The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

THE TRVE PICTVRE OF D· VVHITE MINISTER. Or, the Censure of his Reply vnto M. Fisher.

The Reason of this Title.

THIS Short Censure is prefixed vnder the Name of your Picture, that the Reioynder may correspōd in proportion vnto your Reply, the beginning whereof is consecrated by an Image of your (a) 1.1 Adored Selfe, and with other glorious Giew-gawes in ho∣nour of your Booke and Religion. Touching which I will say a word, that hereby the Reader may giue a ghesse at the Truth, Learning, Discretion Modesty you shew in your booke, A good house (as sayth (*) 1.2 S. Ambrose) being knowne by the Frontispice thereof.

The Roman Oratour rebuketh some ancient Philosophers, who made shew to contemne human

Glory, whereof in their harts they were insatiably greedy; conuincing their Hypocrisy by this Argu∣ment; (b) 1.3 Libris quos de contemnenda gloria scribunt, sua nomina inscribunt, Their bookes inscribed of the cō∣tempt of glory, are superscribed with their names, that they may be glorious. What then may we thinke of you, who in the booke wherein you reiect the Image of your Lord and Sauiour, as (c) 1.4 no good, nor effectuall means to breed godly memory, & heauenly desires, in this very Booke, I say, euē in the first Page thereof next after the Blankes, you haue placed your owne Picture, in as Liuely, Louely, & Venerable manner as you could deuise, that people gazing thereon, might by the aspect thereof, be moued with Loue, with Veneration, with Deuotion towardes you.

This sheweth, that through a Vayne glorious Humour you feele that Truth in your hart, which through want of Religious deuotion, you (d) 1.5 deny in wordes; to wit, that Honours done to the Image, are by the law and institution of Nature referred, and to be taken as done to the Person. And if this be so in a Mini∣ster, why should not holy Images, be good meanes of pious Deuotion, and godly Memory, towardes Christ Iesus? Why should not mē be moued to Religious De∣uotion by the Image of our Sauiour crucifyed, aswell as by yours heere paynted, with all the Ornaments of a Ministeriall Deane? By the Picture, I say, of the Sonne of God, suffering for man, not sitting in a curious wrought Chayre as you doe, but hanging on a Paynfull, and Ignominious Crosse; not with a Veluet Cap on his Head, as you weare to keepe in your Witts, but with a Crowne of Thornes, which piercing into his sacred Temples let out his bloud;

not cloathed in Damaske as you be, but in the Purple of his pretious Bloud; not set forth with fine Ruffe∣b••nds and Cuffs, wherwith your wrests and necke be trimmed, to make your face looke smugge, and gracious to the eye of flesh, but ful of rough blowes, ••••ide sores, & bleeding wounds, which represent the (e) 1.6 beauty of his Charity to the eye of the Soule.

But herein you are pardonable, in that this Irre∣ligious Vanity comes to you by (f) 1.7 kind. You imi∣tate herein the Grand propagatour of your Ministe∣riall Stocke Iohn Caluin. He hauing reiected the ima∣ges of Christ Iesus & his Saynts, not allowing them so much as to be fit Bookes to instruct the Ignorant (g) 1.8 checking Saint Gregory for so affirming, As not brought vp in the Schoole of the Holy Ghost; Neuerthe∣lesse he did dote on his owne Image, and was most greedy of the tokens of Affection shewed him by the same. Hence when sundry persons, specially the Damsells of Geneua (i) 1.9 to shew their deuoted Loue to this their Arch-Prophet, wore his Image about their necks, directly vpon their harts, he tooke ther∣in singular Content; so farre, as vnto some zealous Ministers, and Godly Brethren that with shew of dislike warned him thereof, he made this charitable Answere, The thinge shall be continued in despight of you; if you like it not, turne away your eyes, otherwise let your harts breake with Enuy. Whereby it is cleere that Ministers vnderstand, & feele by the instinct of Na∣ture, that Images are fit instruments to kindle and conserue Affection towardes Persons Venerably re∣presented; giuing vs iust cause to suspect, that their condemning the vse of Christs Image by way of Religious Deuotion towardes him, proceedes not in

truth (as is pretended) from their zeale agaynst Idolatrous Worship, but because themselues alone by the meanes of their Images would take possession of mens Harts.

What is the reason that so many fond Images are dayly inuented, and vented in England in lying formes, no lesse Honorable to your Religion, then Disgraceful to the Roman, but that you know, that Images are the Bookes of the Ignorant, and weapons to expugne the harts of the simple, eyther with loue & affection, or by auersion and contempt? A Candle signifying the Light of your Ghospell, is paynted with a generall Assembly of your Gospellers with great shew of Piety about it, Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Husse, Wickliffe, Melancthon, Knox, Bullinger, Beza, Zanchy, & some other; A Diuell, a Pope, a Cardinall a Fryar in Vggly shapes, puffing and blowing, & casting holy water in vayne to put it out. A fabulous vanity to delude Sottes, seing euery mā that is not a foole, may most easily know euen by Luthers Confession, (k) 1.10 that his light came not from heauen but from Hell, kindled by conference with the Diuell, whose (l) 1.11 breath made your dead coales to burne, so farre is he from going about to quench the fire of your Gospell. As for the generall meeting of your Gospellers, sitting together in such a Concordious manner, they that haue read their Writings know, that should they meete in truth, as they are made in your fancy (if their tongues be of the same temper as their pens) they would not sit so demurely, and peaceably as they are paynted by you, but fall together by the eares, and to Cuffs, the one with the other, that (as sayth your (m) 1.12 Bishop Bilson) without doubt there

would be need of more Iustices of peace to part the frayes, ••••en of notaryes to write the decrees of that Coūcell. Hence the Painter not without mystery, and with great foresight hath made the Minister KNOX in the midst of this imagined Assembly, to signify, that if euer a Generall Councell of your Reformers happ to meete, KNOCKS will be sure not to be wan∣ting amongst them.

I need not seeke farre for the like examples of your Vanity, the very next Page after your Picture is sufficiently stored with such kind of stuffe. Two Women there stand opposite the one to the other. That of the right side for your Gospell, that on the left for the Roman Religion. Betweene whome you haue pictured foure or fiue oppositions, which de∣serue to be noted being wise ones; in which shineth your skill in Mysticall, or Symbolicall Theology.

The first opposition. Your Protestant woman hath a Sunne of Glory about her head, to signify that she is (n) 1.13 seated in the Sunne, euer in manifest sight, euer conspicuous to the world; so perpetually visible, that for more then 12. hundred yeares, to wit from the dayes of Constantine vnto Luther, she was neuer seene in the world, as (o) 1.14 your Doctours confesse, and the Motto you haue set vnder her doth insinuate, Verita∣tem aperit Dies, Tyme discouers Truth; as who should say, the same was hidden vntill these later dayes of Luther. But seing the Conference with the Diuell whereby your Luther was illumined, happened at Mid-night, as (p) 1.15 himselfe doth testify; me thinkes not, Veritatem aperit Dies, but, Nox Nocti indicat Scien∣tiam, according to the verball sound, would haue byn the fitter Motto for your Gospell.

On the other side, the Roman Religion (poore Woman) is by you paynted starke blind, with this Vnderscription, Error caecus. Perchance, you thinke she must needes be blind in respect of her old Age, hauing liued in open profession to the world, euer since the Apostles. This I might suspect to be your reason, did I not see that you attribute the same Pa∣pisticall blindnes euen to the ancient and primitiue Church. Luther affirmes (q) 1.16 that the Fathers of so many ages were STARKE BLIND. Another Protestant of great name doth professe, (r) 1.17 That the WHOLE WORLD EVER almost since the Dayes of the APO∣STLES, vntill this last Age, liued in darkenesse, BLIND∣NES, and Ignorance. Your Arch-Bishop of Canterbury doubtes not to pronounce, (s) 1.18 How GREATLY SPOTTED were almost ALL THE FATHERS of the Greeke Church, and of the Latin also, for the most part, with the doctrins of Freewill, Merit, Inuocation of Saynts and the like; that NEVER SINCE THE APOSTLES, was there a Church so pure and perfect, as the Church of England is at this day. Wherefore we neede not be angry with your paynting our Religion starke blind seing she could not be the Christian Religion of the auncient Fathers euer since Christ, were she not blind, in the foolish imagination of your fantastical Ghospell.

The second opposition. Mistresse Protestancy is paynted with her breasts open, her paps displayed, naked downe to the girdle: You will say, this doth represent the naked Simplicity and Candour of Truth which your Religion loueth▪ No doubt that simple Truth is found in her, which holds Men may lawfully lye in behalfe of her (t) 1.19 Gospell, and that they can neuer

lye inough in so good a cause. Might not I say more ••••uly that this more fitly represents, that the immo∣dest Fashion of Women to go with their breasts na∣ked, as now is the vse, was by your Gospel brought into England; a fashion so odious in Catholike tymes, as euen Strumpets durst not vse it in pub∣licke? Hēce some may suspect this Leuity & Light∣nes charactered by her attyre, to be the cause of her great Belly, wherewith you seeme to set her forth: Whereby also you may signify, that she is the off∣spring not of the Gospell of Christ, but of Vigilantius his Gospell, which was so religious & deuoted vnto carnal Fecundity, that (as doth testify (*) 1.20 S. Hierome) her Bishops would not order any Ministers, except first they saw their wiues eyther to haue great bellyes, or yonge babes hanging at their breasts. Though perchance your meaning was by this Embleme, to expresse the blessing of Fecundity, which your Gospell enioyeth in your Worships of the Ministry, who yearly fill the Parishes of the Realme with many nouell Bran∣ches of your Leuiticall Stocke.

On the other side, you haue done a deed of Cha∣rity towards the Roman Womā in clothing her with modest attyre from the crowne of the head, to the sole of the foote: the Feete of your Religion be∣ing bare, to signify, perchance, that she is a bare-foo∣ted Nunne, or a great Practicant of going Bare-foote in Pilgrimage, and of such Penitentiall works. And wheras you make the garmēt of our Church speac∣k••••d with great variety of incised workes, this doth not displease vs, whatsoeuer your meaning may be. For this doth agree with the Embleme of the Christian Church, vsed by the Royall Prophet psal.

44. where she is described a Queene standing on the right-hand of the Fayrest amongst the Sons of men, (u) 1.21 Circumamicta varietatibus, cloathed about with varietyes; which varietyes wrought on her garment may signify the great variety of Holy Heroycall Works, practised by her Children, wherby she (y) 1.22 cōuerts so great variety of Nations from Paganisme vnto Christ. Frō the attyre of which kind of works, your Religion is as naked & innocent, as the Child newly borne, that of your endeauours in this behalf we may pronoūce that of the Prophet, (x) 1.23 The webbs they weaue will not serue for cloathing, their works are vn∣profitable works. For your doctrines haue no force to conuert Infidells vnto Christ, but only to peruert, & draw (z) 1.24 vnstable Christians from his Church.

The third Opposition. The Woman of your Reli∣gion is painted with a Royall Crowne in her right hand, holding the same towards her breast, to shew her affection vnto Kings, whome she huggs in her armes (as the Ape doth his yoūg ones) till she presse them to death by extremity of loue. This happened vnto his Maiestyes (a) 1.25 mother, who falling into the hands of your Religion, you held her so fast, you gri∣ped her so hard, as you droue the breath out of her body, & made her Sacred bloud run about her An∣noynted Shoulders. The Roman Religion in oppo∣site, hath giuen her by your paynting a Vizard, and is made to stand treading vpon Crownes and Scep∣ters, to signify that she is by doctrine and practise a Deposer & Contemner of Kings. This Fancy would indeed be a Truth, could you proue that Wickliffe, Luther, Caluin, Beza, Knox, Buchanam, Wittingham, Goodman, & the like (b) 1.26 were Roman Catholikes. Or

could you shew that they were Papists, of whom (c) 1.27 Beza sayth, putting himselfe in the number, What Churches should we now haue in the world, had not this course been held, to wit, of erecting Churches by force of Armes, in despite (*) 1.28 of Princes, and Magistrats? So plainly doth he acknowledge your Churches to haue been euery where planted, by treading vnder foote the Cōmands & Edicts, the Swords, & Go∣uernments, the Crownes, and Scepters of Kings.

The fourth opposition. The Protestant Gentle∣woman holdeth a pillar vnder her left Arme, with a bough of palme in the same hand: whereas the Ro∣man hath on her left hand a Camelion sitting. Your meaning is, that you (forsooth) are stronge & Con∣stant in your Religion, but we weake & wauering ready to change for feare of persecution. Your Con∣stancy indeed is knowne, that you are in your do∣ctrines, as immutable as the Moone. In what point of Religion (saith (d) 1.29 an eminēt Protestant) be they, that impugne the Roman Bishop, firme and constant? They COYNE MONETHLY FAITHS, they are carryed away with the wind of euery doctrine. What their Religiō is to day one may know, but what it will be to morrow, neyther them∣selues, nor any mortall man can tell. And whereas you make this your Gossippe to haue on her left side the pillar of Religion, & on her right the Crowne; could any thing be more fit to expresse your Church of England? For in her Religion Kings haue the better & vpper hand of God: the Apostolicall sentence, We must rather obey God thē men, is turned backward, her Doctrine is mutable with the Princes pleasure; that she may be better resembled by a Weather-cocke thē by a Pillar. For what constācy can she haue, that pre∣ferrs

a Temporall Crowne, before Christian Truth••▪

The fifth Opposition betweene these two Wo∣men, is in respect of the Tytles that are set ouer their heades; yours being tearmed, Veritas Vniuoca, and ours, Mendacium Aequiuocum. Veritas vniuoca, being in English, Verity taught, by the professours thereof, with one voyce, with vniforme consent, I thinke the Reader will smile at your good Inuention, that you could find no truer Tytle for your Gospell. For what more notorious to the world, then that your refor∣med Professours are Vniuocall in the doctrine they preach as diuine truth, euen as the builders of Babel were Vniuocall in language, after the diuision of their tōgues? Vnto the Roman Religiō, which doth detest lying about any the least thing, which cōdemnes E∣quiuocall & Ambiguous speach in the affayre of Re∣ligion, in matters of Bargayne, in familiarity of (e) 1.30 Speach, why doe you tearme her Mendacium Aequi∣uocum? Vpon no other ground, but in regard she tea∣cheth, that a Christian, to defend his life and goods from the Tyranny of Oppressours, may sometymes vse ambiguous and reserued speach: A practise ex∣pressely allowed in Scripture, as (f) 1.31 sayth S. Gregory. The Scripture sheweth, that the crafty cruelty of Tyrants is sometymes to be deluded by PIOVS FRAVD; so sauing our selues from their malice, that we tell not a Lye: which then is well performed, whē what is done is affirmed, yet so affirmed, as what is done is also cōcealed, the thing being vt∣tered in part, and in part not vttered, but retayned in mind.

I hope I haue cleerly discouered the falshood & in∣anity of your Frontispiciall Emblemes and Pageants which occasioned my setting this Picture before the Reioynder, the rather also to make your Image per∣fect,

and complete in the Entrance of both our ••ookes put togeather, that the Reader may behold in the one the Out-side, in the other the In-side of your Venerable Selfe. If Caluin (g) 1.32 sayd true of Ministers, Praeclarum quidem zelum simulant, they can make an excellent fayre shew of Zeale, I will not deny, but your Paynters curious hand hath elegantly set forth your Out-side. For he hath paynted in your Face a fayre shew of Zeale, of Mo∣desty, of Wisdome, of Grauity, specially in your demure looke, Veluet cap, and gray Beard so combed and handsomely composed, as your Wife may seeme to haue had her fingar in the trimming thereof, as∣well as in the setting of your Ruffe.

But, quid si intus excutias? What if we looke into the In-side? Heere your Paynters Pensill fayled him, which defect some body, (perchance your selfe) vndertooke to supply with his Poeticall Quil, setting these verses vnder your Picture, and the Pi∣cture of your Booke wearing a Crowne,

Wisdome & Grace see in that modest looke, Truth's Triumph, Errours downfall in this Booke.

But this is not liuely paynting of your In-side to the eye, but only Verball Assertion of your hidden Worth to the eare, which if one will reiect as the fa∣bulous cōceyt of a Poet, what can be replyed? Or if you be Author of the Verses your selfe, some perhaps will attribute these prayses not vnto Truth, but vn∣to your Fawning, with ouer-fauourable Fancyes, v∣pon your owne Learning, Triumphing before the Vi∣ctory, and vsurping a Crowne without right. What then shall I doe? how may I set forth the true & vn∣deniable figure of your In-side? Your (h) 1.33 selfe say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Speach and Discourse

shew the true shape & figure of a man, according to the mind. This is true. Hence a Philosopher when a Lad was brought vnto him to be his Scholler sayd▪ Speake Child, that I may see thee. If one desire to know what stuffe a (i) 1.34 Sepulcher WHITE & PAIN∣TED without, cōtaines within, the way is to marke what sauour commes out when the same is opened?

Wherfore, according to the (k) 1.35 Gospel ex ore tuo te iudico, I wil iudge you by your own mouth, & by the the words therof delineate the Feature of your mind. Qualityes of mind may be reduced vnto two heads, Learning and Honesty; the one being the ornament of the Vnderstanding, the other of the Will. Hence this your Picture, or Censure of your Booke, containing fiue Sections, in the last of them your Honesty, in ci∣ting of all sorts of Authours, is discouered. The o∣ther foure are imployed to set forth the quality of your Learning in euery kind of Science that belongs to a Deuine. Wherby wil appeare what great reason you had to set this Inscription about your Picture, Effigies (l) 1.36 Doctissimi Viri D.ⁿⁱ Francisci White &c. The Picture of the most Learned man M. Francis White, taking to your selfe the Title of Learned in the super∣latiue degree aboue other men. This Censure with the Reioynder will also make manyfest, how iudici∣ously by way of preuētion the Iesuit in his Answere conuinced your future Reply, & your rude quaxing therein agaynst the Catholike Truth; that whereas you haue made the Iesuits Arme holding a net with a frogge in it, if your Painter will in lieu of the Frogge paint a Minister, he shall not need to change the Motto, Piscatoris rete habet Ranam, the Fisher hath caught in his net a Frogge.

Ignorance of Latin, and Grammer; or els wilfull going agaynst knowne Truth. SECTION I.

TO begin with that kind of learning which Children are taught in the first place, and which is the key vnto all other knowledge, I shall make manifest your grosse Ignorance therin, by foure Examples.

The first Example. §. 1.

THERE is a controuersy betwixt you and your Aduersary about the fact of S. Epiphanius, who writes of himselfe: (a) 1.37 I found in the entry of a certain Church in the Village of Anablatha, in the Countrey of Bethel the image of a Man, pendentem quasi Christi, aut alicuius Sancti, nescio enim cuius erat, hanging as Christs, or some Saintes (for I know not whose is was:) when then I saw the Image of a Man to hang in the Church of Christ agaynst the authority of Scripture, I cut the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉 peeces &c.

The question is, whether this Image was Christs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some Saints, and not rather some prophane mans, ••anging as Christs, or some Saints. The Iesuit (b) 1.38 ••aintaynes that it was a vulgar & prophane image not any sacred Picture. This he prooues, first because Epiphanius vrgeth the vnlawfulnes of this fact be∣cause

it was the image of a man, When (sayth he) ••••gaynst the authority of the Scripture, I saw in the Chur•••• the image of a man. But there was no reason, why 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should vrge the vnlawfulnes of this fact, in respe•••• the image was of a man, had he not vnderstood meere ordinary man. For otherwise it is so far fro•• being against Scripture to set vp in Churches the I••mage of a man, as by Gods expresse order (c) 1.39 th•• Cherubims were figured in the Temple vnder th•• shape of Men.

Secondly, it is a principle in Philosophy, Nullu•• simile est idem, what is like to a thing, is not the sam•• thing, without distinction. Epiphanius sayth, the ••••mage of this man did hang as Christ, or some Saint that is, in like manner as such sacred images did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to hange, Ergo, that image was not Christs, or som•• Saints, but the image of some prophane man▪ hāgin•• in the Church, as Christs, or some Saints.

You comming to answere your aduersary, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 according to your custome, you enter into a com••mon place, and rayle pag. 251. No testimony can be cleere which Sophisters will not labour to peruert and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 otherwise what is cleerer agaynst Imageworship, then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words of Epiphanius. It is lost labour to contend with me•• qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra persp••••cuam veritatem intendunt, which vpon sole perti•• bend their vttermost force to gainsay perspicuous verity

After this (d) 1.40 childish declamation, commin•• to answere the Iesuites argumēts, you skip ouer th•• first, without any Reply at all. Vnto the secon•• grounded vpon the word, quasi Christi, aut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sancti, you shape this solution.

Epiphanius writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translated by 〈◊〉〈◊〉

ad verbum quasi, is to be construed not by a note of ••••••parison, but of coniecture, or guessing in things we doe perfectly remember, or know, as vidi gregem ouium quasi 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or, I saw a troope of horse, put case an 100. Thus you; shewing what an excellent Grāmarian you are. For I beseech you in what Grammer, or Dictionary did you euer read that quasi doth signify put case? And your English example, I saw a troope of horse, put case an 100. if it be brought with reference vnto the La∣tin, vidi gregem ouium quasi mille, as a true translation thereof (as it ought to be, for otherwise why is it brought?) what Grammer-maister would endure a boy that should so interprete? I vrge not your trans∣lating mille, an hundred, nor gregem ouium, a troope of horse, for this I know doth not much import; but your translating quasi, put case, which quasi doth no more signify, then mille doth an hundred, or ouis, a horse If a Grāmer-boy hauing this English to be put into Latin: Behold a troope of twenty horse, put case they 〈…〉〈…〉 hundred, let vs set vpon them; should thus trans∣late▪ Ecce turmam viginti equitum, quasi centum, irrua∣m••••▪ were not this senseles and ridiculous Latine? And yet the Latine were true, and ad verbum, if quasi did signify put case, as you say it doth.

Wherefore quasi is still a note of similitude, which sometymes doth togeather imply doubting or con∣iecturing when the similitude is so perfect as we can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no distinction. As in your example vid•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ouium quasi mille, we signify, that the number of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sheepe is so neere a thousand, as we cannot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whether they be more or lesse. And thus ••••••phanius finding the image of a man hanging in the Church of Anablatha, with a lampe burning before it,

sayth, that it did hang as Christs, or some Saintes, tha•• is, in such manner as he could not discerne any diffe••rence betwixt the reuerence giuen by that people vnto it, & the reuerēce the (*) 1.41 Church vsed toward•• the Images of Christ and his Saints. You may the•• rayle at your pleasure, but whiles you reply no (e) 1.42 better, euen Grammer-boyes may see your aduersa∣ry hath concluded you in a Cap-case, which qua doth signify, as much as, put case.

The second Example. §. 2.

YOVR aduersary pag. 487. doth defend that the words of Christ drinke yee all of this, were spoke•• to the twelue Apostles vpon a personall reason be••longing to them only. This he proueth: First because when a word is ambiguous, the same is to be inter∣preted by another place speaking of the same matte•• where the same word is vsed without ambiguity. I•• this speech of S. (f) 1.43 Matthew drinke yee all of this, it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ambiguous, whether the word all, concerne all me•• or only all the twelue there present. S. (g) 1.44 Mark speaking of the same matter, & signifying how tha•• precept drinke yee all of this, was accomplished, sayth they dranke all thereof, where all cannot be extende•• further then vnto all the twelue; Ergo, this place cā∣not with any reason, or by the rule of exposition 〈◊〉〈◊〉 further extended.

Secondly, the words Accipite, manducate, bibi••••▪ were certaynely spoken vnto the same persons, and they runne so togeather in ranke that no man wit•• probability can make the one out-runne the other. But the command Accipite, (which signifyes tak•• with your hand, for it is a precept distinct from m••̄••ducate,

which is take with your mouth) was giuen to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostles only, not vnto all the faythfull▪ else we ••ust say, that al communicants are bound by diuine precept to take the consecrated cup, or bread with their hands. Who euer heard of such a precept in the Christian Church?

You being to make answere vnto this grounded discourse, first, you keepe your wont, and according to your (h) 1.45 skill in Rhetorike ad captandum beneuo∣••••ntiam, to win our good will, set vpon vs thus with a Prefatory peale of reproach: That which S. Stephen spake to the vnfaithfull Iewes; yee do alwaies resist the holy Ghost, Act. 7.51. is verifyed in the Pharisees of Rome, for no light of heauenly verity is so illustrious which this gene∣ration, in fauour of their own impiety, will not endeauor to cloud. Is it possible for any thing to be more euidēt for com∣munion in both kinds, then this precept of Christ, Drinke yee all of this: yet the sonnes of darknes, hauing renoun∣••••d verity, and chosen the way of errour, blunder and ••rope in the cleere light, and, verba recta ac veritatis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fulgentia, tortuosis interpretationibus obscura∣••••, & deprauare moliuntur, as S. Augustine longe since spake of the Pelagians. Thus (i) 1.46 yow. So great a sinne it is for vs to expound the word of God against the fancy of a Minister, by conference of places, by con∣sideration of antecedents and consequents, by the circumstances of the action, and by all other Chri∣stian allowed rules.

Hauing thus rayled, yow approach to the Ie∣suits arguments, & againe skip ouer the first with∣out any syllable of reply. In your solution of the se∣cond, grounded on the word accipite, take, to shew both your Grammaticall and Scripturall erudition,

yow write in this sorte: The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand, and thus he proueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian, nor Deuine. Virgil saith, illos porticibus Rex accipiebat in amplis, where accipio is to entertaine. S. Paul saith, per quem accepimus gra∣tiam. Rom. 1.5. By whome we haue receaued grace and Apostleship. c. 8.15. Yee haue receaued (accepistis) the spirit of adoption. The Angell said, Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid, feare not to take Mary thy wife, Matt. 1.20. His Bishopricke let another man take, Act. 1.20. Thus yow, very learnedly as yow thinke; so that you dare accuse the Iesuite as neither good Gramarian nor De∣uine. Giue Iesuits I pray you, leaue to examine your learning before they yield that you be their maister both in Grammer and Diuinity, as you challenge to be.

First, what blindnes is it in yow to say, that the Iesuit imagineth that all taking is with the hand? Doth he not in this place most expressely say, men may take meate out of the hand of another, with their hand immediatly, or with their mouth? He suppo∣seth then, that there is other taking then with the hand; but proues in this text, take, eate, drinke, that take must needes command taking with the hand, not immediatly with the mouth. For (as he saith) in this text, take, eate, drinke, take commands such a kind of taking of meate offered, as is distinct from eating therof, and not inuolued therin: But to take with the mouth is inuolued in eating, and comman∣ded therin. Ergo, in this text, take, eate, drinke, take cannot be vnderstood of taking immediatly with the mouth, but with the hand.

Secondly, If the Iesuit were so simple as yow

make him seeme, as to imagine that all corporall ta∣••••ng is with the hand, haue yow not very learnedly instructed him of the contrary, both out of Virgil, and Scripture? Virgil, forsooth saith, Illos porticibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accipiebat in amplis, the king entertained them in his ample Galleryes, where accipio is to entertai∣ne, Ergo, all corporall taking of a thing out of the hand of another, is not with the hand. The scripture saith, Yee haue receaued grace, the Apostleship, the spirit of adoption, therfore all corporall taking is not with the hand. The Angell said to S. Ioseph, feare not to take Mary thy wife, ergo all taking is not by the hand: yea which striketh the naile on the head, it is writ∣ten of Iudas, His Bishopricke, let another man take. Might yow not without taking so much paines to shew your learning in Virgil & scripture, haue pro∣ued, that all corporall taking is not with the hand, because men many times be taken with agues, and with death, yea some with Ministers wiues. Verily should Deane-ryes be giuen in England according to learning, this your discourse about taking, would deserue this verdict in the Iudgement of all learned ••en, His Deane-ry let another man take.

The third Example. §. 3.

WHAT shall I say of your grosse misprision in translating, which shewes your igno∣rance in Latine, or else your fraudulency & willfull impugnation of knowne truth.

To proue, that Generall Councells may erre in ••ayth, yow (k) 1.47 cite this saying of (l) 1.48 Cusanus▪ Notan∣dum est experimento rerum, vniuersale Concilium plena∣rium posse deficere; The true English wherof is, It is

to be noted that a plenary Vniuersall Councell may f••ile in the experiment of things, or (m) 1.49 matters of fact. You translate, Experience of things doth manifest, that a ple∣nary Vniuersall Councell may be deficient. What grosse∣nes is this? Doth notandum signify manifest? what more manifest, though not noted by yow, then that Cusanus (n) 1.50 by experiment of things, meanes matters of fact? For his drift is to shew, that former Councels may be corrected by the later ob facti errorem, in res∣pect of errours in matter of fact: otherwise in mat∣ters of fayth, that plenary vniuersall Councells are INFALLIBLE, Cusanus doth (o) 1.51 hold, and proue in that very Booke.

To proue that all Heretiks pretend not scripture (p) 1.52 yow cite S. Augustine, as saying: All heretikes reade not scriptures; (q) 1.53 whose wordes in Latin be: Neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt, nec ob aliud haeretici sunt, nisi quod eas non rectè intelligentes, suas falsas opiniones contra earum veritatem pertinacit•••• asserunt. Which place translated proueth the contra∣ry: For it is this, All heretikes read scripture, nor are they heretikes for any other cause, but that vnderstanding th•• scriptures amisse, they pertinaciously maintaine their erro∣neous opinions against their truth. These words, neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas Catholicas legunt, yow translate, all Heretikes do not read scriptures against Grammer, against sense. Against Gram∣mer, by the Rules wherof two negations affirme; so that non omnes haeretici non legunt, is the same as omnes Haeretici legunt, all Heretikes read the scriptures. A∣gainst sense, for in this your translation, All heretike do not read scriptures, nor are they heretikes for any other reason, but because they vnderstand them no••

aright, one part of the sentence destroyeth the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For if all heretikes read not scriptures, as yow 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Augustine say, in the first part, then the cause of their heresy is not onely pertinacious misprision 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the sense of scripture, as he affirmeth in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. No doubt if heretikes read not the sacred text, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not only misinterpretation of the sense, but al∣so ignorance of the text may be the cause of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This same Ignorance in Grammer makes you in this (r) 1.54 your Reply, in proofe that Protestantes ac∣knowledge some places obscure in scripture, to cite these wordes of your fellow-Minister Paraeus; NON n••g••mus scripturam NIHIL habere obscuritatis. Is not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the playne contrary of what you intend? For what is non negamus, but we affirme, scripturam ni∣hi•• habere obscuritatis, the scripture to be no where obscure.

To proue that we make scriptures subiect to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pope, yow cite the Dictates of Gregory the 7. set downe by Baronius, containing certaine priui∣ledges of the Popes authority, wherof one is, Quòd nullum Capitulum, nullus{que} liber Canonicus habeatur sine authoritate ipsius, yow (s) 1.55 translate thus, that no chap∣ter, no booke of scripture be esteemed Canonicall without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 authority. In which translation you shew both falshood and ignorance. Falshood in that yow ad to the text (t) 1.56 in the same letter, as part thereof, no ••••••pter of scripture, no booke of scripture, those words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being in the latine text, nor in the sense: for if it ••••re granted that the Pope doth here speake of the chapter of bookes, it doth not follow that he meanes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bookes of scripture, but rather the bookes of Canon law, which lawes in that age (u) 1.57 diuers did

beginne to compile, & gather togeather into volu∣mes: and so he defineth, that no Chapters, that no bookes of Canon, or Church-law be held authenti∣call without his approbation.

Ignorance, because common sense might haue taught yow, that this Decree could not be vnder∣derstood of Chapters, or Bookes. The reason is, be∣cause, to put chapter before booke, and to say no chapter of booke, nor any booke shall be held Cano∣nicall without the Pope, is idle and senselesse. For if no chapter can be Canonicall without the Pope, much lesse a whole booke; so that hauing sayd, that not so much as a chapter be held Canonicall with∣out the Pope, it was senselesse to adde the same of whole bookes. This speach is as foolish as this, should one say, Not any person, nor any whole fami∣ly came to Church; or as this, He read not one line, nor one chapter, nor one booke; wheras sense would say, not one booke, not one chapter, not one line.

Thirdly a little skill in latine, ioyned with iudg∣ment would haue easely found out the true and co∣herent sense of this Dictate. For Capitulum signifyes not onely a chapter of a booke, but also a Chapter-house, or colledge of Chanons: Liber signifyes no•• onely a booke, but also free and exempt: Canonic•••• also (as euery man knowes) signifyes not onely Canonicall, but also a Chanon, or Prebend: So that the Popes priuilege, quòd nullum Capitulum, nullusq•••• liber Canonicus habeatur absque illius authoritate, is thus in English, that no Chapter-house, or Colledge of Chanōs, nor any single Canon or Prebend be free, & exempt fro•• the authority of the Ordinary, but by the Popes authority

〈◊〉〈◊〉 sole authority of Metropolitans, or Primates not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sufficient to make such exemptions. As for ••••okes of scriptures, we teach that they all be diuine and canonicall in themselues, and for the most part •••• owne to be such, by the perpetuall tradition of the Church, some very few excepted that haue been ••anonized vnto vs by generall Councells, and not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the sole and single authority of the pope. Be∣hold how wide off the marke yow shoote, through your ignorance of latin, and through want of iud∣gement to make sensible construction of latin sen∣tences.

