we shall losse you so soone Only I would entreate you to haue in your discourses wheresoeuer you shall hereafter come a tender and gentill touch of the Protestant Church of all the true and constant members thereof And herewith Worthy Michaeas I take my last farewell MICHAEAS M. Doctour of your selfe I will euer speake answerably to your desarts Nobly and with great respect Since you are a Man whose barke is richly fraught with learning Morality And what defects haue bene committed by you in this dispute I do wholy ascribe them to your want of a good cause not to your want of good parts And if there haue bene any words misplaced by vs on eyther syde sâ—t the thought of them vanish away since they were spoken Antagonisticeâ— and in heaâ—e of disputation And so in all kindnes Christian charity I leaue you with this my aduise that you will not aduenture your saluation vpon your owne priuate conscience preferring it before the Iudgement and conscience of the vniuersall visible Catholicke Church As for you two fagotts of Hell-fire I grant my eyes euen sparkle forthâ—râ—ge in behoulding of you And I account contrary to the place of the burning bush the place wherin you stand to be cursed ground â—or since your Sunne is so fâ—rie of you I meane your excepted false Messias what can you looke but for a winter of could dispayre and damnation Therefore I will take leaue with you in the phraze of the Apostle to Elymas the Magitian and what greater Magicke then for one to be enchaâ—ted to beleiue that Christ is a seâ—ucer O you full of all subtilty and mischeife the Sonns of the Deuill enemyes of all iustice who cease not to peruert the right wayes of our Lord Adieu OCHINVS You enioy Michaeas the liberty of your Tongue but â—age you well NEVSERVS Let him go I will nor take leaue with him such opprobrious speeches he vseth against vs. OCHINVS Now M. Doctour Michaeas is gonne And now we haue the more freedome of speech among our selfs without feare of being ouerheard I know that not only yonder black-mouthd Michaeas but your selfe also rest much disedisyed at our abâ—enunciation of Christianity But M. Doctour come to the point We see the Prophecyes of the old Testament which must euer remayne sacred permanent and 〈…〉 uiolable do shew that the Church of God in the dayes of the Messias must euer be visible knowne and conspicuous and must in all ages without any intermission enioye a publicke and externall administration of the Word and Sacraments And this is abundantly confessed not only by vs all in the front of this our disputation but by all learned men whosoeuer We now notwithstanding such necessity therof cannot but confesse that the accomplishment of the sayd Prophecyes hath not bene effected in the Church of Christ at leâ—st in the Protestant Church how then can the Church of Christ be that true Church of the Messias which is so gloriously deliueaâ—ed with the penalls of the Prophets Now what other resultancy can be out of the premises then that the Church of Christ as wanting the fulfilling of the former diuine Oracles is not the true Church of God and consequently that Christ is the true Messias Sauiour of the World except we will grant which I neuer will the Papists Church as hauing by relation of Michaeas the Prophecies performed in it to be the sole Church of God Therefore so farre as toucheth my selfe I do renounce my former Christian fayth and will embrace the auncient Law of Moyses and as intending to be seruiceable to that Religion I will teach the doctrine of Circumcision and will instantly write a booke of the lawfulnes of Polygamie or plurality of Wyues aunciently practized by the â—ewes in the old Testament though now by Christians houlden as vnlawfull and altogether proâ—â—ibited NEVSERVS By the Lord of Heauen I cannot see how this difficulty can otherwyse be salued then either by denyinge the Gospell of the New Testament or by granting the Church of Rome to be the true Church which my Soule abhorrs to do For as concerning the perpetuall Visibility of the Protestant Church It cannot be made good notwistanding our great ventitation thereof afore in our Words And therefore it were honesty in vs now in the end to pull of our Visards through which wee spooke to Michaeas and plainly confese the truth herein And here M. D. to take a short view of all the discours passed and to examine it impartially a monge our selfs We cannot but obserue that the Exemples produced by you were most insufficient first because they were no Protestants at all Secondly in that admitting them for Protestants they but only serue as Michaeas well noted to iustify the Visibility of Protestants only for those tymes neither you nor wee being able to produce but only for for me sake any one confessed Example of Protestancy for the space of six hundred yeers at the least Againe when Ochinus and my selfe perceaued that no true instances of Protestancy could be giuen I grant we vsed diuers euasions and inflexious to and froe and all for the sauing of our Churches honour As first to pretend though God knowes a silly pretence that all Relations and testimonyes of Protestants in former ages were by the Popes industry and tyranny vtterly extinct That fayling then we made show for in our priuat iudgments we could not really thinke it That the Protestants in former tymes were forced to lye secret and latent in regard of the supposed then raging Persecution That playne answere not seruinge then we thought good to inuolue and roule our said euasion touchinge Persecution in a certaine obscure and darke sentence to wit That the Church was in the Papacy the Papacy in the Church and yet the Church was not the Papacy a forme of words as Michâ—as truly â—â—id forged by vs Protestants only to cast a â—yst in the eyes of the vnlearned The next we fled for our surest but indeed sham full refuge vnto the Scripture pretending our Church to be consonant to it and therefore euer visible a cours which indifferently lyeth open to euery Heretyke After all which if you remember M. D. your selfe did politikly touch vpoÌ„ that opinion though not with any greate approbation of it which for sauing our Church from it vtter ruine teacheth that the Papists Church and Ours are all one But did you marke how Michaeas neuer ceased till he had ferretted vs out of all our former Connyhoales be in the end irrephably and choakingly prouing from our owne learned Mens penns the mayne question now controuerted among vs Now M. D. seeing I am irrefragably resolued not to admit the Papists Church for the true Church though perhapps it hath enioyed the fulfilling of the forementioned Prophecyes I do therefore conspyre in iudgment herein with Ochinus and ame determined to haue this Country from whence I will retyre myselfe into the Palatinate where
they alleadge any one Orthodoxall Father of the Primitiue Church a circumstance much to be considered and insisted vpon interpreting such your testimonies in your construction And thus farre of this point where for greater expedition I do but skimme the matter ouer D. WHITAKERS I do not much prize the authorities of the ancient Fathers in interpreting the Scripture And furthermore you are to conceiue that seing the scripture hath not viâ—am vocem which we may heare Therefore we are to vse certaine meanes by the which we may finde out which is the sence and construction of the scripture For to seeke it without meanes is meerely ' enthysiasticòn et Anabaptisticum Now the meanes according to my iudgment and M. Doctour Reinolds are these following The reading of the scriptures the conference of places the weighing of the circumstances of the Text Skill in tongues diligence prayer and the like And who hath these and accordingly practiseth them is assured of finding the true and vndoubted meaning of the most difficult passages of the scripture and thereby is able to determine any controuersies in Religion CARD BELLARM. I do grant that these are good humane meanes for the searching out of the intended sence of the scripture But I will neuer yeild them to be infallible as here you intimate theÌ„ to be since this is not only impugned by experience of Luther and Caluin who would no doubt equally vaunt of their enioying these meanes and yet irreconcileably differ in the construction of the words of our Sauiour touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist but also it is most contrary to your owne assertion deliuered in one of your bookes euen against my selfe where you write of the vncertainty and perhaps falshood of these Meanes in this manner obserue what the meanes are such of necessity must the interprteation be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of scripture are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therefore it cannot otherwise fall out but that the interpretation must be vncertayne and if vncertaine then may it be false Thus you M. Doctonr and if I haue in any sort depraued your words then here challenge me for the same Now what say you to this Can it possible be that your selfe should thus crosse your selfe Or may it be imagined that your penne at vnawares did drop downe so fowle a blot of contradictioÌ„ O God forbid The ouersight were too greate Therefore we will charitably reconcile all and say that D. Whitakers Bellarmines aduersary in writing hath only contradicted the learned D. Whitakers cheife ornament of Cambridge But enough of this point from whence the weakenesse of this your last refuge to only scripture is sufficiently layd open MICHEAS I grant I am not conuersant in the authorities of the New Testament as they haue reference to the controuerted points of these dayes since my cheife labour hath beene employed in diligently reading the Law and the Prophets neuerthelesse I am acertayned M. Doctour that seuerall passages of the said Law and Prophets in a plaine and ingenuous construction do greatly fortify some Opinions defended by the Church of Rome I will insist for greater compendiousnes in two opinions taught as I am informed by the sayd Church within which two many other controuersies if not all are implicitl infolded The first is touching the euer Visibility of the Church in the time of the Messiâ—s Now what can be more irrefragably prooued then this article out of those words of the Psalmist He placed his Tabernacle in the Sunne As also out of that passage of Daniell Akingdome which shall not be dissipated for euer and his kingdome shall not be deliuered to an other people Agayne out of the Prophet Esay A Mountaine prepared in the top of Mountaines and exalted aboue Hills And finally more out of Esay Her Sunne shall not be set nor her Moone hid In all which predictions by the words Tabernacle a Kingdome a Mountaine her Sunne is vnderstood the Church in the time of the Messias according to the expositions of all our learned Iewes and Rabbins interpreting and commenting the sayd Prophesies The second article may be the Controuersie touching Free-will which I heare is mainteined by the Church of Rome but denyed by the Protestants within which question diuers others to wit of Predestination Reprobation the keeping of the Commandements Works c. are potentially included Now how euidently is Free-will prooued out of the writings of the Old Testament And first may occurre that of Ecclesiasticus He hath set Water and fire before thee stretch forth thy hand to whether thou wilt Before man is life death good and euill what liketh him shal be giuen him what more conuincing D. WHITAKERS Micheas I make smale accoumpt of that place of Ecclesiasticus neither will I beleeue the freedome of Mans will although he should affirme it a hundred times ouer that before man were life and death MICHEAS I did not expect M. Doctour that you should expunge out of the Canon of Scripture any part of the Old Testament but since you discanon this booke I will alleadge other places which were euer acknowledged for the sacred word of God by vs Iewes and to pretermit that text in Genefis of Caine hauing liberty ouer sinne as a place strangely detorted by some and diuers other texts in the old Testament proouing the same What say you of the like passage in Deuteronomy I call heauen and earth in record this day against you that I haue set before you life and death c. choose therefore life Where you see the very point of which you are so diffideÌ„t is ingeminated and reinforced Thus M. Doctour you see how much these sacred Testimonies do wound you herein as also do diuers other passages by me here omitted euicting Mans Free-Will though all of them haue bene accordingly interpreted by all ancient Iews and Rabbins as more fully you may see in Galatinus D. VVHITAKERS Touching your testimonies produced out of the old Testament and interpreted in the Papists sence by your owne Iewish Rabbins as witnesseth Galatinus take this for my answere I do not regard or neede your Galatinns neither do I rely vpon the testimonies of the Hebrewes And further knowe you both that it is as cleare that the scripture maketh for vs who are the Professours of the Ghosple as it is cleare that the Sunne shineth in his brightest Meridian Since we Protestants are d the little flocke we haue the vnction from the Holy one and can cry Abba Pater from all which the Papists are wholy excluded And this is sufficient to ouerthrow the proudest Romanist breathing CARD BELLARM. Sweete Iesus that thinges sacred should be thus prophaned and that the words of the scripture should be thus detorted from the intended sence of the scripture when all proofes whatsoeuer from the vninterrupted practise of Gods Church from the ioynt and most frequent
contrary to the necessary Visibility of Gods true Church proued out of the Scriptures acknowledged by their owne learned Brethren their owne Church to haue beene wholy latent and inuisible or rather wholy extinct and annihilated for so many ages together But this we must asâ—rybe O God to thy holy permission who as thou suffered in the tyme of the Old TestameÌ„t thyne Enemyes to sheath their swords in their brethrens sydes so heare thoâ— permiteest for the greater honour of thy Church so many learned Protestants euen with wounderfull admiration sweete Iesus deadly to wounde their owne Church fayth and Religion with their owne penns D. REYNOLDS Forbeare Michaeas these woundering Interiections the accustomed Dialect of an vngouerned Passion I grant these learned Protestants aboue alledged were of this opinion Notwithstanding to confront their authorityes there may be found many others as learned and iudicious Protestants as these are who absolutly mantayne the Visibility of their Church for all ages And I see no reason but that the sentences and iudgemeÌ„ts of these other should preponderate and weighe equally with the iudgements of the former Protestants by you alledged MICHAEAS You must pardon me M. Doctour if I wounder at things so strangly and vnexpectedly fauling out But to your solution I say it is most defectiue for seuerall reasons First because it mainly crosseth the method agreed vpon amonge vs in the beginninge of our discourse where you tyed your selfe irrephâ—ably to stand to the iudgments and confession of your owne learned Men. Againe though you can bringe other Protestants of as greate eminency for learninge as these by me obiected yet except you and the said Protestants will insist in true and confessed Instances of Protestancy for euery seuerall age which is impossible for you to performe your and their asseuerations are to be reputed but naked verball and inauayleable Lastly and principally your Replye is insufficient Becaus I heare alledge Protestants confessinge the Inuisibility of their owne Church to their owne mighty preiudice and the Catholycks greate aduantage And therefore it must needs be that the racke of Truth forced them being otherwyse ingenuous learned and iudicious to all such Confessions Whereas such Protestants as may be brought to gainsay and contradict the former Confession as being men of more spatious and large Consciences do spake in their owne cause and behalf and therefore as being ready pressed to auere any thinge how false soeuer for the safery of their Church are deseruedly to be reputed in their wrytings more partiall So as in this case the Words of Tertullian may iustly take place Magis fides prouâ— est in aduersus sometâ—psos confitentâ—â— quam pro 〈◊〉 â—egantes NEVSERVS I lyke well Michaeas the reason of your disparity geuen touching some Protestants confessing against themselfs and others affirming the contrary to their owne aduantage OCHINVS The difference set downe by you is most foreible for no doubte the open Confession of one learned Aduersary is to ouerballance twenty denying the same euen for that peculiar reason aboue mentioned D. REYNOLDS Michaeas Suppose for the tyme that we could not proue our Churches perpetuali Visibility yet seinge you are not able if you were pressed thereto to iustify and make good the Visibility of your owne Roman Church during all the ages since the Apostles dayes Therefore looke into what danger through our confessed Inuisibility we may be presumed to tune within the same we may justly includ you And thus you owne argument rebucts vpon your selfe MICHAEAS Heare I see M. D. that for meare want of positiue arguments to support your owne Church you are lastly fled to picke quarrells at our Church as if it were a iustification of yourselfs that wee Catholycks did labour with your infirmities lyke men who reioyce to haue compartuers in misery But to your point vrged say it is impertinent to the whole drift of our dispute which was only touching the want of Visibility in the Protestant Church which alone to proue was by me vndertaken the visibilitye of the Catholycke Church comminge in incidently lyke as a discours of vice doth often in the End biget some specches of Vertue our Contrary being thus brought to our remembrance by meanes of the other Contrary But because M. D. you shall discouer no tergiuersation in vs herein and that here to entreate of the continuall Visibility of our Catholycke Church violateth our former imposed method Therefore I will pawne my credit that there shal be left with you certaine prouffs conâ—ayninge the expresse and confessed Visibility of our Roman Church from the Apostles to these dayes And this by the acknowledgment of sundry learned Protestants though heare by the way I must tell you that the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church during so many former Ages doth potentially and vertually include the proufe of the Visibility of our Roman Church during the said ages Seing the Inuisibility of your Church for so longe a tyme is ascribed by you Protestants as appeareth by many of the former Protestants testimonyes to be the worke of Antichtist you meaninge thereby the Pope and the Church of Rome therefore it ineuitably followeth from your owne Primisses that Popes and the Church of Rome haue euer beene visible during all the said former Ages and Centuryes OCHINVS Newserus I would haue a word or two with you in priuate therefore if it please you let vs walke a little a part NEVSERVS I am willingthereto go into the next roome and I will follow you OCHINVS You see here Neuserus how this Question of the Protestant Churches visibility hath bene discussed and argued And I must consesse that Michaeas hath euen in replicably demonstrated that the Protestant Church hath at least for many ages bene inuisible or rather extinct you see also how royatous and abounding the old Testamentâ—s in prophecyes and other testimonies that the Church in the daye of the true Messias shal be at all cyâ—res most conspicuous and visible Therefore what resteth but that eyther we must reiect the old Testament which I neuer will do for falsly prophetying of the state of the Church Or els we must denye that these tymes of the new Testament are the tymes of Grace that the Church erected by Christ and his Apostles as wanting the accomplishment of the foresayd predictions is the true Church which later poynt I hould to be more probable NEVSERVS You haue preuented me Ochinus in tyme of speaking but not in iudgment For to confesse the truth after I had obserued the weaknes of the Instances alledged though alledged by the Doctour with as much Scholarlike Art and aduantage as might be my houering thoughts transported my iudgment to this your Center Which though it be enuironed with difficultyes yet I hould it the more safe way with you since the one must necessarily be reiected as false and erroneous they so diametrically crossing one the other to retayne our former reuerence to
Bible vpoÌ„ that chapter o In huÌ„c locum p â—ranct 1. in epist Ioannis q See the marginall notes of the English bibles of anno 1576. In Esay 2. r Tract 2. in epist in Ioan. s Against the Rhemish Test in Eph. 4. t Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 249. u In Synops Papisin p. 71. x Contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260. y Against Heskins Sanders c p. 569. a Fulke vbisupra p. 536. In his answere to a contersayte Catholicke p. 11. c Propositions and principles disputed in the vniuerâ—ily of Geneua p. 845. d C. 72. e Iacob in his reasons tâ—ken out of Gods word p. 2â— f In his Synops p. 54. g Ierem. 33. h Esay 66. i Daniel 2. k Esay â—0 l Reg. 〈◊〉 m Daniel 9. n 2. Thâ—ss 2. o 12. p Hebrâ— 4â— 8. q In corpore doctrinae p. 530. r In his soueraigne remedy p. 17. s In 24. Mâ—chaeâ— t Vbi Chrysost u Epist 88. ad Esichium x l. 20. de ciuitat Deuâ— 19. y BullenleÌ„ger in his preface to his SermoÌ„s vpon the Apocalyps As also the Protestant Scâ—lio in his booke of the second comming of Christ fol. 21. z C. 4. a Against the Rhemish Testament in 2. Thessal 2. b Vbi supra c Vpon the Apocal. sol 200. d In â—aâ— analyt p. 368. e Homil. 30. â—in Mathâ—eum f L. de vnitate Eccle. g Homil. 4. in cap. 6. Ioan. h Contra faustum Manich. lib. 1. i Contra lit Precil 〈◊〉 2. c. 32. k Tract 1. in epist Ioannis l Tract 2. in epist Ioannis m Peter Martyr in Com. place in English part 2. pag. 594. saith The Iewes though they be kept in so great aduersity c. yet they hould stil their Religion n Se hereof Caelius Secundus Curio l. de amplit regnâ— Dei l. 1. p. 65. and the Century writers in the 4. chapter of euery Century p lib. â—de simplicit Praelat q Epist 1. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis r l. 4. de Baptism c. 2. s Institâ— 4. 1. sect 4. t in concil Theol. part 2. u in loc com edit 1561. c. de Ecclesia x Melan. vbi supra y in his Treatise of freewill p. z in his booke against Hosius p. 210. a in his booke of the visible Church b in his booke of Ecclesiast policy p. 126. c in his Epist annexed to his CommoÌ„ places printed in English p. 153. d l. 1. of the Church c. 10. p. 19. e vbi supra p. 21. Iesuitis in part 2. c. 3. g In his answere to a Popish Pamphlet p. 11. * D. Fulkde successione Eccles p. 89. h in Epist Euchar i loc tit de Iudaeis col 390. k In his suruey c. 〈◊〉 l Lib. 4. c. 14. m Orat. de S. Basil n Vir 〈…〉 c sol 156. d sol 132. e fol. 132. f fol. 128. h 116. i fol. 117. k so 1â—9 l ibidem m fo 132. n fol. 115. o fol. 117. p fol. 4. q fol. 138 139. r fol. 14â— s fol. 142. t fol. 14◠¶ Luther epist ad Argentinenses ¶ Touching the sentences alledged in this passage out of Luthers writings the Reader is to obserue percisly the editions of his bookes here quored seeing in some later editions diuers of his said testimonyes are for very shame wholy omitted left out x Luther in purgat quoruÌ„dam Aâ—ticul in episi ad Georgium spalatinuÌ„ y Art 30. z Conclus 15. in disput Lipsica cum Echio a In 1. part operum formula caÌ„tè loquendaÌ„ cap. de Sanct. cultuâ— b In resp ad art Colloq Montisâ— part alt in prefat c Luther in epist ad ad Bohemos d In his refutation Caeremoniarum Missae printed Magdâ—â— 1603. p. 118. e Loc. 7. com pag. â—â—6 f In loc â—om class 1. c. 37. p. 107. * 〈◊〉 Cor. â— g Sorelateth Zwinglius of Luther tom 2. in respons ad confut Lutheri fâ— 474. h Luth. in encherid praecum anni 1543. i Luth. in postill maiori Basili 〈…〉 apud Heruagium in enarrat Euang Dominicae Trinit k Contra Iacobum Latomum tom 2. Wittenberg latine edit anno 1551. l Zwinglius tom 2. in respons ad Confess Lutheri m In assert damnat per Leonem art 36. n Luth. deseruo arbitrio c. 32. o Luther in Confess Maiore in Caena Domini p Vide Concil part 2. q In epist theologie epist 60. r Luth. tom 2. l. de ministris Eccles institue 〈…〉 lis fol. 368. 369. â—id l. de abrog Missa priuata tom 2. fol. 249. lib. de captiuit Babilon c. de ordine s These be D. Couelis words in his defence of M. Hooker art 15. p. 101. t In hist Sacrament part altera fol. 14. u Luth. de seculari potest in tom 6. german x Luth. in tom 7. Wit tenberg fol. 327. y Luther praesai in epist Iacobi edit 4. Ienensi z Vpon the Apocalyps englished c. 1. serm 1. fo 2. a Tom. 3. Wittenberg in Psal 45. fol. 423. b In epist ad Galaâ— 1. tom 5. Wittenb of anno 1554. fol. 290. c Luth. in tom 2. WitteÌ„berg In assert damnat per Leonâ— decimum assert 34. d In ep ad fratres Inferioriâ— Germaniae e Luther vpon the Galat. englished in c. 2. And see Luther in his Sermons englished fol. 204. f Luther tom 1. Prop. 3. g In his Sermons englished p. 147. h Luth. ibid. pag. 276. i In his Apol. Cathol p. 42. k Lib. de Eccles contraâ— Bellarm. controuers 2. quaest 5. l In his Apolog. of the Church part 4. c 4. m In ep ann 36. ad Episc Hereford n In theolog Caluinist l. 2. fol. 130. o Tract de Eccles pag. 145. p Act. mon. pag. 190. q In his Treatise of Antichrist p. 40. r Act. Mon. p. 260. s Fox in Apocalyps c. 11. pag. 290. t In colloquijs Germ. c. de Antichristo u Act. mon. 230. Art 1. 2. x In epitom Cent. 15. p. 469. y Act. mon. printed 1596. pag. 391. z In his booke of the state of the Church pag. 418. a Fox vbi suprà b In his Annals of England printed 1591. p. 425. c Wicklef in postilla super 15. cap. Marci meÌ„tioneth all the seauen sacrameÌ„ts And in postilla super 1. Cor. cap. 1. he writeth as is here set downe d Wicklef serm de Assumpt Mariae e Wicklef de Eucharist c. 9. f In his Annals printed 1592. p. 426. g As witnesseth Oâ—iand CeÌ„t. 15. p. 457. h Cent. 6. 10. 11 c. p 459. aâ—t 43. i In ep ad Fredericum Miconium k Act mon. p 96. art 4. l Epitom hâ—st Cent. 9. 10. 11. aâ—t 4. m Tom. 3. c. 7 8. 9. n Osiander in epitom hist CeÌ„t. 9. 10. â—1 12. o Mâ—lancthon vbi supra p As witnesseth Sâ—ow vbi supra q In Chronol p. 119. r Melancthon vbi supra s Act. Mon. p. 95. t Ioan. â— u Act.
