THE CONVERTED JEW OR CERTAIN DIALOGVES BETWEEN MICHEAS A LEARNED JEW.  
And others, touching diverse points of Religion, controverted between the Catholics and Protestants.  
Written by M. JOHN CLARE a Catholic Priest, of the Society of JESUS.  
Dedicated to the two Universities of OX●●RD and CAMBRIDGE  
The leaf following showeth the Interlocutours 〈…〉  
judaeis now a lux ●riri visa est.  Hesther. 8. 
PERMISSV SUPERIORUM. Anno. M. DC. XXX.   

The Interlocutours of every Dialogue.  
1. In the first Dialogue is disputed; whether the Church of Rome hath made any change in faith and Religion, since the first plantation of it by the Apostles? It is proved, that it hath not.  
The Interlocutours are. 


Cardinal Bellarmyne of worthy memory  
Michaeas a learned jewish Rabine.  
Doctor Whitakers of Cambridge.     

Ad Romanos perfidia non potest habere accessum.  
Cyprian. lib. 1. epist. 3.   
2. In the second Dialogue, entitled: The second part of the Converted jew, is discussed; whether in every age since the Apostles; or rather whether but in any one Age sin●e that time, till Luther's days, there can be given any Instances of Professors of Protestancy? It is proved, that no such Instances can be given.  
The Interlocutours. 


Michaeas', the foresaid jew.  
Ochinus, who first planted Protestancy in England, in King  
Edward the sixth his reign.  
Doctor Reynolds of Oxford.  
Neuserus, Chief Pastor of Heidelberg, in the Palatinat.     

Si dixerint vobis: Ecce in deserto est; nolite exire. Ecce in penetratibus; nolite credere.  
Math. 24.   
3. In the third and last Dialogue, styled: The arraingnment of the Converted jew. It is discoursed; Whether the Protestants of the Catholics, do stand more chargeable, with disloyalty to their lawful Princes? It is proved, that the Protestants stand more chargeable. In this last dialogue, are diverse other points of Catholic Religion briefly handled.  
The Interlocutours. 


The right Honourable the Lord Chief justice of England.  
Michaeas' the former jew.  
M. Vicechancelour of Oxford.     
Vidi mulierem, ebriam de sanguine Sanctorum.  Apocalyp. 17.  

THE ARGUMENT OF THE FIRST DIALOGUE.  
MICHAEAS (a learned jewish Rabine) by his diligent comparing of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, touching JESUS CHRIST, with the exact accomplishment of them, recorded in the New Testament; forsaketh his former judaism, and embraceth the Christian Religion. But in observing diverse differences touching faith among Christians (and particularly among the Catholics and Protestants) knoweth not to whether side to range himself. At this time it so fale out, that there is a general meeting of many famous learned Men of all Religions, in the great City of Cosmopolis in Utopia: among whom Cardinal Bellarmyne, and Doctor Whitakers are thither comen. Michaeas' hasteneth thither, and imparteth to the said Cardinal and Doctor his present state, & openeth to them his uncertainty, whether to embrace the Catholic faith, or Protestancy. The Cardinal and the Doctor according to the different Principles of each others religion, propound to him different means of settling his judgement in points of faith. Michaeas (for some peculiar reasons) forbeareth both their directions; He reduceth the trial of all to this one head: to wit, that whereas he findeth in the New 
* Rom. 1. & 15. & 16. Act. 28.  Testament, that the true faith was once planted by the Apostles in Rome; He saith, that if it can be proved, that this faith ever altered since the Apostles times, he will become a Protestant; if not, he meaneth to be a Roman Catholic. Hereupon he earnestly entreateth the Cardinal and the Doctor, that they would enter into dispute, touching the change of faith in the Church of Rome. They both accord to his request, and instantly begin a serious & grave discourse touching this subject. Cardinal Bellarmyne so presseth Doctor Whitakers with weight of arguments, & by discovering the weakness of the Doctors answers and Objections, as that in the end the Doctor (entering into great intemperance of words, against the Church of Rome) abruptly breaketh off his discourse, and suddenly departeth. Michaeas', as convinced with the force of the Cardinal's disputation, is resolved to become a Roman Catholic; and so accordingly receiveth in the end in the Cathedral Church of Cosmopolis, his Baptism, by the hands of the Cardinal, by whom also in some short time after, he is made Priest. Thus far concerning the fiction of this first Dialogue.   

TO THE TWO MOST FAIR SISTERS THE TWO MOST ILLUSTRIOUS UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDG.  
MOST remarkable and learned Academians, in whose due praises I could willingly here insist, were it not, that I loathe all show of oily assentation. You may be here advertized, touching the ensuing Treatises, that I have made choice to set them down rather in method of Dialogues, then in any other form of style: Because in this any delicate & fastidious age (which is quickly cloyed with any thing, not accompanied with Variety) it is observed, that interlocutory Periods, and vicissitude or alternation of turns in speech, are more grateful and pleasing, than any long, wearisome, continued, and uninterrupted discourse.  
Though the subject of these Treatises be several main points and Controversies in faith (and consequently, Points of Religion and Divinity) yet I presume, none of you is either so froward, or so ignorant, as to deprave and calumniate the Method here used; by saying, that we are not to invulgar the mysteries of sacred Dinivity by way of Poetical fiction of Dialogues, in forging that to be, which indeed is not. Which aspersion of any such Critic is easily wiped away, by the warrantable examples in this kind of S. Jerome, Theodoret, S. Gregory the Great, and others: who were not afraid to treat of the highest matters of faith, in form of Dialogues. Again, such an inconsiderate assertion must needs condemn Poetry in general (seeing Dialogues are a kind of Poetry) which how great an error it were, might easily appear, in that Poëtry is masked Philosophy; Philosophy Nature's true History; Nature God's serviceable Agent or Handmaid. Besides, I am of judgement that the Body of any long Discourse (like an unformed Chäos) is best brought into an Orb of form and Order, by help of interlocutions. And lastly, admit this kind of Writing were strange and unusual, and chiefly sorting to subjects of lesser importance; (as indeed, it is not) yet here we must remember, that a Fantastic often begins a fashion, which grave Men (not to be thought phantastics) are in the end content to follow.  
Now to approach nearer the several subjects, handled in all these Dialogues. In the first is disputed a Controversy, much agitated and tossed between the Catholics and the Protestants; to wit, touching the change of faith in the Church of Rome.  
The Interlocutours are Cardinal Bellarmyne (that Heresimastix) Michaeas, a learned jewish Rabin, and Doctor Whitakers of Cambridg. The place of this conference I have made to be the great city Cosmopolis in Utopia; since an imaginary place best sorteth to an imaginary disputation, in respect of the persons feigned. The Cardinal justifieth the Catholics position; videlicet, that no change in faith and Religion hath been made in the Church of Rome since the Apostles days: Which Position is indeed the juncture, without which the whole frame almost of all other Controversies hang loose. Doctor Whitakers undertaks to prove the Contrary; In whom rather, then in any other Protestant, I have peculiarly (and ex professo) made choice to personate all the speeches and arguments, used to prove this supposed change in the Church of Rome; principally, because there is no Protestant writer (that I know) who hath so much prosecuted this presumed change, as Doctor Whitakers hath done; as appeareth in his Books against the Cardinal himself, against Father Campion (that blessed Saint) and chiefly against Duraeus, where the Doctor undertaketh to instance diverse examples of this imaginary Revolt. Yet here you are to conceive, that I have not so dwelled in the only writings of Doctor Whitakers, as that I neglect what other Protestants have also written in maintenance of this change: for I assure you, I have omitted nothing of Moment, which I could find in their Books, to be objected in proof thereof; though Doctor Whitakers is introduced to deliver or speak it. And withal I have made special references to their Books, where such their sentences or authorities are to be found; And yet (learned Men) notwithstanding all that, which can be urged by any of them in this behalf; sooner shall they prove, that the fixed stars have changed their postures & situations in their Orb, then that Rome hath changed it faith: So true are those words of an ancient Father: 
* Nazianz. in carmine de vita sua.  Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habere rectam fidem: & semper eam retinet. What sentences, authorities, or instances of change Doctor Whitakers hath used in any of his Books by me alleged; the same I have set down with citation of the Books, and in a several Character from that, which he speaketh at large, in the person of a Protestant; and this to the end that the Reader may sever the Doctors own words, from the words of a Protestant in general: In like sort, what intemperate speeches (even loaded with malice and rancour) the Doctour●seth ●seth against the Church of Rome, are not by me forged and fathered upon him; But are (especially, those which are most virulent) his own words, yet extant in his Books: and accordingly they are printed in a different letter, with the Latin words set in the margin: So careful I am not to wrong the Doctor, by unjustly obtruding upon him, any scurrilous and undecent Inuectives, or Pasquil's.  
The Conclusion consisteth in retorting that upon our Aduersartes, where with they here charge the Church of Rome; I mean, in demonstrating, that it is the Protestant, who hath made in faith this change and innovation, from the ancient faith of the Apostles; And thus by comparing these two contrary faiths & doctrines together, and the antiquity of the one, and innovation of the other, you shall find, that error is best known by truth, as death is known bylife.  
Now here your ingenuities are to suppose for the time, that Cardinal Bellarmine and Doctor Whitakers are at this present living; In like sort, that the Cardinal hath read all books written either in Latin or English, which are in this Dialogue alleged: Which like supposals you are also to make in the other subsequent Dialogues, touching the Persons in them produced; as that they are now living, and that they all lived at one time etc. All which imaginations are fully justifiable in the true method of Dialogues; since in this kind of writing, the Persons (you know) are forged for the matter, and not the matter for the Persons: And thus much touching the first Dialogue.  
Now to descend to the second Dialogue; The subject whereof is to demonstrate, that the visibility of the Protestant Church cannot be justified from the Primitive Church, (much less from the Apostles days) till Luther's revolt: And which is more, that not any one Man, during all that long Period of time (nor Luther himself) can be truly insisted upon, for a perfect & absolute Protestant; and such as the present Church of England can, or will acknowledge to be a member of it. Which point being once evicted, How deadly it woundeth the Protestants, may easily appear; in regard of the ever necessary and undeniable visibility of Christ's true Church; whose expansion, enlargement, and uneclypsed radiancy at all times, is much celebrated in Holy writ: 
a Esay. 60.  (Her sun shall not be set, nor her Moon hid) as will more fully appear bereafter in it due place.  
The interlocutours are the foresaid Michaeas, the jew; Ochinus, who first (in King Edward the sixth his days) did diseminate Protestancy at least, sever all points of Protestancy, here l● England; Doctor Reynolds of Oxford, and Neuserus, chief Pastor of Heidelberg in the Palatinate. Why Ochinus & Neuserus are brought in, as speakers in this Dialogue, the Argument prefixed thereto will show.  
I have presumed to incorporate most of what can be urged for the visibility of the Protestant Church, in Doctor Reynolds; as a Man, who was best able in his days to support his own Church from ruin; And suitably herto the supposed place of this disputation is Oxford. I have in no sort wronged the Doctor, whom I well know to have been a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall sphere; & to whom (as being of good temperance in his writings, in respect of his brother Doctor Whitakers) I am unwtlling to ascribe too little; only I wish, his favourites had not ascribed to him too much.  
If any of you shall muse, why in these Dialogues all the Protestants (being otherwise presumed to be most learned) do reply so sparingly either to Cardinal Bellarmyne or to Michaeas' their answers and arguments, as here you shall find them to do: you are to conceive, that it is agreed in the beginning of the two first Dialogues among all the Interlocutours, to stand indisputably to the freqrent Confessions of the learned Protestants, urged in behalf of any point controverted. Now both the Cardinal and Michae●s (for the most part) do avoid the other Interlocutours' reasons and instances, by the contrary acknowledgements of diverse eminent Protestants; as also do produce their own arguments in defence of their Catholic articles, from the like acknowledgements of the learned Protestants, speaking in those points against themselves, and in behalf of the Catholics. Which method being chiefly holden throughout these Dialogues, how then can the Protestant Interlocutours continue any new reply, against the Caidinall, or against Michaeas?  
But to reflect upon the subject of this second Dialogue: And here I do avouch, that to maintain, that Protestancy was ever before the breaking out of Luther (though even than it was not in it perfection) is no less absurd in reason; then to maintain, that, the birth of any thing can precede it conception; and the effect the cause.  
True it is, that in diverse former ages there have been some secret (and indeed blind) Moules, who working under the foundation of the Roman Church, have laboured to cast up some earth of innovations and noveltyes, comparting perhaps in some one or two points with the sectaries of these days: But to justify in those men the visibility of the Protestant Church, or that they were Protestants) which is at this present the point only issuable) I hold it impossible; Except we will dream, that those persons did partake of the nature of the planet Mercury; which ever participateth (as the Astrologers teach) of all the influences of that other star or planet, with which it is in any sort in conjunction.  
Be it then, that some Innovatours in several Centuryes have contumactously defended some one or other theorem or principle, without which the entire frame of Protestancy cannot subsist; Will any of you from hence conclude (and yet many Protestants do so conclude) that such men's Religion was perfect Protestancy? By the like reason you may infer (to insist in similitudes within your own sphere) that Unity is a Number; a Point, Quantity; & an Instant, Time: Whereas you know well, that these are only beginnings or Elements of Number, Quantity, and Time; and without which these later can have no being. In regard then of such want of visible Protestants, informer times, It is less wonder, that some Protestant writers have thought good to Idëate & frame in their mind a certain mathematical and airy Church, within which a number only of supposed invisibilities are comprehended. Thus much touching this second Dialogue; to the which I have thought good to subnect (as an Appendix) a short view, taken of an Anonymous and frothy Pamphlet entitled: A Treatise of the perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church, in all Ages; written some few years since and set forth (as is supposed) by Doctor Featly.  
Now in this last place, to come to the third and last Dialogue; The subject whereof is to manifest, that the Protestants (by many degrees) stand more justly chargeable, both with the doctrine and practice of disloyalty, against their lawful Princes, than the Catholics do: And that the Protestants have therefore small reason (and less policy) to upbraid in their pulpits, and writings (as it is their accustomed Scene to do) the Catholics with any such hateful crime. In this last Dialogue are also several insertions of some small Treatises, in defence of diverse Catholic doctrines.)  
The Interlocutours in this Dialogue are the right Honourable the Lord Chief justice of England (to whom all dutiful comportment is borne throughout this Discourse) Michaeas, the former jew, and M. Vicechancelour of Oxford. That the Vice-Chacelour is therein introduced to be partly malignant against Michaeas (as charged by him besides with other offences for being a Catholic Priest) is not strange; considering how splenfull some Vice-Chancelours of that University have borne themselves, towards certain Priests, there heretofore apprehended.  
Thus far particularly of the different subjects of these ensuing Dialogues; Which point is more largely set down in the Arguments of every one of them.  
Now (most illustrious Men) I have presumed (and I hope this my presumption will in your favourable construction be warrantable) to dedicate this whole work to yourselves; not for your patronage thereof, for that only it own worth (If any be in it) must effect; but partly because you are best able to judge of the arguments produced on either side; and partly, in regard I have selected out of either of your Universities, one of the most prime and choicest men in their days to be speakers in these Dialogues; I mean (as above is said) Doctor Whitakers and Doctor Reynolds. I could wish, you would not slight it, through a cold severity, proceeding from a forestauled judgement against the Catholic faith in general; but peruse it indifferently, and weigh the authorityes and reasons withal Candour and impartiality. Touching my own sincerity, used throughout this labour; know you, that if I have purposely and deliberately detorted from it true meaning, but any one authority here produced by me; then let my forehead be publicly seared with an indelible Stigma or print of shame and Confusion. No. He is not Religious, who handleth Religion with fraud and impostures. And I am so free and guiltless herein, as that I dare vaunt myself to be in this respect a 
b a die or any foursquared thing:  Tetragonon; cast me up what way you will, my demeanour (in this case) will prove even & squared.  
Do not expect any Oratory here, but what the force of unavoidable Demonstrations can persuade; And in this sense (I trust, I may, without vanity say) you shall find Oratory; Since Truth is ever eloquent.  
But now (most celebrious Academians) give me leave to turn my pen more particularly to yourselves, and pardon this my boldness; it proceeding solely out of my charitable affection, and out of my desire of advancing your spiritual Good: for you are 
c 2. cor 3.  Our Epistle, written in our hearts. Well then, you are learned, and therefore (if grace assist) the more able to transpierce through any difficulties of Faith, now questioned. Suffer not then your judgements to be enthralled to the judgements of some few men among you, more eminent, than the rest; they being Birds, whose Airy is but in the high Cedars of the pretended revealing Spirit; since through their assumed privilege thereof, they are not ashamed to reduce the construction of Scripture, and the weight of all authorityes whatsoever, to the Tribunal of their own Censure; scornfullly contemning whatsoever passeth not under the file of their own approbation.  
But to proceed forward. It is a thing wonderful (and indeed deplorable) to observe the the exorbitancy of most Scholars proceedings (and perhaps of diverse of you) in these points; I mean, to see, what labour and toil they bestow in humane studies, and how remiss they are in search of true faith. I assure myself, that many of you have indefatigably spent much time in seeking to know: Whether the Opinions of Copernicus touching the Motion of the Earth and standing still of the sun and Primum Mobile, can be made probable? Whether a Concentrike Orb with an Epicycle, or an Excentrike Orb alone, can better salve the Phaynomena and irregular Apparences of the Planets▪ Whether each Orb be moved a Propria Intelligentia, or ab interna forma? Whether, supposing Infinitum to be in Rerum natura, One Infinitum can be greater, than an other? Which point some Philosophers exemplify in the infinite revolutions of the Sun and the Moon; the Moon performing her course twelve or 13. times in that space, in which the Sun doth but once: And yet both their revolutions must be infinite in Number; if one will grant with Aristotle, that the world was ab aeterno: Whether Corpus Sphaericum tangit planum, only in punto? What is the cause, why the Sea keepeth a different course in it ebbing & flowing in different Countries; though to those several Countries the Moon beareth one and the same aspect of it light? Whether, when the loadstone draweth iron unto it, this be effected through a natural Sympathy of these two Bodies, or only through the proper form of the loadstone? And Whether the turning of the irons point to the North (being touched with the loadstone) is to be referred to some huge supposed mountain of loadstone in the uttermost Northparts; or to any one place of the Heavens near to the Northpole; or to the intrinse call form of the loadstone itself? Whether Algebra be a distinct Art from Arythmetyke; or but the same, advanced to it height and perfection? Whether in the miracles of Christ and S. Peter, exhibited in curing of corporal diseases (and the like may be demanded of all true miracles of this nature) God did for the time infuse a Physical quality (for example) in the skirt of our Saviour's garment, & in the shadow of S. Peter, which per potentiam obedientialem (as the Schoolmen speak) did work upon the diseases, and so cure them; Or else God himself did immediately work these supernatural effects, ad praesentiam illorum, at the presence of the skirt and shadow, which in their absence otherwise he would not work? And finally (to omit diverse others such nice and abstruse speculations, and but to touch a little upon Divinity) Whether Communicatio Idiomatum, flowing from the Hypostatical union in Christ, is real in respect of the different natures in Christ; or with reference only to the Hypostasis of both the Natures?  
In these (I say) and many such like curiosities (for so I may term them; this last only excepted) diverse of you have no doubt spent (and perhaps with great commondation) many hours by perusing with your own eyes several Authors, & by discussing the arguments brought on all sides to fortify their different opinions: And yet it mattereth little, on which side the Truth lieth in most of these speculations; But wheresoever it is found in them, we may equally and indifferently break forth with the three Children in praising of God, for his Omnipotency and Wisdom, discovered in them; saying, 
d Dan. 3.  Benedicite Omnia opera Domini Domino.  
If then you have been so industrious and breathless herein, and so absorbed in the delight of these less necessary studies, O with what a spiritual Leithargy are such of you possessed, who in matters of Religion (the truth or falsehood whereof concerns your soul's interminable and endless happiness or misery) shall run on headlong, till you come to your graves in an unexamined and yet resolved opinion against the Catholic faith, with a supine resignation of your judgements in all points of Religion (without further trial) to the writings (for example) of Calvin and Beza; whose pestiferous Scripts many make their Catechisms? Men charged (even by their own 
e Calvin is charged with Sodomy by the public records of the City of Noyon in France, yet extant; And by Conradus Slussenberg (a Protestant) in Theol. Calvin. printed 1594. l. 2. fol. 72. Beza is charged with the same crime, by the foresaid Slussenberg, ubi supra, and l. 1. fo. 93. By Titilmannus Heshutius (a Pretestant) in his book entitled: Verae & sanae confessionis. And the same is confessed of Beza by D. Morton, (though most falsely excused) in his Apolog. Catholica, part. 1. l 2. c. 21.  Brethren) with the execrable crime of Sodomy: And remember you not, that we 
f Math. 7.  gather not grapes of thorns, nor figs of thisles?  
But herewith (most excellent Academians) I will end; and crave pardon for this my fullness of speech, entreating you to call to mind those words: meliora 
g Proverb. 27.  sunt vulnera diligentis, quam fraudulenta oscula odientis. And thus remitting you to the perusal of these following Dialogues, I will with my incessant prayers solicit the Highest, (who is 
h jac. 1.  Pater luminum; and from whom, Omne datum optimum, & omne bonum perfectum descendit) so to enlighten your judgements in your studies and courses; that after this life, you may be as truly beatifyed with the Intuitive knowledge of all things, in the most happy vision of God; As now here upon earth, you labour to enrich your minds, mith all commendable Discursive knowledge.  
Yours in Christ jesus. I. C.   

THE CONVERTED JEW. OR A DIALOGUE WHEREIN IS PROVED, That the Church of ROME hath made no change in Faith, and Religion, since the first Plantation of it by the Apostles.  

INTERLOCUTOURS,  
MICHEAS A JEWISH RABBIN,  
CARDINAL BELLARMINE  
DOCTOUR WHITAKERS,   MICHEAS. 
MOST ILLUSTRIOUS CARDINAL, and most reverend and learned Doctor. Such is the spreading fame of both your perfections in the sacred knowledge of Devinity, as that the report thereof hath (I confess) even given wings to my old age, to hasten my fleight to this noble City of Cosmopolis in Utopia; which, as being honoured through both your presence, is for the time become the Rendezvous of all good literature.  
Touching myself, know you both, that I am by birth, and (till this present) also in Religion, a jew; by name Micheas, who ever have honoured the Lord 
a Psalm. 83.  of Hosts, the God 
b Exod. 3.  of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of jacob, and the Lord God of the Hebrews; believing with your Apostle Paul, God grant with the like happy success to him in change of my Religion, who by his rising fall, as I may term it, was no sooner strucken down to the ground, than he began to ascend towards Heaven, all 
c Act. 24.  things, that are written in the Law, and the Prophets, and 
d Act. 22.  instructed according to the verity of the, Law, of the Fathers.  
Of late I have diligently perused, the writings of your Evangelists (the four Historigraphers of that Holy Man, whom you Christians call jesus: I also have exactly red the Acts of your Apostles; these faithful servants of the said jesus, who first sowed the seeds of their Master's heavenly doctrine, and after did water them with their own blood: To be short, I have been much conversant in these Letters Missives (if so they may be called) I mean, in the Epistles of the said Apostles, written to diverse Nations, for their better instruction in the Christian Faith; as also in that most abstruse work of your Saviour's Best-beloved, commonly called the Apocalyps'.  
I have made most particular reference of all those writings, to the Prophecies recorded in our own Law: and I do freely confess (and indeed with an ineffable grief) that, that Holy One, whom my Forefathers (and in them myself) did put to the most opprobrious death of the Cross, was, and is the Son of the Highest, and the true Saviour of the World; and therefore I think it the less wonder, that the stony hearts of us Jews (best discovered by such our cruel proceedings) were figured by the Tables of Stones, wherein the Law was first given to us. Yea I am so inalterably persuaded herein, that I do avouch, that all the chief Particularities concerning him, were most punctually prophesied by the Ancient Fathers of the jewish Law: Thus (for example) was his Precursor foretold in Esay. cap. 40. That he should be borne of a Virgin Esay. 7. The place of his birth, Micheas, 5. The death of the Cheldrens at his birth, jerom. 31. His preaching, Esay. 61. His four Eunngelists, Ezechiel. 1. The choosing of his Apostles, Psalm. 8. His riding upon an Ass into jerusalem, Esay. 62. and Zachary. 9, The betraying of him by him, who dipped his hand in the dish, Psalm. 41. The jews spittiug in his Face, and buffeting of him, Esay. 50. The jews mocking of him, Psalm. 22. The dividing of his garments. Psalm. 22. Their giving to him gall and Vinegar to drink, Psalm. 69. The manner of his death, by piercing his hands and feet, Psalm. 22. His staying in the grave three days, jonas. 2. His Resurrection, Psalm. 15. and 132. His Ascension, Psalm. 109. Finally, (to omit diverse other lesser passages) The descending of the Holy Ghost, joel. 2. Thus in regard of their Premises, I do fully acknowledge, that in him, and by him▪ our Law, (which did serve, but to shadow this time of Grace) is now abrogated; and therefore myself, as convinced with so many irrefragable demonstrations of the truth of your Chistian Religion, do hereby submit myself to the sweet yoke of Christ; do confess myself to be in judgement and belief, a Christian (though as yet, but an analogical, and half Christian) and with reference to the time of the Law, and the time of Grace, and the adumbration of the one in the other, I think, I may not unfitly style the different state of those two times: The evangelical Law, and the levitical Gospel; since the Law is but the Gospel Prophesied; the Gohspel, the Law complete, and actually performed.  CARDINAL BELLARMINE 
LEarned Rabbi. I much rejoice at your change in Religion; and indeed, that precise correspondency, which yourself have observed; between the Old Testament and the New (whereby you may see, the Apostle had just reason to say: 
e 1. Cor. 10.  Omnia in figura contingebant illis) is of force to corroborate, and strengthen you in our Christian Faith, against all those 
f Ephis. 6.  spirituales nequitiae, or any other contrary assaults. For now you see, that the Mask or veil of all your legal Sacrifices, and Ceremonies is taken away, through the perfect consummation of them in our Lord, and Saviour. Therefore give thanks to God for this your illumination, and confess with the chief Apostle, That 
g Act. 4.  there is no other name under Heaven (then that of jesus▪) given unto Men, wherein we may be saved.  D. WHITAKER. 
It is most true, which my Lord Cardinal hath said; for jesus Christ is the second person in the most blessed, and indivisible Trinity; who was made Man to repair the loss of the first Man; who died, to the end, we should not dye: Christus 
h Hebr. 9  semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurtenda peccata▪ having humbled himself being made obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. for 
i Philip. 2.  which thing God hath exalted him, and hath given him a name, which is above all Names; that in the name of jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven, in Earth, and under the earth: Therefore he is to be your cornerstone, whereupon you are to build all the spiritual edifice of your Souls Salvation. And comfort yourself (Micheas) with this, that though only the Isralits' did put Christ to death, yet only a true Israelite is a true Christian.  MICHEAS 
All this I constantly believe. But now at my first embracing of Christian Religion, one main difficulty doth mightily affrnot me. I see you Christians, though you do all militate under on supreme Captain; yet through your many Controversies in Religion, do rest divided amongst yourselves (like so many distracted, and disordered troops, or sqadrons) not affording Salvation on to an other: so as from whence I am departed, I do well know, but what part to follow, I am most uncertain. And though I firmly believe, that without faith in Christ a man cannot be saved; yet withal I as cnnstantly believe, that on believing only in gross in Christ, shall not be saved.  
Now here I see the Catholic to condemn the Protestant, for his destroying, and taking away many Articles of Christian Religion, to wit, the Doctrine of freewill, of Purgatory, of Praying to Saints, of Merit of works, and (to omit many other controverted points) the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and Sacrifice of the Altar; and for such proceeding doth anathematise him for an Heretic. The Protestant (on the other side) for the Catholic his maintaining, and believing the said points, doth style him Superstitious, Idolatrous, and, as on wholly exempt from all hope of Salvation. And in these matters the judgements of the Protestant, and the Catholic are so merely contrary (the one constantly affirming, the other peremptorily denying (as that their discording beliefs can never be won up in any one public confession or Creed.  
Here now my divided Soul (lick the dissressed prisoner, who having broken the jail, knoweth not what way to fly, for his best refuge) tossed in the waves of such contrary Doctrines, is ignorant towards what shore to sail, if I be a Protestant, I can be no Catholic; If a Catholic, I am no Protestant; The on I can but be, both I cannot be. That threatens to me the brand of, Heresy; this of Superstition, and Idolatry: O God, that the fragrant rose of Christian Religion should be thus beset on all sides, with the sharp pricks of these unpleasing disagreements. But this forceth me to remember those words of an ancient doctor: Vt in 
* Tertul.  pessimis aliquid boni, sic in optimis nonnihil mali.  CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 
True it is, that there are many differences in Christian Religion; and each good man's grief is hereby the greater: for whereas contention in other things raiseth the estimation; and value of them; contention about Faith (in a vulgar eye) lesneth it. But these (you are to conceive, Micheas) take their course not from the Faith of Christ; (for it is but one: una 
k Ephis. 4.  fides, unum baptisma) but from the Elation and height of private judgements, which blush not to advance themselves above all Authorities, both Divine, and Humane.  
Therefore (Micheas) the better to free you from all those labyrinths of opinion, which otherwaise may more easily illaquiate, and entangle you, build your Faith in all inferior points of Christian Religion, principally upon God's sacred Word, as it is propounded, and interpreted by Christ his Church; and to her repair in all your doubts, since Christ himself hath vouchsafed to warrant this proceeding in these words: dic 
c Math. 18.  Ecclesiae, et Ecclesiam non audieret, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus, et Publicanus. Reverence eclesiastical Traditions, which are derived through a continued hand of time, even from the Apostles: Id 
m Tertul.  ab initio. quod ab Apostolis: for it is true, that we Catholics do believe some things without Scripture; but it is as true, that all Sectaries believe their Errors, against Scripture. Read the General Counsels, with whom Christ is ever present, for he hath promised, when but two 
n Maeth. 18.  or three are gathered together in his name (much more when several hundreds) he well be in the midst with them; and observe the Heresies condemned in them: Peruse the writings of the Primative Fathers; and remember that sentence: Interroga 
o Deutro. 4.  de diebus antiquis. assuring yourself, that the Doctrine jointly taught by them, is agreeable to the Faith, first taught by Christ, and his Apostles.  
Finally square your Religion according to the uninterrupted practice of God's Church, which the Apostle himself (for our greater security) hath honoured with the title of Columna, 
p 1. Timoth 3.  et Firmamentum veritatis; And thus you shall forbear to imitate those men, who think to show their love to the Truth, by their hate to this Pillar, and Foundation of Truth. Besides, this deportment disculps great Humility; a Character even of Christ himself: dicite 
q Mat. 12.  a me, quia humilis sum cord. so true it is, that an humble man is like to a lowly valley, sweetly seated. Thus doing (Micheas) no doubt you will embrace our Catholic Faith; of which point I am in greater hope; in that it is observed, that whereas many 
r At David Georg Professor at Basil. Hamelinanus etc.  Protestants have become jews, yet not any jew a Protestant.  D. WHITAKER. 
The Cardinal here hath given you to large a scope; since most of these are but humane, and moral inducements, which stand subject to error, and falsehood, and you are to call to mind, that to run well out of the right way, is no better, then to stand still: 
s D. Whit. so saith contra Camp. Rat. 8.  Pálin dromêsan, ' è dramêin cacôs.  
Therefore let your groundwork be next under Christ, only the Holy Scriptures. These are the only judges of all Controversies: These are of that worth, as that they are profitable (as the Apostle 
t 2. Timo. 3.  speaketh) To Doctrine, to reprove, to correction, to instruction, which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed in all good works: of that Clearness, as that justly they may be called; lucerna 
u Psal. 18.  pedibus meis: Of that fullness, and amplitude, as we are threatened under pain of having our names blotted 
x Apocal. ult.  out of the book of life if we either add, or detract from thence: finally of that easiness, and facility, as that for picking out the true sense, we are to, receive it by the benefit of our own spirit, instructed by the Holy Ghost: 
y joan. 3.  spiritus ubi vult, spirat.  MICHEUS. 
You both speak learnedly. And first touching your directions (my L. Card.) I hold them most grave & weighty. Yet seeing I have spent all my time chiefly in studying the Law, and the Prophets (being heretofore a Rabnie in our jewish Synagogue) and seeing that multiplity of reading, which your method exacts, (to wit of the Ancient Fathers, the General Counsels, Ecclesiastical Histories) is to great a burden to be imposed now upon the shoulders of my old age (my self not likely to live so many years, as will be answerable to so infinite a labour) Therefore I must bethink myself of some other more short, and abreviated course, for the perfect settling of my judgement in the Christian Religion.  
Touching your grave advice (M. Doctor) of relying only upon the Written word. Grant, that the Scripture alone were of itself sufficient to define, and determine all Controversies in Religion; yet I am so conscious of my own weakness herein, as that considering the several senses usually given upon one, and the same text, I should ever rest doubtful (once abandoning the sense, given by the joint consent of all Ancient Doctors of what construction to make choice; and the rather seeing the Scripture witnesseth of itself, That no Prophecy 
z 2. Petr. 2.  of the Scripture is made, by private Interpretation. And sure I am, that if we jewish Rabbins should take liberty to interpret the old Testament, according to every particular conceit of each of us, we long since should have begotten many dissensions in Faith among us.  
I may add hereto, that I am the more easily thus persuaded, even by both your speeches at this present; seeing both of you do strengthen, and fortify your different judgements (touching the final determining of Controversies) even from the Scripture itself. But what? doth the Scripture speak different (or rather contrary things?) Noe. The Scripture is like to the Author of Scripture; ever the same, and vnchangable: Ego 
a Malach. 3.  sum dominus, et non mutor. And indeed to speak plainly, when you urge those words: spiritus ubi vult, spirat. whereby you intimate the gift of the Private spirit, interpreting the Scripture, I ever disliked this Principle (even before I believed in Christ) as ready to create in differently any one Religion as well as an other: so that, that man, who for his Faith, and Religion grounds himself upon this Revealing Spirit, and consequently is ready to stamp any Religion, which himself best pleaseth, is like (in my judgement) to on that should be immediately made rather of the first Matter, then of the Elements well tempered together; since he is in possibility, Anything. But to proceed: seeing the directions of neither of you (in regard of some difficult circumstances accompanying them) can at this present sort unto my case, I must make election of some other method, for the sentling of my fluctuating Conscience in matter of Faith. And (under both your favours) it shallbe this, whereas by seriously perusing the New Testament (as you Christians call it) I am become with infinite thanks to the Lord of Hosts, a Christian, though as yet, but a Christian imperfect, and scarcely initiated: So out of the same divine Records, I am instructed, that the Church of Rome in those primative times received the true Christian Faith, incontaminate and free from all error. Now if those sacred writings be of sufficient force with me, for my relinquishing of my ancient jewish faith; then ought they as securely to warrant my judgement, that the true Faith of Christ was planted in the Apostles time in Rome.  
This last point is confirmed to me by your great Apostle Paul, who in his Epistle to the Romans, much celebrateth the Faith of Rome, saying: 
b Rom. 1.  To all, that be at Rome the beloved of God, called to be Saints, Grace to you. And again I thank 
c Rom. ibid.  my God for you, etc. because your Faith is renowned throughout the whole world. And yet more: your 
d Rom. 16.  obdience is published in every place. finally, the Apostle is so full in advancing the Faith of the Romans, as that he particularly even in words, ascribs one, and the same Faith to himself, and them saying: That, 
e Rom. 1.  which is common to us both, your Faith, and mine. From all which texts it is evicted, that Rome in those first times enjoyed a true and perfect Faith. Now here it comes to be examined, whether Rome, since her first embracing of it, hath changed her Faith; or othirwise she retains without any alteration the same doctrine, which first the Apostles did plant in her.  
This point (most excellent Men) deserus an exact discussing, and may well seem to be worthy your serious disputs: My own want in your Ecclesiastical Histories (from whence chiefly this question is to receive it trial) doth plead for my ignorance herein, and makes my humble request (for the better estableshing of my yet unsettled judgement) to you both, to enter into a grave skirmish, and fight of disputation herein. Both of you are learned, and therefore (by urging what can be said on either side) able to accomplish this my desire: both of you are charitable, (as I must suppose) and therefore (no doubt) willing (for my confirmation in the Christian Faith) to undertake this my wished task for Charity (as ever desirous to do good) omnia 
f 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 13.  sperat, sustinet; & a charitable man partakes of the nature of a glass, which is as ready to give, as to receive on's favour. My foundation is here the words of your own Apostle; I humbly entreat, that your learned discourses would raise the wales, and I shall attend your speeches with a greedy, and listening ear. Then in the close of all I may be better assured, whether for my Souls eternal felicity, I should subject myself, as a member to the present Church of Rome; or otherwise consociate myself with the Protestants; the presumed Reformers of the said Church.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Micheas, your judgement hath made choice of a most important subject, and Christian Religion teacheth us to be beneficial to all, maximè 
g Galat 6.  domesticis fidei, within which number, I hope shortly, I may place you. And therefore my pains (according to my small ability) shall not be wanting to accomplish your request; and I much commend your desire herein; for who neglecteth his own Soul, is not present to himself.  D. WHITAKERS. 
The Groundwork (Micheas) of this your desired disputation I acknowledge most firm; and I shallbe ready to afford my best furtherance thereto, though in regard of my own small mite of learning, I shallbe like (perhaps to the widow in the Chospel, who gave less, than any other, and yet was more charitable, than any other.  
But touching the Basis, and foundation of this future Discourse, We do 
h D. Whita. thus saith. cont. Camp. Rat. 7  grant, that the Church of Rome was holy, when Paul gave it those foresaid praises; as also when he further said: without intermission I make mention of you always in my prayers. When also he 
i D. Whita. vb supra.  said: He would 
k Rom. 15.  come to the Romans in abundance of the blessing of Christ; and when in freedom he did preach to them the Gospel of Christ. Yea which is more: We 
l D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 7.  freely confess, that the Cuhrch of Rome was a famous Church of Christ, when Clemence did sit in that seat, and when the profane Roman Caesars did put to death the Bishops of Rome. But since those times, that most remarkable change of Faith have violently invaded, and possessed that Church, I will undertake to prove, neither will I draw back herein, but shallbe prepared to manifest to you, how since the Apostles times, the Roman 
m D. Whit. useth these very words L. cont. Camp. Rat. 7. saying: Haec sunt Ecclesiae vestrae insignia, Superstitio, Infidelitas, Antichristus, Epicurus.  Wolves have invaded the Church, and ceased not to devour the flock; for the badges of the Roman Church are superstition, Infidelity, Antichrist, and Epicurism.  CARD. BELLARM. 
How now M. Doctor. Such passion in the beginning? what Philippics, and invective declamations are these; the accustomed language of most of our new illuminated Brethren, not sorting to your presumed gravity? Therefore either forbear the like hereafter, or let us forbear to enter into any dispute: for I do not love to converse with those Men, whose tongues are used to speak nothing but Satyrs.  D. WHITAKERS. 
My Lord. my fervour to the Gospel hath thus transported me: The 
n Psalm. 68 et joan. 2.  zeal of thy house hath eaten me up: But pardon (for ever) this my holy impatience, and I will promise you to proceed hereafter in all serenity, and mildness; and will prove the change of Religion in the Church of Rome, not by convitiating it with intemperate language, but with weight of argument.  CARD. BELLARM. 
You say well. And therefore In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, let us begin.  
And here first M. Doctor, you are to remember, that seeing you affirm, that Religion is changed in the Church of Rome, since that Church was first (as it were) cultivated, & tilled therewith by the labour of the Apostles; you are thereby obliged to prove this your assertion; And I (as holding the Negative) am bound only to answer, and to repel your arguments. Nevertheless I will supererogate with you in method herein, and will undertake to prove posituely, that Rome since it first being Christian, did never speak of so much, as any on material, and dogmatic Article, (which is the point in question) of her primative Faith.  
Now for the greater convinceing of your contrary position, I mean to strengthen and fortify the truth herein, even from the testimonies of your own learned Men: and thus the Protestants penns shall deadly wound the Protestants Faith. Therefore tell me (M. Doctor) if you will quietly subscribe in this time of disputation, to the ingenious, and plain Confession of your own learned, and judicious Brethren.  D. WHITAKERS 
Most willingly: for 
o D. Whit. cont. Bellar. L. de Eccles. coutrovers. 2. q. 5. c. 14. saith: efficax est Aduersariorum ipsorum contra ipsos testimonium etc. et quidem fateor veritatem a suis inimici● Testimoniis extorquere posse.  the argument must needs be strong, and efficatious, which is taken from the confession of the Adversaries; and I do freely acknowledge, that the Truth is able to extort testimonies even from it Enemies. And this point is further warranted with all force of reason: for why should learned men confess against themselves, and in behalf of their Adversaries, were it not that the rack of an undeniable Truth forceth them theirto?  CARD. BELLARM. 
It is most true, and the matter so standeth indeed; and your speech well sorteth to that sentence of S. Augustine; to wit, That 
p cont. Donat. post coll. c. 24.  truth is more forcible to wring out Confession, than any rack or torment. well then to proceed to the matter. And because things contracted in method, enter more easily (after a piramic all manner, as I may say) into the eye of the understanding; Therefore for the more facilitating of this point here handled, you are to coceive (M. Doctor) that in any notable change of Religion, these things following can be demonstrated and pointed out. 
q Bell. thus saith verbal lie in l. 4. de Eccles. c. 5 de Not. Eccles. Nota secunda.  First, the Author of such a Change. Secondly. the new opinion or doctrine. Thirdly, the time, in which this new doctrine was first broahed, or preached. Fourthly, the place, in which it was taught. Fiftly, and lastly, the persons, who did oppugn, and resist it at the first: All which are found even in the Church of Christ, which nevertheless was no new Church, but only a certain mutation or change of the state of the Church, according to the predictions of the Prophets. For first we know, the author thereof was Christ; The new Articles of belief were principally, the Articles of the Trinity, and Incarnation; the time, when this doctrine was first preached, was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar; The place judëa; finally the oppugners of it were the Scribes, and pharisees. Now whereas we are able to demonstrate all these points in the beginning of every particular sect, or Heresy; our Adversaries notwithstanding cannot set down any one of these circumstances concerning our Church or Faith, ever since the Apostles times.  
But because of all these Circumstances, the Time of this supposed change is chiefly to be weighed, I will begin therewith, remitting diverse of the other Circumstances to be hereafter discussed by us; and leving the rest for greater brevity to some other fitting opportunity. And as touching the Circumstances of Time, I will first discourse thereof by means of a distribution of three distinct times since Rome first received the Gospel of Christ.  
First then, we will take into our consideration, how long it is granted by your Protestants, that Rome did persever without any alteration in her premative Faith. Secondly we will inquire, and set down the acknowledged continuance of that time, during all which season the now present Faith of Rome hath continued; That is, how long Papistry (as you commonly term it) hath been publicly professed, and taught throughout all Christendom. Thirdly and lastly, we will then take a view of the times, between these two former several times: for these two times being once acknowliged on all sides (to wit, the time, during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first Faith taught by the Apostles, and the time, during which the present Roman Faith hath continued from this day upward) it inevitably followeth, that this supposed change of Religion did either happen in the interstitium, and mean time between the two former Periods of times, or else, that there happened no such change in Religion in the Church of Rome at all. Now concerning the first of these times, how long (in the Protestants judgements) M. Doctor did the Church of Rome retain without stain, or alteration in any point of moment, or Article of belief (for that only is to be enquired) the Faith first deseminated by the Apostles?  D. WHITAKERS. 
I will confess in all ingenuity, that diverse of our own learned Brethren do teach, that Rome retained her purity of Faith without any such alteration by you intimated, till after the deaths of Optatus, Epiphanius, and Augustine, which is during the space of four hundred and forty years after Christ.  CARD. BELLARMINE 
You say most truly, and I do like your plainness herein, since he is truly politic (especially in matters of Religion, which require all candour in their menaging) who is not politic. For whereas our Catholic writers have much insisted, that Tertullian, provoked the Heretics of his days to the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, your own D. Fulke giveth this reason touching such his provocation, in these words: The 
r D. Fulk. in his Coful. of Purgat. p. 374.  argument then drawn from Succession was good, because the Church of Rome retained (by Succession until Tettullians' dates) that Faith, which it did first receive from the Apostles. To whose judgement in this particular reason yourself (M. Doctor) in your book written against me subscribs, thus saying: from hence 
s D. Whit. co●t. a Bell. l. de Eccles. where he spoketh of certain Apostol. Churches, & particularly of the Church of Rome.  we do understand why Tertullian did appeal to those Churches; to wit, because the Churches did then hold the Apostolical Doctrine by a perpetual succession.  
But to descend further in time, touching the granted preservation of the Faith of Rome whereas in like manner some Chatholicke Authors have alleged the same argument, drawn from the Succession of Bishops by the example of Irenaeus, Cyprian, Optatus, Hierome, Vincentius Lyrinensis, and Augustine, (all which Fathers most rested in the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, still continued till their days) your foresaid D. Fulke answereth in behalf of the said Fathers in this sort: That these 
t In his Confutat. of Purgatory pag. 372.  Fathers especially named the Church of Rome, it was, because the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apostles; so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles. With whom acordeth D. jewel, saying: Aswell Augustine, as also other godly Fathers rightly yielded reverence to the Sea of Rome etc. for the purity of Religion, which was there preserved a long time without spot.  
To conclude, calvin himself (even in the same manner) answereth the foresaid argument of Succession of Bishops in the Church of Romê, insisted upon by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, 
u In his Reply to D. Ha●ding pag. 246.  Augustine, Optatus, Epiphanius, and others; for thus calvin speaketh: cum extra 
x 〈…〉 it. l. 4. c. 2. sect. 3.  controversiam esset, nihil à principio usque ad aet●●tem illam mutatum fuisse in doctrina etc. Seing it was a Point out of Controversy that nothing in doctrine, from the beginning to that very age was changed; these holy Fathers did take that, which they thought sufficient, for the destroying of all new Errors; (to wit,) the doctrine constantly and with an unanimous consent, retained even from the Apostles days, till their times. Thus calvin.  
To these fromer I may allege that Sentence: out of D. Fulke, saying: The 
y Retentives pag. 85.  Popish Church etc. departed from the Universal Church of Christ, long since Augustins' departure out of this life; Thus he granting, that till S. Augustins' death, the Church of Rome was the true Church: so evident and clear (we see) it is, that the Church of Rome never changed her Religion from the Apostles first Planting of it, until the times of S. Augustin, Epiphanius, Optatus etc. which was (as is above said) four hundred and forty years after Christ.  
Thus far (M. Doctor) concerning the durance of the times (even by the Protestants frequent confessions) that no change of faith was made in the Church of Rome; Tonching which point Irefere you (for greater satisfaction) to certain quoted places of the aforesaided Fathers, to wit, of 
z Fp. ad. Pom 〈…〉 p. ●7. ad. Damas'.  Hierome, 
a L. 3. aduer. Haeres. c. 3.  Ire●aeus, 
b Tom. 7. in Psal. Cent. par●e Do 〈…〉 2. Ep. 165. et Lib. ae utilit. Credena●. c. 17.  Augustine, 
c Aduer Haeres. Paulo pos 〈…〉 init.  Vincentius Lyr●ne●sis, 
d De obi●. frac●.  Ambrose etc. All which Fathers in their writings do constantly aver, that the Faith preached in their days in the Church of Rome was the true Faith; and consequently, was neither then nor afore subject to change or alteration.  
Now all this being made thus evident, it followeth according to our designed Method, that we consider the number of those ages, during the length of all which from this day upwards, the present Roman Faith hath (by the like Confession of the Learned Protestants) been generally taught: Seing how long the Protestants) been generally taught: Seing how long the Protestants do grant, that the Church of Rome hath from this day contined in her present Faith; so long it followeth, by their own implicit censures, and most necessary inferences, that the Church of Rome never altered her Faith: Therefore (M. Doctor) I would know of you, what your learned Men do generally teach about the continuance, and antiquity of our present Roman, and Catholic Religion.  D. WHITAKERS 
I will not deny but that our Doctors do ascribe an antiquity to your Popish Faith, for a thousand years at least; For first D. Humphrey (my worthy 
e So Doct. whit styleth D. Clarke in L. con. Camp. Rat. 8. meaning theirby his Cem●●les et consocius in Doctrina.  sy'mmachos cai symmy'stes) showing what Religion Augustine planted in England, being sent by Gregory the Great, than Pope of Rome (who lived in the year 590) thus instanceth in the particular points of the than Roman Religion: In 
f D. Hum●●y in jesuitism. part. 2. Rat. 5. Pag. 5. et Pag. 627  Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus? Onus ceremoniarum etc. what did Gregory and Angustine bringé into the Church? They did bring a burden of Ceremonies; They did bring in the archiepiscopal Pall, for the solemnisation of the Mass; They did bring in Purgatory etc. the oblation of the Healthful Oast, and prayer for the dead etc. Relics, Transubstantiation etc. a new conscecration of Temples etc. from all which what other thing is effected then the introducing of Indulgences, Monachisme. Papism, and the rest of the Chäos of Popish Superstition? all this did Augustine the great Monk (being instructed herein by Gregory the Monk) bring to the English men. Thus far D. Humphrey.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Well then, M. Doctor, it clearly appears by this, that at S. Gregory his sending of Augustine into England (which was about a thousand years since) our present Roman Religion was then wholly, and publicly practised in Rome; & that if the Church of Rome had suffered any change of Faith from that first taught by the Apostles, that this change should have been made, not since, but before Gregory's time, and before he had sent Augustine to plant in England the Faith of Christ. I may add, M. Doctor, in further confirmation of D. Humphrey his judgement herein, the judgement of your own Centurists, who in their Index, or Alphabetical table of the sixth Century, at the Word: Gregory, set down with particular figures ofreferences, where every such mentioned opinion may be found as followeth Eiusdem Error de bonis operibus, de Confession, de coniugio, de Ecclesia, de sanctorum ●nuocatione, do Inferno, de Libero arbitrio, de ●ustificatione, de Purgatorio, de Paeni●entia, de satisfactione etc. And which is more, your said Centurists 
g Alwhich places following of the Cen wrists. thus charging Gregory are to be found in their sixth Century after the first Edition there of between Col 369. and Col. 432.  do further accuse Gregory, out of his own writings with consecration of Altars, Chalices, & Corporals, with oblation of sacrifice for the dead, with translation of Reltques, with Monachisme, with Pilgrimages, with consecration of Churches, with Mass, & sprinkling of holy-water, With consecration of the fort of Baptism, of Chr●●s●●e & Oil, with celibratio of Mass, & finally With claim of sovereignty over all Churches: All which places of the Centurists, charging him, are to be found in their sixth Century after the first edition thereof.  
To these former acknowledgements, we may adjoin the words of Luke Osiander (your famous Protestant) which are these: Augustinus 
h In his epitome. Hist. Eccles. Cent. 6. ●ag 289.  Romanos Ritus et consuetudines, Anglicanis Ecclesus obstitit: And then immediately after he particularly setteth down several rites, & doctrines, practised, and believed at this present by the Church of Rome; which (as he confesleth) Augustine did plant, & establish in England: a point so evident, that even your own self, M. Doctor, avertes, 
i D. Whit. Lib. de Eccle. cent. Bella●. pag. 144.  that Boniface the third, (who lived anno. 605. and presently after the foresaid Gregory) and all his successors were Antichrists. Yea you speaking of the conversion of England, (made by this Gregory) and of other conversions of Countries by other Popes after, thus conclude. The Conversions 
k D, whit. ubi supra p. 339.  of so many countries were not pure, but corrupt. With you herein Davaeus (that remarkable Protestant) conspirech, who thus basely censureth of Gregory's converting of England: Purgatio illa, quam Gregorius primus fecit etc. fuit i●ebriatio mer etricis mundo facta, de qua est Apocalips. 17. et 18. Thus referring our Conversion to Christianity, to the work of Antichrist. And thus, M Doctor, you here may see, how the Church of God (through an over unkind perverting, and misconsturing her most motherly, and charitable endeavours) hath reason even to complain, and grieve at those, who vaunt themselves for her own Children: so the Vine being untimely cut, weeps out its mishap, through out it own wound.  
Now from all these former testimonies of yourself, M. Doctor, & other Protestant writers, we may infallibly conclude, that from this day till we arrive, at least to the age of the foresaid S. Gregory, the present Roman, & Catholic Religion was taught in diverse Countries; & consequently (seeing those Countries received their instruction in Faith from Rome) that it was not during all this time introduced into the Church of Rome, as an Innovation, and change of the Faith, afore professed by the said Church.  
Now it being made evident; first, that the Church of Rome did retain her purity of Faith, the first four hundred and forty years after Christ; and also, that for this last thousand years, the present Roman, & Catholic Faith, hath not (at any time thereof) been first brought into the world; but during the said thousand years it hath been continually the general taught doctrine of the Church of Rome: It now followeth, that we take into our consideration the number of years which passed between the first four hundred, and forty from Christ, and these last thousand years from us. Which number (seeing it is sixteen hundred years, & some more from Christ to us) amounteth to about one hundred, and sixty years.  
Well then if here we can prove that no change of Faith in the Church of Rome, within the compass of this 160. years; then followeth it avoidable, that the Church of Rome never to this day, hath suffered any alteration in Faith, and Religion, since its first embracing of the Christian Faith.  
That no Change of Faith did happen within the compass of the said 160. years, I prove several ways, yet all conducing to erect this one main truth; like as diverse lesser numbers (though counted after different ways) make up but one, and the same great number. And first, this assertion of mine is proved from the doctrine, which was believed, and generally taught at such time, as Constantine (who was our first Christian Emperor) was converted to Christianity, which was about the year 320. after Christ, and therefore before the foresaid 160. years.  
That the Faith in his time, was the same, that the Church of Rome professeth at this present, appeareth from the frequent testimonies of your former Centurists; who most elaborately, & punctually do record all the particular Articles of the present Roman Faith, to be believed most constantly by the said Constantine; and that he did cause to be put in practise all the Ceremonies, now used in the Church of Rome. And the said Centurists are so exact, and diligent in their enumeration of all the Catholic Doctrines believed by Constantine, and of the Catholic Rites, and Ceremo ies observed in his time; as that they spend several Columns of the fourth Century touching this point; to wit, from Column. 452. to Column. 497. or thereabout.  
Now that not only Constantine himself, but also the whole fourth Age did generally believe, and profess the now professed Doctrine of the Roman Church, is in like sort abundantly confessed, & registered by the said Centurists, they spending most of the leaves of the said Century, in particularising the now Catholic Doctrines, and the doctors of that age believing, & teaching them: and therefore for the greater manifestation of this point, I remit you, M. Doctor, to the ●●ligent perusal herein of their fourth Century: touching which particular subject, I am so confident that I dare avouch, that by the industry of the said Centurists, the true state of the Church in that age is so painfully, & articulatly (according to my former speeches registered) as the perfect memory thereof (as being exempt from all oblivion in future days) is able to turn the sith of time: so certain it is that even in your own Histories (so long as they shallbe extant) the Catholics shallbe ever able to glass the true face of their times.  
But, M. Doctor, for the greater evidency of this point, I pray you tell me, whether it is your judgement, that the Father's living in the fourth Age; but especially those who lived before the fourth Age, and consequently, before the above mentioned 160. years) were Professors of your Protestant, or our Roman Faith.  D. WHITAKERS. 
I make no doubt, but all of them professed with a general consent our Protestant Faith, & knew not the present Doctrine, and Faith of Rome.  CARD. BELLARM. 
See how foully you are mistaken, M. Doctor, And therefore seeing the discovery of errors is an establishment of the Truth: for the fuller manifesting of your over sight herein, I will insist (for greater brevity) only in six chief Articles of the Catholic Faith, for a taste of the rest; which even by your own brethren's Confessions, were mantained by the Father's living in the fourth age; from whence we may necessarily infer, that not any change touching those points was, brought into the Church of Rome, within the compass of the said 160. years.  
And first I will begin with the doctrine of the Sacrifice 
1.  of the Mass: where (as also in other Articles following I will discerpe here, & there, out of the great abundance thereof, some few acknowledgements of the Protestants. Now here you cannot deny, M. Doctor, but that touching Cyprian (who lived Anno 240. your Centurists thus affirm: Sacerdoten 
l Cent. 3. c. 4. col 3.  Cyprianus in quit vice Christi furgi; et Deo Patri Sacrificium offer; & for this very point they condemn him of Superstition. In like sort, they thus reprehend Ambrose: (who lived anno. 370.)  