The fourth Example. §. 4.

YOvv deuise many mysteries about the word species, in answere of S. Cyprian his words cited by the Iesuit for Transubstantiation: (y) 1.58 This bread changed not in shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh, yow say, the Authour by the words natura mutatus, chāged in nature, vnderstood not a corporall or Physicall, but only a mysticall change. This yow proue, because in the same booke this Father saith, that (z) 1.59 although the immortall food deliue∣red in the Eucharist differ from common meat, yet ••••retaineth in the kind of corporall substance: He saith not species in the plurall number, meaning, accor∣ding to the new Popish sense, the externall shapes and acci∣dents of bread (for let the Aduersary proue out of antiqui∣•••• that S. Cyprian, or the Primitiue Church maintained 〈◊〉〈◊〉 late Romane doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without the materiall substance, and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he saith speciē in the singular number, that is, the cor∣porall

forme and substance. Thus yow: shewing your selfe to haue no species of true learning, whether spe∣cies signify kind or shape. For heere yow discouer foure simplicityes in matter of Grammer.

The first, is the mystery you make about the plu∣rall and singular number of species; as though S Cy∣prian▪ if he had sayd in the plurall, Alimonia immorta∣litatis, corporalis substantiae retinens species, should haue fauoured Transubstantiation; wheras now that he sayth in the singular, corporalis substantiae retinens spe∣ciem, he doth ouerthrow it. He sayth not (say you) spe∣cies in the plurall number, meaning the shapes and accidēts of bread, but speciem in the singular, that is the kind or the corporall substance or forme. Now I pray you, what Grā∣mer doth teach, that species in the plurall number doth signify shapes and externall accidents, and in the singular, kind and substance? had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retine•• species, why might you not haue interpreted species, kinds, natures, and formes, aswell as now you interpret speciem, the nature, kind, and forme? And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singu∣lar, yet why may not we expound shape and sem∣blant of corporall substance, aswell as we might haue expounded shapes and semblantes, had he sayd in the plurall corporalis substantiae species? Verily you are by your aduersary, & by the force of truth driuē into such straites, as you coyne new Grammati∣call mysteries agaynst all Grammer.

Your second simplicity, is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature, and kind, as though we were ignorant thereof, or that you could heere∣by elude the testimonyes of the Fathers we bring, to

〈◊〉〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and wine, contayning the body and bloud of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord. This I say, is a seely and miserable shift, for though species signify nature & kind, and this signi∣••••••••tion be much vsed, specially in Logicke, yet no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉〈◊〉 outward semblant, shew, and shape, and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when spe∣cie•• doth signify shape, and not kind, this rule is infal∣lible, that still it is taken for shape when it is oppo∣sed vnto nature and inuisible Essence. When S. Paul ex∣hortes, that not only men haue their inward cons∣cience pure towards God, but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali,* 1.60 who endued with common sense will interprete this otherwise, then from any shew or ••••••blant of euill? By this rule we prooue that the Fa∣thers whē they say, that the species of bread remains, they meane the shapes, because they oppose the spe∣cies of bread vnto the inward substance & true being of bread▪ Thus S Cyrill:* 1.61 Know and most certainly beleiue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to vs, is not bread, though the tast esteeme it to be bread, but the body of Christ; and that the wine seene of vs, though to the tast it seeme wine, is not wine, but the bloud of our Lord: nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus, sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis, vnder the species of bread is giuen thee the body, vnder the species of wine is giuen thee the bloud of Christ. What 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be more cleere then that this Father doth distin∣guish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nature, kind, and substance, affirming the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••emayne, and not the second?

Your third simplicity is, that to prooue that species in the singular doth signify kind, not shape,

you bring this place of Saint Cyprian: (*) 1.62 im••mortalitatis alimonia datur, à communibus cibis diffe∣rens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed Diui•••• Virtutis inuisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam. Fo•• euen in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape, and so by this very text Transsubstan∣tiation is proued. This is cleere; because whe•• the species of a thing is in speach opposed agayns•• the vertue of the same thinge, then species mu•••• needes signify shape and shew, not truth an•• substance. As when S. Paul sayth (a) 1.63 Habentes specie•• pietatis, virtutem autem eius abnegantes, no man that sober, will translate, Hauing piety in the nature & kin•• yet denying the vertue thereof, but, Retayning the shew▪ piety, yet denying the vertue thereof. Now S. Cyprian•• this text by you cited, doth oppose the Eucharist, ac••cording to the species, vnto the Eucharist accordin•• to the inuisible Essence therof, affirming the same to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a common thing specie, but a diuine presentiall ve••••tue iuisibili essentia. Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this, that the Eucharist is the sub••stance of corporal Bread, according to the outwa•••• shape & shew of the accidēts, but the diuine presen∣tiall vertue of Christs body & bloud, according 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the inward nature, & inuisible Essence of the thing▪

Your fourth simplicity is, that this your Gram••maticall speculation about the singular & plurall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Species being of it selfe seely, is likewise altogeathe•• impertinent vnto your purpose. For you by this ac∣ception of Species, would cleere the text of S. Cyprian alleadged by the Answearer to prooue, that bre•••• in the Eucharist remayneth only in shape, and no•• in substance. In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉〈◊〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 word species but effigies, saying: Panis non effigie, sed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mutatus &c. Bread changed not in the effigies, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the nature, is by the omnipotēcy of his Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his flesh. Now though we should graunt your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conceyt, that Species in the singular doth signify the kind of the nature, and not the shape of outward accidents; yet I thinke you are not so deuoyd of all 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as you will affirme that effigies in the singular may signify nature and kind; nor will you be so sense∣le•••••• as to translate panis non effigie sed natura mutatus, bread changed not according to the kind, but ac∣cording to the nature. And if effigies signify shape & not kind, then we see this most auncient Father sup∣poseth as a thing most certayne, that the sacred Eu∣charist is bread in shape and shew, not in the nature o•• inuisible essence: A mystery seemingly absurd to flesh & bloud, yet you might more wisely vpon the litterall sense of Gods word belieue it with simplici∣ty of Fayth agaynst your carnall sense, then seeke to maintayne this was not the Fayth of the auncient Church, with so much Childish simplicity agaynst Grammer.

A fifth Example of Ignorance, ioyned with extreme Insolency. §. 5.

HAVING made manifest your simplicity in La∣tin, I adde another conuiction of your Gram∣maticall Ignorance, euen about the Construction of an English sentēce, whereby most calumniously you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon your Aduersary false and impious do∣ctrine. I would not haue noted your grossenes in this point, were not the same ioyned with serious dispu∣tation against the supposed errour, & most bitter In∣sultation

against the Iesuit, not only reuiling him but also his whole Order, yea, through their sides, the most Holy Aunciēt Fathers▪ Thus you write pag. 236.

The latter branch of the Iesuits assumption, to wit, The Crosse, Nayles, & Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion, is impiously false▪ For nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his passion, but himselfe, & part of himselfe. Hebr. 7.27 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; he offered vp himselfe. Hebr. 9.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; through the eternal Spi∣rit he offered vp himselfe without spot to God &c. Hebr. 10.10. We are sanctifyed through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all. Hebr. 9.12. By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place. And if the Crosse, Nayles, and Lance were offered by Chrict to his Father, then we were redeemed with corrup∣tible things, which is a Iesuiticall, or rather Anti-Iesui•• doctrine, that is, a doctrine ascribing to dead Creatures, I∣ron, wood, steele, nayles &c. that which is most proper to the precious bloud of Iesus. This Doctrine (mayntayned by Loyolists) is most sacrilegious, and more to be abhorre•• then Iudas his lyps: But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus sayth of Heathen Idolaters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Are they not prodigi∣ous monsters, that adore stocks and stones?

Thus seriously doe you dispute agaynst Iesuites, whom you name Loyolists, for holding doctrine they neuer dreamt of. They (a) 1.64 teach with the (b) 1.65 Fathers that the Crosse was the Altar whereon Christ offe∣red vp himselfe; but that he offered vp to his Father the wood of the Crosse, or the Steele, & Iron of the Lance, & Nayles for our Redemption, certaine I am this neuer passed through their thoughts. And ye••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 his supposed Errour••▪ you are so waspish, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue (*) 1.66 suspected, that as Omphale 〈…〉〈…〉 the ••lub of Hercules, so your Xantippe in your 〈…〉〈…〉 tooke your pen into her hand, and thence powred down vpon our heads this shameful shower 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••proach. I might (I say) haue intertayned this su••••••tion, were it not for the so frequent aspersion of so many Greeke words, according to the (c) 1.67 fashion of ••eretikes, agaynst which I may fitly in this place apply the words of the Satyre—Omnia Graecè,

Cùm sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè▪

Greeke words flow from their mouth, wheras in men of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is more shamefull to be ignorant of their own language, & to want wit & iudgment to construe the same. Vpon which Ignorāce this your imputation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto Iesuits is grounded, except you will ac∣knowlege that herein you slaunder them malitiou∣sly▪ as I will now cleerly demonstrate.

First those wordes, The Crosse, Nayles, and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his passion, how are they set downe by you? As the very text of the Iesuite in so many wordes? Shew these formall wordes in his booke, & he (I know) will giue you leaue to rayle at him (wherin you take so great plea∣s••re) till you haue eased your stomacke of all your 〈◊〉〈◊〉. As your owne words, wherein you thinke to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downe not the text, but the sense of the Iesuites 〈◊〉〈◊〉? why then are they put in a distinct letter, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from yours, and as the Iesuites formall 〈◊〉〈◊〉? If the Iesuites wordes were ambiguous, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to that impious sense you set vpō them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hey are not) yet, as it had been Charity to haue co••••rued them to the better sense, so is your falshood

intollerable, to substitute in lieu of his ambiguo•••• speach, another that contaynes impiety; without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ambiguity and doubt: Another (I say) of your ow•• making, set in a distinct letter, as if it were formall•• and verbally his.

Secondly, if the true wordes of the Iesuit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downe it will presently appeare that his propositi•••• is not, That the Crosse, and Nayles were offered to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at Christs passion, but that they were instrumen•• of his passion; not as the same proceeded from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 harts of the wicked, but as by him intertayned in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 owne hart, and offered to his Father; & this so cle••••••ly, as it may seeme prodigious, that you could igno••rantly, or that you would wittingly mistake his se••••tence. For the Iesuit answering a Protestant vulg•••• obiection the Kings maiesty vrged in the Conferē•••• If the Crosse & Nayles be worshipped, because they touch the body of our Lord, why not also the lypps of Iudas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 touched our Sauiours lypps when he gaue him that tray••••••rous kisse? The Iesuit (I say) deliuers a threefold m••••nifest disparity between the lyps of Iudas, and the h••••ly Crosse, and about the third disparity he thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

The Passion may be considered two wayes: First, as p••••••ceeding from the will of wicked men that tormented hi•• in which consideration it is not gratefull vnto God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 detestable••action in the doers therof. Secondly as it was ••••••ceaued in the body of Christ, admitted into his heart, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 OFFERED to his Father; and by this consideration is sacred and venerable. The lips of Iudas betraying 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were instruments of his Passion, as it proceeded from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hart, and consequently as it was a detestable action; but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Crosse, the Nayles, the Lance that stayed in, and was 〈…〉〈…〉

to the body of Christ, were instruments of his passion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his sacred person, and as offered to his heauen∣ly Father, and consequently, as of a thing most highly 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

What can be more cleere, then that in this dis∣course, not the wood of the Crosse, but the payne and passion therof is sayd to haue been admitted in∣to Christs hart, and offered to his Father? In proofe hereof I omit, that your sense is both false and sense∣lesse. False, because the wood of the Crosse did not enter into the hart of Christ, nor the yron of the nayles, but only the payne and passion caused by the same▪ and the steele of the Lance though it went in∣to his hart, yet this was after his death, when he could not offer it to his Father. Senselesse, because though the Crosse and nayles had been offered vnto God the Father, yet could they not be sayd to haue been instruments of his Passion, as they were offe∣red. For in that case Christs offering of them vnto his Father, should haue been an action consequent vpon the Crosses instrumentall operation in pay∣••••••g and tormenting his body, whence the Crosse should not haue been the instrument to torment his body, as offered to his Father, but contrariwise the Crosse as the instrument tormēting his body, should haue been offered to his Father.

Nor will I vrge the drift of the whole discourse, which doth most cleerly declare the last clause the∣reof. For the Iesuit by the whole discourse doth in∣tend to shew, how the suffering of our Lord, as it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an actiō proceeding frō the hart of the wicked, is distinct from the same, as a passion receaued in his body, and intertayned in his heart, and offered to

his Father; for this opposition, and the saying, It 〈◊〉〈◊〉 receaued, It was offered, doth most euidently 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that offered to the Father, is spoken of the Passion, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Crosse and Nayles. These argumēts I preterm•••• and remit vnto our Aduersary, and only will stan•• precisely vpon the Construction of this last claus•• The Crosse, Nayles, and lance were instruments of Chri•••• Passion, as lodged in his sacred Person, and offered to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heauenly Father, and therefore as of a thing most high Venerable. The wordes, as lodged, and as offered to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heauenly Father, cannot possibly be referred, & co••••strued with the Crosse & Nayles, but only with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Passion. This I proue, because to be lodged in Chri•••• sacred Person, & offered to the heauēly Father, is referre•• in this speach, to that thing which herein is concl••••ded to be a thinge most higly venerable, as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth declare, as lodged in his sacred Person, and offe•• to his Father, and therefore as a thing most highly ve••••••rable. Hence lodged, and offered, being Participles, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Adiectiues, must in this speach be of the same Num••ber, and Case, as is the thing thence concluded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be most highly Venerable. Now the thing most hig•• Venerable, is in this speach put in the Genetiue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 singular, of a thing most highly Venerable, therefore▪ lodged in his person, and offered to his Father, must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 likewyse the Genitiue Case singular. How then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they be construed in speach with Crosse, Nayles an•• Lance, that are the Nominatiue Plurall? Had the I••••suit sayd, the Crosse, the Nayles, & lance were instrumen•••• of Christs Passion, as lodged in his person, and offered 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his father, & consequently as most Venerable, this speach taken precisely by it selfe, had been ambiguous, an•• the former Epiphets lodged, offered, most Venerab••••

〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue been referred vnto the Crosse & Nayles, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as vnto the Passiō. But now saying as he doth Instruments of Christs Passion, as lodged in his Person, of∣fered to his Father, and therefore as of a thing most Vene∣rable, it is your grosse ignorance, or vnaduised rash∣•••••• (if not willfull peruersnesse) to referre lodged in his Person, and offered to his Father, vnto the Crosse & Nayles.

The reproaches you loade on Loyolists (so you please to nick-name Iesuits) do moue them to take Compassion of you, these being tokens of great pas∣sion that distempers your Iudgment, which the lear∣ning of your Aduersary hath put you into. For were you not blind with passion, would you reuile Iesuits as you doe, for Adorers of stockes and stones, for pro∣digious Monsters, most sacrilegious, more to be detested then Iudas his Lips, in respect of their worshipping our Sauiours Crosse? Do you not marke that reui∣ling them, in this regard, you reuile togeather with them, all Christians that haue worshipped that most sacred Wood, to wit, all the Fathers of the six Primi∣tiue Ages? For heare what a learned Father and Fa∣mous Antagonist of the Acephali then liuing, doth write and witnesse of the Church in those ages: (g) 1.68 Clauos quibus crucifixus est, & Lignum Venerabilis Cru∣cis, omnis per mundum Ecclesia, sine vlla contradictione, adorat: The vniuersall Church of Christ spread ouer the world, doth adore the Nayles wherwith he was crucifyed, and the Wood of the Venerable Crosse, without any contradiction: because as then Maho∣••••t was not borne, by whome (h) 1.69 vnfortunate Christians were first taught to maligne the wor∣ship of their Sauiours Crosse, and Image.

Another Father (i) 1.70 more auncient, and of grea∣ter authority sayth: Helena salutis humanae LIGNV•• & Crucem quam totus veneratur mundus inuenit. Hele∣na found out the Wood of human Saluation, which the whole Christian world doth Worshipp. What will you say of the Fathers, who taught the Deuotes of their tyme, (k) 1.71 to prostrate thēselues before the Crosse & adore, as if they saw their Lord hanging thereon? Who euen in the tyme of persecution before Constantine, did plant the Image of Christ Crucifyed in the Entry of Churches, informing Christians that did enter, how to behaue themselues towardes it, by this verse. (l) 1.72

Flecte Genu, Lignum{que} Crucis Venerabile adora. Bow knee, adore the Crosses sacred Wood.

The day will come, whē (m) 1.73 the signe of the Sonne of Man shall shine in the skye, and then the lips of Ve∣rity it selfe shall declare, who be more to be detested then Iudas his lips, Nouell-Gospellers, or Auncient Fathers, the Enemyes, or Honourers of his Crosse, when (except the Fathers be Prodigious monsters) you must be bound vp togeather (n) 1.74 with Iudas, to kisse ech others lips for euer, and eternally.

Grosse and incredible Ignorance in Logicke. SECT. II.

AFTER Grammer and Latin, Children are commonly taught Logicke, or the Art of Reasoning, without which no man can be grounded eyther in Philosophy, or Theology. Your ignorance in this kind, spreads it selfe ouer euery

〈◊〉〈◊〉 of your booke, and it is such, as an Aduersary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your disgrace, could not haue wished you should cōmit grosser faults. This I shall make cleere by three Examples, wherof ech inuolueth many ar∣guments, not only of your Ignorance, but also of your Boldnes in talking about things, of which you are totally ignorant.

The first Example. §. 1.

THE (a) 1.75 Iesuit to prooue against protestants, ar∣gumento ad hominem, that the Roman is the true Church, argueth in this sort: That Church from which Protestants receaued the Scripture, is the one, holy, Catholik Apostolike Church. The Church from which Protestants receaued, is no other then the Roman: Ergo, The Roman is the one, holy, Catholike & Apostolike Church.

To this argument you reply pag. 116. This syllo∣gisme is peccant in forme, and both the propositions are af∣firmatiue in the second figure: which I note the rather, be∣cause the Aduersary at the end of this Argument, cryeth victoria, saying; An argument conuincing and vnanswe∣rable: I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answere. Thus you. Now vouchsafe to take a view of your manifold ignorance.

I pretermit your falshood in charging the Iesuit of saying, that this Argument is conuictiue, & vn∣answerable. For the Iesuite doth not so affirme of this argument, but of another, to wit of this: If it be possible, that the Church can deliuer, by full and vnanimous consent, a false sense; then it is possible that in like manner she may deliuer a false text. But protestants cannot say that the Church, by full and vnanimous consent of Tradition, can deliuer a false

text: Ergo, they may not say, it is possible that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church should deliuer by ful & vnanimous cōsen•• a false sense. This argument the Iesuit tearmeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answerable, not the other which you challenge •• peccant in forme. But this your falshood I pretermi•• and only prosecute your faultes in Logicke The•••• are foure, and so grosse as they shew cleerly that yo•• neuer learned, or else haue vtterly forgot the Sur••••mula's or Rudiments of this Arte, which childre•• customarily are taught.

The first fault is, not to distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Second & Third Figure, which is as childish in L••••gike, as in Grammer not to know the third Decle••••sion from the second. You say, the Iesuits argume•••• is in the second figure, and therefore peccant in form•••• both propositions being affirmatiue: Whereas i•• truth the same is in the third figure, in which it lawful to argue both propositions being affirmati•••• The third figure is, wherein the Medium, or mean•• of proofe is subiected in both propositions, that is▪ the thing wherof another terme is predicated, th•••• is, is affirmed or denyed. In the Iesuites Argumēt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 medium to prooue the Roman to be the holy, Catho••like Church, is the Church from which Protesta•••• receaued Scriptures: This Church from which Pr••••testants receaue the Scripture is predicated in ne••••ther of his propositions, but in both is subiected, th•••• is, is the terme wherof another thing is affirmed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayd In the maior proposition of the Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gaue protestants the scripture, One, Holy, Catholi•••• Apostolike is affirmed: The Church from whic•• Protestants receaued the scripture, is the one, holy Apostolike Church. In the minor likwise of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Church from which Protestants receaue Scripture, the Roman is predicated. The Church from which Protestāts receaue the Scripture is the Romā. Hence in lawfull forme in the third figure, followes this conclusion, Ergo, the Roman is the one, holy, Catho∣like, & Apostolike Church.

Your second fault is grosser then the first. For you know not the quality of Propositions, nor can discerne a negatiue from an affirmatiue, which is as great simplicity in Logicke, yea greater then in Grā∣mer not to know the termination of the second De∣clension from the first. You say, in the Iesuits Argu∣ment both propositions are pure affirmatiue, wher∣as his Minor is in part negatiue, to wit, Protestants receaued the Scripture from no other but the Ro∣man. Who feeles not this proposition to be part∣ly negatiue, wherein is denyed, that any Church besides the Roman, is that Church from which Pro∣testants can pretend the Scriptures, to wit, authen∣tically, or by assured perpetuall Tradition, hand to hand from the Apostles? For Exceptiue and Exclu∣siue Enuntiations, be compound Enuntiations, partly Affirmatiue, partly Negatiue, and as Logitians teach, the (b) 1.76 Exposition of them is to be made into two single propositions, whereof the one is negatiue, the other affirmatiue. So the Iesuites proposition Prote∣stants receaued Scripture by no other Church but the Ro∣man, being exceptiue, is to be expounded by a Nega∣tiue, No Church not Roman, is the Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture; and also by an affirma∣tiue, The Church from which Protestants receaued Scrip∣ture, is the Roman. Hence the Iesuit, as he did conclu∣de in a forme of the third figure called Disamis, his

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

minor being partly affirmatiue, so might he haue concluded in a forme of the second termed Came∣stres, the same minor being also negatiue in this manner: The Holy Catholike Church is that from which Protestants receaued the Scripture: No Church but the Roman, is that Church from which Protestāts receaued the Scripture: Ergo, No Church but the Roman is the holy, Catholike, Apostolike Church.

Your third fault is, not to know the forme of Expository Syllogismes from the common An Ex∣pository syllogisme is that, wherein the meanes of proofe is a singular and indiuiduall thing, in which kind it is good forme to argue affirmatiuely in any fi∣gure euen in the second. For example this sillogisme: The Minister grossely ignorant in Logicke, replyed agaynst M. Fisher. The Deane of Carlile is he who replyed against M. Fisher. Ergo, the Deane of Car∣liele is the Minister grossely ignorant of Logicke This sillogisme is in the second figure, and both pro∣positions are affirmatiue; yet if you deny the forme of arguing to be good, you will but confirme the truth of the conclusion. Hence the Iesuit might in good forme haue argued affirmatiuely in the second figure, in this manner. The One, Holy, Catholike, & Apostolicall Church, is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authenti∣cally: The Roman is that Church from which Pro∣testants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentical∣ly: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholike, A∣postolicall Church.

Your fourth fault is, that yow play the Refor∣mer of Arguments, as Luther did of Churches, that

is, you reiect lawfull and good formes, and in lieu of them bring in vicious and damnable. The Iesuits argument as by yow (c) 1.77 reformed is this: The Church from which Protestants receaued the scriptures, is the One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolicall Church: Protestants re∣ceaued the scripture from the Roman: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholike, Apostolicall Church. In this re∣formed argument both propositions are particuler, and consequently the forme of arguing vicious in any figure, as euery Logitian knowes. The Iesuit to preuent this fault made his minor an vniuersall Pro∣position: For this proposition, Protestants receaued the Scriptures from no other Church but the Roman, is equiualent, or equipollent vnto this, Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman. Where∣fore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure, you should haue made the maior (d) 1.78 Vniuersall in this sort: Euery Chuch that de∣liuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike: The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants: Ergo, the Roman Church is the Catholike Church. If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumēt is Indiuiduall, and so the Syllogisme Expository, & not according to the ordinary forme; why then do you reprehend his argument, as being affirmatiue in the second figure, seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure? Are yow a Do∣ctour, a Deane, a Maister in Israell, and know not these things? Being so ignorant of Logicke, were yow so destitute likewise of discretiō, as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit, as peccant in Logicke? Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing, concer∣ning

which, yow speake no more assuredly, then a blind man of colours?

Some may say, that though yow be ignorant of Logicke, yow do not greatly care, because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the lear∣ned, cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow, and are lead away by yow. I answere: Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes; yet the falshood of your Religion, euen about your ground and rule of fayth, may be made palpable vn∣to them. Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not ex∣presse scripture, affirming a thing in so many words (for then the Ladyes that can read, might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion, wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scrip∣ture:) You therefore (I say) make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture, but also (e) 1.79 what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason, and Rules of Lo∣gicke deduced from the Scripture. Now whē a thing is deduced from scripture, by good consequence, by true art, and not by Sophistry, Ladyes, except they haue diligently studyed Logicke, cannot possibly know. This is euident. For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture, which is not de∣duced by discourse in lawfull figure & forme, & not by Sophistry, or a fallacious shew: But the Ladyes cannot possibly know, when an argument is in true moode and figure, nor consequently discerne Syllo∣gismes from Sophismes, which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues, if they be in their senses: Therfore they cannot possibly be assu∣red, by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe

them, nor consequētly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion, nor be saued. They must trust ignorant Ministers, who crye Sophistry, Sophistry agaynst argumēts in lawfull forme, as now you haue done, not so much out of malice, but as I am persua∣ded, out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse, as men are taught in their childhood.

The second Example. §. 2.

YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull, but also pre∣tende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish, & knowne Sophismes. Behold hereof notorious Examples. Your aduer∣sary to proue the traditiō of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture, bringes 4. Arguments. Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number, haue set downe other 4. to proue, that a Christian is built originally and funda∣mentally on the word of God, not as deliuered by tradition, but as written. In these Arguments yow glory, (f) 1.80 saying, That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis, a bundle of vanity, and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer. Now these your arguments, in compa∣rison of which you so debase the Iesuits, are all and euery one of them idle & triuiall fallacyes, as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate.

The first (g) 1.81 is, That which is most excellent in euery kind, is the modell of the rest; but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word. (2. Pet. 19. August. l. 17. cont. Faust. c. 5.) Ergo the scripture is the modell, and patterne of the rest.

This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis,

that is, hath foure different termes, whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three. Scrip∣ture is one terme, Modell and patterne of the rest, a second, Most excellent in euery kind, a third, the most excellent part, a fourth: for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind, & the most excellent part of many partes. Amongst whole and totall things, the most excellēt in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest, but amōgst parts, the most excellent is not the ground of the rest.

In substantuall Compounds, the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall mat∣ter, yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter; yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme, being the fundamentall & radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced. Who sees not that Walles, Chambers, and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house, and more beau∣tifull then the fundations? Yet the fundations are more prime, originall, and wheron the Walls, and Chambers depend, and are kept in being. In this manner the word of God as written, is more excel∣lent, in respect of deep and profound learning, then Tradition, yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime, originall, fundamentall; because it is the sole ground and foundation, by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deli∣uered in writing. Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke, as yow vndertake to proue one thing, and conclude another. Yow vndertake (h) 1.82 to proue, that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God, not as deliuered by tradition, but as written: yow

conclude, that the written word is the patterne, and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations. Now to be the ground of the rest, is different from to be the patterne of the rest; yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them. The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite, and so by your rule, the modell and patterne of the rest; yet the grape is not the ground, the roote, and seed of all other fruite; nor do all o∣ther fruite spring and proceed from it.

Your second Argument: (i) 1.83 A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke, but the scripture is the rocke, (Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest. vespert. recom. Sacrae scripturae.) Ergo, A Christian is built funda∣mentally on Scripture.

I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation, as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your tempo∣rall disgrace: for here you are so grossely, and togea∣ther vnluckily ignorant, as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke, wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary, as peccant, to wit, of making Syllogismes, whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure. An ar∣gument is affirmatiue in the second figure, when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both pro∣positions. Your Meanes to prooue that a Chri∣stian is fundamentally built on Scripture, is this terme, Built on the rocke, and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions. In your maior, Built on the rocke, is affirmed of the Christian: The Christian, or he that is fundamētally built, is built on the rocke. In the minor the same is affirmed of him

that is built on Scripture. The Scripture is the rocke, that is, he that is built on the Scripture, is built on the rocke. Hence your conclusion, Ergo, The Chri∣stian, or he that is fundamentally built, is built on the Scripture, is affirmatiue, in the second figure. How fond, & inconsequent this forme of arguing is, you may feele by this of the same tenour, with change of matter.

• He that is borne in Sicily, is borne in an Iland.
• He that is borne in England, is borne in an I∣land. Ergo,
• He that is borne in England, is borne in Sicily.

This is a folish Sophisme, because concluding af∣firmatiuely in the second figure, & so is yours. For as it is not consequent, if a man be borne in an Iland, that he is borne in Sicily, because there be other I∣lands besides Sicily; so this is no good consequence, A Christian is built on the Rocke, Ergo, on the Scrip∣ture, because Scripture is not the only Rocke, the word of God, as deliuered by Tradition, being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure & infallible then Scripture, or Gods Word as written. Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Ioseph, and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth, & yet not built on Scripture, the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write, that in his dayes many Nations were Christian, and did dili∣gently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts, and yet had not any Scripture, nor the word of God as written. False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme, doth im∣ply; No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke, that is not built on the word of God, as written.

Your third argument: (k) 1.84 The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian: But the Scripture is the seed of fayth, (Ioan. 20.41.) for it is the word of God. (Luc. 8.11. Ioan. 1.18. 1. Cor. 4.15.)

This argument is also an idle fallacy, and sophisti∣sticall sillogisme, for both the propositions thereof are particuler; which forme (as hath been said) is vi∣cious, and not lawfull in any figure. This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually ac∣cording to the shape of yours, with chāge of matter.

• The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian.
• But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth, for it is the seed of the Christian Church. Ergo,
• The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and founda∣tion of euery Christian.

This argument is like yours, and both are vaine, because the Argument being in the first figure, the Maior proposition is particuler, which ought to be vniuersall in this sort.

• Euery seed of fayth, is the roote of euery Chri∣stian.
• The Scripture, or word of God as written, is the seed of Fayth. Ergo.
• The Scripture, or word of God as written, is the roote of euery Christian.

This argument is in lawfull forme, but the maior therof is false, for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian, but only that seed which first bree∣deth fayth in him, and whereon all other seedes de∣pend. Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians, is not the word of God as written, but the word of God as deliuered by tradition. For vpon

the credit of Tradition, we know the written word, and without this (ordinarily speaking, and with∣out new immediate Reuelation) we cannot know the Scripture, or written word to be from the Apo∣stles, and by them of God. Ergo, the word of God not as writtē, but as deliuered by tradition, is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian.

The fourth Argument▪ (l) 1.85 The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration, is simply, and without exception to be receaued, and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused. Hence it followes, that Scripture is a rule of Tra∣dition, and not Tradition of Scripture. This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility, & so is idle, sophisticall, inept. Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle, if one impossibility be ad∣mitted, a thousand other impossibilityes, and absur∣dityes will be thence concuded. You suppose in this argument, that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition, may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written. Hence you inferre, that Tradition is not simply to be receaued, but only so far forth, as it a∣grees with the Scripture. Your supposition is blas∣phemous: for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth, being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue, nor be deceaued. This impossibility supposed, your cōsequence is not good: Ergo, Tradition repugnant to Scripture, is to be reiected, and Scripture to be held only, & simply as the rule of Fayth. For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written, it would not follow, that the vnwritten word were to be reiected, and the written simply to be receaued; but that ney∣ther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited.

This is cleere, because if God may lye, and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce, deliuered by Tradi∣tion, why not also in his writings, deliuered by Tra∣dition? What authority doth writing adde to Gods word, that God cannot lye in writing, if he may lye in speaking?

I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Ar∣guments, wherein you so much glory, to be not only false in respect of matter, but also fallacious in res∣pect of forme. The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply. Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate, whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences, rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church? You will haue them to make themselues Iudges, not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture, but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments, according to the rules of Logicke, wherein if they chance to mi∣stake, they erre, and are damned.

The third Example. §. 3.

A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance, is your heaping togeather of many fond Inferences, in a matter where you pretend to be very cōfident that you can bringe most inuincible proofes. A Controuersy there is betwene yow and vs, Whe∣ther it be a Diuine inuiolable Ordinance, that all Lay men read Scriptures, so that the Church be bound, by Diuine Precept, to translate Scriptures into all vulgar tongues, & not to take Translations from such persons as abuse them, or vse them to

their perdition. In which question, We (say yow) (n) 1.86 affirme with great confidence, that the reading of holy Scripture by lay people, which must needes imply transla∣tion of them, is a Diuine Ordinance. And because the Iesuit said, that he could neuer heare, nor read in Protestant substantiall proofe out of Scripture, of this pretended diuine Ordinance, the commonly vrged text, Search the scriptures, being insufficient; You say, that you not onely vrge the text Iohn 3.39. which the Iesuit thinketh he can elude by subtile distin∣ctions, as the Arrians eluded the text of S. Iohn 10.30. (that is solidely answered, as (o) 1.87 Caluin auerreth) but other texts of Scripture, which you lay togea∣ther on a heape in this (p) 1.88 sort.

