Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n ancient_a church_n doctrine_n 1,896 5 6.2759 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A18933 The conuerted Iew or Certaine dialogues betweene Micheas a learned Iew and others, touching diuers points of religion, controuerted betweene the Catholicks and Protestants. Written by M. Iohn Clare a Catholicke priest, of the Society of Iesus. Dedicated to the two Vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge ... Clare, John, 1577-1628.; Anderton, Lawrence, attributed name.; Anderton, Roger, d. 1640?, attributed name. 1630 (1630) STC 5351; ESTC S122560 323,604 470

There are 11 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

signify three yeares and a halfe which short compasse of tyme cannot in any sort be applyed to the Bishop of Reme as Antichrist teaching the present Roman Religion seeing he hath cōtinued preaching the sayd Doctrine Religion euen by the Protestants confessions as now I see many hundred of yeares But good my Lord Cardinall if there be any other reasons behinde to impugne this sayd change I would intreate your Lordship to descend to them for in matters of great importance variety seldome breedeth satiety CARD BELLARM. I am willing therto And for the further prosecution therof I am to put you in mind M. Doctour partly according to my former Method set downe in the beginning that wheras the Professours of the Church of Rome were in the Apostles dayes the true Church of Christ as is aboue on all sides confessed and consequently the most ancient Church since truth is euer more ancient then falsehoode and Errours It therfore followeth that all Hereticks whatsoeuer who make choyse of any new doctrine in Fayth do make a reuolt and seperation from that Church of the Apostles according to those words of S. Iohn exierunt a nobis they went out of vs and answerably to that other text certaine that went forth from vs which very words do contayne a Brande or Note vpon the Authour of euery Heresy Since the Apostle and the Euangelist do meane hereby that euer first Hereticke goeth out from a more aucient society of Christians then by him is chosen So as to go out of a precedent Church or society of Christians is not only an infallible note of Heresy in the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis quis vnquam Haereses instituit nisi qui priùs ab Ecclesiae C●●boli ae Vniuer sitatis antiqnitatis consensione discre●●it but euen by your owne Brethren for we finde Osiander among others thus to write Nota Haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur Thus do Hereticks euer forsake the generall most ancient company of Christians as smale Brooks do often leaue the common channell of the mayne Riuer Now here I demād of you M. Doctour to shew from what company or society of Christians more ancient did we Catholicks in those former tymes when first you say this chāge of Faith was made depart or from what Church afore in being went we out The euidency of this Note is manifested in Caluin Luther the Waldenses the Wicliffians and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries of whom it is confessed that all of them were originally Members of our Catholicke Church and by their making choise of particuler Doctrines so Iudas the Apostle who departing from the company of the Apostls after became Iudas the Traitour did go and depart out of the present Roman Church and therby became Hereticks The like M. Doctour I do here expect that you should prooue by authority of Ecclesiasticall Histories of the present Catholicke and Romane Church which if you cannot then is the inference most strong that the present Church of Rome neuer made any such reuolt from or departing out of that Church which was established by the Apostles at Rome and consequently that the present Church of Rome neuer suffered any change in Fayth since it first being a Church D. WHITAKERS Your Church hath departed from that Fayth which the Apostles first preached in Rome and I hope this departure and going out without other proofs is sufficient enough And here I answere with M. Newstub● one of our learned Brethren That when you require who were they that did note your going out c. This question I say is vnvecessary c. we haue taken you with the manner that is to say with the Doctrine diuerse from the Aposties and therfore neither Law nor Conficience can force vs to examen them who were witnesses of you first departing Thus my Brother M. Newstubs And my Lord as it is far better for one to haue a cleare sight then to enioy the best helps for curing a bad sight so we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine first preached at Rome by the Apostles and manifested vnto vs by the perspicuity of the scripture before all humane reasons and arguments directed to the discouerie of Romes after embraced Innouation CARD BELLARM. What strang Logicke is this and how poore a Circulation do you make The mayne question betweene vs is whether the present Church of Rome hath changed it Fayth or no since the Apostles dayes To prooue that it hath not Iverge that the professours therof did neuer go out of any more anciēt Church and consequently euer retayned without change it former Fayth Now you in answere hereto as not being able to instance the persons by whom or the tymes when any such departing or going out was made by the Professours of our Religion reply that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles and therfore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion since the Apostles tymes and this sophism you know is but Petitio Principij or a beginning of the matter in question and is nothing els but without answering to any of my premisses the denyall of my Conclusion which kynd of answenng I am sure impugneth all Logicke and therfore all Reason since Logicke is but Reason sublimated and refined But to proceed further In euery introduction of a new Religion or broaching of any innouation in Doctryne the Professours therof receaue a new denomination or name for the most part from the first authour of the new doctryne and sometymes from the Doctrine its selfe like vnto a running riuer which commonly taketh the name of that riuer into which it falleth Thus the Arians the Valentinians Marcionists Manicheans from Arius Valentinus Marcian and Manicheus c. or from the doctrine it selfe as the Hereticks Monothelites Agnoitae Theopaschitae c. though this more seldome This Note or Marke of imposing a new name of the Professours of euery arrising Heresy may be exemplified in all Heresies without exception ingendred since the Apostles tymes euen to this day a poynt so exempt from all doubt as that your learned Man M. Doctour Feild thus writeth Surely it is not to be denyed but that the naming after the names of Men was in the time of the Primatiue Church peculiar and proper to Hereticks and Schismaticks with whom agreeth M. Parks both of them borrowing it from the anciēt Fathers and particulerly from Chrysostome who thus saith Prout Haeresiarchae nomen it a Secta vocatur Well then this being thus acknowledged on all sides If the present Church of Rome hath made a change from her first Primatiue Fayth then the Professours therof by introducing of new Heresies and Opinions became Heretickes and consequently they haue taken according to our former grounde some name either from the first broachers of these new Doctrines or from the doctrines themselues But you cannot M. Doctour shew any such name to be imposed vpon vs
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