m Cent 4 c. 4. col. 295.  Ambrose did use certain speeches etc. as to say Mass, to offer up Sacrifice. Yea D. Fulke conspireth openly with the former Protestants thus speaking of these Fathers following: Tertullian, 
n In his Confutation of Purgatory p. 362. et 303. et 393.  Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, (of which some lived within the said 160. years, others long afore them) do witness, that Sacrifice for il●e dead is a Tradition of the Apostles. To be short; Sebastianus Francus (no obscure Protestant among you) thus writeth: 
o Epist. d● abrogand & omnibus statu●is Ecclesiast.  statim post Apostolo, omnia inversa surt etc. Caena Domini in Sacrificium transformata est.  
Touching the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, your Centurists do reprehend 
p Cent. 4. col. 558. 2.  Nazianzen 
q Cent. 3. col. 94.  Cyprian 
r Cent. 3. cap 84.  Origen, and 
s Cent. 3. col. 85.  Tertullian for their teaching of Peter's Primacy. In like sort Pope Victor (who lived in the year 160. after Christ) did actually challenge, and practise this kind of Supremacy, as 
t D. Fulke, In hi● answer to a Counterfeit Catholic p. 36  D. Fulke acknowledgeth.  
Concerning prayer for the dead, D. 
u In his Retentive, pag. 106.  Fulke thus writeth: Prayer for the dead prevailed within three hundred years after Christ: And another of your own Brothers thus confesseth: 
x M. Georg Gifford In his demonstration that Brownists are ●●ll Dona●●s●● p. 38. 4.  Prayer for the dead was in the Church long before Augustins, days, as appeareth in Cyprian, & Tertullian. But D. 
y In his Confutation of Purgatory. p. 353.  Fulke and 
z In his examen part. 3. p. 110  Kempnitius do confess, that Prayer for the dead is taught in the writings of Dionysius Areopagita who is 
a Act.  mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; whose writing (in which Prayer for the dead is taught) are acknowledged by D. Fulke 
b against the Rhemish. Test. 2. Thess. 2.  supposing them not to be written by the said Dionysius, as some Protestants are not ashamed to aver) to be written about thirteen hundred years since.  
Touching Invocation of Saints D. 
c D. Fulke in Rhemish Testament. in 2. Petr. Cap. 1.  Fulke confesseth, that in B●●sill, Nazia●zen, and Chrysos●ome is ●nuocatio● of Saints. The Centurists 
d Cent. 3. Col 84.  thus write of Cyprian. Cyprian doth not obscurely signify, that Martyrs, & dead Saints did may for the living. Yea they further charge Origen (Who lived in no, 2●0) with praying himself to holy job, saying 
e Cent. 3. col. 83.  O beat job ora provobis in seris; They further 
f Cent. 3. col. 75.  charge him with invocation of Angels.  
They further thus concluding of that third age after Christ. videas 
g Cent 3. c. 4. col. 83. (5.)  in Doctorum huius seculi scriptis, non obscura vestigta invocationis Sanctorum,  
Touching freewill. The foresaid Centurists 
h Cent. 2. c. 10. col. 221.  do reprehend Irenaeus (who lived in the second age) in that he admitteth (as they say) Free-well in spiritual actions. And 
i Cent. 2. pag. 56.  Osiander (the Protestant) thus saith of justine (who lived in the age of Irenaeus) justine extolled too much the liberty of man's will, in observing the Commandments of God. To be short, another 
k Abraham S●ulte●us in his medulla Theolog. ca Patrum pag. 379. (6.)  of your brethren doth thus couple the ancient Fathers of those ages, saying Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, justine. Irenaeus, etc. erred in the doctrine of freewill.  
Lastly, touching the doctrine of Merit of works, Luther 
l In Galat. cap. 4.  styleth Hierome, Ambrose, & Augustine, justiciarios justice-workers. In like sort the Centurists thus charge Origen, saying: Origen 
m Cent. 3. col. 265.  made works the Cause of our justification. To conclude, D. Humphrey thus confesseth of Irenaeus, & Clemens: (the one living in the first age, the other in the second age after Christ,) 
n D. Humf. In ●esuct 〈…〉 Part. 2. pag 530.  It may not be denied but that Irenaeus, Clemens, and others (called Apostolical) have in their writings the opinion of Merit of works.  
And thus far (M. Doctor) of some chief points of the present Roman Religion, taught by the Fathers: of whom some lived in the fourth age, and so within the compass of the afore mentioned 160. years; though most of them lived in the first, second, & third age of Christ; from whence we necessarily evict, that no change of the Faith of Rome, in the said points, was made within the compass of the said 120. years: which time was above set down between the confessed period of the Church's Purity, and the acknowledged generally 〈…〉 ceived doctrine of the now Church of Rome: And here but that I am willing to avoid all prolixity, I do assure you, I could aver, & justify the like, touching all other Catholic doctrines, taught by the Fathers of the former ages and accordingly believed at this day by the Church of Rome.  
Yet before I end this point I will adjoin to the former proofs, this ensuing consideration, touching the fore said ●60. years. It is this: if we consider either the plurality of our Catholiche Articles; or the incompatibility, which diverse of them bear, partly to the outward sense, & partly to man's natural propension; or the diversity of Countries, & Nations in Christendom, most remote one from another; all which cur said Catholic Religion is acknowledged wholly to possess, at the later end of the sixth Age, or Century; I say if we consider all these different Circumstances, the time of the said ●60 years (within which most Protestants do teach this supposed change did happen) is infinitely too little, and wholly disproportionable; as that within the compass thereof so great 〈◊〉 change, and alteration should be wrought; especially in such an admirable manner, that whereas in the beginning of the said 160. years, it is averred by the Protestants, that not any one point of our Catholic Religion was then taught; yet at the end of the said 160. years, it should so overflow all Christendom with such a violent stream, as that no spark of Protestancy, (supposing afore it were professed) or any other Religion did remain in any one Country, or other; but that all was wholly extinct, and (as I may say) annihilated. Such an imaginary change, and alteration (I say) as this, is more than stupendious, and wonderful; and such, as since the creation of the world never afore happened.  
But (M. Doctor) give me leave by the way, to ask of you the second time (for all the Protestants do not precisely consent herein) how long do you think, that the Church of Rome, did continue in her Verginall state, and Purity, without any stain in her Faith.  D. WHITAKERS. 
I think, 
o So saith D. Whit. 〈…〉 de Antichristo cont. Sanderun pag. 35.  that during the first six hundred years after Christ, the Church was pure, flourishing; and inviolably taught, and defended the Faith, delivered by the Apostles. During all which ages the Church of Christ (in respect of truth in Faith, and Religion, was (as I may say) in the full assent of the wheel. And although (to speak by resemblance there are found even many irregularities in the regular motions of the Heavens; yet I am fully persuaded, that for the space of the first six hundred years, no annomalous exorbitancies of errors, or superstition, did accompany the heavenly preaching of the Ghosple in the Church of Christ.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, indeed part of what you here say, are your own words in your book against D. Sanders, and you deal more liberally herein, then diverse of your Breehrens, by affording a hundred, and fifty years more to the true Church, than most of them will allow. Now you granting the purity of Faith to continue in the Church of Rome, for the space of the first six hundred years after Christ, do withal implicitly, and inferentially grant; that no change of Faith was made in that Church, within the compass of the afore mentioned 160. years; seeing the said 160. years are included within the first six hundred years, as being part of them.  
But to proceed further; you are here (M. Doctor) to call to mind, what yourself at other times (& no doubt) at unawares have written. I do find (to instance only in some two, or three points) that you affirm, that Victor 
p D. whit. cont. Duraeu l. 7. p. 48.  who lived anno 160. after Christ) was the first, that exercised iurisdicton upon foreign Churches. That not Cyprian 
q D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5.  only (who lived anno. 240.) to use your own words, but almost all the most holy Fathers, of that time, were in error, touching the Doctrine of good works; as thinking so to pay the pain due to sin, & to satisfy God's justice. Finally that 
r D. Whit. cont. Bellar. pag. 37.  Leo (who was Pope anno. 440. to speak in your own dialect, was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdom. Are not all these your assertions, M. Doctor.  D. WHITTAKERS. 
I cannot but acknowledge them for mine; since they are extant to be read in my own books; & loathe I am to be so unnatural, as to disavow or abandon any issue begotten on my own brain.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Mark well then, M. Doctor, my deduction. If the Chucrh of Rome remained in her purity of Faith without any change for the first six hundred years (for your own confession above expressed is, that the Church of Christ so long continued a chaste and intemerate Spouse) And if (as your own pen hath left it written) the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy was taught by Victor the first: The doctrine of Merit of Works was maintained by Cyprian, & generally by other Fathers of that age; and to be short, if Leo were a great Architect of the kingdom of Antichrist, you meaning of our present Roman Religion (all which said Fathers, to wit, Cyprian, Victor, Leo, and the rest, did live diverse ages before the sixth age, or Century, to what time you extend the purity of the Faith of the Church of Rome) doth it not then inevitably result out of your own Premises (if all this be true, as you affirm it is,) that the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, the doctrine of merit of works, and our Catholic Doctrine generally taught by Antichrist, as you term the Pope, were no innovations; but the same pure doctrines, which the Apostles first planted in the Church of Rome? See how your self (through your own inaduertency) hath fortified the truth of that doctrine, which yourself did intend to overthrow. And thus far to show, that their never was made any change of Faith in the Church of Rome, proved from the distribution & division of those two different times, which by the learned Protestants acknowledgements, do contain the Periods of the Church of Rome her continuance in the true Faith, & of the Public and general Profession of our now present Roman Faith.  D. WHITTAKERS. 
My L. Cardinal. Whereas you have produced several testimonies from our own learned protestāns, who teach, that in the second, third, & fourth age after Christ; such & such an Article of the Papists Religion had it beginning; It seemeth in my judgement, that these their authorities do more prejudice than advantage your cause. Since such testimonies (if so you will stand to them) do show a beginning (though most ancient) of those doctrines after the Apostles deaths, and consequently a change of Faith in the Church of Rome. For if you will admit the authorities of the Protestants, granting the antiquities of the present Romish Religion in those former times; you are also (by force of reason) to admit their like authorities in saying; that at such times (and not before) those Articles were first taught; for seeing both these points are delivered by the Protestants in one, & the same sentence, or testimony, why should the one part thereof be urged for true, and the other rejected as false?  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor. Here with my L. Cardinal, and your own good licence. I am to make bold to put in a word or two. This your reply (M. Doctor) by way of inference, may seem to lessen the antiqurty of our ancient jewish Law; and therefore I hold myself obliged to discover the weakness thereof, though not out of desire to entertain any contestation with you. Grant then, that some miscreants, or Heathen Writers (as Enemies to the Law of Moses) affirm, that the Religion of the jews had it beginning in the time of Esdras, for example; This their testimony may justly be alleged to prove that our jewish Law was as ancient (at least) as Esdras; but it cannot be alleged to prove, that our Law took it first beginning at that time only, and not before in the days of Moses.  
Therefore in the Authorities of this Nature, produced from our Adversary's writings, we are to distinguish, and sever that, which the Adversaries granteth in the behalf of us, from that, which he affirmeth to his own advantage. What he granteth for us, & against himself, so far we are to embrace his authority; seeing it may be presumed that, ordinarliy, no learned man would confess any thing against himself, & his Religion, but what the evidency of the truth therein enforceth him unto, and therefore one 
s So faith Tertullian. l. de Anima. c. 3.  of the ancient Doctors of your Christian Church (if I do remember his words) in this respect said well I will strike the Adversaries with their own weapons. But what the Adversary affirmeth in favour of his own cause, and against us; their we are not to stand to his own, authority; since no man is to be a witness in his own behalf, and it well may be presumed, that such his sentence proceedeth out of his own partiality.  
Now this disparity (M. Doctor) you may well apply (in my conceit) to the afore alleged concessions and testimonies of your own Protestants: But if I have not here answered directly, I submit myself to both your censures, and will leave it to my L. Cardinal to give fuller satisfaction and answer thereto.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Learned Rabbi. Your answer is most sufficient and warrantable; and indeed a solid judgement would easily dispel this smoke of wit; and if you had not prevented me, I should but have given the same answer, though perhaps not have instanced it in your example of the jewish Law. But enough of this argument, by which we are instructed, that the present Faith of Rome was never changed since the Apostles days; for it is S. Augustine's rule 
t S. Augnstine, Contrae Donatist. c. 24.  That, that Faith, which hath been believed by the whole visible Church of God, and whereof no first beginning can be known since the Apostles, is presumed to have been first taught by Christ, and his Apostles.  
But, M. Doctor, if it please you, we will insist in another Medium; from whence we will deduce our former affertion; to wit, that during the first six huudred years after Christ (and indeed during all the time since the Apostles) the Church of Rome never made any change, or alteration in any one material point at all. And therefore I do here ask your judgement, whether there must be (at all times) in Christ's Church Pastors, and Doctors, which must teach the People, and be ready to withstand all innovations, and false doctrines at their first appearance?  D. WHITTAKERS. 
Yes we all do teach, that there must ever be, and without interruption true Pastors in the church, who shall be ready to impugn all emergent, and late arising Errors & heresies: So true it is, that the church is the s●and, from whence we strike an Heretic. And this we prove from the prediction of the Apostle, who foretelleth us that, 
u Ephes. 4.  Pastors & Doctors, are to be in the Church, to the consummation of Saints, till we all meet in the unity of Faith; that is, as our own Doctor Fulke 
x Against the Remish Testamment in Ephes. 4.  interpreteth: for ever. Which Doctors (as our said D. Fulke further averreth) 
y In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. pag. 11.  shall always resist all false Opinions, with open reprehension.  
Which point is so true and evident, as that I have already taught in my books, that the preaching of the word of God (within which is necessarily included the impugning of all false doctrines, first their arising) is among the 
z D. Whit. Speaking of the preaching of the Word etc. styleth them: Essentiales notae Ecclesiae Cont. Duraeun. l. 3. p. 260.  Essetiall Notes of the Church; As also that the 
a D. Whit. Saith: si adest Ecclesiam constituit, tollitsiauferatur Cont. Duraeun l. 3. p. 249.  preaching of the Word doth constitute a Church; the want of it, doth subvert it. From whence it necessarily followeth, that these Doctors and Preachers are not to be silent, at the rising of any false Opinion; but are obliged with all sedulity, and diligence what soever, openly to resist, and beat down all innovations, & new arising doctrines in Faith, and Religion. And these Doctors, & Pastors thus defending the Church of Christ (by impugning of false doctrines) are those Watchmen and Sentinels, of whom Esay so long since prophesied, 
b Esay c. 62.  Upon thy Walls, o Jerusalem, I have apppointed watchmen all the day, and all the night; for ever they shall not hold their peace. And indeed to speak sincerely, the Nature of the Church requireth, no less: for how can it continue the true Church, if her Pas●outs do suffer false, & erroneous doctrine to invade her children, without any control or resistance? And are not such negligent Pastors to be reputed, as Paralyticke, and dead Members of the Church; since they perform not that office, and function, for which they were ordained?  CARD. BELLARM. 
Your judgement is to be emdraced herein. But now, M. Doctor, I take your sword out of your own hand, and do turn the point of it into your own breast. For whereas their are many weighty doctrines (as touching the Premacy of Peter, the number of the Sacraments, and their efficacy, freewill, Merit of works, Praying for the dead, Praying to Saints, Worshipping of Images, Unmarried lives of Priests, the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and (to omit diverse others) the adoration of Christin the Sacrament, which are believed by the present Church of Rome; and which (as you Protestants do teach) were introduced into the Church, as Novelties, and Innovations, since the Faith of Christ was first planted in the Church of Rome, by the Apostles:  
Now here, M. Doctor, I provoke you, and all the Protestants living, according to your own former doctrine of Pastors, ever resisting new and false doctrines, to name any one Pastor, Doctor, or Father of the Church, who ever resisted any of the former Catholic doctrines, as new doctrines; or did once charge the Church of Rome with change, and innovation in any one point, from their former received Faith by the Apostles. Read over all the ancient Fathers, and Doctors of the Primative Church, and later times: Peruse the first approved General Counsels: Go over all the ancient Catalogues of Condemned Heresies; and even study all Ecclesiastical Histories of those former times; and find in all these but only any one of the former Catholic, and now Roman doctrines, or any other point controverted at this day between you and us, to be condemned for a Novelty, and as dissenting from the general received Faith of those times, and I promise you, I will cast off my Cardinal's Hat, and turn Protestant.  
Can any reasonable Man then think, that, whereas you teach, the Papists Religion came in by degrees, and at several times, that all the Pastors, and Fathers of those several times were a sleep, when the said doctrines were first braoched; or that they observing their entrance, yet not any of them would vouchsafe to make resistance, or at least some mention, of any such innovation in doctrine? doth not this mainly cross the fore-alleadged Prophecy of the Apostle? Or can this stand with any possibility; especially if we consider the nature of our former Catholic doctrines, averred by you to be introduced, as Novelisms? since they are, as above is intimated, many in number; diverse of them of the greatest consequence, that may be; as the virtue of the Sacraments, the Manner of our justification, to wit, whether by works, or by Faith only; others of them most repugnant to man's sense, and common reason, as the Real Presence: Some adverse to Man's natural Propension, as the doctrine of Virginity, Poverty, and Obedience; most of them consisting not only in an internal belief, but even in an external action and operation; And therefore the first Origen and entrance of them are thereby become most discernible: Such are our doctrines of Praying to Saints, Praying for the dead, Pilgrimages, Single life in the Clergy, & to omit diverse others, all Monachisme. And lastly some, supposing their doctrine to be false, subject to external Idolatry; as the worshipping of Christ with supreme honour in the Eucharist. Therefore if any of our grave and learned Adversaries should affirm (for there are some curious wits, who will seem to err, even out of judgement) that these doctrines could stealingly creep into God's Church, without all resistance of it Pastors, Doctors, and Fathers, I boldly averte, that these men not only give the lie openly to the holy Scripture, in several places witnessing the contrary, but they with all cease to be Men, by losing wholly the natural light of all humane discourse and Reason.  
But, M. Doctor, to press the force of this argument further. Have you not read, that in the Primative Church there were the Heresies of the Valentinians, Tationists Manichees, Arians, and diverse others, all which did embroile the Church of Christ, even before the first four hundred years were expired?  D. WHITTAKERS. 
Yea. I have read all these; and I do find them recorded in the writings and Catalogues of Heresies, composed by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others; who with their learned Penns openly impugned these, and divets other Heretics, which Heretics for the time troubled the waters of the Church, more than after they could, at their pleasure calm them.  CARD. BLLARM. 
Have you not also read of the Heresies, of the Nestroians, Pelagians, Donatists, Minothelits? (All which had their beginnings within the compass of the 160. years, above mentioned) which was between the first four hundred and forty years' next after Christ, and the thousand years from us; within which compass of years (by the Protestants own writings) the Church of Rome did suffer this supposed, and imaginary change in Religion.  D. WHITTAKERS. 
I have also read of these latter Heresies, and do find the first three amply recorded, and written against, by S. 
c Lib. de Haeresib. Haeris. 88 89. et Haeres. 692.  Augustine; and the fourth (to omit our own 
d Cent. 6. Col. 312.  Centurists regestring those Heriticks) by the sixth Council of Constantinople; for I have ever observed in my reading, that the arising Heresies in every age, were the Marks, whereat the Canons of the Church, and councels, and the learned writers of the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers, did shoot.  CDRD. BELLARM. 
To decend lower. Have you not also seen the records of many Heresies rising in every several age, after the first six hundred years. And (to leap over diverse ages) the-Herisies of Berengarius, Waldo, Wicleffe &c, if so you will acknowledge them for Heresies?  D. WHITTAKERS. 
All this I must, and do confess; for I find the Heresies of every several age to be registered (out of the Father's writings of every such age) by our own Centurists, in the fifth Chapter of every several Century, by Osiander in his Centuries, and by Pantaleon the Protestant in his Chronology. And for the doctrines of Berengarius, Waldo, Wicleffe, etc. I acknowledge them not for Heresies; Yet I must confess, I find them to this day extant in diverse Books: As of Berengarius, in the writings of Langfrancus, Guitmundus, and Algerus; Of Waldo, I read in Illiricus, 
e In his Catalogue testium veritatis.  as also in Osiander; 
f In epitome. Historiae Eccles.  Of Wicleffe in his own writings; as also in M. Fox his Monuments, and M. Stow his Annals of England.  GOD. BELLARM. 
Well then. Thus I compound these Simples; I mean thus I infer, and collect out of your former granted Premises. Seing it is manifest, that the Heresies rising within the first four hundred years; The Heresies within the next two hundred years; the Heresies hatched in every age during these last thousand years, are most largely recorded, partly in the writings of the ancient Fathers in particular, and set tracts against them, partly in the Canons of general Counsels condemning them; partly by the observing diligence of Ecclesiastical Historiographers (whose defined labour is, to transmit, & commend over to after ages the true state, and face of Christ's Church in former ages; since History is the life of Memory, and Ambassador of antiquity) and partly, by the Protestants like endeavours, who have written several long Volumes of this very subject. Seing, I say, all this is manifest; and that not only the inundation, and flux, but even the Ebb, and reflux of every Heresy, was precisely noted by the Pilots of God's Church, can it enter into any brain, but to ween, that so many Articles of the present Roman Religion, being in number far more, than all above rehearsed, in weight, and consequently greatly exceeding them, for diversity of Countries, and Nations far further dewlged, and spread, then either all, or any of the former Heresies ever were, most of these other being restrained only to one Country, or Nation, could ever so unespiedly infect the whole Church of Christ with their contagion, and work a more notorious change therein, then ever yet was wrought by all the Heretic, since Christ's time put together; and yet not one Father, or Doctor of those times, either to take notice of any of those supposed Heretics, or knowing them, not to impugn their first assaults by preaching, or writing; neither any one Ecclesiastical History but to mention in their Histories any one of the said Articles, as Innovations in Faith. Can this be imagined? or can it be in the power of man; thus to create at his pleasure a new Religion, without control, or discovery? If this can be dreamt, then may we with all dream, that Impossibilities can have a true, & real existence; and that the Scripture itself (for want of due performance of its predictions) is most false: Into such a depth of absurdities, M. Doctor, these your very supposals, and imaginary speculations, do precipitate, and cast all those, who give any credit unto them.  MICHEAS. 
My L. Cardinal, and you M. Doctor, I must ingenuously confess to you both, that the former Arguments are much prevailing: the one drawn from the distribution of times; (whreby every age since the Apostles, is by the Protestants own acknowledgements, cleared from all change in Faith.) The other from the silence, both of the Fathes, and Doctors of Christ's Church, in not ●●pugning the supposed introducing of the Catholic Articles; as also of all Ecclesiastical Historiographers, in not so much, as intimating, or but glancing at any one (Article as innovated) of the Church of Rome.  
And to pattern these times of Grace with the times of the Old Law: If any frontless, and bold Man (and some such perhaps may easily, and without labour be found, since we need not to plough for weeds, they freely growing of themselues) should affirm, that the Mosaical Law had suffered great changes, and alterations, between the times of its being first promulgated by Moses, and the coming of the Messias, I should hold it a most choking, and full demonstration for the overthrowing the falsehood of such an assertion; if neither instances of any times (among so many ages, passed from Moses to Christ) wherein such a forged Innovation should happen, could be given; neither could it be showed, that any of the Prophets, or jewish Rabbins did openly gainsay, or contradict the said imaginary new arising Opinions, (who no doubt, would have maintained the Law with shedding of their blood, before any Novelisme in Faith should have invaded the Synagogue; imitating herein the resolution of Samson, who conquered his enemies by his own death.) Neither lastly, if not any historiographer of the jewish times, did in their works, and writings, give the least touch thereof. But pardon me (both of you) for this my interrupting, and I would entreat you, to proceed further in this your learned discourse.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I will satisfy your request; but before I descend to any other argument, I will annex to my former demonstration (for I can term it no less) drawn from the silence of Doctors in contradicting, and Historiographers, in relating any presumed innovations in the Church of Rome, these ensuing Considerations.  
(1) First, we find, that the less justifiable lives, & conversation in manners, of some few Popes, were precisely 
g So Eugenius 4. is noted by the Council of Basill; Benedictus 3. By the Council of Constance. Gregory the 7. By Benno. etc.  registered, and recorded to all Posterity, with intention, perhaps, to disgrace all Popes; as if all Popes were to be represented in some one, or other less virtuous Pope, as all men are in Adam. Now than this being most true, can we probably think, that the Historians of those ages (being ever ready, & prepared to tax the Personal vices of the Pope's themselves who as you see were forced by this means to pass the Red sea of shame, disgrace, and obloquy) all of them would be wholly silent in relating the greatest change in Religion, that ever happened, if any such change had truly & really been effected?  
(2) Secondly, we all know, that the Greek Church hath been for many ages emulous of the Church of Rome; and therefore if the present Church of Rome had anciently made any Division, or Scissure from the true Church of Christ, the Grecians no doubt (who then stood ever upon the height of En●●y, the better presently to espy any arising advantage against the church of Rome) would have been most apt to recommend the memory of such a change in our church to all after ages, in their Histories. But no such records we find in any of their writings. Yea the Grecians are so far from that, as that (on the contrary side) the present Church of Rome is able to specify, and note (out of most ancient, and approved Authors) the very times, when the Grecians first introduced those particular Opinions, wherein at this day they dessint from our Roman, and catholic church.  
I will insist (for brevity) in some few chief examples. First, their denial of Obedience to the Sea of Rome, was begun by john of Constantinople, and was noted, and written against, by 
h Li. 4. Ep. 34. ci 36.  Gregory the Great, and Pelagius 
i In his Epi. universis Episcopis. . Their denial of the proceedings of the Holy Ghost, from the Father, and the Son, took it beginning (and at it first rising was 
k As Kekermannus the Protestant witnesseth in systen Theolog. pag. 68  gainsaid, and contradicted) about the year 764. Their denial of prayer for the dead, was begun by Arius, and impugned by Epiphanius, (l) and 
m Haers. 53.  Augustine. Their bringing in of leavened bread, by the Grecians in the celeberation of the Eucharist, was first begun about the year 1053. as appeareth out of the, writings of Leo 
n In Epist. ad Michaelem Episcop. Constantinop. 〈◊〉. 5.  the nynth, and the 
o Cent. 11 c. 8.  Centurists. Now 
(●) Haeres. 75.  can it be imagined that those, being few in number, could so precisely be contradicted, written against, and left registered to all posterity; and yet this supposed change of the church of Rome: consisteth in bringing in of far more Articles in number, and of as great consequence, should never be noted, nor impunged by any one Doctor, or Father, nor recorded, nor observed by any one Historiographer; the said Doctors, Fathers, & Historiographers living in the very same ages, wherein this supposed alteration is said to have happened? By the same ground might Pyth●goras well maintain, (as in his books he attempted to do) that the earth being in special motion of 24: hours; ourselves, because we are carried together with this revolution, cannot observe, that any such motion of the earth is.  
(3) Thirdy, we may call to mind, that whereas the Ceremonies in the celeberation of the Mass, were successively and at several times added, and first brought in by several Popes; So we find accordingly, that the Adversaries 
p The book entitled: The Relics of Rome, written by Tho. Beacon. The Anatomy of the Mass, by Anthony de Adamo, printed. 1556. Hospinian hist Sacrament. l. 2. c. 4. 5. 6. 7. printed 1591. besides diverse others.  of the present Church of Rome, as willing to discover our innovations, though in the smallest matters, (for Malice is glade to take hold of the least advantage) and but in points of indifferency, have most diligently, and painfully recorded them in their several books, written of this very subject, with all due circumstances, both of the Pope's introducing them and the times, when they were introduced.  
Here now I urge. If the Enemies of the present Church of Rome, being thus diligent and solicitous in noting the beginning of eich Ceremony of the Mass (all such Ceremonies being merely accidental to the Mass, and without which the Mass may as truly and effectually be celebrated, as with them) If they (I say) could have discovered any innovation in the main Doctrine itself of the Mass (as in the Doctrine of the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of Christ's body there offered up, our Adoration of the Sacrament, the Priests enjoined chastity for such his celebration) would they have been silent therein? or rather would they not have loaded their books with the relation of all such innovations; they consisting not in small ceremonies, but in most sublime, and high dogmatic points of Christian Religion? If otherwise; then belike our Adversaries would have us to think, that herein they resemble the Sun, which revealeth the Terrestrial Globe, being but of a little quantity; but concealeth the Celestial, which is of a far more spacious greatness.  
But to proceed; and to conclude the force of this argument, drawn from the impugning, and recording of innovations in doctrine: if this precise course (by our Adversaries acknowledgements) hath ever been kept, during all precedent ages, without intermission, in all matters confessed, and out of controversy between us, and the Protestants; shall we dream, that it was so wholly neglected, and forgotten, touching the supposed innovation of our Catholic Doctrines; as that such our chief doctrines, though, first really brought in, in those former times, were neither at there first beginning impugned by any Doctors, or Fathers of those ages; nor recorded, or mentioned by any one Ecclesiastical Historiographer (among so many) of the same, or later times?  
But now to undertake, according to your desire, (Micheas) an other argument. You Protestants, M. Doctor, do affirm, that this our present Roman Religion is Antichristian (for so commonly most of you in your charitable language do style it) and that the Pope is the true Antichrist, deciphered by the Apostle, for his first introducing and defending of the said Religion; and upon this ground you teach, that Papistry first came in, when Antichrist first came in.  D. WHITAKERS. 
We do so teach indeed. For seeing our main assertion is, that your Religion is Antichristian, we cannot (even by the nature of Relatives) sever, and divide (so indissoluble companions they are) the one from the other; I mean Papistry from Antichrist; he being the Man, who first did disseminate it; and now the head, who chiefly, principally, and with all wicked molitions, and machinations whatsoever, maintayns it.  CARD. BELLARM. 
You are, M. Doctor, it seems, full gorged against the Pope, as presumed by you to be Antichrist. But let that for the time pass. Do all you Protestants, M. Doctor, agree together, touching the time of Antichrists first coming, and consequently, touching the supposed change in Faith, wrought by Antichrist his coming.  D. WHITAKERS. 
No. For I hold with our reverend Man 
q Beza Confess. general. ●7. Sect. 12.  Beza, who teacheth, that Leo (who was Pope anno Domi. 440.) did clearly breathe forth the arrogancy of the Antichristian Sea: And therefore my constant Tenet is, that 
r So saith D. Whit. in his book con●. Bellarm. pag. 37.  Leo was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdom: But some few other Protestants hold several ways hereof.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Some few, M. Doctor, not so; but very many of them maintain different, and contrary Opinions touching the time of Antichrist his first coming. And first 
s So is Melanct●on alleged by M. Harvey in Theolog. discourse pag. 102.  Melancthon, & 
t In his Libri psalm. quinque psal. 22. fol. 146. 147.  Bucer free the Pope from being Antichrist; and do teach that the Turk is (as Bucer speaketh) ipsissimus Antichristus; with whom in judgement herein conspireth M. 
u Act. Mon. of An. 1576 pag. 539.  Fox.  
junius 
x upon the Revelations, in C. 20.  (that remarkable Protestant) teacheth, that Hildebrand (who was Pope anno. 1074.) was the first Antichrist, with whom D. 
y In his Treatise concerning Antichrist. pag 110.  Downham seemeth to agree in these words: Gregory the seaventh, alias Hildeb and, was the first of the Popes, who was openly acknowledged to be Antichrist. Bullinger affirmeth he came in anno. 763. he therefore terming that year: the 
y upon the Apocalypse serm. 16. pag 198. and in his preface to the Apocalypse.  fa▪ all year. D. 
z In his answer to a Couterf●yte Catholic. p. 36.  Fulke and D. 
a In his Synops. p. 160.  Willi● place his coming in Anno, 607. And make Boniface the third to be the first Antichrist; with whom in judgement herein yourself, M. Doctor, forgetting, as it should seem; what elsewhere you have taught touching Leo, conspire in these words: Gregory 
b D. Whitakers de Ecclesia co●ra Bella●m. controvers. 2. quaest. 4. p. 141. Thus writeth: D cunus Gregorium Magnum fuisse v 〈…〉 mum verum et p●um ill us Ecclesiae Eps●op●● etc. q 〈…〉 m secuti sunt, fuerunt veri Antichrist etc. Et quia certum aliquod tempus a nobis quaer●ni et pestulant, hoc tempus illis design●mus.  the Great was the last true, and holy Bishop of that Church etc. And therefore because our Adversary's demand of us the time, when Antichrist first came in, we design, and set down to them, the very time of his coming, But M. Napper 
c upon the Reuela●●os, p. 66.  ascendeth higher, affirming Antichrist to have first come in Anno Domini. 313. He teathing that Silvester the Pope, was the first Antichrist. Yet the Reformed Churches of Transiluania 
d So saith M. Hookerin his Ecclesiastical po●cy.  give a greater antiquity of Antichrists first coming, placing it in the year. 200.  
But Sebastianus Francus (no obscure Protestant) outstrippeth all his former Brethren; for he ascribes Antichrists coming to the times immediately following the Apostles. thus writing, for 
e In Epist. de abrogadis in universum omnibus siatu 'tis Ecclesiast.  certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the Faith, and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure. See how this high swelling river of Heresy (for I do hold this sentence, that the Pope is Antichrist, to be no less than Heretical) is fed with the small streams of eich man's particular and different opinions, which opinions though mainly dissenting in themselves; yet most of them proceed from one general source of the Protestants malice, and hatred against the Pope, and Church of Rome; and therefore their judgements herein must be more imperfect, and deceivable: for as the eye seeth not a●ight, except the species, and forms of the thing seen, do fall upon the eye, ad angulos rectos; (as the Optists do speak.) So here man's understanding cannot apprehend any thing truly, as long as is wanteth it own natural rectitude, & straightness, which is ever free from all obliquity of prejudice, and Passion.  MICHEAS. 
The variety of doctrine touching the coming of Antichrist, is most wonderful, and far greater by many degrees than the diversity of opinions among us jews, who was husband to Esther, or at what time judith did live. And indeed I ever promised to myself before this time, to have found a far greater concordance of judgement in this point, among the Protestants, then now I do find.  D. WHITTAKERS 
I am 
* D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5. saith: An mihi erit dicta singula, quae quisquam protulit aliquando praestare aut defendere?  not to defend eich Man's different opinions herein; and I grant, if any of these be true, all the rest are false: But it is sufficient to prove, that antichrist is come; and that by his coming this great change in Faith, and Religion was first then wrought in the Church of Rome; and as, touching the difficulty of proving the circumstances of his first coming, it importeth little; seeing here we are to remember (to speak by allusion) that it is easy to prove, that we see; but hard to prove, how we see.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I do not look, M. Doctor, that you should make good all the former contraric opinions; for it is impossible to justify, but any one of them. Nevertheless it is a weak kind of proof, to say only in gross, that Antichrist is already come, and with his coming, this so great a presumed change in Faith was first brought in; where you have no more reason to allow of the particular time of his coming, by yourself designed, than your former Brethren have, for the fortifying of eich ones several judgement therein. Only the disparity, which I find between them, and you, is this: That every one of them do set down one only particular time of Antichrist his coming, and content themselves therewith; whereas you, M. Doctor, imitating herein the skilful Pilot, who constantly changeth his sails, with the unconstant winds, for your best advantage, & as it most fittingly sorts to your purpose in hand, sometimes will have his coming to be in Pope Leo, to wit, in the year 440. at other times, in Boniface the third, which is in anno 607. So you making a great Parenthesis (as I may say) of a hundred and fifty years at least, between your two different sentences of Antichrist his coming.  
But to return to the force of this my argument, drawn from the Protestants different, and contrary Opinions, touching the first reign of Antichrist. Here then, I say, seeing there are among the Protestants so many contrary, and irreconcilable sentences of Antichrist his first entrance, (at what time, this supposed change of Faith in the Church of Rome is said to have been effected.) And seeing, that not any one of these different judgements have more warrant, and authority for its supporting, than any other of them hath: Therefore by force of all reason we may conclude, that all there sentences herein are false, and that Antichrist is not yet come; and thus out of falsehood, we may extract truth; & so consequently we may deduce, that no change of Faith hath been yet wrought in the Church of Rome, by the said Antichrist. Therefore I will conclude this argument with the more retired, dispassionate, and wary judgements of some other of your learned Protestants, to wit, of that eminent Protestant 
f In Epist. Pauli. Coloss. et Thessaly p. 246.  Zanchius, of Franciscus 
g In his Prognosticin. finis Mundi. pag. 74.  Lambertus (no ordinary Man among you) and of some others; who Peremptorily affirm against all their former Brethren, that Antichrist is not yet come.  MICHEAS 
For my part, I must needs confess, that I do believe that Antichrist is not yet come. For, besides diverse other reasons, urged by us Jews in proof thereof those words of Daniel concerniug Antichrist his continuance, (to wit 
h c. 7.  tempus, tempora, & dimidium temporis) were ever by all learned jewish Rabbins interpreted literally, and plainly, to signify three years and a half, which short compass of time cannot in any sort be applied to the Bishop of Reme, as Antichrist teaching the present Roman Religion; seeing he hath continued preaching the said Doctrine, & Religion (even by the Protestants confessions (as now I see) many hundred of years. But good my Lord Cardinal, if there be any other reasons behind. to impugn this said change, I would entreat your Lordship to descend to them; for in matters of great importance variety seldom breedeth satiety.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I am willing thereto. And for the further prosecution thereof, I am to put you in mind, M. Doctor, partly according to my former Method, set down in the beginning; that whereas the Professors of the Church of Rome, were in the Apostles days the true Church of Christ (as is above on all sides confessed) and consequently, the most ancient Church, since 
* God is more ancient, than the Devil, & therefore truth more ancient than falsehood.  truth is ever more ancient, than falsehood, and Errors. It therefore followeth, that all Heretics whatsoever, who make choice of any new doctrine in Faith, do make a revolt, and separation from that Church of the Apostles, according to those words of S. john: 
i john. 2.  exierunt a nobis: they went out of us; and answerably to that other text: 
k Act. 15  certain that went forth from us: which very words do contain a Brand, or Note upon the Author of every Heresy. Since the Apostle, and the Evangelist do mean hereby, that ever first Heretic goeth out from a more aucient society of Christians, then by him is chosen. So as to go out of a precedent Church, or society of Christians, is not only an infallible note of Heresy in the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis 
l Adverse. haeres.  (quis unquam Haereses instituit, nisi qui prius ab Ecclesiae C●●boli ae Vniver sitatis, & antiqnitatis consensione discre●●it?) but even by your own Brethren; for we find Osiander (among others) thus to write: 
m Epitem. Hast. Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78.  Nota; Haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur.  
Thus do Heretics ever forsake the general, & most ancient company of Christians, as small Brooks do often leave the common channel of the main River. Now here I demand of you, M. Doctor, to show, from what company, or society of Christians, (more ancient) did we Catholics in those former times (when first, you say, this change of Faith was made) depart? or from what Church, afore in being, went we out? The evidency of this Note is manifested in Calvin, Luther, the Waldenses, the Wicliffians, and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries; of whom it is confessed, that all of them were originally Members of our Catholic Church; and by their making choice of particular Doctrines (so judas the Apostle, who departing from the company of the Apostls after became judas the Traitor) did go, and depart out of the present Roman Church, and thereby became Heretics. The like, M. Doctor, I do here expect, that you should prove, by authority of Ecclesiastical Histories, of the present Catholic, and Roman Church; which if you cannot, then is the inference most strong; that the present Church of Rome never made any such revolt from, or departing out of that Church, which was established by the Apostles at Rome; and consequently, that the present Church of Rome never suffered any change in Faith, since it first being a Church.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Your Church hath departed from that Faith, which the Apostles first preached in Rome; and I hope this departure, and going out (without other proofs) is sufficient enough. And here I answer with M. Newstub● (one of our learned Brethren) 
o In his answer to certain assertions, tending to maintain the Church of Rome p. 35  That when you require, who were they, that did note your going out etc. This question (I say) is unvecessary etc. we have taken you with the manner; that is to say, with the Doctrine, divers from the Aposties: and therefore neither Law, nor Conficience can force us to examen them who were witnesses of you first departing. Thus my Brother M. Newstubs. And my Lord, as it is far better for one to have a clear sight, then to enjoy the best helps for curing a bad sight; so we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine, first preached at Rome by the Apostles, and manifested unto us by the perspicuity of the scripture, before all humane reasons, and arguments, directed to the discovery of Rome's after embraced Innovation.  CARD. BELLARM. 
What strange Logic is this? and how poor a Circulation do you make. The main question between us, is, whether the present Church of Rome hath changed it Faith, or no, since the Apostles days? To prove, that it hath not, Iverge that the professors thereof did never go out of any more ancient Church, and consequently ever retained without change it former Faith: Now you in answer hereto (as not being able to instance the persons, by whom, or the times when, any such departing, or going out was made by the Professors of our Religion) reply, that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles; and therefore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion since the Apostles times: and this sophism (you know) is but Petitio Principij, or a beginning of the matter in question, and is nothing else but (without answering to any of my premises) the denial of my Conclusion; which kind of answenng, I am sure, impugneth all Logic, and therefore all Reason; since Logic is but Reason sublimated and refined.  
But to proceed further. In every introduction of a new Religion, or broaching of any innovation in Doctrine, the Professors thereof receive a new denomination, or name, for the most part, from the first author of the new doctrine, and sometimes from the Doctrine its self; like unto a running river, which commonly taketh the name of that river, into which it falleth. Thus the Arians, the Valentinians, Marcionists Manicheans from Arius, Valentinus, Marcian, and Manicheus etc. or from the doctrine itself, as the Heretics Monothelites, Agnoitae, Theopaschitae etc. though this more seldom.  
This Note, or Mark, of imposing a new name of the Professors of every arising Heresy, may be exemplified in all Heresies without exception, engendered since the Apostles times, even to this day: a point so exempt from all doubt, as that your learned Man M. Doctor Feild thus writeth: 
p In his Treatise of the Church l. 2. c. 9  Surely it is not to be denied, but that the naming after the names of Men, was in the time of the Primative Church, peculiar, and proper to Heretics and Schismatics; with whom agreeth M. 
q In his Apology, underthe title of querulous, motions.  Parks; both of them borrowing it from the ancient 
r Lenaeus l. 2. c. 20. Athanas. s●rm-2. contra Arium. jerom. Cont. Lucif. in fine.  Fathers and particularly from chrysostom, who thus saith: 
s hom. 33. in Act. Apost.  Prout Haeresiarchae nomen, it a Secta vocatur.  
Well then, this being thus acknowledged on all sides; If the present Church of Rome hath made a change from her first Primative Faith, than the Professors thereof by introducing of new Heresies, and Opinions, became Heretics, and consequently they have taken (according to our former ground) some name, either from the first broachers of these new Doctrines, or from the doctrines themselves. But you cannot, M. Doctor, show any such name to be imposed upon us, except the name, Catholics, which was even in the Primative Church, the surname of all Christians, according to that; 
t Pacianus epist. ad Simphronianum.  Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus vero cagnomen: Illud me nuncupat; istud me ostendit, though the contrary we can show of you, who have the names given to you of Lutherans, Caluenits, Besits, etc. Therefore it clearly followeth, that the Professors of the present Roman Church have never changed their Faith, first planted by the Apostles.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Now my L. Cardinal, you are foiled with your own argument. For have you not the name of Papists peculiarly appropriated to yourselves, to distinguish you from the true professors of the gospel? In like sort, are not some of your religious Men called bernardin's, others Franciscans, Benedictins, Augustins etc. so taking their appellation from particular Men; and thus your own argument rebutteth upon yourself with great disadvantage: Therefore my Lord be not so confident aforehand in the force of your alleged reason but remember, that: 
u D. Whit. contra Camp Rat. 5.  Thra●y's prò'erysóù, ' ec pollóù cacòs: who is ever bold before the work is attempted, is commonly indiscreet.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, You so seriously here trifle, as that I even blush in your behalf, to observe how you wrong yourfollowers, and Proselits with such weak transparency of reasons. For you are here to understand, that the Surnames of Peculiar Heretics (as the Arians, Eutichians, Manichees, and of all others) were imposed upon the Professors of these Heresies, even at the first beginning, and rising of the said Heresies, and were invented out of necessity, to distinguish their Heresies from all other Doctrines: but now the word, Papist, M. Doctor, was coined but lately by Luther himself against us, & this not out of necessity, but of reproach: our Faith, and Doctrine being acknowledged, above by your leaned Brethren, to have been in the world, many hundred years before Luther's days.  
Again, the Word, Papist, is not restrained to any one Pope, or any peculiar Doctrine, taught by the present Church of Rome, but it is indifferently extended to all Popes, and all doctrines taught by the said Popes: so foully, M. Doctor, are you mistaken in alleging the name Papist against us: and so much do you, and other Protestants wrong us, even for that very name; we undergoing herein by your brethren's calumnies the like misfortune, which Collatinus Tarqvinius suffered, who was deprived of his honours, and subject to disgrace, and reproach by the Romans, only for the hateful name of Tarqvinius.  
Touching those names of Franciscans, bernardin's, Benedictans, etc. It is so clear, that these names are not imposed for change of Faith, but only for institution of several degrees of a virtuous, and religious life, as that I will answer you in your former Brother, D. Feild 
x Of the Church. l. 2. c. 9 pag. 58.  his words, who thus solveth this your objection: We must observe, that they, who profess the Faith of Christ, have been sometimes in these later ages of the Church, called after the special names of such Men, as were the Authors, beginners, and devisers of such courses of Monastical Profession, as they made choice to follow; as Benedictans & such like. Thus D. Feild.  MICHEAS. 
I think, M. Doctor, (under yonr favour) that these your instances of names, taken from the first institutours of several religious Orders in the Church of Christ, do not imply any change of Faith made by them; and therefore the force of my L. Cardinal his argument, borrowed from new imposed appellations, is not weakened, but rather fartified by this your reply. My Reason is this: in our jewish Law we read, that there were some called 
y Hierom. 35.  Rechabits, and others, 
z Numb. 6.  Nazarites; both professing a more strict course of life, than the vulgar, and common people did. In like sort josephus 
a Antiquitat. judaic. l. 18. c. 2.  and Philo 
b De vita contemplate.  report much of the austerity of the Essenes', among us Jews; who in regard of such their peculiar Profession were called: Essenes'; and to whom God vouchsafed many spiritual, favours, and consolations. Happy men: since he is most fit to walk upon the height of celestial contemplation; who liveth in the vale of a voluntary humility, retyrednes, and mortification; In whom the fire of the spirit doth ever extinguish the fire of the flesh and sensuality; thus the greater hair putting forth the less heat.  
Now shall any man think, that these men instituted a Faith, and Religion, different from that, of Moses? It is both absurd to entertain such a thought, and withal it is a wrong, and dishonour to the Law of Moses. And in my judgement, both these instances of the Old Testament produced by me, and those other of the Franciscans etc. objected by you, M. Doctor, in a true, and even libration of them do prove that, which my L. Cardinal first endeavoured to prove from the imposition of new Names. For they manifest the several changes, and alterations, which were made both in the old Testament, and the new, touching a more austere profession of a virtuous life, which was the subject of those changes; as these other new imposed names of Arians, Nestorians, Manichees, and the rest above specified, do necessarily evict a change first made in Doctrine, by Arius, Nestorius, Manicheus etc. But my L. Cardinal, if you will enlarge yourself no further upon this point, I humbly entreat you to proceed to some other argument.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Learned Micheas. I will proceed to that, which at this instant shallbe my last, though for weight, and force, it might well take the first place. And it shallbe taken, M. Doctor, from the first plantation of Christianity in your own Country. which though immediately, it concerneth but one Nation, yet potentially, it proveth, that there was no change of Faith at all, made in the Church of Christ, in any former times, by the Professors of the present Roman Religion. But here, M. Doctor, I am to demand your judgement, touching the times in which, and the Person, by whom the Britons of Wales were first converted to the Christian Faith?  D. WHITAKERS. 
All we Protestants agree, that the Britons of Wales whre converted in the Apostles time, by joseph of Aramathia; and this we prove, not only form the authority of Saint Bede, who did write the history thereof in the year, 724. but also from the authority of our Principal Historiographers, for thus M. Cambden (our learned Countryman) writeth: 
c In his Britain. pag. 40.  Certum est Brit 〈…〉 in ipsa Ecclesiae infantia Christian●m Religionem imbibisse, It is Certain, that the Britons received the Christian, Religion, even in the infancy of the Church. Who thus further discourseth of this Point: 
d In his Britania. p. 157.  In hac floruit Monasterium Glastenburiensis etc. Here flourished the Monastery of Glastembury, which taketh it ancient beginning from joseph of Aramathia etc. for this is witnessed by the most ancient Monuments of this Monastery etc. nether is there any reason, Why we should doubt thereof Thus far, M. Cambden, with whom conspire all other Chroniclers; as Harrison 
e Annexed to Holinshead his great Chronicle, volum. 1. p. 23  in his description of Britanny, and others. Yea of us Ministers of the gospel 
f In his book against Heskins, Sand. p. 561  D. Fulke, 
g In his pageant of Popes.  D. jewel, and M. 
h In his sovereign remedy against Sch●m● p. 24  Henoch Clapham, do jointly teach the same; neither did I ever read any one authentical writer to deny it.  CARD. BELLARM. 
How long, M. Doctor, do your writers confess, that the Britons did preserve their Faith received in the Apostles times, free from all change, or mixture of innovations.  D. WHITAKERS. 
We do confess, that they preserved it pure, and not stained with any Errors, till Augustine his coming into England, who was sent by Pope Gregory, to plant his religion among us English: for first thus I find D. jewel to aver: 
i In his pageant of Popes.  The Britons being converted by joseph of Aramathia, held that Faith at Augustins coming; as also D. Fulke saying: 
k Against the Rhemish Testament. in 2. cor. 12.  The Catholic Britan's, with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession from the Apostles times, would not receive Augustine. To these we may adjoin the like words of M. Fox: 
l Act. Mon. printed, 1576. p. 463.  The Britons after the receiving of the Faith, never forsook it, for any manner of false preaching, nor for torments: and finally, that acknowledgement of D. Humphrey: 
m In jesuitism. par. 2. 〈◊〉 3. p. 304.  Habuerunt Britanni templa sibi, non Romanis etc. The Britons had temples, and Churches peculiar to themselves, not common with the Romans; they not subiecting themselues to the yoke of the Romans.  CARD. BLLARM. 
Well, M. Doctor, you deal with integrity, and plains hitherto; openly discovering, what your reading and judgement are able to deli●er herein. And your Praise in so doing is the greater; since there are some men, so cautelous in their proceedings, and speeches, and of such an impenetrable closeness of disposition, as that we can never know their mind by their words; the one, for the most part, standing neutral to the other, or rather the Aspect of a Diametrical Opposition. But, M. Doctor, let me inquire further of you. You know, that there was an interview of meeting, between this Augustine, and the Bishops of Britanny, or Walls, for the conferring of their Religions together, at a place called in S. Bede 
n Beda hist. 2. c. 2.  his time: Augustineizat; which point is further recorded by your 
o In his great Chronic. of the last edition volume. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102.  Holinshead, M. Fox, 
p Act. Mon. printed 1576 pag. 120.  and diverse others. Now here I would entreat you sincerely to set down, the greatest differences of Faith, and Religion, which at that meeting were found to be between the Briton Bishops, and the foresaid Augustine.  D. WHITAKERS. 
I will and my tongue shall truly subscribe to all that, which of this point I have heretofore read. And first S. Bede will fully determine this point; who relating, how Augustine answered the Briton Bishops, setteth his answer down in th●se words: 
q Beda l. 2. c. 2.  Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis; ut Ministerium Baptizandi (quo Deo renascimur) iuxta morem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis; ut Genti Anglorum unà nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini, cetera, quae agitis. (quamuis moribus nostris contraria) eaquanimiter cuncta toller abimus: that is, If you Briton celebrating●aster ●aster day in it due time; in conferring of Baptism, (by the which we are reborn to God) according to the Rites of the Roman, and Apostolical Church, and in helping us to preach to the English; all other matters, which you do (though contrary to our manners,) we will tolerate, and suffer. Thus far S. Bede. But to what end, my Lord Cardinal, do you make so many demands touching this matter of the Britons? Since I cannot see your project herein; they neither preiudicing us Protestants, nor advantaginge you Papists.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, you shall quickly discover the drift of these my several demands, which resemble a Torrent, stopped for a time, that it may in the end overflow with greater violence. Now to your former acknowledgements we may add (touching only the three former differences) the like Confessions of 
r Volum. 1. p. 103  Holinshead, 
s In his Catalogue of the Bishops p. 6.  M. Goodwin, and the Protestant Author of the History of great Briton whose words are these: 
t Printed anno. 1606. l. 3. c. 13. p. 133.  The Briton Bishops conformed themselves to the Doctrine, & Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, without difference in any thing specially remembered, save only in the celebration of the feast of Easter etc.  
Now, M. Doctor, in this last place, I would have you call to mind, what is above related, touching the Faith, planted by Augustine, of D. Humphrey, the Centurists, and Osiander. D. Humphrey his words herein (though the iteration of them may perhaps seem unpleasing) I will once more repeat, for greater weight of our ensuing argument; who speaking of Augustins' Religion planted in England, thus writeth: 
u In jesuitisin. part. 2. Rat. 5. pag. 5. & 627.  In Ecclesiam verè quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? onus Caeremoniarum etc. intulerunt Pallium Episcopale ad sola Missarum solemnia, Purgatorium, &c, Oblationem salutaris hostiae, & Preces pro demortuis etc. reliquias etc. Transubstantiationem etc. novas templorum consecrationes etc. Ex quibus omnibus, quid aliud quaesitum est, quam ut Indulgentiae, Monacha●us, Paptus, reliquunque Pontificiae superstitionis Chaös extruatur? Haec autem Augustinus Magnus Monachus (a Gregorio Monacho edoctus) importavit Anglis: Thus D. Humphrey. Are not these his own words? And are not the 
x In the Alphabetical table of the sixth Century after the first Edition thereof, at the word: Gregory.  Centurists and 
y Epitome. histor. Eccles. cent. 6. pag. 289.  Osiander (above cited) most clear, that Augustine at his coming into England, preached the present Roman Religion, in all chief points to you English?  D. WHITAKERS. 
It cannot be denied, but that all the foresaid Protestants (as also all Histories discoursing of this point) do confidently aver the same. Which said Gregory, as he brought in some true, & wholesome points of Christian Faith; so did he mingle them, with diverse poisonous superstitions, worthily to be avoided by all good Christians: 
z D. ●hit. Cont. Camp. Rat. 10.  Phármaca pollà méns 〈…〉 esthlà memieména, pollà de lyerà. for it is most clear, that Augustine in this his plantation of Religion in England, did greatly labour 
a D. Whit. ubi supra.  ‛ ar' ' rostia quadam dianoias, with an infirmity or sickness of judgement.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Well, M. Doctor, touching the venom, you spit out against Augustine's Religion, I hold it, but as foam, & froth of a distempered stomach, and therefore I pass it over: but to return to my argument. Here now I willbe serviceable unto you, and by the mixture of all these former Ingredients, I will present you with a wholesome Electuary, compounded of them all: for indeed I hold the demonstration issuing out of the premises, so unavoidable, as that it precludeth, and forestalleth the adversary of all show of Reply.  
First than it is granted, that the Britons were converted to the Faith of Christ by joseph of Aramathia; who as he had the honour to inter our Saviour, & lay his sacred Body in a new monument, cut out of a rock (as the 
b Math. 27.  Evangelist speaketh) so enjoyed he the happiness to bury all former infidelity in the Britons, and to clothe, or enfold their (afore stony, and rocky) hearts, within the clean Syndon of a pure Faith in our Saviour:  
But to proceed. Secondly, it is confessed, that the Britons retained this their first Faith, spotless, and without change, till Augustins' coming into England: Thirdly, it is proved, that at the time of the conference between Augustine, and the Briton Bishops, the greatest difference in matters of Faith, and Religion, (whereupon they stood) were but two points, chiefly consisting in Ceremony; to wit, the keeping of Easter day in it usual time, and the form of Baptising, according to the rites of Rome. Fourthly, and lastly, it is granted, that Augustine here planted, and preached to the English all Articles, and points of the present Roman Religion, or Papistry, as you Protestants do usually style it.  
Now, M. Doctor, what other resultancy can here be made out of all these Premises, but this? To wit, that the Church of Rome in Augustins' time teaching Papistry, was wholly agreeable (the two points, or Ceremonies of keeping Easter day, and of baptising with the Rites of Rome, only excepted) with the Faith, and Religion, which was planted among the Britons by joseph of Aramathia in the Apostles days: and consequently, that the Church of Rome teaching Papistry, did never suffer any change in her Faith, and Religion since the Apostles departed. This is the Argument, wherein (I grant) I partly insult; it is inavoidable; it is a demonstration: And prize it Micheas as a strong Aries, beating down, & bearing before it, whatsoever may seem to withstand the Truth in this point controverted.  MICHEAS. 
In deed, my Lord, it seems to me very forcible, and you did well to reserve it to the last place; that so (like sweetmeats) it might pleasingly close up the taste of our judgements. Nevertheless the consideration of it doth not diminish with me the force of your other former arguments; for though Better be better, yet followeth it not, but that Good is good.  D. WHITAKERS. 
My Lord, This your argument is tied together with many links, and break but one of them, all the rest are loosed. And indeed it is but an argument drawn from Authority, Negatively, and by Omission only; which you know is little valued in the schools. For the hinge (as I may say) or weight of it only consisteth in this. That at the meeting of Augustine, and the Briton Bishops, dissented from Augustine. But of other greater points we read no mention made among them; and therefore for any thing we know, the Britons might aswell disagree from Augustine in all other Articles passed over in silence, as agree with them.  CARD. BELLARM. 
How improbable, how absurd, how impossible is this, you say? And take heed, M. Doctor, that this your answer be not controlled by your own secret conscience; and beware of much practising the like hereafter; since the Character of any bad course, impressed by a long habit, at length becomes indelible. But to the point: Consider all the Circumstances of the business at that time handled, and then deliver an impartial, and even censure. The meeting was occasioned only for comparing their Faiths together; Augustine imitating therein S. Paul, 
c Gal. 2.  ut conferat cum illis Euangelium, quod praedicat in Gentibus. The Britons (even by the acknowledgement of M. 
d Act. Mon. printed. 1576. pag. 120.  Fox) did bear themselves at the first against Augustine, with great pertinacy, & stubborness; and therefore the less probable it is, that they would yield to him in any point of moment, more than was agreeable to their own Religion. The differences between them after much disquisition, and search, are recorded to be only about the two former points of Ceremonies, and seeming indifferency. The Recorder of this great Passage, was principally S. Bede; who (ex professo) did write most elaborately, and punctually, the Ecclesiastical History of England in those times; and therein was obliged (by his designed method) not to register the smallest occurrents, and wholly to omit the greatest.  
Now then can we dream, that the Doctrines touching the Real Presence; the Sacrifice of the Mass, Praying to Saints. Purgatory, freewill, justification by works, Images, Monachisme, the Primacy of Peter, and some others (all being Articles of greatest importance, and particularly taught by S. Augustine) were, either not mentioned, and not once spoken of in that serious discourse between Augustine, and the Briton Bishops; or they being then painfully discussed, and ventilated, the Britons being so refractory, and stiff with Augustine in the smallest points, would quietly, and without resistance, embrace all these high doctrines, as Innovations, and repugnant to their Faith, first planted by joseph of Aramathia? Or if the Bri●on Bishops ve●lded not their assent to these supreme points of Faith of Rome, would not such their reluctation, and dislike have been recorded by S. Bede, and other writers of those times, who would not omit to relate the Britons stiffness, and coldness in the least matters of this History? It is great weakness, but to suppose such impossibilities; It is madness, and lunacy to believe them.  
Therefore my absolute, and last resolution here is, that the Faith of Augustine, was then one, and the same in all Articles with the Faith of the Britons, first preached to them in the Apostles days, (the Ceremonies of Baptising, and of keeping Easter day chiefly excepted) which lesser errors, S. Augustine (observing the Britons stiffness) thought perhaps, would sooner be recalled by a patient sufferance of them for a time, then by any violent means used at the first to the contrary; like to some diseases, which are best cured, by continuing the diseases.  
Now for the fuller close of this point, to wit, touching the agreement of the Doctrine taught by S. Augustine, with the then Doctrine, and Faith of the Briton Bishops, I will add the acknowledgement of the Briton Bishops themselves, of whom S. Bede thus relateth: 
e Lib. 2. c. 2.  britons quidem confitentur intellexisse se veram esse viam iustitiae, quam praedicaret Augustinus: so unanimous (we see) were the Britons & Augustine in their Faith, and Religion: and therefore it was not strange, that at the last (as D. Fulke affirmeth) 
f In his Confutation of Purgatory, p. 335.  Augustine did obtain the aid of the British Bishops, to the conversion of the Saxons.  
And thus far of this argument, the which shall serve as the Catastrophe, or end of this my Scene; wherein I have undertaken (though more, then by rigour of method I was tied unto) to prove by positive arguments, and reasons, that the Church of Rome hath never suffered any change in her Faith, and religion, since the Apostles days; my chief allective (Miche●s) inducing me thereto, being only your satisfaction in this your imposed Subject, or Question.  MICHEAS. 
My L. Cardinal. I render you humble thanks, and I must say that these your former arguments produced, seem to me very moving; and except M. Doctor be able to repel them with other more forcible arguments, they will (I confess) impel my judgement to give it free, and full consent, to the believing of that point, for the proof whereof, they are by your Lordship alleged.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor. Seeing there is no truth so illustrious, and radiant, but that in an undiscerning eye, it may seem to be clouded for the time, with the interposition of some weak Objections; Therefore I would now wish you, to proceed to your proofs, and to allege such arguments against our former Conclusion, as your own reading hath at any time best ministered unto you.  
Do not rest only in generally saying, that the Church of Rome hath altered her Religion; except withal you insist in the particular instances, when that Church embraced such, & such a Doctrine, as an innovation, and repugnant to the Faith planted by the Apostles. And remember, that the Truth, or falsehood of generalities in speech do receive their best illustration from a curious, and precise dissecting of the Particulars.  
This office now is particularly incumbent upon you; for seeing you maintain, that the Church of Rome hath changed its Faith since the Apostles times, you are obliged to insist in the particular Doctrines, supposed to be changed, in the Person, and Popes, by whom this change was made, in the time, in which these alterations are presumed to have happened, and the like; as above I intimated in the beginning of this discourse. Therefore, M. Doctor, begin, and I will reply to your Objections, as far as my own reading, and judgement will afford.  D. WHITAKERS 
My Lord I willingly take hold of your prescribed Method; and will give many instances of several Doctrines, even of the greatest moment, now in question between you, and us, when they were first introduced into the Church, and by what Popes they were so brought in; and I hope that a due, and mature ponderation of them will be able to shake, and disjoint (or rather to lay level to the ground) the whole Systima, and frame of your former large discourse.  
Well then, the first Instance of this undoubted Change, which I will allege, shallbe Pope 
g So saith D. hi●. cont. Duraeum, lib. 7. pag. 480.  Siritius, who was the first, that annexed Perpetual Chastity to the ministers of the word. And I hope, that it is to be accounted no small change, to bar our Clergy of their Christian liberty in so great a matter; since we are taught by him, who in these later times first taught us Protestantcy that, nothing 
h In Proverb. 13. where he so saith in dutcz, as is here englished.  is more swee●e or loving upon earth, then is the love of a Woman if a Man can obtain it. And 
i Luther Tom. 7. in Epist. ad Wophangun. fol. 505.  that he who resolveth to be without a Woman let him lay aside from him the name of a man, making himself a plain Angel, or Spirit.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, before I come to apply particular answers to your particular instances following; I must tell you, that the force of all such your instances is already overthrown, by what is delivered above. For if it be already demonstrated, that no change of faith hath been made at any time in the church of Rome, partly by freeing every age of the Church, since Christ's time from any change in Religion, even by the acknowledgement of the learned Protestants; partly by manifesting, that neither the Church of Christ, never made any resistance against the first supposed change (as both in duty it was bound to do, and as the holy Scripture prophesieth, that it should ever do, at the innovation of any new Doctrine) neither doth any Historiographer record in his History any such change; partly by discovering the uncertain judgements of your own Brethren touching Antichrists first coming; at what time this so much pressed Innovation of Faith is taught to have happened; and finally, partly by diverse other reasons above discussed, and disputed: I say, if all this hath been above proved (as I hope it is) then doth it follow, that all pretended Instances, and Examples (upon which you may hereafter seem in an ignorant eye to insist) are impertinent, frivolous, and wholly by you mistaken. Nevertheless, for the fuller content of this our Learned jew, I will with peculiar answers refel every one of your peculiar Examples. And first, to your first. Where it seems, that the Doctrine of vowed Chastity in Clergy Men toucheth you near, in regard of your Ministers conjugal lives, seeing you begin there with. And here by the way, I must make bold to say, that you Protestant's (God be thanked) cannot justly be charged with being reputed superstitious Votaries, and wilful Eunuches, (as Catholic Priests are styled by some of your Brethren to be) so careful you are of your own reputation herein: but the less marvel, since the very Body of Protestancy is Sensuality (pardon me, M. Doctor, for speaking that, which Experience, and your own Theorems depose to be true) as the soul of it is an assumed height of mind, and control of all Authority.  
But now to your example, whereof you produce no authority of any ancient Father affirming so much, but only your own naked assertion. This of Siricius is wrongfully alleged for several respects: first, in that we find S. Hierome (who lived before Siricius) to write of this point in this sort: 
k In Apolo. ad Pammach. cap. 3.  If married men like not of this (meaning of the single life of the Clergy) let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; who know, they cannot offer up Sacrifice, if they use the act of Marriage. Thus (we see) S. Hierome reduceth this point of Priests not marrying, even to the Scripture itself. Which Father in further proof thereof, appealeth to the general Practice of the whole Church therein saying: 
l contra Vigilant. cap. 1.  quid faciunt Orientis Ecclesiae, quid Egypti, & Sedis Apostolicae? quae aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut cominentes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desinunt. With Hierome (to omit other Fathers) Epiphanius (ancient to Hierome) conspireth, who reprehending the abuse of some Deacons, and Subdeacons, for accompanying their Wives, whom they had espoused before their Orders taken, concludeth thus: 
m Haeres. 59  At hoc non est iuxta Canonem; This is against the Canion; So he implying, that there, was a former Canon against the marriage of Priests. To conclude Origen, who lived before these o●her Fathers, thus writeth hereof: 
n In Num. homil. 23.  Mihi videtur, quòd illius est solius offerre Sacrificium indesinens, qui indesinenti, & perpetuae se devouerit castitati: I am of judgement, that, that man only, is to offer up perpetual Sacrifice, who hath devoted himself to perpetual Chastity.  
This point is so evident, that your own 
o In E●am. Concil. Trident. p. 50. & 62.  Kempnitius doth reprehend the foresaid Hierome, Epiphanius, Origen, as also Ambrose, for their impugning the supposed lawfulness of Priest's marriage. We may add (for close hereof) the Council of Carthage. whereat S. Augustine was present: the Council in express words saith thus: 
p Concil. Carth. 2. Can. 2.  Omnibus placet ut, Episcopi, Presbyteri, & Diaconi &c. ab uxoribus se abstineant: It is allowed by all, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons do abstain from having wives. And then immediately after the Council giveth the reason thereof in these words: Vt quod Apostoli docuerunt, & ipsa seruavit antiquitas, nos custodiamus: to the end that we may keep, what the Apostles have ordained herein, and antiquity observed. Now I refer to any Man's indifferent judgement, with what colour, M. Doctor, you can aver, that Siricius was the first, who imposed single life upon Priests, and the Clergy.  MICHEAS. 
I do not know, in what age each of these Fathers did live, I being more conversant in the Genealogies of our ancient Prophets, and jews, then in the Centuries, or ages of the Fathers of Christ's Church. Nevertheless Reason, and true discourse informs me, that granting all, or most of these former alleged Fathers to have lived before Siricius, (as you, my Lord, do avouch, and M. Doctor, doth not deny) then in regard of their former produced testimonies against the Marriage of Priests, it cannot be conceived, how Siricius was the first, who annexed perpetual chastity to Priesthood. But if it please you, M. Doctor, proceed to other instances.  D. WHITAKERS. 
The first Council of Nice 
q Can. 3.  forbiddeth Marriage of Priests in these words: Priests are not to have dwelling with them any Woman, other than their Mother, Sister, their Father's Sister, their Mother's Sister. Now these words show an Innovation of this Doctrine touching Priests not marrying, different from the former liberty left to them by Christ.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I will not much insist, how this instance overthroweth the former instance of Siricius; Seing it is impossible, that both the Council, and Siricius (they being in different times) should be the first impugners of Priest's Marriage. But to come to your example. The Cannon of Nice here alleged, doth not bring in any Innovation of Priests not marrying; but only in regard of some negligence afore used, by some of the Clergy, in not precisely observing the Apostles Doctrine herein, doth for the greater caution, Decree, that the said Women (& no others) should live in the houses with Priests. Now that the Doctrine of Priests single life was more ancient, than the Decree, appeareth from the words of Paphnutius, then present at the Council; who, though, perhaps, he was persuaded, that Priesthood did not dissolve Marriage afore contracted, yet he 
r This is acknowledged by Socrates lib. 1. c. 8. by Sozom. l. 1 c. 22. by the Centurists, cent. 4. c. 9 and by M. D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testament in Math. 8.  saith plainly: Those, who are made Priests before they are married, cannot after marry. And this the said Paphnutius calleth: Veteram Ecclesiae traditionem: so far Paphnutius was from ascribing it to the Nicene Council, as to the first author thereof. But proceed on forward, M. Doctor.  D. WHITAKERS. 
It is manifest, that he 
s D. Whit. contra Duraeum. l. 7. p. 480  who first delivered Purgatory, for a certain Doctrine was Gregory the Great. And this my own reading assureth me.  MICHEAS 
M. Doctor. Here I must make bold to interpose my judgement. And truly, I can hardly be induced to think prayer for the dead (which necessarily resulteth out of the Doctrine of Purgatory) to be an Innovation; much less the Doctrine thereof to be first invented by the Father, whom you style Gregory the Great; who, and at what time he lived, I know not. My reason is this: I am assured, both by my own practice, and perusing of our jewish books, that prayer for the dead was ever used in our Synagogues, and is practised by us Jews even to this day. And here, supposing, that the Book of the Maccabees be but Apocryphal, yet it is acknowledged by all, that the Histories there recorded, are true Histories. Now there we read, that judas Machabeus (the undowbted servant of God) commanded prayers, and sacrifices to be made for the dead Soldiers, upon which Act, it is there said: So 
t Lib. 2. a. achab. c. 2.  he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin  
This Doctrine with us Jews was so general, as that (to omit all other ancient Rabbins, teaching the same) Rabbi Simeon (a learned jew, and who lived before Christ) thus writeth of those, who are temporally punished after this life: 
u In. l. Zoar. in c. 18. Gen.  After they are purged from the filth of their sins, then doth God cause them to ascend out of that place. But pardon me, for inserting my sentence herein.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Worthy Rabbi. You have spoken truly; and indeed; as the ancient practice of the jews, doth free the Doctrine, and use of praying for the dead, from the stain of Novelty in the new Testament; so these Authorities, and acknowledgements following, do wholly subvert the former Instance of Gregory the Great.  
And first, we find S. Augustine (who lived long before Gregory) thus to say: 
x De Verb. Apost. Serm. 34  Non est dubit andum etc. It is not to be doubted, but that the dead are much helped by the healthful Sacrifice of the Holy Church, and by alms given for their sonles; and that by these means God doth deal more mercifully with them, than their sins have deserved. And in another place the said Father: Neque 
y Agust. in Encheri●. c. 110.  negaudum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur; It cannot be dented, but that the souls of the dead, are relieved, through the piety of their living friends, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered up for them.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Many learned Protestants do hold, that Augustine did rest doubtful of the being of a Purgatory; among whom D. 
z Against the Rhemish Testament. in 1. Cor. 3.  Fulke (that learned man) doth so write.  CARD. BELLARM. 
They do ascribe a doubtful hesitation to Augustine in this Article, only for the better defence of their contrary Doctrine, Therefore for the greater evidence herein, observe the free acknowledgements of the learned Protestants themselves passed, not only upon Augustine, but upon other ancient Fathers. Thus, M. Doctor, you shall be herein deadly wounded by the penns of your own Brethren: and thus may our Saviour's words be verified in you: 
a Math. 10.  man's Enemies shallbe they of his own household.  
And first D. Fulke himself (howsoever you allege him to the contrary) speaking of Aerius, thus spieth: Aerius 
b In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic. p. 44  taught, that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness Epiphanius, & Augustine. Also the said Doctor confesseth more liberally of this point, thus writing: 
c In his confutation of Purgatory, p. 2. vid. 303. et 393.  Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian, Herome, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the dead is the tradition of the Apostles. Which point, M. Doctor, being granted, and admitting there were no express Scripture for this Doctrine, but only warranted by tradition, yet may the conscience of every good Christian, be secured herein,  
Finally Calvin thus writeth of the former point touching the antiquity of prayer for the dead: 
d justit 〈◊〉. c. 5. sect 10.  ante trecentos annos usu receptum fuit, ut praecationes fierent pro mortuis etc. sed fateor in errorem arrepti fuerunt: Within three hundred years after Christ, it was in use to procure prayers to be made for the dead etc. But the performers thereof were led into an error. Thus much touching Augustine, and the times afore him. Now from the perusal of these Confessions, I much wonder, M. Doctor, how you blushed not, to obtrude the beginning of prayer for the dead, upon Gregory the Great, who lived diverse hundred ages after all the former Fathers were dead.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Howsoever, my L. Card. you seek to avoid my former Instances, yet, what answer can you make touching Pope Victor. 
f So saith D. Whit. cont Duraeutin. l. 7. p. 480.  who was the first, that exercised jurisdiction upon foreign Churches? which sentence of mine, is also approved by my former learned Brother D. 
g In his answer to a Cöterfait Catholic. p. 36.  Fulke; from which example I gather, that Victor (out of his elation, & pride) first challenged that Primacy to him over all churches, which your Popes, at this day still usurp, and retain: This Pope Victor being one of those, who covet: 
h D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 4.  ‛ aiem ' aristcucin cai' yperochòn ' émmenai' alon; to advance himself as the best, and chiefest, above all other Bishops.  CARD. BELLARM. 
You do much disadvantage yourself in alleging this example, considering the time, wherein Victor lived; to wit, in the year 198. An age, during the which, yourself hath heretofore confessed, that the church ●f Rome did suffer no alteration in her Religion. Now, M. Doctor, whereas you cast an aspersion of pride upon this most ancient, and reverend Pope, I wish you take heed that you do not incur the censure passed upon Diogenes, who is said to have reproved Plato his pride, with greater pride.  D. WHITAKERS. 
It is certain, that many churches, and Father's were offended with Victor's proceeding therein; and particularly that ancient, and pious Father Irenaeus? which is an infallible argument of Victor's usurpation. For if Victor had true power to excommunicate the churches of Asia (as it is granted he actually had) why should Irenaeus; and those churches be offended: or reprehend him, for putting only in execution his lawful Authority.  CARD. BELLARM. 
You must call to mind here, M. Doctor, the reason, why Victor did excommunicate the Churches of Asia, which was, because the Bishops of Asia were unwilling to conform themselves to the Church of Rome, in keeping of Easter day, to wit, to keep it only upon Sunday; whereas they would needs continue the keeping of it upon the 14. of the Moon, according to the custom of the jews: Now for this their reluctation herein against the Church of Christ, Victor did excommunicate them.  
But when this seemed (as being but a Ceremony, and for a time tolerated, through the weakness of the jews) in the judgement of diverse, too small an occasion to excommunicate, and cut off so many famous Churches, therefore Victor was censured by diverse, to be over severe in prosecuting with so great a punishment, so small a seeming fault. From which, their thus censuring of Victor, we may rather gather his Primacy above other Churches, than otherwise: and the reason hereof is, because we do not find any of the said Bishops to charge Victor with any Innovation, in unduely assuming to himself this Authority over other Churches (which doubtlessly they would have done, if Victor had first taken this privilege to himself, they being so justly provoked thereto) but they did only rebuke, (as is said) his overmuch rigid severity, in punishing (as they thought) so rigorously, so small a disobedience in the Bishops of Asia.  
Yea which is more, that Irenaeus, who was most forward in taxinge Victor with his sharp proceeding, ascribeth to Victor a sovereignty over all Churches. For besides, that Irenae●s is reprehended by the 
i Cent. c. 4. col. 64. l. 2.  Centurists, for acknow ledging the Primacy of the Roman Sea, Eusebius thus writeth of Irenaeus touching this point: 
k histor. l. 5. c. 24.  Irenaeus admonisheth Victor by letters, that he would not (for the observation of a Tradition so long used) quite cut of so many Churches from the body of the Universal Church.  
Thus Eusebius. Now I here demand, why should Irenaens dissuade Victor from excommunicating those Churches, but that he was persuaded, that Victor had power to excommunicate them. And thus far of this instance; which may be of force (perhaps) to prove, that Victor was over severe, but not that he had not true power over other Churches; for which point it is by you, M. Doctor, urged. But I pray you pass to other instances; only here by the way, I will put you in mind, that careless, and obstinate Christians, (and such it well may be, some of those Asian Christians were) have in some respect small reason to fear the excommunication of the Pope, since these men, through such their disobediency, do commonly excommunicate themselves.  D. WHITAKERS. 
It is clear, that Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, 
l D. Whit. instanceth in these three Popes. l. 7. Conl. Durae 'em pag. 480.  (all Bishops of Rome, did challenge superiority over other Bishops, by forging of a Canon of the Nicene Council; Which proceeding manifesteth the then usurped Authority of those Popes, to be contrary to the institution of Christ. Thus these your Popes thirsted after all domination, and Power, though at other times, rhey made show (by styling themselues: Serui Seruorum, and by their other affected Humility) to contemn all honours and eminency. 
m Tertul.  Cur vultis esse in mundo, qui extra mundum estis?  CARD. BELLARM. 
It is most strange to see how inconsiderately, you proceed. For here you say, that these Pope's first introduced this innovatios of the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome, over other Churches; and immediately afore (and with all one breath) you ascribe the beginning thereof to Victor, who lived two hundred years before any of these three Popes. If these later Popes brought it in, than Victor did not? If Victor did begin it, than those Popes could not? See how irreconciliable these your two Assertions are. From the actions of all which Popes, you can truly gather, that they only practised an Authority, which the Church of Rome ever had; but not, that they assumed any sovereignty to them, (which point is only in q 〈…〉 estion) which afore that Church had not.  D. WHITAKERS. 
M. D. Fulke, conspireth with me in alleging the foresaid examples; and he was a man well conversant in Ecclesiastical Histories: his words are these: Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus did challenge 
n In his answer to a cōterfeyt● tho. lick p. 37.  prerogative over the Bishop of Africa, by forging a false Canon of the Nicene Council. And this Doctors indgmen● I much prize, in matters of controversyes.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Both, D. Fulke, his judgement, (how learned soever you repute him) and your own also, must of necessity yield to the truth herein: seeing the example of Victor (afore infisted upon by you) doth vindicate, and free these three later Popes, from all innovation in this point. And as touching the supposed forging of a Canon of the Nicene Council, for the erection of the Primacy of Rome; It is most false, for even your own writers, to wit, 
o Lib. 4 Instit. cap. 7 Sect. 9  Calvin himself, and Peter 
p In his Commö places in English part. 4. p. 39  Martyr, do mention the said Canon, as truly made: Only they say, that the Popes did misalleadge this decree, as made by the Council of Nice, which was made by the Council of Sardis. And so their Error (admitting that they did err) consisteth only in mistaking, by whether Council the said Canon was decreed.  D. WHITAKER. 
What say you of Boniface the third? 
q So saith D. Whit●kcr cen●ra Duraeuml. p. 48  It is certain that this Boniface the third, was then the first that entitled the Roman Church to be caput omnium Ecclesiarum: the Head of all Churches.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor you weary me, by idly diverberating the air with these impertinent Examples, and force me to entertain them with a fastidious neglect. For do not the former Examples of Victor, Zozimus, Bonifacius, (the first of that name) and Celestiws, (all more ancient, than this Boniface the third take away the weight of this your instance? And therefore I refer you to my answers touching them above specified. Yet because this verbal Instance, consisteth chiefly in the phrase of: Caput omnium Ecclesiarum; you shall therefore (for your fuller satr●saction) know, that this very Title, of being Head of the Church, is acknowledged, and given to the Church of Rome, by many both Latin, and Greek Farhers, who lived diverse hundred of years before this Boniface the third, who reigned about the year 507.  
And first Vincentius Lyrinensis (who was almost three hundred years before this Boniface) calls the Bishop of Rome; 
q adners Haeres. versus finem  Caput Orbis; the Head of the Christian World. S. Hierome 
r In 1. Timoth.  saith, that Damasus (than Bishop of Rome) est Rector domus Dei quae est Ecclesia eins, Damasus is the Reciour or governor of the house of God which is his Church. But if Damasus was the gonernour of the Church, than was he the head of the Church. Finally for greater contraction of this point, in the Council of Chalcedon (consisting of many reverend Doctors and Bishops, and celebrated an hundred & fifty years before this Bonif●ce his time) we thus read: 
s Act. 1.  Papae Vrbis Romae, quae est Caput omnium Ecclesiarum precept a habemus. See the like phrase used, and given to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, by the Emperor justinian, 
t Cod. de Summa Trinitate leg. 4.  Prosper 
u de Ingratis c. 2.  Victor, 
x de Persecut. Wandal.  Vticensis, and (to pretermit others) by S. 
y Epist. 48. ad Anastasium  Leo. So foully M. Doctor, you were deceived, in alleging this Bonifacius, and the phrase of Caput Ecclesiarum.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Who knoweth not. 
a D. 〈…〉 hit cont. Camp. Rat. 6. thus writeth: G 〈…〉 g. Magnus parum ne tuu Pôificem perstringit, quado quisquis se Vniversale Episcopum vocat, cum Antichristi praecursore procul dubio appellat?  joh of Constantinople first challenged to himself, the name of Vniversnll Bishop? But Gregory the Great (than Bishop of Rome) eigravissime, & conflantissimè restitit quousque vixit; most gravely, and constantly resifled him, as long as he lived; affirming him to be the Precursor of Antichrist, who should arrogate this title of Universal Bishop, to himself  
But now (my Lord) every Pope since Gregory's time styleth himself Universal Bishop; and therefore every such Pope (in the judgement of the said Gregory) is the Precursor of Antichrist: and consequently, every such Pope hath made no small change in this main point, from the Faith first planted by Christ: for what commerce, and association in Faith can there be, between Christ, and Antichrist?  CARD. BELLARM. 
Yet M. Doctor, more of these frothy Instances? Who hath not read or heard, that Gregory the Great lived in the year 590. and therefore some thousand years since or more? whereas the former alleged Victor, Zozimus, Benifacius the first, Celestinus, and Bonifacius the third lived many years afore him; and some of them several hundred of years, were his ancients; How then could they assume a Supreane Authority over all Churches, (as you afore have urged) and have the title of Head of the Church given them, if john of Constantinople were, either the first, that took this title to himself, or that Gregory the Great did dislike it, in that sense, wherein you insist; Therefore what censorious temerity is this in you M. Doctor, and how hardly can you vindicate your name (by this your comportment) from all just blemish, and disreputation?  
But suppose this reprehension given by S. Gregory were true, this only argueth a change to have been in john of Constantinople, but not in the Bishop of Rome, which is the only point here questioned. Again, I cannot, but observe, how in this place, for your advantage, you can commend Gregory for his humility, and virtue, whom at other times you are not afraid to term Antichrist, and whose first Conversion of you English to Christianity, you have elsewhere styled: 
b D. Whit. l. de Eccles. cont Bollar. p. 336.  Corrupt, and Impure: see how ready, you protestants are to turn the sails of of your speech to every wind.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Will you deny, that john of Constantinopee did take this title of Universal Bishop to himself; or that Gregory the Great did not reprehend him for the same? There are ancient Histories recording no less.  CARD BELLARM. 
No. I do not deny it. But I say, the deceit lieth in the equivocation of the word: Universal Bishop. This word lieth open to a double acceptance: either to signify, that he who is the Universal Bishop, is sole Bishop; so as it excludeth all others, from being Bishops; in which sense S. Gregory did term it sacrtlegious, profane, and Antichristian: Or else to signify one, who hath the chief care, and government of the Universal Church; by which signification others are not excluded from being Bishops.  
That in the first sense Gregory did take the word: Universal Bishop, is most evident, even out of Gregoryes own works; for thus he writeth hereof: 
c Lib. 7. epist 69 add Euseb. saying: Si unus est vutuersalis, restat, ut vos Episeopi non sitis.  If one be Universal Bishop, it remaineth, that you be no Bishops. And again: If 
d Lib. 4 Epist. ad Eulogium: Si unus Patriarcha universalis dicitur, Patria●charnm n●men ●aeteris der ogatunr.  one be called the Universal Patriarch, the name of Patriarch is taken away from the rest. In this sense did Gregory take the word, and in this sense did john of Constantinople labour to have the word applied to himself, endeavouring to be thought the chief Bishop of the world (to use your own 
e Lib. of the Church pag. 62.  D. Fields words) because his City was the chief City of the world.  
Thus you see, M. Doctor, how weakly (or rather, how so Phistically) you argue from the ambiguous acceptance of the phrase of Universal Bishop. But your fault is here the greater, since you being a scholar) are not ignorant, that Sophistry is only by incidency, and for caution to be known, but not to be practised: so Physicians know (for greater wariness) the venomous nature of certain herbs, or drugs.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Howsoever Gregory might take this word, in your former restrained sense; yet seeing he did forbear to exercise that foveraignty over other Bishops, and Churches, which now the Bishops of Rome do practise; it followeth therefore, that he wholly disliked this swollen domination, and Primacy, so much thirsted after by your Popes.  CARD. BELLARM. 
It seems, M. Doctor, you are a stranger in your own supposed Israel, I mean, you are not acquainted with your own learned brethren's writings: for what poynr of Primacy, and Sovereignty over other Churches, and Bishops is there, which Gregory the Great did not exercise, and this by the acknowledgement of your own Ceeturists? For though he was a most religious Pope, and so great an Enemy to Pride, as that he might be truly said, to have been even ambitious of Humility, yet in respect of his Papal jurisdiction, it is thus written of him: 
f So write the C●turists of Gregory Cent. 6. col. 462.  He challenged to himself power to command Arcbishops; to ordain or depose Bishops at his pleasure. 
g Cent. 6. col. 427.  He took upon him right to city Arcbishops that they should declare their cause before him, when they were by any accused, 
h ubi suprà col. 428.  He placed in other Bishop's Provinces, Legates to konws, and end the causes of those, who made their appeal ta Rome He usurped power of calling Synods in the provinces of other Bishops. Thus do the Centurists write of Gregory, collecting the Premises out of his own writings. To be short, they further in general thus write of him, saying; 
i Cent. 6. col. 425.  Gregorius dicit sedem Romanan speculationem suam toti orbi indicere; Gregory saith that the Roman Sea appointeth her watches over the whole world.  
Now by all this here delivered, M. Doctor, you may see, whether or no, Gregory did practise the Authority of an Universal Bishop, as the word is taken in a sober (and in the Latter above mentioned) construction? And thus much of the Example of john of Constantinople and of Gregory the Great; which is so often enforced, and urged, though with extreme wilful (or at least ignorant) mistaking by many of your Protestant doctors.  MICHEAS. 
Our Law of Moses ever enjoyed one Supreme Priest; and therefore, seeing the time of the new Testament, is much superior to the time of the Law, I do not see, but now in theiyme of Grace, there should be one Supreme Bishop over the whole Church of Christ; and consequently the acknowledgement of such an Universal Bishop should not be reputed any Innovation in Religion, or change made from the first Institution of such a Pastor by Christ himself.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Michaeas', you speak according to the Truth, and no more than certain Puritan protestants do teach, who write thus thereof: 
k In their Treatise entitled English. Puritanisme printed anno 190 〈◊〉. p. 16.  The (high Priest of the jews was typically, and in a figure, the supreme head of the whole catholic Church; with whom as other Protestant thus jumpeth, saying: 
l Penry in his supplication to the high Court or Parliament  That form of government, which maketh our Saviour Christ inferior to Mo●ses is an impious, ungodly, and unlawful government, contrary to the Word. etc. But (M. D.) proceed on further.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Our best Controversists, which (as I may term them) a● the Infantaria of our Protestant Churches Soldiers, do teach, that touching 
m so saith D. whitakers coutra Du●●um l. 7. p. 490.  your Sacrament of Confession, Innocentius the Third was the first, that instituted auricular Confession for necessary. Now this Innocentius lived not passed some four hundred years since: so late, and fresh, (you fee) your Doctrine of Auricular Confession is. And admitting this yonr Article, touching Confession, were not so new, but for more ancient; yet this Circumstance here availeth little; since we are to call to mind, that Haereses non●am Novitas, quam veritas revincit.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I grant willingly, that many of your Controversists (among whom I also range yourfelfe) are accounted men of learning; And therefore I rest the more amazed, to see you here (perhaps with resolved wilfulness against the Truth) object this example to us for Novelty. But I fear your, and their learning is chiefly in obtruding errors, and misstaking, for warrantable Truths; and such a knowledge is not to be preferred before simple Ignorance.  
But to clear this Innocentius from all innovation herein, and not to oppress you with multitude of Authorities: We find S. Bernard (who lived before Innocentius the third) thus to write of this point: Sed 
o Ini Meditat. c. 9  dicis, sufficit mihi soli Deo confiteri etc. But thou sayest, it is sufficient for me to confess my sins only un to God, because a Priest without him, cannot absolve me from my sins: To Which thy argument not I, but S. james answereth: Confess your sins one to an other. But to ascend higher; S. Leo. (who lived anno 440.) describing the use of the Latin Church in this point, thus saith: 
p Epict. 91. add Theodorum foro julii Episcop.  Christus hanc Ecclesiae Prepositis tradidit potestatem etc. Christ did deliver this power to the Prelates of his Church, that they should impose penance upon them, that confessed their sins; that so they being purged through a healthful satisfaction, might be admitted, by Way of reconciliation, to the communion of the Sacraments.  
In like sort S. Basil. (S. Leo his ancient) discoursing of the use of the Greek Church herein, and teaching, that a Ghostly Father in tymeof Confession, is an other from himself thus writeth: Necessariò 
q In questio brevioribꝰ in terogat. 288  peccata eis aperiri debent etc. Our sins are necessarily, (see here the Necessity of Confession) to be opened to those to whom the dispensation of the Mysteries of Christ are given; for indeed we find, that all the Ancients did follow this course in Penance. To be brief, Cypryan and Tertullian (of so great antiquity is Auricular Confession) are charged by your own 
r Cent. 3. c. 6. col. 127.  Centurists to teach private Confession; and this even of thoughts, and lesser sins; and that such Confession was then commanded; and thought necessary. Thus far of this point, Where, by the way I must tell you, that since protestancy had it first source from sense, and sensuality, the less wonder it is, that Confession of sins made to a priest (being so ungrateful to man's nature) should be so unpleasing to all protestants, and so basely esteemed of, for we all know, that the water will ascend no higher, then is the level of its first spring.  MICHNS 
I must acknowledge, that our Ancient jews did use particular Confession of sins to a Priest, 
s De Arcanis Catholicae. Veritatis l. 10. c. 3.  Galatinus (who hath collecteda summary of our jewish Religion) showeth in diverse parts of his Writings, our continual practice thereof. Add hereto, that the prefiguration of Auricular Confession is not wanting in Leviticus; 
t Lense. 2. 3. etc. & ●5. 6. etc.  for seeing there were then appounted different Sacrifices, to be offered up by the Priest for different sins, and offences; how could the Priest know, what kind of Sacrifice he were to offer, except he knew the particular sin, for which it is to be offered? Now then in regard of our jewish practice hereof, & seeing there is no reason, why now in the New Testament, it should be wholly abrogated, I cannot be induced to think, that the use thereof is to be accounted as an innovation, and change, different from the doctrine first planted in Rome by the Apostles.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Your doctrine 
u D. Whit. cont. Duraeum p. 480. saith: qni Transubstantiatione primus excogitavit, is suit Innocentius tertius. in Lateranenst Concilio.  of Transubstantiatinn was first, invented by Innocentius the third in the Council of Lateran: for before that time, not any one of the ancient Fathers did hold it: for where ever in any of their writings was made any mention of Transubstantiation?  CARD. BELLARM. 
Good God, how poor, and needy in proof are you, M. Doctor? For indeed you greatly wrong yourself and this presence, in suggesting such unwarrantable Assertions True it it is, that if you insist in the word: Transubstantiation we grant, that it was first invented, and imposed upon the Doctrine of the Real Presence, in the council of Lateran. But then this is but a verbal litigation of you: for though the Word was then first form to express the Doctrine of the Church therein; yet the doctrine itself was generally believed in all ages before. And still you allow, M. Doctor, by resemblance this illation, as good, and necessary? The Word ' omousios or Consubstantialis, was first invented in the Council of Nice, to express the Doctrine of the Church touching the Trinity. Ergo the Doctrine of the Trinity was not believed before the Council of Nice. Idly and inconsequently concluded. Therefore, M. Doctor. let your judgement herein draw equally with your learning.  
But to come particularly to the doctrine itself: and to omit, that S. Augustine saith: 
x Tract 2● in Ioani●em.  vocatur caro, quod non capit caro: And in another place: 
y Lib. 6. contra Parmenianum.  quid gratius offerri, aut suscipi possit, quam caro Sacrificii nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri? We are here to remember, that this Council of Lateran was holden in the year, 
z Crispinus in his book of the state of the Church pag. 345.  1215. In which were assembled the Patriarches of jerusalem, and Constantinople, 70 Metropolitan Bishops, 400. Bishops, and 800. Conuentuall Priours. Now can it enter into any brain to think, that all these learned Men, being gathered together from all the several places of the world, and many of them never seeing diverse of the rest, till they were there met, should all jointly embrace (as an innovation, and afore never heard of) a doctrine, so contrary to sense, and fleshly understanding? It is incompatible with common reason to believe, that such a general Error could so suddenly invade, and possess the judgements of so many learned Prelates.  
But to demonstrate the antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: in which sacred Mystery the eye of Faith seeth things invisible (It is confessed, by M. Fox 
a Act. & Mon. print. 1576 p. 1121  that about the year of our Lord, 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted an Heresy and the professors thereof Heretics and in that number was first one Berengarius who lived about the year 1060. Now than if the denying of the doctrine of Transubstantiation was accounted an Heresy, more than a hundred years afore the Council of Lateran was assembled; how could the doctrine of Transubstantiation take it first beginning at that Council? Who seeth not the impossibility hereof? Again, how could that doctrine (in the times set down by M. Fox) be denied, and impugned, except it were then, & afore believed, and maintained?  
But to proceed to higher times. Doth not D. Humphrey confess, that Gregory the Great (who lived five hundred years, and more, before the Council of Lateran) first brought into England the Doctrine of Transubstantiation saying; In 
b In I●suitis●. part. 2. Rat. 5. p. 628.  Ecclesiam vorò quid invexerunt Gregorius, & Augustinus? in●ulerunt etc. Transubstantiationem  
Again, your own Centurists thus speak of Eusebius Emissenus (an ancient Father:) Eusebius Emissenus 
c Cent. 4. c. 10 Col. 985.  p●rùm commodè de Transubstantiatione dixit. And of Chrisostome your foresaid Brethren thus write: Chrysostomus Transubstantiationem videtur confirmare: chrysostom doth seem 
d Centurist. Cent. 4. c. 4. Co●. 496.  to confirm Transubstantiation. The Antiquity of which Doctrine is so great, that Adamus Francisci (a learned Protestant) thus acknowledgeth: Transubstantiation 
e In Margarit. Theol. pag. 256.  did enter early into the Church. Now, M. Doctor, how do all these liberal confessions of so many eminent Protestants stand with your assertion, to wit, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was first invented in the Later an Council? And consequently that the Church of Christ suffered (at that time) a most remarkable change, and alteration in so sublime an Article.  MICHEAS. 
The Doctrine of the Real Presence taught by the Church of Rome (in respect of the Sacrifice there performed) is most conformable to the Prophecies of the ancient jews: for to omit the Sacrifice of Melchisadech, which many did teach to prefigure the Sacrifice, which was to be exhibited after the coming of the Messias, we find most of our ancient Rabbins to be of this mind. Accordingly hereto we read, that Rabbi judas 
f We find the testimonies of these Rabbins here produced, to be alleged by Galatinus de, Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 1. c. 3. See Rab by judas in c. 24. Exo d. and Rabbi Simeon in l. entitled: Revelatio se●retorum.  thus writeth: The bread shallbe changed, when it shallbe sacrificed, from the substance of bread, into the sacrifice of the body of the Messias, which shall descend from Heaven, and himself shallbe the sacrifice. With Which Rabbi (to omit diverse others) Rabbi simeon agreeth in these words: The Sacrifice, which after the Messias his coming, Priests shall make etc. they shall make it of bread & wine etc. And that sacrifice, which shallbe so celebrated on the Altar, shallbe turned into the Body of the Messias: So conspiringly, M. Doctor, we see, did our ancient jews before Christ's birth, (by way of Prediction) teach with the present Roman Church, touching the Real Presence, and the sacrifice performed therein. And therefore it is the more strange to me, that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and of the Sacrifice should be reputed by you, as an innovation lately brought into the Church of Rome; for I must needs think that Christ himself did first institute the same. And thus I believe, that though in our Law, Isaac was externally offered, up though not Sacrificed; Yet now in the New Testament the Messias is daily Sacrificed; though not externally offered up.  D. WHITAKERS. 
My Lord Cardinal. To pass from the Doctrine itself, of the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation; Yet how can you excuse from Novelisine those phrases, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, first invented by Pope Nicolaus the second, to wit, that 
g D. Whit. Cont. Duraeun. l. 7. p. 480. Saith qui primus docuit corpus Christi ●esualiter tractari, frangi et dentile 〈◊〉 ri, suit Nicola●s sec●dus.  the body of Christ is sensibly handled, broken, and chewed with the teeth? So grossly do you Romanists teach herein, as to maintain a Doctrine, which hath nothing to plead for it, but only some few hundreds of years.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor. You now carry yourself like a cowardly Masti●ie (pardon this my homely similitude) which not being able to take any strong, and firm hold at the head of his enemy, is glad in the end to catch at the flank, or other the hindermost parts: So you, seeing you cannot truly charge the Doctrine itself, of the Real presence with innovation; are content to quarrel, and snatch at certain phrases, and words used (by some Doctors) about the said Doctrine. But to your objection: Which (once granting the truth of the Real Presence) is merely verbal. Therefore I say, that these phrases are taken in a sober, and restiained construction: That is, they are immediately to be referred to the forms of Bread, and Wine, under which the body, & blood of Christ do lie. Now that these phrases were not first coined by this Pope Nicolaus (as you aver) it is evident out of the writings of S. chrysostom, who lived many ages before this Pope Nicolaus. This Father in one place thus writeth: 
h Chrysist. in. 1. Cor. Hom. 24.  Christ suffered fraction or breaking in the oblation, which he would not suffer upon the Cross. And in an other place more fully, saying: 
i Chrys. in Mat. hom. 83  ipsum vides, ipsum targis, ipsum comedis: And yet more expressly: Non 
k Chrysost. in joan hem. 45.  se tantum videir permittit desider antibus; sed et tangi, et manancari, et denies carni suae infigi; Christ doth not only permit himself to be scene of those, who desired to see him; but also to be touched, and eaten by them, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh. Thus we see, that S. Chrysostom was not afraid to use the foresaid phrases in a reserved sense, which you make so capital, & heinous. We may adjoin hereto, that jacobus Andrea's (a famous Protestant, but a Lutheran) answereth this very objection which you father upon Pope Nicolaus (as the first inventor of the former phrases) and thus concludeth thereof, saying: 
l In consut. disputant. joamnis' Gr●naei; p. 214 215.  This objection taken from Pope Nicolaus, nihil, continet, quod inscriptis Orthodoxorum Patrum (Chysostomis in primis●) non continetur.  D. WHITAKERS. 
I will not be long in reciting Innovations of strange Doctrines, introduced into the Church of Rome, since the Apostles times. Therefore I will end with the Instance of the fast of Quatuor 
m So saith D. Whit. cont. Duraeum l. 〈◊〉. c. 480.  Temporum, which was first ordained by Pope Calixtus.  CARD. BELLARM. 
The Vessel, M. Doctor, from whence you draw these Instances, seems to run very low, and ne'er the dreggs; Seeing for want of examples, for change in dogmatic points of faith, you are forced at the last to descend to the Institution of set times of fasts. For what is this to the alteration of Faith, and Religion in the Church of Rome, in any dogmatic Article, which is the point only to be insisted upon by you? Hath not the Church of Christ authority to appoint fasting days? The 
n Act. 15.  Apostles (you know) did lawfully command all men to forbear from eating of blood, and of things strangled; and may not the Church succeeding them, as lawfully command, that (at certain times of the year, and for some few days) the Christians shall for bear from eating of flesh, and use a more moderate diet? But it seems, you love not to feed upon superstitious, & Popish fish, since many of you account it so.  
Now as touching the antiquity of this fast of Quatuor Temporun. Where you say, it was first ordained by Calixius; you grant hereby, that it is above fourteen hundred years, since it first institution: for Calixtus was the next successor (but one) to Pope Victor; which Victor lived in the year of our Lord, and Saviour, one hundred and sixty. Thus you are more preiudized, then advantaged by prostituting this your silly supposed Innovation. I will annex hereto, that whereas, M. Doctor, you do not produce any ancient author charging Calixtus, with the first beginning of this Fast, we (on the contrary side) can allege S. Leo ascribing it to proceed from the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost; his words are these following: 
o Serm. 8.  Ecclesiastica ieiunia ex doctrina Sancti Spiritus, ita per totius anni circulum distribura sunt. And thus much touching the Antiquity, and lawfulness of the Past of Quatuor Temporum; whereof you see, M. Doctor, your own bare assertion excepted, no certain beginning can be known, since the Apostles days. But (Sir) proceed further in other instances, if so you can.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Touching further multiplicity of examples I will not much labour. The time is already spent; And I hope my former examples (notwithstanding your subtle evading of them) are able to sway with all such, who are truly illuminated with the spirit of the Lord.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I believe you well. You will not labour further therein; the true reason being, because you cannot. For I have perused your books, written against Duraeus (wherein you chiefly instance, touching the change of the faith of Rome;) and your other Books against Father Campian (that blessed Martyr) as also your writings against myself; and I can find no other instances of this imaginary change, insisted by you, than these alleged. Yea, when the said Father Campian) as most confident of no change of Faith in the Church of Rome,) did most earnestly provoke you Protestants, to name the time and other circumstances (accompanying this supposed change) in those his vehement, and enforcing Interrogations: 
p Rat. 10. Edm. Campiani. Rat. 7.  Quando hanc fide●tant opore celebratum Roma perdidit? quardo esse desist, quod antefuit? quo tempore, quo Pontifice, qua via, qua vi, quibus incrementis Vrbem, et Orbem Relgio pervasit aliena? quas voces, quas turbes, quae lamenta progenuit? Omnes orbe reliquo sopiti sunt, dum Roma (Roma inquam) nova Sacramenta, nonum Sacrificium, nowm Religionis dogma procuderet? You, (though thus a wakened, yet) in your answer hereto, only dwells in your former example of Pope Siricius (above refuted) touching the single life of Priests; & in place of further satisfaction, you thus reply to the said Father Campian: 
q D. Whit. So saith, Cont. Camp. in Rat. 7.  Tuverò si dubitas, an desierit (meaning, whether Rome had changed it Religion) potes etiam, si vis dubitare, ansul meridie splendeat. Can any man (not blinded with prejudice) think, that if you had any material proofs for it change (being a point of the greatest consequence, that is between you, and us) but that you (being thus extremely importuned) would have particularly iusisted in them, and would have enlarged such your reply, with all reading, wit, & learning possible? And as for your former Instances, they are most impertinent, and in themselves most false (as is above demonstrated) they being w●res (I presume) wholly wrought in the shop of your own brain; like the spider's web, which is spinned out of her own Bowels.  MICHEAS. 
M. Doctonr, you must give me leave to tell you, that your Instances (above urged) do not much sway my judgement; first, because they are not in number, past some nine or ten in all; of which four do concern only the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and two the doctrine of the Real Presence (so as it may be justly conjectured, that you Produced several instances for one doctrine, purposely thereby to make show (in this your so great a scarcity) of greater number of Examples) The rest concern Priests nor marrying, Purgatory, auricular Confession, and the fast of Quavor Temporum. Which doctrines are few in respect of the many controverted points (as I am informed) between the Church of Rome, and the Protestants. Therefore I must presume, that no instances can be, but suggested, or imagined to be given of the change of the Church of Rome, touching the doctrines of the Visibility of the Church, of Praying to Saints, of freewill, Merit of works, Works of supererogation, Indulgences, Monachisme, Lymbus patrum, Images, the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Communion only under one kind, Vninersallity of Grace, the Necessuy, and virtue of the Sacraments, Inherent justice, the knowledge of Christ, a man, His being God of God, and diverse others. Secondly, in that touching your former Instances, some of the said doctrines are so agreeable to the practice of our jewish Synagogue, and the judgements of our learned Rabbyes (as I have showed) as that I can hardly repute them, as Innovations.  D. WHITAKERS. 
The unanimous agreement of the Church of Rome with you jews, in some of the former doctrines, is of small force; seeing you well know (Micheas) that the Law was to be abrogated, at the coming of the Messias.  MICHEAS. 
It is granted, that our Law at the coming of the Saviour of the world, was to be disannulled; so far forth, as concern either sacrifices, or other Ceremonies, which did prefigure the coming of the Messias? yet seeing many dogmatic points of faith believed by the jews, have no reference to his coming; (as the foresaid doctrines of Purgatory, Confession of sins &c.) therefore there can be no reason alleged, why the belief of them in the time of the Law, should not be a strong argument for their like belief now in the time of Grace. We may add hereto, that if every thing which was taught, and commanded by the Law, should now be abrogated; then the ten Commandments should in no sort belong to you Christians; And consequently the coming of the Messias should be a sufficient warrant for your breach of the said Commandments; than which to grant, nothing can be excogitated more absurd, or more derogating from the honour of Christ. But (good M. Doctor) if you have any more, that can be produced for proof of change of Faith, made by the Church of Rome, I would entreat you to persever in your discourse.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Though I should grant some insufficiency, and defect in my former instances, and that we could not insist at all in any particulars of that nature; nevertheless we are not endangered thereby: 
r So saith D. Whit. contra Duraeis p. 277.  For we are not bound to answer, in what age superstition crept into the Church. And to grant more fully herein: 
s D. Whit. contra Camp. Rat. 7. Thus saith of this point De tempore non est sacile respondere; neque id necessarium est ut temporum momenta prodantur  Of the times of this change, it is not easi to answer; neither is it necessary, that the times of all such changes be set down. Briefly, I aver, 
t So D. Whitak. contra duraeum pag. 277.  It is not needful in us, to search out in histories the beginning of this change. And with me in judgement herein agree many learned Protestants; As for example (to omit others) Bucanus thus writeth: 
u Bucanus In loc come. pag. 466.  Non est nostrum designare, quo temporis momento caeperit Ecclesia deficere. As also M. powel, saying: We 
x M. Powl In his consideration of the Popists supplication Pag. 43.  cannot tell, neither by who, or at what time, the Enemy did sow it etc. neither indeed do we know, who was the first author of every one of your blasphemous opinions.  CARD. BELLARM. 
O jesus. What strange and conscious tergiversations are these? And how mortally do they wound your cause, & Religion, wholly discovering your despair, and diffidence therein? For do not these Confessions overthrow your former instances? If your supposed Examples be true, then did you know the times of such a change: if you do not know the times of the change (as here you confess, you do not) why then would you allege the foresaid Examples? How can you extricate yourself, M. Doctor, out of this maze, or how can you decline this forked Dilemma?  
Furthermore, if it cannot be known, when any change of Faith was made (as here you, and your Brethren confess, it cannot) why should we believe there was made any change at all? He is weak, who enthralleth his judgement to the belief of any such thing, if so he wanteth the necessary, and conducing Circunstances, for the fortifying of such his belief. But belike you will finally say with joannes Rhegius (a Protestant) who not being able to exemplify any change in the Church of Rome, arrived to that height of impudence, as thus to write: Sed denique licet verum esset, Romanam Ecclesiam in sua Religione nihil mutasse, an propterea mox sequetur, eam esse veram Ecclesiam? Non opinor. Thus this Protestant.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Not so, my Lord Cardinal, for I grant a change; and the change of Faith made in the Church of Rome, may well resemble 
y D. Whitakers for prose of the change of the faith of Rome. allegeth this similitude saying: Pili non subito omnes ea●escūt nec quicquam repentem habet suam maturitatem. Contra Camp Rat. 7.  the change in colour, which heirs do make, in being become grey; nothing having it maturity upon the sudden. In like sort it may aptly resemble the changes in 
z D Whit contra Camp. Rat. 7. thus saith in Ecclesia Romana accidit, quëad modum in magno aedificio videmus evenire etc. quod ruinas aliquo loco in cipit agere etc. Ita Romana Ecclesia leporum successione etc.  Edifices, & houses occasioned by their ruins, and decays. We see by experience, these changes are true, and real; and yet cannot any man set down punctually the time, when either the heirs are become grey, or the buildings are made ruinous. The like may be said touching the change of Faith in the Roman Church: certain it is, that such a change is already made; but when, by whom, and in what manner, it is most uncertain.  MICHEAS. 
What, M. Doctor, do your greatest proofs for the change of Religion finally end in these similitudes? If so, than I may say, I do carry about me, my best instructours herein, must these grey hairs of this my hoary head, and beard (my self being 60. years of age, and more) and the decays of this my old body (for the same reason there is here of a ruinous body, which is of a ruinous house) teach me, what Religion among you Christians, I am to embrace? Have my wearied members taken so great a journey of so many hundred miles to this place, only to take advice of my beard, and my own feeble limbs; which, sitting at the sire side at home, I could with far more ease, and with as much certainty have performed? o the misery of man, who lieth open (in matters of greatest weight, and importance) to the deceit of such rotten foundations; they being as weak for proof of what they are urged as the things, from which these resemblances are taken, are weak in their own nature.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, I do assure you in all sincerity, I do much condole the state of ignorant Lay protestāns, to see how their eyes are sealed up by the learneder sort of you: who in your Pulpits, and writings are often accustomed to inveigh in great acerbity of stile: and tragical exclamations, against the Church of Rome, for having altered (as you bear your followers in hand) her Primitive Faith; But you being pressed to prove this imaginary change, are forced for the warranting thereof, to take your last and best proofs from some few grey hairs, and sl●fters in an old rotten wall.  
But because these similitudes, and resemblances are most urged, not only by yourself, but also by many other Protestants of Note, and have much swayed with vulgar judgements, not in respect of any force in them, but in regard of the eminency of their first Inventors (so the water heateth, not because it is water but by reason of it borrowed heat elsewhere: Therefore I will examine them narrowly, and will show the great disparity between them, and the change, which is at any time made in Religion.  
1 First then, the first small decay in any building, and the (first show of whiteness in hairs is imperceptible, and not to be discerned; whereas every change in faith (though but in one point, or article) is most markable, and subject to observation.  
2 Secondly, the whiteness of the hairs of the head, and the ruins of a house do not happen, but by degrees; and therefore at the first cannot be observed; whereas every Opinion in doctrine is at the first either true, or false; and therefore is for such at the first to be apprehended by the understanding.  
(3) Thirdly, not any have the charge, or care imposed upon them, to observe the changes in these petty matters; but in the Church of Christ there are ever appointed Pastors, & Doctors, whose office is to mark the first beginning of any innovation in doctrine, and accordingly to labour to suppress the same.  
(4) Fourthly, these similitudes, and deceitful resemblances (being truly urged) do recoil back with disadvantage to the Protestants. For although we cannot show, when the first hair began to be white, or the first slifter in a house begun to be a slifter; yet any notable degrees of the said whiteness in the hairs, or of the slifters in a house are easily discerned: and therefore the Protestants are obliged (even from the nature of these their own similitudes) to tell us, at what times some sensible degrees, and increase of this supposed change did happen; and the manifestation of these degrees is to be made, by naming the time, and person, when, & by whom such, and such a particular point, or article of our present Roman Religion, was first sensibly introduced into the Church of Rome. The which not any Protestant (notwithstanding all his exquisite and precise search of Ecclesiastical Histories) hath been able yet to perform. And thus far, M. Doctor, of these your similitudes; which (you see) in a true balancing of them, do become rather hurtful then beneficial to your Cause; and therefore they had been better forborn by you then urged.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Indeed I grant, that there are no Histories, or Records at this day, out of which we can certainly collect the change of Religion in the Roman Church. But (no doubt) such Records there were, though now wholly extinguished, & made away, by the vigilancy, and carefulness of former Pipes, who to preserve the honour of their Church (as free, and exempt from all change, and innovation) did deliberately, & purposely cause all Copies of such writings, and narrations, to be for ever suppressed, and buried in oblivion, either by fire, or otherwise.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, this is a mere groundless Fantasy. If you have any grave testimonies warranting a general suppression of all such records; then all of them were not extinguished since the testimonies, which affirm so much, are yet extant. If you produce no authority witnessing so much, then why should we believe your bare, and naked affirmation herein? But to examine more punctually this poor refuge. And first, whereas you teach, that this change of Faith in the Roman Church came in by degrees, now by innovating one point of the ancient true Faith, now another: supposing for the time this to be true, how can it be conceived, that all the Copies of such particular changes in Faith, already dispersed throughout all Christendom in the hands of infinite Protestants (as you maintain, though untruly that in those times they were) could be gathered, & suppressed without any remembrance thereof to all posterity? It is most absurd, but to furmise such an impossibility.  
Furthermore do we not see, that the lives of such Popes, which can be less warranted, were recorded in histories, yet extant to this very hour (as else where is intimated:) Neither the narrations of them either were, or could ever be suppressed? How then can we be persuaded, that the memory of this supposed great change could by any such means be canceled in a perpetual forgetfulness? Since certain it is, that the Popes (if possible they could) would have caused all narrations, touching the personal faults of their Predecessors to have been utterly extinguished; considering, that such their less justifiable lives might be reputed by many to be no small blemisne to the Church of Rome: Such an improbability this your evasion, M. Doctor, involves in its self.  D. WHITAKERS. 
My Lord, It seems you are very dexterous in warding all our instances, and other arguments (above produced) to prove the former presumed change. But imagine for the time, that we cannot allege out of any now extant authorized history, examples of any known innovation: imagine also, that we cannot show, at what particular time, and season, the parcels of these changes did happen: imagine lastly, that there were never any records, testimonies, or writings, in which these changes were registered; yet how are you able to put by the sharp-poynted weapon of Scripture, wherewith your religion is mortally foiled? We know that the Faith of the present Roman Religion is repugnant to the holy Scriptures; to which only we appeal; and whose 
a D. Whit. cont. Camp. saith: ●utarc●●a scripturarum defend mu● Ra●. 1.  ●autarceia, and all sufficiency is defended by us Protestants; the sacred Scripture being to us more than 
b D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 10.  decaplês▪ apologia, a tenfould shield of our faith: This (I say) we know, and consequently we further know, that the faith of the Romish Church is not the same, which was planted in Rome by the Apostles. Here is our fortress, here is our strength, and this place to you Romanists is maccessible. Here we have 
c D. Whit. cont. Comp. Rat. 2.  To retòn, the Word; & ▪ epi tèn dianeian tóùr etóù, to the true meaning of the Word all Controversies are to be referred: And with this Word we are able to inflict 
d D. Whit. ubi suprà Rat. 9  Cairian p●etèn, deadly to wound your popish Religion. And we are so truly impatrônized of the holy Scripture, as that we dare pronounce with the Apostle: If an 
e Galat. c. 1  Angel reach any other Ghosple unto you, then that which we have preached, let him be Anathema. For 
f D. ●hit. cont. Duraeun. l. 7. p. 478 saith: nobis sufficit etc. ex Pontificioru dogmatic et scripturarum collatione, discrimen et dissimultudine agnoscere Histo● 〈◊〉 liberum relixquimus, scribere qui●velint.  to us it is sufficient, by comparing the Popish Opinious with the Scripture to discover the disparity of Faith between them, and us; and as for Historiographers, We give them liberty to write what they will? seeing this 
g D. Whit. cont. Camp. Rat. 5.  aplóùs lógos tes ' aletheias this simple Word of truth is able to refute any thing brought to the contrary. And therefore my Lord Cardinal, I must say to you here with Archidamus: 
h D. Whit. haileth in this sentence, in Rat. 〈◊〉. cont. Camp.  ‛ èt è● dynamei próstheiss ' e tóù phronématos ' ypheiss, either maintain your Religion with the force of Scripture, or else wisely cease from the further defence thereof.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, before I come to balance this your last argument, you must pardon me, if I smile to my sell to observe, how affectedly, and ambitiously you have rioted in your Greek throughout this whole discourse; and especially in this your last close, besprinkling diverse passages thereof (as it were) with some Greek word or other. Which in my judgement (bear with me if I misconstrue your meaning) is but to bear your ignorant followers in hand, what jolly men, and great Clerks you Protestants are. And according hereto we commonly find, the books written either by English, French, or Germane Protestants, even to swell with Greek phrases, or sentences. But who seeth not, how forced this is? it being a point of ostentation, and vanity, thus to brave it forth in a froth of strange words.  
We all know, the tongues are but the porters of learning (in which the Catholics, though with more session, & modesty, are most skilful) and that he, who is a learned man indeed, is ever presumed afore hand to be expert in them, as being means conducing to the perfection of learning: Thus the want of Greek is a great defect; the enjoying of it but a necessary furniture of a scholar. Therefore who vaunteth hereof or is become fond of a few greek words (being commonly ignorant of the riches contained in that tongue, as many Protestants are) is like to that man, who taketh delight in a little Mother of Pearl, he rejoiceth; he having no interest to the Pearl within contained. I speak not this, but that it is lawful sometime to make use of Greek phrases, and sentences; but this chiefly, when the Question is touching translations out of that tongue, and that we are to recurre to the Greek (being the original) for the clearing of that point: Or when the Greek word, or phrase carrieth with it a greater grace, emphecy, and force, than the same in Latin, or English will bear. But this I ever aver, that to be ready upon every little occasion to prostitute, or stall forth ones Greek (a distemperature peculiar to Protestants) as if he took a pride, in that he is skilful in coniugating of typtò: This man (I say) deserves to be verberated throughout all the moods, and tenses of the word, for such his folly: This course being among all grave, & learned men, justly censured for an exploded vanity.  
But now, M. Doctor, to descend to your reason touched above, and drawn from the authority of the holy Scripture. Here I say, you have taken your last Sanctuary; not in that the Scripture maketh for you, and against us; but that by this means you may the better reject all other authorities, though never so forcible, & reduce the trial of all controversies to your own private judgements? since you will acknowledge no other sense of the scripture, than what the Genius of Protestancy doth vouchsafe to impose upon the Letter. & thus by your fair pretended Gloss of the Scripture in this your last extremity, you Protestants well resemble that Man, who being ready to fall, thinketh not how to prevent the fall, but how to fall in the fairest, and easiest place. The like (I say) you do under the privilege of the revealing spirit, interpreting the Scripture; the vain, & fluctuating uncertainty of which Spirit, to discover (though this place be not capable thereof) were indeed to cut in sunder the chief Artery, which giveth life to the huge Body of Heresy? since once take away this Private Spirit, Heresy is but like a dying lamp, which hath no oil to feed it: Only I will here pronounce, that as some have thus left written. That must be good, which Nero persecuteth; so here I do justify by the contrary, that it must be evil, and false, which the Private Spirit affecteth, and manteineth. But let us proceed herein further, and dissect the vein of this your last, & most despairing tergiversation.  
First then, we are to call to mind, that it hath ever been the very countenance, and eye of all innovation in religion, to seek to support itself by misapplyed, and racked Texts of Scripture; a practice so anciently used (though in these later days it hath received more full groat) as that it was observed by 
i Contra Maximinun Arianum E p c p. l. 1.  Augustine, 
k Ep st. ad Paulinum.  Hierome, 
l De praes●r. adverse. Haeres. see c. 19 30. 35. 36.  Tertullian, and finally by old Vincentius 
m Vincent. adverse. Haeres.  Lyrinensis who thus expressly writeth, not only of his own times, but even (in a presaging spirit) of our times: An Haeretici divinis Scripturae testimoniis utantur? Viuntur planè, & vehementer quidem; Sed tantò magis cavendi su●●. Now this being so, you are forced, M. Doctor, for your last retire, and refuge, to compart in practice with all ancient, and modern Heretics  
Secondly, the Scripture cannot prove itself to be scripture, and consequently it is not able to decide all controversies; which assertion of mine is warranted by your prime men M. Hooker, thus teaching: 
n In his Eccles. policy Sect. 14. p. 86.  Of things necessary the very chiefest is, to know what books we are bound to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible, for the scripture itself to teach. And according hereto, you Protestants do not agree, which Books be Canonical Scripture, which Apocryphal. For doth not Luther 
o Luther in titul. de libris veteris et ncui Testamenti; as also in his Prolego●a. to diverse of the books of the new Testament.  and diverse of the Lutherans recite (as apocryphal) the book of job, Ecclesiastes, the Epistle of S. james, the Epistle of jude, the second Epistle of Peter, the second, and third of john, and finally the Apocalipes? All which books are nevertheless acknowledged by Calvin, and the Caluenists for canonical Scripture.  
Thirdly, even of those books, which all Protestants jointly receive as Canonical Scripture, the Protestants do condemn (as most false, and corrupt) not only the present originals, but also all Translations of the said books, whether they be made in Greek, Latin, or English; as appeareth from the reciprocal condemnations of one another's Translation: for the more full discovery of which point, I refer you, M. Doctor, to the perusing of a book some few years since written, by a Catholic Priest, and Doctor of divinity, entitled: The 
p See seven of the first chapters of the second part of that book; all of them being spent in displaying the Protestants condenation of all orginals, & Translations of Scripture.  Pseudoscripturists.  
Fourthly, the very text, and letter of such books, as you all acknowledge for Canonical Scripture, are more clear for our Catholic Faith, and in that sense are expounded by the ancient Fathers; then any the Countertexts are, which you produce to impunge our doctrine. For some taste I will exemplify the perspicuity of the letter in some few points. And first, for the Primacy of Peter we allege: 
q Math. 16  Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church etc. expounded With urby 
r In Psab●contra parté Donali  Augustine, 
s In c. 16 Math.  Hierome, 
t In Epist. ad Quintu.  Cyprian, & others.  
For the Real Presence, we insist in our Saviour's words: 
u Recorded by all the Evangelists.  This is my Body, this is my Blood; taken in our sense by 
x Theoph. in hunc locum.  Theophilact, 
y Chrysosti● hunc locum.  chrysostom, the 
z Cyril Hierosol. cat. 4. mystag. Cyril. Alexand. epist ad Calosirium.  Cyrils, 
a Lib. de sacramentis c. 5.  Ambrose, and indeed by all the ancient Fathers, without exception.  
For Priests remitting of sins, we urge that: whose 
b joan. 20.  sins you shall renut, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins you shall retain, are retained; which passage is interpreted in our Catholic sense, by 
c Epist. ad Heliodorum  Hierome, 
d Lib. de sacerdotio.  Chrisostome, 
f joan. 3.  Augustine, and others.  
For Necessity of Baptism: Except (a) a Man be borne again of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Of which our Catholic exposition see 
g In hunc locum.  Augustine, 
h In hunc locum.  Chrisostome, 
i L b. de spiritu Sancto c. 11.  Ambrose, 
k In c. 16. Ezech.  Hierome, 
l L b. 3. ad Quirinum.  Cyprian etc.  
For justification by works: 
m jac. c. 2.  Do you see, because of works a man is justisied, and not by Faith only? expounded with us (to omit all others for brevity, by 
n L. de fide ct oper. c. 14.  Augustine.  
Lastly (to avoid prolixity) for unwritten Traditions, we usually allege those words of the Apostle, Therefore 
(e) Lib. 20. de Civilate Dei  
o Thes. c. 2.  Brethren, hold the Traditions, which you have received, either by steach, or by Epistle; interpreted with us Catholics by 
p L. De side cap. 17.  Damascene, 
q De spirit. sauct. c. 29.  Basill, 
r In hunc locum  chrysostom etc.  
Thus far for a ●ast herein; in which Texts, and diverse others omitted, you are to note, M. Doctor, first, that the Texts themselves are so plain, and literal, that the very Thesis, or Conclusion itself mantained by us, is contained in the Words of the said Texts; and therefore you Protestants are forced (by way of answer) commonly to expound those texts figuratively. Secondly, you are to be advertised here, that as we can produce many Fathers, expounding these, and other like places in our Catholic sense; so you are not able to allege any one approved Father (among so many) interpreting, but any one of the said passages of scripture in your Protestant Construction. Thirdly, and lastly, you are to observe, that such texts, as the Protestants urge against these, & other Catholic Articles defended by us, are nothing so literal, plain, and natural for their purpose; but for the most part are urged by them, by way of inference, and deduction; which kind of proofs is often false, and sometimes, but probable. Neither can you, or they allege any one Orthodoxal Father of the Primitive Church (a circumstance much to be considered, and insisted upon) interpreting such your testimonies in your construction. And thus far of this point; where, for greater expedition, I do but skim the matter over.  D. WHITAKERS. 
I do not much prize the authorities of the ancient Fathers, in interpreting the Scripture. And furthermore, you are to conceive, that 
l D. Whit. De sacra script. p. 521. saith: Nam quando scriptura non habetvivam vocem, quam aud●amus; utendum est quibus●lam mediis, quibus investigamus quissit ses●s quae meas scripturari●.  seeing the scripture hath not vi●am vocem, which we may hear; Therefore we are to use certain means, by the which we may find out which is the sense, and construction of the scripture. For to seek it without means, is merely 
2 So saith D. Whit. l. de Eccles. contravers. 2. quaest. 2. p. 221.  ‛ enthysiasticòn, et Anabaptisticum. Now the means (according to my judgement, and M. Doctor Reinolds) 
3 D. Reynolds In his Conference p. 83. 84. 92. 98.  are these following: The reading of the scriptures, the conference of places, the weighing of the circumstances of the Text, Skill in tongues, diligence, prayer, and the like. And who hath these, and accordingly practiseth them, is assured of finding the true, and undoubted meaning of the most difficult passages of the scripture; and thereby is able to determine any controversies in Religion.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I do grant, that these are good humane means, for the searching out of the intended sense of the scripture. But I will never yield them to be infallible, as here you intimate them to be; since this is not only impugned by experience of Luther, and Calvin, who would (no doubt) equally vaunt of their enjoying these means, (and yet irreconcilably differ in the construction of the words of our Saviour, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist,) but also it is most contrary to your own assertion delivered in one of your books even against myself; where you write of the uncertainty, and (perhaps falsehood) of these Means, in this manner: 
4 D. Whit. cotra Bellar. de Eccles. contravers. 2. quaesi. 2. pag. 221. thus writeth. qualia illa media sunt, tale ipsa interpretatione esse necesse est: At media interpretadi leca obscura sunt, incerta, dubia, et ambigua; Ergo fieri non potest, quin et ipsa interpretat. o. incerta sit; si incerta; tunc esse potest falsa.  observe what the means are, such of necessity must the interprteation be; but the means of interpreting obscure places of scripture are uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous; therefore it cannot otherwise fall out, but that the interpretation must be uncertain; and if uncertain, then may it be false. Thus you, M. Doctonr, and if I have in any sort depraved your words, than here challenge me for the same. Now what say you to this? Can it possible be, that yourself should thus cross yourself? Or may it be imagined, that your pen at unawares did drop down so fowl a blot of contradiction? O, God forbid. The oversight were too great. Therefore we will charitably reconcile all, and say; that D. Whitakers Bellarmine's adversary in writing) hath only contradicted the learned D. Whitakers, chief ornament of Cambridge. But enough of this point; from whence the weakness, of this your last refuge to only scripture, is sufficiently laid open.  MICHEAS. 
I grant, I am not conversant in the authorities of the New Testament, as they have reference to the controverted points of these days; since my chief labour hath been employed in diligently reading the Law, and the Prophets: nevertheless I am ascertained, M. Doctor, that several passages of the said Law, and Prophets, (in a plain, and ingenuous construction) do greatly fortify some Opinions, defended by the Church of Rome. I will insist (for greater compendiousness) in two opinions, taught (as I am informed) by the said Church: within which two, many other controversies (if not all) are implicitl enfolded. The first is touching the ever Visibility of the Church in the time of the Messi●s. Now what can be more irrefragably proved, than this article out of those words of the Psalmist? He 
s Psal. 18.  placed his Tabernacle in the Sun. As also out of that passage of Daniel: 
t Dan. 2.  Akingdome which shall not be dissipated for ever; and his kingdom shall not be delivered to an other people. Again, out of the Prophet Esay A 
u Esay 2.  Mountain prepared in the top of Mountains, and exalted above Hills; And finally, more out of Esay: Her 
x Esay 60.  Sun shall not be set, nor her Moon hid. In all which predictions, by the words: Tabernacle, a Kingdom, a Mountain, her Sun is understood the Church in the time of the Messias, according to the expositions of all our learned jews, and Rabbins, interpreting, and commenting the said Prophecies.  
The second article, may be the Controversy touching freewill, which (I hear) is maintained by the Church of Rome, but denied by the Protestants; within which question diverse others (to wit, of Predestination, Reprobation, the keeping of the Commandments, Works &c.) are potentially included.  
Now how evidently is freewill proved out of the writings of the Old Testament? And first may occur that of Ecclesiasticus: He 
y Cap. 15. 16. 17.  hath set Water, and fire before thee; stretch forth thy hand to whether thou wilt. Before man is life, & death: good, and evil, what liketh him, shallbe given him, what more convincing.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Micheas. 
z D. whit. contra Camprat. 3. thus saith de loco Ecclesiastici pa●ùm laboro; nec Arbitrii libertatem credam, quantumuis hic centies affirmet: Coram hominibus esse vitam, et mortem.  I make small account of that place of Ecclesiasticus; neither will I believe the freedom of Man's will; although he should affirm it a hundred times over, that before man were life, and death.  MICHEAS 
I did not expect, M. Doctor, that you should expunge out of the Canon of Scripture any part of the Old Testament, but since you discanon this book; I will allege other places which were ever acknowledged for the sacred word of God by us jews, and to pretermit that text in Genefis 
a Cap. 4.  of Cain, having liberty over sin (as a place strangely detorted by some) and diverse other texts in the old Testament, proving the same; What say you of the like passage in Deuteronomy? 
b Cap. 30.  I call heaven, and earth in record this day against you, that I have set before you life, and death etc. choose therefore life. Where you see the very point, of which you are so diffident, is ingeminated, and reinforced. Thus, M. Doctor, you see how much these sacred Testimonies do wound you herein, as also do diverse other passages by me here omitted (evicting Man's freewill) though all of them have been accordingly interpreted by all ancient jews, and Rabbins, as more fully you may see in Galatinus.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Touching your testimonies, produced out of the old Testament, and interpreted in the Papists sense by your own jewish Rabbins, as witnesseth Galatinus take this for my answer: I do 
c D. Whit l. 9 contra Duraeum p. 818. thus saith of this point: Tuum in hac causa Petrum Galatinum minimè prostctò desideramus, nec Haebreorum testimoniis illis indigemus.  not regard or need your Galatinns; neither do I rely, upon the testimonies of the Hebrews. And further know you both, that it is as clear, that the scripture maketh for us, who are the Professors of the Ghosple; as it is clear, that the Sun shineth in his brightest Meridian: Since we Protestants are (d) the little flock: we 
e 1. joan. 2.  have the unction from the Holy one, and can cry 
f Rom. 8. et Galat. 4.  Abba Pater; from all which the Papists are wholly excluded: And this is sufficient to overthrow the proudest Romanist breathing.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Sweet jesus, that things sacred should be thus profaned; and that the words of the scripture should be thus detorted, from the intended sense of the scripture, when all proofs whatsoever, from the uninterrupted practice of God's 
(〈◊〉) Luk. 12.  Church, from the joint, and most frequent testimonies of the Primitive Fathers, from Ecclesiastical Histories, and from your own more moderate, and learned brethren's acknowledgements, are drawn out against you, (like so many sorts of Artillery, to batter down the walls of Heresy) and you not daring, (and indeed not able) to endure the assaults of any of these, then are you at the last forced to flee to the bare letter of the scripture, interpreted (contrary to all the former authorities) by your own most partial private spirit.  
And the better to lay some pleasing, and fair colours upon the rugged grain of this your assumed privile dge, you are not afraid peculiarly to apply to yourselves (as though you were the sole partage of God) these former words, of the Flock, the Unction, and Abba Pater. Neither do you rest here, but many of your Coat (as may be observed, both out of their sermons, and writings) much solace, and delight themselues in these following phrases of the scripture; ever having them in their mouths, and using them (with the help of the casting up the white of the eye) as spells to enchant the simple: Spiritus [〈◊〉] ubi vult spirat? 
h Gal 3. et 2. Col. 2.  Christ crucified; 
i Math. et Mark. 5.  saving 
(g) joan. 3.  faith? the 
k 1 Cor. 2.  spiritual Maniudgeth allthings,, and is judged of none; 
l 1. Cor. 2.  Animalis homo non percipit ea, quae sunt spiritus Dei; the 
m 1. Pet. 2.  sanctisication of the spirit; the 
n 1. Petr. 2. ut supra.  revealing saith; finally, (to omit many such others) that 
o joan. 3.  which is borne of the spirit, is of the spirit. Thus, as if yourselves were wholly spiritualised, and enjoyed certain Rapts, Visions or Enthusiasnes, you vendicate to yourselves most ambitiously the former passages of Gods sacred Writ; only to blanche hereby the deformity of your Cause, and to blear the undiscerning eyes of your ignorant, and credulous followers: Such men breathe herein an insufferable elation, and height of mind; I will not say, pride, imposture, and Hypocrisy.  D. WHITAKERS. 
My Lord, these are but your injust aspersions, cast upon the Innocency of the Professors of the Ghosple; whose words, not for forme-sake (as you wrongfully suggest) but even out of pure conscience are ever concordant to the illuminations of the spirit, descending from the Lord. But to turn my speeches more particularly to you Micheas. It seems by many overturnes by you already given, that you intend to turn Papist. And indeed I much wonder, why your judgement should rather propend to the Romish faith, then to the cleerelight of the Ghosple. Since in treading your intended course (besides all other arguments here omitted.) It seems you little prize the authority of so many worthy Protestant doctors, both in my own nation of England, and (to omit other places throughout the most spacious Country of Germany; Men of extraordinary eminency for learning; and whose V●tuersities are celebrious throughout all Christendom; and in their place, you are content to enthrall your judgement to the absurd, and senseless Positions of the obscure, and illiterated Italians, and Spaniards; who are not by nature made so maniable, (as I may say) as to menage the high Mysteries of Christian Religion; and whose blind credulity suffereth their minds, to entertaine any superstition, or error whatsoever.  
And you must here remember (Micheas) that it is much learning, which conduceth a scholar to the Port of a true faith; whereas a superficial measure rather endangereth him, than otherwise; whose state herein is like to shipwreck or loss by Sea; which is often caused through want of Sea, or water, but seldom through abundance thereof: thus the store of that, which occasioneth the hurt, or damage, being had, would prevent the hurt, or damage itself. The like I say) is a scholar's case herein. Therefore Micheas, be wary now at the first, with whether side you consociate yourself, lest otherwise your resolution be atteted hereafter with a fruitless Repentance: And though the knowledge of things to come be overcast with the darkness, or Uncertainty; yet, God grant, I prove not a true Sibyl, devining of your future misfortune.  MICHEAS. 
M. Doctor. I take your admonition charitably; yet I mustneeds say, you deal strangely herein; for whereas Man only is capable of Religion, you nevertheless would have me cease to be a man, in the choice of my Religion. Since you implicitly will me to reject, and abandon (so far forth, as concerns my election of faith) all prudence, judgement, and Reason itself; and to rest upon the bare letter of the Scripture, interpreted (contrary to all antiquity) by my own private (and perhaps erroneous spirit. And is not this (I pray you) to extinguish all light of Reason by which we differ from other Creatures, and agree with immaterial Spirits Since not to use reason at all, is the property of a beast; to use it well, of a celestial Angel.  
Now touching the Parallel, which you make between the Protestant, and Catholic Countries, I must confess plainly, I do not conspire with you in judgement therein, your English Protestant Doctors, I purposely pass over in silence, and do repute them learned.  
Touching the Germans. It is true, that they have been, and still are diverse grave scholars of Germany, some Protestants, and other Catholics; and infinitely far more Catholics, than Protestants, by how much longer time Germany hath been Catholic, than Protestant; against whose honour, and due reputation, far be it from me to speak. Nevertheless if we do with a steady hand, balance that Nation, and the custom of it, with Italy, and Spain, (to speak nothing of France, which being almost wholly Catholic, some few places excepted, hath, and doth daily bring forth men of great worth for learning.) We shall then easily discover the disproportion, and inequality.  
And to give a little touch of the nature of them all: who knoweth not, that in diverse parts of Germany, the Inhabitants are but certain liveless, and great Colossuses, or Statues of flesh, and bones; who make their bodies, but conduits, or strainers for bear, and wine to pass through; belching out their discourses of Religion in full carouses? a main cloud, which darkneth the light of the understanding. Again, who can be persuaded, that Fleame, and Hair (the predominant complexion of that country) and a loathsome bespitled stove, can contest in matters of erudition, with the ingenuous melancholy of the Italians, and Spaniards, and their most famous schools, and Academies? By the help of which active humour in them (for I speak not of that gross, and dull Melancholy, whereby a Man thinketh, and walketh away his days) the pure, and unfettred Soul, disorganized, (as it were) and unbodyed for the time, doth by an inward reflex glass itself in it own essence; and so transcending it accustomed limits, through an internal working of it own Powers, doth penetrate the most difficult, and abstruse mysteries in learning, and religion; fanning away points, which in their own properties are to be severed, and casting, or fagoting together things of one Nature.  
But to return back to Germany, (which I will ever acknowledge hath brought forth many most famous, and worthy Men for Learning, Virtue, and Piety,) your former assertion in ascribing the Protest an't faith to all that Country, cannot be justified. For though I grant, it is on most sides obsessed (as I may say) with Protestancy; yet it is certain, that diverse principal parts thereof are not Protestant, but Catholic in Religion: As half of Switzerland, a part of the Grisons, Voltolyne, the whole Country of Bavaria, the Territories of all the Bishop's Electours, the kingdom of Bohemia, besides many Imperial Cities, and states. Again, as other parts thereof do jointly, and particularly disclaim from the Roman Religion; so (though they all do challenge to themselves the name of Protestants, yet) do they maintain many irreconcilable differences of Religion enen of the greatest importance; like several ways, and Tracts meeting in one common place, and then instantly divided one from another. This appeareth (as I am informed) most clear, and evident from the authority of 
p In his his●oria Sacramentariae part. altera.  Hospinian, a learned Germane Protestant; who hath diligently set down the names of many scores of Books, written in great acerbity of style, by one Ger●an Protestant against another Germane Protestant; & according nereto it is, that we find so many kinds of Sectaries, and Heretics in Germany; as the Caluinists, the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, the Antitrinitarians, and some others; though they all be linked, and tied together in the common, and main knot of Protestancy.  
And thus far, M. Doctor, of this point, where you see, I have small reason to embrace the Protestant Religion, before the Catholic; because that is professed throughout Germany, (as you pretend) this chiefly restrained to Italy, Spain, and France.  
But let us return back to the general subject of this your disoutation with my Lord Cardinal I would entreat you M. Doctor, to allege some stronger arguments for the change off yeh in the Church of Rome, then hitherto you have given; which if you do not, than what by reason of the weakness of your said arguments (at least in my apprehension,) and what in respect, that I do not see the proofs Produced by my Lord Cardinal to be sufficiently by you refuted; I must tell you aforehand, I will embrace the Catholic Roman Religion, & disavow all Protestancy.  CARD. BLLARM. 
M. Doctor, if you can support this your position of Rome's change with other more forcing reasons, I would entreat you now to insist further in them. You see I am prepared to give my best answer to what you can object. If you do not, I must presume, all your forces are already spent; they indeed being but weak, & resembling that of S. jude: 
q Cap. 1.  Clouds without water, carried about with winds.  MICHEAS 
I pray you M. Doctor, forbear not to grant to this my desire; since otherwise I must rest assured, that no more can be said (on your part) touching this subject.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Yield, M. Doctor, to this Learned jews importunity: you know, he hath undertaken a journey of many hundred miles to this City, only to be resolved in this one Point; therefore both in charity, and for the preserving of your own honour, and reputation, you stand obliged to give all satisfaction unto him.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Tush, you are both over upbraiding with me; and seeing I intent no further dispute with men of so irrefragable dispositions, I first (for a close) say to you (Micheas) that where you intent to become a Papist; your change is this, that you leave that, which was ouce good, (though now bad) to embrace that, which is ever bad; I mean, you leave judaism, to entertain Papism; and thus you become a new Proselyte, or rather Neophyte, in the school of Superstition, & Idolatry.  
Now as for you (Cardinal) whose name is so celebrious, and so much advanced in the ears, and mouths a fall men; know you, that touching the subject of this our discourse, I doubt not, but that my arguments, reasons, and Instances above alleged, do in the judgement of such, as the Lord hath illuminated with the truth of the Ghosple, sufficiently prove the great changes made of Faith, and Religion in the Church of Rome, since it first received it Faith in the Apostles days. And if the truth hereof be hid from any, I may then say with the 
r 2. Cor. 4.  Apostle: It is hid from them, that perish, and are lost. Therefore my irrevocable conclusion is this, that the Church of Rome, was once the true Church, and in faith pure, and incontaminate, (as before I acknowledged) but at this present it is: 
s D. whit. contra Camp. rat. 3. caleth the Church of Rome thus: Ecclesia Romae est meretrix Babi●anica; palms a ●●a v 〈…〉 res●ctus; speluca latro●um, via ampla ad interitum perducens; regnum infe●or●●; Corpus Antichristi; E●rori●●●lluu es; maier ●●gna scortationum; Ecclesia Impiorum, à qua excedere Christianum quemqne ●portel; quam Christus miserè perdet aliqud lo, eique sceleru omnium meritas penas imponet. Thus D. Whit.  The Whore of Babylon, a branch cut from the true Vine; adenne of thieves; the large way leading to destruction; the kingdom of Hell; the Body of Antichrist; a heap, or mass of errors; a great Mother of whoring; the Church of the wicked; out of the which it behoucth every christian to depart, and which Christ in the end will miserably destroy, & inflict due punishments for all it impieties: and with this, as unwilling to have further intercourse, or dispute with any, that subject themselves to this profane Church, I end, and bid you both farewell.  CARD. BELLARM. 
M. Doctor, I much grieve, to see you thus transported with passion, and to inveigh with such acerbity of words against Christ's intemerate spouse; but I the more easily pardon you, since it is hard (upon the sodame) to cast of a habit which hath been often engrained in diverse tinctures of many operations: so spleenful a ●●slike you have against the Church of Rome; and indeed it seems you labour with the disease of those, whose spittle being envenomed, make them to think, that every thing they take in their mouths, doth taste of venom.  
But since it is your mind to break off so suddenly with us, I recommend you to the tuition of him, who in an instant is able to turn the most stony hart, into Cor 
t 3. Reg. 3.  docile, and Cor 
u Paraip. 34.  emolitum; and my prayers shallbe, that before the time of your death you may have the grace to implant yourself, as a branch of that Church, the profession of whose faith may be available to the saving of your soul.  MICHEAS. 
I am beholden unto you, M. Doctor, for your Pains, and labour taken in this disputation; howbeit I must confess, I did expect to have heard more said for the proof of the Church of Rome her change in Religion, then as yet is delivered; where I see, that your fair promised mountains (in the beginning) do but turn to snow, and after resolve into water; and that by your final appealing to the written word alone, you endeavour to set the best face upon your overthrow in this your dispute; bearing yourself herein like to soldiers, who are forced to yield up their hold, and yet covet to depart with such ceremonies, as are not competent to such, as yield. Nevertheless I commend you, to the protection of the God of Israel, and will pray, that you may (after this life) enjoy the blessings which are already granted to Abraham, Isa●ck, jacob, and their Seed.  D. WHITAKERS. 
Well, well. Once more I bid you both farewell.  MICHEAS. 
My Lord, the doctor (you see) is gone; and indeed I much dislike his bitter ejaculation of reproachful words against the Church of Rome, little sorting to the presumed gravity of a christian Doctor; but the matter is not great, since obloquy is but baseness, and the scum of malice; and that tongue, which knows not to honour, cannot dishonour.  
But now touching your learned dispute, it hath (I humbly thank the Lord of Hosts, and your charitable endeavour) wrought in me so much, as that I well know towards what shore I may anchor, and stay my heretofore floating, and unsettled judgement.  
I see it is already acknowledged, even by her enemies, that the Church of Rome enjoyed in her primitive times, a true, perfect, and incorrupt faith, as the Apostle doth fully assure us: I see, that yourself (my Lord) partly by handling the Subject in gross; partly by distribution of times, in which this supposed change is dreamt; to have happened; partly by displaying the diversity of the Protestants Opinions, touching the first coming of Antichrist, who is said to have been the first, who wrought this change; and partly by other forcible arguments, have demonstratively, and irrepliably evicted, that since the Apostles, there hath been no change of faith, made at all in the Church of Rome. Finally, I see, that the examples of this imaginary change, instanced by the Doctor (who, as I am advertised, hath more laboured in the search of this subject, than any other Protestant) were so defective, a●d maimed, as that they receive their full answer, and encounter, both from your former discussed heads; as also from your Lordship, proving a greater confessed antiquity of the said Articles, than the instances do urge; and lostly, even from the Doctors liberal acknowledgement; who plainly confesseth, that he knoweth not the time, when this his change received it beginning.  
Since then all these points are made so evident, and undeniable, I grant they have swaighed, and overbalanced my judgement, indifferently heretofore to either side inclining; and have enduced me indubiously to believe, that the faith of the Church of Rome at this day is, as at the first it was; to wit, pure, spotless, and inchangeable But now seeing no man can be a perfect Christian, except he actually enjoy the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the first door (as you Christians teach) that leadeth a man to the mysteries of your Religion; therefore (most illustrious Cardinal) I renouncing my former judaism, and wholly rendering myself a true disciple, and servant of Christ jesus, (as acknowledging, that the Redemption of Israel is in him come) do here prostrate myself in desire, to receive this Sacrament even from you; that as your tongue is the chief instrument (under the highest) for my belief of the Catholic faith, so your hand may be the like instrument, for the conferring upon me the benefit of that sacred Mystery, where by a man is first incorporated, and (as it were) matriculated in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Worthy Micheas. I much joy, that our discourse hath wrought so happy a resolution in you, as to embrace the Catholic, and Roman faith, and give sole thanks to him therefore, who is higher than the highest Heaven, and yet as low as the Centre of the earth, who thus hath vouchsafed (by his grace) to descend to the bottom of your heart; and let the remembeance of your precedent stain in judaism, be a spur for your greater perfection in the Christian Religion: So shall you resemble that body, which receiveth it greater health, from it former sickness. And be sure, that every day you increase more, and more in Christian virtues: nulla dies sine linea. And takeheed, that you grow not lukewarm in this your resolution, or come to a stand of your present fervour: But remember, that such motions of the soul of this nature, which are stationary, are therein become Retrograde, since here not to go forward, is to go backward.  
And as touching the precedent subject of our discourse, rest you assured, that the faith of Christ first preached in Rome was never yet (in any one dogmatic point) altered since it first plantation. The Church of Rome was (and doubtlessly is) the true Church of Christ; which Church is so far from broaching change, and innovation, by her entertaining, but any one Error, as that therefore it is most truly prophesied of it 
x Esay 2. Micheas 4.  that it is a Mountain prepared in the top of Mountains, exalted about Hils. It being indeed seated of such a height, as that neither the thundering fragors of the persecutors cruelty, nor the winds of Heretics speeches, and endeavours, were ever able to reach so high, as by introducing novelty in faith to disjoint the settled frame thereof: so true is the saying of that holy father (whose fire of zeal brought him to the flames of Martyrdom) 
y Cy●● l. de V●●a●● Ecclesiae posi 〈◊〉 ilium.  adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est, et pudica. Now touching your baptising Micheas we will take such present course therein, as shall give you all full satisfaction.  MICHEAS 
I humbly thank your Lordship. But I am further here to advertise your Lordship, that if so it might be thought lawful, and convenient, that he, who heretofore denied Christ, might after be permitted to be a dispenser of the Mysteries, and treasure of Christ; I could then greatly wish, that after I have received the Sacrament of Baptism at your hands, I might be advanced to the holy Order of priesthood; that so now (in the last scene of my old age) my endeavours of this nature (hereafter to be attempted in the Catholic Church) might partly redeem my former misspent labours in the jewish Synagogue: My single course of life, and unmarried state best sorteth thereto, and my own desire is most vehement, and forcing. And indeed I am persuaded, that the profitable talents of a good Christian ought) in part to resemble the engendering riches of an usurer, who breeds upon silver, and whose 
z Tocò● in greek signifies Usury, coming of the verb Tictò parto; because silver (put to usury) b●etteth silver.  Tocòs, or interest money is no sooner begotten, than it begetteth: So should it far with a man of sufficiency, devoted to Christ his service; who being become of late his adopted son, should himself instantly labour to be a parent (under Christ) of other such like sons. O how ineffable a comfort it is, when a man may truly (yet modestly) say through his spiritual travel, fruitfully employed towards others (as your Lordship may now of me). 
a 1. Cor. 4.  In Christo ●esu per Euangelium vos genui? And how truly honourable is that profession of life, which consisteth in the negotiation, and trafiking (as I may say) of salvation of souls? 
b Zach. 14.  Et ero mercator in domo Domini Exercituum.  CARD. BELLARM. 
I Commend much your great fervour herein: But yet, I hold it more secure to pause for a time, to see, whether this your resolution touching Priest hood (being, but the Primitiae of your spirit) be steady, and permanent, or whether hereafter it may alter, and waver. And if so; then would it follow, that your present taking of that course, would be attended on with an over late repentance.  
And you must know, that the wings of a new converted soul to Christ, do commonly at the first perform their speediest flight: 
c Psalm. 54  Quis dabit mihi pennas, sicut Columbae, et volabo? Which for the most part after (through some default, or other) do begin to lagg, and to make certain plains. For though these first Motions of the soul in the service of God, be neither Natural, nor Violent (since they descend only from him, to whom by prayer we ascend) yet they partake much of that Motion, which is violent; they being ordinarily more strong, & fervorous in the beginning, & more remiss towards the end: and indeed experience teacheth us, that a Precipitiòus, and over hasty devotion, is sometimes dangerous. But if this your good desire do hereafter persevere, and continue, I shall be ready (within convenient time) to give you my best assistance therein.  MICHEAS 
My Lord, I make small doubt, that this my resolution (through the aid of him, who first did inspire it into my soul) will remain stable, and unchangeable. Therefore your Lordship may further hereby take notice, that my intention is to spend his short remnant of my years, in diligently studying the Controversies between the Catholics, & the Protestants, to attempt (as afore I intimated) to plant that relilgion in others, which you have already planted in me.  
I further am resolved, to take a view (if my aged & feeble body will suffer me) of the most famous Catholic, & Protestant Universities in Christendom; and particularly I have (I confess) a thirsting desire to see the two (so much celebrated) Universities of England (of the one of which, I here D. Whitakers is a member) places, of which Fame herself hath sounded her trumpet, in the highest Note. Now (my good Lord) in regard of these my determinations, and of my late embracing of the present Roman Roligion, (the noise, and bruit whereof will, no doubt, spread itself at large.) I do probably presage, that I shall meet with diverse Protestants, who hearing of my election of Religion, will perhaps earnestly solicit me, for my change to them; and making many violent incursions, upon my yet weak, and unfortified judgement, will endeavour to demolish, and lay level with the ground, whatsoever your Lordspip (by your former learned discourse) hath already built in my soul.  
Therefore, that I may sit close, and immovable in this my choice of faith now made, I would entreat your Lordship to instruct me, how I may best guide occasion in discourse with such Men; that so they may not be able to win ground upon my weakness. For though I can (in part) discern the sufficiency of other men; yet reflecting upon my own imbecility, I with all discover the want of their like sufficiency in myself: I herein resembling the outward sense, which aswell judgeth of the absence, as of the presence of it Object. Therefore (good my Lord) initiate me a little, in this Mystery.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Mieheas, I like well of this your Promethian, and forecasting wisdom. And I will to my best ability & power, satisfy this your desire. And whereas you say, you determine to see the Universities of England, I approve well thereof; for I have often heard, that (speaking of the Materials of an University) they are the goodliest in all Christendom; I mean for magnificence, and stateliness of their Colleges; for opulency, and great revenues belonging to them; and for their pleasing, and sweet situations.  
If you go to Oxford, you shall (in all likelihood) fall in acquaintance with one D. Reynolds; a Man (as I am informed) not of a harsh, and fiery (as his Brother D. Whitakers is) but of a temperate comportment; one, of whom the whole University doth highly prejudge; and indeed not undeservedly, he being (his Religion excepted) endued with many good parts of literature; and who hath heretofore been my 
d D. R●ynl. did write against Card. Bellurmine in the Controversy of Images  Antagonist in some of his Books, written against some parcels of my Controversies. But now to descend to your last request to me, seeing then you are not, as yet, conversant in Points of faith, controverted between the Catholic, and Protestant; My maine, and first advice is, that in all points of faith (of which any dispute may hereafter occur between you, and any Protestant) you finally do rest in the authority of Christ's visible Church, and the chief head thereof; assuring yourself, that although Simon the fisher, was not able to determine matters of faith; yet that Simon Peter, and his successors (assisted with competency of means) have ever an impeachable sovereignty granted to them, and a delegated authority from Christ himself, for the absolute discussing, & deciding of all Articles in faith, and Religion: 
e Math. 16.  Tues Petrus, et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae Inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.  
Expect to meet with men, who are witty, and of good talents, and who well know, how to spread their Nets to catch the unprovided. And whose stream of discourse (for diverse of them are of great elocution) for the most part runneth, in their accustomed channels of pleasing insinuations, persuading to their faith, and a violent overcharge of gauleful words, against the present Roman faith.  
Touching their allegation of authorities (either divine or humane) credit them no further, than your own eyes will give you leave; for diverse of them use strange impostures therein, though they warrant such their proceedings with great confidency of earnest asseverations: 
f jeremy 5.  quod si etiam vivit Dominus, dixerint, et hoc falsò iurabunt.  
Make choice (if so it lieth in your power) rather to dispute with Protestant Doctors, and Ministers, who are unmarried, then married; since the secret judgements of these later may well be overcome by force of argument; but to persuade the wills to follow their judgements (in regard of their clog of wife, children, and worldly preferments) is more than a Herculean labour. And indeed, I confess, I do much commiserate the state of diverse of them, who (being otherwise of great wits, and might have been much serviceable in the Church of God) by being enchanted with a little Redd, and White, and a well proportioned face, do in their younger days tie themselues (by marriage) to the world, & to the attending afflictions thereof: o that the soul of man (not subject to dimension) should be thus enthralled to Creatures, for their having a pleasing dimension. But to proceed  
You shall find many of them of great reading; yet of reading sorting rather to contradict, and quarrel, then to instruct: but diverse of their coat are content (through their own want) to retail, by help of Indices, and such other means, their own more learned brethren's writings, & labours. And many of these (through their own ignorance) think they do well, and that they profess a true faith; whereas the more learned of them (through their reading, and study) must (in their own souls) of necessity be conscious, & guilty of the falsehood of their own Cause; though the present, and temporary respects of riches, and preferments are so potent, and forcible with them, as that they cannot (or at least they will not) be induced to follow the Dictamen, and resolution of their own judgements.  
If the subject of your discourse be about the abstruse Mysteries of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, or of some other such sublime points; you shall hardly draw them to relinquish natural reason (so deeply are they immersed therein,) it being indeed their Pillar of Non plus ultra: Thus, where other Christians enjoy two eyes; the one of Faith, the other of Nature: These Polyphemi (shutting that of Faith) do look upon the Articles of Religion, only with this of Nature.  
Choose rather to dispute, touching matter of fact (with in which may be included the proof of the truth, or falsehood of the Protestant Religion) then touching any dogmatic point of faith, and doctrine, as receiving it proof from the scripture. This I speak not, but that the scripture makes most clearly for the Catholics, and against, the Protestants: But because your adversary in dispute will ever cavil at your exposition of Scripture; reducing it in the end (against all antiquity of Fathers, and tradition of the Church) to the interpretation of his own private, and revealing spirit; and so your labour would prove, commonly, to be lost thereby. Now in matter of fact, your Adversary is forced to stand to the authorities, deduced from Ecclesiastical Histories, and other such humane proofs; and therefore he must either shape a pro babble (if not a sufficient) answer to them, which he never can do; they wholly making against him, even by his own learned brethren's Confessions; or else he must rest silent. And this is the reason, why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church; since this Question comprehendeth in itself, diverse points of fact; as of it continual Visibility, Antiquity, Succession, Ordination, and Mission of Pastors etc. All which Question's receive their proofs from particular Instances, warranted by showing the particular times, persons, and other circumstances, concerning matter of fact.  
An other reason of this your choice of your subject of dispute may be; in that few Men (and those only scholars) can truly censure of the exposition of scripture; whereas almost every illiterate man (enjoying but a reasonable capacity) is able sufficiently to judge of the testimonies, produced to prove, or disprove matter of fact. And here I would wish you, that in your dispute you labour, to have some Catholics present; for where all the Auditory are Protestants, certain it is, that they will voice it against you, howsoever the disputation may otherwise go. But because these observations are over general; I will give you here some more particular; since most of them may be restrained to certain particular passages, which may occur between you, and your disputant Adversary.  
1. First then, let the true state of the Question (discussed of) be set down, and acknowledged on both sides; in regard of the often wilfully mistaken doctrine of the Catholics. That done, reduce the question disputed of, to as few branches as you can; since multiplicity of Points is more subject to confusion, and forgetfulness, and giveth greater liberty to extravagant digressions. And will your Adversary to avoid all such speeches, but what are pertinent to the point handled. And if he will needs wander in his discourses, than you may reduce the force of them (by way of Enthimem, or syllogism) to the point disputed of; that so both your Adversary, and the Auditory may see, how roveingly these his speeches were used, and how lowsely they, and the question then handled do hang together.  
2. If your Adversary undertake the part of the Answerer, suffer not him to oppose; though he labour to do so, to free himself from answering, when he shall see himself plunged. In like sort, if he undergo the part of the Opponent, tie him precisely ever to oppose; which Scene perhaps (he being brought to a Non plus) would sleyly transfer upon you. And thus be sure. that eich of you keep your chosen station.  
3. If your disputant will vaunt, that he will prove all by scripture only (as most of them give it out, they will) then force him to draw all his premises (I mean, both his Propositions, if so they should be reduced to a form of argument) from the scripture alone; of which Method (within two, or three arguments) he is most certain to fail. And if he take either of his Propositions from humane authority, or from Natural Reason; you may tell him, he leaveth his undertaken Task; to wit, to prove from Scripture alone, and consequently, you may deny the force of his argument, though otherwise logical if it were reduced to form.  
4. In your proofs drawn from Scripture, labour to be much practised in the Protestants Translations of it; of which infinite places make for the Catholics Cause, even as the Scripture is translated by the Protestants. This course far gauleth them more, then if you insisted in the Catholic translation.  
5. If you dispute with any by writing, or interchange of letters (this being but a mute Advocate of the mind) write nothing but matter, and with as much compendiousness as the subject will bear, without any verbal excursions, or digressions; since this proceeding will force your Adversary to reply (if he will reply at all) to the matter. For otherwise leaving the point, which is chiefly to be handled, he will shape a reply to other less necessary stuff delivered by you; and then his Reply must pass abroad (by the help of many partial tongues) for a full answer to your whole discourse.  
6. In like sort, if you attempt to charge a Protestant Author with lies, or Corruptions in their writings (with which many of their books are even loaded) rather insist in a few, (and those manifest, and unanswereable) then in a greater number; seeing if your Adversary can make show, to salve but three, or four of a greater number (which the more easily he may do, by how much the number of the instanced falsifications is greater) the supposed answereing of them (chosen, & picked out by him) must seem to disgrace all the rest urged by you.  
7. If you intent to bring, and object any wicked, and unwarrantable sayings, especially out of Luther, either against the Blessed Trinity, or about his acknowledged lust, & sensuality, be careful to note the Editions of the Book, wherein such his sayings are to be found. For in the later Editions of his works, many such sentences are for very shame left out, and unprinted. And hereupon there are diverse Protestants, who utterly deny, that ever any such words were written by him.  
8. Be skilful in discovering (though not in practising) Sophistry, that so you may the better lose, and untie e●●e Protestants knots of deceit; diverse of them being most expert in all kinds of Paralogism. And particularly takeheede of that gross, and vulgar sleight (unworthy a scholar) drawn from the particular to the Universal, much practised by our Adversaries. For according hereto, if they can find any Father, or any modern Catholic Author, to maintain (though therein contradicted by other Fathers, and Catholics) but one, or two Points of Protestancy; they blush not to aver, that the said Father, or Catholic writer, are entire Protestants in all points.  
9 If your Adversary should produce some supposed disagreements in doctrine among Catholics; you may reply, that their differences rest only in some Circumstances of a Catholic, Conclusion, and not in the Conclusion itself. And if he produce any presumed Catholic denying the Conclusion itself of the doctrine; then are you to tell him that such a man ceaseth by this his denial (unless ignorance, or inconsideration excuse) to be a member of the Catholic Church; & therefore, this his denial doth not prejudice the Catholic Faith; this being contrary to the Protestants proceeding; who wittingly maintaining contrary conclusions of Faith, do remain nevertheless (by the judgements of many of them) good brethren, and true Professors of the Ghosple.  
10. If your Adversary contest, that all the writings, and memory of Protestants in former ages were extinguished by the Popes of the said, and after succeeding ages; you may show, how absurd this assertion is. And the reason hereof is, in that the Popes of those times could not presage, that Protestancy should (on these our times) sway more, than any other Heresies condemned in their very times; which other Heresies remain yet registered even to this day, by the acknowledgement of of the Protestants; And therefore by the same reason, Protestancy (supposing it to be professed in those former times,) should also have remained recorded, either in the writings of the Protestants themselves, (if ever any such were or else by the censure, and condemnation of them, by the Popes of those days.  
11. Whereas you may allege diverse acknowledged Heresies, both in the judgement of Protestant, and Catholic; out of the books concerning diverse persons, who believed some few points of Protestancy, recorded in the said books; (here I speak of Waldo, Wicliff, etc.) Now if here your Adversary disputant doth avouch (as many Protestants do) that these Heresies were falsely obtruded upon the then said Protestants by their Enemies; you may here reply, that to affirm this, is against the force of all reason. For seeing the said books do indifferently make mention both of the Protestant Opinions, and of the other Heresies defended by the same men; either the said Books are to be believed in both, or to be rejected in both: If the first, than it is certain, that those men believed those acknowledged Heresies, and then they can not be instanced for perfect Protestants: If the later; then the said Books are not of any sufficient authority to prove, that there were any Protestants in those ages.  
12. There is great disparity between Protestants confessing some points, which do advantage the Catholic faith (as for examples, that the Primitive Fathers were Papists in all chief Articles of Papistry, as the Adversary use to term it) and other Protestants, impugning the said Confessions. Seeing the first men speak against themselves, and their Cause; which (they being learned) would never do, but as convinced with the evidency of the truth therein; whereas these other do deny the Confessions of their own Brethren, in behalf of their own Religion; and so such their denials are to be reputed more partial. In like sort, there is great difference to be made, between Protestants speaking against themselves, and yet believing the Protestant doctrine, and conclusion, touching some Circumstances, whereof their said Confessions are; and between some others, who afore were Catholics, and after do defend some one point, or other of Protestancy. Since these later men do not speak against themselves, but in defence of such their Protestant doctrine, then newly entertained by them, and consequently, in defence of their own opinions: and therefore such their authorities are not to balance equally, with the Confessions of the former Protestants.  
13. If your Adversary doth produce any authorities; either from the Pope's Decrees, or from General Counsels; (by the which the Antiquity of some Catholic Article may be impugned). Be careful, 1. That particular Counsels, or Counsels schismatical (not warranted by the Pope's authority) be not obtruded upon you, for true General Counsels.  
2. That the point urged out of the Council doth concern Doctrine of faith, and not matter of fact; touching which later point, it is granted a Council may alter it Decrees, upon better, and later informations. 3. That the Canon, or Decree poduced out of the Council, do immediately concern the doctrine itself of some Article of faith, (then supposed to be brought in) and not the name only to be imposed upon the said doctrine afore believed; as it happened in the Council of Lateran, touching the word Transubstantiation.  
4. That the Decree of the Pope, or Council, delivered only touching the better execution of some Catholic point, afore partly neglected (as for example, touching Confession, the unmarried life of the Clergy, or keeping set times of fasting, and the like) be not fraudulently extended (by your Adversary) to the first institution of the said doctrine; he so suggesting a more reformed execution, or practise of the Catholic doctrine, for the first institution of it.  
14. If your Adversary produce the ancient Fathers in defence of Protestancy, first ask him, if he will inappealeably stand to their judgements? If he will; then urge the Protestants (whose books are most plentiful in such like accusations) charging them, as Patrons of Papistry. If he will not stand to their authority; then demand; to what end he doth allege them? And further let him know, that it is the joint consent of Fathers (without contradiction of other Orthodoxal Fathers) which the Catholics do admit. Where some Protestants object, that diverse points of the Cathoclike Religion were condemned in some Heretics, by the Orthodoxal Fathers of the Primitive Church; you may truly reply hereto, that the Article, or conclusion itself, of any Catholic point, was not condemned by them; but only some absurd, and wicked Circumstance (annexed by the said Heretics to the Article) was condemned by the Fathers. Thus the Catholics are charged by D. Fulke. and others, to borrow the praying to Saints, and Angels from certain old Heretics, condemned by Epiphanius for this doctrine. Whereas those Heretics prayed both, to good, & bad Angels, & to those, who were falsely termed Angels; accoumpting them as Patrons of their wickedness. And for these Circumstances only Epiphanius registereth them for Heretics. This sleight is much practised by diverse protestāns in certain points of the Catholic Religion. Therefore be sure to see the words of the Fathers so condemning them, in the Fathers own books; which if you do, you shall discover wonderful forgery, and depravation of the said Father's writings, used by the Protestants.  
16. If it be urged, that the denial of freewill (for example, and so of other Articles of Protestancy) was taught by Manichaeus; and consequently, that the Protestant faith is as ancient, as those primitive times. Reply, that this particular Heretic, or that particular Sectary did teach, but one, or other Protestant Article, and were instantly written against for such their Innovation, the said Men being Catholic in other points. And therefore you may truly aver, that the urging of such Examples are wholly impertinent, either for the proof of the antiquity of Protestancy, or for the visibility of the Protestant Church in those days.  
17. When you produce the ancient Fathers against the Protestants, their common shift is to make an opposition between the Scripture, and the Fathers; maintaining that to follow the Father's judgement in faith, is to reject, and abandon the Scripture; and that themselves are to be pardoned for preferring the Scripture before the Fathers. But to this you may answer, that seeing the Fathers do admit, and reverence the scripture in as high a degree, as the Protestants do; The main question, and doubt here is only, whether the Fathers, or the Protestants do more truly expound the Scripture.  
18. When a Catholic doth allege the Fathers, the Protestants do seek to lessen their authorities several ways, as by objecting either another Father, or the said Father in another place against himself, so falsely traducing him, as a mantainer of contrary Doctrines. In like sort, by objecting some confessed error of the Father produced by the Catholic; which chiefly holdeth in Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. But to this last point, you may answer; that you produce the Fathers in such Catholic Points, touching the which, they were not written against by any other Father; and therefore their authority therein is of force; since it is presumed hereby, that all the other Fathers (and consequently all the Church of God) agreed with them therein; whereas their confessed errors were impugned by Augustine, Hierom, Epiphanius, and others.  
19 Do not admit this, as good: some Fathers do interpret this, or that text of scripture figuratively; therefore the said Fathers teach, that it is not to be expounded literally. This is a mere sophism; for seeing diverse texts of scripture are capable (besides the literal) of allegorical senses (as all the learned Catholics, and Protestants do acknowledge) therefore the figurative sense doth not exclude, but rather often presupposeth, and admitteth the literal. According hereto, S. Augustine passing over (as presumed, and granted) the literal sense of those words: qui bibit meum Sanguinem etc. allegorically expoundeth in this sort; 
h joan. 6.  bibere Sanguinem Christi; est crederein Christum.  
20. You are here also to conceive, that diverse Protestants do call our Catholic Doctrines, as they are defended by us, Superstition, Idolatry, Blasphemies; but as they are taught by the ancient Fathers, they mildly style the very same Doctrines, Errors, Scars, Blemishes. The reason of the different appellation of them in the Fathers is, in that they would not seem to break with the Fathers, or to be of a several Church from them; whereas they call the same Doctrines in us, by the former aggravating terms; to imply to their followers, that we Catholics (as supposed by them to profess Superstition, Idolatry, Blasphemies, etc.) are not of the true Church of Christ. By this you may discern the Protestants, both Malice, and Subtilty.  
21. You must be wary to observe, and distinguish, when a Father writeth doctrinally, and sententially (ex professo) of any subject, from that, which he writeth Antagonisticè, and in heat of dispute with his Adversary, touching the said subject: since in the first kind his positive, and true judgement is clearly set down, and for such his authority (thence deduced) is to be embraced: Whereas in this later kind, he often disputeth, ad personam; and so sometimes (either through vehemency, or for his greater present advantage) writeth more loosely, and not so reservedly, as the Catholic doctrine in that point requireth. According hereto, some of the ancient Fathers, writing against Pelagius, and his sect (who ascribed over much to freewill) did not (perhaps) so fully dispute in defence of the Catholic Doctrine of freewill, as they might have done. This course they took (of which the Protestants make advantage) that thereby they might the more easily convince their Adversary's Heresy, resting so much on the contrary side.  
22. In like sort, the Fathers sometimes perhaps in a Rhetorical, and amplifying manner, do use certain transcendent speeches (as also some more modern Catholics have done) in praise of our Blessed Lady, or in honour of the Cross, or the like; then being taken literally, can well be justified. But they were the more bold to do, because they (as then having no Adversaries to their Catholic Doctrines in those points) might rest assured, that their words would be taken in that pious sense (and no other) wherein they delivered them. But if they had foreknown, that there would have come in after times such sectaries, who would so rigidly, and literally insist in all such their sentences, perusing every word, and syllable of them, and racking them to the worst construction (as now the Protestants do) they would) no doubt) have written more reservedly, and cautelously of those points. But little did they think, that any succeeding Men, (professing themselves to be Christians) would ever so uncharitably) have detorted their words, from their intended sense.  
23. Touching the Notes of the Church of Christ, prescribed by the Protestants; which are the true preaching of the Word, and a right administration of the Sacraments; you must here know, that these Notes are set down by them for two respects, and with great subtlety: The one is, to avoid our Catholic Notes of Antiquity, Visibility, Succession etc. which notes they foresee, cannot be justified of their own Protestant Church: The second, and more principal reason of this their proceeding is, that here by they may reduce the proving, which is the true Church, to their own private spirit, and judgement; because themselves will be Umpires, and judges (not admitting any other men's censures therein) when, and where the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments rightly administered: So subtle (you see) is Novelisme in Faith for the patronage of itself.  
24. Strive to be more conversant, and ready (if so your opportunity, and occasions will not suffer you, to be ready in all) in such Controversies, which cons●● in practice; as about Praying to Saints, Indulgences, Worshipping of Images, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Communion under one kind etc. then in others, which rest only in belief, and speculation. Seeing the vulgar Protestant with whom you are (in likelihood) much to converse, soon taketh exception against those former, and will expect greater satisfaction in them; because they being subicct to the sense, (in regard of their daily practice) come nearest within their Capacity; and are by them often charged (through the calumny of their chief Masters, abusing their credulity) with many supposed abuses.  
25. Touching those Articles, or Controversies, which chiefly rest in speculation, be well travelled in the question touching the Infallibility of God's Chureh, ●s also in that other question, that the Scripture (without the Church's attestation) cannot prove itself to be scripture; and that all points of belief do not receive their proof from scripture alone; seeing that these two potentially include in themselves most of all other Controversies. Also be most ready in the question touching the continual Visibility of the Protestants Church (seeing the Protestants must grant their Church to have been ever visible, if they will aver it to be the true Church of Christ,) &, Micheas, if ever you dispute with any Protestant, I could wish, if so the liberty of choicely on your part, & that you aforehand well furnish, & arm yourself to that end; that you would make election to dispute of this point; for if you be well experienced therein, you shall mightily confound your Adversary; he not being able (even by his own brethren's confessions) to instance (for many Centuries, and ages together) so much, as the being of one Protestant.  
Thus far (Micheas) of such observations briefly and plainly delivered, without applying most of them to any particular subject; wherewith it is convenient you should be instructed, before you enter into any conflict with any Protestant, diverse others may be adjoined to these, but that I am afraid, I should tire you with a wearisome repetition of them; and your own experience hereafter will best direct you in such animadversions.  MICHEAS 
My Lord Cardinal I do much prize these your instructions; most of them serving, as so many loopeholes, through which we may espy the subtle approach of the Enemy; or rather as so many Counter-murs to withstand his secret molitions 
(b) Vi●g. A●nea●.  and attempts: ay Dolus an virtus, quis in host requirat? And though these your premonitions (or rather premunitions, since by them I may be fore-armed against the assault of the adversary) be now but generally set down, without any particular application (as your Lordship saith) yet hereafter I will incorporate them in such points, or passages of dispute, as just opportunity, and occasion may present.  
And here according to your Lordship's desire, I will labour in those Controversies, consisting chiefly in practice, by you specified; and I will also most painfully, and elaborately furnish myself with reading, touching the question of the visibility of the Protestants Church. The which question, I do promise your Lordship (according as you wished me) shallbe the subject of my next discourse, whensoever my fortune shallbe to contest with any learned Protestant; for this point being well, and throughly prosecuted, I hold it most choking, and mortal to the adversary, as your Lordship above did affirm.  
But now my Lord, the time is far spent, and I fear, I have detained you over long in these your learned discourses. And now I confess, I think it long, till I have received the Sacrament of Baptism, which shall Wash away in me all spots, and filth, both of Original, and Actual sin; referring my taking of Priesthood to such opportunity, and season, as you in your own wisdom shall hold convenient.  CARD. BELLARM. 
Micheas, as concerning your intended implanting in Christ's Church by Baptism, your desire thereof I much commend; seeing in things of this nature, to will to do well, is a doing well. For your actual Baptising (whereby you shall cease to be descended, from the loins of your first Parent) know you, that we are at this present in that Holy-weeke, in which the Redeemer of the world was by the jews crucified; a time (among some other seasons of the year) appointed by the Catholic Church, for the baptising of such jews, as through God's infinite Grace are converted to the Faith of Christ. If therefore it please you, to morrow to repair to the Cathedral Church of this City, you shall find me there, prepared to minister to you (according to your request) the Sacrament of Baptism, with all it Christian rites, and Ceremonies. And after in convenient, and fitting time, I will confer upon you the holy Order of Priesthood.  MICHEAS. 
My Lord Cardinal, till than I will take leave of you, acknowledging myself to be your Lordships in all observancy; and willbe ready (with the assistance of the highest) at the place appointed, to expect that happy hour.  
FINIS.  
GOD SAVE THE KING.   