Apoc. 17 f That Ochinus vpon the not performance of the Prophecyes of the old testament in the Church of Christ denyed the Trinity taught Circumcision and became an absolute Apostata is witnessed by Zanchius the Protestant in his booke de tribus elohim printed 1594. l 5. c. 9. As also by CoÌ„radus Slussenb a Protestant in Theolog. Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 9. The tytle of which chapter in Sluffenberg is respontio ad Ochini blasphemiam And lastly the same is auerred by Beza in Polygam pag. 4. g That Neuserus through the want of the performance of the foresaid Prophecyes denyed our sauiour Christ reputed him a seducer turned Turke and was circuÌ„cized at Constantinople is witnessed by Osiander the Protestant Cent. 16. part 2. pag. 818. in these words Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis c. prolapsus est in Turcismum Consiantinopole circumcisus As also by Conradu Slussenberg in Theolog. Caluin lib. 1. art 2. fol. 9. in these words Adam Neuserus olim Heidelbergensis Ecclesia primarius Pastor ex Zwinglianisâ—â— per Arianismum ad Mahometismum progressus est h Ioan. 1. i Ioan. 1. k Esay 6. * Malacâ— cap. 4. l Act. 4. m See hereof the first part of the CoÌ„â—erted â—ew at the beginning n Bale in prefat act Rom poÌ„tific printed 1558. initio * Caluin l. descandalis extant iu tract Theolog printed 1597 pag. 111 vt supra dicitur o 2. Io. an 2. p Osiander cent 16. part 2. pag. 647. saith of Dauid George Vtebatur publico Vir Dei ministerio Basiâ—ienâ—i c. q See historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp 1568 published be the deuines of Basil r Conradus Slussenberg in Theolog. Caluin l 1. art 2. f. 9. Alemanus Bezae antea famiâ—iarissimâ—s â—irenuê° Caluinista Râ—ligioni Christianae longum valde dixiâ— factus est Apostata Iudaeus blasphemus s Sâ— writeth Beza in epist 65. p. 308. t Stancurus de mediatore fol. 38. u Epist Theol. 81. x In Paâ—aenesi y Lib 1. câ— 19 l 3. c. 3. 8. and in diuers other places thereof z Lib 1. de Theol. Caluin aâ—t 2. c. 9. a Cent. 16. p. 207. 208. 209. b Lib. de ratione interpretaÌ„di 〈◊〉 1 p. 62. 63. And Osiander in Cent. 16. who saith Sebastianus Castaleo vir asprimè doctus c dinguarum peritâ—ssimus c In the Preface of the great Latin Bible dedicated to King Edward the sixt d Oslander in epitom cent 16. p. 209. reporteth that Neuserus being turned Turke and circumcised at CoÌ„staÌ„tinople did write these words to one D. Gerlachius a Protestant Preacher at Tubinga from Constantinople e D. Reynolds in his censura libroruÌ„ Apocryphorum tom alter in the table of Contents set before there at the nuÌ„bers 161. 175. 176. defendeth against Bellarm Ochinus his book writteÌ„ against the Masse f Exod. 3. * Acts. c. 23. g Beza 〈◊〉 de Polygamia printed 1527. p. 4. saith of this point Pelygamiam nemo vnqua 〈…〉 callidius vel impuâ—entiâ—s defendit quam impurus ille Apostata Ochinus iâ— quibusdam D 〈…〉 h Adamus Neuserus Conc 〈…〉 natores inâ—â— Palatinat fiad suam 〈◊〉 dem perd xiâ— con â—tacta cum Sacerdotibus in Tur câ—a amicitia datiâ— atque acceptis vltro citroque literis Mahometanam religionem in Germania propagare 〈◊〉 ter conat 〈…〉 est In Colloquio priuato inter CatholicuÌ„ Pastorem Baduini Ministrum Coloniae Anno. 1591. p. 5â—â— i Beza in epist 1. p. 11. calleth Ochinus Arianorum â—â—aâ—dâ—sâ—â—nus sautor Poligâ—niae 〈◊〉 omniam Christianae religionis dogmatum irrisor k Beza de polygaâ—ia p 4. calleth Ochinus impurus Apostata as aboue is shewed in the margenâ— a Psal 4. b D. Fulke in his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholick p. 27. and in his Reioinder to Bristowes Reply p. 343. c In his coÌ„siderations of the Papists reasons p. 105. d Lib. de votis pag. 476. e In his preface vpon the New Testament dedicated to the Prince of Condy. f In his defence of the Answere to the Admonition p. 472. 473. g Melancthon in 1. Cor c. 3. h Tom. 2. Wittenberg anno 2551. de â—eruo arbitrio pag. â—34 i In his exposition of the Creed p. 307. k Vpon the Reuelations 〈◊〉 43. l M. Napper vbi supra p. 68. m Vbi supra p. 191. n In epist de abrog in vniuersum omnibus statut Ecclesiast o In his answere to a counterfeyte Catholicke p. 35. p Lib. de Votis pag. 477. q Pag. 13. r In his treatise of Antichr l. 2. c. 2. p. â—5 s Histor SacrameÌ„t lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 20. * Michaeas cap. 4. * D. Whitakers saith so l. coÌ„tra Duâ—aeum l. 3. p. 249. a Pag. 3. b Pag. 17. c Pag. 24. d Psalm 12. 1. Samuâ—l 22. Esay 1. 5. 6. Ezech. 22. besides others e Lib. de vnâ—tat Eccleâ— c. 12. f Math. g 1. Timoth 3. * Ierome aduers 〈…〉 ucâ—erean i Lib. coÌ„tra Eunomium k Orationes quinque in theolog l Lib. de Trinitate m Catecheses n Lib. 9. de Trinitate o In c. 1. ad Timot. p Contra Arian haeres 69. s Pag. 100. t Pag. 89. u Pag. 30. x Lib. de Haeres c. 23. 46. z Luther epist ad Bohem. lib de captiuit Babylon 〈…〉 de Euchar. 1 Athan. in Apolog. pro fulga 2 Ierom. lib. contra Pelag. 3 Ierom. lib. contra Vigilant 4 Austin lib. de Haeres c. 46. * Pag. 52. a Epist 244. b In tract de Eccles p. 124. c Pag. 54. d Pag. 56. e Pag. 56. f Illyr catal testium Vetir tom 2. printed 1597. pag. 872. Valla in his Apol. ad Eugenium Papam 4. PoÌ„tif prope finem h Pag. 57. sequentib i Pag. 58. k Pag. 59. 〈◊〉 Pag. 60. m Pag. 69. n Pag. 71. o Pag. 7â— * Pag. 78. l r Pag. 79. 80. * Pag. 81. 1 Cant. 24 del Paâ—ad That is O eternal light of that great man To whom our Lord did leaue the keyes which He did carye with wonderfull ioye 2 Cant. 2. dell Inferno 3 Cant. 19. dell Inferno 4 Cant. 22. del ' Inferno 5 Lib. 1. Seuilium EpistolaruÌ„ ad TalanaÌ„dum Cardinalem 6 Lib. 1. Inuectiuarum contra Medicum 7 Pag. 81. * Vide Fox in act Mon. speaking of this IoaÌ„neâ— de Rupe scissa * Pag. 81. t Pag. 82. u Pag. 91. x EpitoÌ„ Cent. 12. p. 309. y Cent. 12 col 1627. and 1638. a Pag 92. b Pag. 93. c Pag. 95. d Pag. 96. e pag. 96. f In his Relation of thestate of ReligioÌ„ vsed in the Westparts of the World in the last folâ—o but fiue g In their booke entituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensoum Ieremiae Patriarchae Constanâ—inâ—p de Augustana CoÌ„fession c. Wittenbergae Anno 1584. i Pag. 97. k Pag. 98. 99. 100. 〈◊〉 Pag. 102. m Pag. 103. n Pag. 110. a Act. 24. The Iewes
the Church of Rome since the Apostles dayes Which Position is indeed the iuncture without which the whole frame almost of all other Controuersies hang loose Doctour Whitakers vndertaks to proue the Contrary In whom rather then in any other Protestant I haue peculiarly and ex professo made choyce to personate all the speeches and arguments vsed to proue this supposed change in the Church of Rome principally because there is no Protestant wryter that I know who hath so much prosecuted this presumed change as Doctour Whitakers hath done as appeareth in his Bookes agaynst the Cardinall himselfe agaynst Father Campion that blessed Saint and cheifly against Duraeus where the Doctour vndertaketh to instance diuers examples of this imaginary Reuolt Yet here you are to conceaue that I haue not so dwelled in the only wrytings of Doctour Whitakers as that I neglect what other Protestants haue also written in maintenance of this change for I assure you I haue omitted nothing of Moment which I could fynd in their Bookes to be obiected in proofe thereof though Doctour Whitakers is introduced to deliuer or speake it And withall I haue made speciall references to their Books where such their sentences or authorities are to be found And yet learned Men notwithstanding all that which can be vrged by any of them in this behalfe sooner shall they prooue that the fixed starrs haue changed their postures situations in their Orbe then that Rome hath changed it fayth So true are those words of an auncient Father Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habere rectam fidem semper eam retinet What sentences authorities or instances of change Doctour Whitakers hath vsed in any of his Bookes by me alledged the same I haue set downe with citation of the Books and in a seuerall Character from that which he speaketh at large in the person of a Protestant and this to the end that the Reader may seuer the Doctours owne words from the words of a Protestant in generall In like sort what intemperate speeches euen loaded with malice and rancour the Doctourâ—seth â—seth against the Church of Rome are not by me forged and fathered vpon him But are especially those which are most virulent his owne words yet extant in his Bookes and accordingly they are printed in a different letter with the Latin words set in the margent So carefull I am not to wrong the Doctour by vniustly obtruding vpon him any scurrilous and vndecent Inuectiues or Pasquills The Conclusion consisteth in retorting that vpon our Aduersartes where with they here charge the Church of Rome I meane in demonstrating that it is the Protestant who hath made in fayth this change and innouation from the auncient fayth of the Apostles And thus by comparing these two contrary fayths doctrines together and the antiquity of the one and innouation of the other you shall find that errour is best knowne by truth as death is knowne bylife Now here your ingenuities are to suppose for the tyme that Cardinall Bellarmine and Doctour Whitakers are at this present liuing In like sort that the Cardinall hath read all bookes written either in Latin or English which are in this Dialogue alleadged Which like supposalls you are also to make in the other subsequent Dialogues touching the Persons in them produced as that they are now liuing and that they all liued at one tyme c. All which imaginations are fully iustifiable in the true methode of Dialogues since in this kind of writing the Persons you know are forged for the matter and not the matter for the Persons And thus much touching the first Dialogue Now to descend to the second Dialogue The subiect wherof is to demonstrate that the visibility of the Protestant Church cannot be iustifyed from the Primitiue Church much lesse from the Apostles dayes till Luthers reuolt And which is more that not any one Man during all that long Period of tyme nor Luther himselfe can be truly insisted vpon for a perfect absolute Protestant and such as the present Church of England can or will acknowledge to be a member of it Which point being once euicted How deadly it woundeth the Protestants may easily appeare in regard of the euer necessary and vndeniable visibility of Christs true Church whose expansion enlargment and vneclypsed radiancy at all tymes is much celebrated in Holy writ Her sunne shall not be set nor her Moone hid as will more fully appeare bereafter in it due place The interlocutours are the foresayd Michaeas the Iew Ochinus who first in King Edward the sixt his dayes did diseminate Protestancy at least seuer all points of Protestancy here lâ— England Doctour Reynolds of Oxford and Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelberg in the Palatinate Why Ochinus Neuserus are brought in as speakers in this Dialogue the Argument prefixed therto will show I haue presumed to incorporate most of what can be vrged for the visibility of the Protestant Church in Doctour Reynolds as a Man who was best able in his dayes to support his owne Church from ruyne And sutably herto the supposed place of this disputation is Oxford I haue in no sort wronged the Doctour whom I well know to haue bene a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall spheare to whom as being of good temperance in his writings in respect of his brother Doctour Whitakers I am vnwtlling to ascrybe too litle only I wish his fauorits had not ascrybed to him too much If any of you shall muse why in these Dialogues all the Protestants being otherwise presumed to be most learned do reply so sparingly eyther to Cardinall Bellarmyne or to Michaeas their answeres and arguments as here you shall find them to do you are to conceaue that it is agreed in the begining of the two first Dialogues among all the Interlocutours to stand indisputably to the freqrent Confessions of the learned Protestants vrged in behalfe of any poynt controuerted Now both the Cardinall and Michaeâ—s for the most part do auoyd the other Interlocutours reasons and instances by the contrary acknowledgments of diuers eminent Protestants as also do produce their owne arguments in defence of their Catholicke articles from the like acknowledgments of the learned Protestants speaking in those points agaynst themselues and in behalfe of the Catholickes Which method being chiefly houlden throughout these Dialogues how then can the Protestant Interlocutours continue any new reply agaynst the Caidinall or agaynst Michaeas But to reflect vpon the subiect of this second Dialogue And here I do auouch that to maintayne that Protestancy was euer before the breaking out of Luther though euen then it was not in it perfection is no lesse absurd in reason then to maintayne that the byrth of any thing can precede it conception and the effect the cause True it is that in diuers former ages there haue bene some secret and indeed blind Moules who working vnder the foundation of the Roman Church haue labored
Faith Secondly we will enquire and set downe the acknowledged continuance of that time during all which season the now present Faith of Rome hath continued That is how longe Papistry as you commonly tearme it hath bene publikly professed and taught throughout all Christendome Thirdly and lastly we will then take a view of the times betweene these two former seuerall times for these two times being once acknowliged on all sides to wit the time during which the Church of Rome confessedly kept her first Faith taught by the Apostles and the time during which the present Romane Faith hath continued from this day vpward it ineuitably followeth that this supposed change of Religion did either happen in the interstitium and meane time betweene the two former Periods of times or els that there hapened no such chang in Religion in the Church of Rome at all Now concerning the first of these times how long in the Protestants iudgements M. Doctour did the Church of Rome retayne without staine or alteration in any point of moment or Article of beliefe for that only is to be enquired the Faith first deseminated by the Apostles D. WHITAKERS I will confesse in all ingenuity that diuers of our owne learned Brethren do teach that Rome retained her purity of Fayth without any such alteration by you intimated till after the deaths of Optatus Epiphanius and Augustine which is during the space of foure hundred and forty yeares after Christ CARD BELLARMINE You say most truely and I do like your playnesse herein since he is truely politike espetially in matters of Religion which require all candour in theire menaging who is not politicke For wheras our Catholicke writers haue much insisted that Tertullian prouoked the Heretickes of his daies to the Succession of the Bishops of Rome your owne D. Fulke giueth this reason touching such his prouocation in these words The argument then drawne from Succession was good because the Church of Rome retained by Succession vntill Tettullians dates that Faith which it did first receaue from the Apostles To whose iudgment in this particular reason your selfe M. Doctour in your booke writen against me subscribs thus saying from hence we do vnderstaÌ„d why TertulliaÌ„ did appeale to those Churches to wit because the Churches did then hould the Apostolicall Doctrine by a perpetuall succession But to descend further in time touching the graunted preseruation of the Faith of Rome wheras in like manner some Chatholicke Authors haue alledged the same argumeÌ„t drawne from the Succession of Bishops by the example of Irenaeus Cyprian Optatus Hierome Vincentius Lyrinensis and Augustine all which Fathers most rested in the Succession of the Bishops of Rome still continued till their daies your foresaid D. Fulke answereth in behalfe of the sayd Fathers in this sort That these Fathers especially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that time as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles With whome accordeth D. lewell saying Aswell Augustine as also other godly Fathers rightly yealded reuerence to the Sea of Rome c. for the purity of Religion which was there preserued a loÌ„g time without spot To conclude Caluine himselfe euen in the same manner answereth the foresayd argument of Succession of Bishops in the Church of Romê insisted vpon by Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Augustine Optatus Epiphanius and others for thus Caluine speaketh Cùm extra controuersiam esset nihil à principio vsque ad aetâ—â—tem illam mutatum fuisse in doctrina c. Seing it was a Poynt out of Controuersy that nothing in doctrine froÌ„ the beginning to that very age was changed these holy Fathers did take that which they thought sufficient for the destroying of all new Errours to wit the doctrine constantly and with an vnanimous consent retayned euen from the Apostles dayes till their tymes Thus Caluine To these fromer I may alledge that Sentence out of D. Fulke saying The Popish Church c. departed from the Vniuersall Church of Christ long since Augustins departure out of this lyfe Thus he granting that till S. Augustins death the Church of Rome was the true Church so euident and clere we se it is that the Church of Rome neuer changed her Religion from the Apostles first Planting of it vntill the times of S. Augustin Epiphanius Optatus c. which was as is aboue sayd foure hundred and forty yeares after Christ Thus farre M. Doctor concerning the durance of the tymes euen by the Protestants frequent confessions that no change of fayth was made in the Church of Rome Tonching which poynt Irefere you for greater satisfaction to certaine quoted places of the aforesayed Fathers to wit of Hierome Ireâ—aeus Augustine Vincentius Lyrâ—neâ—sis Ambrose c. All which Fathers in their writings do constantly auerre that the Faith preached in their dayes in the Church of Rome was the true Fayth and consequently was neither then nor afore subiect to change or alteration Now all this being made thus euident it followeth according to our designed Method that we consider the number of those ages during the lenght of all which from this day vpwards the present Roman Fayth hath by the lyke Confession of the Learned Protestants bene generally taught Seing how long the Protestants bene generally taught Seing how long the Protestants do grant that the Church of Rome hath from this day contined in her present Faith so long it followeth by their owne implicit censures and most necessary inferences that the Church of Rome neuer altered her Fayth Therfore M. Doctour I would know of you what your learned Men do generally teach about the continuance and antiquity of our present Roman and Catholicke Religion D. WHITAKERS I will not deny but that our Doctours do ascrybe an antiquity to your Popish Fayth for a thousand yeares at least For first D. Humfry my worthy sy'mmachos cai symmy'stes shewing what Religion Augustine planted in England being sent by Gregory the Great then Pope of Rome who liued in the yeare 590 thus instanceth in the particular points of the then Roman Religion In Ecclesiam verò quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus Onus ceremoniarum c. what did Gregory and Angustine bringé into the Church They did bring a burden of Ceremonies They did bring in the Archiepiscopall Pall for the solemnization of the Masse They did bring in Purgatory c. the oblation of the Healthfull Oast and prayer for the dead c. Relicks Transubstantiation c. a new conscecratioÌ„ of Temples c. from all which what other thing is effected then the introducing of Indulgences Monachisme Papisme and the rest of the Chäos of Popish Superstition all this did Augustine the great Monke being instructed herein by Gregory the Monke bring to the English men Thus farre D. Humfry CARD BELLARM. Well then M. Doctour it clearely appeares by this that
of you the second time for all the Protestants do not precisely consent herein how longe do you thinke that the Church of Rome did continue in her Verginall state and Purity without any stayne in her Faith D. WHITAKERS I thinke that during the first six hundred yeares after Christ the Church was pure florishing and inuiolably taught and defended the Fayth deliuered by the Apostles During all which ages the Church of Christ in respect of truth in Faith and Religion was as I may say in the full assent of the wheele And although to speake by resemblance there are found euen many irregularities in the regular motions of the Heauens yet I am fully perswaded that for the space of the first six hundred yeares no annomalous exorbitancies of errours or superstition did accompany the heauenly preaching of the Ghosple in the Church of Christ CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour indeed part of what you here say are your owne words in your booke against D. Sanders and you deale more liberally herein then diuers of your Breehren by affording a hundred and fifty yeares more to the true Church then most of them will allow Now you granting the purity of Faith to continue in the Church of Rome for the space of the first six hundred yeares after Christ do withall implicitly and inferentially grant that no change of Faith was made in that Church within the compasse of the afore mentioned 160. yeares seeing the said 160. yeares are included within the first six hundred yeares as being part of them But to proceed further you are here M. Doctour to call to minde what your selfe at other times no doubt at vnawares haue writen I do finde to instance only in some two or three points that you affirme that Victor who liued anno 160. after Christ was the first that exercised iurisdictō vpon forraine Churches That not Cyprian only who liued anno 240. to vse your owne words but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in errour touching the Doctrine of good works as thinking so to pay the paine due to sinne to satisfy Gods iustice Finally that Leo who was Pope anno 440. to speake in your owne dialect was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome Are not all these your assertions M. Doctour D. WHITTAKERS I cannot but acknowledge them for mine since they are extant to be read in my owne bookes loath I am to be so vnnaturall as to disauow or abandon any issue begotten on my owne brayne CARD BELLARM. Marke well then M. Doctour my deduction If the Chucrh of Rome remayned in her purity of Fayth without any change for the first six hundred yeares for your owne confessiō aboue expressed is that the Church of Christ so long continued a chast and intemerate Spouse And if as your owne penne hath left it written the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy was taught by Victor the first The doctrine of Merit of Works was mainteyned by Cyprian generally by other Fathers of that age and to be short if Leo were a great Architect of the kingdome of Antichrist you meaning of our present Roman Religion all which said Fathers to wit Cyprian Victor Leo and the rest did liue diuers ages before the sixt age or Century to what time you extēd the purity of the Faith of the Church of Rome doth it not then ineuitably result out of your owne Premisses if al this be true as you affirme it is that the doctrin of the Popes Supremacy the doctrine of merit of workes and our Catholicke Doctrine generally taught by Antichrist as you tearme the Pope were no innouations but the same pure doctrines which the Apostles first plāted in the Church of Rome Se how your felfe through your owne inaduertēcy hath fortified the truth of that doctrine which your selfe did intende to ouerthrow And thus farre to show that their neuer was made any chāg of Fayth in the Church of Rome prooued from the distribution diuision of those two different times which by the learned Protestants acknowledgments do contayne the Periods of the Church of Rome her continuance in the true Fayth of the Publicke and generall Profession of our now present Romane Fayth D. WHITTAKERS My L. Cardinall Whereas you haue produced seuerall testimonies from our owne learned Protestāts who teach that in the second third fourth age after Christ such such an Article of the Papists Religion had it beginning It seemeth in my iudgment that these their authorities do more preiudice then aduantage your cause Since such testimonies if so you will stand to them do shew a beginning though most anciēt of those doctrines after the Apostles deaths and consequently a change of Faith in the Church of Rome For if you will admit the authorities of the Protestants granting the antiquities of the present Romish Religion in those former times you are also by force of reason to admit their like authorities in saying that at such tymes and not before those Articles were first taught for seing both these points are deliuered by the Protestants in one the same sentence or testimony why should the one part thereof be vrged for true and the other reiected as false MICHAEAS M. Doctour Here with my L. Cardinall and your owne good licence I am to make bould to put in a word or two This your reply M. Doctour by way of inference may seeme to lessen the antiqurty of our ancient Iewish Law and therfore I hold my selfe obliged to discouer the weakenes therof though not out of desire to entertaine any contestation with you Grant then that some miscreants or Heathen Writers as Enemies to the Law of Moyses affirme that the Religion of the Iewes had it beginning in the tyme of Esdras for example This their testimony may iustly be alleaged to prooue that our Iewish Law was as auncient at least as Esdras but it cannot be alleadged to prooue that our Law tooke it first beginning at that time only and not before in the dayes of Moyses Therefore in the Authorities of this Nature produced from our Aduersaries writinges we are to distinguish and seuer that which the Aduersaries granteth in the behalfe of vs from that which he affirmeth to his owne aduantage What he grāteth for vs against himselfe so farre we are to embrace his authority seing it may be presumed that ordinarliy no learned man would confesse any thing against himselfe his Religion but what the euidency of the truth therein enforceth him vnto and therefore one of the ancient Doctours of your Christian Church if I do remember his words in this respect said well I will strike the Aduersaryes with their owne weapons But what the Aduersary affirmeth in fauour of his owne cause and against vs their we are not to stand to his own authority since no man is to be a witnes in his owne behalfe and it well may be presumed that such his sentence