words Although thes and such like defenced some part of the tru●h which we ●ould against you yet le●st you should obiect it was but in some one or two points ●passe them ouer with silence Thus D. Fulke who euen vpon this ground preterm●●teth all the said examples and first instanceth in Wicklefe OCHINVS I do find Michaeas some learned Protestants to make mention of Ioannes de rupescissa Gui●ie●mus de S. Amore Peter Blois and some others for good and found Protestants what is your opinion of them MICHAEAS I grant they are claymed for Protestants but obserue how iniustly And first touching Ioannes de rupe scissa M. Fox thus writeth of him Iohannes de Rupe scissa liued anno 1340. who for rebuking the spiritualty for their great enormityes and neglecting their office was cast in prison Thus M. Fox Thus we see he otherwyse was Catholicke in all points Willi●lmu● de S. Amore is thus charged by Pantaleon the Protestant Gulielmus de S. Amore Monach●s ex 〈…〉 osyna in otio 〈…〉 tes non salua●i scribens a Papa Haereticus censetur Guilielmus de S. Amore teaching that Monkes liuing of Almes in idlenes could not be saued is therefore censured by the Pope for an Hereticke Lastly Peter Blois who liued anno 1200. is freed from being a Protestant by Osiander in these words Petrus Blesensis c. principum praelatorum religiosisorum priuatorum peccatā grauiter arguit non tamen Pontificios errores refutauit Peter Blois did much aggrauate the sinns of Princes Prelates Religious and priuate Men but he no way intermedled with the errours of Popish religion Now Ochinus I refer euen to your selfe how vntruly these former Men may be obtruded vpon vs for Protestants But the proceeding of our Aduersaries in this question of the visibility of their Church is incredible who are not ashamed in their owne defence herein to challenge besydes registred and confessed Hereticks any one that hath impugned the Pope or his Church but in any one point eyther of manners or doctrine And hence it is that they challenge to themselfs for Protestants men whom all the world do know to be Catholicks in all articles of fayth without exception Thus are Willielmus Occam and Gandanensis by M. Fox Iohn Scotus by Osiander vrged for Protestants Thus also is S. Bede claymed by D. Humfrey of whom Osiander thus speaketh Bede was a Papist in all those Articles wherein Protestants do at this day dissent from the Pope Thus is Peter Lombard placed in the Catalogue of the Doctours and restorers of the heauenly doctrine whom notwithstanding M. Fox styleth An archpillar of Papistry Thus also Ioannes Gerson Thomas Aquinas whom all Christendome acknowledgeth to be of the Church of Rome are challenged for Protestants by Illyricus Finally Thus is Erasmus canonized by them for a Protestant and particularly by your selfe M. D. yet we reade that Erasmus thus writeth Christum agnosco Lutherum non agnosco Ecclesiam Romanam agnosco Christ 〈◊〉 acknowledge Luther I do not acknowledge the Church of Rome I acknowledge But D. Field one of this vniuersity ouergoeth all others for he with more then a meretricious and frontles bouldnes auerreth that all Christendome before the dayes of Luther were Protestants for thus he writeth We firmely beleiue that all the Churches of the world wherein our Fathers liued and dyed to haue bene the true Protestant Churches of God c. And that they which taught imbraced and beleiued those damnable errours which the Romanists defend against vs were only a faction An assertion which Impudency it self● would blush to mantayne it being controuled by all historyes whatsoeuer and by the free acknowledgment of all Protestant wryters without exception NEVSERVS This bould asseueration of D. Field I confesse displeaseth me infinitly and it is no small blemish to vs who professe the Gospell and who should bound and measure our speeches with truth at least with some probability of Truth thus to write For who knoweth not that the Masse which contayneth in it selfe diuers doctrines of the Romish Religion was the publike Leyturgy celebrated in all Churches throughout Christendome at Luthres first reuolt from the Pope And I grant that this may giue iust suspition to many to thinke that we make vndue clayme to the auncient Fathers and others aboue instanced being further of in tyme remoted from vs when some of vs blush not to affirme so vntruly of the dayes next before Luther and of the tyme in which himselfe first did rise vp it being yet in the memory of Man But M. Doctour I pray you proceede to higher tymes D. REYNOLDS I acknowledge it is a difficult point to name professours of Protestancy for euery age Though no doubt our Protestant Church as being the true Church enioyed many Professours at all tymes But these examples afore produced may giue great coniecture that at all times since the Apostles there haue bene many faithfull Protestants and an answerable administration of the word Sacraments MICHAEAS Touching your former produced examples your owne secret iudgment no doubt assureth you that as yet we haue not met with one pertinent example in all this discourse But seeing you M. D. do forbeare to instance for former ages yet not discussed contrary to your promised attempt in the beginning I would entreate Ochinus or Neuserus to insist in perticular Instances of Protestancy for euery such age OCHINVS I will speake both for my selfe and N●userus The labour of instancing is peculiar to M. Doctour And therefore we would be loath as being no more able to performe it then he to take it from him and assume it to our selfs MICHAEAS M. Doctour and you two Gentlemen These are but words seruing fruitlesly to rauell out the time allotted for disputation Therefore once more I vrge you all to giue instances for euery age not yet mentioned NEVSERVS What needs this earnest solicitation of you in this point There were no doubt in euery of those Centuryes many Protestants And let that suffice MICHAEAS What Neuserus Generalityes without particulars What Logicke is this And yet you know Logicke is the schollars eye wherewith he discerneth Sophisms and subtill Euasions But the plaine truth is neither any of you or any learned Man whosoeuer is able so much as but to suggest any one man much lesse any one Country professing in the next precedent ages the Protestant fayth And therefore since Necessity is euer pardonable I pardon you all for your flying to these generall answeres though I must confesse they openly discouer the strayts within which you are here enuironed But Learned Men seing we haue waded so far in this discourse we will reflect a little vpon the former examples or Instances And I will here deale liberally with you in yeelding ●or the tyme more then I am bound to doe And as the Ma●●ematicians do forge certaine imaginary