The Eunuch is cōmended for reading holy Scripture Act. 8.28. The Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost, for searching the holy Scripture. Act. 17.11. He is called blessed that readeth and heareth. Apocalip. 1.3. The Galatians read the Scripture. Gal. 4.22. The Ephe∣sians. c. 3.4. The Colossians. c. 4.16. the Thessalo∣nians. 1. Thes. 5.27. The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument, as I haue (q) 1.89 elsewhere shewed, that it would astonish any man who hath read them, to behold such impu∣dency in Papists, as to deny the practise to haue beene Pri∣mitiue and Catholike; But necessity hath no law▪ For if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake, Papistry must fall like Dagon before the Ark••.

Thus you; giuing vs great cause to commiserate your blindnes, that disputing so ignorātly you should conclude so arrogantly. You haue in the place by you quoted, (r) 1.90 according to the custome of Heresy, brought many testimonyes of Fathers to proue what no man denyes, to wit, these two things.

First, that it is Pious and Godly to read Scriptures with deuotion, with humility, with submission of iudgement vnto the teaching of the Church, and common Exposition of Catholike Doctours. Se∣condly, that the practise of reading by Lay people was common & frequent in the Primitiue Church, for the time that the learned Languages were vul∣garly knowne, in which tongues the Church ney∣ther now doth, nor euer did prohibit the reading of Scriptures vnto any person. These two things we approue; so that you are vnaduised (might I not say impudent?) in your affirming that, The Papists impu∣dently deny this to haue been a Primitiue practise. No, we deny not the reading of Scripture with due humi∣lity, to be pious, or to haue been a primitiue practise, but onely two proud Noueltyes brought in by your Religion. First, that it (s) 1.91 is lawfull, yea necessary for euery particular man, by the Scripture to EXAMINE, and IVDGE of the things the Church teacheth him. And when A PRIVATE MAN by Scripture reiects and condemnes the teaching of the GREATEST, and BEST CHVRCH that is, his IVDGEMENT is not to be taken as PRIVATE, but as SPIRITVALL, and the PVBLIKE Censure of THE SPIRIT. Secondly, that all, euen Laymen, by diuine Pretext and Ordinance, are bound to read the Scriptures, & to haue them in their vulgar lan∣guages.

This your doctrine; This your practise we dislike, as dangerous, as impious, as the fountaine of Discord, of Heresy, and of manifold most damnable errours. A doctrine, which were it euery where esta∣blished, not Dagon before the Arke, but Christia∣nity would fall before, and yield vnto the Diuell: as

some of your side, taught by lamentable experience, acknowledge and complaine: This opinion, say they, (t) 1.92 being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar, what it may grow vnto, God onely knoweth. Thus much we see, it hath already made THOVSANDS so HEADSTRONGE euen in GROSSE and PALPABLE ERRORS, as that a mā whose capacity will scarce serue him to vtter fiue words in sensible manner, BLVSHETH not for MATTER of SCRIPTVRE to thinke his owne bare Yea, as good as the Nay of all the wise, graue, and learned men that are in the world: which insolency must be represt, or it will the VERY BANE of Christian Religion. Behold open Confes∣sion extorted vpon the racke of Truth, by which we may perceaue, how fully and handsomely your Doctrine (that it is necessary, and Diuine Ordinan∣ce, that euery particular man read Scripture, and by it examine and iudge the Churches teaching) hath made Dagon to fall before the Arke.

But leauing the vanity of your bitter vanting, let vs examine what demonstrations out of Scriptu∣re you bring for your pretended Diuine Ordinance, which with so much confidence you auerre. If your arguing be idle and ridiculous in this point, wherin yow professe to be so confident, what may be ex∣pected of you in other articles? Especially being challenged to shew your vttermost force by your aduersary, affirming (u) 1.93 that he could neuer find any solide proofe out of Scripture, of this Protestant pretended Diuine ordinance.

Your arguments be seauen, drawne from 7. texts of Scripture, in which your Antecedent common∣ly is eyther false or vncertayne, and your inference ridiculous.

The first: The (y) 1.94 Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture; Ergo it is a diuine Ordinance that ignorant Laymen read Scripture in their vulgar tongue: Your Antecedent is more thē the Scripture doth expresse. I read not any direct prayse of him in this respect: The Text only (x) 1.95 sayth, he was sitting in his Chariot, & reading the Prophet Esay. But suppose he be commen∣ded for his reading (as it was indeed commendable) is it consequent, that therefore euery Christian, by Diuine order and precept, do the like? Is euery man bound by diuine precept, to doe euery thing for which any person is praysed in Scripture? Dauid is commended in Scripture for rising at midnight to prayse God; is this Argument good, Ergo, Euery Christian is bound by diuine precept to rise at mid∣night? Verily this consequence is as good, yea better both in respect of forme and matter, then is this of yours: The Enunch is commended for reading holy Scripture; Ergo, euery man is bound to read Scrip∣ture, by diuine ordinance.

The second is: The (z) 1.96 Beroeans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the Scriptures. Ergo, we may with great confidence auouch, that it is a diuine or∣dinance, that all ignorant Laymen read Scripture in the vulgar. A strong argument. The Scripture doth not say the Beroeans read the Scripture in their vul∣gar tongue, nor doth it tearme them Noble for their reading of Scripture, but for their receauing the word of Paul with alacrity and ioy. Yea the tearme of The more noble, is not giuen them in prayse of their Religion, but to declare the quality of their Gentry: and so Fulke his Bible hath the Noblest for byrth. But suppose the Beroeans read in their vulgar, and be ther∣fore

called Noble, is not this inference ridiculous: Ergo, it is a diuine Precept that euery man read Scripture? Doth not this arguing deserue rather to be laughed at, then answered?

The third: (a) 1.97 Blessed is he that readeth and heareth: Ergo it is a diuine ordinance, that all mē read the Scrip∣ture, & that the Church giue thē the Scripture trans∣lated into all vulgar tongues. Here you not only ar∣gue impertinently, but also detruncate & curtall the text of Gods Word, leauing out words without which the text hath a false and foolish sense. For if all be blessed that read and heare, without mention or care of what, then they be blessed who read or heare Tul∣ly & Virgill▪ or the bookes of Knighthood. Why doe you not let the Scripture expresse the thing, which being read or heard maketh men blessed? The Scrip∣ture fully and truly cited sayth, Blessed is he that hea∣reth and readeth the wordes of this Prophesy, to wit of the Apocalyps; Which place eyther proueth nothing for your purpose, or else proueth a necessity, that e∣uery man read the Apocalyps, vnder penalty of o∣therwise not to be blessed. This perchance for very shame you dare not auerre. If you do; what shall we, or may we thinke of Luther, who did neyther read, nor heare, nor belieue the Apocalyps as a Prophesy, or as the word of (b) 1.98 God? And what an idle infe∣rence is this, He is blessed who readeth the Apoca∣lyps, Ergo, it is a diuine ordinance that euery man read Scriptures? S. Paul sayth, (c) 1.99 he is blessed that doth not marry: Is it consequent, Ergo, euery man is bound not to marry? or, Ergo, men cannot be blessed but on∣ly such as do not marry? Surely your wife wil see this inference to be foolish: & yet it is as good as yours,

Blessed is he that readeth, or heareth the Apocalyps: Ergo, it is a diuine ordinance that none be blessed but such as read Scripture.

The fourth argument; The Galathians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a diuine ordinance that ignorant laymen read them, and that they be translated into e∣uery vulgar Dialect. That the Galathians read the Scriptures you prooue by the cypher of Galat. 4.24. where the Apostle sayth, you that will be vnder the Law, haue you not read the Law? For it is written, Abraham had two Sonnes. This proofe is very poore. For the Apo∣stle doth not affirme they read, but doubtingly de∣maunds whether they had not read one particle of Scripture? Also, the question was mooued without doubt only to the learned Galathians But suppose they read the Scripture; is it lawfull thence to con∣clude▪ Ergo they read it in their vulgar? If they read it in their vulgar, is it thence consequent, Ergo, euery man is bound by diuine ordinance to read, and this so strictly as the Church may not forbid translations vnto such as abuse them?

The fifth place; The Ephesians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a diuine precept that ignorant Laymen read the Scripture in their vulgar tongue. The antecedent you shew by the cypher Ephes. 3.4. where the Apostle sayth, Reading, you may vnderctand my wisdome in the Mistery of Christ▪ A seely proofe. Saint Paul doth not say, that the Ephesians read, but only, that by reading his Epistle, they might vnderstand his wis••ome, a∣bout the mysteries of grace and Christian Religion. But suppose they read S Pauls Epistle sent vnto thē; doth it follow, Ergo, it is a diuine ordinance that Laymen promiscuously read Scripture? and that the

Church must translate Scripture to that end? This inference as euen as good as this: By reading the E∣pistles of Saint Peter, one may vnderstand the great knowledge he had of Christ; Ergo, Euery man is bound to read S. Peters Epistles.

The sixt; The Colossians read the Scripture; Ergo, it is a diuine ordinance that all ignorant Laymen read the Scripture. The antecedent is by you proued by the cypher Coloss. 4.16. which sayth, When this Epistle hath been read amongst you, cause it also to be read in the Church of Loadicea. This place doth not proue your intent, that they read so much as that Epistle priuat∣ly by thēselues, but only that the same was publikely read in the Church by the Bishop, or the Priest, or some Church officer in the same lāguage wherin it was written originally. But suppose the Colossians read this Epistle priuately by thēselues, what a woo∣den inference is this, Ergo, euery Christian is boūd by diuine ordinance to read Scripture? Or, Ergo, the Church is obliged by diuine precept to prouide, that the Scripture be translated into vulgar tongues?

The seauenth Argument; The Thessalonians read the Scripture; Ergo, the reading thereof by ignorant Laymen is a diuine ordinance. The antecedent you prooue by the cypher 1. Thess. 5.25. which sayth, I adiure you, that this Epistle be read vnto all holy brethren. Neyther doth this text prooue priuate reading of Scripture by Laymen, but only publik reading ther∣of in the Church. But suppose they priuately read this Epistle sent them by the Apostle, is it consequēt, Ergo, all Laymen are bound to read Scripture, and the Church to translate the same into euery tongue? Truly this argument is euen as good as this, God

created heauen and earth of nothing: Ergo Ministers may make arguments of nothing, or make argu∣mēts good that haue nothing in them. Or, as this: In the beginning was the word, & the word was with God, Ergo euery godly person is bound to read the Scripture word by word from the beginning of Ge∣nesis, to the end of the Apocalyps: Or, Ergo, Godly persons do nothing els but read Scripture.

Grosse Ignorance of Theology. SECTION III.

BESIDES the manifold Errours which you maintaine in cōmon with other Ministers, you haue diuers proper & peculiar to your selfe, and exceeding grosse, wherby you declare how ignorant how are of Theology. I will only discouer some few of them, but those fundamentall, by which you so shake the fabrike of your Reply, as no piece thereof remayneth ••ound.

The first, That vnto Ministers Religious Adoration is due. §. 1.

THIS you affirme pag. 224. Where you vnder∣take to range in order the kinds of vnion with God, vnto which Religious adoration is due. RELI∣GIOVS ADORATION (say you) primary or se∣condary is not founded vpon euery kind of vnion, as appea∣reth in mentall images, but vpon certaine kinds of vnion; to wit; first Personall, as when the Humanity of Christ is cou∣pled with the Deity. Secondly Substantiall, as when the parts are coupled with the whole. Thirdly Causall, Re∣latiue

or Accidentall, to wit, when by diuine Ordination things created are made instruments, messengers, figures, & receptacles of diuine grace, as the holy Sacraments, and the Word and Ghospell, and the MINISTERS of the Church &c.

Behold, amongst the obiects that haue such vnion with God, as is a sufficient ground to yield them Re∣ligious Adoratiō, you number Ministers, with an Et cae∣tera in the end, perchance leauing roome for your wiues to enter, to be likewise your Consorts in Reli∣gious Adoration, as good reason they should. How grosse this Errour is, specially in you, hence may appeare, in that hereby you ouerthrow a great part of your Reply. First you cleerly cōtradict that Prin∣ciple which so many tymes you set downe, and very earnestly vrge, to wit, that Religious Worship, is due to God only. How can this be true, if Religious Worship is due vnto Ministers? Be not Ministers Creatures? Be they not other things, and persons, besides God?

Nor can you say, that when you affirme Religious Worship to be due to God only, you meane primary Re∣ligious Adoration, and that consequently you doe not contradict your selfe in saying, that secondary Religi∣ous Adoration is due vnto Ministers. This euasion (I say) will not serue your turne, because you declare in expresse tearmes, that all Religious adoration, primary or secondary, is due to God only. Thus you write pag. 322. Whereas the Iesuite doth distinguish two kinds of Religious Worship, the one Primary and simply Diuine, founded vpon the increate and infinite Excellency, which is due to God only: the other Secondary, founded vpon the created Excellency of grace and glory, which is yielded vn∣to Saints and Angells. To this we reply, that there be no

other kinds of worship, then there be Tables of the morall law; but there are only two tables of the morall Law, the for∣mer whereof teacheth diuine worship, and the second hu∣mane, ciuill, and of speciall obseruance. And if there be a mixt worship partly human, partly diuine, so much thereof as is diuine, is proper to God, and may not be imparted vn∣to any creature, Isa. 42.8. Where God sayth, My glory I will not giue to another. Thus you. How grossely doe you contradict your selfe, and implicate in your say∣ings? Be not Ministers others from God, asmuch as Angells? If then Adoration, and Religious Adoration be giuen vnto Ministers, how is it not Adoration gi∣uen to others besides God, asmuch as when Angells are Religiously adored?

Secondly, you haue destroyed all you say in the first point agaynst the Worship of Images, specially pag. 246 where you thus speake vnto vs: If you adore Images outwardly and relatiuely, then you make Images a partial obiect of adoration: but God himselfe who sayth, I will not giue my glory to another, Isa 24.8. hath excluded Images from compartnership with himselfe in Adoration. Thus you All which is proued idle by your doctrine, that Ministers are religiously to be adored. For if no Creature can be compartner with God himselfe in adoration how may Ministers be his partners ther∣in, and challenge Religious adoration as due to thē∣selues? If they may be religiously adored, & yet not be his partners in adoration against his diuine Edict, My glory I will not giue to another; why not Angells? Why not holy Images? What say you of the holy Sa∣craments? Be they not creaturs aswell as Images? specially in your opinion, who hold that they be bread, and wine, and Elements vnchanged in sub∣stance,

and yet you say, that vnto the Sacraments, and Word of the Ghospell Religious adoration is due, be∣cause they haue a relatiue vnion with God How thē is Religious adoration due to God only? If Religious A∣doration may redound from Christ vnto his Sacra∣ments, why not from Christ vnto his Images▪ which haue a relatiue Vnion with him, as being resemblan∣ces, & representations of him?

Thirdly, you haue ouerthrowne and contradi∣cted all you said about the second of the Nine points, to wit, against Oblations vnto the Virgin Mary. In the old Law (say you) not onely Sacrifices, but also Vowes and Oblations were made to God onely,* 1.100 Deut. 23.21. Le∣uit. c. 24.5.6. This law in respect of the substance is mo∣rall; and obligeth Christian people aswell in case of Obla∣tions, as of Sacrifices. Now, by what authority, and right can the Roman Church abrogate this law in whole, or parte, and appropriating Sacrifice vnto God, make Oblations common to God and Saints? Thus you very vainely; not onely in regard that the Text of Deuteronomy doth not say, that Vowes and Promises are to be made vnto God onely, but no more, then that if one make a Vow vnto God, he must be carefull to keepe it; whence to inferre that Vowes and Promises may not be made vnto men or Saints, but to God onely, is ridiculous. The text also of Leuiticu•• saith, that Oblations and guifts are to be made vnto God, but that to God onely, not a word. And to say, giuing of gifts to be proper vnto God onely, is foolish, except you meane gifts and oblations by way of Sacrifice, as vnto the authour of all gifts & foūtaine of Being. For what more daily and quotidian then for men to make presents, and oblations the one to the other,

specially vnto Kings and Princes in testimony of their duty? But as I say, your discourse is vaine, not onely in respect of your idle cyphering of Scrip∣ture, but also because your selfe demolish this your Doctrine, by saying, or supposing the contrary, to wit, that Oblations by way of Religion, may be made vnto Ministers. That this is by yow supposed, I proue.

To shew that Ministers are Religiously to be adored, you cypher 2. Cor. 8.5. where S. Paul saith of the Church of Macedonia:* 1.101 They gaue themselues first vnto God, & then by the will of God, vnto vs. By which text you cannot conclude Religious Adoration to be due vnto Ministers, but by arguing in this manner: They vnto whom men by way of Religion and de∣uotion giue & offer themselues, are Religiously ado∣red, because oblations be Diuine & Religious wor∣ship: The Church of Macedonia did by way of Re∣ligion and deuotion, offer themselues vnto S. Paul, because he was a Minister: Ergo, Vnto Ministers Re∣ligious adoration is to be giuen. This I say must be the force of your argument. For if the Macedonians did not by way of Religion, & deuotion offer them∣selues vnto S. Paul, how can you shew that by giuing themselues vnto him, they did Religiously adore him, because he was a Minister? Now, if it be gran∣ted, that gifts and oblations by way of Religion may be made vnto Ministers, your discourse against Oblations vnto Saints is eueruated, and falleth to the ground. For thus I argue. If oblations may be made to God onely, why are they made vnto Mini∣sters? If they may be made vnto creatures, why not vnto Saints and Angells, as well as vnto Ministers?

If oblations be proper vnto God, how dare Mini∣sters make themselues fellowes with God in this point of his Honour? If they be not proper vnto God, why do you reprooue vs for offering gifts, and vowes vnto the blessed Virgin his Mother? Heere you are so taken, that you cannot shift away, nor euade.

Fourthly and principally, by this doctrine that Religious Adoration is due vnto Ministers, you ouer∣throwe all you say in the Third point against giuing worship, specially Religious vnto blessed Saints and Angells For if Ministers may be religiously adored with reference vnto God, why not Saints, why not Angells? You alleadge (d) 1.102 Scriptures that affirme Ministers to be the messengers of God, and threaten punishment vnto such as will not admit of them. But I pray you, be not Angells Gods Messengers as much as Ministers, yea in a more high, holy, & ex∣cellent sort, being all ministring Spirits sent in ser∣uice for them, that partake the inheritance of salua∣tion? Hebr. 1.23.

You bring Matth. 10.42. He that shall giue to one of these little ones a cuppe of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say he shall not loose his reward. How can you hence in force, that diuine and Religious wor∣shippe is due vnto Ministers, rather then vnto any poore Christian, Lazar, or Beggar, of whome Christ sayth, (e) 1.103 Whatsoeuer you doe to one of my least ones, you doe vnto me? If Saints liuing vpon earth, that be the liuely images of Christ may not be honoured with Religious adoration, though what is done to them Christ taketh as done to himselfe; what little co∣lour and pretext can you Ministers alleadge, why

we should honour you with Religious Adoration?

You produce Galat. 4.14. where the Apostle saith vnto the Galathians; You receyued me as an Angell of God, euē as Christ Iesus. Who seeth not that this maks rather for adoration of Angells then of Mynisters? S. Paul thought the Galathians did much, in that they recey∣ued him as an Angell: But you say, we must worship Ministers, more then Angells, to wit, with Religious Adoration, which is due to God only.

To the same purpose, you cite two Fathers S. Am∣brose, and S. Gregory. S. Ambrose epist. 26. sayth: Do∣mino def••rtur, cùm seruulus honoratur; the Lord is reue∣renced, when the seruant is honoured. S. (f) 1.104 Grego∣ry writes, that good Pastours who serue God fayth∣fully are so conioyned with him in the bond of loue, as what is done against them is taken as iniury offe∣red vnto God. How do these texts conclude Reli∣gious adoration to be due to your Ministeriall wor∣ships rather thē vnto Angels? I pray you Syr, be not Saints & Angells the faythfull seruants of God, his friends? Be they not conioyned with him in loue as much as any Minister? Why then should Religious worship be due to Ministers, & their Et caetera's, and not to Saints, their Reliques & Images?

That Saints and Angells be the friends and faith∣full seruants of God, we certainly know; that you Ministers be such, how can you make it apparent or certaine? And if you cannot, why may not we argue agaynst your worships as you argue agaynst Images pag. 233. I am taught by learned Vasquez that the Diuell may lurke in Images, and our Aduersary cannot proue that Christ is present, or assistant vnto them. Now it seemes vn∣reasonable to worship that which may receyue the Diuell,

when on the other side one cannot be certayne that it haue a∣ny fellowship with Christ. This your argument agaynst Images is stronger agaynst Religious Adoration of Ministers. For of the Images we are certayne, that they represent Christ Crucified vnto vs, & we feele this their force and efficacy in our harts, when we worship Christ in them But that Ministers may re∣ceyue the Diuell, that the Diuell may lurke in them, we are (g) 1.105 taught by Luther who affirmeth so much of diuers Ministers, and by other Ministers that (h) 1.106 auerre no lesse of him That Ministers be Christs fel∣lowes, or haue fellowship with Christ, that Christ is present by sanctity and grace with any of them, you cannot make certaine; yea according to your Tenet, Christ doth not certainly, and infallibly assist the whole Church, much lesse is it certayne and infal∣lible, that he is present and assistant vnto euery Mi∣nister. Wherefore seing it is certayne that the Diuell may lurke in Ministers, and it is not certayne & in∣fallible, that Christ is assistant vnto them, we may conclude by your principles, that it is vnreasonable they should be worshipped, specially with Reli∣gious adoration, which yet you do require that men yield vnto you, in regard of your vnion with God.

The second Errour. That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Visible Pastours. §. 2.

ANOTHER errour no lesse absurd and sottish thē this you maintaine, to wit, that that cannot be the true Church whose visible Rulers are, or haue been wicked or impious. Thus you write pag. 100. Wicked persons according to S. Augustine, are not indeed and verily the body of Christ: And agayne, they are not in

the body of Christ which is the Church, because Christ can∣not haue damnable members. And Bernard sayth, that it is euident, that Christ is not the head of an Hypocrite: but the visible Rulers of the popish Church haue many tymes been, as our Aduersaryes themselues report, not only Hypo∣crites, but also apparently monstrous and damnable sinners. Therfore the Popish Church cānot be the Catholike Church out of which no saluation is to be had. And agayne. pag. 54. you argue in this manner. They which are not of the body of Christ, nor of the house of God, really and in truth, do not constantly preserue, or faythfully deliuer Apostolicall traditions, nor are they such as the spirit of God infallibly & alwayes directeth in their publike doctrine. But wicked per∣sons sayth S. Augustine, retayne the figure or outward shape of a member, but they are not in truth the body of Christ, Non sunt de compage domus Dei, they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you.

How false and absurd this your Doctrine is, I will not stand to shew by Scriptures, and Fathers, which are cleere and plentifull in this point. For though Christ as he is the head and fountaine of sanctifying Grace cannot haue wicked and damna∣ble members that receiue influence from him, yet as he is the head and fountaine of all spirituall gouer∣nement and authority, he may haue damnable sub∣iects and members, and from him power and autho∣rity may flow vnto them. But omitting this, I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent, by pro∣uing that this your argument is inept, in respect of forme; & in the matter so absurd, as you contradict your selfe, you ouerthrow your owne Church, you crosse the maine streame of Protestant Doctrine.

First your argumēt euē in respect of form is fond,

for you change the medium or means of proofe, argu∣ing from the time preterite, to the present: (i) 1.107

• ...Wolues hypocrites, & impious Persons BE NOT the true Church.
• Romish Prelats HAVE BEEN Hypocrites, Wolues, and impious Persons. Ergo.
• The Romish Prelates be not the true Church.

Who doth not feele this manner of arguing to be inept, as good, & no better then this?

• A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word.
• Francis White hath been a sucking Child. Ergo.
• He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word.

Hence, though your paradoxe, that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church, were true & your tale, that some Popes haue been wicked, were also graunted; yet it is not hence consequent, that the Romane Church is not now the true Church, but at the most that it was not the true Church for the tyme that it had some wic∣ked Pope for supreme Pastour.

Secondly you contradict your selfe about the do∣ctrine, that wicked Pastours cannot faithfully pre∣serue and deliuer the true word of saluation: for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary. The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence & assi∣stance to his Sacraments, preached and administred ac∣cording to his commandement are fulfilled, when WIC∣KED Persons execute the office, and performe the worke of outward Ministry. For although the wicked, like the Carpē∣ters of Noahs arke, reape no benefit to thēselues, yet God al∣mighty CONCVRRETH with their ministery, being his owne Ordinance, for the saluation of all deuout Com∣municants. Thus you. If this be true, as it is most cer∣taine,

then may wicked persons faythfully and con∣stantly deliuer Apostolicall Traditions about mat∣ter of Saluation. This sequele I proue. They with whose ministery God doth concurre for the saluation of all deuout & worthy cōmunicants, being bound so to do, by his promise, doe constantly and faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions concerning the doctrine of saluation, and are infallibly directed so to do. This is euident, because when God concurreth with his Mi∣nisters to teach the truth, they neuer erre, nor deliuer in matter of fayth and saluation false doctrine: But God doth still and infallibly concurre with them, with whom to concurre he hath bound himselfe by promise euer and alwayes▪ euen to the consummati∣on of the world. Wherfore if God hath bound him∣selfe to his Church, that he will concurre euen with the wicked Ministers of his word, in their teaching for the saluation of all deuout & worthy communi∣cants, as you affirme pag 52 lin. 18. then wicked persons may deliuer faithfully & constantly Aposto∣licall traditions concerning fayth and saluation, and are infallibly directed so to do; which you deny pag. 54 lin. 6. manifestly contradicting your selfe within lesse then a leafe.

Thirdly, you ouerthrow your owne protestant Church. For if that cānot be the true Church direct∣ed by God, according to his infallible promise, wher∣in wicked men haue sitten as visible rulers & gouer∣nours, then Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which saluation is not had▪ For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny, but they haue had some wicked mē for their rulers and Pastours. Was not King Henry the eight

ruler & Gouernour of the Protestant Church, and yet their owne Historyes paint him forth as a mon∣ster for beastlines, cruelty, and impiety? Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutour▪ and murthe∣rer of diuers Saints, not only of Catholikes, but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire? And yet he was a ruler & gouernour in the Pro∣testant Church. Wherfore the argument which you set in distinct letters, & lines as of speciall weight, may be with the same force & forme applied against your Protestant Church in so many words, only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish.

• Wolues, Hypocrites, & impious Persons are not the holy Catholike Church.
• Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers haue been Wolues, Hypocrites, & impious persons. Ergo.
• Protestants are not the Holy Catholike church, out of which there is no saluation.

Fourthly, what more opposite to the common streame, euen of the Protestant Doctrine, then that that Church cannot be the temple & house of God, in which wicked and impious men sit, or haue sitten as visible rulers? Commonly all Ministers (foolishly (I confesse) yet earnestly) endeauour to proue that the Pope is Antichrist, because he sitteth in the Tem∣ple and Church of God, as Christs Vicar, and as her supreme Visible Head & Ruler vnder Christ: which Doctrine you your selfe suppose as certaine pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation: What a misery will it be, if it fall out (as it is certaine it will) that at the Day of Iudgement, the greatest part of English Romistes be found to haue followed the man of sinne, the sonne of per∣dition, who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God, so

that he sit in the temple of God, shewing himselfe as if he were God. Thus you. I vrge not the folly of this your Exclamation, in that it is a fond supposition of the Question, yea a taking of that, as certaine, which not onely Catholiks, but also learned Protestants deny. Your selfe, haue you not lately since the writing of this Reply, approued (k) 1.108 a Booke by Order of his Ma∣iesty? in which that Authour doth often, and ear∣nestly (l) 1.109 professe, not to beleeue the Pope to be that An∣tichrist; further affirming that Protestants, out of affe∣ction haue been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sinne & sonne of perdition: yea that some, out of violent and transported passion no doubt, make it an Article of their Creed; wheras their arguments be so far from the force of demonstratiue, as they are not persuasiue. Thus this Authour in that Booke which you haue subscribed vnto, as containing (m) 1.110 nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith, and Doctrine established in the Church of England. And yet heere yow say, It is certaine, that the Pope is the man of sinne, & sonne of perditiō; so shewing your selfe to be of their num∣ber whome the said Authour in that very place▪ doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines, Halters in opi∣nions for priuate ends.

I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists, for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist, not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming, must euen accor∣ding to your owne principles be singular happines. For Antichrist according to your Tenet, doth sit & gouerne in the House and Temple of God, and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist, you make them Gods Domesticks, his

House, his Temple. Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement? Yea rather the Church of Christ, the Temple of God being onely one, out of which no saluation is had, what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement, whē by your owne mouth, you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that com∣pany which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God, through feare of your owne shaddow, and fancy? For what can be more foolish, then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the Christiā Church, who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world? who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend, and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name & Religion? But to let these things passe, marke how you cōtradict your selfe in saying on the one side that, that cānot be the House & Tem∣ple of God which now hath, or in former times hath had wicked Pastours: On the other side that, that is the House and Temple of God, in which the Man of sinne, that is, a succession of wicked Pastours, hath a long while for many ages gouerned, and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with pas∣sion agaynst Christian Doctrine, deriued by succes∣sion from the Apostles, to run in their passionate conceipts, without falling into the pit of open con∣tradiction, whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men.

The third Errour. You prof••sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament. §. 3.

THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Ie∣suits speach, that we deny the Reall Presence, or else

the mayne Article of the Creed, that Christ is still in hea∣••en, because we will not allow a body in two places at ••nce: I answere, We cannot graunt, that one indiuiduall ••ody may be in many distant places at one, and the same ••nstant of time, vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF, by te∣••timony of Scripture, or the ancient Traditiō of the Church, ••r by apparent reason. Thus you. This is playne dea∣••ing, and open profession of Infidelity. For what ••s heretical obstinacy, but to reiect the word of God, ••bout the mysteries of our Fayth, in the playne, ex∣••resse, and literall sense, vntill the possibility of ••hat sense be first demonstrated? No Heretike was e∣••er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre, as to affirme, that the word of God, contrary to his reason, was false. Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense, flying to morall and mysticall interpretation, because they could not comprehend, and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne, and litterall sense. The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture, saying (n) 1.111 of the Fa∣ther, Word, and Holy Ghost, these three are one; nor the Word of Christ, (o) 1.112 I, and my Father are one, to be true morally, and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons. They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense, because the same seemed to them impossible. For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures a∣bout mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense, when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding, God doth so of∣ten

in holy Writ (p) 1.113 assure vs, that nothing is im∣possible or difficile vnto him; and (q) 1.114 That he can do things incomprehensible without number: What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe, that they will neuer belieue his word about the myste∣ryes of fayth, in the literall sense, vntill the possi∣bility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them, that is brought within the compasse, and comprehensi∣on of their wit?

You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying, the words of Christs institution, This is my body, takē in the literall sense, do not inforce, that Christ ac∣cording to his corporall substance, is in two places at once. I answere, this you cannot say without con∣tradicting not only the word of Scripture (as is pro∣ued in the Reioynder) but also your selfe. For you do plainly affirme, that this our doctrine, yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution. If (say you) the sub∣stance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist, then the wordes are figuratiue, and cannot be true in the proper sense, because one indiuiduall substance cannot be pre∣dicated of another properly. Thus you (r) 1.115: whereupon I thus argue. That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense, is inforced, and prooued by the word of Christ ta∣ken in the literall sense: But except the sub∣stance of bread be absent, and Christ in lieu thereof present, according to his corporall substance, the word of Christ, This is my body, cannot be true in the literall and proper sense, as you affirme: Ergo, Tran∣substantiation, and the presence of Christ on earth, according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread, is

inforced, & proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution. Wherfore to professe (as you ••o) neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two pla∣ces at once, vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible, is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense, about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made eui∣dent vnto you. Is not this to professe Infidelity?