THE CONCLUSION  
HEre (Learned Academians) endeth our first Dialogue; where you are to suppose, that according to their former intended meeting the next day, Micheas is Baptised by the Cardinal (who being thereby, in 
a Tertullian de Pudicitia  Christum tinctus, induit Christum) and within some short time after, he receiveth the holy function of Priesthood, by the imposition of the hands of the said Cardinal. What is feigned to have happened to Micheas after his departure from the Cardinal, the two subsequent Dialogues will discover  
Touching the precedent subject of this first Dialogue if it please you but to fan, and sever away, what is fictitious, and imaginary therein, from what is true, and warranted with many proofs, you shall find, (I hope) that the arguments produced, are of sufficient weight, to sway any man's judgements, (not drunken with prejudice of Opinion) to acknowledge that to this day, there was never any change yet made in the Church of Rome, so much, as in one dogmatic Article of Faith, or point of importance, (which is the matter here in question) and that therefore the Protestants inconsiderate malignity is hereby the more discovered; who so frequently traduce, and conviciate that Church, as the whore of Babylon; which we Catholics do undertake (even with an expugnable confidence) to Prove, that she is the intemerate, and chaste spouse of Christ: so certain it is, that these Men 
b Act. 13.  cease not to pervert the strait ways of the Lord.  
Now my Conclusion (Worthy Men) shall chiefly rest in a true, and real retorting of that upon our Adversaries which doctor Whitakers, and other Protestants do falsely obtrude upon our Church: so shall the accuser rest chargeable with the accusation, and the accused become assoiled, and freed. My meaning is, I will briefly here show, that it is the Protestant Faith, and Religion, which hath made a manifest change, and alteration from that Faith, and Religion, which the Church of Rome sucked from the breasts of her first instructours; howsoever the Protestants labour (by all wit, and other means) to clothe their Innovations in the fair attire of a reverend and regardable Priority of being.  
I will insist in the chiefest articles mantained at this present by the Protestants, and will set down the main circumstances, necessarily attending (as above is made plain) every change in Religion: To wit, the Doctrine, which is newly broached; the Person, by whom it was first taught; the Imposition of a new name (for the most part) upon the believers of that doctrine, drawn from the first Author; in whom all his followers were originally contained, as the branches of a tree are virtually in the root: The time, when every such Protestant Article was first anciently introduced: The Persons by whom those Articles were at their first beginning impugned: And finally the Church, or visible society of Christians, out of which (as more ancient) those sectaries (by their first forging of their said points of Protestancy) did depart, and go from.  
And to begin. The Doctrine of the Church's Inuisibility was first taught by Donatus, and of him his followers were called Donatists. This Heresy at it first rising, was written against, and impugned by S. 
c Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae c. 12.  Augustine. In like sort, the Donatists, were the first, who did overthrow Altars, and cast out holy Oil; but contradicted herein by 
d Lib. 2. et 6. contra Pa 〈…〉.  Optatus and 
e Lib. 2 contra Petilia●● rat. 51. et 61.  Augustine. The denial of prayer for the dead (and consequently the denial of the doctrine of Purgatory) as also the abrogation of all set Fasts, were first brought in by Aerius: his followers, for such his doctrines styled: Aëriani. These his false doctrines were recorded, and contradicted, by S. 
f Haeres. c. 33.  Augustine. The denial of freewill was set on foot by Manicheus; from him are descended the Manichees. His doctrine herein was written against by 
g In ●raesat. dialogorum contra Pelagianos.  S. Hierome, and 
h Haeres. cap. 46.  S. Augustine.  
The denial of single, and unmarried life was first taught by Vigilantius. He also taught, that the prayers of the dead are not heard for the living; and consequently he taught, that we ought not to pray to Saints. His scholars termed Vigilantinians. His doctrines impugned by 
i Lib. contra Vigilanti●● c. 2.  Hierome.  
Equality of Works was first taught by jovinian; He also broached the Heresy, that our Blessed Lady in the birth of our Saviour lost her Virginity. His followers, joviniani. His Heresies exploded by 
k Lib. 1. et 2. contra jovinianum.  Hierome, and 
l Lib. de haeres. c. 82.  Augustine.  
The doctrine, that all Sins are mortal, was first stamped by Pelagius. He further taught, that the Baptism of children was not necessary. The firsts of these his doctrines was written against by 
m Lib. 2. cotra Pelagianum.  S. Hierome; the second by 
n In Re scripto ad M●l●ui●●●●● Concilium post 〈◊〉.  Innocentius, and 
o Hae●● 88  S. Augustine, his followers Pelagiani.  
The denial of all worship due to the Images of Christ, and his Saints, was first introduced by Zena●as Persa; who is therefore recorded, and contradicted by 
p Lib. 26. cap. 27.  Nic●phorus.  
The doctrine that God is the author of Sin (which necessarily followeth, by taking away freewill from Man) was first sowed by Simon Magus; but impugned by 
q Adverse. haeres. post med.  Vincentius ●yrinensis.  
The denial of enjoined times of Penance was first taught by the Heretics called Audianis, and contradicted by 
r L. 4. ●●er. 〈…〉.  Theodoret. The denial of the Possibility of keeping the Commendeme●s was first broached by certain Heretics in S. hierom's time and impugned by 
s In explanat. symboli ad Damasun.  Hierom and 
t De temporeserm. 91  Augusti●●.  
The denial of all reverend estimation particularly to the Cross, or Crucifix of Christ, was first invented by Probianus; and he recorded, and reprehended therefore, in 
u Lib 2. cap. 19  the Tripartite History.  
The denial of the Real Presence was first mantained, by certain Heretics in S. Ignatius his time, as 
x Dialog. 3.  Theodoret relateth, and condemneth them for the same.  
The denial of Priests having power to remit sins, was first justified by Novatus; his scholars were called Novatiani; his Heresy recorded, and condemned by 
y Lib. 3. de Heretic. fabulis.  Theodoret, and 
z Lib. 6. histor. c. 33.  Eusebius.  
Finally, to omit diverse other Protestant doctrines, for greater brevity; the doctrine teaching, that sin could not hurt a man, if so he had faith (a Paradox revived by 
a Lut●. In his sermons englished. p. 147. et 276. etc.  Luther) was first invented by Eunomius, but impugned by 
b Lib. de Haeres. c. 54.  S. Augustine: his scholars styled Eunomiani.  
Thus far of Protestant doctrines broached by certain impious Heretics in those former times; who though they be long since departed this world; yet their misery is, that their end cannot be reputed their end, nor their death; since in regard of this their change of faith, and innovations introduced by them into God's Church, they doubtlessly live (if they had not a final repentance) in a perpetuity of insufferable torments.  
Now concerning the times, when all these former points of Protestancy did first take their being; this Circumstance (for the most part) may be taken from the times, wherein the Fathers (who did impugn, and write against the said doctrines) did live; seeing no sooner any of the said doctrines began to rise, and get on wing; but presently one Father, or other was ready (by his pen) to suppress, and beat down the same. And thus we find that sentence most true; to wit, To 
c Vincent. Lyrinensis contra haeres.  reduce an Heresy to it beginning, is a confutation of the said Heresy.  
That all these former prime Heretics did depart, and go out of a more ancient society of Christians, than themselves (to wit, out of the then visible, and known society of us Catholics, in those times) according to those words of S. john exierunt 
d 1. joan▪ 2.  ex nobis; and consequently, that it was those Heretics (who by drawing to themselves, the impurity of the former errors, became the channels (as I may say) of the Church, cleansing, and freeing her, from all filth, and ordure of ay 〈…〉 ovation) who made the change, and alteration, is proved several ways. First, because it appeareth from the above alleged Confessions of the learned Protestants, that our Catholic Faith was the only faith in those ages, generally believed, and that the Protestant Church (supposing that afore it had been in Being) was as then by their like Confessions, wholly extinct, and invisible.  
Secondly, the foresaid points of the former Heretics departing from a more ancient community of Christians; is further evicted, from the Father's particular charging this, or that Heretic, with this, or that particular Heresy only, for if either any, or all of them had jointly taught all the Articles of protestancy (at this present believed) than no doubt all the said Articles of protestancy, as then mantained by one man, had been impugned, and written against by the said Fathers, as well, as the particular Heresies of this, or that particular Heretic are by them contradicted.  
Thirdly, in that the Fathers, who condemned the foresaid Heretics, were ever reputed most Orthodoxal, and pious Doctors, neither were they reprehended by any other Father, of God's Church, for such their proceeding against those Heretics, which consideration demonstrateth, that the whole Church of God did in those times agree in faith, and Religion with those Fathers, and against the above condemned, and novelizing Heretics: from whence we may further conclude, that the whole Church of Christ (which hath authority to discern, both true, and false doctrine; as a strait line me sureth both a right, and crooked line) did by the former Fathers (as by her instruments) condemn those Men for broaching such their Heresies. Fourthly, and lastly, (for accession of more reasons) the former point appeareth, from the consideration of the Nature of the former Heresies; which seeing they, for the most part consist in Negations, (as the denial of freewill, denial of Purgatory, denial of the Real Presence etc.) do therefore presuppose a preexistency of the Affirmative doctrines, whereof they are merely Negations: I mean they preadmit a former belief of the said doctrines of freewill, of Purgatory, of the Real Presence etc. For why should any Sectary in those days, rise up to deny any of the said doctrines, if those doctrines had not been afore believed? From which it evidently followeth, that the Professors of the affirmative doctrines were that society of Christians, out of which (as more ancient) the former Heretics originally departed, and went out. And with this (most remarkable Men) I end, remitting to your own clear eyed judgments (now after the perusing of this small Treatise) whether it was the present Church of Rome, or the Protestant Church, which hath made this so much inculcated change, and alteration from that Faith, which first was preached, and taught in the said Church of Rome, by the Apostles.  
Laus Deo et Beatae Virgini Mariae.   

THE SECOND PART OF THE CONVERTED JEW OR THE SECOND DIALOGUE OF MICHAEAS THE JEW  
Between. 

Michaeas' the former Converted jew.  
Ochinus, who first planted Protestancy in England, in King Edward the sixth his reign.  
Doctor Reynolds of Oxford.  
Neuserus chief Pastor of Heidelberge, in the Palatinate.    
The Contents hereof the Argument following will show.  
Here is adjoined an Appendix, wherein is taken a short Survey (containing a full Answer) of a Pamphlet entitled: A Treatise of the Visibility, and Succession of the True Church in all ages. Printed Anno. 1624.  
Si dixerint vobis: Ecce in deserto est nolite exire; Ecce in Penetralibus; no●●●e credere.  Math. 24. 
PERMISSV SUPERIORUM. Anno. M. DC. XXX.   

THE ARGUMENT.  
MICHAEAS', after the Disputation had between Cardinal Bellarmine, and D. Whitakers, touching Rome's change in Religion; (through which he was first made Catholic and in short time after made Priest.) traveleth into many Countries, to see their Universities, and places of learning. At the length he arriveth in England; where from visiting of Cambridg, he cometh to Oxford. Then he findeth D. Reynolds, Ochinus, and Neuserus. They move him to become Protestant. He answereth, that the want of performace of the Prophecies, touching the Visibility of Christ's Church, in the Protestant Church, induceth him besides other reasons to continue Catholic. Hereupon they all begin a Disputation touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church, for former ages; prefixing thereto (by mutual consent) a short Discourse of the Necessity of a continual Visibility of the true Church. Michaeas' so fully displayeth the insufficiency of the pretended Instances of Protestants, and of all other Arguments urged for proof thereof, That instead, of Michaeas' being to be made a Protestant by this Disputation; Ochinus, and Neuserus, as not acknowledging the present Roman Church to be the true Church, and seeing the Prophecies, not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church, do finally come to this point, to wit, absolutely, and openly to affirm, that the Church of Christ (as not having the Prophecies accomplished in it, which were foretold to be performed in the true Church of God touching it visibility) is a false Church, and that our Saviour Christ was a Seducer. Hereupon they both protest, that, from that time forward they do renounce the Christian faith, and do embrace the jewish Religion; and so teaching Circumcision, and reviving the Old law, they do turn blasphemous jews or Turks. Michaeas and D. Reynolds do use vehement persuasions to them, to the contrary; but their words prevail not; and so the disputation breaketh off. What courses Ochinus and Neuserus do after take for their spreading of judaism, is hereafter set down: And all the passages of their Revolt are manifested, partly out of their own writings, and partly from the acknowledgement of diverse learned Protestants: so as their Apostasy is not feigned, but true and real.   