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 Doctour●seth ●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 l● England Doctour Reynolds of Oxford and Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelberg in the Palatinate Why Ochinus Neuserus are brought in as speakers in this Dialogue the Argument prefixed therto will show I haue presumed to incorporate most of what can be vrged for the visibility of the Protestant Church in Doctour Reynolds as a Man who was best able in his dayes to support his owne Church from ruyne And sutably herto the supposed place of this disputation is Oxford I haue in no sort wronged the Doctour whom I well know to haue bene a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall spheare to whom as being of good temperance in his writings in respect of his brother Doctour Whitakers I am vnwtlling to ascrybe too litle only I wish his fauorits had not ascrybed to him too much If any of you shall muse why in these Dialogues all the Protestants being otherwise presumed to be most learned do reply so sparingly eyther to Cardinall Bellarmyne or to Michaeas their answeres and arguments as here you shall find them to do you are to conceaue that it is agreed in the begining of the two first Dialogues among all the Interlocutours to stand indisputably to the freqrent Confessions of the learned Protestants vrged in behalfe of any poynt controuerted Now both the Cardinall and Michae●s for the most part do auoyd the other Interlocutours reasons and instances by the contrary acknowledgments of diuers eminent Protestants as also do produce their owne arguments in defence of their Catholicke articles from the like acknowledgments of the learned Protestants speaking in those points agaynst themselues and in behalfe of the Catholickes Which method being chiefly houlden throughout these Dialogues how then can the Protestant Interlocutours continue any new reply agaynst the Caidinall or agaynst Michaeas But to reflect vpon the subiect of this second Dialogue And here I do auouch that to maintayne that Protestancy was euer before the breaking out of Luther though euen then it was not in it perfection is no lesse absurd in reason then to maintayne that the byrth of any thing can precede it conception and the effect the cause True it is that in diuers former ages there haue bene some secret and indeed blind Moules who working vnder the foundation of the Roman Church haue labored
at S. Gregory his sending of Augustine into England which was about a thousand yeares since our present Roman Religion was then wholy and publickely practised in Rome that if the Church of Rome had suffered any change of Faith from that first taught by the Apostles that this change should haue beene made not since but before Gregories time and before he had sent Augustine to plant in England the Fayth of Christ I may adde M. Doctour in further confirmation of D. Humfrey his iudgment herein the iudgment of your owne Centurists who in their Index or Alphabeticall table of the sixt Century at the Word Gregory set downe with particuler figures ofreferences where euery such mentioned opinion may be found as followeth Eiusdem Error de bonis operibus de Cōfessione de cōiugio de Ecclesia de sanctorum ●nuocatione do Inferno de Libero arbitrio de ●ustificatione de Purgatorio de Paeni●entia de satisfactione c. And which is more your sayd Cēturists do further accuse Gregory out of his owne writings with consecration of Altars Chalices Corporals with oblatiō of sacrifice for the dead with translation of Reltques with Monachisme with Pilgrimages with consecration of Churches with Masse spri●kling of holy-water With consecration of the fort of Baptisme of Chr●●s●●e Oyle with celibratio of Masse finally With claime of soueraignty ouer all Churches All which places of the Centurists charging him are to be found in their sixt Century after the first edition thereof To these former acknowledgmēts we may adioin the words of Luke Osiander your famous Protestant which are these Augustinus Romanos Ritus et consuetudines Anglicanis Ecclesus obstitit And then immediatly after he perticulerly setteth downe seuerall rites doctrines practized and beleeued at this present by the Church of Rome which as he confesleth Augustine did plant establish in England a poynt so euident that euen your owne selfe M. Doctour auertes that Boniface the third who liued anno 605. and presently after the foresaid Gregory and all his successours were Antichrists Yea you speaking of the conuersion of England made by this Gregory and of other conuersions of Countries by other Popes after thus conclude The Conuersions of so many countries were not pure but corrupt With you herein Dauaeus that remarkable Protestant conspirech who thus basely censureth of Gregories conuerting of England Purgatio illa quam Gregorius primus fecit c. fuit i●ebriatio mer etricis mundo facta de qua est Apocalips 17. et 18. Thus referring our Conuersion to Christianity to the worke of Antichrist And thus M Doctour you here may see how the Church of God through an ouer vnkind peruerting and misconsturing her most motherly and charitable endeauours hath reason even to complaine and grieue at those who vaunt themselues for her owne Children so the Vine being vntimely cut weeps out its mishap through out it owne wound Now from all these former testimonies of your selfe M. Doctour other Protestant writers we may infallibly conclude that from this day till we arriue at least to the age of the fore-said S. Gregory the present Roman Catholicke Religion was taught in diuers Countries consequently seeing those Countries receiued their instruction in Faith from Rome that it was not during all this time introduced into the Church of Rome as an Innouation and change of the Faith afore professed by the said Church Now it being made euident first that the Church of Rome did retaine her purity of Faith the first foure hundred and forty yeares after Christ and also that for this last thousand yeares the present Romā Catholicke Faith hath not at any time thereof bin first brought into the world but during the said thousand yeares it hath bin continually the generall taught doctrine of the Church of Rome It now followeth that we take into our consideratiō the number of years which passed betweene the first foure hundred and forty from Christ and these last thousand yeares from vs. Which number seeing it is sixteene hundred yeares some more from Christ to vs amounteth to about one hundred and sixty yeares Well then if here we can prooue that no change of Fayth in the Church of Rome within the compasse of this 160. yeares then followeth it vnauoidably that the Church of Rome neuer to this day hath suffered any alteration in Fayth and Religion since its first embracing of the Christian Fayth That no Change of Faith did happen within the compasse of the sayd 160. yeares I prooue seuerall waies yet all conducing to erect this one maine truth like as diuers lesser numbers though counted after different waies make vp but one and the same great number And first this assertion of mine is prooued from the doctrine which was beleeued and generally taught at such tyme as Constantine who was our first Christian Emperour was conuerted to Christianity which was about the yeare 320. after Christ and therefore before the foresayd 160. yeares That the Faith in his time was the same that the Church of Rome professeth at this present appeareth from the frequent testimonies of your former Centurists who most elaborately punctually do record all the particuler Articles of the present Romane Fayth to be beleeued most constantly by the said Constantine and that he did cause to be put in practise all the Ceremonies now vsed in the Church of Rome And the said Centurists are so exact and diligent in their enumeration of all the Catholicke Doctrines beleeued by Constantine and of the Catholicke Rites and Ceremo ies obserued in his time as that they spend seuerall Columnes of the fourth Century touching this point to wit from Column 452. to Column 497. or thereabout Now that not only Constantine himselfe but also the whole fourth Age did generally beleeue and professe the now professed Doctrine of the Romane Church is in like sort abundantly confessed registred by the said Centurists they spending most of the leaues of the said Century in particularizing the now Catholicke Doctrines and the doctours of that age beleeuing teaching them and therefore for the greater manifestation of this point I remit you M. Doctour to the ●●ligent perusall herein of their fourth Century touching which particuler subiect I am so confident that I dare auouche that by the industry of the said Centurists the true state of the Church in that age is so painfully articulatly according to my former speaches registred as the perfect memory thereof as being exempt from all obliuion in future dayes is able to turne the syth of time so certaine it is that euen in your owne Histories so long as they shal be extant the Catholicks shal be euer able to glasse the true face of their times But M. Doctour for the greater euidency of this point I pray you tell me whether it is your iudgment that the Fathers liuing in the fourth Age but especially those who