Secondly, you may say, that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture, that a body may be in two places at once, you meane not that we bring texts of Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible, but only that we bring places that expresly say that, This is possible vnto God. For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour, This is my body, there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect, or of a bodyes being in two places at once, or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency. I answere, that likewise in this text of Scripture, (s) 1.116 The Word was made flesh, there is not a sillable, that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality, or that two complete natures can sub∣sist togeather in the same Hypostasis, nor of any mira∣cle done by the diuine omnipotency; yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incar∣nation cānot be true in the literall sense, except those hard & incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency, we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue, that God can se∣parate proper subsistance from complete substanti∣all natures, that two natures infinitly distant in per∣fection, can subsist in the same Hypostasis, though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme. In like

manner though the words of Christ, This is my body, do not expressely say, that his body may be in many places at once, nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency, yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery, cannot (as your selfe graunt) be true in the proper and literall sense, except Transubstan∣tiation, and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued; hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word, implicitely belieue these miracles to be done. Wher∣fore in saying, you will neuer belieue them, except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you, through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infideli∣ty. For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith, except they be ey∣ther seuerally expressed, as possible in Gods word, or els demonstrable by reason, is the right way to be∣lieue iust nothing; there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes, the possi∣bility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scrip∣ture, nor can be demonstrated by reason.

A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology. §. 4.

I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucha∣rist, wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance, not only against Theology but euen common sense. And this Example may serue, as a patterne how insuffi∣ciently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument. The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort: Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly, really, sub∣stantially (not the figure, and effect of his body, but) his

very body: but how can consecrated bread be termed tru∣ly, really, and substantially the body of Christ, if his body be not so much as in the same place with it? Thus you ans∣were pag. 406. To the effecting hereof, locall & corporall presence is not necessary. A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other, yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father, so as his Fathers nature is in him, and he hath right in his Fathers person and state. A mans goods may be at Constantinople, and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them, and he may communi∣cate and vse them, and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety. Now, although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall, yet thus farre there is agreement, that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent, so likewise we may receyue and par∣take Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth, and do∣nation of the Holy Ghost, according to a celestiall and spi∣rituall manner. Thus you. Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this an∣swere.

First, were all that you say true, yet is it imper∣tinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument. For the question is not, whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost, sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent (for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme, and to be pos∣sible in the Eucharist, if Christ had so ordained:) The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ, being (as you say) a thing not only indiuidually distinct, but also locally distant from

his body. A man being in London may possesse iuridi∣cally an Horse that is in the Countrey, is it ther∣fore true to say, that this man in London is truly & really the Horse in the Countrey? A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Con∣stantinople, and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London, may one therfore shewing his empty cof∣fers at London say truly, this is a treasure of money? In like manner, suppose (which is false) that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent, and existing in heauen, to dispose therof at his plea∣sure, may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body? May one therefore shewing the Sa∣crament, being in your Tenet an empty thing in res∣pect of containing Christs bodily substance, say tru∣ly therof, This is really Christs body and corporall substance? who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober? Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent, serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question, how can consecrated bread be truly, verily, & really the body of Christ, if he be not so much as present in place with it?

Secondly, what more absurd then what you af∣firme, that a man may not only in right possesse, but really and truly vse his things that be absent? Can a man in London vse, and ride on his horse that is at Yorke! Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne? If they cannot (and it is ridiculous to say, they can) how can a man existing on earth, receaue truly and really Christ distant from him, as farre as the highest hea∣uen? Receaue him (I say) not in a signe only, & ac∣cording to gracious Effects, but euen according to

his body and corporall substance, with their mouth of flesh. For Christ did not say, This is a figure of my body, or, this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud; but, This is my body, euen to your corporall mouth, wherewith I bid you, to take, and eate it.

Thirdly, who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme, that the Son that is absent from his Father, as far as Constantinople is from London, is not only morally by Loue and Affection, but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father? For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity; so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly & really vnited, by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part, & from all other indiuiduall things. When soule and body come to be vnited, by this vnion is produced a third substance, to wit, a mā composed of soule and body. When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather, there ariseth one third water, wherin the two lesser waters are in∣cluded as parts. But Father and Sonne, the one in London, the other at Constantinople, do not com∣pose a third indiuiduall nature constant of thē both, wherin they both are contayned, as is most euident: Ergo, It is ridiculous to affirme, that the Father in London, is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople.

Finally, put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne, so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father, truly and properly, in respect of kind, or specificall Identity; what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread, remaining bread in nature & kind, may be said to be the body

of Christ, or the same with it? Had Christ said of another mans body, This is my Body, you might haue cōstrued it thus, This is my body, that is, a body of the same kind and nature with mine; but Christ saying of that which was bread, this is my Body, how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity? Is bread of the same kind and na∣ture as Christs body? I am sure, being afore warned of this absurdity, you will not dare so to teach. What then, doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew, that cōsecrated bread remaining bread in kind, nature, & essence, may be truly & re∣ally Christs body? Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread, was his indiuiduall body, not another indiuiduall body of the same kind. This cannot be true verily, and ac∣cording to propriety of speach, as you grant, if the substāce of bread remaine, much lesse if also the sub∣stance of Christs body be locally absent. The Iesuits argument then doth conuince, that the Sacrament cannot be truly, really, substantially Christs body, if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same.

A fifth Example, About Satisfaction. §. 5.

I will produce yet another Example of your Ig∣norance, by which you contradict Protestants, yea your selfe in the very same page, and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory, against which in that place you earnestly dispute. Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the Pontificiās & vs in this dostrin is, THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction, AFTER

the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne, in this life onely, for Chastisement, ERVDITION, and PRO∣BATION. They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Pu∣nishement, not onely in this life, but after the same in Pur∣gatory. Further, we beleeue, that the Paine of Chastise∣ment inflicted vpon penitent sinners, may by prayers of fayth, exercise of vertue, humiliation and mortification be REMOVED, MITIGATED, or conuerted to the increa∣se of grace and glory in them, that with patience & holines endure the same in this life. But we deny, that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease, or that they can in this life by any good workes, merit release of any tem∣porall punishment, or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault, or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe, much lesse for others.

Thus you▪ On the one side denying, against Ca∣tholikes, Temporall Paine in the next life, and on the other, granting against Protestāts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement, for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt. Wherby you contradict your selfe, yea establish the possibillity of superaboū∣dant Satisfaction. Yow lay Principles which vnans∣werably inforce temporall paine for remisse Peni∣tents in the next world; Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate, that so it may appeare, that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued & broken in peeces the whole frame of your Volumi∣nous Reply, in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty, and handled therein.

First, you contradict your selfe; for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write: That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred, and which is cast

behind Gods backe, & throwne into the bottome of the sea, and which can no where be found, and which is blotted out of the Debt-booke of the Almighty, is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser, but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment. But the holy Scripture, and the Fathers teach such a remis∣sion of sinne on Gods part to the penitent. Thus you: what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betwee∣ne these two sentences, Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse, but by free and full condonation of all vindi∣ctiue punishment: &, There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne, not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent, but also for Chastisement, which may be remoued, or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes? What clea∣rer contradiction, I say, can be deuised? For tēporall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of cha∣stisement after the remission of the guilt of their sin∣ne, is vindictiue Punishment. You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine, not onely by way of Probation and Erudition, but euen by way of chastisement, after the remission of the guilt of their sinne: Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page, That remission of sinne is free, and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment.

Agayne; Condonation of sinne, wherby eter∣nall punishment is changed into temporall, is remis∣sion of sinne, by commutation of a greater chastise∣mēt into a lesse, to wit, of eternall into temporall, as is most euident. But in the end of this page, you teach, that sinne is so remitted, as the guilt of sinne, and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of

temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner. Wherefore, if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punish∣ment into lesse; then by granting, in the end of the cited page, a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction, after the remission of the Eternall, you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same, that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse.

Secondly, this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine, after the remission of the guilt of sinne, proueth that penitent saints may make compēsant, yea superaboundant satisfaction, in manner as Ca∣tholikes teach; for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider, and distinguish two things; the greatnes of the paine reserued, and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne re∣mitted, which he doth yet temporally punish. If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence, we hold (t) 1.117 that no compensant, or equall satisfa∣ction is made in this respect, the offence hauing a kind of infinity from the infinite maiesty of the per∣son offended. But if we regard the greatnes of the penalty reserued, a man may remoue the same by sa∣tisfaction compensant, yea superaboundant. This may be made euident by examples. Let vs suppose the remainder of Temporall affliction reserued, be equall vnto the paine of forty dayes fast in bread & water in one whole yeare, why may not a iust man fast in this manner forty dayes in a yeare, & so offer vnto God satisfaction iust & equall? Also why may he not fast fifty dayes in a yeare with onely bread and water, & so offer satisfaction superaboundant?

Superaboundant, I say, not in respect of the Maiesty of God offended, but in respect of the temporall re∣serued punishment: So that granting, as you do, a temporall remainder of chastisement after the re∣mission of sinne, to be remoued or mitigated by pe∣nitentiall workes, if you be in your right iudgment, and ponder the matter, you cannot deny (as you do) that compensant and superaboundant satisfaction may be made for the same.

Thirdly, this your doctrine doth euidently in∣force Temporall and Purgatory paines in the next life. This I proue. Vnto sinnes of equall offence and heynousmes against God, remitted by the same mea∣sure of faith and contrition, the same punishment is due in iustice, after the remission of the guilt. For God being iust, doth neuer punish sinne remitted with more or longer affliction then it deserues: Go•• forbid (sayth (u) 1.118 Iob) that there should be impiety in God, or iniquity in the Almighty. For he will repay vnto man his owne worke, and render vnto euery one according to their wayes: nor in punishing the remitted sinnes of his seruants is he an acceptour of persons. Hence vnto euery sinne, as great as Dauids, remitted vpon no greater contrition then had Dauid, as great tempo∣rall punishment is in iustice due, & shallbe inflicted▪ as was inflicted vpon Dauid for his remitted sinne▪ This being euident, I assume: But we see innumera∣ble penitent men who haue committed greater sin∣nes then Dauid, and yet haue not had greater, nor so great measure of faith, nor of sorrow and contrition for their sinnes as had Dauid, that dye presently afte•• their repentance, without enduring eyther by Di∣uine infliction, or by voluntary assumption, such

grieuous temporall afflictions, as Dauid did: Ther∣fore innumerable penitent Saints depart this life, being obnoxious vnto as great, or greater punish∣ment, after the remission of their sinns, as Dauid did endure after the remissiō of his. This supposed what shall become of these men? They cannot go to hell, the guilt of sin, & of eternall damnation being gra∣tiously remitted vnto them. They (x) 1.119 cannot go pre∣sently to heauen, for no stained thing, that is, no per∣son vnto whome punishment is due in iustice, can enter into that seate of pure Reward, Ioy & Felicity· Wherfore, seing you say, that vnto sinne remitted a certaine measure of temporall paine is due, to be re∣moued or mitigated by workes of mortification, it is forcible, that you also admit temporall Purgatory-paines in the next life, for them that dy before this debt of temporall chastisement be satisfyed in this world.

Your Ignorance about the holy Crosse, and the Water of Iordan. §. 6.

CONCERNING the Holynes and Honour of our Sauiours Crosse, you shew want of iudge∣ment in Theology. That the liuelesse & insensible Crosse, (say you, pag. 235.) whereupon Christ suffered, was san∣ctifyed by his Passion, must be belieued when Diuine Or∣dinance is produced to make the same manifest. And a∣gayne, pag. 236. Those thinges which at the instant tyme of Christs Passion had a residence in his body, and were ioyned thereunto (per contactum physicum,) as in∣struments of his passion, were not thereby made most high∣ly Venerable, because there is no Diuine Authority, or any other sufficient reason to prooue this assertion. In these

words you shew great Ignorance of Christian Theo∣logy, yet such as is common to those of the Puritan stampe, A Malignant Generation (a) 1.120 agaynst the Crosse of our Redeemer. Wherefore I should not account to deny Sanctity vnto the Crosse notable in you, did you not presently in the very same page at∣tribute Holynes and Sanctification vnto the ground wheron Moyses stood, & vnto the water of Iordan. Thus you write▪ Whiles God appeared to Moyses in the Bramble ush, the ground wheron Moyses stood is called ho∣ly. Exod. 3.6. But this Holynes being, only relatiue, transito∣ry, and denominatiue, and not inherent and durable, the for∣mer vision and apparition being finished, the ground wher∣on Moyses stood returned to his old condition. The like may be sayd of the water of Iordan, considered when Christ was Baptized with it, and agayne considered when his bap∣tisme was finished, and out of the vse. Thus you.

Now I pray you, what reason can you assigne why the Land whereon Moyses stood, was Sanctify∣ed, and made Relatiuely Holy▪ during the tyme of the Diuine apparition, & not the Crosse, at the least, for the instant tyme of our Lords Passion theron? You wil say that no Scripture doth warrant the tearming of the Crosse Holy, wheras the land wheron Moyses stood, is called Holy, Exod. 3.6. But what want of vn∣derstanding is this, not to see how the Scripture tear∣ming the ground wheron Moyses stood Holy, & cō∣manding him to put off his shooes out of reuerence vnto it, because confining on the Bush wherein God appeared, or rather an Angell bearing his person? What blindnes (I say) is it not to see, that this very Text doth à fortiori, more strongly & forcibly war∣rant the tearming the Crosse holy and venerable, &

••he doing reuerēce vnto it, at the least, whiles Christ ••anged thereon? As the law commanding the Iewes ••o be gratefull vnto God for his deliuering them out ••f the Land of seruitude, by killing the First-begottē ••f Aegypt, doth à fortiori, charge Christians to be ••hankefull for their redemption from sinne by the ••eath of Gods only Sonne: Euen so, the Scripture ••alling the land wheron Moyses stood holy and vene∣••able, in regard of a Diuine apparition, nigh vnto ••he same, doth à fortiori charge men to respect the Crosse as Holy and Venerable, which God euen in ••erson corporally & substantially vnited vnto man, ••id touch with his sacred body, & imbrue with his ••retious bloud, in offering the sacrifice for our Re∣••emption.

But what will you say of the Water of Iordan? What Diuine manifest Ordinance can you bring to say ••he same was Relatiuely Holy, and Venerable during our Sauiours Baptisme, more then to ascribe the like Sanctity and Venerability vnto the Crosse, for the ••nstant tyme of our Sauiours suffering thereon? And whereas you say the Crosse was liuelesse and insen∣••ible, seeming to assigne this as a reason why the same ••ould not be made Holy and Venerable, what more ••ayne? Was not the ground wheron Moyses stood, ••as not the water of Iordan as liuelesse & insensible ••s the wood of the Crosse? Verily I cannot imagine what heere you may reply & am persuaded that God ••n his prouidēce would haue you vtter in print this ••ruth about the water of Iordan, that thereby you ••ight be conuinced that no reason but only passion ••eades you to deny the Holynes, and Venerabi∣••••ty of our Sauiours Crosse. And seeing, when the

blind lead the blind both fall into the pit, what won∣der that you following the blindnes of passion, a∣gaynst the Churches Tradition, be fallen into so o∣pen a pit of folly, as to make the Land wherō Moyses stood, and the water of Iordan more holy and vene∣rable, then the wood of the Altar of our Redempti∣on?

If any demand, why the Crosse is stil worshipped after it ceased to touch our Sauiours body, and no•• the water of Iordan? the reason of disparity is euidēt. For things sanctifyed by the presence, & touch of some sacred person, still remaine holy and venerable vntill the same be lawfully applyed vnto prophane & vulgar vse Thus the Chayre of State being ciuilly sanctifyed, that is, aparted from cōmon & ordinary seruice, remaynes so perpetually, vntill the same be lawfully applied vnto vulgar imployment. I say law∣fully, for if the same be vulgarly vsed vnlawfully, and in contempt, it looseth not sanctity, but is still holy de iure, and hath a right to be venerably vsed. Now the ground whereon Moyses stood, the apparition being finished; the water of Iordan, our Sauiour•• baptisme being ended, were presently and lawfully applyed to prophane vse, no custome or law forbid∣ding the same, and so they presently ceased to be holy.

But the Crosse whereon our Sauiour suffered, & which he imbrueed with his blood in the sacrifice 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the worlds redemption, was hereby made so holy & venerable to Christian imagination, as by Christia•• custome the same is vnappliable to vulgar and pro••phane vse: which reuerence to the Crosse, is so in••graffed in Christian harts, as I am persuaded that 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Protestāt would abhorre the Puritan as pro∣••hane, that should vse the wood of the Crosse, in vul∣gar manner, as for example to make a pegge therof. Wherfore the Crosse being by Christian custome & ••euotion for euer vnappliable to prophane vse, the ••ame is durably holy, and venerable, & shall be wor∣••hipped, so long as Christianity shall last in the world.

And seing in this place you vse the tearmes of Relatiue, Transitory, & Denominatiue holynes, let me request of you, what reason you haue to rayle, as you doe, at the Iesuit for vsing the tearmes of out∣ward, relatiue, and transitory worship? The Iesuit hauing proued by Scripture, and the Principles of fayth, that Christ his Image is to be honoured, sayth pag. ••43. that this honour is giuen outwardly, relatiuely, and ••ransitorily to the image; inwardly, affectuously, absolutely, finally vnto Christ: for this you come vpon him, in this sort pag. 244. How proue you by diuine reuelation & testimony, that adoration is to be performed according to ••our distinction of outwardly, relatiuely, transitorily vnto Images? Agaynst such loose, and voluntary pre∣sumption wee say with S. Chrysostome Diuinae scripturae testimonia sequamur, neque feramus eos qui temerè quiduis blaterant: We are to follow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, testi∣mony of Diuine Scripture, and not to regard them which as Rouers, & without ground blatter out what they please.

Behold how bitter you are agaynst the Iesuit: And why? Is it for his vsing distinctions that are not verbally, and expressely found in Scripture? Then you are blind not to see your selfe to be guilty of the same fault: for where do you find in Scripture the tearmes of relatiue, transitory, & denominatiue

holines? Is it, because his distinction of Absolute and Relatiue worshipp is not to be proued by Scripture, as yours may? Thē you are so shallow in your thoughts as not to perceaue a thing, not only cleere in Scrip∣ture, but also neere to your selfe. When the Scrip∣ture sayth,* 1.121 Adore thy Lord God, what is this, but absolute, and inward affectuous worshippe? When the same Scripture sayth, Bow thy selfe to the footestole of his feete, for he is holy, what is this, but relatiue wor∣shipp,* 1.122 that is outward bowing before Gods foote∣stole, inwardly referred vnto his person?

Yea the Iesuits Relatiue worshipp of inanimate thinges that haue outward reference to God, is pro∣ued by the very text by which you proue the relatiue holines of the same, Exod. 3.6. Put off the shooes of thy feete, because the ground whereon thou standest is holy. The land whereon thou standest is holy; Behold relatiue holines: Put off thy shooes, & presume not to touch the same but barefote; Behold relatiue worshipp, that is outward respect to the land, inwardly referred to worshipp God there appearing. What shall I say more? the Iesuits distinction is so cleere and neere vnto you, as it is not only thus to be proued by your very text of Scripture, but also intrinsecally inuol∣ued in your distinction, as by this argument I de∣monstrate.

Vnto thinges that be holy, Honour and Vene∣ration is due, and this of higher or lower kind, ac∣cording to the state and degree of their holynes. This proposition no man that knoweth what he sayth, will deny.

But (as you distinguish) there be two kinds or states of holy thinges, some being absolutely & in∣herently

holy, other only relatiuely and outwardly.

Ergo, There are two kinds of worships due vnto holy thinges, the one inward and absolute, the other only relatiue and outward.

And, that the image of Christ is Relatiuely holy, as hauing an outward visible reference vnto a person, inwardly and infinitly holy, you can not de∣ny, except you want eyther notice of the Gospell, or eyes in your head. You may then see, how wronge∣fully you vp brayd the Iesuit with loose and volun∣tary presumption, with blattering out at Rouers what he pleaseth, and how iustly he might turne the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of this sharpe Reproach vpon your selfe, for your denying that sanctification vnto the wood of ••he Crosse at Christs passion, which you grant to the ••ater of Iordan in his Baptisme.

A seauenth Example, about Traditions. §. 7.

•• will conclude this section with an example or two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of your simplicity in vsing of distinctiōs. For your ••istinctions are eyther senselesse, or else you establish ••hat doctrine which most of all you impugne. Take his example hereof. The Iesuits principle that, there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten, & that this is the prime ground of ••ayth, more fundamentall then Scripture, you most lar∣••ely labour to refell, and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti∣••hristian, and impudent assertion, to depresse the written ••ord of God, & exalt the prophane, bastardly, Apocriphal ••••aditions of the Pope. This is bitter inough, & yet cer∣••••ynly you teach that there be traditions maintay∣••ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you speake ineptly, not knowing what you affir∣••e. For some two pages before this your reproch∣full

words, to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions: The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such, as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture, OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth, Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture, & the doctrine there∣of. Thus you.

I demand of you; These subseruient Traditious a∣bout fayth and doctrine, be they contayned in Scrip∣ture or not? If they be your distinction is senselesse, one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other: for if subseruient traditions be traditions cōtayned in Scripture, what more inept then to say, traditions eyther contayned in Scripture, or subser∣uient? If they be not contayned in Scripture, but condistinct from them, then according to your di∣stinction there be some traditions, not contayned in Scripture, which maintayne and vphold the autho∣rity of Scripture, and the verity and doctrine there∣of. If you grant this (as you must, vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment) then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamen∣tall then Scripture. For thus I argue: That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture, is more fundamētall then Scripture: That which doth man∣tayne, and vphold the authority of Scripture, is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scriptu∣re: Ergo, That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture, is more fundamentall then Scripture. Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient, condistinct agaynst written Tradition, the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture. So that, eyther you know not what you doe write, or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced

to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure, as Antichristian, impudēt, prophane, bastardly. Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy.

No more sense or iudgement is there in the di∣stinctiō you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant & militant pag. 49. The tearme (Church) (say you) is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages: and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament, Hebr. 12.23. Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27. And thus it com∣prehendeth both the Church militant & triumphant. Thus you: distinguishing the Church of belieuers into mi∣litant and Triumphant; whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers. What more ridiculous, and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts? It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse sim∣plicity, through want of reflexion, that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine, which wittingly & willfully you mantayne, though being no lesse exorbitant then this. The doctrine is, that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude, who (a) 1.123 by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity, and other mysteryes; & that, you are like not vnto men (b) 1.124 which see a farre off a certayne obscure glim∣mering of the light, but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is, behold the sayd light in it selfe. Verily to tearme the Church militant, a multitude of BE∣HOLDERS resolued of truth, by manifest light & euidence, is as Exoticall, and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology, as to call the Church triūphant

a multitude of BELEEVERS, that warre and walke by Fayth. As for your Protestant triūphant Church, if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God, without seing the light, lustre, and resplen∣dant verity of the doctrine thereof (as you pretend they did not,) I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world, to wit, in the number of them, of whom the Apostle writeth,* 1.125 credunt & contremiscunt.

Ignorance in Scripture. SECT. IV.

CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply, how the same standeth cleerly on your side, and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture. How vaine this your vant is, doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture, and to deuise now figuratiue, typicall, and mysticall interpretations. How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment, which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion, is made euident by what hath been shewed, concer∣ning your arguing for the pretēded Diuine Ordinance, binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture. Not∣withstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare, I will add here some other ar∣guments and tokens of the same, to wit, vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptu∣••es

brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Ca∣••holicke doctrine.

You deny the Text, and Context of Scripture. §. 1.

FIRST, many times you are enforced by your ad∣uersary, when you cannot answere, to deny the ••ext & context of Scripture, wherof I alleadge two ••xamples. The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue, that Christ ••romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant ••f the sacrament, vnder the forme of bread, bringeth ••he words of our Sauiour, Iohn. 6. Qui manducat hunc ••anem, viuet in aeternum: he that eateth this bread shall ••ue for euer. You in the place quoted, answere, The ••cripture Iohn. 6.51. saith not, whosoeuer eateth sacra∣••entall bread without wine, shall liue for euer; but if any ••••te this bread which came downe from heauē, to wit, Christ ••••sus incarnate, shall liue for euer. And then it followeth, ••nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you, Iohn. 5.53. Thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Now marke vnto what straytes, maugre your ••••agging, you are brought by the Iesuite. First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ie∣••••ite, he that eateth this bread, liueth for euer, to be our ••••uiours, but onely those, If any shall eate &c. Wher∣•••• they be our Sauiours, & the expresse text of Scrip∣••••re in so many words & syllables, Iohn. 6.59. which ••••yth, He that eateth this bread, liueth for euer. Se∣••••ndly, you are compelled to answere, that Christ ••••ter he had said, he that eateth this bread liueth for ••••er, said, Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the ••••oud of the sonne of man, you shall not haue life in ••ou. By which ensuing sentēce he did, as you thinke, ••eclare the former, If any eate this bread &c. that it

must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread, wi∣thout wine. This is against the context and order of the sentences of Gods word; this sentence, He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer, being fiue sen∣tences or verses after this other, Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the bloud. Yea these words, he that eateth this bread liueth for euer, are absolutely the very last, wherewith Christ shutteth vp his discourse a∣bout Sacramentall taking his flesh and bloud. Wher∣fore not to be forced to grant, that Christ promised as much to the eating of Sacramentall bread onely, as to eating and drinking both, you are forced to deny the text, and context of Gods word. If you say, our Sauiour indeed spake the wordes, He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer, but that he spake not of Sacramentall bread, nor of Sacramentall ea∣ting; I reply: First, why then did you not acknow∣ledge this text aswell as this other; If any eate this bread, he shall liue for euer? Secondly you contradict your selfe, for that the seauēth Chap. of S. Iohn spea∣keth of Sacramentall eating & drinking, your selfe affirme many tymes in this Reply, as pag. 395. lin. 8. pag. 406. lin. 13. & pag. 466. lin. 20.

A second example of your being forced to de∣ny, or not to acknowledge the text of Gods word, is found pag. 75. There the Iesuit saith, that euen in the dayes of Antichrist, the Church shall be visibly vni∣uersall, referring himselfe for proofe to the Apoca∣lips 20. v. 8. You in lieu of the eight verse, cite the seauenth, Then shall Satan be let loose, & shall goe forth, and seduce nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, & shall gather them into a battaile, the number of whō shall be as the sands of the sea. Which

text is impertinent. For it proueth that the army of Antichrist, shall be for multitude of men innume∣rable; Not the vniuersall diffusion of the Christian Church in his raigne. Why stopped you at the sea∣••enth verse? Why would you not proceed to set ••owne the words of the eight, that were vnder your ••yes, vnto which the Iesuits marginall quotation re∣••erred you? Verily you saw that they proued the Ie∣••uits intent so cleerly, as you knew not what to re∣••ly. For the text saith (a) 1.126 of Antichrists Purseuants, ••hey went ouer the breadth of the earth, and compassed a∣••out the campe of Saints, and thc beloued Citty. By which ••lace it is euident that the campe of Saints and the belo∣••ed Citty, to wit, the Church persecuted by Anti∣••hrist in his raigne, shall be spread ouer the face of ••he earth.

••ou are forced to goe agaynst Christs expresse word. §. 2.

THE Iesuit pag. 409. argueth in this sort: If God can put a whole Camell in the eye of a needle, is he not ••ble to put the whole body of Christ in a consecrated Host? ••ut, God can put a Camell in a needles eye, witnesse our Sa∣••iour Matth. 19. v. 24.25.26. where hauing sayd, It is ••ore easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye, then ••or a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen: whē ••is disciples did much wonder therat, demanding who then can be saued? He answered, With men this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 impossible, but all thinges are possible vnto God.

Our Answere (say you, pag 412.) is, that these words ••ll things are possible to God, are referred to the latter ••art of Christs speach, touching the rich mans entring into ••eauen, and not to the Camells passing through the needles 〈◊〉〈◊〉. All things agreable to truth, and which God will haue

done, are possible: but that it is agreable to truth for a Ca∣mell, retayning his quantity, with the whole body to passe through a needles eye, or that God will haue this to be done, deserueth to be credited, when the Aduersaryes prooue it by diuine Reuelation, or by other demonstration. Thus you forced by your aduersary to deny the expresse word of God, as I demonstrate by three arguments.

First, if our Sauiour hauing named many thing•• as difficile, hard, and impossible with men, conclude that not one of these things only, but al are possible with God; then to say, that one of the things only, & not all are possible to God, is directly to contradict our Sauiour, & to giue him the lye. Our Sauiour ha∣uing named many things as hard, difficile, and im∣possible vnto men, to wit, that Camells passe throgh a needles eye, and that rich men enter into the King∣dome of heauen, concludeth, that not one of these things only, but all are possible vnto God, apud Deu•• omnia possibilia sunt, (b) 1.127 all these hard, and difficile things are possible with God. Ergo, you in saying that one sort of these things by him named as hard & dif∣ficile, are impossible vnto God, to wit, that Camells passe through a needles eye, do directly contradict the words of our Sauiour, & giue him the lye.

Secondly, to affirme that a Camells passage through the eye of a needle is impossible vnto God, is more directly agaynst this speach of our Sauiour, then to say, that a rich mans entrance into heauen is impossible. This I prooue. If our Sauiour say, that of the two, the Camells passing through a needles eye is more easy, that is lesse difficile, then to deny the Camells passing through a needles eye to be possible vnto God, is more directly agaynst our Sauiours

••ord, then so to affirme of a rich mans entring into 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Kingdome of heauen. For if things more easy & ••••sse difficile be impossible, how much more things ••••sse easy and more difficile? If we may with truth ••ffirme, that God cannot do what by the truth of his word we know to be more easy, much rather may we affirme, God cannot doe what by the truth of his word we belieue to be more difficile. This is cleere. ••ut our Sauior saith most expresly, that it is more ea∣••y, that is lesse difficile for a Camell to passe through •• needles eye, then for a richman to enter into the Kingdome of heauen. Ergo, Your saying the pas∣••ing of a Camell through a needles eye to be impos∣••ible vnto God, is more against this place of his word, ••hen had you so affirmed of a rich mans entring in∣••o heauen.

Thirdly, if this word of our Lord, All is possible vnto God, be referred directly, properly, and special∣••y vnto a Camells passing through a needles eye, & not vnto a rich mans entring into heauen, then you do directly oppose the truth of Gods word: But that ••his speach, All is possible vnto God, is in this manner ••eferred vnto the Camels passing through a needles eye, & not vnto the rich mans entring into heauen, ••s euident by the drift of this place: For our Lord by this discourse, doth directly intend to shew not a rich mans saluation to be possible, but the Apostles argument which moued them to dispayre of the sal∣uation of richmen, not to be good. They hearing our Sauiour say, it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye, then that a rich man enter in the Kingdome of heauen, supposing in their thought as most cer∣tayne, that a Camells passing through a needles eye,

was altogeather impossible, concluding, What rich∣man then can be saued? Our Sauiour answering vn∣to the argument that so perplexed them sayth, though these things be impossible with men, yet all is possible vn∣to God. As if he had sayd: What you suppose in your thoughts as certayne, that a Camell cannot passe through a needles eye, is false; because God is om∣nipotent, and so though such things be impossible with men, yet all is possible vnto him. Now your supposition being false, your argument that richmen cannot be saued, is not solid. For from my words, it is more easy for a Camell &c. you can only inforce, that as the Camell cannot passe through a needles eye, but by the ompotēcy of the diuine hand; so the rich∣man cannot be saued, but by the omnipotency of di∣uine grace. Hence it is euidēt that our Sauiour did di∣rectly intēd to teach the possibility of a Camells pas∣sing through a needles eye; so destroying the ground on which the Apostles did build their false persua∣sion, that rich men could not be saued. But this you auouch not to be possible vnto God. Therefore you are forced by the Iesuit to deny Gods expresse word, howsoeuer you bragge, that the Iesuits arguing from Scripture, is wonderous weake.

You are forced to deny the Creed. §. 3.

THE Iesuite pag. 409. thus argueth: If the body of Christ being mortall and passible, could pene∣trate with the body of his blessed Mother, and come out of her wombe, the same still remaining entyre, as we confesse in the Creed, Natum de MARIA Virgine; why then may not the same body being now glorious, & immortall, and (as the Apostle speakes) spirituall, penetrate the quantity of

〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread, and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 compasse thereof?

You answere pag. 411. The blessed Virgin in her ••RAVELL in puerperio, bore not Christ in a different ••anner from other women. Luc. 2.23. And what a Sophi∣••••icall inference is this, the Creed hath, Borne of the Virgin MARY, meaning according to conception, and genera∣••••ons, and cleernesse from the company of man. Ergo, the ••ody of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the tyme of his ••yrth. Thus you: whose assertion that the Creed on∣••y saith, that according to cōception, the blessed Vir∣••in was cleere from the company of man, is open de∣••yall of a principall part therof. For the Creed doth ••ot only say, our Lord was conceaued by the Holy Ghost, which doth import his Mothers purity & cleernes ••rom the company of man in his generation; but the ••urity of his conception being declared, the Creed ••ddeth, as a new point of fayth, borne of the Virgin Mary, requiring that we belieue she was a Virgin, that ••s, incorrupt and entyre in her child-birth. So that ••our interpretation whereby you confound her vir∣ginity in generation, with her virginity in child-birth, which the Creed doth so exactly distinguish, is ••laine denial of the text of the creed. And your tear∣••ing this our simple sincere beliefe of the words of ••he creed, a sophistical inferrence, is first ridiculous. ••or the belieuing of the text of Gods word, as it ••••ands, cannot be tearmed an inference, much lesse a ••ophisticall inference.