owne death Neither lastly if not any historiographer of the Iewish tymes did in their workes and writings giue the least touch therof But pardon me both of you for this my interrupting and I would intreat you to proceede further in this your learned discourse CARD BELLARM. I will satisfie your request but before I descend to any other argument I will annex to my former demonstration for I can tearme it no lesse drawne from the silence of Doctours in contradicting and Historiographers in relating any presumed innouations in the Church of Rome these ensuing Considerations 1 First we finde that the lesse iustifiable liues conuersatioÌ„ in manners of some few Popes were precisely regestred and recorded to all Posterity with intention perhaps to disgrace all Popes as if all Popes were to be represented in some one or other lesse vertuous Pope as all men are in Adam Now then this being most true can we probably thinke that the Historians of those ages being euer ready prepared to taxe the Personall vices of the Popes themselues who as you see were forced by this meanes to passe the Red sea of shame disgrace and obloquy all of them would be wholy silent in relating the greatest change in Religion that euer happened if any such chang had truly really bin effected 2 Secondly we all knowe that the Greeke Church hath bin for many ages emulous of the Church of Rome and therfore if the present Church of Rome had anciently made any Diuision or Scissure from the true Church of Christ the Grecians no doubt who then stood euer vpon the hight of Enâ—â—y the better presently to espy any arising aduantage against the church of Rome would haue bene most apt to recommend the memory of such a change in our church to all after ages in their Histories But no such records we finde in any of their writings Yea the Grecians are so far from that as that on the contrary side the present Church of Rome is able to specifie and note out of most ancient and approoued Authours the very times when the Grecians first introduced those particuler Opinions wherin at this day they dessint from our Roman and catholicke church I will insist for breuity in some few cheife examples First their deniall of Obedience to the Sea of Rome was begun by Iohn of Constantinople and was noted and writen against by Gregory the Great and Pelagius Their denial of the proceedings of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne tooke it beginning and at it first rysing was gainsaid and contradicted about the yeare 764. Their deniall of prayer for the dead was begun by Arius and impugned by Epiphanius l and Augustine Their bringing in of leauened bread by the Grecians in the celeberation of the Eucharist was first begun about the yeare 1053. as appeareth out of the writings of Leo the nynth and the Centurists Now can it be imagined that those being few in number could so precisely be contradicted writen against and left regestâ—ed to all posterity and yet this supposed change of the church of Rome consisteth in bringing in of far more Articles in number and of as great consequence should neuer be noted nor impunged by any one Doctour or Father nor recorded nor obserued by any one Historiographer the said Doctours Fathers Historiographers liuing in the very same ages wherin this supposed alteration is sayd to haue hapned By the same ground might Pythâ—goras well maintayne as in his books he attempted to do that the earth being in speciall motion of 24 houres our selues because we are carryed together with this reuolution cannot obserue that any such motion of the earth is 3 Thirdy we may call to mind that wheras the Ceremonies in the celeberation of the Masse were successiuely and at seuerall tymes added and first brought in by seuerall Popes So we finde accordingly that the Aduersaries of the present Church of Rome as willing to discouer our innouations though in the smalest matters for Malice is glade to take hould of the least aduantage and but in points of indifferency haue most diligently and painfully recorded them in their seuerall bookes written of this very subiect with all due circumstances both of the Popes introducing them and the tymes when they were introduced Here now I vrge If the Enemyes of the present Church of Rome being thus diligent and sollicitous in noting the beginning of eich Ceremony of the Masse all such Ceremonies being meerely accidentall to the Masse and without which the Masse may as truly and effectually be celebrated as with them If they I say could haue discouered any innouation in the maine Doctrine it selfe of the Masse as in the Doctrine of the Reall Presence the Sacrifice of Christs body there offered vp our Adoration of the Sacrament the Priests enioyned chastity for such his celebration would they haue bin silent therin or rather would they not haue loaded their books with the relation of all such innouations they consisting not in smale ceremonies but in most sublime and high dogmaticall points of Christian Religion If otherwise then belike our Aduersaries would haue vs to thinke that herin they resemble the Sunne which reuealeth the Terrestriall Globe being but of a litte quantity but concealeth the Celestiall which is of a far more spatious greatnes But to proceed and to conclude the force of this argument drawne from the impugning and recording of innouations in doctrine if this precise course by our Aduersaryes acknowledgments hath euer bin kept during all precedent ages without intermission in all matters confessed and out of controuersy betweene vs and the Protestants shall we dreame that it was so wholy neglected and forgotteÌ„ touching the supposed innouation of our Catholicke Doctrines as that such our cheife doctrines though first really brought in in those former tymes were neither at there first beginning impugned by any Doctours or Fathers of those ages nor recorded or mentioned by any one Ecclesiasticall Historiographer among so many of the same or later tymes But now to vndertake according to your desire Micheas an other argument You Protestants M. Doctour do affirme that this our present Roman Religion is Antichristian for so commonly most of you in your charitable language do stile it and that the Pope is the true Antichrist deciphered by the Apostle for his first introducing and defending of the sayd Religion and vpon this ground you teach that Papistry first came in when Antichrist first came in D. WHITAKERS We do so teach indeed For seing our mayne assertioÌ„ is that your Religion is Antichristian we cannot euen by the nature of Relatiues seuer and deuide so indissoluble companions they are the one from the other I meane Papistrie from Antichrist he being the Man who first did disseminate it and now the heade who cheifly principally and with all wicked molitions and machinations whatsoeuer maintayns it CARD BELLARM. You are M. Doctour it
Greeke word or phrase carieth with it a greater grace emphecy and force then the same in Latin or English will beare But this I euer auerre that to be ready vpon euery little occasion to prostitute or staule forth ones Greeke a disteÌ„perature peculiar to Protestants as if he tooke a pride in that he is skilfull in coniugating of typtò This man I say deserues to be verberated throughout all the moodes and tences of the word for such his folly This course being among all graue learned men iustly censured for an exploded vanity But now M. Doctour to descend to your reason touched aboue and drawne from the authority of the holy Scripture Here I say you haue taken your last Sanctuary not in that the Scripture maketh for you and against vs but that by this meanes you may the better reiect all other authorities though neuer so forcible reduce the triall of all coÌ„trouersies to your owne priuat Iudgments since you will acknowledge no other seÌ„ce of the scripture theÌ„ what the Genius of ProtestaÌ„cy doth vouchsafe to impose vpon the Letter thus by your faire pretended Glosse of the Scripture in this your last extremity you Protestants well reseÌ„ble that Man who being ready to fall thinketh not how to preuent the fall but how to fall in the fayrest and easiest place The like I say you do vnder the priuiledge of the reuealing spirit interpreting the Scripture the vaine fluctuating vncertainty of which Spirit to discouer though this place be not capable therof were indeed to cut in sunder the cheife Artery which giueth life to the huge Body of Heresie since once take away this Priuate Spirit Heresie is but like a dying laÌ„pe which hath no oyle to feede it Only I will here pronouÌ„ce that as some haue thus left written That must be good which Nero persecuteth so here I do iustify by the contrary that it must be euill and false which the Priuate Spirit affecteth and manteineth But let vs proceed herein further and dissect the veine of this your last most despayring tergiuersation First then wee are to call to minde that it hath euer beene the very countenance and eye of all innouation in religion to seeke to support it selfe by misapplyed and racked Texts of Scripture a practise so anciently vsed though in these later dayes it hath receaued more full groath as that it was obserued by Augustine Hierome Tertullian and finally by old Vincentius Lyrinensis who thus expressely writeth not only of his owne times but euen in a presaging spirit of our times An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimoniis vtantur Viuntur planè vehementer quidem Sed tantò magis cauendi suâ—â— Now this being so you are forced M. Doctour for your last retire and refuge to compart in practise with all ancient and moderne Hereticks Secondly the Scripture cannot prooue it selfe to be scripture and consequently it is not able to decide all controuersies which assertion of mine is warranted by your prime men M. Hooker thus teaching Of things necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes wee are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the scripture it selfe to teach And according hereto you Protestants do not agree which Bookes be Canonicall Scripture which Apocriphall For doth not Luther and diuers of the Lutherans recite as apocriphall the booke of Iob Ecclesiastes the Epistle of S. Iames the Epistle of Iude the secoÌ„d Epistle of Peter the secoÌ„d and third of Iohn and finally the Apocalipes All which bookes are neuerthelesse acknowledged by Caluin and the Caluenists for canonicall Scripture Thirdly euen of those bookes which all Protestants ioyntly receiue as Canonicall Scripture the Protestants doe coÌ„demne as most false and corrupt not only the present originals but also all Translations of the said bookes whether they be made in Greeke Latin or English as apeareth from the reciprocall condemnations of one anothers Translation for the more full discouery of which point I referre you M. Doctour to the perusing of a booke some few yeares since written by a Catholicke Priest and Doctour of diuinity entituled The Pseudoscripturists Fourthly the very text and letter of such bookes as you all acknowledg for Canonicall Scripture are more cleere for our Catholicke Faith and in that sence are expounded by the ancient Fathers then any the Countertexts are which you produce to impunge our doctrine For some tast I will exemplify the perspicuity of the letter in some few points And first for the Primacy of Peter we alleadge Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church c. expounded With vâ—by Augustine Hierome Cyprian others For the Reall Presence we insist in our Sauiours words This is my Body this is my Blood taken in our sense by Theophilact Chrysostome the Cyrils Ambrose and indeed by all the ancient Fathers without exception For Priests remitting of sinnes we vrge that whose sinnes you shall renut they are remitted vnto them and whose sinnes you shall reteine are reteyned which passage is interpreted in our Catholicke sence by Hierome Chrisostome Augustine and others For Necessity of Baptisme Except a a Man be borne againe of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of Heauen Of which our Catholicke exposition see Augustine Chrisostome Ambrose Hierome Cyprian c. For Iustification by works Do you see because of works a man is Iustisied and not by Faith only expounded with vs to omit all others for breuity by Augustine Lastly to auoid prolixitie for vnwritten Traditions we vsually alleadge those words of the Apostle Therefore Brethren hold the Traditions which you haue receiued either by steach or by Epistle interpreted with vs Catholicks by Damâ—scene Basill Chrysostome c. Thus farre for a â—ast herein in which Texts and diuers others omitted you are to note M. Doctour first that the Texts themselues are so plaine and literall that the very Thesis or Conclusion it selfe mantained by vs is conteined in the Words of the said Texts and therefore you Protestants are forced by way of answere commonly to expound those texts figuratiuely Secondly you are to be aduertised here that as we can produce many Fathers expounding these and other like places in our Catholicke sence so you are not able to alleadge any one approoued Father among so many interpreting but any one of the said passages of scripture in your Protestant Construction Thirdly and lastly you are to obserue that such texts as the Protestants vrge against these other Catholicke Articles defended by vs are nothing so literall plaine and naturall for their purpose but for the most part are vrged by them by way of inference and deduction which kinde of proofs is often false and sometimes but probable Neither can you or
mayne Heresies or Paradoxes wholy impugned gainsaid and contradicted both by Protestant and Catholicke For this Man in this respecte is to be styled rather an open Hereticke then a Protestant euen in the censure of the Protestants themselues Therefore to conclude this last obseruation Euen as when beasts of seueral Kyndes or species do coople together that which is ingendred is of a third Kinde diuers from them both So here that Religion or fayth which is as it were propagated from the mixture of contrary Religions must be a beliefe different from them al. These things being premised now M. Doctour or either of you two may begin to instance in Protestant Professours for euery age And I shall reply therto as my iudgment and reading wil best inable me OCHINVS I do like well of these your animaduertions and they are able in a cleare iudgement to fanne away imperfect and faulty instances from such as be true and perfect MICHAEAS Before any of you begin your discours of Instancing I must demand of you al as Cardinal Bellarmyne did in his late discours with D. Whitakers whether you wil be content to stand to the authority of your owne learned Brethren in al the following passages betweene vs D. REYNOLDS I here answere for vs al We will indisputably stand to our owne mens learned iudgmeÌ„ts And if you can conuince either our future examples or our cause in generall from our Protestants penns we yeald you the victory For I do hould with Osiander the Protestant that the Confession and testimony of an Aduersary is of greatest authority And therefore Peter Martyr truly saith surely among other testimonyes that is of greatest weight which is giuen by the Enemyes And D. Bancrofs to omit al other Protestants in this point confirmeth the same thus writing Let vs take hould of that which they haue granted you may be bould to build thereupon for a truth that they are so constrained to yeeld vnto Which kinde of proofe is no lesse warranted by the Auncient Fathers for Ireneus saith It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues And Nazianzen pronounceth thus hereof It is the greatest cuâ—ning and wisdome of speech to bynd the Aduersary with his owne words So full you see Michaeas I am in this point But now let vs come to the maine matter To produce instances of Protestancy shal be my peculiar Scene And that I may the better marshal and incampe as it were my examples thereby the more forcibly to inuade your iudgment I will begin with the later times of the Church and so ascend vpwards And first for these last threescore yeares the Gospell of Christ hath enioyed here in England to forbeare all other Countreyes it Visibility in it full Orbe all writers of these dayes and other Nations acknowledging no lesse Againe in K. Edward the sixt his time this worthy Man Ochinus here present backed with the like endeauours of the learned Peter Martyr did so plant our Protestant fayth in our Nation as that infinite most remarkable Professours thereof did instantly growne like roses after a long cold or tempest blooming forth through the heate of the Sunne with refeâ—erence of which Professours Ochinus may iustly apply to himselfe the words of Aenias Quorum pars magna fui MICHAEAS Concerning the Professours of Protestancy here in England since Queene Elizabeth came to the Crowne I easily grant they haue been most Visible as I gather out of your English Chronicles And thus I freely confesse that Protestancy hath continued in England some threescore and seauen yeares But where you say that Protestancy I meane as it comprehendeth all the Articles taught at this day for Protestancy and which necessarily concurre to the making of a perfect complete Protestant was fully taught and beleiued in K. Edward his dayes I absolutely deny OCHINVS Will you deny Michaeas so manifest a verity whereas myselfe was not only an eyewitnesse in those times but If I may speake in modesty a greate Cause thereof What will you not deny if you deny such illustrious Trueths and what hope can we haue of your bettering by this our disputation MICHAEAS Good Ochinus beare me not downe with astreame of vaunting words the refuse of speech but if you can with force of argument I peremptorily deny the former point and for iustifying this my deniall I wil recurre to the Communion Booke set out in K. Edwards time with the approbation and allowance as D. Doue a Protestant affirmeth of Peter Martyr your Cooperatour Which Booke we must presume in al reason was made according to the publike fayth of the King and the Realme established in those tymes and the rather considering that the said Communion Booke for it greater authority was warranted in the Kings time by Act of Parliament Now this Communion Booke or publicke Lyturgy of the fayth of England in those dayes being printed in folio by Edward Whit-church anno 1549. pertaketh in many points with our Roman Religion For it maketh speciall defence for Ceremonyes and prescribeth that the Eucharist shal be consecrated with the signe of the Crosse It commandeth consecration of the Water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse It alloweth of Chrisme as also of the Childs annoynting and Exorcisme In that booke mention is made of prayer for the dead and intercession and offering vp of our Prayers by Angells It deffendeth Baptisme giuen by Laypersons in time of necessity and the grace of that Sacrament as also Confirmation of children and strength giuen them thereby It mentioneth according to the custome vsed in tyme at Masse at this very day the Priests turning sometimes to the Altar and sometimes to the People It ordayneth that answerably yet to our Catholike custome Alleluya should be said from Easter to Trinity sunday It prescribeth the Priest blessing of the Bryde brydegroome with the signe of the Crosse It alloweth the Priests absolution of the sicke Penetent with these particular words By the authority committed vnto me I absolute thee of all thy sinns It mentioneth a speciall Confession of the sicke Penitent And lastly it commandeth the annoynting of the sicke Person which we Catholicks call the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction So little reason Ocbinus you see you haue to affirme that the Protestancy of the present Church of England is the same which was mantained and publikely established by King Edward OCHINVS Indeede I grant the Communion booke was then made by the consent of the Parliament but I instructed those with whom I conuersed to reiect those superstitions their confirmed D. REYNOLDS Well let that passe It auayleth not much whether Protestancy was here in England at those dayes or no since it is certaine it was then most fully dilated in many other Countryes by the late afore raysing vp of Luther who was miraculously sent by the Holy