THE SECOND PART OF THE CONVERTED JEW WHEREIN IS DEMONSTRATED; that the Protestant Church hath ever remained Invisible; or rather hath not been in Being, since the Apostles days, till Luther's revolt.  DOCTOR REYNOLDS. 
MICHAEAS', God save you, I much rejoice to see you here in England; And I congratulate your coming to this our University of Oxford: I have often heard of you through occasion of your former intercourse of disputes with my Brother D. Whitakers; though it was never my fortune to see you before this present.  MICHAEAS'. 
I greatly thank you M. Doctor, for this your kindness touching my coming hither; you may know, that since my last seeing of D. Whitakers, I have passed through diverse Countries, and Nations, moved thereunto (notwithstanding my great age) through my own innate desire of seeing places and Vniversitis of erudition, and learning. Now at the last, I am arrived in England, and am immediately comen from visiting the University of Cambridge: a place in my judgement, much exceeding all praises heretofore delivered of it. But may I make bold to inquire of you, who those two gentlemen here present, are; whose external comportments do even depose, that their minds are fairly enriched with many Intellectual good parts; for it is certain, that a man's outward carriage is commonly the true shadow of the mind, cast by the light of the inward soul.  DOCTOR REYNOLDS 
You have conjectured aright. For both these are men of great eminency for learuing. The elder of them is called Ochinus, who being accompanied with the learned Peter Martyr, did in King Edward the sixts time first 
a Osiander Cet. 16. l. 2. c. 67. p. 423. Hoc tempore, Ecclesiae in Anglia ad formam Call 〈…〉 sticam, opera Petri Martyris Florentini, & Bernardi Ochini Senensis reforma●ae sunt. And Symlerus (a Protestant) in his book de vita & obit. Petri Martyris fol. 13. Petrus Martyr ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi de voluntate Regis vocatus est; itaque Argentinâ in Angliam discessit, comitante eum Bernardo Ochino, qui & ipse ab eodem Archiepiscopo vocatus est,  plant in England the doctrine of Calvin, after the Romish Religion was once abolished: One, whose presence in those days made England happy, whose after 
b Bale in praesat. in Act. Rom. Pontif. printed 1558 saith of Ochinus and Peter Martyr: Faelix Anglia dum haec paria habuit; misera dum amisit.  absence made it Unfortunate; & whom all 
c So saith Calvin of Ochinus in these words: quos Itali Bernardino Ochi●o & Petro Vermilio opponent? l. de scandalis (extant) in his tract. Theolog. printed 1597. pag. 111.  Italy (for he is an Italian) could not equal. This other is Neuserus, the chief Pastor 
d Con●adus Slussenberge in Theolog. Calvin. l. 1. Art. 2 calleth Neuserus, He 〈…〉 ergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor.  of Heidelberge in the Palatinate: a man whom Nature, & his own Industry have not placed in any lower room of knowledge; for he is transcendently learned, and hath much laboured in dilating the Gospel of Christ. Both these men are reciding here for the time, by reason of some late emergent occations, and business, tending to the advancement of Christ's Church. I could wish Michaeas, you were acquainted with them.  MICHAEAS'. 
Gentlemen. I greet you both in the salutation of the chief Apostle: 
e 1. Petri. 1.  gratia vobis, & pax multiplicetur. And I am glad, that I am comen to that place, where the very walls, and streets (in regard of such men's presence) do even Echo forth learning and all good literature.  OCHINUS. 
Worthy Michaeas (for so I hear you called) I willingly entertain your acquaintance; for learning I prise highly in any man, as holding it the chiefest riches (next to true Religion) wherewith the understanding is endowed.  NEUSERUS. 
And I as happily do congratulate your arrival here; for what company of men are more to be esteemed, than the Society of learned Men, where themselves (though few in number) are a sufficient Auditory to themselves; Satis magnum alteri alter theatrum: they interchangeably giving, and receiving all content by their leatned discourses?  DOCTOR REYNOLDS. 
Have you had (Michaeas) a full sight of our University, & Colleges? If not; we are ready to accompany you, throughout all the chief places thereof.  MICHAEAS'. 
I have already seen them all; and particularly your late erected schools, (wherein are daily ventilated all questions, worthy the iudiceous ears of Scholars) and your spacious liberary the very treasury, or storehouse of the Muses. And I must confess, that during my long travel, and perlustration of all Christendom, my eyes never beheld such two fair places designed for Nurses of learning, as Oxford & Cambridge are; the very honour, and glory of your Nation. For where are thete such healthful, and pleasant seats for Vniversityes both being placed in a Triangle from the chief City of the realm? Such magnificent, and stately buildings, and Colleges fitting to be palaces to so many Princes? Such opulency of revenues, and rich endowments, appropriated unto them for the education of poor scholars? Finally such pious statutes, Ordinances, and Decrees, left by their Founders for the advancement of virtue, and learning? All this is not to be matched (I assure myself) throughout the whole Circumference of the earth. Only the defect, and grief is, that the Vniversityes, & their livings, being first instituted, & given by Catholic Founders, and for the propagation of the Catholic Religion) for; from them, as from two main sources, and wellsprings, by the conduits of particular men's labours, the whole land (touching saith) did receive its watering) are now most repugnantly from the first Erectors intention, turned to the depressing, and overthrow of the said Catholic Religion: matter to be delivered in Threnes, or Elegyes, and Accents of lamentation, and complaint. And such as the Vniversityes are, so are the students; many of them (even by my own trial) of elevated wits; of transpearcing judgements; most skilful in the learned tongues; fraught with all choysnes of good letters; and finally of a candid ingenuity in their comportments.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Though reports do often multiply, and become greater in their own agitation; yet your praises of our Academies I take for no amplification of speeches, but (if credit may be given to many great travellers) for positive, and measured truths. They both are two Sisters, linked in the bond of so inviolable a friendship, and association, as that they may be well termed: Oxonium Cantabrigiense, and Cantabrigia Oxoniensis. Yet the elder of these two is Oxford; And since I am a Son of her, I could have wished, I had met with you before your Conference had with D. Whitakers, a Branch of Cambridge, and otherwise a Man of great talents, and parts. For I should have hoped, that as Oxford is the elder Sister, so from a member of the elder Sister, you should have received greater satisfaction in the light of the Gospel; then both by relation of others, and now by your own overtures, you have.  
That Oxford is the elder Sister (and therein hath her preeminence of her primogeniture) we easily prove; for we deduce the first occasion of our University (though not the plantation) even from the time 
f See Polidor Virgil, and Leyland his Annotations upon Polidor Virgil.  of Brutus; who, when he came into this Island, was accompanied with diverse learned Greek Philosophers, who made choice of a place near to Oxford, to seat themselves in, as a place most pleasant, and fitting for speculation, and study. After which times, Alphredus (youngest Son of Ethelwolpe King of the Westsaxons, about the year of the Incarnation. 873. (himself being after King) did translate those schools of the greek Philosophers (which afore had suffered dishonour, and contempt) to Oxford; And then with Immunityes, livings, and buildings, he gave the first foundation to our University.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor. I am no Herald to discuss or proclaim Antiquityes. And I know not whether of these two Sisters be more ancient; yet in that I will not be ungrateful unto Cambridge, for my late kind entertainment, I will not conceal, what my Memory can truly yield unto, concerning the Antiquity of Cambridge, discoursed off by some of that University. They 
* Vide authorem Genealogiae principum Cambrorun, Brilannicorum & Saxonicorum. As also Cadnaeus de aduent● lulij Caesaris.  said, that Cantaber, who was Son of one of the Kings of Spain, coming into England before the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, 394. years, and marrying a daughter of Gurguntius, King of the Britons, gave first plantation, and Name to their University; and caused it to be frequented with Philosophers, and other learned men. Now of what credit both your Antiquities are, I know not; if the one hath the prerogative in Antiquity: the other enjoyeth it in stateliness of buildings. But howsoever these matters be, they are both most celebrious, and renowned seminaries of learning, and not drooping Academyes, as some are in other Countries. Seing it is your pleasure (M. Doctor) thus to entertain discourse touching these famous places, I will acquaint you with two things, which since my first seeing of them I have observed. One is, that not only every College in it library, but diverse Students in each College, have in their studies many Catholic writers and particularly the so much much celebrated works of Bellarmyne, fairly bound up, and well stringed: But I fear, they are there placed rather for a complete furnishing of their Libraries, then for any great use of reading them; And so the benefit by them is no more than if a patient sending for pills to the Physician, should never take them, but let them lie in his chamber window.  D. REYNOLDS. 
It is far otherwise; for all those books mentioned, are much read by many of us: And Bellarmynes arguments are refuted in our weekly Sermons, as occasion is incidently ministered from the Text. And myself particularly have publicly read in yonder great Divinity School, that you see, as also have written against him.  MICHAEAS'. 
I know yourself are learned, & withal I know you have not only written, but also read in confuting of him; as a near acquaintance of mine, who was an earewitnesse of your lectures, hath told me. But as for others, who in their Sermons (even obtorto collo) will needs hale Bellarmyne in, I am half persuaded, they do it with the like policy, which some men living about great Towns, and willing to get the reputation of valour, are accustomed to do; that is, they purposely quarrel (thereby to be spoken of for their courage) with some one, or other chief professed Hacster, or Swashbukler.  D. REYNOLDS. 
O Michaeas. Your censure is over uncharitable. It is the desire of having, the Truth tried, which provokes our Devynes in their Sermons to trace Bellarmyne; that so the scholars (their Auditors) may more easily decline the obliquity of his paths.  MICHAEAS'. 
I can not much blame you, to set the best glass upon your brethren's actions: But this I must say, that those Scholars of your Vniversiryes, which are of clear understandings, not forestauled by badly prejudging of Catholic Religion; but above all, having sufficiency of temporal means, to support their states, and not expecting to rise by Ecclesiastical livings (the most dangerous Bait of these times) must in all moral certainty favour in their private judgement the Catholic party, if so with diligence they peruse the Cardinal's works, and other Catholic writers But otherwise; it is a death, when a Man of ripe age, and well furnished with learning, is brought through want of means to say: O how must I live? The Roman Religion (I see) threateneth poverty, disgrace, and perhaps the rope too; the Protestant promiseth reputation, honour, and riches. Then the Understanding, and the Will do easily partake together, to the betraying of the Soul, by entertaining an erroneous Religion; privileged with authority, seconded with the stream of the times, and advantaged through means of preferring: and here then that Sentence holdeth it force: As gold is tried by the stone, so man by gold. But let me stay myself, I fear, I have spoken overlowde, and the Scholars overhearing me out of their College windows (being so near to us) may much blame this my Censure.  
The second thing I note (but pardon me (most flourishing Academies,) I protest, I speak with the Apostle, in 
g 2. Cor. 6.  charitate non ficta, and not in any upbraiding sense) is, that feminine Servitors, as employed for servile uses, have an overfree access into the Colleges; a sight most strange in Catholic universityes and (as jam informed) much disliked by your own Protestants. O where vigour of youth, Mansinnate propension, the present inviting object, and the privatnes of the place, do all conspire together, what dangerous effects of this Nature, may they produce? And we all see, how apt the fire is to take hold of any near combustible matter. But I had almost forgotten myself therefore leaving these points, as merely Perereà, or impertinencyes, let usdescend to some more serious discourse. Touching my present faith, whereat you glance, I grant, I was a jew, both by birth, and Religion, till by the infinite mercy of the Highest, and the charitable endeavour of that most Illustrious, and learned Cardinal in his disputes with D. Whitakers, even through weight of argument, I was forced to embrace the Catholic Faith; My judgement being till then, but as Plato his Basatabula, propending indifferently to Catholic, and Protestant; and ready to receive the writing, & Impression of that Religion (whichsoever it should be) that came presented to mine eyes in the fair attire of venerable Antiquity.  OCHINUS. 
I do much grieve (Michaeas) to see your candour, and integrity thus distained with the aspersion of superstition, and glad I should be, to lend a hand for the pulling you out of the mire of your present errors.  NEUSERUS. 
Doubtlessly (Michaeas) your choice of Religion hath proceeded from an indigested, and raw censure, which you have made of the passages of the former disputation, by you mentioned: And therefore if you had gone with greater leisure therein, your success had been the more fortunate: But yet 
(h) joan. 11.  your sickness is not unto death; for there is time for your cure: And since Grace, and Temptation are the seeds of the Holy Ghost, and the Devil; embrace that offered unto you by God, by showing you the light of his Gospel; and overcome this, being the bait of Antichrist; and my serviceable labour shall no way be wanting to further so happy a change. And the more I commiserate your present estate; you erring out of Ignorance, not out of malice: for we see, Salvation of your soul is the Circumference, within which all your thoughts are bounded.  MICHAEAS'. 
Gentlemen, I thank you all, and do interpret your words in the same language, in which you did deliver them; I mean, in the Dialect of your Charity, And I see, how ready your zeal is to take fire upon the least occasion of discourse. Therefore assure yourselves, I am not ashamed of my faith. I am a Roman Catholic at least, and through the grace of God (that working, and efficatious Grace, I mean, which is the stone, set in the Ring of Nature) I am resolved so to live, and dye. My resolution is so inalterable herein, as that I trust through him, who for his own glory, and in his own Cause, is ever ready to fortify the weak, that your strongest assaults in dispute (for I see, thither your speeches tend) shall not be able to beat me off the Station of my present Profession: And I am the more confident, in that with God, causes are heard to speak, not Persons.  
And further you may rest certified, that since the worthy Cardinal's dispute, with D. Whitakers, I have spent my whole time in the study of the Controversies between the Catholics, and the Protestants; and have found diverse other most forcible inducements for my continuance in that faith, of which already I have made election: so certain it is, that the great Motion of Religion (as it is newly entertained by the judgement) turneth upon many wheels; one still moving and seconding another.  D. REYNOLDS. 
May we entreat of you, to show what Reasons are most prevailing, for your not incorporating yourself within our Protestant Church?  MICHEAS. 
M. Doctor I will. Besides the Argument handled between the Cardinal and D. Whitakers, touching the supposed change of the faith of Rome (which to me still remains an unavoidable Demonstration) many other Reasons are, and among the rest, this one: I find by my perusal of Ecclesiastical Histories, that the Protestant Church had it first being, & (as I may say) it Creation in the days of Luther (or rather after) then (and not before) coming out of an Abyss of Nothing Now what, warrant can I have (after my leaving of the jewish faith, which is confessed to be the true faith for several thousand years) to implant myself in that Society of Christians, whose Church (my own age being almost 70.) is not thirty years elder, than I am? The truth of which point is evicted, in that you are not able to instance the being of Protestants in any former Age. Now it is an inexpugnable verity, that the Church of Christ is ever, and in all ages to be most visible in her members. Whereas on the contrary part some Protestants, well discerning the want in their Church of this so necessary a Visibility, have been forced to forge in their minds, a certain imaginary, and Invisible Church; and teaching that it is not necessary, that the Church of Christ should be at all times Visible; but that it may, and often hath been, not only inconspicuous, and inglorious, but wholly latent, and unknown. But I fear I have made an unpleasing, and over deep incision in so dangerous a wound of your Church.  D. REYNOLDS. 
See, how the ambushment of your own Passions (I mean of prejudice and dislike) betray your judgement. And see, how foully even in the beginning you are deceived; and how one error in your words involues in itself a second error. For first we are ready, and prepared at all times, to prove by particular, and most warrantable Instances, that there have been men in every age since the Apostles, professing our Protestant Religion: So far off we are from acknowledging, that the rivers of our faith first issued out of Luther's fountain. Secondly, it is your mistaking, to think that the learned Protestants (for what any Anonymous, and illiterate scribbler may blot his paper with, by defending the contrary doctrine, we regard not) as acknowledging such a defect of Protestants, do teach an invisibility of the Church of Christ, especially after the times of the coming of the Messias. For all we concurrently maintain, that the Professors of the true faith must at all times, without the least interruption, be made known, and discernible; And we further justify, that a want of such a Visibility destroyeth, and annihila●eth the Church of God.  MICHAEAS'. 
But will these two learned Men conspire with you (M. Doctor) in defending this ever necessary Visibility of the Church; and this without any retiring back herein, or lessening, and mincing the point, once afore granted?  OCHINUS. 
I speak for myself. I am so confident therein, as that I am ready at this instant, to maintain it against any; and this from the prophecies of Gods sacred writ, wherein the palm, and victorious state of the Church (in subiugating to it the Gentiles) is at large soretould to be in these after times, ever most illustrious, and radiant.  NEUSERUS. 
And I as confidently do aver the same, even from the said former divine Oracles; and am prepared (if need should require) to solve all such texts of Scripture, which in an ignorant, and mistaking eye, may seem to import an Inuisibility of the Church at any tyme.  MICHAEAS'. 
You all answer me to my full content, and above my expectation. Well then, let us even, and plain the way of our ensuing dispute, by resting upon some one granted ground on all sides. Which ground is the establishment of the Church's Visibility. For it being once presumed, that the true Church of God must at all times enjoy this Visibility; it than most consequently followeth, that you are obliged, either to produce examples of Protestant Professors, for every age since Christ; or else to grant, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church, but a late erected Conventicle. Therefore in regard hereof, I hold it fitting, that all of us should join our forces together, for the proof of this chief, and head principle of the Church's Visibility: you than Ochinus (if it shall please you) may according to your former proffer, undertake the probation of it from the Scripture. Neuserus will (he saith) recconcile all such chief seeming passages of the Scripture, as may make show to evict the contrary. And I will entreat of you (M. Doctor) to fortify the said Verity, from the learned Monuments of the ancient fathers (in whose writings (no doubt) you have been much conversant) as also from force of Reason. Myself will lastly revet, and warrant the same point, from the often ingeminated acknowledgements of the most markable, & learned Protestants. In whose books (I confess) I have much traveled, since my conversion from judaism; And whose authorities I shall have often occasion to produce throughout this conference. For now you may take notice, that I have cast off all my former outward comportment of a jew, and am not only in faith, but also in my studies, my Idiom of speech, and every way else, wholly Christian.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I like well your method here intended; and indeed it is that, which the Philosophers call: Ordo Naturae. For by this means, we first handle the Thesis to wit, whether the Church of God is to be visible, or no. That done, we next descend to the Hypothesis; Which is, if the Protestants Church hath ever enjoyed this Visibility, or not. Neither can any judicious man hold this first part, as but certain Prolegomena, tending only to the better unfoulding of the second Part; for it is indeed a primary essential, and radical point, and first in all necessity to be discussed. For what availeth it to prove, that there have been Professors of Protestancy in all ages since Christ, if it rest doubtful, whether the Church of Christ exacteth such a necessity of it Professors in all ages, or no? Therefore (Michaeas) for my part I willingly undergo the task desired by you.  OCHINUS. 
We all join hands herein; Thus we see, that each of us is prepared to carry a stone, to the building of this fort; which being once erected, willbe able to endure the shot of her greatest Enemies.  NEUSERUS. 
I am most ready to perform my former assumed Scene: therefore delay no time, but begin.  OCHINUS. 
Well then, seeing the proofs drawn from the sacred Scripture, are worthily ever to have the first place; and seeing I have voluntarily imposed this labour upon myself, I will first begin. Now for the confirmation of this supreme Verity of the Church's Visibility, we will produce our first proofs from those Prophecies, which foretell, that the Church after the coming of the Messias shallbe miraculously multiplied. Which extraordinary multiplicity of Professors must needs imply a Visibility of them. As where it is said of the Church: The Isles 
k Esay. 60.  shall wait for thee. Their Kings shall mivister unto thee; and thy gates shallbe continually open; Neither day nor night shall they be shut; that men may bring to thee the riches of the gentils. And again: Kings 
l Esay. 49.  shallbe thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy mothers. And yet more: I will 
m Psalm.  give thee the Heathens for thy inheritance, and the end of the earth for thy Possession. And lastly (to omit diverse others such predictions of the Church's increase, and amplitude, it is said: enlarge 
n Esay. 54. See here of the contents of the English Bible upon that chapter.  the places of thy tents, spread out the curtains of thy habitation; for thou shalt increase on the right hand, and on the left; thy seed shall possess the gentils; and inhabit the desolate Cities.  
Now how can these Prophecies, touching the enlargement of the Church, be truly applied to that Church, which shall consist of so few, as that it shallbe sometimes absolutely Invisible? Or how shall it gates be continually open, and shut neither day nor night (as above is prophesied of it) if it shall remain at any time, in a night of Latency?  
In this next place, I will allege such texts of holy Scripture, wherein we find the word: Ecclesia or Church; In all which (without exception) by the word: Church, is signified a visible congregation of Men. The places (among others, for brevity omitted) may be these: Numbers 20. Why have you brought the Church of the Lord into solitude? But this Church was the known, and visible people of israel, which came out of Egypt. In like sort, it is said. 3. Kings 8. The King turned his face, and blessed all the Church of Israel; for all the Church of Israel did stand etc. Math 18. Tell the Church, & if he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen or Publican But how can we be commanded to tell the Church, if we do not know which is the Church? And if in all our spiritual necessities, we are commanded to repair, to the Church, then followeth it, that the Church at all times must be visible. Act. 20. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, regere Ecclesiam Det, to govern the Church of God. But how could they govern the Church of God, if they knew it not? Act. 15. They being brought on the way by the Church, passed through Ph●enice and Samaria. And again there: They were received of the Church, and the Apostles. Act. 18. Paul went up, and saluted the Church. Now how can these texts be possibly applied to any Invisible congregation or company of men. Furthermore, S. Paul speaketh of himself, that he persecuted the Church of God, as in 1. Cor. 15. Galat. 1. Philipp. 3. In all which places the word: Church, is used: But it is well known, whom S. Paul did persecute. And in 1. Timoth. 3. It is said how to converse indomo Dei, quae est Ecclesia Dei, in the house of the living God, which is the Church of God. But how could Timothee know, how to converse in the house of God, except he did know, which was this house? To all which former texts of Scripture, I annex this one note (a point much to be considered) that not any one place of Scripture can be produced, wherein the word: Church, is named, but that a Visible, and external company of men is necessarily understood thereby.  
To the former Scriptures may be added certain descriptions of the Church in other passages thereof; as in Esay. 2. Daniel. 3. Michaeas' 4. the Church is compared to a conspicuous mountain, which cannot be unseen, according to the expositions of jerom, 
o In hunc locum.  Austin, 
p ●ranct. 1. in epist. joannis.  and the Protestants. 
q See the marginal notes of the English bibles of anno. 1576. In Esay. 2.  In like sort in Psalm. 18. those words: He placed his tabernacle in the Sun: are thus paraphrazed by S. 
r Tract. 2. in epist in joan.  Austin: In manifesto posuit Ecclesiam suam etc. He placed his tabernacle in an open place; his tabernacle is his Church, which is placed in the Sun, not in the night, but in the day. Thus Austin.  
Another most illustrious & convincing passag of the Scripture for the Church's Visibility, is that in the Epistle to the Ephesians c. 4. where it is said of Christ: He gave Pastors, & Doctors to the consummation of Saints, unto the work of the Ministry, till we all meet in the Unity of Faith; that is (as D. 
s Against the Rhemish Test. in Eph. 4.  Fulke interpreteth) for ever. These words necessarily import, that the Church of Christ must at all times, and seasons (and this without any interruption) have Pastors to administer the Sacraments, and preach the word. Which exposition being granted, implieth necessarily an ever Visibility of the Church. For how can those Doctors, and Pastors preach at all times, and upon all occasions the word of God, & administer the Sacraments, if they be concealed, and lie in secret? Or how can the persons, to whom the Word is preached, & the Sacraments dispensed, become unknown or Invisible?  
That this is the true interpretation of the former text of the Ephesians, is generally taught by our own learned men: For according hereto, D. Whitakers teacheth, the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments, to be so necessary to the Church, that he thus saith: 
t Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 249.  Si adsunt, Ecclesiam constituunt; & tollunt, si aufer antur. With whom conspireth D. Willet, thus saying of the administration of the Word, & Sacraments: These 
u In Synops. Papisin. p. 71.  marks cannot be absent from the Church, and it is no longer a true Church than it hath these Marks. And hence it is, that D. Whitakers further saith, that the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacraments are: Ecclesiae 
x Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260.  proprietates essentiales; essential propr●etyes of the Church: And that D. Fulke thus affirmeth: Christ 
y Against Heskins, Sanders &c p. 569.  will suffer no particular Church to continue without a servant to oversee it: And that, 
a Fulke ubisupra p. 536.  Pastors, & Doctors must be in the Church, till the end of the World, even from Christ's time to Luther's age, yea our said D. Fulke further affirmeth, that these (b) Pastors, & Doctors must resist all 
In his answer to a contersayte Catholic p. 11.  false opinions, with open reprehension. Unto our former brethren accord other Protestant Divines, thus writing: The 
c Propositions and principles disputed in the vniuer●ily of Geneva p. 845.  ministry is an ossentiall Mark of the true Church. Finally Calvin comparteth with us all herein: saying: the Church can never want Pastors, and Doctors: So truly do we Protestants interpret the words of Esay: Upon thy 
d C. 72.  walls o jerusalem, I have set watchmen, all the day, and all the night for ever: they shall not be silent. Now from these premises we demonstracively prove the ever, and uninterrupted visibility of the Church: a point so evident, that our own learned Protestants do (according to the former doctrine) define a visible Church in these words: A 
e jacob in his reasons t●ken out of God's word p. 2●.  visible Church is a congregation of the faithful people, where the word is preached, and the Sacraments ministered; Which definition is also allowed by Doctor 
f In his Synops. p. 54.  Willet; and which even in reason itself is warrantable; since the Church, as enjoying the administration of the Word, and Sacraments, must (even in that respect) become visible, as we said above. And thus far of this prophecy of the Apostle, in the explication whereof I have stayed the longer, in that it irrefragably convinceth the point now handled. And here I end, touching the necessary Visibility of God's Church, proved out of the sacred Scriptures.  NEUSERUS. 
You might have added (Ochinus) to the former Propheeyes, that it is in another place foretold of the Church of the new Testament, that it Pastors 
g jerem. 33.  shallbe daily multiplied, to minister unto God; And this (not with any interruption herein, but) even 
h Esay. 66.  from month to month, and from Sabaoth to Sabaoth. That all this is to be understood of the Church of the Messias, appeareth from the Annotations of the English Bibles, upon the Chapters here cited, printed 1576. You also might further have insisted in that other Prophecy; that the Kingdom 
i Daniel. 2.  of Christ shall not be given over to an other People, but shall stand for ever; And that, it 
k Esay. ●0.  shallbe an eternal glory, and joy from generation to generation. All which passages to be meant of the Church, is acknowledged by all learned Protestants. Now how untowardly, and unaptly these passages (with the former by you alleged) sort to a company of Professors, shut up in so secret a manner; as that no man can take notice of them, I refer to any man's judgement, not wholly blinded with partiality, and prejudice. But I fear (Ochinus) I have wronged you, in undertaking part of your assumed task: therefore I will cease, and descend (as afore I promised) to answer such chief places of the Scripture, as are by some urged in their silly writings (the impostumous swelling of their frothy pen) for the supporting of the Churches imaginary Inuisibility.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I pray you (Neuserus) proceed therein; since obscure passages in any kind of learning not explained, do often suggest tacit objections, perplexing, and intricating the judgements of the weak, and ignorant.  NEUSERUS. 
I will. And first for example, are usually objected those of Elias, when he said: relictus 
l Reg. 〈◊〉.  sum solus, I am left alone. As also, that sentence of the Prophet: deficiet 
m Daniel. 9  hostia, & sacrificium, the Oast, and sacrifice spall cease. And again, that of the Apostle: Nisi 
n 2. Th●ss. 2.  venerit discessio primum etc. Except there come first a departure etc. And finally that of the Apocalypse: The 
o 12.  woman must fly into the wilderness etc. All which places are strangely de●orted by some few iniudicious men, to the defence of the Church's Inuisibility.  
And to the first, against these Inuisibilists, I say, touching those former words of Elias; first admitting the jewish Synagogue to have been then invisible; yet is this example defectively alleged, as applied to the Church of Christ; since the predictions, and promises made to Christ his Church, (whose 
p Hebr●. 4●. 8.  Testament is established in better promises) are far greater, and more worthy, than those of the jewish Synagogue. Again, the foresaid example doth not extend to the whole Church of God before Christ; but only to the jewish Synagogue, being only, but a part, or member thereof. For besides the jews, there were diverse others faithful; as Melchisadech, Cornelius, the Eunuch to the Queen of Caudace etc. Secondly, I say, this example maketh wholly against the alleadgers of it; since the words of Elias were spoken not generally of all the jewish People, but only in regard of the Country of Israel; and accordingly God answered the complaint of Elias with restraint to that only Country, the texts saying: I have left to me in Israel seven thousands, which have not bowed unto Ba●l. Add hereto, that in those very times, the Church did greatly flourish in the adjoining Country of juda, and was to Elias then known, and Visible, under the reign of Asa, and josaphat. And thus is this objection answered even by Melancthon, 
q In corpore doctrinae p. 530.  and Enoch Clapham. 
r In his sovereign remedy p. 17.  Lastly, admitting these seven thousands were unknown to Elias; yet followeth it not, that they were unknown to all others of the same time; Much less than is this Example of force to prove, that the Church of God may be Latent, and Invisible for many hundred years together (as some of our ignorant brethren do teach) not to one Elias only; but to the whole World: And thus far of this so much urged example of Elias.  
To the second. Those words of the Prophet: The Oast, & sacrifice shall cease etc. Are to be referred to the overthrow of jerusalem, and the ceasing of the jewish sacrifices, even by the exposition of 
s In 24. M●chae●.  chrysostom, 
t Vbi Chrysost.  Jerome, 
u Epist. 88 ad Esichium.  Austin, & others. Neither can the words be properly extended to the times of Antichrist; since we teach, that Antichrist is already comen; and yet we see, that sacrifices do still remain.  
To the third. By the word departure, mentioned by the Apostle, is understood, either Antichrist himself by the figure Metonymia; because he shallbe the cause, why many shall depart from Christ, as chrysostom, and Theodoret upon this place do expound, as also Austin: 
x l. 20. de civitat. Deu●. 19  Or rather is understood a departure, and defection from the Roman Empire, as Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, and diverse Protestants 
y Bullenlenger in his preface to his Sermons upon the Apocalyps'; As also the Protestant Sc●lio in his book of the second coming of Christ. fol. 21.  do expound this Text.  
To the fourth. I answer, that by the Woman flying into Wilderness, S. john meaneth not any local or corporal flight out of the knowledge, and notice of the world; but only a spiritual retiring in hart, from the allurements, and pleasures of the World, to penance, mortification, and contemplation of celestial matters: And in this very sense Bullenger interpreteth the Church's flight from Babylon.  
To the former texts I may add (though not above mentioned) that passage in S john. 
z C. 4.  Venit hora & nunc est etc. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers, shall adore the Father in spirit, and truth. To this I answer, that our Lord here teacheth, that the chief worship of God, which shallbe exhibited in his Church, consisteth in an internal worship of him; but from hence therefore it followeth not, that the Church is Invisible, or that all external worship is prohibited; for our Lord here speaketh not of the place, where God shallbe worshipped; but of the manner, and rite of worshipping. chrysostom, Cyrill, and Euthimius upon this place, do oppose those words: in spirit, to the ceremonies of the jews, as they are corporal; and those other words: in truth, to the said Ceremonies, as they are figures of things to come.  
Now because diverse of the former passages of Scripture are objected to prove, that the Church of Christ shallbe Invisible (at the least) in the time of Antichrist; I do reply further hereto, saying; first, That the former place of the Apostle to the Ephesians (alleged by Ochinus) touching an incessant, & undiscontinued, being of Pastors, & Doctors in the Church, to remain even to the end of the world (omitting other texts above cited by him) as also the Protestants confessions of the Churches ever Visibility (hereafter to be delivered by Michaeas) do fully answer, and satisfy the supposed doubts suggested in the former texts, touching the Church's Inuisibility in the time of Antichrist. Secondly I reply, that diverse learned brethren of ours (punctually, and purposely, with reference to that time) do teach, that the Church shall remain then Visible. And to give some taste hereof, D. Pulke thus writeth: In 
a Against the Rhemish Testament, in 2. Thessaly, 2.  the time of Antichrist, the Church was not driven into any corner of the world; but was, is, & shallbe dispersed in many Nations. And again he thus writeth: The 
b Vbi supra.  true Church (though obscured, and driven into wilderness by Antichrist) yet shall continue dispersed over the world.  
Bullenger saith, the Church in the time of Antichrist shallbe right 
c Upon the Apocal. sol. 200.  famous: But if it shallbe then right famous, it must of necessity be then Visible. To be short, Szegedine (a learned Protestant) thus writeth: The ministers of God's word shall preach all the time, in which Antichrist shall tread underfoot the holy 
(d) In ●a●. analyt. p. 368.  City. Thus far in solution of all such chief passages of Scripture, usually objected against the perpetual Visibility of the Church. But now (M. Doctor) I think it is your turn, to warrant the former truth, from the writings of the ancient fathers, and from arguments of Credibility, which the force of reason itself doth minister.  DOCTOR REYNOLDS 
I am prepared thereto. And I will not press your memories with a needles overcharge of their sentences: Some few (and those pertinent) shall serve; though otherwise they are most luxuriant, and plentiful herein. And first thus Origin writeth: Ecclesia 
e Homil. 30. ●in Math●eum.  est plaena fulgore, ab oriente usque ad Occidentem, the Church is full of fulgour, or brightness, from the East even to the West. Cyprian discourseth thus: Ecclesia 
f L. de unitate Eccle.  Dom. etc. The Church of our Lord, being replenished with light, casteth forth it beams throughout the whole earth. chrysostom 
g Homil. 4. in cap. 6. joan.  saith: facilius est solem extingui, quam Ecclesiam obscurari; It is more easy for the Sun to be extinguished, than the Church to be obscured, or darkened. Finally (for greater conpendiousnesse) S. Austin is so full in this point, as that he maketh the Visibility of the Church, a Mark for the ignorant to discern the true Church of Christ, from all false Conventicles, thus writing: Propter hoc enim motus etc. 
h Contra faustum Manich. lib. 1.  By reason of the temptations of those, who are weak, and may be seduced by some, from acknowledging the Church's brightness; our Lord even foreseeing so much, saith: A City, that is built upon a hill cannot be hid. And further S. Augustin thus enlargeth himself: Ecclesia 
i Contra lit Precil. 〈◊〉. 2. c. 32.  vera nemiem latet, the true Church is hid, or concealed from no man. And yet more: 
k Tract. 1. in epist. joannis.  numquid digito etc. Do we not point our fingar to the Church? it doth she not lie open to all? And lastly he exaggerateth this point further in these words: 
l Tract. 2. in epist. joannis.  Quid amplius diccturus sum etc. What may I more say, then account them blind, who cannot see so great a mountain who do shult their eyes against a candle, placed in a candelstich? Thus S. Austin. And thus far of the Fathers, from whence we may easily conjecture, how much different ware the judgements of the ancient, and primative Fathers, from their conceits, who labour by their speeches to turn the fair stream of the Church's Resplendency, into the shallow current of her supposed Obscurity.  
1. In this next place, I will descend to arguments drawn from analogy of reason. And first, from the comparison, made between the old Testament, and the New Testament. Certain it is, that the jews ever since Ghrists' days retained, and kept a known profession of their Religion, (though under some restraint) and their Synagogues have ever since been extarnally visible (though dispersed) as in Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England etc. And this point Peter 
m Peter Martyr in Com. place in English. part. 2. pag. 594. saith: The jews, though they be kept in so great adversity etc. yet they hold still their Religion  Martyr, and others 
n See hereof Caelius Secundus Curio l. de amplit. regne Dei. l. 1. p. 65. and the Century: writers in the 4. chapter of every Century.  do acknowledge, and yourself (Michaeas) can well justify the same. Now than if the Church of the new Testament should want a continual Visibility, then should it be inferior in honour, and dignity to the jewish Synagogue; even then, when the Gospel is prophesied to be most flourishing, and the Synagogue to be in it greatest decay, and ruin: a reasonable to overbalance all reasons, brought to the contrary.  
2. The foresaid Conclusion of the Church's Visibility is also proved, from the beginning, and progress of the Church. For first durnig the old Testament the Church was then so Visible, as that the Professors thereof did bear even in their flesh, the Visible, and markable sign of Circumcision, as a badge of the Church. Again, in the new Testament, the whole Church of Christ was in it infancy, and beginning in Christ's Apostles, and Disciples; Who were so Visible, as that the Holy Ghost did Visibly descend upon them, upon the feast of Penticost. Furthermore, We read in the Acts. c 2. 3. 4. that on one day three thousands; on an other, five thousands were adjoined to the former, by their confession of faith, and Baptism. And so after they (and only they) were reputed, as membrs of Christ's Church, who did adjoin themselves to the former Christians, by their external confession of faith, and by Baptism.  
3. An other argument may be taken from the great necessity imposed upon Christians; who are obliged under pain of eternal damnation, to range themselves unto the true Church of Christ, and to persever in the same; as appareth not only from the testimonies of 
p lib. ●de simplicit. Praelat.  Cyprian, 
q Epist. 1. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis.  Jerome, and Austin: 
r l. 4. de Baptism. c. 2.  but even from reason itself. Since no man can reign with Christ, who is not a member of Christ. But how can this be performed, if the Church of Christ be Invisible? Or how can God be excused from cruelty, by threatening to us eternal perdition for our not performing such conditions, the which (supposing the Church not to be Visible) is not in our power to accomplish?  
4. Furthermore the Inuisibility of the Church impugneth the marks of the Church, given by us Protestants; which are the true preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments; seeing there matters cannot be put in practice, but among a Visible Society of men; and such a Society, as that one of it is known to an other.  
5. Again, the Inuisibillity of the Church mainly crosseth the end, for which the Church of God was instituted. Which end was to prosecute God with that entire and perfect worship, which man can give to him; that is worship him not only with his Soul, but also externally with his body, and works, or deeds (seeing Man consisteth of soul, and body) But an Invisible Church performeth it worship to God, only in hart, and mind: And with this I end, referring the last point to you (Michaeas) who is next to enter (as I may say) upon the stage.  MICHAEAS'. 
Most willingly I come. For if we peruse the writings (and especially of such, who have been of the chiëfest note, in the Protestant (Church) it is a world to see, how riotous, (as it were) and abounding they have been in their works, for proof of the Church's Visibility at all times, and in respect of all men; and this even in the Conclusion itself, without any borrowed sequels, though never so necessary. And first we find Calvin (the half Arch of the Protestant Church) thus to say: 
s Instit● 4. 1. sect. 4.  Nunc de Visibili Ecclesia etc. Now we determine to dispute of the Visible Church etc. extracuius gremium, nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio, out of whose bosom we cannot expect any remission of sins. Neither is Melancton less full herein, who thus acknowledgeth: 
t in council. Theol. part. 2.  Necesse est fateri esse Visibilem Ecclesiam etc. it is necessary to confess the Church to be Visible; Whither tendeth then haec portentosa oratio, this monstrous opinion, which denyeth the Church to be Visible? Melancthon Further thus saith: 
u in loc. come. edit. 1561. c. de Ecclesia.  Whensoever we think of the Church, let us behold the company of such men, as are gathered together, which is the Visible Church: Neither let us dream, that the Elect of God are to be found in any other place, then in this Visible Society etc. neither let us imagine of any other Invisible Church. Briefly the said Melancthon urging diverse texts of Scripture in proof of the Church's Visibility, thus concludeth: High & 
x Melan. ubi supra.  similes loci etc. These, and such like places (of Scripture) non de Ideä Platonica, sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur; do not speak of Plato his Ideä, but of the Visible Church▪ this Melancthon. The Learned Hunnius giveth his sentence in these words: God 
y in his Treatise of freewill. p.  in all times hath placed his Church, in a high place, and hath exalted it in the sight of all Prople, and Nations. jacobus Andrea's (that famous Protestant) thus jumpeth with his brethren herein: We 
z in his book against Hosius p. 210.  are not ignorant, that the Church must be a Visible company of teachers, and hearers. The eminet Dan●us●oth ●oth thus second the rest: Who 
a in his book of the visible Church.  denyeth the true Church of God (and that Visible) to have been from the beginning of the world; he without doubt showeth himself to be ignorant in holy Schripture. M. Hooker (your Countryman) thus writeth of this point: God 
b in his book of Ecclesiast. policy. p. 126.  hath had ever shall have some Church Visible upon earth.  
Peter Martyr (once your Companion, Ochinus) confesseth the truth herein in these words: We do 
c in his Epist. annexed to his Common. places printed in English. p. 153.  not appoint an Innisible Church; but do define the Church to be a Congregation unto which the faithful may know, that they may safely adjoin themselves.  
D. Field conspireth with all the former Protestants, thus saying: 
d l. 1. of the Church. c. 10. p. 19  The persons of them of whom the Church consisteth are Visible; their profession known even to the profane, and wiched of the world; And in this sort the Church cannot be Invisible. Thus this Doctor preventeth the answer of those who say the Church is Visible, but to the Elect only. The said D. Field thus reprehendeth Cardinal Bellarmine touching this point, saying: 
e ubi supra. p. 21.  It is true, that Bellarmine laboureth in vain in proving, that there is, and always hath been a Visible Church; and that, not consisting of some few scattered Christians, without Order of Ministry or use of Sacraments; for all this we do most willingly yield unto; how soever perhaps some few have been otherwise of Opinion.  
But for great brevity, and ommitting the like confessions herein of other remarkable Protestants, D. Humphrey shall close up this scene, who enthereth into heat, and passion with his Adversaries for needelesly proving the Churches ever Visibility. For thus he writeth: Cur ergo anxiè & curiosè probant, quod est a nobis numquam negatum? Why do they (meaning the Catholics) so painfully and curiously prove 
jesuitis in part. 2. c. 3.  that, which we never denied? And then after the said Doctor: Non enim clancularij secessus & convocationes sunt Christianae, the society of Christians are not secret meetings. And then there again, speaking of the Church militant: Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam Conclusio est clarissima, It is a manifest Conclusion, that the Church is to be conspicuous, and Visible. And thus far (Gentlemen) of your own Brethren confessing with us Catholics, the ever Visibility of the Church of God; And this in so full a manner, as that the wicked (as D. field above speaketh) shall take full notice, and sight of it; by force of which clear testimonies, those few, and ignorant Protestants (who confess the Church to be Visible, but not in so full a manner) are prevented of their poor refuge, saying: The Church is Visible, but not at all times (as if the Church, like the Sea, enjoyed a flux, and reflux of it Visibility) known, but known only to the Elect, and faithful: fantastically spoken without all colour of proof, and mainly crossing, not only their own more learned Brethren; but also most repugnant to the formery mentioned Propheces of God's sacred word, and other passages thereof; to the grave authority of the Primative Fathers, and finally to all force of reason itself.  D. REYNOLDS. 
We see (Michaeas) you are very conversant in our own Writers; And now I hope this first point is perfected, Whereupon the force of the future discourse is to rely; And though then be some difficulty to cry down an error or false opinion in doctrine, once advanced; Nevertheless I trust, no learned, judicious Man, perusing the former authorities at large, will ever dream of an Invisible Church; being in itself a mere intentional Notion, and having no subsistence, or being.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor, you say truly. But now seeing it is in this next place properly incumbent upon you, and these two grave men, to instance in Protestants for all ages since Christ (for the Church of Christ by your own former doctrine, necessarily exacteth such a Visibility (I hold it convenient to put you all in mind of two or three points; the due consideration of which may much induce to the discovery of the weakness of such Instances, which as my thoughts presage, willbe hereafter insisteth upon, by you.  NEUSERUS. 
You do well (Michaeas) to set down those premonitions; for we desire, that if there shall be any defect in the future examples, it may be fully displayed. Therefore proceed in your Method.  MICHAEAS'. 
The first then of these any maduersions, may be to observe the wounderful reluctation, and backwardness in some Protestants (a manifest sign of their own guilty defectiveness herein) when this Catholics press them, to give instances of Protestancy, and of the administration of the word, and Sacrements: For, seeing they will bear men in hand, that their Church hath ever continued Visible; they are therefore in reasons itself bond (as maintaining the affirmative part) to undertake the prose thereof. Now answearably to my former Assertion, I find D Wutton 
g In his answer to a Popish Pamphlet. p. 11.  (speaking to his Catholic Adversary) thus to write: you will't say, show us, where the faith, and Religion, you profess, where held. Nay, prove you, that they were held no where etc. And what if it could not beshewed? yet we know by the articles of our Creed, that there hath been always a Church, in which we say, this religion, we profess, must of necessity be held etc. This stands upon you to disprove, which when you do by particular Records, you shall have particular answer. Then which what can be spoken, first more absurdly, as expecting records of things, which never were in being? He furthermore transferring the part of proving upon Catholics to which himself, and his fellows only stand obliged. Secondly, what can discover more their unablenessein guing examples of Protestancy during the former ages? The like despairing Answer D Fulke, 
* D. Fulkde successione Eccles. p. 89.  useth upon the same point, saying to his Adversary: Proffer me iubes teto orbe latitantes, vah quam iniquum postulas? Thou willest me to produce, and name those, which did lie secret through out the World; how injust a thing dost thou here demand?  
The second Observation. Seeing the Church of God is at all times, and seasons (without the least discontinuance thereof) to be Visibile, and to enjoy a public administration of the Word, and Sacraments (as above we all have proved) That therefore such Instances of Protestancy, which may be given by you hereafter (supposing them to be true) do but justify Visibility of your Church, only for so long (& no longer) as the said Protestants did live. And therefore except you be able to produce examples of Protestancy, for all ages since Christ (& if you do fail herein, but for any one only age) it necessarily followeth; that Church of the Protestants (as wanting this uninterrupted Visibility) is not the Church of Christ, described in the old Testament, and their prophesied of, in so many different places  
The third, and last Observation. That one may truly, and justly be called a Protestant, two things (among others) must necessatily concur: The one, that he do maintain all the chiefest points of Protestancy; Thus he is not to hold only some few points of Protestancy; and in the rest (being more in number, and of greater importance) to partake with the Catholics: seeing such a Man is rather (as believing more Articles of Catholic Religion, then of Protestancy) to be reputed a Catholic, than a Protestant; for his denomination is to be given him rather according to the greater, and weightier number of Articles believed by him, there otherwise; though to speak the truth, such a Man so believing, is formally neither Catholic not Protestant.  
The second thing necessary to the being of a Protestant, is, that he doth not hold pertinaciously any main Heresies, or Paradoxes wholly impugned, gainsaid, and contradicted, both by Protestant, and Catholic. For this Man in this respect, is to be styled rather an open Heretic, than a Protestant, even in the censure of the Protestants themselves. Therefore to conclude this last observation; Even as when beasts of several kinds (or species) do couple together, that which is engendered, is of a third Kind, diverse from them both: So here, that Religion or faith, which is (as it were) propagated from the mixture of contrary Religions, must be a belief, different from them al. These things being premised, now M. Doctor or either of you two, may begin to instance in Protestant Professors for every age; And I shall reply thereto, as my judgement, and reading will best enable me.  OCHINUS. 
I do like well of these your animaduertions; and they are able in a clear judgement to fan away imperfect, and faulty instances, from such as be true, and perfect.  MICHAEAS'. 
Before any of you begin your discourse of Instancing, I must demand of you all (as Cardinal Bellarmyne did in his late discourse with D. Whitakers) whether you will be content to stand to the authority of your own learned Brethren, in all the following passages between us?  D. REYNOLDS. 
I here answer for us all We will indisputably stand to our own men's learned judgments. And if you can convince either our future examples, or our cause in general, from our Protestants penns we yield you the victory. For I do hold with Osiander the Protestant; that 
h in Epist. Euchar.  the Confession and testimony of an Adversary, is of greatest authority. And therefore Peter Martyr truly saith: surely 
i loc. tit. de judaeis. col. 390.  among other testimonies, that is of greatest weight, which is given by the Enemies. And D. Bancrofs (to omit all other Protestants in this point) confirmeth the same, thus writing: Let 
k In his survey c. 〈◊〉  us take hold of that, which they have granted you may be bold to build thereupon, for a truth, that they are so constrained to yield unto. Which kind of proof is no less warranted by the Ancient Fathers; for Ireneus saith: It is an unanswerable 
l Lib. 4. c. 14.  proof, which bringeth attestation from the Adversaries themselves. And Nazianzen pronounceth thus hereof: It is the 
m Orat. de S. Basil.  greatest cunning and wisdom of speech, to bind the Adversary with his own words: So full you see (Michaeas) I am in this point. But now let us come to the main matter. To produce instances of Protestancy shallbe my peculiar Scene. And that I may the better marshal, and encamp (as it were) my examples, thereby the more forcibly to invade your judgement, I will begin with the later times of the Church, and so ascend upwards And first, for these last threescore years, the Gospel of Christ hath enjoyed here in England) to forbear all other Countries) it Visibility, in it full Orb; all writers of these days and other Nations acknowledging no less. Again in K. Edward the sixth his time, this worthy Man Ochinus here present (backed with the like endeavours of the learned Peter Martyr) did so plant our Protestant faith in our Nation, as that infinite most remarkable Professors thereof did instantly grown (like roses after a long cold, or tempest, blooming forth through the heat of the Sun) with refe●erence of which Professors, Ochinus may justly apply to himself, the words of Aenias: 
n Vir 〈…〉  Quorum pars magna fui.  MICHAEAS'. 
Concerning the Professors of Protestancy here in England, since Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, I easily grant they have been most Visible (as I gather out of your English Chronicles) And thus I freely confess, that Protestancy hath continued in England some threescore and seven years: But where you say, that Protestancy (I mean, as it comprehendeth all the Articles taught, at this day for Protestancy, and which necessarily concur to the making of a perfect, & complete Protestant) was fully taught, and believed in K. Edward his days, I absolutely deny.  OCHINUS. 
Will you deny (Michaeas) so manifest a verity, whereas myself was not only an eyewitness in those times; but (If I may speak in modesty) a great Cause thereof? What will you not deny, if you deny, such illustrious Truth's? and what hope can we have of your bettering, by this our disputation?  MICHAEAS'. 
Good Ochinus, bear me not down with astreame of vaunting words (the refuse of speech) but if you can, with force of argument. I peremptorily deny the former point; and for justifying this my denial, I will recurre to the Communion Book, set out in K. Edward's time with the approbation, and allowance (as D. Dove, a Protestant affirmeth) of Peter Martyr, your Cooperatour. Which Book we must presume in all reason, was made according to the public faith of the King and the Realm, established in those times; and the rather considering, that the said Communion Book (for it greater authority) was warranted in the King's time, by Act of Parliament. Now this Communion Book, or public Lyturgy of the faith of England in those days, being printed in folio by Edward Whit-church anno 1549. pertaketh in many points, with our Roman Religion. For it maketh special defence for Ceremonies; 
c sol. 156.  and prescribeth, that the Eucharist shallbe consecrated with the sign of the Cross. It commandeth 
d sol. 132.  consecration of the Water of Baptism, with the sign of the Cross. It alloweth of Chrism; 
e fol. 132.  as also of the Child's anointing 
f fol. 128.  and Exorcism. In that book mention is made of prayer 
h 116.  for the dead; and intercession, and 
i fol. 117.  offering up of our Prayers by Angels. It deffendeth Baptism given by Laypeople, 
k so. 1●9.  in time of necessity; and the grace 
l ibidem  of that Sacrament; as also Confirmation 
m fo. 132.  of children, and strength given them thereby It mentioneth (according to the custom used in time at Mass at this very day) the Priests turning sometimes to the Altar; 
n fol. 115.  and sometimes to the People. 
o fol. 117.  It ordaineth that answerably yet to our Catholic custom) 
p fol. 4.  Alleluya should be said, from Easter to Trinity sunday. It prescribeth the Priest blessing of the 
q fol. 138 & 139.  Bride, & bridegroom, with the sign of the Cross. It alloweth the Priest's absolution of the sick Penitent, with these particular words: By 
r fol. 14●.  the authority committed unto me. I absolute thee of all thy sins. It mentioneth a special Confession 
s fol. 142.  of the sick Penitent; And lastly it commandeth the 
t fol. 14●  anointing of the sick Person, which we Catholics call the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. So little reason [Ocbinus] you see, you have to affirm, that the Protestancy of the present Church of England is the same, which was mantained, and publicly established by King Edward.  OCHINUS. 
Indeed I grant, the Communion book was then made by the consent of the Parliament, but I instructed those, with whom I conversed, to reject those superstitions their confirmed.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Well let that pass. It availeth not much, whether Protestancy was here in England at those days, or no; since it is certain, it was then most fully dilated in many other Countries, by the late afore raising up of Luther; who was miraculously sent by the Holy Ghost, to illuminate the world with the Truth of the Gospel, and to dissipate the clouds of the former Romish Errors. And I am assured, [Michaeas] you will acknowledge Luther for a perfect Protestant in all points; and consequently that the Protestant Church was in Luther, & his followers, most conspicuous, and Visible.  MICHAEAS'. 
I know, most of our new Ghospellers travail with you [M. D.] on this child; to wit, that Luther did erect a perfect form of Protestancy. By the which we may learn, that Affection, is not only blind but also deaf; so loathe you Protestants are either to see or hear any thing against Luther herein. Nevertheless I here aver, it is impossible to justify Luther for a true Protestant. I know also, that himself thus vaunteth 
¶ Luther epist. ad Argentinenses.  Christum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari; where we may see, it is an accustomed blemish of most Innovatours, to become their own Parasites.  NEUSERUS. 
Strange Luther not a Protestant? doth the Sun shine? Is the fire hot? Doth the Sea ebb, and flow? As certain, as any of these so certain, Luther was a perfect, and true Protestant. He was the Sun, that did dispel in those days the mists of Antichristian darkness. From his preaching, and writings, a ●ier of Christian zeal was enkindled in thousands of men's souls, for the embracing of the Gospel of Christ; And never did the torrent, and inundation of superstition, and Idolatry suffer a greater reflux a greater reflux and Ebb, then in his life time.  MICHAEAS'. 
Rhetorically amplified, Neuserus. But it is the weight of Reason, not a froth of empty words, which sway the judicious. I grant that Luther did derogatize more articles of Innovation, and Novelisme, now taught by Protestants, than any one Man afore him, did since the first plantation of Christianity: yet that Luther was a perfect, and articulate Protestant, and such, as the present Protestant Church (with relation to the doctrine now taught by that Church) may justly, & truly acknowledge for a member thereof, I eternally deny, and do justify my denial out of his own books; so shall 
¶ Touching the sentences alleged in this passage out of Luther's writings, the Reader is to observe percisly, the editions of his books here quored; seeing in some later editions, diverse of his said testimonies are for very shame wholly omitted & left out.  Luther prove, that Luther was no Protestant. Now this I evict, (according to my former premonitions, and cautions) first, because Luther did ever hold (even after his revolt from the Church of Rome) diverse Catholic opinions, or doctrines, then, and still now taught by the said Church. Secondly, in that Luther after his departure from the Church of Rome, did maintain diverse gross errors, or rather Heresies, or rather blasphemies; and for such at this day condemned, both by Catholics, and Protestants: So evident it will appear, that Luther was too weak a bulk, to give nourishment to all those different plants, which now do stile themselves Protestant's. And first touching several Catholic points, ever believed, & defended by Luther, even to his last day, these following may serve, as Instances.  
1. First he ever maintained the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist (as the world knoweth). And his followers for their peculiar defence of this doctrine, are styled Lutherans by Swinglins, Calvin, & their party; impugning the foresaid doctrine.  
2. Luther also defended Prayer to Saints, of which point he thus writeth: 
x Luther in purgat. quorundam. A●ticul. & in episi. ad Georgium spalatinun.  De intercessione divorum, cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio, & iudico sanctos a nobis honorandos esse atque invocandos.  
3. He also taught the doctrine of evangelical Counsels; to wit, that a man might do more, than he is commanded, as appeareth out of his Book: de 
y Art. 30.  assertionibus.  
4. The Doctrine of Purgatory, he taught; of which see tom. 〈◊〉. 
z Conclus. 15. & in disput. Lipsica cum Echio.  Wittenberg. in resolute. de Indulgentijs. And answerably to this ground he is confessed by Vrbanus Regius 
a In 1. part. operum formula cantè loquendan cap. de Sanct. cultu●  [a Protestant] to defend prayer for the Dead.  
5. Luther further taught, and approved the use of Images, as Beza 
b In resp. ad art. Colloq. Montis●. part. alt. in prefat.  witnesseth.  
6. The indifferency of communion under one, or both kinds (contrary to the doctrine of the Protestants, who place a necessity in both) is allowed by Luther, in these words: quamuis 
c Luther in epist. ad ad Bohemos  pulcrum sit etc. Although it were very seemly, to use both the species, or forms in the blessed Eucharist; & though Christ commanded nothing herein, as necessary; yet it were better to follow peace etc. then to contend about the forms.  
7. Touching the making of the sign of the Cross, upon our foreheads; johannes Crevelius (a Lutheran) thus witnesseth: Cum imus cubitum, ●iue surgimus electo, cruse nos iuxta Lutheri 
d In his refutation Caeremoniarum Missae, printed Magd●●. 1603. p. 118.  & aliorum piorum●● institutionem, signamus: When we go to bed, or rise from thence, we do sign ourselves with the sign of the Cross, according to the advice of Luther and other pious men. And johannes Maulius 
e Loc. 7. come. pag. ●●6.  (Luther's scholar) thus writeth of Luther: respondet Lutherus, signo crucis facto, Deus me tuetitur: Luther answereth, at the making of the sign of the Cross, God defend me.  
8. Finally, to omit diverse other points, (wherein Luther never dissented from the Church of Rome) Luther ever mantained, that the government of the Church is Monarchical & neither Aristocratical, nor Popular: of which point Luther thus writeth: Cum 
f In loc. ●om. class. 1. c. 37. p. 107.  Deus voluerit etc. Seing God would have one Catholic Church, throughout the whole World: it was needful, that one people, imo unum aliquem patrem istius unius populi elegi, yea some one father of this one people should be chosen, ad quem, & suos posteros spectant totus orbis, to whose care, and his successors the whole World should belong. And thus far [Gentlemen] touching some taste, to show, that Luther, even after his forsaking of the Catholic, and Roman Church, did nevertheless still retain, and believe, diverse Catholic doctrines: and consequently was no no entire, and perfect Protestant.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I confess indeed, that Luther (as appeareth by his own writings) did not reveal to the new World (as I may term it) all the Euangelical Truth: the fuller discovery of some parts thereof, being reserved for our later days. And though his own Religion was not (through want of belief of some Truth's) perfectly good; yet I am assured, It is not by his pesitively maintaining of any one error (than in what he was nuzzled by the Church of Rome) in any sort evil.  MICHAEAS'. 
This your reply is impertinent: for here the Question is only, whether Luther in respect of his faith, was such an absolute Protestant, as at this day our Gospelers repute for a good, & sound Protestant. Yet that you may see your own error otherwise, in over highly prejudging of Luther's Religion. I will here particularise out of his own writings, and other Protestants relations, certain Heresies and blasphemies; never by him after recaled, and incompatible with salvation, (for modicum 
* 〈◊〉. Cor. ●.  firmentum totam massam corrumpit) which he did egurgitate out of his impure stomach. From whence we may infer, that with less reason he may be urged for a Protestant.  
1. And First, I will here allege his impious doctrine (wherein he laboured to cut, and wound Christian Religion, even in it maister-veine) touching the most Blessed Trinity, concerning which he thus speaketh: The 
g Sorelateth Zwinglius of Luther tom. 2. in respons. ad confut. Lutheri f● 474.  Divinity is threefould, as the three Persons be etc. And from hence the reason may well be, why Luther 
h Luth. in encherid. praecum. anni 1543.  expungeth out of the Litany, this verse: Holy Trinity, one very God, have mercy upon us. And hereupon he is not afraid to say, that the word. Trinity, 
i Luth. in postil. maiori Basili 〈…〉 apud Heruagium in enarrat. Euang. Dominicae Trinit.  is but an humane invention, and soundeth coldly. And finally, he concludeth, that his soul hateth the word: Homoousion, or Consubstantiale; For thus he writeth: Anima 
k Contra jacobum Latomum, tom. 2. Wittenberg. latin edit. anno. 1551.  me a odit Homoousion, & Optimè exigerunt Ariani, ne vocem illam prophanam & novam regulis fidei statu● liceret. My very soul ha●eth the word: Homoousion, or Consubstantiale; And the Arians, not without reason, required, that it should not be lawful to put this profane, and new Word (meaning, Homousios' or consubstantialis) among the rules of faith. Luther's blasphemy against the B. Trinity was such, and so odious, that even 
l Zwinglius tom. 2. in respons. ad Confess. Lutheri.  Zwinglius did purposely write against Luther touching this very point.  
2. Touching the event of things, Luther holdeth (contrary to all Christian faith) that all things come to pass, through a certain Stoical, and Fatal necessity; for he defending this Heresy thus writeth: Nullius 
m In assert. damnat. per Leonem, art. 36.  est in manu etc. It is in no man's power, to think good, or evil: but all things (as Wicleffs article, condemned at Constance, did rightly teach) proceed from absolute Necessity. And again: 
n Luth. deseruo arbitrio c. 32.  fateor articulum etc. I do confess Wicleffs article of all things, coming to pass by Necessi 〈◊〉▪ to have 〈◊〉 falsely condemned, in the conventicle of Constance.  
3. To the dishonour of Christ his Passion (who was clothed with Essential Majesty and as intimating the insufficiency of it, for the redemption of mankind; he teacheth, that Christ not only suffered in body, but also his Divinity suffered: for thus he writeth cum 
o Luther in Confess. Maiore in Caena Domini.  credo, quod sola humana Natura pro me passa est, Christus vilis, not magni praetij saluator est etc. If I believe, that only the Humane Nature of Christ suffered for me; then is Christ a Saviour, but of a base, and small worth; and himself needeth a Saviour. And Luther speaking of this point in an other place, thus reprehendeth the Zwinglians: The 
p Vide Concil. part. 2.  Zwinglians did contend against me most pertinaciously, that the Divinity of Christ could not suffer: A doctrine, so blasphemous, as that it was not refuted only by the Zwinglians in Luther's days (as himself confesseth) but also even by Beza 
q In epist. theology epist. 60.  such chains you see of blasphemies (one still following an other) are woven in Luther's faith, and Religion.  
4. Touching the Administration of the Word, and Sacraments; Luther teacheth, that all men (and women also) have authority, & power to administer them: These be his own words: The first 
r Luth. tom. 2. l. de ministris Eccles. institue 〈…〉 lis fol. 368. 369. ●id. l. de abrog. Missa privata tom. 2. fol. 249. & lib. de captivit. Babylon. c. de ordine.  office of a Priest is to preach the Word etc. But this is common to all: Next, to baptise; and this also all may do, even women etc. The third office is to consecrate bread, and wine: But this also is common to all, no less, than Priests; And this I avouch by the authority of Christ himself, saying: do this in remembrance of me. This Christ speak to all then present, and to come afterwards. If then that, which is greater, than all, be given indifferently to all Men, and Women (I mean, the word, and Baptism) then that, which is less (I mean to consecrate the supper) is also given to them. Thus Luther. Yea Luther proceeded so far herein, as that, as D. Covell witnesseth, he was not afraid to affirm, that the Sacraments 
s These be D. Covelis words in his defence of M. Hooker art. 15. p. 101.  were effectual though, administered by Satan himself. With D. Covell agreeth the Protestant Hospintan, thus writing: Lutherus 
t In hist. Sacrament. part. altera fol. 14.  ●o usque progreditur etc. Luther proceedeth so far herein, that he maintained the Sacrament to be a true Sacrament, ●●iamsi a Diabolo conficeretur, though it were to be consecrated by the Devil.  
5. For absolute denial of tempor all Magistrates (an Heresy indifferently condemned, both by Catholics, and Protestants) we find Luther thus to write: Among 
u Luth. de seculari potest in tom. 6. german.  Christians no man can, or aught to be a Magistrate; But every one is to other equally subject etc. And again: As Christ 
x Luth. in tom. 7. Wit. tenberg. fol. 327.  cannot suffer himself to be tied, & bound by laws etc. So also ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them.  
6. Touching Luther's denial of certain parcels of Scripture: And first the Epistle of S. james is called by Luther, Contentious, 
y Luther praesai. in epist. jacobi edit. 4. jenensi.  swelling, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical spirit. The book of the Apocalypse is also rejected by Luther, by the acknowledgement of Bullenger, thus writing hereof: Doctor 
(z) Upon the Apocalypse englished c. 1. serm. 1. fo. 2.  Martin Luther, hah (as it were) sticked this book, with a sharp preface, set before his first Edition in Dutch; for which his judgement, good, and learned Men were offended with him. Hereunto I will add Luther's contempt of Moses, and some of the Apostles: Against Moses he thus writeth: 
a Tom. 3. Wittenberg. in Psal. 45. fol. 423.  Habuit Moyses labia in faecunda, irata etc. And again: Moses habuit labia diffusa fell & ira. Touching the Apostles, he thus controlleth S. Peter; S. Peter 
b In epist. ad Gala●. 1. tom. 5. Wittenb. of anno 1554. fol. 290.  did live, and teach, extra verbum Dei; besides the word of God. Thus we may see, how no wound was able to weigh down the ears of Luther's pride.  
7. Luther also taught an Heresy, whereby the Propagation of Christian Religion is much endangered; to wit, That it was not lawfall to wage war against the Turk: an error; which enen the greatest Idolatours of Luther have mainly condemned. Luther's words are these: 
c Luth. in tom. 2. Wittenberg In assert. damnat. per Leon● decimum assert. 34.  Praeliari contra Turcas, est repugnare Deo visitanti iniquitates nostras per illos. To wage war against the Turk, is to resist God visiting our sinnes by them: A point so confessed, that Erasmus, thus writeth of the consequence, and effects of Luther's doctrine: Many 
d In ep. ad fratres Inferiori● Germaniae.  of the Saxons following herein, that firct doctrine of Luther, denied to Caesar, and King Ferdinand aid against the Turk etc. And said; they had rather fight for a Turk not Baptised, then for a Turk Baptised; meaning, the Emperor. Thus Erasmus.  
8. Touching Faith, and good works, Luther taught an Heresy, disallowed by all learned Protestants. For Luther teacheth, as followeth: It is 
e Luther upon the Galat. englished, in c. 2. And see Luther in his Sermons englished fol. 204.  impiety to affirm, that faith without Charity, justifieth not. Nay Luther proceedeth further, thus writing: Fides nisi sit sine etc. Except 
f Luther tom. 1. Prop. 3.  faith be without the least good works, it doth not justify; nay it is not faith. And thereupon, the more to debase good works, he thus saith: 
g In his Sermons englished p. 147.  Works take their goodness of the Worker; And 
h Luth. ibid. pag. 276.  no work is disallowed of God, unless the author thereof be disallowed before. Here now I end touching Luther, Where you may perceive [Neuserus] that this your Sun (of which you afore vaunted) proves to be but a fading Comet; the fiery zeal (you spoke of) but a turbulent combustion se● on flame by Luther in subjects minds, against all Christian Magistracy; and the reflux, which Luther (as you pretend) caused in the Church of Rome, was instantly attended on, with a flux and overflowing of many dreadful, and blasphemous doctrines, then broached, and defended by him. But here I refer two points to the mature Consideration of you [M. Doctor] and these two learned men, here present. First, whether Luther can truly be challenged at this day for a perfect Protestant; (and consequently, whether the Visibility of the Protestant Church, can be truly justified in him) considering, both the several Catholic Doctrines, as also the many explorat heresies, and blasphemies, he maintained even after his revolt from the Papacy. The second (though but incidental at this present) whether it sorteth to the sweet proceeding of God, to use as his Instrument, for the re-edifying of his Church (admitting it afore ruined) a man, who practised his pen (and this after his supposed calling) to the wronging of Christian Faith, and Charity; to the fortifying of the state, and Empire of Christ's greatest Enemy; to the expunging of God's sacred Writ, and convitiating of his greatest Servants: to the disauthorizing of all Christian Princes, and Civil Magistrates: to the dishonouring, and debasing of the Sacraments: to the disualewing of the infinite worth, and price of Christ his Passion: to the uphoulding, and maintaining of a stoical, and fatal Necessity in all things: And lastly to the absolute denial of the most Blessed, and holy Trinity. Now (gentlemans all) if you want a Protestant, to be the square, and rule of Protestancy, I am content (in this your penury) that you take Luther for a Protestant.  OCHINUS. 
I am amazed to here of these Points: and I would not believe them: but that Luther's own writings are yet extant, & ready to charge him with them.  NEUSERUS. 
I condemn myself [Michaeas] of my former rash, and unexamined assent, given in behalf of Luther: and I blame my own hasty Credulity But by this I may learn, that the attendant of Wisdom, is slow belief. But, M. Doctor, we would wish you, to ascend to higher times.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I will. And I will ascend sofely and by small degrees. Only afore in part of excuse (though not in defence) of Luther's errors. I must put you in mind [Michaeas] that the purest gold Oar is mixed with some dress: the fairest rose beset with sharp pricks, and diverse ancient and reverend Fathers had their oversights. But to proceed higher: what say you [Michaeas] of the twenty years' first before Luther? Do you not think, that there were then many markably, and visibly known, who professed the present Protestant faith, and Religion?  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor. If you can evict to much, than you are to name those many Professors: if not many, some few: at least some one or other. If you can, I now urge you to it. But it seemeth by your silence, being thus provoked, you cannot name any one Protestant then living: so rare in those days (though so late) were the birds of such an Aery.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Do you not know, that Bucer, Melancthon, and Pelican, were professed Protestants, even before Luther's breaking with the Church of Rome?  MICHAEAS'. 
Indeed D. Morton 
i In his Apol. Cathol. p. 42.  in extreme penury, and for main relief of his Cause, is not abashed to name the said three men for Protestants, before Luther's revolt from the Pope: Whereas it is certain, that all these were originally Catholics: & only upon Luther's fale, did after adjoin themselves to him.  
I here further tell you, that it is repugnant to Common sense, that any Protestants, or any administration of the word, and Sacraments, should be within the twenty years, next afore Luther's Apostasy (for I can term it no better) and yet no memory to be extant thereof, in any one Country or other, throughout all Christendom; especially seeing all Occurrents thereabouts (if there were any) should have been performed in the memory of Man, and consequently less subject to forgetfulness. Again, you pretend, you can exemplify in Protestants for all former ancient times; and yet you fail even in this last age: Belike you will persuade us, that our knowledge of these matters, is like to some bad eyes, which see things a far of, better, then nearer at hand.  
Furthermore, I here ask the reason, that if any such examples of protestancy had been immediately before Luther's revolt, why at least did not Luther, Zwinglius and the rest, that adjoined themselves to him, make mention of some such Protestants?  D. REYNOLDS. 
The Protestant Church doubtlessly was in those days, but it was in solitude: And herein I join in judgement with D. Whitakers, thus censuring of this point: Ante 
k Lib. de Eccles. contra● Bellarm. controvers. 2. quaest. 5.  Lutheri tempora, latebat Ecclesia in solitudine, Before the times of Luther, the Church lay hid in the desert.  MICHAEAS. 
I grant, the Doctor answereth so; but why doth not he (being much provoked by his Adversary thereto) allege as much as one Man, who was a Protestant before Luther's change? Again I demand, why did those supposed Protestants immediately before Luther's days, lie so hid and unknown, at Luther's resing? If you say for fear of Persecution (for no other pretext you can allege) I reply, that fear of Persecution could not be pretended to be a let after Luther's open revolt; but that the Protestants (if any such were) might securely then have stepped out, and publicly have joined themselves with Luther; Considering that then diverse magistrates and commonwealths had openly undertaken the patronage of Luther's doctrine and Religion; And who observeth not, that the flood of any doctrine in faith is more or less, as it is governed with the full or wain of secular Authority?  
But to urge a more irrefragable proof, for this matter. This point (to wit, that not any one Protestant was to be found, through the whole World, immediately before the days of Luther) is so clear and undeniable, as that we find the same granted, by a whole volley of Confessions, proceeding from the Protestants own penns. For thus (for example) D. jewel acknowledgeth: The 
l In his Apolog. of the Church part 4. c 4.  truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther and Hulderick Zwinglius, first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. And upon this ground it is, that Bucer 
m In ep. ann. 36. ad Episc. Hereford.  styleth Luther: The first Apostle to us, of the reformed doctrine. Yea Conradus Slussenberg (the Lutheran) thus vehemently contesteth this point, saying: It is 
n In theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 130.  impudence to affirm, that many learned Men in Germany before Luther, did hold the doctrine of the Gospel: With whom in like manner conspireth Benedictus 
o Tract. de Eccles. pag. 145.  Morgenternensis, thus writing: It is ridiculous to say, that any before the time of Luther, had the purity of the Gospel. Thus these Protestants: from whose authorityes being thus fully recited, I gather [M. D.] this Resultancy; That Luther's revolt was so far, from proving the contemning of the Visibility of the Protestant Church, or the administration of the word and Sacraments; as that it proveth a manifest interruption, or rather a nullity thereof. It being so fully confessed, that at the first appearance of this Miscreant of Saxony, (I mean of Luther, who first poizned the Duchy of Saxony with his doctrine) there was not any one Protestant (much less, a Protestant Church, preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments) upon the face of the earth, to be seen or heard of: But hereat I marvel not, since Philosophy reacheth us (to speak by all ●sion) that where the Object is wanting, there the sense suspendeth it operation.  DOCTOR REYNOLDS. 
Admitting all that you say, to be true, touching the first twenty years before Luther; yet it is most eu●cent, that john Hus (who lived anno. 1400. and not very many years before those 20. years) was a good and true Protestant; for him I find registered for a most holy Martyr by M. Fox, 
p Act. mon. pag. 190.  and D. 
q In his Treatise of Antichrist p. 40.  Downeham.  MICHAEAS'. 
john Hus did live in the year. 1400. Who first was a Catholic Priest. The cause of his death, was in that he taught the Necessity of Communion under both kinds, and the seditious doctrine touching Princes, Bishops, and Priests, being in mortal sin.  
But to make a more particular dissection of this Instance; The Articles, wherein his followers (the Bohemians) dissented from the Church of Rome, were these following, which M. Fox thus relateth: The Bohemians 
r Act. Mon. p. 260.  being demanded in what points, they did differ from the Church of Rome; the only Propositions, which they propounded, were these four Articles first, Communion under both kinds; The second, that all Civil dominiou was forbidden to the Clergy; The third, that the preaching of the Word was free for all Men, and in all places; The fourth, that open crimes are in no wise to be suffered, for avoiding of greater evil. Thus M. Fox of the Hussite, who (we see) as comparting with the Church of Rome in all other points, cannot possibly be alleged, for, visible members of the Protestant Church.  D. REYNOLDS. 
But what do you say of john Hus himself, was not he a Protestant, and died in defence of the Protestant faith?  MICHAEAS'. 
M. D The testimonies of Luther and M. Fox shall decide this point between us. And first M. Fox thus saith of him. Quid 
s Fox in Apocalyps' c. 11. pag. 290.  unquam docuit, aut in concilio defendit Hussius etc. What did Hus defend at any time, or taught in the council, wherein he might not seem even superstitiously to agree with the Papists? What doth the Popish faith teach concerning Transubstantiation, which he did not in like sort confirm with the Papists? Who did celebrate Masses more religiously, than he? Or who, more chastely, did keep the vows of Priestly single life? Add hereto, that touching freevil, faith, prede●●nation, the cause of justification, merit of Works, what other thing taught he, than was taught at Rome? What Image of any saint did he cast out at Bethleem? therefore what can we say, (for which he deserved, death) touching the which, he is not a like to be condemned with the Sea of Rome, or with it to be freed and absolved? Thus far M. Fox, with whom agreeth. Luther, thus writing of Hus: The 
t In colloquijs Germ. c. de Antichristo.  papists burned Hus, when as he departed not a fingers breadth from the papacy; for he taught the same, which the papists do; only he did find fault with their vices and wicked life; against the Pope he did nothing. Thus Luther.  
Besides all the Catholic doctrines, mantained by Hus, he taught (as above is touched) the Heresy of Wiclef, to wit, that there are no Princes, Priests, or bishops, while they are in mortal sin, as M. Fox 
u Act. mon. 230. Art. 1. & 2.  recordeth; with whom agreeth the Protestant Osiander, thus writing: Nullus est Dominus civilis, nullus est Praelatus, nullus est Episcopus, dum est in mortali 
(x) In epitome. Cent. 15. p. 469.  peccato: Haec propositio approhart non potest; sed passus est joannes Hus hac in parte aliquid humani: There is no Civil Prince, no Prelate, or Bishop, whiles he is in mortal sin: This proposition cannot be approved; but john Hus suffered herein the infirmity of Man. Now I cannot, but admire the incredible boldness of M. Fox, who acknowledging the former Heresy maintained by Hus, but especially granting (as showed out of his own words) that Hus did hold all the cheise points and frame of the present Roman Religion, was nevertheless not ashamed to pronounce john Hus, for a most holy Martyr (as above is expressed) meaning a martyr of his own Protestant Church. So gladly you Protestant's (for the supporting of the continuance and visibility of your Church) do make claim, to any Catholic, or heretic whosoever; who in one only point of Religion, (though dissenting in all others) may seem to compart and interleague with you. Thus far of Hus, whom to legitimate, for a Protestant, you see, it is impossible.  OCHINUS. 
I must here agree in judgement with Michaeas. And this Instance had far better been forborn, then obtruded; And indeed it is no small blemish to our Church, to insist in such weak and insufficient examples. But [M. Doctor] Let us entreat you, to rise up to Higher times in your discourse.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I will satisfy your desire. The next then, in whom I will instance, shallbe our own Contryman Wicklef: Whom all the world (I hope) will even dispose, that he was a perfect Protestant; and that himself and his followers enjoyed the administration of the Word and Sacraments; the practice of which is acknowledged to be an essential note of the Church's Visibility. This my opinion touching Wicklef, being a Protestant, is not mine alone; but it is warranted with the authorityes of M. Fox, 
y Act. mon. printed. 1596. pag. 391.  and the learned 
z In his book of the state of the Church pag. 418.  Crispinus.  MICHAEAS'. 
Indeed [M D.] M. Fox & Crispinus (I grant) do so teach; but how truly, Observe, what followeth; and then give up your even and impartial judgement. And yet before I come to the tuche of this point, I must put you in mind, what thy two former Protestants grant in the places by you cited, that at Wickleffs revolt (supposing him to be a Protestant) the Protestant Church was wholly invisible; for thus M. Fox 
a Fox ubi suprà.  writeth: In the time of horrible darkness, when there seemed in a manner to be no one so little spark of pure doctrine, left or remaining; Wicklef by God's providence roseup, through whom the Lord would first awaken & raze up again the World. Thus he. This Wicklef being an Englishman (as you know, M. D.) was a Catholic, Priest, and Person of Lutterworth in Leicestershirs; and as Stow 
b In his Annals of England printed 1591. p. 425.  relateth, He first inveighed against the Church of Rome, because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from a certain benefice. He lived, anno. 1370. Now that Wicklef cannot be truly claimed for a Protestant, I prove, in that (besides he was a Catholic Priest, and no Church of the Protestants, then known to him) he still retained many Catholic Opinions; and withal taught diverse notorious heresies,  
Touching his Catholic Opinions still believed by him, I will allege diverse out of his own writings; First he believed seven Sacraments, thus writing of them: Quaedam 
c Wicklef in postilla super 15. cap. Marci mentioneth all the seven sacraments. And in postilla super 1. Cor. cap. 1. he writeth, as is here set down.  sacramentaper se promulgavit Christus etc. Certain sacraments Christ did promulgate by himself, as Baptism, the Eucharist, the sacrament of Orders, and of Penance; certain also by his Apostles, as the sacraments of Confirmation, and of Extreme Unction.  
He also believed the rites and Ceremonies of the Mass, as appeareth in his book de Apostasiac. 18.  
Touching his praying to our Blessed Lady, he thus in fervour writeth: 
d Wicklef serm. de Assumpt. Mariae.  Hic videtur miht, quod impossibile est nospraemiari sine Mariae suffragio: It seemeth impossible to me, for any man to be rewarded, without the suffrage (or prayers) of Mary, He acknowledged the worship of Relics & Images, of which he thus saith: 
e Wicklef de Eucharist. c. 9  Adorni aneus imagines, unde & signa &c. conceditur it aque, quòd reliquae Imagines &c. sunt cum prudentia ador andae: We worship Images, as signs etc. Therefore it is granted, that relics, Images etc. are to be worshipped with prudence.  
Touching Merit of Works, and works of Supererogation; Wicklefe was so forward in defence thereof; that Stow thus writeth of him: 
f In his Annals printed 1592. p. 426.  Wicklefe and his disciples went in course russet garments, down to the heele●, seemed to contemn all temporal goods, for the love of eternal riches; adiayned himself to the begging friars; approving their poverty, and extolling their perfection. He thus teaching with the Catholics, that a Religious, and voluntary poverty, is the greatest abundance. Besides these his several Catholics doctrines, He defended diverse gross Herefyes. He first 
g As witnesseth O●iand. Cent. 15. p. 457.  taught, that all things came to pass by an absolute and stoical Necessity: He condemned lawful Oaths, savouring (as Osiander saith) 
h Cent. 6. 10. 11 etc. p 459. a●t. 43.  of Anabaptisms. Touching Ecclesiastical persons, thus writeth 
i In ep. ad Fredericum Miconium.  Melancthon of Wicklefe: Wicklefus contendit presbiteris non licere, ut possideant quicquam proprium; Wicklefe maintaineth, that it is not lawful for Priests, to possess any thing in propriety. He further taught even by the acknowledgement of M. Fox 
k Act mon. p 96. art. 4.  (the Canonizer of the Pseudomartyrs of his Religion) that if a Bishop or a Priest be in deadly sin, he doth not order, consecrato, or baptise; Which point is also verified of Wicklefe, by 
l Epitome. h●st. Cent. 9 10. 11. a●t. 4.  Osiander. Furthermore, Wicklefe did not only ascribe (with Catholics) merit to works, done in state of grace; but he was so passionately resolute herein, as that (as 
m Tom. 3. c. 7 8. 9  Waldensis witnesseth) he taught merit of works, done by force of nature, with the Pelagians. Finally, 
(n) Osiander in epitome. hist. Cent. 9 10. ●1. 12.  Wicklefe taught, that there is no Civil magistrate, while he is in mortal sin; and this so grossly, that Melancthon thus censureth him: De Domino civili, sophisticè planè, & seditiose vixatur; Wicklefe disputeth of the civil magistrate sophistically and seditiously: 
(o) M●lancthon. ubi supra  And according to this his doctrine in speculation, his followers in great 
p As witnesseth S●ow, ubi supra.  numbers did rise against the King; And for such their treason, diverse of them were apprehended, and executed.  
But to contract this point, touching the heresies of Wicklefe; This matter is so evident and confessed by diverse learned Protestants, as that Pantaleon (a Protestant) placeth Wicklefe in the Catalogue of Heretics, thus writing; johannes 
q In Chronol. p. 119.  Wicklefus cum Lolhardis, in Anglia suam Haeresim praedicat; john Wicklefe di●●lgeth with the Lolhards, his Heresy in England. And Melancthon thus writeth in general of him: 
r Melancthon. ubi supra.  I have found in Wicklefe many errors, whereby a Man may judge of his spirit. Finally M. Fox 
s Act. Mon. p. 95.  (though at other times, gracing him with the title of a Protestant) confesseth, That Wicklefe used often for fear of persecution and danger, to dissemble his Religion; Which no man (in the judgement both of Catholic and Protestant) professing any conscience, can lawfully do. Thus much touching Wicklefe.  OCHINUS. 
M. Doctor. I must confess (even between God and my conscience) that hitherto the Vessel, from whence you have drawn all your former wine (I mean examples of Protestancy) is not good and pure: But I hope, we shall have reason to say (in regard of your other more convincing Instances, hereafter to follow) with the chief steward of the feast in the Gospel: 
t joan. ●.  Thou hast kept the good wine, until now. But howsoever it is, Truth is not so feeble, as to be forced to leave (for it own supporting) upon the cruches of any one man's ability.  NEUSERUS. 
Truly hitherto, the Examples of protestancy are insufficient (for how can they be reputed Protestants, who not only maintain the most articles of the Romish Religion; but also do pertinaciously justify diverse confessed heresies?) Nevertheless, I doubt not but Ochinus and myself shallbe able to prove, that the Protestant Church was enriched at all times, with many of the faithful; though not always it was so gloriously subject to the eyes of others. But [M. D.] what do you say to the times precedent to the former? For we are most willing, that Michaeas should have good satisfaction given him herein.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I say, that in those times flourished not two or three, but many hundred Protestants. For than lived Waldo, from whom, as from a most worthy stem (his branches) the Waldenses are descended. All which (both the father and the Sons (even in the judgement of M. Fox) 
u Act. Mon. p. 628.  were perfect Protestants. In those times also were the Albigenses, confessed for good Protestants. Also the Henricians or Apostolici, Peter Bruts. learned Almericus, and diverse others lived about those days: Indeed there were so many Protestants in those times, as I am partly troubled, where to begin to reckon them; but may here say with the Poet: Inopem me copia fecit.  MICHAEAS'. 
Thus [M. D.] are but ostentations; And I see, that saying verified in you: Many through love, do hurt themselves. For you through your over much affecting, to preserve the honour of your Church, do indeed) by prostituting diverse Pseudoprotestants) indignify your Church: For all these, whom you now have alleged, are merely Excentrous (as I may term them) & irregular Sectaries; their doctrines indifferently moving about the Poles of Catholic Religion, Protestancy, & Sensuality.  
And first touching Waldo. It is certain, that he was a Layman of Lions in France; unlearned, but rich, and gave money for the translating of the Scripture into his own vulgar tongue. Of him the Waldenses are derived about the year 1218.  
Now that neither Waldo, nor the Waldenses (his followers) were Protestants, (though they be much urged for such, by many Protestants) is several ways proved.  
First, in that they did still hold diverse Catholic points, as the Real presence in the Blessed Sacrament, of whom concerning the same point Calvin thus writeth: 
x Epist. 244.  Formula Confessionis etc. The form of the Confession of the Waldenses doth involve all those in eternal damnation, who do not confess, that the bread is become truly the body of Christ. They also maintained seven Sacraments, the doctrine of Vows, of single life, and of Purgatory; with all which doctrines Benedictus 
y In tract. de Eccles. p. 124.  Morgenstrensis (a Lutheran) chargeth the Waldenses, and reprehendeth them for the same.  
Lastly, they were so full in defending the doctrine of merit of works; as that, as D. Humphrey 
z In I●●uitism. part. 2. rat. 3 p. 270. And M. Fox Act. mon. p. 628.  writeth of Waldo; He did forsake all things, that being poor, he might follow Christ, & the evangelical Perfections. And in the end, it did so faule out, that his scholars and disciples were an Order of begging Friars, and commonly called: the Poor Men of Lions. And did profess (as D. Humphrey 
a D. Humphrey ubi supra.  affirmeth) a kind of Monastical life; And finally laboured to Pope Innocentius (the third) to have their Order confirmed; but could not prevail, as Vspergensis witnesseth in his Chronicle.  
Secondly, The heresies maintained by Waldo and his followers are such, as that you [M. D.] in regard of their defence of them, cannot challenge them for Protestants.  
For first, they taught, that married Persons mortally sinned, in having the Act of Matrimony, without hope of Procreation, as testifieth Illyricus 
b Illyricus in cate-log. teftium verirat. p. 743.  the Protestant. They also did hold all embracements (mark this gotishe doctrine) and things done above 
c Illyrecus ubi supra. pag. ibid.  the girdle as touching, kissing, words, compression of the paps etc. to be done in charity: They further taught, that neither Priests 
d Illyrecus ubi supra. p. 760.  nor civil Magistrates being guilty of mortal sin, did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed: That 
e Ibid p. 731. et p. 745.  Laymen and Women might consecrate and preach: That Clergy 
f Ibid. p. 729.  Men ought to have no possessions: That men 
g Ibid. p. 735. et 756.  ought not to swear in any case: They 
h Illyric. ibid. p. 734.  went to the Catholic Churches dissemblingly, & confessed & communicated dissemblingly: Finally (to omit some others) they condemned all Princes 
i Illyric. ibid. p. 735. et 755.  and judges. And thus far (M. D. and you two learned Men) to prove, that Waldo and his followers were no Protestants, (though it is not denied, but that some one point or other of protestancy, they might maintain) and consequently, that the example of them is defective, to prove the Visibility of the Protestant Church in their days.  NEUSERUS. 
But what say you [Michaeas] of the Albigenses, and the rest above mentioned by M. Doctor? Were not all they Protestants?  MICHAEAS'. 
I grant, they are marshaled among Protestants by D. 
1 D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testarnent in Apoc. 12.  Fulke and D. 
2 D. Abbots in his second partof the defence etc. printed 1607. p. 55.  Abbots. But here [M. D.] you are either deceived, or (which I think not) intent to deceive. For here the Albigenses are brought for show only of greater variety of dishes, the better to furnish the table of Protestancy: Whereas indeed they were of the same Sect with the Waldenses, or rather the same Men; according to the judgements of D. Abbots and D. Fulke. For D. Abbot's thus writeth: 
k In his book against D. Hill his reasons. p. 57  These Leonists, or poor Men of Lions, and waldenses, and Albigenses were the same Men; but diversely, and upon diverse occasions termed by the Romish Synagogue: And D. Fulke saith the same in these words: 
l De success. Ecclesiast. contra stapletonum. p. 332.  They are called the Waldenses by the vulgar Papists; as also by others, they are named the poor Men of Lions, Leonists, Albigenses, or by what other name, it pleased the Sycophants of Antichrist.  
Now these Albigenses (be who they will, either the same with the Waldenses, or not) as they maintained some points of Protestancy; so with all even by the testimony of Osiander 
m In Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 329.  the Protestant, they taught diverse execrable heresies. The words of Osiander are these: Albigensibus dogmata haec attribuuntur; Duo esse principia; Deum videlicet bonum, & Deum malum, hoc est Diabolum etc. These opinions are ascribed to the Albigenses: That there are two Principles; to wit a good God, and a bad God, which is the Devil; and who created all bodies, as the good God did all souls etc. They do reject Baptism, and they say, to go to Churches, and to pray in them, is not profitable: etc. They condemn Marriage, & do allow (as holy) promiscuous concubitus, all promiscuous lying together, how wicked soever etc. Thy deny the resurrection of the body, & that Christ was true Man. Thus far Osander, who also saith: The opinions of the Albigenses are absurd, wicked, & heretical; & finally, termeth their spirits: an anabaptistical fury. And D. Cowper 
n In his dictionarium historicum, annexed to his thesaurus printed anno. 15-78. at the word: Albigenses.  of Winchester, maketh like mention of their absurd heresies. A point so acknowledged, that D. jewel wholly disclaimeth from the Albigenses, as Protestants; saying thus plainly: They 
o In his defence of the Apology. p. 48.  be none of ours.  
Touching the Apostolici, or Henricians; they are so far from being Protestants, as that they are acknowledged for Heretyks by D Fulke, 
p D. Fulke in his Retentive against Bristol. p. 124.  D. jewel, 
q In his defence of the Apol. p. 48.  and Osiander, 
r Cent. 12. p. 291.  who reports their heresies.  
But to proceed forward to other of your Examples. Peter Bruis is censured for an Heretic, by Osiander, 
s Osiander. Cent. 12. p. 282. and 283.  and Hospinian; 
t Hospinian in histor. Sacrament l. 4. p. 361.  who relates his heresies.  
Almaricus his Heresies are reported by Osiander, & himself rejected for an Heretic, and not acknowledged for a Protestant by the said Osiander; 
u Osiander ubi supra.  neither by D. jewel, 
x In his defence of the Apol, ubi supra  who speaking of the Albigenses, the Apostolici, and Almaricus, saith (as before) they be none of ours. And thus far Gentlemen) touching the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Apostolici, or Henricians, Peter Bruis, and Almaricus.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I see no reason, but that we may be justly distrustful, in giving over much credit, to the writing of former times, which charge the Waldenses, Albigenses, and the rest, with the heresies by you recited: And if such writings were either false in themselves, o● but forged only, through deceit and confederacy of their Enemies; then may the said Men well be reputed for true, and perfect Protestants.  MICHAEAS'. 
If you [M. D.] be so diffident, as that (contrary to the judgement of Osiander Hospinian and other Prtestants) you will not believe the writings of former times, charging Waldo and the rest (in this passage or discourse mentioned) with the heresies afore alleged; then what colour can you pretend, why you should give Credit to those Writings of the same 
(s) Cent. 9 10. 11. p. 326.  time, which affirm, that the foresaid Men believed certain Opinions of Protestancy? And therefore it followeth by force of all Reason, that such Writings affirming both the one and the other, are either jointly to be believed and credited, or jointly to be rejected, as false and forged: And the rather, seeing the Reporters of those times, did impartially and indifferently recite and condemn, all those opinions, wherein the foresaid Heretics dissented from the Church of Rome; without any foreknowledge, which of the said Opinions, would either be approved or rejected, by Men of this age. So weak you see [M. D.] is this your Reply.  OCHINUS. 
I am of judgement, that the Waldenses, and the rest can 〈…〉 truly be reputed for Protestants, in regard of the reasons alleged by you [Michaas.] And I do hold, that your last reply [M. D.] (touching the uncertainty of the credit of those writings, charging the Waldenses, and all the other with heresies) is most firmly avoided by Michaas.  NEUSERUS. 
I am of the same judgement with Ocbinus herein: And the truth is, we do much wrong the honour of our Church, by pretending such unworthy Men, for members thereof. But proceed [M. D.] to higher times.  D. REYNOLDS. 
In the precedent ages to these former (if credit may be given to authentical Histories) there were not only many Protestants, but even several Books then written, in defence of the Protestant Religion: As the Author of the Book, written against Images, in the name of Carolus Magnus: Bertram, Vlrick, Berengarius etc. All or any of which to deny, to have been Protestants, were to infringe all authority of Ecclesiastical History.  MICHAEAS'. 
There are not any of these, you have named, as much (I may say) as of the halfeblood to a Protestant: so little affinity there is, between the Protestants Religion, and these men's religion. I grant, that some Protestants (and these but very few, and of mean esteem) do instance (through their security of better examples) in these your mentioned men; but how coldy and weakly, we will now discover. And first, touching the Book written against Images, in the name of Carolus Magnus, I say, first, that book concerneth only but one point of Religion; and consequently it can give no proof of Protestancy in those days. Secondly, I aver, that it was forged by some Heretic, that denied the doctrine of Images (perhaps) in those days; but never made or allowed by Carolus Magnus. This I prove first, because Carolus Magnus was wholly addicted and devoted to the Church of Rome, and it faith in general; And therefore the less probable it is, that he should wr●t, or suffer to be written in his name, any book, inpugning but any one point of that Religion. I will relate the words of Hospinian (the Protestant) touching his affection to the Catholic faith; Thus be saith: 
y In ep. dedic. histor. Sacrament.  Carolus Magnus nonsolum publicis edictis etc. Charles the Great did not only command by public Edicts, that the Ceremonies, rites, the Latin Mass of the Church of Rome, and other decresse and Instituts of the Pope of Rome, should be observed, through out the whole Empire; but also himself did force the Churches, to these observations under pain of impresonments, and other kinds of punishments; with whom also conspireth in judgement herein Crispinus 
z In his book of the state of the Church. p. 221.  M. Cowper, 
a In his Chronicle p. 473.  and Osiander. 
b in ep. hist. eccles. cent. 8. p. 101.  Secondly, in that it is acknowledged by learned writers, that Carolus Magnus was an enemy to those, who impugned Images. For Paulus 
c Lib. 2. hist. Franciae.  Aemilius witnesseth, that Carolus did send twelve Bishops unto a Council holden at Rome, under Pope Steven in confutation of the error of the Grecians, against Images. The same doctrine of Images, as defended by Carolus, is further confessed by the Centurists, 
d Cen. 8. c. 9 col. 570.  D. Cowper, 
e In Chronic. p. 474.  and by joannes 
f Lib. 1. pro Imaginibus.  Aurelianensis, who lived in the time of Carolus Magnus. Thirdly and lastly, there are suspicious of the forgery of that Book. For it appeareth out of the book of Pope Adrian, to Carolus Magnus (which book was purposely written, against that book diwlged in Carolus his name) that the said book was then written by some secret enemy of Images: a point so evident, that Calvin 
g Instit. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14.  intimateth the uncertainty of the Author of that Book, thus saying: E●tat refutatorius liber sub Caroli Magni nomine etc. There is extant a book of refutation, under the name of Carolus Magnus; which we may easily gather to be made about that time: so doubtfully and irresolutly Calum writeth of the author of that Book.  
Touching the supposed book of Beriram, written de Corpore & Sanguine Domine, and dedicated to Charle the Bawld; as said, to impugn the doctrine of the Real Presence in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist: Which book some think to have been forged by Oeculampadius, in the name of Bertram. I say [M. D.] first this book writeth so doubtfully and intricately of the Real Presence, using the words: figure, spiritual, and Mystery, with such qualifications, as that no strong Argument against the Real Presence can be drawn from thence; yea which is more, this book so much favoureth the Real Presence, as that the Centurists 
h Cent. 9 c. 4. col. 212.  do thus censure of it: Transubstantiationis semina habet Bertramus, The book of Bertram hath in it the seeds of Transubstantiation. Secondly, the Catholic writers of those times, (as Hospinian relateth at large) did honour 
i In histor. Sacrament. l. 4 p. 317.  Bertram, as a holy Martyr of the Catholic Church. How then is it probable, that Bertram should write a book against one of the chiefest Articles, defended & believed by the said Church? Thus far of Bertram.  
Touching Vlricke (who was Bishop of Augusta) who is urged for a Protestant, in that it is supposed, he should write an Epistle to Pope Nicolas in behalf of Priest's Marriage, and printed lately at Basill. We reply, that by force of all Reason, this Epistle is but forged by some enemy of the Roman Church in his name; and was written diverse years after Pope Nicolas was dead, or before that Vlrick was borne. For as Onuphrius 
k L. de Rom. Pontif.  writeth; Pope Nicolas the first (to whom it is supposed, Vlrick should write) was elected Pope, anno 858. enjoying the same nine years, and two months, & died anno 867. Whereas Vlrick was not made Bishop of Augusta, till anno 924. Which was after the death of Pope Nicolas; And he contemning Bishop fifty years, died anno 973. Of which point, we may read Vspergensis, 
l In Chronico-  Cytraeus, 
m In Chronico.  & Pantaleon. 
n In Chronico.   D. REYNOLDS. 
But what say you [Michaeas] touching Burengarius; I hope it cannot be denied, but that he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation?  MICHAEAS'. 
I come to Burengarius (who lived anno 1051. and was Archdeacon of Angiers) who is challenged for a Protestant, for his denial of Transubstantiation, in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist; I answer, first. It is true, that for a time he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation: yet afterwards he recanted 
o As M. Fox confesseth. Act. Mon. p. 13.  his Heresy therein and died most Catholic in that Article. Secondly, I answer, that this Heretick-Catholicke Berengarius, did hold diverse errors, even in the judgement of Oecolampadius, 
p In epist. Oecolampedii et Swinglii. l. 3. p. 710.  the Protestant: who thus writeth of him: Berengarius non nulla affirmat adversus Baptismum parnulorum, & coniugium, Berengarius affirmeth diverse things against the Baptism of Infants, and Marriage: And again: Damnata 
q Ibiden p 812.  est Berengarij Opinio, Sacerdotio Christiano parum minus tribuens: The Opinion of Berengarius is condemned, which ascribed over little to Christian Priesthood. Also Papir Masson 
r L 3. in Hugone et Roberto.  in his Annals of France writeth, that Berengarius and his followers denied the grace of Baptism; denied, that men committing mortal sin, could ever obtain Pardon; and further, that Berengarius was an enemy to Marriage. Thus much of Berengarius his own and his followers heresies: though himself before his death (according to the judgement of certain Catholic Writers) recanted his heresies.  
But (M. D. and you Gentlemen) I will conclude this passage, with recurring to one observation above set down. suppose therefore for the time, that these former books were doubtful, but truly penned by the Authors, under whose name they go: suppose also that Berengarius had never recanted his heresy in denying of Transubstantiation; suppose finally, that you may allege diverse other sectaryes, holding this or that point of Protestancy: yet what can all this convince? It can never prove any Visibility of the Protestant Church: seeing all these (thus admitted) are but the Examples of one or other private Man, who was originally Catholic and after embraced some one or two points of Protestancy (still remaining in all other articles, wholly Catholic.) And therefore I much commend the Ingenuity of D. Fulke 
s In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. p. 34.  herein, who foreseeing the impertinency of these Examples of Bertram, Berergarius, and those others, rejecteth them in these words: Although thes and such like defenced some part of the tru●h which we ●ould against you; yet le●st you should object, it was but in some one or two points, ●passe them over with silence Thus D. Fulke, who even upon this ground, preterm●●teth all the said examples, and first instanceth in Wicklefe.  OCHINUS. 
I do find [Michaeas] some learned Protestants to make mention of joannes de 
t joannes de Rupe scissa, and Guilielmus de S. Amore, claimed for Protestants by M. Napper upon the Reuclat. in c. 20.  rupescissa, Gui●ie●mus de S. Amore, Peter 
u Peter blois i●. claimed by M. Gabriel Powel in his considerate. p. 25.  Blois, and some others for good and found Protestants? what is your opinion of them.  MICHAEAS'. 
I grant they are claimed for Protestants, but observe how injustly. And first, touching joannes de rupe scissa: M. Fox 
x Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 287.  thus writeth of him. johannes de Rupe scissa, lived anno 1340. who for rebuking the spiritualty for their great enormities, and neglecting their office, was cast in prison. Thus M. Fox. Thus we see, he otherwise was Catholic in all points. Willi●lmu● de S. Amore is thus charged by Pantaleon 
y In Chronographia pag. 102.  the Protestant: Gulielmus de S. Amore Monach●s ex 〈…〉 osyna, in otio 〈…〉 tes, non salua●i scribens, a Papa Haereticus censetur: Guilielmus de S. Amore, teaching, that Monks living of Alms in idleness, could not be saved, is therefore censured by the Pope for an Heretic. Lastly, Peter Blois, who lived anno 1200. is freed from being a Protestant by Osiander in these words: 
z Cent. 12 p. 181.  Petrus Blesensis etc. principum, praelatorum, religiosisorum & privatorum peccatam graviter arguit; non tamen Pontificios errores refutavit. Peter Blois did much aggravate the sins of Princes, Prelates, Religious, and private Men; but he no way intermeddled with the errors of Popish religion. Now [Ochinus] I refer even to yourself, how untruly these former Men may be obtruded upon us for Protestants. But the proceeding of our Adversaries in this question of the visibility of their Church is incredible, who are not ashamed (in their own defence herein) to challenge (besides registered and confessed Heretics) any one, that hath impugned the Pope or his Church but in any one point, either of manners or doctrine; And hence it is, that they challenge to themselves for Protestants, men, whom all the world do know to be Catholics, in all articles of faith without exception: Thus are Willielmus Occam, and Gandanensis by M. Fox: 
a Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 358.  & john Scotus 
b Osiander cent. 9 p. 44.  by Osiander urged for Protestants. Thus also is S. Bede claimed by D. Humphrey, 
c In jesuitim. part. 2. rat. 3. pag. 326.  of whom Osiander 
d In epitome. cent. 8. pag. 58.  thus speaketh: Bede was a Papist in all those Articles, wherein Protestants do at this day descent from the Pope. Thus is Peter Lombard placed in the Catalogue 
e By Simon Pauli in method. aliquot. locorum doctrinae. fol. 12.  of the Doctors and restorers of the heavenly doctrine, whom notwithstanding M. Fox 
f Act. mon. pag. 41.  styleth: An archpillar of Papistry. Thus also joannes Gerson & Thomas Aquinas (whom all Christendom acknowledgeth to be of the Church of Rome) are challenged for Protestants by Illyricus. 
g See all these & some others, in the Alphabetical table of Illyricus his Catalogue, re●●ium veritatis.  Finally, Thus is Erasmus canonised by them for a Protestant, and particularly by yourself [M. D.] 
h L. 1. de Rom. Idolat. l. 1. c. 2. act. 3. p. 73.  & yet we read, that Erasmus thus writeth: 
i Erasm. in l. 16. epist. 1●  Christum agnosco, Lutherum non agnosco, Ecclesiam Romanam agnosco. Christ 〈◊〉 acknowledge, Luther I do not acknowledge, the Church of Rome I acknowledge. But D. Field (one of this university) overgoeth all others; for he with more, than a meretricious and frontless boldness, averreth, that all Christendom before the days of Luther, were Protestants; for thus he writeth: 
k D. field in his book of the Church. l. 3. c. 8. p. 76.  We firmly believe, that all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers lived and died, to have been the true (Protestant) Churches of God etc. And that they, which taught, embraced, and believed those damnable errors, which the Romanists defend against us, were only a faction: An assertion, which Impudence itself would blush to maintain; it being controlled by all histories whatsoever, and by the free acknowledgement of all Protestant writers without exception.  NEUSERUS. 
This bold asseveration of D. Field (I confess) displeaseth me infinitely; and it is no small blemish to us (who profess the Gospel) and who should bond and measure our speeches with truth, at least with some probability of Truth, thus to write. For who knoweth not, that the Mass (which containeth in itself, diverse doctrines of the Romish Religion) was the public Leyturgy, celebrated in all Churches throughout Christendom, at Luthres first revolt from the Pope? And I grant, that this may give just suspicion to many to think, that we make undue claim to the ancient Fathers, and others above instanced (being further of in time remoted from us) when some of us blush not, to affirm so untruly of the days next before Luther, and of the time, in which himself first did rise up; it being yet in the memory of Man. But [M. Doctor] I pray you, proceed to higher times.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I acknowledge, it is a difficult point, to name professors of Protestancy, for every age: Though (no doubt) our Protestant Church (as being the true Church) enjoyed many Professors at all times. But these examples afore produced, may give great conjecture; that at all times since the Apostles, there have been many faithful Protestants, and an answerable administration of the word & Sacraments.  MICHAEAS'. 
Touching your former produced examples; your own secret judgement (no doubt) assureth you that as yet we have not met with one pertinent example, in all this discourse. But seeing you [M. D.] do forbear to instance for former ages, yet not discussed (contrary to your promised attempt in the beginning) I would entreat Ochinus, or Neuserus, to insist in particular Instances of Protestancy, for every such age.  OCHINUS. 
I will speak both for myself and N●userus. The labour of instancing is peculiar to M. Doctor; And therefore we would be loath, (as being no more able to perform it, than he) to take it from him, and assume it to ourselves.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor and you two Gentlemen. These are but words, serving fruitlessly to ravel out the time, allotted for disputation: Therefore once more I urge you all, to give instances for every age, not yet mentioned.  NEUSERUS. 
What needs this earnest solicitation of you in this point? There were (no doubt) in every of those Centuryes many Protestants: And let that suffice.  MICHAEAS'. 
What Neuserus? Generalityes without particulars? What Logic is this? And yet you know, Logic is the scholars eye, wherewith he discerneth Sophisms and subtle Evasions. But the plain truth is, neither any of you, or any learned Man whosoever is able so much, as but to suggest any one man (much less any one Country) professing in the next precedent ages the Protestant faith. And therefore (since Necessity is ever pardonable) I pardon you all for your flying to these general answers; though I must confess, they openly discover the strayts, within which you are here environed.  
But [Learned Men] seeing we have waded so far in this discourse, we will reflect a little upon the former examples or Instances. And I will here deal liberally with you, in yielding ●or the time more, than I am bound to do. And as the Mathematicians do forge certain imaginary and unreal Circles in the Heavens, whereby they arrive to the knowledge of the true and natural motions of the stars and planets: So I will for the time here imagine, that Waldo, Wicklef, Hus and the rest by you exemplifyed, were in all points Protestants, and that their faith was not contaminated and soiled with any one Error or Heresy: yet from these acry supposals, I will nevertheless deduce the infallible and certain truth of the defection of the Protestants Church; And will prove, that the said Examples (admitting them for true examples) are not sufficient, for several Reasons, to support the visibility of the Protestant Church.  
1. And first, we are here to call to mind, that the Church of God (as appeareth from the Etymology of the Word: Ecclesia, and the Ecclesiastical acceptance thereof) is a calling out, or Congregation of many of the faithful: So as to the necessary being of the Church (especially after the first plantation of it) not one or two, but diverse and many faithful must concur. Which point is made more evident, in that the administration of the Word and Sacraments (being ever a most necessary Attendant of the Church) includeth in itself a multitude of persons, consisting of Pastors and Doctors, on the one side, and of spiritual sheep or children on the other side. In like sort the former prophecies touching the increase, amplitude, & continual splendour of the Church do evict the same. Now to apply this to our present purpose. In some of the former examples, we find no mention of others, joining in belief with the first supposed Protestants of that time: Therefore from hence it may be concluded, that the being of any one such strange Protestant or other, doth not include the being of any Protestant Church at that time; much less, the Visibility of such a supposed Church, during but that very tyme.  
2. Secondly, the Scriptures and first part of our discourse, do irrefragably prove, that the Church of God must, not at one only time or other, but all times, and in all ages, without the least interruption or discontinuance (much less, without interruption for many hundred years together) be most visible and conspicuous; for it is resembled (even in this respect) by God's sacred Writ, to a City, 
l Math. 〈◊〉 Esay 2.  placed upon a hill, that cannot be hid at any time: And to a mountain, 
m Esay ibidem.  prepared in the top of mountains, and exalted above Hills. All which implieth a continual and incessant Visibility of the Church: To which Scriptures D. Fulke 
n Against the Rhenish Testament in 2. Thessal. 2.  and 
o In his answer to M. Reynolds preface p. 34. & 37.  D Whitakers subscrbe (as above is showed) Both who teach, that even in the greatest persecution of Antichrist (much more, then at other times) the Church of God shallbe most visible, and as Bullenger 
p Upon the Apocalyps' p. 200.  saith: right famous. This now being granted, and withal it being acknowledged by D. ●ulke 
q In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholics p. 36.  and other learned Protestants, (who speak more sparingly and warily here of, than others of their Brethren do, who grant a longer time of the reign of the Catholic Faith and Religion): That anno Domini 607. the papists religion prevailed (as the said Doctor speaketh) and that all Popes from Boniface the third, were Antichrists; which Boniface did live about the said year 607.  
Now here satisfying myself at this present, with our Adverse: Confessions, touching the continuance of our Catholic Religion; I demand (M. D. and you learned Men) what Protestant's can be alleged, living between Anno 607. and 〈◊〉 220. at which time lived Waldo. Here are about six hundred years between these two times; during all which Period, as also for every year thereof, you stand obliged to allege Protestants for the continuance of the Visibility of your Church; or else to acknowledge your Church not to be the Church of God. But here all you Protestants are at a stand; as being not able to name any one Protestant living within the compass of the said six hundred years; I mean from anno 607. to anno 1220 whereby to support the Visibility of your Church, but for any part of that time (much less for whole tyme.) And if you [M. Doctor] can instance for those times, I here provoke you thereto: for as for Bertram, and Berengarius etc. their examples are over unworthy to be insisted upon (as above is showed) Besyds, supposing them for Protestants, yet their examples serve but only during the life of Bertram and Berengarius; both which lived some four or five hundred years after the acknowledged foresaid 607. year of Boniface; for which four or five hundred years, you still remain bound to instance your Protestants.  
Again Waldo (as is said) lived in anno 1220. Wocklefe lived anno 1370. Hu● in anno 1405. Luther lived more than a hundred years after Hus. Here we see again, there is a good number of years between every one of these several times: And here I demand again of you, to name some Protestants to fill up the Banks (as it were) or empty rooms of these many Stallions: During all which time, you cannot instance (I am sure) in any one known confessed Protestant. Wherefore I conclude, that seeing the Church of God is to be at all times & seasons ever visible and discernible; And seeing your former Examples of Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, and the rest above mentioned (admitting them for true examples in all points) are found defective to prove your Church's Visibility; that therefore your Protestant Church (for want of this visibility, so necessarily required) is not the true Church of God; and consequently, that I have no warrant, to leave the Catholic Church, and to implant myself in your Protestant Church.  
3. Thirdly, All the former Men (I mean, Berengarius, Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, Luther &c.) were originally Catholics; and then after by forging of new doctrines (afore untaught) they divided themselves from the Church then in being: And so thereby they justified in themselves those words of S. john: (r) they went out of us; the very signature or Character 
joan. 2. & Act. 15.  of an Heretic, even in the judgement of Protestants. 
s Osiand. inepitom. Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78. thussaith: nota, haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur.  Now this disparture or going out of the Church, implieth in lieu of a continuance of their Church, an interruption, discontinuance, and defection of their Church (and consequently a want of Visibility of their said Church: Since it infallibly proveth, that the doctrines taught by these men after their departure, was not taught by the Church afore in being: for if they had been taught by it, these Men needed not to leave the then known Church, for their defending and teaching of their said doctrines.  
4. Fourthly & lastly, you (no doubt) will say, that Wicklefe, Hus, Luther etc. did preach the word and administer the Sacraments to their disciples (since without these means, even by your confession, the Church cannot subsist.) Here then, seeing no 
t Hebr. 5.  Man taketh to him the honour of Priesthood, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. And seeing according hereto it is said: how 
u Rom. 10.  shall they preach, except they be sent? And further, who so 
x joan. 10.  entereth not at the door, into the sheepfould, but climbeth another way, is a thief. I now demand [M. Doctor] who did call Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, etc. to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments? Or by whom were they sent?  D. REYNOLDS. 
I here answer, with Calvin, 
y So lascivius, a Protest. relateth of Calvin, in muscovit. et Tartar. religionem. c. 23.  Beza, 
z In his conference at Po●si.  and D. Fulke: 
a Against Stapleton & Martial. c. 2.  that they had extraordinary calling immediately from God, in regard of the Pope's tyranny in those days, and the overflowing of superstition of those times.  MICHAEAS'. 
This is but extravagantly spoken, and merely forged by you Protestants [M. D.] as having no other colour to warrant your calling. But 
b Musculus, loc. come. p. 394. Amandus' Polanus in part. theolog. l. 1. p. 30●.  to refute this fantasy: Extraordinary calling is ever accompanied (as it was in the Apostles) with working of miracles, even by the judgement of the Protestants themselve: Among whom 
c Luth. tom. 5. 〈◊〉. Germ. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  Luther thus expostulateth others of their extraordinary calling, saying: Vnde venis? quis te 〈…〉 is●●? 〈…〉 isunt 〈…〉, que is a Deo missum esse testantur? (See how by God's providence, Luther's pen turneth upon himself.) And therefore D. Bils●n, as wholly rejecting all extraordinary Calling (not warranted with Miracles) thus confesseth: 
d In his perpetual government of the Church c. 9 p. 111.  They can have no part of Apostolical Commission, who have no show of Apostolical succession. Thus than Luther, Hu●, Wicklefe, and the rest are exempted from all extraordinary Calling, immediately by God himself: since their Calling was never confirmed with the working of any one miracle, even in the judgement of D. Fulke, whose words are these: It 
e Against the Rhenish Test. in Apocalyp. 13.  is known, that Calvin and the rest, whom Papists call Archhereticks, do work no Miracles.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Some learned Protestants (to wit, 
f Contra Durae●m l. 9 p. 820.  D. Whitakers, D. Bridges, 
g In his defence of the government pag. 1276.  and others) do aver, that it is not improbable to affirm, that Wicklefe, Hus, Luther, etc. received their calling from the Church of Rome; Which calling was conferred upon them. before their departure out of that Church. Which opinion of theirs (admitting it for true) taketh away the supposed difficulty of this your Argument.  MICHAEAS'. 
Never [M. D.] doth the poor and fearful hair use before the hounds, more windings and turnings, to save her life; than you Protestants do here, to salve your Vocation: for you being here stabled; to get yourself out of the mire, sometimes affirm your calling to be extraordinary, and immediate from God; warranted by him with certain Euthusiasms (forsooth) and illuminations. But when the vanity of that pretext is laid open, than you fly to the Catholic Roman Church, making it your Sanctuary. But see, with what an absurdity this your later Answer is accompanied. For (besides, that Walde, as being a Layman, never received any calling from thence) Why do you and others most contumeliously call the Roman Church, Antichristian? seeing it seems, you confess, that it is able to confer true Calling to Luther, Hus, and the rest, and to their successors or descendants; which ability and power is peculiar only to the true Church. For if the Pope be Antichrist, and his Church, Antichristian (as your Brethren in their pulpits, do vociferate) then how can you pretend, their Calling to be sufficient and warrantable? seeing your own men teach, 
h Propositions & principl●● disputed in Geneva p. 245.  that in Babylon (meaning thereby the Church of Rome) there is no holy Order or Ministry indeed, but a mere usurpation. And most certain it is, and confessed by all learned Men; that Antichrist cannot avaylably confer commission, for the Preaching of the Word of Christ, and admitting the Sacraments of Christ. Now if Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, and the rest do want true calling, than they cannot be any true visible Pastors of Christ's Church; and consequently they cannot justify in themselves their Church's visibility: So plunged (we see) you Protestants are, when you are demanded to justify the calling of Luther, Hus, Wicklefe, and their successors.  
And thus far now (Learned Men) to demonstrate, that supposing Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, Luther, and the rest instanced in your precedent passages, had been in all points of belief, Protestants; & that they had otherwise neither comparted with the Catholics, in any Catholic doctrines, nor had defended any gross and acknowledged heresies; yet it is most evident (in regard of the Reasons and arguments here alleged) that the examples of them are defective and insufficient, to prove the visibility of the Protestant Church, in that manner, as the visibility of Christ's Church is taught both by Catholic and Protestant, and peculiarly by ourselves, according to the beginning of this our disputation.  OCHINUS. 
With M. Doctor good leave, who hath showed great reeding in his former examples (though they be not so convincing and pregnant, as I did hope to find them) Neuserus, and I will undertake, to justify the visibility of our Protestant Church, in all precedent ages. And you are hear (Learned Michaeas) to know, I am of opinion, that supposing no instances at all of Protestancy could be given, for all these former times by you mentioned, yet followeth it not, that therefore there were no Protestants in those times (which is only the Question between us) for many Reasons may be given, why the names of such Professors are not now known to us of these days. And one Reason may be this, you know well, the Popes for many ages have borne more, than a serpentine malice to the Protestant Religion; ever endeavouring by all means possible, to extirpate it out; Therefore my judgement is, that their rage and fury was so precipitate and violent against the Protestants of forms ages, as they laboured by all courses, to extinguish all remembrance of them, as by burning the books written in those times by Protestants; by purposely making away of all other Records of Protestancy; and by an absolute concealing the names of all Protestants; thus hoping, that the Memory of them, might be interred with their Bodies. This is my opinion. I mean, that there never was an utter disparition and vanishing away of the Protestant Church in ancient times but only, that the names and Professors of that Church were most diligently concealed from all after times, through the Pope's affected malignity.  MICHAEAS'. 
It is strange, to observe the exorbitant proceeding of Protestants in matters of Religion. For sometimes you Protestants do diwlge in your writings, that there can be named Protestants, living in every Century since Christ (as you, M. D. in the frontispiece of this discourse, with great venditation did undertake to perform.) Now you retire backe [Ochi●●s] from M. D. assertion, and say; doubtlessly there were Protestants in all ages; though their names and memories by some indirect course or other, were concealed from Posterity: So distracted you are in your own judgements, passed upon one and the same point at several times. Which certainly must be reputed as a Mole in the face of a learned man; since now zealously to affect an opinion, at another time to let the same saulle, by entertaining the contrary opinion, is but the Ague of an irresolute, and inconstant judgement. But to come to the point. First I say, that this evasion of Ochinus mainly overthwarteth M. D●●tours former Instances. For if the names of all Protestants were buried in forgetfulness, by the Pope's Agens (as here you say) how then can we know, that Berengarius, Waldo, Wicklefe, etc. were Protestants? And if these and others were Protestants, than was not Protestancy and the maintainers of it wholly extinguished by the former Pope's sedulity and diligence. How do you extricate yourself [Ochinus] out of this Labyrinth? Again, I say, this your sentence is but a mere Imagination, wrought in the forge of your own brain. For you have neither proof nor colour of proof, that either the names of Protestants in former ages should be concealed, or their books, or any other Records touching them should (by the laboured confederacy of the Popes and their followers) be suppressed and made away; And why then should here your bare asseveration be credited?  
Secondly, I urge, that such proceedings, as here are pretended to be (as the extinguishing the light and splendour of Christ's Church, for so many ages together) do mainly impugn the Prophecies of holy Scripture, delivered of it, for we read, that it is said of Christ's Church: Her 
i Esay: c 60.  Sun shall not be set, nor her Moon hid: That she 
k Daniel. 2.  shall not be given to another People; but shall stand for ever: That she shallbe 
l Esay. 60.  an eternal glory and joy from Generation to generation. All which Prophecies (besides diverse others (recited by yourself afore) tending to the exaltation and glory of Christ's Church, how dissortingly and disproportionably can they be auer●ed of the Protestant Church of former times? If so the Annals, Records, and all other Monuments of it former being be wholly obliterated and extinguished?  
Thirdly, this Evasion contradicteth the more ingenious and plain acknowledgements of others of your own Brethren: who do teach, that your Church for sundry ages hath remained wholly invisible, or rather utterly extinct. I will here produce the authority only of D. Parkins; His words are these: For many 
m In his exposition upon the Creed, p. 400.  hundred years past, an universal Apostasy hath endeavoured the whole face of the Earth: And our Church hath not been visible to the world.  
Lastly and principally, this your surmise impugneth all experience, touching the chief Occurrents of the same ages and times. For first we find, that the personal defects and blemishes of certain Popes are registered in those times, and the relation of them are at this present extant; Neither could the Popes prevent the same; And from such relations do the Protestants (and particularly you, M. D. 
n D. Reynolds in his conference with M. Hart. c. 7 divis, 6. the like doth D. jewel in his defence of the Apology.  in some of your writings) upbraid us with the less warrantable life of some Popes. Now than these things standing thus, how could the Popes hinder the registering of any Professors of faith, adverse & contrary to themselves in those days? It is absurd therefore to think, that the Popes were well contented, that their own scarts should remain to be seen by all posterity (supposing, it were their powers, to prevent the same) and yet should affectedly labour, that all testimonies of different professors in faith from them (but especially of Protestant Professors) should be buried in eternal silence and oblivion: Themselves not being able to foresee, that protestancy should sweigh more in these days, than any other erroneous faith and Religion. Again, the Examples of the writings of Hus, Wicklefe, the pretended book of Carolus Magnus, the supposed book of Bertram, the connterfeyted Epistle of Vlrick, and all other writings of the foresaid Heretics, or any others at this day yet extant,) & not suppressed) fight mainly with this your Opinion: For were it not, that the said writings and books were yet remaining to the world, the Protestants of these times could not have known, what articles of protestancy the said Heretics did maintain in those days.  
Furthermore, the very subject of the Decrees and Canons of Catholic Counsels, celebrated in all former ages, is chiefly the condemning and anathematising of particular heresies, there [verbatim] set down and expressed, as they did rise in the same ages; with commemoration and recital of the Heretical doctrine invented, and the person inventing, with all other due circumstances. Ad hereto, that your own Brethren confess, what we here endeavour to prove. Among whom D. Whitakers shall serve for all at this time; who being glad to make claim for Protestants of all such, as in any sort resisted the Pope, thus writeth to his Catholic Adversary: 
o Contra Duraeun l. 7. p. 469.  Vestris historijs nostrae Ecclesiae memoria viget; Et qui Pontificij regni res narrare conati sunt, ij nostrae Ecclesiae sunt testis. The memory of our Church flourisheth even in your Histories; And those, who laboured to relate the proceedings of the Pope's Kingdom, are become Witnesses of our Church. Thus D. Whitakers. Lastly, we will adjoin, to all the former experiences, the histories and Chronicles even of the Protestants, whose subject, task, & designed labour is to relate and make mention of such strange & new doctrines, as did rise in every age; showing, how the said doctrines were not proved over in silence by the Church of Rome; but how, and when, and in what Pope's reign, they were openly gainsaid, crossed, and condemned by the said Church. And all this the Protestant Historiographers do borrow from the Catholics ancient Records (for but for those Catholic Records, they could not tell, how in these days to write of those matters.) This (we see) is performed very diligently by the Century writers, in their several Centuryes: by Pantaleon in his Chronographia; by Osiander in his Epitome Eccles. And by Illyricus in his book styled: Catalogus testium Veritatis, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt Papae. And which is here to be noted (as making more in our behalf herein) diverse of these opinions and doctrines, thus related by these Protestants, to have been condemned in former ages, are such, as are at this present maintained for true doctrine by the Protestants. Now from all these premises we may fully gather, how far those former ages or the Popes then living, were from labouring and affecting to keep in silence or suppress any doctrine whatsoever, or persons maintaining the same, which did appear to be repugnant to the faith and Religion of the Roman Church at those times. But gentlemen I fear, I have been over long.  OCHINUS. 
Learned Michaeas, I do confess, I have seldom seen the weakness of an opinion more fully and irreplicably displayed, than this of mine is by you at large, even by direct of several reasons; And therefore for ever after I am resolved wholly to disauthorize, and depose it. For indeed I see, It is but a mere airy and vasperous Conceit, instantly dissipated before the least beam of a clear judgement.  NEUSERUS. 
I do (with you Ochinus) acknowledge the transparency of it, since an impartial eye is at the first, able to see through it. But [Michaeas] I see no reason, but that we may aver, that the Protestant Church, and the administration of the Word & Sacraments were in all ages; though the particular professors of it were latent, and indeed invisible, through the raging tyranny and persecution, wherewith the Popes of former times did afflict all those, who in external profession of faith did in any sort dissent from them. And you know, how adverse Adversity is to Man's inclination: And therefore the less wonder, if the rays of protestancy were in former times overclowded with the mists of persecution.  MICHAEAS'. 
Indeed, I have read, that Antonius sadellius (a protestant of no vulgar note) giveth this reason of the latency of his Church, and of the want of administration of the word and Sacrament in former ages; with whom it seems you [Newserus] in judgement do join. But to poise the weight of this reason. Where first I must put you in mind, that it being approved, maketh the protestant Church to be wholly invisible in former times; and so destroyeth the main Thesis' or Tenet, maintained by you all in the beginning of this disputation; who jointly did aver, that the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, & the professors of it were, known and discernible; But to let that pass. Thus I argue, in further disproovall of this your poor refuge. The Church of God under persecution, either communicateth openly with the false visible Church, in participation of Sacraments and external profession of Faith; Or else she doth refrain, from all such external communion. If she doth not communicate with it; then by such her refraining, she is made known, and consequently is become therevisible: If she doth communicate with a false and idolatrous Church (as you repute the Church of Rome to be) then is she not the true Church; since the true Church cannot brook any such dissimulation: I will enlarge myself upon the several parts of this Argument. And first, that the true Church by not communicating with a false Church, is (in regard of the persecution coming thereby) made visible, is clear even in reason itself. For who are persecuted, but Men, that are known? And how can one lying secretly and unknown, be said to be persecuted? A point so evident, that M. Curtwright confesseth, that the Church under persecution is visible and sensible, for else (saith he) how 
q In Whitguifts defence, p. 174.  could it be persecuted? Yea he further thus contesteth with his Adversary, saying: To let pass, both Scriptures and stories Ecclesiastical, have you forgotten, what is said in the first of Exodus? that the more the children of Israel were persecuted, the more they increased. With whom agreeth M. jewel, saying: 
r In his Reply, p. 506.  The Church is placed upon a mount, her persecutions cannot be hid. I may truly add herto, that the greater and more violent the persecution is, the more visible known, and conspicuous, is the Church made thereby; like to a ship, which the more it is tossed with waves and storms, the higher to the eye it appeareth; or like unto an Arch in building, which the greater weight and burden it bears, the more strong and firm it remains.  
The truth of which point is further warrantable, from the example of the persecution in the Primitive Church; which of all pressures of the Church, was incomparably the greatest. And yet we find, that the particular Bishops, Confessors, & Martyrs are even to this day made known, who they were, and what heresies or false Religion they impugned; And this from the penns not only of Catholic Historiographers, but even of Protestants; of which subject, you may peruse the 
s In Cent. 1. 2. 3.  Centurists, 
t In Chronographia.  Pantaleon, 
u In Chronologia.  Functius, 
x Cent. 1. 2. 3.  Osiander, and M. 
y Act. Mon. in his discourse of the ten. Persecutions.  Fox. And may not the English Catholics (if I be truly informed) deservedly here insist in the Examples of their own Nation. The Catholics whereof in regard of their former persecutions in Queen Elizabeth her reign, are so far from being latent and invisible, as that they were become most famous & remarkable, throughout all Christendom. O pietatem de crudelitate lndentem. 
* Tertul. l. de resurrect. carnis.  Are not the names and memories of those reverend Priests, and others of the Laity (to speak nothing of many worthy Confessors, and others suffering great losses and disgraces) who lost their lives in her days only for Religion (whose blessed souls I humbly beseech, to intercede and pray for me, to our Saviour:) Are not their names and memories (I say) even to this day fresh and living? have their deaths obliterated & extinguished their memories, or rather through a speaking silence, perpetuated and eternised them, their lives being by this means extended beyond their lives? Who, by reason of their then calamities and pressures (too well known to God and Man) became balls to that state; and might justly complain in the words of the Apostle: 
z 1. Cor. 4.  Spectaculum facti sumus mundo & Angelis, & Hominibus. Such were the stormy floods, inundations, and overflowings of persecution in the said Queens tyme. But to return, and to apply this here said. If the Catholics in this Country (being but a small part of Christendom) could not, but for some few number of years in comparison, escape the search and hands of their persecutors, but became thereby most visible and known: the very Air echoing forth their miseries; How could then the Protestants, (being supposed to be dispersed throughout many Nations) lie hid, and avoid for so many ages together (as is pretended) the force of that persecution, which is affirmed by our Adversaries, to have been far more grievous, then ever this of England was.  NEUSERUS. 
I pray you [Michaeas] descend to the second part of your former Argument; And first tell me your judgement, if it be not lawful for avoiding of loss of goods, or death itself, sometimes to conceal our Religion?  MICHAEAS'. 
No, we never ought to conceal our profession of faith, for fear of any punishment how great soever: for here, nolle confiteri, 
* Tertul. l. de fuga in persecut.  negare est. And though we are not to importune persecution (for this were to tempt God) or to take a spiritual pride in our afflictions, for our Profession of faith, yet if the temporal Prince do impose any miseries upon us our Religion, we are with all alacrity & Christian magnanimity, patiently to endure the same; ever continuing in our former Religion, loyalty, and obedience, and pouring cut our daily prayers to the Almighty; that he would vouchsafe to touch the said Prince's hart, with commiseration of our despicable and betrampled estates, and to grant him all true temporal and eternal happiness ourselves in the mean time ever remaining comfortable: Quid hic mali est, 
* Tertul. l. aduersu● gentes.  cuius reus gaudet, cuius accusatio votum est, & paena faelicitas: But I will come to the second branch, which containeth the reason of this my Assertion; Which was: That if the Church of Christ doth communicate with a false and idolatrous Church, she ceaseth (ipso facto) to be the true Church of God. This is most evident out of God's sacred Writ, which teacheth us. 
a Rom. 10.  that with the hart a man beleiveth unto justice, and with the mouth confesseth unto salvation: Which text is truly paraphrazed by D. Field in these words: Seing the Church is the 
b Lib. 3 of the Church pag 1.  multitude of them, that shallbe saved; And no man can be saved, unless he make Confession ●nto salvation (for faith hid and concealed in the hart, doth not suffice.) It cannot be, but they, which are of the true Church, must by the profession of the Truth, make themselves known in such sort, that by their profession and practice, they may be discerned from other men: A point further receiving it most warrantable truth, from Truth himself, who thus threateneth: 
c Math. cap. 10.  Whosoever shall deny me before Men, him I will deny before my Father in Heaven. And from hence it is, that the Protestants themselves think, they are obliged in conscience not to be present at the Service or Mass of the Catholic Church, or to participate with the Catholics in their Sacraments: Which kind of Recusancy is punctually taught by 
d In his Synops. printed, 1600. pag. 612. 613. 614.  D. Willet, 
e In Concil. Theol. pag. 628.  Melancthon, 
f In his discourse hereof recited in Melanc●hons former treatise of Concil. Theolog. p. 634▪ 635.  Peter Martyr, 
g Alleged in the foresaid place by Melancthon.  Bucer and 
h Lib. de vitendis superstitionibus, extant in Calvin. tract. Theolug. etc. p. 584.  Calvin.  
But to draw towards an end of this your pretext of persecution. The same is refuted even from the nature of the Church, delineated in Gods holy Word: and accordingly acknowledged by you Protestants. For if the Church of God must at all times be visible, and eminent (as is largely proved by us all in the first part of this discourse) and must be eminent in so full a manner; as that we are commanded to repair to the Church in all our spiritual Necessities, according to those words of our Saviour: 
i Math. 18.  Tell the Church etc. And if the administration of the Word and Sacraments must even to the end of the World, ever and at all times be practised in the Church of Christ; How then can the Church, but by these means become most visible, or rather most radiant? The force of which reason I will conclude, with the words of D. Humphrey, thus writing: 
k In jesuitism. part. 2. tract. 2. rat. 3. p. 241.  Dum ministri docent, alij discunt; illi sacramenta administrant, high communicant; omnes Deum invocant, & fidem suam profitentur; Qui ista non videt, talpa est caec●or, Whiles the Ministers do teach, and others do hear; whiles these Men do administer the Sacraments, those do communicate or participate of them; whiles all do call upon God, and profess their faith; He, that doth not see these things, is more blind, than a mole.  NEUSERUS. 
Have you not often observed [Michaeas] how a little cue 〈…〉 tity of copper, in a counterfeit Coin; And yet neither is the corn or gold extinguished or annihilated? But that it may be truly said, the Corn and chaff is mingled together, & the gold and Copper moulted together; And yet neither is the Corn, chaff, nor the gold copper: Why then by the like analogy & proportion, may it not be here averred, that the Protestant Church, was in former ages in the Papacy; the Papcy was in the Protestant Church; and yet the Protestant Church was not the Papacy? Which being granted, freeth our Church from an absolute Inuisibility, at least from an utter extinction and overthrow of it in those former Popisn times. And to my remembrance, I have read certain learned Protestants, expressing this point, not much differently from my words: for I find M. Parkins, thus to allude to this saying: 
l In his reformed. Cathol. p 328. 329.  The Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God; and the Church of God in the Church of Rome; with whom D. Whitakers 
m Lib. de Eccles. pag. 165.  seems to conspire, thus writing: Ecclesia ver a fuit in Papatu; sed Papatus non fuit Ecclesia vera: And with these former even 
n In ep. Theol. ep. 1. p. 15.  Beza (besides 
o Calvin in l. epist. epist. 104. Osiander in epitome▪ hist. Cent. 16. part. alt. pag. 1072.  others) doth agree, saying: voluit Deus in Papatu seruare Ecclesiam; et si Papatus non est Ecclesia. Which answer is thought so sufficient and choking, as that the former learned Protestant, M. Parkings much resteth upon it, thus even exulting: 
p D. Parkins ubi supra.  This answer serves to stop the mouths of Papists, who demand of us, where the Church was fourscore years before Luther: for they are answered, that our Church hath been since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of the Papacy.  MICHAEAS'. 
O how ingenious and pregnant [Niuserus] is Novelisme in faith; spining (like the silk worm) out of it own womb, such fine threads of wit: But (alas) these threads are too weak to detain and hold the Adversary. This diversion of yours (rather than answer) consisteth of a froth of words, artificially put together: And indeed it partly resembleth your own former similitude. For the matter (as I may say of it) is even 〈…〉 ace mettle, guilded over with a specious show of mystical phrases. For you Protestants, seeing you are not able to instance particularly in any one man (during so many ages, as from the Apostles days to Luther) who was a perfect Protestant; much less to instance in the administration of the Word and Sacraments: And also perceaving by Experience, that it soundeth in the ear couldly (and indeed, harshly) to grant in plain and direct words, that the Protestant Church (during all those ages) was wholly extinct and vanished away out of the world: and further remembering, that great & huge burdens are better removed by sleight of witty Engines, then by strength; have at length resolved to deliver this your doctrine or Position, in an affected and obscure phrase, thereby (as under aveyle or cloud) to shadow the falsehood thereof; saying, as above you allege: The Church is in the Papacy, the Papacy is in the Church; And yet the Church is not the Papacy. Thus do you here imitate physicians, who give physic to delicate bodies, not in the gross substance, but either in infusion, or extraction.  
This curious frame of speech makes (as I said) a glorious show, at the first; but examine it, and it presently resolves to nothing; like unto the lightning, which is an eminent Object to the eye, and yet it no sooner cometh, than it vanisheth. Now for the better discovery & displaying of this your sleight, you are here to conceive, that the sense of these words is not, that the Protestant Church had in those times a latent and hidden being in Catholic Countries, without having intercourse or Communion with the then known and visible Church, in the Sacraments. For so the true Church could not be said, to be in the Papacy; no more than at this day in respect of it like aboadin Turkish Countries, it can be said to be in Turkism. Therefore the particular manner of this strange and stupendious mixture together for external Society (like chaff and Corn in due heap, or copper and gold in one coin) is truly expressed by Osiander (the Protestant) in these words: 
q In epitome. Cent. 16. part. alt. p. 1076. & 1072.  Quod semper sub Papatu aliqui pij homines fuerint, qui errores Pontificios, & idolatrica sacra improbarunt: temetsi id non semper profiteri and ebant, nemo negat; No man denyeth, but that there were ever under the Papacy some holy men, who disliked the Errors of the Popes, and their Idolatrous whorships: although they durst not openly profess so much, Nisi ardere aut ad minimum exulare velint, except they would burn for their Religion, or at least suffer banishment. And yet the said Protestant more fully: Animum ad ist a pontificia idolatrica sacra non applicusrunt, tameisi extern●●ritus non pro●sus negligerent, ut communi consue●●dino (quasi torrente rapido) arriperentur, ut eadem cum aliis facerent; The faithful of those times, did not apply their minds to, to those popish idolatrous worships; although they did not wholly neglect their external rites and ceremonies: and they were led with common custom (as men carried with a violent stream) to do the same things with the Papists; Quorum infirmitatem Deu● toleravit & ●ondonauit, Whose infirmities herein, God did tolerate & pardon. Thus Osiander doth apologise for his Protestant Church in former times. From whose testimony (we see) that the last sublimated sense of your former sentence resolves to this point; To wit, that the Protestant Church in those former times, being in. or under the Papacy, did through fear of burning, or banishment, or some other persecution, dissemble their Religion, and communicate in all eternal rites and ceremonies with the Church of Rome. This is the sole true construction of the foresaid quaint sentence, though the former Protestants (and perhaps, also yourself Newser●s) thought it good policy, to deliver this their meaning to their followers, in nice and artificial words (as Physicians are accustomed to give their most bitter pills, rolled in sugar.) But seeing this point of gross and palpable dissimulation in Religion, is sufficiently discussed in our last passage, I will enlarge myself no further therein.  NEUSERUS. 
Michaeas', I must confess, that upon my more serious and intense observation of what you have here spoken, touching our delivery of our former Answer, that it is like to the spydars web artificially woven, but to small purpose: And indeed in a true examining of it, it is (as you rightly say) but the former Answer drawn from persecution, though fashioned a new, in an other mould.  OCHINUS. 
I do acknowledge the same with Neuserus; And therefore it is but loss of time, to insist in such Extravagancyes and phan●asyes. But to proceed, if there were no other reason to evict the visibility etc.  
If there were no other reason, to evict the visibility of the Protestant Church, yet this following is of itself sufficient: The true Church of Christ is ever to be visible (as we all above have taught:) Now we can prove out of Scriptures, that the Protestant Church is only the true Church. Therefore we may infallibly conclude, that the Protestant Church hath ever been most visible. That our Church is the true Church of Christ, we prove, in that it professeth that faith, which is agreeable to the holy Scripture. This is our demonstration; This is our Asylum. Here we need not to recurre to Ecclesiastical Histories, or to search out examples of protestancy for every age; since this reason comprehendeth within itself all ages, as a greater number doth the lesser.  MICHAEAS'. 
Indeed I grant, this Argument is the Mayster-peece in all your shops; and (as you well term it) your Sanctuary. But may not the Arians, the Anabaptists, or any other Heretics prove by the same ground, their Church ever to have been visible? Who (no doubt) with as great confidence (as your selves do) will maintain, that they can justify their Church from the Scripture itself, to be the only true Church of God: See how you Protestants here labour with the general Infirmity of all Sectaryes; and see how truly that Aphorism of the Physicians is verified in you and them: to wit, One and the same Symptom is incident to sever all diseases. But seeing Doctor Whitakers (for his upshot) did cast his last argument in his conference with Cardinal Bellarmyne, in this your frame & mould, to prove that the Church of Rome had altered it Religion, because (said he) it faith and Religion is contrary to the holy Scripture; Therefore as loath to obtund your ears with a fastidious iteration of the same points, I refer you to the full answer of the Cardinal, 
* In the first part of the Converted jew.  given thereto. Only before I here cease, I will pattern this your Evasion. If then some slippery fellow should truly owe your [Ocbinus] a hundred pounds, and aught to pay it by ten pounds every year; The yearly days of payments being come, you require of him the silver. He confidently averreth, that he hath paid you every year, the allotted portion of ten pounds, till the whole hundred was paid. You deny the same, and will him, either to show some quittance of any one payment, or produce some witnesses thereof, or relate some circumstance either of time or place, where the yearly payments were made. Now he (not being able to make good any one of these points, not so much as but for one years' payment) flieth to this shift, saying: Every man of honesty, integrity, and sufficiency will pay his debts, according to the due times of payment; But he is assured, that himself is in the number of these men professing honesty, integrity, and sufficiency. Therefore certain it is that he hath paid the foresaid hundred pounds, within the prescribed times of payment. Thus this Cheater bringeth his own honesty (which may justly be called in Question) as a Medium, for proof of these his imaginary payments, as you do allege the Conformity of the Protestants Religion to the Scripture, for the supposed visibility of your Protestans Church for many ages. Now [Ochinus] if you like this man's answer (for both his and yours are woven in one & the same loom) my wish then is, that the next time you lend any silver, you may (for a punishment of your ignorance herein) be repaid back after the same manner.  NEWSERUS. 
I cannot, but ingeniously confess, that our flying to the Scripture in this place, serves only but to prevent the instancing of Protestants for former times: And so to make a subtle and fly transition from the expected examples of Protestancy, to the uniformity of the Protestant Religion with the Scripture: And indeed it is but a Paralogism or fallacy, called Petitio principij; consisting in assuming that to be proved and confested, which is most in Question. For the main Question between the Papists and us is, Whether their Religion or ours is more agreeable to God's Word? And [Michaeas] I confess you speak the truth, in saying; that every Heretic will appeal to the Scripture, and will urge a conformity of his faith to it, and consequently may seek to justify his own Church's visibility by this his Appeal; Whose Private spirit (forsooth) by detorting of the Scripture, is able to Project any text thereof (as Alchemists do of Metals) so as it shall endure the touch, for the gild over of his Heresy: An Haeretici 
* Lib. adverse. Haereses.  (saith old Vincentius Lyrinensis) Divini Scripturae testimonijs utantur? Viuntur planè & vehement ere quidem; sed tantò magis cavendi sunt.  OCHINUS. 
Indeed now upon a second review of this my argument, I do not find that force in it, which in the beginning it seemed to carry. And I do see, that every Heretic (I mean in his own judgement, and according to his own false interpretation of Scripture) may challenge the Scripture for the fortifying of his heresies, as fully as we Protestants can do: And therefore. I do allow that former sentence of Vincentius, alleged by you. Neuserus.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I have found some of our own learned brethren, to teach (though aforehand I tell you, Michaeas, that I descent in opinion from them) that the Church of Rome and the Protestant Church, are but one and the same Church▪ from which position they infer: that seeing the predictions of the continual Visibility of the Church of God, and an uninterrupted administration of the Word and Sacraments have been performed (at least, as you Romanists do auer●e) in the Church of Rome; that consequently (ours and yours being but one Church) they are performed in the Protestant Church. And according hereto we find M. Hooker 
r Lib. 3. Eccles. po● p. 130.  thus to teach. We gladly acknowledge them of Rome, to be of the family of jesus Christ etc. And again; we say that they of Rome etc. are to be held a part of the house of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ: with whom conspireth D. Some 
s In his former sermons, and two questions, ser● 3. p. 44●.  thus granting: The learneder Writers acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. But this Opinion I have to the liberty of every one, either to retain it, or reject it.  MICHAEAS'. 
Here now you Protestants are retired to your last refuge and hold: And thus is Error glad to be shrouded, under the Wings of Truth. For whereas the most dispassionate, sober, & learned Protestants among you, do grant, that for many ages before Luther's revolt, they cannot truly and really justify the visibility of their Church in particular, (much less the administration of the word and Sacraments.) And yet during all the said ages, they see, that all this is actually accomplished, in our Catholic Roman Church; They are therefore forced to give back, and to retire in all their former answers; And at length are driven (for the supporting of their own Church) to say that the Protestant Church & the Roman Catholic Church, are identically but one and the same Church: And thereupon they infer, (as you M. Doctor say) that seeing our Catholic Church be general acknowledgement, hath ever continued visible, during all the former ages; that therefore your Protestant Church (both being but one and the same, by their (courteous yielding) hath also enjoyed the same privilege of a perpetual Visibility, and the like administration of the Word and Sacraments: So ready you Protestants are, for the preserving only of your own imaginary Church in former times, to join hands with they Catholics (if so they would agree thereto) you granting, that your own Succession, calling, and Ministry is and hath been, for former ages continued and preserved, only in the Succession, calling, & Ministry of our Catholic Roman Church.  
And according to this our meaning, M. Bunny (a Protestant of good esteem here in England) dealeth plainly & ingeniously herein; for he not only teacheth, as the former Protestants do, but giveth sincerely the true reason of such their doctrine; to wip, that otherwise they cannot prove the being of the Protestant Church, during so many former ages: for thus he writeth: 
t M. Bunny in his Treatise of Pacification sect. 18. p. 108.  Of the departing from the Church, there ought to be no question among us. We 
u M. Bunny ubi supra p. 123.  are no several Church front them (meaning from us Catholics) nor they from us; And therefore there is no departing at all out of the Church: Nor any do departed from them to us, nor from us to them etc.  
And yet more fully: It 
x M. Bunny ibidem pag. 119.  was evil done of them, who urged first such a separation etc. For 
y M. Bunibidem p. 36.  that it is great probability for them (meaning us Catholics) that so we make ourselves answerable, to find out a distinct and sever all Church from them, which hath continued from the Apostles age to this present; Or else, that needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung up but of late, or since theirs: And finally M. Bunny thus concludeth: 
z Vbi supra p. 92.  Our Adversaries see themselves to have advantage, if they can joint us to this separation. Thus M. Bunny. But touching my particular judgement herein, I utterly (with all Catholics) disclaim from maintaining, that our Church and the Protestant Church is all one: And I confidently aver, that this strange Paradox is invented by Protestants, for the reasons above expressed.  OCHINUS. 
What is the matter brought to this Issue, that we must grant the Papists Church, and our Church to be one and the same Church? Is this [M. Doctor] the event of our disputation? I will here imprecate with the Poet 
a Awned. 〈◊〉.  against myself.  