and temporary respects of riches and preferments are so potent and forcible with them as that they c●nnot or at least they will not be induced to follow the Dictamen and resolution of their owne Iudgments If the subiect of your discourse be about the abstruse Misteries of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist or of some other such sublime points you shall hardly draw them to relinquish naturall reason so deepely are they immersed therein it being indeed their Pillar of Non plus vltra Thus where other Christians enioy two eyes the one of Faith the other of Nature These Polyphemi shutting that of Faith do looke vpon the Articles of Religion only with this of Nature Choose rather to dispute touching matter of fact with in which may be included the proofe of the truth or falshood of the Protestant Religion then touching any dogmaticall point of faith and doctrine as receiuing it proofe from the scripture This I speake not but that the scripture makes most clearly for the Catholicks and against the Protestants But because your aduersary in dispute will euer cauill at your exposition of Scripture reducing it in the end against all antiquity of Fathers and tradition of the Church to the interpretation of his owne priuate and reuealing spirit and so your labour would prooue commonly to be lost thereby Now in matter of fact your Aduersary is forced to stand to the authorities deduced frō Ecclesiasticall Histories and other such humane proofes and therfore he must either shape a pro bable if not a sufficient answere to them which he neuer can do they wholy making against him euen by his owne learned brethrens Confessions or els he must rest silent And this is the reason why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church since this Question comprehendeth in it selfe diuers points of fact as of it continuall Visibility Antiquity Succession Ordination and Mission of Pastours c. All which Questiōs receiue their proofes from particuler Instances warranted by shewing the particular times persons and other circumstances concerning matter of fact An other reason of this your choyse of your subiect of dispute may be in that few Men and those only schollers can truly censure of the exposition of scripture whereas almost euery illiterate man enioying but a reasonable capacity is able sufficiently to iudge of the testimonies produced to prooue or disprooue matter of fact And here I would wish you that in your dispute you labour to haue some Catholicks present for where all the Auditory are Protestants certaine it is that they will voice it against you howsoeuer the disputatiō may otherwise go But because these obseruatiōs are ouer generall I will giue you here some more particuler since most of them may be restrained to certain particular passages which may occurre betweene you and your disputant Aduersary 1. First then let the true state of the Question discussed of be set downe and acknowledged on both sides in regard of the often willfully mistaken doctrine of the Catholicks That done reduce the question disputed of to as few branches as you can since multiplicity of Points is more subiect to confusion and forgetfulnes and giueth greater liberty to extrauagant digressions And will your Aduersary to auoid all such speaches but what are pertinent to the point handled And if he will needs wander in his discourses then you may reduce the force of them by way of Enthimem or syllogisme to the point disputed of that so both your Aduersary and the Auditory may see how roueingly these his speaches were vsed and how lowsely they and the question then handled do hang together 2. If your Aduersary vndertake the part of the Answerer suffer not him to oppose though he labour to do so to free himselfe from answering when he shall see himselfe plunged In like sort if he vndergo the part of the Opponent tye him precisely euer to oppose which Scene perhaps he being brought to a Non plus would sleyly transferre vpon you And thus be sure that eich of you keepe your chosen station 3. If your disputant will vaunt that he will prooue all by scripture onely as most of them giue it out they will then force him to draw all his premisses I meane both his Propositions if so they should be reduced to a forme of argument from the scripture alone of which Methode within two or three arguments he is most certaine to faile And if he take either of his Propositions from humane authority or from Naturall Reason you may tell him he leaueth his vndertaken Taske to wit to prooue from Scripture alone and consequently you may deny the force of his argument though otherwise logicall if it were reduced to forme 4. In your proofs drawne from Scripture labour to be much practised in the Protestants Translations of it of which infinite places make for the Catholicks Cause euen as the Scripture is translated by the Protestants This course farre gauleth them more then if you insisted in the Catholicke trāslation 5. If you dispute with any by writing or enterchange of letters this being but a mute Aduocate of the minde write nothing but matter and with as much compendiousnes as the subiect will beare without any verball excursions or digressions since this proceeding will force your Aduersary to reply if he will reply at all to the matter For otherwise leauing the point which is cheifly to be handled he will shape a reply to other lesse necessary stuffe deliuered by you and then his Reply must passe abroad by the help of many partiall tongues for a full answere to your whole discourse 6. In like sort if you attempt to charge a Protestant Authour with lyes or Corruptions in their writings with which many of their bookes are euen loaded rather insist in a few and those manifest and vnanswereable then in a greater number seeing if your Aduersary can make show to salue but three or foure of a greater number which the more easily he may do by how much the number of the instanced falsifications is greater the supposed answereing of thē chosen picked out by him must seeme to disgrace all the rest vrged by you 7. If you intend to bring and obiect any wicked and vnwarrantable sayings especially out of Luther either against the Blessed Trinity or about his acknowledged lust sensuality be carefull to note the Editions of the Booke wherein such his sayings are to be found For in the later Editions of his workes many such sentences are for very shame left out and vnprinted And hereupon there are diuers Protestants who vtterly deny that euer any such words were written by him 8. Be skilfull in discouering though not in practising Sophistry that so you may the better loose and vntie e●●e Protestants knots of deceipte diuers of them being most expert in all kinds of Paralogisme And particulerly takeheede of that grosse and vulger sleight vnworthy a schollar drawne from the particuler to the