Ghost to illuminate the world with the Trueth of the Ghospell and to discipate the clowds of the former Romish Errours And I am assured Michaeas you wil acknowledg Luther for a perfect Protestant in all points and consequently that the Protestant Church was in Luther his followers most conspicuous and Visible MICHAEAS I know most of our new Ghospellers trauayle with you M. D. on this child to wit that Luther did erect a perfect forme of Protestancy By the which we may learne that Affection is not only blind but also deafe so loath you Protestants are either to see or heare any thing against Luther herein Neuerthelesse I here auerre it is impossible to iustify Luther for a true Protestant I know also that himselfe thus vaunteth Christum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari where we may see it is an accustomed blemish of most Innouatours to become their owne Parasites NEVSERVS Strange Luther not a Protestant doth the Sunne shine Is the fier hot Doth the Sea ebb and flow As certaine as any of these so certaine Luther was a perfect and true Protestant He was the Sunne that did dispel in those dayes the mists of Antichristian darkenesse From his preaching and writings a â—ier of Christian zeale was inkindled in thousands of mens soules for the embrasing of the Ghospell of Christ And neuer did the torrent and inundation of superstition and Idolatry suffer a greater reflux a greater reflux and Ebb then in his life time MICHAEAS Rhetorically amplifyed Neuserus But it is the weight of Reason not a froath of empty words which sway the iudicious I grant that Luther did derogatize more articles of Innouation and Nouelisme now taught by Protestants then any one Man afore him did since the first plantation of Christianity yet that Luther was a perfect and articulate Protestant and such as the present Protestant Church with relation to the doctrine now taught by that Church may iustly truely acknowledg for a member thereof I eternally denye and do iustify my deniall out of his owne bookes so shall Luther prooue that Luther was no Protestant Now this I euict according to my former premonitions and cautions first because Luther did euer hould euen after his reuolt from the Church of Rome diuers Catholicke opinions or doctrines then and still now taught by the said Church Secondly in that Luther after his departure from the Church of Rome did mantayne diuers grosse errours or rather Heresies or rather blasphemies and for such at this day condemned both by Catholicks and Protestants So euident it will appeare that Luther was too weake a bulke to giue nurrishment to all those different plants which now do stile themselues Protestants And first touching seuerall Catholicke points euer beleiued defended by Luther euen to his last day these following may serue as Instances 1. First he euer maintayned the Reall Presence in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist as the world knoweth And his followers for their peculiar defence of this doctrine are styled Lutherans by Swinglins Caluin their party impugning the foresaid doctrine 2. Luther also defended Prayer to Saints of which point he thus wryteth De intercessione diuorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio iudico sanctos a nobis honorandos esse atque inuocandos 3. He also taught the doctrine of Euangelicall Counsells to wit that a man might do more then he is commanded as appeareth out of his Booke de assertionibus 4. The Doctrine of Purgatory he taught of which see tom 〈◊〉 Wittenberg in resolut de Indulgentijs And answerably to this ground he is confessed by Vrbanus Regius a Protestant to defend prayer for the Dead 5. Luther further taught and approued the vse of Images as Beza witnesseth 6. The indifferency of communion vnder one or both kindes contrary to the doctrine of the Protestants who place a necessity in both is allowed by Luther in these words quamuis pulcrum sit c. Although it were very seemely to vse both the species or formes in the blessed Eucharist though Christ commanded nothing herein as necessary yet it were better to follow peace c. then to contende about the formes 7. Touching the making of the signe of the Crosse vpon our foreheads Iohannes Creuelius a Lutheran thus witnesseth Cum imus cubitum â—iue surgimus electo cruce nos iuxta Lutheri aliorum piorumâ—â— institutionem signamus When we go to bedd or rise from thence we do signe our selues with the signe of the Crosse according to the aduice of Luther and other pious men And Iohannes Maulius Luthers scholler thus writeth of Luther respondet Lutherus signo crucis facto Deus me tuetitur Luther answereth at the making of the signe of the Crosse God defend me 8. Finally to omit diuers other points wherein Luther neuer dissented from the Church of Rome Luther euer mantained that the gouerment of the Church is Monarchical neither Aristocratical nor Popular of which point Luther thus writeth Cum Deus voluerit c. Seing God would haue one Catholicke Church throughout the whole World it was needful that one people imo vnum aliquem patrem istius vnius populi elegi yea some one father of this one people should be choosen ad quem suos posteros spectant totus orbis to whose care and his successours the whole World should belong And thus farre Gentlemen touching some tast to shew that Luther euen after his forsaking of the Catholicke and Roman Church did neuerthelesse still retaine and belieue diuers Catholicke doctrines and consequently was no no entire and perfect Protestant D. REYNOLDS I confesse indeede that Luther as appeareth by his owne writings did not reueale to the new World as I may tearme it all the Euangelical Trueth the fuller discouery of some parts thereof being reserued for our later dayes And though his owne Religion was not through want of beliefe of some Trueths perfectly good yet I am assured It is not by his pesitiuely mantayning of any one errour then in what he was nuzled by the Church of Rome in any sort euill MICHAEAS This your reply is impertinent for here the Question is only whether Luther in respest of his faith was such an absolute Protestant as at this day our Gospellers repute for a good sound Protestant Yet that you may see your owne errour otherwise in ouer highly preiudging of Luthers Religion I wil here particularize out of his owne writings and other Protestants relations certaine Heresies and blasphemies neuer by him after recaled and incompatible with saluation for modicum firmentum totam massam corrumpit which he did egurgitate out of his impure stomak From whence we may inferre that with lesse reason he may be vrged for a Protestant 1. And First I wil here alleadg his impious doctrine wherin he labored to cut and wound Christian Religion euen in it maister-veine touching the
Lyons And did professe as D. Humfrey affirmeth a kind of Monasticall life And finally labored to Pope Innocentius the third to haue their Order confirmed but could not preuayle as Vspergensis witnesseth in his Chronicle Secondly The Heresyes mantayned by VValdo and his followers are such as that you M. D. in regard of their defence of them cannot challenge them for Protestants For first they taught that maryed Persons mortally sinned in hauing the Act of Matrimony without hope of Procreation as testifyeth Illyricus the Protestant They also did hould all embracements marke this gotishe doctrine and things donne aboue the girdle as touching kissing words compression of the papps c. to be done in charity They further taught that neither Priests nor ciuill Magistrats being guilty of mortall sinne did enioy their dignity or were to be obeyed That Laymen and VVomen might consecrate and preach That Clergy Men ought to haue no possessions That men ought not to sweare in any case They went to the Catholicke Churches dissemblingly confessed communicated dissemblingly Finally to omit some others they condemned all Princes and Iudges And thus far M. D. and you two learned Men to proue that VValdo and his followers were no Protestants though it is not denyed but that some one poynt or other of protestancy they might mantaine and consequently that the example of them is defectiue to proue the Visibility of the Protestant Church in their dayes NEVSERVS But what say you Michaeas of the Albigenses and the rest aboue mentioned by M. Doctour Were not all they Protestants MICHAEAS I grant they are marshalled among Protestants by D. Fulke and D. Abbots But here M. D. you are either deceaued or which I thinke not intend to deceaue For here the Albigenses are brought for shew only of greater variety of dishes the better to furnish the table of Protestancy Whereas indeede they were of the same Sect with the Waldenses or rather the same Men according to the iudgments of D. Abbots and D. Fulke For D. Abbots thus writeth These Leonists or poore Men of Lyons and waldenses and Albigenses were the same Men but diuersly and vpon diuers occasions tearmed by the Romish Sinagogue And D. Fulke sayth the same in these words They are called the VValdenses by the vulgar Papists as also by others they are named the poore Men of Lyons Leonists Albigenses or by what other name it pleased the Sycophants of Antichrist Now these Albigenses be who they will eyther the same with the Waldenses or not as they mantayned some points of Protestancy so with all euen by the testimony of Osiander the Protestant they taught diuers execrable Heresyes The words of Osiander are these Albigensibus dogmata haec attribuuntur Duo esse principia Deum videlicet bonum Deum malum hoc est Diabolum c. These opinions are ascribed to the Albigenses That there are two Principles to wit a good God and a bad God which is the Deuill and who created all bodyes as the good God did all soules c. They do reiect Baptisme and they say to go to Churches and to pray in them is not profitable c. They condemne Mariage do allow as holy promiscuous concubitus al promiscuous lying togeather how wicked soeuer c. Thy deny the resurrectiō of the body that Christ was true Man Thus far Osander who also sayth The opinions of the Albigenses are absurd wicked hereticall finally tearmeth their spirits an Anabaptisticall furye And D. Cowper of Winchester maketh like mention of their absurd Heresyes A point so acknowledged that D. Iewell wholy disclaymeth from the Albigenses as Protestants saying thus plainly They be none of ours Touching the Apostolici or Henricians they are so far from beinge Protestants as that they are acknowledged for Heretyks by D Fulke D. Iewel and Osiander who reports their Heresyes But to proceed forward to other of your Examples Peter Bruis is censured for an Hereticke by Osiander and Hospinian who relates his Heresyes Almaricus his Heresies are reported by Osiander himselfe reiected for an Hereticke and not acknowledged for a Protestant by the said Osiander neyther by D. Iewell who speaking of the Albigenses the Apostolici and Almaricus saith as before they be none of ours And thus far Gentlemen touching the VValdenses the Albigenses the Apostolici or Henricians Peter Bruis and Almaricus D. REYNOLDS I see no reason but that we may be iustly distrustfull in giuing ouer much credit to the wryting of former tymes which charge the Waldenses Albigenses and the rest with the Heresyes by you recited And if such wrytings were eyther false in himselfs o◠but forged only through deceate and confederacy of their Enemyes then may the said Men well be reputed for true and perfect Protestants MICHAEAS If you M. D. be so diffident as that contrary to the iudgment of Osiander Hospinian and other Prtestants you will not beleiue the writings of former tymes charging Waldo and the rest in this passage or discourse mentioned with the Heresyes afore alleadged then what colour can you pretend why you should giue Credit to those Writings of the same tyme which affirme that the foresaid Men beleiued certaine Opinions of Protestancy And therefore it followeth by force of all Reason that such Writings affirming both the one and the other are eyther ioyntly to be beleiued and credited or ioyntly to be reiected as false and forged And the rather seing the Reporters of those tymes did impartially and indifferently recite and condemne all those opinions wherein the foresaid Hereticks dissented from the Church of Rome without any foreknowledge which of the said Opinions would eyther be approued or reiected by Men of this age So weake you see M. D. is this your Replye OCHINVS I am of iudgment that the VValdenses and the rest can 〈…〉 truly be reputed for Protestants in regard of the reasons alledged by you Michaas And I do hould that your last reply M. D. touching the vncertainty of the credit of those wrytings charging the VValdenses and all the other with Heresyes is most firmely auoyded by Michaas NEVSERVS I am of the same iudgement with Ocbinus herein And the truth is we do much wrong the honour of our Church by pretending such vnworthy Men for members thereof But proceede M. D. to higher tymes D. REYNOLDS In the precedent ages to these former if credit may be giuen to authenticall Historyes there were not only many Protestants but euen seuerall Bookes then written in defence of the Protestant Religion As the Authour of the Booke written against Images in the name of Carolus Magnus Bertram Vlrick Berengarius c. All or any of which to denye to haue bene Protestants were to infringe all authority of Ecclesiasticall History MICHAEAS There are not any of these you haue named as much I may
say as of the halfeblood to a Protestant so little affinity there is betweene the Protestants Religion and these Mens religion I grant that some Protestants and these but very few and of meane esteeme do instance through their security of better examples in these your mentioned men but how coldy and weakly we will now discouer And first touching the Booke written against Images in the name of Carolus Magnus I say first that booke concerneth only but one point of Religion and consequently it can giue no proofe of Protestancy in those dayes Secondly I auer that it was forged by some Heretike that denyed the doctrine of Images perhapps in those dayes but neuer made or allowed by Carolus Magnus This I prooue first because Carolus Magnus was wholy addicted and deuoted to the Church of Rome and it fayth in generall And therefore the lesse probable it is that he should wrâ—t or suffer to be written in his name any booke inpugning but any one point of that Religion I will relate the words of Hospinian the Protestant touching his affection to the Catholicke fayth Thus be sayth Carolus Magnus nonsolum publicis edictis c. Charles the Great did not only command by publike Edicts that the Ceremonyes rites the Latin Masse of the Church of Rome and other decresse and Instituts of the Pope of Rome should be obserued through out the whole Empyre but also himselfe did force the Churches to these obseruations vnder payne of impresonments and other kinds of punishments with whom also conspireth in iudgment herein Crispinus M. Cowper and Osiander Secondly in that it is acknowledged by learned writers that Carolus Magnus was an enemy to those who impugned Images For Paulus Aemilius witnesseth that Carolus did send twelue Bishops vnto a Councel houlden at Rome vnder Pope Steuen in confutation of the errour of the Grecians against Images The same doctrine of Images as defended by Carolus is further confessed by the Centurists D. Cowper and by Ioannes Aurelianensis who liued in the tyme of Carolus Magnus Thirdly and lastly there are suspicious of the forgery of that Booke For it appeareth out of the booke of Pope Adrian to Carolus Magnus which booke was purposely written against that booke diuulged in Carolus his name that the said booke was then written by some secret enemy of Images a point so euident that Caluin intimateth the vncertainty of the Authour of that Booke thus saying Eâ—tat refutatorius liber sub Caroli Magni nomine c. There is extant a booke of refutation vnder the name of Carolus Magnus which we may easily gather to be made about that tyme so doubtfully and irresolutly Calum writeth of the authour of that Booke Touching the supposed booke of Beriram written de Corpore Sanguine Domine and dedicated to Charle the Bawld as said to impugne the doctrine of the Reall Presence in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Which booke some thinke to haue bene forged by Oeculampadius in the name of Bertram I say M. D. first this booke writeth so doubtfully and intricatly of the Reall Presence vsing the words figure spirituall and Mystery with such qualifications as that no strong Argument against the Reall Presence can be drawne from thence yea which is more this booke so much fauoreth the Reall Presence as that the Centurists do thus censure of it Transubstantiationis semina habet Bertramus The booke of Bertram hath in it the seedes of Transubstantiation Secondly the Catholicke wryters of those tymes as Hospinian relateth at large did honour Bertram as a holy Martyr of the Catholicke Church How then is it probable that Bertram should wryte a booke against one of the cheifest Articles defended beleiued by the said Church Thus far of Bertram Touching Vlricke who was Bishop of Augusta who is vrged for a Protestant in that it is supposed he should wryte an Epistle to Pope Nicolas in behalfe of Priests Mariage and printed lately at Basill We reply that by force of all Reason this Epistle is but forged by some enemy of the Roman Church in his name and was written diuers yeares after Pope Nicolas was dead or before that Vlrick was borne For as Onuphrius writeth Pope Nicolas the first to whom it is supposed Vlrick should write was elected Pope anno 858. enioying the same nyne yeares and two months dyed anno 867. Whereas Vlrick was not made Bishop of Augusta till anno 924. Which was after the death of Pope Nicolas And he contemning Bishop fifty yeares dyed anno 973. Of which point we may reade Vspergensis Cytraeus Pantaleon D. REYNOLDS But what say you Michaeas touching Burengarius I hope it cannot be denyed but that he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation MICHAEAS I come to Burengarius who liued anno 1051. and was Archdeacon of Angiers who is challenged for a Protestant for his deniall of Transubstantiation in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist I answere first It is true that for a time he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation yet afterwards he recanted his Heresy therein and dyed most Catholicke in that Article Secondly I answere that this Heretick-Catholicke Berengarius did hould diuers errours euen in the iudgment of Oecolampadius the Protestant who thus writeth of him Berengarius non nulla affirmat aduersus Baptismum parnulorum coniugium Berengarius affirmeth diuers things against the Baptisme of Infants and Marriage And againe Damnata est Berengarij Opinio Sacerdotio Christiano parum minus tribuens The Opinion of Berengarius is condemned which ascribed ouer little to Christian Priesthood Also Papir Masson in his Annals of France writeth that Berengarius and his followers denyed the grace of Baptisme denyed that men committing mortall sinne could euer obtaine Pardon and further that Berengarius was an enemy to Mariage Thus much of Berengarius his owne and his followers Heresyes though himselfe before his death according to the iudgment of certaine Catholicke Writers recanted his Heresyes But M. D. and you Gentlemen I will conclude this passage with recurring to one obseruation aboue set downe suppose therefore for the tyme that these former bookes were doubtfull but truly penned by the Authours vnder whose name they go suppose also that Berengarius had neuer recanted his heresy in denying of Transubstantiation suppose finally that you may alledge diuers other sectaryes houlding this or that point of Protestancy yet what can all this conuince It can neuer proue any Visibility of the Protestant Church seeing all these thus admitted are but the Examples of one or other priuate Man who was originally Catholicke and after embraced some one or two points of Protestancy still remayning in all other articles wholy Catholicke And therefore I much commend the Ingenuity of D. Fulke herein who foreseing the impertinency of these Examples of Bertram Berergarius and those others reiecteth them in these
serue only to bleare for the tyme the impenetrating and weake eyes of the ignorant do in the closure of all both by certaine necessary inferences as also in playne and expresse tearmes grant the point here controuerted to wit that the Protestant Church hath for many ages togeather bene wholy inuisible and not knowne to any one man liuing or rather that during such said ages it hath bene vtterly ouerthrowne destroyed and as it were annihilated and no such Church in being The proofe of which point shal be the subiect of this passage This point then is prooued two wayes and both from the penns of the Protestants First from their acknowledged want of succession of Pastours and of their like defect of sending by ordinary Calling Secondly from their manifest open complaints of their Churches inuisibility for former ages in expresse words or rather of it vtter extinction Nullity And as touching the first It is euident euen in reason it selfe that that Church which wanteth succession of Pastours ordinary Calling if any such Church could be must needes be inuisible at least at that tyme when such want is And the reason hereof is because this want necessarily presupposeth that there were not in that supposed Church any former Predecessours or Pastours at all which could conferre authority or calling to the succeding Pastours or Preachers But where no Pastours are there are no sheepe for it is written how shall they heare without a Preacher And where no sheepe are there is no Church And where is no Church there is no visisibility of it since euen Logicke instructeth vs that Non Eutis â—â—n est Accidens That the Protestant Church for many ages hath wanted all personall succession and ordinary Calling is ouereuident seeing besides that which hath bene sayd of this point already we find diuers learned Protestants to confesse no lesse For thus doth Sadellius write Diuers Protestants affirme that the Ministers with them are destitute of lawfull Calling as not hauing a continuall visible succession from the Apostles tymes which they do attribute only to the Papists And hence it is that many Protestants confesse that they are forced to flye to Extraordinary Calling which is immediatly from God without any help of man Thus for example Caluin saith Quia Papae tyrannide c. Because through the tyrannâ— of the Pope true succession of Ordination was broken off therefore we stand neede of a new course herein and this function or Calling was altogether extraorinary Thus Caluin And D. Fulke in like manner sayth The Protestants that first preached in these dayes had extraordinary Calling with whom agreeth D. Parkins saying The calling of Wâ—cklefe Hus Luther Oecolampadius Peter Martyr c. was extraordinary Thus we see that the Protestants confessing the want of personall succession in their Church as also the want of Ordinary Vocation and flying therefore to Extraordinory Vocation do euen by such their Confessions acknowledge withall the Inuisibility of their Church in those tymes and an interruption next before of all personall succession for if succession of Pastours had then bene really truly in being then had those men bene visible to whom the Authority of calling others to the Ministery had appertayned and consequently there had bene no need of Extraordinary Calling Which Extraordinary Calling is euer accompayned with Miracles as aboue is showed in the iudgments of the more sober Protestants or otherwise it is but a meere illusion And we haue not red or heard that any of those first Protestants who vendicated to themselues this Extraordinary Calling haue euer wrought in confirmation eyther of their Calling or doctrine any one Miracle OCHINVS I must confesse Michaeas that you haue discussed well of this poynt and in my iudgment very forcingly But proceed we intreate you to the second branch of your Proofe since I can hardly belieue that any Protestants will expresly acknowledge the Inuisibility of their owne Church for if they do then is the Question at an end and hath receaued it vttermost tryall that can be imagined MICHAEAS The euent will seale the truth of this point And first that immediatly before Luthers reuolt the Protestant Church was inuisible Vibanus Regius a markable Protestant confesseth so much But of the Protestant Church it visibility at Luthers appearance we haue already fully discoursed and therefore we will ascend to higher times M. Parkins then thus writeth of ages more remote We say that before the day of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostasy ouerspred the whole face of the earth and that our Church was not then visible to the world Caelius Secundus Curio an eminent Protestant confesseth no lesse in these words Factum est vt per multos i am annos Ecclesia latuerit ciuesque hutus regni vix ab alijs ac ne vix quidem agnosci potuerint c. It is brought to passe that the Church for many yeares hath bene latent and that the Cittizens of this Kingdome could scarsely and indeed not as all be knowne of others D. Fulke confesseth more particularly of this point saying The Church in the tyme of Bonifacâ— the third which was anno 607. was inuisible and fleed into wildernes there to remayne a long season M. Napper riseth to higher tymes thus wrytinge God hath withdrawne his visible Church from open assemblyes to the harts of particular godly men c. during the space of twelue hundred and sixty yeares the true Church abiding latent and inuisible With whome touching the continuance of this Inuisibility agreeth M. Brocard an English Protestant But M. Napper is not content with the latency of the Protestant Church for the former tymes only but inuolueth more ages therein thus auerâ—ing During euen the second and third Ages meaning after Christ the true Church of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist hymselfe But Sebastianus francus a most remarkable Protestant ouerstripeth hearein all his former Brethren not doubting to comprehend within the said Inuisibility all the ages since the Apostles thus wryting for certaine the externall Church together with the fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure And that for these thousand and foure hundred yeares marke the lenght of the tyme the Church hath beene no wâ—eare externall and visible Which acknowledgement of so longe a tyme or rather longer is likewise made by D. Fulke in these words The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. But D. Downham with whom I will heare conclude is not ashamed to insimulate the very tymes of the Apostles within the lyke latency thus wrytinge The generall defection of the visible Church foretouâ—d 2. Thessal 2. begunne to worke in the Apostles tymes Good God Would any Man hould it possible were it not that their owne books are yet extant that such eminent Protestants should confesse