Secōdly, it is not only foolish, but also impious, be∣••ng a reproach to the perpetuall Fayth of the whole Christian Church, as (d) 1.128 S. Aug. doth testify. It was sayth he) necessary, that he whome the fayth, not the lust

of his mother had cōceiued, should also be borne of a Virgin. For if the integrity of his mother had been brokē in this being borne of her, then had he not been borne of a Virgin, and then (which God forbid) false were the beliefe of the whole Church professing in the Creed, Natum de Maria Virgine, borne of the Virgin Mary. The same is taught by the rest of the Fathers, namely by S. (e) 1.129 Ambrose, who tearmes it wicked & per∣uerse to say, as you do, that in her generation, the blessed Mother was incorrupt and entyre, not in her childbirth. She (sayth S. Ambrose) that could conceaue him being a Virgin incorrupt, could she not bring him forth remayning a Virgin incorrupt? If they will not belieue the tradition of Priests, let them belieue the oracles of the Pro∣phets: (f) 1.130 A Virgin shall bring forth a Son: Let thē belieue the creed of the Apostles, which the Romā Church doth pure∣ly & inuiolatly keep, to wit, which sayth, not only con∣ceaued by the holy Ghost, but also borne of the virgin Mary,

What you obiect out of S. Luke, vers. 23. Euery Male-child that openeth the wombe shall be holy vnto our Lord, hath been answered longe agoe, and declared by the anciēt Fathers. For the Scripture by the child opening the wombe, vnderstands the Child that comes first out of the wombe, because that Child commonly doth, & by course of nature must, needes open the wombe. Hence he is tearmed, the Child ope∣ning the wombe, though it happen that he do not opē the wōbe. As the fire of the Babilonian fornace may be tearmed a thing which cōsumeth what is cast in∣to it, because commonly it doth so, and by course of nature it must needes do so, though there by diuine Miracle the contrary did happen; which manner of speach is so vulgar, as it is by you vsed euen in this

place perchāce without reflexion. For you tearming ••he Blessed Virgins bringing forth of our Lord, TRAVELL, I thinke you are not impiously persua∣••ed with the Iew, that she brought him forth with ••abour and payne as other woemen doe; but you ••all her Childbyrth TRAVELL, because common∣••y and naturally the same is still ioyned with labour ••nd trauell. In this sort (say the (g) 1.131 Fathers) the Scrip∣••ure saying of our Sauiour, the male-child opening the wombe, consueto natiuitatis more loquitur, speaketh ••ccording to that which commonly doth happen in the birth ••f such children, not that we should thinke that our Lord in ••is going forth, did breake the integrity of the Virgins Clo∣••et, which by his entrāce he had sanctifyed, as HERETIKS ••each, that Blessed Mary was an entyre Virgin only vntill ••er Childbirth; But according to the CATHOLICKE FAYTH he came forth of the Virgins wōbe, the same still resting entyre, and as a Bride-grome out of his Bride-Chamber. Now you may crow, and crake, & crowne your Booke, as you do in your Picture, when you are so pressed by your Aduersary, that you are forced to defend your Errour by holding ancient Heresyes, and by laying the tearme of Sophisticall Inference vpon the Catholicke Fayth of the Creed, and of the whole Christian Church.

In answering Scriptures, you contradict your selfe, and grant the Iesuit the Question. §. 4.

THE vanity of your former brag, that the Iesuit hath proued nothing by Scripture, is further made apparent in that he doth so vrge you with Scripture, as you are sometimes forced to contradict your selfe, sometimes to grant as much as he doth

require against your selfe. The Iesuit pag. 98. proueth that the Church of Christian pastours succeeding the Apostles, is infallible in her Tradition, because our Sauiour saith, Matth. 28. Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the consummation of the world. You answere pag. 100. That which is promised vpon condition is not ab∣solute vntill the condition be fulfilled. The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally, and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation & sub∣ordinatiō: that is, so farre as they walked in their stepps, & conformed their doctrine and ministery to the patterne re∣ceiued from them. Thus you in this place. But pag. 174. lin. 21. speaking of the absolute perpetuity and du∣ration of the Church you say, that the place Matth. 28.20. Behold I am with you all daies vntill the end of the world, proueth, that the Church is vniuersall in respect of time, and that it continueth successiuely in all ages.

This your saying ouerthrowes what you said, that the presence of Christ is promised vpon condi∣tion, wherin the successors of the Apostles might faile For this place, Behold I am with you all dayes vntill the worlds end, doth shew the Church to be alwaies in the world; no other wayes, then because Christ ac∣cording to his promise, is alwaies, and all dayes to the worlds end with his Church, & he cā not be still in the world with his Church, except his Church haue still a being in the world. So that according to the truth of this place, we may aswell, or better say, the Church shall not be alwaies in the world, then that it shall be in the world without Christ, or his Diuine assistance to teach men infallibly the truth. Wherfore if by this place we cannot, as you say we cannot, proue, that the Church shall be euer abso∣lutely

assisted of Christ, much lesse doth this place conuince that the Church shall be alwaies in the world, or further then conditionally if it walke in ••he Apostles doctrine. Contrariwise, if this place ••roue, that the Church is absolutely alwaies in the world vntill the consummation therof, then à for∣••iori more strongely and more directly doth it proue ••hat Christ is absolutely, & not onely conditionally ••resēt with his Church all dayes to the worlds end: ••o that to answere the Iesuits proofes of his Religion ••y Scripture, you cōtradict your selfe, yea somtimes ••rant agaynst your selfe as much as he would proue.

For to proue the same infallibility of the Church ••e bringeth pag. 3. the place of S. Paul, (g) 1.132 that the ••hurch is the groūd & pillar of truth, but the ground of ••ertaine & infallible Truth, such as the Christian is, ••ust be certaine & infallible. You answere pag. 4. lin. ••. If by the Church wee vnderstand the Church of Christ ••••uing af••er the Apostles, the same is by office and calling ••he pillar and ground of truth in all ages. This your an∣••were alloweth vnto the Iesuit asmuch as he desires, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can desire to shew the Church to be alwaies infal∣••••ble. For that which is by office and diuine vocation the ••••llar, and ground of infallible truth, hath by diuine ••rdination and assistance sufficiency for the perfor∣••ance of that office, as is most euident. The Church ••hich is fallible & may erre is not a sufficient pillar 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ground, that is, hath not sufficiēcy to be the groūd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian truth which is infallible. For how can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 building sure & immoueable stand, founded vpon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vncertaine, ruinous, and tottering foundation? ••herfore seing you grant the church succeeding the ••postles to be in all ages the ground of truth by di∣uine

vocation vnto that office, you do consequently allow vnto the Iesuit as much as he would proue, to wit, that the Church succeeding the Apostles, is i•• all ages vntill the worlds end certaine, and infallible in her teaching.

In lieu of answering, you confirme the Iesuits Arguments. §. 5.

THE Iesuit pag. 38. accuseth Ministers of abusing the word of God, who to proue the sole suffi∣ciency of Scripture in respect of all men, cite the text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3.15. The Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto saluation. For the words of the A∣postle are directed particulerly to Timothy, saying, they are able to make THEE wise vnto saluation: whence it is consequent, that the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy, and are sufficient for such men as Tymo∣thy was, to wit, for men learned and aforehand in∣structed by word of mouth, and therupon firmely beleeuing all the most maine and necessary points of Christian doctrine and discipline. That the Scrip∣tures for men in this manner taught and grounded in fayth, are aboundantly sufficient, who will deny?

Thus the Iesuit. Vnto whom you shape this answere pag. 39. Although sentences of holy Scripture are some∣times restrayned to the personall and particular subiect of which they are first spoken; yet this is not generall, and when the same hapneth it must be proued by better argu∣ments then by the bare Emphasis of a word. For God said 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iosuah (a man qualifyed aboue the ordinary ranke) I will not leaue, nor forsake thee, Iosuah 1.5. Yet the promise implyed in this text is generall, and common to all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 persons, Hebr. 13.5. Thus you, confirming the Iesuit••

••olution in lieu of confuting therof. For as the pro∣••ise, I will not leaue thee, made particularly vnto Io∣••ue in regard he was a iust man, doth not agree vnto ••ll men, but onely vnto such as Iosue was, to wit, ••nto iust men, and such as seeke God as he did. So the ••ext of S. Paul, they are able to make THEE wise vnto ••aluation, spoken particulerly vnto Timothy, in re∣••ard he was learned, iudicious, aforehand instru∣••ted & grounded in Christian tradition, doth agree ••nely to Timothy, and such men as Timothy was, to wit, men aforehand taught, and grounded in the ••ayth of tradition. On the other side, as the promise ••ade to Iosue in regard he was a Iust man, cannot ••e challenged of other men, that be not iust as he was, & if they rely theron they deceaue themselues; ••o the promise, the Scriptures are able to make THEE ••ise vnto saluation, made vnto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the fayth of Tradition, cannot be challenged of them that are ••f a differrent stampe from Timothy, to wit, men ••hat were neuer taught the fayth of Tradition, or ••lse so vngrounded therein, as vpon a seeming eui∣••ence of Scripture they be ready to chāge their f••rst ••eceiued fayth. Hence it is manifest, that the Iesuit ••ad reason to say, Ministers abuse Gods word when ••hey cite it, the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto ••aluation, making that common to all men, which was spoken onely to Timothy, and vnto such as he was.

Will you haue another example of the same kind? The Iesuit saith, the words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of mee, was spoken of the Sacrament, in the forme of bread, not vnder the forme of wine. For our

Sauiour speaking of the Sacramēt vnder the forme of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith (h) 1.133 not absolutely, doe this, as he did of bread, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conditionally, do this as oftē as you drinke in memor•••• of me, that the Aduersary of the Church might not haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much as a plausible shew to condēne cōmun••o in one kind 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Gods word. You after much bitter rayling, cal∣ling the Iesuit infatuated Romanist, & vermine, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vrging you beyond your learning, answere thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the end. Touching the fancy of this obiection, I furthe•• say, that euen as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31. whethe•• yee eat or drinke, or whatsoeuer else you do, do all to the glory of God; If these word•• should be resolued 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this manner: As often as yee eate or drinke, or do any thing else, do all to the glory of God, the placing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this word, as often, restrayneth not the speach frō being a precept: so likewise when S. Paul saith: As often as ye•• drinke, do this in remembrance of me, this manne•• altereth not his words from being a commandement. Thus you, confirming the Iesuits answere. For no example could haue been deuised, or imagined more fit to shew, that Christs words, as oftē as you drinke import not an absolute, but onely a conditionall precept▪ Which thus I demōstrate. You grant that the words of Christ, Do this as often as you drinke in remem∣brance of me, be preceptiue in the same manner, as, & no more then these of S. Paul, as often as yee eate or drinke, or walke abroad, or do any thing else, do all to the glory of God. But no man that hath his right senses will say, that this speach doth absolutely command Christians to eate, or drinke, or sleepe, or ride, or walke, or to do any of the like actiōs of human life, but onely doth conditionally command, or direct men, that when they will eate or drinke, or sleepe, or

••••de, or walke, that they do all to Gods glory. Ergo, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words of Christ, saying, do this as oftē as yee drinke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••emembrance of me, do not imply an absolute precept of ••••••nking of the cup, but onely a conditionall direction, that ••••en men drinke, they do that Sacramentall action in ••emory of his Passion. So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Iesuits argumēt, you intangle your selfe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tye the same more fast.

You send the Iesuite to God for an Answere. §. 6.

THE Iesuit (i) 1.134 chargeth the Protestant doctrine, that holy Images may be lawfully made, & not ••••wfully honored, to be destitute of all shew of Scrip∣••••re. For the (k) 1.135 text of the Law is no lesse cleer a∣••••inst the making of such Images, then against their ••eing adored, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image, ••••ou shalt not worship nor adore them. Hēce he argueth, ••he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adore, be such as by the same we are forbidden to ••ake: But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make: Ergo, ••••ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this ••••ecept to adore. And wheras Protestants expound 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first part of the precept, Thou shalt not make ••••em, to wit, with purpose and intention to adore▪ ••his exposition (saith the Iesuit) is not onely violent ••••ainst the text, but also incongruous against sense. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (l) 1.136 prohibition of things, doth likewise forbid the

doing thinges with intention to doe agaynst the Prece•••• Hence I argue. The Precept, thou shalt not adore Ima∣ges, doth forbid the making of them with intentio•• to adore, as much as the precept, Thou shalt not kill▪ doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill. But the precept, thou shalt not kill, doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murther, that it had been superfluo•••• to haue set downe that precept in this forme, Thou shalt not make, or weare weapons with intention to kill, thou shalt not kill. Therfore without sense we•••• the precept, Thou shalt not make any Images, Tho•• shalt not adore them, had the first part no more sens•• then you giue it, to wit, Thou shalt not make Ima••ges with intention to adore.

Besides, as to make an image to adore, is Idolatry, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to take it in hand, to looke on it to that purpose; wh•••• thē was not such looking on, or taking in hand wit•• purpose of adoratiō forbidden aswell as making? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if looking on thē with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cleerly forbiddē in the precept, Thou shalt not ado••re thē, as there needed not further expression; wh•••• need was there, or reasō that making of images with intention to adore, should be more largly or fully expressed? You answere: As for the Iesuites interrog••••tions, Why then? What need was there? we refe•••• him to the Lawgiuer to challēge or demand reasons of him▪ And as for our selues we rest vpō the reuealed will of God not daring to question, or demand reason of his action••▪ Thus you. Wherby it is manifest that you grant th•• Iesuites arguments against your expositiō of Scrip∣ture to be so cleere, as you cannot answer them, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must send him to God to aske an answere of hi••

••ndeed if, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any images with ••••tention to adore them, thou shalt not adore them, were ••he text, and very letter of Gods word, you might ••ith lesse shame haue confessed your ignorance, that ••ou can say nothing in defence of the text. In which ••ase, the Iesuit (I presume) would willingly haue ••ad recourse vnto God by prayer, entreating him ••o enlighten his vnderstanding with some sufficient ••eason, & would haue hoped to haue obtained his ••uite. If not, yet would he haue belieued Gods word ••o haue had some congruous sense, though he saw ••ot the same, this being reuerence due to the word ••f Supreme Verity.

But now this saying, Thou shalt not make any Ima∣••es, with purpose to adore them, is not the text of Gods word, but a Ministers addition vnto his word, pre∣••ended by way of exposition. Hence the Iesuits ar∣••uments, for which you send him vnto God to haue ••hem answered, tend not agaynst the text of Gods word, but agaynst a Ministers explication thereof. This being so, why should the Iesuit finding your in∣••erpretation to be sottish, and senselesse to his see∣••ing, goe vnto God, and not vnto you for a soluti∣••n of his questions agaynst it? What Law bindeth ••im to adore your additions to Gods word, as diuine Oracles, such as he must belieue, though he cannot ••omprehend? Why should he goe vnto God, & pray ••im to vnfold the high misteryes of your Ministeri∣••ll wisdome, which you confesse you do not vnder∣••tand your selfe? Why may he not without more a∣••oe, thinke your doctrine to be incomprehensible ••hrough want of reason, as are the fooleryes of fan∣••y, not through height of wisdome, as the misteryes

of fayth? Shew (I say) some reason that obligeth Ie∣suits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture, which they can proue to be sottish and senselesse, so cleerly, as you cannot answere▪ or else confesse that the Iesuit by conference of texts, by consideration of Antecedents & Consequents, by the drift of the place▪ hath so conuinced your expositiō of falshood, as you haue not a word to reply in good sense, but to be rid of his vrging, you send him vnto God for an Answere.

Your innumerable grosse Impertinencyes in cyphering, and scoring of Scriptures. §. 7.

YOV haue a manner of arguing proper to your selfe, at least which I find by none of your ranke more frequently vsed, then by your selfe. This is to set downe a conceit of your owne wordes, suting with your owne humour, and then to score Bookes, chapters, and verses of Scripture on heapes, without relating the words, as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables. And because in this kind of cyphering, consists the strength of your whole booke, I will by some store of examples decypher the grosse vanity thereof, and consequent∣ly of your whole Booke.

First, you often cite texts and chapters of Scrip∣ture that are not, so making your selfe like vnto God qui vocat ea, quae non sunt. Pag. 10. lin. 24. to prooue that Protestants acknowledge the lawfull authority of the Church, you cite 2. Thessal. cap. 5. Wheras the second to the Thessalonians, hath only three chap∣ters. Pag. 106. lin. 17. to prooue that Christians may depart from the Christian Church, wherof they are

••embers, without ioyning vnto any other Christi∣••n Church, you cite Hos. 10.17. wheras that chapter ••••th only 15. verses, & not one to the purpose you ••••eage it. Pag. 45. lin. 17. for this your saying, the Scrip∣••••re is the seed of faith you cite Iohn. 20.41. wheras that ••wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one, & not ••ne of them hath this sentence, The Scripture is the ••sed of Fayth. Had you cited the wordes, though you ••ad erred in the booke, chapter, or verse, we might ••aue holpen your mistaking, now God only know∣••th the texts you intended.

Secondly, the places you cypher, not only do ••ot contayne the sayings, for which you cypher ••hem expressely, and in so many words; but also ••hey are commonly so infinitly impertinent, and so ••arre from the matter you intend to proue, as being ••ited and applyed to your purpose, they are most ri∣••iculous. Pag. 224. lin. 26. to proue that you Ministers ••aue such Vnion with God, as Religious Adoration ••s due vnto you, you cypher Act. 10.34. which ••ayth, Then Peter opened his mouth, and sayd of a truth, I perceiue that God hath no respect of persons. Pag. 30. lin. ••5. to proue Scripture is the voyce of God, you cy∣pher Luc. 1.7. which sayth, Saluation from our ene∣myes, and from the hands of all them that hate vs. Pag. 105. lin. 13. to proue that right Fayth may be pre∣serued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church, as Wheate among Tares, you cypher 1. King. 19.11. And he sayd, go forth and stand vpon the mountayne be∣fore the Lord, and behold the Lord passed by. Pag. 106. lin. 16. to proue that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches, and beginne a new Chri∣stian Church of themselues, you cypher 2. Cor. 6.14.

which saith, Be not yoked togeather in marriage with In∣fidells. Pag. 223. lin. 4. to proue that in adoration, Christ & his Image haue no agreement, you cypher 2. Cor. 6.16. which sayth, What agreement betweene the Temple of God and Idolls? Pag. 30. lin. 23. to proue that the Scripture is a diuine light shewing it selfe to be heauenly, you cypher 2. Cor 4.6. God hath shined in our harts, to giue the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus.

Pag. 558. lin. 3. to proue that liuing Saints haue not Communion with the Saints defunct, by partaking their superabundant satisfactions, you cypher Ephes. 4.15. But speaking the truth in loue, you may grow vp to him in all thinges, who is the head, euen Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cypher 1. Iohn. 1.3. That which we haue seene and heard, we declare vnto you, that you may haue fellowship with vs, and truly our fellow∣ship is with the Father, and with his Sonne Christ Iesus. Pag. 546. lin. 1. to proue that the reward of works may be giuen of free bounty, and not of debt, you cite Psalm. 127. v. 2. It is vayne for you to rise vp early, or to sit vp late, to eate the bread of sorrow, for so he giueth his beloued sleep. Also to the same purpose, you cy∣pher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Euery head was bald, and euery shoulder was pealed, yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus. Pag. 551. lin. vlt. to proue that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer, or Pater Noster, whereof one pe∣tition is, Forgiue vs our trespasses, you cite Act. 1.14. They continued in prayer and supplication togeather with the women, and Mary the Mother of Iesus. Which text proueth the Virgin prayed; but that her prayer was vocall, and not pure mentall, and if vocall, that she sayd Pater Noster, rather then Magnificat, or Benedi∣ctus,

or some of the psalmes of Dauid, who that is so∣ber, would vndertake by this text to conclude?

Pag. 43. lin. 2. to proue that the Scripture is suf∣ficient in genere regulae for Ministers, you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12. Fight the good fight of fayth, lay hold on eter∣••all life, whereunto thou art called. Ibid. lin. 3. to proue ••he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men, you ••ypher 1. Cor. 2.15. But he that is spirituall, iudgeth all ••hinges, and is iudged of none, which proueth the con∣••rary (if it proue any thing) to wit, that the spiritu∣••ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture, but ra∣••her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him. Pag. ••0. lin. 21. to proue that we wrong you, in saying ••ou derogate from the Church, you cite Matth. 18.••7. He that heareth not the Church, let him be as a Heathen & publican. Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. ••••.17. Obey your Prelates, and submit your selfe vnto them. ••ag. 169. lin. 22. to proue that no Church euer pri∣••••d the oblation & meritts of Christs passion more ••••ghly and religiously then you do, you cypher Heb. ••.14. With one oblation he did consummate for euer the ••••nctifyed: and Ephes. 5.2. He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vs, to a sweet smelling sauour: & Iohn. 1.29. Behold the ••ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world: & ••ct. 4.12. There is not Saluation in any other Name. Pag. ••1. lin. 1. to proue we wrong you by saying, you a∣••••int that (m) 1.137 EVERY particuler MAN examine & ••••dge of the Church & her teaching, you cite 1. Cor. ••.19. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all teachers? ••re all workers of miracles? If one would study to ap∣••••y Scriptures impertinētly, I am persuaded he could ••••rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these, ••hich are so ri••e in euery page of your booke; so that

it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter, to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scrip∣ture, with a crowne vpon it, bidding men to Beh•••••• grace and wisdome in your looke, and Truthes Triumph•••••• your booke. For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome, what I pray you, is the last Extreme an•• Non-plus of (*) 1.138 Folly?

You cite & cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you. §. 8.

HEREVNTO I adde, that the texts you cyphe•• many tymes make agaynst you. Pag. 548. lin. 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Gra•••• and bounty, aswell as of Desert, you cypher Rom. 4▪4. which sayth, to him that worketh, the reward is not rec∣koned of grace, but of debt. Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it? For by this place, ioyned with a sentence of yours, I con∣clude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Me∣rit. The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke, is giuen not of grace, but of debt. But Etern•••• life is tearmed a Crowne of glory, because it is bestowed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes, and in regard of th•• righteousnes, the true inherent dignity, sanctity, and puri∣ty of their workes. Ergo, Eternall life is a reward o•• good workes giuen to Gods children of debt, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty. The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place; the Minor your own•• in so many words pag. 174. in fine. and 1••9. so th•••• the text of Scripture by you cited, proueth inuinci••bly the doctrine of Merit, against which you cite i•• Pag. 558. lin. 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct, by partaking the

••••perabundant satisfaction, you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body, and euery member hath ••ot the same office. This text proueth the contrary to ••hat you intend, to wit, that Satisfactions are com∣municable betwixt Saints: for from this text I ar∣••ue thus. If Saints liuing & Saints deceased be mem∣••ers of the same body, hauing different offices, then ••here must be betwixt them cōmunion in all things which superabound in some members, and are nee∣••ed of other; for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature, the members of ••he same body ought to enioy the one with the o∣••her. But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfacti∣ons superabound in many most rare, innocent and penitent Saints in heauen, and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth, that haue done many sinnes, and cannot do such great pennance. Therfore, the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction, ought to flow downe from decea∣sed Saints in heauen, vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth.

The Iesuite (n) 1.139 sayth, that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart &c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue, nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him; but only to loue sincerely and inwardly, to the keeping of all commandements, without any mortall offence, which breaketh friendship with God, desiring, though not inioying, the happynes of beatificall loue. This, he sayth, is the meaning of S. Bernard, and S. Augustine, when they say the perfe∣ction of the next life is contayned in this precept, to wit, in voto, not in re. This doctrine you impugne pag.

525. lin. 26. saying, That the Saints of God hauing obser∣ued other commandements, brake the first commandement, and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof. How proue you this? marry you cypher Heb. 11.31. They were stoned, they were sawen a sunder, they were slayne with the sword. Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment? That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart? Doth it not rather shew the con∣trary, that they loued God perfectly, and were tem∣porally tormented, because they so loued him with al their hart, that they would rather vndergo most cru∣ell and barbarous deaths, then offend him, or aban∣don the truth of his word, which is, as our Sauiour saith, the highest degree of Charity?

Pag. 10. lin. 20. You deny the Church to be in∣fallible in her Traditions and Definitions; yet (say you) we acknowledge her lawfull authority for ex∣pounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth. In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17. Who so heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican. You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the cōtrary of what you intend. Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior, and your Protestant doctrine the Minor, and put your Argument in forme, then will you see how handsomely you proue, that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church. The Scripture saith, The Church is of so great, & absolute, & infal∣lible authority, that whosoeuer doth not heare her, is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican. Protestants say, the Church is so subiect to errour, and so fallible that euery particuler man of the people, for feare of

being deceaued, (o) 1.140 must examine her teaching, yea your selfe affirme,(p) 1.141 that not whosoeuer contradi∣cteth the whole Church, is to be held as an Heathen and Publican, but only such as oppose the whole Church rashly, without cause, or inordinatly. Ergo, Protestants acknowledge the authority giuen to the Church by the word of God, and consequently her lawfull authority.

Pag. 169. The Iesuit doth charge you to exte∣nuate the value of our Lords passion, in saying that the same doth not purchase, and merit true inward purity, and sanctity to mens soules and actions. A∣gainst this, you say, (q) 1.142 No Christian Church euer pri∣zed the oblation and merits more highly and religi∣ously then we. Great prayse or rather pride; euen the Church of the Apostles were not more religiously deuout vnto, nor more highly conceyted of Christ Iesus, & his passion, then you are. Well, how proue you it? Heb. 10.14. it is written with one oblation he did consummate his sanctifyed for euer. Iohn. 1.29. Behold the Lambe that taketh away the sinns of the world. This is euen iust, as if an Arian should argue in this sort: It is written Iohn. 10.30. I, and and my Father are one. Ergo, Neuer Christian Church prized the diuinity of Christ, nor thought more highly, or religiously of his Equality with his Father, then we. Would not this argument (should an Arian vse it) proue him to be more ridiculous, then religious? And the same force, hath this your argument, as will appeare if we put togeather into forme the propositions thereof, the one Scriptures, the other your Assertion. It is written, that Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the

world, who by his one oblation on the Crosse did consummate the sanctifyed for euer. Protestants (r) 1.143 say, that Christ taketh not away the sinnes of the world▪ but that the same doth truly and properly re∣mayne in iustifyed persons, and is only hidden and not imputed; yea your selfe affirme pag. 170. and 171. That sinne is still adiacent vnto all the vertuous actions of iust men, and that this imperfection & sinfulnes is only co∣uered by Christ his merits and purity, that it be not im∣puted: Ergo, Protestants prize the value of Christs passion, for the effectuall and perfect sanctification, cleansing and consummation of saints, and their acti∣ons, as highly and religiously, as euer did any Chri∣stian Church.

Scriptures abused, and falsifyed. §. 9.

I Will conclude this section with some few Exam∣ples of fraud and falshood in your citing of Scrip∣tures, where you help the dice by addition or subtra∣ction of some particle, or word, to make the Scrip∣ture found on your side: Although I do not doubt, but your scoring vp in cyphers of so many imper∣tinent Texts, though being discouered it be ridicu∣lous, was also not without fraud by you vsed; that you might make shew of Scriptures for such articles of your doctrine, for which you know in cōscience, that no true proofe from Scripture can be produced.

The text, Iohn 5.39. abused, Search the Scriptures.

To begin with the Scriptures themselues, & with a falshood more then once repeated in your Booke; you would shew that the sacred Scripture is so easy, as Vnlearned people may vnderstand the sense thereof,

without relying on the Churches Tradition, & Ex∣position. To this purpose you say Pag. 9. lin. 9. Our Sa∣uiour commanded euen simple people to vse the Scripture. Ioan. 5.39. One would according to this your cita∣tion thinke, that the sacred Text did expresly say, that Search the Scriptures, was spoken vnto simple people: And yet this is a fancy by you cunningly foysted in∣to the text, against the playne euidence therof, which sheweth that, Search the Scriptures, was sayd not to the simple people, but to the Church-magistracy of the Iewes, as these three arguments euince.

First the word Iewes, in the Ghospel of S. Iohn doth signify the Magistracy of the Iewes, excluding the simple people: This might be proued by forty exāples, but this may suffice Iohn. 7.13.* 1.144 There was much mutte∣ring about him (our Sauiour) amongst the cōmon people, yet none durst speake openly of him, for feare of the Iewes. Behold the Iewes opposed & cōdistinguished against cōmon people, & feared of them, wherby it is mani∣fest, that by the Iewes, the Gospel of S. Iohn doth vn∣derstand the Magistracy of the Iewes. But certayne it is, that our Sauiour sayd, search the Scriptures, to the Iewes, according to the signification of that word in the Gospell of S. Iohn: Dixit Iesus Iudaeis, Scrutamini Scripturas &c.* 1.145 Therefore the wordes were sayd to the Magistracy of the Iewes, the common people being excluded.

Secondly, our Sauiour doth testify, that he sayd search the Scriptures vnto them, that sent the Embas∣sage vnto Iohn, to know what he was,* 1.146 vos misistis ad Ioannem. But cleere it is that the authours of this Embassage were not the simple people, but the Church-magistracy of the Iewes. Ergo, Not vnto simple

people, but vnto Church-men, and Church-magi∣strates did our Sauiour say, search the Scriptures.

Thirdly, our Sauiour sayd search the Scriptures vn∣to men highly persuaded of the sole-sufficiēcy of the Scripture, thinking in them to haue eternall life. This appeareth by the text,* 1.147 search the Scriptures, be∣cause in them you thinke to haue eternall life. Hence they would not belieue in our Sauiour, neyther vpon the testimony of Iohn; nor vpon the testimony of his workes and miracles, nor vpon the testimony of his Fathers voyce from heauen. Now, that the simple peo∣ple were thus conceyted of Scriptures, agaynst the miracles of our Sauiour, we haue no groūd to think; whereas that the Church-magistracy of the Iewes, was thus conceyted, the Gospell doth expressely de∣clare. There we reade how they appealed from his miracles to Moyses his bookes, bidding such as were lead away by his workes,* 1.148 to search the Scriptures, & see that our Sauiour could not be the Prophet. Ther∣fore to these men, standing vpon the testimony of Scripture, & sole-sufficiency therof vnto eternal life, & not to simple People, did our Sauiour say, Search the Scriptures, because in them you thinke that you haue eter∣nall life, without me, wheras euen these giue testimony of me.

Hence appeareth another falsificatiō of this place, by cogging in your own conceyt as it were, the very Text, to wit, that our Sauiour by these words gaue a command to vse scriptures. For it is cleere he did not by way of command say to the Iewes search the Scrip∣turs, but by way of permission, in respect of their ob∣stinacy, whereby they would not without Scripture belieue in him, vpon other most sufficient diuine

testimonies. So that search the Scriptures, because in them you thinke to haue eternall life, hath this sense: Seing you will not be wonne to belieue vpon the testimony of Iohn, nor, of my miracles, nor, of my Fathers voyce from heauen, but appeale from these testimonyes vnto Scrip∣tures, thinking that in them you haue eternall life, search the Scriptures in Gods name, I am content; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do not superficially looke vpon thē but search deeply into them, for being thus searched into, they yield testimony vnto me.

Certainly, if our Sauiour had been of the Prote∣stants mind, and would haue giuen the precept they pretend▪ he would not haue sayd to the Iewes, search the Scriptures, because in them you thinke that you haue e∣ternall life, but, search the scriptures, because in them only eternall life is to be had, or, because nothing ne∣cessary vnto eternall life is to be belieued vntill it be cleerly proued by them. This he doth not say, but ra∣ther rebuketh the Iewes for this their Ministerial cō∣ceite, that nothing is to be belieued vpon any other testimo∣ny without Scripture. He did not therfore command thē to vse the Scriptures, but seing them obstinatly addi∣cted vnto only Scripture, he permitted them to pro∣ceed in their own way: Euen as whē Protestants cā∣not be wonne to belieue neither the testimony of Iohn, that is, the consent of Fathers, nor the testimony of Christs works, that is, of myracles done daily in his Church, nor the Fathers liuely voyce from heauen, that is, Gods word vnwritten; we at last say vnto them, Search the Scriptures, for euen they giue testimony vn∣to the Catholike doctrine.

Hence two thinges appeare. First that your two assertions that Christ saying search the Scriptures,

did command, and command euen simple people to vse Scriptures, be two fancyes of your owne, foysted into the Scripture not by way of interpretation, but by way of Historical Relation of the sacred text, which is grosse abuse thereof. Secondly, that if we search deepely into this text, Search the Scriptures, the same doth cleerly condemne the Protestant fancy, that only Scripture is the rule of fayth, and shewes this to haue been the ground and principle of Iewish In∣fidelity.

The text Matth. 24.24 That euen the elect be deceaued, were it possible, grossely applied.