Vniuersall much practised by our Aduersaries For according hereto if they can finde any Father or any moderne Catholicke Authour to mantaine though therein contradicted by other Fathers and Catholicks but one or two Points of Protestancy they blush not to auerre that the said Father or Catholicke writer are entire Protestants in all points 9. If your Aduersary should produce some supposed disagreements in doctrine among Catholicks you may reply that their differences rest only in some Circumstances of a Catholicke Conclusion and not in the Conclusion it selfe And if he produce any presumed Catholicke denying the Conclusion it selfe of the doctrine then are you to tell him that such a man ceaseth by this his deniall vnlesse ignorance or inconsideration excuse to be a member of the Catholicke Church therefore this his deniall doth not preiudice the Catholicke Faith this being contrary to the Protestants proceeding who wittingly mantaining contrary conclusions of Faith do remaine neuerthelesse by the iudgments of many of them good brethren and true Professours of the Ghosple 10. If your Aduersary contest that all the writinges and memory of Protestants in former ages were extinguished by the Popes of the said and after succeeding ages you may show how absurd this assertion is And the reason hereof is in that the Popes of those times could not presage that Protestancy should on these our times sway more then any other Heresies condemned in their very times which other Heresies remaine yet registred euen to this day by the acknowledgment of of the Protestants And therefore by the same reason Protestancy supposing it to be professed in those former times should also haue remained recorded either in the writings of the Protestants themselues if euer any such were or else by the censure and condemnation of them by the Popes of those daies 11. Whereas you may alleadge diuers acknowledged Heresies both in the iudgment of Protestant and Catholicke out of the bookes concerning diuers persons who beleeued some few points of Protestancy recorded in the said bookes here I speake of VValdo VVicliff c. Now if here your Aduersary disputant doth auouch as many Protestants do that these Heresies were falsly obtruded vpon the then said Protestants by their Enemies you may here reply that to affirme this is against the force of all reason For seeing the said bookes do indifferently make mention both of the Protestant Opinions and of the other Heresies defended by the same men either the said Bookes are to be beleeued in both or to be reiected in both If the first then it is certaine that those men beleeued those acknowledged Heresies and then they can not be instanced for perfect Protestants If the later then the said Bookes are not of any sufficient authority to prooue that there were any Protestants in those ages 12. There is great disparity betweene Protestants confessing some points which do aduantage the Catholicke faith as for examples that the Primitiue Fathers were Papists in all cheife Articles of Papistry as the Aduersary vse to tearme it and other Protestants impugning the said Confessions Seeing the first men speake against themselues and their Cause which they being learned would neuer do but as conuinced with the euidency of the truth therein whereas these other do deny the Confessions of their owne Brethren in behalfe of their owne Religion and so such their denialls are to be reputed more partiall In like sort there is great difference to be made betweene Protestants speaking against themselues and yet beleeuing the Protestant doctrine and conclusion touching some Circumstances whereof their said Confessions are and betweene some others who afore were Catholickes and after do defend some one point or other of Protestancy Since these later men do not speake against themselues but in defence of such their Protestant doctrine then newly entertained by them and consequently in defence of their owne opinions and therefore such their authorities are not to ballance equally with the Confessions of the former Protestants 13. If your Aduersary doth produce any authorities either from the Popes Decrees or from Generall Councels by the which the Antiquity of some Catholicke Article may be impugned Be carefull 1. That particular Councels or Councels Scismaticall not warranted by the Popes authority be not obtruded vpon you for true Generall Councells 2. That the point vrged out of the Councell doth concerne Doctrine of faith and not matter of fact touching which later point it is granted a Councell may alter it Decrees vpon better and later informations 3. That the Canon or Decree poduced out of the Councell do immediately concerne the doctrine it selfe of some Article of faith then supposed to be brought in and not the name only to be imposed vpon the said doctrine afore beleeued as it happened in the Councell of Lateran touching the word Transubstantiation 4. That the Decree of the Pope or Councell deliuered only touching the better execution of some Catholicke point afore partly neglected as for example touching Confession the vnmarried life of the Cleargy or keeping set times of fasting and the like be not fraudulently extended by your Aduersary to the first institution of the said doctrine he so suggesting a more reformed execution or practise of the Catholicke doctrine for the first institution of it 14. If your Aduersary produce the ancient Fathers in defence of Protestancy first aske him if he will inappealeably stand to their iudgments If he will then vrge the Protestants whose bookes are most plentifull in such like accusations charging them as Patrons of Papistry If he will not stand to their authority then demand to what end he doth alleadg them And further let him know that it is the ioynt consent of Fathers without contradiction of other Orthodoxall Fathers which the Catholicks do admit Where some Protestants obiect that diuers points of the Cathoclike Religion were condemned in some Hereticks by the Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church you may truely reply hereto that the Article or conclusion it selfe of any Catholick point was not condemned by them but only some absurd and wicked Circumstance annexed by the said Hereticks to the Article was condemned by the Fathers Thus the Catholicks are charged by D. Fulke and others to borrow the praying to Saints and Angels from certaine old Heretickes condemned by Epiphanius for this doctrine Whereas those Heretickes praied both to good bad Angels to those who were falsly tearmed Angels accoūpting them as Patrons of their wickednes And for these Circumstances only Epiphanius registreth thē for Hereticks This sleight is much practised by diuers Protestāts in certaine points of the Catholicke Religion Therefore be sure to see the words of the Fathers so condemning them in the Fathers owne bookes which if you do you shall discouer wonderfull forgery and deprauation of the said Fathers writings vsed by the Protestants 16. If it be vrged that the deniall of Free-will for example and so of other Articles of Protestancy was taught