sinnes of Saule the Publican MICHAEAS M. Doctour you do well and like a Christian Doctour to endeauour to reâ—all home these two wretches Yet touching the paucity of Protestanticall Apostates by you pretended it seemâ—s your Memory wrongs your Reading For it is a vast vntruth to affirme that only Ochinus and Neuserus haue reuolted to Turcisme and Iudaâ—sme For did not Dauid George a cheife Protestant and once Professour at Basil become a blasphemous Apostata who affirming our Sauiour to be a seducer and grounding himselfe with Ochinus Nâ—userâ—s vpon the not accoÌ„plishment of the Prophesyes of the Churches visibility in the Protestant Church thus writeth Si Christi Apâ—stolorâ—an doctrina vera perfecta fuisset c. If the doctrine of Chrâ—st and his Apostles had bene true aâ—d perfect the Church which they had planted should haue contâ—nued c. But now it is manifest that Antichrisi hath subuerted the doctrine of the Apostles and the Church by them begunne c. therefore the doctrine of the Apostles was false and imperfect Thus that impâ—ous Iew And was not Alamannus a Swinglian and once most familiar with Beza who perswading himselfe that the prophecyes touching the continuall visâ—bility of the Church were not performed in Christ his Chuâ—ch because he saw they were not performed in the Protestant Church did thereupon renounce Christianity and became a blasphemious Iew a point so euident that Beza himselfe notwithstanding their former inwardnes and friendship thus writeth of him Alamanum affirmant ad â—udaâ—smum dâ—fecisse Did not Georgius Paulus minister of Cracouia deny the Trinity with the Turkes In like sort Conefius and Laelius Socinus a schollar in the schoole of Geneua who writ whole books against the B. Triâ—ity vpon the former grounds forsooke the Christian fayth And this Socinus as Beza witnesâ—eth so at the first corrupted the first chapter of S. â—ohn his Ghospell which speaketh so plainâ—ly of Christ as that Beza saith of him mihâ— quidem videtur omnes corrupâ—ores longè superasse In like sort Andreas Vâ—lanus a great Caluinisâ— not only became in the end a Turke but infected many others with his wrytings agaynst the Bleâ—sâ—ed Trinity and Christian fayth But if you haue a desire to râ—ede of more Protestants who became Turkes and Iewes as presuming that the former Prophecyes were not performed in the Church of God I referre you to a booke to which I thinke you are no stranger I meane to that most elaborate and mother-booke for it hath giuen byrth to diuers others written by your owne brother M. William Reynolds and called Caluino Turcismus You may also to the same end peruseÌ„ Conradus Slussenberg and Osiander both Protestants where I presume your stomacke wil be soone gluted with the displeasing gust of diuers others there related And now in the through of these examples my thoughts are caried to Sebastian Castalio once Professour at Basill And one highly extolled by your owne D. Humfrey and others This Castalio though he went not so fare as by open breach and Apostasy to leaue the fayth of Christ yet in regard that the former predictions touching the spreading of Christs Church and the euer vneclipsed conspituity of it were not in his iudgment performed in Christ Church he writeth very perplexedly hereof to King Edward the sixt in this Maner Equidem aut hâ—c futura f 〈…〉 endum est c. Truly it is to be confessed that these predictions are either to be performed hereafter or haue bene allredy or that otherwyse God is to be accused of lyinge Yf it be said they haue bene allready accomplished I aske of hym When Yf he answeare in the Apostles dayes I demand then how it happeneth that neithâ—r then the knowledg of God was wholy perfect and why it so soone vanished away which was promised to be eternall and more abundant then the floudds of the Sea And then without saluing this his difficulty he finally thus dowbtfully concludeth Quo magis libros sacros considero eo minus hactenus praestitum video vtcumque oracula illa intelligas The more â—peruse the Scriptures the lesse do I find the same performed howsoeuer you vnderstand the said Prophecies See with what a fearefull and wauering trepitation of iudgment this learned Caluinist writeth of this point through his false supposall that the Catholycke Church is not the Church of God but cheiffly through his true acknowledgment that the former Prophecies were not performed in the Protestant Church And thus far of these Examples But if you will haue a censure whether any Protestants or rather Caluinists turne Arians or no who as denying the most Blessed Trinity are litle bettar then Turks or Iewes I will giue it in this Neuserus his owne words and if I wrong hym herein let hym now before you charge me who thus hath left written None is knowne in our tyme to be made an Arian who was not a Caluinist as Seruetus Blandrata Paulus Alchianus Gentilis Gebraldus Siluanus and others therefore who feareth to faule into Arianisme let hym take heede of Caluinisme Thus you Neuserus so certaine it is that Arianisme Turcisme and Iudaisme are the last sublimations of Caluinisme Well M. Doctour I am cloyed with the society of this discours and can hardly endure any longer with patience the sight of these two Wretches belcking forth such horrible poyson And therefore I will now leaue you and perhapps instaÌ„tly after vpon some vrgent occasions leaue England I could haue wished that this our Dispute had made a deeper impression in you then I feare it hath for your incorporating into the Catholicke Church Neuer the lesse I will pray to God that before your dissolution you may be more solicitous and carefull in this so great a matter which concerns your Soules happines or infelicity for all eternity Touching my selfe I do ingeniously protest that now by meanes of this discours I seeing the weaknes of all that which may be vrged by the learnedest Protestants in defence of this Churches visibility am become hereby more setled and strenghtned in the Catholicke fayth and Religion then afore I was if more I can be But now before I end I cannot but put you in mind M. Doctour how fouly you were ouertaken in your defence of this impious Ochinus for his writing against the sacrifice of the Masse where you may well see that to deny the sacrifice which was first instituted by our Sauiour is a fitting preparation towards the after denyall of our Sauiour himselfe D. REYNOLDS I must confesse Michaeas that notwithstanding whatsoehath bene sayd in this discourse I still remayne a member of the Protestant Church assuring my selfe it is the true Church of Christ Touching my defence of Ochinus his wryting I did it out of my conscience and my conscience I trust will warrant it at the last day For your present departure I am agreiued
Work A matter so euident and confessed by our aduersaryes as that D. Fulke thus exprobrateth the Catholicks in these words You can name the notable personages in all ages obserue these words in all ages and their gouerment and ministery and especially the succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order and vpon your fingars Thus D. Fulke 3. Thirdly We prooue the former assertion of our Catholicke Church its Visibility during the first six hundred years after Christ and consequently during the whole period of the Primatiue Church by taking a view in generall how the cheife auncient Fathers of those tymes are pryzed and entertayned by the Protestants who indeed dispensing with all Ceremonyes herein do absoluâ—ly reiect them as inexcusable and grosse Papists For as for these last thousand yeares It is acknowledged by all Protestant whosoeuer that our Church hath bene most visible tyrannyzing they say ouer the true Church for so many ages And according hereto M Powell sayth From the yeare of Christ six hundred and fyue the professed company of Popery hath been very visible and conspicuous But to proceede If the most auncient most reuerend Fathers of the Primatiue Church I meane Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita Iustinus Ireneus Tertulâ—an Origen Cyprian Athanasius Hilarius the Cyrills the Gregoryes Ambrose Basill Optatus Gaudentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin and diuers others be accounted by our aduersaryes most earnest Professours of our Catholicke and Roman fayth then followeth it ineuitably that our Catholicke Church was most conspicuous in those dayes since those Fathers were then the visible Pastours of the Church and then consequently the Church whereof they were Pastours must needs be visible That these primatiue Fathers were Papists as our Aduersaryes tearme vs appeareth euidently out of these few confessions here following which for breuity I haue discerped out of the great store of like acknowledgments of this point occurring in our aduersaryes bookes And first Peter Martyr thus confesseth of this point As long as we insist in the Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in their errours Beza thus insulteth ouer the Fathers Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Primatiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishopps was such as the very blind may easily perceaue that Satan was president in their Assemblyes or Conncells D. Whitguift thus conspireth with his former Brethren How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church Latin also for the most part spotted with doctrines of freewill of merit of Innocation of Saints and such like meaning such like Catholicke doctrines Melancthon is no lesse sparing in taxing the Fathers who thus confesseth Presently from the beginning of the Church that is presently after Christ his Ascension the auncient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the Iustice of Fayth increased ceremonyes and deuised peculiar Worshipps But Luther himselfe shall end this Scene who most securiously traduceth the Fathers in these words The Fathers for so many ages meaning after the Apostles haue bene blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures They haue erred all their lifetyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saincts nor pertayning to the Church Thus Luther And thus much touching the Fathers of the Primatiue Church being professours of our present Catholicke Fayth and Church and consequently that our Catholicke Church was most uisible and florishing in those primatiue tymes 4. Fourthly The former inexpug 〈…〉 verity is proued from that the Church of Rome neuer suffered change in fayth since it first plantation by the Apostles Now if the Church of Rome neuer suffered chauge in Religion if it hath euer continued a Church since the Apostles dayes and lastly if at this day it professeth our present Catholicke fayth then followeth it demonstratiuely that there were visible Professours of our Catholicke fayth in the Church of Rome euer since the Apostles and consequently that our Catholicke Church hath euer bene uisible since those tymes To proue that the Church of Rome neuer brooked change of fayth since the Apostles dayes I referre you to the first former Dialogue of the Conuerted Iew. 5. Fiftly and lastly our foresaid Assertion is acknowledged for true vndoubred euen from the penns of our learned Aduersary who most frequently in their wrytings do intimate so much And here I am to craue pardon if I iterate some few testimonies and acknowledgments of Protestants aboue produced in this Dialogue Which as they there did prooue an inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those former Ages so here also diuers of them prooue so neerely do these two points interueyue the one the other a continuall visibility of our Catholicke Church during the said tymes To come then to these confessions of the Protestants in this point touching the euer visibility of the Catholicke Church I will ascend vp by degrees euen to and within the Apostles dayes And this because some Protestants as lesse ingenuous and vpright in their writings do affoard to our Catholicke Church a shorter tyme or Period of visibility then others of their more learned and well-meaning Brethren are content to allow First then M Parkins thus sayth During the space of nyne hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spreed it selfe ouer the whole earth This point is further made cleere from the Penns of the Centurists and Osiander all which do in euery of the Centuryes from S. Gregories tyme to Luther name and record all the Popes 〈◊〉 cheyfe Catholicke Bishops and diuers others professing our Catholicke fayth according to the Century or age wherin eich of them liued But to ascende higher M. Nappier confesseth of a longer tyme thus saying The Popes Kingdome hath had power ouer all Christians from the tymes of Pope Sâ—luester and the Emperour Constantyn for these thousand two hundred and sixtie yeares And also againe from the tyme of Constantyn vntill theese our dayes euen one thousand two hundred and sixty yeres the Pope and the Cleargy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians But M. Napper in an other place dealeth more bountifully with vs herein for thus he witnesseth During euen the second and third ages the true temple of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist Sebastianus Francus alloweth the Visibility of our Church from the tyme immediatly after the Apostles thus wrytinge Presently after the Apostles tymes all things were turned vpsyde downe c. And for certaine through the worke of Antichrist the external Church together with their fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure With this Protestant D Fulke conspireth thus saying The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tymes Which being spoken by him of the Protestant Church then may we infer that the Church of Rome and it fayth as presumed to be by the iudgment of this Doctour the false Church was visible immediatly
after the Apostles With D. Fulke agreeth Peter Martyr thus writing Errours did beginne in the Church presently after the Apostles tymes Peter Martyr heere vnderstanding by the word Errours our Catholycke doctrins with these three last Protestants the Authour of the booke called Antichristus siue pronosticon finis Mundi a Protestant thus iumpeth from the Apostles tymes till Luther the Gospell had neuer open passage Now this hinderance of the Gospell is supposed by hym to proceede from the Pope and Church of Rome therefore during all those tymes the Church of Rome hath beene visible But D Downham confesseth more freely herof who doth include the very tymes of the Apostles with in the Visibility of the Catholycke Roman Church thus teaching the generall defection of the Visible Church foretould 2. Thessol 2. begunne to worke in the Apostles tymes he meaning hereby that the Visibility of our Catholicke Church did obscure in the Apostles dayes the Visibility of his Protestant Church From this Doctours sentence Hospinian the Protestant litle dissenteth who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist thus writeth I am tum primo illo saeculo viuentibus adhuc apostolis c. Euen the very first age the Apostles being aliue the deuill endeuored to deceaue more about this Sacrament then aboute Baptisme with drawing Men from the first forme thereof Thus iudicious Men you may fully see how visible at all tymes our Catholyâ—ke Church hath beene And of this Veritie you may be more fully assured not only by fiction from the discourse of Michaeas the Conuerted Iew but euen from Michaeas The Prophetical Iew Whose praediction of the amplitude and euer conspiâ—uitie of Christs Church and consequently of our Catholycke Church is set downe in these words In nouissimo di erum erit mons domus Domini praeparatus in vertice montium sublimis super colles fluent ad cum Populi Et properabunt gentes multae dicent Venite ascendamus ad montem Domini ad domum Dei Iacob docebit nos de vijs suis at ibimus in semitis â—ius Which Prophecy as it hath beene hitherto fully accomplished in the present Roman Church so on the other syde how vnaptly indeed how falsly it can be applyed to a Conuenticle of Christians which is confessed for many more yeres then a thousand to haue bene wholy latent and Inuisible or rather vtterly extinguished I leaue to your Candour and impartialitie to censure But before I take my leaue with you for this tyme most excellent Men I will cast my eye back vpon the Premisses in grose discussed in this Treatise Yf then it be so as is aboue manifested that the Church of God must at all tymes be resplendent and visible If she must euer enioy the administration of the Word and Sacraments by the ministery of her Doctours and Pastours without any interruption and this with such an imposed Necessity as that the being of them constituteth a Church the want of them destroyeth it Yf we all be bownd vnder payne of eternall damnation to incorporate our selfs into that Church which is beutifyed and enriched with the former spirituall endowments and to auoyde all such Societyes of Men wherein they are wanting seing only the members of Christs true Church are capable of Saluation Yf finally our Catholycke and Roman Church on the one syde by the frequent Confessions of our learned Aduersaryes besids oll other proofs thereof hath alwayes enioyed the said priuiledges of Visibility and administration of the Word and Sacraments And the Protestant Church on the other syde euen by their owne lyke acknowledgments hath bene for many Centuryes and ages wholy distitute and depryued of these spirituall graces and as I may tearme them Immunityes What stupor then and dulnes of mynd or rather what Letargious constitution of the Soule forgetfull of it owne well fare possesseth so infinit Men at this day as to deuyde themselfs from our said Catholycke Church euen in greate hostility and in lien thereof to be ranged with particular and nouelizing Conuenticles The consideration whereof most iudicious Men though I looke not to be of that weigh with you as to moue you actually to implant your selfs in our Catholicke Church yet since you are wyse learned and loth no dowbt to commit any such explorate errours as the force of Naturall Reason and your owne Consciences may freely check I am in good hope that the serious perusall of the poynts aboue disputed will at least preuayle thus far with diuers of you as that you will not be ready hereafter in your discourses so tragically to enueigh and declame against a Religion which is fortyfied which such impugnable and irrefragable proufs as our Catholycke fayth euen from our owne Aduersaryes mouths is euicted to bee But that you being Men professing Conscience Integrity and Ingenuity will beare a more fauorable respecte to the said religion And herewith I will conclude recommending you all in my daily prayers vnto him who out of his Power and Goodnes created vs all and out of his Mercy dyed for vs all to the end that by our professing of a true fayth and exercizing of a vertuâ—us lyfe he might saue vs all seing otherwise we can no more auaylably expect eternall Beatitude then the Patriarchs dying in Egypt could hope to be buried in the Laude of Promisse Laus Deo Beatae Virgini Mariae AN APPENDIX WHEREIN IS TAKEN A SHORT VIEW CONTAINING A FVLL ANSWERE OF A PAMPHLET ENTITVLED A Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibility and succession of the true Church in all Ages Printed anno 1624. CVRTEOVS READER Thou mayst be aduertized hereby that not long since to wit in the yeare 1624. there came out a certaine Booke entituled A Treatise of the perpetuall Visibility and succession of the true Church in all Ages not subscribed with any Name The reason thereof belike was in that the Authour as guilty to himselfe of his impure proceeding therein durst not iustify neyther himselfe nor this his labour Though the entituling him in the Epistle to the Reader which seemes to be written by some other person then the Authour The most Reuerend Religious and painfull Authour thereof c. doth in the iudgment of many intimate him to be no meane Man but a great mayster in Israel to wit eyther D. White or D. Featly or some other as great as eyther To this concealing of them of the Authours name who as being a Protestant might boldly and without danger subscribe his owne name to his owne Booke farre differently from vs Priests I may ad the Authours affected silence through out his whole Treatise in not touching neither glancing at the then late and fresh Conference had at London euen of this very Subiect of the Visibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages betweene the afore mentioned D White and D. Featly on the one part and M. Fisher and M. Sweete on the other This Authour not so much