THVS you write pag. 586. Although the Tradition, and teaching of the Church be fallible, yet vnlearned people where they inioy the free vse of Scripture, as in an∣cient times all people did; and if they be carefull of their saluation, and desire to know the truth, God blesseth his owne Ordinance, and ordinarily assisteth them by grace, in such sort as they shall not be seduced to damnation. Math. 24.24. Thus you encourage simple people to be proud and obstinate in their priuate fancies, agaynst the teaching and tradition of the Church: For in this speach you assure thē, that reading their vulgar Bible, if they be carefull of their saluation, and desire to know the truth, though they will not regard the Church, as the pillar, ground, and infallible Mistresse of truth; yet God will so blesse and assist them, as they shall not be seduced into dānable errour. Now what is the bane of Christianity, but this false and proud persuasion inserted into the heads of Sots? Trinita∣rians, Anabaptists, Arians, Brownists, Familians, do they not desire to know the truth, who to that end so stu∣diously

peruse their Bible? Be they not carefull of their Saluation that goe so readily to the fyre, rather then abandon the doctrine which by their skill in the Vulgar Bible, they iudge to be the sauing Truth? In these Wretches you may see, how in men desirous to know the truth God blesseth the ordināce of reading the vulgar Bible, without regard had to the Church, as an infallible Mistresse.

And as your doctrine is the seed & springe of heresy, so is the text of Scripture Matth. 24.24. most violently drawne to confirme it. For what sayth the text? They (the false Prophets) shall doe great signes & wonders, that euen the elect be induced into errour, if it be possible. By which text it is cleere that the elect people of God, cannot be finally intrapped in damnable errour. This is vnderstood (as Deuines speake) in sensu composito, that is, they cannot be deceaued, be∣cause God ordaynes and foresees that they shall vse the meanes to know sauing Truth; which meanes is to cleaue vnto the Tradition of the Church, not trusting their owne skill. Now then with what en∣gines can you, from this truth, wrest your Paradoxe that men desyrous of the truth, reading the vulgar Bible, cannot be damned? Are all men desirous of the truth that reade the Bible, Gods elect? If Heretiks dispute in this manner: The Elect cannot be seduced vnto dam∣nation. Ergo, If they presume on their skill in the Bible not respecting the Churches doctrine as infallible, they shall not be seduced vnto damnation. Why may not murderers argue in like sort? The elect cannot be damned, Therefore if they commit murder euery day, and so perseuer vntill the end, they cannot be damned. This argument is as good as yours. For the contemners

of the Church can no more be saued thē murderers, if our Sauiour say true, who so heareth not the Church, let him to thee as a Heathen and Publican.

The text, Act. 17.11. about the Beroeans, abused.

TO the same purpose of encouraging simple Peo∣ple to follow their fancyes, gotten by reading their vulgar Bible you say pag. ••87. Vnlearn••d people by comparing the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture, may certainly know whether it erreth, or not. Act. 17.11. Thus you. What sayth the text that thence you may make such deductiōs? These were more Noble then those of Thessalonica, who receaued the word with all readines of mind, searching dayly whether these thinges were so. Now behold your manifold abuse of this sacred Narra∣tion.

First, the text doth not say, these Beroeans were vnlearned; how then can you hence conclude any thinge for the ability of vnlearned people to search the Scriptures? Agayne, the Text doth not say, that by comparing the doctrine of Paul with Scripture, they came to know certaynly, that the doctrine of Paul was true; but only that belieuing his doctrine, they searched the Scriptures about the same, without mention of the successe of their search. And if they were resolued by Scripture, this was only in one poynt, to wit, whether Iesus were the Messias, about which the Scriptures are cleere and expresse. How thē can you hence proue that vnlearned people may know certainly whether the doctrine of the Church be true, by comparing the same with Scripture, in so many mayne articles of Controuersy about Fayth, whereof some (as you (a) 1.149 confesse) are only impli∣cately

contayned in the Scripture, and must by the rules of Logicke and Deduction, be thence wrunge out.

Finally, the Beroeās read the Scriptures, only for their greater cofirmatiō in Fayth, in case they should find by their priuate reading, the doctrine of S. Paul to agree with the Scripture. They read not by way of doubt∣full examination, that is, with purpose not to belieue S. Paul, if so they should not find the Scriptures to yield playne testimony vnto his doctrine. That they read not in this manner, is cleere. For the Scripture sayth, that before they searched the Scripture, they receaued the word with all alacrity, and readines of mind: But if they had been doubtfull of S. Pauls doctrine & had (to cleere that doubt) gone to search the Scrip∣tures, it could not haue been truly sayd of them, that they receaued the word with alacrity, and all readi∣nes of mind, and afterward searched the Scriptures. Therefore they did not search Scriptures by way of doubtfull examination, but with full resolution, to belieue S. Pauls doctrine, euen in case they should not find by their priuate industry, the same cleerly deli∣uered in the Scripture. How then may you by this example make good your Protestant doctrine, that Vnlearned People may compare the doctrine of the Church with the Scripture, in doubting manner, that is, with intention not to belieue the Church in case they should not be able to discouer her do∣ctrine by priuate reading in their vulgar Bible? Or, in case, that in the seeming of their priuate iudg∣ment, the Scripture should appeare as opposite vnto the Church?

The Text, 1. Iohn. 1.8. If wee say wee haue no sinne &c. falsifyed.

WHEREAS the Iesuit (pag▪ 550.) sayth out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, that the Blessed Virgin neuer committed actuall sinne; you (pag. 551.) reply, It is a manifest vntruth. For S. Iohn speaking in the person of all the Elect, sayth, 1. Iohn. 1.8. If wee say we haue no sinne, we deceaue our selues and there is no truth in vs. And vers. 10. If we say we haue not sinned, we make him a lyar, and his word is not in vs. And pag. 517. much more bitterly thus you write to this purpose. If our aduersaries wil be so gracelesse, as to make any man in this life (except the Holyest of the Holyes 1. Petr. 2.22.) free from sinne, the Apostle enrolleth him in the blacke booke of damnable lyars 1. Iohn. 1.10. And they may with Acesius the No∣uatian borrow a ladder, and so climbe vp alone to heauen, yea rather fall to Hell; for who are more desperatly sicke quàm qui mentem febribus perdiderunt, then they which by the feauer of pride, haue lost the vnderstanding of their sinfull condition? Thus you: which you cannot deny to be bitter in excesse. What is the Iesuits fault? No other but this: he sayth, that not only Christ Ie∣sus, the holyest of the holyes, was by nature, & Hyposta∣ticall Vnion impeccable, but also, (*) 1.150 that his Holy Mother was pure from all actuall sinne, by speciall grace.

And why is this so great and damnable an of∣fence? Marry; because S. Iohn sayth, If wee say wee haue not sinned, wee make God a lyar, and this he spake not in the person of only ordinary Saynts, but in the person of all the Elect, euen of Saynts as singularly

chosen as the Blessed Virgin. This is the ground of your bitternes. But first, though the Scripture had sayd, that all the elect commit actuall sinne, yet per∣chance not without warrant we might except the mother of God; but I will not stand herein agaynst you. Shew in Gods word this text, all the elect haue sin∣ned, or this: S. Iohn sayd in the person of al the elect, If we say we haue no sinne we deceaue our selues, & the Iesuit presently yieldes. What can you wish more? But if, in the persō of all the Elect, be as in truth it is, your ad∣dition vnto the text, ioyned therwith so cunningly as it may seeme the very letter of Gods word, what may we thinke of you, but only that your rayling agaynst vs, is not so bitter, but your iniury vnto Gods word is greater.

I adde, that to say S. Iohn spake the aforesayd wordes in the person of all the Elect, not only is not the text, but also agaynst the text, except wee will make S. Iohn excessiue in the conceyte of himselfe. For thus I argue. It is manifest, S. Iohn spake the words aforesayd in the person of such Saynts, in the number of which he ranketh himselfe, If WEE say that WEE haue no sinne. But S. Iohn could not with∣out pride ranke himselfe in the number of Saynts as singularly chosen as was the glorious Virgin, so that if the sense of his saying be, If we, that is, Saynts as singularly priuiledged as Gods Blessed mother, say wee haue not sinned, we deceaue our selues, what can be more arrogant? Luther (a) 1.151 indeed hath left be∣hind him written: We are all as holy as the Virgin Mary; but that S. Iohn euer sayd it, or thought it, the Minister will neuer an able to proue. So that without any question (as also the (b) 1.152 Fathers note) S. Iohn

spake in the persō only of al cōmon holy Christians, among whō he might without pride nūber himself.

As for your reproaches so many & so bitter, for two reasons you are to be pityed: first, for that your passion against the Iesuit, is either so blind as you see not what lyeth before you, or so fierce as not to spare him, you let contumelious tearmes fly, that must light on the head of the holy Fathers. For this is your cēsure. They that hold any (except the Ho∣lyest of the Holyes,) to haue been free from actuall sinne, are gracelesse, & are by S. Iohn enrolled in the blacke booke of damnable lyars; mentem febribus perdiderunt, they haue lost their witts by the phrensy of pride. Now, vnder this your Censure I subsume a knowne and vndeniable truth: But holy Fathers exempt the Blessed Virgen frō actuall sinne, not only S. (c) 1.153 Ber∣nard, S. (d) 1.154 Anselme, but also S. (e) 1.155 Athanasius, S. (f) 1.156 Gregory, S. (g) 1.157 Ambrose, yea S. Augustine, (h) 1.158 who thus speaketh for them all: In matter of sinne, no mention is to be made of the mother of our Lord, she is not included in the generall sentences of that kind: Scimus enim &c. For wee KNOVV, WEE ARE CER∣TAINE, that vnto her, singular Grace was giuē to conquer sinne euery way. What is hence consequent? That except you recall your Censure, you must censure the Fathers, as Gracelesse, Dānable lyars, Franticke fooles, so great is your passion, and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit.

Secondly, you are to be pittyed, in regard your passion is so extreme, as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner. You say, that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate, and pure from actuall sinne, is like

to Acesius the Nouatian, who thought himselfe pure and innocent, and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme, so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen, but only that of In∣nocency. What can be more inept, then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect? If the Ie∣suite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne, doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe, as did the Nouatian? May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin, and yet himselfe a sinfull man, crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers? And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted & pure from sinne, doth it follow, that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners, & allow no lad∣der vnto heauen, but only that of purity, taking a∣way the other of pennance? Surely, you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull, but also witlesse. The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions, and Marginall proofes. In your text you say, The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne, hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride. In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian, Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit, aut superbus, aut stultus est? who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne, is eyther proud, or a foole. Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe? Let the same be put into forme, & then you will perchance presently feele it. Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin, is a proud foole. The Ie∣suit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne. Ergo, The Iesuit is a proud foole. Verily, the Iesuit is not so

great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing, which is iust as good as this: Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest, & learnedst Deuine of this age, is a very foole. But Francis White thin∣keth Iohn Caluin the holyest, and learnedst Deuine of this age. Ergo, Francis White is a very foole. Sup∣pose you were thus conceyted of Caluin, and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same, would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men?

Other falsifications I might yet further discouer, as pag. 5. lin. 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible,* 1.159 you bring the Donatists obie∣ction; The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth. 2. Thessal. 2.2. these words from heauēly truth, are added to the Text: for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection, or reuolt, which most Exposi∣tours vnderstand, from the Roman Empire.

And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18. He that is begot∣ten of God SINNETH NOT, for the Diuine generation keepeth him, and the wicked One toucheth him not; you omit, sinneth not, that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle a∣gaynst, that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne.

Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine, that Saints though they sinne venially, yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law: For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further, then they are necessary vnto eternall life; but Veniall sinne destroyeth, or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life. Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin. 20. If iust men haue any sinne, they performe not all the Diuine

law requireth; for euery sinne is a transgression of the Di∣uine law, 1. Iohn. 3.4. Heere to the Text of your En∣glish Bible, you adde Diuine, the Text being, Euery sin is a transgression of the Law, or of a Law. And this sen∣tence is true: for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law, because they are not against Charity and Saluation; yet they are against the law of reason, which bindeth mē, as much as may be, not to be forgetfull & inconsiderate euen in small mat∣ters. And though some sentences of Scripture recō∣mend these small thinges vnto vs, it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason, not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs, Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer, for breuityes sake.

Ignorance, Fraud, and Falshood in alleadging Fathers, and all manner of Authours. SECT. V.

IN this subiect I might be large, you being copious in your quotations, whereof scarce one is to be found, which being examined to the originall, is not eyther impertinent, or wre∣sted agaynst the Authours mind, or falsifyed by mis∣translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke, and hardly worth the labour, and no wayes necessary. For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt▪ it is not needfull, that he drinke vp the whole mayne,

two or three tasts taken heere and there may suffici∣ently resolue him of this truth; so foure or fiue exam∣ples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue, to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents, that they may see whome they trust, in a busines that doth so highly import.

These your falsifications are of two kinds, some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Craf∣ty falsification is, when to draw Authours to your purpose, in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it, or detract frō it some words or particles, thereby changing the sense, or else cite their words truly, but contrary to their meaning. Grosse falsifica∣tion, is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Au∣thours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth sig∣nify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth, That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church, to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine, by the wylinesse of men, to circum∣uent weakelings in errour. What be the blasts of hereti∣call doctrine, but their violent and audacious falsify∣ings of Scriptures and Fathers? What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour, but crafty corruption, by stea∣ling away, or cogging in words, in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity. The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies properly, cogging of the dyce, or hel∣ping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please: Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee, by cogging wordes in & out of the Text, make Scriptures & Fa∣thers speak as they please. This your cogging in Scri∣pture is already discouered. Now about the Fathers.

Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine, about Scrip∣ture and Tradition, falsifyed. §. 1.

TO note some few of the many. Pag. 22. lin. 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Prote∣stant fancy, that men are resolued in fayth, by the resplendent Verity, and euidence of the Christian Do∣ctrine, you cite him as saying: (*) 1.160 Manifest Verity is to be pr••fered before all other thinges, wherby I am h••ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word, other is cogged into the text, to change the sense, as if S. Augustine had sayd, I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine, amongst other the manifest ve∣rity of the things reuealed, & this is the chiefest of all. S. Augustines true text is, manifest verity so cleerly shew∣ed, as no doubt therof can be made, praeponenda est om∣nibus, is to be preferred before all these thinges, whereby I am held in the Catholike Church. Hence it is cleere, that the manifest Verity was not the stay, and motiue of S. Augustines fayth. For what is preferred before all the motiues, that stayed him in the Catholike Church, was none of his motiues: But (he saith) that man••f••st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made, is to be preferred before all his motiues. Ergo, S▪ Augustin was not befooled with this foppery, that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendēt verity of the doctrine, and thinges reuealed in Scrip∣ture.

Neere to the same (a) 1.161 place, you cite S. Augustine (b) 1.162 saying, That former councells are corrected by latter: Whence you inferre, that the Tradition of the Church is fallible. For what sentence of the Church is infallible, if that of Councells be fallible, In which

(say you) some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesia∣sticall authority. Heere you shew Ignorance and Fal∣shood. Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes: For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope, & others the Pope before the Councell, in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined, which case yet neuer happened; yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles, before both Pope and Councell. For how can we know, that Church definitions made by Pope & Councell be infallible, but by Tradition? Some may say, that is cleerly pro∣ued by Scripture. It is true; but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe, to be the Apostles Scripture, but by Tradition? How should we be so sure, that we truly expound the Texts aright, did we not see the Tradition, and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures?

Your Falshood is, in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence, which had you set down,* 1.163 it would haue been euidēt, that he doth attribute fallibility, and corrigibility vnto Councells, only in matters of fact, or Ecclesia∣sticall Lawes about manners. For the whole sen∣tence is, Amongst plenary Councells the former are corre∣cted by the latter, cùm experimento rerum &c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges, something is brought to light which before was hidden. Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience, but the truth of mat∣ters of fact is, of which One sayth:

Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas.

Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth, but of matters of fact, or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners, which in some cases, tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient, & therefore to be recalled.

In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) 1.164 held, that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued, you cite him, saying: (e) 1.165 Ecclesiasticall Iudges, as men, may be deceaued: and (f) 1.166 the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles, may be questioned and called into doubt. I do not doubt but you know in your con∣science, that S. Augustine in both the places, is allead∣ged oppositely to his meaning. In the first place, he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth, but about errors in matters of fact, or Church iudgments, concerning criminall causes. For this is his whole sentence: The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ, as to say, that men condemned by him as wicked, may validely baptize; but such as she doth condemne, may not, seeing He in his iudgements neuer er∣reth, whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued. Who doth not see, that you wrong Saint Augustine, to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church, hand to hand from the Apostles, by the succession of Bishops, to be fallible? And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony. For he spea∣keth of single Bishops, considered ech of them by themselues, that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour, and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture; thence inferring, that the Donatists should not wonder, that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian, agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes: so

cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops, not of Tra∣dition by the full consent of Bishops.

Pag. 37. lin. 33. For only Scripture, you cite the same S. August. as thus writing: (g) 1.167 The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children, the Scriptures of the Old & New Testamēt. You corrupt this place by addition & false translation. First, by adding to the text the word only, to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued, which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture: where∣as (h) 1.168 he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes: Sundry thinges (to wit of fayth, such as was the doctrine that Bap∣tisme giuen by Heretiks is valide,) are most iustly be∣lieued to be the Apostles, though they be no where written in the Scriptures. Secondly, S. August. sayth not as you trāslate, that the Churches two breasts are the Scrip∣tures of the Old & New Testamēt (for thē it would follow, that she hath no milke in her two breasts, but written doctrine;) but he sayth her two breasts, are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures. Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts, in ech of the Testaments, the milke of Scripture is contayned, but that only the milke of writtē doctrine is in them contayned, you cannot from this text truly cited inferre, & therefore both by addition, and transposi∣tion of wordes you help the dyce.

To proue, That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority, but from Scripture, and that though this Tradition might be false, yet Fayth would subsist, be∣cause there remayneth allwayes an higher, and more soue∣raigne Iudge, to wit, God speaking in the Scripture; To proue this, I say, you (i) 1.169 cite this text of (k) 1.170 S. Au∣gustine:

It is placed as it were in an high throne of autho∣rity, vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect. What is this? Why doe you not name it? Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede, which make cleerly agaynst you, to wit these: (l) 1.171 The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures, confirmed in the Apostles dayes, is by SVC∣CESSIONS of Bishops & propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority &c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that, which you would proue thereby? How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture, if the Scripture, by suc∣cessiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand, frō the Apo∣stles, hath gotten (quoad nos, in the persuasion of the Christian world) the high seate of Diuine authority, to be honoured as Gods word, vnto which euery mā must yield? If this successiue Tradition, on which (as S. Augustine teacheth) our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes, be made weake & fallible by Protestants, how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit, and authority in our Fayth? Verily it cannot, except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing, and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops, & hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture, by the sent, and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein, as you doe.

Likewise by addition of the Particle Only, you falsify the saying of (*) 1.172 Paschasius. For whereas he (m) 1.173 sayth, Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world, you cite him as saying, Only with the elect. More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus: for whereas (n) 1.174 he sayth, Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his

Godhead, but with the Elect in another manner; you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect; con∣trary to his meaning, who teacheth, that the pre∣sence, and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church, & her Pastors, that they may not erre, but still teach all that he cōmanded: but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh, is not only affoarded vnto the Elect, but vnto wicked men, for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants, as your selfe (o) 1.175 affirme.

You (q) 1.176 rayle bitterly against the Iesuit, for prouing, that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church, nor part thereof, because you seue∣red your selues from the Roman Church, and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors, but aparted your selues frō the Commu∣nion of the whole world. For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe, pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue: They, since their Synode (of Trēt) haue proceeded from euill to worse, (s) 1.177 obscuring & outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry. They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States, they haue surpas∣sed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems, and immane cruelty. And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution, yet this Ro∣man Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme & Apostasy; neuer remembring what (*) 1.178 S. Augustine long since deliuered; The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed, when there is no iust cause of Separation. Thus by long continued, fierce, bitter blasts of false reproach, you diriue your

vnwary Reader vpō the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Do∣ctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt & sepa∣ratiō from all Christiā Churches. What can be more false? He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had se∣uered themselues from the Christian world, preten∣ding that Caeciliā Bishop of Carthage, & other Catho∣likes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire. S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes: First be∣cause this pretence were it true, is not iust, for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world, and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church. These be his wordes: (t) 1.179 We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world. And againe: It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the cō∣munion of the whole World, and so tearme themselues the Church, because vpō iust cause they haue deuided thēselues from the Society of all nations. Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him? Or more efficacious to conclude, that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme?

Secondly (sayth S. Augustine) the cause you Do∣natist pretend is nulla, none at all; it is an vntruth, (u) 1.180 Caecilian hauing cleered himselfe from that crime, and byn absolued in all maner of Courtes: Yea though the same were true, yet by (x) 1.181 your owne principles, it is conuinced to be no iust cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schisme▪ but most eminent and notorious Schisme. For then is * 1.182 the Sacriledge of Schisme most notoriously eminent, when there was NO cause of separation. He doth not say,

When there is no iust cause of separation, Schisme is cōmitted, as though there might be some iust cause, and then Schisme is not committed; but when there is no cause of all, which may with any colour, or shew be pretended for separation, then Schisme is not only committed (for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soeuer be pretended) but then, it is noto∣riously & most euidently committed. Behold how chan∣ging the text of S. Augustine, and agaynst Iustice cogging into the same the word, iust, you make his speach to haue a sense, iust contrary to his meaning. How iustly might I charge you with obscuring & out∣facing of the truth by forgery, which calumniously, without any proofe, you obiect vnto the Sacred Councell of Trent? But like to like, such a Religion, such an Aduocate.

Seauen Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed. §. 2.

LET vs also discouer some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine. For the fulnes of Scripture about all poynts of fayth, you cite these wordes of (*) 1.183 S. Cyprian: Christian Re∣ligion findes, that from this Scripture the rules of all lear∣ning flow, and that whatsoeuer is contayned in the disci∣pline of the Church, doth arise from this, and is resolued into this. These wordes Puritans might better then you alleadge for their Geneuian Principle, that not only Church-doctrine, but also Church-discipline must be contayned in Scripture, & proued by the cleere Texts thereof. But happily they neuer saw it, or if they did, they durst not be so impudent, as to alledge it, as you do, agaynst the meaning of the Authour.

For S. Cyprian speakes not of the whole volume of Scripture, but only of twelue or thirteene wordes therof, to wit, this little sentēce: (z) 1.184 Loue thy Lord God with all thy hart, & thy neighbour as thy selfe. This would haue appeared, had you not omitted the wordes immediatly precedent in the very same sentence, Let Christian Religion reade this one word, and meditate on this commandment, and it shall find, that from this Scrip∣ture the Rules of all learning flow &c.

And this example may serue to make euident to the eye, your perpetuall Protestant Impertinency in alleadging wordes of the Fathers, in which they commend the perfection & fulnes of Scripture, for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture. For the Fa∣thers meaning is, that all is contayned in Scripture in a generall, and confuse manner, not so particu∣larly, and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary poynts of Fayth. This is cleere, for what they say of the whole Scripture, they say of some principall particle thereof, as of this: Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart, and thy neighbour as thy selfe: But no man that is in his iudgment, will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Fayth, for all necessary poynts of Doctrine and Discipline: Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can inforce no more, then that all is con∣tayned in Scripture in some generall manner, not so particularly, but that for explication and distinctiō of many poynts, the rule of Churches Tradition is necessary.

For the clarity of Scriptures, that vnto them that know not the Tradition of the Church, they are easy, you (b) 1.185 cite S. (c) 1.186 Chrysostome: Scriptures are not

like Metalls which haue neede of workemen TO DIGGE THEM OVT, but they deliuer a treasure ready at hand to them which seeke hidden riches in them. It is sufficient that thou looke into them &c. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome, by adding vnto it to digge thē out, whe∣reby you make both the Father to contradict him∣selfe, and his speach to be senselesse. For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof, as he sayth, how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching? How it is inough to looke into the booke to find it? Had you digged deepely into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome, you would perchance haue found out his true meaning, & not haue imposed vpon him this false, and pernicious doctrine.

S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines, doth consider that a double labour is to be vndergone. The one to digge out that earth wherwith Gold is mingled. The other to seuer the gold frō the earth. The first labour he sayth is necessary, that we find out the Treasure, & true sense of Scripture: we must (sayth (d) 1.187 he) not only looke into the booke, not only at∣tend to the bare reading, but we are cōmanded to DIGGE DEEPELY, that wee may find out the thinges that lye hidden in the bottome. For wee digge not for a thinge that lyes open, and READY AT HAND, but for a treasure that is hidden in the deepe. Thus S. Chrysostome. How di∣rectly against his mind do you make him say, that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand, and obuious, as we need not digge for it?

In respect of the second labour, to wit, of seue∣ring drosse from Gold when the same is found, this labour S. Chrysost. sayth is needlesse, in regard of the

Scripture.* 1.188 In Mines (sayth he) men haue difficulty to ••ind out what they hunt for. The Mines being earth, and Gold also earth, this likenes and similitude confoundeth ••he sight, not to discerne the one from the other. In scriptu∣••es it is not so, the doctrine proposed therein being not gold mingled with earth, but pure Gold; (the word of God is pure syluer refined wilth fire) so that the Scriptu∣res be not mettals that require workemē (to seuer in their doctrine Drosse from Gold;) they offer a ready and re∣fined treasure to them that seeke the riches hidden in them. Thus S. Chrysostome, and he doth there largely dis∣course, how euery thinge in Scriptures, euen the Chronologies, and proper Names of men do affoard wholesome and profitable doctrine to the Reader; but to find this treasure, we must not (as he there sayth) nudam tantùm scripturam aspicere, sed insistere, & cum studio repositas scrutari opes, not only looke vpon the Scripture, but insist, & with study search out the riches hoarded vp therein. Haue you not thē notoriously falsifyed the sense of his discourse, by the insertion of words of your owne?

In the behalfe of your Protestant sole-sufficiency of Scripture, you cite (d) 1.189 this sentence of Durand tearming, him A famous Scholeman: Ecclesia licèt Dei Dominationem habeat in terris, illa tamen non excedit li∣mitationem Scripturae. Although the Church haue the power & authority of God vpon earth, yet that au∣thority doth not exceed the limitation of the Scrip∣ture. This place is by you alleadged many tymes in this your Reply, but most impertinently. For his meaning is, that the Church, though it haue the authority of God vpon earth, (e) 1.190 yet the same power is in some cases restrayned and limited by the Scrip∣ture.

In which respect the Church cannot dispense in many thinges wherein God might dispense: In (f) 1.191 particuler she cannot, (saith he) exempt slaues that be made Christians from their subiection vnto their old Ma••sters, because that the Scripture doth expressely teach, that Slaues conuerted vnto the Fayth, are to be still subiect to their former Maisters, though their Maisters be Infidels. Thus Durand. Now what is this to the purpose of prouing, that men are bound to belieue nothing but what is cleerly contayned in Scripture? Except, ac∣cording to your skill in Logicke, you will argue in this sort; The Church cannot do the thinges for∣bidden her in Scripture, because her power is not beyond the restraynt thereof giuen in the Scripture Ergo, she cannot belieue, & teach doctrines propo∣sed vnto her by the rule of Tradition without Scrip∣ture, which is a thinge commended vnto her in Scripture; Hold the Traditions you haue, whether by speach, or by Epistle. 2. Thessal. 2.15.

How many tymes in this your Reply haue you cited this testimony of the Maister of the Sentences, (g) 1.192 God doth not still follow the iudgment of the Church, which sometimes, through ignorance and surreption, iud∣geth not according to truth. This I say, you cite (h) 1.193 to proue, that the Church may erre in fayth, at the least, about secondary articles. And yet it is most cer∣tayne and euident, that he speakerh of iudgment in criminall causes. For hence he inferretth, (i) 1.194 the Church-mē must not thinke because Christ said vnto them, whatsoeuer you bind or loose vpon earth, shall be bound & loosed in Heauen, that therefore they may condemne the Innocent and absolue the Nocent. For God in such case

doth not follow their sentence, but iudgeth according to the life of the accused.

To prooue that the Roman Bishop was not anciently acknowledged the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church, you say pag. 161. lin. 15. Pope Stephen was sleighted by S. Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa. In proofe whereof you cite in your mar∣gent (g) 1.195 these wordes of Firmilian (h) 1.196: Atque ego in ••ac parte iuste indignor in tam manifestam & apertam Ste∣••hani stultitiam, quòd qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloria∣••ur, & se successionem Petri tenere contendit. And indeed I am iustly grieued against the open & manifest fol∣••y of Stephen, that he so much glorieth of the digni∣ty of his Bishopricke, and standeth vpon his hauing the succession of Peter. Thus you. Now behold your falshood (for I omit your ignorāce in naming Firmi∣••ian as a Bishop of Africa, whereas he was a Bishop ••f the East, to wit of (i) 1.197 Caesarea in Cappadocia). Your Legier-de-maine, I say, and falshood is twofold. First, you omit to let your Reader know that this Firmilian when he wrote this Epistle, was a Quarta∣••eciman, and also addicted to the Errour of Rebapti∣••ing thē that had been baptized by Heretiks. And because S. Stephen a most (k) 1.198 Holy Pope & Martyr had made a decree against their Nouelty, (l) 1.199 Nihil innouādum prae∣••erquam quod traditum, Let no nouelty be admitted, ••ut let the ancient Tradition be kept; this Firmilian wrote against him an Epistle full of sharpe & contu∣melious speach. Had you mentioned this quality of Firmilian, which I do not doubt but you knew, your impertinency would haue been apparent. For this supposed, your Argument goeth thus. Some Bishops, specially Firmilian, erring against Fayth, and bla∣sted

for the tyme with the spirit of Heresy, wrote a cōtemptuous Epistle against the Sea of Peter. Ergo, the Sea of Peter is not by diuine Institution, the Rocke of the Church, agaynst which the gates of hell (all Here∣syes) should (rage, but) neuer preuayle.

Secondly, you notoriously falsify the sentence of Firmilian, in making him to rayle against the Ro∣man Bishops being the successour of Peter. For this, euen in that his Hereticall passion (wherof he after∣ward was (m) 1.200 penitent) he neuer did; yea he doth ra∣ther acknowledge the Roman Bishops succession frō Peter, and thence argueth, that seeing to Peter only, Christ said, To thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen &c. that Pope Stephen should least of all mē admit, that Heretikes who cleaue not to Peters Sea, can validely baptize. For his true words by you falsi∣fyed and curtalled, are these: And (n) 1.201 herein I do iustly fret against the open and manifest folly of Stephen, that, seeing he doth so glory of the dignity of his Bishopricke, and standeth so much vpon his being the successour of Pe∣ter, on whome the foundations of the Church were layd, that he will bring in two rockes, and the buildings of many Churches, whiles by his authority he doth man∣taine, that in them (Churches alien from Peters Sea, or rocke) true baptisme is giuen. Thus Firmilian: whence it is cleere that he did not reuile S. Stephen, in respect of his clayming Primacy and authority by succession from Peter (as you make him to your purpose to do) but that being the successour of Peter, he vrged this his Primacy against Anabaptisme; whereas he should rather in Firmilian his opinion, haue been (o) 1.202 zea∣lous

in denying the validity of Baptisme, giuē by He∣retiks, who euer impugne the vnity of Peters Chaire.

Whereas your Aduersary saith, that the Scrip∣ture, to them that know Tradition, is abundantly sufficient, but without Tradition not: Against this (p) 1.203 you vrge this saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis: (*) 1.204 The Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and sufficient in it selfe for all matters, yea more then sufficient. Verily this is sufficient, & more then sufficient to shew the beg∣gary of your Religion: otherwise this testimony so impertinent would not be by you and your fellowes so perpetually (q) 1.205 alleadged. For Lyrinensis doth not say▪ that the Canon of the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, but only, the same is supposed in an obiection or question mooued vnto him: In answere whereto Lyrinensis doth shew, that this supposed suf∣ficiency is not such, but of necessity the rule of Tradition must be ioyned therewith.

I know you are not ignorant of the Text, you haue read it, but read it I pray you, once againe, & therin read the conuiction of your falshood. Some (s) 1.206 may ASKE, seeing the Canon of the scripture is perfect, and sufficient vnto it selfe, in all thinges, what need is there that the authority of Ecclesiasticall interpretation be ioy∣ned therewith? Because all do not vnderstand the holy Scripture in the same sense; & this in respect of the depth, (or difficulty) thereof, that the same passage is taken this way by one, and that way by another; so that as many dissonant interpretatiōs may seemingly be brought therof as there be interpreters &c. Hence in regard of the manifold windings and turnings of Errour, it is (t) 1.207 VERY NE∣CESSARY, that the line of Propheticall and Apostoli∣call doctrine be squared, according to the (u) 1.208 RVLE of

the ECCLESIASTICALL sense.