Sed mihi vel tellus optem prius ima debiscat;  
Vel Pater Omnipotens adigat ●●ful●ine ad umbrae,  
Pall●●ies umbras Erebi, ●octe●que profundam.   
Before I acknowledge the Synagogue of Rome, to be the Church of God.  NEUSERUS. 
I give you free leave [Ochin●s] to include me within this your imprecation. For I will dye the death of a sinner, before I grant, that the Popish Church is the same with the Protestant Church. What? shall Superstition and Idolatry (by our own consents) be advanced and set up (side by side) with the Gospel, in the thrown of God's Tabernacle? It is a thing insufferable; and the thought thereof is not so much, as once to be entertained.  MICHAEAS'. 
Gentlemen; good words. God grant your own Prayers against your selves, be not heard. And though I be of your mind, that the Catholic Church, and your Church is not all one Church, yet if before your deaths, you do not acknowledge the Church of Rome, for the true Church, doublesly your prayer willbe heard, when your selves (though too late) shall with unutterable (but improfitable) remorse, condemn your selves, of your own gross consideration, in so weighty a matter.  
But M. Doctor and you two. Hitherto, we see our discourse hath been chiefly spent in your objecting Arguments, for your Church's visibility, and my answering of them. Now I do expect, that our Scenes be altered; And that I may insist in objecting, what I have red confessed, even by the most learned Protestants touching this subject: For these alternative variations of parts in dispute, are in all Reason, and by custom of all Schools, most warrantable.  D. REYNOLDS. 
We give you good leave. For it argueth a great distrust & diffidence in a Man's cause, to tie his adversary only to answer, and never to suffer him to oppose: And it is as unreasonable, as if in a Duelisme, the one party should be indented with, only toward, and never to sryke: Therefore proceed [Mich●●s] at your pleasure.  MICHAEAS'. 
Truth saith 
b Cont. Donatist. post. collat. 〈◊〉 ●4.  [S. Augustin] i● more foroible to wr●ng 〈◊〉 Confession then any rack● or torment. Which sentence we fy●d to be justified in this Question of the Protestant Church's Inuisibility: For diverse learned Protestants there are, who as being more ingenuous and upright in their writings, and in their managing of matters of Religion, than others of their party; & as well discerning the insufficiency of all pretended Instances, and other colourable evasions and answers (which serve only to blear for the time the impenetrating and weak eyes of the ignorant) do in the closure of all, both by certain necessary inferences, as also in plain and express terms, grant the point here controverted; to wit, that the Protestant Church hath for many ages together, been wholly invisible, and not known to any one man living; or rather, that during such said ages, it hath been utterly overthrown, destroyed, and (as it were) annihilated, and no such Church in being. The proof of which point shallbe the subject of this passage.  
This point than is proved two ways, and both from the penns of the Protestants. First, from their acknowledged want of succession of Pastors, and of their like defect of sending by ordinary Calling. Secondly, from their manifest & open complaints of their Church's invisibility for former ages in express words; or rather of it utter extinction & Nullity.  
And as touching the first. It is evident even in reason itself, that that Church, which wanteth succession of Pastors & ordinary Calling, (if any such Church could be) must needs be invisible, at least at that time, when such want is. And the reason hereof is, because this want necessarily presupposeth, that there were not in that supposed Church, any former Predecessors or Pastors at all, which could confer authority or calling to the succeeding Pastors or Preachers. But where no Pastors are, there are no sheep (for it is written: how 
c Rom. 〈◊〉  shall they hear, without a Preacher?) And where no sheep are, there is no Church; And where is no Church, there is no visisibility of it; since even Logic instructeth us, that: Non Eutis ●●n est Accidens. That the Protestant Church for many ages, hath wanted all personal succession, and ordinary Calling, is overevident; seeing (besides that, which hath been said of this point already) we find diverse learned Protestants to confess no less. For thus doth Sadellius write: diverse 
d De rebus graviss. controvers. pag. 319.  Protestants affirm, that the Ministers with them are destitute of lawful Calling, as not having a continual visible succession from the Apostles times, which they do attribute only to the Papists. And hence it is, that many Protestants confess, that they are forced to fly 
(e) The Protestant Lascivius reciteth this saying of Calvin I de Russor. Muscovit. etc. religione, c. 23.  to Extraordinary Calling, which is immediately from God, without any help of man. Thus for example, Calvin saith: Quia Papae tyrannide etc. Because through the tyranny of the Pope, true succession of Ordination was broken off; therefore we stand need of a new course herein; and this function or Calling was altogether extraorinary. Thus Calvin. And D. Fulke 
f Against Stopleton, Ma●tial. p. 2.  in like manner saith: The Protestants, that first preached in these days, had extraordinary Calling; with whom agreeth D. Parkins, saying: The calling of W●cklefe, Hus, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr etc. was extraordinary.  
Thus we see, that the Protestants, confessing the want of 
(g) In his works printed, 1605. f. 916.  personal succession in their Church, as also the want of Ordinary Vocation, and flying therefore to Extraordinory Vocation; do even by such their Confessions, acknowledge withal the Inuisibility of their Church in those times, and an interruption (next before) of all personal succession: for if succession of Pastors had then been really & truly in being; then had those men been visible, to whom the Authority of calling others to the Ministry had appertained; and consequently there had been no need of Extraordinary Calling: Which Extraordinary Calling is ever accompanied with Miracles (as above is showed) in the judgements of the more sober Protestants: 
h Ama●dus Polanus in part. Theolog. p. 308. Musculus in loc. c●●. p 394. Luther tom. 5. lenae Germ. 〈◊〉. 491.  or otherwise it is but a mere illusion: And we have not red or heard, that any of those first Protestant's (who vendicated to themselves this Extraordinary Calling) have ever wrought, in confirmation either of their Calling or doctrine, any one Miracle.  OCHINUS. 
I must confess [Michaeas] that you have discussed well of this point, and in my judgement very forcingly. But proceed (we entreat you) to the second branch of your Proof; since I can hardly believe, that any Protestants will expressly acknowledge the Inuisibility of their own Church: for if they do, then is the Question at an end, and hath received it uttermost trial, that can be imagined.  MICHAEAS'. 
The event will seal the truth of this point. And first, that immediately before Luther's revolt, the Protestant Church was invisible, Vibanus 
i In his Apologetic. c. 176.  Regius (a markable Protestant) confesseth so much. But of the Protestant Church it visibility at Luther's appearance, we have already fully discoursed: and therefore we will ascend to higher times. M. Parkins then thus writeth of ages more remote: We say, 
k In his exposition of the Creed. p. 400.  that before the day of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth; and that our Church was not then visible to the world. Caelius Secundus 
l De amplitud. regni Dei. p. 212.  Curio (an eminent Protestant) confesseth no less in these words: Factum est, ut per multos i am annos Ecclesia latuerit, civesque hutus regni vix ab aliis (ac ne vix quidem) agnosci potuerint etc. It is brought to pass that the Church for many years hath been latent, and that the Citizens of this Kingdom could scarcely (and indeed not as all) be known of others. D. Fulke confesseth more particularly of this point, saying: 
m In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic. p. 16.  The Church in the time of Bonifac● the third (which was anno, 607.) was invisible, and fleed into wilderness, there to remain a long season. M. Napper riseth to higher times, thus writing: 
n Upon the Revelation in c. 11. & 12.  God hath withdrawn his visible Church, from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of twelve hundred and sixty years; the true Church abiding latent and invisible: With whom touching the continuance of this Inuisibility agreeth M. 
* M. Brocard upon ●he Apocalypse. fol. 〈◊〉.  Brocard, an English Protestant. But M. Napper is not content with the latency of the Protestant Church, for the former times only; but involueth more ages therein, thus auer●ing: During 
o Upon the Reuelat. in c. 11. & 12.  even the second and third Ages (meaning after Christ) the true Church of God and light of the Gospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist himself. But Sebastianus francus (a most remarkable Protestant) overstripeth hearein all his former Brethren, not doubting to comprehend within the said Inuisibility, all the ages since the Apostles, thus writing: for 
p In ep. de abrog. in universum omnibus statutis Eccles.  certain the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; And that for these thousand and four hundred years (mark the length of the time (the Church hath been no where external and visible. Which acknowledgement of so long a time (or rather longer) is likewise made by D. Fulke, in these words: 
q In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic pag. 33.  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles tyme. But D. Downham (with whom I will hear conclude) is not ashamed to insimulate the very times of the Apostles, within the like latency, thus writing: The 
r Lib. de Antichristo l. 2. c. 〈◊〉. pag. 25.  general defection of the visible Church (foretold 2. Thessal. 2.) begun to work in the Apostles times. Good God. Would any Man hold it possible (were it not, that their own books are yet extant) that such eminent Protestants should confess (contrary to the necessary Visibility of God's true Church, proved out of the Scriptures, & acknowledged by their own learned Brethren) their own Church to have been wholly latent and invisible; or rather, wholly extinct and annihilated for so many ages together? But this we must as●rybe (O God) to thy holy permission, who, as thou suffered in the time of the Old Testament, thine Enemies to sheathe their swords in their brethren's sides; so hear tho● permiteest (for the greater honour of thy Church) so many learned Protestants (even with wonderful admiration, sweet jesus) deadly to wound their own Church, faith, and Religion, with their own penns.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Forbear (Michaeas) these woundering Interjections, the accustomed Dialect of an ungoverned Passion. I grant, these learned Protestants above alleged were of this opinion; Notwithstanding to confront their authorityes, there may be found many others as learned and judicious Protestants, as these are, who absolutely maintain the Visibility of their Church for all ages. And I see no reason, but that the sentences and judgements of these other should preponderate and weigh equally with) the judgements of the former Protestants, by you alleged.  MICHAEAS'. 
You must pardon me (M. Doctor) if I wonder at things, so strangely and unexpectedly fauling out. But to your solution. I say, it is most defective for several reasons. First, because it mainly crosseth the method agreed upon, among us, in the beginning of our discourse; where you tied yourself irreph●ably to stand to the judgements and confession of your own learned Men. Again, though you can bring other Protestants of as great eminency for learning, as these by me objected; yet except you and the said Protestants will insist in true and confessed Instances of Protestancy, for every several age (which is impossible for you to perform.) your and their asseverations are to be reputed but naked, verbal, and inavayleable.  
Lastly and principally, your Reply is insufficient, Because I hear allege Protestants confessing the Inuisibility of their own Church, to their own mighty prejudice, and the Catholycks great advantage; And therefore it must needs be, that the rack of Truth forced them (being otherwise ingenuous, learned, and judicious) to all such Confessions; Whereas such Protestants, as may be brought to gainsay and contradict the former Confession (as being men of more spacious and large Consciences) do spoke in their own cause and behalf; and therefore as being ready pressed to avere any thing (how false soever) for the safery of their Church, are deservedly to be reputed in their writings, more partial: So as in this case the Words of Tertullian may justly take place. 
s In Apologeti●o.  Magis fides prou● est, in adversus somet●psos confitent●●, quam pro 〈◊〉 ●egantes.  NEUSERUS. 
I like well [Michaeas] the reason of your disparity, given touching some Protestants confessing against themselves, and others affirming the contrary; to their own advantage.  OCHINUS. 
The difference set down by you is most foreible: for no doubt the open Confession of one learned Adversary, is to overbalance twenty denying the same, even for that peculiar reason above mentioned.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Michaeas' Suppose for the time, that we could not prove our Churches perpetuali Visibility: yet seeing you are not able, (if you were pressed thereto) to justify and make good the Visibility of your own Roman Church, during all the ages since the Apostles days. Therefore look into what danger, through our confessed Inuisibility, we may be presumed to tune, within the same we may justly includ you: And thus you own argument rebucts upon yourself.  MICHAEAS'. 
Hear I see [M. D.] that for meare want of positive arguments, to support your own Church, you are lastly fled to pick quarrels at our Church; as if it were a justification of yourselves, that we Catholycks did labour with your infirmities; like men, who rejoice to have compartuers in misery. But to your point urged. say it is impertinent to the whole drift of our dispute, which was only, touching the want of Visibility in the Protestant Church; which alone to prove, was by me undertaken; the visibilitye of the catholic Church coming in incidently; like as a discourse of vice doth often in the End; biget some specches of Virtue; our Contrary being thus brought to our remembrance, by means of the other Contrary. But because [M. D.] you shall discover no tergiversation in us herein, and that here to entreat of the continual Visibility of our catholic Church, violateth our former imposed method: Therefore I will pawn my credit, that there shallbe left with you certain 
t This is performed in the Conclusion of this Treatise.  prouffs, containing the express and confessed Visibility of our Roman Church, from the Apostles to these days; And this by the acknowledgement of sundry learned Protestants; though hear by the way, I must tell you, that the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, during so many former Ages, doth potentially and virtually include the proof of the Visibility of our Roman Church, during the said ages: Seing the Inuisibility of your Church (for so long a time) is ascribed by you Protestant's (as appeareth by many of the former Protestants testimonies) to be the work of Antichtist; (you meaning thereby, the Pope, and the Church of Rome) therefore it inevitably followeth, from your own Primisses, that Popes and the Church of Rome have ever been visible, during all the said former Ages and Centuryes.  OCHINUS. 
Newserus, I would have a word or two with you in private; therefore if it please you, let us walk a little a part.  NEUSERUS. 
I am willingthereto: go into the next room, and I will follow you,  OCHINUS. 
You see hear [Neuserus] how this Question of the Protestant Church's visibility hath been discussed and argued: And I must confess, that [Michaeas] hath even in replicably demonstrated, that the Protestant Church hath (at least for many ages) been invisible, or rather extinct: you see also, how royatous and abounding the old Testaments in prophecies, and other testimonies, that the Church in the day, of the true Messias, shallbe at all cypress, most conspicuous and visible. Therefore what resteth, but that either we must reject the old Testament (which I never will do) for falsely prophetying of the state of the Church; Or else we must deny, that these times of the new Testament, are the times of Grace; & that the Church erected by Christ and his Apostles (as wanting the accomplishment of the foresaid predictions) is the true Church? which later point, I hold to be more probable.  NEUSERUS. 
You have prevented me [Ochinus] in time of speaking, but not in judgement. For to confess the truth, after I had observed the weakness of the Instances alleged (though alleged by the Doctor, with as much Scholarlike Art, and advantage, as might be) my hover thoughts transported my judgement to this your Centre. Which though it be environed with difficultyes, yet I hold it the more safe way with you (since the one must necessarily be rejected as false and erroneous, they so diametrically crossing one the other) to retain our former reverence to the old Testament, and absolutely to abandon and disclaim from the New. And therefore, let us return back to Michaeas and the Doctor, to acquaint them, with this our final resolution.  OCHINUS. 
Michaeas', and M. Doctor. Myself and Neuserus have in the secrets of our souls, passed our impartial censures upon this our Conference. And we both acknowledge the full weight of Michaeas his reasons, in disprovall of your instances & of our own former evading answers: And our Conclusion is, that we both assure ourselves, that the Protestant Church had never any visible existence, for these many last several ages, at the least: And in deed (I confess) when I do 
u So saith Ochinus in praefat. suorum Dialogorum.  consider, how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness, had established and founded his Church, washed it with his blood, and enriched it with his spirit; and discerning how the same is (funditus aversa) utterly overthrown, I cannot but wonder; and being desirous to know the cause, I find, there have been Popes, who have prevailed in utter extirpation and overthrow of Christ his Church. Here you have my ceusure, accompanied with the true Reason thereof.  NEUSERUS. 
I do fully conspire in judgement with Ochinus, moved thereto through the strength and validity of Michaeas his Arguments. And yet I hope, this is no blemish either to you (M. Doctor who have most learnedly handled this point) nor to ourselves, but only to the weakness of our cause: for there are some untruths so palpable and iniustifiable, (and among them, rang the supposed visibility of our own Church (that neither learning, Art, or the bestfiled words (which commonly 〈◊〉 the ear of credulity) are able to set a good gain upon them. Therefore [Michaeas] to be snort, in beleiung that the Protestant Church for many centuryes hath been wholly invisible, Ochinus and myself are wholly yours.  MICHAEAS'. 
I much rejoice thereat, and I hope (notwithstanding both your former acerbity of speeches) that now upon your second and more serious renew of this point the acknowledgement of this one Truth willbe a good disposition, for your further encertaynment of the Catholic faith: since a dislike of the Protestant Church implieth in itself, a favourable respect to the Catholic Church; which Church hath ever been hovored with a perpetual visibility.  OCHINUS. 
Stay [Michaeas] Not so. You are over hasty; your praen is as yet not gotten; and your credulous expectation overrun your judgement Know you therefore; first, that touching your Church (at the stern whereof that Romish Antichrist doth sit) we hold it not (as above we protested) to be the Church of God; And than it mat●reth nothing with us, whether your said Antichristian Church have ever since it first being, been visible, or no For though we teach, that the true Church must ever be visible; yet we teach not convertibly, that what Church hath ever been visible, the same is the true Church, Furthermore Michaeas and M. Doctor, take both you notize, that the confessed want of a continual visibility, and of the administration of the word and Sacraments, ministereth to us a great suspicion, whether the Church of Christ, be that Church of God, which is so much celebrated by the Prophets of the Old Testament; and consequently whether Christ be the true Messias of the World. For if he had so been, doubtlessly he would not so quickly have repudiated his intemerate and chaste spouse (for so the true Church of God is) after his departure from hence.  NEUSERUS. 
What Ochinus●ath ●ath delivered (though perhaps with amazement to you both) I do here justify. And as it is evident, that the former Prophecies have not been actually performed in Christ his Church: So we must needs rest doubtful (at the least) through want of the performance of the said Predictions, whether Christ be that Redeemer of the World, which was promised to the Fathers of the old Law; And whether he had true authority to erect this Church, of which he hath made himself Head ●or certainly the ancient Predictions delivered in a prophetical spirit, touching the Messias and his Church, are infallibly to be performed in the Messias & his Church.  MICHAEAS'. 
How now my Masters? Is this the fruit of my refelling your Church's Visibility? Tends your approbation of my former discourse to this? Whether aim these strange and fearful speeches of yours? Will you disclaim from Christ as your Redeemer, because the Prophecies of the old Testament touching the expansion, latitude, and continual visibility of the Church of God, are not performed in the Protestant Church? And will you not confess the said predictions to be fulfilled at all, because they are not fulfilled by that way and means, as your selves would have them? Take heed; do not obliterate and deface those fair impressions, charactered in your souls, at your Baptism; neither now disavows your (then taken) first now. O merciful God; how ignorant are you in these matters? And then more miserably ignorant, it that partly through learning you are become ignorant. Do you think to honour the Father, by dishonouring the Son; even that Son, in whom the Father took such ineffable contentment? 
x Math. 3.  Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui. Certain it is, that if you persever in judgement, as your words import, you deny him for your Saviour, who had a Father without a Mother; a Mother without a Father: The first argued his Divinity; the second his immaculate and pure Nativity. 
* Tertul 〈◊〉 gentes.  Quod de Deo profectum est, 〈…〉 eus est, & Dei Filius & Vnus Ambo. You deny him, whose body was framed of such an admirable and delicate constitution and temperature, as that the earth did then (contrary to it accustomed manner) even power it influence upon Heavens; To be shor●, you deny him, who gave 
y 1. Timoth. 2.  himself 〈◊〉 Redemption for all, who tasted 
z Hebr. 2.  death for all; who 
a joan. 1.  took away the sins of the World; and finally who was Saviour 
b joan. 4.  of the world, and reconciliation 
c 1. joan. 2.  for our sins: In the time of whose Passion, death did even ●eui●e, and Eclipse did enlighten: Lux 
d joan. 1.  in tenebris lucet, & tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. But why labour I, to celebrate his birth, who is from all eternity, or to perform his exequys, who cannot dye; 
e Rom. 6.  Mors illi ultrà non dominabitur. And by you assured, that who contemn Christ, the Redeemer of all flesh, must needs contemn God, the Author of all flesh.  
And where you call the Pope: that Romish Antichrist; see how malice seeleth up the eye of your judgement you maintain (is seems) that the true Christ and Messias is not yet come; How can the Pope then (by your doctrine) be Antichrist; since Antichrist (you know) is to come after (not before) the true Christ? Again for proof, that the Pope is Antichrist, you (no doubt) will make show to rest upon the wrested authority of the New 
* 2. Thess. 3. Apoc. 17  Testament: And shall not then the said New Testament be of the like authority with you, to prove, that Christ is the true Messias?  OCHINUS. 
Tush (Michaeas) This is but your oratory. We say the Prophecies of the old Testament (of which we have set down so great store) are infallibly to be performed; We find they are not performed in Christ Church: How then can we believe in Christ, as our true Messias and Redemer, or rep●te his Church, for the true Church of God? And where you (Michaeas) reply, that the said Prophecies are accomplished in your Popish Church, that forceth nothing: since we are assured, that that your Church is a superstitious and idolatrous Church, and wholly alienated from the Covenant of God. Therefore briefly touching myself, I openly say, I do expect an other 
f That Ochinus upon the not performance of the Prophecies of the old testament in the Church of Christ, denied the Trinity, taught Circumcision, and became an absolute Apostata, is witnessed by Zanchius (the Protestant) in his book de tribus elohim, printed, 1594. l 5. c. 9 As also by Conradus Slussenb. (a Protestant) in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 1. fol. 9 The title of which chapter in Sluffenberg. is: respontio ad Ochini blasphemiam. And lastly, the same is averred by Beza, in Polygam pag. 4.  Messias, an other Redeemer: And I do not acknowledge your Christ to be the second Person of the Trinity: And therefore I do hold, that the Old Law being in force, Circumcision is to beretayned.  NEWSERUS. 
Michaeas', the stream of the times ought not to bear down the Truth. Therefore seeing in the Church of Christ, the Predictions of the Prophetts (above by Ochinus and myself fully alleged) touching the enlargement, the uninterupted Visibility, and the incessant administration of the Word and Sacraments are not performed: I here pronounce, that 
g That Neuserus through the want of the performance of the foresaid Prophecies, denied our saviour Christ, reputed him a seducer, turned Turk, and was circumcised at Constantinople, is witnessed by Osiander (the Protestant) Cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 818. in these words: Adam Neuserus, Pastor Heidelbergensis etc. prolapsus est in Turcismum, & Consiantinopole circumcisus. As also by Conradu Slussenberg. in Theolog. Calvin. lib. 1. art. 2. fol. 9 in these words: Adam Neuserus olim Heidelbergensis Ecclesia primarius Pastor, ex Zwinglianis●● per Arianismum ad Mahometismum, progressus est.  Christ was not the true Messias, but aseducer; and that his Church is not the Church of God. And more particulary for myself (as continuing for ever in this my sentence) I am resolved to go to Constantinople: and there (as now believing in the law of Moses) I willbe circumcised. Therefore (Micheas) content yourself, and forbear all further vehemency of speech against us: in●o which afore you did begin to enter; but show in you● words greater temperanee and Patience.  MICHAEAS'. 
Patience Peace Prodigious men. It is hear a Virtue, to transgress all bonds of Patience; and but stupidity▪ not to be angry. You Miscreants, unworthy to breath, since you deny him, through whom you breathe; and unwothy to enjoy a being, since you reject him, who gave you your Being presumptuous Clay, that d●●est thus contest with thy maker. Think you my Words shallbe slow, in defence of him, who is the Word: 
h joan. 1.  〈◊〉 Verbum care factum est, & habitant in nobis? No. I must speak. I will speak. Never (never) shall my ears be guilty of my redeemers blasphemies, but that my Tonge to it uttermost power shall reply (and in this fervour keep me, sweet jesus, to my last gasp) And I willbe ready to trumpet ●orth t●e disgrace and ignominy of you both, throughout all Christendum Call you your former Religion: The light of the Gospel, which finally tendeth to put out the Light itself? erat lux 
i joan. 1.  vera, quae illuminat ●mnem hominem. O that I had one of the coals of the holy alter of God, to sear your blafphemous tongues, as the 
k Esay. 6.  Seraphin by taking one of the coals thereof, did purify the lips of the Prophet Esay▪ o impiety of times, in which such Munster's are bred; worthy for fear of infecting others, to be eliminated out of the Society of Men, and to be relegated unto some desert or Wilderness; there to converse with Beasts since in savadgnes of Nature you exceed beasts▪ you Batteyd Infidels, that cannot endure the light of the Sun, 
* Malac●. cap. 4.  orietur Sol justitiae: under what name do you expect Salvation; Since 
l Act. 4.  there is not any other name under heaven, given unto Men (than tha● of jesus) wherein we must be saved? Cannot the Prophecies of the Old Testament (upon which in other points, you seem so much to rely) touching so many particularities of our Saviour's Birth, Life, Passion, and Resurrection (the due consideration 
m See hereof the first part of the Cō●erted ●ew at the beginning.  of all which, I acknowledge, first made me a Christian▪) prevail with you, to confess him for your Redeemer? Since all those particulars were to be performed only in the true Messias▪ and all of them have been actually performed in him, whom now you refuse. The patration of infinite stupendious Miracles, exhibited not only by jesus himself, but by his Apostles and servants, may be able (I should think being truly weighed) to wash out this blot of your Infidelity, and to ●yle away the rust of this your misbelief. o England, blushest not thou, that after thy casting of thy primative faith, Ocb●nus was the Apostle, by whose means and labour thou first did such Protestancy? Is this he, whose presence 
n Bale in prefat. act. Rome pontific. printed 1558. initio.  in those day's is said to make thee happy; and whose absence unfortunate; and 
* Calvin. l. descandalis, (extant) in tract. Theolog. printed, 1597▪ pag. 111▪ ut supra dicitur.  whom all Italy could not equal? See (to thy dishonour, and his perdition) what he is become: A jew, a Turk, an Aposta●a, forsaking Christ and all Christianity and teaching Circumcition and polygamy or plurali●ye of wife's; a doctrine, where Sensuality diminisheth the pleasure of sense. And thou He●delberg (at this present honoured, by having trans-planted in thee, so fair a Rose ou● of the English garden) Behold here once thy chief Pastor Neuserus (and now confessedly a chief instrument of the devil) from whom, as from one (by supposal) peculiarly illuminated by the Lord, thou hearetofor● dist receive thy spiritual nurrishment; Who●e Superintendency (forsooth) is not afraid in the ●●d, openly to blaspheme against the Saviour of the World, and to turn Turk; and who having an uncircumcized hart, will needs carry about with him a circumcised body. And Celebrious Oxford (the goodliest skryne of the Muses, under the Sun) how canst thou brook, that such impure Imps, as these, should breathe thy pure air? Or can thy worthy and noble Sons (eminently endued with all good lettars) endure the sight of these Infidels? Hadst thou afore been persuaded, that these two Monsters (whose very Souls and body's Man's ghostly Enemy seems of late to organize) would have fallen into these blasphemies, no doubt thou wouldst etc.  D. REYNOLDS. 
Stay [Michaeas] Proceed no further. You have spoken enough. And I much commend your Christian fervour herein: And I confess, it gaulingly upbraids me, to see any of my own Religion, thus to apostatate from the faith of Christ. And it is no small grief, that this disputation first intended, to make one Papist a good Protestant, hath in lieu thereof made two Protestants, two jews or Turks. But yet [Michaeas] let not the severity of your Censure pace further, than the fault extendeth. It is only Ochinus and Neuserus (and two, though too many, in reference to several thousands, is scare reputed a number) who thus sin. Let not then the Gospel itself, or any other Professors of it, be insimulated by you within this atrocity and Crime. And you O●hinus and Neuserus. o soil not your selves with this so foul an imputation. But seeing Wisdom only judgeth of Wisdom, and learning of learning; so let your learning and Wisdom equally run together, to acknowledge him for your Redeemer, who is the source of all Wisdom, learning and knowledge: de 
o 2. Io. an. 2.  plenitudin● eius omnes accepimus. your Sin is most heinous and dreadful; yet being attended hereafter with a true remorse and repentance, is remissible; and for your comforts remember that Paul the Apostle (who once persecuted him, whom you now deny) did expiate the sins of Saul the Publican.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor you do well, and like a Christian Doctor, to endeavour to recall home these two wretches. Yet touching the paucity of Protestanticall Apostates by you pretended; it seem●s, your Memory wrongs your Reading. For it is a vast untruth to affirm, that only Ochinus and Neuserus have revolted to Turkism and Iuda●sme. For did not David George (a chief Protestant, and once Professor) 
p Osiander cent. 16. part. 2. pag. 647. saith, of David George: Vtebatur publico Vir Dei ministerio Basi●ien●i etc.  at Basil) become a blasphemous Apostata? who affirming our Saviour to be a seducer, and grounding himself (with Ochinus & N●user●s) upon the not accomplishment of the Prophecies of the Church's visibility, in the Protestant Church, thus writeth: 
q See historia Davidis Georgij printed at Antwerp. 1568 published be the divines of Basil.  Si Christi & Ap●stolor●an doctrina vera & perfecta fuisset etc. If the doctrine of Chr●st and his Apostles had been true a●d perfect, the Church, which they had planted, should have continued etc. But now it is manifest, that Antichrisi hath subverted the doctrine of the Apostles, and the Church by them begun &c. therefore the doctrine of the Apostles was false and imperfect. Thus that impious jew▪ And was not Alamannus, a Swinglian, and once most 
r Conradus Slussenberg▪ in Theolog. Calvin. l 1. art. 2. f. 9 Alemanus Bezae antea fami●iarissim●s & ●irenuus Caluinista, R●ligioni Christianae longum valde dixi● & factus est Apostata & judaeus blasphemus  familiar with Beza? who, persuading himself, that the prophecies touching the continual visibility of the Church, were not performed in Christ his Church, because he saw they were not performed in the Protestant Church, did thereupon renounce Christianity and became a blasphemious jew: a point so evident, that Beza himself (notwithstanding their former inwardness and friendship) thus writeth of him: 
s S● writeth Beza in epist. 65. p. 308.  Alamanum affirmant ad ●uda●smum d●fecisse. Did not Georgius Paulus 
t Stancurus de mediatore fol. 38.  (minister of Cracovia) deny the Trinity with the Turks? In like sort Conefius, and Laelius Socinus (a scholar in the school of Geneva (who writ whole books against the B. Tri●ity) upon the former grounds forsook the Christian faith. And this Socinus (as Beza 
u Epist. Theol. 81.  witnesseth) so at the first corrupted the first chapter of S. ●ohn his Gospel (which speaketh so plain●ly of Christ) as that, Beza saith of him: mih● quidem videtur omnes corrup●ores longè superasse. In like sort Andreas V●lanus 
x In Pa●aenesi.  (a great Caluinis●) not only became in the end a Turk, but infected many others with his writings, against the Ble●s●ed Trinity and Christian faith. But if you have a desire to r●ede of more Protestants, who became Turks and jews, as presuming, that the former Prophecies were not performed in the Church of God, I refer you to a book, to which I think you are no stranger; I mean to that most elaborate and mother-booke (for it hath given birth to diverse others) written by your own brother, M. William Reynolds, and called Caluino 
y Lib 1. c● 19 l 3. c. 3. & 8. and in diverse other places thereof.  Turcismus. You may also to the same end, perusen Conradus 
z Lib 1. de Theol. Calvin. a●t. 2. c. 9  Slussenberg and Osiander 
a Cent. 16. p. 207. 208. 209.  (both Protestants) where I presume, your stomach willbe soon gluted, with the displeasing gust of diverse others there related.  
And now in the through of these examples, my thoughts are carried to Sebastian Castalio (once Professor at Basill) And one highly extolled by your own D. Humphrey 
b Lib. de ratione interpretandi 〈◊〉. 1 p. 62. 63. And Osiander in Cent. 16. who saith: Sebastianus Castaleo vir asprimè doctus &c & dinguarum perit●ssimus  and others. This Castalio, though he went not so fare as by open breach and Apostasy to leave the faith of Christ; yet in regard that the former predictions touching the spreading of Christ's Church; and the ever uneclipsed conspituity of it, were not (in his judgement) performed in Christ Church, he writeth very perplexedly hereof, to King Edward the sixth in this Manner: Equidem 
c In the Preface of the great Latin Bible, dedicated to King Edward the sixth.  aut h●c futura f 〈…〉 endum est &c. Truly it is to be confessed, that these predictions are either to be performed hereafter; or have been already; or that otherwise God is to be accused of lying. If it be said, they have been already accomplished. I ask of him, When? If he answer in the Apostles days; I demand then, how it happeneth, that neither then the knowledge of God was wholly perfect, and why it so soon vanished away; which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant, than the floudds of the Sea? And then without saluing this his difficulty, he finally thus dowbtfully concludeth: Quo magis libros sacros considero, eo minus hactenus praestitum video, utcumque oracula illa intelligas: The more ●peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same performed, howsoever you understand the said Prophecies. See with what a fearful and wavering trepitation of judgement, this learned Caluinist writeth of this point; through his false supposal, that the catholic Church is not the Church of God; but cheiffly through his true acknowledgement, that the former Prophecies were not performed in the Protestant Church. And thus far of these Examples. But if you will have a censure, whether any Protestants (or rather Caluinists) turn Arians or no (who as denying the most Blessed Trinity, are little better, than Turks or jews) I will give it in this Neuserus his own words (and if I wrong him herein, let him now before you charge me.) who thus hath left written: None 
d Oslander in epitome. cent. 16. p. 209. reporteth, that Neuserus being turned Turk, and circumcised at Constantinople, did write these words to one D. Gerlachius (a Protestant Preacher, at Tubinga) from Constantinople.  is known in our time to be made an Arian, who was not a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alchianus, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Silvanus and others; therefore who feareth to fall into Arianism, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus you Neuserus: so certain it is that Arianism, Turkism, and judaism, are the last sublimations of Caluinisme.  
Well M. Doctor. I am cloyed with the society of this discourse, and can hardly endure any longer with patience, the sight of these two Wretches, belcking forth such horrible poison; And therefore I will now leave you, and perhaps instantly after (upon some urgent occasions) leave England. I could have wished, that this our Dispute had made a deeper impression in you, than I fear it hath, for your incorporating into the Catholic Church: Never the less, I will pray to God, that before your dissolution, you may be more solicitous and careful in this so great a matter, which concerns your Souls happiness or infelicity for all eternity. Touching myself, I do ingeniously protest, that now by means of this discourse, I seeing the weakness of all that, which may be urged by the learnedest Protestant's, in defence of this Church's visibility, am become hereby more settled and strenghtned in the Catholic faith and Religion, than afore I was; if more I can be. But now before I end, I cannot but put you in mind [M. Doctor] how foully you were overtaken in your defence 
e D. Reynolds in his censura librorum Apocryphorum. tom. alter, in the table of Contents set before, there at the numbers 161. 175. & 176. defendeth against Bellarm. Ochinus his book written against the Mass.  of this impious Ochinus, for his writing against the sacrifice of the Mass: where you may well see, that to deny the sacrifice, which was first instituted by our Saviour, is a fitting preparation towards the after denial of our Saviour himself.  D. REYNOLDS. 
I must confess [Michaeas] that notwithstanding whatsoehath been said in this discourse, I still remain a member of the Protestant Church; assuring myself, it is the true Church of Christ. Touching my defence of Ochinus his writing, I did it out of my conscience; and my conscience (I trust) will warrant it, at the last day. For your present departure, I am aggrieved, we shall loss you so soon; Only I would entreat you, to have in your discourses (wheresoever, you shall hereafter come) a tender and gentle touch of the Protestant Church, & of all the true and constant members thereof. And herewith [Worthy, Michaeas;] I take my last farewell.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Doctor of yourself I will ever speak, answerably to your deserts; Nobly, and with great respect: Since you are a Man, whose bark is richly fraught, with learning & Morality. And what defects have been committed by you in this dispute, I do wholly ascribe them, to your want of a good cause, not to your want of good parts. And if there have been any words misplaced by, us on either side, s●t the thought of them vanish away: since they were spoken Antagonistice●, and in hea●e of disputation; And so in all kindness & Christian charity, I leave you, with this my advice that you will not adventure your salvation upon your own private conscience preferring it before the judgement and conscience of the universal visible Catholic Church: As for you two (fagotts of Hell-fire) I grant my eyes even sparkle forth●r●ge in beholding of you; And I account (contrary to the place of the burning 
f Exod. 3.  bush) the place, wherein you stand, to be cursed ground. ●or since your Sun is so f●rie of you (I mean, your excepted false Messias) what can you look, but for a winter of could despair and damnation? Therefore I will take leave with you, in the phrase of the Apostle to Elymas, the Magician (and what greater Magic, then for one to be enchanted to believe, that Christ is a seducer?) O 
* Acts. c. 23.  you full of all subtlety and mischief, the Sons of the Devil, enemies of all justice, who cease not to pervert the right ways of our Lord: Adieu.  OCHINUS. 
You enjoy [Michaeas] the liberty of your Tongue; but ●age you well.  NEUSERUS. 
Let him go: I will nor take leave with him: such opprobrious speeches he useth against us.  OCHINUS. 
Now [M. Doctor] Michaeas is gone; And now we have the more freedom of speech among ourselves, without fear of being overheard. I know, that not only yonder black-mouthd Michaeas, but yourself also, rest much disedisyed at our abrenunciation of Christianity. But [M. Doctor] come to the point. We see the Prophecies of the old Testament (which must ever remain sacred, permanent, and 〈…〉 violable) do show that the Church of God in the days of the Messias, must ever be visible, known, and conspicuous, and must in all ages without any intermission, enjoy a public and external administration of the Word and Sacraments: And this is abundantly confessed, not only by us all in the front of this our disputation, but by all learned men whosoever. We now (notwithstanding such necessity thereof) cannot but confess, that the accomplishment of the said Prophecies hath not been effected in the Church of Christ, at le●st in the Protestant Church: how then can the Church of Christ be that true Church of the Messias, which is so gloriously deliuea●ed with the penalls of the Prophets? Now what other resultancy can be out of the premises, then that the Church of Christ (as wanting the fulfilling of the former divine Oracles) is not the true Church of God; and consequently, that Christ is the true Messias & Saviour of the World? except we will grant (which I never will) the Papists Church (as having by relation of Michaeas' the Prophecies performed in it) to be the sole Church of God. Therefore so far, as toucheth myself, I do renounce my former Christian faith, and will embrace the ancient Law of Moses; and as intending to be serviceable to that Religion, I will teach the doctrine of Circumcision, and will instantly write a 
g Beza 〈◊〉. de Polygamia printed 1527. p. 4. saith of this point: Pelygamiam nemo unqua 〈…〉 callidius vel impu●enti●s defendit, quam impurus ille Apostata Ochinus i● quibusdam D 〈…〉  book of the lawfulness of Polygamy or plurality of wives; anciently practised by the ●ewes in the old Testament; though now by Christians holden, as unlawful and altogether pro●●ibited.  NEUSERUS. 
By the Lord of Heaven, I cannot see how this difficulty can otherwise be salved, then either by denying the Gospel of the New Testament; or by granting the Church of Rome to be the true Church, which my Soul abhors to do. For as concerning the perpetual Visibility of the Protestant Church, It cannot be made good, notwistanding our great ventitation thereof afore in our Words: And therefore it were honesty in us now in the end to pull of our Vizards (through which we spoke to Michaeas) and plainly confese the truth herein.  
And here [M. D.] to take a short view of all the discourse passed, and to examine it impartially a 'mong ourselves; We cannot but observe, that the Exemples produced by you, were most insufficient; first, because they were no Protestants at all: Secondly, in that admitting them for Protestants, they but only serve (as Michaeas well noted) to justify the Visibility of Protestants only for those times; neither you nor we being able to produce but only for for me sake, any one confessed Example of Protestancy, for the space of six hundred years at the least. Again, when Ochinus and myself perceived, that no true instances of Protestancy could be given; I grant we used diverse evasions and inflexious to and fro; and all for the saving of our Church's honour. As first, to pretend (though God knows, a silly pretence) that all Relations and testimonies of Protestants in former ages were by the Pope's industry and tyranny, utterly extinct. That failing, than we made show (for in our private judgements, we could not really think it) That the Protestants in former times were forced to lie secret and latent, in regard of the supposed then raging Persecution. That plain answer not serving, than we thought good to involve and roll our said evasion touching Persecution, in a certain obscure and dark sentence: to wit, That the Church was in the Papacy; the Papacy in the Church, and yet the Church was not the Papacy: a form of words (as Mich●as truly ●●id forged by us Protestants, only to cast a ●yst in the eyes of the unlearned. The next we fled (for our surest, but indeed shame full refuge) unto the Scripture, pretending our Church to be consonant to it, and therefore ever visible; a course which indifferently lieth open to every heretic. After all which (if you remember M. D.) yourself did politikly touch upon that opinion (though not with any great approbation of it) which, for saving our Church from it utter ruin, teacheth, that the Papists Church and Ours are all one. But did you mark, how Michaeas never ceased, till he had ferretted us out of all our former Connyhoales; be in the end irrephably and choakingly proving, from our own learned men's penns, the main question now controverted among us? Now [M. D.] seeing I am irrefragably resolved not to admit the Papists Church for the true Church (though perhaps it hath enjoyed the fulfilling of the forementioned Prophecies) I do therefore conspire in judgement herein with Ochinus, and am determined to have this Country; from whence I will retire myself into the Palatinate; 
h Adamus Neuserus Conc 〈…〉 natores in●● Palatinat fiad suam 〈◊〉 dem perd▪ xi●, & con ●tacta cum Sacerdotibus in Tur c●a amicitia, & datil atque acceptis ultro citroque literis, Mahometanam religionem in Germania propagare 〈◊〉ter conat 〈…〉 est. In Colloquio privato inter Catholicum Pastorem & Baduini Ministrum Coloniae. Anno. 1591. p. 5●●.  where I will draw the preachers to embrace my doctrine; will procure private correspondency with some Turkish Pryests; will labour with all diligence to spread the Turkish Religion in Germany; and finally will go to Constantinople, and there I willbe Circumcised.  D. REYNOLDS. 
O God unto what miserable and strange times hast thou reserved me, to see Christ thus abandoned by Christians, and embraced by jews? And what horrid and dreadful resolutions are these coming from our own bosom adversaries? Alas, Ochinus and Neuserus, think what schandall it willbe to the Gospel, when it shallbe truly rumoured, that such men (as your selves) are Enemies of the Gospel. And what will many grave Protestants (and particulary the most learned Beza) speak of you, for this your most infamous revolt? sweet jesus, that ●ewes and Heathens should find light in darkness, and Christians darkness in light! You both say you will not acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the true Church of God. Be it so. Yet are the Professors of it, Christians. And will you therefore abandon Christ jesus, out of your malignity to them? o no. A bad Christian is better, than no Christian; as a dime sight is better, then to be stone blind. You demand, how can the Church of Christ be the true Church, when the Predictions of the Prophetts touching it, are not performed in it? Who knoweth, they are not performed in it? If you ask by whom, were they performed? Where? and at what times? Remember that these are but Circumstances of the business; and it is a received Axiom, that: Aliquando constat dear, quando non constat de modorei. And how all these things may be reconciled, is a Mystery sealed up (perhaps) by God from our knowledge, for our greater Humility. But to come to an end. Seeing you both are so obstinately headlong (as if you were weary or ashamed of the Christian faith) to embrace judaism; I cannot but say, that I do much prefer Michaeas, before you both (for a jew being made a Christian, is much more noble, than a Christian, who intend to be a jew) and I do from henceforth forbid all inteecourses, and as sotiation with you. Therefore fare you well, Both; only for this foul misnap of yours, I can but evaporate my grief out into sights, and weep; because in neither of you, I can see tears of remorse.  OCHINUS. 
We thank you [M. D.] for your friendly admonitions, though they have no working influence over us. And where you urge, that protestāns will speak foully of this my change: I answer, let any of them, or Beza himself (in whom you peculiarly insist) shower down reproaches upon me; as that, I am a 
i Beza in epist. 1. p. 11. calleth Ochinus, Arianorum ●●a●d●s●●nus sautor, Polig●niae 〈◊〉 omniam Christianae religionis dogmatum irrisor.  secret favourer of the Arians; that I am a defendor of Polygamy; that I am a derider of all articles of Christian Religion; Yea let him plainly and bluntly style me; an impure 
k Beza de polyga●ia, p 4. calleth Ochinus impurus Apostata, as above is showed in the margen●.  Apostata; All this sweighs nothing with me; for I do glory to suffer opprobry and disgrace, in defence of the ancient jewish Religion. But come Neuserus; let us begun. And thus [M. D.] I leave you, and commit you to the tuition of the Highest.  NEUSERUS. 
Farewell, good M. Doctor, and the Lord of Heaven illuminate the eyes of all those, who remain yet blinded.  D. REYNOLDS. 
gentlemen, once more I leave you to God: Who at his pleasure, is able to mollify, the most stony ha●t.  
FINIS.  
GOD SAVE THE KING.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
HEAR now (Worthy Academics) is my pen come to it full stop, and our seconde Dialogue to it last Period: Where you have seen the true and unfeigned down fall of the two former Protestants, Ochinus and Neuserus: and the stumbling block, occasioning this their miserable precipitation. If any of you do reap profit hereby (and I hope you may, if you vouchsafe to peruse it with Ind●sterency) o how fully then is my labour recompensed? As for those, who out of an affected morosity, do detractively prejudge of our labours in this kind: and through their own inveterate aversion to the Catholic faith, do betrample with all scorn and indignation our best endeavours (though I hope, few or no such spydars do breed in your Colleges) I prize not their Censures; only I do, and still will pray incessantly to God, to give them more supple and docible hearts; with whom we may perhaps truly expostulate in the Psalmists phraza: Filij 
a Psal. 4.  hominum, usque quo grant cord?  
Peruse (learned Men) the authorityes and reasons here above alleged; and divide in your judgements, what is here feigned by way of interlocution from that, in which I really and forcebly insist; and then make in the secrets of your souls, a reflection upon your own Religion. And that you may more warrantably proceed therein I will here prove (though but briefly) the visibility of our catholic Church, during all those ages, in which your Protestant Church is above acknowledged to lie latent, or rather not to be at all: a point (if you remember) of which Michaeas promised to leave behind him, some proofs.  
1. This than I prove several ways. And first, from the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, during all former ages till Luther's insurrection (if so we take Luther for a Protestant) For seeing ever since the Apostles days, there hath been a visible Church of Christ in the World (as all Ecclesiastical Histories, Chronicles, and Antiquityes do irrefragably convince) And seeing that by the Confessions of all sides, there hath been no other Church of Christians visibly in being all these times, but either the catholic Church or the Protestant Church (For as for the Arians, and other Heretycks, they continued only for certain ages) And last, seeing it is acknowledged above by so many learned Protestants, and otherwise also proved by many unanswerable arguments, that the Protestant Church hath not been visible for so many ages till Luther's appearing: Therefore it inavoidably followeth, that the catholic Church is that Church, which hath ever been visible and known to the World during all that long space of time: And the rather, seeing the learned Protestants confese (as above is showed) that all the former Inuisibility of the Protestant Church was wrought by the labour, power, & diligence of the Catholic Roman Church now how could the Roman Church effect so much for so long a time, except itself during all that time, were most visible?  
2. Secondly, I prove the same point from the acknowledged succession of Pastors in our catholic Church, ever since the Apostles. Which ever visible succession of Pastors necessarily includeth in itself the ever visibility of the catholic Church: those visible Pastors being the visible and most eminent members of the said Church; and preaching and instructing others: who even in this respect must become also visible and known.  
Now that the Catholic Roman Church hath ever enjoyed this visible sucession of Pastors, is confirmed from the writings of the Centurists in their several Centuryes: their relating of which point being a Principal part and subject of that their so much commended Work; A matter so evident and confessed by our adversary's, as that D. Fulke thus exprobrateth the Catholics in these words: You can 
b D. Fulke in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic. p. 27. and in his Rejoinder to bristol Reply. p. 343.  name the notable personages in all ages (observe these words: in all ages) and their government and ministry and especially the succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order, and upon your fingers. Thus D. Fulke.  
3. Thirdly, We prove the former assertion of our Catholic Church its Visibility, during the first six hundred years after Christ (and consequently during the whole period of the Primative Church) by taking a view in general, how the chief ancient Fathers of those times are pryzed and entertained by the Protestants; who indeed (dispensing with all Ceremonies herein) do absolutely reject them, as inexcusable and gross Papists. For as for these last thousand years; It is acknowledged by all Protestant whosoever; that our Church hath been most visible, tyrannyzing (they say) over the true Church, for so many ages. And according hereto M powel 
c In his considerations of the Papists reasons p. 105.  saith: From the year of Christ six hundred and five, the professed company of Popery hath been very visible and conspicuous.  
But to proceed. If the most ancient & most reverend Fathers of the Primative Church, (I mean, Ignatius, Dionysius Areopagita, justinus, Ireneus, Tertul●an, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hilarius, the Cyrils, the Gregoryes. Ambrose, Basill, Optatus, Gaudentius chrysostom, Jerome, Austin, and diverse others) be accounted by our adversary's, most earnest Professors of our Catholic and Roman faith; then followeth it inevitably, that our Catholic Church was most conspicuous in those days: since those Fathers were then the visible Pastors of the Church; and then consequently the Church (whereof they were Pastors) must needs be visible.  
That these primative Fathers were Papists (as our Adversaries term us) appeareth evidently out of these few confessions here following; which for brevity I have discerped out of the great store of like acknowledgements of this point occurring in our adversary's books.  
And first, Peter Martyr 
d Lib. de votis, pag. 476.  thus confesseth of this point: As long as we insist in the Fathers, so long we shallbe conversant in their errors. Beza thus insulteth over the Fathers: Even 
e In his preface upon the New Testament, dedicated to the Prince of Condy.  in the best times (meaning the times of the Primative Church) the ambition, ignorance and lewdness of the bishops was such, as the very blind may easily perceive, that Satan was precedent in their Assemblies or Conncells.  
D. Whitguift thus conspireth with his former Brethren: How 
f In his defence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 472. 473.  greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church & Latin also, for the most part spotted with doctrines of freewill, of merit, of Innocation of Saints, and such like? meaning such like Catholic doctrines.  
Melancthon is no less sparing in taxing the Fathers, who thus confesseth: 
g Melancthon in 1. Cor c. 3.  Presently from the beginning of the Church (that is, presently after Christ his Ascension) the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, increased ceremonies, and devised peculiar Worship's. But Luther himself shall end this Scene, who most securiously traduceth the Fathers in these words: The Fathers 
h Tom. 2. Wittenberg. anno 2551. de ●eruo arbitrio. pag. ●34.  for so many ages (meaning after the Apostles) have been blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures: They have erred all their lifetyme; and unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. Thus Luther; And thus much touching the Fathers of the Primative Church, being professors of our present Catholic Faith and Church; and consequently, that our Catholic Church was most visible and flourishing in those primative times.  
4. Fourthly, The former inexpug 〈…〉 verity is proved, from that, the Church of Rome never suffered change in faith, since it first plantation by the Apostles. Now if the Church of Rome never suffered chauge in Religion; & if it hath ever continued a Church since the Apostles days; and lastly if at this day it professeth our present Catholic faith; then followeth it demonstratively, that there were visible Professors of our Catholic faith in the Church of Rome, ever since the Apostles: and consequently, that our Catholic Church hath ever been visible since those times. To prove, that the Church of Rome never brooked change of faith since the Apostles days, I refer you to the first former Dialogue of the Converted jew.  
5. Fiftly and lastly, our foresaid Assertion is acknowledged for true & undoubred, even from the penns of our learned Adversary, who most frequently in their writings do intimate so much. And here I am to crave pardon, if I iterate some few testimonies and acknowledgements of Protestants, above produced in this Dialogue; Which as they there did prove an invisibility of the Protestant Church in those former Ages; so here also diverse of them prove (so nearly do these two points interueyve the one the other) a continual visibility of our Catholic Church, during the said times.  
To come then to these confessions of the Protestants in this point, touching the ever visibility of the Catholic Church; I will ascend up by degrees even to (and within) the Apostles days: And this, because some Protestants (as less ingenuous and upright in their writings (do afford to our Catholic Church a shorter time or Period of visibility, than others of their more learned and wellmeaning Brethren are content to allow.  
First then M Parkins thus saith: 
i In his exposition of the Creed. p. 307.  During the space of nine hundred years, the Popish Heresy hath spreed itself over the whole earth. This point is further made clear from the Penns of the Centurists and Osiander; all which do in every of the Centuryes (from S. Gregory's time to Luther) name and record all the Pope's 〈◊〉 chief Catholic Bishops, and diverse others professing our Catholic faith, according to the Century or age, wherein eich of them lived.  
But to ascend higher M. Nappier confesseth of a longer time, thus saying: 
k Upon the Revelations, 〈◊〉 43.  The Pope's Kingdom hath had power over all Christians from the times of Pope S●luester and the Emperor Constantyn, for these thousand two hundred and sixty years. And also again: 
l M. Napper, ubi supra. p. 68  from the time of Constantyn until these our days, even one thousand two hundred and sixty years, the Pope and the Clergy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians  
But M. Napper in an other place dealeth more bountifully with us herein; for thus he witnesseth: During 
m Vbi supra p. 191.  even the second and third ages, the true temple of God and light of the Gospel, was obscured by the Roman Antichrist.  
Sebastianus Francus alloweth the Visibility of our Church from the time immediately after the Apostles; thus writing: Presently 
n In epist. de abrog. in universum omnibus statut. Ecclesiast.  after the Apostles times all things were turned upside down etc. And for certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church together with their faith and Sacraments vanished away, presently after the Apostles departure. With this Protestant D Fulke conspireth, thus saying: The 
o In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic. p. 35.  true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times. Which being spoken by him of the Protestant Church; then may we infer, that the Church of Rome and it faith (as presumed to be by the judgement of this Doctor, the false Church) was visible immediately after the Apostles. With D. Fulke agreeth Peter Martyr thus writing: Errors 
p Lib. de Votis pag. 477.  did begin in the Church presently after the Apostles times; Peter Martyr here understanding by the word: Errors, our catholic doctrines, with these three last Protestants, the Author of the book called Antichristus, 
q Pag. 13.  sive pronosticon finis Mundi (a Protestant) thus jumpeth: from the Apostles times till Luther, the Gospel had never open passage. Now this hindrance of the Gospel is supposed by him, to proceed from the Pope and Church of Rome; therefore during all those times the Church of Rome hath been visible.  
But D Downham confesseth more freely hereof, who doth include the very times of the Apostles with in the Visibility of the catholic Roman Church, thus 
r In his treatise of Antichr. l. 2. c. 2. p. ●5.  teaching: the general defection of the Visible Church (foretold 2. Thessol. 2.) begun to work in the Apostles times, he meaning hereby, that the Visibility of our Catholic Church did obscure in the Apostles days, the Visibility of his Protestant Church. From this Doctors sentence Hospinian 
s Histor. Sacrament. lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 20.  (the Protestant) little dissenteth, who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, thus writeth: I am tum primo illo saeculo, viventibus adhuc apostolis etc. Even the very first age (the Apostles being alive) the devil endeavoured to deceive more about this Sacrament, then about Baptism; with drawing Men from the first form thereof.  
Thus (judicious Men) you may fully see how visible at all times our Catholy●ke Church hath been; And of this Verity you may be more fully assured, not only (by fiction) from the discourse of Michaeas, the Converted jew; but even from Michaeas, The Prophetical jew; Whose predication of the amplitude and ever conspi●uitie of Christ's Church (and consequently of our catholic Church) is set down in these words: In 
* Michaeas' cap. 4.  novissimo di erum erit mons domus Domini praeparatus in vertice montium, & sublimis super colles; & fluent ad cum Populi; Et properabunt gentes multae, & dicent: Venite ascendamus ad montem Domini, & ad domum Dei jacob; & docebit nos de vijs suis, at ibimus in semitis ●ius. Which Prophecy, as it hath been hitherto fully accomplished in the present Roman Church; so on the other side, how unaptly (indeed, how falsely) it can be applied to a Conventicle of Christians, which is confessed (for many more years, than a thousand) to have been wholly latent and Invisible (or rather utterly extinguished) I leave to your Candour and impartiality to censure.  
But before I take my leave with you for this time, (most excellent Men) I will cast my eye back upon the Premises in gross, discussed in this Treatise. If then it be so (as is above manifested) that the Church of God must at all times be resplendent and visible: If she must ever enjoy the administration of the Word and Sacraments by the ministry of her Doctors and Pastors without any interruption; and this with such an imposed Necessity, as that the being 
* D. Whitakers saith so. l. contra Du●aeum. l. 3. p. 249.  of them constituteth a Church, the want of them destroyeth it. If we all be bound under pain of eternal damnation, to incorporate ourselves into that Church, which is beautified and enriched with the former spiritual endowments; and to avoid all such Societyes of Men, wherein they are wanting; seeing only the members of Christ's true Church are capable of Salvation: If finally our catholic and Roman Church, on the one side, by the frequent Confessions of our learned Adversaries (besides all other proofs thereof) hath always enjoyed the said privileges of Visibility, and administration of the Word and Sacraments; And the Protestant Church on the other side (even by their own like acknowledgements) hath been for many Centuryes and ages, wholly destitute and deprived of these spiritual graces, and (as I may term them) Immunityes. What stupor then and dulness of mind, or rather what Letargious constitution of the Soul (forgetful of it own well fare) possesseth so infinite Men at this day; as to divide themselves from our said catholic Church even in great hostility; and in lien thereof, to be ranged with particular and novelizing Conventicles?  
The consideration whereof (most judicious Men) though I look not to be of that weigh with you, as to move you actually to implant your selves in our Catholic Church; yet since you are wise, learned, and loath (no dowbt) to commit any such explorate errors, as the force of Natural Reason and your own Consciences may freely check; I am in good hope, that the serious perusal of the points above disputed, will at least prevail thus far with diverse of you; as that you will not be ready hereafter in your discourses, so tragically to enueigh and declaim against a Religion, which is fortified which such impugnable and irrefragable proofs, as our catholic faith (even from our own Adversaries mouths) is evicted to be: But that you being Men professing Conscience, Integrity, and Ingenuity, will bear a more favourable respect to the said religion;  
And herewith I will conclude, recommending you all in my daily prayers unto him, who out of his Power and Goodness created us all, and out of his Mercy died for us all; to the end, that by our professing of a true faith, and exercising of a virtuous life, he might save us all; seeing otherwise we can no more avaylably expect eternal Beatitude, than the Patriarches dying in Egypt, could hope to be buried in the Laud of Promise.  
Laus Deo, & Beatae Virgini Mariae.   

AN APPENDIX, WHEREIN IS TAKEN A SHORT VIEW [CONTAINING A FULL ANSWER] OF A PAMPHLET ENTITLED: A Treatise of the Perpetual Visibility, and succession of the true Church in all Ages. Printed anno. 1624.  
CURTEOUS READER. Thou mayst be advertized hereby, that not long since, to wit in the year. 1624. there came out a certain Book entitled: A Treatise of the perpetual Visibility and succession of the true Church, in all Ages: not subscribed with any Name. The reason thereof (belike) was, in that the Author (as guilty to himself of his impure proceeding therein (durst not justify neither himself, nor this his labour: Though the entituling him in the Epistle to the Reader (which seems to be written by some other person, than the Author) The most Reverend, Religious, and painful Author thereof etc. doth in the judgement of many, intimate him to be no mean Man, but a great master in Israel: to wit either D. White, or D. Featly, or some other as great as either. To this concealing of them, of the Authors name (who, as being a Protestant, might boldly and without danger subscribe his own name to his own Book; fare differently from us Priests) I may add the Authors affected silence through out his whole Treatise, in not touching, neither glancing at the then late and fresh Conference had at London, even of this very Subject of the Visibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages, between the afore mentioned D White, and D. Featly on the one part, and M. Fisher and M. Sweet on the other: This Author not so much as naming either the said Priests or Conference; though all the Realm did then ring thereof. But his intended policy therein may well be presumed to be, that if he had made any particular Reference to the said Conference or Priests; he might well assure himself, that then presently an answer would be shaped against his Book; which ●e had less reason to fear (as he thought) his Treatise coming forth in this lovely manner. And so himself (as no doubt, he hoped) might have set down (as the phrase is) with the last Word.  
But whosoever the Author is; most certain it is, that the Treatise is most shallow and frothy; though otherwise it be fraught with diverse deceats and impostures: But we must pardon him, seeing we are to remember, that there are some falsehoods (and among these, this of the supposed Visibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages, may justly be placed) of so deep a tincture of lying, as that no art can make them receive any other dye.  
The ambitious title (as presuming the Protestant Church to be the true Church) promiseth (you see) to prove; that the Visibility and Succession of the Protestant Church hath perpetually and without interruption been in all ages, since Christ his days. But here that vulgar saying is justified: parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus: as will easily appear to any, that shall studiously peruse the former Dialogue, or will observe, what is here adjoined.  
And as touching this precedent Catholic Treatise of the second part of the Converted jew. Though it be indeed purposely and principally written against all eminent Protestants in general (as appeareth by the alleging of their names and testimonies therein) who heretofore have mantained by their penns, the continual visibility of the Protestant Church; yet may it with all be justly reputed, as a full answer to this discourse here examined; seeing the whole scope, drift, and cheïfe examples of Protestancy (I mean of Hus, Wicklefe, Waldo, & diverse others) insisted upon by this Anonymous and nameless Author, are discovered in the former Dialogue, for false, idle, and impertinent; as being alleged long since by other more famous Protestants: Thus we see, that this Author is glad to lick up the arguments of his former Brethren, & to feed upon their revertions. Now what other things of lesser moment may occur herein (especially touching the impostures and calumnies here practised and the names of some obcure men, suggested for Protestants only by this Author,) they shall in this short Survey be displayed and refuted. What is here set down by me, is set down with all affected and laboured plains of words or style; purposely forbearing all excursions or amplifications of discourse; and this to the end, that the Reader may with the less distraction of judgement and Memory, have at once a short and whole Synopsis and sight of this Authors falsehoods, subt●ltyes, and snares; where with he labours to illaqueate & entangle the simple and ignorant.  
And now to descend to a particular dissection or anatomising of this Pamphlet. First the Reader is to observe, that the Writer thereof spendeth 28. pages, in seeking to prove, that it is not exacted, that the Church of God should be at all times visible; at least to others. Yea he is so full and earnest therein, as that merely crossing his prefixed title, he laboureth to prove the contrary to the said title; for thus (to omit diverse such other passages) he writeth: The 
a Pag. 3.  godly are driven to extremityes by heresies or persecutions; they be visible one to an other etc. they are not so apparent to other men, as that at all times they know, where to find Assemblies and Congregations of them. And again: It is not 
b Pag. 17.  doubted, but that the Woman (to wit, mentioned in the Apocalypse) doth represent the Church, concerning whom being in Wilderness, it doth manifestly follow, that for the time of her abode here, which the Almighty hath decreed, she should not be discerned; that is, by her Enemies, who did & would chase her. Notwithstanding it is not to be doubted, but she knew, where herself was. And yet more fully: The 
c Pag. 24.  Church of Christ, whilst this troublesome World lasteth, is now glorious, then shadowed; in one age in beauty, in an other kept under; under some Princes in peace, under others in persecution; yea sometimes so pressed with the extremity of the malicious, as that she is glad to remain retired into secret places, and not to appear openly to the, malignant. But in an other place following, (to wit, pag. 26.) he plainly depriveth the Church of Christ of all Visibility, thus speaking: In the days of Constantius, when the Arian Heresy had once gotten on head, wherein the World did there appear any sensible Congregation, maintaining the orthodoxal belief?  
Now what a strange Invisible Visibility (as I may term it) doth this Author assign to the Church of God? in effect thus extravagantly arguing: The Church of Christ is sometimes more obscure, then at other times: Therefore the Church of Christ is sometimes invisible. For I can see no other Inference nor other end, whereunto his former speeches are directed. But this sleight, as being shadowed under the colour of Persecution, is refuted in a passage of this former Dialogue. And here I now demand, how doth all this sort to the former glorious title of his Book? to wit: Of the perpetual Visibility, and Succession of the true Church in all ages.  
Now how painfully (or rather calumniously) the Author laboureth to prove this inconspicuous●es and obscurity of Christ his Church, we will in some few leaves touch; referring the Reader to the beginning of the former Discourse, for the more full refuting and impugning of the same: Where it is demonstrated, that the Church of Christ must at all times be most visible.  
And first, this Pamphleter much insisteth in the times of the jews; proving from the paucity of true beleivers among them, that the Church of Christ is in like sort at diverse times to be straytned. And to this end, he produceth many sentences of the Prophets (whose places 
d Psalm. 12. 1. Samu●l. 22. Esay. 1. 5. 6. Ezech. 22. besides others.  for greater brevity, are noted in the margin) But here his Ignorance (or at least his fraud) is discoverable. For first, these places are to be understood, not so much of want of faith; as of bad conversation in life and manners, wherewith the Prophets did charge the jews. Secondly, the Texts alleged are indeed for the most part in words spoken of the jews in general; but not intended by the Prophets to be meant of all the jews promiscuously. Which Prophets were often accustomed (as S. Austin 
e Lib. de vn●tat. Eccle●. c. 12.  well noteth) to reprehend the whole People, as if not any among them were good, though many among them were pious. Thus for Example Ezechiel saith c. 3. All the house of Israel are impudent and s●ifharted; and yet in the nynth chapter of the same Prophet we thus reed: Set a mark with Ta●, upon the foreheads of them, that mourn and cry, for all the abominations, that be done in the midst thereof.  
Lastly, this Inference drawn from the state of the old Testament, and applied to the New, is most inconsequent: Both because the New Testament is better established, than the, old; seeing to it is promised, 
f Math.  that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Christ's Church; And also it is styled: The 
g 1. Timoth. 3.  pillar and foundation of truth. And finally, in that the People's of the jews were not the Universal Church of God (as the People of the Christians are) And therefore out of the jewish Synagogue, there were diverse others of the faithful and Just; as Melchisedech, job, Cornelius, the Centurion, the Eueuch of Queen of Candice etc.  
This ended, this Triffler in pag. 6. & several other places, mentioneth the usual Objection taken from the words of Elias, saying: relictu, sum solus. But this is fully satisfied in the first part or beginning of the former Dialogue.  
In the next place (to wit, pag. 10.) he cometh to depres the glory of the Church of Christ, during his abode here upon earth, and time of his Passion; but all this most impertinently: seeing the radiant splendour and Visibility of Christ his Church was cheiffly to begin (and then for ever after to continue, till the world's end) after the descending of the Holy Ghost, and not before. This done, the Author cometh to the times of the Tenn Persecutions by the Heathen Emperors; proving from thence the obscurity of Christ's Church in pag. 25. To which I answer, that these Persecutions (according to the nature of persecution) were so far from making the Church of Christ in those days invisible; as that it became thereby most visible; seeing none are persecuted, but visible Men: And the very names of the chief Martyrs of those days are yet most fresh and honourable in the memories of all good Christians, even to this very hour: they remaining yet registered in the Ecclesiastical Histories, both of Catholics and Protestants.  
In pag. 26. he instanceth in the times of the Arians, and produceth Saint Jerome's testimony and words to wit, 
* Jerome adverse. 〈…〉 uc●erean.  The whole World did s●ght, and wonder, that it was Arian; from which authority he would prove the Inuisibility of Christ's Church in those days. But here the Author discovereth his ignorance. For here First, Jerome calleth that (by the fig●●e Synecdoche) the whole World, which is but a part of the World; S Jerome meaning only of certain parts of Christian 〈◊〉. Secondly S. Jerome here taketh the word: Arian, in a secundarye signification. For here he calleth them improperly, and Abusive, Arians who through Ignorance did subscribe to the Arian Heresy. For he speaketh of that great number of Bishops, which came out of all parts of Christendum to Arimine; and were deceived by the Arians, through their mistaking of the greek Word: Omosios'; and there upon Materially only they subscribed to the Heresy of the Arians. But the same bishops being after admonished of their error, did instantly correct the same, and bewailed their mistaking with tears and penance. Thus we see, the true relation of this point really proveth an actual Visibility of the Orthodoxal Christians, at that very tyme.  
Pag. 27. He insisteth in Athanasius and Liberius, as the only defendours in those days of Christ's Divinity; and consequently that the Church of Christ did only rest in them two: For thus he writeth: The Church for any external show, was brought low; for if any body held it up, it was Athanasius, who then played least in sight, and durst not appear. here is strange and wilful mistaking; for though it be granted, that Athanasius (in regard of his fervour and learning) was more persecuted by the Arians, than any other Bishop; yet to ●auer, that himself alone, or Liberius did only impugn the Heresy of Arius, and that there were no other Orthodoxal Beleivers at that time, is most improbable, or rather most absurd. This is proved; first, from the Council, which was assembled chiefly for the suppressing of the Arian Heresy; at which Council Athanasius himself was present.  
This Council consisted of three hundred bishops and more; the greatest part whereof by their voices did absolutely condemn the Arian Heresy. Now how can it be conceived, that all the said bishops (speaking nothing of the Orthodoxal Laity of that time) excepting only Athanasius, should instantly either a fore or after apostatate or through fear of Persecution, externally profess the Arian Heresy? Again, the truth of this point is further confirmed from the Epistle, which Athanasius and the Bishops of Thebes and Lybia gathered together in the Council of Alexandria, did write to Pope Paelix, the Second of that name; wherein they unanimously protest to defend with all Christian resolution, their Orthodoxal faith against their Enemies, the Arians.  
Thirdly, the falsehood of the former Assertion is evicted from that, that many Fathers and Doctors living in the very age of A●hanasius and Libertus (and diverse of them even in the days of Athanasius, and well known to him) did refute and contradict (ex professo) the Arian Heresy in their learned writings: As for example, 
i Lib. contra Eunomium.  Basil, 
k Orationes quinque in theolog.  Gregory Nazianzen, 
l Lib. de Trinitate.  Gregory Nyssene, 
m Catecheses'.  Cyrill of jerusalem, 
n Lib. 9 de Trinitate.  Hilarius, 
o In c. 1. ad Timot.  Ambrose, 
p Contra Arian. haeres. 69.  Epiphanius and some others: Now in respect of the Premises, can it be but dreamt, that there should be no Professors of the Divinity of Christ in those days, but only Athanasius, or Liberius?  
Pag. 25. The Pamphleter leaving examples & authorityes, descendeth to Reason, thus arguing: Faith doth much consist of things, which are not seen. Therefore (seeing we believe the Holy Church, as an article of our faith) it followeth, that it needs not to be ever eminently visible, or apparently sensible unto us.  
Learnedly concluded. Therefore for the better instruction of this Pamphleter, he is to understand; that in the Church of God, there is something to be seen, and something to be believed. We do see that company of men, which is the Church, and therein the Church is ever visible; But that, that Company or Society is the true visible Church of God, that we see not, but only believe: Even as the Apostles did see that very Man, which is Christ, the Son of God; but that he was the Son of God, this the Apostles did not see, but only believe.  
In pag. 28. and 29. as also in some other pages afore, he much insisteth in the words spoken of the Woman in the Revelations. cap. 12. of whom it was prophesied, that she should fly into the Wilderness; affirming that by the Woman, is understood the Church, which is not to be seen in time of persecution. To this I answer; first, this passage being taken from out of the Revelations, cannot (as evidently to us men) prove any thing; seeing the Revelations being delivered in visions & prophecies (many of them being yet unaccomplished) and figurative speeches, we cannot so easily apprehend the true sense & meaning of them. Secondly, What diverse learned Catholics and some Protestants, do understand by the Woman in the revelations (differently from the urging of this Author) is set down above, in the first part or beginning of the former Dialogue. Thirdly, admitting, that by the Woman, is understood the Church in Persecution; yet followeth it not, that therefore she shallbe invisible (which is the point, for which it is urged here (seeing a Church, in that it is persecuted, even in that respect is become visible (as is proved in the Treatise above) though otherwise it be granted, it is not so gloriously eminent, as it is in time of prosperity.  
Now whereas the Author pag. 29. from the Woman (mentioned in the Revelations) flying into Wilderness, thus disputeth: The true Church is for the time out of sight in the Wilderness: But so say they (meaning us Catholics) was their Church never: Therefore Will they, Will they, their Church is not the true Church. Here Ignorance mixed with extreme boldness, disputeth. For whereas Learned Men (both Catholics & Protestants (as appeareth in the former Treatise) make a continual Visibility, to be a Mark of the true Church; Here the Author (diametrically crossing all former Authorityes, above alleged) teacheth, that that Church, which ever hath been visible, and never out of sight (to use his own words) cannot be the true Church; and consequently that the Catholic Roman Church is not the true Church: Thus he (contrary to all other authors) maketh an Inuisibility to be a necessary Mark of the true Church. Ad hereto (as afore is intimated) that if in this Pamphleteers judgement, the true Church must sometimes even of necessity be out of sight, and in Wilderness (or otherwise not the true Church) how then doth not this mainly fight with the title of his Book, to wit: Of the perpetual Visibility and Succession of the true Church in all ages? And why should not the title thereof rather be: Of the interrupted and discontinued Visibility of the true Church?  
And thus far of the first part of this Pamphlet in which we see, how painfully the Author hath laboured, sometimes to prove, that the Church of God must at certain seasons be more glorious and resplendent, then at others (though no Catholic denyeth this, and therefore the proof of it is but impertinently undertaken) At other times, as in his last produced sentence and argument, as also in some passages above cited, to prove that the true Church must be often wholly invisible, plainly thwarting the Inscription of his book. But his affected calumny here (whereby he betrays his own guiltiness in these his unworthy Scripts.) is only, to prefix this discourse of the Church's obscurity, or rather Inuisibility; that it may serve, as an excuse (and for a plastering over) of those few, weak, and false examples of Protestancy in former ages, alleged after in this Pamphlet by him: For he hopeth, that by this his former insinuation of the Church's obscurity, the Reader will less expect any full demonstrations and certain arguments of the Protestants Churches Visibility in former times; and the rather seeing such an unterrupted visibility is not (in this Man's weening) necessary to the true Church.  
Now here we will further tracked this Author in his passages, who, (whether he be D. White or D. Fearly, or some other) next beginneth with extraordinary calumnye & deceit, to exemplify his Protestants for certain ages. For whereas he ought to prove (even from the Title of his Book, and the Controversy of the Protestants Churches visibility, now ventilated between us and his Party) that the Protestant Church (seeing he presumeth it to be the true Church) hath been visible for the space of sixteen hundred years (for so long since and more, it is since our Saviour's Incarnation) he produceth examples (admitting them for true) only for four hundred years at the most; and immediately before Luther; so leaving one thousand, and one hundred years, and more (a small time, you see) wholly destituted of any one produced example of Protestancy: he saluing this his omission, or leaving over these eleven hundred years, in this manner following: What 
s Pag. 100  the old Fathers taught (meaning the Fathers of the Primative Church, as being Protestants) we have time hereafter to show, (which time of his showing, what they taught, is not yet come) And of the supposed Protestants, between the Primative Church and the times of Waldo (he ascending no higher than Waldo) being about six hundred years, he useth this preterition: We shall 
t Pag. 89.  not need to ascend any higher (meaning any higher from Luther, then to Waldo) Which otherwise to make plain, is as easy, as to deliver that, which hitherto I have spoken: And it is not to be conceived, that Petrus Waldo (of whom the Waldenses did take their name at Lions) had his doctrine from no body etc.  
Is not this a very learned satisfaction (think you) or rather a satisfaction unworthy to proceed from any Man, professing learning for instancing of the being of Protestants, from Christ his time to the days of Waldo (containing about twelve hundred years, or but little less) for all which time he instanceth not in any one Protestant, but wholly slips it over notwithstanding the Catholics ever earnest provoking of the Protestants herein? Or can any impartial judgement, demanding for instances of Protestancy, during all or any of those former ages, rest thus contented? here then (good Reader) thou seest, how this Author abuseth thee, who dealeth with thee herein no otherwise, then if he justly and truly owing thee Sixteen hundred pounds, should in speeches vauntingly pretend, that he had paid thee every penny thereof; And yet he coming to particular accounts and reckonings with thee, should be able to prove, that he had paid thee (and this also, but in counterfeit silver) only four hundred pounds; affirming in lieu of further payment, that he would be as able to pay thee all the rest, as he hath already done this lesser Somme. Wouldst thou not take such an one, for a most dishonest and perfidious man? The case of this Treatiser is here just the same.  
But to return to the Fathers of the Primative Church, Of whom he saith, what they taught, he would hereafter show; meaning (belike) in some other Book hereafter to come forth Of that labour he is now already prevented; And therefore the Reader may find in the Conclusion to the former dialogue, that by the confessions of most learned Protestants, the Fathers were absolute Papists (as we are called) and are therefore by the said Protestants utterly rejected. In which former passage, is also proved, from the Protestants like Confessions; that all the Professors of Christianity, between the times of the ancient Fathers, and the days of Waldo (containing six hundred years at least) were wholly of our present Roman Religion; and not any of them a Protestant.  
But let us now in this next place, come to his particular Instances of Protestancy, for the space of four hundred years only above mentioned: in setting down of which the Pamphleter useth this ensuing policy (for indeed he is a man wholly made of sophistications, deceats, and collusions) he doth not begin with Waldo, so descending to Luther's days; seeing by this plain method the Reader might at the first sight and sensibly observe, that he hath omitted (contrary to the title of his Book) eleven hundred years, without giving any one instance of Protestancy for all those several ages. Therefore he craftily beginneth to instance in the times before Luther, and so riseth upward some four hundred years from this day, in his pretended Examples: Thus hoping, that the vulgar Reader would either, through not perusing the book to the End, or through want of judgement, not so easily and instantly espy, how far (and no further) he had proceeded in these Examples.  
Now touching his Examples; he first instanceth in Hus and 
u Pag. 30.  Jerome of Prage, who lived anno Domini 1400. that is, some hundred and twenty years (or thereabouts) before Luther's Apostasy. To this Example of Hus, in which the Pamphleter chiefly insisteth (for as for Jerome of Prage, he but embraced some of Hus his errors, as learning them from him) I First answer, that supposing Hus had broached all points of Protestancy; yet followeth it not, that Luther had received the said Doctrine from Hus, by an uninterrupted descent of Belief (as this Author pretendeth) for it may well be, that Hus his Errors were extinct in respect of any beleivers before Luther's days: Even as Aerius denied prayer for the dead, and the Heretic Manichaeus freewill (as 
x Lib. de Haeres. c. 23. & 46.  S. Austin witnesseth) yet were those heresies utterly extinguished for many ages, till Luther revived them. Secondly, the articles, which Hus maintained (different from the Roman Church) were but four, as they are recorded by Fox himself: Of which, the doctrine of Communion under both kinds, was the chiefest: though according to the judgement of 
z Luther epist. ad Bohem. & lib de captivit. Babylon 〈…〉 de Euchar.  Luther, it is a point but of In difference. In all other points Hus was Catholic, which this Author calumniously concealeth. Thirdly, Hus maintained that acknowledged Heresy on all sides, that bishops & Princes (being in mortal sin) were not to be obeyed, but thereby did lose all their authority. Which Heresy is in like sort wholly concealed by this Pamphleter. Concerning the particular proofs of all which points, even from the Protestants Confessions, I refer the Reader to the former Dialogue, where Michaeas discovereth them at large: as the like he doth of Wicklefe, Waldo, and others hereafter alleged by this Treatiser. Fourthly, if the Visibility of the Protestant Church may be justified in Hus, or in Waldo, Wicklefe, or in any other hereafter obtruded for a Protestant by this Pamphleter, because eich of them taught two or three (at the most) of Protestant points, then by the same reason may the Protestant Church de said to have been visible, in the Arians, 
1 Athan. in Apolog. pro fulga.  for rejecting of Traditions, & for perpetrating many sacrileges against the Sacraments, Altars, and Priests; in Pelagius, 
2 jerom. lib. contra Pelag.  for teaching every sin to be mortal; in Vigilantius, 
3 jerom. lib. contra Vigilant.  for condemning all religious virginity, and affirming the relics of Saints are not to be worshipped: In the Manichees, for denying of freewill: And in diverse such others: 
(4) Austin. lib. de Haeres. c. 46.  All branded Heretics and registered for such, by the orthodoxal Fathers of the Primative Church. Now this Inference I would entreat the Reader to observe, with peculiar application to all the pretended examples of Protestancy, alleged in this Pamphlet. Fiftly, if we should grant here all that, which is spoken of Hus, yet it but warranteth the visibility of the Protestant Church, only for the age, in which Hus did live: His doctrine not being taught in ages before.  
Now here in this discourse touching Hus, I am to put the Reader in mind, how this Author spendeth many idle leaves, in showing how the Nobles of Bohemia, maintained the errors of Hus; And that they came into the field in great forces, against the Emperor in defence of the same: so much (saith he) was the doctrine of Hus dilated. He also introduceth some one or other, inveighing against the Pope's manners and Clergy of those times: and for such their proceedings, he termeth them Protestants. (And this method, he mightily observeth throughout his whole Pamphlet.) Idly inferring: as if faith, which resids in the understanding, were not different from manners and conversation, which rest in the Will: Or that abuses in manners, will not ever be in some members of the Church: Or finally that a Protestant, for charging of some Ministers of his part with disorders of life, or Puritans for their bitter inverghing against the Bishops here in England, were therefore to be reputed Roman Catholics: so loosely and weakly he disputeth herein.  
But all these his Digressions, in respect of the undertaken subject of his discourse, are merely extravagant. And in my judgement his intention in these, and other such dilations, and declamatory invectives (wherewith his Treatise is in many places hereafter fraught) is chiefly, but to fill up leaves of paper: that so his book might grow to some reasonable quantity. For seeing all his supposed examples of Protestancy in his Treatise, might well be contained (omitting all frothy ambages and circumstances) in two sheets of paper, and seeing such a poor thing could not come forth alone, with any credit to the cause, or reputation to the writer: He therefore thought it more fit, to interweave in his Pamphlet diverse long and tedious discourses, how improfitable soever. This to think, I am the rather induced: in that we may further observe: in how great and large a letter his Book is printed: and how spacious the margin of his leaves are, being almost as much paper in quantity, as that, which is printed: And all this (as probably may be conjectured (to the end, that this his learned Tome (forsooth) might contain some indifferent number of leaves: See how subtle Heresy is, in trifles and things of no moment.  
The Author having finished his discourse of Hus, & his adherents & followers: in the next place riseth to the Waldenses, 
* Pag. 52.  who (as is here alleged) denied Purgatory, Transubstantiation, & blessing of Creatures. First, touching Transubstantion, what the Pamphleter here delivereth, is a vast Untruth; as appeareth from the testimony even of Calu 〈…〉, 
a Epist. 244.  thus writing: Formula Confessionis etc. The form of Confession of the Waldenses doctrine, doth involve all those in eternal damnation, who do not confese, that the Bread is become truly the body of Christ. In like sort, touching the doctrine of Purgatory, Benedictus 
b In tract. de Eccles. p. 124.  Montargensis (a Lutheran) chargeth the Waldenses therewith: from which two Examples we may take a scantling, what credit is to be given to the Pamphleter, in his other Assertions hereafter. But grant, that the Waldenses did teach some one or other point of Protestancy; yet in regard of their far greater Number of Catholic Articles, ever believed by them, and their many execrable Heresies (condemned for such both by Catholics and Protestants) both which points this Pamphleter pretermitted in silence; The Waldenses cannot justly be exemplified for Protestants: Now of the Catholic Articles, as also of the Heresies believed by the Waldenses, see the Dialogue above in the passage touching Waldo, and the Waldenses, and their followers.  
After this Author hath finished his speech of the Waldenses, he further thus proceedeth: The 
c Pag. 54.  Author of the sixtenth Century nameth about the year▪ 1500. Baptista Mantuanus, and Franciscus Picus Earl of Mirandula; both which inveighed against the Clergy and their whole practice: Also one D. Keisers pergius, an other called john Hilton, a third named Doctor Andrea's Proles, and Savanorola, all grawning under the burden of those times. Again, the Pamphleter thus saith: And the 
d Pag. 56.  same is written of Trimetheus, an other learned Man, who lived at that tyme. Thus this our Author.  
Now how exorbitantly and wildly are these urged for Protestants? For First, they are averred to be such only by Protestant Writers (to wit, O●●ander and Pantaleon) who herein may well be presumed, for the uphoulding of their own Protestant Church, to be partial in their Relations. Secondly, this Treatizer doth not instance any points of Protestancy believed by any of them (which if he could, no doubt, he would not have omitted) but only urgeth their writings against some pretended abuses of the Church of Rome in those days. And therefore such his proceeding is but calumnye and impertinency. Lastly, touching Savanorola and Picus of Mirandula (for as for the others, they are so obscure, that hardly any particular information can be had of them.) It is certain, that they were both Roman Catholics, and died in that Religion. For as concerning Savanorola, he believed all the Articles of the Roman faith (as evidently appeareth out of his own writings, styled: Vigiliae) excepting the doctrine of the Pope's power to excommunicate. This one point he contumaciously denied, and for this he was burnt.  
Touching Picus of Mirandula, Sir Thomas More of blessed memory) writing his life, showeth, that he was so fully a Roman Catholic, that in his life time, he sold a great part of his lands to give to the poor; that he often used to scourge & discipline his own flesh; that if he had lived longer, he intended to have entered into the Religious Order of the Dominican Pryars: That in time of his sickness he received (according to the Catholic custom) the most blessed and reverend Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, for his Viaticum; Finally that hearing the Priest in his sickness to repeat unto him, the articles of the Roman faith, and being demanded, whether he believed them; Answered, He did not only believe them; but did know them also to be true: So foully (we see) this Pamphleter is overseen in alleging Savanorola and Picus of Mirandula, for Protestants.  
But to proceed further. This idle waster of pen, ink, & paper (for I can term him no better) next descendeth (in a retrograte and disorderly method) to Laurentius 
e Pag. 56.  Valla the Grammarian; who touching the Articles of the Roman Catholic faith, only denied freewill; as appeareth even from the Protestant 
f Illyr. cattle. testium Vetir. tom. 2. printed 1597. pag. 872.  Writers; And who after (g) submitted himself to the Pope, and finally died in all points Catholic; all which this Author affectedly concealeth. He saith of Valla in this sort: Valla wrote a Treatise of purpose, against the forged donation of Constantine: He pronounceth of his own experience, that the Pope maketh war against peaceable People, and soweth discord between Cities 
() Valla in his Apol. ad Eugenium Papam 4. Pontif. prope finem.  and provinces etc. With much more refuse of base matter, concerning the supposed covetousness of the Pope; yet notwithstanding all this, he nameth not any one Article of Protestancy defended by Valla.  
But the Pamphleter thus further proceedeth to others, saying: About 
h Pag. 57 & sequentib.  the same time lived Nicolaus Clemingius, who rebuked many things in the Ecclesiastical State; and spoke excellently in the matter of General Counsels etc. Petrus de Aliaco Cardinal of Cambray, gave atract to the Council of Constance, touching reformation of the Church; There he doth reprove many notable abuses against the Romanists etc. About 
i Pag. 58.  the same time lived Leonardus Aretinus, whose little Book, against Hypocrates is worth the reading; So is the Oration of Antontus Cornelius Linnicanus, laying open the lend lubricity of Priests in his days: So doth 
k Pag. 59  he detect many abuses and errors, who wrote the ten aggrievances of Germany; But those, who compiled the hundred agrevances of the Germane Nation, do discover many more. And then the Pamphleter most ambitiously (or rather ridiculously) thus concludeth: By this time I trust, it is manifest, how false a slander of the Papistsis that before the days of Martin Luther, there was never any of our Religion. 
Egregiam verè laudem, & spolia ampla refectis.  
Tu calamusque t●●s.   
For who observeth not, how absurdly you Pamphleter do apologise. For the Visibility of your Church? Thus (good Reader) thou seest, that this Author instanceth in Valla, and others above mentioned, for Protestants; and yet setteth not down any one Article of Protestancy believed by them: for not any of them denied the Real presence, Purgatory, prayer to saints, the Seven Sacraments, justification by Works, the Pope's Supremacy etc. All that this Author can produce them for, is, because they did write Satirically and bitterly against the abuses of the Church, in those days. But to this we reply; That it is granted on all sides, that both in the Catholic and the Protestant Church, there have been (and still are) diverse of irregular and disedifying lyves. Must now those, who in their writings or Sermons reprehend such, be necessarily supposed to be of a different faith from those, whom they so reprehend? Who seeth not the weakness of this inconsequent and absurd kind of reasoning?  
From the former justances', the Pamphleter ascendeth to john (l) Wiclef, prostituring him for a Protestant. And here 
〈◊〉) Pag. 60.  also he spendeth many leaves in wand'ring excursions of speeches; and indeed to no other end, but (as I intimated a fore) to daub ink upon paper. For he pretendeth to show the Aussits had received their doctrine out of the Books of Wiclef; how the Council of Constance condemned Wiclef for an Heretiycke; as also how the doctrine of Wiclef was much dilated hair in England. But to manifest, how impertinent the alleging of Wiclef for a Protestant is, I refer the Reader to the Dialogue; where are showed out of Wiclefs one writings the many Catholic articles of the Roman Religion, (to wit, the doctrine of the seven Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass, praying to our Blessed Lady, worship of Images, merit of Works, and works of Supererogation etc. still believed by him, even after his leaping out of our Church. As also there are showed the many condemned Heresies in like sort maintained by him, after his departure from the Roman Church; and this from the penns of the Protestants.  
But here before I end with Wiclefe, I must put the Reader in mind of one notorious Collusion or deceit, much practised by this Pamphleter, touching diverse of the former men alleged for Protestants, but most particularly touching Wiclefe. It is this: He here particularizeth no Protestant articles, but only the denying of Transubstantiation; yet where he abundantly declareth, that W●clefe was condemned by the Church of Rome for his defence of many errors and heresies, he subtly beareth the Reader in hand (though he expresseth not any of them in particular) that all these heresies condemned in him were points of protestancy; thereby to make show, what a great number of protestant articles were believed in those days, and how much the said Men did participate in doctrine with the protestants of these times. But this is a mere sleight and imposture; seeing it is evident, that besides some few points of protestancy believed by Wiclefe, Hu●, the Waldenses or Albigenses, there were many more heresies maintained by them & then condemned by the Church of Rome; Which are acknowledged for heresies, both by Catholics and Protestants; and such as in no sort concern the Protestant Religion; as way evidently appear from the perusing of the several passages of the former Dialogue; wherein the heresies of Wiclefe, Hus, the Waldenses, and others are at large displayed.  
From Wiclefe the pamphleter cometh to Geffray Chaucer. And thus he is forced by his own poetising and forging art, to beg some proof from Poets. Of Chaucer he thus writeth. 
m Pag. 69.  He did at large paint out the pride, lascivious, vicious, and intellerable behaviour of the Popes, Cardinals, and Clergy etc. adding much more securili●y of his own: and setting down certain verses of Chaucer. But what proveth this? For first, we are not in reason to give credit to every verse dropping from the satirical pen of Chaucer. Secondly, admit all were true, that Chaucer writeth; yet seeing his reprehensions do only touch manners and conversation, and not faith; it followeth not, that Chaucer was a protestant (as I have intimated in the former examples (or that the Protestant Religion was in his days professed, which is the only point here to be proved. Thirdly, if it must be concluded that Chaucer for such his writing was a protestant; then by the same reason may Spencer the Poet, for his bitter taxing of the Clergy in his Mother Hubbardstale; and Daniel, for his controlling of the present times, touching Religion and Learning in his Musophilus, be reputed Catholics or Papists; & yet it is well known, they both were Protestants, and the later rather a puritan.  
The Pamphleter next insisteth in one Walter 
n Pag. 71.  Bruit, an English Man, living anno 1393 and putteth him forth for a protestant, for his defending of diverse supposed doctrines of protestancy there set down. To this I answer: first, he allegeth no authentical writer affirming so much, but only an obscure Register of the Bishop of Hereford: and therefore it may justly be suspected to be merely suppositions and forged (or rather, that it is but feigned, that such a writing is) seeing such a writing may with more facility be coined without any discovery of deceat therein: as being to he found only among the Antiquityes, belonging to the said Bishop, who is a protestant. Secondly, suppose all for true: yet seeing that Schedule proveth the said Bruit to be a protestant, but only in some points: it followeth, that he was Catholic in the rest: and therefore can no more be challenged, for a protestant, then for a Catholic: being the faith of a professor in any Religion ought to be entire, perfect, & complete; otherwise no man can take his denomination and name from the same faith. Thirdly, suppose him to be a Protestant in all points, yet seeing he is but one particular man; & that it cannot be proved, that others did communicate with him in doctrine, his example cannot prove the visibility of the Protestant Church: since one man alone cannot be accounted for a Church. Lastly, this example serveth (admitting it for true) but for the time, that Bruyte lived; It not being able to be proved, that the doctrines of Protestancy (imputed to him) were taught and believed in all other Ages and Centuryes.  
This done, the Pamphleter 
o Pag. 7●.  proceedeth to diverse burnt and put to death for their Religion, in the days of King Henry the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth, King Edward the fourth, and King Henry the seaventh. Which testimonies he taketh out of that lying Legend of Fox; to which book no more credit is to be given, then to Aesop fables. But to these examples, I reply first. The Treatiser setteth not down the Protestant articles maintained by these men, for their defence of which, they are here presumed to be burned: And therefore it well may be, that they suffered death for their broaching of some other heresies or blasphemies, not controverted between the Protestant and the Catholic; & therefore such Examples are wholly impertinent. Secondly, if we do admit the authority of Fox herein; yet it proveth, that those men lost their lives, but for one, two, or three particular points (at the most) of protestancy, maintained severally by eich of them; they embracing all other points of Catholic Religion: being both more in number and of greater importance; And if it be otherwise, then let this Author prove▪ 〈◊〉 were Protestants in all chief Articles of Protestancy.  
Now how insufficiently such examples can be suggested, for the visibility of the Protestant Church in former Ages, appeareth, both from that already set down in this Survey; as also more fully from the perusal of the former Treatise.  
And here the Reader is to observe, that as such men (above mentioned) cannot justly be taken for Catholics, so may they truly be ranged for heretics; seeing a stubborn and contumacious belief but of one heresy, maketh a man, an heretic: Whereas it must be an unanimous faith of all points of true Religion (without exception of any) which is exacted for making a man a true beleiver: For the nature of true faith doth here participate, of the nature of an action morally virtuous; Which is become defective, through the want of one due circumstance only, but is made perfect and complete, by the necessary presence of all due circumstances.  
After the former examples, he cometh to Marsilius 
* Pag. 78.  de Milan (an acknowledged Heretic) Who chiefly erred in denying the Pope's authority Now the Pamphleter to make his doctrine in this one point, to seem more diverse in several points from the doctrine of the Catholics, subtly devideth it (in setting it down) into several branches. But to what end is this example pressed? Seing it was the error but of one Man at that time, and principally but in one Controversy; He comparting with the Catholics in the doctrine of the Real presence, Purgatory, Freewill, praying to Saints, merit of Works, Traditions etc.  
In the next place he urgeth two Italian Poets, Dantes and 
l (r) Pag. 79. & 80.  Petrarch for Protestants, because they did write somewhat in depressing the Pope's Authority, in behalf of the Emperor.  
Now to discover more fully the Pamphleteers falsehood, in his producing these two Italian Poets (Dante's and Petrarch) as supposed by him 
* Pag. 81.  to teach, that the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome Babylon, I will hear prove: from their own writings the mere contrary to this his impudent assertion. And first touching Dantes; He thus writeth of S. Peter in his Italian verses.  