this Authour is set downe aboue in the first part or beginning of the former Dialogue Thirdly admitting that by the Woman is vnderstood the Church in Persecution yet followeth it not that therefore she shal be inuisible which is the point for which it is vrged here seing a Church in that it is persecuted euen in that respect is become visible as is proued in the Treatise aboue though otherwise it be granted it is not so gloriously eminent as it is in tyme of prosperity Now whereas the Authour pag. 29. from the Woman mentioned in the Reuelations flying into Wildernes thus disputeth The true Church is for the tyme out of sight in the Wildernes But so say they meaning vs Catholicks was their Church neuer Therefore Will they Will they their Church is not the true Church Here Ignorance mixt with extreme boldnes disputeth For whereas Learned Men both Catholicks Protestants as appeareth in the former Treatise make a continuall Visibility to be a Marke of the true Church Here the Authour diametrically crossing all former Authorityes aboue alleadged teacheth that that Church which euer hath beene visible and neuer out of sight to vse his owne words cannot be the true Church and consequently that the Catholicke Roman Church is not the true Church Thus he contrary to all other authours maketh an Inuisibility to be a necessary Marke of the true Church Ad hereto as afore is intimated that if in this Pamphleters iudgment the true Church must sometymes euen of necessity be out of sight and in Wildernes or otherwise not the true Church how then doth not this mainly feight with the tytle of his Booke to wit Of the perpetuall Visibility and Succession of the true Church in all ages And why should not the tytle thereof rather be Of the interrupted and discontinued Visibility of the true Church And thus farre of the first part of this Pamphlet in which we see how painfully the Authour hath labored sometymes to prooue that the Church of God must at certaine seasons be more glorious and resplendent then at others though no Catholicke denyeth this and therefore the prouffe of it is but impertinently vndertaken At other tymes as in his last produced sentence and argument as also in some passages aboue cyted to prooue that the true Church must be often wholy inuisible plainly thwarting the Inscription of his booke But his affected calumny here whereby he bewrayes his owne guiltines in these his vnworthy Scripts is only to prefix this discourse of the Churches obscurity or rather Inuisibility that it may serue as an excuse and for a plastering ouer of those few weake and false examples of Protestancy in former ages alledged after in this Pamphlet by him For he hopeth that by this his former insinuation of the Churches obscurity the Reader will lesse expect any full demonstrations and certaine arguments of the Protestants Churches Visibility in former tymes and the rather seing such an vnterrupted visibility is not in this Mans weening necessary to the true Church Now here we will further tract this Authour in his passages who whether he be D. White or D. Fearly or some other next beginneth with extraordinary calumnye deceate to exemplify his Protestants for certaine ages For whereas he ought to prooue euen from the Title of his Booke and the Controuersy of the Protestants Churches visibility now ventilated betweene vs and his Partye that the Protestant Church seeing he presumeth it to be the true Church hath bene visible for the space of sixteene hundred yeares for so long since and more it is since our Sauiours Incarnation he produceth examples admitting them for true only for foure hundred yeres at the most and immediatly before Luther so leauing one thousand and one hundred yeres and more a small tyme you see wholy destituted of any one produced example of Protestancy he saluing this his omission or leauing ouer these eleuen hundred yeres in this manner following What the old Fathers taught meaning the Fathers of the Primatiue Church as being Protestants we haue tyme hereafter to show which time of his showing what they taught is not yet come And of the supposed Protestants betweene the Primatiue Church and the tymes of Waldo he ascending no higher then Waldo being about six hundred yeares he vseth this preterition We shall not need to ascend any higher meaning any higher from Luther then to Waldo Which otherwise to make playne is as easy as to deliuer that which hitherto I haue spoken And it is not to be conceaued that Petrus Waldo of whome the Waldenses did take their name at Lyons had his doctrine from no body c. Is not this a very learned satisfaction thinke you or rather a satisfaction vnworthy to proceede from any Man professing learning for instancing of the being of Protestants from Christ his tyme to the dayes of Waldo contayning about twelue hundred yeres or but little lesse for all which tyme he instanceth not in any one Protestant but wholy slips it ouer notwithstanding the Catholicks euer earnest prouoking of the Protestants herein Or can any impartiall iudgment demanding for instances of Protestancy during all or any of those former ages rest thus contented Heere then good Reader thou seest how this Authour abuseth thee who dealeth with thee herein no otherwise then if he iustly and truly owing thee Sixteene hundred pounds should in speeches vauntingly pretend that he had payed thee euery penny thereof And yet he comming to particular accounts and reckonings with thee should be able to prooue that he had payed thee and this also but in counterfeyt siluer only foure hundred pounds affirming in lieu of further payment that he would be as able to pay thee all the rest as he hath already done this lesser Somme Wouldst thou not take such an one for a most dishonest and perfidious man The case of this Treatiser is here iust the same But to returne to the Fathers of the Primatiue Church Of whom he saith what they taught he would hereafter show meaning belyke in some other Booke hereafter to come forth Of that labour he is now allready preuented And therefore the Reader may find in the Conclusion to the former dialogue that by the confessions of most learned Protestants the Fathers were absolute Papists as we are called and are therefore by the said Protestants vtterly reiected In which former passage is also proued from the Protestants lyke Confessions that all the Professours of Christianity betweene the tymes of the auncient Fathers and the dayes of Waldo contayning six hundred yeres at lest were wholy of our present Roman Religion and not any of them a Protestant But let vs now in this next place come to his particular Instances of Protestancy for the space of foure hundred yeres only aboue mencioned in setting downe of which the Pamphleter vseth this ensuing policy for indeed he is a man wholy made of sophistications deceats and collusions he doth not beginne
passage touching Waldo and the Waldenses and their followers After this Authour hath finished his speech of the Waldenses he further thus proceedeth The Authour of the sixtenth Century nameth about the yere 1500. Baptista Mantuanus and Franciscus Picus Earle of Mirandula both which inueighed against the Cleargy and their whole practize Also one D. Keisers pergius an other called Iohn Hilton a third named Doctour Andreas Proles and Sauanorola all grawning vnder the burden of those tymes Againe the Pamphleter thus saith Aud the same is written of Trimetheus an other learned Man who liued at that tyme. Thus this our Authour Now how exorbitantly and wildly are these vrged for Protestants For First they are auerred to be such only by Protestant Wryters to wit Oâ—â—ander and Pantaleon who heerein may well be presumed for the vphoulding of their owne Protestant Church to be partial in their Relations Secondly this Treatizer doth not instance any poynts of Protestancy beleiued by any of them which if he could no doubt he would not haue omitted but only vrgeth their wrytings against some pretended abuses of the Church of Rome in those dayes And therfore such his proceeding is but calumnye and impertinency Lastly touching Sauanorola and Picus of Mirandula for as for the others they are so obscure that hardly any particular information can be had of them It is certaine that they were both Roman Catholicks and dyed in that Religion For as concerning Sauanorola he beleiued all the Articles of the Roman fayth as euidently appeareth out of his owne writings styled Vigiliae excepting the doctrine of the Popes power to excommunicate This one point he contumaciously denyed and for this he was burnt Touching Picus of Mirandula Syr Thomas More of blessed memory wryting his life showeth that he was so fully a Roman Catholicke that in his life tyme he sould a great part of his lands to giue to the poore that he often vsed to scourge discipline his owne flesh that if he had liued longer he intended to haue entred into the Religious Order of the Dominican Pryars That in tyme of his sicknes he receaued according to the Catholicke custome the most blessed and reuerend Sacrament of Christs body and bloud for his Viaticum Finally that hearing the Priest in his sicknes to repeate vnto him the articles of the Roman fayth and being demanded whether he beleiued them Answered He did not only beleiue them but did know them also to be true So fowly we see this Pamphleter is ouerseene in alledging Sauanorola and Picus of Mirandula for Protestants But to proceede further This idle waster of penne inke paper for I can tearme him no better next descendeth in a retrograte and disorderly method to Laurentius Valla the Gramaâ—iaÌ„ who touching the Articles of the Roman Catholicke fayth only denyed freewill as appeareth euen froÌ„ the ProtestaÌ„t Writers And who after g submitted himselfe to the Pope and finally dyed in all poynts Catholicke all which this Authour affectedly concealeth He saith of Valla in this sort Valla wrote a Treatise of purpose against the forged donation of Constantine He pronounceth of his owne experience that the Pope maketh war against peaceable People and soweth discord betweene Cittyes and prouinces c. With much more refuse of base matter concerning the supposed coueteousnes of the Pope yet notwithstanding all this he nameth not any one Article of Protestancy defended by Valla. But the Pamphleter thus further proceedeth to others saying About the same tyme liued Nicolaus Clemingius who rebuked many things in the Ecclesiasticall State and spake excellently in the matter of Generall Councells c. Petrus de Aliaco Cardinal of Cambray gaue atract to the Councell of Constance touching reformation of the Church There he doth reproue many notable abuses against the Romanists c. About the same tyme liued Leonardus Aretinus whose litle Booke against Hypocrates is worth the reading So is the Oration of Antontus Cornelius Linnicanus laying open the lend lubricity of Priests in his dayes So doth he detect many abuses and errours who wrote the ten agreiuances of Germany But those who compiled the hundred agreuances of the German Nation do discouer many more And then the Pamphleter most ambitiously or rather ridiculously thus concludeth By this tyme I trust it is manifest how false a slaunder of the Papistsis that before the dayes of Martin Luther there was neuer any of our Religion Egregiam verè laudem spolia ampla refectis Tu calamusque tâ—â—s For who obserueth not how absurdly you Pamphleter do apologize For the Visibility of your Church Thus good Reader thou seest that this Authour instanceth in Valla and others aboue mencioned for Protestants and yet setteth not downe any one Article of Protestancy beleiued by them for not any of them denyed the Reall presence Purgatory prayer to saincts the Seauen Sacraments Iustification by Works the Popes Supremacy c. All that this Authour can produce theÌ„ for is because they did wryte Satyrically and bitterly against the abuses of the Church in those dayes But to this we replye That it is granted on all sydes that both in the Catholicke and the Protestant Church there haue bene and still are diuers of irregular and disedifying lyues Must now those who in their wrytings or Sermons reprehend such be necessarily supposed to be of a different fayth from those whom they so reprehend Who seeth not the weaknes of this inconsequent and absurd kynd of reasoning From the former Iustances the Pamphleter ascendeth to Iohn l Wiclef prostituring him for a Protestant And heere also he spendeth many leaues in wandring excursions of speeches and indeede to no other end but as I intimated a fore to dawbe inke vpon paper For he pretendeth to show the Aussits had receaued their doctrine out of the Books of Wiclef how the Councell of Constance condemned Wiclef for an Heretiycke as also how the doctryne of Wiclef was much dilated heare in England But to manifest how impertinent the alledging of Wiclef for a Protestant is I refer the Reader to the Dialogue where are showed out of Wiclefs one Wrytings the many Catholicke articles of the Roman Religion to wit the doctrine of the seauen Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies of the Masse praying to our Blessed Lady worship of Images merit of Works and works of Supererogation c. still beleiued by him euen after his leaping out of our Church As also there are showed the many condemned Heresies in like sort mantayned by him after his departure from the Roman Church and this from the penns of the Protestants But here before I end with Wiclefe I must put the Reader in mind of one notorious Collusion or deceate much practized by this Pamphleter touching diuers of the former men alledged for Protestants but most particularly touching Wiclefe It is this He here particularizeth no Protestant articles but only the denying of Transubstantiation yet where
this Authours fraud and imposturous cariadge who tearmeth all such Articles wherein S. Bernard did agree with vs as the Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory merit of Works free will praying to saincts and indeed all other Catholicke Articles whatsoeuer only his boldnes of wryting to Pope Eugenius excepted to whom afore he had bene Mayster and therevpon presumed to wryte more freely Slips Lapses as they were beleiued by him which in vs Catholicks he exagerateth by the name of Superstition Idolatry c. And thus we may see how one and the same Cause being exemplified in different Persons is by this Pamphleters deceate diuersly censured Leaning S. Bernard the Authour generally but with out any prouf at all wisheth his Reader to thinke that the Protestant Church was in all Countries in Christendome and did lie hid as those Iewes did in the tyme of Elias for feare of Persecution But this he only saith but proueth not and it is therefore reiected with the same facilitie with which it was spoken Now touching those Men who conceales their fayth for feare of persecution I refer the Reader to the former dialogue wherein the weaknes of this pretext of Persecution is particularly displayed That done the Pamphleter sayth that India Armenia Asia the lâ—ssar and Egypt had in former tymes Christians in them for he giueth them no other name then Christians And then he inferrs without any proofe at all or instances in the points of their Religion that they were Protestants Poore man that thus most insensibly reasoneth Seing we find the Christians of all those Countreyes to agree in all the cheife points with the present Roman Churrch Only some of them do not acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome aboue all other Bishopps In the last place of all he much insisteth in the Greeke Church within which are included the Russes and Muscouits he thus saying thereof The Greeke Church was neuer so much as in show extinguished And from whome the Russians and Muscouâ—ts had their fayth And then a little after he thus enlargeth himselfe We should do wrong to Almighty God c. to pull from him so many ample Churches meaning the Greeke Church the others aboue specifyed inferring from thence that the Protestant Church did in former ages rest visible euen in the Greeke Church Now this his shamelesse alleadging of the Greeke Church for Protestants shal be confronted with the testimony of Syr Edwin Sands a man of his owne Religion who plainly affirmeth that the Greeke Church doth concurre with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation generally in the sacrifice and whole Body of the Masse in praying to Saints in auâ—â—cular Confession in offering Sacrifice and prayer for the dead Purgatory worshipping of pictures Yea the Protestant Deuines of Magdeburg do record that the Greeke Church doth not only beleiue all the former Articles recited by Syr Edwin Sands but also that it beleiueth and teacheth the signifying Ceremonyes of the Masse Confirmation with Crisme Extreme Vâ—ction all the seauen Sacraments Almes for the dead freewill Monachisme vowes of Chastity the fast of Lent and other prescribed fasts that Priests may not mary after Orders taken and finally that the tradition doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept Now heere I refeâ—re to any one not blinded with preiudice whether the professours of the Greeke Church are to be accounted for Catholicks or Protestants And from hence we may discâ—uer the idle and ridiculous vaunting of this Pamphleter who in the close of this point touching the Greeke Churches being protestant and a continuall Visâ—â—iliâ—y of Protestancy in the said Churches thus insulteth Looke to these places you Papists and Imagine that if there had beene none but these yet the words of the Scripture which in generality speake of a spouse had beene true And Christ had there had his Body vpon earth and the Church had not beene vtterly extinguished if neither We nor the Synagoâ—ue of Rome had beene extant Thus he His former examples being ended he entertayneth his Reader with great store of frothy and needlesse matter touching former differences betweene the Popes and Emperours the Kings of England and France And then all such persons as did bandy themselues either by wryting or otherwise with the said Emperour or Kings agaynst the Popes of those tymes the Pamphleter vrgeth for Protestants though the cheife cause of such differences betweene the Popes and the sayd Princes was touching Distribution of Ecclesiasticall Liuings within their owne Realmes That done the Treatiser extraâ—agantly discourseth in his deâ—lamatory rayling veyne that the Pope is Antichrist But how rouing and wandring all this is to the title of his Pamphlet and prouing of his owne Churches visibility the which he obliged himselfe to performe may appeare by what is already set downe After all this for a Close of all he obiecteth for forme-sake as if his taking notize of what we can truly obiect against his wryting were a sufficient answere to it certaine exceptions vrged by the Catholicks agaynst his former Instances of protestancy Which Obiections of ours being set downe he shapeth no true Answere vnto them And first he thus obiecteth in our behalfe l The Papists will beginne and say that we rake together as the Auncestours and forerunners of our fayth such as were notorious Hereticks as Wicklefe Hus or the Waldenses c. To which after much securtility of words he finally thus answereth We do not beleiue that all those are Hereticks whom you Papists will so call or account But we reply hereto and say That not only the Catholicks but the Protestants themselues do particularly charge Wicklefe Hus the Waldenses as also Almaricus Peter Bruus c. with many grosse and absurd Heresyes acknowledged for such euen by our Aduersaryes as may abundantly appeare by recurring to the seuerall passages of this former Dialogue The defence of which heresyes doth necessarily make their defendours absolute Heroticks seing they were mantayned by Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. with a froward and open contempt of the authority of Gods Church publikly teaching the contrary far differently from S. Austin S. Cyprtan and Lactantius their beleiuing certayne errours the which this Pamphleter for the more lesning of the Heresyes of Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. in p. 112. suttely repeateth seing these Fathers taught them only as their owne probable opinions euer submitting with all Obedience their Iudgments therein to the supreme Iudgments of Christ his Church Ad hereto that seing those Books written by Catholicks of those tymes do indifferently charge Wicklefe Hus Waldo and their followers with mantayning of some one point or other of protestancy and with diuers absurd Heresyes The authority therefore of those Writers are eyther equally to be beleiued in all their accusations or equally to be reiected in them all And the rather seing they could not foretell a consideration much to be obserued or presage what