In this Testimony two things are affirmed contra∣ry to the purpose you bring it. First that the sufficien∣cy of Scripture is not so full, nor so perfect, as is sup∣posed in the question; the Scripture being deepe, dark, difficile, that setting Traditiō aside in lieu of one cer∣tayne assured Truth, one may find therein manifold windings and turnings of Errour. Secondly, that in this respect the Scripture cānot be the only rule of Fayth, but it is NECESSARY, and VERY NECESSA∣RY, that besides Scripture, we allow the RVLE of Church-Tradition, or Exposition. You knowing this, as you did, with what conscience could you cite this place for the sole-sufficiency of Scripture, & so many tymes cite it, taking a thing falsely suppo∣sed in the Question for the doctrine of the Authour?

Pag 44. lin. 24. to proue the Perspicuity of the Scripture in it selfe, without the light of Tradition for all necessary points, you cite the wordes of Ire∣naeus: All the (x) 1.209 Scriptures both Propheticall & Euangeli∣call are cleere without ambiguity, and may indifferently be heard of all men. Is it possible you durst in defence of your fancy cite this place in this manner, according to which it is false, euen in your owne fancy? For do not you yourselfe write pag. 35. lin. 18. We acknow∣ledge that MANY particuler Texts and passages of ho∣ly Scripture, are obscure and hard to be vnderstood? How then are all Scriptures, both Propheticall and Euan∣gelicall, cleere without any ambiguity indifferently vnto all men? Are you also so dull of hearing as not to perceaue the iarre betwixt this sentence of S. Ire∣naeus, and the sentences of the Fathers, which after him presently you produce? S. Hierome: It is the

manner of Scripture to ioyne that which is manifest, after that which is obscure. S. Augustine: Playne places are found in Scriptures to expound and open the darke & hard. If this be true, how are all the Scriptures cleere without ambiguity? yea S. Irenaeus in the very next chapter (y) 1.210 sayth; That some things in Scripture are cleere and manifest, which we must learne and be∣lieue▪ other are darke, and obscure, the interpretati∣on of which we must remit vnto God.

Verily these Arguments conuince you to haue falsifyed Irenaeus, as you haue indeed, & very grosse∣ly. For he doth not say, All Scriptures are cleere without ambiguity, as you cite him, but this: (z) 1.211 Seing all Scriptures, both Propheticall and Apostolicall, openly, and without ambiguity, and in manner as they may be heard of all (though all belieue not) preach, that one only God made all things by his word, as we haue proued by Scriptures so affirming in the same words; how dull sighted may they appeare whose eyes agaynst such manifest euidence are blin∣ded, and will not see the light of this preaching? Thus S. Irenaeus, affirming no more then that all Scriptures do euidently preach this one point of Fayth, That there is one only God. So that we may say, how dull sighted were you, that would cite this testimony for your fancy against the playne euidence thereof?

Foule Calumniation, & Falsification of Hosius, Bellar∣mine, Petrus à Soto, and Bosius. §. 3.

IN this kind I may with good reason register in the first place your slanderous dealing with Car∣dinall Hosius, the falshood being not only notorious

in it selfe, but also discouered agaynst your Ance∣stours in formes times. Pag. 151. in fine, and 152. ini∣tio, you charge Catholikes, That they debase the sacred Scripture, aduancing humane Traditiōs. In proofe wher∣of you alleadge these wordes as of Cardinall Hosius; (a) 1.212 Non oportet legis aut Scripturae esse peritum, sed à Deo doctum; vanus est labor qui Scripturae impenditur. Scrip∣tura enim creatura est, & egenum quoddam elementum, non conuenit Christianū Scripturae addictum &c. A man ought not to be learned in the Scripture, but taught of God; lost is the labour which vpon Scripture is spent. For the Scripture is but a Creature, yea an empty element, it doth not become a Christian to be conuersant in the same.

These words contayne horrible Blasphemy, in so much as Cardinall Hosius himselfe hearing that some Protestants in their printed bookes had layd this sen∣tence to his charge, did not doubt to say: (b) 1.213 That I should thus affirme? Verily had I so written, I were worthy to be burnt in the market place. What then? Hath not Hosius the wordes? Indeed the wordes are found in the Cardinals book, but how? brought as blasphemy spoken in the person of the Swenckfeldian Sect, or of the Heauenly Prophets. This is Hosius his discourse: (c) 1.214 When men (sayth he) seeke to draw the Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their owne fancyes, not regarding the sense & exposition of the Church, what do they but (as S. Augustin sayth) open a way that the authority of the Scripture be wholly abolished? Do we not see this Prophesy performed in this our Age? Yes verily: Luther first rose vp, and endeauoured to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scriptures vnto the liking of his fancy. Agaynst him rose Carolstadius, and out of him Zwinglius, Oecolampa∣dius, Caluin, and other innumerable Sects, most mainly

••••posite the one to the other, yet ech of them clayming ma∣••••fest Scripture on their side. Hereupon the Heauenly ••••ophets, whose Prince is Swenckfeldius (d) 1.215 perceauing ••••ese men to make no other vse of Scripturs, then to persuade ••nto seely people what they please, vnder pretence of Gods 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and expresse word, began thus to discourse with them∣••••lues: HOW long shall WE endure these Fryers, that ••••••ue cast of their Hoods & Habits? Shall we be still forced 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adore as Gods holy word whatsoeuer they please to propose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vs cloaked with Texts of Scripture? No, we will hereafter ••••pect the resolution of our Questions from Heauen, & bid ••••ese Contentioners to be packing togeather with the Scrip∣••••res, which they pul this & that way as they list to establish ••••posite doctrines. What the heauenly Father shall in pri∣••••ate please to reueale vnto vs, that shall be our expresse word ••f God. A CHRISTIAN ought not to be skillfull in ••he Law and Scripture, but taught of God: lost is the labour ••hat on Scripture is spent; for the Scripture is but a crea∣••••re, and an empty ELEMENT. Hosius hauing thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downe these wordes and blasphemyes of the ••wenckfeldian Sect, addeth his Censure vpon them as ••olloweth. You see (most Pious King) how truly the say∣••••g of S. (e) 1.216 Augustine is, that whiles men labour by their ••riuate interpretations to make the Scripture the subiect, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one of his own fancy, they open a wide gappe vnto men, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 deny the authority of the Scripture. And agayne: (f) 1.217 O ••••onder, able to astonish any man! To what a passe by Satans ••ubtilty are men come! Vnto what extreme misery is the ••orld brought? whiles euery Sect will wrest the Scripture to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 selfe, and challenge the sole true exposition thereof, be∣••old a new Sect of Heauēly Prophets is sprunge vp, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not doubt by the authority of Scriptures, to take away frō ••cripture all authority. Behold the true wordes of Ho∣sius,

and togeather behold what impudency it is to vrge the blasphemous wordes by you cited as his. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 blasphemous assertions may be layd to the charge of them that with detestation relate them, you may lay the blasphemyes of wicked men related in Scri∣ptures on the sacred writers. You may impeach Sal••∣mom for this speach of the Vngodly, (g) 1.218 Come let 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inioy the pleasures that are, let there be no meddow wherin our luxury doe not wallow it selfe. You may endight o•• blasphemy S. Iohn for the wordes of the Iewes abou•• our Sauiour, (h) 1.219 This man is not of God who keepeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sabboath Day. You might charge Saint Matthew with the words of the Pharisies, (i) 1.220 Behold a glutton, & drinker of wine.

I haue not read in any Protestant Minister a more foule Calumniation of any Catholike Authour ex∣cept only one in your selfe agaynst Bellarmine. Bel∣larmine (say (k) 1.221 you) sayth: A man is not bound to belieue the Scripture to be Diuine, because the Scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 selfe sayth so, more then one is to belieue the Alcoran 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be of God, because in sundry places thereof we read, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was sent from Heauen by God. What horrible blasphemy is this? What Christian will not tremble at the hea∣ring thereof? The Scriptures affirmation is no more to be belieued, then the Alcoran? Hath Bellarmine this sen∣tence, which you cite in a distinct letter, as his for∣mall assertion? Behold the true words of Bellarmine for the Reader, that seeing your falshood, he may ioyne togeather with detestation of Turkish impie∣ty, detestation of your Protestant slaūdering: (l) 1.222 Al∣though the Scripture say, that the Bookes of the Prophets and Apostles be diuine, yet shall I not certainly belieue it except I haue aforehand belieued the Scripture, which doth

〈◊〉〈◊〉 affirme to be diuine. For also in sundry places of Maho∣••••ts Alcorā we read, that the same was sent of God frō hea∣••••••••, yet do we not belieue it. Is there no difference bet∣••••xt, these two sayings, A mā is not bound to belieue the S••••ipture affirming the bookes of the Prophets to be Diuine, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then the Alcoran: and this: I should not belieue the S••ripture saying the bookes of Prophets are diuine, except I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 belieue the Scripture that so sayth? Verily they differ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much as Hell and Heauen, as Blasphemy and Truth.

With Hosius you ioyne Petrus Soto to be a debaser 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scriptures, (m) 1.223 citing these words as his: (n) 1.224 Quae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cultum pertinent, magis ex traditione & Spiritus Sancti ••••••ustratione, quàm ex scriptura petenda sunt. The things 〈◊〉〈◊〉 belong vnto worship, are to be taken by Tradi∣••••on, and the light of the Holy Ghost, rather then frō 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripture. Thus you. Omitting, and putting in ••••ordes, chopping and changing the Text. Let vs ••••are the Authours very words: (o) 1.225 Post haec omnia ••••uertant, plura quaerenda esse ex Traditione, & illustra∣••••one Spiritus sancti, quàm ex Scripturis; praecipuè quae ad ••••ltum pertinent. After all these thinges, that is, after a ••riest knowes, not only the articles and mysteries of ••ayth, but also, in respect of manners and good life, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 communia omnibus, de quibus Christus frequenter lo∣••••itur, those thinges that are commonly to be kept 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all Christians, as the Ten Commandements, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like▪ about which Christ doth frequently speake: ••fter they know these things, let them remember, that more ••••ings yet are to be sought for rather by Tradition, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ghosts illumination, then by the Scripture, sp••cially 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thinges that belonge vnto Reuerence. In these words ••etrus Soto deliuers two thinges. First that the things ••oncerning matters, not only of Fayth, but also of

good life that are common and must be knowne of all Christians, are largely deliuered in holy Scrip∣ture. Secondly, that post haec omnia, after the know∣ledge of all these common substantiall matters, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for other particuler thinges, they are to be learned by Tradition, more then by Scripture. Hence I in∣ferre that Petrus Soto by the words, quae ad cultum per∣tinent, doth not meane the mayne dutyes of Latriae, and Religion; but Reuerentiall carriage and cere∣monyes to be vsed in the administration of the Sa∣craments. This is cleere. For by things pertinent vn∣to Reuerence, he meanes thinges that are not com∣mon vnto all, nor to be knowne and obserued of all But the mayne dutyes of Latria & Religion are com∣mon vnto all Christians: Therefore Soto doth not meane them in his wordes Quae ad cultum pertinen••; but only things of ceremoniall Reuerence in the vse of the Christian sacrifice and Sacraments, as the Au∣thour (p) 1.226 doth also in that place declare. So that it is in you wonderful boldnes, by so many leauings out by so many alterings and transposings of words, to change Sotus his meaning, as though he had been be∣sotted with Swenckfeldian fancy of immediat Reue∣lation without Scripture.

In your Reply to the Preface, (m) 1.227 you say, Th•••• the Roman Church doth require, that Protestants send the holy scriptures packing, and not reckon the same among D••••uine Principles. To make this slaunder good, you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the margent (n) 1.228 Bosius de sig. Eccles. lib. 16. cap. 10. scriptura non refertur inter eiusmodi principia; the Scri∣pture is not reckoned amongst these principles, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wit, Diuine. This saying of Bosius you repeate ouer & ouer in your Booke; yea the same is twice repeated

in your answere to the Iesuits Preface. In your Or∣thodoxe you haue it also, and your (o) 1.229 Brother more oftē, as though Bosius did say, the Scripturs were not Diuine. But your slaunder is intollerable, for he doth not say, that Scriptures are not reckoned amongst Diuine Principles, but only not amongst the articles of the Creed. His wordes are: We know, that amongst other articles of the Creed one is, I belieue the holy Ca∣tholike Church: Now these articles are as it were cer∣tayne principles, which must be knowne and belieued in the first place: But the Scripture is not numbred amongst THESE Principles, although it be named HOLY, and SACRED.

Hence appeareth, how notoriously you slaūder and falsify Bosius, by making him say, that Scriptures are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles. First, be∣cause he sayth not, they are not numbred amongst Diuine Principles, but only not amongst the twelue Articles of the Creed; which is a truth so manifest, as Ministers cannot be ignorant thereof, if they be acquainted with the Creed. Secōdly, because in that very place and sentence, he doth affirme the contra∣ry, to wit, that the Scriptures are holy and sacred. What is this but Diuine? Verily this accusation that Protestants if they will be Catholikes must send the Scriptures packing, is as true, as what you (s) 1.230 there also affirme, That they must let the Roman Nahash pluck out their right eye, and vow blind obedience vnto him. Which you proue, because Bonauenture (t) 1.231 sayth, that S. Francis exhorted his Fryars vnto blind Obedience. As though Protestants might not be admitted into the Roman Church, except they will be Fryars; or that by Religious obedience men put out their right

eye, which regardeth God, and Heauen, and not ta∣ther the left, which looketh vpon earth and worldly pleasure. Had you eyther the right, or left eye of Wisdome you would not write as you doe. Had you any sparke of diuine Wisdome, you would not vent such false, & odious slanders. Had you any dramme of humane Wisdome, you would blush to con∣firme your slaunders, with such seely and ridiculous proofes.

Other Fathers impudently falsifyed, as if they did denye, what they do most constantly mantayne, and proue. §. 4.

YOW are so bold in your Falshood, as you dare cite the Fathers for your fancy, where ex professo, euen of purpose they dispute agaynst it, and proue the contrary. Pag 85 lin. 26. you say, the gifts of doing Miracles were neuer promised in the Scripture to be perpe∣tuall, and are longe since ceased. Augustin. Retract. l. 1. c. 13. Now S. Augustine doth in that place say, and proue the contrary; to wit, that though Mira∣cles be not now ordinarily annexed vnto the office of teaching and administration of Sacraments, as they were in the Primitiue Church▪ yet Miracles are done, and frequently done, so that they are for multi∣tude innumerable. I neuer meant (saith (a) 1.232 he) as though that now no Miracles are done in the name of Christ, for that in Milan a Blind-man receaued his sight at the Shrine of the Martyrs; and sundry the like miracles my selfe did euen then know to haue been done: In which kind so many are wrought in this our age, as we neyther know thē all, nor can number them we know. How durst you name this testimony to proue Miracles to be ceased?

Also that Miracles cannot be sufficient testi∣monyes of Christian Fayth, as the (b) 1.233 Scripture tearmeth thē, you (c) 1.234 cite Suarez the Iesuit (d) 1.235 saying Haec adulterari possunt, & ita exteriùs fingi, vt nō sint ne∣cessaria signa verae fidei. Miracles may so be adultera∣red and externally falsifyed, that they can not be necessary signes of the true Fayth. Thus you cite Suarez: but how grossely? These be not the wordes of Suarez, but wordes spoken by way of obiection in the behalfe of Protestants for their Paradoxe, That the Church is inuisible. This is then your argu∣ment in Suarez: Without fayth the true Church can not subsist. But there are no infallible, externall, & visible signes of true fayth, seeing euen Miracles themselues may be forged and counterfaite. Ergo the Church cannot be assuredly knowne by visible markes. Suarez having vrged this argument with o∣thers largely, he sayth, (e) 1.236 Notwithstanding all this, we must belieue the Church to be visible. And to the Argu∣ment about Miracles (f) 1.237 he sayth, that though they be not certayne tokens of the sanctity of the person that doth them, yet they are sufficient signes to proue, that true Fayth & sanctify are in the Church wherein they are done. So that what Suarez the Iesuit setteth downe out of Protestants, as to be by him refelled, you produce as the assertion, and do∣ctrine of Suarez.

If you belieue, that God will seuerely punish those that deceaue soules in matter of Religion, by forgery and fraud; I wonder how you did not feare to cite (g) 1.238 S. Chrysostome Homil. 3. vpon the Acts, as affirming, That no Monarchicall and supereminent acti∣ons were exercised by S. Peter, no vassallage or subiection

yielded him by the rest of the Apostles. In your margent you cite these wordes his: Petrus egit omnia, ex com∣muni discipulorum sententia, nihil ex authoritate, nihil cum imperio. Peter did all thinges by common aduise of the disciples, nothing by way of authority and command. Thus you cite S. Chrysostome. Now see, your falshood. He saith not as you cite him, vniuer∣sally Peter neuer did any thing by way of authority and command, but speaking of the electiō of S. Mat∣thias, he sayth, that in this busines he did all by com∣mon aduise, not by way of authority: and then addeth presently, that this not vsing authority was wisedome and modesty, not want of authority in Peter. Behold his wordes so pregnant for Peters Mo∣narchy, as nothing can be spoken more fully. Why doth he (Peter) communicate this busines with them? (h) 1.239 What? Had he not power to make the election him selfe? He might verily haue done it alone, without any question, but he did not, least he should be thought partiall to some one, had he chosen him by this sole authority. And agayne. This was the wisedome, and foresight of this Do∣ctour: He sayd not, We alone are sufficient to teach; and although he had right to appoynt an Apostle, as much as they all had, (that is, he could alone haue done as much, as togeather with them in respect of his emi∣nent power) yet this doing it with aduise, was agreable to the vertue of the man; and because eminency in spiri∣tuall power is not an Honour but Care of subiects, yet wor∣thily (i) 1.240 doth he FIRST before them all EXERCISE AV∣THORITY in the busines, who had ALL THE REST AT HIS DISPOSITION, and will. For this is he, vnto whome our Lord sayd: Thou being conuerted, confir∣me thy Brethrē. Thus S. Chrysostome. Could any thing

••e deuised more full, to shew that Peter had, and did ••xercise Monarchicall authority? specially seing S. Chrysostome in that very place saith further vpon the wordes: Peter rising vp in the midst of the Disciples sayd: (k) 1.241 Behold how feruent is Peter: how he doth acknowledge ••nd oueruiew the FLOCKE COMMITTED to HIM by Christ: How doth he shew himselfe PRINCE & Primate ••f this Quire. Behold likewise the modesty of Iames: He ••ad the office of Bishop of Hierusalem, yet he speaketh no∣••hing. Consider also the singular modesty of the rest of the Apostles, (l) 1.242 how they YIELD the THRONE of Primacy ••nto him, not striuing for it amongst themselues as they ••ad formerly done. Thus S. Chrysostome: which thinges ••re so cleere for Peters exercising Monarchicall Pri∣••acy, and for the Apostles yielding Vassallage vnto ••im, that it is manifest you could not cite this place ••ut agaynst your Conscience, knowing you did but ••elude soules in matters of Saluation, agaynst the ••ruth.

Grosse Imputations, with manifest Falshood imputed vnto Card. Baronius. §. 5.

WHAT impudency it is for you to write, as you doe, pag. 114. lin. 14. (a) 1.243 It is monstrous ••octrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban, and approued 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Baronius, that they are not to be iudged Murtherers ••hich slay Excommunicate persons. As who should say ••ope Vrban and Baronius affirme, that to murther ••ny way, any Excommunicate persons, is no sinne. ••ut your slaunder will seeme mōstrous when their ••octrine, according to truth, is set downe. This it is. Certayne Cleargymen, and Schismaticall Priests of ••ewd and dissolute life, excommunicated by the

Church, did agaynst the lawes of the Church, take armes and were slayne in the field, (b) 1.244 as men may iustly be in lawfull warre.

Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen, they that killed these wicked & seditious priests in the field, had a scruple and demanded absolution, and pennance of their Bishop. The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vr∣ban, who answered: (c) 1.245 That although he did not iudge those, that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battaile, to be murtherers, yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept, & also because such as killed thē though the fact were lawfull, might haue had some sinister and insincere intention therein (as doing it out of priuate emnity,) that therefore the Bishop (d) 1.246 should according to their intention & desire, inioyne them a measure of con∣gruous pennance. Hence it followes, that it is no sinne to kill any excōmunicate person, euen Priests when they be inuaders of our life, and in iust warre; but vniuersally, that it is no sinne to kill any excommu∣nicate person what way soeuer, is not Pope Vrbans Monstrous Doctrine, but a Monster of your Prote∣stāt slaundering, out of a monstrous desire you haue to delude, and enrage men with lyes, agaynst the Catholicke Church.

In the same page, 114. lin. 29. You thus write of Baronius: (e) 1.247 Cardinall Baronius cōmendeth to the skyes yong Henry the Emperours sonne, for rebelling agaynst his naturall Father, for deposing, imprisoning him, and brin∣ging him with sorrow to the graue. What Turke or Sauage would be the Encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous Villany? Thus you. Let the truth be examined, and then it will appeare, that Baronius his commendation

••f yong Henry is not to the skye, but your slaunde∣••ing of Baronius comes frō as low as the pit of Hell. ••irst it is false, according to truth of the History, that ••enry the Fourth Emperour dyed of sorrow, in the ••estraynt which he had layd vpon him by his Sonne (f) 1.248 nay he was in that durance vsed with such mild∣••es and liberty, as he easily got away, gattered for∣••es, and inuaded his Sonne, who by his owne con∣••ent, and by the voyces of all the Electours, and ••rinces of the Empire, had been made, & crowned ••mperour. This is your first vntruth, that Baronius ••rayseth that imprisoning of the Father, wherein he ••as brought with sorrow to his graue, by his Sonne.

Secondly, Baronius doth not commend yong ••enry at all for that fact, but only speaketh con∣••itionally, and on both sides, no more in his prayse ••en his disprayse. For hauing set downe the letters which the Emperour Henry the Elder, now being at ••••berty, wrote full of complaynt agaynst his sonne, ••aronius thus turneth his speach to the Reader: If (g) 1.249 ••hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father & the Sonne; as for ••he Sonnes procuring his Fathers restraynt and deposition ••rom the Empyre, by the Peeres and Princes thereof, the ••onne is not to be condemned, IF (as he pretended) HE ••ID this sincerely, out of (h) 1.250 PIETY, to bringe his Fa∣••her vnto a better mind, and to make him seeke to be absol∣••ed from Excommunication wherwith he had been so many ••••mes tyed and chayned. On the other side, IF (as his Fa∣••her complaynes) HE DID those thinges by wicked plots ••nd stratagems, by periury and breaking his oath giuen to ••is Father, verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wonderfull is the Iustice of God, that this Emperour ••••ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Sonne,

which he had by perpetuall incorrigible hatred, for many yeares together, offered vnto his spirituall Father. Thus Baronius.

Hence it is apparent, that as Baronius and Bellar∣mine were great friends in their life, so they are by you slaundered in the same māner after their death. That Bellarmine may seeme Turkish and guilty of propension to Turcisme, you make him say, The Scripture affirming a thinge, is not therefore to be belieued more then Mahomets Alcoran, whereas he only sayth conditionally, I should not firmely belieue the Scripture affirming a thinge, did I not aforehand belieue the Scrip∣ture to be diuine, as I do not the Alcoran though it say of it selfe, that it is of God. Euē so to make Baronius seeme more sauage then any Turke, wheras he sayth con∣ditionally, If yonge Henry did restrayne his Father since∣rely out of piety for the good of his Father, that he might re∣turne to the Church, be absolued of excommunication, & afterward peacebly inioy his Empyre, this kind of seuerity was indeed piety; you make the proposition absolute, and make Baronius say: It was piety in the Sonne, to vse Cruelty to his Father. The Reader, I do not doubt, seeth the exorbitancy of this false dealing.

I must needs adde another falsification you (i) 1.251 vse towardes Baronius, accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope, in this saying, (k) 1.252 Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pon∣tificis Fidei Decreta sancire, & sancita mutare: Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop, to establish Decrees of Fayth, and to recall the established. This you bringe, as if Baronius had held, the Pope may make, and vn-make Decrees a∣bout the Truth of Fayth, making that to be Truth

which before was Errour, and that Errour which before was Truth So easily do you belieue & charge any Barbarous and Inhumane conceyte vpon Ca∣tholicke Authors▪ But he that shall consider atten∣tiuely the Antecedents & Consequents of the place, will see▪ that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Fayth in regard of the truth of Doctrine (which are Eternall, and so immutable that if the Pope should endeauour to change them, he were (l) 1.253 by Catholi∣cke Doctrine an Heretike, and to be deposed) but only of decrees of fayth, about keeping, or denying Communion vnto persons suspected of Heresy, in regard of doubtfull propositions. This would haue appeared had you cited the wordes of Baronius that immediatly follow. This is his whole sentēce: Hence (m) 1.254 it may appeare, that it did depend on the iudgment of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth, and to re∣call the established, and to DECREE with whome the rest of the Church were to keep COMMVNION. Hence it is euident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of fayth declaratiue, with whome Communion in Fayth is to be kept, & that those are mutable, as the Church shall see cause.

For the better vnderstanding whereof, we must know, that it was the practise or Heretikes, (n) 1.255 as S. Hierome noteth, to couch their Errours in such am∣biguous wordes, that taken one way, they sounded Heretically & another way, they carryed a Catho∣like sense. Hence vpon the arising of new Heretikes, euen the Catholike Fathers were sometymes deui∣sed, some cōmunicating with, some denying com∣munion vnto such Dogmatizants. The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholik Church,

and the supreme Pastour thereof, in which case the Church may change her decrees. For when there is sufficient reason to thinke that such propositions be taken by the Authours in the Hereticall sense, De∣cree is to be made, that no communion be held with them. If afterward it appeare by good proofe, that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholike sense, they may be receaued by some lat∣ter Decree, and the former Decree, about auoyding their Communion, may be repealed. In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine: (o) 1.256 That former Councels are reformed by later, when by experimēt of things what before was hidden commeth to light. In this sort an∣cient Councells (p) 1.257 made this decree of Fayth, that none should tearme the most Blessed Virgin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Christs Mother, because by that Title Heretikes did meane tacitely to imply, that she was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods Mother. And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custome repealed, because it now appeareth that such as tearme her Christes Mother meane not ther∣by to deny, that she is truly and verily Gods Mother.

This is that which Baronius saith: for speaking of the Apollinarians who did vtter their Errours (q) 1.258 in doubtfull wordes, he saith, that first by Pope Dama∣sus they were reiected as Heretikes, and Catholikes were forbidden to communicate with them. After∣wards these (r) 1.259 Apollinarians falsely gaue out that the Councell of the Westerne Church, including prin∣cipally the Roman Bishop, had againe receaued thē into Communion. Vpon the newes of this report, S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth. Those that agree with Apollinaris say, that they were admitted by the Councell of the West, or Roman Bishop, by whome it is

manifest they were once condemned: Yet (s) 1.260 let them but shew this, and we yield. For it is manifest (t) 1.261 that their do∣ctrine doth agree with the true Fayth (for it cannot other∣wise be,) if they haue obtayned this. This S. Gregory Nazi∣anzen. Hence Baronius doth inferre against Heretikes that the Grecian Fathers did beare such reuerence vnto the Roman Church, and Roman Bishop, belie∣uing he could not erre, that if his Decrees declara∣tiue of doubtfull & ambiguous propositions should change & alter, they were ready to change and alter with him, and to thinke that manner of speach in matters of Faith most fitting for the present, which he did for the present allow. This I say, is all that Ba∣ronius doth affirme, not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Fayth, as you in your blind auersion would im∣pose vpō him, catching at words & syllables of eue∣ry lesse cleere sentence, which to be the right iogge (u) 1.262 of the Caluinian spirit, Luther long agoe noted.

THE CONCLVSION.

BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances, Imper∣tinencyes, Misallegations of Scriptures, Wilfull & Vnconscionable Falshoods in your producing the Fathers, which I offer vnto your Picture to adorne that Crowne, which in your Glorious Humour you haue caused to be set ouer your Booke, in the se∣cond page therof, giuing it the Title of Wisdome and Truths Triumph. Verily, no Iewells and Gemmes can sit the Crowne of such Wisdome and Truth as yours is, better then these, being made in this Cen∣sure

Cleere, Shining, Illustrious by manifest proofe▪

My purpose was, to haue discouered many be∣sides these, yea more then an hundred, no lesse noto∣rious then these, about the Nine Points, with many other eminent Vntruths; but now I perceaue, that hereby your Picture would grow, though not dispro∣portionable to the greatnes of your Desert, yet into a greater bignes they Paper-Images vse to haue, which commonly are still lesse then their Patterns. I must therefore remayne indebted vnto you for the rest, which are many hundreds, engaging my selfe to pay the last farthing of this debt, whensoeuer the same shall be exacted, with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall auayle, not only to your personall Disgrace, but also to the publicke Good, by conuersion of so many, by you miserably seduced, soules. Although I must confesse, that the former are so many, and so cleere, as they may suffi∣ciently resolue such, as depend on you, of their mise∣rable and dreadfull danger; and mooue them to re∣turne to the truth, if they erre through weaknes of Vnderstanding, not through willfulnes of hart. For as S. Cyprian sayth, (x) 1.263 Qui ad malum motus est menda∣cio fallente; multò faciliùs ad bonum mouebitur veritate cogente; such as haue been simply lead away vnto euill, by the fallacy of lying; will more easily be brought backe agayne vnto Good, by the force of Truth.