ouerflowing of many dreadfull and blasphemous doctrines then broached and defended by him But here I referre two points to the mature Consideration of you M. Doctour and these two learned men here present First whether Luther can truely be challenged at this day for a perfect Protestant and consequently whether the Visibility of the Protestant Church can be truely iustifyed in him considering both the seuerall Catholicke Doctrines as also the many explorat Heresyes and blasphemyes he maintayned euen after his reuolt from the Papacy The second though but incidentall at this present whether it sorteth to the sweete proceeding of God to vse as his Instrument for the reedifying of his Church admitting it afore ruined a man who practized his penne and this after his supposed calling to the wronging of Christian Faith and Charity to the fortifying of the state and Empyre of Christs greatest Enemy to the expunging of Gods sacred Writ and conuitiating of his greatest Seruants to the disauthorizing of all Christian Princes and Ciuill Magistrates to the dishonoring and debasing of the Sacraments to the disualewing of the infinit worth and price of Christ his Passion to the vphoulding and maintayning of a stoicall and fatall Necessity in all things And lastly to the absolute deniall of the most Blessed and holy Trinity Now Gentlemen all if you want a Protestāt to be the square and rule of Protestancy I am content in this your penury that you take Luther for a Protestant OCHINVS I am amazed to here of these Points and I would not beleiue them but that Luthers owne wrytings are yet extant ready to charge him with them NEVSERVS I condemne my selfe Michaeas of my former rash and vnexamined assent giuen in behalfe of Luther and I blame my owne hasty Credulity But by this I may learne that the attendant of Wisdome is slowe beliefe But M. Doctour we would wish you to ascend to higher times D. REYNOLDS I will And I will ascend sofely and by small degrees Only afore in part of excuse though not in defence of Luthers errours I must put you in minde Michaeas that the purest gold Oare is mixt with some dresse the fayrest rose beset with sharpe pricks and diuers auncient and reuerend Fathers had their ouersights But to proceede higher what say you Michaeas of the twenty yeares first before Luther Do you not thinke that there were then many markably and visibly knowne who professed the present Protestant faith and Religion MICHAEAS M. Doctour If you can euict to much then you are to name those many Professours if not many some few at least some one or other If you can I now vrge you to it But it seemeth by your silence being thus prouoked you cannot name any one Protestant then liuing so rare in those dayes though so late were the byrds of such an Aëry D. REYNOLDS Do you not know that Bucer Melancthon and Pelican were professed Protestants euen before Luthers breaking with the Church of Rome MICHAEAS Indeede D. Morton in extreme penury and for maine releife of his Cause is not abashed to nam the said three men for Protestants before Luthers reuolt from the Pope Whereas it is certaine that all these were originally Catholicks only vpon Luthers fale did after adioyn themselues to him I here further tell you that it is repugnant to Common sense that any Protestants or any administration of the word and Sacraments should be within the twenty yeares next afore Luthers Apostasy for I can tearme it no better and yet no memory to be extant thereof in any one Country or other throughout all Christendome especially seeing all Occurrents thereabouts if there were any should haue bene performed in the memory of Man and consequently lesse subiect to forgetfulnesse Againe you pretend you can exemplify in Protestants for all former auncient times and yet you faile euen in this last age Belike you will perswade vs that our knowledg of these matters is like to some bad eyes which see things a farre of better then neerer at hand Furthermore I here aske the reason that if any such examples of protestancy had bene immediatly before Luthers reuolt why at least did not Luther Zwinglius and the rest that adioyned themselues to him make mention of some such Protestants D. REYNOLDS The Protestant Church doubtlesly was in those dayes but it was in solitude And herein I ioyne in iudgment with D. Whitakers thus censuring of this point Ante Lutheri tempora latebat Ecclesia in solitudine Before the times of Luther the Church lay hid in the desert MICHAEAS I grant the Doctour answereth so but why doth not he being much prouoked by his Aduersary thereto alleadg as much as one Man who was a Protestant before Luthers chang Againe I demande why did those supposed Protestants immediatly before Luthers dayes lye so hid and vnknowne at Luthers resing If you say for feare of Persecution for no other pretext you can alledge I reply that feare of Persecution could not be pretended to be a let after Luthers open reuolt but that the Protestants if any such were might securely then haue stept out and publikely haue ioyned themselfs with Luther Considering that then diuers magistrats and common-wealths had openly vndertaken the patronage of Luthers doctrine and Religion And who obserueth not that the floud of any doctrine in faith is more or lesse as it is gouerned with the ful or wayne of secular Authority But to vrge a more irrefragable proofe for this matter This point to wit that not any one Protestant was to be found through the whole World immediatly before the dayes of Luther is so cleare and vndeniable as that we find the same granted by a whole volley of Confessions proceeding from the Protestants owne penns For thus for example D. Iewel acknowledgeth The truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Hulderick Zwinglius first came vnto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel And vpon this ground it is that Bucer stileth Luther The first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine Yea Conradus Slussenberg the Lutheran thus vehemently contesteth this point saying It is impudency to affirme that many learned Men in Germany before Luther did hould the doctrine of the Gospel With whom in like manner conspireth Benedictus Morgenternensis thus writing It is ridiculous to say that any before the tyme of Luther had the purity of the Gospel Thus these Protestants from whose authorityes being thus fully recited I gather M. D. this Resultancy That Luthers reuolt was so farre from prouing the contemning of the Visibility of the Protestant Church or the administration of the word and Sacraments as that it proueth a manifest interruption or rather a nullity thereof It being so fully confessed that at the first appearance of this Mis●reant of Saxony I meane of Luther who first poizned the Duchy of Saxony with his doctrine there was not any one Protestant much lesse
Word and vse of the Sacraments as Notes And thus they reiecting all former Catholicke Notes do reduce as aboue is said the determining of which is the true Church to the inappealable and last Resort of their owne priuate opinions passed vpon the true preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments But now to come to the Question it selfe touching these Protestant Notes Where the ●eader for the more cleare setting downe of the state of the Question and his owne better instruction is to conceaue first that these Protestant Notes supposing them to be Notes of the Church prooue only the place where the Church is but not which is the Church Which here is only the Question Secondly the Reader is to call to mind that whereas a Note may be of two sorts The one in respect of Nature the other in respect of vs according to the doctrine of the learned Protestants themselues thus teaching Nottus est duplex Vnum Naturae vlterum nobis that here the Question is only of such Notes as are Notes in respect of vs for our better informing which is the true Church since here we are instructed à postartori and according to the measure of that knowledg which God vouchsafes to affoard to vs. And not as they