points touching fayth and Religion and different from the then Roman fayth wherewith Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. were then charged would be professed beleâ—ued and mantayned in these dayes by the enemyes of the Church of Rome And therefore it necessarily followeth that the accusations passed in former times vpon Waldo Wicklefe Hus and the rest are either in generall true or in generall false If false then haue we no sufficient Records that there were any in those dayes who beleiued any points of protestancy If true then certayne it is that as Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. mantayned some points of protestancy so with all that they mantayned diuers explorate Heresies and acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Secondly the Pamphleter obiected in the Catholicks name in this sort None of all those which hitherto haue beene named or can be named meaning for Protestants but in some knowne confessed and vndowbted Opinions did varye from you And therefore they and you Protestants may not be said to be all of one Church This difficulty he salueth with a most impudent and bare denyall saying All those whom before I haue named did generally for all mayne Matters teach the same Which we now teach What forhead or shame hath this Man For First as touching Waldo Wiclef Hus and their followers in whom through out this Pamphlet the Authour principally insisteth It is confessed by Osiander Luther Fox and other Protestants as also it appeareth by some of their owne Wrytings that they agreed with the Catholicks in most points of Catholicke Religion which were of greatest moment as in the Reall Presence seuen Sacrements praying to Saincts Purgatory frewill Merit of Works and in all other most principall Articles of the present Roman Religion Concerning the proufe of all which poynts I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue Secondly touching other obscure Men alledged by the Pamphleter for Protestants he commonly and for the most part some two or three excepted exemplifieth no other Article of Protestancy defended by them then their disobedience and inueighing against the Bishop of Rome But if he could haue iustly auerred them for Protestants in all chiefe Articles why would he not as well particulary set the said Articles of Protestancy downe as he did the other touching their disclayming from the authority of the Bishop of Rome Ad hereto that many are produced for Protestants by this Authour only for their sharply speaking and writing against the manners and conuersation of the Cleargy in those dayes they not dissenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatsoeuer euer euen ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea To all the former poynts I may adioyne this following Consideration That supposing the forsaid alledged Men were protestants in all poynts yet do they not proue the Visibility of the true Church of Christ for these Reasons ensuing First because they were but few in number and in regard of such their paucity the Predictions of the amplitude largnes and continuall splendour of Christ Church could not be performed in that small number Touching which predictions peruse the beginning of the Dialogue Secondly because neither this Authour nor any other Protestant liuing how learned soeuer can proue that there were in those tymes specified by this Pamphleter any Administration of the Word and Sacraments practized by any of these supposed Protestants which euer necessarily concurs to the existence and being of the true Church as is demonstrated in the former Tract Thirdly because the former Men could but serue for instances during their owne lyues and no longer The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Protestant for the space of many Ages and Centuryes together which poynt being so impugneth not only the Nature of Christs true Church which must at all tymes and ages be most visible but also it crosseth the Title of this Pamphlet wherein the Authour vndertaketh to proue the Visibility of his Church in all Ages Thus far now Good Reader I haue labored in surueighing this Idle Pamphlet Now for they better memory I will breifly recapitulate and repeate certaine chiefe impostures and deceatefull deportements practized by this Authour throughout his Booke And then I will remit both him and his Treatise to they owne impartiall Iudgment 1. First then I may remember his putting no name to his Booke nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church nor once naming M. Fisher and M. Sweete the two then disputants Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purposly affected in all probability seing otherwise he might well thinke that the setting of his owne Name downe especially if the Authour were either D. Whyte or D. Featly or hauing in this discours particular reference to the foresaid Disputation might sooner draw on an answere to his Pamphlet from one of the said two Fathers or from some other Priest 2. Secondly You may call to mynd that in the first part of his Treatise he laboreth to proue rather the Inuisibility of the true Church then the Visibilitie thereof contrary to the Inscription of his Pamphlet cheifly to intimate thereby that a continuall Visibility of the true Church is not so necessarily to be exacted as we Catholicks do teach it is and consequently that what few weake mayâ—ied and imperfect proufs and examples for the continuance of protestancy he was after to alledge the same might be thought sufficient and strong enough for the establishing of his owne Churches Visibility 3. Thirdly The pamphleter callengeth any one for a Protestant who did but hould one or two Articles of protestancy and especially if he did but impugne the Popes authority or did wryte against the Manners conuersation of the Cleargy of those dayes though otherwyse he did agree with the Church of Rome in all Articles of fayth 4. Fourthly He callengeth those for protestants who were condemned by the Church of Rome for other Errours then are mantayned by the protestants so making the ignorant Reader beleiue that the Pope in those dayes condemned only the doctrines of Protestants for Heresies this the pamphleter doth to the end that the number of the professours of his Church in those dayes might seeme the greater in his Readers eye 5. Fyftly he most cauteously concealeth the Catholicke doctrynes euer beleiued by Hus Wiclefe Waldo c. as also sic most falsly extenuateth such Heresies as they mantayned are acknowledged for Heresies euen by learned protestaÌ„ts The Treatizer subtelly forbearing to name or set downe in expres Words any one of their Heresies 6. Sixtly For want of better Authours he fleeth to the testimonyes euen of Poëts as Chaucer Daâ—â—es Petrarch vrging them for protestants only by reason of their Satyrs written against the supposed abuses of Rome 7. Seauently he most impertinently dilateth and spreadeth hymselfe in long and tedious discourses touching the increase of the Doctrine of Waldo Hus Wiclef
c. as also touching the Contentions betweene the Popes and the Emperours the Kings of England and France and finally spendeth diuers leaues in rayling against the Pope as Antichrist All which werisome prolixityes he vseth thereby to spine out his booke to some resonable lenght or quantity seing otherwise to the title of his booke they are mearly impertinent 8. Eightly his Monstrous Impudency is to be obserued in making S. Bernard and the Greeke Church in former tymes as also the Churches in India Armenia Asiae Minor Egipt c. to be protestants without showing any one Protestant Article that they did hould excepting the Greeke Church denying the Popes Supremacy 9. Nynthly The title of his Booke being to proue the continual Visibility of his owne Church in all ages he produceth his Examples of protestancy supposing them for the tyme to be true Examples only for the first three or foure hundred yeres before Luthers dayes and so mearly crose to the title of his booke he omitteth eleuen hundred yeres without geuing instance of any one protestant during all those Ages 10. Tenthly Touching the Compas of those few ages for which he produceth some supposed Examples his fraud and calumny is to begine from Luther vpward and not downward towards Luther thereby the better as is aboue said to conceale from a vulgar Eye the small number of those ages or Centuryes for which he endeuoreth to proue the imaginary Visibility of the protestant Church 11. Eleuently and lastly his stilling the Catholicke Articles to wit of the Reall Presence Purgatorye free will praying to Saincts and all the rest beleiued by S. Bernard and other Catholicks only Lapses and Slipps the beleife of which Articles in vs Catholicks at this present he commonly calls Idolatry Superstition c. But this alleuiation of words and speech he vseth most subtelly of S. Bernard that so notwithstanding S. Bernards different beleife yet by this Pamphleter he neuertheles may be reputed a good protestant Thus far Good Reader of his cheife affected sleightes And with this I end referring this one Consideration vnto thee That is Yf the question of the Visibility of the protestant Church through the Conference had thereof at London immediatly before the comming out of this Pamphlet and occasion of that other Toy intituled The Fisher catched in his owne Mâ—t was at that tyme much discoursed and talked of by many Men through out the land and therefore the Mantayners of this Visibility did stand more obliged by all Reading and learning possible to iustify the same being then and at all tymes so much prouoked vnto it by vs Catholickes and if neuertheles the Authour heare refuted being stiled in the Epistle of this Treatise A most reuerend and learned Man and one who hath more particularly and perspicuously traualled in this Argument then any in our English tongue And therefore he may be presumed in all lyklyhood to haue spoken in defence thereof as much as can be spoken therein Yf I say this Man cannot but for three or foure ages only and these nearest to Luthers dayes seeke to iustify the same and this by meanes of some few false defectiue and misapplyed examples and Instances accompanied with diuers frauds impostures and Collusions What other thing then from hence may be concluded but that it is impossible to make good or proue the Visibility of the Protestants Church during all the ages since Christ to Luthers dayes or indeed duâ—ing but any one â—ge thereof And consequently that the Protestant Church for want of such a necessary Visibility euer attending oâ—â— the true Church of Christ is not nor can be the true Church of Christ FINIS THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW OR THE THIRD DIALOGVE OF MICHAEAS THE IEVV Betweene The right honorable the Lord Cheife Iustice of England Michaeas the former Conuerted Iew. M. Vice Chancelour of Oxford The Contents hereof the Argument following will show Vide mulierem ebriam de sanguine Sanctorum Apocalips 17. THE ARGVMENT OF THE THIRD DIALOGVE OF MICHAEAS STILED THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW. MICHAEAS after his disputation ended in Oxford with D. Reynolds Ochinus and Neuserus touching the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church and giuing it out that he would instantly depart from thence Neuerthelesse lyeth secretly in Oxford and hath peculiar acquaintance with some of the choyest witts there whome he persuadeth to the Catholicke and Roman fayth The Vice-Chancelour of Oxford hearing thereof apprehendeth Michaeas conuenteth him before the right Honourable the Lord Cheife-Iustice of England before whome he stands arraigned of three Crymes The first that according to the falsely supposed Principles of the Roman Religion he laboreth to plant disloyalty in the Schollars mindes The which Michaeas absolutly denyeth and thereupon retorteth by way of recrimination the cryme of Disloyalty vpon the Protestants both for their doctrine thereof and for their practise The second offence vrged by the Vice-Chancelour is that Michaeas did write certayne short Discourses of diuers points of Catholicke Religion and diuulged them to the Schollars of his acquaintance Of which discourses the Vice-Chancelour getting a copie of Michaeas his owne hand wryting deliuereth it in the presence of Michaeas to the Lord Cheife-Iustice This Action Michaeas acknowledgeth it as true and warranteth it by force of Reason and strong example The third Cryme That Michaeas being a Roman Priest vndertaketh to reconcile some Schollars to the Church of Rome and daily celebrateth Masse All this Michaeas granteth vnto iustifying such his proceeding by deducing the antiquity of Priesthood of the power of remitting sinnes in the Sacrament of Pennance and of the Masse euen from the times of the Apostles and the Primatiue Church By reason of which occasion the present state of Priests and Catholicks in England is impart discoursed of To conclude omitting diuers other short insertions passages in the Dialogue incidently occurring the Lord Cheife-Iustice as inclining to clemency and commiseration proceedeth to an honorable and myld Censure or iudgment against Michaeas at which censure the Vice-Chancelour mightely stormeth And so Michaeas earnestly praying for the Kings health and true happynes the Dialogue endeth THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE CONVERTED IEW BEING A DIALOGVE BETWEENE THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE LORD CHEIFE-IVSTICE OF ENGLAND MICHAEAS THE CONVERTED IEW AND M. VICE-CHANCELOVR OF OXFORD Wherein is prooued besides diuers other short insertions that the Protestants stands more chargeable with disloyalty to their Lawfull Princes then Catholicks do THE VICE-CHANCELOVR MY Lord. All duty to your Lordship I haue here brought before your Lordship a Man most turbulent in his proceedings and who of late hath much ruffled and disordered the fiâ—e and quiet state of our Vniuersity by seeking to infect the Schollars thereof with his Popish and superstitious doctrines One whom kinde and curteous entertaynment for such he hath found at our hands cannot mollify and whose demerits are of that nature as that Compassion shewed to him would prooue Cruelty to others And we
power of Magistrats doth arme the subiects against their France in these cases c. And further Beza m roundly teacheth what reason haue Christians to obey hym that is Satans slâ—ue And yet speaking more of that Booke of Beza he saith a booke which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistrats To contract this poynt touchinge Beza Beza hymselfe thus wryteth in one of his Epistles to a friend of his Pâ—rplaceâ— mihi c. It pleaseth me very much that you wryte that priuate Conuents and assemblyes are to be made without the authority of Princes And againe in the said epistle Si pijs semper expectandum putas dum lupi vltro cedant c. Yf you thinke we must stay the delayes of godly men till the woulâ—es do freely depart or are driuen away by publyke authority I cannot yeald to your iudgment therein c. And if we had made such delayes What Churches should wee haue had at this day Thus far of the doctrines of Caluin and Beza in this poynt concerning both which in generall I will set downe the iudgment of therfore named D. Bancroft passed vpon them both who thus wryteth He that shall reede M. Caluins and M. Bezaes two bookes of Epistles c. Would certainly meruayle to vnderstand into what actions and dealings they put themselfs of war of peace of subiection of reformation without staying for the Magistrate Thus he Next we will come to kâ—ox who thus teacheth Reformation of Religion belorgeth to the Communalty God hath appoynted the Nobility to bridle the inordinate appetits of Princes Princes for iust cause may be deposed Finally Knox further auoucheth in these words Yf Princes be tyraâ—ts against God and his Truth their Subiects are freed from the oath of obedyence Of all which passages of Knoâ—see D. Bancroft in his booke of dangerous Positions Neither his Collegue Bucanan is lese sparing herein for thus he teacheth The People haue right to bestow the Crowne at their pleasure And yet with â—at more debasing spyte he thus egurgiâ—ates his veâ—ome It were good that rewards were appointed by the People for such 〈◊〉 should kill Tyrants as commonly there is for those which haue killed vulues Finally Bucanan affirmeth that People may arraigne their Prince Now in regard of these impious positions of Knox and Bucanan I fully approue and allow the graue sentence of the Bishop of Rochester who in his Sermon at Pooles Church termeth these two men The two fiery spirits of the Church and Nation of Scotland VICE-CHANCELOVR Michaeas Notwithstanding what you heere haue alleged touching strangers yet no part thereof conceâ—neth the Church of England or it Members Our Church remayning most incontaminate fâ—ee and spotles from the lâ—ast tuch of disloyalty And therefore what is by you as yet hearesaid concerneth vs litle you only discouering your Ignorance in misapplying other mens doctrines to vs who wholy disclayme from the same MICHAEAS M. Vice-Chancelour Pardon me if I heere do say you charge my Ignorance with greater Ignorance For first are not your Protestants of England of the same fayth and Religion with Luther Swâ—nglius Caluin Beza and the others aboue mentioned If you be not then haue you erected a new Protestant Church of late different from all Protestant Churches afore in Being If you be of the same fayth must you not then confesse that your Religion teacheth disobedience and disloyalty to your Prince Secondly it is ouer manifest that the Church of England I speake of some members thereof only not of all doth stand most chargeable with the same crime In proofe of which point I will produce the testimony of your former Archbishop of Canterbury D. Bancroft who in one of his Books thus confesseth of English Ministers concerning this point saying I omit their desperate courses of deposing Princes and putting them to death in diuers cases of resistance against reformation The generall summe was this That if the soueraigne Magistrate refuse to admit it the Ministers the inferiour Magistrate the People c. might set it oâ— fooâ—e themselues Of these and such like arguments diuers bookes he meaning made by English protestants were allowed by the Ministers of Geneua to be there then printed in English and to be published in England c. And againe the said Archbishop in an other of his Books speaking of the seditious English Protestants in Queene Maryes tyme thus writeth Goodman Whitingam Gilby the authour of the booke of Obedience with the rest of the Geneua Complices in Queene Maryes dayes urged all states by degrees rather to take armes and to reforme Religion themselues then to suffer such Idolatry Superstition remayne in the Land But to descend more particularly to this Goodman He was a forward Protestanâ— in Queene Maryes tyme did write a booke of this very subiect as D. Bancroft and D. Succliffe affirme Thus hereof he wryteth as D. Bancroft alleadgeth his sentences If Magistrats transgresse Gods Lawes and commanâ— others to do the like then haue they loâ—â— honour and obedience and ought no more to be taken for Magistrats but to be examined accused condemned c. And more It is not sufficient for subiects not to obâ—y the wicked Commandements of their wicked Princes but to withstand them also And yet more plainly Euill Princes ought by the lawes of God to be deposed To abbreuate this vnpleasing subiect there was also in the said times an other Booke made against the authority of Princes and entituled Of Obedience Which booke is much disliked by D. Bancroft and D. Succliffe in which booke we thus read Kings haue their authority from the People and by occasion the People may take it away agayne And more By the word of God in a manifest defection meaning of fayth and Religion a priuate Man hauing some speciall inward motion may kill a tyrant Marke you not how he doth Rauiliac it And finally It is lawfull to kill wicked Kings and Tyrants But I will wade no further in this argument For I much feare that the afore vnheard and now vnexpected recitall of the former Protestants doctrines is most displeasing to the eares of this honorable Iudge Only I must note that among the aboue mentioned Protestants some do speake with more respect and honour of Princes others with aâ—â— contempt and disgrace yet all of them alledged do with one the same eye or countenance indifferently looke vpon this principle to wit That Princes in some cases may be deposed such a dispacity we find in this their generally acknowledged Conclusion So in the pourtrayture of diuers mens faces we obserue great disproportion in one and the same proportion LORD-CHEIFE IVSTICE Michaeas I must confesse that these Doctrines of the former learned Protestants touching the deposing of Princes are most strange and indeede distastfull vnto me But it well may be that
by our Aduersaries doctrine as a part of the same Note But how can it be known whether the Word though truly preached be truly heard and beleiued with a final perseuerance So far distant is this pretended Note from being for our direction a true Note of the Church An other Argument for the impugning of the Protestants former Notes may be this The Scripture it selfe cannot be made knowne to vs to be Scripture but by the attestation of the Church for as for that sentence which teacheth that the Maiesty and voyce of God which appeareth in the Scripture or the Priuate Spirit iudging of it assâ—eth vs which is true Scripture it is an exploded Errour Seing one Man is persuaded he fyndeth in those books which himselfe admitteth for scripture that Maiesty and voyce of God the which very books for want of the said supposed voyce or Maiesty an other Man vtterly reiecteth as Apocryphil And in lyke sort the priuat Spirit of this Man embraceth such books as Canonical the which bookes the Priuat Spirit of an other absolutely discanoneth Now this being granted it from hence ineuitably resulteth that first we must know which is the true Church to giue this approbation of the Scripture before we can know which is the Scripture and much more then before we can be assured which is the true preaching of the word and sincere construction or Sense of the Scripture Now that our knowing which is Scripture proceedeth from the authoritie of the Church I first proue not only from S. Austin who saith n Actibus Apostolorum necesse est me credere si câ—edo Euangelio quoniam vtramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholiea commendat Ecclesia But also from the acknowledgement of our learned Aduersaries whose words in their wrytings to this purpose are most plentifull I will content myselfe referring the Reader to the references of others at this tyme with Peeter Martyr and M. Hooker Peter Martyr thus wryteth We acknow ledge it to be the function of the Church seing it is endued with the Holy Ghost that it should discerne the true and proper books of Scripture M. Hooker more fully 〈…〉 th heare of saying Of thing necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes we are to 〈◊〉 â—â—ly Which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach c. For of any Booke of Scripture did geus testimony to â—ll et stiâ— that Scripture which geneth credit to the rest world require â—n other Scripture to gâ—ue credit vnto it Neither could we come to any paâ—se whe reon to rest vnles besids Scripture theare were something which might assurs vs. Which thiâ—g M. Hockeâ—man other place articulatly â—earmeth The authority of Gods Church thus saying We all know the 〈◊〉 outward Motyue leading Men to esteeme of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Now if by these learned Mens conâ—ession the Church hath authority to propownd to vs which bookes presented for Scripture are true Scriptures and which are Apocryâ— hall and spurious then followeth it that the Church hath in lyke sort authority to propownd to vs which is the true and pure sense of the Scripture since the one is as necessarye to vs as the other for it aduantageth vs litle to know which are the vndoubted bookes of Scripture if so we know not which is the true sense of the Scripture Now out of the Premisses I demonstratiuely conclude that seing by the authority of the Church and not otherwise we are tought which â—ookes of Scripture are Canonicall and consequently which is the true sense of the said Scripture that therefore the Church being fâ—ster in odeâ— of knowledg to vs then either the Scripture or the true preaching of the word of Scripture the true preaching of the word is not nor can be apprehended to be a Note to vs to find thearby which is the true Church Since then it would follow an absurdity incompatible with all true discours of Reason that a thing which to vs is later knowne should be a Note to vs of that which by vs is first knowne An other argument may be drawne from the Nature of euery true Note which ought to be so peculiar to that of which it is a Note as that it cannot be applyed in the iudgment of others to it meare Contrary But we see different sectaryes teaching contrary doctrynes and professing themselfs to be members of different Churches do all neuertheles promiscuously challenge the true preaching of the Words and the vse of the Sacrements to be the Notes of their so much discording Churches or Conuenticles And therefore the afore named Lubbertus thus truly pronounceth of this poynt Praedicatio Sacramentorum communicatio similia Ecclesiae essentiam non attingunt sunt enim Haereticorum conuerticulis veris Christianorum Ecclesiâ—s communia The preaching of the word the distribution of the Sacraments and such like do not belong to the essence of the Church since these things are common both to the Conuenticles of Hereticks and to the true Churches of Christians And according hearto we find by experience that Lutherans Protestants and PuritaÌ„s theaching most repugnante doctrines do wartant these their doctrines by the former Notes of preaching the Word And therefore it from hence followeth that it is no lesse a madnes in our aduersaries to prescrybe the preaching of the word and the vse of the Sacraments for the notes of the Church which are common to all Hereticall Conuenticles at least in their owne Opinion then for one who would discouer and note out one particular Man from all others to distinguish him from them by saying It is he who hath two eyes one nose one mouth two armes c. Since these Notes or description are common to all men in generall Againe I thus dispute A true Note of any thing ought to be at all tymes without discontinuance a Note theareof and not sometymes only since otherwise it is but a temporary Note But theare hath bene a Church of God euen then when there was no Scripture at all much lesse any preaching or interpretation of the Word Therefore the preaching of the word cannot be erected as a true Note of the Church The Assumption of this argument is manifest For it is acknowledged that the Church of God continued two thousand yeres before Moyses his tyme without any Scripture and therefore D. Parkins truly thus saith Morses was the first pennman of Holy Scripture With whom agree Zanchius D. Whitakers and all other learned Men whosoeuer Againe after Moyses had pened the Scripture it remayned only in the custody of the Iewes and was among them for many yeres lost as it is granted euen by the marginall annotations of the English Bibles of the yere 1576. where it is said That it was either by the negligence of the Priests lost or by the wickednes of idolatreus Kings And yet euen in those tymes Iob and