FINIS.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  For he teacheth that Religious A∣doratiō is due to Ministers. See the Censure Sect. 3. §. 1.
• (*) 1.2

  Bona do∣mus ex limi∣ne debet ag∣nosci. Am∣bros. De insti∣tut. Virg.
• (b) 1.3

  Cicero pro Archia.
• (c) 1.4

  Reply pag. 21••.
• (d) 1.5

  Reply pag. 214.
• (e) 1.6

  Creden∣tibus vbique Sponsus pul∣cher occurrit, pulcher ad dexteram Pa∣tris, pulcher in manibus Matris, pul∣cher in Caelo, pulcher in Ligno, pul∣cher in Mira∣culis, pulcher in Flagellis. Augustin. in Psal. 44.
• (f) 1.7

  The like was done by Acacius that Enemy of the Roman Sea, as wri∣teth Suidas. And by the Bohemian Protestant-Rebell Zisea, who hauing destroyed all holy Images, caused his owne to be set vp in eue∣ry place. Aeneas Syl∣uius Histor. Bohem.
• (g) 1.8

  Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. ••••. §. 1.
• (i) 1.9

  La via de Caluin. c. ••••.
• (k) 1.10

  Luther Tom. 7. Wit∣temberg. An∣no. 15••8 lib. de Missapriuata & Vnctione Sacerdotum fol. 228.
• (l) 1.11

  Halitus eius prunas ardere facit. Iob 41.18.
• (m) 1.12

  Bilson de perpetua gu∣bernat. Eccles. c. 16. Si lin∣guae eorū si∣militer se ha∣bent ac cala∣mi, pluribus cer••è opus e∣rit Pacis Cu∣stodibus ad pugnas prae∣ueniendas, quàm Nota∣rijs ad decre∣ta eorū per∣scribenda.
• (n) 1.13

  In SOLE posuit TA∣BERNA∣CVLVM suum, id est, in manifesta∣tione posuit Ecclesiam su∣am: Non est in oculto, nō est quae late∣at Quid He∣retice fugis ad tenebras? quid latitare conaris? Au∣gust. in Psal. 18.
• (o) 1.14

  Napier v∣pon Reuelat. pag. 168.
• (p) 1.15

  Vbi su∣pra. Media nocte exper∣gefactus sum qua mecum Diabolus di∣sputationem orsus est &c.
• (q) 1.16

  Luther Tom. ••. Wit∣temb. lib. de seruo Arbitr. p. 434.
• (r) 1.17

  Caelius Se¦cundus Curio de amplitud. Reg. Christi l. 1. pag. 43.
• (s) 1.18

  Whitegift defence pag. 472 & 473.
• (t) 1.19

  Osiander Epitom Hi∣stor. cētur. 16. pag▪ 79••. Hā•• regulam ha¦bent Calui∣nistae, L••cere pro gloria Christi men∣tiri.
• (*) 1.20

  Nisi preg∣nantes vide∣rint vxores Clericorum, infantesque de vlnis ma∣trum vagien∣tes, Christi Sacramenta nō tribuunt. Hieron. lib. aduers. Vigil. cap. 1.
• (u) 1.21

  Psal. 44.15.
• (y) 1.22

  Lex Domi∣ni immaculata conuertens a∣nimas. Psal. 18.8. Isa. 59.6.
• (x) 1.23

  Telae eo∣rum non e∣runt in vesti∣men ū•• opera eorum opera inutilia▪
• (z) 1.24

  Indocti & instabiles deprauant Scripturas, in quibus sunt difficilia in∣tellectu. 2. Pet. 3 16.
• (a) 1.25

  Camden. Elizab. p. 458. Hunc lamē∣tabilem vitae finem ha∣buit Maria Scotorum Regina &c.
• (b) 1.26

  See Ban∣croft Dan∣ger. Posit. VVhit. l. 1. c. 4. & l. 2. c 1. & Protestāts Apolog. ••re∣face.
• (c) 1.27

  Beza Ep. Theolog. 68.
• (*) 1.28

  Protestāts haue murde∣red fiue Ca∣tholik Kings, or Princes: They haue deposed Nine from their Kingdomes wholly, or in part: They haue set vp their Religiō at the least in fourty towns by force of Armes, ex∣pelling the Magistrates, murthering Priests & Re∣ligious Per∣sons, brea∣king downe Images, and burning Churches: They haue byn at the least twenty seueral times in the field a∣gainst their Catholik So∣ueraygnes, & six or sea∣uen times a∣gainst their soueraygnes that were presēt in per∣sō: All which may be pro∣ued by the testimony of Protestants, if the margēt did permit. Read Ban¦crofts Dange∣rous positiōs. Osianders Epi∣tom. Histor. Centur. 16. & the ••rotestāts Apolog. Pre∣face.
• (d) 1.29

  Andraeas Duditius. See Epist. Theol. Bezae. epist. 1. & 3.
• (e) 1.30

  See the Treatise ten¦ding to Miti∣gation.
• (f) 1.31

  Gregor. in exposit. l. 1. Reg. c. 16. His verbis ostenditur, quòd Tyran∣norum saeui∣tia atque ver∣sutia quan∣doque est PIA FRAV∣DE deluden∣da: sic tamen Tyranni de∣ludendi sunt, vt caueatur culpa men∣dacii. Quod tūc bene per∣ficitur, cùm illud quod fit asseritur; sed quod fit, sic dicitur vt celetur, quia ex parte di∣citur, & ex parte retice∣tur.
• (g) 1.32

  Caluin lib. de scandalis.
• (h) 1.33

  Reply pag. ••74.
• (i) 1.34

  Similes e∣stis sepulchris deal••atis quae aforis parent hominibus speciosa, in∣tus vero plena sunt omni spurci∣tia. Matth. ••3.27.
• (k) 1.35

  Luc. 19.22.
• (l) 1.36

  The title of Doctissi∣mus was gi∣uen to Luther by the Diuell in his nights Conference with him, as Luther vbi su∣pra, doth re∣••ord.
• (a) 1.37

  Epiphan. epist. ad Ioan. Hierosolym. quae est 6. in∣ter Epistolas Hieron.
• (b) 1.38

  Iesuit in the Reply p. 251. & ••5••▪
• (c) 1.39

  Ezod. 25.34.
• (d) 1.40

  Semoti•• NVGIS lo∣corum com∣muniū, causa, cum causa, res cum re, ratio cum ra∣tione confli∣gat. Augu∣stin. de vtil. cr••d. c. 1.
• (*) 1.41

  That i∣mages of Christ & his Saints were hanged vp in Churches in that age of S. Epiphan. Hie∣rom. & Au∣gustin is eui∣dent, by Euodius Vza∣lensis▪ l. 1. de mirac. S. Ste∣phani c. 4.
• (e) 1.42

  Seing the Ministery grants this to be the clee∣rest testimo∣ny that may be found in antiquity a∣gainst the ho∣nouring of holy Images, the Reader may iudge how poore & defectuous of solide profe Prote∣stants are in this point.
• (f) 1.43

  Matth. 26. vers. 39.
• (g) 1.44

  Mar. 14.23.
• (h) 1.45

  Qui lo∣quitur male∣dicta stultis∣simus est. Prou. c. 10. Et nullus acriter im∣poperat Ec∣cles. 18.18.
• (i) 1.46

  You might haue here remem∣bred the say∣ing of S. Hie∣rom. Haere∣ticorum ma∣chinae sunt, vt conuicti de perfidia, ad maledicta se conferunt, su∣per quo vide∣rint quomodo illud audiant, Maledici reg∣num Dei non possidebunt. l. 3. aduers. Ruf∣fin. c. 11. &▪ lib. 2. c. ••••
• (k) 1.47

  Reply pag. 155.
• (l) 1.48

  Cusan. lib. 2. concord. c. 6.
• (m) 1.49

  deficere potest in ex∣periendo. ibid.
• (n) 1.50

  Docet Augustinus quomodo plenaria cō∣cilia per sub∣sequentia Cōcilia cor∣rigantur ob FACTI ERRO∣REM ibid.
• (o) 1.51

  Si con∣cordanti sen∣tētia aliquid definitum fuerit, cense∣tur à Spiritu sancto inspi∣ratum, & per Christum in medio con∣gregatorum in eius no∣mine praesi∣dentem, INFAL∣LIBILI∣TER iudi∣catum. ibid. c. 4.
• (p) 1.52

  Orthodox. pag. 41. & 42.
• (q) 1.53

  August. lib. 7. in Gen. c. ••.
• (r) 1.54

  Repl. pag. 35. in margin. lit. b.
• (s) 1.55

  Reply. pag. 92. in fine.
• (t) 1.56

  This you haue done, not only in this place, but also in your Ortho∣doxe three or foure ty∣mes, as in the Epistle dedicatory pag. 10. & els∣where.
• (u) 1.57

  Burchar∣dus, Isidorus Gratianus.
• (y) 1.58

  Iste pani•• non effigie se natura muta∣tus, omnipo¦tentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cyprian. serm. de Coena.
• (z) 1.59

  Cyprian ibid. Corp••••ralis substan∣tiae retinens speciem: sed virtutis diui∣nae inuisibil. essentia pro∣bans adesse praesentiam▪
• * 1.60

  1. Thess. 5.22.
• * 1.61

  Cyrillus Hie∣rosol. orat. 4▪ mystagog.
• (*) 1.62

  Cyprian. serm. de coena.
• (a) 1.63

  1. Tim. 3.5·
• (a) 1.64

  Crux ara fuit sum∣mi Sacrificij. Bellar. de I∣mag. c. 17.
• (b) 1.65

  Crux Christi non Templi fuit ara, sed Mun¦di. Leo serm. 10. de pass.
• (*) 1.66

  Not with∣out cause, she hauing giuen out disgrace∣full words a∣gainst M. Fi∣sher.
• (c) 1.67

  Si duo aut tria verba graeca sonue∣rit, sapere sibi videtur.
• (g) 1.68

  Rusticus Diaconus contra Ace∣phalos.
• (h) 1.69

  See Zo∣noras and Ce∣drenus in vi∣ta Leonis Isaurici, and Paulus Dia∣conus in Mis∣cella. lib. 13.
• (i) 1.70

  Hormisda. epist. 27. ad Euphem. Augustam.
• (k) 1.71

  Hieron. epist. 17. in E∣pitaph. Paulae Prostrata an∣te crucem, quasi pen∣dentem Do∣minum cer∣neret, adora∣bat.
• (l) 1.72

  Lact••n. in Carm. de pas. who liued in the tyme of persecution, & died in the begin∣ning of the Empire of Constantine.
• (m) 1.73

  Matth. 24.3.
• (n) 1.74

  Alligate ea in fascicu∣los ad combu∣rendum. Matt. 13.30.
• (a) 1.75

  Reply. pag. 116.
• (b) 1.76

  Enuntia∣tiones expo∣nibiles.
• (c) 1.77

  Reply pag. 117.
• (d) 1.78

  For as Logicke tea∣ches, In pri∣ma Figura maior semper est vniuersa∣lis.
• (e) 1.79

  The do∣ctrine of fayth is ey∣ther expres∣sely or deri∣uatiuely cō∣tayned in Scripture. Fran. white pag. 300. What is de∣duced by ne∣cessary con∣sequence ac∣cording to the rules of Logicke. VVott••n. Tria••l. pag. 88.
• (f) 1.80

  Reply pag. 47. and 48.
• (g) 1.81

  Reply pag. 48▪
• (h) 1.82

  Reply 47. lin. 28.
• (i) 1.83

  Ibid. pag. 48.
• (k) 1.84

  Reply pag. 48.
• (l) 1.85

  Reply▪ pag. 48.
• (n) 1.86

  Reply pag. 278.
• (o) 1.87

  Caluin in caput 10. Ioā. circa vers. ••0. sayth; The auncient Fa∣thers abused this text, I & my Father are one, to proue Christ not consub∣stantiall with his father. For Christ doth not speake of vnity of substance, but of vnity of consent betwixt him and his Fa∣ther.
• (p) 1.88

  Reply pag. 378.
• (q) 1.89

  Defence of my Brother. pag. 42.
• (r) 1.90

  Orthodoxe pag. 42.
• (s) 1.91

  The very wordes of your brother Iohn in His VVay pag. 126.
• (t) 1.92

  Hooker Ecclesiast. Po∣licy pag. 119.
• (u) 1.93

  See the Reply pag. 278.
• (y) 1.94

  Act. 8.28.
• (x) 1.95

  Act. 8.28.
• (z) 1.96

  Act. 17.11.
• (a) 1.97

  Apoc. 1.3.
• (b) 1.98

  Nec Apo∣stolicum nec Propheticū esse puto: hunc libellū similem re∣puto Quarto Esdr••••▪ nec vllo modo deprendere possum quod a Spiritus San∣cto confectus sit. Lutherus praefat. in A∣pocalip.
• (c) 1.99

  1. Cor. 7. Bonum est homini mu∣lierem non tangere. vers. 1. Bonum est illis si sic per∣maneant. vers. 7. Beati∣or erit si sic permanserit. vers. 40.
• * 1.100

  Reply pag. 348.
• * 1.101

  Reply pa. 224. lin. 26.
• (d) 1.102

  Matth. 10.14.
• (e) 1.103

  Matth. 25.40.
• (f) 1.104

  Super Reg. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quam reue∣rendi sunt optimi Pasto∣res Ecclesiae Sāctae liquet. Dum enim Deo fideliter seruiunt, tan∣to ei amoris vinculo con∣iunguntur, vt quidquid eis ingeritur, Di∣uinae iniuriae ascribatur.
• (g) 1.105

  Luther tom. 2. Ie••ien∣si. fol. 68. sayth of Ca∣rolostadius: Puto non v∣no Diabolo obsessum fu∣isse miserabi∣lem illum ho∣minem. And of Zwinglian Ministers he sayth, That the Diuell now & euer dwelleth in them, & that they haue a blasphemous breast insa∣tanized, su∣persatanized and persata∣nized. See the place in the book of the Ti∣gurine Deuines confess. Tigur. An. 1544. fol. 3.
• (h) 1.106

  The Tigu∣rine Deuines in the place al∣leadged say: Lutherus cum suis Dia∣bolis. And Zwinglius: En vt hunc hominē Sa∣tan totus oc∣cupare cone∣tur. Tom. 2. respons. ad Confess Luthe∣ri. fol. 478.
• (i) 1.107

  Reply pag. ••00. in fine.
• (k) 1.108

  The Ap∣peale vnto Caesar of Ri∣chard Mon∣tague.
• (l) 1.109

  Second part. c. 5. pag. 141.
• (m) 1.110

  See the Approbation I Francis White &c.
• (n) 1.111

  1. Ioan. ••.7.
• (o) 1.112

  Ioan. 10.30.
• (p) 1.113

  Gen. 18.17. Numquid Deo quid est difficile. Hie∣••rm. 32.17. Non est diffi∣cile tibi omne verbum. Et v. 27. Num∣quid mihi difficile erit omne verbū? Luc. 1.37. Non erit im∣possibile a∣pud Deum omne verbū. Et, Deo om¦nia possibilia sunt Matt. ••9.26. Luc. 18.27. Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22.
• (q) 1.114

  Iob. 9.10.
• (r) 1.115

  Reply pag. 3••7.
• (s) 1.116

  Ioan. 1.1••.
• (t) 1.117

  Si ad ip∣sam offen∣sam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus, quatenus Deus videli∣cet sic homi∣ni manet in∣fēsus, vt me∣rit•• velit illū subire malū Poenae Tem∣poralis; non potest pro eiusmodi of∣fensa fieri iusta & pror∣sus aequalis compensatio à nobis. Nam illa offensa habet ex par∣te Diuinae Maiestatis quandam infinitatem. Gregor. de Valent. Tom. 4. in D. Tho. disput. 7. q. 14. punct. 1. col. 1756.
• (u) 1.118

  Iob. 34.10.11.
• (x) 1.119

  Non in∣troibit in eā aliquid coin∣quinatum Apoc. 21.27.
• (a) 1.120

  See the Appeale vnto Caesar, which our Doctour warrants, as contayning nothing, but Catholike En∣glish doctrine. pag. 281. The Crosse is as much vilify∣ed by furious Puritans in these dayes, as euer it was by Pagans in the dayes of the Fathers.
• * 1.121

  Matth. 4.10.
• * 1.122

  Psal. 98.5.
• (a) 1.123

  Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309.
• (b) 1.124

  Francis White Or∣thodoxe pag. 108.
• * 1.125

  Ioan. 2.9.
• (a) 1.126

  Apoc. 8.20.
• (b) 1.127

  Matth. 19.16. Mar. 10.27.
• (d) 1.128

  Augustin. Enchyrid. cap. 34. De Virgi∣nenasci opor∣tebat quem Matris fides non libido conceperat. Quòd si vel per nascentē corrumpere∣tur eius inte∣gritas, non iam ille de virgine nas∣ceretur, eum∣q́ue falsò (quod absit) de Virgine Maria nat••̄ tota confita∣retur Eccle∣sia.
• (e) 1.129

  Ambros. Epist. 81. De via ini∣quitatis po∣duntur dice∣re, Virgo cō∣cepit, sed non Virgo gene∣rauit.
• (f) 1.130

  Non con∣cepturam tantummodo Virginem, sed & pa∣rituram Vir∣ginem Pro∣pheta dixit.
• (g) 1.131

  Quod ait ad aperiens vuluam, cō∣sueto natiui∣tatis more loquitur, non quod Domi∣nus noster sacri ventris hospitium, quòd ingres∣sus sanctifi∣carat, egres∣sus deuirgi∣nasse creden∣dus sit iuxta HAERETI∣COS qui di∣cunt Beatam Mariam Vir∣ginem fuisse vsque ad pa∣ritum; sed iuxta FI∣DEM Ca∣tholicam, clauso Virgi∣nis vtero, quasi spon∣sus suo po∣cessit ex Thalamo. Ven. Beda in cap. 2. Luc.
• (g) 1.132

  1. Tim. 3.15.
• (h) 1.133

  1. Cor. 11.
• (i) 1.134

  See the Reply pag. 256.
• (k) 1.135

  Exod. 20.4.5.6. Deu∣ter. 5.6.7.
• (l) 1.136

  Some may obiect that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Com∣mandment Non ••oecha∣beris, and yet in the ninth he forbids by speciall command∣ment, the purpose and intention of adultry, Non concupis••es vxorem pro∣ximi tui. I Answere, that the ninth Pre∣cept doth not forbid the doing of ••••••nges with purpose and intention of Adultery (for this was sufficiently for∣••••••den in the six•• precept,) but this supposed, forbiddeth inward desires & lusts 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Adultery, though without doing any thing with purpose and intention there∣•••••• And so our Sauiours Praecept Matth. 5.28. Not to looke vpon a woman to lust 〈◊〉〈◊〉 her, supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be vnlaw∣••••••, and forbiddeth the looking vpon a woman with lustfull delight, & desire, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery.
• (m) 1.137

  The words of Iohn White way pag. 126.
• (*) 1.138

  I wonder you would not be war∣ned to be more wise, by the Booke of Quaeres, or Prurit-anus. For you cite the Scripturs as imperti∣nently in good earnest, as he did in iest to shew your Mini∣steriall Folly.
• (n) 1.139

  See the Re∣ply pag. 523.
• (o) 1.140

  Iohn white way pag. 116.
• (p) 1.141

  Reply pag. 136. lin. 20. &c.
• (q) 1.142

  Reply pag. 169. lin. 20.
• (r) 1.143

  Caluin. Antidot Tri∣dent. in sess. 5 Permane•• ve∣rè peccatū in nobis, neque per Baptismū vno die ex∣tinguitur. & lib. 3. Insti∣tut. c. 14. §. 9. Nullū à san∣ctis exire po∣test opus, quod non mereatur iu∣stā opprobrij mercedem.
• * 1.144

  Ioan. 1.9. & 2.18.20. & 5.15.16.18. & 7.1.11.35. & 8.22.48. & 9.18.22.
• * 1.145

  Iohn. 5.32.
• * 1.146

  Iohn. 5.34.
• * 1.147

  Ibid. vers. 33. Testimoniū per••ibuit ve∣ritati▪ Ibid. vers. 36. opera quae facio te∣stimonium perhibent. I∣bid. vers. 37. Pater qui mi∣sit me testi∣monium per∣hibuit mihi.
• * 1.148

  Ioan. 7.52.5••. Scrutare Scri∣pturas, & vi∣de quia à Ga∣lilaea Prophe∣ta non surgit.
• (a) 1.149

  pag. 106.
• (*) 1.150

  Cōcil. Tri∣dent. sess 6. can. 23. Sicut de Maria Virgine te∣net Ecclesia.
• (a) 1.151

  Luther Serm. de Na∣tiuit. Mariae. Sumus pares Matri Dei, ac aequè Sancti sicut illa.
• (b) 1.152

  S. Augu∣stin de nat. & grat. c. 42. & & 60. & Epist. 95.
• (c) 1.153

  Serm. 2. de Assumpt.
• (d) 1.154

  De excell. B. Virg. c. 3.
• (e) 1.155

  Epist. ad Epict.
• (f) 1.156

  In cap. 1. Reg.
• (g) 1.157

  Ser. 22. in Psal. 118.
• (h) 1.158

  de Nat. & Grat. c. 36.
• * 1.159

  Aug. de vnit. Eccles. c. 16.
• (*) 1.160

  Cont. Ep. Fund. c. 4.
• (a) 1.161

  Pag. 21. lin. ••2. and in marg. lit. b. c.
• (b) 1.162

  Aug. l. 2. de Baptis. c. 3.
• * 1.163

  Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis. c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora poste∣rioribus emē¦dari, cùm EX∣PERIMENTO ••erum aperi∣tur quod clausum erat.
• (d) 1.164

  Pag. 21. in lit. b. &c.
• (e) 1.165

  Aug. l. 2. cont. Cres∣con. c. 21. E••clesiastici Iudices, sicut homines, ple∣rumque fal∣luntur.
• (f) 1.166

  Lib 2. de Baptism. c. 3. Episcoporū lit∣teras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt &c. licere re∣prehendi. Non debet Ecclesia se Christo prae∣ponere, vt putet à se iu∣dicatos bap∣tizare non posse, ab Illo autem iudi∣catos posse, cùm Ille sem∣per veraciter iudicet: Ec∣clesiastici autem Iudi∣ces, sicut ho∣mines, ple∣rumque fal∣luntur.
• (g) 1.167

  August. in epist· 1. Ioā. tract. 3.
• (h) 1.168

  l. 4. de Baptis. c. 6. & 24. l. 5. c. 22.
• (i) 1.169

  Pag. 90. in margin. lit. c
• (k) 1.170

  Augu∣stin. lib. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Faust. c. ••. Tanquam in sede qu••dam in sublimi collocata est cui serui••t omnis Fide∣lis & pius in∣tellectus.
• (l) 1.171

  Excellen∣tia Canonic•••• authoritatis Veteris & Noui Testa∣menti, Apo••stolorū con∣firmata tem∣poribus per SVCCES∣SIONES Episcoporū, & Propaga∣tiones Eccle∣siarum, tan∣quam in sede quadam su∣blimiter con∣stituta est &c.
• (*) 1.172

  Pag. 95. lin. 31. & in Marg. lit.
• (m) 1.173

  Paschas. in Matth. c. 28. Cum ele∣ctis semper adfuturum se promittit.
• (n) 1.174

  In cap. 28. Matth.
• (o) 1.175

  Pag. 52. lin. 14.
• (q) 1.176

  See pag. 105.
• (s) 1.177

  The Mi∣nister in proofe of all this bringes nothing: on∣ly in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris. Was that done by the Fathers of the Coun∣cell of Trent? Doth that proue obs∣curing and out-facing of Truth? Had not the Pro∣testants then slayne, been Traytors a∣gaynst their king? Was not the king informed of their plot, to murd••r him, his mother, his brethren & the cheie∣fest of his Nobles? If to preuent his owne in∣stant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme, proceed agaynst knowne Rebells, i•• this such a thing as yow may say, It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems, and im∣mane Cruelty of Infidels? what idle Eloquence is this?
• (*) 1.178

  lib. 5. de Baptism. c. 1.
• (t) 1.179

  Augustin. ep. 48. ad Vincent. Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam ha∣beant, qua communio∣nem suam separent à cōmunione Orbis terra∣rum, eamq́ue appellent Ecclesiam Christi, quòd se iuste ab omnium gē∣tium com∣munione se∣parauerint. Ibid. Nos ideo certi su∣mus, nemi∣nem se à cō∣munione omnium Gentium iu∣••••è separare potuisse &c.
• (u) 1.180

  Calumnia∣rum suarum ••umos ••actan∣tes. D. Bap∣tis l 5 c 1.
• (x) 1.181

  Restat v•• fateantur nulla malorū etiam cogni∣torum tali communio∣ne Ecclesiam maculari. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint, non inuenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerin••.
• * 1.182

  Ape••••issi∣mum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NVLLA fuit causa Separationis.
• (*) 1.183

  Serm. de Bapt.
• (z) 1.184

  Praecipis Domine vt diligam te, & de proximo iubes vt ad meam eum mensuram complectar &c. Legat hoc vnum verbum & in hoc man∣dato medite∣tur Christia∣na Religio, & inueniet ex hac Scrip∣tura omniū doctrinarum regulas ema∣nasse &c.
• (b) 1.185

  pag. 45 lin. 10
• (c) 1.186

  Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Domi∣num.
• (d) 1.187

  Chrysost. Homil. 40. in Ioan. FODERE nos profun∣dius iubet, vt quae altè de∣litescunt in∣uenire possi∣mus▪ Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis, verum sen∣sum veritatis percipere.
• * 1.188

  In metallis difficile est inuenire quod venan∣tur. Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint, & Aurum non aliud quam Terra, simili∣tudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur. In Scripturis non est ea∣dem ratio. Neque enim proponitur Aurum ter∣rae commix∣tum, sed Au∣rum purum &c.
• (d) 1.189

  Pag. 50. in Marg. lit. E. & pag. 3. lin. 6. & in marg. lit. E. & alibi saepe.
• (e) 1.190

  Matth. 16. v▪ 20. Quicquid solueris, quicquid li∣gaueris super terram, erit solutum & ligatum in caelis.
• (f) 1.191

  Ecclesia licèt habeat authoritatē Dei in tertio, illa tamen non excedit limitationē Scripturae. Scriptura au∣tem docet expresse ser∣uos conuer∣sos ad fidem adhuc mane∣re Dominis suis priori∣bus, licet illi maneant in∣fideles.
• (g) 1.192

  Lombard. l. 4. sent. d. 18. lit. f.
• (h) 1.193

  See pag. 89. in lit. •• & p. 93. lit. d & alibi.
• (i) 1.194

  Soluere noxios vel damnare se putant in∣noxios, cùm apud Deum non sententia Sacerdo∣tum, sed reo∣rum vita queratur. Et ita apertè ostenditur quòd non semper se∣quitur Deus iudicium Ecclesiae, quae per ignorantiam & surreptionem interdum iudicat▪
• (g) 1.195

  Ibid. lit. D.
• (h) 1.196

  Firmil. a∣pud Cyprian. epist. 75.
• (i) 1.197

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. Caesareae Ca∣padocensis Episcopus.
• (k) 1.198

  Vincent. Lyrinensis ad∣uersus Haeres. cap. 9.
• (l) 1.199

  Cyprian. epist. 74.
• (m) 1.200

  This is testifyed by Dionysius A∣lexandrinus, who then li∣ued, in his E∣pistle to Xi∣stus the Suc∣cessour of S. Stephen. apud Euseb. l. 7. Histor. c. 3. & Ni∣ceph. l. 6. c 7.
• (n) 1.201

  Quòd vna Ecclesia se∣mel à Christo supra Petram solidata est; hinc intelligi potest, quòd SOLI PETRO Christus di¦xerit: Quae∣cumque liga∣ueris super terram &c. Atque adeo in hac parte iustè indig∣nor, quod qui succes∣sionem Petri se habere cō¦tendit, supra quem Eccle∣siae fundamē∣ta posita sunt, alias Petras inducit &c. Firmil. epist. citata.
• (o) 1.202

  Stephanus, qui per successionem Petri Cathedram habere praedicat, nullo aduersus Haeretico•• Zelo excitatur. Ibid. Firmilian.
• (p) 1.203

  Pag. 37. lin. 5. & pag. 42. lin 16.
• (*) 1.204

  Vincent Lyr. adu. H••r. c. 2.
• (q) 1.205

  Iohn VVhite Defence pag. ••70. VVot∣ton, Field, VVhitaker, and who not.
• (s) 1.206

  Forsitan requirat ali∣quis c••m sit perfectus &c.
• (t) 1.207

  MVLTVM Necesse est.
• (u) 1.208

  Ecclesia∣stici & Ca∣tholici sensus norma.
• (x) 1.209

  Irenaeus l. 2. cap. 46.
• (y) 1.210

  Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Vt in rebu•• creati•• quaedam Deo sub∣iacent, quae∣dam & in no∣stram vene∣runt scientiā: sic & in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scripturis.
• (z) 1.211

  Cum ita∣que vniuersae Scripturae & Propheticae & Euangeli∣cae, in aperto & sine ambi∣guitate, & si∣militer ab omnibus au∣diri possunt, (etsi non omnes cre∣dunt) vnum & solum De∣um (ad exclu∣dendos alios) praedicent, omnia fecisse per verbum sicut demon∣strauimus ip∣sis Scriptura∣rum dictio∣nibus; valde hebetes apparebunt, qui ad tam lucidam adapertionem caecutiun•• oculis, & nolunt videre lumen praedicationis.
• (a) 1.212

  Pag. 152. lit. a. Hosius de express. verb. Dei pag. 50.
• (b) 1.213

  Bellarmin. de concilijs in praefat.
• (c) 1.214

  Hosius de expresso Dei verbo pa. 545. Tom. 2. ope∣rum Hosij. Lugduni apud Guil. Rouillium. Anno M.D.LXIV.
• (d) 1.215

  Viderunt hoc Caelestes Prophe••ae (quorū Prin∣ceps Suenck∣feldius) quòd isti suo sen∣sui Scripturas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 empe••a••ēt & sic secum cogitare coe∣perunt. Quo vsque tand•• hanc Excu∣cullatorum tyrannidem feremus. &c.
• (e) 1.216

  Aug. l. 32. cont. Faust. c. 19. Videtis id vos agere, vt omnis de m••∣dio Scriptu∣rarum aufe∣ratur autho∣ritas, & suus cuique ani∣mus auctor sit.
• (f) 1.217

  Quo res ad extremum redijt! stupor & mirabilia▪ Natum est nouum Pro∣phetarum ge∣nus, qui Scri∣pturarum au∣thoritate Scri∣pturis omnē authoritatem detra••ere non sunt ve∣riti.
• (g) 1.218

  Sap. c. 1.
• (h) 1.219

  Ioan. 9.16.
• (i) 1.220

  Math. 11.19.
• (k) 1.221

  Orthodoxe pag. 136.
• (l) 1.222

  Nam eti∣amsi Scriptu∣ra dicat, Li∣bros Prophe∣tarum & A∣postolorum esse diuinos, tamen non certò id cre∣dam, nisi pri∣ùs credidero Scripturam quae hoc dicit esse Diuinam. Nam etiam in Alcorano Mahumeti legimus ip∣sum è caelo à Deo missum esse, & tamen non ei credi∣mus.
• (m) 1.223

  Pag. 152. in lit. a.
• (n) 1.224

  Petrus So∣to ••nstructio Sacerdotum Part. 1. lect. 6. pag. 17. if he be truly ci∣ted, for in my Edition, it is pag. 25.
• (o) 1.225

  Aduer••āt hunc Doctri∣nae Euangeli∣cae modum. Quod ad vitae rationem at∣tinet, post illa quae commu∣nia sunt om∣nibus, qualia sunt praecepta Decalogi, at∣{que} dilectionis Dei & Pro∣ximi, de qui∣bus Chri∣stus frequen∣ter loquitur▪ Post haec inquam omnia, ad∣uer••ant plura esse quaeren∣da extraditio∣ne & illustra∣tione Spiritùs Sancti, potiùs quàm ex Scri∣ptura, prae∣cipuè quae ad cultum per∣tinent▪
• (p) 1.226

  Quae au∣tem in cele∣bratione Ba∣ptismatis, & qua ratione agenda sunt, vbi est scri∣ptum? Cre∣dendúmne est, tantum Ministerium sine vlla prae∣paratione, SOLEMNI∣TATE & RITV quae ad eius exci∣tant venera∣tionem tra∣ditum esse? Ibid. pag. 26.
• (m) 1.227

  These leaues want numbers, but it is in the sixt leafe the first side frō the begin∣ning of the Reply to the Preface.
• (n) 1.228

  Had Bosi∣us spoken in∣consideratly, what folly or impotent malice is it to vrge the vn∣aduised speach of a priuate wri∣ter, as the fayth of the Church?
• (o) 1.229

  Defence pag. 1••1.
• (s) 1.230

  Answere to the Preface fol. 6. pag. 1. lin. 19.
• (t) 1.231

  In vit•• Francisci c. 5.
• (a) 1.232

  August. lib. 1. retract. c. 13.
• (b) 1.233

  Si non opera in eis fecissem quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non habe∣rent. Ioan. 15.••4. & 5.20. Ego habeo Testimoniū maius Ioan∣ne: Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater vt fa∣ciam, ipsa te∣stimonium perhibent de me.
• (c) 1.234

  Pag. 112. lin. 24.
• (d) 1.235

  De fide Catholica contra Sect. Anglican. l. 1. c. 7. §. 3.
• (e) 1.236

  Ibid. § 8.
• (f) 1.237

  Ibid. c. 8. §. 9. Non ad cognoscen∣dam singulo∣rum cre∣dentium fi∣dem, sed ad cognoscen∣dam congre∣gationem verè cre∣dentium.
• (g) 1.238

  Pag. 160. lin. vlt. & in marg. lit▪ a▪
• (h) 1.239

  Quid? An non licebat ipse eligere? Licebat & quidem ma∣ximè. Ve∣rumtamen non id fecit, ne cuiquam gratificari vi∣deretur.
• (i) 1.240

  Meritò primus om∣nium autho∣ritatem vsurpat in negotio, vt qui omne•• habebat in manu. Ad hūc enim di¦xit Christus, & tu conuer∣sus confirm•• Fratres ••uo••.
• (k) 1.241

  Quomo∣do cognoscit creditum sibi à Chri∣sto Gregem▪ quam in hoc Choro est princeps?
• (l) 1.242

  Quo pa∣cto conce∣dūt ei solium non ampliùs disceptantes.
• (a) 1.243

  Baron. an. 1089. n. 11. Non eos ho∣micidas ar∣bitramur.
• (b) 1.244

  In a battayle fought be∣twixt Henry Emperour & Egbert Marquesse of Saxony.
• (c) 1.245

  Iuo part. 10. c. 54.
• (d) 1.246

  Secundū intentionem eorum, mo∣dum con∣gruae satisfa∣ctionis in∣iunge.
• (e) 1.247

  Baron. Anno 1106. n. 14.
• (f) 1.248

  See Baro∣nius ibid. and all other Hi∣storians that write of these mat∣ters.
• (g) 1.249

  Baron. Tom. 12. pag. 46.
• (h) 1.250

  Si verè pietatis in∣tuitu, prout prae se tulit, ea omnia praestitit.
• (i) 1.251

  Pag. 56. in margin. lit. c.
• (k) 1.252

  Baron. Ann. 373. num. ••1.
• (l) 1.253

  Decret. d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa.
• (m) 1.254

  Baron. Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta san∣cita mu••are & DECER∣NERE qui∣buscum à reliqua Ec∣clesia COM∣MVNI∣CANDVM sit.
• (n) 1.255

  Sic Verba temperant, sic ambigua quaeque con∣cinnā, vt no∣stram & ad∣uersariorum confessionē teneant. Hie∣ron. epist. ad Pammach. &▪ Ocean.
• (o) 1.256

  Lib. 5. de Baptism. c. 1.
• (p) 1.257

  In cōcilio Ephes. Chri∣stiparae nomē explosum est Canis. de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19.
• (q) 1.258

  Ruffin. de adulterat. li∣bror. Origen.
• (r) 1.259

  Greg. Na∣zian. ad Che∣lid. epist. 2.
• (s) 1.260

  Hoc ostē∣dant & nos acquiesce∣mus.
• (t) 1.261

  PERSPI∣CVVM enim eos ve∣ritati assen••iri (nec enim a∣liter se res ha∣bere potest) si hoc consecu∣ti sunt.
• (u) 1.262

  Aguntur spiritu mali∣gno in pios, vt Satanicâ virulentia in∣censi, EO∣RVM VER∣BA ET SCRIPTA NON MA∣LOTIO SE INTER∣PRETARI non possint. Loc. commun. Martini▪ Lu∣theri 5. Classe. pag. 26.
• (x) 1.263

  Lib. aduer. Demetrianum initio.