O luce 
1 Cant. 24 deal Pa●ad.  eterne del gran viro,  
A cui nostro Signor lascio le chiavi,  
Ch' ei portò giùda questo gaudio mir●. 

That is: O eternal light of that great man,  
To whom our Lord did leave the keys, which  
He did carry with wonderful joy.     
In like sort, touching Rome itself he thus discourseth.  

Non 
2 Cant. 2. dell Inferno.  pare indeg no all huomo d'intelletto,  
Che ei su de l'alma Roma, & de suo impero  
Nel' empirco ciel' per padre eletto.  
La quale, el quale à voler direilvero,  
Fur stabilite per lo loco sancto;  
r ' fiede i'll successor del maggior Piero.   
In which verses Rome is called a reverend City; a holy place; fortified and strenghtned even from Heaven; and finally the seat of Peter.  
Again, Dantes was much adverse against Pope Nicolas the third; whom being dead Dantes notwithstanding thus honoured with his Verse.  

Et 
3 Cant. 19 dell. Inferno.  se, non fusse, ch' aucor le me vieta  
I ariverentia delle sum chianis,  
Cheiutenesti vella vita lieta,  
jover ei parcle anchor più grant.   
In which words Dantes confesseth plainly, that the reverence, which he did bear to this Pope, in regard that he received the keys of the Church (meaning supreme authority in Christ's Church) was the cause, why he did forbear to write more sharply against him. Finally, to omit many other like passages, Dantes saith, that Boniface the eight:  

Ne 
4 Cant. 22. del' Inferno.  summo offitio, ne Ordini sacri  
Guardò in se.   
In which verse he acknowledeth, that supreme authority and holy Orders did reside in Boniface; whose manners were otherwise displesing to Dantes.  
In this next place I will come to Petrarch, who thus writeth in acknowledging the power of the Bishop of Rome. 
5 Lib. 1. Sevilium Epistolarum ad Talanandum Cardinalem.  Quis (quaeso) non stupeat, simulque non gaudeat, si amicus sit Vicario JESV CHRISTI? And further: Romano 
6 Lib. 1. Inuectivarum contra Medicum.  Pontifici omnes, qui Christiano nomine glortamur, non modo consilium, sed obs●quium insuper & obedientiam debemus. All we, who glory in the name of Christians, do owe not only counsel, but duty and obedience to the Bishop of Rome.  
Now for greater evidency of this point, I will descend to the particular praises, given by Petrarch, to particular Popes in his Italian book, written of the lives of Popes.  
We there then find, that of Pope Vrbanus 5. he thus writeth: Furio nelle sacre Scripture dottissimo, & santament visse: Vrbanus was most learned in the holy Scriptures, and livod most Sanctly. Of Clemens 6. he thus recordeth: Furio & per nome, & per fatti, di molte virtù pieno: Clement was both for his name and for his deeds, replenished with much virtue. Of Benedict. 12. these are his words: Beneditto fatto Papa reformò l'Ordine di S. Benedetto etc. era feruido nella fide, & nelle buone operezelatore: Benedict being created Pope, did reform the Order of S. Benedict etc. He was fervorous in the faith, and zealous in good works. etc.  
To be short, of john 22. he thus saith: Costuifu ottimo & glorioso Pastore; fece molti bein, & Hereticiper zelo della fide condamno! This man was a very good and glorious Pastor; He did many good deeds, and condemned Heretics, out of his zeal to the faith. And now I ref●r to any in different judgement, whether these two Italian Poëtes (Dante's and Petrarch) did think the Pope of Rome to be Antichrist, or no, (as our 
7 Pag. 81.  Pamphleter seemeth to urge, ●hey did) and whether the former praises can be truly applied to Anthichrist, & the whoare of Babylon: ●o evident it is, that what the foresaid Poets did Satirically wryce, was written only against some disorders in the Church of Rome, and against the presumed faults of some particular Popes; but never against their supreme dignity in the Church of Christ. And as touching the former Popes by Petrarch so commended; We are to remember, that his praises delivered of them, where written after the deaths of the said Popes; and therefore his words could not be censured to proceed from adulation and flattery; but according to his own true and secret judgement passed upon those Popes.  
In the same manner, for their like inveighing against the fullness of the Pope's power and jurisdiction, he allegeth certain obscure men; to wit, Dulemus, Hayabalus, joannes Biraensis, joannes de Rupe scissa, three religious Men; who lived and died (in respect of all other points) in the Roman Church. And yet touching joannes de Rupe scissa, both this Author and the author of Catalogus testium veritatis: (From whom this man taketh it) are deceived, if we may believe Fox 
* Vide Fox in act. Mon. speaking of this Ioanne● de Rupe scissa.  who thus writeth of him: joannes de Rupe scissa, lived in the year 1340. who for his rebuking of the spiritually for their great enormittes, and neglecting their office, was cast into prison.  
Our Pamphleter after produceth Gerson for a Protestant, of whom he thus saith: Gerson 
* Pag. 81.  saw in his ages many horrible abuses of the Church of Rome, and in his writings spoke liberally of it. Is not this a learned prouf for Gersons being Protestant in all points of Protestancy?  
After all the former ●nstances the Pamphleter (even for want of other matter) returneth back again to the Waldenses 
t Pag. 82.  or Albigenses, iterating with a tedious prolixity his former discourse concerning them, and this in many leaves: Whereby he showeth the extreme mendicity of his Cause; and that he laboureth with all Art possible, to draw out this his Treatise (as is above said) into some reasonable number of sheets. But touching the Waldenses, I refer the Reade● (as afore I willed) to the particular passage of Waldo, in the former Dialogue.  
His former Extravagancyes of discourse being ended, he is not ashamed to challenge S. Bernard 
u Pag. 91.  for a Protestant, of whom he thus writeth: Before our ascending thus high, we might tell you of S. Bernard, whom all though it is likely at the first dash, you will challenge as your own; yet when you have well advized of him, you may let him go again. O perfrictam front●m, and wonderful Impudence. For who is so ignorant or so bold, that will not confess S. Bernard to have been a Roman Catholic in all points? He was a religious Man, and Abbot of Clairevaux and Author of many Monasteryes in Flanders and France (as O siander 
x Epiton. Cent. 12. p. 309.  the Protestant confesseth) he also was Pryest, and said Mass to his dying day (as all Writers of him do testify) A point so evident, that for his being a great and eminent member of our Catholic Church, the Centurists (all Protestants) thus censure him: Bernard●●s 
y Cent. 12 col. 1627. and 1638.  coluit Deum Maozim, ad novissimum vitae suae articulum: And further they say of him: Bernardus fuit acerrimus propugnator sedis Antichristi, Bernard was an earnest defendor of the sea●e of Antichrist. Here now I refer to the candid and upright Reader, what impudence it was in this Man, to challenge Bernard for a member of the Protestant Church. But here touching S. Bernard, I cannot but abserue this Authors fraud and imposturous carriage, who termeth all such Articles, wherein S. Bernard did agree with us; as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, merit of Works, free will praying to saints, and indeed all other Catholic Articles whatsoever (only his boldness of writing to Pope Eugenius excepted, to whom afore he had been Master, and thereupon presumed to write more freely) Slips 
a Pag 92.  & Lapses, 
b Pag. 93.  as they were believed by him: which in us Catholics he exagerateth by the name of Superstition, Idolatry etc. And thus we may see, how one and the same Cause being exemplified in different Persons, is by this Pamphleteers deceit, diversely censured.  
Leaning S. Bernard, the Author generally (but with out any proof at all) wisheth his 
c Pag. 95.  Reader to think, that the Protestant Church was in all Countries in Christendom, and did lie hid, as those jews did in the time of Elias, for fear of Persecution. But this he only saith, but proveth not: and it is therefore rejected with the same facility, with which it was spoken.  
Now touching those Men, who conceals their faith for fear of persecution, I refer the Reader to the former dialogue, wherein the weakness of this pretext of Persecution is particularly displayed.  
That done, the Pamphleter saith, that 
d Pag. 96.  India, Armenia, Asia the l●ssar, and Egypt, had in former times Christians in them (for he giveth them no other name, than Christians:) And then he infers, without any proof at all, or instances in the points of their Religion, that they were Protestants. Poor man, that thus most insensibly reasoneth: Seing we find the Christians of all those Countries to agree in all the chief points, with the present Roman Churrch; Only some of them do not acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, above all other bishops.  
In the last place of all, he much insisteth in the Greek 
e pag. 96.  Church (within which are included the Russes and Muscovites) he thus saying thereof: The Greek Church was never so much as in show extinguished; And from whom the Russians and Muscou●ts had their faith. And then a little after he thus enlargeth himself: We should do wrong to Almighty God etc. to pull from him, so many ample Churches (meaning the Greek Church, & the others above specified) inferring from thence, that the Protestant Church did in former ages rest visible, even in the Greek Church.  
Now this his shameless alleging of the Greek Church for Protestants, shallbe confronted with the testimony of Sir Edwin 
f In his Relation of thestate of Religion used in the Westparts of the World, in the last folio, but five.  Sands (a man of his own Religion) who plainly affirmeth, that the Greek Church doth concur with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation, & generally in the sacrifice and whole Body of the Mass, in praying to Saints, in auricular Confession, in offering Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, Purgatory, & worshipping of pictures. Yea the Protestant Divines 
g In their book entitled: Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensoum & jeremiae Patriarchae Constan●in●p. de Augustana Confession etc. Wittenbergae Anno, 1584.  of Magdeburg do record, that the Greek Church doth not only believe all the former Articles, recited by Sir Edwin Sands; but also that it beleiveth and teacheth the signifying Ceremonies of the Mass, Confirmation with Crisme, Extreme Vection, all the seven Sacraments, Alms for the dead, freewill, Monachisme, vows of Chastity, the fast of Lent, and other prescribed fasts, that Priests may not marry after Orders taken, and finally that the tradition & doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept. Now here I refer to any one not blinded with prejudice, whether the professors of the Greek Church, are to be accounted for Catholics or Protestants: And from hence we may discover the idle and ridiculous vaunting of this Pamphleter, who in the close of this point touching the Greek Churches being protestant, and a continual Visibility of Protestancy in the said Churches, thus insulteth: Look to these places (you Papists) and Imagine, that if there had been none, but these; yet the words of the Scripture, 
ay Pag. 97.  which in generality speak of a spouse, had been true: And Christ had there had his Body upon earth: and the Church had not been utterly extinguished, if neither We, nor the Synagogue of Rome had been extant. Thus he.  
His former examples being ended, he entertaineth his Reader with great store of frothy and needless matter, touching former differences between the Popes and Emperors, the 
(k) Pag. 98. 99 100  Kings of England and France. And then all such persons, as did bandy themselves either by writing or otherwise with the said Emperor or Kings, against the Popes of those times, the Pamphleter urgeth for Protestants though the chief cause of such differences between the Popes and the said Princes, was touching Distribution of Ecclesiastical livings, within their own Realms. That done, the Treatiser extravagantly discourseth in his declamatory railing vein, that the Pope is Antichrist: But how roving and wand'ring all this is to the title of his Pamphlet, and proving of his own Church's visibility (the which he obliged himself to perform) may appear, by what is already set down.  
After all this, & for a Close of all, he objecteth (for forme-sake, as if his taking notize of what, we can truly object against his writing, were a sufficient answer to it) certain exceptions urged by the Catholics, against his former Instances of protestancy: Which Objections of ours being set down, he shapeth no true Answer unto them. And first, he thus objecteth in our behalf: (l) The Papists will begin and say, that 
〈◊〉 Pag. 102.  we rake together, as the Ancestors and forerunners of our faith, such as were notorious Heretics, as Wicklefe, Hus, or the Waldenses etc. To which (after much securtility of words) he finally thus answereth: We do 
m Pag. 103.  not believe that all those, are Heretics, whom you Papists will so call or account. But we reply hereto, and say; That not only the Catholics, but the Protestants themselves do particularly charge Wicklefe, Hus, the Waldenses, as also Almaricus, Peter Bruus, etc. with many gross and absurd heresies, acknowledged for such even by our Adversaries; as may abundantly appear by recurring to the several passages of this former Dialogue. The defence of which heresies doth necessarily make their defendours, absolute Heroticks: seeing they were maintained by Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, etc. with a froward and open contempt of the authority of God's Church, publicly teaching the contrary: far differently from S. Austin, S. Cyprtan, and Lactantius, their believing certain errors (the which this Pamphleter, for the more lesning of the heresies of Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, etc. in p. 112. suttely repeateth) seeing these Fathers taught them only, as their own probable opinions: ever submitting (with all Obedience) their judgements therein, to the supreme judgements of Christ his Church. Ad hereto, that seeing those Books written by Catholics of those times, do indifferently charge Wicklefe, Hus, Waldo, and their followers with maintaining of some one point or other of protestancy, and with diverse absurd heresies: The authority therefore of those Writers are either equally to be believed in all their accusations, or equally to be rejected in them all: And the rather, seeing they could not foretell (a consideration much to be observed) or presage, what points touching faith and Religion, and different from the than Roman faith (wherewith Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, etc. were then charged) would be professed, bele●ued, and maintained in these days, by the enemies of the Church of Rome: And therefore it necessarily followeth, that the accusations passed in former times upon Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, and the rest, are either in general true, or in general false: If false, then have we no sufficient Records, that there were any in those days, who believed any points of protestancy: If true, then certain it is, that as Waldo, Wicklefe, Hus, etc. maintained some points of protestancy, so with all, that they maintained diverse explorate Heresies: and acknowledged for such both by Catholics and Protestants.  
Secondly, the Pamphleter objected in the Catholics name in this sort: None 
n Pag. 110.  of all those, which hitherto have been named, or can be named (meaning for Protestants) but in some known, confessed, and undowbted Opinions did vary from you: And therefore they and you Protestants may not be said to be all of one Church. This difficulty he salveth with a most impudent and bare denial, saying: All those, whom before I have named, did generally for all main Matters teach the same, Which we now teach. What forehead or shame hath this Man? For First, as touching Waldo, Wiclef, Hus, and their followers (in whom through out this Pamphlet, the Author principally insisteth) It is confessed by Osiander, Luther, Fox, and other Protestants, as also it appeareth by some of their own writings, that they agreed with the Catholics in most points of Catholic Religion, which were of greatest moment (as in the Real Presence, seven Sacrements, praying to Saints, Purgatory, freewill, Merit of Works, and in all other most principal Articles of the present Roman Religion) Concerning the proof of all which points, I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue. Secondly, touching other obscure Men, alleged by the Pamphleter for Protestants he commonly and for the most part (some two or three excepted) exemplifieth no other Article of Protestancy defended by them, than their disobedience and inveighing against the Bishop of Rome. But if he could have justly averred them for Protestants in all chief Articles, why would he not as well particulary set the said Articles of Protestancy down, as he did the other, touching their disclaiming from the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Ad hereto, that many are produced for Protestants by this Author, only for their sharply speaking and writing against the manners and conversation of the Clergy in those days; they not dissenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatsoever; & ever even ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea.  
To all the former points I may adjoin this following Consideration. That supposing the foresaid alleged Men were protestants in all points: yet do they not prove the Visibility of the true Church of Christ, for these Reasons ensuing: First, because they were but few in number, and in regard of such their paucity, the Predictions of the amplitude largnes, and continual splendour of Christ Church could not be performed in that small number. Touching which predictions, peruse the beginning of the Dialogue: Secondly, because neither this Author, nor any other Protestant living (how learned soever) can prove, that, there were in those times (specified by this Pamphleter) any Administration of the Word and Sacraments practised by any of these supposed Protestants: which ever necessarily concurs to the existence and being of the true Church; as is demonstrated in the former Tract. Thirdly, because the former Men could but serve for instances during their own lyves, and no longer; The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Protestant, for the space of many Ages and Centuryes together: which point being so, impugneth not only the Nature of Christ's true Church, which must at all times and ages be most visible; but also it crosseth the Title of this Pamphlet: wherein the Author undertaketh to prove the Visibility of his Church in all Ages.  
Thus far now (Good Reader) I have laboured in surveying this Idle Pamphlet. Now for they better memory, I will briefly recapitulate and repeat certain chief impostures and deceitful deportements, practised by this Author throughout his Book. And then I will remit both him and his Treatise, to they own impartial judgement.  
1. First then, I may remember his putting no name to his Book, nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London, touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church: nor once naming M. Fisher and M. Sweet, the two than disputants. Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purposely affected in all probability: seeing otherwise he might well think, that the setting of his own Name down (especially if the Author were either D. white or D. Featly) or having in this discourse particular reference to the foresaid Disputation, might sooner draw on an answer to his Pamphlet, from one of the said two Fathers, or from some other Priest.  
2. Secondly, You may call to mind, that in the first part of his Treatise, he laboureth to prove rather the Inuisibility of the true Church, than the visibility thereof (contrary to the Inscription of his Pamphlet) chiefly to intimate thereby, that a continual Visibility of the true Church is not so necessarily to be exacted, as we Catholics do teach it is: and consequently, that what few, weak, may●ied, and imperfect proofs and examples for the continuance of protestancy, he was after to allege, the same might be thought sufficient and strong enough, for the establishing of his own Church's Visibility.  
3. Thirdly, The pamphleter challengeth any one for a Protestant who did but hold one or two Articles of protestancy (and especially if he did but impugn the Pope's authority) or did write against the Manners & conversation of the Clergy of those days; though otherwise he did agree with the Church of Rome, in all Articles of faith.  
4. Fourthly, He challengeth those for protestants, who were condemned by the Church of Rome, for other Errors, then are maintained by the protestants; so making the ignorant Reader believe, that the Pope in those days condemned only the doctrines of Protestants for Heresies. this the pamphleter doth to the end, that the number of the professors of his Church in those days might seem the greater, in his Readers eye.  
5. fifthly, he most cauteously concealeth the Catholic doctrynes, ever believed by Hus, Wiclefe, Waldo etc. as also sic most falsely extenuateth such Heresies, as they maintained, & are acknowledged for Heresies even by learned protestāns; The Treatizer subtly forbearing to name or set down (in express Words) any one of their Heresies.  
6. Sixtly, For want of better Authors, he fleeth to the testimonies even of Poets (as Chaucer, Da●●es, Petrarch) urging them for protestants; only by reason of their Satyrs, written against the supposed abuses of Rome.  
7. Seavently, he most impertinently dilateth and spreadeth himself, in long and tedious discourses, touching the increase of the Doctrine of Waldo, Hus, Wiclef etc. as also touching the Contentions between the Popes, and the Emperors, the Kings of England and France; and finally spendeth diverse leaves in railing against the Pope, as Antichrist: All which wearisome prolixityes he useth, thereby to spin out his book to some reasonable length or quantity; seeing otherwise to the title of his book, they are merely impertinent.  
8. Eightly, his Monstrous Impudence is to be observed, in making S. Bernard, and the Greek Church in former times, as also the Churches in India, Armenia, Asiae, Minor, Egypt etc. to be protestants, without showing any one Protestant Article, that they did hold; excepting the Greek Church, denying the Pope's Supremacy.  
9 Nynthly, The title of his Book, being to prove the continual Visibility of his own Church in all ages, he produceth his Examples of protestancy (supposing them for the time, to be true Examples) only for the first three or four hundred years before Luther's days; and so (merely cross to the title of his book) he omitteth eleven hundred years, without geving instance of any one protestant, during all those Ages.  
10. Tenthly, Touching the Compass of those few ages, for which he produceth some supposed Examples, his fraud and calumny is, to begin from Luther upward (and not downward towards Luther) thereby the better (as is above said) to conceal from a vulgar Eye, the small number of those ages or Centuryes, for which he endeavoureth to prove the imaginary Visibility of the protestant Church.  
11. Elevently and last, his stilling the Catholic Articles (to wit of the Real Presence, purgatory, free will, praying to Saints, and all the rest, believed by S. Bernard and other Catholics only Lapses and Slips; the belief of which Articles in us Catholics at this present he, commonly calls Idolatry, Superstition etc. But this alleviation of words and speech he useth most subtly of S. Bernard that so notwithstanding S. Bernard's different belief yet by this Pamphleter he nevertheless may be reputed a good protestant.  
Thus far (Good Reader) of his chief affected sleights And with this I end, referring this one Consideration unto thee. That is: If the question of the Visibility of the protestant Church through the Conference had thereof at London (immediately before the coming out of this Pamphlet) and occasion of that other Toy, entitled: The Fisher catched in his own M●t, was at that time, much discoursed and talked of by many Men through out the land; and therefore the maintainers of this Visibility did stand more obliged (by all Reading and learning possible) to justify the same; being then and at all times, so much provoked unto it by us Catholics, and if nevertheless, the Author hear refuted, being styled in the Epistle of this Treatise: A most reverend, and learned Man, and one who hath more particularly and perspicuously travalled in this Argument, than any in our English tongue; And therefore he may be presumed in all lyklyhood, to have spoken in defence thereof, as much as can be spoken therein: If (I say) this Man cannot but for three or four ages only (and these, nearest to Luther's days) seek to justify the same; and this by means of some few, false, defective, and misapplyed examples and Instances, accompanied with diverse fraud's impostures, and Collusions: What other thing then from hence may be concluded, but that it is impossible to make good or prove the Visibility of the Protestants Church, during all the ages since Christ to Luther's days (or indeed, du●ing but any one ●ge thereof) And consequently, that the Protestant Church, for want of such a necessary Visibility (ever attending o●● the true Church of Christ) is not, nor can be the true Church of Christ?  
FINIS.   

THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED JEW OR THE THIRD DIALOGUE OF MICHAEAS THE JEW.  
Between. 

The right honourable, the Lord Chief justice of England.  
Michaeas', the former Converted jew.  
M. Vice Chancellor of Oxford.    
The Contents hereof the Argument following, will show.  
Vide mulierem ebriam de sanguine Sanctorum,  Apocalips'. 17.  

THE ARGUMENT OF THE THIRD DIALOGUE OF MICHAEAS. STYLED THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED JEW.  
MICHAEAS', after his disputation ended in Oxford, with D. Reynolds, Ochinus, and Neuserus, touching the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church; and giving it out, that he would instantly depart from thence; Nevertheless lieth secretly in Oxford, and hath peculiar acquaintance with some of the choyest wits there; whom he persuadeth to the Catholic, and Roman faith.  
The Vicechancelour of Oxford, hearing thereof, apprehendeth Michaeas, conventeth him before the right Honourable the Lord Cheife-Iustice of England; before whom he stands arraigned of three Crymes. The first, that (according to the falsely supposed Principles of the Roman Religion) he laboureth to plant disloyalty in the Scholar's minds. The which Michaeas absolutely denyeth; and thereupon retorteth (by way of recrimination) the crime of Disloyalty upon the Protestants, both for their doctrine thereof, and for their practice. The second offence urged by the Vicechancelour is, that Michaeas did write certain short Discourses of diverse points of Catholic Religion, and diwlged them to the Scholars of his acquaintance: Of which discourses the Vicechancelour getting a copy (of Michaeas' his own hand writing) delivereth it (in the presence of Michaeas) to the Lord Cheife-Iustice. This Action Michaeas acknowledgeth it, as true, and warranteth it by force of Reason, and strong example. The third Crime. That, Michaeas (being a Roman Priest) undertaketh to reconcile some Scholars to the Church of Rome, and daily celebrateth Mass.  
All this Michaeas granteth unto, justifying such his proceeding, by deducing the antiquity of Priesthood: of the power of remitting sins (in the Sacrament of Penance) and of the Mass even from the times of the Apostles, and the Primative Church: By reason of which occasion, the present state of Priests, and Catholics in England, is impart discoursed of.  
To conclude (omitting diverse other short insertions, & passages in the Dialogue, incidently occurring) the Lord Cheife-Iustice (as inclining to clemency, and commiseration) proceedeth to an honourable, and mild Censure, or judgement against Michaeas; at which censure the Vicechancelour mightily stormeth. And so, (Michaeas, earnestly praying for the King's health, and true happiness) the Dialogue endeth.   

THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED JEW BEING A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD CHEIFE-IUSTICE OF ENGLAND MICHAEAS THE CONVERTED JEW AND M. VICECHANCELOUR OF OXFORD.  
Wherein is proved (besides diverse other short insertions) that the Protestants stands more chargeable with disloyalty to their Lawful Princes, than Catholics do.  THE VICECHANCELOUR. 
MY Lord. All duty to your Lordship. I have here brought before your Lordship, a Man most turbulent in his proceedings; and who of late hath much ruffled, and disordered the fi●e, and quiet state of our University, by seeking to infect the Scholars thereof, with his Popish, and superstitious doctrines: One, whom kind, and courteous entertainment (for such he hath found at our hands) cannot mollify, and whose demerits are of that nature, as that Compassion showed to him, would prove Cruelty to others; And we should become accessary to our own hurt, to suffer such a man to pass vn punished. Therefore I hope your Lordship will not preserve him, whom the Law hath overthrown; nor suffer his present calamity (how great soever it may seem) to attract from your clear judgement commiseration, & pity; But rather you will vouchsafe to remember, that he doubteth his crime, who masketh it under the tecture of Religion.  
This is that Michaeas; homo 
a Act. 24. The jews so called S. Paul in their Accusation.  pestiferus & concitans seditionem; who after his disputation in our University with the most learned D. Reynolds, made show presently to leave our university, and to retire himself into some foreign Country: But many months have since that time passed: He, during all the while, secretly lourking among us (so the Spidar lies close, to surprise the incautelous flee) seeketh to get private acquaintance with diverse eminent Masters of Arts, and others of the younger sort. Which being obtained, he than enuenometh their judgements with Superstition, and Idolatry, and with his other Romish positions, breathing disobedience, & disloyalty against the Magistrate. And indeed he hath such a facility by sly, and subtle insinuations, to serve himself within the Scholar's affections, as that it is most wonderful: For first he commonly beginneth a far off, to talk with them of the nature of other Countries, and of his own travels in other universityes (to which discourses our Scholars do lend their greedy ears) before ever he entereth to talk of Religion; And so (like a good tabler,) he usually playeth with them an aftergame, the more speedily to come to his designed end. The hurt, which he hath already perpetrated in our university (which is one of the two eyes of the whole Realm) is great and insufferable; and your Lordship well knows, that 
b Math. cap. 5.  if the eye be wicked, than all the Body shallbe dark. Therefore now at the length having apprehended him, I have converted him before your Lordship that so he may be punished by the Law, who hath transgressed the Law.  LORD-CHEIFE JUSTICE. 
Stand forth Michaeas. Many and grievous (you see) are the complaints given up against you; from which you must either truly vindicate yourself, by being faultless therein, or otherwise you must undergo the chastisement appointed for such offences. And though we judges be ordained to punish what is evil; yet we are to wish, that men do not prove themselves evil: And therefore I desire, that your Innocency (if innocent you be) may be here cleared: for I hold it a far greater oversight to punish the guiltless, then to leave unpunished the guilty; Since justice instructeth us not to delight in punishment, but to recurre to it for plain necessity. Now speak Michaeas, what you can in your own defence.  MICHAEAS'. 
My Lord. I do hear first prostrate myself in all Humility before your Honour; resting glad, that though my accuser have wronged me by thus falsely traducing me before your L. yet that it is my fortune, to appear before such a judge, with whom Innocency shall find it sanctuary, and only true faults be corrected: for I presume, that that sentence of the Psalmist is even imprinted and sealed up in your hart: 
c Psalm. 57  Rectè iudicate filij hominum.  
Now for my more just defence your L. may hear be advertized, that I am a jew by birth and Nation, and a Roman by Religion; and do hold, that jerusalem, (I mean the Church of Rome, which is upon earth, the spiritual 
d joan. cap. 4.  jerusalem) is the place, where Men ought to worship. I came into this flourishing Kingdom, only through my great desire of seeing your famous and so much celebrated Vniversityes, with intention of return in a convenient tyme. Now I trust (my L. I speak it under correction of your more experienced judgement) that I, as being a stranger, and not borne within these dominions, do not stand precisly subject to the laws of the said dominions; And therefore, what I have committed (suppose most to be true, as most of it is false) may well be an error in me; but any heinous crime (as now it is exagitated) it cannot be. And further every Man well knows, that even by the law of Nations, the very name of a stranger (who in this respect cannot take particular notice of the Municipal statutes and Ordinances of the Realm) doth plead excuse for many Transgressions; the committers whereof being borne subjects, are severely and deservedly punished. Therefore my L. since Laws are made rather to succour, then to wound Mankind, I dowbt not, but your L. will hear dispense with all stern severity, and will remember that saying of an ancient Father: Facilius Ira, quam Indulgentia obliqua est.  VICE CHANCELLOR. 
See you not my L. how this Polypragmon, this Michaeas dare not only (without fear) violate the laws of our Realm; but also will needs brave it before your Lordship, that for being a stranger, and not borne in our Nation, he stands not subject to the said Laws? and thereupon doth justify his impietyes; but it seems he glories to be extremely facinorous: 
e Tertul. lib de Pudicit.  Est & mali dignitas, quod in summo pessimorum collocetur.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Michaeas'. Your Plea hear is most weak and defective for though you be a stranger, and as you say, not borne under the laws of our Dominions; yet you must know, that you had leisure enough to be acquainted with our Laws, before you entered into our Country, or at lest within short time after. And you must conceive, that the Laws being made by the consent of the whole Realm, are not to be violated in favour of any one Man. Furthermore, where you speak of Privileges and Indulgences allowed to strangers even by all national Laws; you must ●●ke notize, that these favours are imparted to strangers with some conditions and restrictions; to wit, if the bad comp●rtment and carriage of the said strangers do not worthily 〈◊〉 them of participating of the said Privileges; since otherwise, no reason there is, why they should be partakers of them; And indeed the less reason, because in time of Necessity, when the Prince is to command aids, forces, or Tributs from his subjects, no such relief and helps can be expected at the hands of any strangers, residing in his Country. Lastly, it were repugnant to the nature of justice (which in itself is ever sacred and inviolable) that a stranger, (such an one, as you Michaeas, are) by coming into a foreign Country, and as it were, by indevizing himself for the time, should become a subject in the fruition of the benefits of the said Country; And yet, when he would perform any unlawful act, he should of new create himself a stranger. Therefore (Michaeas) my judgement here is, that you stand obnoxions and subject to our laws; And therefore you must either plead yourself innocent in the objected Crymes; or else the Laws of our Realm will justly take hold of you. What say you therefore to the offences, wherewith you here stand charged?  MICHAEAS'. 
Well my good Lord: since it is so I humbly submit myself to your L. grave judgement herein, and do willingly recalle my former mistaking, in alleging the privilege of a stranger. Yet I hope I rest excusable: since not knowing, but that it might stand in force, I had no reason (by not insisting upon it at the first) to be unjust to mine own Innocency, or to be slow in mine own defence. Now my L. to come to the objected Offences. Where first I must say, that though an extraordinary Love of justice doth sometimes cause Injustice in the lover: Yet no such effects do I fear in your L. since you are one, who will impartially censure of men's Actions, as they are in themselves: and not as they are tragically amplified by the tongue of malice.  
Touching then my accusations, I must put your Lordship in mind, that my Adversaries Serpentine (not Prudence, according to our Saviour's words, but) Subtilty, hath in accusing of me, so affectedly mingled together Truths with falsehoods, as that I can neither with one breath absolutely acknowledge all, nor absolutely deny all. If I say, I have not persuaded some Scholars of the University to the Catholic Roman Religion, I do lie; And if I do confess, that I have diwlged to them any Positions of our Religion, as supposed to contain the seeds of disobedience and disloyalty to their Prince (besides the untruth thereof) I should be false to myself, and wrongfully become my own Accuser. Therefore) to sever and ●ane these two different points, one from the other) know you (most worthy judge) that I do freely grant, that during my stay in this your celebrious University, I have moved diverse of the students to embrace our Catholic and only true Religion. And if it be then an offence to persuade a Man to save his soul, I do here acknowledge myself to be an offendor in this Kind, and shall receive with comfort any imposed punishments for the same: But if it had been far better for one, to have lied in everlasting Informitye and Abis' of Nothing, then to enjoy a Being, and after to have that Being (for want of a true faith and Religion in his Creator) to be punished with eternity of pains; I hope then, we live not in those Canicular and unluckily times, but that the persuading by fair and sweet means to the true faith and religion, shallbe holden if not as worthy of Commendation yet at lest as exempt from blame and dislike; and the rather, since Men are not to be forced by laws to an erroneous faith only for statesake: Religionis 
f Ter●●l. l●b ad Sca 〈…〉.  non est cogere religionem, quae spontè suscipi debeat, non vi.  
Touching the second point, wherewith my adversary (too mild a word, my Enemy) chargeth me at this present: that is, that I should lie secret in the University, and labour by all means possible, to plant in the Scholar's judgements such Theorems of doctrine, as might breed disloyalty in their minds; It is a most false and calumnious imputation: myself being therein as innocent, as Innocency itself. I know well, that as on the one side, nothing is more delicate, then is the sense and feeling of an Estate; so on the other, I am assured, that our Catholic Religion is so far from approving disloyalty, as any Profession or Religion can be. For it teacheth with the chief Apostle, that we 
a 1. Pet. 3.  ought to be subject to the King, as excelling; It further instructed us with the Apostle of the gentils, That 
b Roman. cap 13  we are to be subject to higher powers, seeing there is no power, but of God, that Who 
c ubi supra.  resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they, that resist, purchase to themselves damnation; Finally, that we 
d Ibidem.  ought to be subject even of necessity, and for conscience sake; since 
e Ibidem.  such a Power beareth not his sword without cause.  
Now our Religion teaching all this, why should this Plaintiff out of his own speculative and suspicious concea●e (like to a superfluous Comment, which ascribeth more to the Text, than ever the Author meaned) soil my innocent and clear intentions with the aspersion of such a foul demeanour? Therefore my L. since this is only storm, which at this present chiefly showereth upon my disgrace; I hope that the radiant beams of justice (through your L. means) will be of force to dissipate and dissolve it.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
My Lord these are the accustomed common places of mouths, exhaling forth disloyalty; I mean, to plead innocency, though never so faulty; and to stuff their excuse with tragical phrases, apt to stir up a vulgar pity. But if this Man [my L.] who hath contaminated himself with so many foul breaches of Civil Hospitality (which all men in all Nations most ceremoniously observe (may pass unchastized; then let vice expect to be rewarded, and virtue punished. But why do I labour so painfully to take the height of this his wicked action (since it is a kind of error, over precisely to insist in proof of most evident Truths) as if doubt were here to be made either of your L. judgement herein, or of your justice? the one being sufficiently warranted unto us, by your long experience in this kind; the other by your many examples of like Nature. But to turn my words particularly to you, Michaeas. I pray you, why must your stay in our University be kept so close and secret, after you gave it out, you would instantly depart? Belike you thought, the more retyredly you lived from the eye of us all, the greater conceit would be had of your presumed Worth; and so your followers might keep you, as a treasure reserved to themselves; you imitating herein Diogenes, who became the more eminent, in regard of his affected obscurity.  MICHAEAS'. 
O M. Vicechancelour. do not thus betrample upon old age and calamity; neither lay a further weight of disgrace, by your forgeryes upon him, whom misery and years have almost prostrated even with the earth. Neither seek to enlarge my faults with your more grievous fault. And where you invest my private retyringe in your University with a veil of a desired emminency; I must reply, that I am as far from all such elation and pride of mind, as yourself is from all charitable censuring of me. For I do acknowledge myself to be a mean and de●ected Old Man, and do ascribe all glory height and honour to him, who is celsitudo 
* Psalm. 137.  humilium; And who being only supreme, doth most delight in those, who are the lowest; And this deservedly, since we find by experience, that who are most poor in Spirit, are commonly most rich in the gifts of the Spirit.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
M. Vicech: I would have you to descend to the particular doctrines of disloyalty, broached by Michaeas in your University: for as yet both your words have been spent only in discoursing and äery generalityes. And they are particulars only, of which the law taketh hold: for since the punishment prescribed by the Law is particular, it followeth, that the offence must also be particular. Therefore show in such and such a point with others particularityes, where Michaeas hath offended against the Sovereignty of Princes.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
My L. ay will. You have di 〈…〉 gled (Michaeas) to your sollowers, that the Pope hath full authority to det●one Kings and Princes (though never so absolute) at his pleasure. And further Papists teach, that the spiritual jurisdiction residing in the Pope, aught to have that predominancy over all temporal authority, which the soul hath over the body. To be short, this point (to wit, that your Popish Religion doth teach rebellion & insurrection of the subjects against their lawful Prince) is so clear, as that we may well say, Papistry and Disloyalty are almost Termini convertibiles: for though some disloyal Men are not Papists: yet every Papist (in that he is a Papist) is to his sovereign Protestant Prince, disloyal.  MICHAEAS'. 
You are glad (M. Viach.) to moisten this your dry accusation, in the froth of many idle and splenfull words. Your accusation stands upon two points: First, you charge me in particular for disseminating of disloyalty in your University: That being only said, you make in lieu of further proof thereof a sub●●ll transition to the doctrine of other Catholics in that point: As if what were wanting to the perfecting of my supposed Crime therein, aught to be made up, by the accession and application to me of other Catholic Doctors writings of that subject.  
Now to the first I answer. It is a most false Calumny forged in your own brain, and wrought upon the anvil of Mali●e. For produce (if you can) the parties, to whom I ever uttered such a Doctrine, the Place or the Time, Where or when, such speeches were delivered. Thus, we see, that this your report (as being in itself most false) is wholly disuested of all Circumstances, necessarily attending upon every humane Action. For even to re●cyle the secrets of my soul herein: I did in all my discourses with your Scholars purposely avoid 
of Sta●e,  (as a seamarke) all such questions [of State:] so unwilling I ever was, but to touch upon those dangerous sands. And for the greater demonstration of my Innocency herein, and of my Loyalty to his Majesty of England, I here acknowledge (and in this acknowledgement I do for the time, depose and put of the person of Michaeas, and speak in my own person, the Author of this Treatise; and in the name of all other Priests and Catholics of England) all layalty and fidelity to our most gracious and dread sovereign King Charles, and to his most illustrious and worthy Queen; beseeching the Almighty to grant him a fruitful bed, and to make him Parent of many noble Children: And further I humbly pray to the Highest, that he may in all tranquillity and true happiness reign over us many years; and after his dissolution of Body, that he may equal in everlasting Be atitude the greatest Saint of his Predecessors now in Heaven. This is my Protestation made in all sincerity, and in which by God's grace even to my last gasp. I intent to continue and persever.  
But now to resume my former shape of Michaeas. Touching the first point of my accusation (M. Vicechancelour) you see how clear and innocent I am. I will now hasten to the second branch, containing (as you say) the doctrine of Disloyalty, taught even by all the Doctors of the Roman Church. First I answer, It is a most injust slander obtruded upon them by you; since not any one Catholic Doctor teacheth, nor aone good lay Catholic beleiveth, that the Pope can at his ny pleasure depose Princes, and transfer Kingdoms and states, as to him best liketh. Secondly, I reply, that seeing you never cease to upbraid our Catholic Religion, with the foul stain of disloyalty (this being your, & other Protestants common Theme, wherein you so much ryout in malignant exagerations) Therefore as awakened by your so often ingeminated accusation herein, I do avouch (pardon me most Reverend judge, if being thus provoked, I enter into a Subject, perhaps ungrateful to you) that the Protestants do by infinite degrees, stand more reprehensible in this point of disloyalty and disobedience towards their Prince, than we Catholics do. And this I will prove, if I may be suffered, at this present against you [M. Vicechancelour] first from the positions and speculative assertions of the most learned Protestants; and after, from the actual insurrections and rebellions of Protestants, against their lawful Princes.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
This is the Scene [Michaeas] of men of your disposition, that when you are truly charged with your own faults, then in place of better answer, you insimulate (by way of recrimination) your Adversaries within the same faults. But it seems by you, that dotage is the accustomed Attendant of old age; or that you take a delight and complacency to have the subject of disloyalty often in your mouth, as you ever have it in your hart. But begin at your pleasure to charge us Protestants (if you can) either with the doctrine or practice of disloyalty. My Lord-Iudge (I know) will give you leave, who in the end shall perceive, that all what you can imagine in this point, is but meet imagination, and no real Truth; And so in your discourse, you will resemble that Man, who dreams, he doth but dream.  MICHAEAS'. 
O wound not [M. Vicechancelour] my reputation with these Philippics and declamatory Inuectives; so much hurtful even to the speaker: for, 
* Tertul  quomodo placabit Patrem, iratus in fratrem? And rest satisfied, that I do not solace myself (as you suggest) in this unpleasing Text: but do acquaint myself with discourses of that subject, with the like intention, that the moral Philosopher doth busy himself with the nature of Vice; which is, the better to avoid Vice.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Michaeas'. I must needs now say, that you do infinitely wrong our Religion, by ascrybing both to the chief Doctors and Professors of it, this odious Crime of Disloyalty and Rebellion. No, no. Our Gospel which cometh from God, best teacheth our duty towards the Lieutenants of God. I presume, that herein you rest but upon the bare and naked speeches of others of your own Religion, our designed enemies: But you must remember, that as things, which are seen by reflection, are imperfectly seen; so reports and bruits taken only at the rebound of partial men's mouths, deserve but a light ear.  
But seeing it is the part of a judge, to hear all sides with an indifferent ear; you may [Michaeas] at your pleasure begin your discourse of this your assumed Argument, where I doubt not, but M. Vice Chancellor will sufficiently repel all your reasons, and answer to your examples, to the greater Honour of our Religion; which is a free from all stain and blot of disloyalty, as an intemerate virgin is free from any defiled touch. Therefore, Proceed.  MICHAEAS'. 
My L. I will; And I must entreat your Patience herein, as desirous to abstain from geving the lest just offence to your L. And touching this subject, I dowbt little, but that (howsoever you are as yet persuaded) after I have finished my Discourse, your morning and more retired thoughts will (at lest in the secrets of your own judgement) give an other censure hereof. And I will begin in delivering the Positions & doctrines, which the most accomplished Protestants for literature, have left of this Argument in their Books and writings.  
And first do we not find Luther even to deny all secular principality, as most unlawful now in these Christian days? For thus he writeth: Among 
a Luth. de secular. potest. in tom. 9 German.  Christian Men none is superior, save one, and only Christ. As also more fully: Among 
b Luth. ubi supra.  Christians, no man can or aught to be a Magistrate; but eich one is to other equally subject. And further in contempt of all Magistrates touching matters of Religion, he thus discourseth: As Christ 
c Luth. sermons englished & printed 1579. p. 97. & tom. Witenberg. f. 327.  cannot suffer himself to be tied and bound by Laws etc. So ought not the Conscience of a Christian to suffer them. And more: If the 
d Luth. Sermons ut supra. p. 261.  Civil Magistrate should contend, that his Commandments be necessary to salvation; then as it is said of the Traditions of the Papists, the contrary is to be done. Thus we find, that Luther is not afraid, not only to impugn all Magistracy and domination in certain cases; but he is also not ashamed, to dogmatise and teach in his writings, that there neither are nor aught to be any true sovereignty or Princes at all, now in the days of Christ. To which Princes partly their Eminency graced with Pomp and state; but chiefly an innate & imbred Obedience to Power and Majesty (God and Nature making that now good, which law of man did first ordain) induce men to exhibit all due reverence and veneration: In compare of whom, even the greatest subjects are to seem but private & obscure; like the brightest stars, which are darkened in the presence of a fairer light.  VICE CHANCELLOR. 
Touching Luther [Michaeas] you must know, that although we acknowledge him, to have been a great instrument of God, for the revealing in these later times the Gospel of Christ; yet we grant, that in some points he varied from the Truth; and particularly in denying all Magistracy and Principality. But all other chief Professors of our Religion concurrently teach with us the lawfulness of Princes, and all due Obedience unto them.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour If Luther by your own acknowledgement, did err in this point, how then can you rest assured, that he did not err in other points of faith, first by him broached, and after entertained by you: Since he had no better warrant for teaching the truth in the one, then in the other; and it is certain, that a manifest error but in one point, carrieth with it a possibility of erring in any other point. But to come to your answer. I say the contrary thereto will presently appear. For is it not evident, that Swinglius (a man of extraordinary note among you) thus teacheth? Quando 
e Tom. 1. in explanat. Art. 42.  perfide & extra regulam Christi egerint Principes, possunt depon●: When Princes do evil, and contrary to the rule of Christ, they may be deposed. Thus Swinglius; who there warranteth this his doctrine from the example of Saul, whom God deposed; although afore he designed him, King. Yea Swinglius thus further proceedeth: Due 
f Swingl. in l. epist. Oecolam. & Swingl. l. 4. epist. Cunhardo Somio etc. Promittendum est Caesart officium, si modo fidē●obis per 〈◊〉▪ illibatam.  reverence it to be promised to Caesar, if so be permitteth to us our Religion inviolable: Thus intimating, that if the Prince doth not permit Religion, than no honour is to be given, but resistance is to be made. Swinglius furthermore continueth his former discourse in these very words Romanum 
g Swim 〈…〉 ●b●●upra.  Imperium, ●m● qu●du●s aliud Imperium, ubi religionem sinceram opprimere caperit etc. If the Roman Emperor, or any other Prince or Sovereign shall begin to oppress the sincere Religion, & nos illud negligentes patim● etc. And we negligently suffer the same. We shall stand charged with contempt thereof, as much as even the oppressors themselves: An assertion so much displeasing to other more sober and quiet Protestants, that D. Bilson doth rest much distasted with those words of Swinglius; saying in lieu, of further answer to them: As I muse 
h In his true d 〈…〉 rinse pa●t 3. pag. 273.  at Swi●glius his words; so I like not his judgement.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Mich 〈…〉. You know well, that Swinglius and Luther lived both in one time together: I mean, then, when though many Articles of the 〈◊〉 were by them discovered; yet all were not discovered; but happily they might maintain some errors; The Sun of Christ's Gospel not as then arriving to it Meridian and full ascent. And indeed it is a kind of imperfection and (as I may term it) a sign of an over rigid nature, to expect in the w●yters of those firster times, no imperfection at all. But now in these more late and refined days, the Professors of the Gospel have wholly exploded the former doctrine of Luther and Swinglius herein. For what Men do more advance & defend the dignity and sovereignty of Princes, than we do in our Sermons, and other our private Conferences?  MICHAEAS'. 
If you do so much magnify in your Pulpits (as you say, you do) the regality of Princes, it is to the end, that in the close (I speak only but of some of you) you may the better undermine them all: like the earth, which for the time nourisheth all Creatures, yet finally devoureth all Creatures. But because you reply, that the Professors coming after Luther and Swinglius, cannot be blemished in their writings, with any spot of disloyalty; Therefore to follow you in your own method therein, I will come by degrees from Luther and Swinglius even to these our days; and so descending in times, I will ascend in weight and force of Argument.  
And now to come to Calvin, who next in time succeeded Swiglius, and towards whom most of you Protestants do commit a Kind of Idolatry. It is over evident, that Calvin thus writeth of Princes and their authority: Earthly 
i Calvin in Daniel. c. 6. Abdicant s● pot●●ta●e ●err●●i Principes, du●●ns●rg●nt con●r● Deum; ●mo i●digni sun●, qui ces●antur in num 〈…〉 h●m●num: P●tius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita, quam illis parere.  Princes do depr 〈…〉 themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God, yea they are unworthy to be accounted in the number of Men: and we are rather to spit upon their f●ces, then to obey them. Thus we see, that Calvin teacheth that, Princes commanding things unlawful, do utterly deprive themselves of all authority and regality, where with a fore they were invested. With which former Words of Calvin D. Wilks (no vulgar Protestant) doth uppraid the Puritans in this sort: They 
k In his obedience or Ecclesiastical Union. pag. 60.  were your teachers, who account those Princes (who are not resined by their spirit) unworthy to be accounted among the number of Men; and therefore rather to be spitted upon, then obeyed: They were your teachers, who defend Rebellion against Princes of a different Religion Thus D. Wilk●.  
To come next to Beza. He was so full and intemperate in overthrowing the authority of Princes; as that he did purposely write a book of this very Subject, styling it: De 〈◊〉 Magistratuum in sub●●tos: a book much dislyked by D. Bancroft (the late Arch Bishop 
l in his Survey of the pretended discipline. pag. 48 As also in the book entitled: Dangerous Positions.  of Canterbury) and D. Succl●ffe: Which Doctor t●us censureth thereof: Beza 
m D. Succleffe in his answer to a certain 〈…〉 applicatory pag. 75.  in his book of the power of Magistrates, doth arm the subjects against their France in these cases etc. And further: Beza (m) roundly teacheth, what reason have Christians to obey him, that is Satan's slave. And yet speaking more of that Book of Beza, he saith: a book, 
n D. Succleffe ubi supra, pag. 98.  which overthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistrates. To contract this point touching Beza. Beza himself thus writeth in one of his Epistles to a friend of his: P●rplace● 
p In his epist. theolog. epist. 68  mihi etc. It pleaseth me very much, that you write, that private Conuents and assemblies are to be made without the authority of Princes And again, in the said epistle: Si pijs semper expectandum putas, dum lupi ultro cedant etc. If you think, we must stay the delays of godly men, till the woul●es do freely depart, or are driven away by public authority: I cannot yield to your judgement therein etc. And if we had made such delays, What Churches should we have had at this day? Thus far of the doctrines of Calvin and Beza in this point: concerning both which in general, I will set down the judgement of therefore named D. Bancroft, passed upon them both, who thus writeth: He that 
q In his Survey of pretended discipline. pag. 42.  shall reed M. Caluins and M. beza's two books of Epistles etc. Would certainly marvel to understand, into what actions and dealings they put themselves of war, of peace, of subjection, of reformation, without staying for the Magistrate. Thus he.  
Next we will come to knox, who thus teacheth: Reformation 
r Knox to the Communality f. 49. & 50.  of Religion belorgeth to the Communality. 
s Knox histor. pag. 343.  God hath apppointed the Nobility to bridle the inordinate appetits of Princes, 
t Knox hist. p. 371.  Princes for just cause may be deposed. Finally Knox further avoucheth in these words: 
u Knox to En●land & Scotland. fol. 76.  If Princes be tyrant's against God and his Truth, their Subjects are freed from the oath of obedience. Of all which passages of Kno●see D. Bancroft in his book of dangerous Positions. Neither his Colleague Bucanan is less sparing herein: for thus he teacheth: The 
x Bucanan. l. de iure regni pag. 13.  People have right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure And yet with ●at more debasing spite he thus egurgi●ates his venom: It 
y Bucanan ubi supra. p. 40.  were good, that rewards were appointed by the People for such, 〈◊〉 should kill Tyrants, as commonly there is for those, which have killed vulues. Finally Bucanan affirmeth, that People 
z Bucanan ubi supra pag. 62.  may arraign their Prince. Now in regard of these impious positions of Knox and Bucanan, I fully approve and allow the grave sentence of the Bishop of Rochester; who in his Sermon 
a Preached the 〈◊〉. of No 〈…〉ber & printed. ●606.  at Pools Church, termeth these two men: The two fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Michaeas'. Notwithstanding what you here have alleged touching strangers; yet no part thereof concerns the Church of England, or it Members: Our Church remaining most incontaminate, f●ee, and spotless from the lest tuch of disloyalty. And therefore what is by you as yet hearesaid, concerneth us little; you only discovering your Ignorance in misapplying other men's doctrines to us, who wholly disclaim from the same.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour: Pardon me, if I here do say, you charge my Ignorance with greater Ignorance. For first, are not your Protestants of England of the same faith and Religion with Luther, Sw●nglius, Calvin, Beza, and the others above mentioned? If you be not, then have you erected a new Protestant Church of late, different from all Protestant Churches afore in Being. If you be of the same faith, must you not then confess, that your Religion teacheth disobedience and disloyalty to your Prince? Secondly, it is over manifest, that the Church of England (I speak of some members thereof only, & not of all) doth stand most chargeable with the same crime. In proof of which point, I will produce the testimony of your former Archbishop of Canterbury, D. Bancroft; who in one of his Books, thus confesseth of English Ministers concerning this point, saying: I omit 
b In h 〈…〉 Survey of the pretended holy discipline pag. 48.  their desperate courses of deposing Princes, and putting them to death in diverse cases of resistance against reformation: The general sum was this: That if the sovereign Magistrate refuse to admit it; the Ministers, the inferior Magistrate, the People etc. might set it o● foo●e themselves. Of these, and such like arguments diverse books (he meaning, made by English protestants) were allowed by the Ministers of Geneva, to be there then printed in English, and to be published in England etc. And again the said Archbishop in an other of his Books, speaking of the seditious English Protestants in Queen mary's time, thus writeth: Goodman, 
c D. Bancroft in his dangerous Positions pag. 34.  Whitingam, Gilby, the author of the book of Obedience, with the rest of the Geneva Complices in Queen mary's days, urged all states by degrees, rather to take arms and to reform Religion themselves; then to suffer such Idolatry & Superstition remain in the Land. But to descend more particularly to this Goodman. He was a forward Protestan● in Queen mary's time, & did write a book of this very subject, as D. Bancroft 
d In his dangerous positions. p. 35.  and D. Succliffe 
e In his answer to a certain libel supplicatory. p 192.  affirm. Thus hereof he writeth (as D. Bancroft 
f D. Bancroft ubi supra pag. 35.  allegeth his sentences) If 
g Goodman in his said Book p. 119. 139.  Magistrates transgress Gods Laws, and command others to do the like, then have they lo●● honour and obedience, and ought no more to be taken for Magistrates; but to be examined, accused, condemned etc. And more: 
h Goodman p. 63. & 43.  It is not sufficient for subjects not to ob●y the wicked Commandments of their wicked Princes, but to withstand them also. And yet more plainly: Evil 
i Goodman pag. 144. & 145.  Princes ought by the laws of God to be deposed. To abbrevate this unpleasing subject, there was also in the said times an other Book, made against the authority of Princes and entitled: Of Obedience. Which book is much disliked by D. Bancroft 
k In his dangerous Positions pag. 35. 36.  and D. Succliffe, 
l In his answer to a libel supplicatory. pag. 71.  in which book we thus read: Kings 
m In the book of Obedienc. pag. 25.  have their authority from the People, and by occasion the People may take it away again. And more: By 
n Obedience. pag. 110.  the word of God, in a manifest defection (meaning of faith and Religion) a private Man having some special inward motion may kill a tyrant. Mark you not, how he doth Raviliac it? And finally: It 
o Obedience pag. 99 & 103.  is lawful to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants. But I will wade no further in this argument. For I much fear, that the afore unheard, and now unexpected recital of the former Protestants doctrines is most displeasing to the ears of this honourable judge. Only I must note, that among the above mentioned Protestants, some do speak with more respect and honour of Princes; others with a●● contempt and disgrace; yet all of them alleged do with one & the same eye or countenance, indifferently look upon this principle; to wit: That Princes in some cases may be deposed: such a dispacity we find in this their generally acknowledged Conclusion: So in the portraiture of diverse men's faces, we observe great disproportion, in one and the same proportion.  LORD-CHEIFE JUSTICE. 
Michaeas'. I must confess, that these Doctrines of the former learned Protestants, touching the deposing of Princes are most strange, and indeed, distasteful unto me. But it well may be, that either the places by your in●ertions and additions are corrupted; or that you have violated them by divorcing the words from their true intended Sense: Which sense of their (no doubt) is different from that meaning and Construction, which you have imposed upon them. But to confess my ignorance, I have not at any tie 〈…〉 r●d the former Authors; And therefore I must refer this point (for my fuller satisfaction) to the judgement of M. Vice Chancellor, here present.  MICHAEAS'. 
I do assure your 〈◊〉. in all sincerity, that the testymonyes of the former Protestant's are truly alleged; without any s 〈…〉 〈…〉 ertion either of the Words or sense: And hearein I appeal even to M. Vicechancelour own judgement; who if he can change me with any such wilful imposture but in any one of the passages above, I will acknowledge myself guilty in all. Besides, all the former Authors are long since departed out of this World; and therefore my fault (if any such were) should be far more odious and insupportable; since Christian Charity teacheth us, to tread gently upon the graves of the dead.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Suppose (Michaeas) that we should grant, that all the former Protestants did teach, as you have produced them; for to speak the truth, I cannot take any just exception against your allegations; and the less, seeing I find some of our own Brethren by you alleged (and particularly D. Bancroft and D. Succlif) to acknowledge with discontent their said sentences. Yet seeing they were but certain Metaphysical and airy speculations only of Scholars; men unapt for a mes and Rebellions, and not of any acting spirits: Their doctrinal Comminations therefore (as never being accompanied with any external Acts of disloyalty) are to be reputed the less dangerous to Princes and Magistrates. And thus in regard hereof, it may be truly said, that the error of those former Protestants hearein was but small, though the point, about the which they erred, was great. But the Case is far otherwise with you Papists, who do not only teach and warrant rebellion by your doctrine; but also have actually practised the same with great effusion of innocent blood, to the amazement of all Christendom, and irreparable dishonour of your own Religion.  MICHEAS. 
I will here speak with the Poet (M. Vice Ch.) mutatio nomine, de te fabula narratur: Since these your words do ●ustly recoil upon yourself, and your Religion. And therefore even to choke you irreplyably hearein, I will present to your view, the tragical & deplorable face of many states and Countries in Christendom, engendered from the former Protestants Principles; In the contemplation whereof we shall find it a Mystery, ever peculiar to diverse Protestant states, to cast of their loyalty and obedience; that so either by one means or other they would either find right, or make right, to violate the bond of all sovereignty (as men speak of Hercules breaking Gorgon's knot) with whom it hath been usual, to grow wanton in shading of blood, for the more speedy establishment of their Gospel to the end then, that these former doctrinal Theorems of Rebellion shall not become meare airy (as it pleaseth you, M. Vicech. to term them) I will truly and really incorporate them in diverse most lamentable Insurrections and outrages, perpetracted by Protestant subjects against their Catholic Princes. Many of which Rebellions did receive their first Conception (and after their birth) even from the violent incitements and instigations made by diverse of the afore alleged Protestants: Writers, in the minds of the subjects against their Catholic Liege Lords. And in showing this, I will first begin with England, than Scotland, and so I will pass to other more remote Countries.  
Now touching England. Do we not find, that the aforenamed L. Archbishop D. Bancroft, speaking of the attempts made in Q. mary's time for advancing of the Protestants Religion, thus writeth? Sundry Englishmen did write hither (meaning 
(p) In his dangerous positions. pag. 34.  from Geneva) sundry letters and books of this subject; That the Counsellors of Q. Mary's time, Noblemen, Inferior Magistrates, and (rather than fail) the very People were bound before God, to overthrow superstition and reform Religion, whether Q Mary would or no; yea Though it were by putting her to death. And according herto we thus read in the former book of Obedience: By God's law and Man's law, Q. Marry ought to 
(q) The Book of obedience pag. 99 & 103.  be put to death; as being a Tyrant, a Monster, and a cruel beast. O poor and titulary sovereignty, that is forced in these men's judgements to be thus subject to it own subjects, and to endure those opprobrious and contumelious terms from any one obscure Superintendent, which civil Conversation forbiddeth among Men of the meanest rank and quality. No, supreme domination and rule, whearewith Princes are invested, is like to him, from whom itself originally first streameth; that is, Absolute and independent; and brooketh not the control of any such, whom God hath subjugated to it by lawful subjection. But to proceed: from these former, and other such elements and Principles of Treason, it came to pass, that one Wiltin Thomas 
m See hereof Holinshed Chron. the last edition volum. 3. pag. 1104.  with others, conspired to murder Q, Mary; for which offence he was hanged, drawn, and quartered: that D. Crammer 
n Act Mon. printed 1596. pag. 1282 and Holinshed ●reat Chronicle volum. 3. pag. 10●3.  (Archbishop of Canterbury) partly for spreading seditious Books, and chiefly under pretext of Religion for aiding the D. of Northumberland with horse and Men, was sent to the Tower, arraigned in the starrchamber, & attainted of High Treason: Finally, that S. Thomas Wyatt, (seconded with the D. of Suffoch) attempted his treason against 
Stow in his Annals pag. 1046.  the said Q Mary, only under the colour of erecting Protestancy. But to leave England, and to come to Scotland: Who is ignorant, that Knox 
p H●l●n 〈…〉 d great Chronicle in the history of Scotland, the last edition. p. 366.  being instructed in this Art at Geneva, returned into Scotland, attempting to reform Religion even by open rebellion, and force of arms; and murdering the Cardinal in his bedchamber at S. Andrew's, was convented to appear before the Queen Regent, and for not appearing was proclaimed Rebel? In like sort, D. Bancroft thus further writeth of Knox and his Confederates and followers: They 
p In his dangerous positions. p. 1●.  kept the field two months, and took away to themselves the coining irons, and justified the same etc. They gave the Queen the lie diverse times, and used her with most despi●full speeches, and renounced their obedience unto her; and deprived her of all further regiment by formal Act, penned by Kno●.  
The said D. Bancroft thus further enlargeth himself, touching Knox and high, followers, saying: By 
q D. Bancroft ubi supra.  the persuasion of Knox in his Sermon, they did cast down and destroy ●t S. Andrews both the houses of the Eryars, and the Abbeys in that town: So deal● they with the Abbey of Scone, the Friars at Ste●cling, & Lu●quo, and Edenburrough; the Queen being fled thence for fear.  
Thus D. Bancroft of these men's proceedings; who not content in afflicting the said Queen, in such rebellious a manner, further extended their malice and Disloyalty in so high a degree, to the last Queen of Scotland; as that his deceased Majesty (her Son) thus complained thereof: 
r King james in the sum or the con 〈…〉 nce at Hampton Court. printed 1604. p 81.  How they used (speakind of Knox and his Confederates) that poor Lady my Mother, is not unknown, and with grief I may remember it.  
Touching Ge●enna, Goneu●, I would say (but the mistaking is not great, since what the one teacheth, the other punisheth) We find that D. 〈…〉 l●ste thus truly writeth: 
s In his answer to a certain 〈…〉 〈…〉 p. 149.  They of eneva did depose their Liegt Lord (who was Catholic) & Prince from his temporal right; albeit he was by right of succession the temporal Lord and owner of that City and Territory. Which whom conspireth D. Bancroft thus writing hereof: The 
t in his Survey of the pretended holy discipline pag. 11.  Citizens of Geneva receiving some good encour agement (meaning from Calvin and such others) I doubt not, took upon them the endeavouring of altering Religion: and omitted not the occasion offered of changing also the Estate of the Commonwealth.  
In this next place, the 〈…〉 owe Countries afford a greater evidency and demonstration of this point. For O●iander (a most eminent Protestant) thus woundeth his own Professors: The Low 
u In epitome. cent. 16. p. 941.  Countries by public writing renounced all obedience and subjection to Philip, their Lord and King etc. When 
x Osiand. ubi supra. pag. 801.  four hundred of them, (men of good rank) had sued for toleration in religion, and did not prevail, the impatient People stirred 
In defence. tract. de diverse. gradib. minis●tor. c. 2. p. 74.  up with fury at Antwerp and other places of Holland, Z●land, and Pladders, threw and broke down images etc. The ʸ subjects of those Countries took arms against the Magistrate, and made the Prince of Orange their Governor: A truth in like sort confessed by D. Saravia in these words: They of the Low Countries did overthrow and spoil temples and monasteryes with Monks, Bishops, and the whole popish Clergy, against the mind of the chief Magistrate, and promise's given.  
Finally Crispinus 
a Of the state of the Church p. 627.  (the Protestant) and the foresaid Osiander 
b Cent. 16. p. 959.  do relate, that one Petrus Dathenus and other chief Protestants of Gau●t, did stir up in the year. 1587. the Citizens' to cast all the Mass Priests (as they speak) and Monks out of the City, and to place their goods in the Treasury.  
Next let us come to France. What civil Wars have been razed by the Protestants, during the space of forty years together, till the last King Henry the fourth made himself Catholic, only for their Religion, against their Catholic Kings and Princes? Many histories are become the subject thereof; only I will content myself with discerning some few testimonies and confessions of the Protestants herein. And first may occur the battle of Dreux whereat 
c As Antony fayus witnesseth (being a Protestant) in vita & obitu Bezae. p 45.  Beza himself was present; undertaken only for the advancement of the Protestant Religion and of which Battle Beza thus writeth: The Nobility 
d Beza in his epistle dedicatory of his new Testament, to the Queen of En●land printed 1564.  of France under the noble Prince of Condy, laid the foundation of the restoring true Religion in France, by consecrating most happily their blood to God, in the battle of Dreux. In like sort, we thus reed in a Protestant book, entitled: The general Inventory of the History of France; and translated into English by Ed. Grimston: The 
e Printed 1607. pag. 593.  Protestants of Meaux transported with indiscreet zeal, grounded upon their numbers, did fly to the Churches, beat down images, and make the Priests retire. And again: Beza 
f ubi supra pag. 610.  preaching at Grenoble, Charters, and Orleans with his sword and pistol in his hand, exhorted the people to show their manhood, rather in killing the Papists, then in breaking Images. And yet more: The 
g ubi supra p. 623.  Protestants (to wit anno. 1567.) being first armed, were in the beginning masters of the field etc. The King being incensed against them, was at Me●ux, and preparing to celebrate the feast of S. Michael, the Prince of Condy approaching with five hundred horse, by this attempt forced the King to retire, with some amazement to Paris. And yet further: The Prince of Condy and the 
ubi supra, pag. 610. 625. etc.  Admiral kept S. Denis, S. Owen, and Auberuilliers to curb Paris. The Constable (the King's Lieutenant) gathered an Army, whereupon bartayle ensued etc. Which Author of the aforementioned Inventory of France, relateth many more occurrents of those matters, which here for brevity are omitted.  
But to proceed further touching the Country of France. Osiander (the foresaid Protestant) recordeth this matter in these words: The 
i Cent. 16. pag. 698.  Protestants under colour of exhibiting a Confession of their faith, came armed to the King's palace etc. That 
k Osiander ubi supra. p. 804.  civil war, for Religion was renewed; the Prince of Condy being General of those of the reformed Churches; and the Constable, General of the King's Army. That the Constable 
l ubi supra.  being slain in these wars, the King's Brother supplied his place. To conclude this point of the Prince of Condy his rebellion herein; It is so evident & undeniable, that Crispinus (a Protestant) thus writeth hereof: After 
m Of the state of the Church pag. 625.  many messages (though in vain) sent by the King to the protestant Princes, the war began again. For the Prince of Condy rose up in arms, and swore not to leave them, under whose protestation this sentence was placed: Deo & victricibus armis.  
This lamentable subject of Protestant Subjects rising against their Catholic Princes, hath busied my tongue very long: Therefore I pass over, how in Basil, (a chief City in Helvetia) a great dissension did rise between the Burg●sses & certain of the Senators, for cause of Religion only (as Crispinus 
n Of the state of the Church p. 509.  relateth.) And how the Burgesses having taken arms, forced the others to agree, to what they demanded; and thereupon they did cast down Images; and how twelve Senators favouring our Catholic Religion, were cast out of the Senate; and how the Mass was first by these means abandoned, throughout all that Signory.  
Also, I pretermit the doleful passages of this nature, practised in Swe●eland, of which Country Cythreus (a Protestant) thus relateth: 
o Cythreus in Chronico anno 1593. & 1594. p. 75. & 71.  Sigismond being King of Sweveland by hereditary succession, was constrained to give his assent, that none should bear office in that Kingdom, but such only (meaning Protestant's) as retained the Confession of Augusta. He further saith thus. They forced the King to content himself with exercise of his (Catholic) Religion in his own Chapel. A truth so well known & confessed, that Osiander thus speaketh of it in general terms: The Protestants 
p Osiander cent. 16. p. 1115.  of Sweveland did decree, that the exercise of Popish Religion, should be banished out of all parts of that Kingdom etc.  
Finally, I pass over with a gentle ●uche, what the Kingdom of Palonia, hath suffered in this kind; of which point the foresaid Protestant Osiander thus writeth: Certain 
q Cent. 16 p. 115.  of Polonia did (out of an untimely zeal) expel their Priests, with great violence and sedition: without expecting permission (as the said Author 
r Cent. 16. p. 653.  confesseth) of the King  
Thus far (most worthy judge) I have proceeded (contrary to the bias of mine own natural disposition) in relation of these lamentable I lyads, as I may term them but I am to be pardoned; since the upbrading importunity of M. Vicechancelour, did compel me thearto: from which former Examples we may gather, that for diverse years passed, most Nations of Christendom have become the sable and mournfulle theatres or stages, whereupon so many bloody Tragedies have been acted; or rather the very shambles, wherein have been shaughtered so many thousand Christians; and all this warranted, under the pretext of introducing the Protestant faith and Religion. And for the more justifying of these so wicked perpetrations, we find diverse most eminent Protestants even with great laudes and applauses to celebrate these their attempts. To forbear the Encomion above recited, given by Beza to the Protestant Nobility of Fran●e, who were slain at the battle of Dreuz; do we not find, when even an inundation of blood (shed through the insurrection and Rebellion of Protestants) had overflowed most parts of Germany, that Luther thus honoureth in words the same? Vide or 
s Luther. loc. come. class 4. c. 30. fol. 55.  mihi videre Germaniam in sanguine natare etc. Christus meus vivit & regnat; ego vino & regnabo. It sermes, that Germany even swims with blood: But Christ liveth and reigneth; and I will live and reign. As also he thus further triumphet hereof: Thou complainest, 
t Luther. loc. come. class 5. p. 57  that by the Gospel the world is become tumultuous; I a swear, God he thanked: These things I would have to be; and woe me miserable Man, if such things were not. In like sort doth not Calvin magnify the former seditions attempts of knox in this manner? Knox 
u Galuin in epist. ●d Knox epist. 305. pag. 566.  valiantly bestoweth his labour upon Christ and his Church. O poor weak blast of wind (since injust praise is no better) thus idly spent in commending that, which deserveth all discommendation and reproach: for I much fear, that these Men, thus extolled for such their rebellion's combustions and assacinacyes, are interested in that sentence of Saint Austin: La 〈…〉 ubi non sunt; torquentur ubi sunt.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Michaeas'. You have hear entered into a wide and wild excursion of Discourses. But I hold them not altogether pertinenm: since all your former Instances were undertaken, for depression of superstition and advancement of the Gospel of Christ. The weight whereof is to overbalance all humane respects. And how far a Man may proceed hearein, I will not determine: Only I hope, I may without offence say, that in matters so merely touching the endangering of our Gospel, and for the better beating down of Antichrist, it is a kind of Passion to be insensible and void of Passion. But you should (Michaeas) have brought some examples of Protestants disloyalty, and want of duty against their Protestant Prince, if so you had thought to have wounded our cause indeed: But since you have not, nor cannot insist in any such, your former Instances we repute (supposing them to be true) for less material and convincing.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour. If it did comport with my present afflicted state, or with my due reverence to this Seat of justice I could well smile to see, how you still give ground more and more, in every of your answers, against our former authorities and examples, for whereas the main Question hear is, Whether the Protestant Religion doth teach any disloyalty to the Prince, of what Christian Religion so ever he be? And whether the Professors of Protestancy do truly stand chargeable, with such their Disloyalty for matter of Religion? you now have hear used diverse inflexions and turnings to wind yourself out of this Labyrinth. For first, when Luther and Swinglins were produced out of their own writings to that end; You answer, that indeed they were justly charged thearewith; but nevertheless the times after them, being more refined and purged from all errors, were most free from all such imputations. When to impugn this reply, I did urge, that Calvin, Beza, Knox, Bucanan and diverse others of these days, did in their book & writings most confidently defend the same doctrine of Rebellion and disloyalty for defence of Religion: Your next sleight was (crossing your former answered) to say, that though these later Men did teach the said doctrine; Yet seeing this was but only the speculation of some Protestant Scholars; but never put in practice by any of them, or their followers; that therefore their error was herein the less dangerous and more pardonable. When to confront this your silly evasion, some of the said particular Protestant writers, and many thousands of other Protestants are urged (by their open rebellions and insurrections) actually to have practised the said speculative doctrine of disloyalty: You then lastly replied, that all this was undertaken by them, for the defence of the Gospel, and depressing of superstition and Idolatry: Which you say, may perhaps desearue hearein a mild censure. And further, you affirm, that you hold the Protestants less chargeable with any just fault hearein, because they are ever loyal to their Protestant Princes, for any attempts touching religion; though not ever loyal to their Princes of a different religion from them. But how roving and wand'ring are all these Replies from the Question hear ventilated? Which was, Whether Protestants did teach or put in practice Rebellion and insurrection against their lawful Princes, of what Christian Religion soever they were?  
But M. Vicechancelour. I do hear pardon you. For either you must have openly confessed in the first entrance of this passage, that the Protestants do stand obnoxious, for teaching and practising of disloyalty, etc. Against their true Kings and sovereigns (which, perhaps, you were loath to do) Or otherwise, as being deprived of all better. If any learned Protestant, think, I do wrong his party, by feigningly imposing these evasions upon the Vicechancelour; then let that Man set down such his other own replies, as he may think more satisfying to all the former objected authorityes and examples, and he shallbe answered. For I cannot presage, what hear could by said by any Protestant, but either to use these sleights, or otherwise plainly at the first acknowledge the Protestants doctrine hearein. Answers, you must have been forced (thereby to wine a little time) to have used your former declynings and subterfugious tergiaersations. But belike you did at the first call to mind, that the least degree of weakness in a Cause, where nothing but weakness is, is to be reputed, as a kind of strength; and that little sconces are fore the present good fortresses; when castles, Rompyers, and such other strong forts are Wanting.  
But M. Vicech. To trace you in the steps of your last refuge. I do hear avonch, that Protestants even to their Protestant Princes, only for matter of Religion (contrary to this your last assertion) have manifested great disloyalty: Thus is your Gospel set against your Gospel; I will not say with Esay, 
* Esay. 19  the Egyptians against the Egyptians. And here I pass over (for greater brevity) the examples of this Kind, acted in Scotland 
x See hereof D. Succlif in his answer to a certain libel supplicatory pag. 80. & H●●inshed in the history of Scotland the last edition p. 433.  and Germany, 
y Osia●der epiton. cent. 16 p. 735.  even by Protestants against their Protestant Princes; and will a while rest in the overtures and intendments at least, hear in England. And according heareto we find D. Bancroft thus to write of the proceeding of the Puritans, against their Protestant Bishops: The 
z In his dangerous positions. pag. 74.  Puritans meet and co far concerning the proceedings of the Ministers, without assistance or staying for the Magistrate. And further, talking of Penry and other Puritans, he thus accuseth them: They 
a D. Bancroft ubi supra. pag. 137.  would make men to believe, that they had for the times, and within their limits, an absolute authority, as if themselves were Princes. In like sort, this Doctor reciteth Martin Sein●r, making mention of a hundred 
b ubi supra.  thousand hands; and what a stroke so many would strike together; and that (Martin affirming) their suit should not be rejected; especially in such a time, wherein we now live in danger of our enemies abroad, and therefore had need of no causes of discoradgment at home. Thus D. Bancroft citeth the words of Martin Marprelet; and then he giveth his sentence & judgement of this their Menage, and termeth it thus: A speech, at least seditions.  
This Doctor also further discoureth the threats of the Puritans against the Magistrate, and he allegeth one of their comminations thus in their own words: We have 
c D. Bancroft ubi supra pag. 140.  sought to advance this cause of God by humble suit to the Parliament, by writing &c. seeing none of these means used by us have prevailed, if it come by that means, which will make all your hearts to ache; blame yourselves. Finally not to stay long hearein D. Succlif thus speaketh of Martin Marprelate: Martin wisheth, that the Parliament 
(d) In his answer to a certain libel supplicato. pag. 76.  would bring in the Eldership (notwithstanding her Majesties' resisting of it) vz by a rebellion. They bragged of a hundred thousand hands, and in plain ●●armes, talked of Massacring their Adversaries. Thus D. Succlif, with whom I will hear end.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Though I cannot deny (Michaeas) the former attempts of the Protestants; Yet since not only the Papists Doctrine, but also the mainfold traitorous desigments and real practices of them against their Protestant Princes, are no less tragical, than the former related by you are; I do not see, but that granting the Protestants to be faulty in defect of Loyalty, you Papists may in a far more high degree be justly insimulated within the said Crime. Good God, your treasons and machinations have been so apparent and so approved, by the consent almost of all other Papists; as that I may truly pronounce, that in the whole throng of Papists, a true and Loyal Papist towards his Protestant Sovereign (so rare such an one is) is like a Diamond, placed among many white Sapphires: So just reason had the learned D. Morton to say of your Profession: We may 
e D. Mort in his Romish positions pag. 51.  now expect as well a white Ethiopian, as a loyal Subject of this Religion.  MICHAEAS'. 
Alas. M. Vicechancelour. These are but verbal exagerations without proof: which as they are but wound of sp●enfull tongues, so are they blown away with the Wind. Be it, that some Catholic Doctors in certain peculiar Cases, do ascribe a powerful authority to the Pope against Princes; And grant also, that some few Catholics have proved to be (to the ineffable grief and dislike of all other good and sober Catholics) Disloyal to their Prince: Yet since the difference both of their doctrines, and circumstances of their attempts, are incomparably short and inferior, to the doctrynes and real insurrections of the Protestants, against their Sovereigns; You have no reason (M. Vice Chancellor) thus to insult, in gallantry of such amplifying speeches against us. Therefore I will parallel them hear together; that so you seeing the great disparty, may ●ecall (for shame) those your speeches; and suffer your cheeks to witness your former error.  
And first touching the doctrine. The Protestants (I mean, those former alleged Protestants) do extend this power of deposing Princes to every poor parochial superintendent; who is Pope, (or so would be) within his own circuit; yea for want of such a turbulent fellow (if at any time, there can be a want of these) they give this liberty (as above I have showed) to the base Common people, and promiscuous multitude; the many headed tyrants of all humane societyes: The Catholic devynes, who most defend such transcendency of proceedings, do nevertheless ascribe the doing of it to the Pope only; who is a stranger, and therefore further of from any such sudden & present attempting; and who himself in case of Heresy (as a private person) lieth open to the same peril. This also they teach must be done, by many former sweet admonitions and proceedings. To proceed to the attempts on both sides. The Protestants have actually deposed several Kings, Queens, and absolute sovereigns: Thus is the King of Spain deposed, of a greater part of the Lowcontryes'; the King of France, of certain Cities in France; The supreme Lord of Geneva, of his Territory belonging to that City; The Emperor, of many Imperial Cities in Germany; King Sigismond, of his Kingdom of Sweveland and Finally his Majesty's Grandmother and Greatgrandmother, of the Kingdom of Scotland: The Pope and the Catholics have never yet to this day, actually detroned any one absolute Protestant Prince or King, throughout all Christendom, of their States and Territoryes. The greatest matter of this nature, that can be alleged, is the excommunications of King Henry the eight of England, Queen Elizabeth his daughter, and King Henry of France the fourth. The Protestants have come into the field against their Catholic Princes, in many huge Armies and hundred thousans of men; as appeareth by the wars made by them in the Low Countries, France, & Germany: which wars have continued for many years: The Catholics never yet levied any such Armies against their protestant Prince. Lastly the Protestants have not only deposed their Princes of several states and Countries; but they have really impatronized themselves of the said states, and kept them in their own possession; as is over manifestly evident by the examples of Rochel in France, Geneva, Holland, Zealand, several parts of Germany, Sweveland, Transiluania etc. The Catholics to this very day have not made themselves Lords of any one town or City (much less of any state or Kingdom) which have belonged to their protestant Princes. And thus far touching the libration and weighing in an even hand, the doctrine and attempts taught and made by protestāns & Catholics in point of disloyalty, against their lawful dread sovereigns of a different Religion.  
And now (M. Vicechancelour) after the true unfoulding of these matters (which afore were lapped up in a great mistaking) I demand of you, where are your former Termini Conuertibilis of Papistry & Disloyalty? Your similitude of one Diamond, among many worthless Sapphires? And D. morton's strange beast? As if all Papists (and ●o Protestants) were guilty of Treason and Rebellion, against their lawful Princes: so foully, you see, yourself was mistaken therein; and so wildly did your Doctour●aue ●aue of a white Ethiopian.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Michaeas'. I am tired with learning thus much of this distasteful Theme; and I am unwilling, you should spin out this discourse to any further length: Therefore you may here end. And truly I would scarce have believed till now, my own eyes (much less, my ears) that the Protestants writings and actions had stood so justly subject to this kind of Reprehension. But I must yield (though with grief) to such evident testimonies, as you have produced; and the rather, seeing you (M. Vicechancelour) suffer them to pass without either gainsaying the testimonies alleged, or denying the Examples insisted upon.  
But [Michaeas] notwithstanding the truth of all, what you here have said; Nevertheless you have proceeded very partially in your discourse; seeming to involve all Protestants within the grievous offence of disloyalty, because some of them do deservedly stand obnorious thereto: And you deal as injustly herein, as if one should charge all mankind with drunkenness, because many men do sin therein. But I fear, you repute no men loyal, but those of your own religion.  MICHAEAS'. 
My honourable Lord. be such & oversight far distant from my thoughts; and God forbid, my charitable conceits should be enriched within so narrow a compass, as Your Lordship seems to conjecture. No. I do willingly acknowledge, that many Protestant Doctors have in their writings learnedly defended the right and royalty of absolute Princes, against their subjects of a contrary religion. I also do as fully acknowledge, that there are many thousand Protestants in the world, who (no dowbt) would spend their lyves and livings in defence of their Sovereign of a different faith, whose love, zeal, and loyalty is carried with a most forcible bent to their Prince's safety and honour. What is above delivered by me, is even forcedly drawn out of me, by way of recrimination; since M. Vicechancelour would never cease to weary your Lordship & idly beat the wind, in objecting Disloyalty to me and my Religion▪ Therefore my good Lord, do not think, I do extend my former discourse to Protestants in general; or particularly to the Protestants of England in these days, whose laudable & confessed Loyalty far be it from me in any sort to impugn but rather my pene shall be ready upon just occasion, to celebrate such their due praises thearein. But to be short, your Lordshid may observe, that what is above spoken, is spoken not by me, but by the Protestants themselves; and acknowledged, as so spoken (and therefore condemned) by other learned Protestants. What dislike then I may incure heareby, the same doth necessarily attend upon D. Bancroft, D. Bilson, D 〈…〉 u●cliffe and other moderate protestants, condemning the foresaid protestants of disloyalty. I am but the poor Relater of their words, and can be reputed no more faulty hearein, then is the Herald, for openly proclaiming the rebellion of a subject against his prince; or the Printer, for printing a history, containing the manifest confessed vices of some particular Men.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Well, well, Michaeas. All what you have said (to which for this time, I will forbear further to reply) is not sufficient, to wash out the stains of those other cryms, which you have perpetrated in our university. You are come hither to make a reckoning for them, and not for to ravel out the time, in long and tedious perorations. I say, that besides your disloyal positions, which you have distilled into our Scholar's judgements (which are over manifest, howsoever you do palliate them with impudent denials, and subtle recriminations) you have envenomed some of them, with many superstitious and Popish doctrines. And not content to effect the same in words and speeches only, you have not forborn (so precipitious and impetuous you are in your designs) even to write certain short Treatises of the said Popish Opinions; geving them to your Proselytes▪ that so the poison of these your doctrines thus spreading itself, and multiplied through these your airy wittings (as through a well disposed Medium) may the more speedily affect the sense and understanding of the more weak students. Now My Lord, if such a Man, who hath thus discolered the beauty and reputation of our (otherwise) most famous University, shall escape unpunished; then instead of due unpunishments, let us erect Trophies and garlands of Honour to Men, for their attempted impietyes. And that your Lordship shall not found this my Accusation to be only verbal; but that you may rest assured, that this Man 
f Act. 18● These words the jews spoke against S. Paul at his Arraignment.  persuadeth Men to worship God, contrary to the Law; I have hear brought unto your L. a Copy of Michaeas his own hand writing of every such Papistical doctrine, by him vented out. Hear the writings are, which I deliver at this present into your L. hands to peruse at your pleasure. The which, after your L. have red, you shall find them to be, but certain ro●ing Paperbulletts, shot by Michaeas, against the walls of our flourishing University; Which (for the time) may perhaps make some small crack and noise, but cannot batter: so fortified and firmly seated our Academy is, through the strength of the Gospel.   

CERTAIN SHORT DSICOURSES TOUCHING SOME POINTS OF CATHOLIC RELIGION, WRITTEN BY MICHAEAS THE CONVERTED JEW AND FIRST.  

