his first compearance; and his deposition, that at the second time LUKE only was with him; these jointly considered, serve to prove, That PETER was not at ROME now with PAUL; except we would brand him with this foul not of Apostasy, or deserting of PAUL in the common cause of CHRIST, and the Gospel. Again, me thinketh it strange, how PETER, writing two Epistles to the dispersed JEWS, in divers Countries, could so deeply forget those at ROME; as not the least to mention them, if so be they were his chief charge, and ROME itself the Seat of his Popedom. Last, were not this flat against that compact betwixt him and Saint PAUL, That he should go to the JEWS, and PAUL to the GENTILES; which the Fathers acknowledged as singularly administered by GOD, as you may see out of Saint HIEROME, on the second Chapter to the GALATIANS; and which we see done with uniform consent of the rest of the Apostles? How could we free Saint PETER here of faedifragie, if contrary to that covenant, thus solemnly made, he should not only have preached upon occasion to the GENTILES, and as it were extraordinarlie, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or by the way, but turned their ordinary Apostle; yea, not Apostle, but Bishop, to the great praejudice of his Apostolical authority: as who is reckoned with them Apostolorum primus, as who perhaps was first called to the Apostleship, though ANDREW was called prior to the Discipleship. But to wind up this point, lest I might seem forgetful of my promise in the beginning of this Treatise, and so seem too deeply drowned in this Meditation, let me thus argue for the general: That Religion whose foundation and main ground is purus putus stochasmus, a mere stochasme, cannot be but stochasticke, and conjectural: But such is the Popish Religion to day: for Saint PETER'S Bishopric at ROME, and his being there, which is rei summa & caput, is but an ylde forgery, and foolish conjecture; as I hope is clear to the full, from this my deduction of the matter: Ergo, the Popish Religion is but stochasticke, and conjectural. Wherefore, seeing this point non cadit sub fidem, immo ne sub sensum quidem, there can be no certainly in their Religion, to settle men's consciences. Truly, there is great need here of a well implicit Faith. Last, I offer me, ne quid desit, to prove this point by that constant and ordinary practice with our Adversaries, even unto this day. Is not this the nature and quality of their suffragant Bishops, as that their ordinations are absolute, absolutae, or solutae fort & dissolutae? Those who understand but the least into this matter, know, that here for common both these Successions are found wanting, personal and local: for ex trivio nomen arripitur & inditur, non scrupulosè inquiritur in statum Ecclesiae, from whence my L. receiveth his name. Truly, the institution of these is but a mere histrionical and dramatical action. Always, lest I should seem to father an untruth upon them, I must entreat your patience here a little, that I may snew the form and manner of the creation of these suffragant Bishops: wherefore, thus take the matter. REVEREND. D. BOGVINTINUS, HOSTIENSIS, or COLONIENSIS, standeth in need of a suffragant, as who cannot do all by himself; nay, as with whose dignity it cannot stand omnium vertices contrectare, inungere. Now, this Suffragant can not do those things, which my L. should have done by himself, except he be instructed with power, and so created Bishop: for non potest quis in alium confer, transfer, quod ipse prior non habeat: wherefore he is created Bishop of some Transmarine Church, or other, from whence he may receive the denomination, whereas in the whilst they are altogether ignorant of the state of that Church, yea, do not so much as understand of the Vacancy of the Seat; as we had with ourselves in SCOT-LAND some Bishops of ATHENS, forsooth. The Suffragant being thus created, lest he should seem a non resident, that see in viam, he betaketh him to his journey, to his Station, forsooth; but ad tertium aut quartum ab urbe lapidem, some three or four miles off of the Town, one is summitted, and so per lucida intervalla another, to show him of the danger of the journey, of the great loss and pert the Church should sustain thorough his departure: in a word, and in effect, to recall him to my L. where-upon he returneth; and upon his return, is praefected over some of his Churches, as his Vicar and Suffragant, where he attendeth my L. Mandements. Now, who seethe not, except a Borne-blinde, that there is neither personal nor local Succession here? And yet these are the Fathers of all those other Bishops with our Adversaries to day; these are they qui generant tot Episcoporum examina, etc. Thus I hope, nisi mea me hic destituat spes, I have shown to the full, That this so much noised Succession, is not to be found with our Adversaries. Now, I come to the last thing I promised to prove, to wit, That we have such Succession, as is necessary and requisite here. For the clearing of this point, you must here headily distinguish betwixt those things which are essential in and to Succession, and so are altogether, or simply necessary, and these which are but accidentary, and so may be present or absent without destruction of the subject. Now, there be two of each sort; of the first are Successio Doctrinae, and Successio Vocationis: for it is here simply, and altogether necessary, ut succedatur in doctrinam Apostolicam. And the second is no less necessary, successio Vocationis: for quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur? nemo sibi hunc honorem assumit, etc. It hath still proven a matter full of danger, to usurp sacred Functions. But as to those other two, personal and local Succession; that is, that a person succeed to a person, in and to a certain place, these are not essential, and simply necessary, as without which a Church and ministry may be, yea, and are de facto amongst themselves, as their new built and