are Notes in respect of Nature Which Notes in regard of Nature are euer 〈…〉 sicall secret and often essentiall to the thing of which they are Notes Now in reference hereto we free●y grant that the true preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments may be tearmed Notes of the Church but not Notes to vs which is the only point now isluable for though they be Notes in Nature of the true Church yet what anayleth it vs since they are not Notes to vs for our direction to find which is the true Church And here we are to remember that the Question is not what kind of Notes or what kind of knowledge is better for it is granted that scire per Causas is most perfect and noble but the Question is what kind of knowledge God is content to imparte to vs in this life for the attayning of the Mysteryes of our f●●th and particularly for the knowing searching out which is his Church Now that the true preaching of the Word and vse of the Sacraments cannot be erected as notes of Christs Church I euer meane in respect of vs is seuerall wayes demonstrated And first this I prooue from the Nature of a Note which is euer to be of a greater perspicuity and clearnes and better knowne to vs then the thing is of which it is a Note Since otherwise it should follow an inference both in reason and Art most absurd that that which is vnknowne should be prooued by an other thing which is lesse knowne an● more obscure That the true preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments which is but a necessary 〈◊〉 to the true preaching of the Scripture are more obscure and vnknowne to vs then is the Church I prooue first from the Scripture which teacheth that true sayth which is the effect of true preaching the Word proceedeth only from the Ministery of the Church according to that how shall they beleiue whom they haue not heard and ho 〈…〉 sh a● they heare without a Preacher Thus Gods sacred Word we see doth presuppose that the Minister who is the member of the Church and consequently it followeth hereby that the Church must be afore knowne doth reueale vnto vs the true sense of the Scripture And therefore Caluin thus well sayth of this point Deus potest memo 〈…〉 sues perficere nolit tamen eos adol●scere in 〈…〉 ilem ●tatem nisi educatione Ecclesiae God can pe●fect and instruct vs in a moment meaning touching fayth yet he will not bring vs to any manlike as it were and perfect strength therein but by the help and lab●ur of the Church And hence it is that in all Controuersyes touching fayth we are alwayes for the determining of them bot● in the iudgments of the auncient Fathers and learned Protestants referred to the Church Among whom I cannot here pretermit the sentence of D. Field thus wryting Seeing t●e Controuersies in our tyme are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate c. What remayneth for me● d●sirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but delige●tly to search out which among all the societyes of Men in the World is that blessed Company of Holy Ones that house-hould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they m 〈…〉 follow her directions and re●i in her 〈◊〉 Thus we are instructed by this learned Protestant to know which is the true fayth in all Controuersyes and sincere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word from the Church and not to know which is the Church from the sincere preaching of the Word Secondly that the true prea 〈…〉 of the Word and the vse of the Sacrements ●re more ob 〈…〉 and difficult to vs to be knowne then to know 〈◊〉 is the true Church appeareth from the volunt●●y acknowledgments of our most iudicious Aduersaries For greater 〈◊〉 hearei● I will insist only in o●e or two And to omit the answearable iudgment hearto of D. Fyeld potentially included in his 〈…〉 met words We do fynd Iustus Molitor a learned Protestant and Aduersary in his 〈…〉 gs to Cardinal Be●l●rmy●e thus to confes Nobis Quo ad iud 〈…〉 s ●o f●s● al● qua notitià prius vera Eccles 〈…〉 quam 〈◊〉 praedicatio 〈…〉 o●escit c. The true Church by a cert 〈…〉 co 〈…〉 〈◊〉 so 〈…〉 k●o●ne to vs according to the iudgment of re●son then the preaching of the true word is knowne With whom c 〈…〉 pireth in expr●s Words the foresaid mentioned 〈…〉 testart Lubbertus thus wryting Sacramenta in v 〈…〉 nt nobis m 〈…〉 quam ●psa Ecclesia The true vse of the 〈…〉 ments i● lesse knowne ●o vs 〈◊〉 the Church And 〈◊〉 geueth his ●eason hereof in these Words Nobis notio●a su 〈…〉 externa signa●per quae rem● qu●●doque cogn 〈…〉 The external signes are more man 〈…〉 st 〈◊〉 v● by which we know a thi●g 〈◊〉 heareby imp●ying that the true administration of the word Sacraments is internal and inward in respect of the true externall Notes of the Church For although eich preaching of the Word and vse of Sacraments be externall and sub●ect to the outward Sense yet which is the true preaching of the word and true administration of the Sacraments for as they are purely preached and sincerely administred so and no otherwise are they appoynted by the Protestants for the Marks of the Church is internal since truth in doctryne is internal and inuisible We may ad hearto that in the note of true preaching the word the beliuing receauing it so preached this with perseuerance is included
being a Professed Deuine shal be in those disput● your cheifest opponent and Antagonist And if any of our Doctours shall by writing impugne your said discourses you shall giue your faithfull promisse to reply thereto And lastly you shall pray for the well-fare of his Maiesty vnder whose happy and clement gouerment your former Transgressions are so mildly chastized VICE-CHANCELOVR My Lord. I willingly accept of the Disputation Where I doubt not but to lay open at full the superstition of that Man of sinne But what Must in the meane tyme Mich●as a member of Antichrist be freed from imprisonment and passe thus vnpunished Must the Whore of Babylon be entertayned among vs in her followers no worse then a chast and inte●erate Virgin Shall the words spoken in the Dragons voyce be so preuayling as to enchant the eares of the faythfull with her pleasing yet poysenous musicke Breifly shall Heresy Superstition and Idolatry the worst of all euill endeauour among vs and that in our Vniuersity to take place in the Soules of Christians with all impunitie and as exempt from controule Yf so then come O Lord of heauen hasten thy approach Ouerrunne the earth with an irresistable prosternation of all Creatures and reduce all things of their last Period and dissolution for now it seemes the tyme is that Gog and Magog the forces of Antichrist are let loose to ceaze vpon the faythfull without any gainsaying or opposition and to beget in mans soule a giddy dissipation of all his intellectuall powers MICHAEAS M. Vice-Chancelour Proijcis ampullas sesquipedalia verba You mouth it ouer loudly and vse very turgent and swelling words agaynst vs poore distressed Priests Catholicks Whos 's shyeld in the meane tyme is Patience whose armour our Confidence in God and whose recrimination rests in words of myldnes and charity Maledicimur benedicimus blasphemamur obsecramus But my very good Lord. To turne my speeches vnto you Touching this your sentence how innocent soeuer I am I do vndergoe it with all humblenes of mynd and without the least reluctation for I haue red Non iudices contra iudicem And I embrace it the more willingly since I hope that by this meanes the radiant and most shyning Truth of the Catholicke Doctryne in the former discussed Poynts will in the fight of so noble and worthy an Auditory as the famous Vniuersity of Oxford is more easily