That the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments are not the true Notes of Christ's Church; And that admitting them for such, they make wholly against the Protestants, and for the Catholics.  
THIS Question will take it best illustration and unfoulding, if it be considered; first, Categorically and absolutely in itself; To wit, whether the Administration of the Word & Sacraments can be reputed to us, for Notes of the Church? Secondly, Hypothetically, that is, that if by supposal it be granted for the time, that they are the true Notes of the Church; Whether the said Notes do prejudice the Protestant Church, and advantage our Catholic Church, or no?  
Both these points shall hear be discussed. And first of the first. Where the Reader is in the beginning to understand, that the true Reason, why 
a Ins●it. c. 1. par 〈…〉. 10. 〈…〉 ela 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 di 〈…〉 verb● p 〈…〉 dic 〈…〉 S 〈…〉 unto 〈…〉 que objs 〈…〉 onem posuimus.  Calvin, the Confession of 
b Art. 7  Augusta, 
c In his 〈◊〉 of the answer p 81.  D. W 〈…〉 gift, 
d Contra Camp. rat. 〈◊〉.  D. Whitakers, and all other Pro 〈…〉 in general do prescribe thief as Notes of the Church is for two respects: first, that by this means themselves may be Umpires, where and which is the true Church; seeing they alone through their misapplication of the Scripture, and privilege that they ascribe to their own Spirits, interpreting the Scripture, will with a Lordly peremptorines' decree and set down, Where and when the Word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly administered (they rejecting all other men's interpretation herein) and consequently, where and which is the true Church. The second reason of the Protestants constituting thief as Notes, is, Because on the one side they see, that the Church of Christ by force of all Reason and prudence, is to enjoy some Notes, for it distinguishing from all profane Conventicles: And on the other side they well discover, that the Notes of the Church assigned by Catholic Writers (to wit, Antiquity, Succession of Pasteurs, an ●ni●terrup●●d Visibility, Working of M 〈…〉 s, Holiness of Life and doctrine, Vaity, and diverse others of like nature) are by all Ecclesiastical Authors, reason, and experience, and by the Protestants confessions, peculiar to our Catholic Church; and incomparible with their protestant Church. Therefore in this their want of be●te● Notes (seeing even for very shame, some Notes their Church must have) they have thought it good policy, to erect the preaching of the Word and use of the Sacraments, as Notes: And thus they, rejecting all former Catholic Notes, do reduce (as above is said) the determining of which is the true Church, to the inappealable and last Resort of their own private opinions; passed upon the true preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments.  
But now to come to the Question itself, touching these Protestant Notes; Where the ●eader (for the more clear setting down of the state of the Question, and his own better instruction) is to conceive; first, that these Protestant Notes (supposing them to be Notes of the Church) prove only the place, where the Church is; but not, which is the Church; Which here is only the Question. Secondly, the Reader is to call to mind, that whereas a Note may be of two sorts: The one in respect of Nature; the other in respect of us, according to the doctrine of the learned Protestants themselves, thus teaching: Nottus est duplex; 
e Lub●ertus (the Protestant) l. 4. de Eccles. cap. 〈◊〉  Vnum Naturae, ulterum nobis: that here the Question is only of such Notes, as are Notes in respect of us, for our better informing, which is the true Church (since here we are instructed à postartori, and according to the measure of that knowledge, which God vouchsafes to afford to us.) And not as they are Notes in respect of Nature; Which Notes in regard of Nature, are ever 〈…〉 sicall secret, and often essential to the thing, of which they are Notes. Now in reference hereto, we free●y grant, that the true preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments may be termed Notes of the Church; but not Notes to us, which is the only point now isluable: for though they be Notes in Nature, of the true Church: yet what availeth it us: since they are not Notes to us for our direction, to find which is the true Church?  
And here we are to remember, that the Question is not, what kind of Notes, or what kind of knowledge is better (for it is granted, that scire per Causas, is most perfect and noble) but the Question is, what kind of knowledge God is content to impart to us, in this life, for the attaining of the mysteries of our f●●th, and particularly for the knowing & searching out, which is his Church.  
Now that the true preaching of the Word, and use of the Sacraments cannot be erected as notes of Christ's Church (I ever mean in respect of us) is several ways demonstrated.  
And first, this I prove from the Nature of a Note; which is ever to be of a greater perspicuity and clearness, and better known to us, than the thing is, of which it is a Note. Since otherwise it should follow (an inference both in reason and Art most absurd) that, that which is unknown, should be proved by an other thing, which is less known an● more obscure.  
That the true preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments (which is but a necessary 〈◊〉 to the true preaching of the Scripture) are more obscure and unknown to us, then is the Church; I prove first, from the Scripture; which teacheth, that true saith (which is the effect of true preaching the Word) proceedeth only from the Ministry of the Church, according to that: how 
f Rom. 10  shall they believe, whom they have not heard? and ho 〈…〉 sh a● they hear, without a Preacher? Thus Gods sacred Word (we see) doth presuppose, that the Minister, who is the member of the Church, (and consequently it followeth hereby, that the Church must be afore known) doth reveal unto us the true sense of the Scripture. And therefore Calvin thus well saith of this point: Deus 
g Instit. l. 4. c. 1. para 〈◊〉. 5.  potest memo 〈…〉 sues perficere: nolit tamen eos adol●scere in 〈…〉 ilem ●tatem, nisi educatione Ecclesiae: God can perfect and instruct us in a moment (meaning touching faith) yet he will not bring us to any manlike (as it were) and perfect strength therein, but by the help and labour of the Church. And hence it is, that in all Controversyes touching faith, we are always for the determining of them, bot● in the judgements of the ancient 
h Tertul. l. de Precept c 21 irenaeu● l. 3. cap. 4.  Fathers and learned Protestants 
i D. Barow l. de fide & 〈◊〉 ortu p 40. Melanct●● l 〈◊〉 epist. ad Re●●cm An 〈…〉, p 49. Hocker in Eccle 〈…〉 pol in the pr●face sect. 6. pag. 28. D. Bancroft in his Sermon preached 8. of February anno. 1588.  referred to the Church; Among whom I cannot here pretermit the sentence of D. Field, thus writing: Seeing 
k D. F●eld of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory.  t●e Controversies in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate etc. What remaineth for me●, desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but delige●tly to search out, which among all the societyes of Men in the World, is that blessed Company of Holy Ones, that house-hould of faith, that spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they m 〈…〉 follow her directions, and re●i in her 〈◊〉? Thus we are instructed by this learned Protestant, to know which is the true faith in all Controversyes and sincere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word, from the Church; and not to know, which is the Church, from the sincere preaching of the Word.  
Secondly, that the true prea 〈…〉 of the Word and the use of the Sacrements ●re more ob 〈…〉 and difficult to us to be known, then to know 〈◊〉 is the true Church; appeareth from the voluntary acknowledgements of our most judicious Adversaries: For greater 〈◊〉 hearei●, I will insist only in o●e or two. And to omit the answerable judgement hearto of D. field, potentially included in his 〈…〉 met words; We do find justus Molitor (a learned Protestant, and Adversary in his 〈…〉 g to Cardinal Be●l●rmy●e) thus to confess: Nobis 
l De militante Eccies. p. ●34.  Quo ad iud 〈…〉 s ●o f●s● al● qua notitià, prius vera Eccles 〈…〉, quam 〈◊〉 praedicatio 〈…〉 o●escit etc. The true Church by a cert 〈…〉 co 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 so 〈…〉 known to us, according to the judgement of re●son, than the preaching of the true word is known. With whom c 〈…〉 pireth in express Words the foresaid mentioned 〈…〉 testart Lubbertus, thus writing: Sacramenta 
m Lib. de Eccles. printed 1607 p. 226.  in v 〈…〉 nt nobis m 〈…〉, quam ●psa Ecclesia: The true use of the 〈…〉 ments i● less known ●o us, 〈◊〉 the Church. And 〈◊〉 giveth his ●eason hereof in these Words: Nobis notio●a su 〈…〉 externa signa●per quae rem● qu●●doque cogn 〈…〉; The external signs are more man 〈…〉st 〈◊〉, v●, by which we know a thing▪ 〈◊〉 hereby implying, that the true administration of the word & Sacraments is internal and inward in respect of the true external Notes of the Church. For although eich preaching of the Word and use of Sacraments be external and sub●ect to the outward Sense; yet which is the true preaching of the word, and true administration of the Sacraments (for as they are purely preached, and sincerely administered, so (and no otherwise) are they apppointed by the Protestants for the Marks of the Church) is internal; since truth in doctrine is internal and invisible. We may ad hearto, that in the note of true preaching the word, the beliving & receiving it so preached & this with perseverance) is included by our Adversary's doctrine, as a part of the same Note. But how can it be known, whether the Word (though truly preached) be truly heard and believed with a final perseverance? So far distant is this pretended Note, from being (for our direction) a true Note of the Church.  
An other Argument for the impugning of the Protestants former Notes may be this. The Scripture itself cannot be made known to us to be Scripture, but by the attestation of the Church: for as for that sentence, which teacheth, that the Majesty and voice of God, which appeareth in the Scripture, or the Private Spirit judging of it, ass●eth us, which is true Scripture, it is an exploded Error; Seing one Man is persuaded, he findeth in those books, which himself admitteth for scripture, that Majesty and voice of God: the which very books, for want of the said supposed voice or Majesty, an other Man utterly rejecteth, as Apocryphil. And in like sort, the private Spirit of this Man embraceth such books, as Canonical: the which books the Private Spirit of an other absolutely discanoneth.  
Now this being granted, it from hence inevitably resulteth, that first we must know, which is the true Church, to give this approbation of the Scripture, before we can know, which is the Scripture; and much more then, before we can be assured, which is the true preaching of the word and sincere construction or Sense of the Scripture. Now that our knowing which is Scripture, proceedeth from the authority of the Church, I first prove, not only from S. Austin, who saith: (n) Actibus Apostolorum necesse est me credere, si c●edo Euangelio; 
(〈◊〉) Tom. 6. contra epist. fundamenti c. 5  quoniam utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholiea commendat Ecclesia: But also from the acknowledgement of our learned Adversaries; whose words in their writings to this purpose are most plentiful. I will content myself (referring the Reader to the references of others 
o Kempnit. exam. part. 1. p. 69. Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura p. 61. D. Whita● adversely. S●apelto. num p. 100L. D. ●ewd in 〈◊〉 defence of the Apology. p. 201.  at this time with Peter Martyr, and M. Hooker. Peter Martyr, thus writeth: We 
p In his Common places englished part. l. c. 6.  acknow ledge it to be the function of the Church (seeing it is endued with the Holy Ghost) that it should discern the true and proper books of Scripture. M. Hooker more fully 〈…〉 th' hear of, saying 
q In his Eccles. policy. sect. 14. lib. 1. p. 86.  Of thing necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what books we are to 〈◊〉 ●●ly; Which point is confessed impossible, for the Scripture itself to teach etc. For 
r Eccles. pol. l. ●2. sect. 4. p. 102.  of any Book of Scripture did geus testimony to ●ll; et sti● that Scripture, which geneth credit to the rest, world require ●n other Scripture to g●ue credit unto it: Neither could we come to any pa●se, when reon to rest unless besides Scripture, there were something, which might assurs us. Which thing M. Hocke●man other place articulatly termeth: The 
s ubi supra l. 3. p 146.  authority of God's Church, thus saying: We all know, the 〈◊〉 outward Motyve leading Men to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of the Church. Now if by these learned men's con●ession, the Church hath authority to propownd to us, which books presented for Scripture, are true Scriptures and which are Apocry● hall and spurious; then followeth it, that the Church hath in like sort authority to propownd to us, which is the true and pure sense of the Scripture; since the one is as necessary to us, as the other; for it advantageth us little to know, which are the undoubted books of Scripture, if so we know not which is the true sense of the Scripture.  
Now out of the Premises I demonstratively conclude, that seeing by the authority of the Church (and not otherwise) we are taught which ●ookes of Scripture are Canonical, and consequently which is the true sense of the said Scripture; that therefore the Church being f●ster in ode● of knowledge to us, then either the Scripture, or the true preaching of the word of Scripture; the true preaching of the word is not, nor can be apprehended to be a Note to us, to find thereby which is the true Church. Since than it would follow (an absurdity incompatible with all true discourse of Reason) that a thing, which to us is later known, should be a Note to us of that, which by us is first known.  
An other argument may be drawn from the Nature of every true Note; which ought to be so peculiar to that, of which it is a Note, as that it cannot be applied in the judgement of others to it meare Contrary: But we see different sectaryes teaching contrary doctrynes, and professing themselves to be members of different Churches, do all nevertheless promiscuously challenge the true preaching of the Words, and the use of the Sacrements to be the Notes of their so much discording Churches or Conventicles. And therefore the afore named Lubbertus thus truly pronounceth of this point: 
* Lubbertus, l. de Eccles. printed. 1607. l. 4. c 2. p. 202.  Praedicatio, Sacramentorum communicatio, & similia, Ecclesiae essentiam non attingunt; sunt enim Haereticorum converticulis & veris Christianorum Ecclesi●s communia: The preaching of the word, the distribution of the Sacraments, and such like, do not belong to the essence of the Church since these things are common both to the Conventicles of Heretics, and to the true Churches of Christians. And according hearto we find by experience, that Lutherans, Protestants, and Puritans theaching most repugnante doctrines, do wartant these their doctrines, by the former Notes of preaching the Word. And therefore it from hence followeth, that it is no less a madness in our adversaries, to prescribe the preaching of the word and the use of the Sacraments, for the notes of the Church (which are common to all Heretical Conventicles at least in their own Opinion) then for one, who would discover and note out one particular Man from all others, to distinguish him from them, by saying: It is he, who hath two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two arms etc. Since these Notes or description are common to all men in general.  
Again, I thus dispute. A true Note of any thing ought to be at all times (without discontinuance) a Note thereof, and not sometimes only: since otherwise it is but a temporary Note. But there hath been a Church of God even then, when there was no Scripture at all: much less any preaching or interpretation of the Word Therefore the preaching of the word cannot be erected, as a true Note of the Church. The Assumption of this argument is manifest: For it is acknowledged, that the Church of God continued two thousand years before Moses his time, without any Scripture: and therefore D. Parkins truly thus saith: Morses 
u In his reformed Catholic. p. 133.  was the first pennman of Holy Scripture; With whom agree 
x De Sacra Script. p. 133  Zanchius, D. 
y Whitak. de sacra Script. p. 99 & 583.  Whitakers, and all other learned Men whosoever. Again after Moses had pened the Scripture, it remained only in the custody of the jews, and was among them for many years lost; as it is granted even by the marginal annotations of the English Bibles of the year 1576. where it is said: That 
z Upon the 2. of Kings. c. 22 and 2. Chron. 34.  it was either by the negligence of the Priests lost, or by the wickedness of idolatreus Kings. And yet even in those times job and diverse others were of the true Church of God: of which point peruse S. 
a De civet. Dei. l. 18 c. 47  Austin.  
Furthermore Irenaeus 
b Lib. 3. cap. 4.  saith, that there were diverse Countries of Christians, which believed only by preaching and by force of Tradition, without enjoying any Scripture at all. And it is certain, that after our Saviour's passion, there was a distance of time, before any part of the New Testament was written. And after when it was penned, what partly by violence of persecution, and partly through scarcity of Manuscripts, the New Testament could but come to the hands of few, in respect of the whole number of Christians then in being: which being true: how then could the Scripture or the preaching of the Word be a known Mark, to all other Christians of those days? Neither availeth it here to reply, that whatsoever was then delivered by Tradition, was agreeing and answerable to what was afore or after written by the Apostles & Evangelists. This satisfyeth not the point; seeing admitting so much for true; yet what was then delivered, was received by the hearers through the authority only of the Church, and not by Note or direction of the Scripture; which is the point here concroverted. But to proceed further. I do aver, that this Position of erecting the preaching the word for a Note, for the ignorant to find out the true Church, implieth in itself an absolute contradiction. The reason is this First every true Note of anything, must first be known itself to the party so ignorant and doubting: But it is impossible, that the true preaching of the Word should be known to one, as long as he con●nues ignorant or doubtful; therefore it is impossible, that to such a man the true preaching of the Word should become a Note of the Church.  
Secon●ly, True saith is no sooner known, but that withal the true Church is known; Therefore true preaching of the Word (from whence springs true saith) cannot be any Note of the Church: Since that thing, of which any Note is given, ought not to be coincident with the Note; but is to be known after the Note is known; and not immediately at o●● and the same time with the Note; seeing the end of the Note is after to know a thing, of which it is a Note.  
My last argument here used shallbe taken from the consideration of the obscurity and difficulty in general of the Protestant Note here given. For if the Scripture be in itself most sublime, abstruse, and the sense thereof impenetrable without Gods directing grace therein; how then can it be obtruded for a Note of the Church, not only to the learned, but to the illiterate and unlearned? Now that the Scripture is most difficult, is a point acknowledged by all learned men, and proved by senerall Media. First because the Scripture is authentical only in the originals, according to those words of D. Whitakers: 
c De Sacra Scriptura con●●●u●rs. 1. q. 〈◊〉. p. 128.  Nullam nos editionem, nisi Hebraicam in vetere, & Graecam 〈◊〉 Novo Testament● authen●●cam facimus. This being admitted, how can the ignorant in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, know which is true Scripture, or which is the true sense of the Scripture? If it be replied, that they are to know true Scripture from the Translations of it, I say hereto that (besides no Translation of Scripture ●s authentical Scripture, both in the former Doctors judgement, as also in the censure of D. 
d ●n his b●e●fe answer to john Burges pag. 94.  Covell) seeing there are many Translations made of Scripture by the Protestants, and one mainly differing from an other, and accordingly eich such translation is charged as Heretical and erroneous by other Protestants, the ignorant in the tongues cannot discern which translation among so many is the truest. And as touching the English Translation in particular, it is thus condemned by the Protestants themselves: 
e In the abridgement of the b●oke ●iuē by the Minister of Lincoln Diocese to his deceased Majesty. vide p. 11. 12. 13. etc.  A Translation; which taketh away from the text; which addeth to the Text; and that sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And yet more: A Translation, which is absurd, and senseless, perverting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Now than if the ignorant, who can but reed, is thus stabled, how shall all they do, who cannot reed at all? And yet to all such Men God (who 
f 1. Tim. 2.  would have all men saved) hath left some means for their direction, to find out the true Church; which means must be suitable to their capacity and in themselves infallible; seeing otherwise they cannot produce true faith, without which the unlearned cannot be saved.  
The like difficulty of the scripture appeareth, not only from the seeming contrary places of the scripture; one text in show of words impugning an other; all which to reconcile (though in themselves they are reconcileable) there is no small difficulty: But also even from the many Comments of the scripture, made even by the Protestants. For if the scripture be easy and facile, to what end do themselues bestow such labour and pains in illustrating of it? And if it be of such difficulty, as that it needeth Commentaries for it further explanation, how then can the true sense of it be prostituted (especially to the unlearned) as a true Note of the Church?  
Lastly, the difficulty of the sense of the scripture is so great, as that itself needeth other more clear Notes (as I may call them) to make itself known; without which Notes itself resteth most doubtful And yet are these second Notes in themselves most uncertain. The Notes for the finding out of the true sense of the scripture, are in D. (g) Reynolds and D. (h) 
(〈◊〉) In his ●●n●e●●●● p 83. 84. 92 98. etc.  Whitakers judgements, these following: Reading of the Scripture Conference of Places, weighing the Circumstances of the text, Skill in 〈…〉 gues Prayer etc. In the observation of all which, a 
〈…〉 Lib. de Sacra Script. p. 521 522. etc.  Man stands nevertheless subject to error and false construction of the scripture, even by the judgement of D. Whitakers, thus saying: 
i Lib. de E●cl●● controvert. 2. quae●●t 4 pag. 221.  Q●●l●à ●ll●medi● su●● etc. Such as the means of interpreting the obscure places of the scripture are, such also is the interpretation but them 〈…〉 es of in●●●p e●ing obscure places are incerta, dubià, & ambigua, uncertain, doubtful and ambiguous: Therefore it necessarily followeth, that the interpretation itself is uncertain; si incerta, tunc potest esse f 〈…〉 sa, and if it be uncertain, then may it be false. Thus far D. Whitakers.  
Now I refer to any Man's impartial judgement, how the true preaching of the Word (which ever presupposeth the true sense thereof) can be a certain and infallible Note of the true Church; when itself necessarily relieth upon means, as Notes of it; which means are in themselves uncertain; and at the most can afford but a doubtful, and perhaps a false construction of the Scripture?  
And here now I can but commiserate our adversaries: who seeing themselves environed in these strayts, touching the finding out of the true sense of the Scripture, by Men unlearned, unskilfulle in the tongues, and perhaps not able to read (and consequently touching this their maintained Note of the Church) are ●●nally and for their last refuge, enforced to compart hearein with the very An●baptists; fleeing for the interpreting of the Scripture, to the testimony of God's Spirit, and immediate instruction of the Holy Ghost. Sortably hearto we find, that the foresaid D. 
k Lib. de Sacra Script. controvert. 1. quaest. 2. p 127.  Whitakers (to re●er others 
l M. Wutton in his answer to a pop●●bly Pamphlet. pag. 20. D. Barlow in the defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion. pag. 199.  to the Margin) thus writeth: Omnes linguarum imperiti etc. All those who are ignorant in the tongues, though they cannot ●udge of places whether they be truly translated or not; yet they appr●●e and allow the doctrine, being instructed by the Holy Ghost. Thus he. O you 
m Galat. 〈◊〉  senseless Galatians, who have bewitched you? For may not any ●obler, Wibstar, or other Mecanical fellow (as by experience we daily find they do) flee to this refuge for their interpreting of scripture; at ouching themselves in the interpretation thereof, to be peculiarly enlightened with the spirit and instruction of the Holy ●ho 〈…〉? Which being granted, what Heresies so absurd, which these ignorant fellows will not attempt to maintain? And thus far to prove, that the true preaching of the word and a due administration of the Sacraments) which resulteth, as above is said, by sequel out of the former Note of true preaching) cannot be apppointed as Notes to us, for our direction to find out the true Church of Christ; within which we are bound (under pain of eternal damnation) to implant our selses.  
I will su●uect to th● Premises this pertinent animadversion following. It is this. When the Catholics do demand the Protestants, to set down certain Notes of the true Church: And they answering, that that Church is the true Church, which enjoyeth a true preaching of the Word, and a due and available administration of the Sacraments. Now hear I aver, that this description of Notes is but our own question, re●ur●ed us back in other terms; and consequently but a Sophism, consisting in an idle circulation of the same point, in●ested with a new form of words. For when I demand, which is the true Church; I virtually, implicitly, and according to the immediate meaning of my Words, demand which Church is that, which enjoyeth the true preaching of the Word and the true use of the Sacraments: since only the true Church is honoured with this Kind of preaching and distribution of Sacraments: The Protestants then answering, that that is the true Church, wherein are fo●d the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments, do they not give me back my own Question, varied in other phrases? being no other thing in sense then to say: That Church, which enjoyeth the true preaching of the word; & due use of the Sacraments, is that Church, which enjoyeth the true preaching of the Word and due use of the Sacraments: Most absurd, being but: Demonstratio eiusdem per Idem, justly exibilated out of all schools.  
Hear now I will end this first part of this Question of the Protestants Notes of the Church; Admonishing the Reader of one thing: to wit, that whereas S. Austin 
s Epist. 166. & l. de Vnit Ecclaes'. c. 3.  and other Doctors do say, that out of the Scriptures, we learn, which is the Church. This is so to be understood that we are able to prove from the scripture, where the Church is: but this, not as from a Note of the Church (which is the point only hear issuable) but only because the scripture teacheth which are the Notes of the Church; in teaching of what nature and quality the Church ought to be.  
In this next place, we will handle the foresaid question Hypotetically, and by supposal only; That is, we will imagine for the time, that the true preaching of the Word, and due administration of the Sacraments, are the Notes of the Church to us. To this end we will call to mind, what diverse learned Protestants do teach hearein: Calvin thus saith: Pastoribus 
u Instit. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 4.  & Doctoribus earere nunquam potest Ecclesia etc. The Church can never want Pastors and Doctors, to preach the Word and administrer the Sacraments. Doctor field confirmeth the same in these words: The 
x Of the Church l. 2. c. 6.  ministry of Pastors and teachers is absolutely and essentially necessary, to the being of a Church. Briefly Doctor Whitakers affirm, That 
* D. Whtak. contra Camp. rat. 3. p. 44.  the said Notes being present do constitute a Church, being absent, do subvert it. Now all this being granted, I confidently aver, that the force thereof doth most dangerously recoil upon our Adversaries: since it irrephably proveth, that the Protestant Church hath been (contrary to the Nature of the true Church) at several times (or rather for several ages together) wholly extinct and annihilated. Sine during many ages, it hath been utterly void & deprived of Pastors and Doctourr, to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments.  
That the Protestant Church hath during so many revolutions of years absolutely wanted all Pastors and Doctors, to preach the word and dispense the Sacraments, is evicted in general from the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church for many Ages; concerning which subject, I refer the Reader to the perusing of the Second part of the Converted ●ew, out of which, I will discerpe certain Confessions of the learned Protestants. First then Sebastianu Francus (a Protestant heretofore alleged) thus writeth: For 
y Epist. de abrovamdis in universum omnibus statut. Ecclesiast.  certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; and for these thousand four hundred years, the Church hath been no where external and visible. D. Parkins in like sort thus confesleth: We 
z In his exposition of the Creed p. 400.  say, that before the days of Luther for many hundred years, an Universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth; and that our Church was not then visible to the World. In regard of which confessed latency of the Protestant Church, Calvin had just reason (as presuming his own brethren's preaching of the Word to be true) thus to say. 
a Instit. 4 c. 1. sect. 11.  Factum est, ut aliquot secul spura Verbi praedicatio evenuerit etc. It was brought to pass, that the pure preaching of the Word of God did vanish away, for the space of certain ages. The perspicuity of which point (I mean of the invisibility of the Protestant Church in former ages) will more easily appear, if we insist for Example but in the rhyme immediately before Luther's Apostasy; of what time it is thus confessed by D. jewel; as taking his doctrine to be the truth: 
b In the Apology of the Church of En●land. part. 4. c. 4 p. 426.  The Truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Swinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. Thus we see, that the acknowledged Inuisibility of the Protestant Church demonstratively proveth the want of the former Protestant Notes, (to wit, the preaching of the Word, and Administration of the Sacraments) during all the time of the said granted in Visibility; And that therefore the Protestants have much endangered themselves, assigning the said Notes, for the Notes of the true Church.  
Now that the setting down of the foresaid Notes do make for us Catholics is no less clear, than the former point, for seeing it is granted, that Pastors and Doctors must be in the Church, till the end of World, for the administration of the Word and Sacraments; as not only D. Fulke, and other learned Protestants do teach; but also is evidently proved in the foresaid mentioned Second Part of the Converted jew: And seeing an unterrupted preaching of the Word and administratian of the Sacraments hath ever (by the like Confession of our learned Adversaries) been in our Catholic Church; Therefore it may inavoidably be concluded, that either our Catholic Church (as ever enjoying the former imposed Notes) is the only true Church of Christ; Or (which is most absurd in itself, and repugnant to infinite places of Holy Scripture) that there hath been (for several ages) no true Church of Christ at all, extant upon the face of the Earth. That the Catholic Roman Church enjoyeth the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments (besides the evidency of the truth thereof other wise) is confessed by D. Field, 
c In his Book of the Church l. 3. c. 6. f. 72.  who speaking of Luther and others, acknowledgeth, that they received from the Church of Rome their Baptism, Christianity, Ordination, and power of Ordination: By Luke Osiander, thus writing: Ecclesia, 
d Epiton. Cent. 16. p. 736.  que sub Papatufuic etc. The Church, which was under the Papacy, when Luther was borne, was the Church of Christ; for it had the ministry of the Gospel, the sacred ●eriptures Baptism, the Lords supper etc. and finally (to omit many others) by Luther himself thus acknowledging: 
e In his book against the Anabaptists.  N●s fatema● etc. We confess, that there is under the Papacy, true scripture, true Baptisime, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keres for the remission of Sins, the true office of preaching, true Catechism. Thus Luther. And here with I end touching further discourse of this subject: remitting to the even and impartial censure the more sober Protestant: whether the danger and detriment, which fall upon our Adversaries, by erecting the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments, for Marke● of Christ's Church (granting them for the time, to be the marks thereof) do not by many degrees overballance the advantage, which our Adversaries (by pretending them for Notes) do hope to gain. Since as by such their pretence, they on the one side, labour to reduce the knowing which is the true Church, to their own private judgements (which every learned and judicious man at the first sight expoldeth, for an impostute) so on the other side, they are forced even by most necessary Inferences (resulting out of their own doctrine herein) first to grant, that the Protestant Church, as for many ages, by their own acknowledgements, wanting the said Notes (being essential to the true Church) hath for the said ages (contrary to the Nature of Christ's true Church) been utterly extinct, and not in being. Secondly, that during the said centuryes or ages, our Catholic & Roman Church (through it ever enjoying of these Protestant Notes) is the true Church; or that otherwise, there hath been no true Church of Christ, in all that great compass of years; Which last point to affirm, is most repugnant to God sacred 
f Esay. 60 & 62. Psalm. 102. Ephes 4. besides many other places.  Writ.   

That the Pope and Church of Rome may (upon most urgent Occasions) sometimes dispense with some degrees of Marriage, prohibited in Leviticus; And that in so dispensing the Law of Nature (which ever bindeth) is not violated or transgressed by them.  
THE explanation of th● Question taketh it source from this one Proposition: To wit; All the precepts, which are delivered in Leviticus (touching the degrees prohibited in marriage) do not bind Christians by divine law, to observe them. Which proposition or sentence being once confirmed and fortified; it then followeth, that the Church of Christ and the Head thereof, may upon just and most urgent occasion dispense without any sin, with some degrees prohibited in Leu●●icus.  
For the better unfoulding and understanding of this one proposition, we are first to conceive, that both the Catholics and Protestants do teach: That the precepts of Leviticus do not oblige Christians, as they are properly Leniticall; that is, as they are Positive and judicial; but only as they are Natural; that is, as they are prohibited by the law of Nature.  
Now the Catholics do further teach, that as some precepts in Leviticus are Natural; so some other precepts are not natural, but merely judicial; and therefore may be dispensed with, by Christ his Church, as the Council of Trent 
a Sess. 24. Can. 3.  affirmeth; Whereas our Adversaries maintain, that all the precepts of Leviticus are Natural; and therefore ●ich of them indispensable by the Church.  
Now here we are to remember, that those are Natural precepts, which are known for such only by the light of nature, without any discourse: or at least, which are known for such, by a most small discourse of Reason: And these precepts are the same among all Men, in all nations and times, both for the knowledge of them, and for the rectitude and justness of them. Now such precepts, as for the knowing of them, do need supernatural light, are called: Divina positiva, divine Positions: And those other Precepts, which receive their establishment by humane discourse, from the Prince or Magistrate, are styled: Humana, humana Constitutions: and these are not the same among all men and in all nations.  
Now than this justly presupposed: The first proposition, to wit. That all the Precepts delivered in Leviticus (touching the degrees prohibited in Marriage) do not bind Christians by divine Law, to observe them. Is proved.  
First, from the consideration of the different punishments, appointed in the twentieth of Leviticus against those, who transgress in Marriage the different degrees, prohibited in the eighteenth of Leviticus Thus for example, we there find, that Marriage contracted in the first degree of Affinity in the right line, God punisheth with death, and compareth it with adultery and sodomy: Which are manifestly against the Law of Nature. The same punishment of death is there appointed for such, as mary in the first degree of Consanguinity in a collateral line; as when the Brother marrieth the Sister. But now in the second degree of consanguinity in the collateral line (as when the nephew marrieth his Father's sister, or the Mother's sister) this Marriage is punished with a less and more gentle punishment. In like sort, marriage in the first degree of Affinity in the collateral line (as when one marrieth the wife of his brother being dead; and in the second degree; to wit, when the nephew marrieth the wife of his uncle) is not punished with death of the parties, so contracted; but only with privation of children: That is, that the children begotten in such a marriage, should not be as●rybed or reputed the children of their said patents. Now this punishment evidently showeth, that these marriages are not prohibited by the Law of Nature; since the light of Natural Reason doth not dictate to all Men, that the former chastisement is a just punishment of the foresaid kind of marriage.  
Secondly, the former proposition or sentence is thus proved. If all the precepts of Leviticus (touching the degrees of marriage) were ordained by the law of nature; then followeth it, that they should be universal; so as all marriages contracted within the degrees there prohibited, should be unlawful. For what is prohibited by the Law of Nature, is in all times and places prohibited; as even the Protestants do maintain. But Moses hath prohibited Leviticus certain marriages, and hath permitted other marriages in the same degree. Therefore this prohibition in Leviticus proceedeth not from the law of nature; but is merely judicial and positive: and consequently dispensable. The Assumption of this argument is evident: for the Law of Leviticus doth forbid marriage of the nephew with his Aunt, either by his Fathers or his Mother's side; and yet it forbiddeth not marriage of the Uncle either of the Father's side or Mother's side, with the Niece either of the Brother or the sister: And yet the nephew & the aunt are in the same degree, in which the uncle and the neese are. In like sort Leviticus forbiddeth marriage with the wife of the brother, though dead; and yet it doth not forbid marriage with the sister of the wife, except the wife be alive; and consequently, it forbiddeth not with the sister of the wife being dead: And yet there is one & the same degree of affinity with the sister of the wife, and the wi●e of the brother.  
Thirdly, the foresaid verity is thus proved: If all the precepts (touching the prohibition of degrees in Leviticus) were Natural, & binding by the law of nature; then they should at all times be binding, even before the Law was Queen of them. As we see, that the Law of not killing, of committing adultery, of not stealing etc. were obliging, before the law of these Precepts were given to the jews by Moses. Now if the foresaid Laws touching the degrees prohibited in marriage, were ever and at all times binding; Then Men of sanctity and in high grace and favour with God, would never have contracted marriages within those prohibited degrees: But there are federal examples of holy Men, who in the law of nature, did contract marriage within the degrees prohibited in Leviticus.  
According hereto we find, that the Patriarch jacob did take to wives, two sisters, both living together: to wit, Lia and Rachael, as we ●eede in Genesis: 
b Cap. 2●.  But this is expressly forbidden in the eighteenth of Leviticus: it being the first degree of affinity in the Collateral line. In like sort, judas 
c Gene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3●.  (the Patriarch) did give in marriage to his second Son, the wife of his first Son, being dead: and the second son after dying, judas promised her to his third son: And yet this degree is prohibited in Leviticus: since it is (as the former was) the first degree of affinity in the Collateral line.  
Neither can it be replied against these examples, & some others of this nature here omitted: That these Patriarches did sin in contracting the foresaid marriages: for although Holy Men (such as they were) may, as men, sin: yet still to live and dye in this state without repentance, supposing it to be sin (as jacob and judas did) is not incident to virtuous men, and such as be the friends of God. Ad hereto, that if we grant, that the precepts of Leviticus do ever bind in conscience: them followeth it, that not only jacob and judas did sin: but also that the Sons of them both were bastards and illegitimate.  
Neither will that second Evasion (given by some) satisfy the former Examples. Which is, that God did dispense in the said Marriages, through some intended Mystery. This cannot be justified, seeing we read in the twentieth eight of Genesis, that two Sister were joined in Marriage to one Man. Thus did Laban who (when he had deceived jacob in obtruding to him one Sister, for an other) offend him the other whom he accepted: Neither was this Act reprehended by any, netheir repent of, as being an oversight. Which if it had been unaccustomed and singular, and such as might justly beget a scandal; No dowbt the blessed Man jacob would either not have done it, or a● lest would have warranted the doing of it with some reason.  
The like is evident in the fact of judas, who, when he joined the wife of one brother to an other Brother, insisted not in any dispensation from God for warranting this his Act: but urged only the reason of the Custom: to wit to the end that the seed and ospring of the dead Brother might be raised up.  
Lastly, the former Proposition touching the prohibited degrees in Leviticus, is pro●ed out of Deutcronomy where it is 
d Cap. 25.  commanded, that if any one dye without children, his Brother shall marry his wife, that so he may raise up issue to his dead Brother. Now h●e●e it can not be said, that this Law in Deut●onomy commandeth any thing against nature: since it is most absurd, that the Author of nature should impugns and cross nature. Therefore from hence we may conclude, that it is not against the law of nature, but that for some most important & just reasons some prohibited degrees in Leviticus may be dispensed with. Now for the slaving of these two contrary laws in Leviticus and Deutronomy (that so the scripture be not contrary to the Scripture) we are to observe (according to the judgement of the Learned) that matrimony with the wife of the deceased Brother, is not prohibited in Leviticus: but only as such a marriage is considered in itself nakedly, simply, and abstracted from all Circumstances: even as manslaughter is taken in the Decalogue, when it is said: Thou shalt not kill. Which law of Leviticus doth not hinder, why there may not after be ordained some particular positive Laws, which may prohibit marriage with the wife of the Brother, according to some circumstance: and yet according to other circumstances, may warrant and justify the said marriage. Even as the foresaid law in the decalogue: Thou shalt not kill: doth not let, but that particular laws and decrees may be ordained, which may command a thief or a murderer to be killed: and may also command, that he shall not be killed, who killeth another either by chance, or in his own defence.  
Now if against the former doctrine, delivered in this question of prohibition of degrees in Leviticus: It be objected, that S. john Baptist (whose ministry imposed an end to the old law) did confirm the precept of Leviticus of not marrying the wife of the Brother, when he said to Herod: 
e Math. ●6.  It is not lawful for thee, to have the wife of thy Brother: And therefore howsoever this point was in the old law: yet now it is not lawful, but wholly indispensable.  
I answer hereto, and first say, that if we speak of the change and abrogation of the Law, Christ only, and not Saint john Baptist did impose an end to it: though it be granted, that Saint john Baptist was the last Prophet of the old Law. I further say, that it was not lawful for Herod (even according to the Law of Leviticus) to have the wife of his Brother: because an Ospring was then begotten of that former Mariadg (to wit, the daughter of Herodiades, who so pleased the King with dancing, that she obtained the head of S. john Baptist) That this daughter was the daughter of Herodiades, begotten by the Brother of Herod, is acknowledged by the testimony of 
f Homi● 49. in Matheun●.  Chrisostome: Secondly, I further answer to this example of Herod: that the sin of Herod was not only Incest, but also adultery: since Herod did mary the wife of his Brother, he being yet living, as S. 
g In Comment. c. 24. in Mathae●m.  jerom witnesseth out of ancient histories: and 
h L. 18. Antiquit, cap. 9  josephus averreth the same.  
Thus far then of this point, to show that all the Precepts of Le●iticus (touching the prohibited degrees in Mariadg) are not commanded by the law of Nature: and that they do not oblige Christians by divine Law, for the ever observing of them: But that some of them are in themselves dispensable: And consequently that the Church of Christ may (upon most urgent Occasions) sometimes dispense with some of the said Precepts.  
Now hear then appeareth the inconsiderate and rash obloquy of our Adversaries: charging the Pope, that he teaching Mariadg to be a Sacrament: consequently by his own doctrine, undertaketh and presumeth to alter the Matter or Essential parts of a Sacrament: which was first instituted by Christ, and therefore inaltorable by Man. To which false aspersion I answer, that neither the Pope nor the Church can change the essential parts of this or any other Sacrament for we are hear to conceive, that the Matter of this Sacrament is not the joining together of every Man or woman (since then this Sacrament might be perfected between the Father and the Daughter.) but only the joining together of Lawful persons Now which are lawful persons for Mariadg, Christ did not appoint or set down; but only a humane Contract between lawful persons being presupposed, Christ himself did advance this conjunction to the dignity of a Sacrament. Therefore the Church or the Pope doth only determine, who are to be accounted Lawful Persons, for the contracting of marriage; And in this sort, the Church doth only prepare the Matter or foundation fitting for this Sacrament: But doth not, nor can alter and change the essential parts of the Sacrament of Marriage. And herewith I conclude this short discourse, touching this subject.   

That the Catholics do not expunge out of Gods writ, or reject those words in the Decalogue. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image etc. But that they willingly acknowledge them, as part of the Decalogue: howsoever they be not sometimes set down in Cathechis●es and Primars.  
Whereas the Protestants do charge the Catholics to conceal (through their affected fraud) in their Catechis●nes and Primars' one commandment, and so to expunge it out of Holy Writ; To wit: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of anything above in Heaven, or on earth beneath: neither of those things, which are in the waters under the earth: Thou shalt nor adore them or worship them etc. This (I say) is either a fraudulent, or an ignorant mistaking of our Adversaries. For the truth is, those words (here recited) do but make one and the same Commandment with those first words: Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me; these later being but a more full explication of the first words; and consequently may be omitted sometimes in a short numbering or setting down of the Commandments. This is thus proved: Every Image is not prohibited in the Decalogue or ten Commandments; but only that, which may be truly called an Idol; that is an Image, which is taken for God; or which representeth God to be that thing, which God is not. Therefore when it is said. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image etc. the exterior Act of Idolatry is forbidden; But in those first words: Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me: the internal Act of Idolatry is prohibited: Of which point most at large Saint Austin 
a Quaest. 77.  discourseth.  
Now that Images are not absolutely forbidden by the law of God, appeareth; in that the Scripture telleth us, that God himself commanded Images to be made: According here to we read in the book of Kings, 
b 3. Regum. c. 6. and 7.  that God commanded the Images of the Cherubins, Lions and Oxen to be made: In the Book of Numbers, 
c Cap. 21.  the brazen serpent; And in Exodus 
d Cap. 25.  the Images of the Cherubin to be made. From whence we may infallibly conclude, that the making of Images is not absolutely forbidden by God, as a distinct precept from the first; but only so far forth, as the Images be taken for God; and consequently that (as is above said) these words (forbidding the making of Images) do but make one & the same Commandment with the first words: Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. And therefore the Catholics do not fraudulently conceal one of the ten Commandments; as our Adversaries do in their Pulpits tragically complain.  
Again. If all Images should be absolutely prohibited, in the former words of the Decalogue; then should it follow, that the Precepts of the Decalogue should not be only ten, but eleven or twelve; an inference incompatible with the Scripture 
e Exod. 31. & 34. Deut●on. 4. 9 10.  itself, which in express words teacheth, that there are but ten Commandments. The necessity of this Inference is thus proved. It is granted on all sides, that those words: Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me, is one Precept. That, thou shalt not take the name of God in vain, is an other. A third: Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath day. A fourth; Honour thy Father and thy Mother. A fifth; Thou shalt not kill. A sixth: Thou shalt not commit adultery. A seaventh: Thou shalt not steal. An eight. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. A ninth: Thou shalt no● covet etc.  
Now that: Thou shalt not covet etc. is either to be divided into two precepts▪ so as the ninth Precept shallbe: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; the tenth: Thou shalt not coact thy neighbour's Ox, nor his Ass, nor any thing, that is his. Or else those word: Thou shalt not covet etc. with all the words following to wit, his Wife, his Ox, his Ass, or any thing, that is his; do make but one precept or Commandment. If they ought to be divided into two; then followeth it, that those words: Thou shalt not make any graven ●mage &c. shallbe the eleventh Commandment (contrary to the Scripture) or that, this is not a distinct precept from the first, videlicet: Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. As Clemens Alexander: 
f Lib. 6. sto●. citum.  Saint 
g Quaest. 71. in Euod. & epist. 119. cap. 11.  Austin, all schoolmen, and Latin Catechisms do teach. And then it followeth, that not every graven Image is forbidden in these words; but only that, which is taken for an other God. Now if supposing further, that that: thou shalt not covet etc. be only one Precept (as some other fathers do hold) then (to make up the tenth Commandment) all those words: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image etc. thou shalt not adorethem, nor worship them etc. do concur to make up one Precept or Commandment. But absolutely and simply to make Images, and to adore or worship them being made, are two different things in themselves; because one man may adore an Image, which he did not make; and an other Man may make an Image, and yet not adore it. Therefore only one of these two things is prohibited in the foresaid words. (Since otherwise there should be eleven Commandments:) But it is certain, that the worshipping of Images in place of God, is forbidden; Therefore the absolute making of them is not forbidden; but only with reference of worshipping them instead of God.  
Now the Schoolmen, and all Latin Catechisms, & Primars do follow herein the first opinion of S. Augustin; to wit, that those words: thou shalt not make any graven Image etc. do make but one Commandment, with the first Precept of not worshipping other Gods. And therefore Primars and Catechisms, intending but briefly and in few words, to set down the ten Commandments, do omit to set down that: thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image etc. thou shalt not adore them &c. because (as is said) these words are implicitly included in the first Commandment. In like sort, and for the same cause of briefly setting down the ten Commandments; we find, that Latin catechisms and Primars do omit to set down diverse words immediately following in Exodus, and belonging to the Commandment of keeping the Sabbath day, holy. The words omitted are these: Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work; but the seaventh day is the Sabbath of thy Lord, thy God etc. Besides many other words there following. The same course the Catechisms and Primars take in setting down the Commandment of honouring thy Father and thy Mother: where these words following are also for brevity omitted: that thy days may be prolonged upon the land, which the Lord, thy God giveth thee. Now is it not a loose and dissolute kind of reasoning, thus to argue: The Papists do purposely conceal and labour, to put out of holy Scripture, diverse passages immediately following & belonging to the Commandments of keeping the Sabbath day, holy; and of honouring thy Father and Mother: because (for greater brevity) they do not set down the said passages (being but mere explications of the said Commandments) in their catechisms and Primars, when they make recital of the ten Commandments. And yet we see, the Protestants do even in the same manner argue most wildly against the Catholics, for not setting down those words: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved Image etc.  
If the Protestants could prove, that any one Catholic did say or maintain, that the said words of not making Images, were not Scripture, and were not spoken by God, in the delivery of the ten Commandments to Moses: then they had just reason, to charge the Catholics with great Impiety herein: But this is impossible for the Protestants to do. And therefore this accusation of the Protestants against the Catholics herein, is an error (as in the beginning was intimated) compounded of malice and ignorance: where (I think) the greater Ingredient is malice. And thus much touching the supposed raizing and expunging out of one Commandment by the Catholics.   

The Catholic Doctrine touching Images.  
TOuching Images the Catholics do teach two things. First, that lawfully they may be had and kept, by reason of the profit proceeding from them. Secondly, that we having them, may lawfully give unto them a peculiar respect or worship (above other profane things) as they are things consecrated unto religious uses.  
Touching the Utility. This we find in them. First, they do instruct the ignorant, and such as cannot read; and therefore they are worthily called: 
a Gre●●ry Nyssen, orat in Theodor.  Libri illiter atorum, by some of the fathers. And hence it is, that the picture is so made, as that for the most part, it containeth in itself a short abstract or Compendium of the history of him, of whom it is the Image: Thus for example, When Christ is painted either in the shape of a young Child in the bosom of his mother; or in the form of a Man, tied to a Pillar to be whipped; or hanging upon the Cross; or rising from the grave: or ascending to Heaven etc. And so the ignorant by beholding the pictures, are theareby put in remembrance of the Incarnation, the Passion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour. And the like may be said of the pictures of Saints: who are commonly pictured in such sort, as that the picture doth describe some chief part of their Sanctity, sufferance, Martyrdom, or power and authority.) as for example, S. Laurence is commonly pictured lying upon the gridiron, and so of other Saints) And thus secondarily it resulteth from hence, that Images are profitabl● to 〈…〉 our Love towards God, and his Saints: Seing we see by experience, that who loveth, doth most willingly behold and comtemplate the Image of the party, so beloved by him.  
Lastly and principally, Images do greatly help us in time of prayer; for seeing and beholding them at that time, they presearue in us the Memory of Christ and his Saints: and so●n time of prayer our thoughts are fixed with greater elevation of mind upon Christ and his Saints, by reason of the pictures ●eare present. Now this is to be understood that when we pray, we neither pray to the Pictures, nor honour them with the honour due to God (for this is the Protestants wilfully mistaken assertion, most wrongfully laid to our charge) but only in presence of them, we do in time of prayer, prosecute God with that supreme reverence and honour, which is peculiar to himself alone. This is the true use, which we Catholics make of Images in time of our Devotions.  
But now before we come to entreat of the worship of Images in particular; we are to conceive, that according to all learned 
b S. Thomas. in 3. sentent. distinct. ●.  Schoolmen, Adoration or worship of any thing containeth in itself three different Acts. The first, is an Act of the Understanding by the which we apprehend the excellency of any thing: The second, the Act of the Will; by the w●●ch we are inwardly moved to manifest or protest our Worship, by some exterior or interior Act: The third, is an exterior Act: by the which we move our hat, or bow our leg, or show some other external sign in manifestation of our inward worship given. Of which three Acts, the second (which is of the Will) is most e●entiall; seeing the first may be without Adoration, and the third with ●rision and scorn; as the jews worshipped our Saviour upon the Cross. Hear further we are to remember, that that worship, which is given to God alone, is a chief and supreme prostration and inclination of the Will, with the apprehension of God, as the first beginning and last ending of all things: and therefore as our chief Good: and is called by the Devynes, Latria: and cannot be communicated without Idolatry to any Creature.  
Worship's given to Creatures are distinguished, according to the different degrees of excellencyes in the Creatures. And so according to the different degrees of the worth of Creatures, the worship exhibited is severally called: as dulias, s●perdulia, cultus religiosus, and cultus civilis. Lastly, it is further to be observed, that by the exterior Act, it is not easy to distinguish the several kinds of whorships: For almost all exterior Acts (sacrifice only excepted) are common to every kind of worship. And according hearto we recde, that Abraham with the same act of bowing his body to the ground, did adore God, Genes. 17. did worship Angels. Genes. 18. And did worship Men, Genes. 23. In like sort, all men do use to kneel to God in their prayers: to their Prince or King: and to their own parents: yet with disparity of honour to eich of thief. And hear is the source and fountain of the Protestats mistaking, who hearing that Catholics do sometimes exhibit part of that external worship to Creatures, which is given to God: do instantly exclaim forth in this, or the like manner; See how the Papists commit Idolatry to Creatures: see how they pray to stocks and stones: Poor Men, I commiserate their Ignorance who so much mistake the true meaning of the Catholics practice.  
Now than the former doctrine presupposed, touching the worship given to Images: This ensuing is the Catholic doctrine: 
c Thus teacheth the Council of Trent. sess. 25.  Images of Christ and his Saints are to be worshipped and honoured with a peculiar respect; so as neither any Confidence be placed in the Images: neither any petityon be made to them, nor that it be bele●ued, that there is any Divinity in them. And this honour, being but an inferior kind of religious worship, ascribed to things consecrated to holy ends (as is ever presumed) is given them only for the persons sake, of whom they are Images, and whom they represent.  
This is proved by the example of the Images of the Cherubins, 
d Exod. 25.  appointed by God to be placed over the Ark: and by the Image of the brazen Serpent, in like sort appointed by God (which as we read in john c. 3. was the figure of Christ.) But to both thief the jews gave a peculiar worship, as to things ordained to religious uses: For how could they adore the Ark, but withal they must adore the Images of the Cherubin? Or how could not the brazen Serpent but be worshipped by the jews: when it being seated in a high place by God's command, did cure those, which locked upon it?  
But now I here infer, that if it were lawful to worship the Images of Angels (I ever mean, with that respect, due to conseciated things) then by the same reason, it is lawful to worship the Images of Saints departed. And if the bras●n Serpent might be worshipped (so long as this religious respect (without any act of Idolatry) was given to it) as be●ring the Image of Christ in the form of a Serpent: then may the Image of Christ be esteemed venerable. Ad hereto, that if the day of the Pascha be called, Holy, 
e Exod. 12.  in regard of it signification: and because it was dedicated to divine Worship: And if the vestments of the Priests in the old Law, for the same reason, be termed, Holy: 
f Exod. 28.  And if the sepulchre or grave of Christ, be named, Glorious: 
g Esay. 11.  If also it be said in Exodus: 
h Cap. 3.  The place, where 't 〈…〉 ou standest is holy: and this said by reason of the presence of the Angel, being then there: And if in the New Testament the Scripture be called: 
i 2. Tim. cap. 3.  Sacrae litterae holy letters: & this only by reason, that the letters are signs of holy things, expressed by them: And finally if to the name of JESUS we be commanded to bow 
k Philip. 2.  (the sound of the word being to the care, as the picture is to the eye) then by the same reason, why may we not be●re to the Images of Christ and his Saints a religious respect, in regard of the persons, of whom they are made?  
Again leaving divine authorityes, and coming to force of reason. If a picture be capable of disgrace and injury, in regard of the person thearein represented; then by the same reason a Picture may be capable of honour, respect, and reverence. This inference is most demonstrative. Now that a Picture is capable of disgrace or Contumely, is evident: For example, if a Subject (disloyalty affected to his Prince) should deface, tear, or break, or any otherwise indecently handle his Prince's picture, as by stabbing it with his knife, or the like: Or if some Atheist (denving all Scripture) should betrample under his feet (through scorn and malice) the Bible itself; Would not these actions be severely chastised? And might not the Pictures of the Prince, and the Bible, be said to have suffered disgrace and indignity heareby, with reference to the wrong and indignity committed against the Prince, and the sacred Scripture? Then by the same reason, may the Pictures of Christ and his Saints be affected with due religious respect above other things: in regard of Christ and his Saints represented in them, of whom they are the Pictures.  
Only here we are to remember (as above is often intimated) that the respect we give to the picture of Christ, is not that 
If any Author seem to say that the same worship is given to the Image which to the hrofit upon either he meaneth that nothing is given to the Image but all to that which it representeth or that it is the same only in name not in nature or only Analogicè non univocè.  supreme honour and veneration due to Christ: but only an inferior religious respect, due to things, as they are directed to spiritual ends: and not otherwise. The verity of the former Point may be further confirmed, by our custom of standing barehead, and giving reverence to the Cloth of Estate, even in the King's absence. ●or as to it (as representing our temporal Prince) a civil honour may lawfully be given: so (by the same ground) a religious respect or honour may be ascribed to the picture of Christ, who is our chief King and Saviour.  
That this our Catholic doctrine is warranted by the practice and authority of the ancient Fathers, is most evident; And therefore I refer the Reader hearein to the clear testimonies of 
l Lib. 2. de doctrina Christiana. c. 25.  Austin, 
m Serm. 10. in psalm. 118.  Ambrose, 
n In Leitu●●●a.  chrysostom, 
o In vita Paulae.  Basill, 
p Quaest. 16. an Antiocum.  Jerome, 
q Cent. 4. cap. 10. col. 1080.  Athanasius and others: whose whole sentences thereof were over long to set down. This point of the Father's judgement touching Images is so evident, that we find Learned Protestants to confess no less of them: For thus w●yte the Centurists: Lactantius affirmeth many superstitious things, concerning 
(n) In ●ulianum, ut citat Adrianus ad Imperator.  Christ's Image: 
r Cent. 10. c. 8. col. 850.  And Bede erred in worshipping of Images. And Osiander 
s In epiton. Cent. 6. p. 288.  confssseth, that Gregory by his Indulgenses, established pilgrimages to Images. 
t In his pageant of Popes. p. 24. & 27.  Bale thus plainly writeth: Leo allowed the worshipping of Images. Finally M. 
u on the revelat. p. 57  Symondus thus acordeth with Bale: Leo decreed, that reverence should be given to Images. To all whose confessed testimonies, we may adjoin the acknowledgements of Functius 
x Lib. 7. commentar. at anno. Christi. 494.  and Cedrenus, 
y Cedrenus in compend. Histor.  confessing (as they prove out of 
z Nicephorus in hist. l. 16. c. 27.  Nicephorus) that Xenayas Persa was the first in ancient times, that impugned the due worship of Images.  
That it is lawful to have Images in Churches, is taught (as true and warrantable doctrine) by diverse learned Protestants; as by Cempnitius, 
a Exam. part. 4. p. 14. & 33.  by Luther, 
b So doth Beza relate of Luther and Bren●ius in resp. ad Act. Colloq Montisb. part. altera in praefat. pag. 12.  and Brentius, jacobus 
c In epitome. colloq. Montisb. pag. 39  Andreas etc.  
But now I will conclude this discourse touching Images with a most authentical and strange miracle, wrought by the Image of Christ, and recorded by 
d Lib. 7. histor. cap. 14.  Eusebius, 
e In cap. 9 Mathaei.  Theophilact, and 
f Lib. 6. histor. cap. 20.  Zozemene; all ancient & grave Writers; whose authorityes herein if we reject, we reject by the same reason the proof of all other things, recorded by ancient Historiographers.  
It was this. The woman, whom our Saviour cured of the bloody flux, caused to be made a brazen Image of Christ; at the foot whereof did spring a strange herb; the which herb, after it did ascend so high, as to touch the scirt of the Image, it had virtue to cure all diseases. Which virtue (no doubt) God would not have imparted to the Herb, but only in manifestation, that due respect might lawfully be given to the Image of Christ. And thus far, touching the Catholic doctrine of Images.   

Touching Prayer to Saints.  
touching Prayer to Saints. I will deliver the Catholic doctrine thereof in certain Propositions; which Propositions may searue as certain gradual stips or degrees of this Controversye.  
The first Proposition may be this. It is not lawful to pray to Saints, as authors or principal dispensers of divine benefits, to obtain from them either grace or glory, or the means of obtaining our Eternal felicity; much less, the Crawne of glory or heaven itself. Since in this sense to pray to them, were (according to the judgement of S. Austin 
a Lib. de civitate Dei c. ult.  and all Catholics) to make Saints, Gods. And therefore if at any time, the words directed to Saints should sound otherwise: as when we say: Our Lady help me etc. We are hear to insist in the sense, not in the naked words: That is, Our Lady help me by her intercession and prayers to her son; and no otherwise: Even as we find, that S. Paul saith of himself: 
b Rom. 11. ut saluos facerem aliquos ex illis.  If I may save some of them: meaning, of the gentils. And again the said Apostle saith of himself: To 
c 1. Cor. 9 ut omnes racerē saluos.  all Men I am become all things, that I might save all: meaning, to save all not as God: but only healping them and furthering their Salvation by his preaching to them, and by his prayers for them. Which words of the Apostle (being truly understood) may sear●e well to stop the Mouths of the Protestant Ministers, for their often mistaking and misinterpreting of the Catholic Doctrine touching prayer to Saints.  
The second Proposition. Saint's are not our immediate Mediators, by way of intercession with God; But whatsoever they demand or obtain of God for us, they demand and obtain it, through Christ and his Merits. And according hearto we find, that all the Prayers of the Church (which are made to Saints) end with this clause: Per Christum Dominum nostrum: For we willingly acknowledge, 
d joh. 10. 14.  that no Man cometh to the Father, by the Son; And that their is but one Mediator of Redemption: though all the Saints may be termed our Mediators, by way of Intercession.  
The third Proposition. The Saints, which reigue with Christ, do pray for us, and this not only in general, but in particular: That is, for particular Men, and for the particular Necessities of the same Men. This is proved first, from those words in jeremy: 
e Cap. 15.  If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, my Soul is not towards this People. From whence it is inferred, that Moses and Samuel (then being dead) might and were accustomed to pray for the People of Israel.  
Secondly, the same is proved from the Example of Angels, who do pray for us, and have a care of us in particular, as appeareth out of several passages of 
f Toby. 12. Zach. 1. Math. 18. Apoc. 8.  Scripture. But if the Angels do pray for us, then much more Saints; seeing so far forth, as appertaineth to this function, nothing is wanting to the Saints in Heaven, which Angels have: for they are endued with Intelligence or Understanding, and with Will; they are ever in the presence of God; they love us vehemently; and finally they 
g Luc. 20.  are equal even with Angels: Besides, some privileges they have in this point, which are wanting in Angels: to wit, that Saints are more conjoined and united members of the body of the Church; and that they have tried our dangers and Miseries, which Angels have not.  
Thirdly, the former Proposition is proved from the many apparitions of Saints, which have evidently testified, that they do pray for us even in particular. Of diverse such particular Apparitions, See 
h Lib. hist. c. 5.  Eusebius, 
i Decura pro mortuis.  Austin, 
k Orat. de Sancto Manante.  Basill, 
l Orat. 1. in julianun.  Gregory Nazianzen, 
m In vita Gre●orij veo 〈…〉 ●a●●ens.  Gregory Nyslene, and 
n Lib. 5. histor. c. 24.  Theodoret; all which testimonies of so ancient and reverend Fathers to reject, touching matter of fact, by answering, that all such relations are fabulous, is in effect (and by necessary inference) to take away all authority of Ecclesiastical and humane Histories.  
The fourth and last Proposition. Saints and Angels are religiously and profitably invoked and prayed unto, by living Men. This is proved. First, We read, that jacob blessing the sons of joseph, thus saith: The 
o Genes. ●8.  Angel, which hath delivered me from all Evil, bless these Children; where we see, that jacob expressly invoketh these Angel. Again, we read thus in job. Call, 
p Cap. 5.  if any will answer thee, and turn to some of the Saints: Where by the word: Saints, he meaneth Angels, according to the exposition of Saint Austin 
q In anno●at. in job.  Secondly, this last Proposition is proved from that, that in both the Testaments the Living were invoked and prayed unto by living; as in the first Book of the Kings, and in the last of job. 
Cap. 7.  In like sort in the Epistle to the Romans S. Pauli thus saith: 
s Cap. 15.  Brethren I beseach you, that you all help me in your prayers for me to God. Which Kind of prayer the Apostle useth in the Epistle to the 
t 6.  Ephesians; in the first to the 
u 5.  Thessalonians, in the second 
x 3.  to the Thessalonians, in his epistle to the 
y 4.  Colossians, & to the 
z 13.  Hebrews: So familiar and usual was this to S. Paul. Therefore from hence I conclude, that now it is lawful to invoke and pray to the said Men; being now Saints, and reigning with Christ. This Inference is most necessary & demonstrative. For if it be not now lawful to pray to them, It is either because the Saints now in Heaven will not help us with their intercession to God; But this is not so, seeing the Saints in Heaven enjoy greater Charity, than they had hear upon earth: Or else in that the Saints cannot help us with their prayers: And this less true: for if they could afore help us with their prayers, they being then but Pilgrims; much more now, they being arrived into their Country. Or else because they do not know, what we pray or demand of them: But this is false: for look from whence the Angels do know the Conversion of sinners, for which they so much rejoice in Heaven, (as we read in S. 
a Cap. 〈◊〉.  Luke) from the same source or wellspring of knowledge the Saints do know our prayers; Or lastly, because we offer injury to God and Christ, if we pray to any other, then to him alone; But this is the least of all true, seeing by the same reason, it should not be lawful for us to pray to the living, that they would pray for us; And then consequently Saint Paul should have been most injurious to God and Christ, in praying to the Romans, the Ephesians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians and the Hebrews, to pray for him to God. Therefore, as it is no injury, but an honour to Kings, when their friends are honoured, and Ambassadors are sent to them; Even so here there is no injury done to God, but honour, when the Saints of God are honoured by praying unto them; not as to Gods, but as to the friends of God: since otherwise it would follow, that he should commit 
(〈◊〉) Serm. Euang. de sanctissima Deipara.  an injury to God (as is above said) who should desire & entreat the prayers of the living. This argument is unanswerable, and the rather: since the Saints in Heaven are members of the same Church, of which the living are: they also wholly rely upon the same intercession of Christ with the living: for what they desire for us, that they desire of God, through the merits of our Saviour Christ.  
This doctrine of Invocation of Saints is further proved from several ancient Counsels: whose places for greater brevity I refer the Reader to▪ As to the Epistle of the Bishops of Europe, written to Leo the Emperor, which epistle is adjoined to the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Chalcedon 
b Act. 11.  itself, the sixth 
c Act. 7.  general council, the seaventh 
d Act. 6.  general council, besides diverse others. That the ancient Fathers of the Primative Church believed & practised this doctrine of praying to Saints, is evident from the references herein the margin. See then hereof Dionysius 
e Cap. 7. Eccles. Hierarch.  Areopagita, Ireneus, 
f Lib. 5. contra Haeres. ultra medium.  Eusebius, 
g Lib. 13 praeparat. Euang. c. 7  Athanasius, (h) Basill, 
i Orat. in 40. Martyrs.  chrysostom, 
k Homil. 66. ad Populum.  Gregory 
l Orat. in Sanctum Theodorum  Nyssene, Hilary, 
m In psal. 129.  Ambrose, 
n Lib. de Viduis ultra med.  Jerome, 
o In epitaph. Paulae.  Austin, 
p Tract. 84. in johannem.  and others. This point of the Father's judgement and practice herein is so manifest, as that we find it to be thus confessed of them, by the learned Protestants. M. Fulke thus saith: 
r D. Fulke in his Reioinde● to Bristol.  I confess, that Ambrose, Austin, and Jerome did hold Invocation of Saints to be lawful. The said D. Fulke doth further thus write: In 
s D. Fulk against the Rhenish Test. in 2. Petr. c. 1.  Nazianzen, Basill, and chrysostom is mention of Invocation of Saints. And yet more fully the same D. thus confesseth: Many 
t D. Fulk against the Rhenish Test. ubi supra.  of the ancient Fathers did hold, that the Saints departed do pray for us. In which general condemnation of the Fathers herein D. Whitguift (the Archbishop of Canterbury) thus conspireth with the foresaid D. Fulke: 
u In his defence against the reply of Cart. wright. p. 472.  Almost all the bishops and Writers of the Greek Church and Latin also, for the most part, were spotted with the doctrine of Invocation of Saints, and such like points. To conclude D. Covell thus 〈…〉 p with the former Protestants, saying: 
x In his examinat. p. 120.  diverse both of the Greek and Latin Church, were spotted with the error, about the Invocation of Saints.  
Now that the Protestants do not only confess the ancient Father's judgement hearein; but that also diverse of them do believe the doctrine 〈◊〉 self to be true, is no less clear: For we find Luther himself thus to write: De 
y In purgat. quorundam articul.  intercessione divorum, cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio, Sanctos a nobis hon●randos esse & inuocando●. With whom agree 
z In orat. 1. Chry●ost. de Inuentio & maximo.  O●colampadius, 
a Act. mon. p. 1312.  Latimer, and diverse 
b See H●fferenfetus in loc. theol l. 3. stat 4.  Protestants in Polonia.  
Now I will end this point, in setting the judgement of learned 
c Jerome epist. 2 cotra V 〈…〉 l. Gregory. lib. 11. moral. cap. 13. 16.  Fathers and Catholics, touching the manner how Saints do hear out prayers. Which is, that Saints as being in Heaven, even from their first beginning of their beatitude and happiness, do see all things in God (as in a clear glass) which belong unto them any way, according to that: Quid 
* Gregory ubi supra  est, quod ibi n●sciunt, qui scie tem om●●a sciunt? And therefore they see and hear our prayers, directed unto them. And hence it is, that the holy Souls before our Saviour's Incarnation and Ascension, being in Ly●bus Patrum, were not prayed unto; because they then not being in Heaven, could not hear the prayer of the living made to them; And therefore no marvel, if neither in the old Testament nor in the new, we find no express examples of prayer made to Saints. To the former manner, how saints do see the actions of the living, and do hear their prayers, I may adjoin an other manner of hearing than allowed & taught by S. 
d Lib. de cura pro mortuis c. 15.  Austin & other 
e Nazianzen orat. fun. in sororem Gorg.  Fathers. Which is, that God out of his special favour and love to his Saints, doth open and reveal to them, the particular states and prayer of their friends, yet living in the World.  
Now how agreeable it is to all force of Reason, that Saints in Heaven should know the affairs of their living friends, is several ways proved. First, because the 
f Luc. 15.  Angels in Heaven rejoice at the conversion of a sinne●: Therefore the Angels know the particular states of living Men. But if the Angels do, then by the same Reason the Saints do: seeing so far as concern this point, there is no difference between the Angels and the Saints.  
Secondly, the Nature of their beatitude requireth such knowledge of the affairs of their living friends. For seeing their Happiness is a main Ocean of all joys (no kind of happiness being to them wanting, which is requisite for them to have) therefore it followeth, that for their greature measure of their felicity, they are to have notice of the miseries, wants, & prayers of their living friends. And this the rather, seeing Nature is not abolished, but betered and perfected by grace; from whence we may gather, that the Saints in heaven do not abandon & reject the cares & states of their living friends; but do still retain (though with greater perfection) their former natural desire, to know & relieve the state of their said friends.  
Thirdly, This privilege of Saints, knowing the state, and hearning the prayers of the living, best sorteth to the nobility and worth of their beatifical and happy Vision of God. For if God hath honoured diverse of his friends (whiles they lived in this world) with the guyft of Prophecy; as he did Daniel, Ezechiel, Esay, David, and many others, wheareby diverse of them revealed many things to come, merely depending of Man's freewill (and therefore not foreseen, in their causes) as also did tell (at the very time they were done) things done in places far distant and remote from them. How can it then otherwise be, but that his divine Majesty is most willing to communicate unto his Saints the state and prayers of the living? To the force of which Reason S. Austin subscribeth in these words: If the Prophet Elizaeus (absent in body) 
(a) Lib. 22. de civitat. Dei c. 29.  did see the bribe his servant Geizi did take of N●man syrus etc. How much more in that spiritual body, shall Saints see all things etc. When God shallbe All in all, unto us?  
Lastly, the damned spirits and devils, (being far absent from their Witches, soothsayers, and conjurers) do nevertheless hear their invocations and conjurations: As is warranted by all Experience. Shall any Man then think, that the blessed Saints of Heaven, are deprived of hearing the prayers and intercessions, which the faithful hear upon Earth, do make unto them? since otherwise it would follow, that spiritual substances by their losing of Heaven (I mean, the devils by their fall) did obtain greater prerogatives and excellency, than the souls of the Saints do by gaining and ascending up to Heaven: an absurdity incompatible with the goodness, wisdom, and Charity of God. And thus much, touching the doctrine of Prayer to Saints.   

The Catholic doctrine touching justification by works, Merit of works, and Works of Supererogation.  
TOuching justification by Works, the Catholics teach, as followeth.  
justification, 
a Bellar. de 〈…〉 cat. l. 4. c. 10.  wheareby a Man being afore wicked, and the Son of Wrath, is become the Son of God, is wrought by the help of God's grace (without any merit of works on our side) and by the spirit of faith and Charity, infused by God in us, in the very Act of our justification. Thus our Adversaries may see, that we do not ascribe our first justification to any of our works at all; though they most wrongfully traduce us to the contrary; For we willingly acknowledge those words of the Apostle: It 
b Rom. 9  is not of the willer, or of the runner; but of God, who showeth Mercy.  
Secondly, the Catholics teach, that after a Man justified (being of wicked become good) he may increase his first justification by works: That is, he being already made just, by God's grace and mercy, may by his works become more Just: Which works are not those, which are performed by the force of Nature (as the Pelagians did teach, and the Protestants do falsely charge the Catholics) but as they are performed by the spirit and grace of God; and as they receive their force & virtue from our Saviour's Passion.  
Concerning the merit of Works more particularly, the Catholics teach, as followeth; whose doctrine herein (for greater perspicuity) I will set down in certain propositions; Which propositions do contain certain conditions, necessarily required, that Works may merit.  
The first proposition is this. That works may merit, it is required, that the party (who worketh) be in state of grace, and an adopted Child of God. Thus we exclude all works from meriting, which are performed by one, who is not in state of grace; that is, who wanteth true faith, true hope, true charity: for such Works are performed by force of Nature only, & not by force of God's grace.  
The second proposition: That works do merit, a free & liber all promise or Covenant of God is necessary; by which his promise of reward made unto good Works, God in a manner obligeth himself, to reward good works, according to his promises. here our Adversary may see, that we willingly confess, that no works of ours (of themselves) can merit, as we abstract from them the promise of God: for without this promise and Covenant of God, made out o● his most merciful bounty to remunerate good works, we do willingly say with the Apostle: The 
c Rom. 8.  passions of this life are not condign, to the glory to come, that shallbe revealed unto us.  
The third proposition. That Works do merit, it is (according to the most probable opinion) necessarily required, that they chiefly precede from actually or virtually Charity, & love towards God: That is, that they be undertaken chiefly and primatively for the honour and love we bear to God. From whence it followeth, that no works, which are not seasoned with this condition of Charity in God, but have to themselves only peculiar and less principal ends, c 〈…〉 merit.  
The fourth and last proposition, which is implicitly included in the former Propositions. That Works do merit, they must take their worth and dignity from the 〈…〉 ritis of our Saviour's Passion; and from thence receive (as it were) a new tincture and dye. Thus we see, that originally and principally it is Christ's merits, which do merit for us; and that our works are but once of the means, whereby we apply Christ's merit●s unto us.  
That the doctrine here set down touching merit of works is suitable to the doctrine of the Catholic Roman Church, is evident even from the authority of the Council 
d Sess. 6. c. vl●.  of Trent, where we thus read: To them, who work well to the end of their life, and do hope in God, eternal life is given, both as a grace, and favour mercifully promised to the Sons of God, through the merits of Christ jesus; as also as a reward, proceeding from the promisse of the same God, faithfully to be given to their good Works and Merits etc. Thus the Council.  
The certainty of this doctrine of merit of works receiveth it chief proof from the holy Scripture; and this from the testimonies of Scripture of several kinds. First, then from those places, where eternal life is called Merces, a wage or reward. As Matthew 
* Math. 5.  Rejoice, for your reward is great in Heaven. Again, 
e Math. 20.  Call the workmen, and pay them their hire, besides diverse others of like nature. Secondly, from those places, wherein a heavenly reward is promised to men, according to the measure & proportion of their Works; as where it is said: The 
f v●. Matth. 16.  Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, and shall render to everyone, secundum opera sua, according to his works. In like sort it is said: 
g Rom. 〈◊〉.  God will render to every one according to his works: besides many other like places, 
h uz. psalm. 65. Luc. 6. 1. Cor 3. Galat. 6. Apocal, ult.  here omitted.  
Thirdly, from those testimonies of Scripture, which express the reason, that works are the cause, why eternal life is given; thus we read: 
i Math. 25.  Come you blessed of my Father, possess the Kingdom prepared for you; es 〈…〉 ivi enim, & dedisti mihi manducare, for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. Again in the same place: Quia in pauca fuisti etc. Because thou hast been faithful over few things, I will place thee over many things; enter into, the joy of thy ●ord. And in the Apocalypse: 
k Cap. 7.  These are they, which are come out of great tribulation etc. ideo sunt ante thro●um Dei, therefore they are before the throne of God. In all which places the particles: Enim, Qui●, Ideo, are causases; that is implying our showing the reason and cause of a thing.  
Fourthly, from those texts, in which a reward is promised to good Works even by force of justice; According hereto we read: 
l Hebr. 6.  God is not unjust, that he should forget your work. As also that: 
m Apoc. 2.  be thou faithful even unto death, and I will give thee the Crown of life. See of this nature other texts 
n 2. Thes. 1. 2. Tim. 4. jacob. 1.  quoted in the margin.  
Fiftly, and lastly, from those passages, wherein there is mention made of dignity or worth; As where we read: The 
x Luc. 10.  workman is worthy his wage. Again: ut 
y 2 Thes. 1.  digni habeamini regno Dei etc. That you may be had worthy the Kingdom of God, for which you suffer. See the like texts 
z Sapient. 3. Luc. 20. Apoc. 3.  noted in the margin.  
That the ancient Fathers maintained the doctrine of merit of works: see for greater brevity 
a Epist. ad Rom.  Ignatius, 
b Lib. 4. adversus Haeres. c. 72.  Ireneus, 
c Lib. de Spirit Sanct. cap. 24.  Basill, 
d Homil. 4. de Lazero.  chrysostom, 
e Orat. in Sanct. Baptism.  Nazianz, 
f Orat. 1. de amandis pauperibus.  Nyssene, 
g De unitat. Eccles.  Cyprian, 
h Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 15.  Ambrose, 
i Epist. 103. ad Sixtum.  Austin, 
k Aduersi jovinianum prop● finem.  Jerome.  
The judgement of the ancient Fathers touching merit of works is discovered (besides by their own testimonies) even from the acknowledgement of the Protestants. For first we find D Humphrey to confess in this s 〈…〉 rt: 
l jesuitism. part. 2. p. 530.  Ireneus, Clemens, and others (called Apostolical) have in their writings merit of Works. In like sort the Centurists thus charge chrysostom: 
m Cent 5. col. 1178.  chrysostom handleth impurely the doctrine of justification, and attributeth merit to works. They also 't 〈…〉 censure Origen 
n Cent. 3. col. 265.  Origen made works the cause of our justification. 
o In Confess. Wittenberg.  Brentius in like sort saith, that Austin taught assiance in man's merits, towards remission of Sins.  
Luther styleth Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, and others justice 
p Luth. in Galat. cap. 4 the latin word by him need is justiliarij  Workers of the old Papacy. D. Whitakers thus writeth of the age of Cyprian: 
q Contra Camp. rat. 5.  Not only Cyprian, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that error, as thinking so to ●ay the pain due to sin, and to satisfy God's justice. D. Whitguift (as afore of praying to Saints, so) of merit of works thus confesseth: 
r In his defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. & 473.  Almost all the bishops and Writers of the greek Church and Latin also, were spotted with doctrine of merit. 
s Upon the Apocalyps' ser 87.  Bullenger confesseth the great antiquity of the doctrine of merit in these words: The doctrine of Merit, satisfaction, and justification of works, did incontinently after the Apostles time lay their first foundation. To conclude this point M. Wotton (no obscure Protestant) rejecteth the authority of Ignetius (the Apostles scholar) touching merit of works in this sort: 
t In his defence of M. Parkins p. 340.  I say plainly, this Man's testimony is nothing worth; because he was of little judgement in Divinity. Thus far, touching our Adversary acknowledgements of the Father's judgement herein.  
Now that some learned Protestants do teach and believe the doctrine of Merit of Works, to be true and Orthodoxal doctrine, is no less evident, than the former point. For it is taught, as true doctrine by the Public 
u Pag. 495. & 273.  Confessions in their Harmony: by M. 
x Lib. 5. eccles. pol. sect. 72. p. ●08.  Hooker, by 
y In loc ●om de bonis operib. circu medium.  Melanct●on, and by Spandeburge 
z In Margarit. Theolog. p. 48. & 50.  the Protestant.  
To the former doctrine of merit of Works, I will adjoin the doctrine touching works of Supererogation; Which doctrine is greatly exagirated and depraved by many Protestants; who are not ashamed to traduce the Catholics, and to diwlge both by pen and in Pulpit, that the Catholics do hold, that their works can do more, than merit Heaven. But this is the Protestant's 〈…〉 lumny; since the Catholics do not hold or believe any such thing. Therefore I will set down the true definition of an Euangelical Counsel distinguished from a Precept; seeing upon evangelical Counsels works of Supererogation are grounded.  
An evangelical Counsel of Perfection, is called any good Work, Which is not commanded by Christ▪ but only commended by him, and pointed on to us by him; As the Vow of Chastity of Poverty, of Obedience; and diverse other good Works, not commanded by God.  
It differeth from a Precept. First, because the subject of a Precept is more facile and easy, then that of a Council; Secondly in that a Counsel doth include in it the Performance of a Precept, and something more than a Precept; Thirdly, in that Precepts are common to all Men to perform, Counsels are not so; Fourthly, Precepts of their own nature do oblige Men to their performance; Counsels are in the choice of one, to perform or not perform; Last Precepts, being observed are rewarded; being not observed, the transgression is punished: Whereas Counsels, being observed and kept have a greater reward; being not kept, no punishment followeth.  
Thus far touching the definition of an evangelical Counsel: Which in other words may be also thus defined: An Euangelical Counsel is any such good Work of high Perfection, to the performance whereof we are not bound, as that we sin in not doing of it.  
Now whereas it is commonly objected against the doctrine of evangelical Counsels, That we are so obbliged to God, as that we cannot ever do more, than we ought to do: It is therefore hear to be conceived, that if we consider Gods benefits bestowed upon us, we willingly acknowledge, that Man can not do more good, than he ought: no not the thousand part of that, he ought to do, in that Man cannot render or retaliate any thing of equal value and worth to God's benefits.  
Nevertheless If we consider the Law and Command imposed by God upon us; then man may be said to do more, than indeed he is obliged by God's Law to do. For although Man cannot exceed or equal Gods benefits with his own works: yet he is not become guilty hearby: seeing Men is not obliged to perform more, then that only, which God commandeth.  
evangelical Counsels take the chief and first proof from sacred Scripture: As where it is said: 
a Math. 19  There are certain Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven: Which place is expounded of the evangelical Counsel of Chastity, by 
b Lib. de habitu virginum.  Cyprian, 
c In hunclocum.  chrysostom, 
d De sancta virginitat. c. 24.  Austin, and others.  
A second text (to omit diverse others for brevity) is that where our Saviour saith to the young Man: 
e Math. 19  If thou wilt be perfect, go, and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: Which text is interpreted of the evangelical Counsel of poverty, by S. 
f De viduis ultra medium.  Ambrose, S. 
g Lib. contra vigilant.  Jerome, and S 
h Epist. 89. quaest. 4.  Austin.  
The foresaid doctrine is further confirmed by the authority of the ancient Fathers: For b 〈…〉 es their expositions of the foresaid places of Scripture, this doctrine is further taught by 
i In c. 5. ad Rom.  Origen, 
k Lib. de humanitate verbi ultra med.  Athanasius, 
l Lib. de virginit. ult. med.  Basil, 
m Homil. 8. de Penit.  chrysostom, 
n Orat. in julian. ultra medium.  Nazianzen, 
o De hábitu vir●inum ultra medium.  Cyprian, 
p Lib. de ●●duis  Ambrose, 
q Lib. contra jovinianum.  Jerome, and finally by 
r Lib. de virginitate Sancta. cap. 30.  Austin, who speaking of Precepts and Counsels, useth the very Word: Supererogation, thus saying of precepts and Counsels: Dominus debitum imperat nobis: in his autem si quid amplius supererogaveritis, in reddendo reddet nobis.  
The doctrine of evangelical Counsels is warranted and taught (besides by the former ancient fathers of the Primative Church even by diverse learned Protestants.  
According hearto we find it is maintained for true doctrine, by 
s Eccles. pol lib. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140.  M. Hooker, by D. 
t In his defence of M Hooker art 8. pag. 49 50. 51. 52.  Co●ell, and by 
u In Sacra 4. Euangel. in Math. c. 19  Bucer, And thus f●r briefly of justification by Works, of merit of Works, and of works of Supererogation.   

The Catholic Doctrine, touching Indulgences.  
THe Virulency of Protestants against the doctrine of Indulgences is most remarkable. Wherefore for their better conceiving of the state of this Question or Indulgences, this following in the Catholic Doctrine.  
First, that Mortal sin is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession; so far forth only, as concerneth the guilt or offence of God and the punishment of eternal damnation; yet so, that this eternal punishment by God's Mercy is turned into temporal punishment; as appeareth by the example of David: Who (though the eternal punishment due to the guilt of his sins was for given) yet was punished temporally by the death of his Son: For these are the words in Scripture after his sin was forgiven: 
a 2 Reg. c. 12.  Because thou hast caused the name of God to be blasphemed, the Child, that is borne to th●e, shall dye. In like sort, David's sin in numberring his People, being remitted him; yet was he put to choose 
b Reg. 〈◊〉 24.  for his temporal punishment and satisfaction, either War, Famine, or Pestilence.  
Now the guilt of eternal damnation for sin being remitted, there remaineth a temporal punishment. And this temporal punishment (thus reserved) is the sole subject of Indulgences. Therefore an Indulgence (as hear the word is taken) is a merciful relaxation or remission of temporal punishment, due for sin, by applying the supper abundant satisfaction of Christ, after the sin itself and guilt of eternal damnation due to mortal sin is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession; or for want thereof by perfect Contrition.  
The ground and foundation of Indulgencs is chiefly the treasury and satisfaction of Christ's death, which is of that infinity great value an price (seeing every drop of his blood was able to redeem a thousands Worlds, in regard of his Divinity being united to his Humanity) as that it can vever be exhausted. For we read: that 
c 1. Cor. 1.  Christ died for all; Also that 
d 1. john. 〈◊〉. 2.  Christ is apropitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but for the Sins of the whole World.  
But it is certain, that the price of Christ's death was not actually applied to all Men hitherto living; since than it would follow, that all Men (which hitherto have lived) should have been saved.  
Therefore it followeth, that there yet remaineth a great abundance of the price of Christ passion (if it were not in finite, as indeed it is) to be applied and still will remain.  
The dispenser of this treasury of the Church is the Head of Christ's Church, who hath power to apply this treasury for the absolving of Men from their temporal punishment, due to their Sins, already remitted by Sacramental Confession, according to the authority given him in those words: Whatsoever thou losest upon earth, shallbe loosed in Heaven; with which 
Math. 16.  place accord other places 
f Math. 18. john. 20.  of the Evangelists. Now these words being general, they do extend as well to the punishment due for sin, as to the sin itself; seeing the punishment is as remissible, as the Sin; And as to the one are applied Christ's Merits, so to the other Christ's ●atisfactions.  
The Cause, why any Indulgence is granted to any Man, aught to be just and reasonable (or otherwise the Indulgence granted is of no value) for seeing the Pope is not Lord of this spiritual treasure of the Church, but only the distributer thereof therefore this distribution he cannot make without a just, reasonable, and lawful Cause.  
The Party receiving the benefit of an Indulgence ought (at the time of receiving it) to be in state of grace (since otherwise he can reap no benefit by any Indulgence) to which state he is brought by true Contrition of his former Sins, although not perhaps forgiven (in respect of eternal damnation) in the Sacrament of Confession: And hear is discovered the trissling vanity & falsehood of our Adversaries: in affirming, that the Catholics teach, that the Pope can give (a fore hand) an Indulgence to any Man for any sin, which hereafter is to be committed. Since we see, that the object of an Indulgence is the temporal punishment only (and not the punishment of damnation) and this for a sin already committed (and not hereafter to be committed) of which a Man being in state of grace (and consequently not one, who beareth a present resolution to commit any sin hereafter) is remitted by his Indulgence; applied to him, upon just and reasonable Causes.  
We are further hear to admonish, that the Party receiving an Indulgence, aught to perform entirely and precisly all things enjoined him by his Indulgence; Whether it be prayer, Alms, fasting etc. According to that usual saying: Indulgentia tantum valent, quantum sonant.  
Where it is taught, that the Merits and sufferings of some great Saints as of our Blessed Lady, S, john baptist, and some others, do concur to the increase of this spiritual Treasure of the Church (which is the foundation of Indulgences) this is to be understood in this sense; to wit, that because their Merits, works, and sufferings have their virtue and value only from the Merits of our Saviour's Passion: And that they only concur to the increase of the treasure as they depend upon the merits of Christ therefore it may be truly said, that primatively and Originally only the Merits and Passion of Christ, do make this spiritual treasure, from whence Indulgences do flow.  
Ad hearto, that if S. Paul might truly say in a researued sense: Add imple ea, quae desunt passionum Christi, in earn mea, 
(g) Colo●. 1.  pro corpor●●ius, quod est Ecclesia I do fulfil those things, that do want of the passion of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church (words, which if any Catholic should have averred of any one Saint, without the warrant of the Apostle, he should have been mighrely calumniated and wronged by the Protestants) then followeth it, that the afflictions and sufferings of S. Paul (as receiving their force from Christ's Passion) may be said without any indignity to Christ, to increase this spiritual treasure of the Church. For these former words do not import, that there was any defect in the Passion of Christ; but that the sufferings of S. Paul, did fulfil the plenitude of Christ his Passion, and his members for the benefit of those, to whom they are to be communicated For as Christ, being the invisible and supreme head of his Church, doth with his Church, make but one mystical body; so his sufferings with the sufferings of his members (receiving all their force and efficacy from the Passion of Christ) do make (as S. 
h In psal. 61.  Austin affirmeth) one common and public We●le, or one public treasure. And according hereto it is, that we find, offered S. Paul's afflictions sometimes for the 
i Colos. 1.  Colossians at other times for the Corinthians 
k Cor. 2. Cor. 1. : he desiring at one time to dye for the Romans 
l Row. 9 ; at an other time, to become an A●athem● for them.  
To proceed further. The Old Testament itself warranteth this mutual communication of one suffering for an other; And in this sense it is said of God's Church (there entitled jerusalem, that it is, 
m Psal. ●21.  as a City, whose participationes in itself. That is: As in a public City there is a general traffic, for the public benefit of every particular Citizen; So in the City of God (which is his Church) there is a communion or participation of all the spiritual works thereof, to the general benefit and behoof of eich particular Man. And upon this ground it is, that David said (in respect of the communication of one Man's sufferings for an other) 
n Psalm. 218.  I am made partaker of all, that fear the Lord.  
Now this former doctrine, touching the sufferings of one to be applied to an other, being the undoubted, true, and ancient doctrine of Christ Church (upon which ground Indulgances are builded) it from hence appeareth, how idly and impertinently our adversary's do urge some texts of Scripture to the contrary; As where it is said: The 
o Ezech 18.  soul, which sinneth, ●●en that shall dye. And again: 
p Ad Galat 6.  Every one shall be are his own burden. And more: No 
q Psalm. 49.  Man c●● redeem his brother, or give a price to God for him. All which texts are spoken of the state of eternal damnation, (and therefore impertinently alleged) in which state a Man depar●eth out of this World; but they are not spoken of temporal punishment only, which is reserved, after the guilt of eternal damnation is remitted; which is the point here controverted.  
If it be urged against this doctrine, that the actions of the Saints, deceased, were merits to themselves; and therefore cannot be applied, as satisfactions for others. ●o this I answer, that one and the same action may be (in a different respect) both meritorious, and satisfactory; Meritorious, as it proceedeth from supernatural grace; satisfactory, as it is performed with pain, labour and difficulty; According hereto we read in Scripture, that alme●deeds do both merit, and satisfy for sin: For thus we read: 
r Marc. 9  Whosoever shall give in my name a cup of cold water, etc. he shall not lose his reward. Here is merit. We also read of Alme●deeds 
s job 4.  in this sort: Almesdeeds deliver us from sin and death; and again: As 
t Eccles. 3.  water quencheth the fire, so Almesdeeds extinguish sin. Here is satisfaction. Here also we are to concea●e, that though the same action may be meritorious and satisfactory; yet a man meriteth only for himself, & not for others: but satisfy he may both for himself, and for others: only Christ (our Saviour) hath merited both grace and glory for us all, and also hath satisfied for the sins of all Men, Yet the worth and price of his merits we can apply only to ourselves, (by our meritorious actions) and not derive it to any other; but the benefit of his satisfaction we may derive (by our own satisfactory works) not only to ourselves, but also to others.  
Where it is vulgarly objected, that juduigences are oftentimes granted for more thousands of years, than the World or Purgatory are like to endure and continue; And that therefore they are ridiculously and foolishly granted. I answer, this argument proceedeth from mere Ignorance. For here the years are not to be understood of the years or days of penal satisfaction, which are to be imposed in Purgatory; but of the number of years, which were more or less in number proportioned (according to the diversity of the crime) by the Canonical Decrees of the Church. And here we are further to know, that God in the space and compass of an hour or some such short time, may by the bitter pains of Purgatory expiate that, which (in this life) a remiss and slow penance or satisfaction would scarce redeem in the compass of many years.  
Now touching the antiquity of Indulgences; we find them practised by S. Paul, who thus saith of the incestuous person: Whom 
u 2. Cor. 2.  you have pardoned, I also pardon: for that which I have pardoned, in the Person of Christ, for you I have done it, that we be not circumvented of Satan. Here now we are to remember, that the incestuous person (to whom the Indulgence was here given) being in great contrition and sorrow for his sin, was excommunicated by S. Paul, who at the request of the Corinthians did release him of his excommunication, for fear he might fall into despair. Now in this example, we find all things necessary to an Indulgence or Pardon. As first, the authority of the granter of the pardon; to wit, S. Paul, who affirms to do it, in the person of Christ. Secondly, state of grace in the Receiver of the Indulgence; as appeareth by his Contrition and sorrow for his sin committed. Thirdly, the temporal punishment remitted; to wit, his Excommunication. Lastly, a just & sufficient cause for giving this Indulgence or Pardon: Which was, lest the offendor should fall into despair, or be overplunged in sorrow.  
After the Apostles times, we find that the Bishops of the Primative Church gave pardons and Indulgences to many: and this was done by the mediation of Confessors or designed Martyrs, as is witnessed by 
x Lib. ad Martyr.  Tertullian & 
y Cyprian. epist. 13. 14. 15. & serm. ult. de Lapsis.  Cyprian.  
We also find, that Pardons and Indulgences were given by sundry ●●opes in other ages: as by 
z Luggerus epist. de S. Swiberto. apud Surium.  Leo the third, by 
a Thom, in 4. sentent dis. 20. q. 1. art. 3.  Gregory the Great, by 
b Anton. 2. part. histor. tit. 16, cap. 1.  urban the second, by 
c Abbas Vlperg. in Chronic.  Innocentius the third, by Paschalis the first, and by others. All which dispensed and distributed out of the common treasure of the Church.  
Besides the former authorityes, the doctrine and use of Indulgencs is warranted by Counsels, both General and Provincial. To wit, the first Council of 
d Can. 11.  Nice, the Council of 
e Can 9  Ancyran, the Council of Leodice, 
f Can. 2.  the Council of Claramontane, the Council of Lateran, of Vienna, of Constance and of Trente: as appeareth in the Counsels themselves. Now if the former ancient Popes and Fathers, as also these alleged Counsels should err in the doctrine of Indulgences, than two main absurdityes should follow; first, that the Primative Church should most foully err in a dogmatic point of faith; contrary to the judgement of the more sober & Leared Protestants, among whom I will (for brevity) hear set down the judgement only of Kempnitius, touching the Primative Church, who thus saith: 
g Cempnit. in his Examen. Concil. Trident. parr. 1. pag. 74.  I dowbt not, but the Primative Church received from the Apostles and Apostolical Men: not only the text of Scripture, but also the native sense thereof. But this the Primative Church could not receive, if it wholly erred in so main a matter of Christian doctrine, as the doctrine of Indulgences is. The second Absurdity, is that in regard of the said Fathers and General Counsels, defending the doctrine of Indulgences, the whole Church of Christ (supposing the doctrine to be fa●se) should err in matter of faith; contrary to the Promise of Christ, who hath promised ever to be with his Church till the end of the World; which said Church of his is styled by the Apostle (for it greater certainty of faith 
h 1. Tim. 3.  columna & firmamentum veritatis; and therefore incompatible with error.  
And thus much concerning the doctrine of Indulgences; ending this discourse with the Confession of Kempnitius, (touching the antiquity thereof) who plainly acknowledgeth, and saith 
i Kempnitius examen. part. 4. p. 329.  that the beginning of Indulgences is not clearly enough set down in histories.   