instituted Churches amongst the INDIANS may instruct to the full; and as I have proven already at large, yea, and besides other probations, from the practice of the primitive Church, where fiebat vocati● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Last, giving that there were such personal and local Succession with our Adversaries, it were no less ours: Communes enim fuimus possessores, licet deturbarint nos de communi possessione, adeoque non excidimus jure ad rem, licet soli usurpare velint jus in rem: siquidem non magis haec sunt Papae, quam Templum DEI, illius Idoli fuisse censendum est, quod in eo collocârat ANTIOCHUS Epiphanes, rectius Epimanes. XIX. MELETEMA. JERUSALEM which is Above, is Mother of us all, Gal. Chap. 4. Vers. 26: as to the Church of ROME, she was for the best but a Sister-Church, and collateral; but now we affirm her to be heavily affected and diseased. It is true indeed, that the Bishop of ROME was called in common with the rest of the patriarchs, by the name of occumenicall Bishop; as which all jointly and commonly repraesented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Nay, we deny not here yet farther, that the Bishop of ROME obtained at last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a certain Procathedrie, or preseance, and this perhaps not only because that ROME was sedes, or Caput Imperii, the Imperial Seat, or Siege; or yet because it proved a ZOAR, or place of refuge to them of the Eastern Church, during the ARRIAN persecution; but even because of the faith, as which kept then the Truth in sincerity, whereas other Churches were more corrupted; But all this is ours: for, as POMPEY said well, Non est in parietibus Respuplica: so, no more is the Church of ROME within her Walls. Again, it is an evil collection, to gather, or conclude strait an universal Prostasie from a particular Procathedrie. Nay, and albeit the Church of ROME was alleged unto exemplarlie, whilst she kept the Faith in purity and sincerity, followeth it from hence, that she was either the Mother-Church, or the Catholic Church, which were orbem urbi includere? The Ancients indeed adducebant Ecclesiam Romanam, sed ut exemplum particular, scilicet, during that space of her purity, sed ne vel tum quidem ut attributum universale, which our Papists do to day. You know, that this is ordinary with us, whilst any differ ariseth, to appeal or provoke to the most famous Church where we live, as in FRANCE, appellation is for common made to the Church of GENEVE; or yet to defer the cognition of the matter to some Transmarine Church: but shall any infer from hence, That by this appellation we abjudge the name of a true Church from ourselves, or yet singularly adjudge this name to that Church, whereunto we appeal? Nay, last of all here, Ab Ecclesia Romana, during that her flourishing age, ad hodiernam Papanam non est concludere: distant ac differunt haec du● immane quantum, immo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. XX. MELETEMA. THe Chief Priests and Elders of the People, whereas they could not except against Christ's works, or authoritatem factorum, they began to quarrel authoritatem faciendi, and so to quaestion Him, by what authority He did these things, and who gave Him this authority, Mat. 21.23. Thus it fareth with our Adversaries, or these our new Pharisees, to day, since they can not except against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the doctrine which we teach, lest else they should have nothing at all to hold their poor bewitched people in hand, they must needs except here, and quarrel authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so squabble about our authority in Teaching, if not authority of Doctrine: wherefore let us give this to their so great and pressing necessity. There is one of our Men, no less truly in Dignation than Place, who hath lately written most learnedly in defence of our CALLING; where-at I can not hear of any amongst our Adversaries, who hath so much as snatched as yet but like a Dog leaping at NILUS: so that I grant this to be but a superfluous labour on my part, wherein but benè actum malè ago: yet I can not but look for a charitable construction: voluntas quum sit actionum mensura; and that it may be permitted to those, qui prae tenui peculio vitulum vivum divis minus elustrare possunt, vel taurum è farina fingere; yea, and as who could not be altogether here mute, being so deicticallie pointed at, and pressed by the greater part in common, but at least some advantage taken by the Adversary upon my silence against myself, though not to the least praejudice to the errand or common cause, or yet derogation to the credit of the Ministry with us, through my weak sides: wherefore, gentle Reader, give to necessity whatsoever thou findest here done; and vouchsafe at least thy best countenance, which is grace enough against all disgrace I fear these whatsoever my pains shall incur with the enemy, yea, or be liable unto: for if thou pardon my presumption, and accept of this my mean endeavour, thou shalt perhaps encourage me to some greater attempt: what well done, give GOD the praise; and where I have taken the pains, reap thou the profit: what thou findest amiss, corrigi ac sanari posse ne despera: as who, aliis ut prosim, veritatis Discipulus esse malim, quam, aliis dùm praesim, erroris Magister, etc. VIVE. VALE. FINIS. ERRATA. Pag. lin. for read 6 Margin, insignari, insigniri. Ibid. Ibidem. Meletemata, qui Meletemata. Ibid. 7 periet, pereat. 9 17 appear, appeareth. 11 21 quod, quos. 20 24 estate, estates. 22 25 while, whiles as. 23 27 videri●, videses. 43 13 Papista, Papissa. 49 3 solely, solly. Ibid. 6 Saint, Saints. 50 1 Chrysostomo, Quarto. 51 15 ao, to. 52 10 word, words. Ibid. 19 thing, things. 54 32 solely, solly. 59 3 absolutely, absolutae. 65 6 defuerant, defuerunt. 69 27 not, note. 71 4 certainly, certainty. Ibid. 23 Boguintinus, Boguntinus. Item, in some places of this Treatise, for pretend, read pertend.