c vpon the Reuelaâ—â—os p. 66. d So saith M. Hookerin his Ecclesiasticall poâ—cy e In Epist de abrogadis in vniuersum omnibê° siatu t is Ecclesiast * D. Whit. cont Camp Rat. 5. saith An mihi erit dicta singula quae quisquaÌ„ protulit aliquaÌ„do praestare aut defendere f In Epist Pauli Coloss et Thessal p. 246. g In his Prognosticin finis Mundi pag. 74. h c. 7. * God is more ancient then the Deuil therfore truth more ancieÌ„t theÌ„ falshood i Iohn 2. k Act. 15 l Aduers haeres m Epitem Hast Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78. o In his answere to certaine assertions teÌ„ding to maÌ„tayne the Churche of Rome p. 35 p In his Treatise of the Church l. 2. c. 9. q In his Apology vnderthe title of querulous motions r Lenaeus l. 2. c. 20. Athanas sâ—rm-2 contra Arium Ierom. Cont. Lucif in fine s hom 33. in Act. Apost t Pacianus epist ad Simphronianum u D. Whit. contra Camp Rat. 5. x Of the Church l. 2. c. 9. pag. 58. y Hierom. 35. z Numb 6. a Antiquitat Iudaic. l. 18. c. 2. b De vita contemplat c In his Britan pag. 40. d In his Britania p. 157. e Annexed to Holinshead his greate Chronicle volum 1. p. 23 f In his booke against Heskins Sand. p. 561 g In his pageant of Popes h In his soueraigne remedy against Schâ—mâ— p. 24 i In his pageant of Popes k Against the Rhemish Testament in 2. cor 12. l Act. Mon. printed 1576. p. 463. m In Iesuitism par 2. 〈◊〉 3. p. 304. n Beda hist 2. c. 2. o In his great Chronic. of the last edition voluÌ„ l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. p Act. MoÌ„ printed 1576 pag. 120. q Beda l. 2. c. 2. r Volum 1. p. 103 s In his Catalogue of the Bishops p. 6. t Printed anno 1606. l. 3. c. 13. p. 133. u In Iesuitisin part 2. Rat. 5. pag. 5. 627. x In the Alphabetical table of the sixt Century after the first Edition therof at the word Gregory y Epitom histor Eccles cent 6. pag. 289. z D. â—hit Cont. Camp Rat. 10. a D. Whit. vbi supra b Math. 27. c Gal. 2. d Act. MoÌ„ printed 1576. pag. 120. e Lib. 2. c. 2. f In his CoÌ„futation of Purgatory p. 335. g So saith D. hiâ— cont Duraeum lib. 7. pag. 480. h In Prouerb 13. where he so saith in dutcz as is here â—nglished i Luther Tom. 7. in Epist ad WophanguÌ„ fol. 505. k In Apolo ad PaÌ„mach cap. 3. l contra Vigilant cap. 1. m Haeres 59 n In Num. homil 23. o In Eâ—am Concil Trident p. 50. 62. p Concil Carth. 2. Can. 2. q Can. 3. 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. s D. Whit. contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 480 t Lib. 2. a. achab c. 2. u In. l. Zoar. in c. 18. Gen. x De Verb. Apost Serm. 34 y Agust in Encheriâ— c. 110. z Against the Rhemish Testament in 1. Cor. 3. a Math. 10. b In his answere to a counterfait Catholicke p. 44 c In his coÌ„futation of Purgatory p. 2. vid. 303. et 393. d Iustit 〈◊〉 c. 5. sect 10. f So saith D. Whit. cont Duraeutin l. 7. p. 480. g In his answere to a Cöterfait Catholicke p. 36. h D. Whit. cont Camp Rat. 4. i Cent. c. 4. col 64. l. 2. k histor l. 5. c. 24. l D. Whit. instanceth in these three Popes l. 7. CoÌ„l Durae um pag. 480. m Tertul. n In his answere to a coÌ„terfeytâ— tho licke p. 37. o Lib. 4 Instit cap. 7 Sect. 9. p In his Commö places in English part 4. p. 39 q So sayth D. Whitâ—kcr cenâ—ra Duraeuml p. 48 q adners Haeres uersus finem r In 1. Timoth s Act. 1. t Cod. de Summa Trinitate leg 4. u de Ingratis c. 2. x de Persecut Wandal y Epist 48. ad AnastasiuÌ„ a D. 〈…〉 hit cont Camp Rat. 6. thus writeth G 〈…〉 g. Magnus paruÌ„ ne tuu PôificeÌ„ perstringit quado quisquis se Vniuersale EpiscopuÌ„ vocat cuÌ„ Antichristi praecursore procul dubio appellat b D. Whit. l. de Eccles cont Bollar p. 336. c Lib. 7. epist 69 ad Euseb saying Si vnus est vutuersalis restat vt uos Episeopi non sitis d Lib. 4 Epist ad Eulogium Si vnus Patriarcha vniuersalis dicitur Patriaâ—charnm nâ—men â—aeteris der ogatuÌ„r e Lib. of the Church pag. 62. f So write the Câ—turists of Gregory Cent. 6. col 462. g Cent. 6. col 427. h vbi suprà col 428. i Cent. 6. col 425. k In their Treatise entituled English Puritanisme printed anno 190 〈◊〉 p. 16. l Penry in his supplication to the high Court or Parlament m so saith D. whitakers coutra Duâ—â—um l. 7. p. 490. o Ini Meditat c. 9. p Epict. 91. ad TheodoruÌ„ foro Iulii Episcop q In questio breuioribê° in terogat 288 r Cent. 3. c. 6. col 127. s De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 10. c. 3. t Lensâ— 2. 3. c. â—5 6. c. u D. Whit. cont Duraeum p. 480. sayth qni Transubstantiatione primus excogitauit is suit Innocentius tertius in Lateranenst Concilio x Tract 2â— in Ioaniâ—em y Lib. 6. contra Parmenianum z Crispinus in his booke of the state of the Church pag. 345. a Act. Mon. print 1576 p. 1121 b In Iâ—suitisâ— part 2. Rat. 5. p. 628. c Cent. 4. c. 10 Col. 985. d Centurist Cent. 4. c. 4. Coâ— 496. e In Margarit Theol. pag. 256. f We finde the testimonies of these Rabbins here produced to be alledâ—ed by Galatinus de Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 1. c. 3. Se Rab by Iudas in c. 24. Exo d. and Rabby Simeon in l. entituled Reuelatio seâ—retorum g D. Whit. Cont. DuraeuÌ„ l. 7. p. 480. Saith qui primus docuit corpus Christi â—esualiter tractari frangi et dentil◠〈◊〉 ri suit Nicolaâ—s secâ—dus h Chrysist in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. i Chrys in Mat. hom 83 k Chrysost in Ioan hem 45. l In consut disputaÌ„t IoaÌ„nis Grâ—naei p. 214 215. m So saith D. Whit. cont Duraeum l. 〈◊〉 c. 480. n Act. 15. o Serm. 8. p Rat. 10. Edm. Campiani Rat. 7. q D. Whit. So saith Cont. Camp in Rat. 7. r So sayth D. Whit. contra Duraeis p. 277. s D. Whit. contra CaÌ„p Rat. 7. Thus saith of this point De tempore non est sacile respondere neque id necessariuÌ„ est vt temporuÌ„ momenta prodantur t So D. Whitak contra duraeum pag. 277. u Bucanus In loc com pag. 466. x M. Powl In his consideration of the Popists supplication Pag. 43. y D. Whitakers for proose of the change of the faith of Rome
alledgeth this similitude saying Pili non subito omnes eaâ—escuÌ„t nec quicquam repenteÌ„ habet suam maturitateÌ„ Contra CaÌ„p Rat. 7. z D Whit contra Camp Rat. 7. thus saith in Ecclesia Romana accidit quëad modum in magno aedificio videmus euenire c. quod ruinas aliquo loco in cipit agere c. Ita Romana Ecclesia leporum successione c. a D. Whit. cont Camp saith â—utarcâ—â—a scripturarum defend muâ— Raâ— 1. b D. Whit. cont Camp Rat. 10. c D. Whit. cont Comp. Rat. 2. d D. Whit. vbi suprà Rat. 9. e Galat. c. 1 f D. â—hit cont DuraeuÌ„ l. 7. p. 478. saith nobis sufficit c. ex Pontificioru dogmatiâ— et scripturaruÌ„ collatione discrimen et dissimultudine agnoscere Histo◠〈◊〉 liberum relixquimus scribere quiâ—velint g D. Whit. cont Camp Rat. 5. h D. Whit. haleth in this senteÌ„ce in Rat. 〈◊〉 cont Camp i Contra MaximinuÌ„ Arianum E p c p. l. 1. k Ep st ad Paulinum l De praesâ—r aduers Haeres see c. 19. 30. 35. 36. m Vincent aduers Haeres n In his Eccles policy Sect. 14. p. 86. o Luther in titul de libris veteris et ncui Testamenti as also in his Prolegoâ—a to diuers of the books of the new Testament p See seaueÌ„ of the first chapters of the second part of that book all of them being spent in displaying the Protestants condenation of all orginals TraÌ„slations of Scripture q Math. 16 r In Psabâ—contra parté Donali s In c. 16 Math. t In Epist ad Quintu u Recorded by al the Euangelists x Theoph. in hunc locuÌ„ y Chrysostiâ— hunc locuÌ„ z Cyril Hierosol cat 4. mystag Cyril AlexaÌ„d epist ad CalosiriuÌ„ a Lib. de sacrameÌ„tis c. 5. b Ioan. 20. c Epist ad Heliodorum d Lib. de sacerdotio f Ioan. 3. g In hunc locum h In hunc locum i L b. de spiritu Sancto c. 11. k In c. 16. Ezech. l L b. 3. ad Quirinum m Iac. c. 2. n L. de fide ct oper c. 14. e Lib. 20. de Ciuilate Dei o Thes c. 2. p L. De side cap. 17. q De spirit sauct c. 29. r In hunc locum l D. Whit. De sacra script p. 521. saith Nam quaÌ„do scriptura non habetviuaÌ„ vocem quaÌ„ audâ—amus vteÌ„dum est quibusâ—lam mediis quibus inuestigamus quissit sesâ—s quae meas scripturariâ— 2 So saith D. Whit. l. de Eccles coÌ„trauers 2. quaest 2. p. 221. 3 D. Reynolds In his Conference p. 83. 84. 92. 98. 4 D. Whit. cotra Bellar. de Eccles coÌ„trauers 2. quaesi 2. pag. 221. thus writeth qualia illa media sunt tale ipsa interpretatione esse necesse est At media interpretadi leca obscura sunt incerta dubia et ambigua Ergo fieri non potest quin et ipsa interpretat o. incerta sit si incerta tunc esse potest falsa s Psal 18. t Dan. 2. u Esay 2. x Esay 60. y Cap. 15. 16. 17. z D. whit contra Camprat 3. thus saithe de loco Ecclesiastici paâ—ùm laboro nec Arbitrii libertateÌ„ credam quaÌ„tumuis hic centies affirmet Coram hominibus esse vitam et mortem a Cap. 4. b Cap. 30. c D. Whit l. 9. contra Duraeum p. 818. thus saith of this poynt TuuÌ„ in hac causa Petrum Galatinum minimè prostctò desideramus nec Haebreorum testimoniis illis indigemus e 1. Ioan. 2. f Rom. 8. et Galat. 4. 〈◊〉 Luk. 12. h Gal 3. et 2. Col. 2. i Math. et Mark 5. g Ioan. 3. k 1 Cor. 2. l 1. Cor. 2. m 1. Pet. 2. n 1. Petr. 2. vt supra o Ioan. 3. p In his hisâ—oria Sacramentariae part altera q Cap. 1. r 2. Cor. 4. s D. whit coÌ„tra Camp rat 3. caleth the Church of Rome thus Ecclesia Romae est meretrix Babiâ—anica palmes a â—â—a v 〈…〉 resâ—ctus speluca latroâ—um via ampla ad interituÌ„ perducens regnum infeâ—orâ—â— Corpus Antichristi Eâ—roriâ—â—â—lluu es maier â—â—gna scortationum Ecclesia Impiorum à qua excedere Christianum quemqne â—portel quam Christus miserè perdet aliqud lo eique sceleru omnium meritas penas imponet Thus D. Whit. t 3. Reg. 3. u Paraip 34. x Esay 2. Micheas 4. y Cyâ—â— l. de Vâ—â—aâ—â— Ecclesiae posi 〈◊〉 ilium z Tocò◠in greeke siâ—nifieth Vsury coming of the verb Tictò parto because siluer put to vsury bâ—etteth siluer a 1. Cor. 4. b Zach. 14. c Psalm 54 d D. Râ—ynl did write against Card. Bellurmine in the Controuersie of Images e Math. 16. f Ieremy 5. h Ioan. 6. b Viâ—g Aâ—neaâ— a TertulliaÌ„ de Pudicitia b Act. 13. c Lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae c. 12. d Lib. 2. et 6. contra Pa 〈…〉 e Lib. 2 contra Petiliaâ—â— rat 51. et 61. f Haeres c. 33. g In â—raesat dialogorum contra Pelagianos h Haeres cap. 46. i Lib. contra Vigilantiâ—â— c. 2. k Lib. 1. et 2. contra Iouinianum l Lib. de haeres c. 82. m Lib. 2. cotra Pelagianum n In Re scripto ad Mâ—lâ—uiâ—â—â—â—â— Concilium post 〈◊〉 o Haeâ—â— 88. p Lib. 26. cap. 27. q Aduers haeres post med r L. 4. â—â—er 〈…〉 s In explanat symboli ad DamasuÌ„ t De temporeserm 91 u Lib 2. cap. 19. x Dialog 3. y Lib. 3. de Haeretiâ— fabulis z Lib. 6. histor c. 33. a Lutâ— In his sermoÌ„s enâ—lished p. 147. et 276. c. b Lib. de Haeres c. 54. c Vincent Lyrinensis coÌ„tra haeres d 1. Ioan 2. a Osiander Cet 16. l. 2. c. 67. p. 423. Hoc tempore Ecclesiae in Anglia ad formaÌ„ Cal 〈…〉 sticam opera Petri Martyris Florentini Bernardi Ochini Senensis reformaâ—ae sunt And Symlerus a ProtestaÌ„t in his booke de vita obit Petri Martyris fol. 13. Petrus Martyr ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi de voluntate Regis vocatus est itaque Argentinâ in Angliam discessit comitante eum Bernardo Ochino qui ipse ab eodem Archiepiscopo vocatus est b Bale in praesat in Act. Rom. Pontif. printed 1558 sayth of Ochinus and Peter Martyr Faelix Anglia dum haec paria habuit misera dum amisit c So sayth Caluin of Ochinus in these words quos Itali Bernardino Ochiâ—o Petro Vermilio opponent l. de scandalis extant in his tract Theolog. printed 1597. pag. 111. d Conâ—adus Slussenberge in Theolog. Caluin l. 1. Art 2 calleth Neuserus He 〈…〉 ergensis Ecclesiae primarius Pastor e 1. Petri 1. f Se Polidor Virgil and Leyland his Annotations vpon Polidor Virgil * Vide authorem Genealogiae principum CambroruÌ„ Brilannicorum Saxonicorum As also Cadnaeus de aduentâ— lulij Caesaris g 2. Cor. 6. h Ioan. 11. k Esay 60. l Esay 49. m Psalm n Esay 54. See here of the contents of the English
Mon. p. 628. x Epist 244. y In tract de Eccles p. 124. z In Iâ—â—uitism part 2. rat 3 p. 270. And M. Fox Act. mon. p. 628. a D. Humfrey vbi supra b Illyricus in catalog teftium verirat p. 743. c Illyrecus vbi supra pag. ibid. d Illyrecus vbi supra p. 760. e Ibid p. 731. et p. 745. f Ibid. p. 729. g Ibid. p. 735. et 756. h Illyric ibid p. 734. i Illyric ibid p. 735. et 755. 1 D. Fulke against the Rhemish TestarneÌ„t in Apoc. 12. 2 D. Abbots in his second partof the defeÌ„ce c. printed 1607. p. 55. k In his booke against D. Hill his reasons p. 57. l De success Ecclesiast contra stapletonum p. 332. m In Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. pag. 329. n In his dictionarium historicum annexed to his thesaurus printed anno 15-78 at the word Albigenses o In his defence of the Apology p. 48. p D. Fulke in his Retentiue against Bristow p. 124. q In his defence of the Apol p. 48. r Cent. 12. p. 291. s Osiander Cent. 12. p. 282. and 283. t Hospinian in histor Sacrament l. 4. p. 361. u Osiander vbi supra x In his defence of the Apol vbi supra s Cent. 9. 10. 11. p. 326. y In ep dedic histor Sacrament z In his booke of the state of the Church p. 221. a In his Cronicle p. 473. b in ep hist eccles cent 8. p. 101. c Lib. 2. hist Franciae d Cen. 8. c. 9. col 570. e In Chronic. p. 474. f Lib. 1. pro Imaginibus g Instit l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. h Cent. 9. c. 4. col 212. i In histor Sacrament l. 4 p. 317. k L. de Rom. Pontif. l In Chronico m In Chronico n In Chronico o As M. Fox confesseth Act. Mon. p. 13. p In epist Oecolampedii et Swinglii l. 3. p. 710. q IbideÌ„ p 812. r L 3. in Hugone et Roberto s In his answeare to a Counterfeyte Catholicke p. 34. t Ioannes de Rupe scissa and Guilielmus de S. Amore claymed for Protestants by M. Napper vpon the Reuclat in c. 20. u Peter blois iâ— claymed by M. Gabriel Powel in his considerat p. 25. x Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 287. y In Chronographia pag. 102. z Cent. 12 p. 181. a Act. mon. printed 1596. p. 358. b Osiander cent 9. p. 44. c In Iesuitim part 2. rat 3. pag. 326. d In epitom cent 8. pag. 58. e By Symon Pauli in method aliquot locorum doctrinae fol. 12. f Act. mon. pag. 41. g See all these some others in the Alphabeticall table of Illyricus his Catalogue reâ—â—ium veritatis h L. 1. de Rom. Idolat l. 1. c. 2. act 3. p. 73. i Erasm in l. 16. epist 1â— k D. Fyeld in his booke of the Church l. 3. c. 8. p. 76. l Math. 〈◊〉 Esay 2. m Esay ibidem n Against the Rhenish Testament in 2. Thessal 2. o In his answere to M. Reynolds preface p. 34. 37. p Vpon the Apocalyps p. 200. q In his answere to a CouÌ„terfeyte Catholicks p. 36. Ioan. 2. Act. 15. s Osiand inepitom Cent. 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 78. thussaith nota haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur t Hebr. 5. u Rom. 10. x Ioan. 10. y So lasciuius a Protest relateth of Caluin in muscouit et Tartar religioneÌ„ c. 23. z In his conference at Poâ—si a Against Stapleton Martial c. 2. b Musculus loc com p. 394. Amandus Polanus in part theolog l. 1. p. 30â— c Luth. tom 5. 〈◊〉 Germ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d In his perpetuall gouermeÌ„t of the Church c. 9. p. 111. e Against the Rhenish Test in Apocalyp 13. f Contra Duraeâ—m l. 9. p. 820. g In his defence of the gouerment pag. 1276. h Propositions principlâ—â— disputed in Geneua p. 245. i Esay c 60. k Daniel 2. l Esay 60. m In his exposition vpon the Creed p. 400. n D. Reynolds in his conference with M. Hart. c. 7 diuis 6. the like doth D. Iewell in his defeÌ„ce of the Apology o Contra DuraeuÌ„ l. 7. p. 469. q In Whitguifts defence p. 174. r In his Reply p. 506. s In CeÌ„t. 1. 2. 3. t In Chronographia u In Chronologia x Cent. 1. 2. 3. y Act. Mon. in his discourse of the tenn Persecutions * Tertul. l. de resurrect carnis z 1. Cor. 4. * Tertul. l. de fuga in persecut * Tertul. l. aduersuâ— gentes a Rom. 10. b Lib. 3 of the Church pag 1. c Math. cap. 10. d In his Synops. printed 1600. pag. 612. 613. 614. e In CoÌ„cil Theol. pag. 628. f In his discours hereof recited in Melancâ—hons former treatise of Concil Theolog. p. 634 635. g Alledged in the foresaid place by Melancthon h Lib. de vitendis superstitionibus extant in Caluin tract Theolug c. p. 584. i Math. 18. k In Iesuitism part 2. tract 2. rat 3. p. 241. l In his reformed Cathol p 328. 329. m Lib. de Eccles pag. 165. n In ep Theol. ep 1. p. 15. o Caluin in l. epist epist 104. Osiander in epitom hist Cent. 16. part alt pag. 1072. p D. Parkins vbi supra q In epitom Cent. 16. part alt p. 1076. 1072. * In the first part of the Conuerted Iew. * Lib. aduers Haereses r Lib. 3. Eccles poâ— p. 130. s In his former sermons and two questioÌ„s serâ— 3. p. 44â— t M. Bunny in his Treatise of PacificatioÌ„ sect 18. p. 108. u M. Bunny vbi supra p. 123. x M. Bunny ibidem pag. 119. y M. Bunibidem p. 36. z Vbi supra p. 92. a Aâ—nâ—d 〈◊〉 b Cont. Donatist post collat 〈◊〉 â—4 c Rom. 〈◊〉 d De rebus grauiss coÌ„trouers pag. 319. e The Protestant Lasciuius reciteth this saying of Caluin I. de Russor Muscouit c. religione c. 23. f Against Stopleton Maâ—tial p. 2. g In his works printed 1605. f. 916. h Amaâ—dus Polanus in part Theolog p. 308. Musculus in loc câ—â— p 394. Luther tom 5. lenae Germ. 〈◊〉 491. i In his Apologetic c. 176. k In his exposition of the Creed p. 400. l De amplitud regni Dei p. 212. m In his answere to a counterfeit Catholicke p. 16. n Vpon the Reuelation in c. 11. 12. * M. Brocard vpon â—he Apocalyps fol. 〈◊〉 o Vpon the Reuelat in c. 11. 12. p In ep de abrog in vniuersum omnibus statutis Eccles q In his answere to a counterfeyte Catholick pag. 33. r Lib. de Antichristo l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 pag. 25. s In Apologetiâ—o t This is performed in the CoÌ„clusion of this Treaâ—ise u So saith Ochinus in praefat suorum Dialogorum x Math. 3. * Tertul 〈◊〉 gentes y 1. Timoth 2. z Hebr. 2. a Ioan. 1. b Ioan. 4. c 1. Ioan. 2. d Ioan. 1. e Rom. 6. * 2. Thess 3.
rat 3. p. 44. y Epist de abrouaÌ„dis in vniuersum omnibus statut Ecclesiast z In his exposition of the Creed p. 400. a Instit 4 c. 1. sect 11. b In the Apology of the Church of Enâ—land part 4. c. 4 p. 426. c In his Booke of the Church l. 3. c. 6. f. 72. d EpitoÌ„ Cent. 16. p. 736. e In his booke against the Anabaptists f Esay 60 62. Psalm 102. Ephes 4. besydes many other places a Sess 24. Can. 3. b Cap. 2â— c Gene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3â— d Cap. 25. e Math. â—6 f Homiâ— 49. in Matheunâ— g In CoÌ„ment c. 24. in Mathaeâ—m h L. 18. Antiquit cap. 9. a Quaest 77. b 3. Regum c. 6. and 7. c Cap. 21. d Cap. 25. e Exod. 31. 34. Deutâ—on 4. 9. 10. f Lib. 6. stoâ— cituÌ„ g Quaest 71. in Euod epist 119. cap. 11. a Greâ—â—ry Nyssen orat in Theodor. b S. Thomas in 3. sentent distinct â— c Thus teacheth the CouÌ„cell of Trent sess 25. d Exod. 25. e Exod. 12. f Exod. 28. g Esay 11. h Cap. 3. i 2. Tim. cap. 3. k Philip. 2. If any Authour seeme to say that the same worship is giuen to the Image which to the hrofit vpon eyther he meaneth that nothing is giuen to the Image but all to that which it representeth or that it is the same only in name not in nature or only Analogicè non vniuocè l Lib. 2. de doctrina Christiana c. 25. m Serm. 10. in psalm 118. n In Leituâ—â—â—a o In vita Paulae p Quaest 16. an Antiocum q Cent. 4. cap. 10. col 1080. n In â—ulianum vt citat Adrianus ad Imperator r Cent. 10. c. 8. col 850. s In epitoÌ„ Cent. 6. p. 288. t In his pageant of Popes p. 24. 27. u on the reuelat p. 57. x Lib. 7. coÌ„mentar at anno Christi 494. y Cedrenus in coÌ„pend Histor z Nicephorus in hist l. 16. c. 27. a Exam. part 4. p. 14. 33. b So doth Beza relate of Luther and Brenâ—ius in resp ad Act. Colloq Montisb part altera in praefat pag. 12. c In epitom colloq Montisb pag. 39. d Lib. 7. histor cap. 14. e In cap. 9. Mathaei f Lib. 6. histor cap. 20. a Lib. de ciuitate Dei c. vlt. b Rom. 11. vt saluos facereÌ„ aliquos ex illis c 1. Cor. 9. vt omnes racereÌ„ saluos d Ioh. 10. 14. e Cap. 15. f Toby 12. Zach. 1. Math. 18. Apoc. 8. g Luc. 20. h Lib. hist c. 5. i Decura pro mortuis k Orat. de Sancto Manante l Orat. 1. in IulianuÌ„ m In vita Greâ—orij ueo 〈…〉 â—aâ—â—ens n Lib. 5. histor c. 24. o Genes â—8 p Cap. 5. q In annoâ—at in Iob. Cap. 7. s Cap. 15. t 6. u 5. x 3. y 4. z 13. a Cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serm. Euang. de sanctissima Deipara b Act. 11. c Act. 7. d Act. 6. e Cap. 7. Eccles Hierarch f Lib. 5. coÌ„tra Haeres vltra medium g Lib. 13 praeparat Euang. c. 7 i Orat. in 40. Martyres k Homil. 66. ad Populum l Orat. in Sanctum TheodoruÌ„ m In psal 129. n Lib. de Viduis vltra med o In epitaph Paulae p Tract 84. in Iohannem r D. Fulke in his Reioindeâ— to Bristow s D. Fulk agaynst the Rhenish Test in 2. Petr. c. 1. t D. Fulk agaynst the Rhenish Test vbi supra u In his defence agaynst the reply of Cart. wright p. 472. x In his examinat p. 120. y In purgat quoruÌ„dam articul z In orat 1. Chryâ—ost de Inuentio maximo a Act. mon. p. 1312. b See Hâ—fferenfetus in loc theol l. 3. stat 4. c Ierome epist 2 cotra V 〈…〉 l. Gregory lib. 11. moral cap. 13. 16. * Gregory vbi supra d Lib. de cura pro mortuis c. 15. e Nazianzene orat fun in sororem Gorg. f Luc. 15. a Lib. 22. de ciuitat Dei c. 29. a Bellar. de 〈…〉 cat l. 4. c. 10. b Rom. 9. c Rom. 8. d Sess 6. c. vlâ— * Math. 5. e Math. 20. f vâ— Matth. 16. g Rom. 〈◊〉 h vz. psalm 65. Luc. 6. 1. Cor 3. Galat 6. Apocal vlt. i Math. 25. k Cap. 7. l Hebr. 6. m Apoc. 2. n 2. Thes 1. 2. Tim. 4. Iacob 1. x Luc. 10. y 2 Thes 1. z Sapient 3. Luc. 20. Apoc. 3. a Epist ad Rom. b Lib. 4. aduersus Haeres c. 72. c Lib. de Spirit Sanct. cap. 24. d Homil. 4. de Lazero e Orat. in Sanct. Baptism f Orat. 1. de amandis pauperibus g De vnitat Eccles h Lib. 1. de officijs cap. 15. i Epist 103. ad Sixtum k Aduersi Iouinianum propâ— finem l Iesuitism part 2. p. 530. m Cent 5. col 1178. n Cent. 3. col 265. o In CoÌ„fess Wittenberg p Luth. in Galat. cap. 4 the latin word by him need is Iustiliarij q Contra Camp rat 5. r In his defence against the reply of Cartwright pag. 472. 473. s Vpon the Apocalyps ser 87. t In his defence of M. Parkins p. 340. u Pag. 495. 273. x Lib. 5. eccles pol. sect 72. p. â—08 y In loc â—om de bonis operib circu medium z In Margarit Theolog. p. 48. 50. a Math. 19. b Lib. de habitu virginum c In huÌ„clocum d De sancta virginitat c. 24. e Math. 19. f De viduis vltra medium g Lib. coÌ„tra vigilant h Epist 89. quaest 4. i In c. 5. ad Rom. k Lib. de humanitate verbi vltra med l Lib. de virginit vlt. med m Homil. 8. de Penit n Orat. in Iulian. vltra medium o De hábitu virâ—inum vltra medium p Lib. de â—â—duis q Lib. contra Iouinianum r Lib. de virginitate Sancta cap. 30. s Eccles pol lib. 3. sect 8. pag. 140. t In his defence of M Hooker art 8. pag. 49 50. 51. 52. u In Sacra 4. Euangel in Math. c. 19. a 2 Reg. c. 12. b Reg. 〈◊〉 24. c 1. Cor. 1. d 1. Iohn 〈◊〉 2. Math. 16. f Math. 18. Iohn 20. g Coloâ— 1. h In psal 61. i Colos 1. k Cor. 2. Cor. 1. l Row 9. m Psal â—21 n Psalm 218. o Ezech 18. p Ad Galat 6. q Psalm 49. r Marc. 9 s Iob 4. t Eccles 3. u 2. Cor. 2. x Lib. ad Martyr y Cyprian epist 13. 14. 15. serm vlt. de Lapsis z Luggerus epist de S. Swiberto apud SuriuÌ„ a Thom in 4. sentent dis 20. q. 1. art 3. b Anton. 2. part histor tit 16 cap. 1. c Abbas Vlperg in Chronic. d Can. 11. e Can 9. f Can. 2. g Cempnit in his Examen Concil Trident. parr 1. pag. 74. h 1. Tim. 3. i Kempnitius examen part 4. p. 329. a Ioan. 〈◊〉 b vbi supra c Luc. 24. d Lib. 3. de