The Catholic doctrine touching Communion under one Kind, defended.  
THe true state of this question is not, whether Christ did institute the Eucharist under both kinds; Or whether himself and the Apostles did at the first institution, receive it under both kinds: Or whether the Apostles and the Fathers afterwards at sundry times did minister it to the Laity, under both kinds (for all this is confessed for true) But only the Question hear is, whether Christ our Saviour did give an absolute Command, unto his Apostles and their Successors of administrating the said Sacrament under both kinds, (to wit of bread and Wine) so as the delivering of it to the Laity under one kind only, should be a breach of our Lord's precept therein.  
The Protestants affirm it to be an absolute transgression of our Saviour's precept; The Catholics deny it; maintaining, that our Saviour in the first institution of the Sacrament, did leave no precept, touching the manner, how it is to be administrated to the Laity.  
The Catholics do further justify, that the Protestants in this place do ignorantly confound a Precept with an Institution between which two, there is great difference. For example, God did first Institute and ordain Marriage; yet he gave no precept or command thereof: For if he had, than all Men should have been bound to mary.  
The Catholics prove this their doctrine; first from our Lord and Saviour's own words; Who, as he some times maketh mention of both kinds: so often doth be mention but o'er Kind only, as where he saith: He, 
a joan. 〈◊〉.  that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. Again: This 
b ubi supra.  is the bread, that cometh down from Heaven: in both which places (besides diverse others) be maketh no mention of the Cup.  
Secondly, the s●me doctrine is proved from the practice of our Saviour himself; 
c Luc. 24.  who being at Emaus with his two Disciples at supper, did take bread, and (as S. Luke relateth) and bless and break it, and did reach it to them. Where S. Luke mentioneth not the Cup. That by this bread is understood the eucharist, is taught by S. 
d Lib. 3. de consensu. c. 25.  Austin, and even by some Protestant 
e Melan 〈…〉 on Apolog. Cō 〈…〉. Aug. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de utraque specie.  Writers.  
Thirdly, from the Apostles practice, after Christ's tyme. For werea●●, that S. Luke 
f Act. 2.  ●eaking of the beleivers and the faithful) thus saith: They (f) were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in communication of breaking of bread, and in prayers. Hear is no mention of the Cup to the Laity; And yet ●eare, by breaking of bread is understood the Eucharist; both because it is joined with doctrine and prayers, as also by the testimonies of the ancient 
g Author operis imperfect in Math. homil. 17. Beda ad c. 20. Act.  Fathers, & the Protestants. 
h Luth. setm. de Fucharist. Calvin. l. 4. instit. par. 17. Kempnit. exam. Concil. Trident. sess. 21. part. 2.  Concerning which place of S. Luke, we are to conceive, that S. Luke related not what the Apostles did (who, no dowbt, did consecrate in both hinds) but only, what the Laity did, and under what kind they did receive.  
Fourthly, the foresaid doctrine of the Laity communicating under one kind or both, is confessed by diverse learned Protestants, as a matter of Indifferency only, and not of Necessity: For Luther thus writeth hereof: 
i De captivit babilon. l. de Eucharist.  They sin not against Christ, who use one kind; seeing Christ hath not commanded to use both but hath le●f●●t to the will of every one. In like sort Hospinian 
k Hist. Sacram. part 2. fol. 112.  (the Protestant) relateth, that certain Protestants (as holding it a matter of indifferency) did actually communicate under one kind. To be short, Melancton thus writeth hereof: 
l Cent. epist. theolog. epist. 74p. 25 〈…〉  Concerning both the kinds of the Lords supper etc. The Pope with out any hurt, might easily help these inconveniences; If taking away the prohibition, he would leave the use free. And this liberty would noting hurt us: Of such indifferency (we see) Melancton maketh this point to be  
In the next place, we will examine our Adversaries, chiefest arguments produced out of the Scripture to the contrary. And first, they object the words of our Saviour: 
m joan. 6.  Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  
To this I answer; first, that according to diverse learned 
n Luth. de captain. Babil. c. 1. Swinglius de vera & falsa religione. c. de Eucharist. Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 17. par. 33.  Protestants, these words do not concern the Sacrament of the Eucharist▪ But that by eating and drinking in this place, is understood believing in Christ.  
Secondly, admitting the same words to concern the B. Eucharist; and withal supposing them to include a precept (as indeed they include no precept) yet this precept resteth not in the Manner of receiving, but in the thing received; to wit, the body and blood of Christ. But the body and blood of Christ are as fully received under one kind, as under both; as hereafter shallbe showed.  
Our Adversaries further object those other words of our Saviour: 
o Math. 26.  drink you all of this. Which words they will needs extend, as spoken to all the La●ty.  
To this I first answer, that the word: All, is not ever taken in the Scripture Vniversally, for all Men, or all things; but often for all only of some certain kind; And according hearto we thus read: 
p Rom. 3.  All Men sinned; and yet from hence Christ is excepted. Again, we also read: 
q Math. ●7.  〈◊〉 cried, crucify him: And yet the Apostles were exempt out of this: All. And so hear in the former words: Drink you all of this; The word: All, is to be restrained only to all the Apostles, who then were with Christ: For if it were to be extended to all Men universally, and without restraint; then should the Sacrament of the Cup be given to jews, Turks, Infidels, and Children; all which not withstanding are exempted from thence, by the confession of the Protestants. Moreover Drink ye all of this was spoken only to those to whom was said do ye this in remembrance of me. But this was spoken only to the Apostles and in them to Priests their successors.  
Now seeing (as above it is proved) Communion (under one, or both kinds) is a thing of Indifferency; The Church of God out of her authority, hath debarred the Laity from the Cup; moved thearto (besides some other reasons) out of a due reverrence to this high and venerable Sacrament. For if the Laity should drink of the Cup, it would not (morally speaking) be otherwise, but that through the negligence of diverse of the Laity, there would be frequent spilling of the Cup upon the ground; a thing most indecent and irreverent; and which the ancient 
r Austin. l. 5. homil. 26. cyril Catech. mystag. 5. Origen homil. 13. in Exodun.  Fathers had a special care to prevent.  
Neither can it be hear replied, that to the Laity (as being retained from the Cup) but a half and imperfect Sacra meant is given; and that thereupon the Laity is deprived of much grace and fruit, imparted by receiving it under both kinds: To this I answer. First, the Protestants have small reason to urge the want of Grace or fruit, by giving it under one kind; seeing by their doctrine, this Sacrament actually giveth no grace or fruit at all, but only by representation or signification; But this representation of our Saviour's death is perfectly accomplished under one kind only; As we see, it was fully figured in the old Law, in the Manna alone, and in the Paschall Lamb alone.  
Secondly and more particularly, I say, that neither is this Sacrament given by halfs only (as our Adversaries suggest) neither is less fruit imparted by one kind, then by both; the reason hereof is, because the Catholics do jointly teach, that under either kind, is truly contained whole Christ; to wit, his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  
That this doctrine is true (ever presupposing the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which all Catholics do) is proved from two other Principles of faith. The first is, that Christ after his Resurrection, shall never dye again, according to that of S. Paul: 
s Rome 6.  Christ rising from the dead, now dyeth no more. From whence it immediately followeth, that under the form of Bread, the Body of Christ is not without blood and Soul; seeing otherwise, it would be without life, and consequently dead. The second Article is, That Christ is one Divine Person, subsisting in two Natures: from whence it followeth, that seeing the Body of Christ hath no other subsistence, then that of his Godhead; That therefore where his body is, there also is his Divinity. Both which Articles being true, & acknowledged by the Protestants, it avoidable followeth, that (once supposing and granting the Real Presence for true doctrine) neither the Sacrament is maimed or imperfect under one kind; nor that lesser grace or fruit is given under one kind, then under both. And thus far of this point.   

The Catholic Doctrine touching Relics of Saint's Bodies; the sign of the Cross; Praying upon Bea●es; Benediction of Creatures etc.  
FIrst touching Relics of Saint's Bodies. Whereas the 
a In prae●●t. 6. Cent.  Centurists do charge us Catholics, that the Relics of Saint's bodies are worshipped by us, with divine honour; and that we do pray unto them, as if they did hear us, or were living. To this I answer. It is a most impudent and lying slander, fitting to proceed from the tongues of such false Apostles. For which of us Catholics have ever invoked the Relics of any Saint? Or who of us was ever heard to say: Holy Relics pray for us?  
The honour we do to them is this. We worship Relics with the same inferior worship, as we do to other religious things: And this we do, as reputing them the holy pledges of our Patrons; and as being parcels of those bodies, wherein the Holy Ghost did vouchsafe to inhabit; and which hereafter at the day of general Resurrection of our bodies, shallbe reunited to their glorious souls now in Heaven: But we neither honour them, as God: nor invoke them, as Saints. And this is the very answer, which S. 
b Lib. 〈…〉 troth V●●ilantium.  Jerome made to Vigilantius (the Heretic) denying (as Protestants now do) the lawful worship of Relics.  
The worship of Relics given by us Catholics, is warranted by the authorityes of the second 
c Act. 3.  Nicene Council, by the Council 
d Can. ult.  Gangreuse, as also by the practice of the ancient Fathers: to wit 
e In vita B Antoniuses.  Athanasius, 
f In psal. 115.  Basill, 
g Serm. de Sanctis Inuentio & Maximo.  chrysostom, 
h Serm. 93. de Sanctis Nasa●io & Celso.  Ambrose, 
i Lib. adverse. Vigilantium.  Jerome, and (to omit diverse others) 
k Austin. de Eccles. dogm. c. 73.  Auttin himself: who thus writeth hereof: Sanctorum corpora & praecipuè Beatorum Martyrum reliquias, (ae si Christi membra) syncertssime honor anda credimus: si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit, non Christianus, sed Eunomianus & Vigilantianus creditur. We do believe, that the bodies of Saints, and especially the relics of blessed Martyrs are to be honoured, (as the members of Christ) And who impugneth this sentence, is not to be reputed a Christian, but an Eunomian and Vigilantian. Thus S. Austin.  
The evidency of the ancient rathers judgements hereof, appeareth from the open confessions of the learned Protestants. For O●●ander the Protestant thus reproveth S. Jerome. 
l In epitome. Cent. 4. pag. 506.  Jerome did foolishly contend that the relics of Saints are to be worshipped. In like sort, where Jerome thus writeth: 
m Cont●a Vigilant 〈…〉 of't med.  Constantinus imperator sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae, & Timothei transtulit Constantinopolni, apud quas dae 〈…〉 rugiunt. Constantin the Emperor did cause the holy relics of Andrew, Lucke, and Timothee to be carried to Constantinople, whereat the very Devils did roar or rage. Now Bullenger (the Protestant) thus taxeth Jerome. 
n De Origine Erroris printed ●●guri, 1539. fol. 67.  S Jerome is overfall, in that he saith, the Devils did roar at the holy relics of Andrew. The said B●●lenger 
o Bulenger ubi supra.  confesseth, that many holy men of God (he styling them, Sancti Dei homines) did hold the doctrine of worshipping of Relics: and in lieu of answer, thus saith: studium Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam.  
Touching Pilgrimages to the bodies & relics of Saints, the Centurists do thus write: 
p Cent. 4. col 457.  De peregrinationibus ad loca sacra, caeperunt hoc seculò primum sub Constantino, locaterrae Sanctae in praecio habert: Helenama●er Imperatoris (mulier superst 〈…〉 sa) illuc profect a ador andi carsa etc. Touching pilgrimages to Holy places, the places of the holy Land did begin first in this age under Constantin, to be had in estimation and respect; Helen the mother of Constantine (being a superstitious Woman) did go thither, to the end to worship them. Thus the Centurists. The said Centurists do in like sort thus condemn Constantine himself: 
q Cent. 4. col. 15●9.  plane simili superstitione, Constantinus reliquias quasdam de Cruse (ab Helena reperta) Constantinopolni dicitur transtulisse, ut esset eius Verbis conseruatrix. ●ust with the like superstition, Constantive is reported to have translated certain relics of the Cross (found by Helen) to Constantinople: that they might be the 〈◊〉 of the City.  
Touching Miracles, wrought at the Sepulchers and bodies of Saints, the Protestants do no less acknowledge the same for first Luther thus confesseth: 
r In purgat. quorundam. articul.  Who can deny those things, which God to this day worketh miraculously and visibly (ad divorum Sepulora) at the Monuments of the Saints? In like sort Cempnitius thus confe●eth: 
s Cempnitius exam. part. 4. p. 10.  Apud Augustinum, in translatione Reliquiarum Stephan●, mulier caeca illuminatae est; & aliquando quaedam miracula ad reliquias edebantur. Austin recordeth, that upon the translation of the Relics of Steven, a blind Woaman was restored to sight, and that sometimes certain Miracles were wrought at the presence of Relics. And the Centurists affirm the like, thus writing: Si 
t Cent. 4. col. 457.  Ambrosio credimus, agri, qui vestes Sanctorum manu contigissent, sanabantur; obs●ssi liber●bantur etc. If we believe Ambrose, Sick● persons, who touched with their hands the vestments of Saints, were cured, and persons possessed with evil spirits, were theareby freed of them. Finally D. Whitakers giveth a full allowance and approbation of all such relations in these words: 
u Contra Durae 'em. l. 10. p. ●66.  Nec illa miracula vanafuisse put●, quae in Martyrum monumentis facta narrantur. I do not hold those Miracles, as vain or idle, which are related to have been exhibited, at the monuments or sepulchers of Saints.  
Thus much ton●hi●g relics, the true and Catholic doctrine whereof may receive it most full and undowbted proof (if all above spoken, were false) even from God's holy writ. For do we not find, that Moses 
x Exod. 13.  used great reverence to the bones of joseph the Patriarch? As also did not josias 
y Reg. 4. cap. 23.  the like to the bones of an other Prophet? And were not Miracles wrought, by the dead bones of Elizeus, 
z Reg. 4. c. 3  by the shadow of S. Peter, 
a Act. 5.  and by the Nappkin of S. 
b Act. 19  Paul? Therefore if the Protestants will add wit the old and New Testament; they must consequently admit the Catholic doctrine of Relics.  
In this next place, we will come to the sign of the Cross; which we make upon our foreheads, which is so much disliked by the Protestants.  
When a Catholic signeth himself with the sign of the Cross, be but only implicitly desires that by this sign; which ex 〈…〉 citly and by mediation of words, he desireth by prayers. For seeing the sign of the Cross doth figure out to the eye our Saviour's Passion; and seeing the secret desires of the hart are manifested and made known, as well by signs of the body (as dumb Men, and such as cannot speak, are accustomed to make) as by prayers and words of the tongue: Therefore if it be lawful for me with the tongue to pray, that God will forgive my sins, through the Merits of Christ his death and Passion; It must needs then consequently be lawful for me, to pray to him to the same end, without words, by making the sign of the Cross: Seing the making of this sign, with an intention of internal Prayer (the Cross being the badge and remembrance of our Saviour's death and Passion) is all one, as to pray in words by virtue and force of the same death and Passion; Since the hand in this case, by making the sign of the Cross, doth supply the place and office of the rongue.  
The lawfulness of this sign may be taken and proved. from the signs of the Old Testament; So the Blood of the 
c Exod. 12  Lamb, sprinkled upon the posts of Houses, did signify nothing else, but the sign of the Cross upon the foreheads of Christians, by the authority of S. 
d Lib. de catechis. rudibus c. 20.  Austin.  
In like sort, the sign: Tau, 
e Ezéch. cap. 9  which was commanded to be drawn upon the foreheads of those, who lamented, was a manifest sign of the sign of the Cross on the foreheads of Christians, by the judgements both of S. 
f Lib. adverse. Demetrianun.  Cyprian and S 
g In Comment. Ezechiel.  Jerome.  
The making of the sign of the Cross was ever practised and justified by the Fathers of the primative Church; of which point see, 
h De Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. 5. 6.  Dionysius, 
i Lib. 4. epist. 6.  Cyprian, 
k Catech. 4.  Cyrill, 
l De Incarnate. Verbi.  Athanasius) who saith: Sign●cru●●s omnia magica compescentur, by the sign of the Cross all Magic is suppressed) 
m De Spirit. Sancto. c. 37.  Basil, 
n Serm. 43.  Ambrose, 
o Epist. ad Demetriadem.  Jerome, 
p Tract. 18. in loannem ad finem. vide lib. 1. Confess. c. ●1.  Austin, besides diverse others of the Greek and Latin Church: The words of S. Austin I will hear set down; Thus than he writeth: Quid est, quod omnes ●●uerunt: signum Christi, nisi crux Christi? quod signum, in si adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium etc. What other thing is the sign of Christ (which almen know) than the Cross of Christ? Which sign of the Cross, except it be made upon the forehead of the faithful beleivers; upon the water, by the which, they are regenerated; upon the oil, with which Crisme they are anointed; upon the Sacrifice, with which they are nourished, not any of these former mysteries are duly performed. Thus S. Austin.  
Ad hearto, that God hath vouchsafed to work diverse Miracles by the sign of the Cross, as appeareth by the frequent testimonies of the Fathers; to wit of 
q Initio Scorpiaci.  Tertullian, 
r Haeres. 30.  Epiphanius, 
s Orat. in Iu●ianum.  Nazianzen, 
t In vita Gregorij. Thaumaturgi.  Nysse●e, 
u In vita Antoniuses.  Athanasius, 
x In vita Pauli, primi Eraemitae.  Jerome, 
y Lib. 22. de civicare D 〈…〉  Austin and others: All which authorityes to contemn in this point, were most insolently to traduce so many learned and ancient Fathers (and consequently the whole Church of God in those pure and primative times) as superstitious, blind, and ignorant.  
Now that the testimonies of the former ancient Fathers (though their own words, for brevity, be not at large set down) both touching the worship given by them to the Cross, (I ever mean, such religious and inferior worship, as is given to things consecrated to religious ends: far different from that given to God) and touching diverse Miracles wrought by the said sign, are most clear●, evident, and unanswerable, appeareth from the acknowledgements of learned Protestants in this behalf: And thus concordantly hereto, D●nae●s (that learned Protestant) thus writeth: 
z In prime part. altera parte ad Bellarm▪ Controvers. 5. p. 1415.  Cyrill and sundry other Fathers were plainly superstitious and blinded with this enchantment of the Cros●es adoration. The Centuris●● thus write of S. Ambrose: 
a Cent. 4. col. 302.  A●brosius multa comme●crat superstitios● de cruse 〈…〉 nta: Ambrose relateth many superstitious things of the Cross, which was found. In like sort the said Protestants thus tax Ephrem: 
b Cent. 4. ubi supra.  〈…〉 is signationi nimium viditur tribuere: Ephrem is thought to ascribe too much to the sign of the Cross And yet Ephrem lived within little more than three hundre● years after Christ. The said Cent●rists, speaking of the age of Tertullian, (who lived not much more, than two hundred years after Christ) thus confess: 
c Cent. 3. col. 121.  Crucis Imaginem, seu in locis publicorum congress●um, s●u domi privatim Christianos habuiss● indicare vide 〈…〉 Tertullianus: Tertullian seemeth to show, that the Christians ai● cause the sign of the Cross to be made in places of public meetings, as also privately in their houses: D. Fulke, speaking of Paulinu● thus writeth: 
d against Heskius, Sanders, p. 657.  By the report of Paulinus the Cross was by the Bishop of jerusalem brought forth at Easter, to be worshipped of the People. The said Doctor thus writeth of Cy●ili and Ruffinus, saying: 
e D. Fulk ubi supra.  Ruffinus and Cyrill had a superstitious estimation of the sign of the Cross.  
Now touching more particularly the miracles wrought (in the Father's judgements) by the sign of the Cross, we find these confession▪ following.  
And first, we find Osiander speaking of julian, thus to write: julianus metu perculsus, illico ex consuetudine Christianismi, 
(f) In Epitome. 326.  frontem cruce signat, ●ibi Damones subito disparent; julian being strooken with fear, according to the custom of Christians, did presently sign himself with the sign of the Cross; and thereupon the Devils did vanish away.  
M. Burges (an English Protestant) with exception only to the worshipping of the Cross, thus writeth of the Fathers in this point 
g Extant in D. Covels brief answer to the said M Burges.  There is nothing ascribed to the Cross (in or out of Baptisms) by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same; so as if we will use it, as the Fathers did etc. we take the Soul to be fenced by crossing of the body, and the Cross to have virtue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, Witchcraft etc.  
To be short, Doctor Covel, speaking of those ancient times of the primative Fathers, thus truly and ingenuously confesseth: 
h In his answer to M. Burges.  No man can deny, but that God (after the death of his Son) manifested his power to the amazement of the world, in this contemptible sign; as being the instrument of many Miracles. And thus far touching the Father's judgements of the worship due to the Cross, and the Miracles, which God hath vouchsafed to work by it, as his instrument; an 〈◊〉 all this confessed by the learned Protestants. And with this I end; putting the Reader in mind, that when a Cross is made in Paper, wood, or stone etc. It is made to put the behoulder in remembrance of our Saviour's ' Passion and death; And therefore that Man, who calumniateth thereat, showeth great overture, that he cannot willingly endure to hear of our Saviour's death and Passion: The Cross being but to the Eye, as the Words are to the ear.  
In this next place, we will briefly touch praying upon beads, benediction or blessing of Water, Sali, Aches, Candles etc. against which many Protestants do mightily inveigh, as charging the Catholics the●rein, with Superstition; affirming further, that the Catholics do place a kind of Divinity in these matters. Into such strayts (we see) the Protestants are driven, that whereas they are not able (by any forcible arguments) to overthrow the Catholic faith in the greatest & chiefest articles, they therefore bend all their stenght to impugn these small rites and Ceremonies.  
And first, touching praying upon beads. All Men know, it is but the repetition of the same prayers, several times; the beads serving only but to number or count the times.  
This Custom is warranted by the ex●mple of our Saviour himself, who being in the garden, did repeat one and the same prayer, to wit, 
i Math. cap. 26.  me●hree ●hree several times. Now if it be lawful to iterate one and the same prayer thrice; it is lawful (by the same reason) to iterate it many scores of times together. Again, if it be lawful to repeat the Lords prayer seven times in a week (for I presume, every Protestant will confess, he saith it once a day) why then may he not repeat the said Lords prayer, or any other good and spiritual prayer, seven times a day: and if seven times, why not then any greater number of times? Again, once granting the prayer to be good; the goodness of the Prayer (by force of all reason) doth warrant the often repetition of it.  
The precise number or times of repeating one & the same prayer (among Catholics) hath a mystical reference, either to the number of David's Psalms; or to the number of the years, that our blessed Lady lived hear upon earth: or to the number of our Saviour's wounds; or to the number of the Persons in the most blessed Trinity: Or to some other such Mystery.  
The Antiquity of praying upon Beads, is confested by the 
k Cent. 4. col. 1329.  Centurists and by 
l Epiton. Cent. 4. pag. 454.  Osiander, to have been twellue hundred years since. In like sort, the antiquity is recorded by 
m Hist. l. 6. cap. 29.  Zozomene, who saith, that Paul (the Monk) was accustomed to pray by counting the number of little stones, in time of repeating his prayers; Which is all one as to pray upon beads. The words of Zozomene are these: Indi●s singulos trecentas orationes Deo, velut tributum quoddam, reddidit: ac neper imprudentiam in numero errant, tr●centis lappillis in sinum contectis, ad singulas preces, singulos inde e●ecit lapillos: consumptis igitur lapillis, constabit sibi orationes (lapillis numero pares) abs se explectos esse. And thus much touching praying upon Beads.  
We will next dessende to the consecrating or blessing of Creatures (used in the Catholic Church) the lawfulness whereof is warranted by the example of Christ himself; 
n Math. 14. Luke 9  Who intending to multiply the breads, did look up towards Heaven and blessed the breads; and from that blessing of his did multiply them. But certain it is, that what our Saviour did, is free from all reprehension.  
Again, doth not the Apostle say: That 
o 1. Tim. 4  every Creature is sanctified by the Word and prayer  
The Antiquity of Hollowing or blessing Creatures (and particularly of holy water) is very great. For 
p Lib. 8. Apost. con stit. c. 35  Clemens, 
q De Eccles. Hierarch. c. de Baptismo.  Dionysius (both who lived in the Apostles times) 
r Catech. 3.  Cirill, 
s Lib. 1. epist 12.  Cyprian, 
t Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 5.  Ambrose, 
u Lib. 16. in ●ul●anū c 8. serm. 19 de Sauctis.  Austin, and others co make frequent mention of Holy Water, and the religious use thereof. And hence it is, that the 
x Cent. 3. col. 28. & 148.  Centurists do charge the Fathers (living in the third age after Christ) with superstition in blessing and hollowing of water; among which Father's S. 
y Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 12.  Cyprian, thus saith: Oportet mandari & sanctificari prius aquat a Sacerdote.  
Benediction of Oil is mentioned and approved by Clemens, and Dionysius (in the places above noted) by 
z Lib. de Spirit Sancto. c. 27.  Basill, Austin, 
a Tract. 11. in joannem.  Cyprian, who thus expressly 
b Lib. 1. epist. 12.  saith: Olium in Altari Sanctificatur by the Council of 
c Can. 48.  Leodice, by the second Council of 
d Can. 3.  Carthage, by the third Council of 
e Can. 36.  Carthage, by the first Council of 
f Can. 20.  Tole●●: Finally (to omit the testimonies hereof of other Counsels, and 
g uz. Damasu, epist. de Corepiscopis. Leo epist. 88 ad Episcopos Germaniae & Galliae.  ancient Fathers) the antiquity of Hollowing of Oil (and that particularly by a Bishop (is acknowledged by the 
h Cent. 3. col. 143. & Cent. 4. col. 865.  Centurists, and by 
i In Exam. part. 2. p. 58.  Cempin 〈…〉 s.  
Benediction of breads (and this besides the ●se thereof in the consecration of the Sacrament,) is proved from the authority of S. 
k De peccat. merit l. 2. e. 26.  Austin, S. 
l Epist. ad Alipium & Romanianum inter epist. Augustini.  Paulinus, and S. 
m In vita Hilarionis, post med.  Jerome; the words of which last Father are these: Coneurrebant Episcopi, Presbiteri etc. vulgus ignobile, potentes viri & judices, ut benedictum ab eo panem vel ●leum acciperent. This point of the benediction of bread is so evident to have been practised in those ancient times, that D. 
n against Heskins, Sanders etc. pag. 377.  Fulke thus speaketh thereof: It was a superstitious bread given (in S. Augustine's time) to those, that were Catechumeni, in steed of the Sacrament. And Philip Mornay in like sort thus chargeth the Liturgy of S. Basill: It 
o In his book of the Mass. pag. 51.  alloweth holy bread to be distributed, after Service to such, as had not communicated.  
Benediction of Candles is acknowledged by the fourth Council 
p Can 〈◊〉.  of T 〈…〉 ledo, by Pope 
q In Pontifical.  Zozimus, S 
r Lib. 〈◊〉. epist. 28.  Gregory, 
s In benedict. Caerei Paschal.  Prudentius, and 
t Cap. 30.  Strabo: and according hearto the Centurists 
u Cent. 5. col. 744.  do confess the antiquity of this Ceremony to be great: and withal do further confess, that Candles did burn in the Church in the day time, in Constantyns' days: thus writing hereof: 
x Cent. 4. col. 497.  Accensiones candel●rum interdiù in templis Constantinus instituit; The proof of which custom is further evident, out of the fourth Council of 
y Can. 6.  Carthage, 
z Hist. lib. 6. cap. 8.  Eusebius, and 
a Contra Vigilant. cap. 3.  Jerome.  
The benediction of Palms and Ashes is proved from the authority of S. 
b In homil. de die Cinerem & Dominica Palmarum.  Maximus. Now to reject the authorityes of all the former Fathers, touching the benediction of Creatures, is to charge the Primative Church with superstition and error: Which no Man either of humility, Charity, or learning, will do. Ad herto, that the Protestants themselves do practise this consecration of Creatures: For they do consecrate their new builded Colleges, and Ch 〈…〉 ches, or Chappells: yea (which is most ridiculou.) It hath been observed of late, that in some places of England. If a Catholic hath been buried in a Church (notwithstanding the Church was first builded by Gotholicks) the Church (as supposed, to be profaned by the dead body of the Catholic) hath been by it Person and Ministers of new consectated and hollowed. Spectatam admissi ●isumteneatis.  
Now in this next place we will show the end, why Creatures are blessed, by the prayers of the Church. Which end is threefould. First to signify spiritual effects: Thus the sprinkling of Ashes signifieth penance: Palms signify victory: the Paschal Candle betokeneth the glory of these Resurrection And thus they are used to stirrup our devotion The second End is to take away venial sins: of which point S. 
c 3. part. quaes. 87. art. 3.  Thomas and 
d In 4. S 〈…〉 nt. dist. 15. quae. 2.  Dominicus a Soto, fully dispute. Now hear we are to conceive, that as the blood of Christ doth cleanse us from all sin, if so it be applied to use by the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance: so these Consecrated things and our Lord's prayer do apply his blood for the taking away of venial sin from him, who is in state of grace. The third end is to drive away wicked spirits, and to cure diseases, as appeareth from the prayers, by which they are consecrated. Never the less we are hea●e to know, that these consecrated things do not any work these effects, as the Sacraments (where no let is) do infallibly work their effects. And the reason hear of is, because these consecrated things have not their force from any express covenant made by God (as the acraments have) but from the Prayers of the Church, and denotion of the parties using them: Besides, sometimes it is not convenient, that we should be freed from sickness or diseases, or from the molestation of the Devils.  
And according hearto we find, that the 
e Marc. 4.  Apostles did use to anoint the sick with oil, and they were cured. In like sort. 
f Haeres. 30.  Epiphanius relateth, how joseph by holy water, did dissolve incantation and Magic. And 
g Lib. 5. cap. 21.  Theodoret recordeth the same of Marcellus Apameensis; and 
h Cap. 19  Palladius of Macharius.  
Again S. Jerome testifieth, that S. Hilarion did cure diverse diseased Persons with holy bread and holy oil. The like did S. 
i In vita cius l. 3. c. 5.  Bernard. S. 
k Lib. Dialog. c. 10.  Gregory witnesseth that one S. Fortunatus did cure one of a broken thigh, only by sprinkling holy water upon it, and his own prayers. Finally 
In vita Malachiae.  S. Bernard affirmeth, that S. Malachius did cure one, that was ph●anticke, by the means of Holy Water. Now these Examples do show, that it is not Negro 〈…〉 cy (as the Protestants sometimes do term it) to seek to produce (with the help of prayers) supernatural effect, by applying of holy water or holy oil.  
That the Church of God hath authority to bless Creatures for the former ends, (and for the furtherance of Denotien) is proved from her greater authority, practised in changing the Sabbath day, from Saturday to Sunday; And now it being thus changed, is 〈…〉 arable. 
m So teacheth D. Whitguift in his defence pag. 89. D. Willet in Synops. p. 382. Cartwright, ubi Whitguift supra.  Which point by the confession of learned 
n D. Whit●uift in his defence p. 88 D. Fulke in revelat. 1. Bullenger in his Decad, englished. Decad. 2. serm. 4.  Protestants, was wrought by the sole authority of the Church; and is not warranted by any text or passage of Scripture.  
Now thus far of all these former points. And here I am to end; advertising the Protestant Reader, that what is here set down, contains (for greater brevity) but short discourses of the said controversyes here handled; and assuring him, that scarce the fifth part of the prooff, and authorities, drawn from God's holy Word, from the testimonies of the Fathers, from the practice of God's Church, and from the confession even of our Adversaries are here alleged, which might be produced, in warrant of the said Catholics doctrines. And therefore I refer the Reader (these be 〈…〉 ven, but for some delibation and taste aforehand) for his greater satisfaction, to the many learned Catholic Treati●es, written upon the said subjects.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Michaeas'. What do you reply hereto? Are these discourses of your own framing? Again; If they be, how can you then free yourself from that infinite Wrong, which you (being a stranger) offer to our state, in seeking thus by supplanting the Gospel, to plant your own false Religion? And lastly, what were the Motyves, inducing you rather to diwlge these particular doctrines, then diverse others of greater weight and consequence, which are still in Question between you and us? Belike there was some reason or this your election & choice.  MICHAEAS'. 
My very good Lord. I will answer you to all your demands; And herein my Tongue shallbe a true Interpreter of my Hart. First, concerning the Author. I do here freely grant, I was the Man, who penned them; who taugh them: and who through God's grace and assistance, willbe ready to seal the truth of them (if need should so require) with my blood. Concerning the choice made of these Controversyes, among many others of as great, or greater importance, now ventilated between the Catholics and the Protestants. Your Lordship may be advertized, that the true reason was; because I do find by experience, that the common and ignorant Protestant of meaner conceit, and whose understanding is usually immersed in sense, seemeth to take more exception at these Catholic doctrines, then at others, here not discoursed off. The cause hereof I take to be, in that most of these consist in practice (and consequently, are daily subject to the outward sense) Whereas those other, for the chief part, do lie inspeculation; & thereby are further removed from the apprehension of the unlgar; whose understandings herein are commonly like to boisterous Instruments, unportionable and insutable to work upon any fine and curious matter. For I grant, that though they were principally written for foam students of the university of good talents; yet secondarily my intention was, the instructing of the unlearned Protestant, in the said Catholic doctrines. That they are here handled so briefly, is in regard of the multiplicity of the Questions: each of which, if it were at large disputed off, would require no small Treatise; And therefore I have rather undertaken to set down (besides some few prooffs of them) the true state of every such Catholic point (so to vindicate is from the foul mistaking of the Adversary) then in the fullest manner by authorities, to confirm & fortify them.  LORD CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Well touching these two former points, you have answered (and in part sat s●yed) me. But what say you to the injury by you wrought, not only against the university; but even against the whole state? Which cannot by our own statutes and Decrees, brook such tumultuous proceedings in any Man, much less in foreigners; as to labour to disjoint the beautiful 〈◊〉 me of that Religion, which the whole Realm for these many years, hath so peaceably enjoyed.  MICHAEAS'. 
Most Reverend ludge. Give me leave without offence, to use the words only all 〈…〉 vely, not comparatively▪ of that great Apostle; who like myself, was once a jew, but after a Christian: Neither 
* Act. 2●.  against the Law, nor against the temple of God, nor against Caeser, have I any thing offended.  
It is true, And this I confess with comfort (for discomfort is the ordinary attendant of a faulty guiltiness, that I much laboured (and to that end chiefly penned these short Discourses) to dissem 〈…〉 ate the true faith of these points in the minds of the Scholars of my acquaintance; And why might I not? Since the value of an a 〈…〉 yleable faith is so great, as that without it no man; with it all men may stand grateful in God's eye: Sine 
a Hebr. 11.  fide impossibile est placere Deo.  
Consider my L. the price but of one Soul, which our Saviour hath ransomed out of the Devil's hands, with so high a reate: (humiliavit 
* Philip. 2.  semetipsum, factus obediens usque ad mortem; mortem autem crucis) And then think, what grief it were, that this Soul through want of true faith, should return to it former thraldom. Alas my L. Is 〈…〉 not great pity, to see diverse young students of elevated Wits and apprehencsions, either to receive their Religion (which they believe to be true) from the bare affiance and trust of their Readers and Masters, without any further examining or trial of it; Or else little to prize any Religion at all? And thus in this later manner, this poor Materia Prima being Formless, is ready indifferently and without choice, to entertain the impression of any Religion. Now is it not great pity (I say) to suffer these Souls to perish eternally, as not having an articulate & perfect Christian faith? Which faith ought so to be qualified; seeing it availeth little to believe in Christ, except we believe truly in Christ: For though faith be hear to be required; yet a false faith is as prejudicial, as a mere Misbeleiffe: So light is more necessary to the eye, than darkness; yet not being well proportioned, is more dangerous to the eye, than darkness. And indeed (my L.) I must confess, that I do more fully glass their danger in my own former want of faith, when I continued a Iew; And am in this respect more ready to impart the benefit of that to others, of which myself have already so fully tasted.  
Now for this my attempt (my self being an Alien) I must shroud it under the wings of the like attemmpts of S. Peter, and other the Apostles; who were not afraid to go (by our Lord's commandment) into strange Countries, to preach & teach the faith of Christ: 
* Marc. 16.  Euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Euangelium omni Creaturae.  
And my good Lord: I must therefore further say, that though a Zeraphicall and burning zeal in this kind, may in an humane eye, seem to be but a kind of madness; And that high Virtues of this Nature (through want of due consideration) do rather offend, then please; yet since the Apostles did first tract this unusual path, their example hath more emboldened me to tread herein their steps.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Good God. See unto what an assent of impiety Man's nature is arrived. I mean here, not only to do evil, but to make the Holy Apostles patrons of the said evil. No Michaeas: As soon may the Idol Dagon stand by the Ark, as your pernicious Machinations bear affinity with the actions of the Apostles. You preach not Christ, but Antichrist; and you must remember, that Christ himself said: Who 
* Math. 12.  gathereth not with me, scattereth.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour, I see, you much labour to have the advantage of the day against me: so willing you are, that I should lie prostrate with the basest shame. Yet my comfort is that Innocency (though oppressed) still continues Innocency. But to come to the point. What have I done, which the glorious Apostles may not seem to have done? They went into foreign Countries, without any peculiar licence of the Princes of them, to preach the Gospel of Christ: I hear (being a stranger) have adventured to initiate some students in the faith of Rome, which is the sole true faith of Christ. They preached peaceably without raising of tumults, or teaching disobedience against the Prince of the Country: I did yet never intimate in my words or actions the least spote of disobedience, against the supreme Magistrate; since I hold it a mighty error, to seek ●o order things by disorderly courses. They most happily pulled thousands of Souls out of the jaws of the Devil: I do confess, my sole end was to do some good in that kind, if so God would vouchsafe to bless therein my endeavours; And most joyful I should be, if through my own labour (under Christ) I might say, but of any one straying Soul, with the good Father in the Gospel: This 
* Luke. 15.  my son was dead, but is revived; was lost, and is found.  
Briefly, the● for such their accheivements, finished their days in most blessed Martyrdoms: O that might be so happy, as to ●ede●me ●y maninfold 〈◊〉 with so glorious a death: so true is that sentence; The blood of Martyrs is the key of Paradise.  
here now my good L. If you condemn me, how can you free them? Therefore either absolve me with them, or accuse them with me: Since all of us be either guilty, or all Innocent. If guilty; I glory to have such Precedents of this my imaginary Crime; If innocent; Why then do I stand at this woeful bar of justice, pleading (if not for life, at least) for Liberty?  LORD-CHEIFE JUSTICE. 
Although these your molitions and endeavours [Mich●as] may seem to proceed from a fervour and zeal; Yet I fear, this your zeal is branded with those words of S. Paul: 
b Rom. 10.  Aemulationem Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam. Since diverse Men have certain impetuosityes and violent strains of Nature, which (because in their own private conceits, they mean well) they fear not to gild over with the fair title of Christian zeal. Again [Mich●as] where you seek to sheyld your attempts, under the example of the Apostles, your mistaking hair is over gross: since they preached the incontaminated and unspoted faith of Christ; and wear therefore not only excusable, but even warranted by the Holy Ghost; Whereas you do teach a religion, mixed with diverse errors, and humane Inventions; and therefore far different from that, first planted by the Apostles.  MICHAEAS'. 
My Lord. What colours soever of disgrace and contumely may (in an other Man's eye) be laid upon these my actions; yet to myself I am best privy, that they proceeded from my sole desire of advancing the faith of Christ, and from the bent of a strong affection, and love towards him: Amor 
c Austia.  meus, pondus meum; illo feror, quocunque feror. Which love and promptitude ought to be so intense and vehement, as that indeed it cannot transgress any bounds, within which it may seem to be limited. And therefore I hear hold it an extreme, to seek in these actions to avoid the Extreme; where the Excess (if any such can be) putteth on the nature of the Mean. O my Lord, when the Apostle did write those fiery words: 
d 2. Timoth. 4.  Praedica Verbum, insta oportunè, importunè: argue, obsecra, increpa etc. No doubt he taught us thereby, that in the preaching of the true Christian faith, we should perform it with all improperation, speediness, and alacrity; not losing the time in any ceremonious delays. Now my Lord, where you say, that the faith taught by me, is different from the faith first planted by the Apostles; I hereto answer (though most briefly, since this time is not capable of any long Discourse:) If that Christian Religion, wherewith Rome was first cultivated & tilled by the labours of the Apostles, did never since that time to this day, suffer the least change in any dogmatic & material point; Then followeth it inevitably, that our present Catholic Religion is the same, which was preached by the Apostles; and consequently, that I (contrary to your L. supposal) do here instruct the Academians in the same faith and Religion, which first flourished in those primative times. Now that never any change was made at Rome in points of faith and Religion, your Lordship may be fully satisfied, by perusing the former Dialogue, between the Honourable Cardinal and Doctor Whitakers.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
My Lord. Michaeas will tire you with his wearisome speeches, and (if you would suffer him) will perorate whole days together; for he hath a peculiar delivery of himself in seeking to decline his accusations, by framing his tedious discourses, touching the supposed honour of his own Religion; wholly impertinent to that, for which he now stands arraigned. Therefore to cut off all such exhorbitancyes of speeches, I now in your L. presence (to the greater accumulation of his former crimes) do in this last place, accuse him of being a Popish Priest: a pernicious state of Men, and such, as your Lordship well knows, is incompatible with the Laws of our Realm. Thus we may observe, how the overshadowing Providence of God hath disposed in these matters, that if (by supposal) his former faults might pass uncorrected, yet this last breaketh through the bounds of all Commiseration and Pity.  
Therefore your L. may do well to examine him strictly hereof, and cause him to answer without any reserved sense of equivocation; the peculiar Dialect of the Papists in like cases.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Perceive you not here Michaeas, how in your accusation one crime is ever at the back of an other; like waves following one another, till they all overflow and overwhelm you? You are here lastly accused to be one of that state of Men (I mean, a Romish Priest) which are insufferable in our Nation; and whom (as guilty of many foul transgressions) our Laws do most severely punish: Tell me therefore directly, whether you be a Priest, or no.  MICHAEAS'. 
Sweet jesus, what sallies of Malice hath your tongue [M. Vicechancelour] made in this your long Process of my accusation? First by charging me with real disobedience to the supreme Magistrate, then with penning the foresaid Catholic Treatises; and now (for the close of all) with being a Priest: Where I see, howsoever my cause be good, yet I must be reputed Evil. But leaving that, and to answer to my Lords last Question. Since than I am demanded thereof, I will not conceal my greatest honour. I grant, I am a Catholic and Roman Priest, created by the reverend hand of the most illustrious and learned Bellarmine. But is the very name of a Priest (though otherwise, not to be charged with any fault) so distasteful in this place? Or shall it be at any time here asked, Cur de solo nomine punitis facta? 
(c) Tertul. adverse. Gentes.   
Your Lordships judgement (no dowbt) would hearein be altered, if so you would vouchsafe to take into your Consideration, the antiquity of the holy Order of Pryesthood. since our Saviour himself was the first Priest in the time of Grace; typically adumbrated by that of Melchisadech: Tu 
f Psalm. 109.  es Sacerdos socundum ordinem Melchisadech; Of which point the goldentonged Father thus writeth: Videns 
g chrysostom. homil. 35. in Genes.  typum, cogita (oro) veritatem: Thus Christ was the supreme Priest; Man, but the Ministerial Priest. O how reverently do the ancient Fathers speak of Priesthood? Nazianzen termeth a Priest, the Mediator between God and Man. chrysostom 
(h) Epist. 8. ad Simplicium.  honoured Prieshood so much, as that he did write a book, entituling it: De Sacerdotio; among infinite other passages of which subject, he thus saith: Non Angelus, non Archangelus, non alia quaevis creata potentia; sed ipso Paracle●us Ordinem eiusmodi disposuit: Neither Angel, nor Archangel, nor any created Power; but only our Advocate & Comforter (Meaning Christ) did institute this Order of Pryesthood. Ambrose in like sort did write of this subject; styling his Treatise: De dignitate Sacerdotale; In which book, speaking of the manner how a Priest is created, thus writeth in the first Chapter thereof: Homo imponit manum, Deus langitur gratium; Sacerdos imponit simplicem dexteram, Deus benedicit potenti dexiera: Man doth impose the hand, but God giveth the grace, The Priest doth lay his humble hand (meaning, upon him, who is to be made Pryest) But God doth bless with his poverfull hand. Leo the first, thus worthily writeth hereof: Omnium 
i Epist. ad Anastasium.  Sacerdotum tam excellens est electio, ut haec, quae in aliis membris Ecclesiae vacant a culpa, in illis tamen habeantur illicita: The state of all Pryests is so noble, as that some things there are (meaning, marriage of Pryests) which being lawful in other members of the Church, are nevertheless prohibited in them. To be short, Pac●nus thus amplifieth upon this point: 
k Epist. 3. ad Symphronianum.  Plebi unde Spiritus, quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos? How can that Society or company of Men receive the Holy Ghost, if the anointed Priest doth not sign & bless them?  
Thus far in general of the dignity of Pryesthood, which I hope in modesty, and without the lest tuche of Vanity, I may allege; forbearing many more authorityes of like nature; lest my producing of them might be misconstived (my self being a Priest, and therefore interressed in them) by some one or other depraving tongue.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
What you have hear [Michaeas] alleged out of Antiquity in honour of Priesthood, we willingly acknowledge; since it was then meant, and now is truly applied to the Ministers of the Gospel, and others of the faithful (in regard of the spiritual sacrifices of Prayer, daily offered up by them) who therefore in a metaphorical and improper acceptance of the word: priest (and as the phrase is,) are termed Pryests.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour You are foully mistaken herein, & willing (it seems) you are to vindicate to your own Ministerial function the praises due to Priesthood. But I hope, you will stand to the judgement of S. Austin and other Fathers herein. S. Austin then thus speaketh of this point: 
l Lib. de ciui●. Dei 20. c. 10.  Soli Episcopi & Presbiteri propriè vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdot s. Thus Austin by expressly calling Bishops & Presbyters only Priests, excludeth this secondary and improper signification of the word Priest, which you seem hear to maintain; and which in your sense may be truly extended to Women, who offer up the Sacrifice or prayer to God, as well as Men. And according hereto it is, that Ireneus, 
m Lib. 4. c. 20.  acknowledging with you, that in a restrained sense all just Men may be called Priests doth further teach a peculiar Pryesthood of the Apostles (different from the former kind of Pryesthood) which (saith he) daily attends upon God and the Altar. And hence also it is, that the greek Word: 〈…〉 ereus, which properly signifieth: Sacerdos, is applied to Christian Pryests by 
n Lib. 3. c. 32.  Eusebius, 
o Lib. de viris illustrib.  Jerome, 
p In epist. ad Smirnenses.  Ignatius, and finally (to omit others) by 
q De Eccles. Hierarch. c 5.  Dionysius Areopagita. I may add in further warrant of this Truth, that the ancient Fathers do make frequent mention of Altars, now to be in the Church of Christ. But the word: Altar, hath even by the confession of D. 
r In his Conference with M. Har●. p. 55.  Raynolds a necessary and inseparable reference to the words: priest, and Sacrifice, as they are taken in their proper and natural signification; since they are Relatives, And seeing every Altar hath a relation to a true and real Sacrifice, and to a Pryest, as the Word is properly taken, and as the said Pryest doth offer up a true and real Sacrifice. That the Fathers do often mention Altars, now to be in the Church of Christ, you may [M. Vicechancelour] peruse, 
s De civitat. Dei lib. 8. c. ult. & l. 22. c. 8.  Austin, 
t Lib. 6. de Sacerdotio, & homil. 53. ad populum.  Chrisostome, 
u Lib 6. contra Parmen●anum.  Optatus, 
x Cap. 3. Eccles. Hierarch.  Dyonisius Areo pogita, and finally the 
y Canon. 3. & 4.  Canons of the Apostles.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Howsoever the Primative Fathers may take the word; Priest, It is not much material to us, who here rely only upon the pure word of God, interpreted to us by the Holy Ghost: yet sure I am, that Those Priests, (who come into England) do arrogate unto themselves a double Prerogative, of which all Antiquity was wholly ignorant. The first is, in undertaking to reconcile men to the Pope, (our states designed enemy.) And so by this means, to alienate them in their allegiance from their own native Prince and sovereign: The second, in assuming to them power to offer up in the Mass, the body & blood of Christ: Which once for all was offered up for the whole world upon the Cross. Now both these attempts are deservedly punished by our Laws, for their acrocityes therein committed; And to the danger (decreed against them) yourself [Michaeas] rests obnoxious; seeing you (being a Priest) have no doubt often practised them both, since your arrival into England.  MICHAEAS'. 
It is wonderful to observe how Malice (taking the place of Ignorance) seeleth up Man's judgement for I presume [M. Vicechancelour.] You cannot be ignorant of the untruth of these your assertions. Therefore for the better satisfying of you (Myreverend judge) whom in all reason and duty I am bound to satisfy. You are here to know, that what M. Vicechancelour calleth reconciling to the Pope, is nothing else, but an incorporating of one into Christ Church (if so afore he was no member thereof) by Confession of his sins, (accompanied with a resolution never to sin more) to a Catholic Priest, and absolution thereof given by the said Priest; Or if he were afore a branch of the said Mystical Body, then is this M. Vicechancelour reconciling, a mere penitent Confession of our sins to a Catholic Priest; attended on with an absolution from the said sins: By force of which Sacrament, we overcome him, who is invincible, and restrain him, who is Omnipotent.  
Now hear I demand in all sincerity, how these spiritual Actions of a penitent sinner may be reputed prejudicial to his Loyalty to his Prince? Or what necessary reference hath the one to the other? Or shall we think, that in Catholic Countries (for the reason is the same of Catholics, living either in Catholic or Protestante Countries) one renounceth his Loyalty to his Prince, by recurring to this spiritual physic, for the curing of his soul's disseases? Alas (M. Vicechancelour) I much grieve, to see you thus drunk (as I may say) with malice, as to forge such strange and forced interpretations of the Priests and Catholics proceedings hearein. And I pray you, how can it be conceived (M. Vicechancelour) that our propinquity towards God (for such a nearnes is wrought, by a true & penitent Confession) should be presumed to cause a greater distance of our obedience from our Prince? and that our state of grace in the sight of God, should be censured as a state of Disloyalty in the eye of Man? No. The case is merely contrary to your supposal. For since absolute Princes are the Vicegerents of God, and in that respect are termed Gods: 
a Psalm. 81  Ego dixi dij estis. And since we are bound to obey our Prince, even propter 
b Rom. ●3.  conscientiam: Therefore we may truly infer, that a fearful Conscience, loath to offend God, or through f 〈…〉 ty offending; yet willing by the Sacrament of penance & absolution to expiate it sins, is ever most ready to perform it d 〈…〉 y (〈…〉 en for fear of God's displeasure) to 〈◊〉 sovereign. And that such Men, as want this ten ●ernes of conscience, ●●e loyal subjects so long only, as their own temporal and humane respects do comport with this their loyalty.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
You speak much [Michaeas] of your Priestly function, in absolving of sins, confessed. But you should prove (if you can) since it is most material; that such Men, as were termed Priests in the Primative Church, did hear the confessions of other men's sins, and did give absolution of them, so confessed. And if you cannot make this good, from the Precedents of those firster and purer times; we must then rest assured, that this your assumed authority, is but a mere Innovation, engendered between the pride of the Priest (taking upon him God's person herein for we read: Quis potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus? Marc. 2.) and the scrupulous superstition of the confessed Penitent.  MICHAEAS'. 
It is true, that only God originally, primatively, and immediately remitteth sin; and in this sense the Scripture speaketh of only God remitting of sin; yet is his divine Majesty pleased to use Man, as his instrument therein, according to those words of our Saviour to the Apostles: 
d john. 20.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whos● sins you shall retain, they are retained. From which passage we further infer, that seeing some sins are to be retayne●, and not remitted; it followeth inavoidably, that we are obliged particularly and distinctly to confess our sins to the Priest. For how can the Priest know, what sins are to be retained, and what sins to be remitted, except he know, which the sins be in particular? Ad hereto, that if God vouchsafest to use Water (a creature much more base, than Man) as his instrument, for the taking away of Original sin; then much more may Man, as his instrument, and receiving his authority herein from the words of Christ, and from his Passion (which give force and efficacy to ●ich Sacrament, now in the time of grace) practice without sacrilege the same authority.  
that the ancient Fathers of the Primative Church (contrary to your former bold assertion, M. Vicechancelour) did concordantly teach & practice our Catholic doctrine herein, is most evident. I will not overwhelm you with multitude of their testimonies (though all of them are most luxuriant in such their sentences) therefore th●●e or four of them, and such as are most ancient, shall serve. here than first, I will produce the words of Saint Basill, thus writing: 
e In quaestionib. breu 〈…〉 b. interiogat. 288.  Necessario peccata iis apperiri debent, quibus credita est dispensatio mysteriorum Dei▪ si quidem rationem hanc in paerite●●ia etiam veteres illos ●ernimus secutos fuisse. Our sins ought of necessity to be revealed to them, to whom is committed the dispensing and distribution of the mysteries of God; And th●s● ou se in Penance we do find, that the ancient Christians did follow. Thus we see, that this authority and words of Saint Basill simply a necessity of confession of our sins to the Priest; and consequently a particular relation of them. Saint Leo thus conspireth with Saint Basill: Cum 
f Epist. 88 ad Episcopos Campaniae.  reatus conscientiarum sufficiat solis Sacerdotibus iudicari confessione s●creta etc. Seing it is sufficient; that the guiltiness of our consciences be made known only to Priests, in secret confession etc. where you may see, that confession of sins in those days was made secret, and only unto Priests. Saint Austin thus agreeth with the former Fathers: Non solum 
* Lib. homil. l homil. 41.  post paenitentiam etc. Not only after Penance is prescribed, a Man ought to keep himself from those vices; but also before penance, whiles he is sound; who if he should defer it all his last end, Nescit, si ipsam p●nitentiam accipere, & De●, & Sacerdoti peccata sua confiteri poterit; He knoweth not; whether he shall have power to receive his penance, and to confess his sins to God, and to a Priest.  
S. Cyprian thus writeth of this point: 
g Serm. 5 de lapsis.  quantò fide maiore & timore meliore sunt, qui quantum●●uis nullo sacrifi●ij aut libelli faci●ore constricti; quontam tomen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud Sacerdotes Dei volenter & simpliciter confidentes, exomologesni conscientiae faciunt; animi pondus expenum, salut●rem meaelam paruis licet & modicis vulneribus exquirunt? How much more greater faith and better fear have they, who though they be not guilty of any crime touching Sacrifice, or giving up a Libel; yet because they had such a conceit or thought, they do with grief and simplicity confess this to Priests etc. Thus do they disburden their consciences, and seek to apply a healthful remedy to their small wounds? Now here by the words: Sacrifice, and Libel, are to be understood, sacrificing to Idols in the times of the Heathen Emperors, and giving up their names in a book, that they were content to sacrifice.  
To be short, Tertullian thus saith of this custom of confessing our sins to a Priest. Plerosque hoc opus aut subfugere, aut 
(h) Lib. de Penitentia.  de die in diem differie presumo, pudor●● magis memores, quam salutis; velut illi, qui in partibus verecundieribus corporis, contracta vaxatione, scientiam Medentium vitant, & ita cum e●●bescentia sua pereunt: I do presume, that diverse do either annoyed this work (meaning of confessine their sins) or do defer 〈◊〉 from day to day; being more mindful of their shame, then of their health: They being herein like to those Men, who having some dis●●se in their more secret parts of their body, do flee the cure of Physicians; and so they perish through their own shame. Thus Tertullian, from whose testimony is necessarily evicted particular confession of our private sins, even according to the nature of his similitude here used.  
This point of the ancient Father's judgement touching confession of our particular sins to a Priest, is so dear and manifest, that the Centurists discoursing of the use thereof, in those former times, thus plainly acknowledge: 
i Cent. 3. cap 6. col. 127.  Si quis paenitentiam agebant peccatum prius confirebantur. ac enim confessionem magnoperè Tertullianus urget in libro de P●nitentia; & institutem fuisse privatam Confessionem, qua delicta & cogitata prava confessisunt, ex aliquot Cypriani locis apparet. etc. If any in those times did penance; they did first confess there sinn●e: for thus doth Tertullian mightily urge Confession in his book de Paenitentia: And that private Confession was then in use, by the which sins & even wicked thoughts were confessed, appeareth from certain places of Cyprian; to wit, out of his fifth sermon de Lapsis, & lib. 3. Epist. epist. 14. and 16. Thus far the Centurists (all eminent Protestants) who (we see) do grant, that in those times, even private thoughts (much more particular actual sins) were accustomed to be confessed. Which Centurists do further witness, that the Priest did in those times, absolve the penitent (besides by pronouncing the words of Absolution) with the Ceremony 
* Cent. 3. col. 127.  of imposing her hand: a ceremony, which at this very day, is used by the Priests. And thus (My Honourable Lord, and you M. Vicechancelour) you both may from hence perceive, how near to the Apostles days Confession of particular sins (even by the acknowledgement of the Protestants) was usually practised: Which point being granted, it must by force of all Re●son follow, that Christ did first institute this Sacrament of Confession, and the Apostles did first exercise their authority therein, given to them by Christ. Since otherwise it cannot probably be conceived, that a dogmatic point of faith and Religion, so cross and repugnant to Man's nature (as Confession is, could in so short a time, invade the whole Church of God, without any contradiction or resistance.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
Michaeas', you have spoken much in warrant of Confession and Asolution, given by the Pryest. But the question (in regard of your former alleged authorityes) is not so much, whether Confession of particular sins was generally taught by those ancient Fathers; as whether they had just reason and warrant so to teach? But I will pass no censure of them, touching this point. But [Michaeas] what do you say to that assumed authority and privilege, which you Pryests vindicate to yourselfes, in the sacrifice of the Mass? Where you bease the people in hand, that you sacrifice and offer up the true and natural body and blood of Christ to his Father. I am assured, that the ancient Church of God cannot afford you any example hereof; And the rather, since it is manifest, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation (upon which your doctrine of sacrifice is grounded) was first brought into the Church, at the Council of Lateran by Innocentius the third; Which Council was holden anno ●215. And therefore it was celebrated many hundred years, after the Period of the Primative Church.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour The sequel will show of what Antiquity the doctrine is concerning the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Which is daily offered up by the Priest. But first, I will take away your stumbling block, touching the name of Transubstantiation, imposed by the Council of Lateran. For the better removal whereof, you are to conceive, that the doctrine of the re●ll being of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the 〈◊〉, and Sacrifice of the Mass was taught, in all the precedentages; though the word: Transubstantiation, (for the better explicating of the doctrine, was then (and not before) invented: Even as the doctrine of the Trinity, was eue● in the first infancy of the Church generally believed; yet the word; Trinity, was first imposed upon the doctrine, by Council of Nice.  
But to proceed further, touching the Antiquity of the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. We first answer herto, that it received it first institution and beginning, even from the night before, the Creator of all flesh did suffer in flesh. For our Saviour being at his last suffer, did then first institute it, when ●e delivered to his Apostles his own body and blood, saying: This is my body. This is my Blood etc. With reference to which institution, the Apostle calleth the table (upon which this sacrifice is made, 
k Heb● 13.  _____ to wit an Altar, being derived of the verb. _____ signifying: Sacrifice. But let us see in what dialect Antiquity speaketh hereof. Some few places (among infinite) I will hear select: first than we find S Austin thus to say: Quid 
l Lib. 4. de Trinitate c. 1●.  gratius osserria●t s●scipi possit, quam c●r● sacrificij nostri corpus effectum Sacerdotis nostri? What can be offered up, or accepted more thankfully, than the flesh of our sacrific being made the body of our Priest? chrysostom thus writeth: Per 
m Lib. 6. de Sacerdotio.  id tempus & Angeli Sacerdoti assident etc. At that time the Angels draw near unto the Pryest, and the whole order of the heavenly Powers causeth great voices, and the place near unto the Al●●r is full of q●ears of Angels (in illius honorem, qui in●molatur) by reason of the honour of him, who is there 〈…〉 d or offered up; which thing we may fully believe, (vel extanto illi sacrificio, quod iunc peragitur) in regard of so great a sacrifice then performed Gregory Nyssene: Dominus 
n Orat. de resurge &.  praeoccupans impetum iudeorum etc. Our Lord preventing the violence of the jews, being both Priest and Lamb, made himself a sacrifice. But thou demandest of me when this did happen? Even then, when he gave to his disciples his body to eat, and his blood to drink.  
Optatus Milivitanus thus discourseth: Quid est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria ●ei, in quibus aliquando nos obtulistis, 
(o) Lib. 6. contra Parmenianun.  frangere, radre, & 〈…〉 e? in quïbus vot a Populi, & membra Christi partata s●ni &c What is so sacrilegious, as to break, or scrape, or to remove and take away the Alt●●s of God? upon which your selves sometimes have offered; in the which the vows of the People, and the members of Christ are borne. And further the said Father: Quid 
* Optatus v●● supra.  est altari nisi sides corporis & sanguints Christi? What is the Altar, but the seat of the body and blood of Christ?  
S. Ambrose: Etsi 
p in psal. 38.  nunc Christus non videatur offer: ipse tamen ●ffertur in terris, cum corpus eius offertur. And again: Cum 
q In c. 〈◊〉. Lucae.  Sacrisicamus, Christus est presence, Christus immolatur: When we do sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is sacrificed or immolated.  
Ephrem: Quid 
r De Natura Dei min 〈…〉 scrutanda cap. 5.  scrutaris inscrutabilia &c: Why dos● thou search into things, not to be searched after etc. Be thou faithful and innocent, and participate thou of the immaculate body of thy Lord, with a most full faith: being assured, that thou dost eat the whole Lamb.  
Cyprian: Caena 
s Serm de caena Domini.  disposita inter Sacramentales epu●as etc. The supper being prepared, the ancient and new Institutions did meet together among the Sacramental 〈◊〉 eats; And the Lamb, which ancient Tradition did set upon the table, being consumed, the Master doth give to his Disciples an inconsumption meat.  
Tertulian 
t Lib. de pae●iten●a.  and Dionysius 
u Cap. 3. Eccles. Hierarch.  make frequent mention of Altars, and consequently of Sacrifice:  
To conclude this passage (as avoiding prolexity) Eyppolitus Martyr introduceth Christ speaking to Bishops and Pryests in these words: 
u Orat. de An●christo.  Venite Pontifices & Sacerdotes, qui praeciosum corpus & sanguinem meum quo●die immolastis: Come hither, you● h●●fe Pryests and other Pryests, who have daily immoluted and offered up my precious body and blood.  
Now (M. Vice Chancellor) in regard of the perspicuity of thes sentences of the former Fathers, and of diverse others such authorityes of the said and other ●athers of the Primative Church (hear through br 〈…〉 y prete●nitted) It is the less wonder, that your own learned Protestants do ingenuously confess the truth of those Father's judgements hearin. For (to omit, that the 
* Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 295.  Centurists do particularly charge S. Ambrose, with this very phrase: Massam 〈…〉 ere, used by us Pryests at this very day) do we not fine Calumn himself thus to acknowledge of them in general? 
x Lib. 4. Instit c. 18. sect. 12.  Veteres illos video etc. I do see, that those ancient Fathers did wrest the memory of the Lords supper otherwise, then was agreeing to the institution of the Lord. Since the Father's supper did bear the show and resemblance of a renewed Oblation &c they imitating more nearly the 〈◊〉 manner of sacrificing, then either Christ did ordain, or the nature of the Gospel would suffer. And hereupon it is, that Calvin in an other place, thus chargeth the Fathers: 
y In omnibus Pauli Epist. in Hebr. c. 7.  The Fathers did adulterate the supper of the Lord, by adding of Sacrifice unto it. Neither can these words of Calvin be restrained to those Fathers only, who lived either in the midst, or towards the end of the Primative Church: First because they are delivered (without exception) of the Fathers in general; Secondly, by reason that other learned Protestants do charge the Fathers (some of them living immediately after the Apostles; others 〈…〉 g even in the days of the Apostles) with the said doctrine of sacrifice. Thus (consorting hearto) we find Sebastianus Francus (an eminent Protestant) to use these words: 
z In epist. de a●rogandis in universum omnebus statut. Ecclesiast  Statim post Apostolos, omnia inversa sunt etc. Presently after the Apostles departure, all things were inverted etc. Et caena Domini in sacrificium transf●rmata est, and the supper of the Lord was changed into a sacrifice. But Hospinian (that famous Protestant) useth higher in time, thus confessing: 
a Histor. Sacrament. l. 1. c. 6. p. 20.  I am tum primo illo seculo, viventibus adhuc Apostolts etc. Even in the very first age (the Apostles yet living) the devil laboured to seduce Men more about this Sacrament (meaning, touching the ●athers supposed adding of sacrifice to the Sacrament of the Eucharist) Then about Baptism, withdrawing Men from the first former thereof. Thus far of the Father's clear sentences, and of the learned Protestants confessing no less, touching the doctrine of Sacrifice.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
It l●tle preiudizeth us [Michaas] who profess the Gospel though the Fathers did teach the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. For seeing it is granted, (both by us and you Papists) that diverse Fathers erred in other paticular points, why might they not alike err in the doctrine of the Sacrifice? And seeing we are not obliged to embrace their other acknowledged Errors; why should we be forced to entertain this their error.  MICHAEAS 
O [M. Vicechancelour,] the difference is great, and subject 
(b) Vide August. in Haeresi 43. & 46. Hieronym. in lib. contra jovinianun & Vi●ilātium. Vide Epiphanium lib. de Haeresibus.  even to a vulgar judgement. For we grant with you, that some particular Fathers did e 〈…〉 certain points; yet were those their errors presently condemned and written against, by other Ortodoxall Fathers. Thus for exemple, did Austin, Jerome, and Epiphanius write against Origen, teaching that the Devils were at the last day to be saved; against Tertullian, denying 2. marriages; against Cyprian, maintaining Rebaptisation.  
Now hear we grant, that such particular Father's might and did errein such particular points. But the Case 〈…〉 otherwise, When many of the chief Pastors and Father 〈…〉 several Ages of the Primative Church do concurrently teach a point of doctrine, as an Article of faith; And that they are not contradicted by any other of the Fathers, for their maintaining of the said doctrine; And in this sort is the former doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, taught without any opposition at all, not only by the former alleged Fathers, but by many others (or rather all othors) for breviuy hear omitted.  
Now in this Case [M. Vicechancelour] we Catholics do hold, that such their doctrine so jointly by the Fathers taught (without any contradiction) is most agreeable to God's word. For seeing the Fathers of the Primative Church, were in those days the chief Pastors of Christ's Church; If they should jointly ●rre● in faith, then would it follow, that the whole Visible Church of God should err: an assertion most repugnant to the promise of our Saviour: 
c Math. 16.  Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; Et portae Inferi non pravalebant adversus eam) and to that honerable title given to the Church by the Apostle styling it: 
d 1. Tim. 3.  columna & firmamentum veritatis.  
Now what reverence and respect we are to give to the Primative Church, and how we are to conceive of the authority of it, I will (for the closure of this passage) refer you [M. Vicechancelour] to the sentences of your own Brethreh, being most learned and remarkable Protestants; & from whose judgement therefore herein, you cannot without great branch of modesty decline. First then we find Kempnitius thus to advance the authority of the Primative Church: We 
e Examen Concil. Trident. part. 1. p. 74.  doubt not, but that the Primative Church received from the Apostles & Apostolical Men, not only the text of the Scripture; but also the right and native sense thereof. The confession of Bohemia thus magnifyeth the same: The 
f In the Harmonyes of Confess. pag. 400.  ancient Church is the true and best Mistress of Posterity; and going before, leadeth us the way. Finally D. jewel is no less sparing in his praises hereof, saying: 
g In his defence of the Apology●.  The Primative Church, which was under the Apostles and Martyrs, hath e 〈…〉 r a been accounted the purest of all others without exception. Such transcendency of speeches (you see) your own more sober and learned Brethren are not afraid to ascribe, to the Fathers of those primative times.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
Michaas, I grant, you have spoken fully in defence of your own state, and of the several offices thereof, practised by you 
〈…〉) Act. 〈◊〉.  Priests. And though I will not say like to Agrippa: (h) A little you have persuaded me, to become a Catholic; yet I must ingenuously acknowledge, I never heard a cause of this Nature, with stronger & better arguments defended; Yet for the more perfect balan●●g and weighing the force of your authorityes (my self not being conversant in the written Monuments of the ancient Fathers) I must remit this point, to the more mature disquisition of our learned Devins.  MICHAEAS'. 
Though your Lordship will not apply to yourself, the foresaid words of Agrippa; yet I will make bold to reply to you (such is my charitable wishing of your chiefest good) in the phrase of S. Paul to Agrippa: I 
i Act. ubi supra.  wish to God, both in little & much, that your L. were such as I am, except this my wat of liberty.  
But my worthy Lord. Here now begmneth the Tragedy of the disconsolate and mournful state of Priests and Catholics in this Country. You have heard [my L.] of the Antiquity of Priesthood; of the like antiquity of the Sacrament of Confession and Penance; and lsstly of the antiquity of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass. And yet notwithstanding all this, it is decreed (as your L. well knows) by the pennall laws of this Country, that Priesthood shallbe Treason; the relieving of any one such Priest, death to the Releiver; Confession of our sins to a Priest, and absolution of them, reputed to be in the Penitent a renouncing of his Loyalty; and the hearing of Mass, attended on with a great fine of silver. And thus by these means, every good Priest and Catholic are (at the first sight) become Statute traitors. And indeed such is the case here, that neither Priest nor Catholic can (with safety of conscience) give any yielding obedience and satisfaction to the Magistrate, touching those laws; since here not to offend, were to offend: 
k Act. 〈◊〉  Obedire oportet Dee magis, quam hominibus.  
And touching myself, and other Priests in particular; your L. is to take notice, that (not speaking of our Blessed Saviour, who was the first Priest, nor of his Apostles, succeeding him therein) most of the ancient Fathers were Priests, enjoying the same Priesthood, practising the same function in hearing of Confessions, absolving the Penitents, & saying of Mass, which the meanest Priest of England at this day doth. Therefore your Lordship may truly suppose. That before you at this present, stand arraigned (only for being Priests, & exercising that their function) S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S Cyprian, S. Athanasius, S. chrysostom, S. Ignatius, and many more of those primative blessed Doctors. What I am, they were: I stand but here, as their Image; and they are personated in me. Neither can you implead or condemn me, but that your sentence must (through my sides) wound them: so indissoluble an union there is between their stairs & mine; no other difference between us, but difference of times.  
But my good Lord. To pass on further to the despicable & detected state of Lay Catholics (a theme not unseasonable at these times) I will not insist in particularising the pennall statutes decreed against them. Neverthelesle my tongue (under your L. licence) can hardly pretermit one point in silence.  
Among then so many Calamities and vexations (wherewith on eich side they stand plunged) Not any one pressure is more insufferable to them, or more opprobrious in the ears of strangers (who are ready to trumpet forth the same, to the irreparable dishonour of this noble Nation; otherwise famous throughout all Christendom) Then to observe the houses of Catholics, to lie open to the search of the Common & base Pusu●uants: Who under colour of looking for a Priest, do enter their houses at most unseasonable times, even by force: And there opening their Trunks & Chests: perusing their Evidences of their Estates: taking the Masters of the houses, bound in great sums of money, for their after appearance in Courts of justice: and violently breaking down, what may seem to withstand their present fury; do by strong hand, carry away any gold, silver, jewels, Plate, or any other portable thing of worth; And all this under the pretext of them, being forfeited through Recusancy; And the least resistance against these men here made, is punished as an Act of Disloyalty. Neither are any English Catholics (the Nobility excepted) free from these Indignities; the dead pittylesse law herein promiscuously taking hold of all without difference. Now my Honourable Lord, Is it not a thing deserving astonishment & amazement, to see in a most noble Country (where the Gospel, which forbiddeth all Rapine, is presumed to be truly preached) that men free & not borne Bondslaves, should thus in body and state (only for fear of offending God, and desire of saving their souls) lie prostrate, to the depradations & robberies of certain hungry Refuse and Outcasts of men? who make show at least (though wrongfully) to warrant all these their pillages, by force of the statute Law; though otherwise prohibited by all Divine and humane Law: 
l Throne 〈◊〉  Si est dolour, sicut dolor horum? And if it fortune, that any Priest be taken, or Recusants do appear; then is the Pryest assured, and the Catholics in danger, to be committed to a dark and loathsome prison; there to remain (the Priest sometimes in fettars) so long, as it shall please the subordinate Magistrate; His Majesty, who is most prove to mercy, pity, and commiseration, being wholly ignorant of such outrages and proceedings.  
But My Lord. How base so ever the Priests & Catholics of England seem to be in the eyes of their Adversaries; yet no doubt their state is most grateful (through this their imprisonment) in the sight of God, and honourable in the judgement of all foreign Catholic nations; who in regard of the others endurance, may justly apply to the said imprisoned Priests & Catholics, that sentence of a most ancient Father: 
* Tertul. ad Martyrs.  Carcer habet tenebras, sed lumen estis ipsi; habet vincula, sed vos soluti Deo estis; triste illic expirat, sed vos odor estis suavitatis.  LORD CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
These exorbitancyes of proceedings (Michaeas.) whereof you speak (if any such be) the Law chastizeth, and the Offenders are punishable; neither doth the supreme Magistrate give allowance of them. Yet hear (Michaeas) you are to remember, that though wrong be not to be recompensed with wrong, and Cruelty, with Injustice, The times have been (I mean, in the reign of Queen Marie) When the Professors of our Religion did not only suffer loss of Goods, but even death itself. And therefore there appeareth less reason, why you Romanists should so tragically complain at your present afflictions: Since in so doing, you are like to those Men, who perpetrate impietyes, yet expostulate of Wrong.  MICHAEAS'. 
Indeed (my Lord) I grant, that this is the vulgar recrimination, often urged and reinforced by the Protestants, for the more depressing of our pressures in the eye of others; yet though I will not undertake the defence of all the procedures of those times (myself being a stranger both to the Nation, and to the affairs of those days) Nevertheless let it not be offensive unto you (my honerable Lord) if I unfold the reason, why such actions in that Queen's time, may stand less subject to the censure of an iniustifiable punishment, than thief in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and since. The reason is this. In Q. Mar●es time, the Professors of any Religion, different from the Catholic and Roman Religion, were punished by certain Canon and Imperial Laws, made by most ancient Popes & Emperors; they not then having any forknowledg, that Protestancy should rather sway in these days, than any other erroneous faith. And this they did, in regard that all such different Religions were reputed and ●oulden, as Innovations, and most repugnant to the ancient Catholic faith. Now that Protestancy was to be accounted in Queens mary's reign a mere Innovation in faith, (as well as any other sect) appeareth even from the free acknowledgement of the learned Protestants; who teach expressly, that for these fourteen, or fifteen hundred years, the Protestant faith was never so much as heard or thought of, till Luther's days. I will hear content myself (for greater brevity) with the authorityes of two or three Protestants. Do we not then find M. Parkins thus to confess hereof? For 
m In his exposition of the Creed.  many hundred years, our Church was not visible to the World; an universal Apostasy over spreading the whole face of the Earth. And doth not Sebastianus Francus (the Protestant) confess the same in these words? 
n In epist. de abrogandis in universum omnibus statut. Ecclesiast  For certain the external Church together with the Sacramenti vanished away, presently after the Apostles departure; and that for these fourteen hundred years, the Church hath not been external and Visible. In like sort D. Fulke, speaking of the Protestant Church, doth he not thus write? 
* In his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic pag. 35  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times: A verity confessed by Luther himself, thus vaunting of his own supposed true faith: 
o Luth. epist. ad A● entinens.  Christum anobis primo vulga●um audemus gloriari; We dare boast, that Christ was first preached by us. Thus then we see, that Protestancy was punished in Q. mary's reign, as an Innovation in faith and religion, never afore that time dreamt of. But now the case is far otherwise, touching the afflictions laid upon the Catholics, for professing of their faith: since they are punished by certain Parlamental statutes only, decreed not passed some threescore years since, by the authority of a Woman Prince, against a religion which (by the learned Adversaries like acknowledgement) hath possessed all Christendom thief many hundred years; and indeed so many hundred years, as the Protestant Church is confessed by them to have been latent and invisible; And therefore those stat●●s were decreed not against the Catholic Religion, as against an Innovation; but as against the (till then) only and sole Religion, professed by all the Christians, through out the whole world. To this end we find M. Napper (a learned Protestant) thus acknowledging 
p In his treatise upon the Revelat. p. 68  Between the years of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian & Papistical reign began, reigning universally without any debatible contradiction one thousand, two hundred, & sixty years. And as conspiring with the former Protestant herein, the 
q See of this point the Centurists, in Cent. 4. & so in every succeeding Century.  Centurists do even from the times of Constantyne, charge both him, and every age and Century since, till Luther's days, with the Profession of our present Roman Religion.  
Thus now your Lordship may clearly discover the great disparity, between the proceedings of Queen Mary, and Q. Elizabeth. Since in the former Queen's time, the Laws, wheareby Sectaries were punished for their Religion, were instituted many hundred years since: In this later Q. reign the Statutes were first made at the beginning of her coming to the Crown; which is yet in the memory of eich Man, being but of reasonable great years. Those laws were enacted by Popes and general 
1 See Concil. Laodicens. can. 31. 32. 33. Concil. Cartha. canon. 16.  counsels (to whose charge and incumbency the burden of Religion is peculiarly by God committed) secunded otherwise by the secular authority of 
2 L. Ariani, c. de Haereticis. L. cuncti Haeret. L. Man●chaei  Emperors, and particularly of (〈◊〉) Valentinian and Marcian: These were first invented by a Woman, and a Parliament of Lay Persons: the incompetent judges of faith and Religion. Briefly, by the former Decrees a Religion, confessed by the chief Professors of it, to be never heard of, at lest for fourteen hundred years together (and thearefore to be an innovation of faith which is held by Catholics to be a destruction of faith necessary to Souls health) is interdicted and prohibited: By these later, a Religion (confessedly by it greatest Enemies) 
(3) Valentinian & Marcian decreed obstinate Heretics to be punished with death of which Law see Concil. Chalcedom. Act. 1.  practised universally throughout all Christendom, the space of the aforesaid fourteen hundred years and by the learneder sort of Protestants granted to be sufficient to Salvation is punished with loss of Goods and 〈◊〉, in p 〈…〉 sonment to the Professors of it, and death to the Priests and 〈…〉 ers' of them: 
r Psalm 103.  Quantum dist at Orius ab Occas●? And hear I cannot omit to rehearse, how the said Queen Elizabeth, among other her like pious and charitable deeds (that so there might a suitableness in her Actions) was not afraid (contrary to the law of God, contrary to the law of Nation, contrary to her own solemn vow and promise afore given in that behalf, contrary to the pitiful flexure of her own Sex; and finally contrary to all Nature, Honour, and Religion) to detain by force, to imprison, to be●cade, her own nearest kinswoman and immediate Successor; A Princes, a Catholic Queen of incompatable excellencyes and virtues; Mother (and therein the other Q. greater atrocitye) to the late deceased King of famous Memory, and Grandmother to his Majesty; that now is.— 
s Virg. Aenad.  Quis talia faud● Myrmidonum, Dolopumue, aut ●uri milles Vlyssis, temperet a lacrimis? Since hear this most worthy Prince's descent was her only fault; her birth, her crime; And thus did nearest in blood occasion the effusion of most innocent blood, and proximity in Nature produce this barbarus Act, even loathed in Nature.  
But doth your Lordship think, that the other Q. then height of state and fastigious Dignity, could be a Sanctuary (without final repentance) for such her immanity? oh no. 
t Sapient. cap. 6. uz. potentes potenter tormenta pati●ntur.  Potentes potenter etc. But I will conceal, what followeth.  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
That most deplotable Act (Michaeas) by you now mentioned, was rather to be ascribed (perhaps) to certain of the said Queen's Counsellors of state in those days, then to the Queen herself. But since she was a Princes of great parts and perfections, I could wish, that (as free from ill reproach) she now being dead (through of never dying memory) might rest in Honour, who governed with Honour.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
my L. judge. Michaeas' is come hither, not to declaim thus at large, or to make excursions of long discourse, (is hitherto he hath been permitted) but to suffer condign punishment for his former Misdemeanours: The time is almost spent, and therefore I would entreat your Lordship, speedily to proceed to sentence against him.  MICHAEAS'. 
Most Excellent judge. o let not my grey heirs become discolored with any imaginary Crymes; nor suffer my ruinous and decayed bones to be attended to their grave, with any injust punishment; and therefore, 
* Psalm. 〈◊〉.  In virtute tua iudica me. If I desearne evil, let me have my due recompense: If I be faultless, I ought to be assoiled: It is the law, & my own demerits (not this Man's viperous tongue) that must make me, evil.  LORD-CHEIFE JUSTICE. 
I will descend to your sentence [Michaeas] And first, seeing I well obsearue, that great and unaccustoined Examples of justice must ever in the eye of the multitude, be presumed to have some what of Wrong, at least of Rigour; therefore for the better avoiding of such an aspersion; I will call to mind of what particular offences you hear rest accused; and will pass my even & impartial judgement of them; not respecting, how they are amplified in words, but what they desearue (all collateral respects considered) in themselves: S 〈…〉 ce one and the same Action (the circumstances being v●rie● is with them also varied.  
You arr hear then Michaeas' arraigned (as far as my memory may seaive to suggest; and if I do forget any thing, I hope your charitable friend, M. Vicechancelour, willbe my Remembrancer) of three several Offences.  
First, of diwlging and maintaining Positions of Disloyalty of the subject, against his Prince. Secondly, of spreading short Treatises in the University, containing diverse points of your own Romish Religion: Thirdly and lastly, of being a Priest, and exercising your Priestly function within this Realm.  
Touching the first, I can find no prouffs against you, but only M. Vicechancelour bare & naked assertion; to the which I have less reason to give so far credit, as to rudish you for the same; not only, because you do as peremptorily deny it, as he did confidently aver it; but also in that you made a voluntary and earnest protestation (in the name of yourself, & all other Priests and Catholics in England) of due allegiance to his Majesty: so whereas M. Vice Chancellor did thearein speak words, you did speak matter. Besides I should hold it no small oversight, to chastise you public for that presumed fault (though most weakly proved) with the which (if your formerrelations be therein true) our own Brethren do stand (in a far higher degree and measure (chargeable.  
Touching your Pryesthood and exercising of it in our Country (the great antiquity whereof, if you have truly discoursed of it, hath party awakened my Spirits) though you be much blame worthy in so doing; Yet I cannot but confess, that our Satuts made in that business, have particular reference to those Pryests only, which are borne in our Country, and not to Aliens or strangers, as you give yourself out to be: And therefore our Laws thearein cannot take any full hold of you.  
That third fault than it is, whereunto you lie more dangerously subject; Which is, touching the diwlging of your Treatises, and persuading others to your own Religion. The which, as it is prohibited by our Laws, for every urgent reasons (as begetting turbulence in our settled and quiet State) so the offenders thearein stand highly punishable. Nevertheless [Michaeas] since in the whole procedure of your Arraignment, you have showed great temperance in your deportment, and loyalty to our Sovereign; by the which we must conjecture the integrity and candour of your Mind (for though God do judge the words by the hart; yet Man must judge the hart by the words) since Old age, a Scholar, and a Stranger (even in all Countries) desearue special commiseration and pity. Finally, since he, who through any great offence committed, is dead in the Law, if after the rigour thereof be to him dispensed, is become the Child of Mearcy, enjoying (as it were) a second Birth; in which kind of dispencing with rigour, the Highest chiefly glorieth: 
u Psalm. 144.  Suaviss est Dominus, & miserationes eius super omnia opera eius. Therefore my sentence shallbe against you in the most gentle manner (yet with due consideration of all circumstances) And it shallbe this. You shall continue in this Nation, as long as yourself shall think good, enjoying your full liberty of body; so that hereafter you forbear all persuading of others to your own Religion, and do persever in your former obedience to his Majesty, you shall at the next Act or Commencment at Oxford, be ready there publykly (in the eye of that University) to defend your own doctrine, maintained in these your written Treatises; at what time M. Vicechancelour here (as being a Professed Divine) shallbe in those dispute, your chiefest opponent and Antagonist. And if any of our Doctors shall by writing impugn your said discourses, you shall give your faithful promise, to reply thereto. And lastly you shall pray for the welfare of his Majesty; under whose happy and clement government, your former Transgressions are so mildly chastised.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
My Lord. I willingly accept of the Disputation; Where I doubt not, but to lay open at full the superstition of that Man of sin. But what? Must in the mean time, Mich●as (a member of Antichrist) be freed from imprisonment, and pass thus unpunished? Must the Whore of Babylon be entertained among us (in her followers) no worse, than a chaste and inte●erate Virgin? Shall the words spoken in the Dragon's voice, be so prevailing, as to enchant the ears of the faithful with her pleasing (yet poisonous) music? Briefly, shall Heresy, Superstition, and Idolatry (the worst of all evil) endeavour among us (and that in our University) to take place in the Souls of Christians, with all impunity, and as exempt from control? If so; then come (O Lord of heaven) hasten thy approach; Overrun the earth with an irresistible prosternation of all Creatures: and reduce all things of their last Period and dissolution: for now it seems, the time is, that 
1 Ezech. 28. Apoc. 20.  Gog and Magog (the forces 
2 Vide August. l. 20. de civitate Dei cap. 11.  of Antichrist) are let loose, to cease upon the faithful (without any gainsaying or opposition) and to beget in man's soul, a giddy dissipation of all his intellectual powers.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour: 
x Horat.  Proijcis ampullas, & sesquipedalia verba. You mouth it over loudly, and use very turgent and swelling words, against us poor distressed Priests & Catholics: Whose shyeld, in the mean time is Patience: whose armour, our Confidence in God: and whose recrimination, rests in words of mildness and charity: 
y 1. Cor. 4.  Maledicimur, & benedicimus: blasphemamur, & obsecramus.  
But my very good Lord. To turn my speeches unto you: Touching this your sentence (how innocent soever I am) I do undergo it with all humbleness of mind, and without the least reluctation: for I have red: 
* Eccles 8.  Non iudices contra iudicem. And I embrace it the more willingly, since I hope, that by this means, the radiant and most shining Truth of the Catholic Doctrine in the former discussed Points, will in the fight of so noble and worthy an Auditory (as the famous University of Oxford is) more easily dispel the mist of all contrary Novelis 〈…〉 e.  
Touching my Loyal duty to his Majesty, my prayer is, (& this I speak, not in a Dialogizing and feigned manner: but plainly, sincerely, and seriously, in the sight of God and his Angels) God pres 〈…〉 we King Charles and his Royal Queen, with a prosperous and blessed Domination and government over this Nation: Grant to them the happiness, to branch themselves forth into many dis●ente and Progenyes, from generation to generation: And finally vouches 〈…〉 fe (most merciful God) that the greatness of this their temporal 〈…〉 ity may serve as a Type, or adumbration, to figure out their greater eternal Beautitude in the world to come. And thus with bended knee, and hart prostiated in all du 〈…〉 full humility, and with all remonstrance of thankfulness, for this your ●l 〈…〉 ency and mildness of judgement and sentence, I take my last fare well with your good Lordship.  VICECHANCELOUR. 
My Lord, must your former judgement pass unaltered? and must it not be accompanied with any chastisement at all?  L. CHEIFE-IUSTICE. 
M. Vicechancelour. Content yourself with my former sentence: It shall stand: 
z Math. 20.  an oculus ●uus nequam est, quia ego bonus sum? I hope, you will have advantage enough against him, in your future disputation: and it is more honour for you, to have the Victory over his Cause, then over his Person. And indeed, it is inhumanity to depress and weigh down a poor old Man and a stranger, with multiplicity of miseries: yourself is a Scholar: and therefore you are the ●ore to commiserate him, being a Scholar. And so with these my last words, both of you may depart from this bar, at your own pleasure.  VICE CHANCELLOR. 
My Lord. Since such is your resolution, I must rest satisfied therewith: and so I take my humble leave of your Lordship.  
As for you [Michaeas.] I will not take any formal farewell with you: because I hope according to my L. sentence delivered, I shall meet with you in our University this next Commencement: at what time, I will anatomize and dissect that Wh 〈…〉 re if Bab 〈…〉 lon, and strike her in her Master vey●e: and will (to your irreperable disgrace) display the falsehood and absurdities of all your former dispersed Popish doctryres; when your Auditor shall easily perceive, that you in your former writings, did much partake of the bird, that owed the wing, from which you borrowed your pen: And so till then, I bid you: A 〈…〉 eu.  MICHAEAS'. 
M. Vicechancelour. I do contemn these your Lucian and scoffing vaunts; unworthy to proceed from the mouth of a grave and learned Man. At the time apppointed, I mean to be present in your University: where I trust through the aid of him, whose cause I am then to maintain, to make good & justify all my former Catholic doctrines.  
Touching your malignant demeanour (for I can term it no better (against me, throughout the whole Process of this cavillous accusation; know you, that as all Christians in general, so Pryests and Catholics more peculiarly (of which number I am one) are bound to requite good for evil; imitating therein our Lord; who, Cum 
a 1. Petri. 2.  malediceretur, non maledicebat: cum pateretur, non comm●nebatur. Therefore in 
b 2. Thess. 3.  charitate Dei, & patientia Christi; I freely forgive you: and will afford you my daily Prayers for your Conversion, and saving of your Soul. And with this [M. Vicechancelour] until the time set down of our future disputation. I leave you.   
FINIS.  
GOD SAVE THE KING.   

THE CONCLUSION to the Academics of both the Universities.  
LEARNED and worthy Academics Now Michaeas (the Converted law) hath acted his last Scene; And new he hear pulleth off his vizard, under which in the former Dialogues he masked, and taketh his last farewell with you in the plain and natural Dialect of an 〈…〉 priest, the Author of the said Dialogues. You have hear perused the points discussed. It hath in the former Dialogues (I hope irrefragably (bone proved, that since the Apostles days even to Luther's revolt, Our Cathelicke faith without chan●e, hath even been professed; the protestāns faith hath never been professed What demonstration more choking? You also have seen, with what disadvantage diverse of your Professors (in regard of the most just retorting of it upon themself●) have in great waist and profusion of words, wrongfully & promiscuously charged all Catholics with the hateful Crime of Disloyaltye. Lastly, hear hath been laid open before you, (besides some 〈◊〉 discourses of certain Catholic doctrines) the venerable Antiquity of Priesthood; the like antiquity of the Sacerdotal 〈…〉 h 〈…〉 tie of remitting of sins in the Sacrament of Confession; and of celebrating the most reverend and incruent Sacrifice of the Mass: subjects against which, many Protestants so bitterly 〈…〉 both with tongue and pen.  
Now if God's 〈◊〉 W●●t, partly delivered in a prophetical spirit, and partly by our Saviour's 〈◊〉 and Apostles, touching the former points. If the uninterrupted practice of God's Church, answerable to those divine Oracles. If the learned Monuments of the Primative Fathers in the Church's Infancy, contesting (or rather, deposing) the same. If the Ecclesiastical Histories recording the events, sorting to all the former pro●ffs and authorityes. Finally, if your own brethren's free Confessions in their writings to their own irreperable prejudice) warranting the same, cannot induce many of you, to believe the truth of the Articles above discussed; then can I but despair of your bettering by perusing the former disputes; and can but commiserate your irremediable states in the words of the Prophet, spoken to Israel: 
a jeremy. c. 30.  Insanabilis ●ract 〈…〉 a, pessima p●●ga tua. but if you be such, as I have figured out to myself: Men professing Candour and ingenuity; thirsting after your own Salvation; desirous to embrace the Truth, once found out; and▪ chornin● any longer to live and implicit and blind assent (without further 〈◊〉 and search) to your grand Master's Theorems; then I am in good hope, that these my Labours may won some ground upon your judgements; and that you will make good in yourself that sentence of our Lord and Saviour: 
b Math. 〈◊〉.  justificata est sapientia a fill 〈…〉 suis. I will speak plainly unto you, because I affect you in true Christian Charity and pity it is, that such-transcendent Spirits should for ever perish. You are created to enjoy Eternity: Spurn there at those temporary illaqueations; whearwith the soul i accustomed to be detained from her chiefest Good. You are (through the force of Christ's Passion 〈…〉 borne Cohey●es to the Kingdom of God: Why then will you longer seed with the Prodicall Son, upon the husks of worldly delights and pleasures? say eich of you rather, with an ancient Father: 
d Terr. contra marcionem. l. 5.  Mihi ●amulo Create is, murd 〈…〉 us si non tamen Deus mundi; Et igo Mundo, non tamen Deo mundi. Pray with in ●●slant and fervorous ejaculations of spirit (by which means, he will no dowbt, of new become present to you, who at all times is 
* God is in every thing and place, per essentiam, potentiam, & g●ortam.  present) that his Divine Majesty would vouchsafe to remove from your eyes (as he did from the corporal eyes of the 
e Act. 91.  Apostle) the scales of partiality and prejudice in matters of faith: the most dangerous rock of the souls eternal naufrage.  
Do not still persever in up braiding the Catholics, with Superstition, Idolatry Antichristianisme relyinge on humane inventions, and disualewing of the most precious sufferings of our 〈◊〉 no. These are but our Adversaries impostures and Calumnies, forged to ensware the ignorant. For we all most willingly acknowledge, that the bloody wounds of a sinful soul are cured, only by the bloody passaves of Christ his Passion: thus we teach and believe, that blood hear stauncheth blood and Death (through overthrow of death) raise Men from death: 
f So saith the Catholic Church, in the office of the Holy Cross.  Mors ●ortua tunc est: in ligno quando mortua vita fuit.  
But to return more particularly to the former Dialogues. I do probably pre●age, that perhaps some one or other of your learned Professors will undertake to answer these my writings. Therefore let me premonish that man chiefly of three Things.  
First, that whereas there are in the three former discourses, almost a thousand Testimonies of all sorts of authorities, produced (some immediately, and others by necessary inferrence, proving the Catholics Points above treated of) That therefore he would not (forbearing in policy to answer the authorities) flee a new to the state of the question (being already acknowledged on all sides) and to other extravagancyes of discourse; and all, to with draw (by such subtle transitions) his Reader from the point issuable; which is, whether the former Con●rouer●ed Questions do receive their full prousse, from my alleged testimonies, or no 〈◊〉 Secondly, that whereas the greatest part of the above alleged authorities, are taken from the protestants Confessions and acknowledgements, (they mainly thereby wounding their own Religion) That the Replyar for the avoiding of the force of their authorities, would not seek to oppose other Protestants denying that, which they confess; since this Kind of euading●s most weak (as is intimated already in the second Dialogue) in that the Protestants alleged by me, are the most remarkable Protestants, that ever did write, and do confess to their own prejudice, and against the 〈◊〉; which they never would do, but that the evidency of the Truth enforceth them there to. Whereas thus others (which perhaps the Replyar may pro 〈…〉 ce) are Men of meaner rank, and speak in their own behalf; and therefore as compacted of impudence and boldness, their tongue's and pe 〈…〉 ns stand at all times ready charged, to speak and write by affirming of ching (thou 〈…〉 never so false) for the supporting of their own Cause. Thirdly and lastly, that in answering to the testimonies and Confessious, he would take them in order, as they lie, and not omit any; as otherwise hoping, that is regard of the multitude of the testimonies the sluggish yawning Reader would easily swallow such oversights of Omisions. For hear I advertise the Replyar a forehand: That presently upon the first coming out of his Answer, I will make a short Cathalogue of all the testimonies and Confessions omitted by him (if any such he) showing to what end the said Testimonies were particularly produced; And will cause this Cathalogue within few days after, atleast few weeks (for I will not stay for months) to be printed and d 〈…〉, for the present s 〈…〉 of the Readers thirst, till further opportunity be given for confuting of his answer at large▪ And thus I dowbt not, but the Sun of the Replyars same end worth, which may seem perhaps so gloriously to rise at the first appearance of his most learned answer (forsooth) within th' 〈…〉 time after (if any of the former premonished ●lei●hts and collusions be used thearein) willbe forced to set in a Cloud of his own disgrace and disreputation.  
Neither let that Man think, that the s 〈…〉 of his, Book with greek sentences, or the hailing in of certain mysapplyed and g 〈…〉 beaded Apotheges of some one or other old and outworn Philosoph●● (an Idiom peculiar to most Protestant Writers) must carry the ma●ter: But it must be a 〈…〉, and sincere coa●s of answering, which at this time can satisfy.  
But now (Celestina 〈…〉 Academics) taking my last leave of you all I will hear cease, but will never cease, to power out my daily prayers to the most Blessed and v●deuided, for your increase of all virtues; but particularly for true and orthodoxal faith; that ●o (you being grateful in the si●ht of the three divine Persons) God the Father, would vouchsafe you the Power, Christ his Mearcy, and the Holy-G 〈…〉 rection and spirit, for the 〈…〉 your souls with so 〈…〉 able a ●ewell: 
g Ter●. l. de Anim●.  Cut veritas comp. 〈◊〉 si●● 〈…〉 cognitus, 〈…〉 Christo ●cui Cr●●us exploratus, ●ine Spiritu Sancto? cui Spiritus, ●anctu▪ accomoda●us, sine si●ei Sacramento?  
Laus Deo, & Beat Virgini Maria.