dispell the myst of all contrary Nouelis 〈…〉 e. Touching my Loyall duty to his Maiesty my prayer is this I speake not in a Dialogizing and feigned manner but plainly sincerely and seriously in the sight of God and his Angells God pres 〈…〉 ue King Charles and his Royall Queene with a prosperous and blessed Domination and gouerment ouer this Nation Grant to them the happynes to branch themselues forth into many dis●ente and Progenyes from generation to generation And finally vouchs 〈…〉 fe most mercyfull God that the greatnes of this their temporall 〈…〉 ity may serue as a Type or ●dumbration to figure out their greater eternall Beautitude in the world to come And thus with bended knee and hart prostiated in all du 〈…〉 full humility and with all remonstrance of thankefulnes for this your ●l 〈…〉 ency and myldnes of Iudgment and sentence I take my last fare well with your good Lordship VICE-CHANCELOVR My Lord must your former iudgment passe vnaltered and must it not be accompained with any chastizement at all L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE M. Vice-Chancelour Content your selfe with my former sentence It shall stand an oculus ●uus nequam est quia ego bonus sum I hope you will haue aduantage enough against him in your future disputation and it is more honour for you to haue the Victory ouer his Cause then ouer his Person And indeed it is inhumanity to depresse and waigh downe a poore old Man and a stranger with multiplicity of miseryes your selfe is a Schollar and therefore you are the ●ore to commiserate him being a Schollar And so with these my last words both of you may depart from this barre at your owne pleasure VICE C-HANCELOVR My Lord. Since such is your resolution I must rest satisfyed therewith and so I take my humble leaue of your Lordship As for you Michaeas I will not take any formall farewell with you because I hope according to my L. sentence deliuered I shall meete with you in our Vniuersitie this next Commencement at what tyme I will anatomize and dissect that Wh 〈…〉 re if Bab 〈…〉 lon and strike her in her Mayster vey●e and will to your irreperable disgrace display the falshood and absurdities of all your former dispersed Popish doctryres when your Auditour shall easily perceaue that you in your former wrytings did much pertake of the byrd that owed the wing from which you borrowed your penne And so till then I bid you A 〈…〉 eu MICHAEAS M. Vice-Chancelour I do contemne these your Lucian and scoffing vaunts vnworthy to proceede from the mouth of a graue and learned Man At the tyme appoynted I meane to be present in your Vniuersity where I trust through the ayde of him whose cause I am then to mantayne to make good iustify all my former Catholicke doctrynes Touching your malignant demeanour for I can tearme it no better agaynst me throughout the whole Processe of this cauillous accusation know you that as all Christians in generall so Pryests and Catholickes more peculiarly of which number I am one are bound to requyte good for euill imitating therein our Lord who Cum malediceretur non maledicebat cum pateretur non comm●nebatur Therefore in charitate Dei patientia Christi I freely forgiue you and will affoard you my dayly Prayers for your Conuersion and sauing of your Soule And with this M. Vice-Chancelour vntill the tyme set downe of our future disputation I leaue you FINIS GOD SAVE THE KING THE CONCLVSION to the Academicks of both the Vniuersities LEARNED and worthy Academicks Now Michaeas the Conuerted law hath acted his last Scene And new he heare pulleth off his visard vnder which in the former Dialogues he masked and taketh his last farewell with you in the playne and naturall Dialect of an 〈…〉 Pryest the Authour of the sayd Dialogues You haue heare perused the points discussed It hath in the former Dialogues I hope irrefra●ably bene proued that since the Apostles dayes euen to Luthers reuolt Our Cathelicke fayth without chan●e hath euen bene professed the Protestāts fayth hath neuer bene professed What demonstration more choaking You also haue seene with what disaduantage diuers of your Professours in regard of the most iust retorting of it vpon themself● haue in greate wast and profusion of words wrongfully promis●uously charged all Catholicks with the hatefull Cryme of Disloyaltye Lastly heare hath bene laid open before you besids some 〈◊〉 discourses of certain Catholicke doctrines the venerable Antiquitie of Priesthood the lyke antiquity of the
c vpon the Reuela●●os p. 66. d So saith M. Hookerin his Ecclesiasticall po●cy e In Epist de abrogadis in vniuersum omnibꝰ siatu t is Ecclesiast * D. Whit. cont Camp Rat. 5. saith An mihi erit dicta singula quae quisquā protulit aliquādo 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 anciēt thē 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 tēding to mātayne 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 s●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 Sch●m● 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 volū l. 5. c. 21. pag. 102. p Act. Mō 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. ●hit Cont. Camp Rat. 10. a D. Whit. vbi supra b Math. 27. c Gal. 2. d Act. Mō printed 1576. pag. 120. e Lib. 2. c. 2. f In his Cōfutation of Purgatory p. 335. g So saith D. hi● cont Duraeum lib. 7. pag. 480. h In Prouerb 13. where he so saith in dutcz as is here ●nglished i Luther Tom. 7. in Epist ad Wophangū fol. 505. k In Apolo ad Pāmach cap. 3. l contra Vigilant cap. 1. m Haeres 59 n In Num. homil 23. o In E●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 Encheri● 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 cōfutation 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. Cōl Durae um pag. 480. m Tertul. n In his answere to a cōterfeyt● 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. Whit●kcr cen●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 Anastasiū a D. 〈…〉 hit cont Camp Rat. 6. thus writeth G 〈…〉 g. Magnus parū ne tuu Pôificē perstringit quado quisquis se Vniuersale Episcopū vocat cū Antichristi praecursore procul dubio appellat 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 Patria●charnm n●men ●aeteris der ogatūr e Lib. of the Church pag. 62. f So write the C●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 Du●●um l. 7. p. 490. o Ini Meditat c. 9. p Epict. 91. ad Theodorū foro Iulii Episcop q In questio breuioribꝰ in terogat 288 r Cent. 3. c. 6. col 127. s De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 10. c. 3. t Lens● 2. 3. c. ●5 6. c. u D. Whit. cont Duraeum p. 480. sayth qni Transubstantiatione primus excogitauit is suit Innocentius tertius in Lateranenst Concilio x Tract 2● in Ioani●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 I●suitis● part 2. Rat. 5. p. 628. c Cent. 4. c. 10 Col. 985. d Centurist Cent. 4. c. 4. Co● 496. e In Margarit Theol. pag. 256. f We finde the testimonies of these Rabbins here produced to be alled●ed by Galatinus de Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis l. 1. c. 3. Se Rab by Iudas in c. 24. Exo d. and Rabby Simeon in l. entituled Reuelatio se●retorum g D. Whit. Cont. Duraeū l. 7. p. 480. Saith qui primus docuit corpus Christi ●esualiter tractari frangi et dentil● 〈◊〉 ri suit Nicola●s sec●dus h Chrysist in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. i Chrys in Mat. hom 83 k Chrysost in Ioan hem 45. l In consut disputāt Ioānis Gr●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 Cāp Rat. 7. Thus saith of this point De tempore non est sacile respondere neque id necessariū est vt temporū 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